July 22, 2010—Concerns over insoluble contents in fluoride products from China prompted Amesbury MA to stop fluoridating their water. See news report and video.
July 11, 2010—Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water sent a press release to the Peninsula Daily News on June 21 indicating that the group was re-activating because of specific safety concerns.Although News Assistant Mike Carman indicated that he would include these concerns, they were omitted from the newspaper notice. Details
July 4, 2010—An article in Time magazine (April 1, 2010) listed fluoride from toothpaste and water as #4 among the top 10 common household toxins. Fluoride was indicated as being neurotoxic and possibly tumorigenic when swallowed. It was also pointed out that the ADA advises that children under 2 not use toothpaste containing fluoride.
July 4, 2010—Palaeopathological evidence for fluorosis has been found in what is now Bahrain, where ancient people drank naturally-fluoridated water at what is now considered an optimal and safe level for prevention of caries. However, a report in Forensic Ecologist, January 2010 shows that up to 80% had caries, around 50% of the teeth showed dental fluorosis, and skeletal fluorosis was fairly common.
July 4, 2010—The European Court of Justice ruled that fluoridated water must be considered a medicine. Read an analysis by Doug Cross, which is followed by links to his references as well as links for the original court judgment, the opinion of the Advocate General, and a review by two British lawyers.
July 1, 2010—Dr. Mercola and Dr. Paul Connett discuss fluoride damage to the bones, brain, kidneys, and thyroid. See video
July1, 2010—The Center for Disease Control reported results from a nationwide survey (1999-2004) showing that 41% of children 12-15 had dental fluorosis--nearly double the rate in the 1980s. Dental fluorosis has increased since fluoridation started in the 1940s, raising concerns about toxicity. See this extraction from a report by the Fluoride Action Network.
June 21, 2010—The Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water sent a Press Release to the Peninsula Daily News with information about the re-activation of the group and the reasons for doing so.
June 9, 2010—Attorney Gerald Steel wrote a letter to the Washington Board of Health (on behalf of Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water) asking the Board to amend the Washington Administrative Code to require FDA approval for all drugs, including fluoride, intended to treat disease.
February 23, 2009—The Washington State Supreme Court heard our case. Their decision is pending. Watch a video of the hearing.
September 4, 2009—Gerald Steele and James Robert Deal (lawyers), Dr. Eloise Kailin (retired physician), Lynn Lohr (a nurse with fluoride hypersensitivity), and Randy C. Smart (analyst) met with Senator Murray aides currently reviewing a medical bill containing allocations for fluoridation. The aides were courteous and receptive and discussed fluoride's history and controversies. A review of facts and perspectives led to a consensus that fluoridation was, at minimum, controversial. The aides will recommend to the Senator that fluoride funding be barred from the health care bill unless allocated for valid testing.
May 23, 2009—The European Court ruled that food (also having a medicinal function --including fluoridated water) must be labeled and regulated as medicines. The Court is vigorously working towards ending fluoridation in Great Britain. This ruling could help our drive to get fluoride labeled as a medicine. More
May 4, 2009—Dr. Eloise Kailin news release: The Supreme Court (State of Washington) agreed to hear an appeal of the decision denying citizens the right to vote on two initiatives. The rights to obtain initiative and referendum were obtained by petitions signed by over half the registered voters and adopted by the City in July 2006. By 9-11-06, two initiatives were certified as having sufficient signatures to put to a vote. Then the City and Washington State Dental Foundation derailed the political process by pursuing a lawsuit. The Supreme Court has now agreed to decide if citizens can vote on the certified initiatives.
May 1, 2009—The Washington Supreme Court accepted our appeal and will hear our case. This is great news because it means that our arguments must have been persuasive enough for them to review the ruling of the Court of Appeals! Some of the rules that apply are given here.
