Archive for the ‘chapel hill’ Category

Bull City Bulletin Live –

The Sociological Significance of The Triangle in the Mass Fluoridation Scheme

Please join us for the 5th episode of The Bull City Bulletin where I give a special report of my research into the sociological significance of the mass Fluoridation scheme here in the “Triangle Area” of North Carolina.

I cover the always encroaching regional & multifaceted federal/corporate bureaucracy which invaded the Durham geography earlier in the 20th century, the influence of the American Eugenics agenda in implementing the fraudulent fluoridation policy in Durham, and the other players involved in bringing the weaponized US Public health service to the Research Triangle Park.

The facts laid here to bear, show a significant case can be made that Raleigh, Durham & Chapel Hill are perhaps the most formidable bastion of pro-fluoridationist energy on Earth and therefore toppling this fraud here could set off a domino effect across America to unglue the fluoridation psychology for ever.

This is an information dense transmission, do not get left behind!

For more Real News for Real People: http://www.bullcitybulletin.com

Editor’s Note: For those of you reading this who currently live in the “Triangle area” of Raleigh, Durham & Chapel Hill North Carolina, I implore you to pay special attention to the historical context presented in this 1993 article by Murray Rothbard. Why? Because one of the main characters highlighted in Rothbard’s excellent essay on the history of water fluoridation in the United States has a particular relevance to your current circumstance, which should not go unnoticed.

Specifically I refer to one, Oscar Ewing, who you will find not only played a critical role in the nationalization of community water fluoridation, but eventually retired to Chapel Hill, NC where he busied himself buying the land which later became Research Triangle Park.  This is a vast subject which deserves its own examination independently of the fluoride issue, one which I intend to dissect at a later time.

by Murray N. Rothbard

This essay originally appeared in the January 1993 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Yes, I confess: I’m a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of “right-wing kooks and fanatics.” It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry “cancer” even more absurdly than the boy cried “Wolf,” who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation’s water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

(1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.

(2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

(3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?

(4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids’ thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual choice?

(5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation’s socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.

Nothing loony or kooky about any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general case pro and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of fluoridation, the case against becomes even more overpowering, as well as grisly.

During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?

Why were these and later problems and charges ignored and overridden, and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on America? Who was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the “right-wing kook” image?

THE DRIVE FOR FLUORIDATION

The official drive began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the Treasury Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official “15-year” study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. (I am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation by the medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking journal Covert Action Information Bulletin: “Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?” [Fall 1992], pp. 26–28, 63–66.) Yet, before five years were up, the government killed its own “scientific study,” by fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? Under the excuse that its action was caused by “popular demand” for fluoridation; as we shall see, the “popular demand” was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.

A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left’s backing of fluoridation – in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself – was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation’s central organization of “anti-Communist liberals” (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation’s establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.

The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the “father of public relations.” Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called “The Original Spin Doctor” in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator’s 100th birthday in late 1991. The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation “creeping socialism” and blamed Soviet Communism as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist alliance, see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.

As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation “in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan.” (Bette Hileman, “Fluoridation of Water,” Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the “mechanism which controls the public mind,” which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that “Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…” And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, “either with or without their conscious cooperation,” will “automatically influence” the members of such groups.

In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that “it is wholesome to eat bacon.” For, Bernays added, he “knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians.” (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add “dentists” to the equation, and substitute “fluoride” for “bacon,” and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.

After the 1950s, it was all mopping up – the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation’s reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still benighted areas of the country left however (California is less than 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal government and its PHS remains as “universal fluoridation.”

DOUBTS CUMULATE

Despite the blitzkrieg victory, however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, in people, accumulates in teeth and bone – perhaps strengthening kiddies’ teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides – brittleness and cancer – began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as “spurious.”

Oddly enough, despite the 1956 study and carcinogenic evidence popping up since the 1940s, the federal government never conducted its own beloved animal carcinogenicity test on fluorides. Finally, in 1975, biochemist John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Berk, a retired official of the federal government’s own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented a paper before the annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists. The paper reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in total cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water. The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional hearings two years later, where the government revealed to shocked Congressmen that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress ordered the NCI to conduct such tests.

Talk about foot-dragging! Incredibly, it took the NCI twelve years to finish its tests, finding “equivocal evidence” that fluoride caused bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of Congress, the NCI studied cancer trends in the U.S., and found nationwide evidence of “a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages,” especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but no such rise was seen in “non-fluoridated” counties.

In more detailed studies, for areas of Washington state and Iowa, NCI found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males under 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of these states, but had decreased by 4 percent in the non-fluoridated areas. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, but the NCI set some fancy statisticians to work on the data, to conclude that these findings, too, were “spurious.” Dispute over this report drove the federal government to one of its favorite ploys in virtually every area: the allegedly expert, bipartisan, “value-free” commission.

The government had already done the commission bit in 1983, when disturbing studies on fluoridation drove our old friend the PHS to form a commission of “world-class experts” to review safety data on fluorides in water. Interestingly, the panel found to its grave concern that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride’s safety scarcely existed. The 1983 panel recommended caution on fluoride exposure for children. Interestingly, the panel strongly recommended that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater than two parts per million for children up to nine, because of worries about the fluoride effect on children’s skeletons, and potential heart damage.

