USA - Questions on Water Fluoridation MMWD Refuses to Answer
Posted by: Mary Larkin
We have shown MMWD Board Members many times the solid legal basis for MMWD to eliminate fluoride chemicals from of our public water. Yet the Board, Legal Counsel and General Manager's response is to refuse to read the evidence presented and instead, continue to push spurious excuses for continuing this criminal practice.
1) Are MMWD Board Members, Legal Counsel Mary Casey and General Manager Krishna Kumar saying that the 1995 CA State water fluoridation mandate forces them to add a CA Code of Regulations listed toxic, corrosive hazardous waste to our drinking water?
Where in the mandate does it state that MMWD is being forced to use the fluoride chemical hydrofluorosilicic acid? Why is MMWD using industrial grade, toxic, corrosive chemicals and not a pharmaceutical grade, FDA approved form?
2) Is MMWD telling us that even though the FDA states that fluoride chemicals used for the purpose of cavity prevention are drugs; and the FDA lists Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFA), the fluoride chemicals MMWD adds to our water, as an unapproved drug, that the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) has the authority to override the FDA and approve HFA for ingestion for the purpose of cavity prevention?
3) Mary Casey's story about MMWD Real Estate revenue qualifying as the needed "separate income" is meaningless. All MMWD revenue is comingled. The mandate does not force MMWD to do their accounting this way.
4) Why is MMWD continuing water fluoridation without having done an environmental study? The California Environmental Quality Act is another reason MMWD is not bound by the mandate. MMWD must halt water fluoridation until an environmental study on its impact is done.
5) HFA combined with chloramines and the anti-corrosive chemicals added because HFA is highly corrosive, creates and extremely toxic cocktail of chemicals and their toxic effects are greatly exacerbated when combined.
6) Why do MMWD Board Members refuse to take a vote to end water fluoridation?
7) Do MMWD Board members understand that what they are doing is medicating us without our individual consent, without dosage control and without medical oversight? None of the Board Members has a medical license, so they should not be practicing medicine via our water supply. The Board Members do not have the medical knowledge to understand what these chemicals are doing to our bodies.
8) There is already a law in the State of California under the Health and Safety Code that provides for free, TOPICAL fluoride treatments to children in their schools. This law provides for a much safer, economical, more effective and accurate way of providing fluoride treatments that does not force the entire population to participate in a medical process that is only intended for children. The Health and Safety Code leaves this medical treatment to licensed, dental practitioners.
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 104830-104865 104830.
Pupils of public and private elementary and secondary schools, except pupils of community colleges, shall be provided the opportunity to receive within the school year the topical application of fluoride or other decay-inhibiting agent to the teeth in the manner approved by the department. The program of topical application shall be under the general direction of a dentist licensed in the state and may include self-application…
Response to Pro-Fluoridation Claims by Paul Connett, PhD
Claim 1: There is no difference in principle between chlorination and fluoridation. This is wrong. Chlorination treats water; fluoridation treats people. Water is treated with chlorine to make the water safe to drink. It kills the bacteria and other vectors that carry disease. Chlorination is not without its critics, but millions of lives have been saved by this process. Fluoridation, on the other hand, is not used to make the water safe. It simply uses the public water supply to deliver medicine. Such a practice is rare, indeed, for obvious reasons. Once medicine is added to tap water, key controls are lost. You cannot control the dose, and you cannot control who gets the medicine. Moreover, you are forcing medication on people without their informed consent and, especially in the case of low-income families, without their ability to avoid the medicine if they wish.
Claim 2: an effort to persuade citizens that the chemicals used in fluoridation are not hazardous waste products of the fertilizer industry.
Claim 3: Fluoride is a nutrient. In order to establish that a substance is an essential nutrient, a researcher has to remove the substance from the diet and demonstrate that disease results. This has not been shown to occur with a lack of fluoride, nor is fluoride known to contribute to any normal metabolic process.
Claim 4: Fluoridation is no different than adding iron, folic acid, or vitamin D to bread and other foodstuffs. There is a world of difference: Iron, folic acid, and vitamin D are known essential nutrients. Fluoride is not. 2. All of those substances have large margins of safety between their toxic levels and their beneficial levels. Fluoride does not. 3. People who do not want those supplements can seek out foods without them. It is much more difficult to avoid tap water.
Claim 5: The amount of fluoride added to the public water system, 1 ppm, is so small it couldn’t possibly hurt you. Promoters use analogies such as 1 ppm is equivalent to one cent in $10,000 or one inch in sixteen miles to make it appear that we are dealing with insignificant quantities of fluoride. Such analogies are nonsensical without reference to the toxicity of the chemical in question. For example, 1 ppm is about a million times higher than the safe concentration to swallow of dioxin, and 100 times higher than the safe drinking water standard for arsenic; it is also up to 250 times higher than the level of fluoride in mother’s milk.
