June 13, 2013: OWASA Board of Directors will Consider Citizens’ Petitions Against Fluoridation

Posted: June 7, 2013 in chapel hill, city, council, dental, durham, fluoride, health
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 13, 2013 OWASA Agenda

Facebook Invite

The Orange Water and Sewer Authority, a body of  “directors” who were appointed by the Chapel Hill Town Council to oversee the management of Our water, has made an announcement that they are going to consider Our petitions against the medication of our water supplies this coming Thursday June 13, 2013.

Also known as OWASA this body of people decide whether or not the Orange County, Chapel Hill & Carrboro area will continue a nearly 60 year old policy of medicating our public drinking water.  This excerpt from OWASA’s website says clearly that they are tasked with “Making policy decisions,” which Fluoridation most certainly is:

OWASA is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors. The Chapel Hill Town Council appoints five, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen appoints two and the Orange County Board of Commissioners appoints two Board Members. The OWASA Board adopts the annual budget; sets rates, fees and charges based on cost-of-service principles; approves bond issues to fund capital projects; makes policy decisions; and appoints the Executive Director, General Counsel and Independent Auditor.

Please see the official note from Executive Assistant Andy Orbich;

The OWASA Board of Directors will meet on Thursday, June 13, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., in OWASA’s Community Room, 400 Jones Ferry Road in Carrboro. 

Item 5 of the Agenda is to Consider Citizens’ Petitions regarding Fluoridation of OWASA Drinking Water.  The June 13th agenda is available on our website (under About OWASA/Board of Directors’ Meeting).

Thank you,

Andrea Orbich, CMC

Executive Assistant

aorbich@owasa.org

Orange Water and Sewer Authority

phone: 919-537-4217

I have appeared at OWASA meetings twice now along with several others in the area to protest the forced medication of our water supplies, and I urge you to join us!  I will be attending to discuss the ethical problems with this practice with a specific focus on legality & liability risk.

I am hoping to make progress in this regard, since Chair of the OWASA Board Alan Rimer seems thus far desperately unaware that OWASA is even, as a board, medicating the water supply.  Understanding this is the most basic but CRUCIAL concept for our civil servants to grasp if we are ever to then communicate that they are liable for all the damage done as a result of this longstanding policy.

My second appearance resulted in a longer disquisition on the principles of this matter.  Board member Will Raymond in the below video actually lies, to my face, about what is stated very clearly on OWASA’s own website.  As you can see, even OWASA’s own documents state that Fluoride is a “Discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories” and yet in the below video Will Raymond refutes this obvious fact!

Substances in OWASA's Drinking WaterSource: OWASA.org

Will either does not read his organization’s own website or is just a liar and needs to be exposed:

I would also like to point out the recent video essay published here exposing in more detailed fashion that the OWASA Board as a whole seems not to understand this very basic obvious fact.   Click here to read “Why Doesn’t Government Know Their Own Definition Of A Medication?

If you would like to see the OWASA board’s incompetence exposed from Parker & Zach’s perspective, please give some time to his entry in the Operation Paul Revere Contest entitled “Obtuse Academy” (Runtime 50 minutes)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Protesters keep refering to systemic fluoride as a medication, but the FDA has not classified fluoride as medication, even though they recommend it for a disease called caries (decay) of the tooth enamel. I recommend referring to systemic fluoride as an unneccessy CHEMICAL. It isn’t added to keep the water safe and it isn’t added because it is a neccessay medication, so why is it added? It is added for a select few…the low-income children. Topical fluoride is a very inexpensive item, but would be covered for low-income people. There is no actual proof that systemic fluoride lowers the rate of decay. Studies have shown that TOPICAL fluoride DOES help with lowering rates of decay.
    Pam

    • Pamela, when you introduce a chemical into the water supply with the intention of preventing any kind of disease, THIS and ONLY THIS defines it as a medication. That the FDA has not classified fluoride as a drug only demonstrates that the FDA has not even reviewed the chemical added for safety. This should be salient in the face of all of the evidence now being released which are showing the chemical is not safe for use. I understand the argument is that fluoride benefits the lowest income earners of our society, but this turns out to be a total ruse as well which I expose in my recent article entitled “The NAACP opposes community water fluoridation.” Please read here: https://durhamagainstfluoride.com/2013/06/10/the-naacp-opposes-public-water-fluoridation/

  2. Steven D. Slott, DDS says:

    “The Golden Rule”

    If you had any idea about water fluoridation other than what you lazily obtain from antifluoridationist websites, you would understand that there is no requirement, nor is there any need, for testing of hydrofluorosilic acid. Once added to water, the ph of that water causes HFA to immediately and completely hydrolyze. After that point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It thus does not reach the tap. It thus is not ingested. There is thus no need for any testing of it.

    The products of this hydrolysation are fluoride ions identical to those found “naturally” in groundwater, and trace levels of contaminants in such barely detectable miniscule amounts that they fall far below the EPA mandated maximum concentrations of safety, and pose no threat of adverse biological effects. Water fluoridation is simply the addition of a few parts per million of fluoride ions to water systems whose existing fluoride levels fall short of the optimal level of 0.7 ppm.