The chairman of the panel, Jay R. Shapiro of the National Institute of Health, warned the members, however, that the PHS might “modify” the findings, since “the report deals with sensitive political issues.” Sure enough, when Surgeon General Everett Koop released the official report a month later, the federal government had thrown out the panel’s most important conclusions and recommendations, without consulting the panel. Indeed, the panel never received copies of the final, doctored, version. The government’s alterations were all in a pro-fluoride direction, claiming that there was no “scientific documentation” of any problems at fluoride levels below 8 parts per million.

In addition to the bone cancer studies for the late 1980s, evidence is piling up that fluorides lead to bone fractures. In the past two years, no less than eight epidemiological studies have indicated the fluoridation has increased the rate of bone fractures in males and females of all ages. Indeed, since 1957, the bone fracture rate among male youth has increased sharply in the United States, and the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In fact, a study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, found that even “low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly.” JAMA concluded that “it is now appropriate to revisit the issue of water fluoridation.”

Clearly, it was high time for another federal commission. During 1990–91, a new commission, chaired by veteran PHS official and long-time pro-fluoridationist Frank E. Young, predictably concluded that “no evidence” was found associating fluoride and cancer. On bone fractures, the commission blandly stated that “further studies are required.” But no further studies or soul-searching were needed for its conclusion: “The U.S. Public Health Service should continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water.” Presumably, they did not conclude that “optimal” meant zero.

Despite the Young whitewash, doubts are piling up even within the federal government. James Huff, a director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded in 1992 that animals in the government’s study developed cancer, especially bone cancer from being given fluoride – and there was nothing “equivocal” about his conclusion.

Various scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have turned to anti-fluoridation toxicologist William Marcus’s warning that fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, arthritis, and other disease. Marcus mentions, too, that an unreleased study by the New Jersey Health Department (a state where only 15 percent of the population is fluoridated) shows that the bone cancer rate among young males is no less than six times higher in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas.

Even coming into question is the long-sacred idea that fluoridated water at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various top pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were suddenly and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the conclusion that the dental benefits are really negligible. New Zealand’s most prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country’s top dental officer, Dr. John Colquhoun.

As chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, Colquhoun decided to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of fluoridation. To his shock, he found that the percentage of children free of dental decay was higher in the non-fluoridated part than in the fluoridated part of New Zealand. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish these findings, and kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top pro-fluoridationist in British Columbia, Canada, Richard G. Foulkes, concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that it is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. Foulkes was denounced by former colleagues as a propagandist “promoting the quackery of anti-fluoridationists.”

WHY THE FLUORIDATION DRIVE?

Since the case for compulsory fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so overwhelming, the final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service get involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? Here we must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for Ewing was far more than just a social democrat Fair Dealer.

Fluoride has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements found in the earth’s crust. Fluorides are by-products of many industrial processes, being emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source of this by-product is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, fluorine was increasingly being subject to lawsuits and regulations. In particular, by 1938 the important, relatively new aluminum industry was being placed on a wartime footing. What to do if its major by-product is a dangerous poison?

The time had come for damage control; even better, to reverse the public image of this menacing substance. The Public Health Service, remember was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and treasury secretary all during the 1920s and until 1931 was none other than billionaire Andrew J. Mellon, founder and head of the powerful Mellon interests, “Mr. Pittsburgh,” and founder and virtual ruler of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), the dominant firm in the aluminum industry.

In 1931, the PHS sent a dentist named H. Trendley Dean to the West to study the effects of concentrations of naturally fluoridated water on people’s teeth. Dean found that towns high in natural fluoride seemed to have fewer cavities. This news galvanized various Mellon scientists into action. In particular, the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which biochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridated some lab rats, decided that cavities in those rats had been reduced and immediately concluded that “the case (that fluoride reduces cavities) should be regarded as proved.” Instant science!

The following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a company beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the country urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.

During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image of fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid’s teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation’s water.

One interesting footnote to this story is that whereas fluorine in naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, the substance dumped into every locality is instead sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that “fluoride is fluoride” becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: (a) calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the anti-cavity effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to the calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride happens to be the major by-product of the manufacture of aluminum.

Which brings us to Oscar R. Ewing. Ewing arrived in Washington in 1946, shortly after the initial PHS push began, arriving there as long-time counsel, now chief counsel, for ALCOA, making what was then an astronomical legal fee of $750,000 a year (something like $7,000,000 a year in present dollars). A year later, Ewing took charge of the Federal Security Agency, which included the PHS, and waged the successful national drive for water fluoridation. After a few years, having succeeded in his campaign, Ewing stepped down from public service, and returned to private life, including his chief counselship of the Aluminum Corporation of America.

There is an instructive lesson in this little saga, a lesson how and why the Welfare State came to America. It came as an alliance of three major forces: ideological social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. In the fluoridation saga, we might call the whole process “ALCOA-socialism.” The Welfare State redounds to the welfare not of most of society but of these particular venal and exploitative groups.

Ed.: See also, from 2005, Fluoride Follies by Donald W. Miller, MD.

Submitted By: Parker Emmerson

CITIZENS AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION LETTER NUMBER ONE

Dear Town Council Members, OWASA, The Board of Aldermen and Citizens of Orange County, NC,

Parker Emmerson

Parker Emmerson

I hope all is well with you.

