����������� June/July 2001,���

starfish

There was a boy who walked along a white sandy beach covered in dying starfish washed up from the surf. Theboy gently picked up a starfish and placed it back in the sea. Then he picked up another, and another, each timecarefully putting it back in the water.

As he continued picking up starfish, a man passing by walked up to him.“Why are you bothering to put starfish back in the sea? Look around you, there are so many starfish. It won’t

make any difference.”The boy picked up another starfish and, after placing it back in the tide, wiped the sand from his hands and

quietly replied: “It made a difference to that one.”

The message of that story is clear: we can all make a difference to someone’s life. If you or your organisationare making a difference in someone’s life, tell me about it. Send me an email or a letter, and we’ll select one eachmonth to reprint in this column. Investigate will provide half a page of advertising space to help your organisationreach out to others.

You might work for Lifeline, a rescue service or a city mission or Christian outreach - whatever your charity orservice, let us help you put one starfish back in the sea. heidi@howlingatthemoon.com

�����������

Anxiety Awareness Appeal Week4th – 10th June 2001

����������������������� ���� ��� ���� ��� ���� ��� ���� ��� ���� ����������������

Its focus is Anxiety Awareness. Anxiety Disorders affect up to 18% of New Zealand’s popula-tion at any one time (that’s 630,000). It is literally the “biggest mental health issue facing theworld today” W.H.O 1999.

Clinics in Aucklandand Wellington

Anxiety Disorders leads into…· Alcohol and substance abuse· Anorexia and Bulimia· School and work absenteeism· Suicide

Symptoms of Panic Attacks are…· Shortness of breath· Thumping heartbeat· Trembling· Choking· Dizziness· Sweating· Chest pain· Nausea

www.phobic.org.nz

24 Hour Support Line – 0800 14 ANXIETY (2694389)

Call 0900 44401 to donate $20

� � ����������� June/July 2001

I���������� ���������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������� ���������!"�������#�������$�%�����������������&���������'�����(���������� �������)�����&�*+��$���,%�$� ���-�����������

It is a story that begins something like this: the previousNational Government decides to upgrade our Airforcecombat wing with the purchase of 28 F-16 fighter jets.Labour, once it comes to power in the 1999 election, scup-pers the deal saying the country can’t afford to spend$700 million on strike aircraft.

Shortly thereafter, the new Labour Government an-nounces it is purchasing 105 new armoured personnelcarriers for the Army - a Canadian made model based ona US design known as the LAV III.

The cost? $652 million for 105 vehicles.Shortly after this, the Prime Minister announces that

because of this heavy capital expenditure needed for theArmy, the country can no longer afford to even keep itsexisting Airforce combat jets, the Skyhawks.

So imagine our surprise when we discovered New Zea-land could have had 105 NATO configured armoured per-sonnel carriers for just $24 million, not $652 million.

Something, as Shakespeare once said, is rotten in thestate of Denmark:

In two years time, NZ troops will be riding around inthe Canadian-built General Motors Light ArmouredVehicle, the LAV series 3. Starting at NZ$6 millionper vehicle, these are the Rolls Royces of armoured

personnel carriers. The contract was signed on 29th Janu-ary 2001 and the NZ Army named the LAV’s the “Iorangi”.

The cost of the contract is estimated to climb from $630to $700 million for the total package. That is a lot of moneyand Investigate is aware that there were much cheaperalternatives by a wide margin, which is what this story isall about.

But first, let us look at what is an armoured personnelcarrier (APC). It is basically an armoured box on wheelsor tracks, designed to carry between seven or ten infan-trymen across hostile territory and deliver them as close

����������� June/July 2001,��.

LEFT: The LAV III; ABOVE: the BTR-80 now used by NATO, battle-tested in Afghanistan;RIGHT: Tibor Banfy offered NZ 68 BTR-80s for just $16 million

to the enemy’s position as possible. Covering cannon ormachine gun fire is provided by a gunner sitting in anarmoured turret.

The New Zealand Army’s likely area of operations arethe South West Pacific, Melanesia, Papua New Guineaand U.N. peacekeeping in East Timor. Diplomaticsensitivies preclude open discussion, but military plan-ners have to take into account a number of scenarioswhere Australia could be in direct conflict with Indone-sian forces. In the worst case, an alliance of disaffectedmilitary and radical Islamists gain power and launch ajihad against the north of Australia.

New Zealand would send forces to help defend Austra-lia and a key requirement for military effectiveness and“fighting power”, would be compatibility of equipment. Thisrequires APCs with sufficient firepower to penetrate thearmour of Indonesian APCs.

The Australians are equipping with LAV series 2, whichis lighter than the series 3 and amphibious. An informantfamiliar with the technical aspects of the LAV told Inves-tigate: “The Australians can’t understand why we didn’tgo for the series 2, considering the terrain and rivers wecan expect in this part of the world.”

The key question is...and it’s a belated question, nowthat the contract has been signed; could we have bought“smarter”? That is buy cheaper alternatives and “retrofit”them to be compatible for operating with Australian forces.

