Archive for the ‘chapel hill’ Category

See Also: My letter to the Trump Administration Re: EPAs Involvement in Water Fluoridation

By Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director, Fluoride Action Network

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), 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 U.S. 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.

We believe this lawsuit is an unprecedented opportunity to end the practice once and for all in the U.S., and potentially throughout the world, based on the well-documented neurotoxicity of fluoride. You may read the official complaint here. According to FAN’s attorney and adviser, 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 lawsuit1challenging 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 the EPA’s interpretation essentially makes the requirements for gaining Agency action using section 21 petitions impossible to meet, making the outcome significant for all U.S. residents and public health or environmental watchdog groups.

Lawsuit Background: EPA Served With Citizen’s Petition

On November 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 petition includes more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health.The full petition can be accessed here, a shorter eight-page summary here and our press release here.

We presented the FDA 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 an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk. On February 27, 2017, the EPA published their response.2 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.3 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 for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlights the importance of having a robust margin between the doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and the doses that humans receive. FAN presented the EPA with over 180 studies showing that fluoride causes neurotoxic harm (e.g., reduced IQ), pointing out that many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or precariously close to, the levels millions of American 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 our petition.

Fortunately, the TSCA statute provides citizens with the ability to challenge an EPA denial in federal court. For too long, EPA has let politics trump science on the fluoride issue (see examples). FAN welcomes having these issues considered by a federal court, where scientific evidence has a better chance of being weighed objectively.

To accompany our lawsuit, FAN is offering a new DVD and a comprehensive campaign flash drive package. The DVD features the video, “Fluoride and the Brain,” in which Michael Connett explains that fluoride’s ability to lower IQ in children is just the tip of an iceberg of over 300 animal and human studies that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic.

We have also made a comprehensive collection of campaign and educational videos available on a single flash drive for a limited time. It also includes our EPA petition and supporting documentation. This is a must-have for every fluoride-free campaigner’s toolkit.4  Another must-have is the book “The Case Against Fluoride,” by environmental chemist and toxicologist Paul Connett, Ph.D., which contains a comprehensive science-based argument for the end to artificial water fluoridation.

Winning this lawsuit will require a full team effort, and we want you to feel a part of that team and a part of this moment in history. Please consider playing a larger role in this potentially fluoridation-ending lawsuit by making a tax-deductible contribution.

New Study Quantifies Fluoride’s Potential to Lower IQ in Children

Since submitting our citizen’s petition to the EPA, we have learned even more about the threat to the next generation. Some children in the U.S. may be consuming enough fluoridated water to reach doses of fluoride that have the potential to lower their IQ, according to a research team headed by William Hirzy, Ph.D., a former senior scientist at the EPA who specialized in risk assessment and published an important risk analysis in the journal Fluoride last year.5

Current federal guidelines encourage the addition of fluoride chemicals into water supplies to reach 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Hirzy followed EPA risk assessment guidelines to report: “The effect of fluoride on IQ is quite large, with a predicted mean 5 IQ point loss when going from a dose of 0.5 mg/F/day to 2.0 mg F/day.”

Many children in the U.S. commonly consume these levels of fluoride within this range from all sources (i.e., water, food, dental products, medicines and air pollution). Hirzy explains the significance of this study:

“The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride. Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower exposures.

One well-conducted Chinese study indicated that children exposed to 1.4 mg/day had their IQ lowered by 5 IQ points. Current average mean daily intakes among children in the United States are estimated by EPA to range from about 0.80 mg/day to 1.65 mg/day. Fluoride may be similar to lead and mercury in having no threshold below which exposures may be considered safe.”

Dr. Bill Osmunson, FAN’s interim director, noted that this risk analysis adds further weight to the petition submitted to the EPA by FAN and other groups in November to ban the addition of fluoride chemicals to drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act.

