No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120924 Dickinson Submittal Audience CommentOn September 24, a federal judge ordered EPA to take regulatory action to eliminate the "unreasonable risk" to the health of children posed by the practice of water fluoridation. The plaintiffs argued that fluoride poses risks to human health, particularly neurodevelopmental harm in children. The court found that the EPA had failed to adequately address these concerns under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As a result, EPA will either appeal the decision or revisit its fluoride risk assessment. More information can be found here. Possible Consequences of Court Ruling on Safety of Water Fluoridation Lilian White, MD Posted on October 21, 2024 Fluoride has been added to drinking water in various regions of the United States since 1945 for the purpose of preventing tooth decay. Currently, concern arises for the negative health effects of a chemical, individuals may petition the Environmental and Protection Agency (EPA) to act. If the petitioner disagrees with the EPA's assessment, they may go to court for another opinion. The practice of supplementing drinking water with fluoride has come under scrutiny recently when a court ruling on September 27, 2024, declared the currently recommended water level of fluoridation in the United States (0.7 mg per L) an unreasonable risk to health. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA is now compelled to respond through regulatory action such as banning fluoridation or simply requiring a warning label on fluoridated water; however, the specific regulatory action is left to the EPA's discretion. Organizations such as the American Dental Association and American Academy of Pediatrics have voiced opposition to the ruling and continue to stand by recommendations for widespread drinking water fluoridation. In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) noted water fluoridation to be one of the top 10 great public health Achievements of the 20th Century, making a reversal of this accomplishment particularly controversial among some public health advocates. The AAFP has not commented on the case, but its current policy is in support of water fluoridation. A systematic review conducted by the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported a 1-point drop in the IQ of children per 0.28 mg per L of fluoride in a pregnant mother's urine. This was similarly corroborated by a cohort study published in JAMA earlier this year, raising concern for exposure to fluoridated water and clinical neurobehavioral problems among children. A meta -analysis conducted in 2024 assessing the effect of high -fluoride drinking water exposure and thyroid health demonstrated an increase in the risk of thyroid diseases. Additionally, excess fluoride exposure may cause dental fluorosis in children with developing teeth (discoloration of teeth, among other adverse dental effects), which may be due to excessive fluoride exposure or low-level exposure over time. Fluorosis is primarily a cosmetic concern; however, as with other cosmetic diseases, it has the potential to negatively affect the self-esteem of children. Interestingly, the association between tooth mottling due to fluorosis (incidentally caused by fluoride exposure) and reduced dental decay was the finding that eventually led to the movement to fluoridate drinking water in the United States. By 1989. 70% of the U.S. had fluoridated drinking water. Some states have even added water -fluoridation requirements to their laws, and most states have some degree of drinking water fluoridation. People in the United States are primarily exposed to fluoride through supplemented drinking water, topical dental products, and foods and beverages to which fluoride has been added. The CDC recommends a fluoride level of 0.7 mg per L of drinking water to prevent tooth decay. The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends fluoridation based on an older systematic review. Real -world epidemiologic studies on the cost:beneflt ratio of drinking water fluoridation are lacking. It has been theoretically estimated that fluoridated drinking water may result in savings of $32 per person per year with an estimated cost of $0.12 to $0.60 per person per year. The cost of harm from fluoridated drinking water has yet to be studied outside of theoretical models. For patients concerned about their personal exposure to fluoridated drinking water, physicians can direct patients to My Water's Fluoride, a CDC directory for local water fluoridation; however, not all states participate in this program, and the directory does not provide quantitative exposure measures. The Environmental Working Group's Tap Water Database provides more detailed information on a large number of possible water contaminants in addition to fluoride as well as information on specific filters that will remove relevant chemicals, offering a more practical resource for patients. It will be interesting to see how the EPA responds to this court order to address fluoridated water as an unreasonable risk to health. With the current widespread use of fluoridated water, any regulatory action will likely be slow to implement. Additional research is needed on whether the potential adverse effects of fluoridation outweigh the established benefits for preventing caries in children. https://publications.agp.or /g_agpnews/news/30299/AAP-ADA-stand-by-fluoride- recommendations?autolop-incheck=redirected https://www. smilesbyshields.comlwhy-we-choose-not-to-use-fluoride/#:—:text=Over %20the%20years%2C%20there%20has,undergoing%20fluoride%20treatment%20is %20beneficial. https://www.usatodg .com/story/news/health/2024/08/23/fluoride-lower-ig- children/74919183007/ https://belcantodental.coml20l 8/08l18/why-we-avoid-fluoride/#:—:text=The%20reason %20for%20these%20recommendations,overexposed%20to%20fluoride%20as%20well. Why is fluoride banned in Europe? All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (i.e. to improve the watees quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why much of Europe has rejected fluoridation. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6309358/#:—:text=On%20the %20international%20front%2C%20most,Norway%2C%20Sweden%2C%20and %20Switzerland. - https:Hstateline.orgl2024103107/fluoride-in-public-water-has-slashed-tooth-decay-but- some-states-may-end-mandates/#:—:text=Hawaii%20is%20the%20only %20state,individual%20water%20systems%20or%201ocalities. Cavity Prevention: https://www.actonsmilehub.com/blog/why-do-i-keep-getting- cavities/# :—:text=Preventing%20Cavities%3 A%20It's%20Easier%2OThan%20You %20Think,-The%20good%20news&text=This%20means%20brushing%20your %20teeth,ups%20and%20cleanings%20are%20vital. https:Hadanews. ada.org/ada-news/2024/september/judge-orders-epa-to-address-impacts- of-fluoride-in-drinking water/ https:Hthehill.comlpolicylhealthcarel4898893-epa-ordered-address-fluoride-drinking- water-iq/ The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environmental Overview June 11, 2012 Fluoride Action Network phosphate industry licofluorides 1. Introduction They call them "wet scrubbers" - the pollution control devices ussed by the phosphate industry to capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer. In the past, when the industry let these gases escape, vegetation became scorched, crops destroyed, and cattle crippled. Today, with the development of sophisticated air -pollution control technology, less of the fluoride escapes into the atmosphere, and the type of pollution that threatened the survival of some communities in the 1950s and 60s, is but a thing of the past (at least in the US and other wealthy countries). However, the impacts of the industryes fluoride emissions are still being felt, although more subtly, by millions of people - people who, for the most part, do not live anywhere near a phosphate plant. That's because, after being captured in the scrubbers, the fluoride acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid), a classified hazardous waste, is barreled up and sold, unrefined, to communities across the country. Communities add hydrofluorosilicic acid to their water supplies as the primary fluoride chemical for water fluoridation. Even if you don't live in a community where fluoride is added to water, you'll still be getting a dose of it through cereal, soda, juice, beer and any other processed food and drink manufactured with fluoridated water. Meanwhile, if the phosphate industry has its way, it may soon be distributing another of its by-products to communities across the country. That waste product is radium, which may soon be added to a roadbed near you - if the EPA buckles and industry has its way. 2. Effects of Fluoride Pollution Central Florida knows it well. So too does Garrison Montana, Cubatao Brazil, and any other community where phosphate industries have had inefficient, or non- existent, pollution control: Fluoride. