Dear All,

In an effort to catch up on the news since returning from my trip to Italy, it is clear that more and more US communities (and citizens) are seeking to specifically end fluoridation (or pass laws which go even further and either ban the addition of ANY agent designed to treat people or allow only  pharmaceutical grade agents approved for medical use by the FDA). Meanwhile, towns that have ended fluoridation recently, for a variety of reasons, are being subjected to a counterattack by the zealous promoters of the practice. Their zealotry is not matched by any familarity with the literature - either of fluoridation’s dangers or its ineffectiveness - but when they come dressed in white coats, unsuspecting decision makers often take their confident proclamations about safety and effectiveness at face value.

Below, in three sections, I have pulled out some articles which give the flavor of these ongoing activities. For more information go to the “Latest News” section of our web site http://www.FluorideAction.Net

A) INITIATIVES TO END FLUORIDATION. Initiatives and individual efforts in towns, counties and water districts seeking to end fluoridation outright include, Juneau, Alaska; Martin County, Florida; Boothbay, Maine and Jackson Water District, Maine.

B) CLEAN AND SAFE WATER INITITIAVES. Communities which are seeking to pass local laws which ban the addition of any chemicals to the water, which are a) designed to treat people or b) not pharmaceutical grade,  or c) contain contaminants which exceed state or federal safe drinking water standard goals - or d) not approved for medical purposes by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), include Arcata, California; Boulder, Colorado and Port Angeles, Washington. The wording of these clean and/or safe water initiatives vary. In Port Angeles, citizens are petitioning to get two separate laws passed: the Medical Independence Act (this would prohibit medication of people through drinking water) and the Water Additives Safety Act (this would prohibit introduction of anything into the water supply unless it is approved by the FDA). In this section, I have printed two articles from Port Angeles.

C) The COUNTERATTACK. Towns that have ended fluoridation and are being subjected to efforts to restore the practice include, Lafayette, Tennessee; Del Rio,Texas and Bedford, Indiana.

Please let me know if there are other key battles that I haven’t mentioned.

Paul Connett

—————————————————————-

Web posted September 11, 2006

Juneau, stop adding fluoride to water

By DAVID OTTOSON

Should the city of Juneau continue adding fluoride to our drinking water? It’s one of those subjects people have strong opinions about. The Mayor’s Commission on Fluoride recently split 3-3 on the question of whether the city should continue to fluoridate.

In my opinion, fluoridation is an awful idea. Fluoride is not a nutrient required by the human body, even in small amounts. Not only is fluoride not an essential nutrient, it is an insidious poison. Sodium fluoride is an industrial grade hazardous waste. Its toxicity is slightly less than that of arsenic.

Supporters of fluoridation assert that lots of things are toxic (salt, iron, Vitamin A, none of which we add to our water), and that the quantities of fluoride consumed through drinking water are inconsequential. The flaw in their reasoning is that the difference between “optimal” fluoridation levels and a potentially toxic dose is small. The amount of fluoride different people ingest varies considerably. It is inevitable that some people will end up crossing the line between safe and toxic exposure because of fluoride’s high inherent toxicity.

One subset of the population we should be especially concerned about is infants and young children. According to the Environmental Working Group, infants and young children are at a three to four times higher risk of over-exposure to fluoride than adults because of their smaller size.

What are the risks? One of the biggest involves the effect of fluoride on the brain. A 1998 study by Varner, Jensen et al, reported brain-damaging effects in rats given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed “optimal” by pro-fluoridation groups (one part per million). Studies from China show decreases of between 5 and 10 IQ points in children who get more fluoride than control groups.

Another risk is bone pathology, because fluoride bio-accumulates in the bones. A study published earlier this year found adolescent boys who drank moderately fluoridated water had a five times greater risk of developing osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer. Numerous studies have found a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated versus nonfluoridated communities.

