Click to follow the links:
The Yorkshire Post’s item:
ANOTHER major step has been taken towards fluoridating Hull and part of the East Riding’s water supply. According to a decision record by Hull Council’s director of public health Julia Weldon, £58,000 is to be spent on a detailed feasibility study by Yorkshire Water on Hull and part of the East Riding’s water supply. According to a decision record by Hull Council’s director of public health Julia Weldon, £58,000 is to be spent on a detailed feasibility study by Yorkshire Water.
The proposal, which would affect more than 340,000 people including swathes of the East Riding, saw protestors demonstrate outside a meeting last November. Liberal Democrat councillor Adam Williams said a “minority of councillors” at the Labour-run authority should not be pressing ahead with “forcefully medicating the entire city’s population against its will.”
He added: “The whole way the fluoridation issue has been handled so far at the council has been a sham. “We’ve constantly been told we can’t debate it at Full Council as ‘no decision has been taken’ yet clearly it is moving ahead anyway, despite even backbench Labour councillors being against it – with cabinet members agreeing to it without even realising. “
The council report shows Hull Council has chosen to pursue the more technically straightforward – and cheaper – option using treatment plants at Tophill Low and Keldgate, in Cottingham, to add fluoride to the city’s water supply. However it will mean around 87,000 people living in East Riding villages including Anlaby, Willerby, Cottingham, Dunswell, Hessle and the Holderness plain up to Hornsea could be affected.
The other option would have required four new treatment sites, three in Hull and one in the East Riding. It would have reduced the numbers getting fluoride added to their water, but was not judged “realistically viable.” The first option was previously said to be going to cost £1.6m, with running costs of £330,000 a year.
Officials believe fluoridation is the best way of tackling poor dental health, along with other measures, including supervised brushing. Nearly 38 per cent of five-year-olds in Hull have tooth decay and around 400 youngsters a year have to have teeth removed at hospital under anaesthetic. The study is needed to establish whether fluoridation is “operable and efficient,” before consultation with the public and interested parties.
Local paper report on the Hull public meeting,
Members of the public were invited to ask questions about the science and ethics of water fluoridation to a panel of scientists, politicians and health professionals, in a free event for Hull Science Festival.
The ‘Water Fluoridation Conversation’ was the first of a new format for our public events, designed to enable two-way conversations between scientists and the public on everyday issues with a link to chemistry.
Hull is one of the worst areas in the UK for dental health, and Hull City Council is currently exploring a scheme to fluoridate the city’s water supply. Fluoridating public water supplies has been shown to have a hugely positive impact on dental health in other areas of the country, but the process is not without opposition, and many local residents have concerns about the plans.
Professor Mark Lorch, associate dean for engagement at the University of Hull’s science faculty, and director of the Hull Science Festival, suggested the topic for our first conversation. He wanted to provide a space for people to find out more about the chemistry behind such an emotive local issue, and give people an opportunity to raise their concerns with those qualified to talk about the issue from the perspectives of health, ethics, politics and science.
The panel, chosen for their experience and expertise rather than their position on the issue, featured Alan Johnson, Labour MP for West Hull and Hessle and former health secretary; Barry Cockroft CBE, former chief dental officer for England; Dr John Beal MBE, senior lecturer in dental public health at the University of Leeds; Simon Hearnshaw, a Hull general dental practitioner; and Dr Joanna Buckley, our education coordinator for North East England.
Dr Susan Vickers, our public engagement lead, chaired the event, giving each panel member two minutes to sum up their experience and opinions, before opening the floor to questions from the audience.
“Everyone must be allowed to have an opinion on the future, and this means giving the public the confidence to discuss matters relating to chemistry,” explains Susan. “There are ethical issues and personal preferences to consider with issues like water fluoridation, even if the weight of scientific evidence currently available shows that it is safe. Events like this embrace chemistry as a topic for conversation and allow chemical scientists and the public to listen and respond to each other.”
The resulting 90 minute discussion covered questions on health concerns, how to tell sound scientific research from poorly conducted studies, whether water fluoridation could be seen as ‘mass medication’, and whether artificially fluoridated water is chemically different to that containing naturally occurring fluoride.
Alan Johnson MP also gave an overview of how the plans for water fluoridation would proceed; assuring audience members there would be full public consultations before any decisions were made.
While emotions occasionally ran high, the debate between audience members and panellists remained civil and respectful. A particularly poignant moment came as a father expressed fears that his young son might be allergic to fluoride, and had suffered some hospitalising side effects caused by, his parents believe, fluoridated toothpaste. Local dentist Simon Hearnshaw explained it was unlikely to be fluoride, but could be one of the many other substances found in toothpaste, and offered his support to find out what was causing the problem.
Audience member Anusha, a Masters student in dental public health at the University of Sheffield, had studied the science behind water fluoridation, but hadn’t previously understood public concerns about the ethics. “Before I came to the event I was sure that we should be fluoridating water for health benefits,” she said, “But people raised questions about things I hadn’t thought about – for example why should people be forced to drink fluoridated water? It made me think more about the wider issues.”
