Anthony Beckett

Software Engineer, Videographer and Web Designer

Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking – Report 2

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking <Report 2>

Submitted to Wakefield County Council Author of the Report: Simon C. Haigh BA Single Hons, MIfL A Review of the Use of Toxic Chemicals to Frack and their Detrimental Health Implications in the United Kingdom

Toxicological Report

This is the Second Report written by Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking (YLMAF) and is submitted to Wakefield and Leeds Council. The authors of the First Report who detailed the dangers of unconventional petroleum extraction felt it was a priority to release a follow up study, as recent information has been made available regarding the procedures and calculated risks equated with fracking. The emphasis of this paper will focus on the injection fluids used in unconventional extraction of petroleum and gas. To summarise what both reports have to say:

(1) YLMAF Report 1 (137 Pages) This document examined the legal arguments appertaining to the contamination of drinking water from fracking, including its chemical footprint benzene, mercury, cadmium and radioactive materials. The paper focussed on water contamination and comprised of a systematic analysis of major medical and peer reviewed literature.

(2) YLMAF Report 2 (123 Pages) A separate study, this investigation will examine the utilisation of hydrogen fluoride, a deadly substance used to fracture rocks. In reviewing the widely available evidence, ‘Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking’ will evaluate the toxicity of fluoride and its impact upon living systems. For an in depth assessment of the legal perspective on the Water Laws, readers are urged to consult YLMAF’s First Paper. The second YLMAF Report will specifically look at the chemical hydrogen fluoride and its use to fracture rocks to remove petroleum and gas from the earth. Scientific reports, witness statements and the chemistry of flowback water will be employed as supporting data to establish levels of harm. The exploitation of hydrogen fluoride combined with surplus levels of cadmium, mercury and nuclide pollution are attributed to the poisoning of drinking water and a litany of diseases. Extremely unpleasant, the medical conditions associated with water contamination from fracking can be summarised as follows:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 1/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Physical Diseases from the Inhalation and / or Ingestion of Industrial Poisons from Unconventional Mining Documented in the First and Second YLMAF Reports Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking (Report 1) No. Poison Disease Side Effects (1) Cadmium Itai Itai Byou

(Pain Pain Disease) Japan

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 2/123

Neurological and Physiological Impairment (2) Mercury Minamata Byou

(Minamata Disease) Japan

Neurological and Physiological Impairment (3) Radionuclide* Radiation Poisoning Genetic Deformities and

Tumours (4) Benzene Benzene Poisoning Neural and Birth Defects

Including Cancers

Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking (Report 2) No. Poison Disease Side Effects (1) Hydrogen

Fluoride (HF)

Fluoride Poisoning (Fluorosis)

40 Diseases (Cancer, Deformities & Organ Failure)

*Igor’s Mother was Subject to Radiation Poisoning at Chernobyl, and are Similar Substances Found in Fracking Flowback Water.

The four major toxic agents of concern from fracking are cadmium, mercury, radionuclide and benzene. A deadly cocktail, all of these nasty ingredients are discussed at length in YLMAF’s First Report, Legal Arguments Opposing Fracking (The Unconventional Extraction of Oil and Gas). For further evidence of these foul chemicals, please see the Table reproduced in this Report on page 13, which records Cuadrilla Drill Rig’s Flowback Water in Lancashire.

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Researching many of these complex large-scale industrialized activities and the ancillary infrastructure that supports them have taken considerable time, studies which have often been hindered by institutional secrecy. Circumstantial evidence supplied in this Report suggests that some of the ‘trade secrets’ of the mining sector are ‘classified’ and are inextricably bound up with state secrecy. Nonetheless, research is gradually catching up to the last decade’s surge in fracking from shale. A growing body of peer reviewed studies, accident reports, and investigative articles have detailed specific, ‘quantifiable evidence of harm’ and revealed fundamental problems with water integrity, addendum to the poisoning of local populations. Other questions posed include the life cycle of operations and well viability. Legitimate, these genuine concerns are associated with considerable environmental damage, including actual degradation of water supplies, intrinsic to National and State Security.

Before however we look at the issue surrounding usage of hydrogen fluoride to dissolve rock, we will first recap very briefly what YLMAF ascertained in its First Report. The main contention that YLMAF had with regards to unconventional drilling concern the toxicological components from the mining of petroleum and gas, which when deconstructed are shown to inflict actual physical harm to local populations through environmental pathways. One of the major routes highlighted includes the dilution of toxic waste through the method of dumping toxic pollution into rivers. A travesty, the damage caused to human life through this process is no longer a matter of conjecture but is established as ‘fact’ and is a conclusion demonstrated in the First Report.

A distressing subject, the issue of unnecessary human suffering brings us up to date with Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking Second Report. In this material, we will add a new facet to the data, which has previously remained obscured by the petroleum corporations. This is fracking’s ‘secret ingredient’ that has until now remained outside of the limelight, which is shown to be the particularly noxious chemical hydrogen fluoride. In support of this argument, there is a plethora of toxicological data, sourced primarily from the National Research Council and the American Academies.

Scientific in basis, this second study will concentrate on ‘hydrogen fluoride’ and its related compounds, a toxic chemical which is used by the petroleum industry to inject into aggregate to facilitate the removal of petro-carbons. Comprehensive in scale, when combined together with the First Report, the research conducted by YLMAF shows conclusively that fracking contaminates the water and causes actual bodily harm, agents that possess both state and legal ramifications. Extremely complex, the subjects covered in this Report are nuanced and manifold.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 3/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

To assist general accessibility, the paper will be dived into three main sections A, B and C with supplemental materials in the form of an Introduction and Appendices. The sections of this Second Report are as follows:

<Introduction> Fracking and the Employment of Injection Chemicals A short summary of the historical use of hydrogen fluoride within the fracking industry.

<Section A> General Studies and Overview of Fluoride and its Damaging Effects Upon the Human Body (1) The British Study and Evidence that Fluoridated Water Leads to an

Increased Susceptibility to Thyroid Damage (Professor Stephen Peckham). (2) Industrial Problems with Fluoride. (3) Developmental Toxicity of Fluoride and its Effects upon Children and IQ /

Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats. (4) General Studies Appertaining to the Brain and Nervous System including

Internal Organs and the Detriment of Fluoride. (5) Neuro-Toxin Effects of Fluoride (The Mexican Study). (6) Foetus Damage and Fluoride. (7) Fluoride and the Cancer Link (Dr. Burk – National Cancer Institute

Testimonial Before Congress).

<Section B> The Facts The Case Against Hydrogen Fluoride and its Use within Fracking Statistical and Empirical Data of Damage Correlated with Fluoride From the National Research Council The basis of Section B will look at the National Research Council’s largest study into fluoridation, which uncovered injury from fluoridation schemes at levels of fluoride from below the threshold of 1ppm. It is argued in this review of evidence that the likelihood of fluoride contamination exceeding 1ppm in fracking zones is extremely likely due to the vast amounts of chemicals employed by the petroleum industry.

<Section C> What the Experts Say National Research Council – Proof of the Toxicity of Fluoride a Short Summary of the Findings of the American National Academies in Combination with the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology

The third part of this Report is the most important section, as we will deal with what is scientifically known about the risks of fluorides in combination with fracking and related toxicity. This final summary will

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 4/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

cover comprehensively the serious side effects of hydrogen fluoride. Extremely well documented within the United States and the UK, the toxicological impacts of ‘fluorides’ are well understood and include data on specific levels of harm. The figures of chemical usage and the projected levels of injury will be given during the course of this document.

<Appendix 1> Dental Myths and Fluoride Dentistry Concerns about Fluoride and its Efficacy Dr. Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS Associate Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry from the University of Toronto and Professor Dr. John Colquohoun, New Zealand’s Former Chief Dental Officer A critical examination exploring the idea that the UK fluoridation schemes imposed upon Local Councils discloses a conspiracy to mask the illegal contamination of fluoride, equated with fracking and related health risks. The section also deals with the myth that fluoride can be used as a preventative medicine to stop tooth decay.

<Appendix 2> Circumstantial Evidence Are the British Government Planning on Dumping Nuclear Waste into Spent Fracking Wells, without Telling the General Population? A controversial hypothesis, Appendix 2 will enquire into the legitimate question, ‘Are the government planning secretly on disposing of nuclear waste into fracking wells, a strategy devoid of public scrutiny?’ It is hoped by putting forward this information Ministers at the highest level will come forward about the possible agenda in order to protect the general public, whilst simultaneously finding sensible solutions to the nuclear industry’s current dilemma.

<Resources and Bibliography> A short snapshot of some of the Laws, Articles, Government Papers and Bibliographical Details consulted during the writing of this paper.

Academic Papers, Pharmacological Laws and Government Reviews on Fluoride and its Related Legislation Further information on fluoride within the member states of the EU.

References and Academic Studies Showing the Toxicity of Fluoride A diverse list of over 100 references which show scientific and academic studies of injury, due to fluoride exposure within water supplies.

Contact and Further Details for YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking)

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 5/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

<Introduction> Fracking and the Employment of Injection Chemicals

To begin, an emerging body of peer reviewed research into the topic of fracking has identified ‘quantifiable evidence of harm’ and in the process have disclosed basic problems with water purity equated with levels of injury. Numerous, the complaints highlight genuine concerns correlated with environmental pollution, specifically water and food contamination. Until very recently, it has been extremely difficult to know what the fracking companies have been doing during their operations. Additionally there have been legitimate worries that the chemicals employed to open up the rock-bed to forcibly remove petroleum are not safe.

Primarily the hindrance to answer many of these important questions have initially come from the petroleum industry who have argued that to reveal such information would be an infringement of trade secrecy. Adopted as a legal position or alibi, this principle has been misused to prevent litigation and public transparency with reference to the contamination of drinking water. Both within the United States and in the UK, the evidence to date suggests both the government and the petroleum sector have conspired together at the expense of the general public. Unacceptable, this stance is illegal and up to now has been built upon an unstable edifice – a corporate ‘wall of silence’. An industrial conspiracy, this unsatisfactory position is acknowledged in the United Kingdom in its own healthcare report into fracking commissioned by Medact UK, to quote:

‘First, we have incomplete knowledge. While many of the potential pollutants associated with fracking are known toxins, not all of them have been completely studied. Others have not been studied at all. Furthermore, while safety standards have been established for some pollutants on an individual basis, few take account of any ‘cocktail’ effects resulting from simultaneous exposure to multiple hazards. Our incomplete knowledge is also caused by a lack of information about fracking operations due to inadequate regulation and the use by the gas industry of non-disclosure agreements that have hindered public interest monitoring and evaluation efforts in the US’.

Health and Fracking, The Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p9

In other words, the medical experts from Medact UK claim that there is a conspiracy of silence, which appears to be centred on the issue of ‘known toxins’. The exploitation of ‘non-disclosure agreements’ is with good reason, because the law does not permit companies to compromise the water supply. One of the primary sources of pollution by fracking operators is through the use of acute

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 6/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

toxicological agents added to millions of gallons of water to fracture and break up rock sediment. A liability, this process is documented to cause both ‘potential and actual harm’. In the UK, the law is emphatic – the compromising of public safety through the possible breach of the Water Law is a punishable crime. A Malefaction, this wrongdoing is listed under the penal codes under the ‘Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 23 Maliciously Administering Poison, &c. so as to Endanger Life or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm’. In context to industrial fracking the prerogative for discreetness therefore is centred upon legal jurisprudence and is a corporate imperative.

The oil companies know full well that their operations are risking the wellbeing of large populations who live both locally and far away from the drilling sites. Objectionable, the compromising of people in particular the general public’s drinking water is illegal, and what is more is also a punishable crime under the penal codes as previously explained under (Section 23). For further details, please refer to YLMAF’s First Report.

The contention of pollution derived from fracking operations affecting the lives of people negatively is not just lazy guess work, but is instead based upon actual levels of harm in conjunction to water contamination. These incursions upon public safety have been systematically documented in the exhaustive report issued by the ‘Concerned Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking’. Intellectually sound, the academic proposition that the petroleum industry’s usage of large volumes of chemicals is damaging the general public remains a valid concern – one which is repeated in the Scottish Review, to quote:

‘The [industry’s] report claims most fracking chemicals would only have adverse health impacts at “very high concentrations” when much evidence exists on the contrary. The generalized claim that most of these chemicals are safe is problematic and does not give the reader any sense of the number, proportion, or volume of chemicals that the industry uses which may not be safe’.

Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review, 2018, p9

Abundantly clear, the suggestion from the Scottish Government is that fracking chemicals can have negative health impacts at much ‘lower levels’ than admitted by the industry, in the exact words of the report, ‘when much evidence exists on the contrary’, a euphemism for a ‘lie’. In itself, the admission by the review panel that the industry uses ‘very high concentrations of chemicals’ is a further difficulty, and denotes the premise for a legal challenge, a theoretical position acknowledged by the Scottish government’s review of evidence.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 7/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

In the paper, members of the committee noted that the sheer ‘number, proportion, or volume of chemicals that the industry uses… may not be safe’. Contrary to the English stance of disregarding the available evidence, the clear acceptance by the Scottish Review that fracking exploits large amounts of chemicals and therefore ‘may not be safe’ are workable definitions within the UK Law, specifically the UK Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulation of 2000, Statutory Instruments, which require:

‘…that the water does not contain any substance (whether or not a parameter) at a concentration or value which, in conjunction with any other substance it contains (whether or not a parameter) would constitute a potential danger to human health’.

The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulation 2000, Statutory Instruments, Part III, Wholesomeness (Section 4 Subsection 2), No. 3184, p6

Virtually identical, the same law in effect is repeated throughout Europe, to quote:

‘Water is free from… any substances which, in numbers or concentrations, constitute a potential danger to human health’.

EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC)

Thus from the Scottish Review, the explanation pertaining to the utilisation of chemicals within fracking, ‘which may not be safe’ is compatible with the UK Law that water should not ‘constitute a potential danger to human health’. Looking at the evidence from the Scottish Review in conjunction to the UK Medact report quoted earlier, we can conclude three major points summarised as follows:

(1) There is a conspiracy of silence, paid for by corporate money. (2) The evidence shows illegal levels of harm simultaneous to the mass

contamination of water supplies throughout the UK through the usage of dangerous chemicals, in particular the corrosive agent fluorine. The use of this chemical will be discussed shortly. (3) The petroleum sector has been purposely coy about the truth concerning dangerous agents and the element of human risk. The suggestion is that the industry has deliberately ‘lied’. The proposition that the corporations have falsified data are not my words – but are by deduction extrapolated from the Scottish Review, to recap: ‘The [industry’s] report claims most fracking chemicals would only have adverse health impacts at “very high concentrations” when much evidence exists on the contrary’.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 8/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

So the question remains to be answered. What then are these dangerous ‘fracking chemicals [which] would only have adverse health impacts at “very high concentrations”…’. Further information is gleaned from IGas’ own documentation when it submitted an application to drill at Ellesmere Port in Cheshire, North West England. This formal petition contained additional details. IGas in their planning phase stated that they will be using a proprietary oilfield fluid containing hydrochloric acid with 2 to 4% inhibitor and an additional 3 to 8% unspecified chemical (presumably biocides and anti-corrosion compounds). The inhibitor is stated to be an isocyanate compound, which the associated data sheet classifies as ‘acutely toxic’. The current application includes cleaning the well by ‘acidizing the strata’ and a ‘flow test’ to determine how much gas is available. From the paperwork obtained, IGas will use ‘an acid like hydrochloric acid’, but is otherwise not specific, nor does it specify the wastes or volumes produced.

The data sheet reads like a riddle what is like ‘an acid like hydrochloric acid’ but is not hydrochloric acid? The correct answer is ‘hydrochloric acid’ mixed with ‘ammonium fluoride’ to create hydrofluoric acid (HF). The advantage of using ‘hydrofluoric acid’ is that it is highly corrosive and dissolves glass, otherwise ‘silica’ the integer which holds together the rock-bed. A caustic medium, the introduction of hydrogen fluoride will allow for the effective extraction of petroleum. The ‘big secret’ is that this chemical is extremely toxic, and using hundreds of thousands of gallons of hydrofluoric acid poses immediate risk to local water supplies, in particular the residing population, and furthermore is an action which is unlawful.

There is however another sinister twist to this sordid tale. Highly calculative and five steps ahead of the general population, the political and legal class at Westminster in their highly compartmentalised departments have been very active at promoting the ‘benefits’ of fluoride – a complete fabrication. Substantial evidence for the assertion that fluoride in water kills people will be given throughout the remainder of this Report.

A political plot involving corporate intrigue, the politicians and their industrial lobbyists in order to mitigate criminal risk from future court proceedings from fluoride pollution have cleverly sought to fluoridate the water supplies of Ellesmere Port via Public Health England. A subterfuge, the mass fluoridation programmes seen throughout the UK are to fraudulently conceal the introduction of hydrogen fluoride into the drinking water supply as a result of fracking. This is a deadly contamination, which is attributed directly to the expansion of the petroleum industry in the UK. For further details of fluoridation schemes throughout Great Britain and their planned

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 9/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

synchronisation with fracking applications, please refer to Section A (1) The British Study and Evidence that Fluoridated Water Leads to an Increased Susceptibility to Thyroid Damage (Professor Stephen Peckham) detailed in this Report.

Additional confirmation regarding IGas and their exploitation of the dangerous element hydrogen fluoride to ‘acidiz[e] the strata’, in their own words ‘an acid like hydrochloric acid’ is a position also verified in the witness statement by Ron Vigneri, a veteran of the oil and gas industry. A retired engineer and one of the principle inventors of fracking, he lives in Wilmington, Delaware in the United States, and in an article published in Star News Media, Vigneri stated the following troublesome facts, he wrote:

‘Now retired, in the past I have been granted U.S. and foreign patents for oil and gas well fracturing and have significant experience in well fracturing using a process I invented. I have been aware of the debates about the safety of allowing hydraulic fracturing methods and have not seen the media informed as to the details of the dangers associated with the technology. Most of the lack of information is because some nasty chemicals are involved in the process without having to be disclosed.

I think it is time to acquaint the public at large as to the identity of a high hazard chemical that is used, but never talked about. First, hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is the process of drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at a high pressure to create cracks (fractures) in the hydrocarbon-containing rock to release oil and gas. Over 600 chemicals have been used in fracking fluids, including known carcinogens and toxic compounds. Tens of thousands of gallons of fracking fluid are injected and anything injected into a well has to be pumped back out before clean production of oil and/or gas can occur.

Disposal of the fracking fluid recovered is a significant problem above ground as well. Besides the high hydraulic pressure that is imposed on the rock by the water-based fracking fluid pumped into the rock, chemical acid is included in the fluid to also breakdown the rock. Called “acidizing,” it primarily uses hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids at highly diluted concentrations, between 1 and 15 percent. The exact formula varies slightly by company, but is hidden from the public by trade secret laws. Over the past few years, however, companies are finding that injections at higher concentrations can dissolve hydrocarbon bearing rock like shale and sandstone. Some believe that companies are using concentrations as high as 30 percent. Again, it is all a trade secret.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 10/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Hydrofluoric acid (HF) can corrode glass, steel, and rock. To prevent it from dissolving the well casing, which is intended to keep oil and chemicals from contaminating the surrounding rock or water, companies mix it with other substances, many of which are used during standard fracking jobs. After the frack, the used acid, chemicals, oil, and any sediment, are pumped out in a process called backflush. The HF is often created on site by mixing hydrochloric acid and ammonium fluoride, and then immediately injecting it into a well because it hazardous to handle.

The big nasty “secret” in fracking fluids is predominantly the HF. Hydrogen fluoride is a chemical compound that contains fluorine. It can exist as a colorless gas or as a fuming liquid, or it can be dissolved in water. When hydrogen fluoride is dissolved in water, it may be called hydrofluoric acid. Hydrogen fluoride can be released when other fluoride-containing compounds such as ammonium fluoride are combined with water.

HF goes easily and quickly through the skin and into the tissues in the body, damaging cells and causing them to not work properly. The severity of poisoning caused by hydrogen fluoride depends on the amount, route, and length of time of exposure, as well as the age and preexisting medical condition of the person exposed. Breathing hydrogen fluoride can damage lung tissue and cause swelling and fluid accumulation in the lungs (pulmonary oedema). Skin contact with hydrogen fluoride may cause severe burns that develop after several hours and form skin ulcers. Swallowing only a small amount may be fatal…

Fracturing applications must be carefully considered in both a societal sense and engineering sense. Application in populated areas or areas with many local groundwater wells is not a good idea. A proper disposal plan for backflush fluids must be in place… The public and legislatures need to be fully informed as to the fracturing process technology and not screened by claimed trade secrets when hazardous chemicals can affect residential areas’.

Ron Vigneri, Fracking’s Big Secret, For Star News Media

According to Ron Vigneri and validated also by Medact UK’s report stating ‘incomplete knowledge’, there is a lack of details of the dangers associated with the technology. This in Vigneri’s own words ‘is because [of] some nasty chemicals… carcinogens and toxic compounds’. He then goes on to state for the public record that fracking companies are employing a process called ‘acidizing’, which is used to breakdown the rock and is primarily composed of ‘hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids at highly diluted concentrations, between 1 and 15 percent’.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 11/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Disconcertingly, Vigneri then proceeds to say that rumours within the industry is that they are using concentrations of 30%, which ‘Again, it is all a trade secret’. To surmise hydrofluoric acids are used to dissolve the rocks, a strong destructive agent which reacts powerfully to glass and metals, core elements found within rocks, and is a scientific point elaborated by Vigneri, ‘Hydrofluoric acid (HF) can corrode glass, steel, and rock. Particularly nasty, the toxic elements equated with hydrogen fluoride are found indexed under C8 British Standard and European Norm (EN) 12175, which lists some of the contaminants of hydrogen fluoride and are as follows:

C8 British Standard and European Norm (EN) 12175 Extracts from the BSEN: ‘Hexafluorosilicic acid is only stable in an aqueous solution. On evaporation it decomposes to hydrogen fluoride (HF) and silicon tetrafluoride (SiF

4

). It produces hydrogen on contact with metals, e.g. steel, nickel and aluminium. It is a strong acid [pH < 1] and reacts violently with alkalis. It forms hydrogen fluoride (HF) on contact with concentrated acids. It attacks glass. Hydrogen fluoride is present in the acid at a maximum of 1.5%. Chemicals present: antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium. Other chemicals are not relevant because the raw materials used in the manufacturing process are free of them’.

Joy Warren, BSc. (Hons) Env. Sci., with Contributions from Douglas Cross, BSc (Hons), PGCE, CBiol, MIBiol, EurProBiol, Water Fluoridation: Safe and Effective?, 2ND February 2016, p72

Indexed under C8 British Standard (EN) 12175, some of the main chemicals consistent within hydrogen fluoride (HF) include cadmium, mercury and lead, elements which are found also at the Cuadrilla Drilling Site in Lancashire. Unsettling, all of these chemical agents are what we would expect to find, if the fracking companies were using ‘hydrochloric acid and ammonium fluoride, [otherwise] Hydrogen fluoride’. For evidence of these contaminants at a major fracking site, please refer to the Cuadrilla Drill Rig Flowback Water Table given below:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 12/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Dangerous Chemicals Found in the Flowback Water at Cuadrilla Drill Rig

In the Table the High Levels of Cadmium and Mercury, are the Principle Ingredients Found in the Japanese Poisoning Cases of the Jinzu River ‘Itai Itai Byou’ (Pain Pain Disease) in Toyama Prefecture and the ‘Minamata Neuro- Toxical Disease’ within the Vicinity of the Shiranui Sea in Kumamoto, Japan – Please Refer to YLMAF’s First Report.

To review the Cuadrilla Table, cadmium, mercury and lead are by-products present within hydrogen fluoride and are the chief elements attributed to ‘Itai Itai Byou (Pain Pain Disease) and the Minamata Disease in Japan, terrible afflictions which have poisoned over 20 thousand people due to industrial mining.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 13/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

For further details on these tragic incidents, please see YLMAF’s First Report, which goes into length how the introduction of cadmium and mercury into the UK water supplies will definitely poison people, in particular members of the general population who live in the districts surrounding the petroleum wells.

To summarise the conclusions of the Engineer Ron Vigneri, the evidence to date suggests that the chemical vehicle in fracking fluid that is currently employed as a corrosive agent to break up the rock layer is a mixture of ‘hydrochloric acid and ammonium fluoride, [otherwise] hydrogen fluoride’. Factual, the reasons for stating this are fourfold:

(1) IGas themselves have stated publically that they will use a substance, ‘an

acid like hydrochloric acid’. Extrapolation suggests that the most plausible chemical combination is a hydrochloric acid combined with ammonium fluoride to form hydrogen fluoride. This is a very strong acid and is highly corrosive to glass, which is an ideal medium used to dissolve rock sediment.

(2) Numerous poisonous chemicals found from Cuadrilla Drill Rig (Lancashire)

and its flowback water contain cadmium, mercury and lead – elements which we would expect to see with the use of hydrogen fluoride, to recap C8 British Standard (EN) 12175: ‘Hydrogen fluoride is present in the acid at a maximum of 1.5%. Chemicals present: antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium…’

(3) An engineer and inventor of well fracturing, Ron Vigneri has himself

stated publically that the fracking companies are using hydrogen fluoride, in his own words: ‘The big nasty “secret” in fracking fluids is predominantly the HF. Hydrogen fluoride is a chemical compound that contains fluorine. It can exist as a colorless gas or as a fuming liquid, or it can be dissolved in water. When hydrogen fluoride is dissolved in water, it may be called hydrofluoric acid. Hydrogen fluoride can be released when other fluoride-containing compounds such as ammonium fluoride are combined with water… [It] can dissolve hydrocarbon bearing rock like shale and sandstone [a process known in the industry] as “acidizing”…’.

(4) IGas have mentioned in their own documentation that they will utilise a

chemical process which they describe as ‘acidizing the strata’, a technique that according to their own words exploits ‘an acid like hydrochloric acid’, by deduction ‘hydrogen fluoride’.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 14/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Taken together, there is compelling evidence to suggest that the fracking companies are using hydrogen fluoride, in its liquid form hydrofluoric acid, to extract petroleum. An extremely caustic substance, the compound hydrofluoric acid is designed to break up the silica and is a powerful chemical, which is exceptionally successful at disintegrating rock particles. The problem however is that hydrogen fluoride, otherwise hydrofluoric acid, is a poisonous agent, which inevitably will lead to water deterioration and poison local residential areas.