But first, let us look at the LAV 3 and see what we are

getting for the current estimated price of $652 million.Each LAV will be armed with a Bushmaster 25mm au-

tomatic cannon, two 7.62mm machine guns and eight76mm grenade dischargers. The three-man crew will usestate-of-the-art day and night visual equipment, plus alaser range finder for the gunner.

Biological and chemical protection is standard. Thearmour can stop 7.62mm bullets, 14.5mm armour pierc-ing cannon shells, cope with mines of up to 7.5kg TNTand withstand the blast and shrapnel from a 155mm highexplosive shell landing 15 metres away.

A sophisticated laser warning system alerts the com-mander if his vehicle is being targeted by an enemy laser.The diesel engine enables the eight-wheeled LAV 3 toreach 100 kph along sealed roads.

Two motorised infantry battalions based at Linton andBurnham will be equipped with the LAVs. The RNZAF’sfive Hercules C130s can carry one LAV each in an emer-gency, but Army planning envisages a battalion and itsLAVs being ferried to a hotspot aboard a logistic supplyship.

Enter Tibor Banfy and the BTR 80s

Tibor Banfy came to New Zealand as a refugee afterthe 1956 Hungarian Uprising. His sporting backgroundas an Olympic skier and national team middle team dis-tance runner, was later to open doors for reciprocal trad-

/0� ����������� June/July 2001

ing deals between Hungary and New Zealand. His com-pany Hunz Export International arranged substantial ag-ricultural joint venture projects and the 1979 contract forthe supply of 88 engines and carriages for Wellington’ssuburban rail system. The contract was signed by PrimeMinister Muldoon and in turn the Hungarians boughtHamilton jet-powered rescue craft for use on Lake Balaton.

In May 1991, Prime Minister Jim Bolger responded to aletter from Banfy on trading matters and mentioned “Youmight like to draw the attention of the Minister of Defenceto Hungary as a possible source of military equipment.”

Aware that the Ministry of Defence would be replacingthe Vietnam-era M113 armoured personnel carriers, Banfysounded out his contacts in Hungary and learned thatunused Russian-built BTR 80s could be made availableat a very competitive price, including delivery to NewZealand within months of a contract being signed.

On the 21st May 1998, he faxed the relevant informa-tion to Max Bradford, then Minister of Defence, who re-sponded the next day with this letter, part of which isreproduced here:

“Procurement of Defence items in excess of NZ$5 mil-lion is managed by a dedicated and highly qualified teamof personnel within the Acquisitions Division of the Minis-try of Defence (MoD). This team is charged with comply-ing with the Public Finance Act in all their transactions,and most importantly gaining the best value for the tax-payer and the MoD’s customer, the New Zealand DefenceForce (Army, Navy, Air Force)” (Investigate’s emphasis)

“As you are perhaps aware, the normal procurementstrategy usually involves a competitive tender process towhich you submit your proposal (Investigate’s emphasis).The MoD is currently preparing documentation for the is-sue of the APC tender, which is likely to occur in the nexttwo months.”

“I have forwarded your letter to the Secretary of De-fence for his information, to whom you should address allyour future marketing and tender correspondence.”

Peter Szalai, director of ARMACO Foreign Trading hadfirst written to the MoD’s Acquisition Division on 15th May1998. He subsequently wrote to Gerald Hensley, thenSecretary of Defence in Wellington. Here are the keyquotes from the letter, dated 5th October 1998:

“Our offer is based on the fact that the Border Guardsof the Republic of Hungary possess a stock of BTR-80APC vehicles. These APCs have been stored here inHungary in new, non-issued state since their delivery herefrom Russia. This stock of 68 BTR-80 APC is properly

stored and maintained, so naturally they are in excellentcondition, complete with factory accessories.”

“The Hungarian authorities empowered this companyto sell the stock to the interested party in one lot...” Theletter went on to state that ARMACO ’s price wasUS$181,000 for each of the BTR-80s. This unit price in-cluded maintenance and repair spare parts, special toolsfor maintenance, spare engines and training set to 4% ofthe total value of vehicles. New Zealand technical expertswould be able to personally inspect the APCs and therewas the possibility of the Hungarian armed forces procur-ing NZ products.

By 2000, the asking price for each BTR-80 had comedown to US$99,000, which was worth NZ$230,000 in May2001. The LAV 3 cost around NZ$6 million each.

How does the BTR 80 compare with the LAV 3 ?

The BTR-60 entered service with the Red Army in timefor the Hungarian Uprising. Its successor the BTR-70 wasa troop carrier in Afghanistan, being replaced by the BTR-80 during the mid-1980s. A later variant, the BTR-80Aentered service in 1994 and is virtually the same as the80, except for the addition of a new power operated turretarmed with a 30mm 2A72 automatic cannon.

A former NZ Army regular infantry officer told Investi-gate: “The Russians have a reputation for building toughand rugged armoured vehicles and the BTR’s have beenbattle-tested over ten years in Afghanistan. The key thingto remember, is that if there is a better way of configuringthe BTR’s, the Russians would have already done it.”