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) called the phosphate industry a "pandora's box." While the industry brought wealth to rural communities, it also brought ecological devastation. The CBC described the effects of one particular phosphate plant in Dunville, Ontario: "Farmers noticed it first... Something mysterious burned the peppers, burned the fruit, dwarfed and shriveled the grains, damaged everything that grew. Something in the air destroyed the crops. Anyone could see it... They noticed it first in 1961. Again in '62. Worse each year. Plants that didn't burn, were dwarfed. Grain yields cut in half... Finally, a greater disaster revealed the source of the trouble. A plume from a silver stack, once the symbol of Dunville's progress, spreading for miles around poison - fluorine. It was identified by veterinarians. There was no doubt. What happened to the cattle was unmistakable, and it broke the farmer's hearts. Fluorosis - swollen joints, falling teeth, pain until cattle lie down and die. Hundreds of them. The cause - fluorine poisoning from the air." Fluoride has been, and remains to this day, one of the largest environmental liabilities of the phosphate industry. The source ot` the problem lies in the fact that raw phosphate ore contains high concentrations of fluoride, usually between 20,000 to 40,000 parts per million (equivalent to 2 to 4% of the ore). When this ore is processed into water-soluble phosphate (via the addition of sulfuric acid), the fluoride content of the ore is vaporized into the air, forming highly toxic gaseous compounds (hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride). In the past, when the industry had little, if any, pollution control, the fluoride gases were frequently emitted in large volumes into surrounding communities, cdusing serious environmental damage. In Polk County, Florida, the creation of multiple phosphate plants in the 1940s caused damage to nearly 25,000 acres of citrus groves and "mass fluoride poisoning" of cattle. It is estimated that, as a result of fluoride contamination, "the cattle population of Polk County dropped 30,000 head" between 1953 and 1960, and "an estimated 150,000 acres of cattle land were abandoned" (Linton 1970). According to the former president of the Polk County Cattlemen's Association: "Around 1953 we noticed a change in our cattle... We watched our cattle become gaunt and starved, their legs became deformed; they lost their teeth. Reproduction fell off and when a cow did have a calf, it was also affected by this malady or was a stillborn." In the 1960s, air pollution emitted by another phosphate plant in Garrison, Montana was severe enough to be branded "the worst in the nation" by a 1967 National Air Pollution Conference in Washington, D.C. As in Polk County, and other communities downwind of fluoride emissions, the cattle in Garrison were poisoned by fluoride. As described in a 1969 article from Good Housekeeping: "The blight had afflicted cattle too. Some lay in the pasture, barely able to move. Others limped and staggered on swollen legs, or painfully sank down and tried to graze on their knees... Ingested day after day, the excessive fluoride had caused tooth and bone disease in the cattle, so that they could not tolerate the anguish of standing or walking. Even eating or drinking was an agony. Their ultimate fate was dehydration, starvation - and death." 3. Litigation from Fluoride Damage Damage to vegetation and livestock, caused by fluoride emissions from large industry, has resulted, as one might expect, in a great deal of expensive litigation. In 1983, Dr. Leonard Weinstein of Cornell University, stated that "certainly, there has been more litigation on alleged damage to agriculture by fluoride than all other pollutants combined" (Weinstein 1983). While Weinstein was referring to fluoride pollution in general, his comments give an indication of the problem facing the phosphate industry - one of the most notorious emitters of fluoride - in its early days. So too does an estimate from Dr. Edward Groth, currently a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union. According to an article written by Groth, fluoride pollution between the years 1957 to 1968, "was responsible for more damage claims against industry than all twenty (nationally monitored air pollutants) combined." The primary reason for the litigation against fluoride emitters was "the painful, economically disastrous, debilitating disease" that fluoride causes to livestock (Hodge & Smith 1977). As noted in a 1970 review by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), "Airborne fluorides have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant" (Lillie 1970). Another review on air pollution reached the same conclusion. According to Ender (1969): "The most important problem concerning damage to animals by air pollution is, no doubt, the poisoning of domestic animals caused by fluorine in smoke, gas, or dust from various industries; industrial fluorosis in livestock is today a disorder well known by veterinarians in all industrialized countries." According to a review discussing "Fluorine toxicosis and industry", Shupe noted that: "Air pollution damage to agricultural production in the United States in 1967 was estimated at $500,000,000. Fluoride damage to livestock and vegetation was a substantial part of this amount" (Shupe 1970). 4. Scrubbing away the problem Due to the inevitable liabilities that fluoride pollution presented, and to an increasingly stringent set of environmental regulations, the phosphate industry began cleaning up its act. As noted by Ervin Bellack, a chemist for the US Public Health Service: "In the manufacture of super -phosphate fertilizer, phosphate rock is acidulated with sulfuric acid, and the fluoride content of the rock evolves as volatile silicofluorides. In the past, much of this volatile material was verited to the atmosphere, contributing heavily to pollution of the air and land surrounding the manufacturing site. As awareness of the pollution problem increased, scrubbers were added to strip particulate and gaseous components from the waste gas..." (Bellack 1970) A 1979 review, published in the journal Phosphorous & Potassium, added: "The fluorine compounds liberated during the acidulation of phosphate rock are now rightly regarded as a menace and the industry is now obliged to suppress emissions -containing vapors to within very low limits in most parts of the world... In the past, little attention was paid to the emission of gaseous fluorine compounds in the fertilizer industry. But today fluorine recovery is increasingly necessary because of stringent environmental restrictions which demand drastic reductions in the quantities of volatile and toxic fluorine compounds emitted into the waste gases. These compounds now have to be recovered and converted into harmless by-products for disposal or, more desirably, into marketable products" (Denzinger 1979). 