Mandatory Fluoridation Bid Fails In Three States
From: THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
The Oregon victory follows fast on the heals of the victory in Arkansas, which followed the same trajectory as Oregon: quick passage in the House and failure to get the bill out of the Senate sub-committee. The remarkable Crystal Harvey, who cheered us all up in Chicago with her infectious laughter, was able to get the press in Eureka Springs in Arkansas to print some of the ill-considered comments made by State Dental director Lynn Mouden at the ADA-CDC celebration in July. Mouden made some very derogatory comments about some State Senators (as well as Arkansas citizens) and hopefully they will remember this the next time he comes around smooth talking them. You can read this article at
The article came with a beautiful photo of Crystal standing next to Bill Hirzy with their signs in front of the ADA-CDC's opening ceremony. Bill's sign reads: "Fluoridation: 60 years of Junk Science." Crystal's sign reads: "Earth to the ADA: get the F_ out of the Water!"
The third victory now seems certain. It is widely believed by observers in NJ, who are close to the action, that the Public Health Council (PHC) is not going to slip through a recommendation to fluoridate NJ before its status shifts from an executive body to an advisory one on August 25. Even without the change in status most of the members appear to favor waiting for the NRC to report back in late 2005 or early 2006. What a pity the CDC is not so sensible!
So that looks like three for three to me. If the Chicago event was meant to be a stepping stone to more statewide mandatory fluoridation in the US, perhaps it should have been a wake not a celebration!
Now on to Massachusetts where officials there are trying to introduce mandatory fluoridation. Can we make it four for four? A key battle is going on right now in North Attleboro and in my next bulletin I will present a way that FAN members can help in this crucial fight.
Talking of celebrations, I believe I was out of the country when citizens in Hood River, Oregon won the referendum there. This ballot measure prevents any chemical being added to the water which exceeds the EPA's MCLGs for toxic pollutants. The EPA's MCLGs for arsenic and lead are both zero. Thus this local law will rule out the use of industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry to fluoridate the water and pharmaceutical grade chemicals should be cost prohibitive.
Below I have printed Lynne Campbell's (Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water) celebratory email from June.
Paul Connett
________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005
To: Safe Water Advocates
From: Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
Subject: Belated Good News: Citizen Victory in Hood River
I am sorry not to have gotten this update out to you all sooner, because it is both important and fantastic news.
Citizens in Hood River, who have endured almost constant pressure to fluoridate their water since 2001, took matters into their own hands and were successful in getting the Hood River Drinking Water Protection Measure on the ballot and then passing it in May!! Not only does this effort serve to better protect water quality for the citizens of Hood River, it provides a powerful example of how citizens can successfully use the initiative process in their own communities, not only in Oregon, but in other states as well. Our hats are truly off to Columbia Riverkeeper and the numerous individuals who participated in making this happen. Way to go!!!
Please find below Brent Foster's press release on this victory, followed by coverage in the Hood River News.
Best regards,
Lynne Campbell
News Release from Brent Foster
May 20, 2005
Hood River Voters Pass Measure to Keep Contaminated Fluoride from Drinking Water, Urge Oregon Legislature to Reject Mandatory Fluoridation Bill
Hood River, OR - In a sharp rebuke to efforts to fluoridate Hood River’s drinking water, city voters in Hood River have voted to approve a drinking water protection measure that fluoridation supporters claim would prevent fluoridation. The Measure’s proponents say that the State Legislature should pay attention to the message voters were sending and reject House Bill 2025, which would mandate water fluoridation for communities with more than 10,000 people.
The Hood River Drinking Water Protection Measure prohibits the addition of any industrial waste byproduct or any other substance that would cause the drinking water to exceed the U.S. EPA’s health based contaminant goals for toxics. Those pushing fluoridation vigorously opposed the measure since most fluoridation chemicals used in the United States are byproducts of phosphate fertilizer production and are well known to contain toxics, such as arsenic and lead, at concentrations that exceed EPA’s health based goals (ie. EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goals). The drinking water protection measure passed with 56% of voters supporting the measure and 42% opposing it.
“People in Hood River know that we have really good water and do not want fluoride compounds known to contain toxics like arsenic and lead added to our water,” says Eric Voigt, a Hood River neurological chiropractor and one of the Chief Petitioners for the measure. “The Oregon Legislature should not pre-empt the right of local communities to decide whether or not to fluoridate given all the new medical evidence about the serious health effects being linked to water fluoridation and the extremely limited benefits of water fluoridation.”
Kim Folts, who was also a petitioner for the measure agrees. “When all the recent dental studies show that that fluoride works topically, like used in toothpaste, but has little benefit when systemically taken via drinking water, there is just no good reason to fluoridate our drinking water. If we want to do something significant to help kids’ teeth we need to focus on the root of the problem, which is a lack of good dental hygiene and bad diet.”
Lynn Campbell with Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water says that the Hood River vote is representative of growing public concern about water fluoridation. “I think people are starting to realize that water fluoridation is a 1950’s solution that does not make sense in the face of recent scientific information about its significant risks and extremely limited benefits. I hope that the Oregon Legislators takes the time to actually review the serious recent evidence about the very real public health threats now being linked to drinking water fluoridation.”
“Oregon has a lot of cities with great water, and the idea of adding any more chemicals to the water just does not make sense given what we now know about the real risks and very limited benefits of drinking water fluoridation,” adds Brent Foster, an attorney with Columbia Riverkeeper, who also supported the measure.
