Indy Week | Comment Archives | Last 30 Days

Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Narrow by Date

Comment Archives: Last 30 Days

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Having posted speed limits and having to obey them is an unlawful restriction of my right to free choice as to my health, based on studies from the 60's that claim that driving a safe speed saves lives.

Now that we have airbags and anti lock brakes, I should be able to go whatever speed I want. Having the government tell me what to do with my body is never acceptable.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by John Trololo on 10/08/2017 at 7:58 AM

Re: “Wait, Rusted Root has a legacy?

Here I sit, listening to a recording of the Rusted Root set at the Lilac Festival in May 2015... Love 'em or hate 'em, they have lasted the years...

Posted by twatts1000 on 10/08/2017 at 2:17 AM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Sarah Willets gives a pretty accurate account of what people say about F'ation pro and con. But the basic thing for everyone to understand is that administering non-consensual dental treatment in the public water system is violates everybody's constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from bodily intrusion.

If thats so, then how come its being done? Because 30+ years ago public health authorities told the courts that children had to swallow fluoride during the years their teeth were forming, so fluoridation was a public health necessity. And the courts said, Okay, since you tell us its perfectly safe, very effective, and extremely necessary, you can infringe everybody's constitutional rights with your public health police power for the greater good.

Fluoridation is a police action like quarantine, except quarantine is imposed when an entire community is threatened with a deadly disease. And quarantine infringes individual rights for days or weeks, not 80 years or more.

Fast forward to 1987. Thats when the National Institute of Dental Research completed a survey of 39,201 US school children that showed there was NO statistically significant difference in tooth decay between children drinking fluoridated water all their lives and children drinking non-fluoridated water. Pretty strong evidence that F'ation was not effective. Did they admit that? No. They covered it up and kept on saying F'ation was one of their greatest public health achievements.

Two years later, in 1989 the EPA received a report that fluoride is probably a carcinogen. That should have caused them to lower the permissible level of fluoride contamination in water to below what the Public Health Service was recommending for F'ation. Did they do that? No. They fired the EPA scientist who called attention to their responsibility to lower the permissible fluoride, and they have not lowered it to this day.

Ten years later, in 1999 the CDC announced that that any positive action from fluoride occurs predominantly by direct contact with tooth surfaces after the teeth have erupted into the mouth. And in 2006 the National Research Council confirmed that.

Harvard studies in 2012 and 2014 reported evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic to children. And a very rigorous study funded by the National Institutes of Health was released last month. It shows that when pregnant women ingest fluoride at the same levels women receive in fluoridated North Carolina communities, their children at age 4 and ages 6-12 score lower on IQ tests by an average of 5 points than children who didn't hve he fluoride exposure in utero.

The results of this study make it clear that there is no basis for assuming that current water fluoridation policy is safe. In the words of study director Dr. Howard Hu, The potential risks associated with fluoride should be further studied, particularly among vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children, and more research on fluorides impact on the developing brain is clearly needed.

So heres what weve got: The feds (who you'll remember also conducted the Tuskegee syphilis experiment) and the dental profession refuse to back down from their century-old, thoroughly disproved superstitious belief in fluoridation. And then weve also got mountains of science showing:
1. Swallowing fluoride is not safe;
2. Swallowing fluoride is not effective; and
3. Swallowing fluoride is not necessary.

The science means that theres no justification for the police action of fluoridation that is infringing everyones constitutional rights, their consumer rights, and their human rights.

If youre a dentist and a patient tells you not to give them a fluoride treatment. Do you give it to them anyway?

If OWASA decided to charge ratepayers for a program to distribute free toothpaste to the community, would that be a legitimate budget item for a water utility? Why is fluoride dental treatment injected into the water a legitimate budget item for a water utility? Is chlorine disinfectant injected into the water to kill bacteria and viruses a legitimate budget item for a water utility? Of course. Its necessary to meet water safety requirements. Theres no federal or state requirement for Fation. It is purely dentistry superstition.

3 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Janet Nagel on 10/07/2017 at 11:26 PM

Re: “Durham Commissioners Consider Adding a New “City-Center” Light-Rail Stop Downtown

along with the addition of the NCCU extension steps in the right direction, but still chairs on the Titanic.

2 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by duh on 10/07/2017 at 3:44 PM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

In Sarah Willets' article about fluoride, she notes::

"Perhaps the group's most compelling point is that the fluoridation debate is a matter of informed consent. It's an argument that taps into a basic desire for personal liberty and can circumvent dissections of which study says what. Speakers last week lined up to tell OWASA officials they did not have their permission to medicate them.

