Another Town Faces Fluoridation Dilemma

Bulletin #698

October 31, 2006

Dear All,
Three things: 1) some useful advice for phone users; 2) an update on the latest Harvard letter and 3) news of another town contemplating the end of fluoridation.
1) Two pieces of useful advice for phone users.
a) How to get a FREE information (411) call. I have just done it!

No charge for directory assistance this way:

When you need to use the 411 / information option, simply dial

1-800-FREE-411 or 1 800 373 3411 without incurring a charge.

Works on home phones and cell phones.

b) Here is something worth knowing if you lose your cell phone.
If you lose your cell phone (or it gets stolen) you can be stuck with a huge bill. Here is a simple way of making lost or stolen mobiles useless to thieves.
First obain your mobile phone’s serial number, by keying in: star-pound zero-six-pound like this   * # 0 6 #  Your 13 or 15 digit code number will appear on the screen. This is unique to your handset. Write it down and keep it safe. Should your mobile phone get stolen, you can phone your service provider and give them this code. They will then be able to block your handset, so even if the thief changes the sim card, your phone will be totally useless.
2) Update on the latest Harvard letter (see below if you haven’t sent it in yet)
Already over 30 letters have been sent into President Bok asking him to respond to EWG’s charge that Harvard’s investigation of Douglass’s behavior did not follow Federal Rules.
I am always impressed by the huge cross section of the continent (and beyond) represented by these letters. Within two days we have had letters sent in from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Quebec, Washington and Wisconsin as well as from Australia and the UK.
I was particularly moved by this letter from the Reverend Pondurenga Das, from Berkeley, California.

October 29, 2006

Ref: Evidence that exposure to fluoride significantly increases the chance bone cancer in young boys.

Dear President Bok,

The Douglas affair is becoming a public scandal.  Harvard Crimson has revealed that Dr. Douglas works for Colgate, a major producer of Fluoride Toothpastes, as well as for Harvard.   Crimson also informs us that Douglas donated $1,000,000 to Harvard.  Apparently Dr. Douglas withheld, from the agencies that funded him, the alarming and important evidence that exposure to fluoride increases the chance bone cancer in young boys.  Neither government agencies nor the public should have to seek information from rumor mills and investigative reporters.

It has been over two months since Harvard announced that it had exonerated Professor Douglass [in closed proceedings] of all charges brought by The Environmental Working Group, one of America’s most respected NGOs.  I would like to believe that integrity is more important than money for a great institution like Harvard.  Please put all the facts in play and let the chips fall where they may.

Harvard has a special place in my life because both Victor Hugo Frank, my father, and Herbert Abel, my step-father [after my father’s untimely death] attended Harvard.  I believe Herbert was the youngest person admitted to Harvard at that time.  In memory of those two brilliant and compassionate human beings, I humbly request you to protect and restore the lustre of Harvard’s name.

Love & Blessings,

Rev. Pondurenga Das

3) Another town faces the fluoridation dilemma.
In the story from the Citizen Telegram in Rifle, Colorado it appears that another town is facing the fluoridation dilemma: should they or should they not continue fluoridation? The issue was forced upon them because their equipment broke down and they had to decide whether to replace it. Now the story becomes very much like the happenings in our little village of Canton, NY. It is the water plant people who do not want to continue adding this poison to the water. Bless them!
Now the councillors have to wonder if they are going to continue. How should they make the decision? Should they listen to experts from both sides and try to resolve a debate which has waxed and waned for over 60 years? Should they without medical training make this decision themselves or should they ask the people what they want? While I believe that democratic mistakes are preferable to bureaucratic ones, I side with those that say that no one has the right to force his or her neighbor to take a particular medication, so even democracy is not a solution here.  So what is the answer?
My advice to this council, and any other fluoridated community, is to halt fluoridation and issue this statement explaining why:

We as council members do not believe that we have the expertise, or the right, to force everyone in our community to take medication (i.e. fluoride) in their drinking water, especially a medication which the FDA has never reviewed for safety using the standard clinical trials demanded for other drugs. As elected officials we are required to exercise due diligence in such matters. With more and more evidence questioning the efficacy of this practice and other evidence documenting health concerns at doses at, or very close to, the doses that some people are experiencing right now in fluoridated communities (NRC, 2006) we are halting the practice forthwith.  We are prepared to put the annual cost we are currently spending on fluoridation into whatever we can do to help families with low income provide better dental care for their children along with supporting education programs in our schools focusing on better diet and dental hygiene. For those citizens who are dismayed by this ruling, and are prepared to accept the potential liabilities of this practice, we invite them to run for office and overturn our decision.