I am writing to notify you that there is a toxic, hazardous substance currently added to the Orange County water supply. This substance is fluoride. After repeated inquiries into this matter with the OWASA board members, we have still not been told what kind of fluoride is added to the water. My peers who oppose the addition of the level 3 or 4 health hazard toxin known as fluoride suspect that the kind of fluoride currently added to the water is fluorosilic acid and that, when this kind of fluoride hits one’s stomach acid, it transforms into Hydrogen Fluoride, a level four (4) health hazard as rated by the NFPA fire diamonds seen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fluoride

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704 (Key to reading NFPA fire diamonds)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride (Level 3 Health Hazard, Toxic, Irritant)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid (Level 3 Health Hazard, Toxic, Corrosive)

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924083 (Level 3 Health Hazard)

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+16961-83-4 (Level 4 Health Hazard)

Fluosilicic Acid: “Agent in water fluoridation, in preliminary treatment of hides and skins, and to reduce reflectivity in glass surfaces; disinfectant for copper and brass vessels; impregnating ingredient to preserve wood and to harden masonary; chem intermediate for aluminum trifluoride, cryolite, and fluorsilicates; electroplating agent for chromium.

Furthermore, Sodium fluoride pills are a prescription drug with NDC (National Drug Code) # 0288-1106-10 and NDC # 68032-382-12 (to name just two) – their primary purpose to deliver fluoride (fluorine) to the teeth through what I consider the pseudo-science of its being beneficial when contained in the saliva and “bathing the teeth” in fluoride continuously throughout the day. At least ten different citizens have challenged the OWASA board’s continued addition of fluoride (a by-product of the aluminum and fertilizer industries by their own admission on their website) with valid, cogent arguments against the addition of this drug into the water supply against their consent.

We got nowhere with the board.

Notably – the recently dismissed “State Dentist” Rebecca King (See:Tense meeting with DHHS leader Wos leads to firing of NC’s top dentist) – gave her “testimony” (“expert” opinion) on the subject in a meeting that was exempt from public comment, and she used a tactic coined by Orwell as “Double Speak” on more than one occasion.  She stated word for word, and I have this on record,

“Fluoride is not a by-product of the fertilizer industry. Fluoride comes from the same phosphate rock that is used to create fertilizer – it does not come from fertilizer.”

So, somehow these two things (phosphate mining and fertilizer production) are not correlated even though fluoride comes from the same phosphate rock used to produce fertilizer? If fluoride were not pumped into the public water supplies of practically every North Carolina township, what would the phosphate mining companies do with all of the fluoride?

They would have to pay to dispose of it as what it is – toxic waste, which they do not want to do.

We confronted the OWASA board about this specific inconsistency in the pro-fluoride argument (position), among many, many others (for emphasis), and each time, they denied it – repeatedly stating that the fluoride they used did not come from the fertilizer and aluminum industries, until finally – Corey Sturmer, an anti-fluoride activist brought out into the open a print out of their own website (water quality report card) that stated their source of fluoride was phosphate rock from byproducts of the fertilizer and aluminum industry.  See:

Finally, they were forced to have one of their operational employees come to the meeting and give a statement about how the fluoride they used actually did come from the by-products of a North Carolina phosphate rock-mining plant which supplied the fertilizer industry. We have all of these encounters on video.

This was just one example of misleading double-speak they used. They also denied direct response to our questions/points and neglected due diligence of researching the facts we presented to them. Otherwise, why would they have come to the decision to continue fluoridating the public water supply? We have them on record stating that it does not have a benefit to the safety of the water that so many people in this town drink.

They are not open about their actions, nor are they forthcoming with information that should be public.   For example, I have asked them numerous times if they use sodium fluoride or a kind of fluorosilic acid, and they have not told me which one they use. I have asked them to address what gives them the right to give out a drug to unwitting people when they are admittedly not health professionals. They are the ones who add fluoride to the water and set the quantity of fluoride added. What are they doing adding fluoride to the water when they are not health professionals? They are not elected, but rather are an ad hoc committee. This goes against the constitution of North Carolina.

I am writing to implore you to re-examine the policies of the OWASA board.

Think about these things, and ask yourself these questions:

  1. The supposed purpose of the water fluoridation is supposedly for hardening the enamel of the teeth through the saliva. Fluoride has an NDC # (National Drug Code Number). Is it ethical to give a drug to everyone – or put otherwise – to discriminate against those who would not like to take the drug fluoride by forcing them to obtain fresh water sources and denying them public water?
  2. If I drink one liter of OWASA water, I would be taking the equivalent of .7 mg of fluoride. If I were to drink to two liters of OWASA water, that means I would get 1.4 mgs of fluoride. The NDC # is relevant to doses of only .25 mg. per day. Think about that. This is huge over exposure if you are just drinking a regular amount of water. The board is drugging the population.
  3. Could the right to freedom of religion be violated by the addition of a toxin to the water supply? Muslims must use clean water, free of toxins for their prayers. Fluoride is a toxin and health hazard.
  4. How can one ethically put a substance in the public water supply that has been linked to decreased bone density and lowered IQ in a Harvard Medical Journal study: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
  5. Has OWASA exceeded their charter in attempting to forcibly (covertly) drug the entire population? YES! OWASA’s charter allows them to provide clean water, not give drugs to the general population.
  6. Fluoride pacifies people and makes them more complacent. This characteristic was used by Hitler, Stalin, and numerous other dictators to pacify the population and coerce them more easily into going along with totalitarian, facist ideologies. Why would we risk this in our own society by fluoridating the public?
  7. WATER FLUORIDATION WAS JUST BANNED BY THE COUNTRY OF ISRAEL, STOPPED IN PORTLAND, OREGON AND IS GAINING MOMENTUM AS AN ISSUE OPPOSED BY AN AWAKENED PUBLIC.

