simply to remove the harmful bacteria or organisms and the chlorine can be removed from the water by boiling; fluorine cannot; chlorine can. By boiling the water, fluorine becomes more concentrated.

They also use compulsory vaccination against smallpox and perhaps some other diseases or the compulsory isolation of typhoid victims in some communities, although those practices are not universal. Again, they are not analogous to the addition of fluorine to water because they are definite measures against contagious and infectious diseases.

According to the authorities, the cause of dental caries is still an unknown question. No one has ever found an organism in a tooth, either adult or child, which could be identified as the cause of dental decay. And tooth decay is neither contagious nor epidemic nor a menace to public health.

Now, another precedent for universal fluoridation, but one which the proponents of fluoridation carefully refrain from mentioning, I believe was mentioned here this morning, and that was an attempt, a generation ago, to introduce iodine by law into the public drinking water of all communities in the United States as a preventive of goiter. That was done in some communities. I believe Rochester, N. Y., which has since turned thumbs down hard on fluoridation, was the first one. Hardly had that campaign started, however, than the medical profession discovered that the addition of iodine, instead of preventing goiter or curing goiter, encouraged the development of goiter and the process was stopped and those who had proposed it were discredited.

Now, I want to touch a little bit upon the question of Government responsibility in this question of fluoridation.

You gentlemen have probably covered it better than I have, but it has been suggested that H. R. 2341 might invade State police power by prohibiting a State or a community from doing, as a health measure, what it sees fit. We submit that the Federal Government is already doing that by appropriating large sums of money to the United States Public Health Service, part of which money is used directly in the propagandization of fluoridation and parts of which must bear some reasonable relationship to fluoridation because it is used as grants-inaid to various institutions, where some people, once opposed to fluoridation, have now slightly changed their tune, or quit talking about it entirely. We believe that the measure before this committee, which is probably imperfect, as it was probably written so, contains no penalties; we believe that part of it, however, if the whole of the bill is unacceptable to this committee, and to the Congress, we believe the part of it which would prohibit the fluoridation of water in any such area as the District of Columbia, which is under direct Federal control, the Territory of Hawaii and the Territory of Alaska and in veterans' hospitals and military installations and other communities would be proper and legal.

We would like to see it banned or abandoned throughout the United States. That may be impossible by Federal law, but what is suggested in that part of H. R. 2341 would be a long step toward bringing to public attention the fact that the Congress does not look with favor upon the propagandizing methods of one of the Government agencies. Thank you.

A

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

Mr. Dolliver?

Mr. DOLLIVER. I notice that you represent the National Committee Against Fluoridation.

Mr. PALMER. Yes.

Mr. DOLLIVER. And were formerly head of the committee on fluoridation.

Mr. PALMER. That is right.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Will you give us an idea who composes that organization?

Mr. PALMER. I am glad you asked that question. Mostly women. Mr. DOLLIVER. Mostly women?

Mr. PALMER. I would say that the membership is over 65 percent women, most of them housewives.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Are there any scientists among them?

Mr. PALMER. Yes, we have some doctors and we have some dentists and some chemists. The membership has the nucleus here in Washington; it is not great. I believe it is something like 375 members who have gathered.

Mr. DOLLIVER. How many?

Mr. PALMER. Something like 375, but we are the nucleus now of various groups in various parts of the country. There are a good many of them from Florida to Massachusetts and as far as Anchorage, Alaska, where a group has been formed.

We do not ask their individual members to become members of our group, but we have changed to a National Committee Against Fluoridation because most of these people in outlying districts wanted an organization with a national status in the Nation's Capital.

Mr. DOLLIVER. How many scientists are connected with the organization?

Mr. PALMER. You mean physicists and people like that?

Mr. DOLLIVER. I mean in the medical or dental term.

Mr. PALMER. I do not know. We have dentists, and we will have some in here as witnesses at these hearings who are graduates and practicing dentists and physicians.

Mr. DOLLIVER. How do you finance the organization?

Mr. PALMER. As best we can, Mr. Dolliver.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Do you have membership dues?

Mr. PALMER. We have annual dues of $1 at the present time and frankly some of them are reluctant about giving up the buck. The public apathy and inertia to this thing is astounding. People cannot see, they cannot taste, they cannot taste flourine in their water and they say, I feel all right, so what? But there are people who are going a little bit beyond that. Some are saying that is unethical and moral invasion of their rights to control their own bodies. Other people are rather vocal; they do care. Some of them are at times emotional. Maybe some of our witnesses here will appeal to you as a bit emotional. Forgive them if you can because it is an emotional subject to them; it is something new and dangerous.

Excuse me for wandering away from answering your question, directly, Congressman. Have I cleared up the point?

Mr. DOLLIVER. You mean to say that your only financial support is from the $1?

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 amMr. 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 fluorine 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. 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