FAN’s Persistence Pays Off: US Government Funding Neurotoxicity Studies

FAN progress isn’t limited to the legal world. Our relentless effort to get the U.S. government to take fluoride’s neurotoxicity seriously is also beginning to pay off in other ways. For many years, American regulatory and research agencies have failed to finance studies seeking to reproduce the many studies undertaken abroad that have found harm to the brain (over 300).

When toxicologist and pharmacologist Phyllis Mullenix, et al., published their groundbreaking animal study6 on fluoride and animal behavior in 1995, she was fired from her position as chair of the toxicology department at the Forsythe Dental Center. That sent a chilling message to U.S. researchers — research on fluoride toxicity is a “no-go” area. But that is changing. Now, with the U.S. government funding several important toxicology studies, this should encourage other Western researchers to get involved:

There is a new National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded fluoride/brain study.7 Our Canadian friends are extremely excited by this research funding to Christine Till and Ashley Malin, the co-authors of the important study that found a correlation between fluoridation and increased ADHD rates in the U.S.8 This could definitely be one of the most important developments in water fluoridation to date.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is in the process of completing a rodent study using low levels of fluoride exposure. However, we have concerns over the consultation process NTP had prior to when this study was undertaken (see “Vigilance Still Needed” at end of this article).

Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Harvard School of Public Health, is leading an ongoing study of fluoride and intelligence among a group of schoolchildren in China. Grandjean published the preliminary results of this study in the January-February 2015 issue of Neurotoxicology & Teratology.9

A National Institute of Environmental Health (NIEHS)-funded human epidemiological study titled “Prenatal and Childhood Exposure to Fluoride and Neurodevelopment” is investigating the relationship between fluoride and IQ among a cohort of children in Mexico. A summary of the study10 is available online.

An NIEHS-funded animal study, “Effects of Fluoride on Behavior in Genetically Diverse Mouse Models,” is investigating fluoride’s effects on behavior and whether these effects differ based on the genetic strain of the mouse. The principal investigator of the study is Dr. Pamela Den Besten. A summary of her study11 is available online.

The NIH is funding a study investigating the impact of fluoride on the timing of puberty among children in Mexico. This study is pertinent to the assessment of fluoride’s impact on the pineal gland’s regulation of melatonin. The preliminary results of the study were presented at the 2014 Independent School Entrance Examination ISEE conference and can be accessed online.12

Though not funded by the U.S. government, Jaqueline Calderón Hernandez, Ph.D., Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico, is currently working with Diana Rocha-Amador, Ph.D., on three studies on fluoride neurotoxicity:

1.An examination of the cognitive effects from fluoride in drinking water

2.Estimating the global burden of disease of mild mental retardation associated with environmental fluoride exposure

3.Investigating the impact of in utero exposure to fluoride (via drinking water) on cognitive development delay in children

Rocha-Amador is also examining the impact of fluoride on thyroid hormone levels in pregnant women, and published a fluoride/IQ study in 2007.13

Vigilance Still Needed

We still have to be vigilant to make sure that those determined to protect the fluoridation program don’t skew the results. For example, it is worrying that the NTP specified that an animal study should be conducted at 0.7 ppm — which is a ridiculous provision for an animal study on fluoride. For example, it is well-known that rats need a much higher dose of fluoride in their water to reach the same plasma levels in humans.

Moreover, it is standard practice in toxicology to use much higher doses in animals to tease out effects. To conduct experiments on animals at expected human doses would require a huge number of animals, which would be cost prohibitive. These studies also raise a significant question for those who continue to promote fluoridation in local communities and legislatures around the world.

“What primary scientific studies (not bogus reviews conducted by pro-fluoridation agencies) can you cite that give you the confidence to ignore or dismiss the evidence that fluoride damages the brain as documented in over 300 animal and human studies (including 50 IQ studies)?”

As shown by its support for these new neurotoxicity studies, our own government has acknowledged the risk fluoride poses to our children. If proponents cannot provide an adequate scientific answer to this question, then fluoridation should be halted immediately, and should under no circumstances be initiated.