In the Case of Ellesmere Port Cheshire, this is a real possibility, as the immensely noxious chemical hydrogen fluoride is handled less than 100m from various industrial units adjoining the site. In addition, the well is only 250m from the M53 motorway, 400m from the nearest residential properties, and about 1.7 km from the busy town centre of Ellesmere Port. There are in the region of 6,000 residences within a 2km radius of the well, including numerous schools. The risks involved in such an operation are sizeable, to repeat the cautionary words of the Scottish Review:

‘The generalized claim that most of these chemicals [used in fracking] are safe is problematic and does not give the reader any sense of the number, proportion, or volume of chemicals that the industry uses which may not be safe’.

Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review, 2018, p9

In response to the Scottish Review admonishment of the industry’s flagrant disregard for the public’s safety, let’s then objectively attempt to examine the amount of chemicals and estimate the quantities of hydrogen fluoride. If we look at the figures generally quoted, approximately 3-5 million gallons of water are required per fracked well, of which there is 30-60% flowback waste, in the literature anything from 10-90% depending on the quality of shale and the permeability of rock etc. This huge volume of injected water will if we accept the figures given by the fracking engineer Ron Vigneri include between 1-30% of hydrogen fluoride. If we average out the figures, we get the following calculations:

Average Percentages of Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) Content in the Flowback Water Per Drilling Site Gallons per Well

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 15/123

Flowback Water

Total Flowback Water

HF in the Flowback Water

Total of HF in the Flowback Water

4,000,000 Gallons

40% Flowback

1,600,000 Gallons

15% of 1,600,000 Gallons

240,000 Gallons of Hydrogen Fluoride = 6,863 Oil Barrels

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Average Percentages of Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) Content Remaining in the Ground Per Drilling Site Gallons per Well

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 16/123

Water Remaining in the Ground

Total Water Remaining in the Ground

HF Remaining in the Ground

Total of HF Remaining in the Ground 4,000,000 Gallons

60% 2,400,000

Gallons

15% of 2,400,000 Gallons

360,000 Gallons of Hydrogen Fluoride = 10,295 Oil Barrels

Average Percentages of Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) Content – Grand Total Used Per Drilling Site Gallons per Well

40% Flowback + 60% Ground

Total Water Used per Well

HF Content in Total Water

Grand Total of HF Used 4,000,000 Gallons

100% 4,000,000

Gallons

15% of 4,000,000 Gallons

600,000 Gallons = 17,158 Oil Barrels

To break down the figures, 40% of 4,000,000 gallons is the approximate amount of flowback water, which is 1,600,000 gallons derived from each well, of which 15% contains the noxious chemical hydrogen fluoride, or more specifically 240,000 gallons, a small reservoir! 240,000 gallons of hydrogen fluoride equals approximately 6,863 oil barrels of ‘fluoride mixture’, which will also contain the elements of cadmium, mercury, lead and nuclides. These dangerous elements will be coming back to the surface, and will require immediate safe disposal. Unfortunately this will mean that hundreds of thousands of gallons of hydrogen fluoride and contaminants will be dumped into local rivers, adding further to the problem of poisoning the drinking water supply, discussed in detail in YLMAF’s First Report.

But… in actual fact, if we look at the figures more closely, 2,400,000 gallons or 60% will remain in the ground to break up the rock sediment. A massive figure combined all together, the amount of hydrogen fluoride introduced into the earth in total is equivalent to 17,158 oil barrels. An impediment, the potential to kill large numbers of people through a natural process of osmosis via the corruption of the water supply with over half a million gallons of hydrofluoric acid remains a firm possibility. Incontrovertible, in total over 17,000 oil barrels of hydrogen fluoride will go into each well, a very dangerous chemical which in IGas’ own admission is stated to be ‘acutely toxic’ and is a definition that contradicts ‘The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulation 2000, Statutory Instruments’.

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

A serious and deadly scenario, when the missing details to the jigsaw puzzle are put together, the realistic expectation suggests that the putting of 17,158 oil barrels of poison under the Sherwood Aquifer will eventually lead to adulterating the water supply. Indefensible, the dereliction of duty by the fracking operators will translate into large numbers of people being injured or killed in the projected interim. This transgression of cosmic proportions is illegal and is covered under UK Law under the penal codes ‘Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 23 Maliciously Administering Poison, &c. so as to Endanger Life or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm’. Realistically an unsatisfactory state of affairs, the question posed to IGas and their subsidiaries is a legal challenge, and that is does the figure 17,158 oil barrels of hydrogen fluoride constitute ‘very high concentrations’? To repeat the concerns of the Scottish Review:

‘The [industry’s] report claims most fracking chemicals would only have adverse health impacts at “very high concentrations” when much evidence exists on the contrary. The generalized claim that most of these chemicals are safe is problematic and does not give the reader any sense of the number, proportion, or volume of chemicals that the industry uses which may not be safe’.

Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review, 2018, p9

In this early image of fluoride containment, the manufacturers clearly state on the label that fluoride is a ‘poison’, a definition covered under Section 23 of Criminal Law. The protective clothing worn by the gentleman in the photograph is to prevent a quick and painful death!

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 17/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

When viewed objectively, the previous quotation from the Scottish Review is literally a ‘double whammy’, as the vignette implies that many of the fracking chemicals are so ‘toxic’ that ‘small’ or ‘moderate amounts’ could cause significant harm. In addition, the Scottish Review maintains that, ‘The generalized claim that most of these chemicals are safe is problematic and does not give the reader any sense of the number, proportion, or volume of chemicals that the industry uses’.

A dilemma, the legal question which IGas then needs to ask its shareholders is – does the introduction of 600,000 gallons of hydrogen fluoride, one of the most deadliest chemicals known to mankind, which when touched severely burns the skin and kills if inhaled or ingested, possess a ‘potential risk’ to the local population? Unequivocal, the answer to this question of course is a resounding ‘YES’. This therefore is a lawful argument and one which has already been resolved by the Water Act’s insistence, ‘that the water does not contain any substance…, at a concentration or value which would constitute a potential danger to human health’.

The facts obtained suggests that it will only be a matter of time before hydrofluoric acid will leach into the water supply at Ellesmere Port and cause considerable side effects with short and long term damage both to the environment and the human population. Furthermore we know categorically that this type of pollution has already transpired and occurs regularly. Such infractions in the United States have been systematically documented, to quote the Environment America Research and Policy Centre Report:

‘In New Mexico, state records show 743 instances of all types of oil and gas operations polluting groundwater – the source of drinking water for 90 percent of the state’s residents’.

Environment America Research and Policy Centre Report, 2013, p9

No longer a theoretical risk, the actual risk is proven and is written in black and white, a paradox which is absolutely not permitted under the UK and European Water Laws. The escape of hydrogen fluoride into the Sherwood Aquifer will almost definitely lead to injury and death, and similar types of incidents have already occurred within the State of New Mexico, a staggering 743 times. So perhaps the better question to address is what contingency does IGas have in place in the likely event of a leak, which according to the statistical data occurs 69% of the time, an illegal figure. In the scenario presented, the definition ‘potential risk’ is now elevated to ‘actual’ and ‘almost inevitable risk’, which given the data is an infallible conclusion. These facts have already been

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 18/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

established in the United States, to quote the Concerned Health Professionals of New York’s own definitive report into fracking:

‘The available peer-reviewed literature reveals both potential and actual harms. Specifically, as demonstrated by PSE’s statistical analysis of the body of scientific literature available from 2009 to 2015, 69 percent of original research studies on water quality found potential for, or actual evidence of, water contamination’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p10

In the opinion of Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking (YLMAF), the authors of these Two Reports are contending that the introduction of such a large amount of hydrogen fluoride, including also cadmium, mercury and high levels of related nuclides near a residential area, constitutes a legal ultimatum. To restate, the outcome of potential injury to the public is no longer a hypothetical risk but according to Medact’s own UK study is unavoidable, to quote their denunciatory conclusions:

‘There are now over 450 peer-reviewed studies, reviews and commentaries. A significant majority of the studies indicate potential risks or actual adverse health outcomes associated with shale gas development. Elevated concentrations of air pollutants and indications of potential or actual incidents of water contamination have been frequently found. Reports of adverse health outcomes related to shale gas development in the US also show symptoms that are common across geographic space and consistent with what one would expect from exposure to some of the known toxic pollutants associated with fracking’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p31

In other words, a significant majority of 450 peer reviewed studies indicated ‘potential risks or actual adverse health outcomes’, definitions which are not amenable to the interpretation of The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulation 2000, Statutory Instruments. These laws legally require as a minimum‘…that the water does not contain any substance [that] would constitute a potential danger to human health’. Incontestable, the release of approximately 240,000 gallons of hydrogen fluoride as flowback water with the remainder of over 360,000 gallons lying ‘dormant’ under Ellesmere Port will have a 69% chance of contaminating the drinking water, which constitutes not ‘potential’, but ‘significant risk’, in the words of the engineer who invented fracking, Ron Vigneri:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 19/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Application [for fracking licences] in populated areas or areas with many local groundwater wells is not a good idea. A proper disposal plan for backflush fluids must be in place… The public and legislatures need to be fully informed as to the fracturing process technology and not screened by claimed trade secrets when hazardous chemicals can affect residential areas’.

Ron Vigneri, Fracking’s Big Secret, For Star News Media

According to Ron Vigneri, ‘hazardous chemicals can affect residential areas’, which once again translates as ‘potential risk’, a position which is not permissible under UK Law. In addition, the main reason why Ron Vigneri makes reference to ‘local groundwater wells’ in relation to unconventional drilling is because of known contamination from chemicals derived from fracking. Completely unacceptable, these deadly agents are examples of gross violations of pollution entering the water courseways, a legitimate concern documented by the Concerned Professionals of New York, to quote:

‘In Pennsylvania alone, the state has determined that more than 300 private drinking water wells have been contaminated or otherwise impacted as the result of drilling and fracking operations over an eight-year period. As determined by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the chemical contamination of some private water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania posed demonstrable health risks, rendering the water unsuitable for drinking’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p48

In relation to Ellesmere Port, the debasement of water quality is a potential problem, as IGas will be injecting significant volumes of hydrogen fluoride into the shale strata, just beneath the Sherwood water table, a body of water which is classified by the Environmental Agency as a ‘major, high vulnerability’ aquifer. In context to the evidence, the risks are sizable. Two serious examples of such contamination within public aquifers in the state of Texas and California have already occurred and are recorded in the Concerned Health Professionals of New York Report 2018, to quote:

‘Independently, researchers working in Texas found 19 different fracking-related contaminants – including cancer-causing benzene – in hundreds of drinking water samples collected from the aquifer overlying the heavily drilled Barnett Shale, thereby documenting widespread water contamination. In Pennsylvania, a solvent used in fracking fluid was found in drinking water wells near drilling and fracking operations known to have well casing problems. In California, state

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 20/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

regulators admitted that they had mistakenly allowed oil companies to inject drilling wastewater into aquifers containing clean, potable water’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p18

To emphasize, the risk to aquifers is no longer shown to be hypothetical but is real, and is evidenced in the United States in not ‘one water’ sample, but ‘in hundreds of drinking water samples collected from the aquifer overlying the heavily drilled Barnett Shale’. Disturbing, the conclusions from the United States is that large numbers of people en mass are routinely drinking poisonous water and under UK Law such an act is illegal. Emphatic, the evidence obtained from the United States show that the use of chemicals, additional to the added contaminants from flowback water, are known to compromise aquifers and the water supplies of ‘hundreds of drinking water samples’ . Consisting of chemical impurities, the high pollutants documented by the New York scientists are inimical to the wellbeing of thousands of people.

The total disregard for the livelihood of local populations and residents who live near to fracking zones are practices, which are shown to be unlawful. Numerous, the risks are now proven and to ignore them are indiscretions punishable by prison sentences. In other words, the acceptance of ‘widespread water contamination’ by medical jurisprudence translates in laymen terms to ‘widespread poisoning’ and jail sentences! The contravention of the law amounts to ‘corporate terrorism’, a ‘silent war’ being waged on the general population across the UK!

To compound the existing problem of spills, we now know that the failure rate of the type of well employed by IGas at the Ellesmere site is around the 50% mark within 15 years. Fallible, almost all petroleum wells will fail within 100 years. Unassailable, the only conclusion possible from the evidence available is the inexorable and systematic pollution of the Sherwood Aquifer, a culpable act which goes directly back to the doorstep of IGas.

A real concern for the health of local people, the proposition is not a question of ‘if’, but ‘when’? The viewpoint of possible harm is encapsulated in the admonishments of the Environmental Agency, which as stated that the water supply for Ellesmere is a ‘major, high vulnerability’ aquifer. The inevitable conclusion is that in time, statistically within a generation, the corruption of the well encasing will lead to the contamination of water, otherwise ‘potential’ and ‘actual risk’, which to repeat under the UK and European Water Supply Directives (98/83/EC) is inadmissible.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 21/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

To reframe the legal argument regarding fracking, there is no ‘debate’ or ‘ambiguity’, the evidence to date shows empirically, in the words of Medact UK that ‘a significant majority of the studies [from a large body] of 450 peer- reviewed studies’ state that fracking indicate both ‘risks’ and ‘actual adverse health outcomes’. These hazards are well known and translate as follows:

(1) 69% of scientific research shows ‘potential for or actual water

contamination’. (2) IGas’ drilling well, at some near point in the future with a 50% chance of

occurring in the next 15 years, will inundate Sherwood Aquifer with approximately 60% of the residual injection fluid of hydrogen fluoride, including poisonous additives of radioactive chemicals, that comprise of benzenes, heavy metals, cadmium, mercury and lead. Potentially devastating, the lethal mixture will inevitably flood the ground water with more than 360,000 gallons of poisonous chemicals. In short, a ticking time bomb! (3) The net outcome of this infraction upon Ellesmere Port will be the induction of the toxin hydrogen fluoride into the drinking water. A conspiracy of megalithic proportions. (4) Further information obtained suggest that the government’s insistence on

fluoridating the region of Chester are not benign, but are in fact pre- emptive measures to mask illegal pollution, a strategy quietly implemented by Public Health England. (5) Identical, the same attempted scheme to fluoridate Wakefield in West

Yorkshire was it seems also a pre-planned strategy to conceal anticipated water impairment from fluoride pollution by fracking. This attrition of water quality is directly attributed to unconventional mining. Predicted to cause significant and long term harm, the evidence suggests that the authorities have purposely used the veil of public health to issue fluoridation schemes across swathes of the UK, in order to cover up public liability. (6) In addition, the providence of harm with fluoride in the UK is now a

matter of fact and is delt with separately. For further details, please refer to Section A, Part (1) of this Report ‘The British Study and Evidence that Fluoridated Water Leads to an Increased Susceptibility to Thyroid Damage’, research conducted by Professor Stephen Peckham. Important, this Section outlines Professor Peckham’s demographic studies, which highlights mass poisoning attributed to the introduction of fluoride into water in the UK. (7) Professor Peckham’s paper is further corroborated in the United States

with the exact toxicological data retrieved from the National Research Council’s own extensive report on the effects of fluoridation.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 22/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

(8) The overwhelming evidence of levels of damage ascribed to fluoride added to drinking water supplies is covered in Sections B and C of this Report, a public health outcry that can no longer be denied. (9) Lastly the inception of fluoridation throughout the United States is one of the biggest healthcare deceptions of all times. Thinly disguised as a public health measure, the admixture of dangerous chemicals has effectively allowed for significant levels of fluoride (pollution) to go unmonitored in the water supply. These incursions prevent proper state intervention, a clever stratagem which is tied into the corporate and industrial complex. A proven certainty, this unfavourable set of circumstances is not a fallacy or conspiracy, but is proven in the medical data, given in Sections B and C of this Report.

Now that the authors of Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking (YLMAF) have identified hydrogen fluoride as the principle corrosive agent used routinely to dissolve rock in unconventional extraction of petroleum, we will direct our gaze towards the copious evidence of what fluoride does to the body. Section A of this Report will provide a general overview of fluoride and its caustic effects. Succeeding this presentation of evidence, Section B will follow up in detail with the empirical research from the National Academies. Significantly the National Research Centre in the United States has given exact toxicological data on fluoride. Conclusive, these figures demonstrate scientifically that fluoride within the water supply under the current interpretation of UK Law is in fact illegal.

In addition, the results of low level fluoride exposure also show significant harm, corresponding to the same measure found in the UK within contemporary fluoridation schemes. The introduction of potentially 600,000 gallons of industrial waste into the water supply at Ellesmere Port Cheshire and in multiple wells across Yorkshire will potentially exceed fluoridation limits. The failure to observe the perimeters of the ‘Maximum Contaminant Level Goal’ (MCLG), which according to the National Research Council should be zero for fluoride, will subject the population to increased risk to neurological damage, a severe health implication evaluated in the research of Professor Peckham discussed next in Section A, Part 1. As previously stated fluoride is a type of poison, which appears on the instruction label for hydrofluosilicic acid, shown in the following image.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 23/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Hydrofluosilicic acid used for fluoridation is a closely related compound to hydrofluoric acid (HF). Hydrofluosilicic acid also releases hydrogen fluoride, when mixed with water – a toxic substance used by fracking companies to disintegrate sedimentary rock and silica. On the printed label, it is clearly stated that hydrofluosilicic acid is a poison and should not be taken internally. In the UK under the penal codes, putting hydrofluosilicic acid into the water and thereby inflicting or increasing thyroid conditions within the general population (Professor Peckham’s work Section A Part 1) is breaking the law and is articulated in the ‘Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 23 Maliciously Administering Poison, &c. so as to Endanger Life or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm’. For further details on this law, please see YLMAF’s First Report.

Section A: Part (1) The British Study and Evidence that Fluoridated Water Leads to an Increased Susceptibility to Thyroid Damage (Professor Stephen Peckham)

According to Professor Stephen Peckham, Centre for Health Service Studies, University of Kent, 15,000 people are needlessly suffering from thyroid problems because of fluoride in drinking water. In his recent study 2015, the scientist demonstrated that the data suggests fluoride is linked to hypothyroidism, depression and weight gain (For further information on neurological impairment, please refer to resources at the end of this document). Professor Peckham noted the following:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 24/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Summary: There was 30% more hypothyroidism in women aged 40+ living in fluoridated areas of England than in women of the same age living in non- fluoridated areas of England. There was almost double the amount of hypothyroidism in women aged 40+ in the fluoridated West Midlands compared with women of the same age living in non-fluoridated Manchester. This was an observational study. Although it didn’t examine individual women, each woman had had a diagnosis from her GP/Hospital Consultant’.

  1. Peckham, D. Lowery and S. Spencer, Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England, Epedemiol Community Health 2015; 0: 1-6

Critical analysis of his study indicates that local councils should immediately stop adding the agent fluoride into drinking water. The figure of 15,000 injured people is similar in Japan to 20,000 people who were poisoned through the introduction of mercury into the water supply in the ‘Minamata Byou Case’. Unshakeable, the conclusion is that the inundation of toxic chemicals into the water supplies poisons whole populations and therefore under the UK Water Act and Section 23 of Criminal Law is illegal. To emphasise, the figures presented are real injuries, which are documented throughout numerous studies, indexed in the resources at the end of this Report, ‘References and Academic Studies Showing the Toxicity of Fluoride’.

With regards to Professor Peckham’s research into fluoride in drinking water, his findings are the most comprehensive study into fluoride poisoning conducted in the UK and looked at 98% of General Practices (GP) in England. Recorded in the NHS archives as a healthcare catastrophe, the high rates of underactive thyroid were 30% more likely in practices located in areas with fluoride levels in excess of 0.3mg/l. The researchers Peckham and Lowery compared regions to local registers from 7,935 General Practices covering around 95% of the English population in 2012 to 2013 with additional material completed in 2015. The reports demonstrate that there are major spikes in the number of cases of underactive thyroid in high fluoridated regions, such as the West Midlands and the North East of England. Lead author Professor Stephen Peckham, Centre for Health Service Studies said:

‘I think it is concerning for people living in those areas…The difference between the West Midlands, which fluoridates, and Manchester, which doesn’t was particularly striking. There were nearly double the number of cases in the West Midlands… Underactive thyroid is a particularly nasty thing to have and it can lead to other long term health problems. I do think councils need to think again about putting fluoride in the water. There are far safer ways to improve dental health’.

Professor Stephen Peckham, Centre for Health Service Studies

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 25/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Professor Stephen Peckham has denounced fluoridation in his review of the NHS data and maintains that local authorities must urgently rethink their public health policies, due to the adverse health effects of fluoride. This is not only imperative, but is a legal argument! Previous studies (Du L. 1992) have also found that fluoride inhibits the production of iodine, a chemical element essential for a healthy thyroid (Please see Sections B and C of this Report, which details the National Research Centre’s record of injury and are results which supports Professor Peckham’s findings). Significantly the point of entry for fluoride is not only through ingestion, but also skin absorption, to quote the Environmental Scientist Joy Warren BSc. (Hons) Env. Sci:

‘Women deficient in iodide and who live in a fluoridated area,… are more likely to experience hypothyroidism than those women who are not exposed to fluoridated tap water, particularly if they enjoy long hot baths. So, it’s no wonder that the incidence of hypothyroidism is greater in fluoridated areas where the main avenue for exposure to fluoride is via their kitchen and bathroom taps’.

Joy Warren, BSc. (Hons) Env. Sci., with Contributions from Douglas Cross, BSc(Hons), PGCE, CBiol, MIBiol, EurProBiol, Water Fluoridation: Safe and Effective?, 2ND February 2016, p36

In other words, if fracking is permitted, then the total introduction of 600,000 gallons of hydrogen fluoride into the water supply will not only compromise drinking water, but also its domestic application or usage. The proposal to inject over 17,158 oil barrels of fluoride under the Sherwood Aquifer under the Human Right Act I.1 General Comment No. 15 is illegal, as the Act stipulates that ‘the water required for each personal or domestic use must be safe’, a necessary protocol adopted by all member states throughout Europe.

Hydrogen fluoride and its use by the fracking operators remains such a toxic substance that it is easily absorbed directly into the skin, and according to the research of both Professor Peckham and Joy Warren BSc. (Hons) Env. Sci., can damage the thyroid gland and supporting structures. Examples of neurological and endocrinal damage are plainly seen in regions that fluoridate the water, which have ‘nearly double the number of cases… of Underactive thyroid [glands]’. Linked to hormonal and encephalic impairment, this deterioration to the cerebral and internal areas of the brain is unlawful and constitutes illicit poisoning, to quote Joy Warren BSc. (Hons) Env. Sci.:

‘Fluoride disrupts the functionality of the thyroid gland. Put simplistically, it substitutes for iodide and prevents the production of thyroid hormone… [To explain] C6 Fluoride is capable of crossing through cell membranes and entering our cells. Therefore it is not too difficult to see that poisoning can occur to our genetic material since DNA is held together with hydrogen bonds and fluoride

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 26/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

also forms strong bonds with hydrogen. As the above extract states, fluoride “can also be implicated in altering genetic expression as the helical shape of DNA and RNA can be affected.”’

Joy Warren, BSc. (Hons) Env. Sci., with Contributions from Douglas Cross, BSc(Hons), PGCE, CBiol, MIBiol, EurProBiol, Water Fluoridation: Safe and Effective?, 2ND February 2016, p71

Thus hydrogen fluoride, which ‘forms strong bonds with hydrogen’, not only alters brain chemistry but also affects human DNA, ‘since DNA is held together with hydrogen bonds’. Detailed, the analysis proffered by Joy Warren BSc. (Hons) Env. Sci. would also explain why the architecture of the body is fundamentally altered due to fluoride exposure, a process‘…implicated in altering genetic expression’, hence in regions which frack, the documented prevalence of neural tube defects and the increased susceptibility of birth deformity noted in Dr Mackenzie’s critical report, Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development, Colorado School of Public Health, 2014.

Fluoride Injury in India

Similar sentiments regarding human damage are also expressed by the scientist Dr. Robert J. Carton PhD and his editorial review of the National Research Council’s paper on fluoridation. Influential, the findings from the National Academy of Science and their related regulatory bodies is an extremely important survey. An esteemed toxicologist Dr. Robert J. Carton PhD has worked for over 30 years in the US federal government, writing regulations and managing risk assessments of toxic compounds. A senior scientist, he wrote the first regulations for controlling asbestos in the United States for the Environmental Protection Agency (1972-1992). In his review of the National Research Council’s Report ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water – A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency Standards’ published in 2006, he summarised the following concerns:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 27/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

National Research Council Appraisal of Evidence CONCLUSIONS ‘The National Research Council review includes extensive information on other possible health effects of fluoride, such as endocrine effects and effects on the brain. On the basis of this information and the proper interpretation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the following are all adverse health effects… decreased thyroid function, and detrimental effects on the brain, especially in conjunction with aluminium. The amount of fluoride necessary to cause these effects to susceptible members of the population is at or below the dose received from current levels of fluoride recommended for water fluoridation. The recommended Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water should be zero’.

Robert J. Carton PhD, Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, p163

The reference in the National Research Council’s own reviewal of its report ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water’ lists thyroid problems as an outcome of fluoride poisoning in public water supplies. Important, the National Research Council’s report is a leading cross-examination into fluoridation and its health effects. Moreover the data from the American Research Council predated Professor Peckham’s UK studies in 2012-2013 by seven years and anticipated all of his conclusions! The evidence cited within the UK’s epidemiological research possesses legally severe ramifications for the usage of hydrogen fluoride within the fracking industry. On the litigious issue of neurological damage, the most comprehensive investigation ever completed into fluoride conducted in the United States by the National Research Council is in total agreement with Professor Peckham’s largest comparative study in the UK. Both the NRC and Professor Peckham have documented the injurious impacts of fluoride, or to put it another way – SNAP!

Section A: Part (2) Industrial Problems

This section will look at a variety of sources and quotations that document the toxicity of fluoride within industry and the environment in general. A short summary of evidence, it is by no means comprehensive but it does present a general overview of problems that are associated with fluoride and its acute toxicity within industry, in conjunction to the general public and the environment. To quote a selection of experts:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 28/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Certainly there has been more litigation on alleged damage to agriculture by fluoride than all other pollutants combined’.

Dr Leonard Weinstein, Carnel University, 1983

‘Air born fluorides have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant’.

US Department of Agriculture, 1970

‘Between 1957 and 1968 – fluoride was responsible for more damage claims against industry than all twenty nationally monitored air pollutants combined’.

Dr Edward Groth, Senior Scientist, Consumer Union

‘Very few dentists are aware that fluoride in public water supplies is not a pharmaceutical grade product, but is an industrial waste from the phosphate industry’.

