Posts Tagged ‘lead’

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

By Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director, Fluoride Action Network

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to their denial of our petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) seeking a ban on water fluoridation.

We believe this lawsuit is an unprecedented opportunity to end the practice once and for all in the U.S., and potentially throughout the world, based on the well-documented neurotoxicity of fluoride. You may read the official complaint here. According to FAN’s attorney and adviser, Michael Connett:

“This case will present the first time a court will consider the neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

And, in contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’ — meaning federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence without deference to the EPA’s judgment.”

Industry, legal and environmental observers following the EPA’s implementation of the new TSCA law have pointed out that a lawsuit1challenging the EPA’s denial of our petition would provide a test case for the agency’s interpretation that petitioners must provide a comprehensive analysis of all uses of a chemical in order to seek a restriction on a particular use.

Legal experts have suggested the EPA’s interpretation essentially makes the requirements for gaining Agency action using section 21 petitions impossible to meet, making the outcome significant for all U.S. residents and public health or environmental watchdog groups.

Lawsuit Background: EPA Served With Citizen’s Petition

On November 22, 2016, a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and several individual mothers, filed a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

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

We presented the FDA with a large body of human and animal evidence demonstrating that fluoride is a neurotoxin at levels now ingested by many U.S. children and vulnerable populations. We also presented the agency with evidence showing that fluoride has little benefit when swallowed and, accordingly, any risks from exposing people to fluoride chemicals in water are unnecessary.

We believe an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk. On February 27, 2017, the EPA published their response.2 In their decision, the EPA claimed:

“The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”

As many independent scientists now recognize, fluoride is a neurotoxin.3 The question, therefore, is not if fluoride damages the brain, but at what dose. While EPA quibbles with the methodology of some of these studies, to dismiss and ignore these studies in their entirety for methodological imperfections is exceptionally cavalier, particularly given the consistency of the findings and the razor-thin margin between the doses causing harm in these studies and the doses that millions of Americans now receive.

EPA’s own Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlights the importance of having a robust margin between the doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and the doses that humans receive. FAN presented the EPA with over 180 studies showing that fluoride causes neurotoxic harm (e.g., reduced IQ), pointing out that many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or precariously close to, the levels millions of American children now receive.

Typically, this would be a cause for major concern. But, unfortunately, the EPA has consistently shied away from applying the normal rules of risk assessment to fluoride — and it has unfortunately continued that tradition with its dismissal of our petition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vigilance Still Needed

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

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

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

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

National Fluoridation Stats Show Tipping Point Has Been Reached

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

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

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

Momentum Continues to Build Thanks to Citizens Like You

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Readers,

Last month I was contacted by a fellow at the Emerging Leaders in Science and Society organization and was cordially invited to discuss the state of the public drinking water in the United States. 

Justin Lana (LinkedIn) further elaborated over a series of emails that he had stumbled upon my anti-fluoride exploits and would value my input for a water quality related project that he is working on at ELISS.  You can read much more about this in our correspondence below. 

What piqued my interest in participation and eventually lead to an hour long discussion is that Justin described the goalpost for the ELISS project being some sort of presentation to members of our water regulatory apparatus in Washington.    While I had no hope that this meeting would be any kind of silver bullet for the fluoride issue I felt Justin was open minded and could potentially influence others in this area. After some scheduling, I eventually agreed to meet Justin for lunch at a nearby Indian restaurant to candidly discuss the “current state” issues from my perspective.

For my own protection and journalistic discipline I will sometimes utilize recording devices when traveling or publicly discussing issues of national import, however do not always publish what is captured.  In this case, I felt compelled to admit after the fact that I had recorded almost our entire conversation without his knowledge and also requested publication rights.  I felt the content of the discussion was valuable enough to deserve it’s own article and what you see here is the result.

While initially hesitant, Justin revisited our discussion and bravely gave me the green light so long as I made some important disclaimers.  So that I can never be accused of skewing anyone else’s words, I am also sharing a truncated series of our email exchanges which give the most comprehensive background concerning this situation.  I hope you enjoy!

Mr. Sturmer,

I’m writing to see if you would be willing to meet with me regarding a project that I am currently apart of Drinking Water in the United States: how do we ensure a safe, sustainable, and affordable future in our communities.

