Posts Tagged ‘triangle’

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/counties/orange-county/article169291917.html

A group of protesters brought their concerns about fluoride to OWASA’s meeting Thursday, even thought no one was there to listen.

Fluoride Free Chapel Hill/Carrboro members had planned to petition against fluoride at the Orange Water and Sewer Authority’s board of directors meeting. The meeting was canceled Aug. 10 when OWASA staff told the board there wasn’t any reason to meet on Aug. 24.

The fluoride critics showed up anyway to oppose OWASA’s plan to restart fluoridation of Chapel Hill and Carrboro’s drinking water.

The policy is medicating people without their consent and is adding a harmful neurotoxin to the water, the critics said. They cited suspected effects, such as lower intelligence, thyroid and bone damage, arthritic symptoms, cancers and reproductive problems.

Corey Sturmer began researching fluoride after experiencing dental fluorosis: damage to tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride. OWASA has an agenda, he said, and doesn’t want to hear from critics or its their policy.

“Psychologically, people have been hit over the head for 50 years with the idea that this is good for you, so our biggest challenge is getting the people to really recognize how significant this is,” Sturmer said.

Read more…

Dear Durham Against Fluoride Readers,

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your tireless effort to bring awareness of the effects of water fluoridation to human health. I live in the Triangle area and am also concerned about this issue.

I thought you might be interested in a recently published article in a top level journal that links fluoridated water with ADHD and mental disorders. Here it is :

Neurobehavioral Effects of Developmental Toxicity

Attached is the original Lancet article.

Thanks,

Anonymous

_________________________________________________

Hi,

Thanks for writing & sharing this article, although I am already aware of these studies & have written about them extensively on my website.

One of the most common criticisms of these studies is that the subjects in the studies were drinking water at a much higher concentration level than what is commonly seen in municipal water supplies across America.  However this observation does not negate the fact that drinking fluoride is simply linked to the lowering of IQ, so we naturally should question it’s efficacy & risk/reward.

Also the critics never address or even acknowledge the fact that having control over ‘concentration level’ does not = having control over the dosage of fluoride – which inherently varies from person to person to an extreme degree.

Obviously if we care more about our brains than our dental health then we should be concerned…but what happens when you discover that drinking fluoride ALSO does nothing for your dental health?

I’ll tell you what happens – we expose the fraud!  Which is what I try to do with my website, presentations & other activism.

How long have you lived in the Triangle?  When did you learn about fluoridation?

Would you be interested in speaking out or doing any activism?

Let me know your thoughts,

Corey

_________________________________________________

Hi Corey,

Thanks for your email. The Lancet article is actually a meta-analysis of the effects of industrial chemicals, including fluoride, on brain development.

I am a neurobiologist and my area of interest is sensory processing in the Central Nervous System. Recently I have partly shifted my research focus to study the effects of man-made chemicals on the developing brain.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the rates of increase of human chronic diseases including neuro-developmental disease (ADHD, autism) and metabolic disease  (diabetes, obesity) parallel the rates of exposure of man-made chemicals in the environment.  Of the >80,000 chemical released into the environment, scientists have documented the safety and health effects of only a very tiny fraction of these chemicals. What’s more, many of the chemicals that are being used in the USA are in effect banned in the EU and other countries.

As a foreign citizen I feel I have no right to outwardly protest or demonstrate against the laws of this country. As a practicing scientist, it is also a risk to my job to speak out about issues which can possibly irk corporate interest (See Tyron Hayes, Ignacio Chapela and many other scientists).

However I do care very much about the citizens’ health and feel strongly that people need to be more aware of the chemicals found in their food or water and what these chemicals can do to their health.

Your perseverance to bring awareness of the fluoride in drinking water issue is an admirable undertaking and is indeed laudable. I apologize for my inability to be more involved, but please know that I support your tenacity and hard work.

Best,

Anonymous

_________________________________________________

Hello,

At the very least, would you allow me to publish this e-mail exchange with your identity kept completely anonymous?
I feel it would be enlightening to the other viewers of the site & I would ensure that you approve of the message before it is published.  I understand your position completely & know you have to work within the confines of your own circumstance to fight the perceived injustices, like we all do equally. I am just trying to suggest some way we can make this exchange productive, even if you are bound not to do anything more visibly.
Thank you for your encouragement & interest in my work, it is always appreciated when someone takes the time to make their thoughts known.
Let me know what you think!
Corey

Related Articles:

Join the Facebook Event Here

The Durham City Government has just announced that they will be officially receiving the recommendation from the Durham Public Health Board to continue drugging our municipal water supply this coming Thursday on September 5, 2013. Terry Capers from the City Clerk’s office recently wrote,

To: thegldnrule@gmail.com

from: Terry.Capers@durhamnc.gov

The Durham County Public Health Director Ms. Gayle Harris will present the Mayor and City Council with the Municipal Water Fluoridation recommendation at the Work Session on Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 1:00 pm!

If you are interested in speaking at the Work Session regarding the item please let me know and I will inform the City Clerk’s Office of your presence. 

On Friday afternoon, August 30th the September 5th Work Session agenda will be posted to our website for your convenience.

Questions please let us know.

Enjoy your Thursday! 

Since we have now become experts at seeing through the tired & repetitive public health propaganda, we can accurately predict what we will hear from Gayle Harris on September 5th, 2013 and react accordingly.  It should be no surprise to anyone that Gayle Harris will say something similar if not exactly the same as was uttered by Vicki Westbrook all the way back in 2011, when I first brought this issue to the Council’s attention.