Christopher Bryston, The Fluoride Deception, 2004, Award Winning Journalist and Producer from the BBC

‘The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) Employee Union in the US (consisting of approximately 1,500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees) is opposed to water fluoridation. They object to fluoride due to… the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of water fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion’.

  1. Hirzy, Why EPA’s Headquarters Professional Union Opposes Fluoridation, May 1, 1999

The dangers of fluoride are summarised from the words of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), whose own members are against fluoride due to ‘hazards to human health from such ingestion’. These known hazards include neurological and thyroid damage (Professor Peckham UK & the National Research Council US) combined with decreased brain function (Dr. Mullenix, Harvard). For the voluminous evidence which shows that fluoride harms teeth and health, please consult Appendix 1 Dental Myths and Fluoride at the end of this Report.

The statement from the Environment Protection Agency in the United States is clear that fluoride in water is ‘hazard[ous] to human health from such ingestion’. The inference is that if the UK Government permits IGas or any other fracking company to use hydrofluoric acid, it will be breaking the law, as in the words of the Scottish Review Panel ‘the number, proportion, or volume of chemicals [of injection fluids] that the industry uses… may not be safe’.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 29/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

From the numbers quoted, YLMAF have estimated that the amount of hydrogen fluoride used by the fracking companies will total approximately 600,000 gallons. Listed as a known deadly agent, it is contended that with this amount (17,158 oil barrels) it is inevitable that fluoride will contaminate the groundwater and aquifers. Illicit, the utilisation of hydrogen fluoride is in many European countries not sanctioned, and this is due to the chemical’s toxicity. Baneful, the potency of hydrogen fluoride is also one of the principle reasons why France has decided to ban fracking, to prevent harm and protect its water supply, to quote:

‘… the legal representative for the French prime minister argued that the fracking ban, even as a precautionary pre-emptive ban, was justified because of fracking’s use of potentially noxious chemical additives [e.g. hydrogen fluoride]. He claimed on behalf of the government that legislation is necessary to protect France’s water supply and to protect the environment around potential fracking sites’…

Global Energy Review, News and Analysis of Energy Law and Regulation, 2013, p1

A lawful ruling, France argued that it was a requirement of National Security to preserve its supply of fresh drinking water. The same prerequisite exists also in the UK and is mandated under the UK and European Water Laws. The introduction of 600,000 gallons of hydrogen fluoride into the water table will compromise local populations. In particular, the damage to children is especially an emotive issue and is given credence in the studies presented by the Harvard affiliated Dr Mullenix, whose research demonstrates that if the UK allows hydrogen fluoride into its water supply, the government will be wilfully breaking the law, a penalty which is subject to the penal codes (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 23: Maliciously Administering Poison, &c. so as to Endanger Life or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm). The theoretical position is no longer academic, but is further substantiated by Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at the Environmental Protection Agency’s data on fluoride, who stated that:

‘The E.P.A. [Environmental Protection Agency] should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects’.

Allan Freeze, The Fluoride Wars, How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America’s Longest Running Political Melodrama, JH Lehr & J Wiley Son Inc., 2009, p268

Factual, the subject of fluoride poisoning is covered in over a thousand studies, a selection of over hundred of these papers (supporting documentation) are given at the end of this Report, showing the toxicity of this chemical. Detrimental to humans, the contamination of water with fluoride is identified throughout

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 30/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

scientific research, to result in brain damage expressed markedly in the diminished IQs of children who are exposed to this destructive agent. A disastrous situation, the calamity which the British Government faces is a major topic of discussion and is presented in the data proffered by Dr Mullenix, outlined next…

Section A: Part (3) Developmental Toxicity of Fluoride and its Related Effects upon Children and Emergent IQ

There have been more than a total of 50 studies recently which have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and a total of 34 papers have examined the link between fluoride and learning & memory in animals. Of these investigations, 43 of the 50 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ. In addition, 32 of the 34 animal studies have established that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and / or memory capacity of animals. Extremely problematic, the human studies based upon the IQ examinations of over 11,000 children provide persuasive evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.

After reviewing 27 of the human IQ studies, a team of Harvard scientists concluded that fluoride’s effect on the young brain should now be a ‘high research priority’ (Choi, et al 2012). Other reviewers have reached similar conclusions, including the prestigious National Research Council (NRC), and their scientists in the Neuro-Toxicology Division of the Environmental Protection Agency (Mundy, et al).

Second and perhaps even more troublesome, the association between fluoride and reduced IQ in children is predicted by and entirely consistent with a large body of other evidence, from studies in the UK (Peckham) and China (X. Li et al. 1995; Zhao et al. 1996; Lu et al. 2000; Xiang et al. 2003). In addition, animal research has repeatedly found that fluoride impairs the learning and memory capacity of rats under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. An even larger body of animal research has found that fluoride can directly damage the brain in a study under Dr. Mullenix (former leading toxicologist at the Forsyth Dental Centre, Harvard Affiliated). Dr. Mullenix stated:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 31/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats ‘The pattern that we saw typically is what we see with other neuro-toxic agents that are well known to cause hypo-activity or a memory problem or an IQ problem. When I first presented the results of the studies to one of the chief scientists sitting and listening to the results, he said “Do you have any idea of what you are saying. You are telling us that we are reducing the IQ of children”, and basically I said “yes”…’.

Dr. Mullenix, Leading Toxicologist, Forsyth Dental Centre (Harvard Affiliated)

In the Forsyth Dental Centre study, a Harvard affiliated organisation, Dr. Mullenix developed new methods for sampling brain tissue to analyse neurological damage. Supplemental findings of brain injury have also been confirmed in studies of aborted human foetuses from high-fluoride areas. Please see ‘Resources’ at the end of this Report that indexes a number of scientific papers on fluoride and neuro-toxicity.

Summary When considering research into fluoride, it is very unlikely that the 43 human studies finding associations between fluoride and reduced IQ can all be down to a random fluke, a submission which is substantiated in multiple animal studies. The question today, therefore, is less whether fluoride reduces IQ, but at what dose, and how this dose varies based upon individual case studies, for example, nutrition, health status, and exposure to other contaminants. Other serious concerns include fluoride’s effect on children born to women with suboptimal iodine intake during the trimester of pregnancy, and / or fluoride’s effects on infants and toddlers with suboptimal iodine intake. Further samples of human brain damage consistent with fluoride as a neurotoxin appear in the Mexican Study (Section A: Part 5 of this Report), and is a data trail which encapsulates general neurological impairment discussed next in Part 4.

Section A: Part (4) General Studies Appertaining to the Brain and Nervous System Including Internal Organs and the Detriment of Fluoride

The purpose of this section is to look critically into the industrial introduction of fluoride into water via fracking and its potential impact. The aim is to cite a cross selection of current and up to date scientific papers. Diverse, many of these separate studies incontrovertibly demonstrate fluoride’s toxicity on the body’s internal major organs. Evidence of fluoride’s destructive effects on the brain and central nervous system continues to mount. Among animal studies, chronic

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 32/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

fluoride exposure in rats has been found to result in detrimental changes in the sciatic nerve, spinal cord, and hippocampus and neo-cortex of the brain (Reddy et al., 2011); changes in the expression of several brain proteins, including those involved with cell signalling, energy metabolism, and protein metabolism (Ge et al., 2011); and changes in the structure and function of the synaptic interface, which would likely result in altered transmission of neural information (Zhu et al., 2011). In concordance, Spittle (2011) concluded that ‘there is no threshold for fluoride neurotoxicity in drinking water, and the only assuredly safe level is zero’. Similar sentiments are also expressed in the widely publicized Valdez- Jiménez study (2011), the researcher argued that:

‘The prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system. Therefore, it is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride’.

Valdez-Jiménez L, Soria Fregozo C, Miranda Beltrán ML, et al. 2011. Effects of the Fluoride on the Central Nervous System, Neurología 26(5):297-300.

Section A: Part (5) Neuro-Toxin Effects of Fluoride (The Mexican Study)

A large base study in Mexico found evidence that fluoride inhibits intelligence. In addition to assessing the result of fluoride on IQ, the Mexican team investigated the effects of arsenic (a by-product of fluoride waste from fracking). Based on their data, the authors Valdez-Jiménez and Soria Fregozo concluded that:

‘Fluoride and arsenic in drinking water have a potential neuro-toxic effect in children. It is urgent that public health measures to reduce exposure levels be implemented. Millions of people around the world are exposed to these pollutants and are therefore potentially at risk for negative impact on intelligence. This risk may be increased where other factors affecting central nervous system development, such as malnutrition and poverty, are also present. The risk is particularly acute for children, whose brains are particularly sensitive to environmental toxins. Furthermore, it would be advisable to re-examine the benefits of fluoride given the documented health risks’.

Valdez-Jiménez L, Soria Fregozo C, Miranda Beltrán ML, et al. 2011, Effects of the Fluoride on the Central Nervous System, Neurología 26(5):297-300.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 33/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The Mexican study argued that ‘It is urgent that public health measures to reduce exposure levels [of fluoride] be implemented’, whereas counter to reason in the UK the government are going to permit the fracking contractors to inject millions of gallons of hydrogen fluoride into the ground water and aquifers. The Mexican studies also stated that ‘Furthermore, it would be advisable to re- examine the benefits of fluoride given the documented health risks’.

The health benefits of fluoride is cited to be the prevention of tooth decay, which has already been studied by Professor Dr. Hardy Limeback (The Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto Canada with a PhD in Biochemistry and President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research) and Professor Dr. John Colquohoun (New Zealand’s Former Chief Dental Officer). Although these two separate senior healthcare officials are from different countries, their independent population studies into fluoride are in total agreement and show that exposure to fluoride in water damages teeth. For more information, please consult Appendix 1 ‘Dental Myths and Fluoride’.

The justification therefore for permitting fluoride into water is not found within the data, and its toxicological effects are well known. Perhaps more alarming, the combination of fluoride and the chemical benzene from unconventional petroleum extraction increases the risk of possible birth defects, shown from the research of Dr MacKenzie, Colorado School of Public Health (2014), and is backed up in earlier studies outlined in Section A Part 6.

Section A: Part (6) Foetus Damage and Fluoride

Studies in China have shown without doubt that the passage of fluorine through the placenta of mothers with chronic fluorosis and its accumulation within the brain of the foetus impacts the developing central nervous system. In addition, the build-up of fluoride stunts neuron development, to quote this time the Chinese Journal of Pathology:

‘Fluoride damage to cell structures was multifaceted. Cell membranes, mitochondria, rough endoplasmic reticulum, and nuclear membranes could all be damaged at the time of fluorosis’.

SOURCE: Du L. (1992), The Effect of Fluorine on the Developing Human Brain, Chinese Journal of Pathology 21 (4): 218-20; Republished in Fluoride 2008

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 34/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

In regions of industrial fracking, similar findings have been found which pertain to serious neural-tube defects, a problem worth highlighting in context to unconventional petroleum extraction and known side effects of pollution, to quote the Concerned Health Professionals of New York’s report:

‘Studies of mothers living near oil and gas extraction operations consistently find impairments to infant health, including elevated risks for low birth weight and preterm birth. A 2017 study that examined birth certificates for all 1.1 million infants born in Pennsylvania found poorer indicators of infant health and significantly lower birth weights among babies born to mothers living near fracking sites. A 2015 Pennsylvania study found a 40 percent increase in the risk of preterm birth among infants born to mothers who lived nearby active drilling and fracking sites. A 2014 Colorado study found elevated incidence of neural tube defects and congenital heart defects. New studies in Texas and Colorado likewise found associations with infant deaths, high-risk pregnancies, and low birth weight.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p19

Virtually the same deductions are found in the compiled data of Freni’s research paper of 1994, in which there is a clear negative association found between high fluoride levels in drinking water and lower birth rates. The statistics appears to indicate an increase within sterility inside of fluoridated regions (SC Freni, Exposure to High Fluoride Concentrations in Drinking Water is Associated with Decreased Birth Rates, J Toxicol Environ Health, 1994, 42(1): 109-21).

In another separate report submitted directly to the York Committee in 1999 and published in the York Review in 2000, the author Packington concluded that foetal, prenatal and infant mortality, inclusive of congenital malformations and Down Syndrome are all higher in fluoridated areas of England. Congenital malformations indicate damage to the DNA, a corollary evident in uninhibited growth in bone and teeth (hypermineralisation), which mirror many of the characteristics of uncontrolled division of abnormal cells found in cancer patients, who are exposed to fluoride – Section A: Part 7 of this Report.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 35/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Section A: Part (7) Fluoride and the Cancer Link – Dr. Dean Burk, National Cancer Institute Testimonial Before Congress

Dr. Dean Burk, a highly respected chemist who worked for the National Cancer Institute, testified before Congress in 1971 that he believed fluoridation to have caused about 10% of all cancer deaths. That amounted to approximately 61,000 people per year. If this figure is correct, then we should see, in areas subjected to unconventional petroleum extraction, similar rises in cancer cases. Non- preventable, the large growth predicted would in part be due to the known toxicological effects of hydrogen fluoride, from profuse exposure to hundreds of thousands of gallons of the chemical injected into the strata throughout multiple wells across the country. The proposed application to frack, when given the prolific amounts of evidence, is a crime. Dr. Dean Burk PhD, an early practitioner of the prestigious American Cancer Institute and a member for 34 years, stated before Congress in 1971:

‘In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical’.

Dr. Dean Burk PhD, National Institute of Cancer, Testimonial Before Congress, 1971

Dr. Dean Burk’s early concerns are also reflected in contemporary journals in the 2006 study by Elise Bassin, a peer reviewed paper published in the Journal titled ‘Cancer Causes and Control’, her research found a 500% increased risk for osteosarcoma (an aggressive form of bone cancer) in boys exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th to 8th years (Bassin et al., 2006). The Researcher C. Lynch also found the same trend, in which long term consumption of fluoride led to an increased likelihood of tumours. For further details, please refer to Dr. C Lynch’s Paper ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water and State of Iowa Cancer Incidence’ (The University of Iowa, 1985).

The introduction of hundreds of thousands of gallons of hydrogen fluoride from hydraulic drilling would inevitably entail a cancer pandemic in children, in addition to the adult population. Unlawful, this risk is easily rectified. Put simply, don’t pollute the water with a known carcinogen and ban the use of fluorides for the industrial use of unconventional petroleum extraction. It is to be noted that there are several unsettling trends regarding fluoride present within water and its known detrimental outcomes. Further to neurological damage, medical studies published throughout the world have also proven that the exposure to fluoride in drinking water can lead to the following obnoxious symptoms:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 36/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

  • Structural damage of the renal cortex in the kidneys of female mice (Abdo et al., 2011).
  • Reduced viability of bone-forming cells (osteoblasts) (Yang et al. 2011).
  • Reduced ability of bone cells (osteocytes) to respond to mechanical usage (Willems et al., 2011).
  • Insulin resistance in rats (Lupo et al., 2011). These rats had a plasma fluoride level similar to those found in humans consuming an ‘average’ amount of fluoride from fluoridated water and other sources (Environment Protection Agency).
  • Dental fluorosis, signifying fluoride overexposure (Leite GAS, et al. 2011).
  • Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water associated with decreased birth rates. (Freni SC., 1994).
  • Increased susceptibility to cancer (Douglass CW and Joshipura K. (2006),Cancer Causes & Control. 17 (4): 481–82 / and in the UK Oral / Pharyngeal Cancer (Chilvers and Conway 1985).

Summing up all of these studies on fluoride pollution and its known repercussions on human health, the position intrinsically questions the legality of fracking operations and their exploitation of hydrogen fluoride to fracture rocks. The use of such dangerous chemicals essentially constitutes a conspiracy to commit criminal and wilful damage, including grievous physical harm. These are serious allegations and more so because we know of the health implications equated with water contamination with fluoride that has been systematically documented in dozens of case studies throughout the world.

The implication of such findings is best perhaps highlighted in the toxicological data obtained from the National Research Council, covered in Sections B and C of this Report. A bombshell of seismic proportions, the test results from the American Academies show without ambiguity, physical harm attributed to fluoride and its introduction into water. Furthermore, the calculation of injury is known and is listed by the National Research Council at specific quantities, exact measurements which possess legal ramifications for the UK Government and its issuance of fracking applications. Please refer to Section B…

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 37/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Section B: The Facts The Case Against Hydrogen Fluoride and its Use within Fracking Statistical and Empirical Data of Damage Correlated with Fluoride From the National Research Council

Section B will clearly demonstrate compelling evidence that current data exists within the public domain of the possible and numerous adverse side effects of fluoride from fracking. Much of this evidence has been gathered by the National Research Council from the American National Academies who wrote the largest report in the world on the health effects of water fluoridation based upon over a thousand studies. The details of this very important report are listed as follows:

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006

Details National Research Council Author No. 72 People on the Board Number of Pages 449 Pages Bibliography Pages 60 Pages References / Studies Approximately 1,000 Date 2006

Corroborated through many scientific and peer reviewed journals, the evidence quoted in this seminal document is counter to the UK Public Health England’s own official position that fluoride in water presents no appreciable risk. To emphasize, the studies in the National Research Council’s report are founded upon scientific data that is cross referenced with multiple academic studies completed throughout the world. The conclusions are unanimous and show emphatically that there exist multiple problems with fluoridation schemes and by proxy fluoride contamination from fracking.

The outcome is unambiguous, if hydrogen fluoride is released into the water supply in great quantities through unconventional drilling, the health of thousands of people will be negatively affected, a legal position which has been accepted in the French, German, Netherlands, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish parliaments. To disregard what the other European nations have stated in relation to fracking and its health implications is unlawful. Furthermore, the intellectual and legal position is neglectful of the Water Laws which prevents ‘potential damage’, a risk inherent to the releasing of 600,000 gallons of hydrogen fluoride (equivalent to 17,158 oil barrels) into the bedrock, a number which corresponds to each well.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 38/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Before however we deconstruct the National Research Council’s results, Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking (YLMAF) will quickly summarise the review of the National Academies’ own statistics, their results are listed below and show actual damage from fluoride pollution at levels similar to those for fluoridation schemes found in the UK. Unlawful, the exact figures relative to harm are given as follows:

Fluoride Data: Review of the National Research Council Report 2006

(1) Chronic Toxcity ‘Moderate dental fluorosis is an adverse health effect occurring at fluoride levels of 0.7–1.2mg/L, the levels of water fluoridation’.

Robert J Carton, Ph.D. Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, p171

(2) Musculo-Skeletal Disorders ‘Stage 1 skeletal fluorosis (arthritis, clinically manifested as pain and stiffness in joints) is an adverse health effect which may be occurring with a daily fluoride intake of 1.42mg/day, which is less than the amount the average person already obtains in their diet in non-fluoridated areas. The Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) should be zero’.

Robert J Carton, Ph.D. Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, p171

(3) Thyroid ‘Decreased thyroid function is an adverse health effect, particularly to individuals with inadequate dietary iodine. These individuals could be affected with a daily fluoride dose of 0.7*mg/day (for a ‘standard man’). Since this is less than the amount already in the diet, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) should be zero’.

Robert J Carton, Ph.D. Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, p171/ [* In the UK, Professor Peckham’s Report showed excessive harm to the thyroid gland at just 0.3mg of fluoride in drinking water – half the levels of the National Council’s published results.]

(4) Endocrine Disorder ‘Glucose tolerance was identified as occurring in humans at levels as low as 0.07 mg/kg/day or 4.9 mg/day for a 70-kg man. Either of these effects could occur at water fluoridation levels of 1mg/L to some people with the high water intakes identified in the report’.

Robert J Carton, Ph.D. Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, p169

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 39/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

(5) Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects ‘The committee also cited research indicating adverse health effects such as lower IQ in children, behavioural, and histopathological changes in the brains of laboratory animals (some of these resembling the brains of Alzheimer’s patients), cerebral impairment of humans, and enhancement of effects in the presence of aluminium. The report concludes: “fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means… An appropriate safety factor does not have to be mentioned to see clearly that fluoridation at 1mg/L cannot be considered acceptable for an MCLG [the recommended Maximum Contaminant Level Goal]’.

Robert J Carton, Ph.D. Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, pp170-171

In case we are left in any doubt as to the level of expertise, the report summary based on the National Research Council is a part of the National Academies and includes the crème de le crème of American intelligentsia, including the National Academy of Science, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. A main advisory body on government legislation, the National Research Council recommendations are produced and overseen by the Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology.

To clarify, the National Research Council’s report is the largest review of the evidence outlining the toxicity of fluoride. The American survey into fluoride is an objective study, which is based upon 70 years of fluoridation in the United States, from which proportionally a larger quantity of public data is available. More importantly the Research Council gives specific doses of fluoride consumption and human toxicology based upon scientific results.

In context to the evidence outlined, the introduction of 17,158 oil barrels of hydrogen fluoride into the water supply through fracking will do irreparable damage to the human population and the natural environment. Completely unacceptable, the projected amounts of noxious chemicals which are currently used by the petroleum companies to fracture rocks are, when analysed according to the National Research Council’s own figures, proven to be unsafe and therefore illegal. The data points of fluoride levels relative to contamination are given by the National Research Council as follows:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 40/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The Toxicity Levels of Fluoride Data Summary of National Research Council, Figures Including Both UK and American Results Harmful Effects at 1mg/L (and below) Data Points Skeletal Fluorosis 1mg/L Dental Fluorosis 0.7-1.2mg/L Dental Mottling 1ppm Increase within Bone Cancer Rates 1mg/L – 500% [Dr. Elise Bassin study] Increase in Tyroid Disorders 0.3 mg/L – 30% [Professor Peckham] Brain Damage 0.7-1mg/L [Dr. Mullenix, Harvard] Fertility 1.5-14.5mg/L

The published information within the National Research Council’s massive and comprehensive report is not ‘conjecture’, but is ‘factual’ and ‘evidence based’. Not surprisingly the members of the National Council’s established and illustrious institution endorse the immediate cessation of fluoride within water supplies throughout the United States demonstrated in their ‘Review of Evidence’ by their senior toxicologist Robert J Carton in 2006, of the same year as the publication of the National Research Council’s report. Unequivocal, the ‘best evidence’ to date indicates long term adverse health problems associated with fluoridation in the United States and equally in the United Kingdom.

The implications from the studies obtained from the American Academies show numerous problems with the methodology of unconventional hydraulic fracturing. If the unsatisfactory position regarding unconventional drilling is left unchecked, the industry will poison the population of Yorkshire with millions of gallons of hydrogen fluoride – the industry’s ‘big secret’. A dangerous and toxic substance, this perspective is emphasized in the words of the former chief engineer Ron Vigneri who helped to invent fracking, to recap:

‘The big nasty “secret” in fracking fluids is predominantly the hydrogen Fluoride… [a] high hazard chemical that is used, but [is] never talked about…, Hydrogen fluoride is a chemical compound that contains fluorine. Hydrogen fluoride (HF) goes easily and quickly through the skin and into the tissues in the body, damaging cells and causing them to not work properly. Breathing hydrogen fluoride can damage lung tissue and cause swelling and fluid accumulation in the lungs (pulmonary oedema). Skin contact with hydrogen fluoride may cause severe burns that develop after several hours and form skin ulcers. Swallowing only a small amount may be fatal…

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 41/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Application [to frack] in populated areas or areas with many local groundwater wells is not a good idea…The public and legislatures need to be fully informed as to the fracturing process technology and not screened by claimed trade secrets when hazardous chemicals can affect residential areas’.

Ron Vigneri, Fracking’s Big Secret, For Star News Media

Modern Protective Clothing Worn to Guard Workers Against Fluoride Exsposure

What Ron Vigneri says about hydrogen fluoride is not a point of controversy, but has been established as ‘fact’. The levels of fluoride introduced into the drinking water supplies in order to cause harm is extremely low, less than one part per million. So the question remains, ‘Is it legally permissible for fracking operators to administer the equivalent of 17,158 oil barrels of hydrogen fluoride under the Sherwood Aquifer?’ The legal answer of course is NO! Sooner or later, senior people will be taken to task over the decision to frack in residential areas and (if the law is followed) will be jailed for their crimes. These allegations against the corporate interest are not a matter of speculation, but when reviewed in context to the evidence remain a judicial certainty!

According to the National Research Council, in each case the minimum measurement of fluoride needed to impact upon health is below one particle per million, to quickly quote the senior toxicologist from the Environmental Protection Agency, Dr Robert J Carton, Ph.D and his ‘Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report’. Precise, the disseminated figures are extremely accurate and are obtained from the American Research Academy –

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 42/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

the largest systematic Review in the world on fluoridation and its toxicological effects. Without contention, the evidence is clear and is summarised in the Table below:

National Research Council Fact Sheet Data Summary Results of Fluoride Toxicity Disease Definition Fluoride Levels Attributed to Disease Chronic Toxicity 0.7–1.2mg/L, the Levels of Water Fluoridation Musculoskeletal Disorders 1.42mg/per day – Recommended Level Zero Thyroid 0.3mg (women) / – 0.7mg per day (for a ‘Standard

Man’) Endocrine As Low 1mg/L per day (Vulnerable Groups) Neurotoxicity 1mg/L Suboptimum for Contamination Level

The National Research Council and in particular the appraisal of its own report, ‘Review of 2006 United States National Research Council Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water’ by Dr Robert J Carton, PhD., a senior toxicologist from the Environmental Health Agency, stated an immediate reversal of policy on the subject of permitting fluoride into the water supply. Perhaps even more surprising, the senior toxicologist argued that the science for fluoride in drinking water typically found in fluoridation schemes was based upon fraudulent claims. To elucidate, Dr Carton’s own unshakeable conviction articulated in his own words:

‘[I became] aware of possible scientific fraud in the development of the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards for fluoride in drinking water and convinced the union to challenge the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] in court’.

Dr Robert J Carton, Ph.D, Review of 2006 United States National Research Council Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006, p163, Footnote (a)

These are formidable claims from a senior scientist, who wrote the first safety protocols for asbestos in the United States enforcing regulatory limits to reduce industrial discharges of the lethal mineral from manufacturing plants. In his review, Dr Robert J. Carton highlights the stark contradictions within the fluoridation policy that according to the National Research Council’s analysis is injuring thousands of people each year. A similar claim of fraud with regards to fluoride was made by Dr. Professor Albert Schatz, Microbiology, Co-Discover of the Antibiotic Streptomycin, The Cure for Tuberculosis and Related Microbial Infections, a major player in the history of 20th Century medicine, he stated:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 43/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Indeed fluoridation is the greatest and potentially the most dangerous medical hoax not only in the present century but of all time. In other words it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud’.