5. A Missed Opportunity: Little Demand for Silicofluorides Considering the great demand among big industry for fluoride chemicals as a material used in a wide variety of commercial products and industrial processes, the phosphate industry could have made quite a handsome profit selling its fluoride wastes to industry. This was indeed the hope among some industry analysts, including the authors of the review noted above (Denzinger 1979). However, the US phosphate industry has thus far been unable to take advantage of this market. The principal reason for this failure stems from the fact that fluoride captured in the scrubbers is combined with silica. The resulting silicofluoride complex has, in turn, proved difficult for the industry to separate and purify in an economically -viable process. As it now stands, silicofluoride complexes (hydrofluorosilicic acid & sodium silicofluoride) are of little use to industry. Thus, while US industry continues to satisfy its growing demand for high-grade fluoride chemicals by importing calcium fluoride from abroad (primarily from Mexico, China, and South Africa), the phosphate industry continues dumping large volumes of fluoride into the acidic wastewater ponds that lie at the top of the mountainous waste piles which surround the industry. In 1995, the Tampa Tribune summed up the situation as follows: "The U.S. demand for fluorine, which was 400,000 tons, is expected to jump 25 percent by next year... Even though 600,000 tons of fluorine are contained in the 20 million tons of phosphate rock mined in Florida, the fluorine market has been inaccessible because the fluorine is tied up with silica, a hard, glassy material." Of course, not all of the phosphate industry's fluoride waste is disposed of in the ponds. As noted earlier, the phosphate industry has found at least one regular consumer of its silicofluorides: municipal water -treatment facilities. According to recent estimates, the phosphate industry sells approximately 200,000 tons of silicofluorides (hydrofluorosilicic acid & sodium silicofluoride) to US communities each year for use as a water fluoridation agent (Coplan & Masters 2001). 6. Fluoridation: "An ideal solution to a long-standing problem"? In 1983, Rebecca Hanmer, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water at the US Environmental Protection Agency, described the policy of using the phosphate industry's silicofluorides for fluoridation as follows: "In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as the source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them." (See letter) Another EPA official, Dr. J. William Hirzy, the current Senior Vice -President of EPA Headquarters Union, recently expressed a different view on the matter. According to H i rzy- " If this stuff gets out into the air, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it's a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant. That's amazing... There's got to be a better way to manage this stuff." 7. Recent Findings on Silicofluorides Adding to Hirzy's, and the EPA Unions, concerns are three recent findings. A tank of hydrofluosilicic acid (a form of silicofluoride) at water treatment plant. First and foremost are two recent studies reporting a relationship between water treated with silicofluorides and elevated levels of lead in children's blood (Masters & Coplan 1999, 2000). The authors of these studies speculate that the silicofluoride complex may increase the uptake of lead (derived from other environmental sourcet, such as lead paint) into the bloodstream. The second finding is the recent, and quite remarkable concession from the EPA, that despite 50 years of water fluoridation, the EPA has no chronic health studies on silicofluorides. All safety studies on fluoride to date have been conducted using pharmaceutical -grade sodium fluoride, not industrial -grade silicofluorides. A similar concession has also been obtained from the respective authorities in England. The defense made by agencies promoting water fluoridation, such as the US Centers for Disease Control, to the lack of such studies, is that when the silicofluoride complex is diluted into water, it dissociates into free fluoride ions or other fluoride compounds (e.g. aluminum -fluoride), and thus the treated water, when consumed, will have no remaining silicofluoride residues (Urbansky & Schock, 2000). This argument, while supported by a good deal of theoretical calculation is at odds with a recently obtained and translated PhD dissertation from a German chemist. (Westendorf 1975). According to the dissertation, not only do the silicofluorides not fully dissociate, the remaining silicofluoride complexes could be more potent inhibitors of cholinesterase, an enzyme vital to the functioning of the central nervous system. The third finding is that the silicofluorides, as obtained from the scrubbers of the phosphate industry, contain a wide variety of impurities present in the process water - particularly arsenic and possibly radionuclides. While these impurities occur at low concentrations, especially after dilution into the water, their purposeful addition to water supplies directly violates EPA public health goals. For instance, the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for arsenic, a known human carcinogen, is 0 parts per billion. However, according to the National Sanitation Foundation, the addition of silicofluorides to the water supply will add, on average, about 0.1 to 0.43 ppb, and as much as 1.6 ppb, arsenic to the water. As noted by the Salt Lake Tribune, "Those who had visions of sterile white laboratories when they voted for fluoride weren't thinking of fluorosilicic acid. Improbable as this sounds, much of it is recovered from the scrubbing solution that scours toxins from smokestacks at phosphate fertilizer plants." 8. Gypsum Stacks & 'Slime Ponds' Fluoride -contaminated wastewater sitting on top of "gypsum stack."To make 1 pound of commercial fertilizer, the phosphate industry creates 5 pounds of contaminated phosphogypsum slurry (calcium sulfate). This slurry is piped from the processing facilities up into the acidic wastewater ponds that sit atop the mountainous waste piles known as gypsum stacks. According to the EPA, 32 million tons of new gypsum waste is created each year by the phosphate industry in Central Florida alone. (Central Florida is the heart of the US phosphate industry). The EPA estimates that the current stockpile of waste in Central Florida's gypsum stacks has reached "nearly 1 billion metric tons." (The average gypsum stack takes up about 135 acres of surface area - equal to about 100 football fields - and can go as high as 200 feet.) 9. Radiation Hazard It is sort of a misnomer, however, to call these stacks "gypsum" stacks. Indeed, if the stacks were simply gypsum, they probably wouldn't exist, as gypsum can be readily sold for various purposes (e.g. as a building material). What can't be readily sold, however, is radioactive gypsum, which is about the only type of gypsum the phosphate industry has to offer. The source of the gypsum's radioactivity is the presence of uranium, and uranium's various decay products (i.e. radium), in raw, phosphate ore. As noted by the Sarasota Herald Tribune "there is a natural and unavoidable connection between phosphate mining and radioactive material. It is because phosphate and uranium were laid down at the same time and in the same place by the same geological processes millions of years ago. They go together. Mine phosphate, you get uranium." While uranium, and its decay -products, naturally occur in phosphate ore, their concentrations in the gypsum waste, after the extraction of soluble phosphate, are up to 60 times greater. The gypsum has therefore been classified as a "Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material", or NORM waste, although some, including the