OP-ED: Legal Issues With Fluorinated Water in Mill Valley

Letter to the Editor By Mary Larkin
Is it legal to put an initiative on the ballot in Marin County to vote for the forced medication of the population via our drinking water? The fluoride compound used in our water is Hydrofluorosilicic acid and it is NOT approved by the FDA for human consumption.  The reason this industrial grade fluoride compound is put into our water is to have a medical effect on our bodies.  This is put into our water without dosage control (once you put it in the water, you can not control the dosage), without individual consent, without medical oversight, and often without people's knowledge.  The water fluoridation ordinance that was passed as a result of the 1972 and 1978 votes goes against Federal Law and the US Constitution.  This is an issue that legally should NEVER have been put on the ballot. The medicating of the population via our drinking water is not something that can be put up for a vote.  It is our legal right to choose for ourselves what medications we wish to imbibe.  

Why are the MMWD allowed to put whatever they want into our municipal drinking water without any oversight?!  They are adding to our water an industrial grade fluoride compound that is not approved by the FDA.  The MMWD tells us it is approved by the NSF.  The NSF does not have the authority to approve chemical substances that are being used to have a medical effect on the body.  The NSF approves chemicals for the treatment of water.  Hydrofluorosilicic acid is not being used to treat the water, it is being used to have a medical effect on the body.     

I have pasted the below letter, sent by a group of concerned citizens, because this involves the health of our community and environment.  This is only about the health of our community-especially our children-and our environment; and nothing to do with politics.  These are legitimate concerns and questions that a large group of Marin County citizens have regarding the practice of water fluoridation.  This is an extremely serious issue which concerns all of us.  Please read the below letter.
 
I look forward to your response.
 
Thank you for your kind attention,
 
Mary Larkin
San Rafael
 ________________________ 

This is a letter sent to the MMWD legal counsel, Mary Casey, in Jan 2013. We are still awaiting their response. 

Three more CA communities have ended water fluoridation since this letter was sent to the MMWD. 
_________________________________________________________________________ 

January 5, 2013 

Mary Casey 

General Counsel 
Marin Municipal Water District 
220 Nellen Avenue 
Corte Madera, CA 94925 

Dear Mary, 

I sincerely appreciate your time and the opportunity to share with you my deep concern for our children's health and the good stewardship of our county's limited resources. 

While there is much to say about the practice of municipal water fluoridation, I'll limit my comments to those that concern legal and liability issues. 

The reasons we are given by the MMWD Board of Directors for continuing water fluoridation in Marin County are because they claim they are bound by the 1972 voter initiative and the 1995 state mandate. I will point out below why these reasons are no longer valid.   


 
 The 1972 voter initiative is not binding for several reasons. 

1) This vote took place over 40 years ago. There has been a substantial amount of scientific literature written since 1972 showing the dangers of fluoridation. “Any purported benefits of fluoridation are in scientific controversy. Studies from 50 years ago do not pass muster under today's standards for safety or effectiveness.” Even the AMA concedes that no studies were done to determine any side effects caused by fluoridation.” [letter]. 

2) Marin County voters did not vote to have hydrofluorisilisic acid put into their drinking water. They voted for natural, pharmaceutical grade fluoride. Yet the MMWD is putting hydrofluorosilisic acid into our drinking water and not natural fluoride. Even the MMWD website today gives the public the impression that natural fluoride is what is put into our water. Hydrofluorisilisic acid is a byproduct of the fertilizer manufacturing industry and contains a high concentration of toxins and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and chromium. These are all proven to be carcinogens. 

3) The 1972 vote was tainted by political manipulation and deception. Dr John Lee, MD was chairman of the Environmental Health Committee at the time. He strongly advised against the fluoridation of our water and claimed “the pro-fluoridation literature was flimsy and deceptive.” 

The MMWD board members are also not bound by the 1995 mandate: 

1) While California passed a law requiring fluoridation if outside funding is found, the mandate only states that, if it is paid for, the equipment must be in place to fluoridate the water. There is no requirement to make the facility operational. This authorization comes from the MMWD Board Members. 

2) The California Health & Safety Codes provide for exemptions from the mandate 116415. (a) A public water system is not required to fluoridate pursuant to Section 116410, or the regulations adopted there under by the department, in any of the following situations: If the public water system is listed on the schedule to implement a fluoridation program pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 116410 and funds are not offered pursuant to a binding contractual offer to the public water system sufficient to pay the capital and associated costs from any outside source. As used in this section, "outside source" means a source other than the system's ratepayers, shareholders, local taxpayers, bondholders, or any fees or charges levied by the water system. Associated costs include the cost of chemicals, insurance, personnel, etc. These costs cannot come from ratepayers. Unless 100% of the total costs of fluoridation is provided for, there is no mandate. 

3) Under the Health and Safety Code, free, topical fluoride treatments are provided to children in their schools. The Health and Safety Code 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.  It also leaves these medical treatments 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…” 

4) 21 communities in the State of California have rejected water fluoridation with no negative impact. 