Last month, Carrboro alderman Sammy Slade introduced a resolution stating that OWASA is medicating the town's water with fluoride, and that neither the town board nor its appointees to the OWASA board "can ethically provide consent on behalf of individual Carrboro citizens."

-----------------------------

I find it somewhat ridiculous that those claiming this argument (that OWASA cannot medicate without permission) have not come out to protest chlorine which is also added to our drinking water. Shortsighted?? Fear mongers, mostly

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Bernie Bildman on 10/07/2017 at 2:34 PM

Re: “Nancy McFarlane Presides Over a Thriving City. Charles Francis Says She Doesn’t Deserve the Credit.

@dianahaywood - so are you suggesting that we elect someone who says you should vote based on race? He has said this several times and it is pretty disturbing. What back room deals are you talking about? Secret promises? You must have been to some of Charles's meetings where he slandering other opponents and spreading lies. He has no real plan that I have seen and I have tried. You do realize you live in a fairly large city that happens to be the capital of the state right? Development will always happen. It isn't always good, but it sure isn't always bad. So we should stop building things? You have pretty ignorant, unfounded argument.

4 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by For Real? on 10/07/2017 at 12:03 PM

Re: “Nancy McFarlane Presides Over a Thriving City. Charles Francis Says She Doesn’t Deserve the Credit.

The incumbent mayor has shaped a future for Raleigh that can be very accurately observed and analyzed. Where one perception holds that 90% approve of her performance, one must question how that translates into the kind of predatory gentrification experienced by citizens who require more assistance to retain properties inherited from their ancestors who were grossly discriminated against.

Is that the continuum that this city wants to base it's future on. Mr. Francis hasn't stated the problem in terms that rouse emotions. Maybe that is because people would prefer to dignify political conversations by attempting to be civil in their discourse. This is a problem that leads to a general misunderstanding such as that which Mayor McFarland has taken advantage of.

Democrats who support the incumbent mayor aren't aware of the loss of nearly 10,000 affordable housing units since she has been in office. They are also not recognizing the history behind the current reality of predatory gentrification induced by the city's tax increases. The end results are targeting just as surely as were 1960's financial redlining of these same neighborhoods.

When municipal taxation results in sell or lose decisions for senior citizens on inadequate pension incomes, the question of prosperity can't be factored in a poll that excludes those being evicted from the homes they could only afford due to inheritances. Ignoring the history of economic discrimination in employment and wage / salary compensation equity blinds one's sympathy to this harsh economic reality.

However, that is why we pick leaders that understands the history of these legacy issues. We had hope that the Mayor would have some empathy for these real economic factors of those citizens of Raleigh who have to deal with past municipal indiscretions of devastating consequences. Judging McFarland by her History, Mr. Francis is right about her apathy and alooftness.

Raleigh can do better. The question isn't so much one of how as it is when. With Francis as mayor, sooner seems more plausible than with McFarland.

7 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Ml Hayes on 10/07/2017 at 4:11 AM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

Thegoldenrule Again, you provide nothing but a deceitful, unsupportable opinion regarding the classification of drinking water fluoridation as a form of medication. Fluoridation, like disinfection, is a water treatment process.

Disinfectants are added to water in an effort to help prevent diseases and protect health. Fluoride ions are added in an effort to reduce tooth decay (a chronic disease) and protect health. In fact, one of the actions of fluoride ions, like disinfectants is to reduce the ability of cariogenic bacteria to cause tooth decay. Think carefully about your posting-name you seem willing to risk the health of community members to satisfy your own unsupportable passionate opinions. Read and try to understand all the available evidence, not just what you find on anti-F propaganda pages.

"Although dental caries are largely preventable, they remain the most common chronic disease of children aged 6 to 11 years and adolescents aged 12 to 19 years."
www.cdc.gov/healthywater/hygiene/disease/dental_caries.html

Read the 2016 World Health Organization report, Fluoride and Oral Health, to obtain some badly needed information about fluoridation you seem to be lacking.
Relevant Conclusions:
> Fluoride is effective at controlling caries because it acts in several different ways. When present in dental plaque and saliva, it delays the demineralization and promotes the remineralization of incipient enamel lesions, a healing process before cavities become established. Fluoride also interferes with glycolysis, the process by which cariogenic bacteria metabolize sugars to produce acid. In higher concentrations, it has a bactericidal action on cariogenic and other bacteria. Studies suggest that, when fluoride is ingested during the period of tooth development, it makes teeth more resistant to subsequent caries development. Fluoridated water also has a significant topical effect in addition to its systemic effect (Hardwick et al., 1982). It is well known that salivary and plaque fluoride (F) concentrations are directly related to the F concentration in drinking water. This versatility of action adds to fluorides value in caries prevention. Aiding remineralization is likely to be fluorides most important action

You continue to provide nothing but unsupportable opinions that fluoridation is a form of medication what you provided is the anti-F spin which uses definitions of drugs which do not apply to optimally fluoridated water.

