FAN Bulletin 1006

Nov 7, 2008
 
Dear Supporter,

Incredible as it sounds, 53 communities, with a combined population of 244,438, rejected adding fluoride to their public drinking water in the November 4, 2008, election referenda.  14 communities voted for fluoridation (with a combined population of 40,218).

NEBRASKA:
The majority of the referenda (61) were held in Nebraska.  After the Nebraska state Legislature voted in mandatory fluoridation in April 2008, a total of 64 communities (with a population over 1,000) were given the right to vote for or against fluoridation.  In a stunning rebuke to the arrogance of mandatory fluoridation, 80% of the Nebraskan communities (49 to 12) voted against fluoridation on Nov 4.  

The statistics for the Nov 4 fluoridation referenda in Nebraska are:

? 227,420 - Total population rejecting
? 31,177 - Total population accepting
? 88% - population rejecting
? 12% - population accepting

The 3 Nebraska communities that didn’t vote on November 4 are:

? Atkinson:  The city council decided against a referendum and voted to fluoridate.
? Norfolk:  Plans to hold a referendum in 2009 (the law states that fluoride must be added by June 1, 2010, if it is not voted out by then.)
? Arapahoe:  They may follow Norfolk.  

On Nov 5, the Grand Island Independent reported (http://fluoride.ecobytes.net/Alert/United-States/Nebraska/Fluoride-fails-across-area-especially-in-Hastings):

“Marvin “Butch” Hughes of Hastings (Nebraska), who led that community’s anti-fluoride petition drive, said he was surprised and gratified to see such overwhelming support for the anti-fluoridation measures. Hughes said he believed his group’s personal interaction with voters during the petition effort was the key to the strong support.

Now, he said, his group, Nebraskans for Safe Water, is working to get a statewide version of its newly passed Hastings Safe Water Drinking Act into the Legislature. The ordinance requires suppliers of anything into municipal water, such as the hydrofluorosilicic acid used in public fluoridation, to provide complete toxicological data to the public.”

Assurances on the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation were touted by innumerable state health officials and dentists, which were carried by the media throughout the state.  

Dr. Steven Levy from the University of Iowa, whose work on fluoride has been largely underwritten by US regulatory agencies who promote fluoridation, was quoted as saying, “the only genuine concern involving fluoridation is a condition called dental fluorosis, which occasionally stains the teeth.” (http://fluoride.ecobytes.net/Alert/United-States/Nebraska/Fluoride-still-a-key-issue-in-Nebraska)

But the most egregious endorsement came from William Bailey of the CDC’s Division of Oral Health, in an Oct 28 article titled “CDC official: Fluoride safe, effective,” in the Hastings Tribune:

… He said these peer-reviewed studies have determined that fluoride is safe and effective in the prevention of cavities.”  By that, we mean no one has ever associated fluoride - based on weight of science - with adverse health affects,” Bailey said. “There’s no compelling evidence that fluoride hurts people.”
… Bailey said fluoride is safe not only for adults, but also for babies.  ”In fact, we don’t even say that babies can’t have fluoride,” he said.
… He said some people were concerned that babies were receiving more fluoride than the level developed by the National Institute of Medicine.  ”However, we don’t believe there are any adverse health affects. None have ever been shown,” Bailey said.
Ref:  http://fluoride.ecobytes.net/Alert/United-States/Nebraska/Hastings-CDC-official-Fluoride-safe-effective

This is the same Dr. William Bailey who gave testimony over the phone to the Fairbanks, Alaska, city council at a critical time when they were deciding whether to fluoridate.  FAN transcribed his testimony and issued a detailed critique of his comments by Limeback, Thiessen, Osmunson, Spittle, Neurath, Kopf, Clinch and myself (see FAN bulletin #959: Deconstructing Dr. Bailey, May 28, 2008, and the transcript of Bailey’s comments and our critique:
Part 1: http://fluoridealert.org/bailey1.html
Part 2: http://fluoridealert.org/bailey2.html
Part 3: Appendix 1 and references at http://fluoridealert.org/bailey3.html .
A copy of this critique was sent to Dr. Bailey for his response. He has not yet replied.

As far as I am concerned Dr. Bailey is knowingly deceiving the public. He is committing fraud and is (or should be) an embarrassment to the US Public Health Service and should be asked to resign forthwith. Hopefully with a new administration the scandalous behavior by CDC officials will be reviewed. Meanwhile, we need to redouble our efforts to get a Congressional Hearing. No more public money should be spent promoting this reckless practice. At a time when people are looking for ways to cut government spending, this will be a great place to start.

