Peninsula Activism—Alive & Well…

Nearly 4000* folks faced blustery wind and brisk temperatures to attend the 2018 Port Townsend Women’s March yesterday morning. Steve Koehler took some photos:

Formation of the march from the rear. The front end of the march was a block or so beyond what the photo captured.
A family-friendly gathering…
Steve wasn’t the only old dawg’ in attendance…

*According to Peninsula Daily News numbers.

Net Pen Dangers Are Not Limited to Atlantic Salmon Aquaculture.

Contrary to recent industry PR articles in the news, problems with net pens aren’t limited to Atlantic Salmon aquaculture. This is an issue regardless of whether the species produced is non-native or native. View the text and images posted by KUOW Radio:

This video was recorded by DNR at the two remaining Cooke salmon farms off Cypress Island last September:


Senator Kevin Van de Wege & Representative Mike Chapman
Friday, Jan. 19, 4—5 PM
Sequim City Transit Center

Atlantic salmon net pens in Puget Sound

We invite you to a meeting with WA State Senator Kevin Van De Wege and WA State Representative Mike Chapman. The purpose of the meeting is to hear about aquaculture bill language being discussed in the State Legislature. The meeting will be from 4 – 5 PM in the Sequim City Transit Center, 190 West Cedar Street between Sequim-Dungeness Avenue and 2nd Street. Doors will open at 3:30 PM.

Currently there are three different aquaculture bills. Senate Bill 6086 will phase out non-native species of marine finfish net pens as leases expire. House Bill 2418 first asks for more study and for the leaseholder to show there is no environmental harm. But we have the science already.* House bill 2260 would end non-native net pens immediately, but this could lead to contract law suits.

Senator Van De Wege and Representative Chapman are both concerned about the impacts of the Atlantic salmon net pens to the environment. Demonstrations and signs are not necessary. This meeting is a good chance for our legislators to explain the differences in the bills and for them to hear from us.

Please feel free to let your members and friends know about this meeting.
Click here to read the Scientific Fact Sheets.
Sponsored By:
Sierra Club North Olympic Group
Surfrider Olympic Peninsula Chapter
Olympic Environmental Council
Protect the Peninsula’s Future
Save The Olympic Peninsula
Olympic Forest Coalition

Commissioner of Public Lands Revokes Cooke Aquaculture’s Lease in P.A.

Cooke Aquaculture’s Port Angeles fish operation inside the Ediz hook has been decertified. (Steve Ringman/The Seattle Times)

We wish to thank and commend Commissioner of Public Lands, Hilary Franz, for her decision to terminate Cooke Aquaculture Pacific’s Port Angeles net pen lease. Here’s a link to Linda Mapes’ article in The Seattle Times :


Dr. Tom Locke Misrepresents Fluoride Monitoring to Public

Dr. Eloise Kailin recently debated Dr. Tom Locke in an event held by the Port Angeles Business Association on the City of Port Angeles’ Fluoride dosing regime. Since then Dr. Kailin has found new information to correct the record:

Dr. Tom Locke made a BIG point at the PABA “debate” that PA had installed a state of the art measuring system for adding fluoride to the water in strictly regulated doses. I followed up with a disclosure request because I had not heard of this. The City responds below. Looks like Locke was misinformed and what is worse, did not condition his presentation to reflect any uncertainty—hallmark of a salesman rather than a scientist. It is also disturbing that he has depended for his own conclusions on unreliable sources.

In the light of this, voters might like to know whether a vote in favor of fluoridation will obligate the utility department to purchase equipment to provide continuous monitoring, and effects on utility bills. State Dept of Health Office of Drinking Water engineer wanted continuous monitoring in 2006 but at that time excused the city from this expense due to fact a new water system was to be installed. So we have had over 10 years of substandard control of dosing.

Good morning, Eloise.

James Burke, Deputy Director of Public Works, has provided the following statement in response to your request for information on how the City of Port Angeles measures fluoride in the municipal water supply:

“The City monitors the dosing of fluoride through daily grab samples and a monthly split sample. Daily grab samples are taken by City Water Treatment Plant staff daily and recorded with Department of Health on the monthly water quality report. Split samples are taken monthly and reported to the Department of Health. During a spilt sample, the City Water Treatment Plant staff takes a grab sample and then compares the results with an outside certified laboratory. All results are reported to the Department of Health when the City is fluoridating its drinking water. No “continuous measuring system” device has been installed. The procedures for measuring and monitoring fluoride has not changed since its implementation.”

I believe this information satisfies the balance of your request. If I have misunderstood your request in any way, please let me know.

Thank you,



Why Europe Rejected Flouride

Download an illustrated PDF of this article: Statements from European Health Water Environment Authorities on Water Fluoridation


Statements from European Health, Water, & Environment Authorities on Water Fluoridation

Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control hails water fluoridation as one of the “top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” most of the western world, including the vast majority of western Europe, does not fluoridate its water supply.

At present, 97% of the western European population drinks non-fluoridated water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and approximately 90% of both the United Kingdom and Spain. Although some of these countries fluoridate their salt, the majority do not. (The only western European countries that allow salt fluoridation are Austria, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland.)

Despite foregoing “one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” tooth decay rates have declined in Europe as precipitously over the past 50 years as they have in the United States. This raises serious questions about the CDC’s assertion that the decline of tooth decay in the United States since the 1950s is largely
attributable to the advent of water fluoridation.


“Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.”
SOURCE: M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das
Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000.

“This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) in the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.
SOURCE: Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 20003

“We are pleased to informyou that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.
SOURCE: Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 19993

“We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.
SOURCE: Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000.
“Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the
resistance presented in this context were an individual’s right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of “force-feeding” was also mentioned.

Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it.
Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water.”
SOURCE: Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.

“Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.”
SOURCE: Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August 25, 2000.

“Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission o6
fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.
SOURCE: Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1993.

“Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.
SOURCE: Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 20003

“From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support fromParlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn.
SOURCE: Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 20003

Northern Ireland
“The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland.”
SOURCE: C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000.

“In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated.
SOURCE: Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheis&
(National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 20003

“Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden…New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.
SOURCE: Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket — National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 20003

Czech Republic
“Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this formof supplementation is considered uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor) unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance) unethical (“forced medication”) toxicologically and physiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor.”
SOURCE: Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999.


May 2007: A study of European public opinion on water fluoridation, published in the journal Community Dentistry Oral Epidemiology, reports that the “vast majority of people opposed water fluoridation.” According to the study, Europeans opposed fluoridation for the following reasons:

“Many felt dental health was an issue to be dealt with at the level of the individual, rather than a solution to be imposed en masse. While people accepted that some children were not encouraged to brush their teeth, they proposed other solutions to addressing these needs rather than having a solution of unproved safety imposed on
themby public health authorities whomthey did not fully trust. They did not see why they should accept potential side effects in order that a minority may benefit. In particular, water was something that should be kept as pure as possible, even though it was recognized that it already contains many additives.”

November 2004: After months of consulation, Scotland – which is currently unfluoridated – rejected plans to add fluoride to the nation’s water.

April 9, 2003: The City Parliament of Basel, Switzerland voted 73 to 23 to stop Basel’s 41 year water fluoridation program. Basel was the only city in Switzerland to fluoridate its water, and the only city in continental western
Europe, outside of a few areas in Spain.