I’m working on this project as part of the Emerging Leaders in Science & Society (ELISS) fellowship program. In short, ELISS is a service leadership program for graduate students hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Duke is one of five partner campuses across the USA participating for 2016. More about ELISS can be found at http://www.elissfellows.org or in the attached program flyer.

ELISS2016_H2Oflyer

Our group will be presenting an overview of Triangle specific drinking water issues to individuals involved in federal water policy in Washington D.C. in June.

Next October we will be holding a local forum to discuss the same issue and we will return to DC in December 2016 to present to national stakeholders.

Our team is divided into various roles: health, environment, economic and society.

Given your view points on fluoride and water, and active role you’ve taken in this fight and against the City of Durham, I believe that your knowledge and the voices you represent would be incredibly valuable to our project.

I would be happy to buy you coffee at a location of your choosing or to come by your office for a meeting.

If you would be willing to meet, please let me know your general availability and a convenient location to meet.

Generally I’m free Mondays (1:00 – 5), Wednesdays (12:30 – 4) and Friday (all day).

I look forward to hearing back from you. Please don’t hesitate to write or call if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Justin Lana

__________________

Hi Justin,

Next monday afternoon would probably work.

I read the pamphlet and browsed the website…Before we meet however could you help me understand what you’re looking to accomplish with the meeting? My website is a good resource of information concerning my viewpoints on the issue so I’m just wondering the purpose…

Either way, let me know some time slots that work for you…noon is best for me but if that isn’t doable I can try to make it work.

Thanks,

Corey

___________________

Hi Corey,

Monday at noon works great for me. Just let me know where, and I’ll make sure I’m there on time.

I appreciate you taking the time to read over our site and our pamphlet. To answer you question: My goal for the meeting is to speak with a concerned citizen who has had experience taking up issues with the city and garnering support for your idea. I will be sure to go over all the fluoride information provided on the website before we meet. And while I’m sure I’ll have questions pertaining to the fluoride issue, I really want to learn more about your efforts involved in fighting this issues (roadblocks, avenues of support, etc.)…to learn more about what it takes to make change and where you see your efforts leading.

I hope that makes sense. If not, please let me know.
Looking forward to the meeting!

Justin

Justin T. Lana, MSc-Global Health
PhD Student, Environment
Duke University – Nicholas School of the Environment

__________________

Hi Justin,

Ok, that sounds fine. You might be surprised at the information I have to share so hopefully you come prepared for that!

Why don’t we meet at ————————— which you can look up on Google maps, it’s not far from my office.

Thanks for having open ears,

Corey

__________________

11:30 sounds great.

I will see you then!
Really looking forward to it.
________________________
Hi Justin,
Thank you for the lunch on Monday. I really enjoyed our discussion & hope you got a lot out of it.
I wanted to follow up on a couple items that I mentioned & thought you might find useful in your efforts.

1) I mentioned a WTVD news report that features me and my efforts, very fair presentment of the issue:

2) Public Health Board Meeting ended with me thrown out by a deputy sheriff –

3) Below is an email thread with one of your Duke peers which never amounted to much…but reminded me of the “forum” you mentioned as one of the possibilities with your ELISS work.
Last but not least I wanted to make you aware that I made an audio recording of our discussion on Monday.  This is something I habitually do as a journalistic practice when I give interviews or meet with people from the media for my own legal and personal protection.   I did not inform you of this at the time because I feel that the content and character of discourse changes drastically when an individual is aware that they are being recorded, and I did not want to contaminate our interaction.
I am letting you know this now because I listened to the audio recording on my way to work this morning & felt that it would be a highly valuable contribution to the fluoridation discussion if it were made available online.  Out of courtesy I wanted to know what are your thoughts about me publishing the recording accompanied by an article about our discussion?
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Corey
_____________________

Hi Corey,

Thanks for the email. I’m glad that you found the time to meet with me. As I mentioned on Monday, I knew your perspective would be much different than what I’ve encountered so far.
I will check out these links shortly (I’m finishing up with finals this week). I’ve read through your “conversation” with Jennifer Alspach, it’s unfortunate that nothing worked out. I’m not sure who she is or what group she was with, but it sure would have been interesting to see an actual debate take place over the issue of fluoridation.
Corey, I appreciate your informing me that our conversation was recorded; however, I don’t feel comfortable with it shared publicly at this time.
Please let me know if you have any questions. I hope you have a great time in S. Africa and the UAE. I will keep you posted on what I learn moving forward, our local forum, etc.
Thank you
Justin
_____________________

Hi Justin,

I forgot to add the video of me attending the water plant. The superintendent actually gave me a tour of the whole plant but the only piece I was interested in for my purposes was the fluoridation facility.  As mentioned he says casually that it is highly corrosive.