Fluoride inhibits enzyme systems and can impair both the kidneys and the thyroid gland. The recently released National Research Council report reviewed virtually all published research on fluoride and concluded in a number of key areas relating to human health that “more research is needed.” The most charitable interpretation you can put on the existing science is that there are significant unanswered questions about fluoride’s safety, even at low levels of exposure.

These unanswered questions are made more urgent by a growing body of evidence showing that fluoridating water does not reduce tooth decay. Historically, tooth decay has declined at comparable rates in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas. The largest U.S. study on fluoridation, conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service, found the decay rate of permanent teeth was virtually the same in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas.

Fluoride proponents are fond of quoting statistics suggesting that fluoride dramatically reduces tooth decay in specific age groups. These statistics are bogus. They do not control for the fact that fluoride delays tooth eruption by from one to two years. When proponents assert that at age 9, children from a fluoridated area have 50 percent less decay, they forget to mention that they also have 50 percent fewer teeth. When these statistics are adjusted for delayed tooth eruption, the apparent advantage for fluoridation disappears.

Maybe there was a time when fluoridation seemed like a good idea. There was a time when bleeding people with leeches to treat a fever seemed like a good idea, too. It’s time to put an end to this bizarre custom of disposing of toxic waste by dumping it in our drinking water. Fluoridation is an idea whose time has come - and gone.

————————————————————-

By Jason Schultz

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Saturday, October 07, 2006

STUART: After weeks of appeals from residents, Martin County commissioners on Tuesday will discuss whether they want to revisit their decision three years ago to inject fluoride into the county’s drinking water.

Commissioners voted 4-1 in March 2003 to start fluoridating water. But because it took time to get grants and hire a contractor to build the injection system, the county doesn’t plan to start putting fluoride into the drinking water at its Jensen Beach and Tropical Farms water plants until early next year, Utilities Director John Polley said.

But Commissioner Lee Weberman said that at the urging of residents such as engineer Pat Arena, he will ask commissioners Tuesday whether they want to reconsider that decision. Weberman, who voted for fluoridation, said he thought the county had been putting it in the water since the 2003 decision.

“There’s been enough people who have expressed interest in this issue that we should at least talk about it and see if anything has changed,” Weberman said.

Arena has spoken against fluoridation at county commission meetings for more than a month.

He said any fluoride can cause cancer and pointed to a recent study by the National Research Council of the National Academies that suggests fluoride can weaken teeth and damage bones.

The American Dental Association and U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona support fluoridation, citing studies that show it can prevent tooth decay, according to their Web sites.

But Arena said studies suggesting fluoride strengthens teeth are really propaganda promoted by businesses that want to get rid of their stockpiles of fluoride, a byproduct in the manufacture of aluminum products and fertilizers.

 Polley, the utilities director, said the level of fluoride that would be in the county’s water, about 0.7 milligrams per liter, follows state Health Department guidelines and is below maximum safe levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Stuart also plans to start fluoridating its water in January. Dave Peters, Stuart’s assistant director of public works, said the city’s water will be safe.

“It’s always been an emotional issue,” Peters said. “But most scientific agencies, if not all, support fluoridation, and that’s the city’s position.”

———————————————————————

Petition to get rid of fluoride in area water system

Dear Editor:

There are some of us who are very concerned about our town drinking water containing fluoride which is now reported as a dangerous cumulative toxin and a health risk. One can find scientific studies and doctor reports of fluoride causing cancer, etc. by typing in fluoride or water fluoridation to online search engines. You will see that it states, “Fluoride is used in rat poisons, pesticides, nerve gas, etc. It is associated with high rates of birth defects, cancer, immunosuppression, dental and skeletal fluorosis, cause of increased bone fractures, lowers IQ of children; studies on rats caused alterations in the brain similar to Alzheimer’s Disease, highly corrosive, etc.”

We get enough fluoride in toothpastes and other sources (e.g. foods and beverages) that we are ingesting intolerably dangerous levels. It is also costing taxpayers thousands of dollars per year to add.

