Posts Tagged ‘board’

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

Advertisements

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

Source: NSNBC International

Jane Nielson, Ph.D (nsnbc) : Steering Committee Member, Sonoma County Water Coalition Board member, Open-space, Water, and Land Preservation Foundation (O.W.L.) I was in the middle of my education as a scientist when I first encountered the fluoridation controversy. I was getting a Masters in Geochemistry from the University of Michigan, and I attended a heated City Council meeting in Flagstaff, Arizona. By the end of that meeting I was convinced opponents of water fluoridation were conspiracy-minded loonies.

For decades I never thought much about fluoridation. I believed the doctors who said fluoride prevented tooth decay, so I gave my two children fluoride drops when they were infants. It wasn’t until the Sonoma County Water Coalition hosted a debate in 2009 that I became aware of different information about water fluoridation. Like that memorable Flagstaff meeting, I thought I’d hear “science” from supporters and “crazy stuff” from opponents. But neither side presented any science at all.

What the Studies Show

Exasperated, I started researching for myself. This was familiar terrain: I had published many papers, so I know what it takes to prove a point

Dental Fluorosis

Dental Fluorosis

scientifically, and the data required to get a paper published. I had performed analyses, plotted data and defended my research and interpretations in public forums. I quickly found World Heath Organization data that stunned me:

  • Tooth decay has plummeted in developed countries worldwide, regardless of fluoridation.
  • Cavity rates are the same — or even lower – in many non-fluoridated countries compared to the U.S.
  • The one clear correlation with water fluoridation is disfiguring “dental fluorosis” (supposedly only a cosmetic problem.)

I then proceeded to review a range of scientific papers, including all the most recent research on actual and potential effects of water fluoridation. In study after study I found that differences in tooth decay rates between areas that have fluoridated water supplies for decades, and those that either never fluoridated or stopped fluoridating, were minimal to nonexistent.

Key U.S. studies confirm that ingesting fluoride does not prevent tooth decay:

  • 1990 National Institute of Dental Research Survey: One of the largest U.S. surveys of tooth decay found no significant difference in tooth decay (less than ½ of 1% of the 128 tooth surfaces in the mouth ) between fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations.
  • Several modern U.S. Studies (1997-2001): Tooth decay did not go up when fluoridation was stopped.
  • The 2009 National Institutes of Health-funded “Iowa Study”: Cavity levels the same regardless of whether children ingested fluoride or not.

Apply It or Swallow It?

In recent years the differentiation between swallowing fluoride and coating teeth with it has become lost in the discussion. But this differentiation is essential. The overwhelming consensus among scientists, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Research Council, is that fluoride works when it’s applied to the tooth surface, NOT when it’s swallowed.

Sonoma County Has provided No Scientific Support for Fluoridation

In 2013, County Health officials provided the Sonoma County Water Coalition with a single study in support of fluoridation by Australian scientists who reviewed worldwide fluoridation studies written in English. But that study is flawed because it failed to compare fluoridated versus non-fluoridated populations, lacked a cavity prevention assessment, and showed an extremely weak correlation insufficient to prove cause-and-effect. Thus far the County has not offered any more definitive data to support its campaign.

How Did the U.S. Get Sold on Water Fluoridation?

In analyzing early research, it’s clear that the U.S. promoted the spread of water fluoridation before completing definitive studies. I’ve met with this practice of promoting innovations that later prove to have negative public health impacts over and over again in< my scientific career. After the debate, I realized that without solid science to back it up, fluoridation could well represent the same dynamic. And now, having examined the research myself, I’ve concluded that water fluoridation is indeed an echo of past mistakes. Improving children’s dental health is a worthy goal. But before Sonoma County considers water fluoridation, the public must demand the County first prove that it works.

Jane Nielson, Ph.D

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

Editor’s Note:  I want to share this blurb with you from Time Magazine’s online publication, because it confirms two key points I have maintained since I created 100274-56268-ralph-wiggum_largedurhamagainstfluoride.com, however not been adequately refuted by the bureaucracy responsible for fluoridating our water here in Durham North Carolina.

Namely;

  1. That fluoride (especially in the form Hydrofluorosilicic acid) is an “industrial chemical” and,
  2. That drinking fluoride has the material affect of lowering your intelligence quotient

As you read this casual confirmation in a mainstream publication, just remember that our city website tacitly admits to adding one of the below named IQ stultifying industrial chemicals to your water.   Here is a video of the actual tank which pours this corrosive compound into our drinking water:

Source: Time Health & Family

A new report finds the number of chemicals contributing to brain disorders in children has doubled since 2006

By Alice Parker 2/14/2014

In recent years, the prevalence of developmental disorders such as autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia have soared. While greater awareness and more sophisticated diagnoses are partly responsible for the rise, researchers say the changing environment in which youngsters grow up may also be playing a role.