The BTR-80 weighs 13.6 tons (LAV 3, 20 tons), is armedwith a 14.5mm heavy machine gun (with armour-piercingrounds) and 7.62 coaxial machine gun. A 30mm cannonis optional. It is equipped to carry seven infantrymen, thevehicle commander, driver/mechanic and gunner. Thereare ball-swivel firing ports in the hull (four ports on theright-hand side and three on the left-hand side), as wellas ports in the upper hatches of the fighting compart-ment. Armoured doors are provided on both sides to pro-vide rapid dismounting (the engine is at the rear).

The NBC system protects for nuclear and biologicalwar, there is an automatic fire-fighting equipment, cam-ouflage devices, bilge pumps and a self-recovery winch.

The commander and driver have night-vision equipment.Maximum speed on sealed roads is 95kmh and an av-

erage of 9kmh on water. The BTR-80, unlike the LAV 3, isamphibious, which one would think of some importance

“”

The BTR-80, unlike the LAV 3, is amphibious, which one would thinkof some importance given the topography of the South West Pacific

����������� June/July 2001,�/1

given the topography of the South West Pacific.

The Letter from Prime Minister Helen Clark

Tibor Banfy’s offer of the 68 BTR-80s was formally de-clined in a letter from Prime Minister Helen Clark on 15thMarch 2000. She began by noting that his registrationhad been accepted by the MoD, along with 16 other re-sponses.

Now before going any further, it should be kept in mindthat Helen Clark is writing on the basis of the “expert”advice that she has received. She outlined the specificreasons for declining the Registration. Investigate’s re-sponse is outlined in italics below each reason.

a. The vehicle can not be transported in our C-130Hercules aircraft.Tibor Banfy supplied detailed specifications to anRNZAF loadmaster and was assured that the BTR-80 could be transported by a C-130 Hercules.

b. The vehicle offered only a one-man turret, whereasthe NZ Army requires a two-man turret to enablethe “Commander” to command the vehicle andsearch for additional targets, whilst the “Gunner”focuses on engaging the target.Correct. However Richard Bould, a former RAF en-gineer and technical director of the Royal Tourna-ment for five years, told Investigate that establisheddefence contractors like Bofors, Oerlikon andVickers offer “retrofitting” services, so that formerWarsaw Pact countries can have their vehiclesreconfigured to NATO standards. All three compa-nies offer “retrofitting” to a “two-man” turret. Western countries can choose to have a Cummins die-sel engine coupled to the automatic transmission.

c . No stabilising system for the gun was offered.Tibor Banfy insists that the gun has a stabiliser,but if it doesn’t at present, the retrofitted two-manturret includes the system.

d. Evacuation by a rear door is essential, especiallyin relation to medical evacuations and the movement of large weapons systems and stores com-ponents.

+%2�3�+��4 0�����������(�-������&����������5�62�����������

/�� ����������� June/July 2001

The RNZAF and RNZN both have royal warrants - they answer to the Queen. TheNew Zealand Army does not. It answers directly to the Prime Minister. Once theSkyhawks are gone, and once these LAVs arrive, there will be nothing...to standagainst the Army

“”

The BTR-80 series includes ambulances for medi-cal evacuations, plus heavy weapon models.

e. The use of side doors also exposes soldiers whenleaving the vehicle under fire. This is an unaccept-able risk.A Vietnam War-era former regular infantry officertold Investigate that rear door exit from an APC isno excuse: “In my experience the troops tended to‘choke up’ exiting the M113s. The side doorsshouldn’t be a problem and common sense tellsyou that if hostile fire is coming from the right,

then exiting from the left-hand door, with the lengthof the BTR providing protection, and the gunner lay-ing down covering fire - could be safer. These ve-hicles have been extensively battle tested, and ifthe side doors worked for the Russians, they shouldwork for us.” In fact, the Russians developed theBTR-80’s side door specifically to provide maximumtroop protection during the Afghanistan conflict.

f. Because of the average size of a NZ soldier, theseating and carrying capacity is inadequate.In the absence of any known field testing of carrying NZ troops in BTR-80s, the photographs of theinterior of the vehicles indicate sufficient room. Pre-sumably the infantry could be expected to be rea-sonably fit and not overweight, so as to spill overthe back-to-back bench seating.

An additional disappointment for Tibor Banfy was thathe couldn’t proceed with the other end of the reciprocaldeal. The Hungarian Customs had placed an initial orderfor 30 Rayglass Protector work boats at NZ$140,000 each.

The Protector range is designed as a multi-purpose ves-sel for military and work boat requirements worldwide.

Rayglass at Pakuranga in Auckland, has a top reputa-tion for quality pleasure boats and Tibor had arranged fortwo Hungarian customs chiefs to accompany him on apromotional cruise up the Rhine and Danube. Their Ger-man and Austrian police and customs counterparts wouldbe invited to trial the Protectors en route. Rayglass sawTibor’s Hungarian deal as a great opportunity to establisha market presence in Eastern Europe.