Feb 10, 2009—A statement was sent by Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, to the UK's South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA). Dr. Limeback argued against fluoridating the Southampton area, pointing out that fluoridation was no longer effective, it causes fluorosis, fluoridation chemicals have not been tested for safety, and there are serious health risks. Despite his statement and the SHA’s own survey indicating that 72% of the population was opposed, the SHA voted on February 26, 2009 to force fluoridation on Southampton area citizens. More
Feb 10, 2009—With the election of a new county commissioner, Skagit County rescinded its decision to fluoridate, made two years ago. Congratulations to all the citizens who refused to give up despite the odds against them from local newspapers and the powerful dental lobby. If it can be done in Skagit County, it can be done in Port Angeles! More
December 2, 2008—Dr. Geofrey Nochimson of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Sentara Careplex Hospital in Hampton, Virginia, describes acute fluoride poisoning. Fluoride is found in toothpaste, dietary supplements, cleaners, insecticides, rat poison, food, drinks, fluoridated water, and many other products. Although most cases of acute poisoning occur from accidental ingestion of rat poison and insecticides, the effect of gradual accumulation from these products and fluoridated water is largely unknown.
November 24, 2008—An association named Fluoride Class Action based in Lynnwood, represented by attorney James Robert Deal II, today filed a motion to participate as a friend of the court (Amicus Curiae) regarding proposed Port Angeles initiatives. Fluoride Class Action asks the state Supreme Court to review and reverse a decision of the Appeals Court, which denied PA citizens the right to vote on the two local initiatives. Press Release
November 24, 2008—A brief will be presented by OWOC and POW to the state Supreme Court in conjunction with an Attorney from Fluoride Class Action.
November 9, 2008—The Director of Environmental Sustainability in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the first city in the world to fluoridate, has ordered a new review of the scientific evidence concerning the risks and benefits of the chemicals. The decision was “based on a number of studies linking fluoride to problems with the thyroid, kidneys, central nervous system and skeletal system - including cancers.” More
October 28, 2008—The Health Department responds to Dr. Kailin's question of whether NSF Standard 60 was being met. Port Angeles gets fluoride from J. R. Simplot of Rock Springs, Wyoming. No testing is done outside NSF. Out Health Dept. has faith in this process seeming without any checks on it. They seem reluctant (or unable) to furnish testing documentation that might address standards.
October 21, 2008—Jess Grable addressed the City Council during the public comment period. She recapped the history of Washington cities that have rejected fluoridation. She also provided solutions in lieu of the fluoridation of our water. Council members were provided with a handout.
October 21, 2008—Dr. Eloise Kailin spoke at the County Board of Health meeting asking why there has been no response from the State or County Boards of Health to the Constructive Notice given them in January, emphasizing the Boards potential liability for not protecting public health in that fluorosilicic acid fails to meet ANSI/NSF Standard 60 (Washington State requirement). She presented board members with a letter/ handout detailing her concerns and asking again for a reply.
October 14, 2008—The Court of Appeals forwarded to the Supreme Court our petition to have the Supreme Court review our case. It normally takes at least 6 months for the Court to decide whether to accept a petition.
October 7, 2008—Gerald Steel letter to City Council. The attorney for Protect the Peninsula’s Future wrote to the Port Angeles City Council warning them that the State Environmental Policy Act requires a determination that procedures, to be used in the new Port Angeles Water Treatment Plant, meet SEPA standards. He emphasized that the combination of alum (which the City plans to use to clarify the water after the dam removal) and fluoride has been shown to promote the development of Alzheimer’s Disease.
The study he cites is mentioned in Chapter 7 (p. 178 or 211 in different versions) of the 2006 National Research Council Report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA Standards.