Your FD&C act definition of a drug does not apply to fluoridated water as evidenced by the fact that the FDA regulates fluoridated water (natural or added) as a Food for Human Consumption Not A Drug. Check your references a little more closely. Also, check the level of fluoride ions allowed by the FDA in this Food for Human Consumption

As pointed out elsewhere, there is a rather significant difference -- which fluoridation opponents (FOs) cant seem to comprehend -- between fluoridated toothpaste and rinses which ARE regulated, not as food, but as Anticaries Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use. Fluoridated drugs for human consumption are sold in concentrated form and have concentrations of fluoride ions more than a thousand times greater than found in a liter of fluoridated water.

It is remarkable that only FOs seem incapable of understanding what seems to be an extremely obviously difference. Rational people understand that there is a rather significant difference between a liter bottle of fluoridated rinse which contains about 429 mg fluoride ions and a liter of water which contains 0.7 mg fluoride ions FOs disingenuously try and make the potential exposure levels equivalent to scare the public into believing their fear-laced propaganda.
https://www.drugs.com/pro/neutral-sodium-fluoride-rinse.html

The fact that the level of fluoride ions in optimally fluoridated water is so low is the reason the dose can be controlled. In order to ingest a harmful amount of fluoride ions, someone would need to ingest harmful levels of water, and the levels of other chemicals of water, like disinfection byproducts, would also be higher than reasonable levels.

Toothpaste & Rinses:
TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER D--DRUGS FOR HUMAN USE
PART 355: ANTICARIES DRUG PRODUCTS FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER HUMAN USE
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?cfrpart=355&showfr=1

Bottles water that can contain fluoride ions:
TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER B--FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
PART 165 -- BEVERAGES
Subpart B--Requirements for Specific Standardized Beverages
Sec. 165.110 Bottled water.
Fluoride may be optionally added within the limitations established in 165.110(b)(4)(ii).
(ii)(A) Bottled water packaged in the United States to which no fluoride is added shall not contain fluoride in excess of the levels in Table 1 [1.4 mg/l - 2.4 mg/lm] and these levels shall be based on the annual average of maximum daily air temperatures at the location where the bottled water is sold at retail.
(ii)(C) Bottled water packaged in the United States to which fluoride is added shall not contain fluoride in excess of levels in Table 2 [0.8 mg/l 1.7 mg/l] and these levels shall be based on the annual average of maximum daily air temperatures at the location where the bottled water is sold at retail.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=165.110

Posted by Randy Johnson on 10/06/2017 at 11:55 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

THEGOLDENRULE


1. Correct. OWASA has no authority to medicate the water supply with a drug. However this is a discussion on water fluoridation, which involves no drugs.

Lets stay on topic here....okay?

2. Based on your comment, the only intelligence in question here, is yours.

3. OWASA did not cost the community anything. It simply dealt with a 40 year old pipe problem, promptly and efficiently.......exactly as it is supposed to do.

4. Readers are certainly free to determine whom they should trust......an uninformed online commenter who hides behind the pseudonym The Goldenrule, or to Timothy Wright, Rebecca King, Steve Slott, and Gary Slade, a group of highly respected researchers, public health personnel, UNC faculty members, and a general dentist from Burlington.

5. Neither OWASA, nor any other local officials are required to obtain informed consent prior to approving the concentration of existing minerals in water supplies under their jurisdiction. Consent for these officials to do their jobs is conveyed upon their election/appointment to office.

6. Given that there are no controlled substances, medical treatment, or pharmaceuticals involved in fluoridation, there are obviously no violations of NC general statutes on controlled substances, pharmacy and medical malpractice laws / best practice.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Steven Slott on 10/06/2017 at 11:26 PM

Re: “Nancy McFarlane Presides Over a Thriving City. Charles Francis Says She Doesn’t Deserve the Credit.

It's time for McFarland to go. She has done more then enough to our city especially the SE Raleigh district. We ate tired of all her back room deals and secret promises with big developers moving into our City. It's one thing to redevelop downtown Raleigh but make it inclusive to all and not exclusive. We've had enough of her we want something new and fresh. We are the people that voted her in and we are the people who will vote her out.