Please sign the petition to take the fluoride out of our drinking water - we are ingesting too many chemicals as it is.

Petition papers can be found in Boothbay at the Centah of Attention; in Boothbay Harbor at the Humane Society Thrift Shop; in Southport at the General Store. You may also contact Gwen Salata at 633-4779 or Marie Tupper at 633-4608 to sign or obtain petition papers to help us get signatures.

————————————————————————–

Clallam: Auditor certifies Port Angeles anti-fluoridation initiatives

2006-10-05

PORT ANGELES — Two initiatives seeking to prevent fluoridation of Port Angeles’ municipal water supply received certification Wednesday from the Clallam County auditor.

They will be presented to the city clerk today.

“They have a sufficiency of signatures,'’ said Auditor Cathleen McKeown.

The signatures of 1,632 registered voters who live inside the city were required on each petition, and McKeown said her staff counted 20 valid signatures beyond that point for each.

Both Protect Our Waters and Our Water — Our Choice seek to halt the city’s fluoridation of its water.

Fluoride has been added to the Port Angeles public water supply since May.

Yet still uncertain is whether the initiatives will be included in the all-mail election that ends Nov. 7.

The city has asked for a judgment declaring that the issues are beyond the scope of citizens’ right to challenge them.

Initiative backers, in turn, seek a writ of mandamus forcing the city to put the issues on the ballot.

Superior Court Judge Ken Williams has recused himself from the case, leaving Judge George Woods to decide it or transfer it to a judge from another county.

—————————————————————–

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14830495/

 Port Angeles City Council sends anti-fluoride initiatives to judge for ruling

by BRIAN GAWLEY

Peninsula Daily News

September 14, 2006

PORT ANGELES — Two initiatives submitted to the city last week to stop fluoridation of city water will be sent to a Superior Court judge to determine if it would be appropriate to put them on the ballot for a vote.

City Attorney Bill Bloor said it could take up to six months for a decision on the request for declaratory judgment.

The city’s fluoridation program will continue while the legal judgment is sought.

At a Wednesday afternoon special meeting, the City Council voted 6-0 to seek the legal ruling and not put either of the two initiatives on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.

Mayor Karen Rogers joined the meeting by telephone from Washington, D.C.

Councilwoman Betsy Wharton abstained from voting, saying later, “My vote is not a vote against fluoride. My vote is about process. I didn’t feel all my questions were answered.'’

Ann Mathewson, treasurer of Protect Our Waters, a group that submitted one of the petitions, said a lot of people did a lot of work and a lot of citizens signed petitions “for nothing.'’

“It appears to be dead in the water,'’ she said.

Members of the ballot initiative committee Our Water — Our Choice! submitted the Medical Independence Act, which would prohibit medication of people through drinking water.

Members of the ballot initiative committee Protect Our Waters submitted the Water Additives Safety Act. It would prohibit the introduction of anything into the city’s drinking water intended to act as a drug unless it is approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

Bloor said initiative powers granted to cities are unique versus those granted to counties and the state.

The scope is limited, which is important, he said.

Even with the court’s tests as guides, it’s not always clear whether an initiative is or is not appropriate as a ballot measure, Bloor said.

But there are some serious legal issues in regard to both initiatives that deserve answers, he said.

The decision to own and operate a water system is legislative and thus subject to an initiative, Bloor said.

But once that decision is made, operating the system is administrative and therefore not subject to initiative, he said.

Bloor said he didn’t know the answers to the legal issues raised.

The operation of a water system is specifically vested in the City Council, so it’s probably not subject to initiative, Bloor said.

“You can’t administer by initiative,'’ he said.

“This is a significant issue and (the Medical Independence Act initiative) may be invalid,'’ Bloor said.

It also appears to transfer a property right in the water system to each person in the city, Bloor said.