Philip R. N. Sutton, D. D. sc (Melb) L.D.S, F.R.A.C.D.S, The Greatest Fraud, Fluoridation, (Preface)

Likewise, Professor Dr. Limeback (President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research) has himself made virtually the same allegations of fraud as Dr. Professor Albert Schatz (Microbiology) and Dr. Robert J Carton (PhD., a Senior Toxicologist from the Environmental Health Agency). Professor Dr. Limeback (Associate Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry from the University of Toronto) has stated on public record that…

‘Those who continue to promote fluoride are working with data that is fifty years old and questionable at best. The dentists have absolutely no training in toxicity… Your well intentioned dentist is simply following fifty years of misinformation from public health and dental association. Me too, unfortunately, we were wrong… Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind… The truth was a bitter pill to swallow, but swallow it I did’.

Dr Hardy Limeback, President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research and Head of Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto

These are powerful words from some of the world’s foremost experts, and what is more, are claims which, when evaluated in light of the evidence, are proven to be true. This is because it is now known that the usage of fluoride to prevent tooth decay can no longer be medically substantiated. The evidence obtained from the World Health Organisation’s own figures (2012) detailing the largest study in the world on tooth decay indicates that the margin of error within the data of fluoridated regions weigh heavily against fluoride. Please refer to the Tables supplied in Appendix 1 Dental Myths and Fluoride at the end of this Report for scientific confirmation of the harmful effects of fluoride on teeth.

In addition, the supporting research from other countries around the world also empirically proves not only does fluoride causes injury to teeth (enamel fluorosis), but it also affects physically the body, including elevated rates of cancer (Mahoney MC, et al. American Journal of Public Health, 1991), brain damage (Lu Y, et al Fluoride 33:74-78, 2000), and birth defects (Sharma R, et al. 2008).

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 44/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

There is then no ‘debate’, the science has already been established. To restate, the American National Research Council conducted the most comprehensive methodological study in the world on the toxicological levels of fluoride within drinking water. We might therefore speculate about the migration patterns of killer whales, but there is no ‘conjecture’ or ‘guesswork’ with regards to fluoride. The figures are known and are published in peer reviewed journals. This is not a lazy ‘opinion’, ‘theory’, ‘postulation’, ‘hypothesize’, ‘supposition’ or ‘guesswork’, the figures are ‘FACT’, in much the same way that medical science has established the ‘fact’ that ‘plutonium’ is dangerous to living organisms. There is then no debate, and the argument that such a debate exists is in itself spurious and casuistic in its reasoning.

The authors at YLMAF will say this clearly to Public Health England and the British Medical Council to ignore the American National Research Council’s data and to pretend that there is a discussion on the safe levels of fluoride in drinking water is dishonest and potentially very dangerous, to repeat the UK Medical Council’s misleading and legally dubious position on water fluoridation:

2.2. Risk management [Water Fluoridation] ‘From a public health perspective, the aim is to optimise the overall improvement in population health, while taking account of any differences in susceptibility within the population. To achieve this requires quantitative estimates of the various dose effect relationships… In the absence of an agreed, universally applicable, common metric…, such comparisons cannot be performed objectively and precisely… This is not simply a matter of science – it involves value judgements, and individuals may weigh the risks, benefits and attendant uncertainties differently… In an era when ‘science’ is under increasing public and political scrutiny, and in which the media can generate unrealistic and unachievable expectations of certainty or ‘proof’, there is a need to communicate honestly and openly about the levels of certainty that can and cannot be inferred from research findings. Uncertainty is an inherent feature of science and medicine, but this is a concept that seems not to be well understood by the public’.

Working Group Report, Water Fluoridation and Health, Medical Research Council, 2002, pp7-8

Castigating the UK Medical Research Council, individuals may weigh up these ‘risks…differently’ but when the level of danger has already been established by the American National Research Council, if those hazards are flagrantly ignored, then there is a legal breach of trust and law suits will follow, as night follows day. This is not a ‘vote of confidence’, the politic of fluoride concerns the well- being of everyone within Yorkshire and further a field, such as the people of

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 45/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Ellesmere Port. Unless the British Medical Council can proof scientifically that America’s cleverest scientists and intellectuals are ‘wrong’, and their figures on the toxicity of fluoride are ‘incorrect’, then they cannot rewrite the law.

The Medical Council do not have the legal authority nor impunity to disregard the figures and weigh up the ‘risks differently’. This course of action is not only ‘wrong’, but is a medical conspiracy with intent to harm the general public, and benefits only the corporate interests. The permission of fracking operators to use 17,158 oil barrels of hydrogen fluoride per well without oversight constitutes toxic pollution, a collusion disguised flimsily through the pretext of public fluoridation schemes. Unlawful, these social programs are demonstrated to induce neurological harm at just 0.3mg demonstrated in the UK studies by Professor S. Peckham, D. Lowery and S. Spencer (Epedemiol Community Health 2015; 0: 1-6).

Prolific, the evidence of injury due to fluoride in water can no longer be repudiated and therefore under the regulations of the UK Water Act is a substance that at levels of just 0.3mg is proven to be a ‘poison’ and in breach of the law (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 23 Maliciously Administering Poison, &c. so as to Endanger Life or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm). In context to the argument that fluoride is pernicious, it can be clearly shown that the substance is a ‘poison’ from the Latin verb ‘potare’ (to drink), to quote the Oxford English Dictionary:

Definition of a ‘Poison’ (1) Poison – a substance that when introduced into or absorbed by a living

organism causes illness or death. (2) Chemistry – a substance that reduces the activity of a catalyst. (3) Something has a destructive or corrupting influence.

Oxford Dictionary of English 2e Revised, Oxford University Press, 2005, [poison]

In each of these concise definitions, the substance fluoride meets all of the criteria for a ‘poison’ and is explained carefully in the listed bullet points below. To reiterate, each of the documented specifications correspond with the Oxford English Dictionary’s interpretation of a ‘poison’. The employment thereof 600,000 gallons of hydrogen fluoride by fracking companies constitutes a poisonous level, a definition which directly contradict the UK Water Law Statues, which presuppose that ‘potential risk’ is negated. To summarise, fluoride meets the standard and legal definition of a poison:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 46/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Definition of a ‘Poison’ – Fluoride (1) Fluoride is absorbed into the tissues and bones through touch and or

ingestion and causes skeletal-fluorosis, and is a cacogenic and mutagenic agent. Studies have also shown elevated mortality rates in fluoridated regions (Smith, Water and Cancer Mortality in 20 Large US Cities. NZ Med J 1980; 91:413-16) and in the UK Packington’s research demonstrated increased infant mortality.

(2) Fluoride interrupts cell activity, thus affecting enzymes within the body,

catalysts or chemical signals that are designed to bring about biochemical reactions. Fluorine chemicals for example can disrupt hormones within the brain leading to thyroid problems and can also interfere with the human sex hormone, thus affecting the fertility of men and women at just 3mg/L (Freni, 1994).

(3) As fluoride is a corrosive element upon the body and compromises the

living structures of the brain, internal organs and cellular structure of the bones, then fluoride technically falls under the rubric of a destructive or corruptive influence, by definition a ‘poison’.

(4) On perhaps a more speculative note, it is claimed by the NHS that 80% of

older men will have cancer cells in their prostrate by the age of 80. Despite what the general public is being told, this set of circumstances is highly irregular and cannot in anyway be considered as ‘normal’! Although no studies have been done into ‘fluoride’ and ‘prostatic cancer’ (that YLMAF know of), the high figures of prostate tumours in the ‘developed world’ are highly suggestive of fluoride poisoning. According to the research of Susheela and Jethanandani 1996, ‘fluoride effects the reproductive hormonal environment’, and therefore in men would presumably affect the correct functioning of the prostate gland.

The evidence therefore indicates that fluoride is a ‘poison’ and is also a theoretical position acknowledged within the Review of the American National Research Council. The legal interpretation that the substance hydrogen fluoride is a poison in context to fracking has legal connotations, as noxious agents are not permitted into the water supply under the Water Act. The release of deadly chemicals in the case of petroleum contractors would legally exceed ‘potential risk’ by 17,158 oil barrels (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 23 Maliciously Administering Poison, &c. so as to Endanger Life or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm).

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 47/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Far-reaching, the conclusions of the National Research Council are devastating for the unconventional petroleum industry and completely impede the legal justification for fluoride contamination in drinking water via fracking. Infusion of water with fluoride in many areas of Europe constitutes a federal crime within the Member States. Let’s then look at the medical documentation of the harmful effects of fluoride. Legally resolute under the Water Act, the UK cannot lawfully permit hundreds of thousands of gallons of fluoride hydrogen to be pumped into petroleum wells around residential sites. This travesty will eventually contaminate community supplies of water and precipitate an unmitigated environmental and human disaster.

FLUORIDE CONTAMINATION FROM FRACKING IS A CRIME!

WE MUST ACT NOW IMMEDIATELY TO PRESERVE THE WORLD’S FRESH WATER SUPPLY FROM HYDRAULIC DRILLING AND ITS USE OF HYDROGEN FLUORIDE

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 48/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

<Section C> What the Experts Say National Research Council – Proof of the Toxicity of Fluoride a Short Summary of the Findings of the American National Academies in Combination with the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology

Section C of YLMAF’s Report is arguably the most important part of the evidence, as it covers in total over 40 diseases that are caused by fluoride. Abridged, the following quotations and analysis are taken from the largest single report completed on the effects of fluoride upon the living system. Peer reviewed, the paper was published in Washington DC in 2006 and is entitled ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environment Protection Agency’s Standards’.

Academic in tone, the overwhelming evidence on fluoride provides in its summaries literally hundreds of pages detailing the negative health effects of fluoride upon the American population. An epidemiological study, the document possesses serious consequences for fracking operators who use hydrogen fluoride to fracture rocks. Let’s therefore examine the shocking conclusions that shatter the arguments that fluoride is ‘ex-cathedra’ and can be sanctioned by the state.

In addition, the National Research Council (NRC) gives exact toxicological data as to the level of injury from fluoride. The full extent of the data regarding fluoride poisoning is discussed in the National Research Council’s figures, beginning first with fluorosis. In the paper, the NRC draws comparison especially between fluorosis of the teeth and the remodelling of bone architecture and human anatomy. Physiological, the internal and cellular reconstruction also has severe repercussions for the internal organs of the body’s hormonal and endocrinal system. In the National Research Council’s Report, the authors note that fluoride is readily absorbed into the human bones and remodels the skeletal structure. Possessing acute toxicological effects, fluoride is not effectively excreted and leads to permanent damage to the bones, and by extension cellular and major organs to quote:

National Research Council’s Report – Exoskeleton ‘A key correlate to the first prediction is that the concentration of fluoride in bone does not decrease with reduced remodeling rates. Thus, it appears that fluoride enters the bone compartment easily, correlating with bone cell activity, but that it leaves the bone compartment slowly. The model assumes that efflux occurs by bone remodeling and that resorption is reduced at high concentrations of fluoride because of hydroxyapatite solubility [the main inorganic constituent of tooth enamel and bone]. Hence, it is reasonable that 99% of the fluoride in

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 49/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

humans resides in bone and the whole body half-life, once in bone, is approximately 20 years…

…It has been known for many years that fluoride exposure can change bone quality. Franke et al. (1975) published a study indicating that industrial fluoride exposure altered hydroxyapatite crystal size and shape… the general conclusion is that, although there may be an increase in skeletal density, there is no consistent increase in bone strength. A carefully performed comparison study between the effects of fluoride (2mg/kg/day) and alendronate in minipigs likely points to the true effect: “in bone with higher volume, there was less strength per unit volume, that is, …there was a deterioration in bone quality” (Lafage et al. 1995)’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, pp108-109

As shown systematically throughout the medical literature, fluorosis of the teeth is a harmful side effect of fluoride exposure – in the American Academies own words ‘fluorosis is a toxic effect of fluoride’. The outcome of enamel fluorosis or ‘fluoride poisoning’ is linked according to their study to changes in the ‘exoskeleton’, including ‘skeletal-fluorosis’. This is the remodelling of the bone, synergetic to transformation within the tooth enamel, a level of harm which is known to exist and is acknowledged in the House of Commons Library Report on Fluoridation, to quote:

‘The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0ppm was estimated to be 48%… and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern it was predicted to be 12.5%’.

Oliver Bennett, Library House of Commons Report, Fluoridation, Science and Environment, SN/SC/5689, 2 September 2013, p5

Thus according to the government’s own figures, 48% of fluoridated populations in the UK have fluorosis symptoms indicative of ‘changes within the exoskeleton’. According to Dr. Franke’s paper, the increase in bone density is a by-product of the toxic reaction of the chemical, and leads to bone damage through the effects of fluoride, otherwise the alteration of hydroxyapatite crystals in bone and enamel. The scientist Dr. Lafage also noticed the same process associated with fluoride exposure, in which although bone density appreciably increased, the overall strength of the bone decreased proportionally.

The same types of biological indicators are also evident within ‘fluorosis of the teeth’, in which ‘hypermineralisation’ results in diminished strength of the enamel (Fejerskov et al., 1990, p694). This biological process is often mistakenly referred to by dentists as ‘remineralisation’, a medical label that is ‘incorrect’.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 50/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The proposition that ‘recalcification’ technically ‘hypermineralisation’ strengthens the tooth is also another medical myth – a persistent idea that has been propagated fallaciously by the fluoride industry and has no basis in fact!

For further comment on these erroneous arguments, please refer to Appendix 1 Dental Myths and Fluoride, which show actual dental harm with the introduction of fluoride into water, proven in the separate studies of the World Health Organisation, New Zealand, Canada, America (Iowa), Ireland and Iran. All of these countries have shown conclusively in their scientific studies that small amounts of fluoride through oral consumption damages tooth integrity. This is not a matter of opinion or conjecture but is found within the statistical data quoted!

In relation to the exoskeletal structure, the thickening of the tooth ultimately leads to the denticulation becoming ‘porous’. Terminal, the stages of increased ‘porosity’ gradually cause the degradation and breaking up of the tooth, a critical condition, that loans itself to the development of long term caries. Identical, the same progression of disease is witnessed in fluoride ingestion, in which bone formation specifically the mass of the bone is increased, whilst its servile strength is reduced, described by Lafage et al. (1995), as a ‘deterioration in bone quality’. In examples of fluorosis, the joints can become arthritic and further lead to increased rates of fractures. In this unfavourable scenario, the bones become more brittle and gradually begin to break down – effects which are detrimental to the development of ‘normal’ osteoblasts (the secretion of bone) within cell function. On ‘skeletal fluorosis’, the National Research Council commented:

Effect of Fluoride on Osteoblasts ‘Biopsy specimens confirmed the effect of fluoride on increasing osteoblast number in humans (Briancon and Meunier 1981; Harrison et al. 1981). Because fluoride stimulates osteoblast proliferation, there is a theoretical risk that it might induce a malignant change in the expanding cell population. This has raised concerns that fluoride exposure might be an independent risk factor for

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 51/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

new osteosarcomas… Nevertheless, the characteristics of the fluoride effect point clearly to a direct skeletal effect’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p109

In summary, the increase in osteoblasts in the physiology of a cell that secretes the substance of bone increases the stages of ‘hypermineralisation’. Irreversible, this process makes the bone wall porous and more susceptible to inherent weakness and fractures, a biological propensity that is also mimicked within the dental structure of the organism.

Example of ‘Skeletal-Fluorosis’ Attributed to Fluoride

The National Research Council also in the report pointed out potentially a theoretical risk with bone cancer. This is because the process of bone regeneration with the introduction of fluoride interferes with and increases the multiplication of osteo-cells, in the words of the report: ‘fluoride stimulates osteoblast proliferation’. Plausible, the association with tumour development particularly within the bones makes sense, as cancer can be defined as a disruption within the cellular mechanism that causes the uncontrolled exponential growth of abnormal cells.

The synopsis relating to exoskeletal deformations expounded by the National Council is also substantiated by the Harvard Study into fluoride and osteosarcomas. A commissioned systematic review conducted in the same year of the NRC’s report, the medical research documented a 500% increase in bone cancers in male children in fluoridated regions, figures which would translate in the UK to areas exposed to fluoride.

This increase in susceptibility to osteosarcomas is a predicted outcome of the utilisation of hydrogen fluoride, specifically 17,158 oil barrels per well used by unconventional petroleum operators. Unfavourable for the legal adoption of fracking schemes, the published results confirmed by the National Academies

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 52/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

also highlight the relative risks of bone fractures associated with fluoride exposure. In terms of effective methods of prognosis of bone disease pertaining to fluoride poisoning, the National Council cautioned:

‘Fluoride may have different effects on fractures of different bones (as suggested by Riggs et al. 1990). Consequently, epidemiologists need to be careful about the degree of aggregation of outcomes. If some bone sites are included that are not susceptible, then relative risk estimates will be biased toward the null; risk or rate differences would not’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p123

The results from Riggs et al. (1990) therefore suggest that careful consideration needs to be given to specific locations in the body, which might be more susceptible to fluoride poisoning. Incorrect assessment of these sites and potential risk could lead to the nullification of data or misdiagnosis. For example in the photograph of the Indian child, the boy’s upper limbs are less severely affected by skeletal fluorosis. The National Research’s Council’s conclusions regarding the escalated risk of bone fractures are compatible with the model of deterioration (osteitis) or splintering of bone found in fluoridated regions. The increased proliferation of fractures is documented in fluoridated water and occurs between 1 and 4mg/L and is consistent with doses of fluoride in drinking water, to quote:

Increase in Fractures ‘It should be considered, however, that the Li et al. (2001) and Alacrcon-Herrera et al. (2001) studies reported fracture increases (although imprecise with wide confidence intervals) between 1 and 4mg/L [within drinking water], giving support to a continuous exposure-effect gradient in this range’…

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p138

The National Council acknowledged the real possibility that fluoride exposure at relatively ‘small’ doses could substantially multiply the chance of the likelihood of fractures in ranges as low as 1mg/L. Repeated, the findings of the American Academies are compatible also with studies in Northern Europe and the heightened chance of hip fractures, that in turn are associated with ‘low’ level ingestion of fluoride, to quote the National Research Council:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 53/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Hip Fractures Findings ‘The best available study was from Finland, which provided data that suggested an increased rate of hip fracture in populations exposed to fluoride at >1.5mg/L’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p146

The findings within the National Research Council’s highlight subgroups in populations that are at an elevated risk, in particular children and people who suffer from renal failure, to quote once again the concerns of the National Council and their detailed report:

Renal Problems and Skeletal Problems ‘In patients with reduced renal function, the potential for fluoride accumulation in the skeleton is increased. It has been known for many years that people with renal insufficiency have elevated plasma fluoride concentrations compared with normal healthy persons (Hanhijarvi et al. 1972) and are at a higher risk of developing skeletal fluorosis (Juncos and Donadio 1972; Johnson et al. 1979)’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p140

The report is clear in its identification of groups of people that are injured by the introduction of fluoride into water. In addition to disrupting bone development, fluoride is also shown to inhibit human reproduction in levels as low as 3mg/L, which suggests that fluoride possesses clastogenic properties, in layman’s terms can damage human DNA. The extent of this detrition is not currently known and is shown to impact upon reproduction that is clearly demonstrated and documented in studies, archived by the National Council. On the issue of reduced virility, the members of the report caution that in…

Fertility Human Studies ‘…this study suggests that high concentrations of fluoride can alter the reproductive hormonal environment (Susheela and Jethanandani 1996)… In an ecological study of U.S. counties with drinking water systems reporting fluoride concentrations of at least 3mg/L (Freni 1994), a decreased fertility rate was associated with increasing fluoride concentrations’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p161

More disturbingly, the regression of fertility is also equated with vitiation of the organism and possible impairment or deformity and is a valid point evidenced within clinical animal studies, to quote once again the National Research Council:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 54/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Foetus Development Animal Studies ‘High-dose hazard identification studies, such as a recently reported Xenopus embryo development study using the FETAX assay (Goh and Neff 2003) suggest that developmental events are susceptible to disruption by fluoride’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p164

Developmental studies of animal gestation periods, otherwise the trimester, suggest that fluoride can retard negatively the growth cycle of mammals and are a concerning feature that have definite implications for the human foetus. Although the studies of Dr. Goh and Neff do not focus specifically upon human embryo research, the fact that ‘development[al] events are susceptible to disruption by fluoride’ is a worrying trend! Problematic, the long term effects of fluoride on human DNA is not currently understood, but there is mounting evidence that indicate such a correlation exists. The feasibility that fluoride is a mutagenic substance is accepted and is referred to as a potential possibility, to quote the NRC study:

(Fluoride Exposure) Human Development ‘Two small studies have raised the possibility of an increased incidence of spina bifida occulta in fluorosis-prone areas in India (Gupta et al. 1994, 1995); larger, well-controlled studies are needed to evaluate that possibility further’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p164

The discovery that ‘spina bifida occulta’ is conceivably linked to fluoride exposure is not incompatible with separate findings by the National Research Council. A disturbing trend, these studies demonstrate that other chromosomal disorders are likely exasperated with the introduction of fluoride in drinking water. Although the rates of increased detection within Down syndrome in fluoridated areas is inconclusive, the possibility of such a relationship remains and is firmly acknowledged in the National Research Council’s Report, to quote:

Down Syndrome ‘A small number of ecologic studies have examined Down’s syndrome (trisomy 21) prevalence among populations in municipalities with differences in water fluoride concentrations. The possible association of cytogenetic effects with fluoride exposure suggests that Down’s syndrome is a biologically plausible outcome of exposure’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p170

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 55/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The reason why Down syndrome is a ‘biologically plausible outcome’ is that fluoride disturbs cellular activity, a causal relationship picked up in studies of younger mothers with children with chromosomal disorders, to quote once again the National Research Council’s systematic study:

‘A reanalysis of data on Down’s syndrome and fluoride by Takahashi (1998) suggested a possible association in children born to young mothers… This research is also in keeping with Yang’s paper (1999) that reported that for a specific type of maternal meiotic error, for younger mothers, there was a significant association with environmental exposures around the time of conception’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, pp170-172 / [See Also Footnote1]

Shared also in the UK studies, Packington’s research (1999) submitted to the York Review in 2000 showed a higher risk of Down syndrome in fluoridated counties, deductions shared internationally by Takahashi (1998) and Yang (1999). Moreover Packington concluded that foetal, prenatal and infant mortality, inclusive of congenital malformations, are all higher in fluoridated areas of England. Immensely disturbing, Packington’s work contradicts current thinking that fluoride is ‘safe’, a stance adopted by the UK Medical Council. The overwhelming evidence in the public domain indicates chromosomal damage, linked to ‘fluoride… [and] significant association with environmental exposures’. In the studies reported by the National Council to the Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to fluoride is thought to be a significant risk during the time of conception. In summary, the conclusions proffered by the NRC’s board of committee include the following concerns:

(1) Fertility rates are profoundly affected by fluoride measurements in water

(Freni 1994). (2) High concentrations of fluoride can alter the reproductive hormonal

environment (Susheela and Jethanandani 1996). (3) Developmental events are susceptible to disruption by fluoride (Goh and

Neff 2003). (4) Increased rates of chromosomal disorders, such as Down syndrome

(Takahashi 1998 / Yang 1999) and spina bifida occulta are correlated with the introduction of fluoride during the trimester period (Gupta et al. 1994, 1995).

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 56/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Examples of Neural Spinal Defects that are resultant of early exposure of pregnant women to fluorides and benzenes a by-product of fracking and are toxic examples of chemicals found in high doses in hydraulic wells across the UK. If we observe the photograph, the curvature of the limbs and spine indicate that the deformities of many of these babies are reminiscent of fluoride poisoning. Similar types of injuries are documented in the earlier photograph showing ‘skeletal-fluorosis’ of a young boy in India. The fact that the British Government are going to allow fracking companies to introduce 600,000 gallons of hydrogen fluoride (each well) into our ground reservoirs, where it can affect the water supply, is under UK Law a crime! This legal argument has been accepted throughout the majority of European States. . A rational outcome, the increased cellular disruptions seen in fluoride patients that are exhibited regularly within the structure of the teeth and bones and in foetus development of the spinal cord and nervous system suggest a corollary with neural birth defects, a persistent problem insinuated within the medical data. The damaging effects of fluorides are also observed within the functions of the reproductive systems of the body. Furthermore in the study conducted by the Research Council, the committee draws attention to the real possibility that fluoride not only inhibits foetal development but is also a neuro-toxin. A malignant substance, the involvement of fluoride is proven to damage the brain and nervous system, particularly in children that are more susceptible to levels of fluoride, to quote the National Research Council:

IQ in Children ‘Several studies from China have reported the effects of fluoride in drinking water on cognitive capacities (X. Li et al. 1995; Zhao et al. 1996; Lu et al. 2000; Xiang et al. 2003a,b). Among the studies, the one by Xiang et al. (2003a) had the strongest design. This study compared the intelligence of 512 children (ages 8- 13) living in two villages with different fluoride concentrations in the water…

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 57/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure… (Qin and Cui 1990) observed similar negative correlation between IQ and fluoride intake through drinking water’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, pp173-174

Within the fluoride literature, there are literally now hundreds of studies that show a direct effect of fluoride upon cognitive development and the depression of the neurological systems of the brain. Please see Fluoride References and Peer Reviewed Studies at the end of this document. According to the research of Dr. Xiang, there is a direct correlation between levels of fluoride and intelligence. Percentile averages between the discrepancies of IQ are further demonstrated in the studies of Dr. Zhao, to quote:

Another IQ Study ‘Zhao et al. (1996) also compared the IQs of 160 children (ages 7-14) living in a high fluoride area (average concentration of 4.12mg/L) with those of children living in a low-fluoride area (average concentration 0.91mg/L). Using the Rui Wen Test, the investigators found that the average IQ of children in the high- fluoride area (97.69) was significantly lower than that of children in the low- fluoride area (105.21)’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p175

These conclusions although significant are not just found in China, but are reproduced in studies in the United States and the UK. Similar results of reduced intelligence corresponding with fluoride exposure are also repeated in the ‘Mexican Study’ – please refer to Section A Part 5 of this Report. Unsatisfactory, the indications from all of the data is that fluoride not only intercepts cellular signals but also compromises neurological functioning. In the longer term, such damage to the brain can increase the risk of encephalic diseases, to quote the concerns of the Academy of Science from the National Research Council:

Fluoride and Alzheimer’s Disease ‘Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p186

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 58/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Not only does fluoride possess the possibility of increasing the risk of related dementia, but also both directly and indirectly impedes the correct operation of the brain, including neurological and endocrinological systems, to quote a summary of the evidence – ‘recommendations’ submitted by the National Research Council:

Anatomical Changes within the Brain ‘On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p187

These conclusions then bring us up to date in the UK with Professor Stephen Peckham’s comprehensive study that highlighted a 30% increase in thyroid problems in fluoridated regions and in some instances nearly double the rate. This was the largest statistical study ever completed in the UK – please refer to Section A Part 1 of this Report for further information. Corroborative evidence of structural changes within the brain is also cited by the National Research Council – and is an important conclusion, as it demonstrates the neuro-toxicity of fluoride, related to diminished brain function, to quote:

Thyroid Disruptions ‘The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2003) discussed four papers on thyroid effects and two papers on parathyroid effects and concluded that “there are some data to suggest that fluoride does adversely affect some endocrine glands.” McDonagh et al. (2000a)’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p189

The studies into depleted thyroid function pertaining to fluoride exposure have been known about for a long time and ignored due to political and economic concerns. In particular, the correspondence between severe enamel insufficiency otherwise fluorosis and the connection with thyroid damage is a correlation that has been officially reported as early as 1854, to quote the National Council:

Thyroid ‘An effect of fluoride exposure on the thyroid was first reported approximately 150 years ago (Maumené 1854, 1866; as cited in various reports). In 1923, the director of the Idaho Public Health Service, in a letter to the Surgeon General, reported enlarged thyroids in many children between the ages of 12 and 15 using city water in the village of Oakley, Idaho (Almond 1923);

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 59/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

in addition, the children using city water had severe enamel deficiencies in their permanent teeth’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p190

The conclusion of the National Research Council’s Report is interesting, as they suggest that thyroid problems traditionally associated with dietary restrictions may actually be directly ascribed to fluoride poisoning, a factor that is also acknowledged by Professor Stephen Peckham’s Study in the UK (J. Epedemiol Community Health 2015; 0: 1-6), in his own words:

‘The difference between the West Midlands, which fluoridates, and Manchester, which doesn’t was particularly striking. There were nearly double the number of cases [of hypothyroidism] in the West Midlands…’

  1. Peckham, D. Lowery and S. Spencer, Are Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water Associated with Hypothyroidism Prevalence in England, Epedemiol Community Health 2015; 0: 1-6

Previous studies have also found that fluoride inhibits the production of iodine, which is essential for a healthy thyroid (please see Section A Part 1, 4, and 5 of this Report) and are concerns also repeated in the Harvard study and the National Academy of Science. Professor Stephen Peckham has denounced fluoridation in his review and maintains that local authorities must urgently rethink their public health policies due to the adverse health effects of fluoride, to quote:

‘Underactive thyroid is a particularly nasty thing to have and it can lead to other long term health problems. I do think councils need to think again about putting fluoride in the water’.