5 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Diana Haywood on 10/06/2017 at 10:57 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

@Randy Johnson

Fluoride is added to the Chapel Hill / Carrboro public water supply by the majority vote of an unelected ad-hoc committee within a non-profit organization (the Orange Water and Sewer Authority board of directors, hereafter OWASA).
OWASA physically adds fluoride to the water in order to increase the level of this chemical in the water which reaches the population.
OWASA advertises that their water is of sufficient quality to ingest and expect that citizens will do so to survive. They publicly tout the benefits of their fluoridation policy as a preventative medical intervention. They recently RE announced their intention to do so.

The stated intended purpose of fluoride addition to the water is solely admitted to be in an effort to help prevent tooth decay by the ingestion of the substance:

"In accordance with recommendations by theUS Centers for Disease Control,American Dental Association,Orange County Board of Healthand other organizations, OWASA adds fluoride to drinking water to help prevent tooth decay."

For more see: http://www.owasa.org/fluoridating-water-to-help-prevent-tooth-decay

The federal law, FD&C Act, defines drugs, in part, by their intended use, as "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].

For more see: https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/guidanceregulation/lawsregulations/ucm074201.htm

Additionally, we note that state law defining Drugs in North Carolina is congruent with the FD&C Act;

North Carolina Controlled Substances Act Article 5 90-87. Definitions. (12)
"Drug" means:

a. substances recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;
b. substances intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals;

See also 90-87 (1) definition of Administer under which ingestion is included.http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_90/Article_5.html


Tooth decay also known as dental caries is a form of oral disease.

See: http://www.ada.org/en/press-room/news-releases/2015-archive/may/new-cdc-data-on-adult-cavities


Fluoride is a prescription drug. Some of the forms of fluoride are listed under the following drug names ReNaF, and Ludent. These all have National Drug Code Numbers.

Fluoride has also been prescribed as a drug to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland. Up through the 1950s, doctors in Europe and South America prescribed fluoride to reduce thyroid function in patients with over-active thyroids (hyperthyroidism).

(See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/merck-1968.pdf).

Doctors selected fluoride as a thyroid suppressant based on findings linking fluoride togoitre, and, as predicted, fluoride therapy did reduce thyroid activity in the treated patients. (McClaren 1969; Galletti 1958; May 1937). Moreover, according toclinical research (http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/galletti-1958.pdf),the fluoride dose capable of reducing thyroid function was notably low just 2 to 5 mg per day over several months. (Galletti & Joyet 1958).This dose is well within the range (1.6 to 6.6 mg/day)of what individuals living in fluoridated communities are now estimated to receive on a regular basis. (DHHS 1991).

OWASA states their water contains on average .17 mg of fluoride for every 8 oz glass of water, but OWASA can not control how much water a person will consume. (http://www.owasa.org/questions-and-answers-about-fluoridation#FL_in_8_oz_glass)

In addition to ingested water, the population also cooks, bathes, and swim in the water. These are supposed to be normal and implied functions of a PUBLIC UTILITY, not a delivery system for medicine. Dosage for any medicine also needs to consider a patients weight, so it is an axiomatic conclusion that some percentage of the population will get greater than or equal to the amount of fluoride required to act as a thyroid suppressant. This is well documented in the peer reviewed literature, but i'm sure you will predictably pretend that it isn't.

OWASA has been put on notice of this fact as early as 2012-2013, but have never even acknowledged the overwhelming evidence of suppressive impact on the thyroid function (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPXDoiZuKEI)


It is self evident from the objective observation of the juxtaposition of the FDAs/NCGS definition of a drug with OWASAs intent to fluoridate the water supply that; OWASA is administering a drug through the water supply under federal and state law.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by thegloldenrule on 10/06/2017 at 9:21 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

jackincarr and thegloldenrule There is no evidence or court decision or anything else besides the opinions of fluoridation opponents that classifies drinking water fluoridation as a form of medication. If you have legitimate evidence to the contrary, provide it.

There is no informed consent required for a drinking water treatment method any more than individual informed consent is required for everyone to drink disinfectants, disinfection byproducts or any of the other chemicals in treated public water.

If a person has a problem with ingesting any chemicals in their water they are free to find another water source or take measures to remove those contaminants. It is irresponsible to demand that any treatment method they disagree with should be banned.