Paul Connett
————————————————————
1)  Harvard breaks Federal Rules letter.
If you agree with the letter below, please copy and paste it (or you own modified version) and send to President Bok at , and copy your US Senator, the Harvard Crimson , and your local newspaper. Please also bcc me at
.
Dear President Bok,
It has now been over two months since Harvard announced on August 15, that it had exonerated Professor Douglass of “intentionally” concealing from his peers, the National Research Council and and his federal funders, his PhD student’s findings on a relationship between exposure to fluoride and an increase in bone cancer in young boys.
Harvard officials, including yourself, have continued to use the cloak of “confidentiality” of the investigation process, to stonewall requests on a simple explanation of how such an exoneration could have been derived despite the concrete evidence against Douglass.
Now, however, the Environmental Working Group (letter dated October 11) has written to you charging that the Harvard committee failed to follow federal rules in the way they investigated this matter.
Clearly, the cloak of “confidentiality” cannot be used to stonewall this disturbing finding, and we call upon you to respond to EWG’s charge with the minimum of further delay. Simply put: did the Harvard investigation team fail to follow Federal rules on this matter, or did it not? Please explain.
Sincerely,
_______________________________________________
2) The Citizen Telegram, Rifle, Colorado
October 26 - October 31, 2006
News
To fluoridate or not: it may come down to a vote
By Heidi Rice
Telegram Staff Reporter
Whether or not to fluoridate the Rifle’s drinking water is still up for debate, and city council members have yet to make a decision.

“I’m not prepared to make a comment about it because we, as a council, haven’t discussed it,” said Mayor Keith Lambert.

And, at least from Rifle City Hall staffers’ perspectives, Rifleites don’t seem particularly concerned about the issue.

Rifle public works director Bill Sappington said he has received only a handful of calls from people about the issue.

“How many people are even drinking the water?” Sappington questioned.

The subject of fluoridation came up two weeks ago when city staff at the water treatment plant made a presentation to council members during an informal workshop. There, staff members voiced their opposition to fluoridating the water.

No council action was taken at the workshop.

The city of Rifle has fluoridated its water for years. However, the subject of whether or not to continue the process came up a year ago when the equipment used to fluoridate broke down and staff sought direction from the council on whether to replace it or not.

After little input from the public, council directed staff to replace the equipment and continue with the fluoridation. However, Sappington said that after review, the city did not have the funds to install the proper equipment and the water has not been fluoridated since that time.

“We were under the impression we could install a type of equipment adequate for our needs,” Sappington said. “But in review of the features needed for proper application, there were critical items needed to ensure we apply (the fluoride) at the proper application rate.”

The city of Glenwood Springs has been fluoridating its water for years. The town of New Castle does not fluoridate the water, nor do the towns of Silt or Parachute.

At the workshop, Rifle council members tentatively voiced their opinions, but said they would like to hear more information before making a decision.

“It seems we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t,” said Councilor Sandy Vaccaro. “It’s weird - there are people at both ends of this. To me, either it’s good or it’s not. I just don’t want the public to think our drinking water is unsafe.”

Councilor Jeff Johnson pointed out that there is no penalty if the city doesn’t fluoridate the water.

“Let’s leave it at status quo,” Johnson said. “Let’s decide not to do it, but that we would like to see what their arguments (in favor) are. It looks like the non-fluoridation for me comes ahead.”

Councilor Jen Firmin is not in favor of forcing fluoridated water on people who don’t want it.

“Unless we know it’s a really good thing, let’s educate the public and let them compensate,” she said.

Rifle city manager John Hier suggested the council listen to experts on both sides before making a decision.

“There’s no right or wrong, simply different opinions about it,” Hier said. “We may conclude to ask the citizens what they want. We’re not qualified to decide - we need to hear from the experts.”

Some have suggested that the matter be put on the ballot in the November 2006 election for Rifle citizens to decide.

Got an opinion?

Let city officials know what you think about fluoridating Rifle’s water.

Call Rifle’s public works department at 625-6223 or leave a message for Rifle’s city officials at 625-2121.

Do your homework

An extensive array of Web sites are available on the Internet for those wishing to find out more information on fluoridating community drinking water. Here’s a partial list of sites (in no particular order):


* www.fluorideaction.org (should be www.fluorideaction.net)

* www.ada.org/goto/fluoride

* www.fluoridealert.org

* www.nofluoride.com

*www.cdphe.state.co.us/pp/oralhealth/fluoride

Information may also be found by searching for “fluoride” on your Web browser.