Professor Stephen Peckham, Centre for Health Care Studies, UK

Highlighted as a major contradiction, there is a complete disconnect between what the evidence is showing and the propagation by the UK Government that fluoride is ‘safe’, a basis that is not supported by the overriding evidence. Even more inauspicious in one of the most recent reviews into fluoridation in the UK, ‘Water Fluoridation, Health Monitoring Report for 2014’, there is absolutely no mention of thyroid problems associated with elevated exposure. Professor’s Peckham’s research 2012-2013 into hyperthyroidism and fluoride remains effectively the largest comparative study into fluoridation in the UK and has been effectively expunged from the medical record.

Perhaps even more troublesome, the word ‘thyroid’ does not appear in Public Health England’s review of evidence and is the first time that the gland is not mentioned in a large UK scientific report on fluoridation. The exclusion in

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 60/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

particular to Professor Stephen Peckham’s impeccable research (2012-2013 & 2015) is reprehensible! A similar noticeable silence on the thyroid issue is evident within the UK’s earlier Working Group Report, 2002. Here the risk of fluoride toxicity is actually identified by the authors and is totally disregarded, to quote:

‘The third [study] (Lin et al., 1991) found a significant positive association between combined high fluoride/low iodine levels and goitre. However, because this study looked at combined fluoride/iodine uptakes, and has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, the findings should be treated cautiously. Further work on this aspect is of low priority’.

Working Group Report, Water Fluoridation and Health, Medical Research Council, 2002, p34

The apparent indifference or lack of genuine concern about ‘thyroid harm’ relative to fluoride exposure is described by the UK Medical Council, has having ‘a low priority’ and is a disquieting position in view of the facts already known. In the words of the American National Research Council, ‘thyroid problems may not be corrected through the diet, when recipients have had a surplus amount of fluoride’. In this respect, fluoride can be seen as a contaminant that is counter- productive to the wellbeing of the brain and its related functioning, to quote the scientists at the National Research Council:

Thyroid ‘The authors concluded that fluoride in excess may be inducing diseases that have usually been attributed to iodine deficiency and that iodine supplementation may not be adequate when excess fluoride is being consumed. (Susheela et al. 2005)’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p195

As commented upon by the American Academy, thyroid function and its depletion is linked to ‘fluoride uptake’, a comparison further established in Britain through Professor Peckham’s careful statistical research of the NHS database of fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions within the UK. It is therefore contended that fluoride pollution, specifically 600,000 gallons via drilling operations in proximity to water aquifers, will ultimately engender a population increase in thyroid problems.

To emphasize, this relative growth in thyroid disruption is illegal and can be prevented through the privation of fluoride in drinking water, in principle by banning unconventional petroleum extraction. A culpable crime, adding hydrogen fluoride into injection water used for fracturing is a known

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 61/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

contaminant and is indexed as a ‘poison’. Moreover, the introduction of hydrogen fluoride near groundwater is deliberately breaking the law and under UK legislation is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 23). A much more troublesome fact however is that fluoride is demonstrated to act upon neurological systems, the postulation that the substance impedes brain performance is not only a rational argument, but is a probable outcome, to quote the American National Research Council:

Discussion (Pineal Function) ‘Fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans. Actual effects in any individual depend on age, sex, and probably other factors, although at present the mechanisms are not fully understood’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p214

Amongst the nasty side effects of fluoride upon endocrinal functioning is impaired glucose tolerance that indicate the toxin might not only induce thyroid problems, but in actual fact is a catalyst for a whole host of diseases, equated with the endocrine system – a biological disruption recognised as a legitimate concern by the National Research Council, to quote:

Other Endocrine Organs ‘Effects reported in humans include “endocrine disturbances,” impaired glucose tolerance, and elevated concentrations of pituitary hormones’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p214

Undisputed, the evidence gathered from the library of the Research Council is that the increase in thyroid problems witnessed recently in the UK include also the added risk of diabetes, again which is attributed to elevated fluoride exposure. On the point of exponential fluoride contamination correlated to the upsurge in diabetes in the UK, it is worth quoting an article in the daily express dated November 14th 2016:

Diabetes Cases Rocket by 75% ‘New diabetes diagnoses have rocketed by almost 75% in a decade. Data shows the number of adult with the disease has risen by 1.5 million in the past ten years, with GPs now reporting 3.6 million patients aged 17 and older on their records. There has been an increase of 137,000 in the past year alone – largely due to the explosion of Type 2 diabetes… Cases have spiralled out of control as a

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 62/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

result of an obesity epidemic across the country… A decade ago no child in Britain had had Type 2 diabetes, but there are now more than 500 with the disease… Sufferers are three times as likely to have kidney disease’.

Dailey Express, Monday November 14, 2016

These are surprising results, children have never until now had Type 2 Diabetes, so what is causing the influx, in addition sufferers are three times likely to have kidney disease, a statistic also found in fluoridated regions (Hoover 1991 / Iowa and Seattle). In the Daily Express article, the chief medical condition associated with diabetes is obesity. The deduction however is not as simple as it first appears. This is because we know that from Professor Peckham’s research, the Doctor has connected thyroid problems with ‘fluoride intake and obesity’. The thyroid secretes hormones regulating growth and metabolism, therefore thyroid problems manifest typically as fluctuations in weight and / or obesity.

In the case of fluoride, the substance directly affects the body’s ability to metabolise sugars and by implication the pancreatic organ. From the existing data, we know that fluoride restructures bones – the indications from Professor Peckham’s methodical research is that fluoride also remodels fatty tissues via disrupting cellular signals. A delicate equilibrium, many of the hormonal imbalances cited within the published medical data are known toxicological effects of fluoride, a toxic ratio congruent with the breakdown of the endocrinal system, the communication or command centre of the body. The disturbance to anabolic metabolism appears to directly correlate with increased obesity, results that are symptomatic of diabetes, symmetrical to fluoride update.

According to the summary of evidence from the American Academies, the 1.5 million increase in diabetes in the UK can be explained through fluoride poisoning. The National Research Council’s paper highlighted potential problems with glucose intolerance in fluoridated levels as low as 0.1mg/L in the United States. Thus it could be argued that the onset of glucose intolerance in children in the UK described as a ‘new phenomenon’ is principally toxicological. Furthermore the explosion in figures of diabetes could theoretically be explained by local councils’ adoption of fluoridation schemes, timed with the applications of the PEDL275 Licences to frack. The onset of diabetes due to fluoride contamination is aggravated by the need to drink more water, a major contributory factor to the disease itself, to quote the National Research Council:

Diabetes ‘The conclusion from the available studies is that sufficient fluoride exposure appears to bring about increases in blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance in some individuals and to increase the severity of some types of diabetes. In

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 63/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

general, impaired glucose metabolism appears to be associated with serum or plasma fluoride concentrations of about 0.1mg/L or greater in both animals and humans (Rigalli et al. 1990, 1995; Trivedi et al. 1993; de al Sota et al. 1997).

In addition, diabetic individuals will often have higher than normal water intake, and consequently, will have higher than normal fluoride intake for a given concentration of fluoride in drinking water. An estimated 16-20 million people in the U.S. have diabetes mellitus (Brownlee et al. 2002; Buse et al. 2002; American Diabetes Association 2004; Chapter 2); therefore, any role of fluoride exposure in the development of impaired glucose metabolism or diabetes is potentially significant’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p217

Compelling, the evidence therefore suggests that fluoride increases diabetic risk and is therefore illegal! Its ability to interfere with the immunoglobulin proteins in recent biochemical studies is an area of concern. Anecdotal evidence within medical literature denotes that sections of the population may be allergic to or have a negative response to fluoride. The observation from the National Council that possible changes within the immune system may correspond with the introduction of fluoride into the water supply is acknowledged as a theoretical possibility, to quote:

Immune System ‘The possibility that a small percentage of the population reacts systemically to fluoride, perhaps through changes in the immune system, cannot be ruled out’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p230

The list goes on… Another potential problem highlighted by the National Research Council and found particularly in fluoridated regions are gastro intestinal diseases. According to the results obtained by the American Academy, the conclusions are significant because when the intake of fluoride includes the absorption of toothpaste, nearly 1% of the population could be subject to unnecessary gastronal complications. From this research, it is not known if these individuals are more susceptible to colon cancer, the National Research Council cite a number of prominent comparative studies that show a connection between the ingestion of fluoridated water and stomach problems, to quote:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 64/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Gastro Intestinal Diseases ‘… as the fluoride concentration increases in drinking water, the percentage of the population with gastro-intestinal symptoms also increases. The table suggests that fluoride at 4mg/L in the drinking water results in approximately 1% of the population experiencing gastro-intestinal symptoms (see Feltman and Kosel 1961)… Because 1% of the population is likely to experience gastro- intestinal symptoms, and gastro-intestinal symptoms are common in areas of endemic fluorosis, especially where there is poor nutrition (Gupta et al. 1992; Susheela et al. 1993; Dasarathy et al. 1996), it is important to understand the biological and physiological pathways for the effects of fluoride on the gastro- intestinal system. Those mechanisms have been investigated in many animal studies’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, pp230-231

Gastrin problems are not the only medical difficulties associated with fluoride, as a large comprehensive study in India demonstrated the prevalence of kidney stones proportional to skeletal fluorosis. Individuals suffering from the side effects of fluoride exposure were nearly 5 times more likely to develop kidney stones, to quote:

Kidney Stones ‘Singh et al. (2001) carried out an extensive examination of more than 18,700 people living in India where fluoride concentrations in the drinking water ranged from 3.5 to 4.9mg/L. Patients were interviewed for a history of urolithiasis (kidney stone formation) and examined for symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, and various urine and blood tests were conducted. The patients with clear signs and symptoms of skeletal fluorosis were 4.6 times more likely to develop kidney stones’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p236

The conclusion taken from the results in India relative to the incidence of skeletal fluorosis and / or enamel fluorosis in the population predicts accurately the rates of kidney stones. In the UK, it is acknowledged in the Library House of Commons Report, Fluoridation, Science and Environment (SN/SC/5689, 2 September 2013) that ‘The prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1.0ppm was estimated to be 48%’… and by implication such a high figure would infer an increase in kidney problems in fluoridated regions. As would be expected, the trends equated with kidney stones due to fluoride contamination is parallel to the increased rate of kidney cancer, to quote:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 65/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Kidney Cancer ‘The Hoover et al. (1991) analyses of the Iowa and Seattle cancer registries indicated a consistent, but not statistically significant, trend of kidney cancer incidence with duration of fluoridation’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p281

The rates of cancer and fluoride are not just found deposited within the kidneys, but systematically attack the body. Incontrovertible, the evidence therefore suggests that other types of cancer, i.e. pancreatic, are prevalent within fluoridated regions and is a proposition that is firmly acknowledged by the American National Research Council and its quotation of an earlier study in the UK. This important research paper has been conveniently forgotten by the Medical Council and Public Health England. The authors (Chilvers and Conway 1985) of the earlier English oncological report made some startling conclusions, to quote the NRC:

Oral / Pharyngeal Cancer ‘In an earlier study in England, oral-pharyngeal cancers among females constituted the only site-gender category for which standardized mortality ratios in England were found to be significantly elevated in areas with naturally occurring high fluoride concentrations, defined as more than 1.0mg/L. Twenty- four site gender combinations were examined for 67 small areas’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p282

In keeping with increased reports of mouth carcinoma is the evidence that uterine cancer is significantly elevated within fluoridated regions, a critical point provided by the American National Research Council, on the subject of gynaecological cancer, the report noted the following concerns:

Uterine Cancer ‘An association of uterine cancer (combination of cervical and corpus uteri) with fluoridation was reported by Tohyama (1996), who observed mortality rates in Okinawa before and after fluoridation was terminated, controlling for socio- demographics. This analysis is a follow up of the positive results from a previous exploratory analysis that comprised a large number of comparisons conducted by this researcher with the same data set. The only other recent publication to report on uterine cancers is that of Yang et al. (2000), who observed a mortality rate ratio of 1.25 with 95% CI of 0.98 to 1.60’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p282

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 66/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The list of documented cancers associated with fluoride vulnerability and tumour development is given below. It is however probable that this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, as fluoride inhibits cell signals (myopic errors), which forms the basis of cell reproduction. The known cancer risks due to fluoride contamination of water supplies are endemic (Smith, NZ Med J 1980; 91:413-16) and are listed below:

(1) Oral-Pharyngeal (2) Cervical (3) Uterine (4) Kidney (5) Pancreatic Cancer (Fluoride impairs glucose tolerance which suggests a

probable association) (6) Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer) (7) Brain Tumours (Probable association based upon neurological impacts of

fluoride on the structure of the brain) (8) Thyroid Cancer (9) Bladder (Based upon the data of cervical and uterine cancers)

This then brings us onto the subject of concern regarding the exposure of children to the adverse effects of fluoride, which are less well understood. Evidence obtained from the National Research Council show that children are more prone to cancer through fluoride exposure – a thesis demonstrated in Dr. Elise Bassin study, which showed a 500% increase in bone cancer in male boys in fluoridated regions. It is now thought in many incidences that the toxicological outcome of fluoride is many times greater, to quote once again the apprehensions of the National Research Council:

Risk to Children Sub-Populations ‘Children are considered a special subpopulation because their health risks can differ from those of adults as a result of their immature physiology, metabolism, and differing levels of exposure due to factors such as greater food consumption per unit of body weight and outdoor play activities. Different levels of exposure for children are typically considered in risk assessments, but the underlying toxicity database often does not specifically address effects on children’.

Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC, 2006, p292

Conclusion In summary to the excellent National Research Council’s Report, the denouement or outcome is unequivocal. Extremely comprehensive and technical, the document outlines in detail the unassailable conclusion that the presence of

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 67/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

fluoride within water at just 1 part per million or lower is harmful to the general population. How then does the government square the circle that approximately 17,158 oil barrels of fluoride hydrogen will be utilised by the fracking industry for each well? A potential and unqualified disaster, the sheer numbers and quantities of toxic chemicals used by the petroleum corporations are not safe, a viewpoint acknowledged earlier by the Scottish Review:

‘The [industry’s] report claims most fracking chemicals would only have adverse health impacts at “very high concentrations” when much evidence exists on the contrary. The generalized claim that most of these chemicals are safe is problematic and does not give the reader any sense of the number, proportion, or volume of chemicals that the industry uses which may not be safe’.

Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review, 2018, p9

‘The generalized claim that most of these chemicals are safe’ is completely unfounded. Fluoride’s devastating impact upon the living systems of the body is proven. In addition, the figures of damage fixed to fluoride contamination levels relative to calculated risk are now known and published. The verification of ‘data-facts’ based and formulated upon the ‘best’ statistical evidence is scientific! Fluoride in this Report is shown to have a pernicious effect on the body, skeleton and nervous system, and in the National Research Study is demonstrated to have a clear detrimental effect. These outcomes are associated with a litany of physical impairments described by the American National Academy of Medicine listed below:

Evidence Based Diseases that are Attributed Scientifically to the Contamination of Fluoride, Documented within the Study of the National Research Council, The Largest Systematic Review on Fluoride in Drinking Water

No. Diseases (1) Alzheimer’s Disease (2) Anomalous Hydroxypatite (Bone Remodelling) (3) Bladder Cancer (4) Brain Tumours (Probable Association) (5) Chromosomal Disorders Including Down Syndrome (6) Compromised Enzymological Function (7) Decreased IQ (8) Degenerative Brain Diseases (9) Diabetes (10) Disruption of Reproductive Hormones (11) Disturbance within Foetus Development

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 68/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

No. Diseases (12) Elevated Levels of Pituitary Hormones (13) Elevated Risk to Children and Babies (14) Endocrinal Disturbances (15) Enlarged Risk to Subgroups (Sick and Elderly) (16) Enlarged Thyroid in Children (17) Exoskeletal Fluorosis (18) Fluorosis (19) Gastrinal Problems (20) Higher Rates of Hip Fractures (21) Hypermineralization (22) Immunological Disorders (23) Impaired Glucose Intolerance (24) Impaired Hormonal Signalling (25) Increased Fractures (26) Infertility (27) Kidney Cancer (28) Kidney Stones (29) Neurological Symptoms (30) Oral Cancer (31) Osteoblast Profusion (32) Osteosarcomas (Bone Cancer) (33) Pancreatic Cancer (Probable Association) (34) Pharyngeal Cancer (35) Possible Increased Rates of Spina Bifida Occulta (36) Reduced Bone Tensility (37) Reduced Pineal Function (38) Renal Impairment (39) Spina Bifida (40) Thyroid Disruption (41) Uterine Cancer

As we can see, there is a whole group of odious symptoms that are directly equated with the ingestion of fluoridated water, a significant risk that is posed through the exploitation of unconventional mining technologies. To sum up this section, there are at least 40 symptoms documented in the National Research Council Report, arising as a direct result of fluoridation in tap water and / or fluoride pollution. In the far-reaching study, the authors from the National Academy unreservedly show elevated rates of disease in fluoridated regions, results which are applicable for the legal argument against the use of injection fluids containing hydrogen fluoride to fracture core sediment (fracking).

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 69/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

More pertinently, the committee of the NRC lists exact toxicological rates attributed to fluoride poisoning. These results are not subject to public debate, but are scientific fact!

The analysis of the data therefore allows a pretty straight forward case to be brought against the petroleum industry. Following which, the guilty can be tried in a court of law for conspiring with corporate enterprises to contaminate the fresh supply of UK water. A serious crime with National Security connotations, the implications of this grievous matter and its wider consequences for the ruling of fluoride pollution throughout the United Kingdom and Europe should in turn be critically evaluated. An important subject, the issue of culpability is a vital discussion that we explore more thoroughly in YLMAF’s First Report.

In the panel’s data sheets for example, the American Research Council published the known toxicological effects of fluoride and asserted that levels below 1 particle per million are harmful to human health. There are now thousands of studies that have conclusively shown adverse or negative effects associated with fluoride. Please see Fluoride References and Related Articles at the end of this document. In terms of fluoride and its general toxicity, the latest research establishes that there is no ‘controversy’. This is because the levels of exposure of fluoride and its effects on the human body are now well known and documented comprehensively.

More importantly, all of these studies on fluoride contamination and its known repercussions on human health intrinsically questions the legality of fracking Licences within the UK, which essentially constitutes conspiracy to commit criminal and wilful damage, including grievous physical harm. By this definition, the ‘consultation process’ itself falls into danger of being unlawful and from a legal position is tenebrous. These are serious allegations and more so, because we know of the health implications associated with fluoride poisoning that has been systematically documented in dozens of case studies throughout the world.

To elaborate, the risks of fluoride contamination can be worked out accurately and are indexed in the National Research Council’s Report 2006. The argument that there is disagreement amongst the scholars is clearly a fiction. To reiterate, the toxicological statistical variances relative to risk are calculated and recognised within the scientific community. These results have already been published by the American National Academy and indicate that the usage of hydrogen fluoride to dissolve silica within the UK under the Water Laws are illegal.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 70/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

This is because we have at our disposal the toxicological data regarding fluoride. To emphasize, the plaintiffs against fracking do not have to prove that fluoride or its industrial use categorically injures an individual, rather the burden of proof is much less, all that is required is that ‘a potential danger to human health [exists]’ – The Water Supply Regulation Act 2003.

The danger exists because of the large quantities of hydrogen fluoride thought to be in the region of approximately 17,158 oil barrels and is a risk further acknowledged in the UK by the research of Professor Peckham and in the states by the National Academies supported also by recent data from the Environmental Agency. The substantial use of toxic chemicals is a theme which is also substantiated by the Scottish Review 2017, which sensibly rejected fracking on the grounds of health and environmental risks. An absolute requirement of law, the adverse effects associated with hydrogen fluoride are not permitted, to briefly summarise the medical danger of fluoride:

Summary of the Medical Evidence National Research Council 2006 Genetic Damage

‘Mutagenic effects within fluoride have, to date, only been proven to exist in extremely high levels of exposures. Positive results in the human lymphocytes were seen at fluoride concentrations above 65μg/mL (parts per million [ppm]) and generally at more than 200μg/mL (much greater concentrations than those to which human cells in vivo typically would be exposed)’.

National Research Council Report 2006, p262

Ministerial Enquiry into Fluoride, Quebec, 1979 Mutagenic Agent

‘The mutagenic properties of fluoride have been demonstrated by experimentation carried under the strictest scientific conditions’.

Ministerial Enquiry into Fluoride, Quebec, 1979

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 71/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

National Research Council 2006 and Harvard Study Immunological Deficiencies

‘Fluoride at levels of 1.42 mg/day can affect the development of the growth and development of the skeleton and by implication the bone marrow where the leucocytes are formed. Fluoride is also shown to inhibit the correct functioning and signalling of cells, so although immunological risk is not fully accounted, the thesis is plausible’.

P.C. Wilkinson, Effects of Fluoride on Locomotion of Human Blood Leucocytes in Vitro, Arch, Oral Biol, 28(5):415-418,1983

The Journal of American Medical Association 1943 Fluoride Inhibits Correct Functioning and Expression of Cells

‘Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, with capacity to modify cell metabolism, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes, Source of fluoride intoxication include drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine’.

The Journal of American Medical Association, Sept 18th 1943

National Research Council 2006 and Harvard Study Bone Cancer

A 500% increase risk of bone cancer in young boys living in fluoridated regions, a figure in America based upon the Harvard Study (Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006) referenced in the National Research Council Report.

To quote: ‘A relatively large hospital-based case-control study of osteosarcoma and fluoride exposure… the study will be an important addition to the fluoride database, because it will have exposure information on residence histories, water consumption, and assays of bone and toenails. The results of that study should help to identify what future research will be most useful in elucidating fluoride’s carcinogenic potential’.

National Research Council Report 2006, p8

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 72/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

National Research Council Review 2006 Fluorosis Adverse Health Effect

‘Moderate dental fluorosis is an adverse health effect occurring at fluoride levels of 0.7–1.2mg/L, the levels of water fluoridation’.

Robert J Carton, Ph.D., Academic Review of the Research Council Report, p171

World Health Organisation 2012 Tooth Decay

The largest comparative study on water fluoridation versus non-fluoridated regions of the world, from the World Health Organisation’s own database 2012, suggests that fluoride increases the risk of tooth decay and is determined to have harmful effects on oral hygiene. Please see Appendix 1 Dental Myths and Fluoride at the end of this Report.

World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Education, Training, and Research in Oral Health, Malmö University

National Research Council Report 2006 Fluorosis

‘One of the functions of tooth enamel is to protect the dentin and, ultimately, the pulp from decay and infection. Severe enamel fluorosis compromises that health- protective function by causing structural damage to the tooth. The damage to teeth caused by severe enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect that is consistent with prevailing risk assessment definitions of adverse health effects. This view is supported by the clinical practice of filling enamel pits in patients with severe enamel fluorosis and restoring the affected teeth. Moreover, the plausible hypothesis concerning elevated frequency of caries in persons with severe enamel fluorosis has been accepted by some authorities, and the available evidence is mixed but generally supportive. Severe enamel fluorosis occurs at an appreciable frequency, approximately 10% on average, among children in U.S. communities with water fluoride concentrations at or near the current Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of 4mg/L’.

National Research Council Report, 2006, p3

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 73/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

National Research Council 2006 Skeletal Deformities

‘In patients with reduced renal function, the potential for fluoride accumulation in the skeleton is increased. It has been known for many years that people with renal insufficiency have elevated plasma fluoride concentrations compared with normal healthy persons (Hanhijarvi et al. 1972) and are at a higher risk of developing skeletal fluorosis (Juncos and Donadio 1972; Johnson et al. 1979)…’

National Research Council Report, 2006, p140

In addition, it is noted that within hot climates, renal patients are at an increased risk of skeletal fluorosis. The National Academy also expressed similar concerns and stated:

‘… exposure to 1mg/L, particularly in some demographic subgroups… are prone to accumulate fluoride into their bones (e.g., people with renal disease)’ .