Systems analyst Joseph, also in the audience, said: “It was really interesting; there was a lot of good science and it was good to hear people pushing back against some of the less scientific viewpoints. I liked that someone said ‘you can have an opinion on the ethics but you can’t have an opinion on the science’. I think [the format] is good as it does mean people can voice their opinions.”
The news item has with a bias notable for what it does not say. Joy Warren with her supporters put a number of questions to Alan Johnson and the team that made it very difficult for them to maintain an air of unquestionable authority. More on Hull in subsequent UKFFFA pages.
Labour MP Alan Johnson is standing down as an MP at the election. He,along with Andy Burnham MP were promoters of fluoridation during he pre- May 2015 administration. Mr Burnham is also out of parliament but not out of politics.
Health Ministers say they want fewer Birmingham children to have teeth removed, after it emerged the number of extractions has shot up.
In the area covered by Birmingham CrossCity Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), one of three health authorities in the city, there were 1,464 hospital admissions for teeth extractions for children in 2015/16,.
This up from 795 in 2014/15. And the numbers have increased SEVENFOLD since 2010/11, when there were 208 hospital admissions for tooth extraction.
Concern about the huge increase was raised by Birmingham MP Steve McCabe (Lab Selly Oak), who demanded Ministers take action.
He asked Health Minister David Mowat: “There were 1,464 hospital admissions for children for teeth extractions across one clinical commissioning area of Birmingham last year, the highest figure since 2010-11.
“How does the Minister account for this, and what is he going to do about it?”
Mr Mowat highlighted the Government’s “sugar tax”, which is charged on sugar-heavy drinks.
And he said more Birmingham children were receiving fluoride varnishing, in which …
Comment from Joy Warren
It’s difficult to account for this rise in dental decay in fluoridated Birmingham. The level of calcium in the water supply of West Birmingham is quite low since residents are supplied with soft water from the Elan Valley in Wales. Now, if fluoride captures calcium in the stomach and in the blood-stream that would make children deficient in calcium and this would weaken their teeth. However, the drinking water has always been soft so there must be something else going on. If they have been exposed to fluoride when swallowing toothpaste and fluoride varnish, that would rob the body of even more fluoride if the fluoride in the stomach and body originating in toothpaste and varnish is capable to bonding with calcium.
However, there is no reason to suspect that toothpaste swallowing has increased in the last 5 years. So perhaps it’s the varnish which is robbing the body of calcium. I’ve asked the question of a researcher at Newcastle University Dental School and he didn’t know of any research into the fate of swallowed fluoride varnish.
Finally, an encouraging note from|Ann Wills about Edward Priestley, who,despite the experts, is still alive
An anti-fluoridationist friend, Edward Priestley, developed aplastic anaemia (bone marrow destruction) from workplace toxic chemicals, & was given NHS blood transfusions from which he caught incurable Hepatitis C. This ended his career & he was given only 6 months to live in 1987. He tries to avoid all toxic chemicals – benzene, pesticides, fluoride, solvents etc & eats organic & has survived. He campaigns to help blood disease sufferers. He gives advice on avoiding chemicals such as fluoride. His website is: www.medicineandillness.com
Another local paper report from the northern part of the republic of Ireland. The final sentence seems to translate into a significant call to end fluoridation.
There were heated exchanges in the council chamber in recent days as elected members clashed over the use of fluoride in public water supplies.
Cllrs Peggy Nolan and Seamus Butler locked horns over claims the State is paying €33m each year to treat drinking water with the chemical additive.
Cllr Nolan, who raised the topic by calling for a Ministerial Order to be sought for its discontinuation said she was not raising the matter on foot of reputed health fears.
“I can’t understand why it is such a huge issue in this county,” she said.
“Whether you believe that it’s detrimental to our health or not I am taking that out of the equation in this notice of motion.”
She said the large sums involved in adding fluoride to water systems up and down the country was indicative of public misspending.
“As far as I am concerned it is a total waste (of money) and a fallacy.
“That €33m would be best spent providing the services of orthodontics and cut the lists that are in their thousands, if it was to provide dental care for our elderly and if it was to provide proper dental care for our schoolchildren,” she argued.
Her opposite number across the chamber floor, Cllr Butler, put forward an entirely different view however.
… Cllr Butler’s counter motion arguing against Cllr Nolan’s Ministerial Order appeal was defeated by seven votes to five.
Letter in the Westmoreland Gazette from Fluoride Free Cumbria campaigner Dianne Standen
Despite many requests to do so most sitting and potential County council councillors have not publicly expressed their position on the issue of medicating Cumbrians through their water supply.
Adding an inadequately researched chemical to drinking water without knowing the long-term health implications of that action is an issue that affects all Cumbrians and needs consideration before the coming elections
Currently Cumbria County Council authorises and uses public health money to fluoridate the communities of West Cumbria. This will not change unless there is a justifiable public outcry and one of the best ways that can be achieved is through the current election process.