The reality is that there a growing number of concerned citizens believe or at least question not only the validity of fluoride science, but the ethicality, potential of severely harmful side effects (on the human body through accumulation in the environment and over exposure), and true purpose of water fluoridation. We stand against water fluoridation whole-heartedly and believe fluoride should be avoided.

All Our Best,

PARKER EMMERSON AND THE UNDERSIGNED ATTACHED

X__________________________________

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqQkqZKBuV4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyMlwv1pBKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrovKbkEyIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rTevKbkBzs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ8qzDLZTZ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRsWFghoPXM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYOllO4yM1o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFw5_9JdQ14

http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/9070

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFdwgpVCQQw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-0BhD6gebY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouNxYtCL32s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyMlwv1pBKk

In this unprecedented special report from DurhamAgainstFluoride.com, we officially launch our investigation to discover just what exactly the City of Durham has been doing to our tap water.

With the ongoing fracking controversy, recent chemical spill in West Virginia & now the third largest coal ash spill in North Carolina history, water quality concerns should be top of mind for every American citizen in 2014.

That is why we decided to use some of the donations our effort has accumulated to commission an independent analysis of the residual sludge left after more than 7 months of distilling the city of Durham’s municipal tap water.  We are employing the National Testing Laboratories to evaluate a sample of the liquid depicted in the video above.

For more details on what this test will be trying to determine, click here.

Our special report also explains how distillation is the ultimate method of water purification, guaranteed to remove 100% of the fluoride & other toxins that are contaminating our public tap water.

Did you just learn about fluoride & want the only method guaranteed to remove it? You’ve come to the right spot.

Stay tuned on DurhamAgainstFluoride.com for updates as we receive these revealing results from the National Testing Laboratories & report on our findings.

Visit: http://www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

Friend us: http://www.facebook.com/durhamagainstfluoride

widget

Join us July 29 @ The NC Legislative Building in Raleigh, North Carolina

Since July 3, 2013 it has been exclusively featured on the front of Durham Against Fluoride that I would be appearing at the Durham City Council “Work Session,” on July 25th where I would formally appeal the Public Board of Health’s recommendation to continue medicating our public drinking water.  To make such an appearance, citizens must first register with the city 10 days in advance in order that the council have time to review the citizen’s concern and prepare a response if needed.  For the board of health’s recent egregious error of recommending the continued medicating of our water supply, 4 citizens & myself had registered properly by the due date to protest & appeal this decision before the Durham City Council.  That is until this writer received the following unsolicited mail from the agenda coordinator, Terry Capers, who works in the Durham City Manager’s office:

I am writing to inform you that our office has received your request to address the Durham City Council about water fluoridation at its Thursday, July 25th Work Session.  This topic will be discussed at a future Work Session when the Public Health Director will be presenting recommendations to the Mayor and City Council.  The future meeting date has not been identified but our office will contact you as soon as we become aware of it. 

Please be advised that this matter will not be included on the City Council’s July 25th Work Session agenda.

Feel free to contact the City Manager’s Office if you have additional questions. 

Thank you!   

Since I had never before heard of a city actually preventing a citizen from petitioning when he/she has correctly registered with the city to appear & be granted a meek 3 minutes – it just so happened I did have additional questions.  I quickly replied to Terry in an attempt to garnish some clarity on this strange process:

Terry,Thank you for this pivotal update.  I have two basic questions if this is the direction the City of Durham would like to go, and I would appreciate a response as soon as possible since it will have dire ramifications for how those of us opposed to this practice react to this decision:

1) What is the format of this to be announced work session?  Is it simply a reading of the recommendation already issued or will the ethics & science also be discussed among the council?

2) Will the citizenry be invited to participate in the discussion IE speak, ask questions, interact with those making the recommendations?  If so, what format is the City intending to permit?

Thank you for your answers

What ensued was a series of phone conversations with one Karmisha Wallace, an assistant to the Agenda Coordinator Terry Kapers, who together ostensibly “manage the agenda” for the city council work sessions.  I called in to get as much clarity about what was truly meant by this odd e-mail and why exactly the city would not allow the properly registered citizens to speak on public water fluoridation July 25th.

In summation of my multiple phone conversations, it was being asserted that the public health director, Gayle Harris, had not yet formally provided the recommendation to the City Council due to staff vacancies.  According to Gayle, these critical staff members were needed to perform the last edits & finishing touches on the recommendation before submitting to the Durham City Council.  Gayle said she had no intentions of appearing to present anything, only that she would be providing a written recommendation to the council.  This assertion is inherently hilarious, and an obviously false one, considering that the recommendation was formally issued on their own website June 14, here:

DURHAM, N.C. – After nearly ten months of study, the Durham County Board of Health voted unanimously Thursday evening to accept the recommendation of a water fluoridation ad hoc committee, chaired by Dr. F. Vincent Allison, to continue the fluoridation of Durham’s drinking water supply at current levels.