National Research Council Report, 2006, p6

To review the tables, there is an accruing amount of evidence regarding toxicological studies, and most of this data is published and in the public domain. Much of this evidence can be found in the American National Research Council Report on fluoride that examines specifically the question of fluoride toxicity. The real issue of fluoride as an agent that can cause physical harm at levels introduced into the water supplies via unconventional mining lead us on neatly to the discussion, whether fluoride poses a ‘potential risk’ – a legal argument.

To emphasize, fluoride is a known poison and is associated with dental and skeletal fluorosis. Toxicological in basis, these ‘adverse health effects’ are proven to occur at fluoride levels at 1 part per million or less. In the largest systematic study conducted within the UK population by Professor Peckham, the academic showed a 30% increase in thyroid problems in fluoridated regions at just 0.3mg. The data is also in keeping with the American National Research Council’s material that indicated a reduction in IQs of children exposed to fluoride.

If we use the template of the National Research Council, then the inadvertent introduction of hydrofluoric acid into the water table via hydraulic fracking is extremely problematic within the enactment of the law. Concrete, the latest research has identified over 40 diseases associated with water fluoridation at / or around 1 part per million. Extremely negative, these side effects can be quickly summarised in the table as follows:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 74/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Fluoride Dose Ratios and the Prevalence of Related Medical Conditions

Disease Exact Toxicological Data Decreased Thyroid Function (0.3mg/L – female) / (0.7ppm – male) Skeletal and Dental Fluorosis (1ppm) Musculo Disorders (1ppm) Glucose Tolerance Impairment (1mg/L) Neurotoxicity to the Brain 1mg/L

To draw attention to the underlying argument regarding fluoride restrictions within the law is not difficult. This is because we know of the toxicological effects of fluoride that are documented within the National Research Council Report 2006. Non-compliance to the UK’s Statutory Instruments of the Water Act 2000 is a violation of the government’s duty to provide ‘clean and wholesome water’, to quote:

PART III, WHOLESOMENESS (Section 4 Subsection 2) Wholesomeness: (drinking, cooking and washing) (2) The requirements of this paragraph are—

(a) that the water does not contain—

(i) any micro-organism (other than a parameter) or parasite; or (ii) any substance (other than a parameter), at a concentration or

value which would constitute a potential danger to human health;

(b) that the water does not contain any substance (whether or not a

parameter) at a concentration or value which, in conjunction with any other substance it contains (whether or not a parameter) would constitute a potential danger to human health.

The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulation 2000, Statutory Instruments, No. 3184, p 6

Additives into the ‘whole-some’ component of ‘water’ is not permitted into the supply chain. A pollutant fluoride is a ‘toxicant’ with serious side effects. The ingredient has terminal health consequences that when examined critically under the current law is illegal. In addition, the risk element regarding the high levels of hydrogen fluoride needed to complete fracking operations are not a matter of debate but have been accepted within the majority of European rulings on unconventional petroleum extraction. It is extremely likely from what is known about the large amounts of quantities of hydrogen fluoride required by fracking contractors that levels of the chemical will supersede safe levels, in the words of the clinical researcher Spittle, 2011:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 75/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘there is no threshold for fluoride neurotoxicity in drinking water, and the only assuredly safe level is zero’.

  1. Valdez-Jiménez , C. Soria Fregozo, and ML Miranda Beltrán (et al. 2011) Effects of the Fluoride on the Central Nervous System, Neurología 26(5):297-300

The real issue of harm then brings us back to the subject of ‘potential risk’ and the law. The EU Water Directive mandates that ‘Water is free from… any substances which, in numbers or concentrations, constitute a potential danger to human health’. There are no added provisions to this clause, it does not state that it is permissible to place 600,000 gallons of hydrogen fluoride into ground wells to fracture rocks, as this undoubtedly would constitute ‘potential risk’, a position firmly accepted by the French Courts and acknowledged by the Scottish Review.

The list of harmful effects of fluoride and their relatively small doses are known and the unlawful position of using copious amounts of fluoride to dissolve the rock and thereby exposing the groundwater to pollution is currently indefensible. A flawed rationale and criminally negligent, the crime will result in serious injury of UK citizens and is a wilful action which is both wrong and unlawful. Looking at the legislation, it is not a question of if the government and its corporate holdings will be taken to task over this gross violation of constitutional law, but simply a matter of when?

Furthermore the National Research Council’s Report and its summary of fluoride’s toxicological measurement relative to risk and the eruption of disease is integral. This is because the results from their database conclusively demonstrate that fluoride contamination of water at levels below 1 part per million or less is injurious to public health and reinforces the argument that unconventional drilling under the present European Law remains verboten. Legally the government and their social services are tasked with a care of duty which extends to protecting the public. In November 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted General Comment No. 15 on the ‘Right to Water’. Comment No. 15 defined the ‘Right to Water’ as the right of everyone to sufficient, safe, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses. Article I.1 states that:

‘The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights. The water required for each personal or domestic use must be safe, therefore free from micro-organisms, chemical substances and radiological hazards that constitute a threat to a person’s health’.

General Comment No. 15, Article I.1

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 76/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Under European Law, the permitting of massive volumes of fluoride into the shale and endangering the supply of drinking water is prohibited. Contamination of the groundwater due to fracking is inevitable, as the fluoride reacts to silica and will therefore dissolve the rock strata layers between the aquifers. This will invariably lead to the illegal pollution of the water and eventual harm, occams razor.

By the stipulations set out in the UK Water Act, the Directive clearly states that water should not: ‘constitute a potential danger to human health’. In the legislation of the Human Rights Act (General Comment No: 15, Article I.1), the adjoining paragraph states that water should be free of ‘radiological hazards that constitute a threat to a person’s health’. These hazards are known toxic ingredients of fluoride and Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM), in particular the accumulations of flowback water from the process of fracking, covered in YLMAF’s First Report.

The evidence is unequivocal and the government needs to act to protect the local populations from being poisoned by the petroleum companies with a raft of nasty chemicals which include radioactive waste, mercury, lead, cadmium and hydrogen fluoride. These corrosive agents when combined with the large amounts of chemicals used by the fracking operators will in context to the long- term environmental impacts constitute a ‘mini holocaust’. Unassailable, the medical evidence at hand is encyclopaedic and the government can no longer afford not to comply. Looking away from the documented levels of harm is not an option and from a legal perspective is wilfully negligent.

To emphasize, ultimately the onus and burden of proof remains on the petroleum companies and Licensees to prove that their excessive use of hydrogen fluoride is safe, which given the voluminous evidence in this Report remains a very tenuous argument. An irreconcilable point of view, the hypothesis that the use of hydrogen fluoride for fracking can be considered as ‘safe’ and poses no ‘potential risk’ to the public is a false argument. If the government and petroleum sector continues with the planned strategy to use hydrofluoric acid to extract petroleum, it will by definition of the law be committing a serious criminal offence. The amount of documentation in the public domain proves beyond reasonable doubt that there are massive concerns for health and public safety relating to possible levels of contamination of fluoride in drinking water, in the cautious words of Medact UK:

‘… the potential risks (to health) are too great, in fact not even fully known, and relying on the limited data at present available would be negligent.’

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p31

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 77/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The pertinent question then is not how safe is fluoride? Rather – How much of a health risk does fluoride present to the local population in relation to fracking schemes? The overwhelming evidence presented in this paper shows an appreciable risk. A significant peril, the likes of which we have never seen, the figures of harm when scrutinised objectively are truly frightening and could, according to projected estimates of fluoride levels, lead to more Yorkshire people dying than in the Great Wars combined! A mind boggling postulation, the sheer numbers of people and children who will be harmed in the long-term is not an exaggeration! For further confirmation of levels of harm, please refer to Section A Part 1 Professor Peckham and Section A Part 7 Dr. Dean Burk, National Cancer Institute Testimonial before Congress.

In conclusion, the fact that fluoride is deemed as a deadly poison effectively means that its usage within fracking cannot be assured and at best is dubious. Toxic, the chemical therefore by de facto ‘constitute a potential danger to human health’ EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC). Moreover it will subject the public to ‘actual’ and ‘possible risk’, as outlined in Medact UK’s own report:

‘While the precise level of risk to human health is indeterminate, the health hazards involved are substantial’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p19

A critical document, this was supported by a letter published in the ‘British Medical Journal’ calling for shale gas development to be put on hold, signed by the ‘Climate and Health Council’ and over a dozen senior health professionals. The petition stated, ‘The arguments against fracking on public health and ecological grounds are overwhelming. There are clear grounds for adopting the precautionary principle and prohibiting fracking’. The ‘precautionary principle’ in this respect refers to the UK Water Laws, which prevents ‘potential harm’, a legal perspective being blatantly ignored by the British Government. Astute, the observations made by the ‘Climate and Health Council’ with regard to the Secretary of State’s indifference to ‘potential risk’ constitutes a crime, to quote Medact UK’s own condemnatory report:

‘Fracking for shale gas is an inherently risky activity that generates various health hazards. Some degree of environmental pollution is inevitable. Among the important toxic pollutants are benzene (an example of a ‘non-threshold’ toxin for which there are no actual safe levels of exposure), formaldehyde, heavy metals, NORM [Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials], radon and methane (see supplementary briefing paper… Accidents do happen, and some people will be negatively affected by some of the social and economic effects of fracking’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p13

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 78/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

There is no ‘debate’ or ‘ambiguity’, the evidence to date shows empirically that a ‘significant majority of the studies’ from a large body of 450 peer reviewed papers state that fracking indicate both ‘risks’ and ‘actual adverse health outcomes’, to refer once again to UK Medact’s clear message:

‘There are now over 450 peer-reviewed studies, reviews and commentaries. A significant majority of the studies indicate potential risks or actual adverse health outcomes associated with shale gas development’.

Health and Fracking, the Impacts and Opportunity Costs, Medact UK, 2015, p31

A devastating conclusion in the synopsis outlined, nowhere does the Medact UK report state that ‘potential risk is remedied or mitigated’, as stipulated in the ‘Environmental Act 1995 (5–3a), which requires the Secretary of State ‘to compile information relating to such pollution and to carry out an assessment… to remedy or mitigate the effects of pollution of the environment’.

In fact, the observations from the practitioners of Medact UK are far more severe. The hypothetical realm of ‘potential risk’ is upgraded to ‘actual harm’, in the words of Medact’s own paper, fracking ‘generates various health hazards… as accidents do happen and some people will be negatively affected…’ Note in this definition, the briefing does not mention ‘individuals’ but ‘some people’, i.e. local communities. Potentially lethal, the large-scale pollution from unconventional petroleum extraction will inevitably include hydrogen fluoride, nuclide, mercury, benzene, cadmium and lead – all dangerous elements which possess the potential to cause grievous bodily harm, to quote the Concerned Health Professionals of New York’s detailed report:

‘The available peer-reviewed literature reveals both potential and actual harms. Specifically, as demonstrated by PSE’s statistical analysis of the body of scientific literature available from 2009 to 2015, 69 percent of original research studies on water quality found potential for, or actual evidence of, water contamination; 87 percent of original research studies on air quality found significant air pollutant emissions; and 84 percent of original research studies on human health risks found signs of harm or indication of potential harm’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p10

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 79/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

If we observe the Concerned Health Professionals of New York’s meticulous study, the total figure of 69% suggesting ‘water contamination’ in combination with 84% of figures showing ‘signs of harm or indications of potential harm’ proves that the fracking industry is not even ‘nearly safe’. This is because in the majority of cases, fracking leads local communities exposed to the real possibility that water supplies will be compromised. In short, the overriding conclusion is that unconventional petroleum extraction subjects large numbers of people to poisoning or ‘potential mechanisms, [which] will lead predictably to drinking water contamination’.

Detailed from the commissioned studies, 69% of people will be drinking an insidious cocktail of hydrogen fluoride combined with radioactive chemicals and heavy metals, which will submit 84% of people to ‘signs of harm or indication of potential harm’. Of special concern, this Report has highlighted the subject of fluoride poisoning and its harmful effects upon the human organism. A quantifiable risk, especially to children or subgroups, the subject of fluoride toxicity is a lucid argument, which has already been made cogently by Dr. Gary Whitford. A noted clinical dentician, Dr. Whitford has documented the Probable Toxic Dose (PTD) of fluoride in a normal tube of Colgate toothpaste. Potentially a serious problem, these results are noted and listed in the following table from the Dental Journal of Research. A sobering analysis, this medical paper outlines the average figures sufficient to kill a child, to quote Dr. Gary Whitford and his figures:

‘The concentrations and quantities of fluoride in selected dental products are discussed in relation to the ‘Probable Toxic Dose’ (PTD). It is concluded that, as these products are currently packaged, most of them contain quantities of fluoride sufficient to exceed the PTD for young children’.

SOURCE: G.M. Whitford (1987), Fluoride in Dental Products: Safety Considerations, Journal of Dental Research 66: 1056-60

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 80/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Minimum Lethal Dose of Fluoride Contained in One Tube of Colgate for Kids Toothpaste, Statistical Table Produced by Dr. Gary Whitford, Journal of Dental Research Age Weight* Dose** Quantity 2 years ~12 kg 60 mg 42% of tube

3 years ~15 kg 75 mg 53% of tube

4 years ~16 kg 80 mg 56% of tube

5 years ~ 18 kg 90 mg 63% of tube

6 years ~20 kg 100 mg 70% of tube

7 years ~22 kg 110 mg 77% of tube

8 years ~25 kg 125 mg 87% of tube

9 years ~28 kg 140 mg 98% of tube

* Average weight data obtained here. ** The fluoride concentration in Colgate for Kids toothpaste is 1,100 ppm. At 130 grams of paste in the average tube, this equals 143 milligrams of fluoride.

The Unspoken Risks of Fluoride? In conclusion, the final question posed to the government is that if a tube of toothpaste is enough to kill a nine year old boy with 98% certainty, as stated by the Journal of Dental Research, How many children can 17,158 oil barrels of hydrogen fluoride kill? The answer to this question is a legal imperative and the government must act decisively, as ignoring the data is a remiss of care and duty. Of immediate concern, the Secretary of State should in his actions desist in issuing fracking Licences to companies throughout the UK to safeguard the general population. A lawful requirement, the remittal of licences is not only environmentally sound and avoids ‘potential risk’, but is mandated by the law:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 81/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Levels of Risk for Local Populations Regarding the Use of 600,000 Gallons of Fluoride (Estimation) Fatal Dose for a Man of Hydrogen Fluoride

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 82/123

Number of Teaspoons in a Gallon

Number of People which Could be Killed by 600,000 Gallons of Fluoride (Total Figure) Tenth of a Teaspoon = PTD (Probable Toxic Dose)

768 Teaspoons to a Gallons x 600,000 gallons

4,608,000,000 People PTD (Probable Toxic Dose) for Each Well

4,608,000,000* People Probable Toxic Dose (Per Well) Totals A Massive Figure which is Illegal and Equals to ‘Absolute Risk’

*The approximate figure to kill a human or Probable Toxic Dose for 600,000 gallons of hydrogen fluoride is 4,608,000,000 people. Enormous, the number is almost but not quite enough fluoride to kill the population of the World per well, which in terms of the Water Laws exceeds ‘potential risk’ and can be interpreted to be in the region of ‘definite or absolute risk’. Even more concerning, the statistics do not do justice to the severity of the problem. This is because the large numbers quoted do not take into full account the extra chemicals from fracking, which include radioactive waste and the nasty elements cadmium, mercury and lead. A very grave and serious matter, these separate elements when factored into the figures suggest many more people could be killed or negatively impacted. For further details, please read YLMAF’s First Report.

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Appendix 1: Dental Myths and Fluoride Dentistry Concerns about Fluoride and its Efficacy Dr. Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS Associate Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry from the University of Toronto & Professor Dr. John Colquohoun, New Zealand’s Former Chief Dental Officer

Dentistry’s Anxiety about Fluoride and its Effectiveness (Evidence Presented in the Southampton Case that Successfully Prevented the Local Authority from Fluoridating the Regional Water Reserves) by Dr. Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS, University of Toronto – Abridged Statement:

‘I am the Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto in Toronto Canada, a professor with a PhD in Biochemistry and a practicing dentist who has done years of funded research in tooth formation, bone and fluoride. I was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the 2006 report, ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the Environmental Protection Agencies’ Standards’. I would like to outline my arguments that fluoridation is an ineffective and harmful public health policy.

(1) There are numerous modern studies to show that there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the most recent one in Australia (Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology. 32:283-96). Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et al 2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47).

(2) Since the majority of daily fluoride comes from the drinking water in fluoridated areas, the risk for dental fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). The American Dental Association and the Dental Forum in Ireland has admitted that fluoridated tap water should not be used to reconstitute infant formula.

(3) The more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (National Academy of Science: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the psychological impact on children is a negative one Dental fluorosis can be reduced by turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).

(4) There is more than enough evidence to show that even this fluoride has the potential to promote cancer.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 83/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

(5) Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has recently been identified as a risk in young boys in a recently published Harvard study (Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this study, Dr. Elise Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested and contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the over 500% increase risk of bone cancer.

(6) Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of naturally fluoridated water at 4 parts per million increases your risk for bone pain and bone fractures (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006).

(7) Adverse thyroid function: The recent National Academy of Sciences report (Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. [for this argument see also Professor Peckham’s Research A1].

(8) Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the added accumulation of lead (a known neurotoxin) in children living in fluoridated cities, fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We are only now starting to understand how fluoride affects the brain. Several recent studies suggest that fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ (National Academy of Science, 2006)… In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation.

Dr. Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS, Abridged Statement to Southampton Local Authority Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry University of Toronto

The last point Professor Dr. Hardy Limeback makes is particularly relevant regarding litigation, the data we have now is explicitly clear and shows that fluoride is a dangerous ingredient that affects cancer rates, thyroids problems, and neurological development including decreased brain function. For confirmation of these assertions, please refer to the Mexican Study (Section A Part 5 of this Report) and also Dr. Burk’s National Cancer Testimonial before Congress on Fluoridation Schemes (Section A Part 7) of this Report.

Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Department of Preventative Dentistry for the University of Toronto and President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research, has also made a number of other interesting statements on the issue of fluoride. In one press release, the Doctor advocated extreme caution using fluoride, and he cited that general exposure should be avoided for small children, to quote:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 84/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

‘Children under three should never use fluoridated water, toothpaste or drink fluoridated water, and baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water – Never!’

Dr Hardy Limeback, Head of Department of Preventative Dentistry for the University of Toronto

The reason why fluoridated water should never be put into formula milk is that exposure to fluoride can kill small babies and is a similar point which is made by Dr. Whitford in his cautionary report ‘Fluoride in Dental Products: Safety Considerations’ (Journal of Dental Research 66: 1056-60). For further information on this study, please refer to the Conclusion of Section C of this Report.

In Dr. Limeback’s own study conducted at the University of Toronto, his results revealed that people in cities with fluoridated water supplies have double the fluoride in their hip bones compared with non-fluoridated areas. In the words of Dr. Limeback, fluoride was changing the ‘basic architecture of human bones’. Significantly, Dr. Limeback has also noted that although Toronto drinking water has been fluoridated for more than forty years, Vancouver which has never fluoridated its water supplies have lower cavity rates than in the city of Toronto. When reviewed in context to the vast amounts of data, the evidence predominantly suggests that fluoride through ‘hypermineralisation’ affects the structural integrity of the tooth, resulting in diminished strength of the enamel (Fejerskov et al., 1990, p694). Dr. Limeback has said that cavity rates are low all across the industrialised world – including Europe which is still largely fluoride free. On the subject of fluoride used by the public health agencies in drinking water, he has noted the following important points:

‘It is not only that we are drinking sodium fluoride, we are getting all the other intoxicants from the aluminium industry too… Certainly the crowning blow was the realisation that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs for half a century… Tragically, that means we’re not just dumping toxic fluoride into our drinking water. We are also exposing innocent, unsuspecting people to deadly elements of lead, arsenic, and radium, all of them are carcinogenic. Because of the cumulative properties of toxins, and detrimental effects on human health the effects are catastrophic’.

Dr Hardy Limeback, Head of Department of Preventative Dentistry for the University of Toronto

Dr. Limeback’s views are lucid and intelligently expressed, and more importantly are evidentially based upon the latest scientific knowledge. Extensive, Dr. Limeback’s research however is not the only expert voice expressing concern relating to fluoridation schemes and their effects upon public

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 85/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

health. Dr. John Colquohoun, New Zealand’s Former Chief Dental Officer’s own research into the different rates of caries in fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions further substantiates the argument that fluoridation overall increases the long term incidence of tooth decay. In 1984, the Former Chief Dental Officer of New Zealand, Dr. John Colquohoun, stated:

‘…when any unfluoridated area is compared with a fluoridated area of similar income level, the percentage of children who are free of dental decay is consistently higher in the unfluoridated area’.

William Lea, Science and Environment Section, Water Fluoridation Research Paper, House of Commons Library 93 /121 December 1993, p15

Quoted directly from the House of Commons, Water Fluoridation Research Paper Science and Environment Section, House of Commons Library 93 /121 December 1993, the UK Government know full well from their own collected figures that fluoride indubitably harms dental hygiene. Dr. John Colquohoun’s study is an important research paper made by one of New Zealand’s most senior dental experts. His firm conclusions are significant within medical research, as his findings demonstrate that fluoride in drinking water is a harmful agent, which is detrimental to people’s teeth. A proven fact, fluoride uptake correlates to dental decay and is shown in the New Zealand statistics to cause damage, a conclusion listed in John Colquohoun’s figures, provided in the following table:

Table A: New Zealand Comparative Rates of Caries in Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated Regions Small Statistical Differences Reveal that the Non-Fluoridated Areas Have Slightly Less Decay

5 Year Olds NON-FLUORIDATED Centre No. of Children Carries Free % Mean DMFT Christchurch (3849) 55% 1.8

5 Years Olds FLUORIDATED Centre No. of Children Carries Free % Mean DMFT Auckland (9611) 53% 1.8 Hamilton (2266) 47% 2.3 Palmerston Nth (950) 55% 1.8 Wellington (3344) 58% 1.6 Dunedin (994) 56% 1.5

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 86/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

12 – 13 Year Olds NON-FLUORIDATED Centre No. of Children Carries Free % Mean DMFT Christchurch (5822) 37% 1.9

12 – 13 Year Olds FLUORIDATED Centre No. of Children Carries Free % Mean DMFT Auckland (11464) 33% 2.0 Hamilton (2689) 30% 2.3 Palmerston Nth (1025) 31% 2.3 Wellington (4237) 36% 1.8 Dunedin (1168) 29% 2.2

Analysis: In the two tables, the results between caries in the younger age group (5 year olds) and caries free rates are virtually identical. The figures suggest a slight benefit in non-fluoridated regions. As we move into the older age groups (12 to13 year olds), the differential between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated category becomes statistically much more significant. The interpretation inferred from the expanded figures is that the systematic use of fluoridated water over longer periods of time is demonstrated to compromise the overall durability of the tooth and is related to the development of caries, in the sober words of Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association:

‘…Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long

range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable’.

Michael Barbee, Politically Incorrect Nutrition, Finding Reality in the Mire of the Food Industry, Vital Health Publishing, 2004, p44

More vociferous claims however are made by Professor Dr. Albert Schatz, Microbiology, Co-discover of Streptomycin Antibiotic, the Cure for Tuberculosis and Related Microbial Infections. His own detailed research into fluoride is clear, and in his testimony in Chile argued emphatically against fluoride, he stated:

‘It is my best judgement, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty that fluoridation is an invalid theory and ineffective in practice as a preventative of dental carries. It is dangerous to the health of consumers’.

Dr. A Schatz, Medical Article, Increased Death Rates in Chile Associated with Artificial Fluoride in Drinking Water, with Implications for Other Countries, Anthony University Jour of Arts Science and Humanities, 2:1, 1976

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 87/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Professor Dr. Albert Schatz also made sworn testimonies in court giving evidence, citing an exponential increase in the infant mortality rate within Chile and stated professionally that fluoride ‘increases death rates’. To summarise the evidence, Professor Dr. Albert Schatz and Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association are not just your average doctor, but are top scientists in the medical world and have previously conducted important research.

As early as 1965, the American Medical Association (America’s largest medical institute) declared it was not prepared to state that fluoridation schemes were safe (and for good reason!), so the awkward question remains, ‘Why is fluoride permitted into drinking water?’, a toxic element equated with the industrial sector, to quote the cautionary words of Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of the Environmental Health, American Medical Association:

‘The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The American Medical Association has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects’.

Dr. Flanagan, Dated May 13th 1965, American Medical Association, Department of Environmental Health, Scanned Letter to Mr Fulton, New South Wales, Australia This fiasco is best summarised in the words of the Journal of the American Dental Association as early as 1944:

‘… the potentialities for harm from fluoridation far outweigh those for the good’.

Journal of American Dental Association, Editorial 1944

The Journal of American Dental Association is not the only voice that are calling for the reappraisal of fluoride within dentistry. The evaluation of fluoride and its negative effects upon dental health is a medical position reinforced also by the National Research Council and the World Health Organisation’s own published data.

If we look at the World Health Organisation’s database on fluoridated and non- fluoridated regions (2012), the negligible differentials between the comparative figures, once again indicate a problem with fluoride. Furthermore the results demonstrate conclusively that fluoride has a harmful effect on the dental hygiene of the population. This is not just a blip on the data landscape but is the largest comparative study of fluoridation schemes ever completed, a set of data comparisons which number millions of people. Unequivocal, the statistics show that fluoride equals more cavities totals, figures which are shown in the following results:

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 88/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled Teeth) Status for 12 Year Olds by Country

–World Health Organisation Data (2012) – Country DMFTs Year Status Denmark 0.7 2008 No water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. Germany 0.7 2005 No water fluoridation.

67% salt fluoridation. England 0.7 2009 11% water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. Netherlands* 0.8 2002 No water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. Switzerland** 0.82 2009 No water fluoridation.

88% salt fluoridation. Belgium 0.9 2009-10 No water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. Sweden 0.9 2008 No water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. Australia 1.0 2003-2004 80% water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. Austria 1.0 2002 No water fluoridation.

6% salt fluoridation. Ireland 1.1 2002 100% water fluoridation in study.

No salt fluoridation. Italy 1.1 2004 No water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. United States 1.19 1999-2004 64% water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. Finland 1.2 2006 No water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. France 1.2 2006 No water fluoridation.

65% salt fluoridation. Spain 1.3 2004 11% water fluoridation.

10% salt fluoridation. Greece 1.35 2005-06 No water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. Iceland 1.4 2005 No water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. New Zealand 1.4 2009 61% water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. Japan 1.7 2005 No water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 89/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Country DMFTs Year Status Norway 1.7 2004 No water fluoridation.