Corey visit Fluoridation Station:

Fluoride Spill in Illinois eats through concrete:

While I’m disappointed that you aren’t comfortable with the publication of our discussion I understand and will respect that.  I want to provide you an opportunity to revisit our discussion in case this gives you reason to change your mind. I know you’re busy but I think this is highly valuable and would be good for the public to consume. You can find the recording at the link below.

[Deleted]

I look forward to hearing about future updates on your work.

Take good care,

Corey

Hi Justin,

How are things going with your project @ ELISS? Did you get a chance to see any of my follow up items?  I was thinking about you when I was out of the country, because I noticed all the bottled water where I was had a detailed label spelling out the parts per million for several different minerals/metals and it reminded me of our discussion.

I have been playing catch up all week since I got back from South Africa & UAE. I hope you’ve been doing well.

_________________

Hi Corey,

Thank you for reaching out. I have also been out of the country (Panama) and have just started to get caught up with my work and ELISS related projects.

It was so great to get away; but coming back into ten days of disconnect from email/work is a little daunting (and I hope excuses my slow response).

ELISS is going well. We have about three weeks before our mid-year meeting in DC. I am not sure if I explained this earlier, but we’ve essentially been “scoping” drinking water issues since January. At our meeting in DC, we’ll meet with other campuses and decide what topic/issue(s)/etc. that we should focus on. I’m looking forward to hearing what the other campuses have to say about their communities as well as getting a little more direction on where we are headed.

As far as our previous discussion, I’ve gotten through the links and spent the last hour listening to our discussion. I have no problem with you posting it online, and you can keep my name attached to it if you like, but I do ask that you provide a little context in the description of where you post it. Namely 1) I’m not a water scholar or expert 2) that this was meant to be a discussion and not a formal interview 3) i was unaware of the recording during our discussion but have since agreed to its posting.

Corey, I look forward to keeping you in the loop. Keep in mind that I’ll be in the Peruvian Amazon for about ten weeks this summer, so if you don’t hear anything it doesn’t mean that I’ve forgotten about you; its just that I’m out of the loop myself or without email.

Thank you,

Justin

Justin T. Lana, MSc-Global Health
PhD Student, Environment
Duke University – Nicholas School of the Environment

www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

The above video was shot October 9, 2014.  I uploaded it the day after but did not publish it or write a follow up article because the remainder of the year was consumed by life and other, more private activism not related to Fluoridation.

However I thought it would be fitting to release it now, in lieu of a recent flurry of news reports regarding the brand new study published by the University of Kent on public water fluoridation.  If you haven’t seen – you should – the study looked at public water fluoridation as a medical intervention and its suggestively high correlation to the presence of thyroid disorders in the population.   Honestly, the study would not be so damning if we were not retrospectively evaluating the epidemiological facts 60 years AFTER Oscar Ewing, Rockefellers, ALCOA, Duke, Edward Bernays and the corporate US “PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE” did brainwash the public into loving their slow death via the sink tap.

This study consequently got MASSIVE press coverage, just see for yourself:

In my opinion, a water shed moment – but we have had them before & the City Council stupidly repeats, as Councilman Steve Schewel does in the video – that public water fluoridation is “safe and effective.”  This is despite the fact that the city has made no visceral effort to have their drugs approved by the FDA, and it looks like the FDA continue to evade evaluating Fluoride for its purported safety and effectiveness.

The publication of the study & a curious note from my Uncle compelled me to pen a letter to City Council about this, and also reminding them of this epic October 9th appearance, which you can read at the conclusion of this update.

Since we have already filed assault charges at the Durham Police Department and nothing was done, my intention here is to simply demonstrate how much the City Council has been wantonly negligent in the face of the blatantly obvious scientific dissent to their position.  Hopefully one day, this evidence can be used to bring them to justice, preferably by indictment and eventual arrest.

TO: William Bill, Diane Catotti, Steve Schewel, Don Moffit, Eddie Davis, Cora-Cole McFadden, Eugene Brown

Happy New Year!

It has been almost four months since I last appeared before you.

