November 5, 2018
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:
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:
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.
-Greencastle School District Ends Voluntary Fluoride Program (Pennsylvania)
-Johnstown Water Fluoridation Ends Next Month (Pennsylvania)
-Dental Hygienist: Why Adding Fluoride to Water Should be Halted (Ontario)
-More Than 100 Million People Affected by Excess Fluoride in Groundwater (India)
-Government to Compensate Child Fluoride Victims (Niger)
-Canadian Studies Prompt Researchers to Voice Grave Concerns (New Zealand)
-Tamworth Regional Council Considers Fluoride Chemicals in Water (Australia)
-More Questions for Oberon Council About Fluoride (Australia)
-Doncaster Campaigner Hits out at Ridiculous Plan to Add Fluoride to Water (U.K.)
For more fluoride related media, please visit FAN’s News Archive.
Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network
No comments:
Post a Comment