This recommendation is deemed effective for prevention of tooth decay and for promotion of good oral health by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (US-DHHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The issue originally came before the Board of Health in August 2012; after Durham City Council asked the board to investigate its merits, in order to address complaints made by a citizen of Durham that fluoride is harmful to our health and therefore fluoridation of drinking water should be discontinued.

Why it has taken more than a month for Gayle Harris and her public health fiefdom to e-mail this link to the city council members is a rhetorical question who’s answer should be obvious to anyone who is not cripplingly naive. It is ludicrous to suggest that the City Council is not aware of this subject or the details of the recommendation made by their own ad-hoc committee since I am not even an employee of the government & I was aware of it a full month before I was informed by the bluffing city manager’s office that the City Council has not yet been told.

I say so vehementaly due to the irrefutable fact that electronic communications is ubiquitous among these bureaucrats and therefore have instantaneous access to not only their own internal communications but the obvious & numerous related articles which appeared immediately before & after the public health board made their decision:

June 12, 2013: Fight against fluoride in water comes to Orange and Durham counties

June 13, 2013: OWASA (and Durham) Vote to Continue Water Fluoridation

Around the same time, my letter to the editor was published in the Herald Sun, in response to Gary Slade’s fallacious statements on this local controversy:

July 1, 2013: Fluoride, A Drug Illegally Added To Our Water

Given this context it became immediately apparent to me that this was just an effort to dissuade me and the other activists from appearing and making this whole government-theater look silly which we inevitably would do.  So I challenged Terry Caper’s e-mail by requesting to appear, despite the fact that it was not officially on the agenda, a message best described in its own words:

Terry,

I do not plan to wait for the public health director to formally present this recommendation to the mayor and city council, as these recommendations have already been publicly distributed and published on the county website.

If water fluoridation is not an agenda item tomorrow, that is ok, I would still like to speak at the council tomorrow.

Can you confirm that I will be acknowledged and allowed my time at the podium?

Thank you,

Corey

What happens next should alarm every single man woman and child in the City of Durham, as it clearly demonstrates that William Bell has apparently been declared King, King of Durham – and has the power to flip on or off the free speech of the citizens:

Hi Corey,

Tomorrow’s City Council Work Session agenda has been established and water fluoridation is not included.  It is up to the Mayor to permit individuals to speak at Council meetings, so I’m unable to confirm speakers.

I understand you spoke with Karmisha Wallace yesterday and I should let you know that Mrs. Wallace and I both work in the City Manager’s Office and on managing the City Council meeting agendas.

Have a good afternoon!

Undeterred & banking on the off-chance that the City Council would actually demonstrate some quantity of integrity, I appeared and prepared to speak exposing in 3 minutes or less why the public hearing which Durham worked so hard to produce was a total fraud & red herring.  After sitting silently for more than 1 hour, I realized that not me or any one else who signed up to appear would be called.  I subsequently left, resolving to expose this would-be King Bill Bell as soon as possible.

Incidentally, the recommendation I intended to appeal was made based on the hearing which Public Health Director Gayle Harris had me removed from, thanks to the efforts of a Durham Sherrif’s deputy, for exposing the fact that Durham medicates our water supply with a corrosive industrial byproduct called Hydrofluorosilicic Acid  – a powerful neurotoxin & carcinogen.

Like all of the government’s recent pathetic & despicable behaviors we have exposed, the idea of King of Durham William Bell having the power to permit or not permit, as he sees fit, the citizens of Durham from petitioning their government is a peak example how debased & corrupt our society has become.  To suggest that Mr. Bell has the god-like power to stifle the truth & our voice on a whim, for the sake of delaying the inevitable dirty truth about water fluoridation ever coming out, is a funny suggestion that I will soon destroy with gusto. 

For starters, I will be appearing tomorrow at the Moral Monday protests to expose fluoride & will be handing out literature. I will be carrying this – so look out for me!!

IMG_9993Join us July 29 @ The NC Legislative Building in Raleigh, North Carolina

Thanks to a new understanding of water filtration techniques, I have created a brand new page on the top menu bar of DurhamAgainstFluoride which is designed to educate & enable you to protect yourself against the harmful chemicals and medications deliberately added to your municipal tap water.

It is also a very easy and seamless way for you to support my effort to expose the bureaucrats who toxify our water in the first place, since you are able to purchase a home water distiller here which will also contribute $49.00 to our cause and will thus help us pay for this website, flyers and other material to help raise awareness on public water fluoridation.

Check it out today! – “How to Remove Fluoride”

PaulRevere

Alex Jones’ Infowars.com Paul Revere Contest began at the beginning of 2013 to inspire liberty-oriented individuals to produce a short film on the state of our world and the state of freedom, to be considered for a potential $115,000 in prizes!  It was soon thereafter I began working with other activists in Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill to create our entry which was entitled “21st Century Dawes Project” and followed retrospectively the efforts of myself and others in the area to raise awareness on the mass medication of our public water supplies by the bureaucratic & academic “elite” who have convinced generations of people that it is in their best interest to drink an industrial toxic waste – one that is destroying our minds & bodies systematically.