If you will remember I demanded last October 9 during a council work session that the Durham County Board of Health kindly submit a formal request to the Federal Drug Administration to test/approve Hydrofluorosilicic acid for being “safe and effective” when orally ingested for the purpose of preventing tooth decay.

This request was made pursuant my understanding of the entities who have jurisdiction to regulate the use and distribution of medicinally intended substances, such as hydrofluorosilicic acid is being applied in this case.  My intention was merely to establish that if the City of Durham collectively endorses the idea of medicating their public water supply with fluoride in practice (they do), that they should at least follow the minimum proper federal laws to have the drugs approved as being safe and effective.

Of course – you very well know that I never bought into the US Health Service & academic Balogna that says drinking fluoride is safe and effective.  I know you know! Because you are apparently treating my October appearance as a “rhetorical request,” as evidenced by the total lack of follow up on my visit last year.

If I am wrong and you have submitted a request to the FDA then I will be the most pleased to hear that you have, and admit I was wrong.  But if that is the case then I would like to know when they expect to begin testing?

In the meantime Council, you might want to start taking this issue seriously because the only reason I am writing you today is due to a very recent publication in the London Telegraph which highlights a brand new study from the University of Kent on public water Fluoridation, that completely damns it!

Fluoride in drinking water may trigger depression and weight gain, warn scientists

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11430087/Fluoride-in-drinking-water-may-trigger-depression-and-weight-gain-warn-scientists.html
Original Study: Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride
as a Public Health Intervention

Who do you think is liable if this turns out to be true Council?? Who do you think the people will blame? Which side of the fence do you honestly believe is riskier to be on?  Call me selfish but if I were you guys, I would be following the precautionary principle on this one, if for no other reason than to save my own sorry ass!

Precautionary Principle Defined

But honestly Council this damning new study is not really why I’m sharing it with you. You have already proven yourselves in battle to be impervious to even the most mainstream academic and widely accepted news sources of information that discredit the pro fluoride position. Why reverse course and do the right thing now?

It’s not like I haven’t already shared with you numerous legitimate scientific publications which should have resulted in the cessation of water fluoridation, at least since 2011.

It’s not like WTVD didn’t already daftly expose your scam in 2012 with their 7.5 minute report….

It’s not like a Deputy Sheriff did not already escort me out of the subsequent “public health board meeting” which later resulted in Durham’s re-committal to the policy of public water fluoridation….

It was something else…

A curious thing; the telegraph article was shared by my Uncle in an e-mail to me, with the subject line “Vindication.”

He says to me, before sharing the link:

“Here’s more people trying to catch up to Corey.”

The article – which you must read, is one of volumes I have read and tried desperately during the last 3+ years to share with you and/or the public.

But let me be qualify something for you.  I am not “VINDICATED” when such an article appears in the news, and adds to the pile of others I have collected which reinforce my position. I already have more than enough!

I do not like it when scientists find new evidence to suggest drinking fluoride is poisonous.

I do not get any pleasure whatsoever from speaking to you, or feeling compelled to take time off of work so I can try and warn you of the damage you are doing to the population of Durham.

I do not enjoy the social weirdness that accompanies knowing what the government is up to.

I have already read enough of these articles to KNOW that what I’m talking about is correct, so there is no vindication in a reconfirmation of something I already know.  I will ONLY feel vindicated when you collectively start living up to your oath of office, and wake up to your own slavery to the more intimidating layers of your own system

…and most of all, when you decide to STOP FLUORIDATING THE WATER.

Yours Sincerely,

Corey Sturmer

www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

 

TO: Corey Sturmer

FROM: Diane Catotti

Thanks for the additional info.

 

 

Activists linked through http://www.infowars.com took the assertion of their personal sovereignty to their local government demanding an end to water fluoridation.  In North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park (Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill), these individuals have spent over a year and a half standing for liberty.  This is their Saga.

http://www.infowars.com/operation-paul-revere-film-contest-100000/

http://planet.infowars.com/groups/greater-raleigh-resistance/

http://www.durhamagainstfluoride.com
http://www.raleighagainstfluoride.com
http://fluoridefreechapelhill.wordpress.com

What’s The Buzz?

Youtube:

Chris Brown 

Amazing documentary. It shines the light on exactly how incompetent government really is.