The only political party that has made a commitment on their election leaflets to stop water fluoridation in Cumbria is the Green Party.
You can learn more about the accumulation of this chemical in your body at our website.http://www.lakestay.co.uk/fluoridefreecumbria/.
Please ask your local county council candidates their position on water fluoridation and raise your concerns with them.
It’s official: the Fluoride Action Network–along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups–has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to their denial of our petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) seeking a ban on water fluoridation. This may be the lawsuit we have all been waiting decades for.
According to FAN’s attorney, Michael Connett, “this case will present the first time a court will consider the neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). And, in contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’—meaning federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence without deference to the EPA’s judgment.”
Industry, legal, and environmental observers following the EPA’s implementation of the new TSCA law have pointed out that a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial of our petition would provide a test case for the agency’s interpretation that petitioners must provide a comprehensive analysis of all uses of a chemical in order to seek a restriction on a particular use. Legal experts have suggested that the EPA’s interpretation essentially makes the requirements for gaining Agency action using section 21 petitions impossible to meet.
On Nov 22, 2016, a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and several individual mothers, filed a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The full TSCA petition can be accessed here, a shorter 8-page summary here, and our press release here.
We presented the Agency with a large body of human and animal evidence demonstrating that fluoride is a neurotoxin at levels now ingested by many U.S. children and vulnerable populations. We also presented the Agency with evidence showing that fluoride has little benefit when swallowed, and, accordingly, any risks from exposing people to fluoride chemicals in water are unnecessary. We believe that an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk.
On February 27th, the EPA published their response. In their decision the EPA claimed, “The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”
As many independent scientists now recognize, fluoride is a neurotoxin. The question, therefore, is not if fluoride damages the brain, but at what dose.
While EPA quibbles with the methodology of some of these studies, to dismiss and ignore these studies in their entirety for methodological imperfections is exceptionally cavalier, particularly given the consistency of the findings and the razor-thin margin between the doses causing harm in these studies and the doses that millions of Americans now receive.
EPA’s own Guidelines on Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlight the importance of having a robust margin between the doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and the doses that humans receive. We presented the EPA with over 180 studies showing that fluoride causes neurotoxic harm (e.g. reduced IQ), and pointed out that many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or precariously close to, the levels millions of U.S. children now receive. Typically, this would be a cause for major concern. But, unfortunately, the EPA has consistently shied away from applying the normal rules of risk assessment to fluoride — and it has unfortunately continued that tradition with its dismissal of the Petition.
Fortunately, the TSCA statute provides that citizens can challenge an EPA denial in federal court. For too long, EPA has let politics trump science on the fluoride issue (see examples). We welcome therefore having these issues considered by a federal court.
Bedford Roanoke, Virginia
Bedford’s Water Authority Board says new research is showing fluoride could serve negatively on your health.
It was a decision made by the Bedford Regional Water Authority board after they say research and customer complaints flowed in. “… “They continually come to us asking us to take the fluoride out of the water,” explained Megan Aubrey.
Megan Aubrey works for the water authority and says removing fluoride allows people to choose whether or not they want to add it in. “They really don’t want another chemical added to their water so they want that to be an option,” said Aubrey.
However, local dentist Dr. Anne Libbey Libbey says studies show every dollar spent on community water fluoridation saves $38 in dental visits. …She says the rates of tooth decay dropped by 60% when fluoridated water was introduced in 1945.
…The town of Bedford just began receiving their water from Smith Mountain Lake which has been used as a source of non-fluoridated water for years.
A letter from Carolynn Ketwig replied to the story above that:
…Adding fluoride to our water supply is a flawed science.
“There is not one single metabolic process in your bodies that require fluoride. On the contrary, fluoride is a cumulative poison that has been linked to reduction in IQ, and an array of health problems. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor that can affect your bones, brain, thyroid gland, pineal gland and even your blood sugar levels according to one 500 page long scientific review.”
She recommended watching reading Christopher Bryson ‘s “The Fluoride Deception.” Or watching his interv(oramge waters)iew On YouTube. Any concerns about removing fluoride from our water supply would be put to rest.
Chapel Hill Carrboro (Orange Waters) NC
Fluoridation is still on hold at OWASA, but the utility’s staff will learn from and improve the distribution system connected to a February water-main break in northeastern Chapel Hill.
…The board also heard about proposed improvements to OWASA’s fluoridation system but delayed a decision to get more information. Customers again asked the board Thursday to reconsider adding fluoride to local drinking water. Customer William Young took issue with buying equipment that he said is unnecessary and still prone to failure.
“You are introducing a toxin, a poison into the water that is unnecessary and not beneficial, and however small the risk that your system does not work, there is that risk,” Young said.
“Systems fail, pipelines leak, power plants overheat and melt down, and there is no reason to believe that you can come up with a system that is 100 percent foolproof and guarantee that there will never be a situation where you poison the water here. You could guarantee that if you simply stop putting fluoride into the water,” he added.
