 |
Port Angeles History - Since 2003 |
View a comprehensive history of all legal documents pertaining to our fight against fluoride. It was put together by James Robert Deal.
View information on what happend after 2008. |
|
| 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. |
| August 27, 2008 |
The Court of Appeals refused to reconsider their decision not to allow citizens to vote on the clean water initiatives. Our next move will be to ask for a review by the Supreme Court, which will be done by September 26, 2008. We are also starting a review of out-of-state court cases that considered fluoride to be a drug as opposed to an additive under utility jurisdiction. |
| July 15, 2008 |
The Washington State Court of Appeals declined to allow citizens of Port Angeles the right to vote on two clean water initiatives. More |
| March 25, 2008 |
The Washington State Appeals Court heard the case. |
| April, 2007 |
The City of PA signed another agreement with the WDSF in which the WDSF agreed to provide and pay for a free standing equipment storage shed for the benefit of the Public Works and Utilities Department. No dollar amount is specified. |
| Mid-December, 2006 |
The matter was heard by visiting judge Haberly. Result--upholding the City in mid January--was appealed promptly to the State Supreme Court who, after many months, sent it to the Appeals Court. |
| Sept. 19, 2006 |
...Citizens filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus. Agreement was reached and signatures went to the Auditor and were qualified by her as sufficient to allow a vote. |
| Sept. 11, 2006. |
Instead of processing for a ballot title and allowing a vote, the City called a special meeting of Council. A vote was taken: 6 to zero (Wharton abstaining) to send the matter to court to determine whether the subject matter of the initiatives was a legislative matter that could be affected by initiatives or administrative, which is beyond the power of voters. The Council was urged (by the City attorney, the Washington State Dental Foundation representative, and County Health Officer Tom Locke, who said fluoride was not medication) to take the position that control of the water supply is administrative in nature and therefore not subject to the initiative process. Eighteen citizens were present and all 7 who spoke, objected to fluoridation. |
| Sept. 8 and 12, 2006 |
These initiatives were filed with City Clerk with over 2,300 signatures on each of them. Only a bit over 1,600 signatures were required. The City failed to submit them to the Auditor so... |
| July, 2006 |
Upon the advice of the City Attorney, the City delayed months enacting on an ordinance to carry out these powers. Finally early July, 2006 they passed the enabling ordinance. Two citizens committees formed; each wrote one initiative:
Protect Our Waters wrote the Water Additives Safety Act, setting standards such as a requirement to meet Maximum Contaminant Limit Goals to protect infants and other vulnerable segments of the population from substances which are added to treat or prevent disease in man or animals (disinfectants for water treatment not being affected).
The second initiative from Our Water-Our Choice committee is titled Medical Independence Act and says no substance added to treat mind or body of man may be added (chlorine and disinfectants to make water safe are specifically exempted) . |
| May 18, 2006 |
City started fluoridation. |
| Feb. 16, 2006 |
Signature validation was certified for 3,501 signatures (no need to go further) so validation was reported on by the Auditor. |
| Feb. 6, 2006 |
Petition to the Port Angeles City Council filed with the City Clerk to allow Port Angeles Citizens full Rights and Access to Washington State’s Initiative and Referendum Process (I&R). A total of 4,047 signatures were gathered by our group and reviewed by the Clallam County Auditor’s Office. Only 3,486 were needed (which represents over half the registered voters in Port Angeles who voted in the previous election). |
| July, 2005 |
Concerned Citizens for Port Angeles formed to discuss the possibility of circulating petitions to give citizens the right to affect legislation through the initiative and referendum (I&R) process. |
| March 1, 2005 |
The City signed an agreement with the WDSF and the contractor that specified the terms and conditions for the gift of the fluoridation treatment plant. Interestingly, Section 2.4 emphasizes that WDSF does not warranty the plant’s “fitness for a particular purpose.” Section 2.5 indicates that the WDSF assumes no liability for “the health effects related to the operation of the system” or for the suitability of the system for any particular purpose.
Section 7.1 emphasizes that the City assumes all responsibility regarding any lawsuits, claims, losses, liabilities, damages etc. that result from fluoridating the water. The agreement is remarkable in the extent to which it transfers all potential problems to the City!
Section 5.9 states that, should the City stop fluoridation before the 10 year period specified, the City is obligated to pay up to a maximum of $433,000 to cover the costs of the system and legal fees.
Section 5.5 states that the City must continue fluoridation for 10 years “except in the event the City is prevented from fluoridating the Port Angeles water supply as the result of a court order or other judicial decision.” [emphasis added]
Section 8.9 elaborates on this exemption by stating that the City shall not be deemed to be in violation of the agreement “for any reason beyond its control, including . . . an injunction or other judicial decision.”[emphasis added]
|
| May 20, 2003 |
The Washington Dental Service Foundation (WDSF) entered into an agreement with the City and a contractor indicating WDSF’s intention to pay up to $260,000 for the design and construction of a fluoride treatment facility. |
| Feb. 18, 2003 |
City Council voted to add fluoride to city water. Action was appealed to Superior Court, heard by Judge Verser (Port Townsend visiting judge) who said SEPA did not apply because the health dept., which had to approve it, was exempt. Citizens appealed to the Appeals court which agreed the law specified exemption for health department. Legal action was dropped on this issue. |
|
Fluoride Throughout History |
|