Communities in California which have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990: 
Crescent City, Nov, 2012 
Napa, California August 17, 2010 
Manila, February 1, 2008 
Mammoth Lakes, California November 8, 2005 
Redding, California November 5, 2002 
Watsonville, California November 5, 2002 
Modesto, California November 7, 2001 
Woodside, California September 2000 
Santa Barbara, California November 23, 1999 
El Carjon, California April 27, 1999 
Helix Water District, California April 7, 1999 
Lakeside Water District, California April 6, 1999 
Riverview Water District, California March 24, 1999 
La Mesa, California March 9, 1999 
Santa Cruz, California March 4, 1999 
Suisun City, California May 1, 1997 
Redwood Valley, California February 6, 1993 
Los Altos Hills (Purissima) California 1993 
Davis, California December 14, 1990 
Morgan Hill, California March 7, 1990 
Bremerton, date not available at this time. 
___________________________________________________________ 
OTHER LEGAL & LIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS: 

•The CDC states that 41% of American teenagers between the ages of 12-15 years, who drink fluoridated water, already have dental fluorosis. This includes our children in Marin County. Fluorosis is a disfiguring mottling of the teeth caused by excess fluoride. Dental fluorosis is not simply a "cosmetic effect"; dental fluorosis is the first visible sign of whole body fluoride poisoning. 

While the tooth damage is irreversible the continuing effects of excess toxicity can be halted by the elimination of fluoride. If fluoridation isn't halted, physical damage continues. Many children report teasing and being made fun of due to the obvious condition of their teeth. The only method for repair is dental veneers, which costs in excess of $1,000 per tooth. Although dental insurance companies and the ADA promote fluoridation, the insurance doesn't cover damage from too much fluoride. It's easy to foresee parents who will take legal action. 

“John Featherstone, a cavity researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote in July, 2000 that “fluoride's primary benefit is topical” and not from ingestion. (www.nofluoride.com). 

•According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the MMWD is required to do a study on the environmental impacts of water fluoridation before legally continuing this practice. CEQA is expensive but required when a project has an impact on the environment. Adding a toxic chemical which contains known amounts of lead and aresnic to the environment via billions of gallons of water will certainly be subject to scrutiny and lawsuits. A number of local and national environmental organizations oppose fluoridation. 

•The ADA directs parents to use non-fluoridated tap water when making formula to avoid overdosing infants. How will parents be advised? Warnings on water bills? Subsidies for the poor? 

•There is currently a lawsuit in Southern California in the US District Court which states that none of the chemicals currently added to water for fluoridation were grandfathered by the FDA or approved by the FDA. The claim that fluoride (hydrofluorosilisic acid) reduces or cures the disease of caries is an unproven medical claim. (NOTE: Sodium fluoride was grandfathered by the FDA for pesticide use, not for the treatment of carries.) 

http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_artic... 

•Hydrofluorosilisic acid is classified as a hazardous substance and intense precautions must be taken when handling. 

•LULAC - The League of Latin American Citizens, one of the oldest Latino organizations in the country, objects to fluoridation as minorities are disproportionately harmed. 

•The current science demonstrates that water fluoridation is an outdated, unethical and ineffective method for providing fluoride treatments to our children. The trend in the rest of the country is to end water fluoridation. In just the past two years, 78 communities around the country, including in the state of California, have stopped fluoridating their water. 

I believe the time has come for the MMWD Board of Directors to end water fluoridation in Marin County. 

Thank you for your kind attention. I look forward to your response. 

Sincerely, 
_______________________________________________________ 

"I would advise against fluoridation.." Side-effects cannot be excluded. In 
Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances." 
- Dr. Arvid Carlsson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000). 

The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm 
will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects." - Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association. [letter] 

"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. 
Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a 
long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." 
- Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association. 

“The E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer 
data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects." - Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A. 

(More quotes by Medical Authorities & Research Scientists)___________________________________________________________________ 
Any purported benefits of fluoridation are in scientific controversy. Studies from 50 years ago do not pass muster under today's standards for safety or effectiveness. Research from the same era also "proved" cigarettes don't cause cancer. 

Even the AMA concedes that no studies were done to determine any side effects caused by fluoridation. [letter] 

The fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an "unapproved drug". The proper use of any drug requires an understanding of how much is too much. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, an estimated total intake of existing fluoride amounts is imperative. Research shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount. 

Constitutional and Civil liberty issues regarding the forced mass medication of the population when alternative means of reducing cavities are easily available, such as tooth brushing. Even so-called mandatory school immunizations provide exemptions for parents who wish not to participate. 

The chemicals used for fluoridation are not high purity, pharmaceutical quality products. Rather they are byproducts of aluminum and fertilizer manufacturing and contain a high concentration of toxins and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and chromium. All proven to be carcinogens.