The board decided earlier this month to resume fluoridation but has not decided when to restart the system….
Daria Barazandeh, a resident of Chapel Hill and consumer of OWASA launched a local movement to have fluoridation stopped.
It also chronicles her fight since 2012, with the OWASA board and their refusal to hold a fair debate, and the reaction to the fluoride overfeed incident, ( reported in ealier SWIS news)
The full text of her appeal is shown in May Features as report 2
Signing the attached petition prompts some comment, particularly if it is clear that the signatory is ‘out-of-state’. The reply below was from SWIS for all of us, but feel free to sign yourself if it is still available.
Although I live thousands of miles away, every fluoridation scheme discontinued helps the world wide struggle to stop the process. Fluoridation is an affront to a basic human right that everyone has a right to decide what they put in their own body. There are vast sums available to promote fluoridation and hide its dangers, so please set an example and accept this petition. Your success here will be reported here through our site safewaterinformation.org
A decision by the DeKalb Utility District to not add fluoride to its consumer water supply when the new plant opens is causing concern among some.
During the regular monthly meeting last Thursday, Beth Pafford, assistant principal at Northside Elementary School, Dr. Mitch Tatum, a local dentist, and Dr. Steven Cooper addressed the DUD Board of Commissioners asking them to reconsider their decision in the interest of the public’s dental health….
The DUD’s decision not to fluoridate the water was based on several factors including the costs, the potential chemical hazards, and that fluoride is already in most drinking water sources as well as toothpaste and mouthwash. Before the decision was made, notices were sent, as required by law, to customers with their monthly bills making them aware of the DUD’s intentions. According to DUD Manager Jon Foutch, only four customers expressed an opinion and all were opposed to fluoridation of their water supply.
….DUD Board Chairman Roger Turney said while the DUD has decided not to fluoridate the water supply for now, the new DUD plant has the capacity to add fluoride if the decision is ever changed. “…. I personally did a lot of research and the vast majority of new plants that are going on line throughout the nation are not fluoridating and a lot of the ones that did are starting to stop, not all.” he said.
The water supply for the City of Smithville and the towns of Liberty and Dowelltown are fluoridated but not in Alexandria. The town gets its water from the Smith County Utility District.
First the efforts to inform
Clean Water Durango will hosted a screening of “Our Daily Dose,” a documentary about water fluoridation and health risks associated with fluoride at the Durango Community Recreation Center
Then the reason why they were never going to be enough
The passionate campaigns around fluoride in city water have sparked big spending.
Durango voters are being asked April 4 to decide whether to remove fluoride from the city’s drinking water. Most-recent campaign filings show the pro-fluoride campaign has outraised and outspent its rival committee.
…The campaign to preserve fluoride in the water, Healthy Kids Healthy Durango, collected $22,465 in cash and in-kind donations through March 16. The campaign spent $8,769.
Clean Water Durango, the group fighting against water fluoridation, collected $1,045 in cash through March 16 from three people. The group disclosed spending $2,641 …
Bob Lieb, who filed the report and donated to the campaign, said the anti-fluoride campaign plans to raise and spend a total of $5,000, mostly for signage, advertising and informational brochures. He said most of those donations are coming through the campaign’s website.
Lieb said the campaign relies on volunteers, as opposed to the pro-fluoride side, which has hired people to advocate.
“It’s a David and Goliath campaign, no doubt about it,” Lieb said. “And we’re the David. They’ve brought a lot of out-of-town money.”
Most of the donations to the pro-flouride campaign came from Healthier Colorado, a Denver-based nonprofit that contributed $17,340 of in-kind support such as mailings, web marketing and other contributions. The campaign also collected $5,125 in cash donations from 30 individuals – including 11 dentists….
Finally, the inevitable result, at least for now
The city of Durango will continue to fluoridate its water, with final election results showing the ordinance that aimed to stop the program failed overwhelmingly.
Election totals showed about 1,735 people voted for an ordinance that would require the city to stop adding fluoride to its water system, far behind the some 3,094 voters who supported keeping the system in place….
Jim Forleo, a local chiropractor who was one of the most vocal anti-fluoride organizers, said the effort, which raised about $4,500 for the campaign, was over-run by big money interests. The pro-fluoride side raised nearly $22,500, mostly from Healthier Colorado, a Denver-based non-profit.
“Big money pushes a lot of these things,” Forleo said. “But we’re happy with what we accomplished. We changed the conversation, and the reality is, we are not done.”
Health officials scored a victory Thursday when the Fellsmere City Council unanimously reversed a decision that would have eliminated fluoride from the city’s water supply.
At the March 2 City Council meeting, City Manager Jason Nunemaker proposed cutting the $4,000 annual expense from the city budget, noting that the city promised to add fluoride to water for five years as part of a grant it received. Those five years have expired, he said.