Investigate did some simple calculations to comparethe cost of the LAV 3 contract and the BTR-80 deal.

* 68 BTRs’ at NZ$15,840,000 from $652 million,leaves a difference of $636,160,000.

* 105 BTRs’ at $24,350,000 from $652 million, leaves$627,650,000.

The capital costs of the F16s fighters were betweenNZ$240 million and NZ$700 million, depending on howmany add-ons were required.

The upgrade of the logistic supply ship RNZN CharlesUpham is estimated at $31 million.

Why didn’t the Ministry of Defence look at buying amix of the BTR-80s and the LAV 3s, thus saving millionsof dollars for our other defence needs? “Oh, you can’t buyRussian!” said one National MP, “the LAV 3 is the bestthere is!”

That’s true, albeit only by a small margin - maybe fivepercent - and boy is it costing us.

Meanwhile, here is an interesting extract entitled“Armoured Personnel Carriers”, from page four of the Se-lect Committee Report on the 1999/2000 Financial Re-view of the New Zealand Defence Forces:

“We noted that although the M113 armoured personnelcarriers are past their ‘use by’ date, they are still regardedas suitable for use in East Timor, particularly because ofthe weak roading infrastructure. It may be problematic tooperate the LAV 111s in such an environment, becausethey are larger and heavier despite their other perceivedadvantages.

“We question whether the replacement of all the M113swith the new LAV 111 armoured personnel carriers in EastTimor, would be the best mix of road transport options inthese circumstances. Moreover, because of the limitedport facilities in East Timor, the LAV 111s are likely toneed to be airlifted. Final weight and dimension specifi-

����������� June/July 2001,�//

/7� ����������� June/July 2001

!��2�%'�!8�3�+��4 0�����������������������$9:�/0�000�������5�+%2�3�62��������$9:;5�

��((����������5���(���"(��-����(����&������+��4 0������-��������-����-�

cations for the New Zealand version of the LAV 111 arebeing sought from the Canadian manufacturers.

“It is hoped that the height and weight of this LAV willallow it to be airlifted in one of the RNZAF’s C130 Her-cules transport planes. A fully laden LAV 111 is close tothe maximum payload of a Hercules.”

It’s a good question because the indications are thatthe LAV 111 might have been a done deal by October1998.

And we’ve now discovered the LAV III will not fit into theHercules without first having its gun turret removed.Whereas the NATO spec’d BTR 80 fits, gun and all.

Compare that with the advice passed to Prime MinisterClark, and you begin to raise extremely serious ques-tions about the quality of advice the Government receivedwhen purchasing the LAV IIIs, the massive cost differen-tial that could have been used to buy F16s and the BTR80s, and whether the deal to buy the LAV IIIs requires amuch closer inspection.

As one serving Army officer told Investigate on condi-tion of anonymity, “Look, the LAV III is a great vehicle.But so is the BTR 80. And the difference between themperformance-wise is not $624 million.

“The M113s are clapped out. Hell, right now a team of

donkeys would be more reliable than an M113. Clark saysthe Government’s finances are tight. I don’t understand,I’m having trouble even comprehending, why if things areso tight the Government didn’t simply buy the BTR 80s -even as a stop-gap measure for five or ten years.

“This woman says the Airforce can’t afford F16s, thenshe goes out and buys the equivalent of Stealth Fightersfor us with these LAVs.

“It makes no economic sense. It makes no politicalsense. And it sure as hell doesn’t make any military sense.Something about this deal is very, very wrong, and I thinkit has just cost us the Skyhawks.”

A senior Airforce officer adds a telling, if somewhatconspiratorial, point: “Most people in New Zealand don’tknow how the services are structured. The RNZAF andRNZN both have royal warrants - they answer to the Queen.The New Zealand Army does not. It answers directly tothe Prime Minister. Once the Skyhawks are gone, andonce these LAVs arrive, there will be nothing in the fire-power of either the Royal New Zealand Air Force or theRoyal New Zealand Navy to stand against the Army if itever goes rogue. There is now a constitutional militaryimbalance in this country, and that worries me too.”

����������� June/July 2001,�/<

File Picture: Ian Wishart

Apr/May 01 Jan/Feb 01 Dec 00 Nov 00

Oct 00 Aug 00 Jul 00 Jun 00

Apr 00 Mar 00 Feb 00

CAN’T GET ENOUGH FOR YOUR COFFEE TABLE?Get hours of solid investigative journalism in each back issue of �����������. Availableseparately at $5 each plus 90c postage while stocks last, or indulge yourself or a friendwith our “BACKPACK”: five randomly selected back issues for $15, couriered to yourdoor.

Visit our website http://www.investigatemagazine.com/book_orders.htmor post your cheque or credit card details to PO Box 302-188, North Harbour, Aucklandwith delivery instructions and a contact phone number,or freefax 0800 46 95 46 with your credit card details

/;� ����������� June/July 2001

“”

studies have found that even smallamounts of fluoride, which is ananaesthetic, make fish, particularlysalmon and rainbow trout, dazedand stupid (well, more stupid)

Paul Engelking sadly explains why he droppedone of his favorite pastimes. “The fish haveenough problems,” he says, “without me tryingto put them on a hook.” Engelking, a chemis-

try professor at the University of Oregon, can walk youdown the familiar list: destruction of habitat by loggers,toxic runoff from cities, fertilizers and pesticides fromfarms. And now this: fluoride.