Articles from the Wall Street Journal and Brain Research also demonstrate a link between alum and fluoride. Details
September 26, 2008—Petition for Review filed with the state Supreme Court by Gerald Steel, acting for the two initiative committees, Our Water-Our Choice! and Protect Our Waters. The petition asks to review the lower courts' refusal to allow citizens of Port Angeles to vote on the two initiatives. We think we meet the criteria for review in that there is broad public interest in the result and in that there is confusion and conflict with several laws which only the Supreme Court can sort out. We now await the decision of the Supreme Court to accept or deny the review. Details
September 24, 2008—A San Diego group called Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, headed by Jeff Green, has received sufficient donations and matching funds to meet the group’s requirement of $50K to allow filing a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of using industrial-grade hydrofluosilicic acid to fluoridate drinking water. The suit will assert that the 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution guarantee our right to be free of bodily intrusion by medications. The plan is for the suit to include several individuals, including women who are pregnant and unable to escape fluoridation thereby exposing their fetuses to fluoride, which even the American Dental Association recommends against. Absorption through the skin will be part of the complaint. This suit would have considerable implications for Washington State. WorldNet Article Details
September 4, 2008—A study in the September issue of Environmental Health Perspectives concludes that Fluoride induces endoplasmic reticulum stress and inhibits protein synthesis and secretion. The authors view this as a possible mechanism by which dental fluorosis occurs.
The City of Port Angeles is currently fluoridating our water despite mounting evidence against the practice and the wishes of a large number of citizens. The fluoridation issue is not settled. We are pursuing several different paths in an attempt to stop fluoridation.
| (1) |
We have obtained more than enough signatures to put 2 different initiatives (MIA WASA) on the ballot, but the City has refused to do so, obtaining a superior court decree that voters are not allowed to vote on these initiatives. We have appealed to the State Supreme Court, which sent the case down to the Court of Appeals in Tacoma. Arguments were heard on March 25, 2008 with a large number of our group present. We are awaiting judgment, which should come sometime this fall. If the court rules in our favor, the initiatives could be placed on the ballot sometime in 2009. However, whichever side loses may appeal to the State Supreme Court, further prolonging our effort. |
| (2) |
Another approach is to have fluoride recognized as a drug by State Board of Health. Unfortunately, this takes time unless they unexpectedly agree with us. We have to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a court case to compel adherence with the state laws which clearly define a drug as a substance used to treat or prevent disease. Tooth decay is a disease.
Prevention of the disease of tooth decay is clearly and repeatedly claimed as the rationale for fluoridation of drinking water. We will ask the State Board of Health and probably the Board of Pharmacy to declare that fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is a drug when it is used to treat or prevent tooth decay. If ruled a drug, all of FSA's components must be identified, including contaminants such as lead and arsenic.
FSA as a drug would bring up issues such as licenses for dispensers and labelers, the need for informed consent, etc.
June 17, 2008 meeting of the Clallam County Board of Health Dr. Eloise Kailin and others. discussed fluoride issues with the Clallam County Board of Health, along with a member of the Washington State Board of Health. This is a summary of the fluoride discussions.
Eloise EMail to Board of Health Dr. Yu attended our County Board of Health meeting June 17, 2008 at which time she indicated that her favorable opinion of fluoridation would not be influenced by any evidence Dr. Kailin might give her. Email Eloise to Dr. Diane T. Yu, Washington State Board of Health, sent on June 28, 2008.
|
Fluoridation (FSA) as Medication?
One current effort in the fight against fluoridation is to have fluorosilicic acid (FSA) recognized as medication. Unfortunately, this takes time. We will ask the State Board of Health and probably the Board of Pharmacy to declare that FSA is a drug when it is used to treat or prevent tooth decay.