In fact, the audio recordings of Vicki are below where she said something remarkably similar to the official recommendation produced by the board of health back in June of this year, nearly 2 years later;

“Fluoridation in drinking water is again considered to be one of the primary resources for preventing tooth decay and one of the top 10 advances in Public Health that has happened since the 1900’s”

-Vicki Westbrook

Compare & Contrast Vicki’s statement from 2011 with the recommendation published in June by the board of health, after so much “diligent consideration” by the board of health & Durham City Government, which Gayle Harris will repeat to the city council on this coming Thursday:

Durham Board of Health News: “Board of Health Recommends Continued Fluoridation of Drinking Water”

“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).

If my prediction comes true, this would certainly re-confirm the pattern we have noticed since the beginning of our efforts which is to repeat the propaganda perpetrated by the U.S. Public Health Service, where the Fluoridation policy originated in the first place during the 1950’s.

You see, even after the Fluoride fraud was brilliantly exposed in 2012 by WTVD in addition to a collective 2 years protesting publicly, the sad fact is that the prognosis from the whole Durham City Government remains every bit as un-evolved as it was to begin with:

“The Government will continue to medicate the population through the water supply, without providing any scientific evidence of its benefits.”

Have they not learned anything throughout all this time?  Do the people in our city government have no critical thinking skills of their own, or will they continue to restate the federal agency’s every word like they are dog on a choker leash?

While they have surely put on a nice theater which I will elaborate on below but first we ask ourselves;

  • Is it true that the board of health is making a legitimate & well researched recommendation?
  • Have they honestly debated the subject & considered all the developments since I brought this to their attention in 2011?

Let’s review the chronology of events and judge for ourselves:

  1. December 20, 2011 I presented scientific evidence to Durham City Council that fluoride was harmful to our bones & lowers the Intelligence Quotient in Children among other things & demanded it be stopped.  Vicki Westbrook appeared preemptively to say what was quoted above.
  2. December 25, 2011 The Herald Sun & Durham City Government Dismiss the whole thing
  3. January 2012 – I create DurhamAgainstFluoride.com
  4. January 2012 Los Angeles Healthcare System releases Study Linking Fluoride Uptake with #1 Killer Cardiovascular Disease
  5. March 22, 2012 I make a formal request for the documents which substantiate the city’s claim that drinking fluoride prevents tooth decay.  This is when Kevin Buchholtz from the Dept. of Health and Human Services appears and admits to the City Council that fluoride leaches lead from the pipe system and causes behavior problems in children, in addition to giving his own daughter dental fluorosis
  6. May 22, 2012 – Albuquerque, the most populated city in New Mexico Bans Public Water Fluoridation
  7. July 25, 2012 Harvard Releases Comprehensive Study Concluding Ingesting Fluoride Lowers Intelligence Quotient
  8. September 21, 2012 I Appear at Durham Public Health Board to encourage the board to do their own research and be proud about bucking the system; they create another ad-hoc committee to review Fluoride Issue
  9. November 15, 2012 WTVD releases their incredible 7.5 minute investigative report on Fluoride, featuring Durham Against Fluoride & the Board of Health
  10. November 29, 2012 Durham City Government Releases Rebuttal Video of Vicki Westbrook repeating unsubstantiated claim; “Fluoride is added to prevent tooth decay”
  11. December 2012 Durham City Government Posts Job Listing for Public Relations Manager for the Water Management Division
  12. January-February 2013 I began working with anti-Fluoride activists from Raleigh, Durham & Chapel Hill to produce a 1.5 hour long retrospective documentary on our efforts so far
  13. March 2013 Durham Public Health Board Finally Has their Hearing to debate the Fluoride issue and make their official recommendation; I am removed by force by a Deputy Sheriff who followed orders from Gayle Harris
  14. April 2013 the Documentary, entitled “21st Century Dawes Project” is published exposing the Triangle Public Health Bureaucracy which enforces water Fluoridation in Raleigh, Durham & Chapel Hill
  15. May 22, 2013 Portland Oregon votes “NO” to adding Fluoride
  16. July 25, 2013 Mayor Bill Bell asserts King-like Powers over Durham, stifles Anti-Fluoride Protests
  17. July 29, 2013 Israel joins most of the developed world & Bans Fluoride
  18. THIS Thursday September 5 2013 Gayle Harris will repeat the same script from the Department of Health and Human Services; We the People will repeal their recommendation because the city has still not produced any scientific evidence to substantiate their claim drinking fluoride chemicals will prevent tooth decay.

As was explained in my last post, the bureaucracy of Durham’s Government has kept the fluoride topic a real hot potato for 2 years now, passing it from one ad-hoc committee to another so as to provide the illusion that they are taking this issue seriously, but never producing any legitimate evidence to substantiate their claims.  How they can possibly still think that we are still buying this tactic any longer can only be understood by coming on Thursday to observe if my prediction about what Gayle Harris will say comes true.

Since no tangible evidence has been produced so far to substantiate their claims, and I assure you they will not be produced on Thursday, the original request which the City is trying to answer with this recommendation remains unanswered, no matter what Gayle Harris or anyone else says.  This is because the evidence which supports drinking fluoride as a means to prevent tooth decay does not exist, yet remains the basis of the continuation of the policy.

Even more troublesome is the fact that the government agent providing Thursday’s recommendation to the City Council also happens to be the individual who ordered a Sheriff to remove me from the *Public* hearing when I exposed the original fraud back in March of this year.  Talk about conflict of interest! Thanks to the wonders of youtube, we can instantly time travel to that moment when Gayle squeals “Sheriff!” as I debunk their fraud in real time:

Given all of the above, we the people will come to 101 City Hall Plaza, Durham, NC on Thursday September 5th and appeal this recommendation, restating these truths which we believe to be self evident: that medicating the city’s water supply with a corrosive waste product from the fertilizer manufacturers is an unethical, poisonous, and illegal thing to do!

Join the Facebook Event Here

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”

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…