But local health organizations protested the move, with Indian River County Health Department, Treasure Coast Community Health and Dr. Johnny Johnson, the president of the American Fluoridation Society, all in favor of fluoridation. In addition to Fellsmere, Vero Beach and Indian River County add fluoride to their water.
The council voted 5-0 on Thursday to keep its fluoridation practice.
…Only one person spoke against community fluoridation during Thursday’s meeting, citing concerns with his right to choose whether the chemical was put into the drinking water.
“I’m against fluoride,” said Eric Boissat, of Fellsmere. “Continually putting that in the water is not good. Why would you want to put something toxic in your body? I use toothpaste that doesn’t have fluoride in it. It’s my right not to have it.” …
Glove Cities, Johnstown NY
— A proposed water project that Fulton County has tried to spur between the Glove Cities is dead at this time, county Administrative Officer Jon Stead said the proposed “interconnections” repair project between Gloversville and Johnstown will probably not happen …Water fluoridation is the key issue in preventing the project from moving forward. Stead called it an “impediment” to the cities project. “It’s a connection with Gloversville and they’ve got fluoride within the water,” Johnstown Mayor Vern Jackson said today.
Jackson .. recounted how Johnstown voters rejected fluoridation for that city decades ago. ….County officials have said that for the sake of the county’s Smart Waters initiative projects, the cities must be on the same page with fluoridation.
A judge affirmed a ruling by the Arkansas Department of Health on Monday that states that while the Madison County Regional Water District supplies water to two customers – the Huntsville Water Department and the Madison County Water Facilities Board – the water supplier does fall under provisions of Act 97 of 2011, a law which requires certain water systems to fluoridate their water supplies.
Attorney Christopher Lawson, who represented the water district in Monday’s hearing, argued that certain verbiage in the law – particularly sections that define a water system as “a facility including without limitation a parent system, consecutive system or other system that holds, treats and supplies water directly or through a consecutive system or consecutive systems to 5,000 persons or more” – was unclear and should not apply to the water district, because it only supplies water to two wholesale customers. Lawson also argued that the law did not specifically define what “consecutive system or other system” entails in terms of the law’s scope.
The Arkansas State Board of Health and a subcommittee have ruled that the district was a water system defined by the statute.
“While I understand Mr. Lawson’s arguments, I cannot find that the board’s ruling was clearly wrong in their interpretation of ‘other system’ and ‘consecutive system,'” Fourth Judicial Circuit Judge John Threet said. “In reading that statute, as well as case law, the court cannot make a determination that it was wrong, therefore the court will deny the review and affirm the lower order.”
Attorneys for the state’s Department of Health will file an order in the Madison County Circuit Court based on Threet’s ruling. Once the order is filed, the district will have 30 days to enter an appeal. Lawson said after Monday’s hearing that he does expect the district to file such an appeal.
A familiar story
Opponents of water fluoridation in the Clean Water Meadville group are not waiting until the May 4 community meeting planned by the Meadville Area Water Authority to open the floodgates on the fluoride debate.
They have invited retired chemist and fluoridation opponent Ron Greinke to address the topic at an April 8 meeting that they hope will provide a “chance for citizens to voice their concerns.”
…MAWA’s meeting, which comes after years of delays on the issue, will feature presentations by representatives of Clean Water Meadville and Meadville Smiles, which supports the issue, as well as time for comments from members of the public.
The time and location of the meeting have not yet been determined.
But “discussion” and “meeting” are not the terms that come to mind when Clean Water Meadville member and former Crawford County Coroner Pat McHenry refers to the Meadville Area Water Authority’s May 4 event.
“The sham, you mean,” McHenry said in an interview with the Tribune last week.
“It’s a very limited forum,” he explained. “They’re going to go out there and do it (fluoridation) anyway. It’s limited by design.”
Guidelines from the state Department of Environmental Protection require public notification before fluoridation of community water systems can be started or stopped. The guidelines allow a great deal of flexibility in terms of what form the notification takes. Newspaper articles, distribution of pamphlets and direct mailings to customers are all listed as legitimate options, but none are specifically required.
When fluoridation proves controversial, the DEP guidelines state that “public meetings are usually held” and “referendum votes are sometimes taken.” The guidelines offer no details on what form meetings must take, stating simply that the goal of such activities is to “provide notice to the customers, physicians, dentists and other medical professionals that the water supplier is proposing to fluoridate.”
Chris Knapp, who has largely served as the public face of Clean Water Meadville over the past few years, expressed concern regarding MAWA’s commitment to allowing public input in the process.
“We must be sure to fulfill the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law,” Knapp wrote in response to questions from the Tribune. “MAWA has tried to limit public comment. Initially they did not want the public to have the ability to ask the experts any questions and they wanted to impose a 48-hour notice for residents to sign up to speak.”
“…, Clean Water Meadville is bringing Greinke in to give people “another chance to hear about current fluoride topics,” according to Knapp.
“This will give the people who really want to ask questions a chance to have them answered,” McHenry said. “It’s not going to be limited and everyone is welcome.”