No salt fluoridation. Key: *The Hague and **Zurich

Appendix 1: Table Results Compiled by the Following Organisations:

Tooth Decay Data from: World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Education, Training, and Research in Oral Health, Malmö University, Sweden. http://www.mah.se/CAPP/ Salt Fluoridation Data from: Gotzfried F. (2006). Legal Aspects of Fluoride in Salt, Particularly within the EU. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 116:371-75.

Additional Notes on the Tabulated Figures from the World Health Organisation (WHO) Database between Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated of the World

Conclusive, the figures from the World Health Organisation (WHO) show the incidence of tooth decay in fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions of Europe and the rest of the world. Although the difference seen between the 2 sets of figures are minimal, the averages for the amounts of caries suggest that fluoridation in water moderately increases the risk of tooth decay. Extremely troubling, there are listed at least 5 major studies that have shown the injurious effects of fluoride on oral hygiene upon large community groups within fluoridated regions. An anathema to public health, the figures of injury are cited in the table below – (It is likely that many more examples exist)!

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 90/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Studies that Show ‘No Difference’ Between the Dental Health of Fluoridated & Non-Fluoridated Regions of the World

(Please Note the *Sign is Where the Studies Highlighted Injury)

United States, Canada and South America Country Periodical Review United States A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Public Health

Dentistry 69:111-15 Iowa* Journal of Public Health Dentistry 66(2):83-7 West Virginia Rural Health Research Centre, 2011 Missouri American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78:79-92 Canada* Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 10:763-765 Mexico Cross-Sectional Analysis of Children with Dentition 2006 Brazil Cadernos de Saude Publica 18:1281-8

Australia and New Zealand Country Periodical Review Australia Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology 32:283-296 New Zealand Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.

21: 187-190 New Zealand* Community Health Studies 6: 85-90 New Zealand Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41

Europe Country / Region Periodical Review Germany Gesundheitswesen 73(8-9):483-90 Ireland* Community Dental Health 20(3):165-70 Finland Caries Research 36: 308-314 Flanders Biostatistics 6:145-55

Middle East Country Periodical Review Iran* Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 34:63-70

World Country Periodical Review Europe and the rest of the World* Malmö University, Sweden (WHO Study)

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 91/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The conclusions extrapolated from out of seventeen trials, just over one third of the studies indicated ‘actual harm’ from fluoride poisoning and two third indicated no benefit to fluoride in water for dental hygiene. However two of the largest studies, one from New Zealand and the other from the World Health Organisation own figures, showed ‘actual injury’.

The general rule of thumb is the larger the population study, the less statistical variance within the figures, totals that when objectively analysed indicate ‘harm’. Obscure, the real epidemic of fluoride poisoning is buried within the medical literature. Extremely troubling, there are listed at least 6 major studies that have highlighted conclusively the injurious effects of fluoride upon dental hygiene in large community groups exposed to fluoridation. The six peer reviewed studies showing definitive proof of injury are quoted in the following table!

Major Peer Reviewed Papers that Show the Damaging Effects of Fluoridation within Controlled Study Groups Country Studies / Relevant Periodical Canada (British Columbia) Journal of the Canadian Association Unite States (Iowa) Journal of Public Health Dentistry New Zealand Community Health Studies Ireland Community Dental Health Iran Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology Europe and the World Malmö University, Sweden (Who Study)

It is contended within the figures cited in the previous table that tooth decay is directly connected to fluoride consumption, in which the data shows ‘actual harm’ to the structure of the tooth enamel. This in medical jargon is known as an increase in ‘osteoblast profusion’ or ‘hyperminerisation’ and is presented as a toxic side effect of fluoride poisoning. In summary, the introduction of fluoride into the body remodels or makes the tooth and bone more porous and thereby compromises dental hygiene.

Employing sophist arguments, the mass fluoridation programmes seen throughout the UK are to guilefully put into place legislation that will permit the introduction of hydrofluoric acid into the drinking water supply. A lethal contamination, the introduction of this chemical, in addition to cadmium, lead, mercury and poisonous nuclides, are directly associated with the diversification of the petroleum industry in the UK. Public Health England’s method to fluoridate unsuspecting regions uses well tested systems of propaganda, encapsulated in the Wakefield Express’ sensational news item on fluoride.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 92/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

This article shamefully employed a high visibility ‘commissioned for purpose spread’ on fluoride – a (dis)information campaign designed to scare people into submitting to the will of Public Health England.

A patronising article, the extract leads us on neatly to the safety and efficacy of fluoridation schemes foisted on local councils to mask illegal pollution. Shown in study after study, hydrogen fluoride is a deadly neuro-toxin in humans and is a mutagenic agent. It is contended in this Report that the establishment of fluoridation schemes in regions earmarked for unconventional drilling suggests that the government are wilfully attempting to disguise fluoride elevations covertly in area conducting fracking.

Similar confabulations surrounding radioactive contamination are at the heart of the industry’s attempt at misdirection. Foreboding, the ulterior motives of fracking operations are, it seems, centred upon the introduction of deep well boring technology – a series of objectives discussed in Appendix 2.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 93/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Appendix 2: Circumstantial Evidence Are the British Government Planning on Dumping Nuclear Waste into Spent Fracking Wells without Telling the General Population?

This final part of the Report, although conjecture, will look at the contentious argument that the government are planning on secretly dumping nuclear waste into fracking wells without public knowledge or scrutiny. A controversial thesis, the authors of this Report will provide circumstantial evidence to suggest why this has already occurred in the States and is in the process of happening in the UK. The details given in this section will provide a plausible explanation, as to why the government is flagrantly breaking the Water Laws, whilst permitting fracking to occur, addendum to why the Local Councils have been left out of the legal loophole.

It is hoped by submitting this information that Ministers will come forward with further details about this possible agenda. If the assumed policy is correct and the UK is preparing on disposing quietly of its stockpile of nuclear waste, the planned procedure without the correct oversights will result in public injury and irreversibly damage the UK’s drinking water supply.

Limited, the evidence that the government could be thinking of offsetting their nuclear waste comes primarily from two initial sources: (1) Ellesmere well and (2) Concerned Professionals of New York Report 2018. But before we attempt to piece together some of these connections, it is first necessary to acquaint ourselves with the process of nuclear disposal, in particular the burying of nuclear waste at very deep underground levels, known as ‘Deep Borehole Disposal’ (DBD). According to Professor Gibb of Geology who has held a seat on the government’s advisory ‘Committee on Radioactive Waste Management’ (CORWM), the proposal to exploit ‘Deep Borehole Disposal’ (DBD) has a number of advantages over the contemporary solution envisaged for all UK nuclear waste.

Currently the dominant and most active aspect into the ‘safe’ discarding of nuclear waste is the latest research into the disposal of high-level radioactive materials in very deep boreholes (3-6km), as an alternative to the so-called ‘Deep Mined & Engineered Repositories’ (300-800m). Subterranean, many of these storage facilities are geologically shallow enough, so as to potentially compromise aquifers and groundwater supplies.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 94/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

The situation in Britain for finding a home for 126 tonnes of stockpiled spent radium and plutonium originating principally from EU countries, such as Germany, Italy and Sweden is a priority. Of import, the critical question posed in this Report asks, ‘Has the UK Government sided with the petroleum companies to extract mineral resources, whilst simultaneously attempting to dispose secretly of Britain’s nuclear legacy’? If such a covert plan was in full swing, we would expect to see it at the planning stage, and at Ellesmere Port, we can see telltale signs that all is not what it seems to be.

To elucidate, IGas has drilled a thousand meters deeper than planning approval, which is approximately 1 kilometre extra. According to West Chester Council, its spokesperson said that IGas well at Ellesmere Port had planning approval to explore for coal bed methane at a depth of about 900m, but the company has confirmed that the well was drilled in 2014 to more than 1,900m. A major disparity, this ‘oversight’ is nearly 2 kilometres underground and is just 1 kilometre from the range proposed to discard nuclear waste – ‘Deep Borehole Disposal’ (DBD), which starts from 3000 meters (3 kilometres).

The cabinet member for the environment, Cllr Karen Shore has stated publically that the council had been investigating a ‘discrepancy between the depth of the well that had been approved and the actual depth drilled to by IGas’, to quote a public statement made by the council…

‘As part of our investigations we requested further information from IGas and we’ve now received confirmation from their agent that they have drilled to a depth of 1,949 metres – more than 1,000 metres deeper than the planning approval allows. We have requested that IGas explain their actions and advise what confirmation they believe they had to drill to such a depth. We have contacted both the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency to confirm that the relevant well audits, examinations and permits have considered such a depth. HSE have advised that their specialists are looking into it. Once we receive responses from IGas, the HSE and the EA we will consider what action we can take and seek further legal advice’.

Ruth Hayhurst, Article IGas Drilled Ellesmere Port Gas Well, 1000m Deeper than Planning Approval Says Council

Published proof of this large disparity between the proposed and actual well shafts are also documented in the two plans submitted by IGas. The first diagram pictured is a schemata of the ‘indicative well profile’, a drawing which was also included in the 2009 planning application, showing the design of the central well or ‘mother bore’. This borehole reached a depth of about 900m. The document was named in the company’s planning statement for the 2009

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 95/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

application, as Drawing No 62098/006 shown in Diagram 1. The first image printed however is in contradiction to the later drawing provided from IGas planning application to flow test the Ellesmere Port-1 well. The well architecture detailed inexplicably shows an increase in well depth of over a thousand feet (1949m), an incongruity shown clearly in Diagram 2 illustrated.

Diagram 12009 Planning Application, Drawing No 62098/006

Diagram 2

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 96/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

In response to these unaccountable developments, Colin Watson (Chair of Cheshire West and Chester Green Party) said:

‘What is particularly concerning about this well is that it passes through a water course classified by the Environment Agency as a “major aquifer, high vulnerability”. If IGas cannot respect the Council, will they respect the aquifer? Also the well is 75m from industrial units, 200m from the M53 and 600m from houses; all within the impact zone of a major blowout if the American experience is anything to go by. The key message from this example is that once these companies get underground and you cannot see what they are doing, they will do anything!’

Ruth Hayhurst, Article IGas Drilled Ellesmere Port Gas Well, 1000m Deeper than Planning Approval Says Council

In the public statement, Colin Watson is making a legal argument that the water aquifer has to be respected, a prerequisite to protect human life from ‘potential harm’ as stipulated by the Water Laws and quoted in the Environmental Act of 1995, to quote:

(4) “Harm” means harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, includes harm to his property. (5) The question: (a) What harm is to be regarded as significant. (b) Whether the possibility of significant harm being caused is significant. (c) Whether pollution of controlled water is being or is likely to be caused.

Environmental Act 1995, Part II, p49

To restate, the introduction of 600,000 gallons of hydrofluoric acid or 17,158 oil barrels of ‘poison’ flooding the earth in proximity to the aquifer suggests both ‘the possibility of significant harm’ in conjunction to the ‘pollution of controlled water… being or… likely to be caused’, a calamity predicted as a 69% of ‘potential or actual water contamination’, an established percentage quoted by the Concerned Health Professionals of New York Report 2018. These figures translates otherwise as ‘a 50% chance of well failure within 15 years’ or 84% of figures showing ‘signs of harm or indications of potential harm’ – [statistics obtained from PSE Health Energy Database]. For greater clarity on the Water Laws, please refer to YLMAF’s First Report.

The omission by IGas however to disclose the full and correct details at Ellesmere Port, it seems, is not a ‘mistake’, as another incident occurred a second time, which suggests a pattern or trend. At Ince Marshes, the proposed well

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 97/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

encasing was dug much deeper than stated in the initial planning application. A discrepancy at the preparation stage, the disagreement in the numbers was documented to be at a similar level as Ellesmere well, in which the planning incursion at Ince Marshes extended approximately 800m over the limit, to quote:

‘At Ince Marshes, the company’s planning application said the depth of the permitted wells would be 762m. But the Oil & Gas Authority records the depth of the one well drilled in 2011 was 5,118.9 ft (1,560.2m)’.

Ruth Hayhurst, Article IGas Drilled Ellesmere Port Gas Well, 1000m Deeper than Planning Approval Says Council

So what could account for the inconsistencies in the figures found at Inces Marsh and its twinned well at Ellesmere Port well-1. The clue could be to do with the depth of the borehole at over 1,500 metres. The topic of Deep Borehole Disposal (DBD) technology to bury nuclear waste in combination with the petroleum companies’ expertise at digging very deep holes suggest a ‘marriage made in heaven’. Although tentative, the hypothesis for a possible deception regarding waste is evident within the United States and exhibited within the geology of the Marcellus shale. Unusual by any standards, this sedimentary rock is described by the Concerned Health Professionals of New York Report 2018 as ‘particularly radioactive’. The question posed to the readership concerns the radiation levels obtained from the Marcellus shale, in context to fracking. To restate, can the radioactive readings from the Marcellus shale be described as ‘Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials’ (NORM) or is it conversely ‘AB-NORM’, to quote the Concerned Health Professional of New York:

‘High levels of radiation documented in fracking wastewater from many shale formations raise special concerns in terms of impacts to groundwater and surface water. Measurements of radium in fracking wastewater in New York and Pennsylvania, from the particularly radioactive Marcellus Shale, have been as high as 3,600 times the regulatory limit for drinking water, as established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). One study found toxic levels of radiation in a Pennsylvania waterway even after fracking wastewater was disposed of through an industrial wastewater treatment plant’.

Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Fifth Edition, 2018, p93

In their report, the Concerned Health Professionals of New York make reference to…‘Measurements of radium in fracking wastewater in New York and Pennsylvania, from the particularly radioactive Marcellus Shale, [which] have been as high as 3,600 times the regulatory limit for drinking water, as established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’. In other words,

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 98/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

could the governments of America and England be covertly disposing of nuclear waste through wellbore technology and describing this process as ‘NORM’ (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials), utilising neuro-linguistic programming to condition experts to accept facts that are scientifically unsound? Although the details are sketchy, the evidence that such a scenario could be occurring is as follows:

(1) IGas have been exceeding their planning permission given by local

councils, and the energy companies have done this on numerous occasions at great expense to themselves. They have not given a clear reason as to why – Could it be that the petroleum industry are being paid quietly by the government to rid the UK’s stockpile of nuclear waste? (2) IGas have dug over its permitted remit by approximately a kilometre at

Ellesmere Port-1 showing an increase in well depth of over a thousand meters (1949m), which is near to the range of 3000 meters the starting point for the highly experimental ‘Deep Borehole Disposal’ (DBD). The utilization of ‘Deep Boreholes’ is the waste disposal method favoured by the government planners to get rid of extremely toxic nuclear waste. (3) Circumstantially the distinction between ‘particularly radioactive shale’ as

opposed to ‘radioactive shale’ is possibly the difference between ‘Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials’ (NORM) and waste materials that are ‘AB-NORM’. The distinction between ‘NORM’ and ‘Abnormal’ levels of radiation, although legal definitions are levels difficult to determine with certainty. (4) The ambiguity regarding Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials

(NORM) and manmade radiation is an ideal situation for highly experimental methods of disposing of radioactive waste. The classification of ‘NORM’ provides a perfect cover for dumping nuclear waste with full impunity. (5) The exploitation of the word ‘NORM’ (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials) is a perfect charade to hide industrial levels of radiation, in which accidental contamination of aquifers can be covered under plausible deniability. (6) Although unclear at this stage, it appears that the regulatory bodies are

ostensibly using duplicitous language to describe ‘Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials’ as ‘NORM’, a codified example of neuro-linguistic programming. ‘NORM’ by definition can be understood to be a radioactive material and is therefore dangerous to the human organism. (7) In a similar fashion, circumstantial evidence included in this Second

Report suggests that the cover of fluoridation schemes have been used deliberately to conceal potential widespread pollution at proposed fracking sites. Areas under scrutiny include Wakefield, Leeds and Ellesmere Port.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 99/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

(8) Epidemic, the increase in thyroid and diabetes indicate an immediate

problem with the extent of fluoride throughout the UK. At record levels, the growth in figures of endocrinal disorders demonstrates the real possibility of a human health catastrophe. Deadly these side effects will have a massive knock on effect of ‘All Cause Mortality’ throughout the Counties of Yorkshire and Cheshire. A shocking fact, these elevated figures are equated with the poisoning of people through industrial fracking – an uncomfortable fact which lies ultimately at the doorstep of the government and its corporate interests. (9) The massive risks to human health regarding fracking and its possible

association with Deep Borehole Disposal (DBD) is summed up aptly in the words of Colin Watson (Chair of Cheshire West and Chester Green Party) ‘The key message from this example is that once these companies get underground and you cannot see what they are doing, they will do anything!’

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 100/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Resources and Bibliography Alphabetical Order

A Highly Recommended Book: An excellent Book on scientific arguments against fluoride written by eminent medical practitioners include the erudite publication:

  • THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There

All of the Doctors that contributed to this work and their details are summarised below. The book chronicles a historical, political, and ethical review of fluoride. Its focus emphasizes the toxicological and epidemiological scientific data behind drinking fluoridated water. The study also concludes that, if proposed today, fluoridation of drinking water to prevent tooth decay would stand virtually no chance of being adopted, given the current status of scientific knowledge. The Authors of the book are as follows:

  • Dr. Paul Connett is the Director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and the Executive Director of its parent body, the American Environmental Health Studies Project (AEHSP). He has spoken and given more than 2,000 presentations in forty-nine states, and fifty-two countries on the issue of waste management. He holds a BS (Honors) degree from the University of Cambridge and a PhD in Chemistry from Dartmouth College and is an Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at St Lawrence University, Canton, NY, where his areas of expertise are environmental chemistry and toxicology.
  • Dr. James S Beck is a Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics at the University of Calgary and holds Doctorates in Medicine from Washington University School of Medicine and Biophysics from the University of California, Berkeley. He holds a DPhil from the University of Oxford.
  • Dr. C Vyvyan Howard, MB ChB, PhD, FRCPath, is the Professor of Bioimaging, Nano Systems Biology, Centre for Molecular Biosciences, University of Ulster. He is a Toxico-Pathologist specialising in the problems associated with the action of toxic substances on the fetus and the infant.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 101/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Other Related and Useful Books:

  • Beck, A James DDS, The Fluoride Myth: Debunking the Controversy, 2014
  • Bryson, Christopher, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2004
  • Dowdell, Bette, Is Fluoride Killing You, Too? Confident Faith Institute; 1st Print Edition 2013
  • Fredenberg, James P. M.D., Fluoride Controversies: A Physician’s Perspective on the Devastating Health Consequences of Fluoride
  • Good, Judd G., Teeth Birth to Death, Glendale: Research Publications, 1997, p39
  • Groves, Barry, Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death?: The Scientific Argument Against Water Fluoridation, Newleaf, 2001
  • Dr. Moolenburgh, H.C., Fluoride: The Freedom Fight Paperback, 1987
  • Morell, Alex, The Fluoride Truth: The Real Reason It’s In Your Water and the True Health Risks (What the News Won’t Tell You…), 2004
  • Nagel, Ramiel, Healing Our Children, Golden Child Publishing, 2009
  • Ranjan, Rakesh and Amita, Fluoride Toxicity in Animals (Springer Briefs in Animal Sciences), 2015
  • Yiamouyiannis, John, Fluoride the Aging Factor: How to Recognize and Avoid the Devastating Effects of Fluoride, 1993

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 102/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Academic papers, Pharmacological Laws and Government Reviews on Fluoride and its Related legislation No ACT / ARTICLE / REPORT / BOOK AUTHOUR / YEAR / PUBLISHER/ INFO.

1 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

CHAPTER 14

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 103/123

1986, Chapter 14, Printed in England by W. J. SHARP, CB, Controller and Chief Executive of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament. The vivisection laws under the UK government. 2 Applicants Guideline on the Packaging

Information of Medicinal Products for Human Use Authorised by the Union.

July 2013, European Commission Health and Consumer Directorate-General, Health System and Products Medicinal Products Final – Revision 14 This guideline is part of the Notice to Applicants Volume 2C – Medicinal Products for Human Use – Regulatory Guidelines of the Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union, Revision 14 Update from July 2013 (Directive 2001/83/EC as amended for the last time by Directive2012/26/EU1 and Regulation (EC) No726/2004 as amended for the last time by Regulation (EU) No 1027/20122). 1 OJ L 299 of 27.10.2012, p.1. 2 OJ L 316 of 14.11.2012, p.38 3 Bad Pharma How Drug Companies

Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients

Dr Ben Goldacre, Forth Estate, 2012 Another book written by a credible Dr. A critical study of the flawed medical trials, followed by the suppression of unfavourable results, poor regulation, diseases invented for profit, and Dr and academies in the pay of pill manufacturers. An important work for understanding how medical regulations work. This book then is a requirement for apprehending the public policy of fluoride and the legal and medical jargon associated with it. 4 Brisbane NZ Report Environment (Copy) Lord Mayor’s Taskforce on Fluoridation was

established in January 1997 in response to the debate in the media and the political arena about whether Brisbane’s water supply should be fluoridated. A decent document that looks into the complicated issue of fluoridation. Like the York Report it found very little scientific information on fluoride as a prevention for tooth decay. The document also highlights the serious diseases that are equated with fluoridation.

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

No ACT / ARTICLE / REPORT / BOOK AUTHOUR / YEAR / PUBLISHER/ INFO.

5 British Physicians Confirm Safety and

Effectiveness and Urge Fluoridation

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 104/123

Department of Health Education, and Welfare Public Health Service, Centre for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, 30333 Refer: FL-85, April 1976 6 Cancer Act 1939 Chapter 13, Section 4

Prohibition of Certain Advertisements, p6

1939, Non Drs are forbidden to promote cures for cancer and is a good example of the centralisation of knowledge within medicine 7 Code of Practice

for the Pharmaceutical Industry

© Copyright 2014 The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority: Constitution and Procedure, 2014 8 Code of Practice

for the Pharmaceutical Industry

2015, Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) Together with the Prescription Medicines Code of practice Authority Constitution and Procedure 9 Committee for Medicinal Products for

Human Use (CHMP) Guideline on Compassionate use of Medicinal Products Pursuant to Article 83 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004

London, 19 July 2007 Doc. Ref: EMEA/27170/2006 European Medicines Agency Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4HB, UK E-mail: [email protected] http://www.emea.europa.eu Legal document on the implementation of medical products. The emphasis of this document is research into human medicine and ethical practices. 10 Criminal Law Act 1977

Chapter 45 Arrangement of Sections

Facsimile of Crown Prosecution Document 1977. Printed in England by Bernard M. Thimont, Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament (389994) 11 Directive 2001/83 EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 November 2001 On the Community Code Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use

Official Journal L – 311, 28/11/2004, p. 67 – 128 As amended by Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC /

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

No ACT / ARTICLE / REPORT / BOOK AUTHOUR / YEAR / PUBLISHER/ INFO. 12 Directive 2001/83 EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 November 2001 On the Community Code Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 105/123

Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 31 March 2004 Amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use Directive 2004/27/EC of Amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use 13 Directives 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 December 2010, Amendment Pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC

Official Journal of the European Union 31.12.2010 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.

14 Directives 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 December 2010, Amendment Pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC

Marketing and risk assessment relative to medicines and their use within the general population.

15 Directive 2011/62/EU of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 Amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use, as Regards the Prevention of the Entry into the Legal Supply Chain of Falsified Medicinal Products

Official Journal of the European Union 1.7.2011 The legal definition of a ‘false medicine’ see also ‘Fluoride’

16 Edinburgh, Comments on the case Mrs

Catherine McColl v Strathclyde Regional Council, Held in the Court of Session.

Judgement given on 29 June 1983 Many of these documents on line appear to be missing – and there are a number of pertinent reports that have been deleted recently on the issue of fluoride 17 The Extent of Water Fluoridation: One in

a Million the Facts about Water Fluoridation

The British Fluoridation Society A very sinister organisation that wish to fluoridate the entire planet’s water supply. This document services, the hidden global elite. 18 Fluoridation House of Commons Library

Standard Note: SN/SC/5689 Last updated:2 September 2013 Author: Oliver Bennett Section: Science and Environment. Paper on the generalities of the fluoride controversy.

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

No ACT / ARTICLE / REPORT / BOOK AUTHOUR / YEAR / PUBLISHER/ INFO. 19 Fluoride in Drinking Water:

A Scientific Review of Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 106/123

The National Academies Press, Washington D.C., www.nap.edu Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences (Otherwise referred to in this document as the National Research Council Report), Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology Division on Earth and Life Studies. The largest systematic report completed on fluoride. The study goes into in-depth analysis of the toxicity of fluoride and its contamination levels. An important work. This document proves that fluoride under current legislation is illegal

20 The Fluoride Wars, How a Modest Public

Health Measure became America’s Longest Running Political Melodrama,

Allan Freeze , Jay H. Lehr, John Wiley & Son Inc. Publication, 2009, Chronicles the underhand tactics of the fluoride industry including the propaganda of bad science and the major players! 21 www.GOVUK

Medicines: Packaging, Labelling and Patient Information Leaflets

From Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency First published:18 December 2014 Part of marketing, authorisations, variations and licensing guidance, medicines, medical devices and blood regulation and safety. 22 The Greatest Fraud, Fluoridation Philip R. N. Sutton, D. D. sc (Melb) L.D.S,

F.R.A.C.D.S. This book is written by a top Dr. whose qualifications are longer than his own name. This excellent publication looks into the fraudulent science of fluoride. The publication provides a historical overview of the top leading Drs including Professor Albert Schatz. Famous for his cure for TB. Rich in detail, the work chronicles the un-established claims for water fluoridation and examines the real medical risks associated with the policy and includes a synopsis of the legal arguments. 23 Guidance on Collaboration between

Healthcare Professionals and the Pharmaceutical Industry

Ethical Standards in Health & Life Sciences Group Ethics, transparency, partnership

24 Guide to Part G of the Building

Regulations: Sanitation, Hot Water Safety and Water Efficiency: 2010 edition: When is Water Wholesome? (Extract)

Nick Price Copyright RIBA Publishing June 2010. Regulations and standards Understanding the new and substantially updated 2010 Approved Document G which came into force in April 2010 and how it relates to the building trade.