EPA, have questioned whether this classification understates the problem. According to the Tampa Tribune, the gypsum "is among the most concentrated radioactive waste that comes from natural materials." It is so concentrated, in fact, that "it can't be dumped at the one landfill in the country licensed to take only NORM waste." Thus, according to US News & World Report, the EPA is currently "weighing whether to classify the gypsum stacks as hazardous waste under federal statutes, which would force the industry to provide strict safeguards" (to nearly 1 billion tons of waste). One of EPA's main concerns with gypsum stacks centers around the fact that radium-226 breaks down into radon gas. When radon gas is formed, it can become airborne, leading to potentially elevated exposures downwind of the stacks. Such airborne exposures are of particular concern to areas like Progress Village, Florida, where "a new gypsum stack is rising a few hundred yards from a grade school." According to US News & World Report, there is evidence to suggest cancer rates downwind of the stacks may be elevated: "Some epidemiological studies suggest that lung cancer rates among nonsmoking men in the phosphate region are up to twice as high as the state average. Acute leukemia rates among adults are also double the average. An industry -sponsored study of male phosphate workers, however, found lung cancer rates no higher than the state average. There is no proof that mine wastes cause cancer, but the evidence is worrisome." 10. Will radioactive gypsum be added to roads? Rail cars carrying sulfur to process phosphate rock, with giant gypsum stack looming in background. With the growing realization that gypsum stacks represent a serious environmental threat to Central Florida, both now and for generations to come, the phosphate industry has been looking into ways of reducing the size of the stacks (and the size of their liability.) In an interesting parallel to fluoride, the phosphate industry is looking to turn its gypsum waste into a marketable product: as a potential cover for landfills, as a soil conditioner, and as a base material for roads. According to Robert Vanderslice, head of Phosphate Management for Florida's Department of Environmental Protection, the gypsum is a "good material to replace lime rock in roads. Lime rock will run out at some time, and we're still building a lot of roads. Building roads with phosphogypsum would consume quite a bit of gypsum." In 1995, a "Phosphogypsum Fact -Finding Forum" organized by the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, presented a "message aimed straight at Washington: Relax the rules on using gypsum and the mountains will gradually disappear." As of yet, however, the EPA does not appear willing to relax its rules and lift its ban on commercial uses of gypsum. According to the Tampa Tribune, "EPA's limit for use is 10 picocuries of radium per gram, well below the levels usually found in the mounds." A recent statement from the EPA reads: "Only two uses (for the gypsum) are permitted: limited agricultural use and research. Other uses may be proposed, but otherwise the phosphogypsum must be returned to mines or stored in stacks." 11. Commercial Uranium Production While the presence of uranium decay -products makes gypsum a tough sell for the phosphate industry, the uranium has, at various times, presented the industry with a business opportunity of its own. One of the lesser -known -facts about the phosphate industry is that its processing facilities have produced and sold sizeable quantities of uranium. In 1997, just two phosphate plants in Louisiana produced 950,000 pounds of commercial uranium, which amounted to roughly 16% of the domestically produced uranium in the US. In 1998, the same two plants produced another 950,000 pounds, but due to declining market prices for uranium, both plants have since ceased production. If market prices improve, however, 4 US phosphate plants (2 in Louisiana & 2 in Florida) would have the capacity to produce a combined 2.75 million pounds of uranium per year, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE has termed these 4 facilities "Nonconventional Uranium Plants." 12. Cold War Secrets & Worker Health The Department of Energy has not always been so open about the uranium - making potential of the phosphate industry. During the Cold War, its predecessor institution, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), kept this fact closely under wraps - even to the workers who were, unknowingly, handling large quantities of the radioactive material. In Joliet, Illinois, it has only recently come to light that the local phosphate plant had secretly produced some 2 million pounds of uranium for the US government in the years 1952 to 1962. According to local newspaper reports, the cancer rates of people who worked at the plant, especially "Building 55" where the uranium was processed, are unusually high. "We used to kind of joke that if you worked for Blockson, you got cancer," quipped Vince Driscoll, the son of a cancer -stricken worker. Today, with the Cold War over, it is becoming clear that workers in the phosphate industry need special protection. According to a report from the European Commission: "Processing and waste handling in the phosphate industry is associated with radiatiah levels of concern for workers and the public. The level of protection for these groups should be more similar to the level of protection that is state of the art in other industries, particularly the nuclear industry." 13. Wastewater Issues While the radioactivity of the gypsum stacks has probably been the key health concern of the EPA, it is not the only one. Resting atop the phosphate industryes gypsum piles are highly -acidic wastewater ponds, littered with toxic contaminants, including fluoride, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and the various decay -products of uranium. This combination of acidity and toxins makes for a poisonous, high -volume, cocktail, which, when leaked into the environment, wreaks havoc to waterways and fish populations. As noted by the St. Petersburg Times, "Spills from these stacks have periodically poisoned the Tampa Bay environs. " One spill, in 1997, from a now -defunct gypsum stack in Florida, "killed more than a million fish." "Strike the Alafia River off your list of fishing spots," wrote one journalist after the spill. "It's gone, dead as a sewer pipe, killed by the carelessness of yet another phosphate company." Today, the same gypsum stack which caused this particular spill, -is considered by Florida's Department of Environmental Protection to be "the most serious pollution threat in the state." That's because tropical rains over the past couple of years have brought the wastewater to the edge of the stack's walls. As noted by the Tampa Tribune, "The gypsum mound is near capacity, and a wet spring or a tropical storm could cause a catastrophic spill." To prevent such a spill, which was all but inevitable, the EPA recently agreed to let Florida pursue "Option Z": To load 500-600 million gallons of the wastewater onto barges and dump it directly into the Gulf of Mexico. The dumping of the wastewater into the Gulf represents the latest in a series of high -profile embarrasments for Florida's phosphate industry; one of the most dramatic of which happened on June 15, 1994. On that day, a massive, 15-story sinkhole appeared in the middlL. of an 80 million ton gypsum stack. The hole was so big that, according to US News & World Report, it "could be as big as 2 million cubic feet, enough to swallow 400 railroad boxcars. Local wags call it Disney World's newest attraction — 'Journey to the Center of the Earth."' But, as US News noted, "there's nothing amusing about it. The cave-in dumped 4 million to 6 million cubic feet of toxic and radioactive gypsum and waste water into the Floridan aquifer, which provides 90 percent of the state's