In 2006, scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai identified five industrial chemicals responsible for causing harm to the brain — lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (found in electric transformers, motors and capacitors), arsenic (found in soil and water as well as in wood preservatives and pesticides) and toluene (used in processing gasoline as well as in paint thinner, fingernail polish and leather tanning). Exposure to these neurotoxins was associated with changes in neuron development in the fetus as well as among infants, and with lower school performance, delinquent behavior, neurological abnormalities and reduced IQ in school-age children.

(MORE: A Link Between Pesticides and Attention Disorders?)

Now the same researchers have reviewed the literature and found six additional industrial chemicals that can hamper normal brain development. These are manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Manganese, they say, is found in drinking water and can contribute to lower math scores and heightened hyperactivity, while exposure to high levels of fluoride from drinking water can contribute to a seven-point drop in IQ on average. The remaining chemicals, which are found in solvents and pesticides, have been linked to deficits in social development and increased aggressive behaviors.

The research team acknowledges that there isn’t a causal connection between exposure to any single chemical and behavioral or neurological problems — it’s too challenging to isolate the effects of each chemical to come to such conclusions. But they say the growing body of research that is finding links between higher levels of these chemicals in expectant mothers’ blood and urine and brain disorders in their children should raise alarms about how damaging these chemicals can be. The developing brain in particular, they say, is vulnerable to the effects of these chemicals, and in many cases, the changes they trigger are permanent.

“The consequence of such brain damage is impaired [central nervous system] function that lasts a lifetime and might result in reduced intelligence, as expressed in terms of lost IQ points, or disruption in behavior,” they write in their report, which was published in the journal Lancet Neurology.

They point to two barriers to protecting children from such exposures — not enough testing of industrial chemicals and their potential effect on brain development before they are put into widespread use, and the enormous amount of proof that regulatory agencies require in order to put restrictions or limitations on chemicals. Most control of such substances, they note, occurs after negative effects are found among adults; in children, the damage may be more subtle, in the form of lower IQ scores or hyperactivity, that might not be considered pathological or dangerous. “Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries,” they write. “A new framework of action is needed.”

Preface

Charlee Eades was likely the only individual besides myself who was in attendance during the March 2013 Durham board of health hearing who was not paid or affiliated with the state and city government.  Therefore her eyewitness account to what happened that day remains crucial evidence as to  what deceptions & techniques were used by the government to disseminate false information among the Durham County Board of Health in order to mire their critical thinking and produce the current recommendation to continue drugging the City of Durham’s public drinking water.

Since she can not attend the city council work session tomorrow, where this fallacious recommendation will be officially rendered by Gayle Harris to the Durham City council, she has penned her own appeal, published below, and I will hand deliver it tomorrow.  It is an important and worthwhile account from a different perspective than my own which should be seriously considered when trying to understand how it is that the Powers That Be continue to indoctrinate the agents of our government to keep poisoning all of our public water resources.

My Appeal of the Board Of Health’s Recommendation to Continue Medicating Durham’s Water

Mr. Bell & Durham City Council members,

I am writing you because I am unable to attend Thursday’s public meeting due to work obligations, but want to issue my full support of the appeal of the Durham Public Health Board’s recommendation to continue the practice of water fluoridation.

I have personally attended numerous “DPHB” board meetings over the past year and the March 2013 Ad Hoc “expert panel review” where I witnessed an unfair and rather extreme bias towards pro-fluoridation. It is bothersome to me that my avenue to address what I consider to be a very serious health concern is handled with clear cognitive bias. As I am sure you are aware, this meeting was held with the pretense that no public comment would be allowed & if one was to speak out of turn, a police officer was positioned in the room to escort any such citizens out of the building. Video Evidence Below:

With the blatant and reprehensible threat to the First Amendment aside, I am writing specifically to make you aware that the panel of 5 experts in fields related to the fluoride issue (only 4 were present to comment) pledged, unabashedly, in favor of fluoridation.

Each of these experts were either employed by or provide direct consultation to the state of North Carolina and the City of Durham.  This is especially problematic because there was no one present or rather, no one present who was allowed to speak, that could provide an independent or alternative viewpoint, which at the very least, would tip this purported “review” out of the territory of being painfully biased.

Furthermore, panel expert Amy Keyworth, a Hydrogeologist, answered questions from the DPHB with research regarding water exclusively collected & studied for the NC Private Well Program.  I find this odd considering this is a public policy directly affecting the public water supply.  Why would statistics on the private well program illustrate any meaningful data for the DPHB to consider? The testimony delivered by Mrs. Keyworth is moot for it’s complete lack of relativity to the debate.  However, because no expert was present to debate and give credibility to the facts presented at this meeting, many opinions went unsubstantiated.

For example, in response to a question fielded by Board Member & Ad Hoc Committee Chair Dr. F. Vincent Allison, DDS regarding the form or source of fluoride used by Durham in its public water supply, Mrs. Keyworth stated clearly that naturally occurring “fluoride” was used. This is patently false and you must certainly agree as this information is sourced directly from Durham’s Department of Water Management. Durham actually purchases hydrofluorsilicic acid from PENCCO chemical company, and this is stated on your own website! More concerning was that seated beside Amy Keyworth was Vicki Westbrook, Assistant Director of Durham Water Management, who never corrected Amy’s fallacious statement. I would hope she knows the precise chemicals purchased with public money to use for public consumption, since it is a highly corrosive material requiring increased safety regulations, and especially given that Ms. Westbrook was present this day as an expert to clarify and verify matters regarding the Water treatment standards and procedures.