###
Hood River News Story
http://www.hoodrivernews.com/News%20stories/041%20news%201.htm
Measure 14-23 passes
The ballot title will now become part of the city charter; officials will try to figure out how
By CHRISTIAN KNIGHT
News staff writer
May 21, 2005
Hood River's charter is seven pages long. It includes 10 chapters and 43 sections. Those 43 sections establish the most fundamental pillars of Hood River, such as its name, who in city government can fire whom and how many councilors comprise a city council.
It is the city's constitution, the citizens' most powerful municipal document - for one basic reason: no city councilor, mayor, city manager or city attorney can alter, amend or change anything on it without the consent of the citizens its authors had intended to protect. And any change, amendment or alteration to it requires a majority vote in an election.
No individual or group has accomplished an amendment to the charter since 1991, when the city's people opted for a city manager-administered government rather than a mayor-administered one - until May 17.
*****
In this election, Measure 14-23 asked residents of Hood River if they wanted to amend the city charter to prohibit "the addition of industrial waste by-products to City water supply system."
The majority – 890 out of 1,570 – said yes, assuring a second charter change in 14 years by a margin of 210 votes.
"This election became a referendum on fluoride," said Brent Foster, co-author of Measure 14-23. "That's not how we meant it, but that's what it became … And what we heard loud and clear is the people don't want anything more added to their drinking water. Whether it's the toxins that come with fluoride like arsenic and lead or fluoride itself, people value Hood River's water the way it is and they want to keep it that way."
City manager Bob Francis said the city will now consult a municipal law expert, a "charter guru," who can help the city adopt the new law. But it could take some time.
"We're not going to do this on the 23rd of May, nor are we going to do it sometime in June," Francis said. "But we have a mandate by the people that says it's a charter change. And we're going to do it. We want to make sure we do it correctly. It hasn't changed since 1991, so we have to make sure we're doing it right."
Measure 14-23 will almost certainly become "Section 44" under the "Miscellaneous" chapter, the tenth and last chapter in the charter.
How does 14-23 affect the November ballot?:
When (and if) it does, it will give any citizen the right to sue the city, should its intended enforcers ever violate it.
That could become significantly sticky by November, when a neutral city ballot measure will ask Hood River citizens "should Hood River add sodium fluoride to the water supply?" The city council voted 4-1 at a Dec. 28 council meeting to put that question – Resolution 2004-22 – before the city residents in November. Then-Mayor Paul Cummings represented the sole dissenting vote.
If the people vote "yes" in November to add sodium fluoride to the water supply, Measure 14-23 will obligate city officials – by charter law – to meet the standards it sets forth. Francis expects to receive those standards in the form of a list sometime in the near future.
And that standard will be a difficult one to meet, says Foster.
"Bob (Francis) will have to answer two questions: a.) is the fluoride an industrial by-product? and b.) would that source cause the drinking water to exceed the E.P.A. maximum contaminant goal?" Foster said. "The goals for arsenic and lead are both zero. There is no safe level of arsenic or lead … I think people sent a strong message to the city council."
But former city councilor Dr. Charles Haynie believes the city can both add sodium fluoride to the city's water supply and uphold Measure 14-23.
"I think it's an easy argument that sodium fluoride is not an industrial waste by-product," Haynie said after the election.
Haynie said he had an industrial chemist test a sample of sodium fluoride. The purity, he said, exceeded those of medical grade fluoride.
"It's not medical grade even though it exceeds the standards of the medical grade," he said.
>From now until November, Haynie, Dr. Kyle House and those who had opposed Measure 14-23 will first have to measure whatever substance they want to put into the water against a list of "industrial by-products" and levels for them which Measure 14-23 now bans.
At the same time, they will continue trying to convince Hood River residents that sodium fluoride isn't such a bad thing.
"I'm about fluoride," said Dr. Kyle House, an opponent of Measure 14-23. "Measure 14-23 is not about fluoride because it's not an industrial waste by-product."
And they believe the numbers in this election were not convincing.
"Fifty-eight percent is not such a high percentage given the prejudicial nature of the ballot," Haynie said of the election results. "If the vote was 70/30 we'd probably admit we couldn't win (in November)."
Hood River residents could have voted on both Measure 14-23 and Resolution 2004-22 in this May 17 election. According to minutes from the Dec. 28 city council meeting, however, Haynie had urged his former councilors to place Resolution 2004-22 on the November ballot because "more people vote" then and they "are trying to figure out what the pulse of the citizens is with regards to this …"
"Going forward with another measure on fluoride seems pretty crazy to me," Foster said. "It's more likely to make people frustrated who think they've already spoken on the issue."
A lot of noise but little turnout:
Measure 14-23 and the water fluoridation issue in Hood River had spurred two campaigns, scores of letters to the editor and hundreds of hand-painted signs.
The issue brought an international expert on the subject to Hood River for a weekend, scheduled, then canceled, the re-scheduled an open forum in the county commissioners' chambers.
Activists on both sides devoted hundreds of hours to canvassing, strategizing and researching.
And 1,570 residents voted on it - less than half of the city's registered voters and about a quarter of the city's total population.
"What's been disappointing to Brent and me both is the general populace seemed to be turned off of it," Dr. House said. "If that doesn't get you excited, what does? We're talking about ‘pollutants’ in your water. As fundamental as you get."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------