drinking water." And so it goes. As summarized by the Tampa Tribune: "It's not like you can padlock the doors and walk away. The complexities of keeping a phosphate processing plant operating are becoming clear to government regulators now overseeing two of them. Ponds full of 1.5 billion gallons of acid and three mountains of radioactive waste mean you just can't shut off the machinery and turn out the lights. The state could be stuck with the plants for years. And taxpayers would be stuck with the tab." Photographs of the Phosphate Industry Photographs of the Photographs of the phosphate industry are available here. References Full -text copies of all newspaper articles cited in this article can be accessed by clicking on the links within the text. Additional newspaper articles on the phosphate industry can be accessed here. The references for the other cited documents in this article are as follows: Bellack E, Baker RJ. (1970). Fluoridation chemicals - the supply picture. Journal of the American Water Works Association 62: 223-224. Coplan MJ, Masters RD. (2001). Silicofluorides and fluoridation. Fluoride 34(3): 161-220. Denzinger HF, et al. (1979). Fluorine recovery in the fertilizer industry - a review. Phosphorus & Potassium Sept/Oct: 33-39. Ender F. (1969). "The effect of air pollution on animals." pp. 245-254. In: Air Pollution - Proceedings of the First European Congress on the Influence of Air Pollution on Plants and Animals, Wageningen, April 22 to 27, 1968. Centre for Agricultural Publishing & Documentation, Wageningen. Hirzy JW. (2000). Video-taped interview with Dr. J. William Hirzy, Senior Vice President, EPA Headquarters Union. Interview by Michael Connett. July 3. Hodge HC, Smith FA. (1977). Occupational fluoride exposure. Journal of Occupational Medicine 19: 12-39. Lillie RJ. (1970). Air Pollutants Affecting the Performance of Domestic Animals: A Literature Review. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Agricultural Handbook No. 380. Washington D.C. Masters R, et al. (2000). Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead. Neurotoxicology 21(6): 1091-1099. Masters RD, Coplan M. (1999). Water treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity. International Journal of Environmental Studies 56: 435-449. Shupe JL. (1970). Fluorine toxicosis and industry. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 31: 240-247. Urbansky ET, Schock MR. (2000). Can Fluoridation Affect Water Lo-ad(II) Levels and Lead(II) Neurotoxicity? United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, Cincinnati, Ohio. Weinstein LH. (1983). "Effects of Fluorides on Plants and Plant Communities: An Overview." pp. 53-59. In: Shupe JL, Peterson HB, Leone NC, (Eds). Fluorides: Effects on Vegetation, Animals, and Humans. Paragon Press. Salt Lake City, Utah. Westendorf J. (1975). The kinetics of acetylcholinesterase inhibition and the influence of fluoride and fluoride complexes on the permeability of erythrocyte membranes. Ph.D. Dissertation in Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Germany. The Blaylock e ness iving a Long Healthy Life Report Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. Quick Facts Why Fluoride Is Toxic • Studies confirm brain damage The primary reason fluoride began being added into drinking water years ago was to reduce cavities; the general public may not know • Aluminum and that fluoride also can injure the nervous system and even fluoride cause cancer. • Water safety Degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's are possibly linked • Increased risk to drinking fluoridated water. Cancer, behavioral problems, thyroid for ADD, ADHD, suppression, male infertility and impotence are also some examples of dyslexia what may happen to the body when too much fluoride is present. And the combination of fluoride and aluminum is toxic enough that scien- • Fluoride's links to tists warn about its connection to Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's dis- Alzheimer's disease, eases. Lou Gehrig's disease Fluoride will not kill you outright or cause dementia over a short • Sleep problems period of time. But at certain levels it will accumulate in your brain and can lead to a form of degeneration. • Fluoridated drinking I lectured at the Fluoride Action Network conference on the subject water and cancer of the toxic effects of water fluoridation and urged everyone to stop • Fluoride and bone the government from using drinking water to medicate the public. cancer in young men Fluoride and the Brain • Crippling bone disease A number of fairly recent studies have shown significant damage to • Thyroid function many parts of the brain caused by fluoride. One study showed that • Links to male rats given fluoride while still in the womb became hyperactive, much infertility and like what we see in childhood ADHD. Newborn and adult rats given impotence fluoride reacted much differently; they became "couch potatoes." • Myth: Teeth and The difference lies in how the brain develops at different ages. In fluoride toothpaste humans, for example, the most rapid brain growth and development occur in the last three months of pregnancy and the first two years • Action to take after birth. This means the brain is especially susceptible during that • California time to damage by toxins such as fluoride. Of course, results are wines determined by when the toxin was first given and for how long, and • Magnesium malate: the dose. Prevents aluminum Even more frightening is what one world-renowned scientist discov- absorption ered: Fluoride can accumulate in the brain. With every drink of water, the fluoride levels in the brain increase — and so does the danger to you. The Truth About Studying Fluoride Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, a leading neurotoxicologist, developed a sophisticated method to study behav- ioral patterns using a computer. She would photo- graph interactions of test rats given fluoride and feed the results into a computer program. Much to her surprise, she discovered that the flu- oride was causing significant behavioral problems, not only when rats were exposed in the mother's womb, but also soon after birth and even as adults. Upon examining seven areas of the animals' brains she found that the longer an animal drank fluoridat- ed water, the higher the brain level of fluoride. She also found that a high accumulation of toxins over time reaches levels that always cause brain injury. Critics charged Dr. Mullenix with using doses of fluoride much higher than people are commonly exposed to. But researchers should know that rats have difficulty absorbing fluoride. In comparing rats to people, the only thing that should be looked at is the blood level; the amount of fluoride in the blood determines the amount of fluoride reaching the brain. The blood levels in Dr. Mullenix's rats equaled that seen in humans exposed to fluoride levels approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as safe. Approved levels of fluoride in drink- ing water are up to 4 parts per million, or 4 ppm. After presenting her findings to the EPA and National Institute of Dental Health, Dr. Mullenix faced great opposition from colleagues. Fellow sci- entists who once clamored to use her computer- ized system now eschewed any communication with her. Her very expensive computerized behavioral anaylsis equipment was destroyed by a contrived "accident". In addition, all of her lab animals were killed and their bodies incinerated. More Studies Confirm Brain Damage The number of studies showing significant dam- age to various parts of the brain continues to grow, most of the studies coming from Mexico, China, Japan, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Sweden, Canada and England. Very few studies come from labs in the United States, but those that do find fluoride to be very toxic to the brain. Entities such as National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Dental