Mr. PALMER. No.

Mr. DOLLIVER. From the 375 people?

Mr. PALMER. No.

Mr. DOLLIVER. There must be somebody paying some of the expenses?

Mr. PALMER. As far as I know, the biggest single contribution, and it is from a member, has been $50. There have probably been a few $50 contributions; there have been some $25, and more $10's and more $5's. We do not spend much money.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Who is your treasurer?

Mr. PALMER. The treasurer-I will have to ask Mrs. Adams.
Mrs. ADAMS. Mrs. Bertha B. Forney.

Mr. PALMER. If the Congressman is looking for information as to whether we have an "angel," whether we have any financial backing, whether any organization is back of us, there is none.

The assertion has been made here that—and it has been made elsewhere, of course, that this is a bunch of Christian Scientists. I think we do have some Christian Scientists among us. I personally am a Presbyterian. I do not think we have ever inquired as to the religious beliefs of our members or whether they had any or not, or much as to their occupation. We are not backed by anybody who is digging up a lot of money, because we do not spend a lot of money.

The cost of preparing my statement and the statement of another witness was borne out of my pocket. I happen to have a fair salary myself, and I am willing to spend some of it in this direction.

Mr. DOLLIVER. When did you first become interested in the subject? Mr. PALMER. When two ladies I mentioned came to me separately and said this question of fluoridation was bothering them. I knew them both. They did not know each other. "Can you suggest somebody who would be the nucleus of an organization," and I said to Mrs. Adams, "I wish you would get in touch with Mrs. Philadelphius,' and to Mrs. Philadelphius, "I wish you would get in touch with Mrs. Adams," and they did.

Then they came to me and they said, "We feel that we should incorporate. Can you recommend a lawyer."

Well, I know of a young lawyer who is public spirited, and I said, "Why don't you go to Bob Wrighter, or I will phone him if you want me to."

As a result, there was a little gathering of 5 or 6 people; I was invited to attend, and I had nothing officially to do with it. The organization was formed, incorporated, and the first thing I knew, I landed on the board of directors. I do not know why but I am Mr. DOLLIVER. Is fluoride an element?

Mr. PALMER. Yes, it is one of the helogen gases, along with fluorine and several others. It is one that is extremely deadly, along with hydrocyanic gas.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Is it related to the chlorine family?

Mr. PALMER. It is related to the chlorine family, yes, of the helogen group; there are about seven of the helogens. I am not a chemist, but they are all of that family; they are all rather fatal in their reactions upon animal and vegetable life, and upon metal.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Well, chlorine is quite extensively used to purify

water.

Mr. PALMER. Yes.

Mr. DOLLIVER. There are a great many cities use it including Washington?

Mr. PALMER. Surely; chlorine is very valuable for that purpose. Chlorine does not have corrosive properties.

Mr. DOLLIVER. I beg your pardon?

Mr. PALMER. Chlorine does not have corrosive properties, the corrosive properties that fluorine does. I have talked with doctors about this, about the constant ingestion of small amounts of fluorine, whether it might produce chronic conditions. The reason why fluorine is not suspected is the fact that in the settling process of city-purified water, most of the fluorine is evaporated-I mean, chlorine. Fluorine will not evaporate. Chlorine will evaporate, but fluorine will not evaporate. When you cook your vegetables at home in water in which the fluorine may be so strong that you can smell it, or taste it, and when you come to cooking it, the process will drive off the chlorine-and I am getting the two terms confused. Fluorine will concentrate. I am going to get these words mixed up here if I am not careful.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Of course, there are many compounds of both of these elements, chlorine and fluorine; are there not?

Mr. PALMER. Yes; the principal compound of fluorine or the fluorides which are sold, in which the acid has mixed with metal. Fluorine has the property of uniting directly with most metals. It has a very, very strong affinity for calcium, according to the chemical experts. For that reason, the excess of fluorine that we may get from our food, or our drinking water may be stored up in the bones, causing arthritic conditions-but I would rather not try to discuss that, because I am not an expert.

Mr. DOLLIVER. We will have some other witnesses who are to cover that?

Mr. PALMER. The other witnesses will testify on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Are there any further questions?

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Mr. Palmer, I was interested in that part of your statement, "When metal bursts into flame." Do you think that is a fair representation of the effect of fluorine on water?

Mr. PALMER. Not fluorine and water; no; one part to a million. I was giving there only the nature of the element itself; not the effect of long ingestion of one part per million.

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Is fluorine explosive?

Mr. PALMER. Fluorine is said to be the bad boy in the chemical world. It is the most unpredictable and difficult to handle of all of the elements known to science.

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Would you say that hydrogen is explosive?

Mr. PALMER. Well, hydrogen burns. It is explosive; it is explosive when it is in a container, when it is burnt in a restricted area. Mr. DEROUNIAN. It is potentially a dangerous element; is that correct?

Mr. PALMER. Yes.

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Do you think we ought to stop drinking water? Mr. PALMER. No; because we need hydrogen in our economy just as we need chlorine. We need chlorine, a certain quantity of it, to form hydrochloric acid; that is a part of the digestive juices of the

system. According to some scientists, one scientist whom we expect to be here expected to be here-fluorine plays no part in the body metabolism, and it is not an element that is necessary in the development of the human organism, and it is there as an invader. We could not live very long without hydrogen; we can live without fluorine.

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Have you made any surveys of the effect of fluoIrine in the water in the District of Columbia on the health of the imbibers?

Mr. PALMER. NO; it has not been established long enough.

Mr. DEROUNIAN. It has not been?

Mr. PALMER. No; it has only been in use about 2 years.

Mr. DEROUNIAN. And yet you think you can make a statement that it is harmful to the user?

Mr. PALMER. I say that scientists, certain scientists, have developed the fact that its long ingestion, its use with the experiments on animals, have created conditions, and they have cured them by taking the fluorine away and have reinstituted the condition by returning the animal to the fluorine diet. Those are questions, sir, that the scientists should answer, not a layman.

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Why do you think the Public Health Service of the United States is for fluorine?

Mr. PALMER. I do not think there is any question about that; we have seen their printed literature, their manual went out to promote fluoridation-and I was going to say how to put fluoridation over-their little booklet that answers, supposed-to-be answers, to the questions raised by the opponents. A pamphlet which was received in my office recently from the Public Dental Officers of the State of Pennsylvania, from Harrisburg, which had been at the instance of the United States Public Health Service and was distributed throughout the country. The fact that United States Public Health Service has caused these conferences of State dental officers, called them to Washington and, I believe, in some instances, have paid their expenses to indoctrinate them on the question of fluoridation and tell them how to promote it-and that is not a secret.

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Do you think that they would openly advocate anything that was detrimental to the health of the people of the United States?

Mr. PALMER. They might, sir. They advocated iodine at one time. Mr. DEROUNIAN. Well, do you think it is a Communist plot?

Mr. PALMER. No, no, no; certainly not.

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Some people claim that?

Mr. PALMER. Some people would say that about anybody. No, I do not think there is any such Communist plot.

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hale.

Mr. HALE. Mr. Palmer, is this national committee a local group or is it spread over the country?

Mr. PALMER. We have-most of our members are near Washington, but we have members as far away as California, Florida, and Alaska, and Maine and Massachusetts. Not many. We have not the facilties or the funds to go out and make a drive to get a lot of members. We should have 10,000 instead of 375, because I believe there are 10,000 people. It is just a little group, just as we are, with

48391-54- -3

a small amount of money, and we cannot go out and do the kind of work that a big Government agency can.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Palmer, for your statement.

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

I understand that my full statement will appear in the record?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Without objection, the statement of Mr. Palmer will be inserted in the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

THE MISCALCULATED RISK OF MASS FLUORIDATION—A STATEMENT BY CLAUDE N. PALMER, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 2341, PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE AGAINST FLUORIDATION (FORMERLY CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON FLUORIDATION)

PART I

With this

"May God grant me the wisdom to discover my own mistakes." prayer, the young scientist, Arrowsmith, began his career as a researcher into the causes and prevention of contagious disease. The National Committee Against Fluoridation, a nonprofit, nonsectarian group of American citizens, chartered under the laws of the District of Columbia, will endeavor to show by their own words how this creed of medical and research ethics is ignored by those who advocate most vociferously a regimen of mass medication by adding fluorine to community water supplies.

We lay no claim to being a group of scientists, though our membership, which extends from Maine to California and from Florida to Alaska, includes physicians, dentists, chemists, educators, and other professional men, as well as lay citizens from all levels of society. Since other witnesses will discuss fluoridation from a purely scientific viewpoint, in which some differing opinions may be expressed, this statement will deal mainly with certain contradictory assertions made by the proponents of fluoridation as to its possible benefits and potential dangers.

THE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF FLUORINE

On one subject, however, no disagreement will be expressed on either side of this issue. As every standard work on chemistry shows, no doubt exists as to the violent reaction of fluorine and its compounds on both animal and vegetable life. In support of this fact, we quote in part a statement of the International Nickel Co., published under the caption, "When Metal Bursts Into Flame."