If FSA is ruled a drug, it is required that all components must be identified, including all contaminants such as lead and arsenic. FSA as a drug would bring up issues such as licenses for dispensers and labelers, the need for informed consent as well as other concerns. |
|
| (3) |
A third approach is to convince the Washington State Department of Health, the Clallam County Board of Health, and the Port Angeles City Council that ANSI/NSF Standard 60, Section 3.2.1 (requiring the disclosure of all toxic substances in fluorosilicic acid) is not being followed. Our efforts include the following:
| January 2008 |
A Constructive Notice
was sent to WSDOH, Clallam Board of Health, City Council, and other parties responsible for the delivery of drinking water to citizens, pointing out that Standard 60 is not being followed. |
| February 19, 2008 |
A letter from Dr. Kailin to the Port Angeles City Council described the FSA extraction process and contaminants present in fluorosilicic acid as outlined in a letter written by Gary Pittman and asked the Council to seek documentation that Standard 60 was being met. A second letter from Dr. Kailin to the County Board of Health takes the Board to task for stating that fluoridation is not a concern of the Board since the board merely supported the City in its bid to fluoridate and had nothing to do with approval of fluoridation. Once again, the violation of Standard 60 was pointed out in detail. |
| February 20, 21, and 22, 2008 |
Several emails were sent to the WSDOH asking whether the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) has performed the analyses required by Standard 60 and, if so, requesting the analyses documentation. These emails were lost in a computer crash. |
| March 10, 2008 |
In an email response from the Department of Health, Leslie Gates stated that NSF is in compliance with Standard 60. Her conclusion is based on a July 7, 2000 letter from Stan Hazan to Representative Ken Calvert. Hazan explained that Standard 60 was developed by NSF and other organizations to insure the safety of water. NSF does not decide what is safe, it merely tests to see that EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Levels are satisfied. The blanket statement is made that the requirements of Standard 60 are being met. No data are provided on individual tests that NSF has conducted. In fact, Hazan stated that “Individual test reports, as well as formulation information, are protected by nondisclosure agreements with the certification clients.” [page 6]
Furthermore, NSF tests only for regulated metals [page10] and not for biological agents, pesticides, etc. Hazan stated that suppliers of fluorosilicic acid supply toxicological information about contaminants, but in deposition before the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hazan testified under oath that toxicological data were not being supplied by the companies. He stated “I would say that the HFSA submissions have not come with the tox[icological] studies referenced.” [page 50, lines14 and 15]
Thus one wonders just how thorough the “once yearly” Standard 60 testing is, why no records are kept “except for positive results,” and why no individual reports are kept. How can we or anyone be assured that Standard 60 is being followed?
Yet Gates concluded “We do not believe that NSF is in violation of its standards for judging the safety applicability of FSA that is used as a drinking water additive. . .The ANSI/NSF protocols for drinking water additives used by approved third party entities such as NSF International satisfy our concerns that ancillary materials are not contributed at harmful levels when the additive is properly applied.” |
| May 7, 2008 |
Kailin email to WSDOH (Mary Selecky) again requested evidence that Standard 60 requirements are being met and presenting arguments that it has not been followed. |
| June 17, 2008 |
PPF presentation by Dr. Kailin to joint meeting of the Clallam and State Boards of Health. It was pointed out that repeated requests for documentation that Standard 60 have not been supplied. Once again this information was requested. |
| June 30, 2008 |
A Public Disclosure Request concerning Standard 60 resulted in a Letter to Dr. Kailin from Diana Thieme of the DOH which included copies of the analysis done at the Seattle Tolt Water Treatment Facility in 2006. Also included was an earlier letter from Denise Clifford of DOH to James Deal, a Lynnwood attorney who opposes fluoridation. In both cases, the Tolt Analysis was used as evidence that Standard 60 was met. |
| August 13, 2008 |
Email from Lynn Kirby, Water Quality Engineer for Seattle, to Dr. Kailin. Kirby provided data from a December 2006 Tolt Treatment Facility analysis. This analysis, besides being outdated, is deficient in that it included no analysis of organic contaminants added to or formed by the fluoride extraction process. Among others, these include dioxins, pesticides, oil defoamers, polymers, naphthalene, and Synspar.