In the absence of facts, a citizen, Corey Sturmer, thought it was pertinent to correct Mrs. Keyworth as this is information critical to the DPHB in its review of the fluoridation policy which it intended to further recommend to the City Council.  Mr. Sturmer was met with several gavel knocks and a swift escort from the room & ultimately the building, for correcting an “expert” who was delivering obvious disinformation to the DPHB.

I remained in the room following this disturbing display of supremacy and was disappointed to see the deterioration of the discussion from science and ethics based to outright slander of so-called “alternative viewpoints” or as “expert” Dr. Rebecca King so eloquently put it “You know you can’t believe everything you read on the internet.”

If only I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that phrase to “debunk” or detract from a legitimate argument.

This poor attempt to dismiss all research hosted online, because it may serve to shape the debate against this policy, is a relic of the technologically illiterate. If we apply this sentiment evenly, then the information displayed on Durham’s own municipal or governmental sites could be deemed invalid as a proper source.

It is simply unacceptable that Durham believes a one-sided debate will deliver the satisfactory “due diligence” review, as announced by Mr. James Miller at the beginning of the panel, mind you only moments before telling everyone that those who “spoke out of turn” would be escorted away by a policeman, like a criminal.

This is not elementary school or reformatory school, this is my life and my body being discussed and I implore my elected and un-elected officials to take these matters seriously, not for themselves, but for the public good.

An appeal of the DPHB ‘s recommendation is necessary to ensure all relative viewpoints are represented and that all opinions are counter-weighted.   Two members of the panel were dentists with backgrounds in both pediatrics & public health, but no one was there to speak to the effects on the human body comprehensively. Is it not remiss to believe the fluoride we consume only touches our teeth before being swallowed- when it is in fact absorbed by your bones & organs?

Dr. Timothy Wright said that the Harvard studies showing a decrease in IQ among grade-school age children who ingested fluoride in China [Harvard, 2012] did not “pan out.” No specific reasons were ever stated as to why these studies failed to “pan out” but also no Board Member pushed Mr. Wright for clarification or more information whatsoever. The Harvard study was completely dismissed from that moment on, as were other studies that found negative side effects to water fluoridation. Those others, Wright vaguely said, “didn’t pan out” either.

I have to tell you that the reason I ultimately excused myself from this meeting was due to comments made by Dr. Rebecca King in response to a question from Dr. Nancy Short, DrPH, MBA, RN, on how to “Deal” with citizens who do not support the practice of medicating people against their will. Dr. King scoffed “Good Luck” and stated “these people will never be satisfied because they will always have something to complain about” and “bad information” from various “internet sources” to support it. King was dismissive of all information she deemed “alternative,” “independent,” or not in concurrence with the ADA, CDC or the NC Board of Public Health, despite never providing a specific “bad” source.  This sweeping disrespect of citizen’s who seek change in public health policy was so offensive to me that I left.

On top of demonstrating a clear cognitive bias towards the practice of fluoridating unsuspecting citizens, despite recent and developing research to the contrary, it is also important to highlight that the city has no issue stifling the public from voicing complaints, enforcing dejection from public meetings due to free speech no less and outright disrespect of its citizens with a “majority rule” mentality.

In all of the meetings that I have attended, never have I once witnessed a discussion about the cost of mass fluoridation compared to the cost of toothpaste and toothbrush for those in dire need. If money is to be spent, it should be spent wisely and with the health of the populace at the forefront of your minds. Durham City Council and the DPHB has displayed thus far a blatant disregard for all citizen complaints and has instead supported a biased review of the available information, all while failing to even discuss the financials.

I pledge support to Mr. Sturmer’s Appeal of the DPHB recommendation to continue this unethical practice. The Durham City Council has an obligation its to citizens to conduct sound & unbiased reviews of its practices and to ensure that such reviews are welcoming to public debate, as should be mandated.  It is simply impossible to condense an argument against a policy of this nature and magnitude into 3 minutes for you, our civil servants, to digest and scrutinize. What a shame it would be in years to come to find out that the IQs of the children in Durham have decreased just as those in China and could have been avoided had fluoride been applied only topically, as it is intended, and not via the public water supply. Will you think back to the pesky citizens who warned you and wonder why did we not avoid it all together? That’s only a hypothetical though- what about for all of the mothers who use Durham’s water to mix with their baby’s formula? Should they not at the very least be warned that the CDC has found the levels of “optimal” fluoride currently maintained in Durham will directly increase the child’s risk of dental fluorosis (mottling of tooth enamel)? This information could have been communicated to the Durham Public Health Board during its review of the practice had they allowed citizens to speak without fear of dejection by an officer of the law.

I thank you for your time and for your consideration to this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

Charlee G. Eades

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…