November 5, 2018

Erin Brockovich Urges Voters to Reject Fluoridation on Election Day

At least three communities in the U.S. will be voting on fluoridation this election day on November 6^th.
Houston, Missouri started fluoridating after a council vote approved it in 2002. Local resident George Sholtz voiced his opposition to the practice at a regular council meeting this past April and shared the latest science with leaders. This resulted in a public forum held in May, where Paul Connett, PhD
presented the case against fluoridation to a full town hall. Soon thereafter the council voted unanimously to place the following question on the November ballot to let voters decide for the first time whether they wanted to continue the practice (note the use of the proper additive name for fluoride in the question):

“Shall the City of Houston continue adding fluoride--hydrofluosilic acid--in the municipal water? The water is currently treated as recommended and approved by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services?”

Springfield, Ohio (population served 85,000) will vote on fluoridation for the third time since 2005, as the County Health District has successfully gathered enough signatures to have the question added to the ballot in a repeat effort to initiate the practice. Both recent votes—along with a third vote in 1969--resulted in nearly 60% of voters rejecting fluoridation, which officials speculate will cost over $1.25 million to implement. The pro-fluoride lobby attempted to have the vote immediately after raising the issue in May, but the council killed that proposal so citizens could educate themselves prior to making a decision. To learn more visit the local campaign Springfield Against Water Fluoridation.
The third community--Brooksville, Florida—will let voters decide whether they want to continue or end fluoridation as a result of the Mayor raising concerns about toxicity. The community had previously stopped using the chemical, but the council caved to the dental-lobby in 2013 and voted to resume the practice without much public input.
This week, Brooksville gained the attention of environmental champion and legal expert Erin Brockovich, who had the following message for voters:

Brooksville, Florida Community Drinking Water System Consumers… more importantly Voters…

On November 6, Election Day, you will be asked whether or not the City of Brooksville should continue to add fluoride to the city’s drinking water system?

I would strongly encourage you to VOTE NO! Using the community drinking water system to administer any substance for the purpose of achieving a medical result is just plain wrong.

Watch this feed and you will see how the legions of “Debbie Dogooders” go on the attack. There is no reason to dose the drinking water supply… I don’t care what the CDC or HHS or even your dentist has to say… it’s wrong, dangerous and unnecessary.

It’s WRONG because the city water department’s job is to provide you clean safe drinking water (and many struggle at that)… not to be your pharmacist.

It’s DANGEROUS because they cannot control the dose. For 50 years the CDC said the “proper dose” was 1.2 mg/L… just two years ago they finally admitted they were wrong, after destroying the teeth and bones of hundreds of thousands… and lowered the recommended dose to 0.7 mg/L… almost half… ooooops! The post picture is what fluorosis looks like!

It’s UNNECESSARY because fluoride is available from your dentist, in your toothpaste, foods and beverages… and adding it to your drinking water is what causes OVERDOSE problems.

Be smart… look at who is funding the YES campaign… and ask yourselves WHY?

VOTE NO!

See her original message on Facebook.

Erin Brockovich and water quality expert Bob Bowcock also recently responded to a question about public water fluoridation at a town hall in Satellite Beach, Florida. Watch how they responded.

If you know anyone in one of these communities, please send them Brockovich’s quote, as well as recent coverage by Environmental Health News and FAN on three new bombshell studies condemning fluoridation. Also consider sending one of our video features:

-Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation

-Our Daily Dose

-10 Facts About Fluoride

Lawsuit Update: Judge Orders More Discovery

Earlier this month, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), together with a coalition of environmental and health groups, won a third major ruling in our legal case to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to end water fluoridation.

In short, the EPA objected to sharing internal documents--or allow their employees to be deposed--about their acknowledgment of and concerns about the known risks associated with fluoridation. Federal Judge Edward M. Chen, of the Northern District Court of California, ruled the EPA had to share this crucial information (see the Judge's full ruling)

According to an October 22nd article by InsideEPA, Judge Chen “ordered EPA to release internal documents regarding its scientists’ views of a study linking fluoridation to IQ decrements, as well as ordering EPA to allow plaintiffs to depose agency staff on whether its existing fluoride standards consider neurotoxicity risks.”

The order is the latest in a hat trick of “precedent-setting losses” for the EPA in this case. On December 21, 2017, Judge Chen denied the EPA's motion to dismiss the case entirely. This ruling was covered by Reuters⁴ and various legal and regulatory journals.

Two and a half weeks later, on February 7, 2018, FAN won our second major legal victory. This time, the EPA tried to put up another roadblock by limiting the scope of discovery. In other words, EPA worked to prohibit our attorneys from obtaining internal EPA documents, and to prohibit our experts from relying upon recently published studies. According to Chen:

The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose and the legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions. The Court therefore DENIES the EPA's motion.

Had the EPA prevailed we would have been prohibited from including any new fluoride neurotoxicity study published after our petition was submitted in November 2016, including the landmark U.S. government-funded 12-year study⁷ by Bashash et al. published in September 2017, as well as the three bombshell studies publishedtwo weeks ago linking fluoride in water to ADHD, hypothyroidism, and overexposure for pregnant women.

The judge has scheduled the trial for the beginning of August 2019. In the meantime, our legal team will continue conducting the discovery phase, interviewing EPA officials and collecting internal documents.

Click here to read excerpts of the InsideEPA article on the latest legal victory.

Latest Fluoride News

-Five More Fluoride-Condemning Studies are Published (U.S.)