Health are to blame for fewer U.S. studies as they refuse to fund fluoride safety research. What we do know is that in China, children who drink fluoridated water have lower IQs than those who don't. Many villages and cities in China have natural fluoride levels that are high, and Chinese scientists have found a drop of 10 points in IQ in fluoridated cities. But some challengers say these scientists didn't account for possible lead exposure, so tests were redone. The Chinese scientists made careful meas- urements of all factors including lead and fluoride. The end result? They found the same lowering of IQ caused by fluoride in the drinking water. Mexican studies fared no better. An article in the journal Epidemiology showed that children drinking water with EPA -approved fluoride levels had prob- lems with reading and writing. Again, care was taken to control for factors that might adversely affect the results. In fact, urine flu- oride levels were measured to prove that the greater the fluoride exposure the worse the tests results. Note that most cities set fluoride levels in drinking water well below EPA -approved levels. The Alzheimer's Connection What is the connection between Alzheimer's dis- ease and fluoride? Studies show plenty. While drinking fluoridated water is not the cause of Alzheimer's, there is a link. One study found that fluoride in the drinking water of rats caused significant reduction of a brain receptor critical for learning and memory, which are the same receptors reduced very early in Alzheimer's disease. Scientists including Dr. Phyllis Mullenix and Dr. Albert Burgstahler, an organic chemist and editor of Fluoride, indicated to me yet another study showing that fluoride added to water in the presence of even small amounts of aluminum caused severe destruc- tion of brain cells in the part of the brain control- ling learning and memory, the hippocampus. Clearly, these studies demonstrate that fluoride could cause an early onset of the disease and make it progress more rapidly. In fact, when combined with other toxins we all are exposed to, it can make matters worse. Alzheimer's patients also have dramatic increases in gut absorption of aluminum, as do children with Down syndrome. In one study, fluoride increased by seven times absorption of aluminum from the gut and significantly increased the entry of alu- minum into the brain. The Toxic Effect of Fluoride and Aluminum All of us bre exposed to numerous sources of alu- minum — in foods, canned drinks, aluminum cans and cookware, deodorants, vaccinations, medica- tions and pesticides. And, as we all may know, there is further compelling evidence that aluminum plays a major role in Alzheimer's disease and possi- bly Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's diseases. The combination of fluoride and aluminum is so toxic that even in conceptrations half those added to drinking water will cause severe destruction of criti- cal brain cells. You will have a hard time thinking, remembering and performing normal brain func- tions with this toxic duo. The same can be true for your children. Combining aluminum and fluoride may very well increase the risk of ADD, ADHD, dyslexia and other developmental brain disorders of children, especially when combined with other toxins from the environment. These studies are compelling and frightening. The Pineal Gland: Another Area of Concern A recent study by Dr. Jennifer Luke at the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Surry in England found that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland in the brain. Of the pineal glands she obtained from six elderly people dying of unrelated causes, she found fluoride levels 2,500% higher than other areas of the brain. The fluoride was accumulating in enormous amounts in the calcium deposits normally found in the pineal of older people. So, why is this important? The pineal gland is the source of the very important hormone melatonin, the same hormone sold in health food stores to aid in sleep. Melatonin regulates the onset of puberty in boys and girls, it regulates the onset of sleep and it protects the brain against damage by free radicals and what is known as lipid peroxidation, the main destructive reactions seen in all degenerative brain diseases. In fact, individuals with Alzheimer's disease com- monly have lower melatonin levels than do individ- uals of similar age. But it is the latest findings that are so startling: + Young girls who live in cities with fluoride in the water have been known to begin menstruating five months sooner than their counterparts in non - fluoridated towns. + Newborns with the lowest melatonin levels had the most problems with behavioral develop- ment. + Brain protection in adults is being altered. Fluoride and Baby's Brain Development Since baby animals exposed to fluoride develop high levels of free radicals in their brains, it makes one wonder what happens to human babies. Unfortunately, it is the same damage. Researchers examined the brains of aborted babies five to eight months into a pregnancy who were from areas having naturally high fluoride lev- els in the drinking water. What researchers found was alarming: The brain cells of the babies were grossly abnormal and nerve fibers were not even compatible with typical human nerve fibers. The brain cells in the babies were grossly abnormal and the nerve fibers were mis- placed and swollen. These brains were miswired. Keep in mind the fluoride levels in the drinking water were within the "safety guidelines" estab- lished by the EPA. No other causes for this damage were found. Individuals who counter these results say there was up to 4.5 ppm of fluoride in the water, and guidelines call for only 1 ppm. I object to their fin- ger -pointing and say it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that this does not leave much of a margin of safety, especially when the EPA usually uses a 100- times margin of safety for such toxins. And we have seen that fluoride accumulates in the brain, reaching levels equal to these studies. Yet most important is the fact that even their estimates found that the average person is taking in 3 ppm per day through foods, drinks and pesticide expo- sure. More accurate estimates found an average daily consumption of fluoride of 4 to 8 ppm. Here's a great example of how fluoride can sneak up on you. In the South, most people drink iced tea with their meals. All teas contain very high levels of fluoride as well as aluminum. Because the summers are so hot, a large number of people are drinking large volumes of this fluoride -laden tea. Many foods and drinks also are high in fluoride, such as de -boned meats, gelatin and American wines, especially California wines. Pesticides, too, are a problem, because they con- tain cryolite, a compound containing aluminum and fluoride in high concentrations. Interestingly, work- ers in cryolite industrial plants have been found to have a high incidence of thinking disorders as well as genetic damage. Fluoride and Cancer In 1975, Dr. Dean Burk, the former chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute, and Dr. John Yiamouyiannis conducted a study comparing can- cer death rates in the 10 largest fluoridated cities matched with the 10 largest non -fluoridated cities. These cities were matched for equal cancer death rates before the fluoridation experiment was begun. They found that once cities began including fluo- ride in their drinking water, cancer death rates began to climb. After 13 to 17 years of fluoridation of their drinking water, these cities experienced a 10 percent increase in cancer death rates compared with the non -fluoridated cities. The incidence of cancer would be even higher than the cancer death rates, since many people with cancer will not die of the disease during the years studied. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) repeated the study using a larger number of cities and found similar results. Interestingly, both scientists proved their case ih court against repre- sentatives from the National Cancer Institute. Several other doctors found even more frighten- ing associations between fluoridation of drinking water and cancer incidences. Dr. Donald Austin of the California Tumor Registry discovered the can- cer death rates in California were 40 percent high- er in fluoridated communities and Dr. Victor Ceilioni showed the cancer death rates in Canadian cities were 15 percent to 25 percent higher in fluoridated Canadian rites compared with non -fluoridated cities. Although a heavy proponent of fluoridation, the U.S. Public Health Service discovered similar results as Drs. Austin and Ceilioni after following up its ini- tial fluoridation program. In the first of the fluoridated cities in the U.S. — Grand Rapids, Michigan - the Public Health Service found a 22 percent increase in cancer death rates compared with the non -fluoridated control city of Muskegon, Michigan. We can now show a strong connection between fluoridated drinking water and cancer death rates. And the evidence gets even stronger. As a result of these studies and the fact that the U.S. Public Health Service could not defend fluoride safety, Congress ordered a study of the problem to be con- ducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio. The Battelle Institute announced its findings and released proof of the connection between fluoride and cancer of the mouth in February of 1989. The study showed: + At 45 ppm, there was a 12 percent increased incidence of oral cancers, such as cancers of the tongue and gums. Subsequent studies did indeed show that the incidence of oral cancers in fluoridat- ed vs non -fluoridated cities was 33 percent to 50 percent greater. + Toothpaste can contain between 1,000 and 1,500 ppm fluoride. + Fluoride gels used in dental offices contain up to 15,000 ppm. + New fluoride varnishes release a high concen- tration of fluoride continuously in the mouth. Fluoride, Bone Cancer and Young Men The bones accumulate more fluoride than any other tissue with the exception of the pineal gland. The Battelle study found that the longer one lives in a fluoridated community, the higher one's bone flu- oride levels are. In fact, animals exposed to 45 ppm of fluoridated drinking water showed an increase in a rare form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma -- in human stud- ies the fluoride concentrations in bones found lev- els greater than 2,000 ppm. Osteosarcoma is a tumor most commonly seen in young men in their late teens and twenties. If the Battelle study was accurate, one would expect to see a rise in osteosarcoma in young men in fluoridated communities. All one has to do is look to the reports by the National Cancer Institute and a 1992 study by the New Jersey Department of Health that show heavy increases, some as high as 50 percent, of the occur- rence in osteosarcoma in young men. A New Jersey study found a 3 to 7X higher incidence of this can- cer in young men in fluoridated communities vs. non -fluoridated. Even more shocking is the fact that the Proctor & Gamble Company's own scientists found a link between fluoride ingestion and bone cancer risk before they began adding fluoride to Crest tooth- paste. This information was not released voluntarily but required a Freedom of Information lawsuit to pry it loose. Another P&G study shows that scientists also found genetic damage to cells exposed to just 1 ppm of fluoride, the same dose added to drinking water. This relation to genetic damage has been confirmed by several independent researchers. Other types of cancers associated with fluoride exposure include: + Industrial exposure to airborne fluoride shows a 35 percent increase in lung cancer. + There is also a 129 percent higher incidence in laryngeal cancer. + Significant data show an 84 percent increase in bladder cancer. In fact, in the Battelle study fluoride caused a rare liver tumor that can be produced in experimen- tal animals by only one other toxin — uranium. Does Fluoride Cause Crippling? Skeletal fluorosis is a rarely used term in the United States but often discussed in medical jour- nals overseas. Not that it doesn't occur in the U.S., it's just shrouded in secrecy. Few American doc- tors have even the slightest understanding of the condition. As you have learned, the bones accumulate fluo- ride in very high concentrations and continue to do so the longer you drink fluoridated water. Dr. Hardy Limeback, a professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto who also conducted studies on fluoride levels in the bones of people living in fluoridated communities versus non -fluoridated communities, found that the former had fluoride bone levels two times higher than the latter. In 1993 the National Academy of Sciences admit- ted that when bone fluoride levels reached 7,500 to 8,000 ppm, stage 2 and 3 skeletal fluorosis was like- ly to occur. So, what is skeletal fluorosis? When fluoride accu- mulates in bones it stimulates the bone -generating cells, known as osteoblasts, to over -produce bone calcium in what are commonly known as bony overgrowths or bone spurs. These can appear over the joints, within ligaments and especially within the spinal bones. With extensive overgrowth (stage 2 and 3) a person becomes crippled. Of particular concern is the bone overgrowth on the spinal bones, because they can compress spinal nerves and even the spinal cord. We call this condi- tion spinal stenosis. Spinal stenosis is a very common disease that can affect the young as well as the elderly. It is much more common after age 50. I have operated on hun- dreds of people with this condition. Compression of the spinal cord in the neck can result in quadriple- gia -- permanent paralysis from the neck down. I have examined the spines of people from India with this condition proven to be caused by fluoride excess in the drinking water, and it is exactly the same as we are seeing in this country. Incredibly, no one has conducted studies in this country measuring fluoride bone levels in this crippling condition. It is not even mentioned in our medical textbooks. Bone Fractures and Fluoride One of the worst things that can happen to an elderly person is to fracture a hip. With mortality rates of up to 50 percent of those who do fracture their hips, many who survive never walk again. Any type of bone fracture is very painful and unfor- tunately quite common among the elderly. When fluoride is present in the bones it is shown to weaken the cortical bone, that part that gives the bone strength - bad news for fracture sufferers. One study among Utah's Mormon community found that fluoridation of the drinking water increased the incidence of hip fractures by 27 percent in women and 41 percent in men. Fluoride and the Thyroid In the past, medical doctors used fluoride tablets to reduce the activity of overactive thyroid glands (hyperthyroidism). Subsequent studies have found that fluoride also suppresses the activity of the nor- mal thyroid as well, inducing a condition called hypothyroidism or goiter. A study done in China found that thyroid enlargement was almost 10 times greater in areas with high fluoride levels in the drinking water. Since the thyroid accumulates more fluoride than any other gland, studies were done and confirmed on animals that fluoride in drinking water inhibits the thyroid gland. It gets worse when iodine levels are very low or very high. Pregnant women with low thyroid function are at a greater risk for their babies having severe mental retardation, thereby impacting the fetuses' brain development, according to an article published last year in The Journal of Clinical Investigation. The article indicates that d child's mental devel- opment was directly related to the mother's thyroid function during the 12th week of pregnancy. With fluoride's ability