Support Us – Rate & Comment on

“21st Century Dawes Project”

After much hard work the Infowars Paul Revere Contest is now LIVE where our entry is featured.  Please support Durham Against Fluoride, Greater Raleigh Resistance, Fluoride Free Chapel Hill and in general – FREEDOM – by visiting the contest page and commenting/rating our entry.

  • Finalists announced July 17th
  • 3rd place announced July 22nd
  • 2nd place announced July 25th
  • GRAND PRIZE announced July 29th

Support Us – Rate & Comment on

“21st Century Dawes Project”

"City of Medicated Drinking Water"

“City of Medicated Drinking Water”

If you wish to speak at City Council – You MUST register by July 15. 

Click Here to Register NOW!

JOIN THE FACEBOOK EVENT

On July 25, 2013 I will be appearing at the Durham City Council “Citizen Matters” period where I will formally appeal the Durham Public Health Board’s recent recommendation that the city continue drugging the public drinking water with a harmful neurotoxin called hydrofluorosilicic acid.

The board’s recommendation was made after the City government executed a coordinated plan to indoctrinate & bewilder the Durham Public Health Board on the basic realities of public water fluoridation; a plan that was hatched by the powers that be in response to my 2012 formal request for the evidence which substantiated the City of Durham’s fraudulent claim that adding hydrofluorosilicic acid to our drinking water somehow prevents tooth decay.  Unsurprisingly it has been 1.5 years since this request was made and the citizens of Durham have been presented with not a single such document.  Indeed I am convinced this is because no such documents exist or have ever existed,  as public water fluoridation is a complete fraud & crime against humanity that must stop immediately.

Instead, the citizens paid with their own tax dollars for a mock hearing this past March where only pro-fluoridationists that were or are currently affiliated with the government itself appeared. Their testimony presented a consortium of wholly unsubstantiated & fallacious opinions on why YOU should be forcibly medicated with a highly corrosive neurotoxin throughout your lifetime, leaving us still with no scientific evidence whatsoever that this practice is safe or effective –only carefully scripted hot air from the board of health!

This phenomenon is explored exhaustively in the retrospective documentary entitled “21st Century Dawes Project” which I highly recommend:

The key takeaway however is that this mock hearing was orchestrated for numerous reasons, the most important of all to create the illusion that the City were giving honest consideration to the evidence provided to them which shows clearly that ingestion of fluorides over time can lower your intelligence quotient, ossify your ligaments, calcify your arteries, and put you at risk to arthritis and other bone density disorders.

It was therefore lucid to this writer from the very beginning of this so-called “public debate” that the entire event was an utter fabrication by the city government, later made self evident by the fact that no public questions were allowed, not one critical question was ever asked during the hearing & the alleged ‘experts’ invited to testify could not even correctly identify in all of their disquisition what chemical is actually used to medicate the water supply! I thought how could this be when I did so easily by calling Water Management months earlier and retrieving their own documents that say exactly this?!

I concluded that the Government wouldn’t identify it as a part of the public hearing because doing so would expose the fact that they are using commercial grade toxic waste from the phosphate fertilizer & aluminum industries which is highly corrosive, toxic when consumed, and illegal to medicate our water with.

It should come as no surprise then that when I pointed this out to them, a sheriff deputy had me removed from the building:

The ironic fact is that the board of health’s self professed “due diligence” was based solely on the red herrings presented by a troupe of  clowns who thought they could mislead this writer and everyone else on the factual realities of fluoridation, a mistake that they will eventually pay for dearly.

That the Durham BOH recommended we continue drugging our drinking water in the face of the very serious facts presented to them only demonstrates their complicity and total negligence!  Since they have been made aware of the harm being done, it also demonstrates their active criminality by continuing the illegal behavior which has been pointed out to them.  It is for this reason that I will appear July 25th to inform these people that I see their lies, and will not stand for it!

Beyond this experience I have truly come to realize what we are up against when it comes to social change;  A government who has developed a compartmentalized system of interlocking bureaucracies that cooperate with each other in harmony with academia & propaganda, only  to maintain the dreaded status quo.  So one might ask why I continue to appear before an inherently corrupt system, one constructed only to perpetuate & congratulate itself, if we should not ever expect said system to respond rationally to our pleas?

I persist because even the inherently corrupt system is composed of inherently good human beings who individually must process the words spoken during public comment.  A timely and inspired speech that identifies an axiomatic truth which exposes the corruption will always and with great prejudice resonate on some level with the souls in a dark system who yearn for the light of understanding.

Over time, persistence in this way will eventually change the hearts and minds of those individuals and when enough do – the collective consciousness will shift to embrace the new, enlightened perspective instead of repeating the old tired propaganda of times past.

But if those who know the truth do nothing, what will happen?  The status quo will be maintained, or worse…expanded.

What does the status quo mean for you and your family?

If we do not act immediately, your family can look forward to a future where the few decide to help you help yourself  by pouring medicine into your drinking water that they, a comparatively small group of nobodies, decide are good for you. Of course you have no choice in this matter since government makes it abundantly clear you are wholly incapable of taking care of your own health.  In addition to being a crime, fluoridation has already been proven a disastrous experiment in socialized medicine that is deleterious to everyone’s health and undoubtedly one of the most significant medicinal frauds of the last 100 years.

