SWIS NEWS – 13 JUNE 2016 Ref: 622
U.K FREEDOM FROM FLUORIDE ALLIANCE Edition: 000-1
This is the first of four weekly editions to finalise the pilot series for the UKFFFA
The South Staffs Saga
During May the affair of Chris Cook and the South Staffs Water Company moved to Court.Here is Chris’ s own description, with an introduction by Joy Warren
For those of you who do not realise what is going on with South Staffs Water, their fluoridation scheme for Tamworth is held to be illegal because work did not begin to install the fluoridation plant before December 1984. Therefore work began afterwards and as such it should have complied with the 1985 Water Act. Chris is maintaining that South Staffs Fluoridation programme is illegal. He is witholding his water charges in the hope that the issue will get before a Court of Law. We are now in the interim period with SSW trying to settle out of court which Chris is resolutely refusing.
All current English fluoridation schemes have been thought to have been initiated and installed before 1985. Not so! We believe that there are a couple in STW’s area which are also illegal.
When we refuse to pay our water charges, most of us do so because we hold that our water supply contains a listed poison or for some other reason. We would be defeated because fluoridating water companies are obeying the law – in this case the 1991 Water Industries Act. In Chris’s case, he is arguing using a different basis: that SSW has an illegal scheme because they have been breaking the law all this time. We even have a sentence in the published history of the company which states that Tamworth became fluoridated some years after 1985. Because “work began” after December 1984, then SSW is in error and Tamworth should not be fluoridated.
A few months ago, Chris even took receipt of a letter which purported to have been written in 1983 authorising the ‘work’. However a cursory examination of the letter shows that the date was amended recently – different font, different electronic delivery.
From Chris Cooke
South Staffs Water tried to buy me off by forgiving my debt to them and paying their own costs. They then sent a copy of this letter to the court (even though it should have been “without prejudice”). Because of that the court held this preliminary hearing to see if the “dispute still existed”. I said it did exist because they had attached conditions of “no further action”, no future recharges, no further communications regarding fluoride, etc.
Additionally they refused to pay the £25 court costs of my counter-claim. I was never going to agree to that! The court then adjourned whilst the SSW rep. rang her puppet handlers to see if they would agree, They would not. Therefore the judge held back proceedings for one month to allow negotiation between myself and SSW.
Clearly their “generous”offer was to silence me. – why?
Not exactly a victory then – but successful in keeping the claim open. I look forward to their defence of their claim that a contract to fluoridate is in itself evidence of “work done” and if so what “arrangement” did they “pursue” to do this work? They risk making themselves look silly in court – unless they magic up some new “work done” to fulfil the conditions of sect 63 of the 1985 Fluoridation Act to be accepted as an “existing scheme”!
It seems SSW wants a three pronged attack.
They are a legal “existing” scheme.
- Even if they were not a legal scheme – so long as MY water remained within water quality guidance tolerances then I still have no complaint,
- Using any filibustering, legal fiddling and funny business they can – and dire scare-mongering warnings to me about costs and the legal barristers I will be up against.
All South Staffs Water had to do was withdraw their claim. They didn’t need my agreement!!
The judge asked why they didn’t do that – and they woffled!
I think at that stage the judged clued as to what was going on! So much so that she dismissed herself from being the judge at any future hearing!
If any difficulty in following the links shown, most articles can be made available by contacting SWIS. – Use the comment box
Two appeals for resistance to the move to mandatory fluoridation in New Zealand
First, a well reasoned piece challenging the idea that a majority vote gives 51% of the population the right to a murder the remaining 49%. ( sorry, that’s my interpretation)
Fluoridation of Water a Trampling of Our Rights
By Tom O’Connor (Grey Power President) – Timaru Courier
The right of the majority to rule is not, and never has been an absolute right.
From the birth of Greece, about 3500 years ago, it was clearly understood that the majority must rule in the interests of the community as a whole, not merely the majority themselves.
To do so was known as the Tyranny of the Majority and was recognised as a fatal anathema to democracy itself.