Engelking is the scientific muscle behind a number ofenvironmentalists opposing Senate Bill 99, a bill that wouldmandate adding the cavity-fighting chemical to Oregon’ssupplies of drinking water. The enviros have nothingagainst healthy teeth. They’re simply questioning whetherthe perceived benefits of water fluoridation are worth therisk it poses to fish—particularly salmon.

“My concern about fluoridation is this is just one more nailin the coffin,” says Engelking. “And there are a lot of otherpeople lining up to put nails in. It will be a miracle if we goanother 50 years and still have a salmon run in Oregon.”

Fragile, heroic and breathtakingly beautiful, salmon arethe Jodie Foster of the fish world. The numbers of chinook

and coho salmon have plummeted in the Northwest sincethe turn of the century. In 1999, with nine Northwesternruns of salmon and steelhead on the brink of extinction,the federal government placed them on the endangeredspecies list. Gov. John Kitzhaber has made salmon re-covery a priority; Mayor Vera Katz used her State of the

���������������� ���� ���!������

����"��#�� $���%

�(������������#�&�������4���������������&�������������-��#�������������-��#��(������������������������������((4������555����=���������#������*�$�">�+'�$�">��������

����������� June/July 2001,�/�

City address to designate Willamette River recovery apriority, citing a goal of “abundant salmon.”

Engelking argues that such goals will be undermined iflawmakers pass SB99, a seemingly innocuous measureto add fluoride to Oregon’s drinking water. It’s an argumentthat fluoridation proponents dismiss as sheer lunacy.

“There have been no studies to say this has been det-rimental to fish life,” asserts Dr. H. Whitney Payne, thestate dental director who has been spearheading SB99.

In reality, however, there have been several studies say-ing just that, including one in Oregon that dates backnearly 20 years. The studies have found that even smallamounts of fluoride, which is an anaesthetic, make fish,particularly salmon and rainbow trout, dazed and stupid(well, more stupid). And scientists say the hazards aremuch greater in Northwestern states.

John Stein, a National Marine Fisheries Serviceecotoxicologist in Seattle, says water in westernOregon and Washington is unusually “soft,” a quality thatincreases the amount of fluoride absorbed by the fish thatswim in it. “Fluoride is pretty toxic, and the softer the

water, the more toxic it is,” says Stein, who heads theenvironmental conservation division at the NMFS’s North-west Fisheries Science Center.

Fluoride’s threat to salmon is taken so seriously in Canadathat British Columbia set a special soft-water standard of0.2 parts per million. Les Swain, water quality manager ofthe B.C. Ministry of Environment, says some of the mostcompelling evidence for that decision came from Oregon.

Between 1982 and 1986, Douglas Dey and a fellowNMFS biologist conducted a groundbreaking study offluoride’s environmental effects at the John Day Dam onthe Columbia River. His study won an award from theAmerican Fisheries Society, an association of fisheriesbiologists.

Dey set out to solve a mystery. Why were so manysalmon dying at the dam?

He discovered that low levels of fluoride emitted by analuminium smelter upstream were making the salmon toostoned and lethargic to climb fish ladders. It took the dazedcritters about a week to traverse the dam, compared tothe usual one day—and more than 50 percent of the

/ � ����������� June/July 2001

salmon died before making the trip.Once the smelter above the dam was forced to reduce

its fluoride emissions, the salmon death rate was cut bya factor of 10. Subsequent studies confirmed fluoride’seffects and found that salmon, when given a choice, avoidfluoridated waterways, says Dey.

“It’s a serious problem when the salmon can’t even ne-gotiate the fishway because of a very small amount oftoxin,” says Bill Bakke, a founder of Oregon Trout whocurrently heads the Native Fish Society of Oregon. Bakke,one of the few environmentalists contacted by WW whohad heard of Dey’s study, opposes SB99, saying that therisk posed by fluoridation “can’t be tolerated if we’re go-

ing to recover the fish.”The idea behind fluoridating water is that whenever we

quench our thirst from the tap, we’ll slow down the cavity-causing bacteria in our mouth. The problem is that 99percent of the fluoride goes right down the drain and intoour rivers, as sewage-treatment plants don’t remove thechemical. Studies have shown that sewage plants in fluori-dated communities can emit fluoride at about 1.2 parts permillion—six times the level allowed in British Columbia.

Although the fluoride is diluted well downstream, ourmajor rivers already have traces of fluoride from sourcesthat include smelters and microchip factories. Engelking’stesting on the Willamette River, for example, has foundlevels of fluoride at 0.1 and 0.2 ppm, already pushing what

salmon can handle.Engelking is especially worried that tributaries, key to

salmon spawning, would hold higher concentrations of fluo-ride because there would be less dilution. The Tualatin River,for example, already tests as high as 0.5 ppm fluoride.