National Fluoridation Stats Show Tipping Point Has Been Reached

Progress is also being made on the political front. U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) fluoridation statistics for the U.S. have been released for 2014,14 and they show exactly why the fluoridation lobby has been pouring more money and resources into promoting the practice and fighting our efforts: WE ARE WINNING!

For the first time in nearly 40 years, the percentage of the U.S. population served by community water systems receiving fluoridated water decreased, from 74.6 percent to 74.4 percent. The percentage of the U.S. population receiving optimally fluoridated water (natural and artificial) also decreased, from 67.1 percent to 66.3 percent. Also decreasing:

  • The number of water systems providing fluoridated water (natural or artificial)
  • The number of water systems adding fluoride
  • The number of water systems providing naturally “optimal fluoride” levels

Momentum Continues to Build Thanks to Citizens Like You

More than 460 communities throughout the world have ended existing fluoridation programs or rejected new efforts to fluoridate either by council vote or citizen referendum since 1990. Since January 2016 alone, we’ve confirmed that at least 33 communities with nearly a million collective residents voted to end fluoridation, bringing the number of victories since 2010 to at least 225 communities,15 representing approximately 6.5 million people.

Most of these victories were the result of citizens organizing local campaigns and voicing their opposition to public officials, with many working in coordination with FAN or using our materials to educate their neighbors and local decision makers about the serious health risks associated with the practice. Some of the latest victories in the U.S. and abroad include:16

LIVE STREAM HERE: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/la-batchelor

or CALL IN:646-929-0130

Announcement: I have been invited for an interview with L.A. Batchelor, a local radio show / podcast host to continue discussion around public water Fluoridation.

Tune in 6pm EST or revisit the 4/20/2017 Episode to hear me break down the criminal water fluoridation program and it’s machinations in the Triangle NC area.

On April 4th and April 6th fellow anti-fluoride activist Daria Barazandeh appeared on L.A.’s show to discuss the public health concerns and total  intransigence of the OWASA board.  I will bring a different perspective and expand upon Daria’s previous elaborations around the difficulties working with the various governmental bureaucracies and how they manifest the propaganda to continue doing business as usual.

 

Dear Durham Against Fluoride Readers,

This is an urgent message concerning the public water fluoridation program in the Triangle area.  We NEED YOU to sign this petition (whether you live in Orange County or not). This will be presented to the local Orange Water and Sewer Authority board this coming THURSDAY MARCH 23, 2017 to immediately stop all actions to resume public water fluoridation in the wake of the recent public health crisis this past February.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN PETITION AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION IN CHAPEL HILL / CARRBORO 

To recap, here is an abbreviated  chronology of events, many of which can be found in video form on this website:

  • In 2012, citizens first put OWASA on notice that public water fluoridation is wrought with legal, ethical, medicinal, and practical problems and should be stopped immediately.
  • December of that year OWASA organized a slanted, closed panel of “experts” who were both PRO-Fluoride which lead them to vote on continuing the practice
  • In 2013, additional petitions were filed over the course of many months to legitimately examine the issue, while OWASA attempted to “deal” with such citizens without formally addressing the issue.
  • In the summer of 2013 OWASA voted AGAIN to continue public water fluoridation and encouraged us to consult with the county commissioners if they were so inclined to change the policy.
  • In 2014, we did just that and found an equally bureaucratic and non-critical examination of the facts.  The county health director and county commissioners did nothing & fluoridation continued.
  • In February of 2017 OWASA “accidentally” set the fluoride feed pumps to 8X the normal pump speed and left them on for 3.5 hours.  When it was discovered, the water treatment plant was shut down, and subsequently a water main broke which left the community without safe running water for 2 days.
  • Later that month, OWASA heard from citizens concerning the water disaster, and a full 90% of the respondents including two former board members were in staunch opposition to the public water fluoridation program.  OWASA did not address any concern specifically as they wanted the water disaster and the fluoridation issue to be considered in a mutually exclusive vacuum.
  • The next OWASA meeting with public comment, even more citizens arrived to speak against public water fluoridation and OWASA’s negligence, but OWASA still would not address the issue head on and reserved the right to “examine or not examine it.”  In the same meeting, OWASA admitted Fluoride binds to lead and enters the water system and voted unanimously against my petition for a public referendum on the public fluoridation issue.
  • Then, OWASA held an impromptu meeting at their community room where they would decide “if we would examine, or not examine the public water fluoridation issue again.”  The UNC dental school was obviously commissioned and sent a bunch of their lackey’s including Rebecca King who testified in Durham & Chapel Hill on behalf of the Oral Health Section of the Department of Health and Human Services back in 2012 to promote Fluoridation, but was fired by DHHS in 2013.  Citizens suspect OWASA contacted the dental school because they were losing the argument at every meeting both in numbers and in logic.
  • OWASA then voted AGAIN to resume “normal” fluoridation protocols despite majority public sentiment in opposition.
  • OWASA is holding a meeting on the 23rd of March where they will announced their planned date to “resume fluoridation” ostensibly after they have “fixed” the issues which lead to over-fluoridation in the first place.

By Corey Sturmer

In the wake of a water utility disaster which involved the Orange Water and Sewer Authority “accidentally” over-fluoridating the public water supply, OWASA is holding a series of meetings to discuss the emergency and hear from concerned citizens regarding the incident. At the first public comment section which took place February 9, the majority of citizens who took time to speak focused narrowly on OWASA’s longstanding public water fluoridation policy and demanded it’s immediate cessation. OWASA had been warned about the dangers as far back as 2012, but persisted in their march to fluoridate leading up to the disaster. OWASA has actually already suspended the public water fluoridation program after the ‘accident’ but then brought in an alleged “Independent Consultant” who was tasked with delivering a report on the infrastructure failures and ways to improve. The consultant is CH2M Hill, which is a multi-billion dollar government trough company with negative revenue who also happens to have a conflict of interest in this matter since they contract with the very same fertilizer companies who produce and sell fluoride across the United States. Not surprisingly, CH2M Hill is being even less critical of the fluoridation policy than OWASA and it seems apparent that the Town of Chapel Hill will continue the policy if the citizens don’t speak up. In the 2nd public comment meeting on this topic, OWASA accomplished the following things;

1) Admitted that Fluoride causes leaching from lead pipes / joints / fixtures

2) Admitted that OWASA is not mandated to fluoridate

3) Admitted by omission that OWASA customers never voted to fluoridate

4) Admitted that there is no barrier between the fluoridation clearwell and the distribution system

5) Admitted that they will allow over-fluoridation in the future as a cost-benefit to prevent having to cut off the water

6) Voted unanimously against allowing the OWASA customers to have a public referendum on public water fluoridation. As you can see, OWASA is a corrupted and compromised institution that does not have the public’s best interest at heart.

You can contact the OWASA Board here: http://www.owasa.org/board-of-directors

And support our efforts here: https://www.gofundme.com/DurhamAgains…http://www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

In Response to the recent over-fluoridation of the community water supply, the citizens make their voices HEARD!

OWASA is extremely upset and disturbed by the awakening public who has forced their hand in revisiting this longstanding practice.  They are doing all they can to perform damage control and avoid negligence in this costly and dangerous disaster but given the fact that we have notified them as early as 2012, they are in an extremely compromised position!

Disclaimer: This video is not original material, copyright resides with the original producer(s), this is posted under public commons and because I am one of those featured in the segment.

Relevant: http://abc11.com/health/owasa-braces-for-flood-of-complaints-after-water-crisis/1745141/

Background:

Recently the local water board who manages Orange County’s public water utility set off a series of infrastructure failures which lead to the depletion of the water supply and a brief “No Drink Order.”