to suppress thyroid function, even mild depression of the thyroid can cause a signifi- cant increase in the incidence of mental retardation in children in fluoridated communities. This may explain the finding of significant increases in Down syndrome in fluoridated communities. Fluoride, Male Infertility and Impotence Reduced sperm counts and infertility in men who work in cryolite (50% fluoride) and aluminum facto- ries have been reported. Supporting evidence shows that fluoride added to the drinking water of experi- mental animals causes significant reductions in sperm counts, lower testosterone levels and a dra- matic increase in abnormal, mutated sperm. This has been shown in many animal species as well as in humans. Male fertility has been hampered by free -radical generation in the areas of the testes that produces sperm. This could explain not only infertility in many men living in fluoridated areas but also genetic defects in their offspring should they be able to conceive, especially those with higher intakes of fluoride. What About the Teeth? Let us not lose sight of the reason for fluoridating drinking water in the first place: preventing cavi- ties. After all, didn't the American Dental Association promote the idea that fluoridating drinking water could reduce cavities by as much as 50 percent? In fact, subsequent examination of these studies found no reduction in cavities. One dentist commissioned by the U.S. Public Health Service found that pebple in high -fluoride areas had fewer cavities but they also suffered from a condition called dental fluorosis, which leaves the teeth brown and mottled. Recent studies have shown an incidence of dental fluorosis from 30 percent to 60 percent in fluoridat- ed communities. With so many generations having been exposed to high fluoride levels over a lifetime, the problem can only get worse. In essence, does fluoridation of drinking water prevent cavities? The largest study ever done in this country, involving 39,000 schoolchildren, found no overall reduction in cavitles in communities with fluoride in their water. Additionally, the largest worldwide study shows that children who live in areas with no fluoride in the water had lower cavity rates. In fact, cavity rates dramatically fell even before fluoride was added to toothpaste. It is also impor- tant to note that virtually all European countries have banned water fluoriidation. The most heavily fluoridated country by government policy in the world is the United States. Another study, by Dartmouth University, shows that children living in fluoridated communities � , I; _. 7 tt"A 6 Dr. Russell Blaylock have blood lead levels twice that of non -fluoridated communities. That could mean more incidences of poor learning ability, increased violence, higher sui- cide rates and greater drug use among children. What Products Should You Avoid? Simply put, stop using fluoride in its many forms. This includes avoiding: + Teas high in fluoride + Fluoridated water + Toothpaste with flouride + Vaccinations, since they contain fluoride and aluminum + Pesticides or herbicides near or in your home + Medications containing fluoride Also, do not use lemon in your tea, since it will increase aluminum absorption enormously. Do not cook in aluminum or Teflon -coated cook- ware, and avoid using Teflon products. ­­00- About Dr. Blaylock Dr. Russell Blaylock edits NewsMax.com's The Blaylock Wellness Report He is a nationally recognized board certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans and completed his internship and neurosurgical residen- cy at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. For the past 26 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from his neurosurgical practice to devote full time to nutritional studies and research. Dr. Blaylock has authored three books on nutrition and wellness, including Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, and his most recent work, Natural Strategies for The Cancer Patient. An in -demand guest for radio and television programs, he lectures widely to both lay and professional medical audiences on a variety of nutritional subjects. Dr. Blaylock serves on the editorial staff of the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association and is the associate editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He previously served as Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Miss., and is currently a visiting professor of Biology at the Belhaven College in Jackson, Miss. 2023 Renton Water Quality Results Downtown Wells, Springbrook Springs, and Maplewood Welifield sampled at the source after treatment Please see next page for definitions of abbreviations Year Highest Amount Detected Substance Sampled MCL MCLG Range) Possible Sources Fluoride, (ppm) 2023 4 4 0.8 (0.6-0.8) Water additive to prevent tooth decay Nitrate (ppm) 2023 10 10 1.9 (0.3 1.9) Fertilizer runoff; leaching from septic tanks; erosion of natural deposits Total Trihalomethanes (ppb) 2021* 80 Not 3.7 (ND-3.7) Disinfection by—products Established Arsenic (ppb) 2019* 10 0 1.4 (ND 1.4) Sodium, (ppm) 2021* Not Established Not Established 18 (14-18) *The water quality information presented is from the most recent testing within the last five years. Sampling Points in the Water Distribution System Y"Ir MGLG or Average Amount Detected Substance Sampled MCL or MRDL MRDLG (Range) Chlorine (ppm) 2023 4 (MRDL) 4 (MRDLG) 1.0 (0.6-1.5) Total Trihalomethanes** 2023 80 Not 11(6.8-15) (ppb) Established Erosion of natural deposits Erosion of natural deposits; water treatment Possible Sources Additive to control microbes Disinfection by-products Haloacetic Acids** (ppb) 2023 60 Not Established 4.5 (2.6-6.5) Disinfection by-products ** In 2016, Renton qualified for reduced monitoring for total triholomethanes and haloacetic acids. Sampling occurs at two sites once per year. Residential Water Taps year 90th PercerMlW" Detected Substance Sagapled AL MCLG (Range) Possible Sources Lead service lines; Corrosion of household Lead' (ppb) 202? 15 0 2.1(ND-5.1) plumbing including fittings and fixtures; erosion of natural deposits Copper' (ppm) 2022 1.3 1.3 0.51(0.03-0.69) Corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits *** 90th Percentile: i.e. 90 percent of the samples were less than the values shown Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 5 (UCMR5) Sampling Results sampled at the source after treatment Detected Substtance Sampled MRL• Average Amount (Rangeh possible Sources Perfluorobutane sulfonic 2023 3 2.98 (N/A) Discharge and waste from industrial facilities; acid (PFBS) (ppt) stain -resistant treatments; firefighting foam 1 Renton measures fluoride levels dally in the distribution system. Beginning in April 2016, Renton lowered the fluoride level to 0.7 ppm, which is the new level recommended by the Washington State Department of Health. Renton citizens voted to add fluoride to the drinking water in 1985. 2. The EPA recommends 20 ppm as a level of concern for people on a sodium -restricted diet. Renton adds sodium hydroxide to prevent corrosion of plumbing. Sodium hypochlorite is added to water from the Maplewood wells for disinfection and to remove naturally occurring ammonia. 3. There were 45 samples tested for I ?ad and copper. All of the samples tested had levels far below the Action Levels for both lead and copper. 4. EPA has established MRLs for UC11{t5 based on the capability of the analytical method. It is not based on a level established as 'significant' or 'harmful.' The detection of a UCMR5 contaminant does not represent cause for concern, in and of itself. The purpose of unregulated contaminant monitoring is to help the EPA determine their occurrence in drinking water and potential need for future regulation. 5 There were six samples tested for 29 PFAS and lithium. Only one of six samples detected PFBS at a level at or above the MRL. 10 2024 City of Renton Water Quality Report