    The uninformed misinformation that you and most other antifluoridationists disseminate with no concern for accuracy, is simply astounding.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Burlington, NC

    • Steven,

      Thank you for writing in with your opinion on this very serious subject. I recognize your name from the News and Observer article where I witnessed you fighting tooth and nail the basic ethical & scientific holes in this most ridiculous creation of the U.S. Public Health Service which has done nothing for the citizen’s teeth and even less for the public’s health. I commend you for your courage in so brazenly defending the addition of industrial waste to our water supply using your real name, which is rare these days in a sea of online cowards.

      Since you are content defending fluoridation in a public forum with your name & reputation on the line, I can only assume you would be willing to participate in a debate on this subject. Would you? I would like to avoid banter on the comments of my website but would very much like to engage you in either a face-to-face debate, or a Skype debate both of which would be video recorded & uploaded on the internet so that the citizens can decide which viewpoint is more informed & salient.

      Please comment here or e-mail me if you accept this challenge, and we can make arrangements in short order.

      Sincerely,

      Corey Sturmer – Owner of DurhamAgainstFluoride.com

      • Zachary Davidson says:

        I have never heard a professional dentist so efficiently discredit himself. To assert that mere Ph levels literally eliminate a hypercorrosive acid sourced from the aluminum and mining industries through “hydrolization” is the most unsubstantiated, non-scientific malarchy I have ever seen stated. Maybe his license should be revoked and he should go back to 8th grade chemistry to learn that fluorine ions (at benign, infinitesimally smaller amounts than what is added in the form of HFA) don’t just magically take the place of HFA when .7 ml per LITER of this industrial waste by-product is added to municipal drinking water. Mr. SLOTT, I hope more people see this post and start barraging you with questions as to how you became a dentist in the first place and why anyone in their right mind would allow you to handle their dental care when you appear to be oblivious of not only basic chemistry but basic biology. I hope the golden rule gets to undo your ignorance in what could scarcely be called a debate.

      • I am posting Steven Slott’s Reply to my challenge to a public debate on the water fluoridation, which he publicly supports on this website & the News & Observer but privately declined to discuss with me in public. I will let Steve’s response speak for itself and I will provide my response to this in a new article which will expose how Steven’s cowardice is a predictable response thanks to institutional indoctrination by the compartmentalized systems responsible for the fluoridation policy. It will include video from the latest Durham & OWASA meetings which exhibit the same irrational thought process Steve sports which is literally incapable of withstanding a true public debate.
        ________________________________________________________________________

        From: steveslott@gmail.com
        To: thegldnrule@gmail.com

        No, Corey, I will not debate you any more than I would debate Connett when he issued that “challenge” to me. For one thing, you have lost in your efforts to sway the Durham BOH and the Orange County Water Treatment Board, and I have no intention of providing you with a public platform from which to continue to spew your nonsense. Second, and more importantly, healthcare decisions are not political footballs to be bantered around in “debates”. They are to be taken seriously with all facts carefully evaluated, validated, and considered…exactly as did the Durham BOH. That you and Connett don’t understand this concept speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge.

        Corey, your knowledge and understanding of water fluoridation is woefully lacking but is pretty much on a par with other antifluorodiationists who rely solely on information they glean from “fluoridealert.org” and other such biased, antifluoridationist sources of misinformation. If you care to properly educate yourself on this issue, I’ll be glad to point you in the right direction, but as far as enabling you to be a funnel for Connett and his minions to turn our area into a three-ring circus as they did in Wichita and Portland…forget it.

        I do, however, fully intend on paying far closer attention to your activities here than I have been, and will correct your misinformation every time I see it appear. To you, this is a “cause”. To me, it is an assault on the health of the underserved population for which I have spent the better part of my 32 year dental career providing treatment, and for whose improved access to dental care I have advocated loudly and publicly. From my Medicaid private dental practice in Burlington, to my founding and building of the large NC Missions of Mercy free dental program, I have put my actions solidly behind my statements. If you want to take on my “reputation”, go for it.

        Steve

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        PO Box 1744
        Burlington, NC. 27216

        Sent from my iPad

    • Zachary Davidson says:

      Mr. Slott,

      Hydrolysis absolutely does not occur in the way you stated in your post. To assert that HFA ceases to exist in the water supply after it is added because the pH levels “hydrolyze” its presence into nothingness is actual and complete quackery. Instead of being scientific and reasonable, you are choosing to throw any kind of precautionary principle out the window. To assert that a known hypercorrosive industrial waste product in the water supply has no reason to be tested is completely discrediting at best and complicity criminal at worst. Taking this and other pernicious toxins out of the water is the first step in assisting the health of the “underserved” populations of which you pretend to be a champion. Boast all you want about this or that clinic but such edifices are instrumental in the ongoing dissemination of known neurotoxins. Dentistry in its current, modern form is a relatively dubious health science that has no anatomical or medical insight into the damaging effects of the chemicals that are constantly applied to patients day in and day out. I hope people challenge you to be a better scientist, or to at least research the cumulative and long term health defects incurred by your previous bread and butter poison, fluoride and its derivatives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s