The genesis of the issue was from an accidental fluoride “overfeed” which required the OWASA organization to shut down the water treatment plant and import supplies from a neighboring city.  This most likely resulted in a water main burst shortly thereafter that exacerbated the problem and caused a full system shutdown.  Businesses were expecting a busy weekend and lost thousands of dollars.

As a leitmotif of this blog, this unfortunate disaster raises opportunity to ask the question once more; so why is the city medicating the water supply with a highly corrosive and highly neuro-toxic industrial byproduct of the fertilizer and aluminum industry to begin with?   In view of the situation in Chapel Hill, nobody can argue that it is a fiscally responsible or effective methodology to solve a social medical problem like cavities!

The OWASA board has been medicating the water supply with hydrofluorosilicic acid for many decades now, and the chemicals used have proven capacities to corrode metals and concrete over time.[1][2]  This not only threatens our own biological well-being but is principally involved on multiple levels in making the water disaster.  This is what OWASA and the City Council would like the public NOT to focus on.

There is dated video evidence on this very website of local activists raising this and many other ethical / legal problems with community water fluoridation to the OWASA board, emphatically demanding a cessation of this perilous policy.  Now that there has been a legitimate disaster, a lot of public attention, and increased distrust of the water ‘authorities’, OWASA may now be in an area of possible negligence and commercial liability.

To exacerbate and confuse the issue as it unfolded, the series of news releases published by OWASA to communicate the ongoing guidance, was riddled with contradictions and dubious assurances of water safety.

For demonstration sake, just look at the initial guidance after the fluoride overfeed incident was made public:

OWASA temporarily receiving drinking water from City of Durham; water continues to be safe to drink

However, customers may notice some discoloration in water. The discoloration, which results from stirring up sediment in water pipes, **does not make the water unsafe ** –but it should not be used for laundry, cooking, drinking, etc. —

When asked for test results to verify the claim that the supply was not contaminated with Fluoride or worse, the county health director only shared a bacteria and chlorine reading (bacteria-results-2-6-17)

The OWASA board has temporarily stopped their community water fluoridation program pending a 3rd party review of the incident.   They should stop while they are ahead and have the water running still.

Rest assured we will be reorienting the discussion to the real cause of the problem and trying to ensure the people respond accordingly and finally end the community water fluoridation scourge in this area.  Given the social importance of the triangle to the central fluoridation scheme, a reversal in OWASA-land would have a huge psychological impact to the movement against government medical intervention nationally.

The Board meeting will begin at 6 p.m. Thursday in the Council Chamber at the Chapel Hill Town Hall, 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Chapel Hill.

Members of the public will have up to four minutes per person to comment at the meeting. They may also send comments in advance to info@owasa.org or to Andrea Orbich, Clerk to the Board, 400 Jones Ferry Road, Carrboro, NC 27510.

[1] North Carolina Study Concluding that chlorine (CL) or chloramines (CA) with fluosilicic acid (FSA) or sodium fluoride (NaF). CL is known to corrode brass, releasing lead from plumbing devices.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17697714

_________________________________________________________

[2]The effect of fluoride on corrosion of reinforcing steel in alkaline solutions

Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010938X94900159
__________________________________________________________

[3]Fluoride in Water Worsened Flint Water Crisis – http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fluoride-in-water-worsens-us-lead-crisis-300219061.html

[4]Fluoride Spill in Rock Island Illinois burns through concrete – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szL2Ofzvpcs

[5]Corey Visits Durham Fluoride Station, Superintendent says that it is “Highly Corrosive”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwAJJm1w8po

[6]Lead-in and recording of Kevin Bucholtz from Department of Health and Human Services admitting in 2012 that hydrofluorosilicic acid leaches lead from the pipe, taken from Documentary we made chronicling our protest attempts starting at 12 minutes 51 Seconds: https://youtu.be/ZabGVxv96qI?t=12m51s

Relevant Link: Don O’ Leary is an Orange County Resident Running for County Comissioner in 2016, he also has a lot of great, relevant videos/articles at his site.