The Greeks also discovered very early in the development of democracy that any elected body, without constraints, could not be relied on to protect liberty and quickly became tyrannical dictators. As democracy evolved restraints on majority ruling groups were developed to ensure elected representatives, at all levels of government, could be held to account, controlled and even dismissed from office by those they represented if the rights of the minorities were denied.
Included in these rules were a set of inalienable rights of the individual which are supposed to be beyond the interference of the ruling democracy or even a ruling monarch.
Several monarchs lost their crowns and the heads which held them for ignoring that rule.
In 1215, rather than risk that fate, King John signed the Magna Carta which included many of those individual rights we now take for granted. In some nations these minority and individual rights are written into a constitution, which bind their governments. In New Zealand, they are listed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights (1990). Only in time of war, declared civil emergency or on conviction of certain crimes, can some of these democratic rights be denied or suspended and then only under strict conditions.
Now we are faced with a blatant denial of individual democratic rights in the proposal to give the decision to introduce fluoride into drinking water to district health boards. What process of public consultation, if any, they use is irrelevant as Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights says “Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment”.
There have been various High Court hearings to determine if, in fact, fluoride is a medical treatment within the meaning of the law. A final determination is due some time in July but it is illogical to argue that fluoride is not a medical treatment but then introduce it to drinking water to combat tooth decay. If it is a medical treatment the Bill of Rights clearly prohibits its introduction to communal drinking water. If it is not a medical treatment to combat tooth decay, there is no logical reason to introduce it to communal drinking water. There is no middle ground.
The key issue here, however, is not the effectiveness or otherwise of fluoride as a treatment for oral health. That is an unresolvable argument between competing proponents and opponents which lay people are not equipped or even obliged to decide.
The Government passed a truly absurd regulation, in January this year [sic], which exempts all chemicals containing fluoride from being classed as medicines if they are delivered via the public water supply. A medical treatment by any other name is still a medical treatment no matter how it is administered and no regulation can alter that fact.
No-one, not even a majority of voting ratepayers or the government itself, has the authority to put any form of medical treatment into communal drinking water. To do so is the Tyranny of the Majority.
Tom O’Connor is a retired journalist, political commentator, president of Grey Power for New Zealand and vice president of Grey Power Timaru.
Article first appeared in the Timaru Courier, 26 May 2016. Note: Exemption for fluoridation chemicals passed in January 2015 not this year as stated in article.
Then a short, to-the-point press release from the New Zealand Fluoride Informatiomn Network
Water bills need not rise: If all the costs involved in adding this highly toxic industrial waste from the filthy chimneys of the phosphate fertiliser industry were extracted and transferred to the Ministry of Health then that may well obviate this latest increase in water bills of $21 per year.As Convenor of the Fluoridation Information Network I took the opportunity to address the Watercare board at their Tuesday meeting on23rd May, to ask why they haven’t factored in to their deliberations the prospect of the decision to take the burden of deciding whether to fluoridate our water supply, or not, off local authorities and transfer it to the District Health Boards which in effect would be state-sponsored mandatory fluoridation and therefore the costs should be borne by taxes and not rates.
The costs extracted must not only include the supply and delivery of hydrofluorosilicic acid and the extra cost of maintenance caused by the damage to pipes and other infrastructure from this highly corrosive acid; but also the cost of monitoring the health of personnel handling this hazardous waste and of course the receiving population since the only studies done in NZ have only considered the effects on teeth and not the rest of the body, and people may need to be compensated accordingly.
From what I can gather, the upgrade of the Huia treatment plant and network is costed out at half a billion dollars and the cost of fluoridation needs to be teased out of that, along with the costs of monitoring and extra future maintenance and a risk assessment of the possibility of compensation to those adversely affected by fluoride.
Auckland Council continues to mislead people by maintaining that the most recent referendum in the region showed people supported adding this poison to their water supply when in fact the latest voted was taken in Onehunga where the people quite clearly indicated their opposition to artificial fluoridation.
On this basis Auckland Council should cease fluoridation immediately and ask Watercare to pass on the savings to their customers – us the ratepayers.
A video link and an important document from the US Fluoride Action Network (FAN)
Fluoride Awareness Week.