We have shown MMWD Board Members many times the solid legal basis for MMWD to eliminate fluoride chemicals from of our public water. Yet the Board, Legal Counsel and General Manager's response is to refuse to read the evidence presented and instead, continue to push spurious excuses for continuing this criminal practice.
1) Are MMWD Board Members, Legal Counsel Mary Casey and General Manager Krishna Kumar saying that the 1995 CA State water fluoridation mandate forces them to add a CA Code of Regulations listed toxic, corrosive hazardous waste to our drinking water?
Where in the mandate does it state that MMWD is being forced to use the fluoride chemical hydrofluorosilicic acid? Why is MMWD using industrial grade, toxic, corrosive chemicals and not a pharmaceutical grade, FDA approved form?
2) Is MMWD telling us that even though the FDA states that fluoride chemicals used for the purpose of cavity prevention are drugs; and the FDA lists Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFA), the fluoride chemicals MMWD adds to our water, as an unapproved drug, that the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) has the authority to override the FDA and approve HFA for ingestion for the purpose of cavity prevention?
3) Mary Casey's story about MMWD Real Estate revenue qualifying as the needed "separate income" is meaningless. All MMWD revenue is comingled. The mandate does not force MMWD to do their accounting this way.
4) Why is MMWD continuing water fluoridation without having done an environmental study? The California Environmental Quality Act is another reason MMWD is not bound by the mandate. MMWD must halt water fluoridation until an environmental study on its impact is done.
5) HFA combined with chloramines and the anti-corrosive chemicals added because HFA is highly corrosive, creates and extremely toxic cocktail of chemicals and their toxic effects are greatly exacerbated when combined.
6) Why do MMWD Board Members refuse to take a vote to end water fluoridation?
7) Do MMWD Board members understand that what they are doing is medicating us without our individual consent, without dosage control and without medical oversight? None of the Board Members has a medical license, so they should not be practicing medicine via our water supply. The Board Members do not have the medical knowledge to understand what these chemicals are doing to our bodies.
8) There is already a law in the State of California under the Health and Safety Code that provides for free, TOPICAL fluoride treatments to children in their schools. This law provides for a much safer, economical, more effective and accurate way of providing fluoride treatments that does not force the entire population to participate in a medical process that is only intended for children. The Health and Safety Code leaves this medical treatment to licensed, dental practitioners.
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 104830-104865 104830.
Pupils of public and private elementary and secondary schools, except pupils of community colleges, shall be provided the opportunity to receive within the school year the topical application of fluoride or other decay-inhibiting agent to the teeth in the manner approved by the department. The program of topical application shall be under the general direction of a dentist licensed in the state and may include self-application…
Response to Pro-Fluoridation Claims by Paul Connett, PhD
Claim 1: There is no difference in principle between chlorination and fluoridation. This is wrong. Chlorination treats water; fluoridation treats people. Water is treated with chlorine to make the water safe to drink. It kills the bacteria and other vectors that carry disease. Chlorination is not without its critics, but millions of lives have been saved by this process. Fluoridation, on the other hand, is not used to make the water safe. It simply uses the public water supply to deliver medicine. Such a practice is rare, indeed, for obvious reasons. Once medicine is added to tap water, key controls are lost. You cannot control the dose, and you cannot control who gets the medicine. Moreover, you are forcing medication on people without their informed consent and, especially in the case of low-income families, without their ability to avoid the medicine if they wish.
Claim 2: an effort to persuade citizens that the chemicals used in fluoridation are not hazardous waste products of the fertilizer industry.
Claim 3: Fluoride is a nutrient. In order to establish that a substance is an essential nutrient, a researcher has to remove the substance from the diet and demonstrate that disease results. This has not been shown to occur with a lack of fluoride, nor is fluoride known to contribute to any normal metabolic process.
Claim 4: Fluoridation is no different than adding iron, folic acid, or vitamin D to bread and other foodstuffs. There is a world of difference: Iron, folic acid, and vitamin D are known essential nutrients. Fluoride is not. 2. All of those substances have large margins of safety between their toxic levels and their beneficial levels. Fluoride does not. 3. People who do not want those supplements can seek out foods without them. It is much more difficult to avoid tap water.
Claim 5: The amount of fluoride added to the public water system, 1 ppm, is so small it couldn’t possibly hurt you. Promoters use analogies such as 1 ppm is equivalent to one cent in $10,000 or one inch in sixteen miles to make it appear that we are dealing with insignificant quantities of fluoride. Such analogies are nonsensical without reference to the toxicity of the chemical in question. For example, 1 ppm is about a million times higher than the safe concentration to swallow of dioxin, and 100 times higher than the safe drinking water standard for arsenic; it is also up to 250 times higher than the level of fluoride in mother’s milk.
posted by Bill at
10:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home