My Letter to Orange County Health Director Colleen Bridger After Orange County Referred Our  September 4 Anti-Fluoride Petitions To her

Dear Colleen,My name is Corey Sturmer & I am a 25 year resident of the triangle.  In 2011 I became aware that the city governments of Wake, Durham & Orange county have had a more than 60 year long policy of purchasing waste chemicals (hydrofluorosilicic acid/ silicofluorides, fluorosilicic acid) from fertilizer & aluminum industry & distributing it to the citizens through their water supply, ostensibly to help “prevent tooth decay.”

I happen to know that the propaganda surrounding its efficacy as a preventative health measure came directly from the health & human services department of our federal government, and secondarily through the public health departments of the respective states…Then on downward to each county.  Generally speaking the states’ position has amazingly not changed much in the last 60 years, despite all of the evidence which has come out on the practice since it was first instituted in the late 1950’s.

I was present earlier this month before the board of commissioners of orange county to provide a common sense approach to why this policy should be reversed IMMEDIATELY.  I am e-mailing you because I understand this issue has now been brought to your attention by the commissioners & they are waiting for some advisement from you & the board of health of orange county.

So I would like you to please consider the following as common sense reasons why this policy should end.

Civil Liberty, Informed Consent, Lack of Licensure

 

Nobody in the history of public water fluoridation has ever debated the fact that the alleged purpose of the policy is to help prevent tooth decay.

 

According to the Federal Drug Administration’s code section 201(g)1, definition of a drug, a drug is defined by its INTENDED APPLICATION

 

Source: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/fdcactchaptersiandiishorttitleanddefinitions/ucm086297.htm

(g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.
If the county wants to apply fluoride to the water for the purposes of preventing tooth decay, then they are legally bound to have it approved by the FDA as being safe and effective for such an application.  Please take notice that Fluoride has NEVER BEEN APPROVED by the FDA: http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda/not-approved/
Since it is impossible for any being to deny that fluoridation is de facto drugging of the water supply, we then need to consider what North Carolina general statutes say about distributing (unapproved) drugs without a license.  It is in fact a Class H Felony to do so, which would mean the offending parties in Orange county are guilty of violating North Carolina state drug laws.See: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_106/GS_106-145.6.pdf

G.S. 106-145.6
§ 106-145.6. Denial, revocation, and suspension of license; penalties for violations.
Adverse Action.
The Commissioner may deny a license to an applicant if the Commissioner determines that granting the applicant a license would not be in the public interest. Public interest considerations shall be limited to factors and qualifications that are directly related to the protection of public health and safety. The Commissioner may deny, suspend, or revoke a license for substantial or repeated violations
of this Article or for conviction of a violation of any other federal, state, or local prescription drug law or regulation. Chapter 150B of the General Statutes governs the denial, suspension, or revocation of a license under this Article.
(b)
Criminal Sanctions.
It is unlawful to engage in wholesale distribution in this State without a wholesale distributor license or to violate any other provision of this Article. A person who violates this Article commits a Class H felony. A fine imposed for a violation of this Article may not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).

Lastly – drugging the water supply in such a manner violates informed consent laws, which require the patient to be informed & to give their explicit consent before accepting a medical treatment like fluoride.  It may also violate certain individual’s freedom of religious expression since some religions forbid consumption of toxins such as fluoride.  If they don’t even know fluoride is added to their water they could be unwittingly committing blaspheme!

These basic rights should be respected & protected by the county, not deliberately destroyed.

Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk.
Colleen – There is no scientific consensus that fluoride is harmless.  In fact quite the opposite.I challenge the board of health to bear the burden of proof that consuming fluoride through the water supply is NOT harmful in any way.  This is a rhetorical challenge because it is impossible for your board of health to do it.  Even the promoters of fluoridation have admitted that drinking fluoride will inevitably cause some degree of dental fluorosis which is the outward manifestation of systemic overexposure.  This is well reported by the center for disease control.  Fluorosis shows up as white spotting & mottling of the dental enamel.  Therefore it can not be refuted that fluoride is detrimental & thus – does not comply with the precautionary principle & should not be a policy!
If dental fluorisis is not enough harm to satisfy you, then please consider these more recent studies which raise enormous doubts about the safety & efficacy of public water fluoridation:
Fluorid deposits in your pineal gland (melatonin center affecting sleep cycles): http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html
I appreciate your consideration to this critical public health issue & would like to offer my contact information if you have any questions or concerns about this inquiry.

 

 

Corey Sturmer
Colleen Bridger’s Response to Our Petitions; A Recommendation to Continue Drugging Orange County’s Water Supply

Good afternoon,

I wanted to share with you the information I sent the Board of County Commissioners regarding your concerns about the health effects of fluoride in municipal drinking water.  I’ve attached just a few of the documents I reviewed in making my recommendation for your information.  The key points from this review are:

1)      The preponderance of medical and dental organizations nationally and in North Carolina support community water fluoridation as safe and effective and

2)      Water fluoridation decisions are made by the entities that provide municipal water.  The largest municipal water supplier in Orange County is OWASA and they just this year voted to continue fluoridating their water.

Therefore my recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (and also my recommendation to the OWASA Board when they asked) is that they support the very important, safe and effective public health practice of fluoridating municipal water supplies.

Thank you so much for bringing this issue to our attention.  We can miss important health issues affecting our community and need active residents like you to make sure we are always staying on top of the myriad health threats that we face.  I will continue to monitor the emerging research on the health effects of fluoridating municipal drinking water and if I see any reason to revisit this recommendation, I assure you I absolutely will.

Sincerely,

Colleen Bridger, MPH, PhD

Orange County Health Director

Phone: 919.245.2412 / Cell: 919.612.2053

My Spoken Response to Colleen Bridger on October 7 2014

Letter attached to Colleen Bridger’s Reccomendation Authored by Gary Rozier, a semi-retired Public Health Professor @ UNC

GaryRozierGary Declines to do Interview about Public Water Fluoridation, despite authoring numerous letters in support of it

Dear Gary,

I was recently notified by the Orange County Health Director Colleen Bridger that she & the health department are publicly endorsing the idea of public water fluoridation in response to some recent petitions that the government stop this practice immediately.  After reviewing Colleen’s statement, she appears to be using the attached letter authored by you in 2012 together with several other stated endorsements from various organizations.

I am mailing you Gary because I gather from your letter that you are a highly educated & knowledgeable person on the various machinations & applications of governmental policy, which may result in a city applying a policy like water fluoridation to the population.  I also gather that you sincerely believe that this is an appropriate role for government to play, which is a legitimate position to have if you’re honest about it, which I gather you are being.

It is for these reasons I am interested in conducting an interview with you on the topic of health policy & public water fluoridation.  Would you be willing to participate?  This might be a good opportunity to illustrate to the public why public water fluoridation should be maintained – so I hope you will seize this opportunity.

Let me know your thoughts, & if you’re interested we can worry about logistics.

Corey

 

__________________________________

Corey,  Thank you for the opportunity to participate in a discussion about water fluoridation.  However, I am in phased retirement and not able to take on any engagements. Regards!  GaryRozier

__________________________________

Gary,

Thanks for the reply…

I find your statement interesting – generally most people I know who enter into full or even phased retirement, are able to find MORE time to take on different engagements. But I understand how freely discussing the realities of public water fluoridation may pose a liability to what appears to be your life’s work.  So one way or the other I get the message.Have a good retirement Gary,Corey