According to the NSF Fact Sheet from the NSF web site Standard 60 “requires full disclosure of each chemical ingredient (emphasis added) in a product. It also requires a toxicology review. A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects.” |
| October 21, 2008 |
Dr. Kailin presented another handout to the Clallam County Board of Health. Once again the DOH was informed that so far all we have gotten are statements that Standard 60 is being followed but there has been no documentation to support such a claim. |
| October 28, 2008 |
A Public Disclosure Request included a Letter from WSDOH (Gregg Gruenfelder. Gruenfelder stated that “we have confirmed the city [Port Angeles] uses fluorosilicic acid provided from J. R. Simplot Company in Rock Springs, Wyoming. The product is NSF Standard 60 certified . . .”
He admitted that “Washington Administrative Code 246-290-220(3) requires that: ‘Any treatment chemicals . . . added to water intended for potable use must comply with ANSI/NSF Standard 60,’” but he provided no documentation other than a reference to the Hazan letter to Calvert and the statement that compliance was satisfied. The Hazan argument was discounted on March 10, 2008 (see directly above). |
|
| (4) |
The fourth approach, acted on in January 2008, involved sending Constructive Notices to all parties responsible for the delivery of drinking water to citizens.
The notice identified unlawful activity (such as noncompliance with NSF/ANSI 60 Gen. Rqmt. Sect. 3.2.1, failures to warn, and misrepresentations such as omissions of material facts concerning the use of hydrofluosilicic acid and its contaminants. This has implications that can result in liability for the entities and responsible parties notified.
Citizens have the right to know what substances are being put into the drinking water and the potential effects on their health.
Constructive Notice document (and cover letter) directed to parties with authority over delivery of public drinking water to which hydrofluosilicic acid (also referred to as FSA, fluorosilicic, and fluosilicic acid) and its contaminants are added, and is to serve as legal notice to all such parties. Written by Eloise Kailin, M. D., Secretary, PPF on January 2, 2008
The following documents were included as attachments to the Constructive Notice. They provide valuable information relative to the effects of water fluoridation and the difficulties encountered in getting accurate information about the substances that contaminate fluorosilicic acid:
- Poughkeepsie’s letter to Solvay. This letter, dated May 9, 2007, from Poughkeepsie’s Joint Water Board to Solvay Fluorides requests information concerning their water fluoridation product. The Water Board was particularly concerned about safety and whether Solvay’s product met Standard 60 requirements.
- Solvay’s reply. The next attachment, Solvay’s reply, dated July 19, 2007, shows that Solvay did not address any of the Water Board’s questions but instead referred them to the Centers for Disease Control, which would not have the specific information requested.
- Hazan deposition. On March 10, 2004 of Stan Hazan, Ph.D., executive director for the Center for Public Health Education for NSF International (National Sanitation Foundation) testified that hydrofluorosilicic acid is included in Standard 60 and so it is required that HFSA be tested for contaminants.
- Adverse health effects of fluoride. Three graphs show water intake, fluoride intake, and estimated fluoride intake that would prevent adverse health effects for people in different age groups. The data show that the rate of consumption of fluoridated water produces various health problems for many individuals and is especially a problem for infants.
- Peninsula Pointers. Brief articles put out by Protect the Peninsula’s Future and published in the Peninsula Daily News detail some of the health problems associated with fluoridation.
|
| (5) |
A fifth approach is to disseminate updated information about fluoridation problems to the City Council, the Clallam County Health Board, and other entities via regular presentations at Council meetings, letters to the editor, and emails.
Wash Dept Health Letter This letter questions Washington State Drinking water fluoridation policy in light of the National Research Council Report to EPA in March 2006. It also questions pollutant loading of fluoride additive materials and NSF/ANSI Standard 60 as required by WAC 246-290-220. The letter requests that WDOH disclose their efforts to address these two issues, and obtain evidence that requirements of the protocol for NSF/ANSI Standard 60 are or are not being met. What are all the components of the fluoridation chemical mixtures we are putting in our drinking water? E. Kailin to Mary Selecky, Washington Dept. of Health, May 7, 2008.
|
| (6) |
A sixth approach is to bring public attention to the latest information on what other areas are doing to stop fluoridation of drinking water. We are not alone in our opposition to this practice. |