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

No ACT / ARTICLE / REPORT / BOOK AUTHOUR / YEAR / PUBLISHER/ INFO. 25 Health and Social Care (Safety and

Quality) Act 2015

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 107/123

2015 Chapter 28

©Crown Copyright 2015 Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) Schedule — Objectives of Regulators of Health and Social Care Professions: Section 5 26 Human Medicines Regulations 2012 2012 No. 1916 Medicines

Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) Made 19th July 2012 Laid before Parliament 24th July 2012 Coming into force 14th August 2012 27 Investigators Report Queensland Government, Queensland Health

June 2009 Queensland and Health Population Health Queensland Water fluoridation Incident, North Pine Water Treatment Plant

28 Mass Fluoride Poisoning Blamed on

Pump, Government

News Tribune (Tacoma, WA) David Hulen, July 2, 1992 Summary report of the Hooper Bay incident in which local residents were killed and poisoned by fluoride due to a broken pump

29 Medicinal Products in the European

Union: The Legal Framework for Medicines for Human Use In-depth Analysis

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

This paper gives a general overview of several aspects of EU legislation on human medicines. It describes relevant regulatory rules and procedures, identifies the actors involved, and highlights current practices. The document also takes stock of stakeholder views and concludes with a snapshot of an emerging approach in medicine and its legal approval. EPRS (European Parliamentary Research Service) Author: Nicole Scholz Members’ Research Service April 2015 — PE 554.174

30 www.nhs.uk

NHS Choices

General source of (dis)information about fluoride. Anyone who is interested in the issue of fluoride as a poison should refer to National Research Council Review. 31 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 1861 Crown Prosecution Document

Section 24: Maliciously Administering Poison, and with Intent to Injure, Aggrieve, or Annoy any Other Person. 32 Politically Incorrect Nutrition, Finding

Reality in the Mire of the Food Industry

Michael Barbee, Vital Health Publishing, 2004, Overview of the fluoride argument in context to the food industry.

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

No ACT / ARTICLE / REPORT / BOOK AUTHOUR / YEAR / PUBLISHER/ INFO. 33 Public Assessment Report (UKPAR) UK Licence No: PL 20117/0239-0240

Morningside Healthcare Limited Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Fluoride 2800 ppm Toothpaste Fluoride 5000 ppm Toothpaste (Sodium Fluoride) Data Sheet on New Product 34 Review of the 2006 United States

National Research Council Report: Fluoride in Drinking Water

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 108/123

Robert J Carton PhD, Averill Park, NY, USA Guest editorial review, Fluoride 39(3)163–172 July-September 2006 www.fluorideresearch.org Copyright © 2006 International Society for Fluoride Research. Review of the American National Research Council Report, written by One of America’s Top Toxicologists. An excellent source of knowledge on fluoride as a poison. 35 Southampton , Daily Echo High Court

Challenge, to Fluoridation Plans for Southampton Rejected

2:30pm Friday 11th February 2011 By Jon Reeve. Hampshire Against Fluoridation, previous blog set up to stop fluoride in Hampshire 36 Statutory Instruments

Water, England and Wales The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000, 2000 No. 3184

©Crown Copyright 2000 Printed and published in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited UK water laws 2000

37 A Summary of an Enquiry by the Royal

College of Physicians into Water Fluoridation

A summary of the earlier 1976 document by the Royal College of Physicians. This document is an attempt to reassure the public about fluoride after leaks from the scientific world in the 1970s that the ingredient was not safe and fit for purpose.

38 A Systematic Review of Public Water

Fluoridation

Marian McDonagh (1), Penny Whiting (1) Matthew Bradley (1), Janet Cooper (2) Alex Sutton (3), Ivor Chestnutt (2), Kate Misso (1), Paul Wilson (1), Elizabeth Treasure (2), Jos Kleijnen (1) (1) NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York (2) Dental Public Health Unit, The Dental School, University of Wales, Cardiff (3) University of Leicester, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health 2000 © 2000 NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York: Report 18

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

No ACT / ARTICLE / REPORT / BOOK AUTHOUR / YEAR / PUBLISHER/ INFO. 39 Water fluoridation 21 December 1993

House of Commons Library William Lea: Science and Environment Section Research Paper 93/121 Environment Issues Science & Technology Short discussion paper on fluoride

40 Water Fluoridation and Health MRC (Medical Research Council)

© Medical Research Council September 2002 Working Group Report A report that propagates fluoride as safe. This paper is designed to reassure the public and avoids the issue of fluoride as a toxin.

41 Water fluoridation:

Health Monitoring Report for England 2014

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 109/123

Public Health England © Crown copyright 2013, Published March 2014, PHE publications gateway number: 2013547. This report is surprising for its lack of health monitoring – and promises the general public longer life and less cancer under current fluoridation schemes – a total sham!

42 The Water Fluoridation, Proposals and

Consultation, (England) Regulations 2013 IA No: 3075 Department of Health Other departments or agencies: Impact

Date:11/02/2013 Impact of regulations setting requirements on local authorities making proposals and consulting local residents about water fluoridation. 43 Weeping and Wailing and Gnashing of

Teeth: The Legal Fiction of Water Fluoridation (Article)

David Shaw, School of Medicine University of Glasgow, UK , [email protected] ©The Author(s) 2012, Medical Law International 12(1) 11–27. Decent short article on the issues of fluoride in particular the unsustainable argument that fluoride is safe and legal within the Member States of the EU 44 World Medical Association Declaration of

Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects

JAMA Published online October 19, 2013 Corresponding Author: World Medical Association, 13, ch. du Levant, CIB – Bâtiment A,01210 Ferney-Voltaire, France; [email protected] doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053. Clinical Review & Education Special Communication World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. This document deals with the ethics of medicine – and as a result the EU are further distancing themselves from this declaration.

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

References and Academic Studies showing the Toxicity of Fluoride

Abdo FK, Khalifa ME, Zidan RA, Abdel Aal SM. 2011. Effect of sodium fluoride- induced toxicity on the renal cortex of lactating mice and their offspring: a light and electron microscopic study. Egypt J Hist 34(3):554-65.

Alarcon-Herrera MT, et al. (2001). Well Water Fluoride, Dental fluorosis, Bone Fractures in the Guadiana Valley of Mexico. Fluoride. 34(2): 139-149.

An J, et al. (1992). The effects of high fluoride on the level of intelligence of primary and secondary students. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 7(2):93-94.

Bachinskii PP, et al. (1985) Action of the body fluorine of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients on the function of hypophyseal-thyroid the system. ProblEndokrinol (Mosk) 31: 25-9.

Barbier O. (2010) Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity. Chemico-Biological Interactions. 188: 319–333.

Barot VV. (1998). Occurrence of endemic fluorosis in human population of North Gujarat, India: human health risk. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 61: 303-10.

Bassin EB. (2001). “Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Osteosarcoma for Children and Adolescents,” DMSc thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.

Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosaroma (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17(4):421-8.

Bayley TA, et al. (1990). Fluoride-induced fractures: relation to osteogenic effect. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.5(Suppl 1):S217-22.

Beltrán-Aguilar ED et al. (2010). Prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS DataBrief No. 53.U.S. DHHS, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 110/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Bentley EM, et al. (1999). Fluoride ingestion from toothpaste by young children.British Dental Journal. 186: 460

Berg J, Gerweck C, Hujoel PP, King R, Krol DM, Kumar J, Levy S, Pollick H, Whitford GM, Strock S, Aravamudhan K, Frantsve-Hawley J, Meyer DM. 2011. Evidence-based clinical recommendations regarding fluoride intake from reconstituted infant formula and enamel fluorosis. JADA 142(1):79-87.

Bhatnagar M, et al. (2002). Neurotoxicity of fluoride: neurodegeneration in hippocampus of female mice. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology. 40: 546-54.

Bigay J, et al. (1987). Fluoride complexes of aluminium or beryllium act on G- proteins as reversibly bound analogues of the gamma phosphate of GTP. EMBO Journal. 6:2907-2913.

Bigay J, et al. (1985). Fluoroaluminates activate transducin-GDP by mimicking the gamma-phosphate of GTP in its binding site. FEBS Letters. 191:181-185.

Calderon J et al. (2000). Influence of fluoride exposure on reaction time and visuospatial organization in children. Epidemiology11(4):S153.

Carlsson A. (1978). Current problems relating to the pharmacology and toxicology of fluorides. Journal of the Swedish Medical Association. 14: 1388- 1392.

Caspary WJ, et al (1987). Mutagenic activity of fluorides in mouse lymphoma cells. Mutation Research. 187:165-80.

Chachra et al. (2010) The long-term effects of water fluoridation on the human skeleton. Journal of Dental Research. 89(11): 1219-1223.

Chen J, et al. (2003). Selective decreases of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in PC12 cells exposed to fluoride. Toxicology. 183: 235-42.

Chen J, et al. (2002). [Studies on DNA damage and apoptosis in rat brain induced by fluoride] Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi XueZaZhi. 36 222

Cheng KK, et al. (2007) Adding Fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335 (7622):699-792.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 111/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Chen P, et al. (1997). Effects of hyperfluoride on reproduction-endocrine system of male adults. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 12(2):57-58.

Choi AL, et al. (2012). Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives doi:10.1289/ehp.1104912

Chinoy NJ, Narayana MV.(1994). In vitro fluoride toxicity in human spermatozoa. Reproductive Toxicology. 8:155-9.

Chinoy NJ, Sequeira E. (1989).Effects of fluoride on the histoarchitecture of reproductive organs of the male mouse.Reproductive Toxicology. 3: 261-7.

Connett M. (2004). Fluoride & Bone Damage: Published Data. Submission to National Research Council (NRC).

Connett P, Neurath C and Connett M. (2005).Revisiting the Fluoride- Osteosarcoma Connection in the Context of Elise Bassin’s Findings: Part II.” Submission to the National Research Council of the National Academies review panel on the Toxicologic Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, March 21, 2005 (revised April 8, 2005).

Czerwinski E, et al. (1988). Bone and joint pathology in fluoride-exposed workers. Archives of Environmental Health. 43:340-343.

Dambacher MA, et al. (1986). Long-term fluoride therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Bone 7: 199-205.

Ding Y, Sun YGH, Han H, et al. (2011). The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children’s intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. J Haz Mat 186(2-3):1942-6.

Ding Y et al. (2010). The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children’s intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Hazardous Materials. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.097.

Dong Z, et al. (1993).Determination of the contents of amino-acid and monoamine neurotransmitters in fetal brains from a fluorosis-endemic area. Journal of Guiyang Medical College 18(4):241-45.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 112/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Douglass CW and Joshipura K. (2006) “Caution Needed in Fluoride and Osteosarcoma Study” (letter), Cancer Causes & Control. 17 (4): 481–82.

Du L. 1992. The effect of fluorine on the developing human brain. Chinese Journal of Pathology 21(4):218-20 (republished in Fluoride41:327-30).

Duan X, Mao Y, Wen X, Yang T, Xue Y. 2011. Excess fluoride interferes with chloride-channel-dependent endocytosis in ameloblasts. J Dent Res 90(2):175-80.

Elbetieha A, et al. (2000). Fertility effects of sodium fluoride in male mice. Fluoride. 33: 128-134.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2010). Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division.820-R-10-015.

Eswar P, Nagesh L, Devaraj CG. (2011). Intelligence quotients of 12-14 year old school children in a high and a low fluoride village in India. Fluoride 44(3):168- 72.

Fagin, D. (2008). Second Thoughts on Fluoride. Scientific American 298 (1)(January): 74–81.

Freni SC. (1994). Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 42: 109-121.

Galletti P, Joyet G. (1958). Effect of fluorine on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 18: 1102-1110.

Ge Y, Niu R, Zhang J, Wang J. (2011). Proteomic analysis of brain proteins of rats exposed to high fluoride and low iodine. Arch Toxicol 85:27-33.

Ghosh D, et al. (2002). Testicular toxicity in sodium fluoride treated rats: association with oxidative stress. Reproductive Toxicolology.16: 385.

Gutteridge DH, et al. (1990). Spontaneous hip fractures in fluoride-treated patients: potential causative factors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 5 Suppl 1:S205-15.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 113/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Han H, Cheng Z, Liu W. 1989. Effects of fluorine on the human fetus. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 4:136-138 and Fluoride 41:321-6).

Hao P, et al. (2010).Effect of fluoride on human hypothalamus-hypophysis-testis axis hormones. Journal of Hygiene Research 39(1):53-55.

Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. (1989). Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 4: 223-5.

Hileman B. (1989). New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits. Chemical and Engineering News. May 8.

Hirzy JW. (1999). Why the EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation.Press release from National Treasury Employees Union. May 1.

Hong F, et al. (2001). Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environments. Chinese Primary Health Care 15(3):56-57 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41(2):156–60).

Hong L, Levy SM, Warren JJ, Broffitt B. 2011.Amoxicillin use during early childhood and fluorosis of later developing tooth zones. J Publ Health Dent 71(3):229-35.

Joseph S, Gadhia PK. (2000). Sister chromatid exchange frequency and chromosome aberrations in residents of fluoride endemic regions of South Gujarat. Fluoride. 33: 154-158.

Juncos LI, Donadio JV.(1972). Renal failure and fluorosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 222: 783-5.

Kim FM et al. (2011).An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma. J. Dent.Res. July 28, 2011 (published online).

Kim FM, Hayes C, Williams PL, Whitford GM, Joshipura KJ, Hoover RN, Douglass CW. 2011.An assessment of bone fluoride and osteosarcoma. J Dent Res 90(10):1171-6.

Kishi K, Ishida T. (1993). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells. Mutation Research. 301:183-8.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 114/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Klein H. (1975). Dental fluorosis associated with hereditary diabetes insipidus. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 40(6):736-41.

Kour K, Singh J. (1980). Histological finding of mice testes following fluoride ingestion. Fluoride. 13: 160-162.

Kunzel W, et al. (2000). Decline in caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in former East Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 28: 382-389.

Kunzel W, Fischer T. (1997). Rise and fall of caries prevalence in German towns with different F concentrations in drinking water.Caries Research. 31: 166-73.

Leite GAS, Sawan RMM, Teofilo JM, Porto IM, Sousa FB, Gerlach RF. 2011. Exposure to lead exacerbates dental fluorosis. Arch Oral Biol 56(7):695-702.

Li J, Yao L, Shao QL, Wu CY. 2004. Effects of high fluoride level on neonatal neurobehavioural development. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 23:464-465 (republished in Fluoride 41:165-70).

Li L. (2003). The biochemistry & physiology of metallic fluoride: action, mechanism, implications. Critical Reviews of Oral Biology & Med. 14: 100-14.

Li XS. (1995). Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 28: 189-192.

Li Y, et al. (2001). Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks of bone fractures. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 16: 932-9.

Lin Fa-Fu; et al (1991).The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Endemic Disease Bulletin 6(2):62-67 (republished in Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7(3):24-25)

Liu H, et al. (1988). Analysis of the effect of fluoride on male infertility in regions with reported high level of fluoride (endemic fluorosis). Journal of the Medical Institute of Suzhou 8(4):297-99.

Long YG, et al. (2002) Chronic fluoride toxicity decreases the number of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in rat brain. Neurotoxicology & Teratology. 24: 751

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 115/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Lu XH, et al. (2000). Study of the mechanism of neurone apoptosis in rats from the chronic fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology. 19: 96-98.

Lu Y, et al (2000). Effect of high-fluoride water on intelligence of children Fluoride 33:74-78.

Luke J. (2001). Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35: 125-128.

Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildord.

Lupo M, Afonso M, Buzalaf R, Rigalli A. (2011). Effect of fluoridated water on plasma insulin levels and glucose homeostasis in rats with renal deficiency. Biol Trace Elem Res 140:198-207.

Mahoney MC, et al. (1991). Bone cancer incidence rates in New York State: time trends and fluoridated drinking water. American Journal of Public Health. 81: 475-9.

Masters R, et al. (2000). Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology. 21: 1091-1099.

Masters RD, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE. (2000). Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology 21(6):1091-100.

Masters RD, Coplan M. (1999). Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. International Journal of Environmental Studies.56: 435-449.

McDonagh M, et al. (2000). A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation. NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, September 2000.

Meng Z, Zhang B. (1997). Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in lymphocytes of workers at a phosphate fertilizer factory.Mutation Research. 393: 283-288.

Mihashi, M. and Tsutsui,T.(1996). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride to rat vertebral body-derived cells in culture.Mutation Research 368: 7-13.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 116/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Mullenix P, et al. (1995). Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats Neurotoxicology and Teratology. 17: 169-177.

Narayana MV, Chinoy NJ. (1994). Effect of fluoride on rat testicular steroidogenesis. Fluoride. 27: 7-12.

Neelam, K, et al. (1987). Incidence of prevalence of infertility among married male members of endemic fluorosis district of Andhra Pradesh. In: Abstract ProcConfIntSoc for Fluoride Res. Nyon, Switzerland.

O’Duffy JD, et al. (1986). Mechanism of acute lower extremity pain syndrome in fluoride-treated osteoporotic patients.American Journal of Medicine. 80: 561-6.

Olsson B. (1979). Dental findings in high-fluoride areas in Ethiopia. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 7: 51-6.

Orcel P, et al. (1990). Stress fractures of the lower limbs in osteoporotic patients treated with fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 5(Suppl 1): S191-4.

Ortiz-Perez D, et al. (2003). Fluoride-induced disruption of reproductive hormones in men. Environmental Research 93:20-30.

Paul V, et al. (1998). Effects of sodium fluoride on locomotorbehavior and a few biochemical parameters in rats. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. 6: 187–191.

Peckham, S., D. Lowery and S. Spencer (2015). “Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water.” J. Epedemiol Community Health 2015; 0: 1-6.

Poureslami HR, et al. (2011). Intelligence quotient of 7 to 9 year-old children from an area with high fluoride in drinking water. Journal of Dentistry and Oral Hygiene 3(4):61-64.

Poureslami HR, Horri A, Garrusi B. (2011). A comparative study of the IQ of children age 7-9 in a high and a low fluoride water city in Iran. Fluoride 44(3):163-7.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 117/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Poureslami HR, Khazaeli P. Fluoride intake and urinary excretion in preschool children residing in Koohbanan, Iran, a city with high fluoride water and food. Fluoride 43(1):67-70.

Rozier RG. (1999). The prevalence and severity of enamel fluorosis in North American children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry.59: 239-46.

Riggs BL, et al. (1990). Effect of Fluoride treatment on the Fracture Rates in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine 322: 802-809.

Reddy PY, Reddy KP, Kumar KP. 2011. Neurodegenerative changes in different regions of brain, spinal cord and sciatic nerve of rats treated with sodium fluoride. J Med Allied Sci 1(1):30-5.

Sawan RMM et al. (2010) Fluoride Increases Lead Concentrations in Whole Blood and in Calcified Tissues from Lead-Exposed Rats.Toxicology. 271 1–2: 21– 26.

Seow WK, Thomsett MJ. (1994). Dental fluorosis as a complication of hereditary diabetes insipidus: studies of six affected patients. Pediatr Dent. 16(2):128-32.

Seraj B, et al (2006) [Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children’s intelligence]. [Study in Persian] Journal of Dental Medicine 19(2): 80- 86.

Shao Q, et al. (2000). Influence of free radical inducer on the level of oxidative stress in brain of rats with fluorosis Zhonghua YuFang Yi XueZaZhi. 34(6):330-2.

Sharma R et al. (2008). Fluoride Induces Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Inhibits Protein Synthesis and Secretion. Environ Health Perspect. 116:1142– 1146.

Shashi A. (2003). Histopathological investigation of fluoride-induced neurotoxicity in rabbits. Fluoride. 36: 95-105.

Shea JJ, et al. (1967). Allergy to fluoride. Annals of Allergy. 25:388-91.

Shivaprakash PK. (2011). Relation between dental fluorosis and intelligence quotient in school children of Bagalkot district. J IndSocPedod Prevent Dent 29(2):117-20.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 118/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

ShivarajashankaraYM , et al. (2002). Brain lipid peroxidation and antioxidant systems of young rats in chronic fluoride intoxication.Fluoride. 35: 197-203.

ShivarajashankaraYM , et al. (2002). Histological changes in the brain of young fluoride-intoxicated rats. Fluoride. 35:12-21.

SOURCE: Du L. (1992). The Effect of Fluorine on the Developing Human Brain, Chinese Journal of Pathology 21 (4): 218-20; Republished in Fluoride 2008 (Fluoride damage to cell structures, membranes and mitochondria…)

SOURCE: Yu. Y. (2000) Effects of Fluoride on the Ultrastructure of Glandular epithelial cells of Human Fetuses. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 19 (2): 81-83.

Spittle B, et al. (1998). Intelligence and fluoride exposure in New Zealand Children (abstract). Fluoride 31:S13

Spittle B. 2011.Neurotoxic effects of fluoride. Fluoride 44(3):117-124.

Sun ZR, et al. (2000).Effects of high fluoride drinking water on the cerebral functions of mice. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology. 19: 262-263.

Susheela AK and Jethanandani P (1996).Circulating testosterone levels in Skeletal Fluorosis patients. Clinical Toxicology.34 (2): 1-7.

Susheela AK, Kumar A. (1991). A study of the effect of high concentrations of fluoride on the reproductive organs of male rabbits, using light and scanning electron microscopy. Journal of Reproductive Fertility. 92: 353-60.

Tsutsui T, Suzuki N, Ohmori M, Maizumi H. (1984). Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts induced by sodium fluoride. Mutation Research. 139:193-8.

Valdez-Jiménez L, Soria Fregozo C, Miranda Beltrán ML, et al. 2011.Effects of the fluoride on the central nervous system.Neurología 26(5):297-300.

Varner JA et al. (1998). Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride or Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water:Alterations in Neuronal and Cerebrovascular Integrity. Brain Research. 78 (1–2): 284–98.

Wang X, et al. (2001). Effects of high iodine and high fluorine on children’s intelligence and thyroid function. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 20(4):288-90.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 119/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Wang Y, et al. (1997). Changes of coenzyme Q content in brain tissues of rats with fluorosis. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi XueZaZhi. 31: 330-3.

Willems HME, van den Heuvel EGHM, Castelein S, et al. 2011. Fluoride inhibits the response of bone cells to mechanical loading. Odontology 99:112-118.

Wu DQ, Wu Y. (1995). Micronucleus and sister chromatid exchange frequency in endemic fluorosis. Fluoride. 28: 125-127.

Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride. 36: 84-94.

Xiang Q. (2003b). Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study. Fluoride. 36: 138.

Xu Y, et al. (1994). The effect of fluorine on the level of intelligence in children. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 9(2):83-84.

Yang S, Wang Z, Farquharson C, Alkasir R, Zahra M, Ren G, Han B. (2011). Sodium fluoride induces apoptosis and alters bcl-2 family protein expression in MC3T3-E1 osteoblastic cells. BiochemBiophys Res Comm 410(4):910-5.

Yang Y, et al. (1994).The effects of high levels of fluoride and iodine on intellectual ability and the metabolism of fluoride and iodine. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 15(4):296-98 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:336-339).

Yao Y, et al. (1997).Comparative assessment of the physical and mental development of children in endemic fluorosis area with water improvement and without water improvement. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 3(1):42-43.

Yao Y, et al. (1996).Analysis on TSH and intelligence level of children with dental Fluorosis in a high fluoride area. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 2(1):26-27.

Yu Y et al. (1996) Neurotransmitter and receptor changes in the brains of fetuses from areas of endemic fluorosis.ChineseJEndemiology 15: 257-259 (republished in Fluoride 41(2):134-8).

Zakrzewska H, et al. (2002). In vitro influence of sodium fluoride on ram semen quality and enzyme activities. Fluoride.35: 153-160.

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 120/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Zhang, R., et al. (2009). A stable and sensitive testing system for potential carcinogens based on DNA damage-induced gene expression in human HepG2 cell. Toxicology in Vitro. 23:158-165.

Zhang Z, et al. (2001). [Effects of selenium on the damage of learning-memory ability of mice induced by fluoride]. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu.30: 144-6.

Zhang Z, et al. (1999). [Effect of fluoride exposure on synaptic structure of brain areas related to learning-memory in mice] [Article in Chinese]. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 28:210-2.

Zhao ZL, et al. (1995). The influence of fluoride on the content of testosterone and cholesterol in rat. Fluoride. 28: 128-130.

Zhai JX, et al. (2003). Studies on fluoride concentration and cholinesterase activity in rat hippocampus. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing ZaZhi. 21: 102-4.

Zhao XL, Wu JH. (1998). Actions of sodium fluoride on acetylcholinesterase activities in rats. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences. 11: 1-6

Zhao LB, et al (1996). Effect of high-fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Fluoride. 29: 190-192.

Zhu W, Zhang J, Zhang Z. 2011. Effects of fluoride on synaptic membrane fluidity and PSD-95 expression level in rat hippocampus. Biol Trace Elem Res 139:197-203.

For Contact Details of Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking (YLMAF) Please Refer to Page 122

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 121/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Contact Details for YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) Simon Haigh / E-mail: [email protected]

Additional Thank you I would like to thank all the Professionals who offered their particular expertise, information or technical advice during the drafting of this report. Their support and encouragement has been invaluable.

Pass on the Pledge If you want to form an ‘Active Alliance’ against fracking, why don’t you make a PLEDGE to do just ONE THING to stop fracking. It might be for example to write to your MP, post a leaflet campaign in your community, or simply put an information post regarding fracking on facebook for all your friends to read. We would then ask that you PASS ON THE PLEDGE to just one more person! What is required is that lots of individuals are doing their own thing (within their particular area of expertise), to peacefully oppose fracking. It need not take a lot of your time and in the opinion of the authors of this report is a very effective method of opposition, a type of resistance which for the fracking companies will prove to be a major headache.

In other words, the actions of lots of DECENT PEOPLE, taking back their own power and working for the COMMON GOOD, will in the long term be very difficult to block politically, predict, steer or infiltrate. Why not begin today and… MAKE YOUR PLEDGE, TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, TO CREATE A BETTER WORLD. For the common good of Yorkshire People, please advertise YOUR PLEDGE to your friends and PASS it on, we need the PLEDGE to go viral. By doing so, you can make a real difference to bring about change for the wider benefit of the community, especially for young children, expectant mothers and the environment… Before you do anything else today, please tell your friends! And promise to MAKE A PLEDGE – IN DOING SO TOGETHER, WE CAN PROTECT OUR CHILREN AND OUR FUTURE…

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 122/123

Yorkshire Citizens Caring for Yorkshire People

Warning Label from a Fluoride Container Prior April 2015 in which the American Government Halved the Rate of Fluoride in Water from 1.5 ppm to 0.7ppm on Grounds of Adverse Health Risks

‘And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters and they became blood’.

The Companion Bible, The Authorised Version of 1611, Revelation Chapter 16, Verse 4, p1904

9 October 2018 YLMAF (Yorkshire Lives Matter Against Fracking) 123/123

Next Post

Leave a Reply

© 2018 Anthony Beckett

Theme by Anders Norén