There are many articles on the Nebraska votes but this is a good one that sums things up well: Fluoridation falls flat across area http://fluoride.ecobytes.net/Alert/United-States/Nebraska/Fluoridation-falls-flat-across-area -  see also FAN’s Nebraska NewsTracker at http://fluoride.ecobytes.net/Alert/United-States/Nebraska

The list of the 49 Nebraskan communities that rejected fluoridation is below.  See more statistics on the the referenda at http://fluoridealert.org/11-4-08.html

CORNING, NEW YORK:
On November 4, Corning residents voted to take away the right of the city council to force fluoridation on them. Their vote gives the citizens the final say on this issue.  It is unlikely that they will be voting for fluoridation any time soon. Should the matter come up again the dental lobby will have a much harder time convincing the public than they had convincing a handful of people behind closed doors. Huge congratulations to Kirk Huttleston who worked tirelessly for over a year to make this outcome possible.

According to Carol Kopf of NY State Citizens Opposed to Fluoridation and FAN’s media officer and state campaign coordinator:
 
When Corning’s Mayor took the advice of dentists and mandated fluoridation, the community lead by Kirk Huttleston protested.  As a result, the Mayor lost his seat in the following election and this year a referendum passed taking the fluoridation decision out of the hands of the city council - which in effect will kill fluoridation.
 
Kirk’s team won despite well-financed opposition led by a dentist who is the fluoridation spokesperson for the New York State Oral Health Coalition. Kirk’s team worked the phones, walked house to house, explaining the referendum where No meant Yes and Yes meant No, then enlisted those who understood to pass on the information.  Without his team’s extraordinary effort, Corning probably would not have rejected fluoridation and the NYS Oral Health Coalition would have gotten another notch in its belt and been energized to do more damage in NYS - for which those of us in NY are especially grateful.
 
The dentists “scraped” up $100,000 to fund the fluoridation scheme.  Let’s see if they spend that money actually treating the low-income folks they claim to care about (but won’t accept Medicaid for).

MAINE
Jackman and Moose River in Maine voted to END existing fluoridation programs.  
Vinalhaven voted to continue.

WISCONSIN
Prairie du Chien voted to reject fluoridation.
Holmen voted to fluoridate.

CONCLUSIONS:
Once again we have seen confirmed ? from Maine to Nebraska - that when and where citizens are given free choice on this matter and they organize, the overwhelming majority of towns reject fluoridation.  On November 4, in an historic presidential election year, 79% of communities with referenda voted to keep fluoride out of their water.

To put it another way, the only way governments can keep fluoridation going is to take away (e.g. Australia) or circumvent (e.g. UK) the right of citizens to choose what medicine they take. Such an approach sabotages both our human and democratic rights.

Paul Connett

PS: FAN is  running  on near empty. Soon we plan to launch our fundraiser for 2009. Meanwhile, please consider making a tax deductible donation now to support our continued efforts to bring about our common goal of ending fluoridation worldwide. Making a donation is very easy to do - just click here https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=5061

A complete listing of the 67 Referendum results from Nov 4, 2008

NEBRASKA (49 Communities Rejected fluoridation on Nov 4)
Ainsworth  
Aurora  
Battle Creek  
Bayard
Beatrice  
Bridgeport
Broken Bow  
Cambridge  
Central City
Chadron  
Cozad  
Crawford  
David City  
Eagle  
Friend  
Geneva  
Gothenburg  
Grand Island
Grant
Hastings  
Hebron  
Imperial  
Kimball
Lexington  
Madison  
Milford  
Mitchell
North Platte  
Ord
Pawnee City  
Pierce  
Plainview  
Ravenna
Schuyler  
Scottsbluff
Shelton
Sidney
St. Paul
Stanton  
Stromsburg  
Sutherland  
Sutton  
Tekamah  
Valentine  
Weeping Water
Wilber  
Wood River
Wymore  
York

3 Other Communities that voted AGAINST fluoridation on Nov. 4:
Maine: Jackman and Moose River
Wisconsin: Prairie du Chien

1 Community voted to take away the right of the city council to decide to fluoridate
New York:  Corning

14 Communities that voted FOR fluoridation on Nov 4:
Nebraska (12):  Alma, Ashland, Crete, Dakota City, Franklin, Gretna, North Bend, Seward, Wahoo, Wisner, Wakefield, Yutan
Maine: Vinalhaven
Wisconsin: Holmen