Posted by Randy Johnson on 10/06/2017 at 9:12 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

OWASA has no authority to medicate the water supply with a drug. If you get to know them, you realize they also couldn't possibly have the intelligence to do it soundly, either...The millions of dollars they cost the community with the water disaster, and their reaction to it (to spend more money fluoridating), is prima facie evidence of that. To say nothing of their well known intransigence going back at least to 2012. Contrary to what the propagandists Timothy Wright, Rebecca King, Steve Slott, Gary Slade, and many others say... It is a breach of informed consent, the NC general statutes on controlled substances, pharmacy and medical malpractice laws / best practice, and basic common sense. I would bet money It won't be long after OWASA turns the fluoride back on that another "overfluoridation" event accidentally happens and more damage is done.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by thegloldenrule on 10/06/2017 at 8:52 PM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Oh and it's completely lost on everyone with their Google PhDs that OWASA is still operating with 50's Beverly Hillbilly technology lol. How many were fired because of this egregious error???

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by John Trololo on 10/06/2017 at 4:38 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

Jackincarr

1. Fluoride is not a compound. It is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. This ion has existed in water since the beginning of time.

2. Humans have been ingesting fluoride in water since the beginning of time. During the entire 72 year history of fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated, is in any manner dangerous to anyone.

3. Local officials are not required to obtain your consent in order to approve the concentration level of existing minerals in public water systems under their jurisdiction. Consent for them to do their jobs is conveyed via their election/appointment to office.

4. Fluoride at the optimal level in water is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and causes no adverse effects. However, if you have a phobia of such water, you are certainly free to obtain your own water from a source with a content more to your personal preferences. No will force you to consume fluoridated water.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Steven Slott on 10/06/2017 at 3:32 PM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Gotta love all these erudite posts by the Google PhDs. None of whom seem to have the common sense to drink bottled water if they are so very scared.

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by John Trololo on 10/06/2017 at 3:08 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

Thanks for the coverage on this. To me, it's all about the fact that we are being dosed with a dangerous compound against our will. It's as simple as that. I do not consent for OWASA to drug me.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by jackincarr on 10/06/2017 at 2:54 PM

Re: “Muslim Raleigh City Council Candidate Zainab Baloch Says Defacement of Her Sign Won't Stop Her Campaign

Show your rejection of this hate and VOTE for Zainab!

32 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Apache101 on 10/06/2017 at 2:14 PM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Spencer Spencer Spencer...

* ...a NIH/NIEHS/EPA sponsored study validated...

...In Mexico. Where intake of Fluoride is very different than in the US, and where the study was unable to control for the source or actual volume of intake.

* ...Ambassador Andrew Young wrote a letter opposing fluoridation ...

Andrew Young depends on FO sites for his reasoning and supporting documentation, and in turn FO sites use Andrew Young as evidence that "third parties" agree with them. It's a circular firing squad with neither side showing actual evidence.

* ...Lois Gibbs...

Same as Andrew Young, she and FO groups are using circular references as supporting evidence that their viewpoints are correct, with no evidence otherwise.

* ...2010, UNESCO wrote ...

That's a really broad and unsupported reading of what UNESCO wrote. Under that interpretation, things like NGO efforts to do mosquito killing for prevention of malaria would be disapproved of, too.

* ...OWASA is locked in an early to mid 20th century time warp...

Yeah, it's like the mid-20th century, arguing with all of these groups who think they know better than the informed consensus of all-but the entire scientific community that studies things like this. It's like talking to anti-vaxxers.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Mark Neill on 10/06/2017 at 12:46 PM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

In Sept 2017, a NIH/NIEHS/EPA sponsored study validated what dozens of other human studies have found, that prenatal exposure to fluoride in low doses consistent with 'optimal' fluoridation has a subtle dampening effect on IQ, i.e. lowers it by up to 6 points on a dose-response trend line - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

In Sept 2017, an international association of dentists (IAOMT) updated their position statement that among other things opposes fluoridation policy - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

In Oct 2016, Ambassador Andrew Young wrote a letter opposing fluoridation as a practice that disproportionately harms African American and Hispanic babies - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

In Sept 2015, Lois Gibbs, founder of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ), wrote that fluoridation is an environmental injustice that harms people and planet - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

In 2010, UNESCO wrote in their documents on Human Dignity, Bioethics, and Medical Consent that, "In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individuals informed consent" - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

OWASA is locked in an early to mid 20th century time warp. Like Sergeant Shultz - they see nothing, hear nothing and just follow orders regardless of the fact that no one, not the CDC or Dept of Health, has the authority to order fluoride into the water - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

2 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by K Spencer on 10/06/2017 at 12:24 PM

Our Guides

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation