thing 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. That is why, gentlemen, we believe it is unfair to introduce into our water supply, for the benefit of a small fraction of the population, requiring everyone of every age and condition of health to consume it on a life-long basis.

Now, I am resuming my prepared statement concerning the policy of fluoridation by itself. That has been brought up a number of times by members of this committee.

We know very little of what the United States Public Health Service is doing, because the United States Public Health Service does not publish a statement, so far as I know, of how it is going about the job of promoting fluoridation.

We have been told of flying squadrons of bright young chemists, bright young scientists who have gone from city to city, meeting with chambers of commerce, boards of education, parent-teachers associations, medical and dental scientists, to tell them the bright side of flouridation, that will preserve the kiddies' teeth and I grant you that anything that is for the children, of course, has a strong emotional appeal.

We find that State health departments, dental societies, and others have joined in this cry; and we find that also in some of these institutions, having research projects and other projects which are financed by grants in aid of which the United States Public Health Service holds the purse strings, there may be no analogy between those, but we have found, gentlemen, that scientific witnesses who appeared before the Delaney Committee 2 years ago and were bitter in their denunciation of fluoridation are now unwilling to testify before this group, or now find it inconvenient. The inference is drawn that inasmuch as each of the institutions with which these witnesses are connected is receiving a grant-in-aid of some kind, that while, personally, no pressure may have been brought to appear may be inspired by a wish not to offend the United States Public Health Service.

Gentlemen, much of the objection to compulsory mass life-long fluoridation is based upon the question of toxicity, to the poisonous or injurious nature of fluorine taken in small quantities over a long period of time.

Something more than 2 years ago there was held here in Washington under the auspices of the United States Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau what was known as the Fourth Conference of State Medical Officers. A printed report of the proceedings was available for a time, but seems to have disappeared pretty much. Anyone who reads that with an open mind, I think, behind closed doors certain officers of the United States Public Health Service, and certain State health officers laid themselves open.

For instance, the spokesman for fluoridation was one Dr. F. A. Bull, director of dental education for the Wisconsin State Department of Health, and in one place, and I am quoting, he said-Dr. Bull was talking about the toxicity of fluorine, and said:

When they take us at our word, they make awful liars of us.

I would not use that word "liars" if it were not in an official Government statement.

I would like, with your permission, to quote just a little more from Dr. Bull, who occupied practically the entire morning and was introduced by Dr. Knudson, formerly of the United States Public Health Service.

Dr. Bull stated:

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, after about three sentences, you will know whether he is for fluoridation or against it.

Then going on, Dr. Bull says:

Now, in regard to toxicity, I note that Dr. Bain

Dr. Bain was the lady doctor representing the Children's Bureau— used the term "adding sodium fluoride" we never do that. That's rat poison. And I would not use the term "rat poison" either, if it were not in an official statement by a pro-fluoridationist.

Continuing with the statement:

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 out 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 fellows 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.

Gentlemen, there is an example of scientists being unwilling to let the public decide; as the gentleman who preceded me said, if you let the community decide, all right. But if the Federal Government is providing one of its agencies with money to propagandize fluoridation, right or wrong, let the Federal Government provide an equal sum of money to give the opposition information, and there is plenty of it.

Now, I am asking in my prepared statement that fluoridation live up to its claims. We have reports of pilot experiments at Newburgh, N. Y., Grand Rapids, Mich., Saginaw, Mich., Evanston, Ill., and there are probably others.

Now, we say the statistics, and I will give you the reason for that also a little later on, that the statistics received from these pilot experiments are misleading in that they do not go below surface indications. We say also that the beneficial results obtained in the pilot cities, where fluoridation was compared with nonfluoridation cities, is probably deceptive, because other methods than the fluorine were used.

Now, to get at some real statistics that we can rely on, I would like to compare the two cities of Brantford, and Toronto, Canada. In Brantford, a 31 percent improvement was announced by the city health authorities after 6 years of fluoridation; that is 31 percent less decay, filled teeth or missing teeth.

In Toronto, during the same period, which did not fluoridate its water, an improvement of 45.3 percent was reported by the city health

authorities. Thus comparing the 2 percentages, Toronto showed 46 percent better result with children than fluoridated children. Then the city authorities in Toronto said it is simple; we merely taught them proper hygiene; we taught them proper diet; we taught them exercise, and we taught them how to brush their teeth, thoroughly, regularly, and properly, to avoid sweets, to avoid carbonated drinks, and to eat the right sort of foods. That will go hand in hand with any reasonable public health measure that has for its aim the saving of the children's teeth.

Now fluoridation is prescribed; it is prescribed by primarily the United States Public Health Service, as a nationwide prescription, although their scientists differ. Some say as little as one-half of 1 part per million is injurious; some say that one part is helpful, and not injurious; some say 1.2 to 1.5 percent. They do not agree, and I do not believe that they know.

We would like to know, granting that the recommended amount of fluorine is correct, we would like to know how accurately that prescription is filled. When you gentlemen get a prescription from your doctor, you take it to a competent pharmacist to have it filled. We have a little statistics on that. But an article appearing in Waterworks and Sewage magazine signed by the sanitary engineer of the city of Charlotte, N. Č., in which a table of differences of fluorine content in samples of water taken each month for 12 months from August 1950-from September 1950 through August 1951, showed a difference of as much as 15 parts per million above the accepted dosage to 35 percent below, or a difference in range from top to bottom of 50 one-hundredths part. In other words, half of the prescribed dose.

The findings of the water department were also checked by the health department separately, by the Charlotte Water District, and by an Army base in that area which drew its water from the Charlotte district. Each 1 of the 4 cities that made this test differed from the other materially; some ran even higher than the 15 percent shown by the water-plant test. In no single month was there complete agreement of all four tests. And what I think the public should be told is when there is an excess of fluorine in the water over the prescribed dosage, where does it come from? And when there is less than the prescribed dose, where did that fluorine go? I think it will be brought out by witnesses here that some of that fluorine probably is stored up in the pipes somewhere along the line; certainly if water goes into the pipe at the plant with certain concentration, it ought to come out a few blocks or a few miles away from where it went in; should it not?

It comes out sometimes with a higher content and sometimes with a lower content.

That is one of the mysteries that makes people frightened and skeptical about the assurances they are constantly receiving that this thing cannot hurt anybody.

Now as to the corrosive action of fluorine on water-plant equipment. I read you briefly from what the International Nickel Co. said. I am going to give you a little of the experience of Madison, Wis. Madison, Wis., is proud to say, for about 5 years, it was ahead of the rest of the country in fluoridating its water. Madison is so confident that, instead of using one of the fluorides, or the sodium fluorides or the

sodium silicate fluorides, it used hydrochloric acid. That is the stuff that burns up glass and burns up iron and wood, and a drop of it on your hand would probably cause an incurable sore. It is used because it is cheaper as it mixes with water. But I am going to quote briefly from a statement by Mr. H. E. Worth, assistant sanitary engineer of the State board of health of Wisconsin, who, by the way, is strongly in favor of fluoridation. His statement was made at a conference on fluoridation at the University of Washington in Seattle, and I believe we may have witnesses here who were present at the time that statement was made. If you will bear with me, I would just like to give you some of Mr. Worth's statement. Incidentally, after receiving a copy of Mr. Worth's statement, I wrote him and asked him if it were correct, if he had been properly quoted, and he sent me a copy which agreed with the copy that I had, and he had some other information added to it. I picked out some of the more salient points, and I quote: Some operating difficulties have been noted, such as the clogging of solution piping by disposition of inert materials, the presence of foreign material consisting of pieces of heavy paper, slivers of wood, nails, and staples, found in compound described as 98 percent pure white sodium fluoride. There is also the more difficult problem of incrustation.

This problem, common in hard waters, has been experienced in soft waters as well. When mixed with the water supply, sodium fluoride forms a precipitate with the calcium in the water which plugs in the injection lines, incrusts tanks and solution chambers.

Even in soft-water makeup, precipitates form in the tank which, if not periodically removed, plugs the feeder. Control of this condition is secured by periodic backwashing of the tanks which brings the sludge to the top where it can be removed. Madison uses cast iron for both tanks. Originally, attempt was made to feed into the well discharge lines. Severe erosion at the point of installation was ever present, however, requiring weekly replacement of the fittings. Gentlemen, may I repeat those last few words:

Erosion of the metal-mixing machinery requires weekly replacement of the fittings.

We cannot replace our internal fittings very well. Sometimes they do, but once our liver and kidneys and intestines are gone, we probably will not get any more.

That seems to me, Mr. Worth's statement seems to me, to answer in part the question of why in the city of Charlotte, N. C., they found higher and lower concentration when the city plant was trying to keep a level of 1 part per million.

We have talked here of two instances where we have expert technicians handling the equipment, both of them sanitary engineers who have been schooled in the work and know their stuff. And now the next question is, then, what would be the result if the village barber or the tinsmith were to be the man handling the fluoridation equipment? And you may think that is pretty far fetched, to refer to the village barber or the tinsmith. But let me go back to Dr. Bullat the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Officers. Dr. Bull was describing this question of the safety of mixing and metering equipment. Apparently a number of delegates, of engineers and citizens from other States, had come to Madison, Wis., which had pioneered in fluoridation, and were asking for enlightenment and this is what Dr. Bull says, and I quote:

So we took them to several little installations where the village barber is the waterworks man, or the hardware man is the waterworks man. And we turned them over to him, and let the engineers question him and find out what he is

doing and how he is doing it. Now, in large cities, we do not concern ourselves because they know how to handle the equipment and have trained help. But in a small community, where the barber is going to operate the feeder, if anything goes wrong, he throws up his hands.

Gentlemen, is there any wonder that citizens throw up their hands when there are such releases as that in published statements?

Now, in the city of Washington, as I told you, the District officials refused to hold hearings, refused to hear those who wanted both sides of the facts brought out. They have made up their minds and they went ahead and put fluoridation in without public consent. They probably have expert people working in the city water plant. But those employees-they are not pharmacists, they are dealing with a highly toxic element. They are putting into the city water of the District of Columbia and its environs which draw from the same District, 2,800 pounds of sodium silicate fluorides each day. That amounts to more than 1 million pounds, 500 tons, and the quantity has increased as the population in the area increases.

The yearly cost to the District taxpayer for the fluorine alone, not counting the cost of the superintendent, labor, and propaganda, is $71,500. That seems small. But it is large. When the District's estimates made by waterworks officials shows that for every pound of fluoride put into the public water, 99.6 percent is wasted, used for laundering, washing cars, and it goes to people who cannot be benefited by fluoridation, as it is used in industrial plants and what not. So out of our $71,214 invested in the chemical alone, in the District of Columbia, only $286 worth of this treatment can reach children who might be benefited and benefited only partially.

We have heard of one town, and I think it is Grafton, Mass., where a 17-year-old patient in a school for the feeble minded is the one who handles the fluoridation plant.

I want to get to the very much publicized question of the endorsement of fluoridation by the American Medical Association. If one reads the statement issued by the secretary of the American Medical Association during the Delaney hearings, you will find that the AMA council endorsed fluoridation in principle only; the council said it does not know of any harmful effects; they did not say that it was not harmful; they did not say it was; they said, "We do not know of any harmful effect." It is a good deal like the man who said he did not know the gun was loaded. And they did not recommend that any community adopt fluoridation but they did recommend further research and study on the question of toxicity.

Gentlemen, I do not think that is a very strong endorsement of fluoridation by the American Medical Association. It smacks more of professional courtesy toward the American Dental Association so that the doctors don't want to encroach upon the dentists and the doctors of the American Medical Association do not want to have the responsibility-of assuming responsibility of any later harm that may come along.

Now, those who are for fluoridation say there are very strong precedents for universal fluoridation, compulsory fluoridation; that it does not require public approval. They cite among other things the precedent of chlorine in public drinking water, the use of fluorine is not analogous to the use of chlorine, because the function of chlorine is