Travis Williams, executive director of WillametteRiverkeeper, says the risks to salmon should be balancedagainst doubts over the effectiveness of fluoridation.

In the last six months, a British government study, con-sidered the most comprehensive fluoride review ever, ech-oed a Canadian government study in saying the benefitsof fluoridation and evidence for its safety are muchless than previously thought. It prompted an ABC News

commentary which proclaimed that “the required level ofevidence is just not there” to make the case for fluoridation.

“It makes you wonder,” says Williams. “Would we geta better bang for the buck if kids got free toothpaste, withbetter education to brush every day?”

Williams isn’t the only one posing such questions. ElisaDozono, spokeswoman for Mayor Vera Katz, says law-makers need to look at Dey’s study as they considerSB99. “The mayor is concerned about this,” she says,“and believes that if there could be an impact onPortland’s fish recovery efforts, it should be part of thediscussion.” The bill is due for debate in the Oregon leg-islature later this year, amid massive public resistance.

����������� June/July 2001,�/.

Water, watereverywhere...

Don’t be a mug, leave fluoride, bugs and chemicals behind andget ���������� , New Zealand’s leading, pure, steam water

distiller today, new shipment selling fast at just $299 +p&p

and thisis what youdrink?

0800 40 60 70 *This is the chemical residue left behind after justone distillation of four litres of water. For more

information see our ad on the inside front cover

*

�

70� ����������� June/July 2001

Have you read the fine print on your toothpastetube recently? Check it out. If your toothpastecontains fluoride — which nearly every brandin the United States does — there’s a con-

sumer advisory message that might surprise and alarmyou, especially if you’re the parent of young children.

The advisory, which began appearing on fluoridated tooth-paste in April 1997, by order of the Food and Drug Ad-ministration, begins with the familiar command to brushthoroughly at least twice a day. But then it includes spe-cial instructions for children ages two to six: “Use only apea sized amount and supervise child’s brushing and rins-ing (to minimize swallowing).” Then comes an additionalwarning to keep the toothpaste “out of the reach of chil-dren under 6 years of age,” and finally the ominous ad-vice, “In case of accidental ingestion ... contact a Poison

Control Center immediately.”What’s going on here? Isn’t toothpaste supposed to be

good for us? Haven’t we been told for decades — by thegovernment, by the American Dental Association, bycountless Crest and Colgate television commercials —that fluoride is essential to fighting cavities? Isn’t thatwhy nearly two-thirds of the public water supplies in theUnited States are fluoridated?

A recent issue of the new environmental newsletterNews on Earth challenges this and other fluoride ortho-doxies. Fluoride is, after all, an extremely toxic compoundthat originally was sold as a bug and rat poison. A grow-ing body of scientific research suggests that long-termfluoride consumption may cause numerous health prob-lems, ranging from cancer and impaired brain function tobrittle bones and fluorosis (the white splotches on teeth

&&&&&'�����'�����'�����'�����'�����&&&&&'�����'�����'�����'�����'�����it does get in...

������?��(����#�&�������4 ��-������������������(������������������������(�����-������������(�#����������������������������@������ ���� ������������������������������&�����������(����������������(� �5�,�>�����8�������!��66�!A�9���������

����������� June/July 2001,�71

that indicate weak enamel). An estimated 22 percent ofAmerican children have some form of fluorosis.

Research is also beginning to show that the cavity-fighting power of fluoride may have been overstated. Re-cent studies in the Journal of Dental Research concludethat tooth decay rates in Western Europe, which is 98percent unfluoridated, have declined as much as theyhave in the United States in recent decades. Indeed, it’sonly in the United States that fluoride is championed bythe government; most European nations — includingGermany, France, Sweden and Holland — prohibit fluo-ride on public health grounds.

Opposition to fluoride was once confined to far-right con-spiracy buffs, as parodied in the movie Dr. Strangelove.But the new evidence against fluoride comes from cre-dentialed scientists in such mainstream institutions asthe Environmental Protection Agency and Harvard’sForsyth Research Institute. And where water fluoridationwas once a liberal cause, opposition to fluoride now comesfrom the left, specifically some environmental groups andat least one labor union. Local 2050 of the National Fed-eration of Federal Employees, which represents all thescientists, engineers and other professionals at EPA head-quarters in Washington, D.C., has voted unanimously toco-sponsor a citizens’ petition to prevent fluoridation ofCalifornia’s waters. (Local 2050 has also filed a grievanceasking for bottled water at EPA headquarters, due to fears

about fluoride.) The union’s letter endorsing the petition,sent in 1997, read in part:

“Our members’ review of the body of evidence over thepast eleven years, including animal and human epidemi-ology studies, indicates a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological im-pairment, and bone pathology. Of particular concern arerecent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure tolower IQ in children ... there is substantial evidence ofadverse health effects, and contrary to public perception,virtually no evidence of significant benefits.”