Dr. Mercola with a new 26-minute video interview with FAN’s executive director, Michael Connett, JD,
describes the findings of Michael’s investigation of America’s largest pharmacies, and announces FAN’s submission of a Citizen Petition to the FDA
The Citizen’s petition. This is the full document published by FAN
Two more links.
First, an article from a surprising ally , with a less surprising conclusion
Whether it’s part of the tidal wave of new naturals taking over the beauty realm or fluoride’s classification as a neurotoxin (the same eyebrow-raising category that lead, arsenic, and methylmercury fall into) this year, there’s no denying that natural toothpastes are having a moment.
…Above, 10 fluoride-free alternatives for a better smile.
And a pick of this week’s letters that refers to the Flint lead pollution scandal – with some of the usual commentators
Re: Fluoride decision may be taken away from municipalities, by Dave Battagello, May 16.:
The council’s vote to remove fluoride from the city’s drinking water in 2013 was courageous and intelligent. Any effort by the province to reverse that decision should be rejected.
The recent water crisis in Flint has produced one positive effect. The public knows now to question whether our drinking water is safe. And, reliance upon government agencies, environmental authorities and the pharmaceutical companies that benefit from the sale of fluoride is foolhardy.
Here are some of the salient reasons that led to Windsor rejecting fluoride:…
To read them go to
Albuquerque, New Mexico
The Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority voted Wednesday evening to remove the proposed funding for supplemental drinking fluoridation from the utility’s FY 2017 budget.
The Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority had said it wanted to add fluoride to the water supply to meet federal standards and guidelines. …The New Mexico Dental Association …released a statement saying in part that it wants the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority to return to the nearly 40-year practice of supplemental water fluoridation.
Comment from FAN
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, members of the Water Utility Authority voted 4-2 to cut funding for fluoridation from their 2017 budget after hearing from residents who overwhelmingly opposed the practice. The city fluoridated their drinking water up until 2011, when they suspended the practice until the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services came out with an official recommendation of the “optimal fluoride levels.”
Since ending the practice 5 years ago, the water utility authority has been under intense pressure from the fluoride-lobby to re-start the practice, since Albuquerque is one of the largest cities in the U.S. that is not fluoridated, along with Portland, Oregon. Despite lobbying from local dentists, the New Mexico Department of Health, and from Delta Dental, Albuquerque councilors concluded that it wasn’t their role to force a medical treatment on their citizens using the water supply
Check out the CDC link at the end for some classic double-speak
Alma Public Works will begin fluoridating the city’s drinking water on Wednesday, June 15, affecting Alma, Kibler, Dyer and Redhill.
…By fluoridating the drinking water, city officials are acting in accordance with Act 197, a 2011 state mandate that requires all source water systems that produce and treat water and serve populations larger than 5,000 to fluoridate their water.
…Those with infants being fed formula should visit the Centers for Disease Control athttp://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm for information on using fluoridated water.
Thursday afternoon the City of Buffalo had their final public hearing on the possibility of adding fluoride to the city’s drinking water, and again, the overwhelming sentiment of those attending was for the city not to do it.
…The next step in the process, according to Mayor Mike Johnson, is for the city council to add this to their meeting agenda for June 21st, where they will make the decision on whether or not they will fluoridate the city’s water.
It’s been about a month since the Jonesborough Board of Mayor and Aldermen began the conversation about whether to retain fluoridated water for the town.
After discussion about an earlier meeting, the board scheduled a public hearing in July to accommodate the volume of feedback from the community.
Water Treatment Plant Director Jonathon Lucas points out damage to the floor, where he says fluoride has eaten away at the concrete over the years. He said the grooves are a product of fluoride drip when changing the barrels, and another dip in the concrete outside the room attests to an accident where Lucas said the fluoride was spilled. “Frankly, I don’t like dealing with it just because it is so corrosive,” Lucas said. “If you get it on your skin you can get burned. It can get nasty if you don’t get it off right away.”
The board will be continuing its discussion on water fluoridation with a public hearing on July 18.
Comments from FAN to news reported in April.