Meadville Area Water Authority board member Mark Gildea offered a defense on Wednesday of the board’s absence from… the April 8 presentation sponsored by Clean Water Meadville, a group that that has consistently opposed fluoridation since the topic was raised with MAWA in 2013. Retired chemist Ron Greinke’s 90-minute presentation drew about 30 audience members, including elected officials from the West Mead Township Board of Supervisors, Meadville City Council and Crawford County Board of Commissioners.
..However, none of the MAWA board members attended…. MAWA board chair Tim Groves believes board members will have all of their questions answered by the opposing presentations on May 4. … At the meeting, representatives of Clean Water Meadville and Meadville Smiles, the pro-fluoridation group that originally brought the issue to MAWA’s attention, will each offer 30 minute presentations on the issue.
…The ultimate decision on fluoride may come at MAWA’s June meeting. It is unlikely to come at the May 17 meeting just two weeks after the community discussion, Groves said, as board members will probably need more time to consider the issue.
On March 22, Joint Resolution Senate 26 by Sen. Peg Flory of Rutland was introduced into the Vermont Senate and referred to the Health and Welfare Committee.
The resolution, aims to put the state of Vermont in a neutral position on public water fluoridation, in contrast to its present role of promoting fluoridation.
Jack Crowther’s full statement is Report 4 in the May Features section
On March 22 the Vermont Senate introduced and sent to the Committee on Health and Welfare the joint resolution JRS 26, introduced by Sen. Peg Flory of Rutland. It is summarized as follows: “Joint resolution requesting that the state of Vermont refrain temporarily from supporting or opposing the fluoridation of drinking water and that the Departments of Health and Environmental Conservation conduct a joint study on the human health and water quality impacts of fluoridated water.”
Truckee Meadows, Reno, Nevada
A bill that would have mandated fluoride in Reno’s water supply died in committee on Friday. The bill was sponsored by assembly members Amber Joiner (D-Reno) and Michael Sprinkle (D-Sparks).
… TMWA’s board unanimously spoke against the legislation, citing its potential cost and calling it an unfunded mandate.
Board Vice Chair Vaughn Hartung called the bill a “circumvention of the voters,” saying that Nevada law requires a vote of the people. In 2002, 58 percent of Washoe County residents voted against water fluoridation.
According to TMWA Truckee Meadows Water Authority): It directly contradicts the will of Washoe County voters. In 2002, a countywide vote was taken in Washoe County where 58 percent voted against fluoridation. The Board felt that the present bill, as introduced, circumvents that vote and that any fluoride decisions should require a vote of the public.
Commenters on the Nevada Legislature website also overwhelmingly denounced the legislation. One person wrote: This bill takes the same approach that we so abhor about national politics. “We politicians know what’s best for you!” and “Washoe County, you’re too stupid to know what’s best for you so we will save you from yourselves.” You are mandating fluoridation without the courage of putting it to a public vote. It’s unconscionable that two Northern Nevadans are pushing this to a State-wide vote, rather than Washoe deciding what Washoe wants.
Audio link ( 2 minutes) from Reno Public Radio:
Meet Rose Marie Waldrom; she’s an anti-fluoride crusader and claims that water fluoridation is “public health quackery”.
She’s putting her money where your mouth is.
“My husband nearly divorced me because I took all of our vacation money and paid for five billboards that are spread around town,” says Waldrom.
The reason why she has been fighting this for fifty plus years is because she doesn’t want anyone to be forced to drink fluoride, and she claims it gave her son autism.
…Spokane’s water is not fluoridated, but voters have gotten closer to passing the proposition in the year 2000…
ADA celebrates the work of dentists in ‘educating’ local votes
Here are summaries of some of the votes.
Voters here April 4 overwhelmingly said no to a proposed ordinance that would have prohibited adding fluoride to the city’s water system beginning this year.
The vote total included 3,094 against the anti-fluoridation proposal and 1,735 supporting it, according to the city’s website.
The Fellsmere City Council voted 5-0 April 6 to reverse a decision that would have stopped community water fluoridation in this city of about 5,400.
The city council here April 3 said no with a 4-3 vote to a proposal that would have resumed community water fluoridation in this city of about 5,100.
On March 28 the Arab, Alabama, water board finalized a decision it had reached in 2015 to stop adding fluoride to its water supplies
The city council here voted 4-3 to fluoridate public water supplies in this city of about 12,500.
A council shuts its ears
The endless flow of delegations on water fluoridation has been temporarily shut off at Peel Region council.
During a meeting March 30, …Mississauga Coun. Carolyn Parrish, who chaired the community water fluoridation committee, tabled the motion to stop two scheduled delegations and future presentations until the province responds to questions issued by the region
The committee was established more than a year ago to review the health benefits of water fluoridation and recommend a regional position on the long-standing practice.
Last month, Peel council members unanimously voted to continue adding fluoride to municipal drinking water.
…Anti-fluoride lobbyists who had come to speak to council were not pleased with the decision to suspend all delegations.