"Imagine, if you can, an element so fierce it burns up steel. One that claws its way through firebrick ** *makes water burn like alcohol * * * destroys almost everything it touches. That's fluorine for you. And for over 200 years

chemists racked their brains to find some material that would hold fluorine ***

for even a few minutes' study. Numerous materials *** were tried. Most went up in a flash."

With these and other facts about the violent nature of fluorine and its com-pounds readily available, many people have become alarmed at the addition of this chemical to their drinking and cooking water, and are not convinced. by statements from unknown sources, no matter how official, that taking this element into their systems for the rest of their lives, even though in minute doses, cannot possibly have a toxic effect upon their own and their children's future health.

These doubts and anxieties would not have been so widespread, nor would public resistance to and defeat of fluoridation have occurred in so many localities, both before and after its inception, were it not for the fact that this system of compulsory mass medication was in many instances introduced without the knowledge and consent of those who might be injured by it and often despite the protests of people who considered it an invasion of their personal rights. and liberties.

THE POLICY OF FLUORIDATION BY STEALTH

That the advocates of fluoridation have adopted a deliberate policy of keeping the general public in ignorance on the subject-at least preventing a referendum: vote in the community if possible-is shown by the record of proceedings at

the fourth annual conference of State dental directors and the Public Health Service in Washington, D. C., in June 1951. At this meeting Dr. F. A. Bull, director of dental education, Wisconsin State Board of Health, and evidently keynoter for the advocates of fluoridation, said in part as follows:

"If you can-I say if you can, because five times we have not been able to do it keep fluoridation from going to a referendum. After you have just a little experience, you will find you can walk into a mayor's office and after about three sentences you will know whether he is for fluoridation or against it." At another point in his address, referring to the toxicity of drinking water with a concentration of 1 part fluoride to 1 million parts of water, Dr. Bull is quoted in the official conference proceedings as saying:

"Now, in regard to toxicity, I note that Dr. Bain used the term 'adding sodium fluoride.' We never do that. That's rat poison. You add fluorides. Never mind that sodium fluoride business, because in most instances we are not adding sodium fluoride anyhow. All of those things give the opposition something to pick at, and they have enough to pick at without our giving them any more. But this toxicity question is a difficult one. I can't give you the answer on it. After all, you know fluoridated water isn't toxic. But when the other fellow says it is, it's difficult to answer him. I can prove that we don't know the answer to that one, because we had a city of 18,000 that was fluoridating the water for 6 or 8 months. A campaign was started by organized opposition on the ground of toxicity. It ended up in a referendum and they threw out fluoridation."

With such mixtures of professional candor and confusion reaching the ears of intelligent people, it is easy to understand why such communities as Los Angeles, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Reading, New York, Rochester, Boston, Cambridge, Worcester, Cincinnati, Tampa, Lansing, Tallahassee, and some 300 other places rejected fluoridation either before it began or after it had been in operation, sometimes for a year or more.

THE FLUORIDATION PROPAGANDA LINE

Besides telling only what it wants the public to believe, carefully omitting any reference to the possibility of chronic fluorine poisoning, the proponents of fluoridation adroitly sidestep all mention of the rising flood of opposition that faces them in well-informed communities. The public hears only about new installations; never of rejections. We are asked to believe that many cities and towns eagerly await fluoridation; never that hundreds of communities have rejected it.

It is not strange that authentic data on the number of fluoridated areas are difficult to obtain, since profluoridation propaganda has used approximately the same figures-600 to 700-during the past several years. Fluoridation pro

ponents have, however, recently made the satement that some 17 million American citizens are now drinking artificially fluoridated water. As the fluoridation program has been running in high gear for more than 10 years, this figure is not impressive, since it represents only about 10 percent of today's national population.

Compared with the rather poor showing on a nationwide basis, after nearly a decade of ceaseless propaganda and enthusiastic endorsement by medical and dental societies, public officials, chambers of commerce, and welfare groups, it is significent that the 17 cities previously noted, all of which have rejected outright or postponed fluoridation of their water supplies, represent a population of more than 20 million. It is thus apparent that these few cities in which fluoridation has been turned down outnumber by upward of 3 million persons the most optimistic claims of profluoridation enthusiasts.

We believe it safe to say that more resistance would have developed and more communities would have abandoned the idea of fluoridating their water systems if the public had been informed of what was going on, and if both sides of the issue had been discussed openly. That this was not the policy of those most interested in fluoridation is shown by the fact that many people are unaware that fluorides are being added to their drinking water, and do not know about the difference between fluorine and chlorine in their action upon animal organs and tissues.

In this connection, it is doubtful that all Members of Congress know whether or not the public water supplies in their own districts contain fluorine. A survey among adult citizens of Newburgh, N. Y., a community that has received more