In Newport, Oregon, residents voted 64% to 36% to overwhelmingly reject the introduction of fluoride chemicals into the public drinking water. This vote was the first dealing with fluoridation in Oregon since Portland’s landmark vote defeating fluoridation 61% to 39% in 2013.
Newport was fluoridated from the 1960’s until 2005, when dust from the fluoride chemicals created unsafe conditions for water treatment staff and violated OSHA guidelines, causing the city to end the practice. The issue resurfaced last summer after the Lincoln County Public Health Advisory Committee recommended adding the toxin to the drinking water. In response, members of Clean Water Newport organized local residents in opposition, packing public hearings, putting up yard signs, demanding a ballot vote, and using every grassroots strategy available to defeat the measure. You can learn more about this amazing victory by clicking here.
NO FLUORIDE: Council vote to support fluoridation ties 5-5
Cornwall’s drinking water will remain fluoride free.
A motion from Coun. Andre Rivette, that specifically asked council members if they were in favour of water fluoridation ended in a 5-5 tie. Mayor Leslie O’Shaughnessy interpreted the move as the discontinuation of fluoridation in city water, though some city councillors are disputing that suggestion.
The problem lies in the fact that city policies mandate that Cornwall’s water must be fluoridated. ..…Regardless of that vote, council did not vote on – or even discuss – spending $340,000 on upgrades to the water filtration plant that must be completed before fluoridation can resume in Cornwall.
O’Shaughnessy said the sentiment in the community was overwhelmingly against water fluoridation.”Ten people have emailed me to tell me they want fluoride, as opposed to the hundreds who have told me they don’t want it,” said the mayo
….The city has been without fluoridated water for nearly three years, since a valve broke at the water filtration plant. To repair the valve and complete other health and safety upgrades would have cost $350,000.
Also May 25
Ontario’s Liberal government is poised to take over the decision of adding fluoride to municipal drinking water, which could change the course of a contentious three-year-old resolution by the City of Windsor to remove the chemical from its water supply.
The issue of whether or not to add fluoride in drinking water has become such a hot-button topic in municipalities like Windsor that the province is looking at stepping in by the end of the year.
Liberal MPP Bob Delaney (Mississauga-Streetsville) has already presented several petitions calling for change in the Fluoridation Act that would remove the responsibility from municipalities. He expects to have submitted up to 250,000 signatures calling for the change in the coming months and has support from local health units, including Windsor.
Health Minister Cameron Dick responded to a petition presented to Parliament earlier this year calling for the State Government to mandate fluoridation of the state’s water supply.
“The Government recognises that water fluoridation is a safe and effective means of preventing tooth decay for people of all ages,…However, the Government is committed to working collaboratively with local governments to support water fluoridation rather than imposing requirements on them… the Government has no plans to change the legislative arrangements for water fluoridation in Queensland,”
A group formed in response to the possibility of fluoride returning to Timaru’s water supply staged a quirky protest in front of Timaru Hospital on Friday. – see pictures above and at start of the News.
The Sweet Freedom Army, fronted by founder Rachel Tomkinson, who was dressed in a gold and purple lycra superhero outfit and carrying a New Zealand flag, took a list of questions about fluoridation to the South Canterbury District Health Board (SCDHB).
…Tomkinson said the Sweet Freedom Army were looking for “simple answers to simple questions” regarding possible fluoridation of the water supply.
“We need a few superheroes to fight for democracy. We are the ratepayer, we pay for the water, so we have a right to know,” she said.
The group’s questions included where fluoride would be sourced from if it was returned to Timaru’s water supply, The group was formed in response to news that the Government wanted DHBs rather than local authorities to make decisions on which community water supplies would be fluoridated.
Action against national mandatory schemes by FIN-NZ. Full text in Resources, item 1
The Convenor of the Fluoridation Information Network took the opportunity to address the Watercare board at their Tuesday meeting on 23rd May, to ask why they haven’t factored in to their deliberations the prospect of the decision to take the burden of deciding whether to fluoridate our water supply, or not, off local authorities and transfer it to the District Health Boards which in effect would be state-sponsored mandatory fluoridation and therefore the costs should be borne by taxes and not rates.