If we continue to allow this government bureaucracy decide for us what medicines we take, through our public drinking water no less, then we leave ourselves open to infinite usurpation of our freedom since we have already surrendered the most sacred thing, our very own bodies,  to the onion of deception & subversion known as corporate government.  One only has to use their imagination to understand where our out-of-control government may take us next, if they already have adopted the role of healthcare providers by standing over our drinking water and dumping ‘medicine’ into it without our consent.  To illustrate this point please read the following New York Times article which optimistically considers the prospect of municipalities adding LITHIUM to the water supply as a means to mitigate “mood swings.”

If you find these crimes offensive in any way, then please consider joining me July 25, 2013 at the Durham City Council to appeal the fallacious statement that the city have reviewed all the evidence and deem water fluoridation a “safe and effective” policy to be continued in perpetuity.

If you wish to speak at City Council – You MUST register by July 15.

Click Here to Register NOW!

JOIN THE FACEBOOK EVENT

July 25, 2013 @ 1:00 PM:

Subject: On Gary Slade & Fluoride

Dear Mark Schultz,

This letter is in response to the recent article penned under your guidance as News and Observer Editor entitled “OWASA will continue fluoridating water in southern Orange County.”

Specifically I am rebutting Dr. Gary Slade, who serves as professor and director of the Oral Epidemiology Ph.D. program at the UNC School of Dentistry.  Gary was quoted in the aforementioned article alongside myself, making the most blatantly fallacious comments about the reality of this issue that reading them literally took my breath away.

In talking with the article’s author, Dr. Slade said the following which printed in your publication June 18:

Gary Slade

“If Orange County was to remove fluoride from the drinking water, that would mean that a bunch of people would have no choice in a certain aspect of their health because it’s pretty much impossible to buy bottled fluoridated water,”

This was breathtaking because never before had I considered that I would hear a pro-fluoride argument using the same ethical logic as an anti-fluoride argument.  How Slade was able to confuse and flip-flop the moral high-ground on this issue I am unsure, but I would bet money that his employer UNC has a few ethics 101 courses he could take which would point this out to him.

In case extracurricular learning does not fit into Slade’s schedule allow me, an amateur academic by comparison, explain;
  1. The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill first began medicating the water supply with fluoride in Orange County by fiat in approximately 1964.
  2. In 1977, the bureaucratic Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) was formed and given control of our public water supply.  They stubbornly continue pouring medicine into our water up to present day.
  3. Fluoridation as a policy originated in the US Public Health “Service,” an arm of the Federal Security Agency who’s head at the time was Oscar Ewing, an ex-lawyer for the Aluminum Company of America
  4. In 1953 Oscar Ewing retired to Chapel Hill and helped set up the Research Triangle Corporation
  5. The Research Triangle Corporation gives money to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  6. One should wonder what influence Oscar Ewing had within the public health department of UNC who first began fluoridating Orange County’s water
  7. In reality, the people living in OWASA’s public water district never had a choice about this –  especially those born after the practice began
  8. To assert that the cessation of water fluoridation, which was decided by none of us, is “removing choice” is simply logic that is absolutely dead-on-arrival.

Fluoride is an additive costing taxpayers in excess of $100,000/year.  It is added by the government without the consent of the governed; why does Gary pretend it is anything less?  If the city government & overzealous quacks like Slade were not so intent on medicating our drinking water, it would only contain trace levels of Calcium Fluoride, depending on geography, which is completely different than the fertilizer waste product hydrofluorosilicic acid purchased and administered by OWASA to drug all of Chapel Hill.

By the way, most of this information can be gleaned from OWASA’s own documents, made publicly available on their website.

Since fluoridation is a public policy done to us, the citizens, one who becomes aware of the water “treatment” can only ask questions after the fact.  If those questions lead you to doubt the efficacy of public water fluoridation, what are your choices? This is a key question Slade completely fails to ask himself since the answer is yet again, the opposite of the reality he is trying to project.

Why can’t Slade acknowledge that one could easily add fluoride to their non-medicated tap water if they wanted to?  Like all medicine doesn’t this make the most sense? Slade also makes the wrong assumption that he and the government are the ultimate authority on what is healthy or not,  shouldn’t that be left to the individual to decide?    Gary implies in his statement that we all consent and agree to the stated benefits of fluoridation, when it is abundantly clear that we do not!

Slade and others of his ilk believe this is not a decision you are able to make for yourself, he would rather the government make that decision for you.   This is stunning for a doctor to admit in such a public manner, since an ethical doctor would uphold the right of all individuals to consent to what medicine is (or is not) added to their own drinking water.

Slade’s health claims regarding fluoride only further confirm my assertion that fluoride is a drug and therefore illegally added to our drinking water.  How does Slade reconcile that it has its own national drug code # 68032-383, is regulated by the FDA, and requires a prescription for dosages lower than the dose administered by OWASA per 1 liter of Orange County Public Water? Doesn’t Slade know it’s against the law to administer medicine without a proper license?  Slade’s lack of knowledge on these most basic realities of the issue are exposed even further when he expands on the ridiculous notion that finding fluoridated bottled water would be “pretty much impossible” and the apparent main concern of OWASA customers, should they suddenly discover that OWASA stopped medicating their water supply.
He said later,
“Someone can currently buy bottled water without fluoride, or they can put a filter on that is able to remove fluoride. If fluoride is taken out of the water, the opposite does not apply.”