Rich Poythress

Hope you guys win. This is Paul Revere in action. Thank You!

swbjamz

Great job on this work you are doing. Thank you. Someone needs to get this stopped, and you guys have thrown yourself in the cogs on the machine. True patriots. Thank you again. I could never say it enough. Thank you.

well done sir….wish i had been in town during the latest meet up.

r/conspiracy:

1regularjoe

Only a few minutes into the documentary at this time, but wanted to comment on the scene from the water treatment plant where the foreman explains what the ‘4-0-0’ sign on the fluoride tank means, and just states that the 4 means ‘it’s corrosive.’ I wanted more specifics so I looked up that rating…

The ‘Blue’ rating of 4, according to the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association), details the following warning:

“Materials which upon very limited exposure could cause death or major residual injury even though prompt medical treatment is given, including those which are too dangerous to be approached without specialized protective equipment.” This degree should include:

  • Materials which can penetrate ordinary rubber protective clothing;
  • Materials which under normal conditions or under fire conditions give off gases which are extremely hazardous (i.e., toxic or corrosive) through inhalation or through contact with or absorption through the skin.

Source: NFPA Health Rating System

1regularjoe

I’ve finished watching your documentary. WELL DONE, SIR!

Years ago I did a great deal of research on this topic and honestly didn’t expect to learn anything from your video. I was wrong.

It was clear, concise, extremely informative, well thought out and edited. There were none of the things that ‘turn me off’ to a documentary, such overt use of propaganda via ominous music and images.

I would gladly and readily recommend this video to anyone wanting information on water fluoridation!

Bravo!

r/freedomearth:

Fleming_007

Simpleton’s observation: why doesn’t any member of a City Council jump right up asa you mention public health concern, like any person in his right mind would do if their own family was at immediate risk? Because it is rethorical until they drop dead in front of their eyes?? I can see how this has become a journey to personal sovereignty because you keep on standing your ground while experiencing the insanity of the system that only works towards the detriment of the people, in any way. The greatest respect for you, I wouldn’t dare go there!

February 28, 2013 @ Orange Water and Sewer Authority’s Board Meeting

March 5, 2013 @ Raleigh City Council

On February 28 & March 5, I appeared in Chapel Hill & Raleigh respectively, along with several other patriots to educate the governing bodies of the new science and legal precedent that proves adding fluoride to the drinking water  is illegal & unhealthy if not killing us softly.  During my 3-5 minute speeches I referenced a recent lawsuit filed in the  District of Maryland where defendant and big-Agra conglomerate Nestlé were sued for damages stemming from the sale and marketing of Fluoride-Added Water products.  The 22-Page legal complaint is hosted at the bottom of this post, if you’re into that kinda thing.

Contrary to what you might call “conventional wisdom,” the damages cited were specifically listed as “dental fluorosis,” a known side effect of overexposure to ingested fluorides which causes white spotting and deterioration of the dental enamel.  But wait, I thought Fluoride was supposed to HELP your teeth, not hurt them?  Well therein lies the rub ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a SCAM!  The result of the lawsuit forced Nestle to begin re-branding and re-formulating their water products to REMOVE fluoride.  Even in isolation of all the other evidence – the simple fact that a lawsuit forced a mega-company like Nestle to rebrand their product makes a naturally strong statement against the use of fluoride to prevent cavities:

From This:

Picture175

To This:PureWater

This basic truth behind fluorosis and it’s causal relationship to ingested fluorides has been the leitmotif of this site since its inception.  This is especially relevant to me since I consider myself a sufferer of Fluorosis.  The self evident reality of white spots on my teeth and mottled molars was the inciting moment which originally motivated me to speak out about fluoridation in the first place and to be frank I didn’t originally believe I would find much.

After some due diligence when I began researching this issue in Durham, I was SHOCKED to learn our water treatment plant does not even DENY the fact that ingesting fluoride causes Fluorosis. How can they say in one breath that fluoride is good for our teeth but in the other breath say the opposite?

This basic truth was demonstrated in a very visceral way when I received the following material safety data sheet from Don Greeley, the Director of Durham’s Water Treatment Plant which is posted & highlighted below:

Fluorisis

As for the OWASA board members and their response to my speech?  Stay tuned @ DurhamAgainstFluoride.com where I will be posting more videos/articles about citizen patriots near YOU who are taking action against this crazy policy of dumping toxic waste into our water supply and calling it “medicine.”

Michelle Nemphos Complaint Against Nestlé

Nemphos Complaint Case 1:12-cv-02718-RDB by sturmhouse