“Would you brush your teeth with arsenic?” asks Dr.Robert Carton, a former scientist at the EnvironmentalProtection Agency whose union is Local 2050. “Fluorideis somewhat less toxic than arsenic and more toxic thanlead, and you wouldn’t want either of them in your mouth.”

Nevertheless, the official momentum behind fluoride isconsiderable. The Clinton administration’s stated goal wasto increase the number of Americans with fluoridated tapwater from 62 percent in 1998 to 75 percent by 2000. The

National Institute of Health supports such initiatives.

“We are for water fluoridation, of course, 100 percent,”says Sally Wilberding of NIH’s National Dental ResearchInstitute. The same goes for the American Dental Asso-ciation.

“I’m a very big supporter of appropriate use of fluorides,”says Dr. John Stamm, dean of the School of Dentistry atthe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an offi-cial fluoride spokesman for the ADA. Stamm argues thatfluoridation has significantly decreased tooth decay in theUnited States over the past 50 years. He attributes West-ern Europeans’ shunning of fluoridation to “cultural differ-ences” in the approach to dental care.

Fluoride’s positive image in the United States may restin part on the whitewashing of unwelcome research find-ings and the firing of scientists who dared questionfluoride’s benefits. Dr. William Marcus, formerly the chieftoxicologist for the EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, losthis job in 1991 after he insisted on an unbiased evalua-tion of fluoride’s potential to cause cancer. Marcus foughthis dismissal in court, proved that it was politically moti-vated and eventually won reinstatement.

Marcus now declines comment on the episode beyondsaying, “I was right about fluoride’scarcinogenicity, andnow we know that.” An investigation by the Senate Envi-ronment and Public Works Committee in 1991 supportedMarcus’ charges, documenting that government scien-tists had been coerced to change their findings and por-tray fluoride more favorably. Dr. William Hirzy, a seniorEPA scientist and the senior vice president of Local 2050,explains that, in 1977, Congress had instructed NIH’sNational Toxicology Program to investigate fluoride’s ef-fects on lab animals, a task that got assigned to thegovernment’s Battelle Laboratories. In the tests, rats and

Let’s face it,There are lots more bunnies onthe roads these days...

so when pushcomes to shove, willyour tyres save you?

“

”

Fluoride’s positive image in theUnited States may rest in part on thewhitewashing of unwelcome re-search findings and the firing of sci-entists who dared question fluoride’sbenefits

7�� ����������� June/July 2001

the rats who got bone cancer had lower levels of fluoride in their bonesthan people who drink tap water with 4 parts per million (ppm) of fluoridewould have. But EPA says that 4 ppm is absolutely no danger to yourhealth; in fact, that’s the official standard in this country. That conclusionis such a fraud there are no words to describe it

“

”mice were given fluoride in their drinking water. Thirteenyears later, the results came back, but not until they hadbeen “adjusted” by a senior official of the United StatesPublic Health Service to suggest that fluoride had no car-cinogenic effects.

In response, Marcus urged in a May 1, 1990, memothat the fluoride study be “reviewed by an outside panelnot related to the Public Health Service, because the PHShas been in the business of promoting fluoridation for morethan fifty years.”

The memo from Marcus said, “In almost all cases, theBattelle-board certified pathologists’ findings were down-graded [by the PHS], with the effect of downgrading thestudy’s conclusion from definitive evidence of carcinoge-nicity to equivocal evidence.”

“One of the most telling parts of that study,” says Hirzy,who stresses that he speaks as a union official ratherthan an EPA spokesman, “is that the rats who got bonecancer had lower levels of fluoride in their bones thanpeople who drink tap water with 4 parts per million (ppm)of fluoride would have. But EPA says that 4 ppm is abso-lutely no danger to your health; in fact, that’s the officialstandard in this country. That conclusion is such a fraudthere are no words to describe it.” Hirzy adds that Local2050 has “filed a grievance asking to be given bottledwater here in the EPA headquarters, because the tapwater has 1 ppm of fluoride, and all the data we look atsays 1 ppm is hazardous.”

“There are three or four very strong anti-fluoridation ex-perts in the EPA union, but we feel there’s no scientificbasis for their charges,” responds Tom Reeves, a nationalfluoridation engineer at the federal Center for Disease Con-trol in Atlanta. Reeves says that two major studies —

one commissioned by the National Academy of Science,one by the Public Health Service — “examined thosecharges and found no truth to them.” Reeves deniesMarcus’ accusation that the data gathered by Battellescientists were tampered with, though he concedes thatthe congressional investigation concluded otherwise.

At Harvard, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix says she losther job at the Forsyth Research Institute, whichspecializes in dental issues, in 1994, after sheinsisted on publishing research results in the

scholarly journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology show-ing that fluoride adversely affected brain function. By then,Mullenix had spent 12 years at Forsyth’s toxicology de-partment, 11 of them as department chairwoman; shewas highly regarded for her previous research demonstrat-ing how exposure to lead and radiation lowered children’sIQ levels.

