april 19, 2018
Before we get to the local victories, here is an update on our Fundraiser.
A bumper weekend ahead
Yesterday, thanks to supporters like you, we reached a magnificent $51,662 from 370 supporters in our Fundraiser for our TSCA lawsuit*, which included a pledge of $250 for reaching 350 donors. Butthere are several more pledges ahead and it promises to be a bumper weekend if the donations keep rolling in.
30 more donors of any amount will trigger a pledge of $500.
60 more donors of $10 or more will trigger a pledge of $5,000.
80 more donors of any amount will trigger a pledge of $750.
97 more donors via mailed-in check of $5 or more will trigger another $5000.
130 more donors of any amount will trigger a pledge of $1500.You can be part of our FAN team and help our total leap forward with a donation of $5 by mailed in check or $10 or more via online.
You can follow the excitement online by checking the first masthead on our web page www.FluorideALERT.org
How to donate
- Online at our secure server.
- Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Send your check to:
Fluoride Action Network
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905
The first local victory came in Edgartown, Massachusetts. On April 12, a referendum vote of 700-253 (a whopping 73%-23%), ended all hope of fluoridation in Edgartown. According to a report on the in The Martha’s Vineyard Times,
“The town’s board of health voted to add fluoride, prompting a controversy over the decision and the process used to issue that order. The town’s water commission opposed the move. Ultimately, a petition was circulated to bring the fluoride issue to a townwide vote culminating in Thursday’s no vote.”
Local residents had only 90 days to collect enough petition signatures to take the issue out of the hands of the pro-fluoridation Board of Health, and they ultimately met and exceeded the petition signature requirements to force a ballot vote, giving authority over fluoridation to water consumers. This effort was followed up with an extensive education campaign within the community and in the local newspaper’s editorial section, led by concerned citizens. (Click here to see all related articles)
The issue electrified the community and prompted proponents days before the vote to round-up a statement from over 35 professionals, along with a former US Secretary of Health and Human Service, which urged the community to vote for fluoridation.
The second came in Walden, NY on Tuesday April 16 (just two days ago), when the council voted unanimously to end fluoridation in this village, which is located about 10 miles from Newburgh, NY, which was the second town fluoridated in the USA in 1945. Grand Rapids was the first.
Hats off to one of the councilors Lynn Thomson, who helped the village jump through all the hurdles that the state of NY Department of Health (DOH) puts in the way of any community that wants to stop fluoridating. The mayor and the village councilors wanted to end this outdated practice months ago but the DOH did everything they could to stop them, which included a last-minute offer to pay for the fluoridation chemicals. Ellen and I had traveled the 3 hours from our home in Binghamton, NY (through rain and snow) to witness the vote. After I and another citizen had spoken for 3 minutes each - the vote was held and it was all over. Ellen and I joined the others in the crowd and cheered …and then we drove on air back to Binghamton. A very sweet victory indeed.
So what can you say in 3 minutes at such a hearing? Here is the gist of what I said:
What Fluoridation is:
Unusual (most countries don't do it),
Unnatural (the level of fluoride in mother's milk is extremely low),
Unethical (the government is voilating the individuals right to informed consent to medical treatment),
Unsafe (e.g. potential to lower IQ)
Unnecessary (there are better alternatives)
No risk is acceptable if it is avoidable!
Lynn Thomson is willing to help other communities in NY state negotiate the DOH’s obstacles and liberate themselves from this wretched practice.
A third victory occurred in Uintah County, Utah, where a group of dentists attempted to collect the required 1,600 signatures necessary to force a countywide ballot vote to initiate fluoridation. Shortly after starting this effort, local residents and water consumers organized a group called Uintah County Citizens Against Public Water Fluoridation and mounted and impressive opposition campaign. Ultimately, the dentists gave up on their unsuccessful efforts in response to the public's outcry in opposition.
A Note from FAN’s Campaign Director, Stuart Cooper:
"These three examples just confirm what our internal statistics show in regard to the outcome of local fluoridation decisions in the US in recent years. While we--opponents of fluoridation--win about 50% of the time we initiate a campaign to end fluoridation, the pro-fluoridation dental-lobby wins less than 20% of the time when they try to initiate the practice. It's vital that citizens stand up to the fluoride-lobby. They're a paper tiger, but this only becomes apparent to decision makers when citizens fight back."
On behalf of the FAN team, thank you.
* The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.
The Fluoride Action Network together with Food & Water Watch, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and others petitioned EPA to exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies. We made this request on the grounds that a large body of animal, cellular, and human research shows that fluoride is neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen in fluoridated communities.
We have won the first two rounds in Federal Court. The first was the Dec 21, 2017, ruling to allow the case to go forward, thus ending EPA’s effort to dismiss the case. The second ruling on Feb 7, 2018, allows us to enter new studies into consideration, something that EPA argued against.