“Shame on you. Shame on you all,” said Fluoride Free Peel spokesperson Christine Massey, who was scheduled to speak, but was ushered out by security.
Sarnia is still considering the possible removal of fluoride from its drinking water.
City council intends to ask voters a ballot question at next the municipal election about fluoridation, which is done at the water treatment plant to reduce tooth decay.
City Hall also plans to hold a public meeting before then and invite presentations from both a fluoride supporter, Dr. Sudit Ranade, Lambton’s medical officer of health, and an anti-fluoride advocate, Dr. Hardy Limeback, former president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research.
If city residents do vote in favour of removing fluoride it won’t end there, however. Sarnia is one partner in the Lambton Area Water Supply System, and can be outvoted by other member municipalities.
Ward 10 Coun. Fern Cormier asked city staff Tuesday for all the information the city has about putting fluoride in the city’s drinking water system….The issue was in the news in 2016 when Nairn and Hyman Township council voted to remove fluoride from the community’s water supply. The township has had fluoride in its water supply since the early 1990s, but passed a motion last April to remove it.
…While he certainly wasn’t proposing the city follow suit, Cormier said Tuesday it was a good time to collect information to respond to questions from residents. …
In the weeks leading up to election day in Western Australia, Paul Connett, PhD–FAN Senior Advisor and co-author of The Case Against Fluoride–traveled throughout the region, working with campaigners to educate the public and media before the vote.
In his WA tour he spoke in Kununurra, Yanchep, Perth, Mandurah and Margaret River. He also presented a copy of his book to Mark McGowan, the next Premier of WA. Paul also met with the Health Minister, John Day (a dentist). Even though he is staunchly pro-fluoridation Paul said they had a cordial discussion, and he left Day with the question: “Please provide citizens with a list of studies that give you the confidence to continue this practice even though there are over 300 animal and human studies that indicate that fluoride can damage the brain. We have over 300 red flags that say stop this practice where are your green flags that say go on?” Day lost his seat in the election.
Even though none of the candidates who ran for the Fluoride Free Western Australia Party won a seat in parliament, all agree that the effort was worth it. In six years these WA fluoride fighting activists have never had so much media coverage. During the election the words “fluoride free” were constantly visible in countless ways.
- Watch TV interview in Kununurra, WA.
- Watch Paul’s short presentation in front of Parliament.
- Listen to a radio program (4 minutes) that explains how Fluoride Free WA will win upper house seat.
- Paul also appeared in a 25-minute TV program (on WTV) that was broadcast throughout WA. It was aired on TV three times and shared online.
Pete Evans goes on Instagram rant slamming the ‘mass fluoridation of public water’ with a poison symbol and encourages fans to ‘educate yourself’
Alongside the poison symbol of tap water, Pete wrote that everyone has ‘the right’ to decide whether they consumed water piped into homes, adding the hashtag ‘#educateyourself’.
‘ ‘I am concerned about mass fluoridation of public water, and I strongly believe that if people want to add fluoride to their drinking water then they should, but it should be a choice that each person has the ability and the right to make for their own household,’ Pete captioned the photo.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4370304/Pete-Evans-goes-anti-fluoride-Instagram-rant.html#ixzz4fBgf9YAE
DENTISTS fear North Queensland children will continue to face unnecessary health concerns after another council voted to stop adding fluoride to its water supply.
Hinchinbrook Shire Council this week voted to stop fluoridation after first introducing it in 2013, joining a growing list of councils opting out of the practice.
James Cook University director of clinical dentistry Professor John Abbott said …‘Pregnant women ingesting fluoridated water have it in their developing baby’s teeth so that when they arrive they’re already protected.
Mayor Jenny Hill said Townsville would remain committed to fluoridation.
Two releases from FFNZ on a debate and someone who dodged Paul Connett
Top NZ Scientist Set to Face Fluoridation Expert in TV Debate
Dr Michelle Dickinson, Auckland University Professor and nanotechnologist has agreed to debate Professor Paul Connett, Senior Advisor to the Fluoride Action Network. She will be inviting Sir Peter Gluckman to join her in this debate with Professor Connett. Dr Dickinson has studied fluoride for seven years as part of her Master’s and PhD work.
“It’s a debate that I think needs to happen”, said Dickinson. She has been an outspoken critic of people opposed to fluoridation on her ‘Nanogirl’ science blog. She wrote an opinion piece for the Herald asserting that New Zealand District Health Boards should be managing the control of Ministry of Health fluoridation policy saying, “some local bodies have spent a great deal of time and ratepayers’ money addressing the lobbying efforts of the scientifically misinformed.”
Professor Connett has said it took him 12 years to find his first fluoridation opponent to debate in New Zealand when he took on Dr Mike Berridge of the Malaghan Institute in a FaceTV feature in August 2016, moderated by well-known television journalist Cameron Bennett. In that debate, Professor Connett accused the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Peter Gluckman of relying on “junk science” to support the continuation of fluoridation in New Zealand.