The state constitution prohibits the city from gifting public property and that seems to be the initiative’s intent, he said.

Stopping fluoridation would impair the city’s contractual obligation to the Washington Dental Service Foundation, Bloor said.

If the council itself wanted to either give the water system to the city’s residents or impair its contract with the dental foundation, he would have to advise against it, Bloor said.

The city would have to pay a $433,000 penalty if it breaks the contract with the dental foundation plus compensation, he said.

“So it’s a substantive issue,'’ Bloor said.

Bloor said the Water Additives Act would require the chemical analysis of every shipment of chemicals intended for use in the city’s water system.

The same legal tests apply and there are some serious issues here, he said.

It would place a significant burden on operation of the city’s water system, Bloor said.

This is an administrative action, he said.

It also would impair the dental contract, Bloor said.

“None of these legal issues relate to fluoridation. It’s about state law and the constitution governing initiatives,'’ Bloor said.

“It’s in everyone’s best interests to discuss these legal issues affecting the initiatives because voting on them won’t heal them,'’ he said.

City Councilman Richard Headrick said these serious legal issues need to be addressed.

Putting the initiatives on the ballot before questions are answered would not be fair or appropriate, he said.

The crowd at Wednesday’s special meeting consisted of about 30 people, many wearing buttons stating, “Vote Yes! Initiative XYZ Clean and Safe Water.'’

Reporter Brian Gawley can be reached at 360-417-3532 or brian.gawley@peninsuladailynews.com.

————————————————————-

July 26, 2006

News

As the saying goes, there are two sides to everything. At the Utility Committee meeting held at City Hall on Tuesday, July 18th, guest speakers presented two distinctly opposing views on the issue of city water fluoridation.

“We wanted to explore both sides,” Lafayette Mayor Bill Wells said identifying the purpose of Tuesday’s meeting, as well as the reason for discontinuing Lafayette’s water fluoridation process November 9th, 2005.

Local resident Gwenn Fontana has a chemistry degree from Vanderbilt and is writing her thesis for a Master’s degree in nutrition.

Fontana provided information about the risks of fluoridation, emphasizing that fluorine is an “acute toxin.”

She also described Fluorine as a “reactive compound” and explained, “There are many industrial uses for Fluorine. Because of its corrosive nature, it is used in glass etching, pesticides, and rat poision.”

According to Fontanna’s presentation, healthy kidneys only secrete about half the fluoride injested, and the rest is absorbed in body tissue.

Warning labels on fluoride toothpaste and the poison symbol on MSDS sheets were cited by Fontana to support her statements about the hazards of ingesting fluoride.

Fontana presented information comparing the effects of fluoride to those of lead and cyanide.

According to Fontana’s report, harmful effects can occur over a lifetime of ingesting fluoride including: calcification of soft tissue; weakening of the immune system; removal of calcium ……where it is needed; cancer; …osteoporosis; abnormal brain development; mottling of tooth enamel; locking joints; and hormone depletion.

The case in favor of water fluoridation was presented by Dr. Cathy Phillips.

Dr. Phillips has been a dentist for 29 years and she is currently the Regional Dental Director for the 14 county Upper Cumberland Region.

The Dental Director provided information about water fluoridation benefits citing the Surgeon General’s statement: “Fluoridation is the single most effective measure to prevent tooth decay in children and adults.”

Dr. Phillips presented statistics reflecting 96% of Tennessee’s cities with fluoridated water and national approval of fluoridation at 78%.

“Fluoridation is the cornerstone of the community oral health program,” said Dr. Philips. She added that the American Dental Association identifies fluoridation as “safe, beneficial, and cost effective.”

According to Dr. Phillips, tooth decay can cause serious health problems and, “The American Medical Association encourages states to promote fluoridation.”

“No court has determined fluoridation unlawful, and courts have held fluoridation not to be invasive,” Dr. Phillips said.

Dr. Phillips stated “No credible studies that stand up to scientific research oppose fluoridation.”