“To be honest, I thought studying fluoride would be awaste of time,” says Mullenix. “I mean, it’s in the watersupply, so it’s got to be safe, right?” But Mullenix’s re-search found that rats who experienced prenatal expo-sure to fluoride exhibited higher levels of hyperactivity,while rats with postnatal exposuresuffered the reverse:“hypoactivity — that is, a slowing down of their spontane-ous movements — sitting, standing, smelling, turning thehead, etc. ... The reactions of these animals remindedme of the reactions you’d find from high exposures toradiation.”

Mullenix says that her superiors ordered her not to pub-lish her results. “Don Hay, the associate director ofForsyth, came and told me, ‘If you publish this informa-

����������� June/July 2001,�7/

77� ����������� June/July 2001

tion, we won’t get any more grants from NIDR [the Na-tional Institute of Dental Research],’ and Forsyth getsabout 90 percent of its money from NIDR. I was reallyupset. I’d never been told not to publish a paper.” Withinhours of learning that she was indeed publishing her pa-per, Forsyth fired her, says Mullenix.

“Dr. Mullenix’s claim that I wanted to stop her publish-ing her results, showing a fluoride toxicity in rats, is false,”wrote Donald Hay, after consulting with his institute’s at-torneys. “My concern was that Dr. Mullenix, who had nopublished record in fluoride research, was reaching con-clusions that seemed to differ from a large body of re-search reported over the last fifty years. These extensivestudies have been reviewed and approved by prestigiousorganizations (American Medical Association and Ameri-can Dental Association), and indicated that fluoride atordinary levels was safe. I brought these concerns to herattention.” Hay adds, “Dr. Mullenix’s claim that she wasdismissed after her fluoride paper was accepted is false.We had no knowledge of the acceptance of her paperprior to the time she left [Forsyth].” Hay says Mullenixwas dismissed because of problems with the quality ofher work.

But if fluoride’s health advantages are at least open toquestion, why is it still being promoted in the UnitedStates? “The American Dental Association and the Pub-lic Health Service have been committed to fluoridation asa safe and effective way to reduce cavities for 50 years orso, so how could they now come out and admit maybe itisn’t safe and effective?” asks the EPA’s Hirzy, who addsthat besides bureaucratic inertia, there is corporate in-centive. Fluoride is a waste product of many heavy indus-tries; it is emitted by aluminum, steel and fertilizer facto-ries, coal-burning power plants and in the production ofglass, cement and other items made from clay. Theseindustries would have to pay dearly to dispose of theirwaste fluoride if they could not sell it to municipalities foradding to tap water. Hirzy cites a memo written on March30, 1983, by Rebecca Hammer, the deputy assistantadministrator in EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, whichcalled water fluoridation “an ideal environmental solutionto a long-standing problem.”

“In other words,” says Hirzy, “this [fluoride] that other-wise would be an air and water pollutant is no longer apollutant as long as it’s poured into your reservoir anddrinking water. The solution to pollution is dilution, and inthis case the dilution is your drinking water. It’s a gooddeal for the fertilizer industry. Instead of paying a sub-stantial amount to cart this stuff away, they get paid $180a long ton by the water municipalities.”

Fluoridation may be an infamous right-wing cause, butthe corporate history of fluoride could stir the blood ofleft-wing conspiracists as well. The fluoride disposal prob-lem arose during World War II, when demand for war ma-terials meant increased production of aluminum, steel andother fluoride-related products. At the end of the war, withmassive amounts of fluoride waste needing disposal, thePublic Health Service began pushing to add fluoride to

the water in Grand Rapids, Mich., and dozens of otherU.S. cities. At the time, the Public Health Service wasbeing run by Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, afounder and major stockholder of the Aluminum Companyof America (Alcoa), which had dominated fluoride researchsince the 1920s. By 1950, as the fluoridation campaigngained steam, the Public Health Service was headed byanother top Alcoa official, Oscar R. Ewing, who in turnwas aided by Edward L.Bernays, the father of modernpublic relations and author of the book “Propaganda,” whosought to portray fluoride’s opponents as wackos.

Whatever its origins, is it possible that America’s 50-year embrace of fluoridation has been a terrible mistake?The town of Natick, near Boston, recently reviewed theresearch and found that there was more than enough fluo-ride now packaged in our food, drinks and toothpastes;the town decided not to fluoridate its water. Los Angeles,Newark and Jersey City, N.J., and Bedford, Mass., havealso removed fluoride from their water.

Critics like Mullenix, Hirzy, Marcus and Carton say wedon’t yet know enough to say definitively that it’s all beena mistake. They want more research by the scientificcommunity, more coverage of the dispute by the mediaand more awareness of the health risks by the Americanpeople. As more parents begin to notice the warnings ontoothpaste labels — and those nasty, irreversible whitespots on their kids’ teeth — the issue may once againget the attention and the debate it deserves.

Mark Hertsgaard is the author of Earth Odyssey: Aroundthe World in Search of Our Environmental Future,”published by Broadway Books.Phillip Frazer is the editor of News On Earth;subscriptions are available at noe@newslet.com.