“I am still waiting for any pro-fluoridation scientist to give me a list of primary studies (not self-serving government reviews) that give him or her the confidence to ignore the over 300 animal and human studies that indicate that fluoride can damage the brain.” See Fluoride-Brain and Fluoride EPA Petition.
Dickinson is hopeful that Sir Peter Gluckman will front the debate with her, saying, “I’d be happy to team up with Gluckman if he agreed to it”. Fluoride Free New Zealand’s media spokesperson Mary Byrne says, “The New Zealand public and our MPs are relying on the science Prof Gluckman has provided. It would say an awful lot if he was not prepared to publicly stand by his scientific position in a debate.”
Even if Sir Peter Gluckman is unwilling to make an appearance, Dickinson is on record saying that she will provide her opinion on the Fluoride-IQ studies, saying, “I’m also happy to talk about how there is no evidence for IQ loss in fluoride studies if you like. The science is quite clear.”
Having Dr Dickinson, a very well-known scientist and science communicator willing to debate alongside Professor Gluckman is significant. The stage is now set for a massive showdown on the science of fluoridation.
“Nanogirl” Dr Michelle Dickinson Reneges on Fluoride Debate
The question has to be asked – why after denigrating opponents of fluoridation and claiming that she has the science on her side, will Dr Dickinson not front up to a public debate like she agreed?
Auckland University Professor Michelle Dickinson, aka science blogger “Nanogirl” has backed down on debating Professor Paul Connett, Senior Advisor to the Fluoride Action Network. Dr Dickinson agreed in an email correspondence on Sunday with Fluoride Free New Zealand (FFNZ) that “she was happy to debate” and that “it was a debate that needs to happen”. She said she would debate Prof Connett, providing it was on a mainstream television channel. The Nation and Q+A TV programmes both said they were willing to host the fluoridation debate.
However, she is now claiming she never agreed in the first place. FFNZ says they have the email trail to prove she did agree and will provide it on request. They say Michelle needs to explain herself.
Dickinson has been an outspoken critic of people opposed to fluoridation on her blog and said in an opinion piece for the NZ Herald that fluoridation opponents consistently prolong the fluoridation debate and referred to them as “purveyors of non-science woo woo.”
Media Spokesperson for FFNZ, Mary Byrne says, “It looks like Michelle has found out the hard way, that it is not the opponents of fluoridation that are purveying non-science woo-woo, but the promoters. This should give the public and decision makers, who take their cue from people such as Michelle, serious pause for thought”.
Dickinson blogged that water is toxic if we have too much of it and asked, “does this mean we need to start warning people about the dangers of drinking water too?” She added, “you would need to drink 1220 glasses of water in a day for it to be possibly toxic” and “perhaps your messages should be less concerned about the levels of fluoride in the water, and more concerned about the dangers of water itself!
Byrne says, “Michelle has now probably read a response to her blog from Prof Connett, where he explained that the activists that Michelle was criticising were actually correct. Fluoride does have harmful effects at low doses. The Ministry of Health reports that 41% of children in New Zealand have some form of dental fluorosis, the first outward sign of fluoride toxicity. This proves children are getting a toxic dose. Perhaps Michelle had never thought about it like this before, and has now realised how mistaken she has been”.
If Dickinson is not comfortable to front a debate, then Sir Peter Gluckman should make himself available. Mary Byrne says, “The New Zealand public and our MPs are relying on the science Prof Gluckman has provided. It would say an awful lot if he was not prepared to publicly stand by his scientific position in a debate.”
Fluoride Free New Zealand says it is well overdue for a proper debate to be held on this subject. “For too long we have only heard one side of the argument and we are tired of people like Michelle denigrating those of us opposed to fluoridation when they don’t have the guts to stand up in public and defend it in a fair debate.” Mary adds, “If she has realised there is more to the issue than she thought, she should have the integrity to say so.”
Parliament will debate the 2nd reading of the fluoridation bill on the 6th of June.
In a press release last week, the head of pro-fluoride activist group Making Sense of Fluoride, Dan Ryan expressed astonishment that the Royal Society of NZ once supported keeping leaded petrol; Ryan went as far as to deny it. His confusion went further, showing he didn’t understand the difference between a discredited fluoride-IQ NZ study published in 2014, the Lead-IQ study published last week and the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Ryan also failed to mention the Harvard meta-analysis of 27 international fluoride-IQ studies, published in the Lancet in 2012, which found a drop of 7 IQ points.
The Royal Society of New Zealand published a paper in 1985 concluding that “The emotive and controversial issue of lead was chosen deliberately, as the evidence strongly suggests that lead in petrol does not pose a significant risk to human health” and that “the lead in petrol debate is therefore artificial. It is based on emotive perception of a risk, which, when genuinely quantified is seen to be of a very low order indeed”. Mary Byrne, National Coordinator for Fluoride Free NZ says, “Indeed, this sounds exactly like what they say about fluoride now”.
The full texts of two releases comparing the treatment of lead and fluoride are Report 6 in May Features