“There is not an urgent deadline for a decision,” Lafayette Mayor Bill Wells said, “And we’d rather err on the side of safety.” Describing the next steps in the water fluoridation decision making process, Mayor Wells explained, “The Utility Committee members will take time to absorb and understand the information and I hope they will make a recommendation.”

But Arena said studies suggesting fluoride strengthens teeth are really propaganda promoted by businesses that want to get rid of their stockpiles of fluoride, a byproduct in the manufacture of aluminum products and fertilizers.

“This has been a coverup since 1956,” Arena said. “The fact is it’s a cancer-causing agent and big bucks are keeping it moving. You’re talking about probably the biggest fraud our government has ever done to us.”

This year a Wellington councilwoman urged her village to reexamine its practice of fluoridation. Last month the city council of Del Rio, Texas, voted to stop fluoridating its water after 16 years. Last year in Arkansas, residents helped to defeat a bill that would have required nearly every water provider in the state to fluoridate.

Weberman said the county’s health care task force recommended fluoridation in 2002, and unless he sees some new information he still supports fluoridation. It cost $201,000, including grant money, to build the county’s fluoridation equipment.

Polley, the utilities director, said the level of fluoride that would be in the county’s water, about 0.7 milligrams per liter, follows state Health Department guidelines and is below maximum safe levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Stuart also plans to start fluoridating its water in January. Dave Peters, Stuart’s assistant director of public works, said the city’s water will be safe.

“It’s always been an emotional issue,” Peters said. “But most scientific agencies, if not all, support fluoridation, and that’s the city’s position.”

—————————————————————–

By Karen Gleason

Del Rio News-Herald

Published October 9, 2006

Who will have the last word on the issue of adding fluoride to Del Rio’s water supply?

Edna Molina, a leader in The Border Organization, a grassroots citizens group, on Tuesday night will make a presentation to the Del Rio City Council titled “The Importance and Necessity of Providing Fluoride in Our Water.”

The presentation is one of four the council is scheduled to hear during its first regular meeting in October. The council meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. in council chambers at City Hall, 109 W. Broadway St.

In an interview this morning, Molina said The Border Organization has been working with a group of scientists from the University of Texas Health Science Center “to try and fully understand the arguments for taking fluoride out and putting fluoride back.”

The council voted during its Sept. 12 meeting to stop adding fluoride to the city’s drinking water.

That decision by the council came after a presentation by John Morony, a retired college biology professor, who characterized fluoride as a poison and showed the council numerous research references that link fluoride to a higher incidence of a variety of health problems.

Molina said this morning that members of The Border Organization have “educated ourselves on why Mr. Morony has the misconceptions about fluoride that he has.”

Molina said, “The scientific evidence to keep fluoride far outweigh the reasons to get rid of it.”

Molina said The Border Organization has learned that the level of fluoridation used by Del Rio “is a level which promotes dental health.”

She said The Border Organization also has learned that fluoridation “is not just a magic bullet,” but must be used in conjunction with a healthful diet, regular brushing and flossing and the use of sealants.

“But we have learned that fluoride is very helpful in the formation of tooth structures. All of the pediatricians in town say the Del Rio City Council made a mistake, as, of course, do all the dentists,” Molina said

She said the information she will present to the council Tuesday night will be for information purposes only.

In two weeks, she said, The Border Organization will ask the council to reverse its Sept. 12 decision.

“We don’t want the council to make snap decisions. We want them to take a good, careful look at everything they do,” Molina said.

———————————————————————–

By JASON MULLIS

BEDFORD: Fluoride has long been proclaimed by dentists, physicians and water treatment experts as a great means of ensuring dental health in an area’s citizenship. In 2003, Bedford was honored for maintaining an optimal level of fluoride in the city drinking water by the Indiana State Department of Health.