This type of logic is typical of tyrannical government servants and medical “authorities” who believe freedom of choice means one of two things;

  • you are free to remove the medicine they forcefully add to the public water
  • free to purchase bottled water without fluoride

Does that sound like a free choice to you?  None of these options are “free,” especially in consideration of the below:

1) It is incredibly easy to find bottled water that is fluoridated already. Is Slade not aware that most bottled water originates from municipal water sources which  in the United States, are fluoridated more than 80% of the time?

By contrast it is actually much harder to find truly non-fluoridated bottled water. Further to my point – many companies strangely advertise the addition of fluoride to their bottled water. You may have seen this at grocery stores called “Nursey Water.”  It is marketed to unsuspecting mothers- a fact I find incredibly disturbing.  For Slade to suggest that fluoridated bottled water is even close to impossible to find is generously speaking, ignorant hyperbole.

"Nursey Water" Creepy!

“Nursey Water” …”Since 1948!

To illustrate this here is a list of major bottled water brands who admit fluoride is added to their product, a fact you would not be able to discern by looking at their bottle alone:

Source: BottledWater.org

  • Alhambra
  • Arrowhead
  • Belmont Springs
  • Crystal Rock
  • Crystal Springs
  • Deer Park
  • Diamond Springs
  • Hinkley Springs
  • Ice Mountain
  • Kandiohi
  • Kentwood Springs
  • Mayer Bros.
  • Mount Olympus
  • Nursery Water
  • Ozarka
  • Poland Spring
  • Pure Flo
  • Puritan Springs
  • Shenandoah
  • Sierra Springs
  • Sparkletts
  • Zephyrhillis

2)  It is cost prohibitive to filter out the medicine added to your tap water which in a painfully ironic way, ends up hurting worst the same class of citizens public health do-gooders are claiming to help.  I know this myself, since I have had to spend more than $400 on equipment required to remove the medicine and contaminants lovingly added by Durham, a cost many would not bear.

The frustrating thing about fluorosilicic acid is that a cheap Britta filter will not remove it whatsoever, which makes access to the correct filters legitimately impossible for some. The only way I have discovered over the long term to remove FSA from my tap water is with steam distillation, a time & energy consuming process that removes the water from heavier elements contained in the tap water.  Unfortunately, distillation still does not even solve the problem of  showering in the highly corrosive hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is absorbed through your skin & accumulates in your bones over time.

It should be lucid by now, but these are not options. The citizens pay for and have the right to a public utility, water, without medication being added to it by force.  How this is not evident to a professed doctor, Gary Slade, is something I hope he will be able to explain after reading this.

In closing I would just like to say that since becoming an anti-fluoride activist it has been a most curious phenomenon to witness – that many of the most rabid pro water fluoridationists like Slade are dentists, even though one might expect that if fluoride worked as claimed it would put them out of business. With this in mind it was no surprise to me that Gary Slade, a dentist who teaches public health at the UNC school of dentistry, was published promoting the forced medication of all of Chapel Hill.  At least in Orange County it is the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Slade’s employer, the citizens have to thank for their medicated tap water in the first place.

Hopefully this adds some valuable color to Slade’s comments which will help your readership understand their illogicality and offensively spurious nature.

Sincerely Yours,

Corey Sturmer

http://www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

Contact GARY SLADE Today

Dr. Gary Slade
Department of Dental Ecology
UNC School of Dentistry
CB# 7450
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7450

Telephone: (919) 843-0419
Fax: (919) 843-1170
Email: gary_slade@dentistry.unc.edu

Source: News & Observer

By Jane Porter — jporter@newsobserver.com

A practice that most North Carolinians do without thinking much about it – drinking fluoridated water from local systems – has become a controversial topic in parts of the Triangle.

On Thursday, the Orange County Water and Sewer Authority will hear petitions from citizens who want the county to stop fluoridating public water. And in Durham on Thursday, Board of Health directors will hear from a subcommittee that was asked to look into the issue.

Fluoride opponents point to a book, “The Case Against Fluoride,” to support their argument that fluoridating drinking water amounts to adding hazardous waste to the public water supply. They say fluoride is potentially hazardous to human health and is not as beneficial in preventing tooth decay as once thought.

Nearly 90 percent of North Carolina residents who drink from local water systems drink fluoridated water. It has been standard practice in most North Carolina counties for 50 years.

But after some Durham residents complained, the county’s Board of Health assembled a subcommittee in March “to evaluate the addition of fluoride to city drinking water and come back with a recommendation,” said Vicki Westbrook, the city’s assistant director of water management. The board is expected to hear the subcommittee’s recommendation at a meeting Thursday.

Corey Sturmer, a Durham citizen who opposes water fluoridation practices, said he and other activists have been unsuccessful in bringing the issue to the attention of Raleigh officials.

“Raleigh, unfortunately, has been provided with copious amounts of scientific data, repeated appearances by myself and other citizens and even notifications that what they are doing breaks current state and federal drug laws,” Sturmer said.

Efforts to reach Raleigh’s assistant director of public utilities were unsuccessful, but a page on the City of Raleigh website indicates its continued support of current fluoridation practices.

Continue Reading @ News & Observer…