About a year and a half ago, however, the water filtration plant ceased feeding powdered fluoride into the water system. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any fluoride in the water, though, and city officials have been diligently seeking a long-term solution.

“We are looking at every option we have to come up with a feed system that will work,” said Eric Flinn, the superintendent at the Bedford Water Filtration Plant.

He’s been talking to doctors and dentists in the area over the last few weeks, trying to make sure everyone is aware of the situation.

Since the filtration plant was renovated in 2000, there have been chronic problems with the method used to add fluoride to Bedford’s water.

“We have very hard water here in Lawrence County,” Flinn said. “The powdered fluoride draws the hardness out of the water.”

Simply put, the powdered fluoride caused the limestone and calcium in the water to solidify, lining supply pipes and equipment with that white, chalky substance many locals are familiar with.

There are other options, such as using a liquid acid fluoride, which is more expensive.

“I called my chemical supplier, and he said he couldn’t guarantee we would get any fluoridic acid for the next two years,” Flinn said, adding that it was shortly after Hurricane Katrina when he asked. Many suppliers of fluoridic acid are from the area affected by the storm and have since returned to more normal levels of production.

Flinn said the most probable solution available would be to build an additional building at the filtration plant, which would be dedicated to a fluoride feeding system.

“We are looking at what other municipalities in the area are doing about this problem,” said Mayor Joe Klumpp. “What we are finding is that it is a very costly endeavor.”

While the initial cost may be high, those in the medical field say the payoff is worth the investment.

“It’s really been proven very effective and cost effective for preventing tooth decay,” said Leila Alter, a local dentist, referring to fluoridating water. “Fluoride helps make teeth more resistant to decay, and also interferes with the development of plaque.”

According to the American Dental Association, it has been calculated that the lifetime costs per person to fluoridate a water system is less than the cost of one dental filling.

Alter said since she started practicing dentistry in Lawrence County in 1999, she’s witnessed an increase in the amount of young children with tooth decay, or the chronic disease called “dental caries.”

She’s convinced maintaining the proper amount of fluoride in the drinking water would help.

“The goal is to get the fluoride back in the water,” Alter said.

Another consideration is the amount of fluoride ingested daily from sources other than drinking water.

According to www.fluoridealert.com (sadly the journalist has given the incorrect web address here and people who go to this site get redirected to the ADA! The correct address is either www.fluoridealert.org or FluorideAction.net, PC), since Sulfuryl Fluoride was approved by the federal government for use in food production facilities, the amount of fluoride in regularly-ingested products has increased dramatically.

Some municipalities nationally are looking at stopping the fluoridation of their water supplies because of increased cases of dental fluorosis, or white spotting in the teeth caused by too much fluoride.

Plus, Flinn noted, the local water supply has a natural content of between .4 and .6 parts per million, or per milligram per liter of water.

There is no mandate for municipalities to include fluoride in the water, but the Environmental Protection Agency (actually this is the CDC recommendation, PC) dictates that a health limit should be between .7 and 1.2 ppm, if fluoride is added.

“It’s hard to justify the expense for something that’s not mandated,” Klumpp said.

Especially when there is some naturally occurring fluoride — the best kind — already in the water.

That doesn’t mean Klumpp is turning away from the issue.

“We are looking into it,” he said.

Local physician George Sorrells urged the area medical community to be patient with city officials while they work to find a solution.

“I would rather have teeth that have white spots on them from too much fluoride, than teeth that are rotting,” Sorrells said. “A big problem is that we have no good way of reliably measuring the fluoride that youngsters are ingesting.”

He would err on the side of caution when it comes to young tooth development.

“Good, preventative dentistry and immunization have been two of the major factors in improving children’s health in the last 100 years,” Sorrells said. “If you have a good, sound mouth of teeth, it’s so much better for you.”

Times-Mail Staff Writer Jason Mullis can be reached at 277-7260, or by e-mail at jmullis@tmnews.com

Last Updated ( Friday, 15 September 2006)