News

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,

Jennifer

 

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.

STATEMENTS FROM EUROPEAN OFFICIALS:

Austria
“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.

Belgium
“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

Denmark
“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

Finland
“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.

France
“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.

Germany
“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.

Luxembourg
“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

Netherlands
“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.

Norway
“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

Sweden
“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.

UPDATES:

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.

 

Dr. Eloise Kailin’s Ballot Statement Against Water Fluoridation

Please Vote NoMy top five reasons for opposing water fluoridation:
1.  Lack of informed consent:  Putting industrial-grade fluorosilicic acid in our water violates individuals’ right to informed consent.  Informed consent is our basic right to say what medication goes into our own bodies and those of our children.  No other medication is forced on people without their consent.
2.  Not pharmaceutical grade:  I want to drink good tasting, clean water.  The fluorosilicic acid added to our water is not pharmaceutical grade.   It is unpurified byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry, and is frequently contaminated by arsenic, lead, and other undisclosed chemicals.
3.  Studies indicate harm:  An increasing number of credible studies link swallowed fluoride to lowered IQ, brittle bones, digestive problems, thyroid issues, etc.  If there is any benefit to fluoride, it is by surface contact with teeth, not by swallowing.  Infants and the elderly are most vulnerable.
4.  No dose control and no monitoring of side-effects:  When doctors give medication, there is monitoring and dose control based on total product consumed.  Not so with fluoridated water.  Fluoride consumption varies widely from water, other beverages, dental products, and foods sprayed with fluoride insecticides.  Children are consuming way too much fluoride.  Individual sensitivity to all medicines varies greatly.
5.  Contamination of environment:  Over 99.5% of fluoridated water does not land on teeth.  Instead it just goes into the environment.  Plants, animals, and aquatic life are all exposed to toxic effects.  Fluorosilicic acid is “Corrosive Hazardous Waste.”  
Argument prepared by:  Eloise Kailin, M.D., Chair of Our Water Our Choice
Click the link below for Dr. Kailin’s Statement as a pdf:

Statement Against for City of Port Angeles Advisory Ballot re Fluoridation

 

PPF Concurs with Dr. Anne Schaffer’s Comments on Cooke’s Net-Pen Expansion in the Strait

Greg Ballard, Project Planner
Clallam County DCD
223 E. 4th St.Suite 5
Port Angeles, WA 98362

Protect the Peninsula’s Future, a non-profit corporation dedicated to the wise landuse of the North Olympic Peninsula since 1973, opposes the proposed expansion of Cooke’s net-pen operation in the Start of Juan de Fuca north of Green Point. We concur with Dr. Anne Schaffer’s comments for the Coastal Watershed Institute, which can be found at  http://www.coastalwatershedinstitute.org/resources_87_3269906163.pdf

Respectfully,
Steve Koehler, President
Protect the Peninsula’s Future

PPF’s Clallam County/GMA Critical Areas Protection Ordinance Resolved

The longest running case in Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) history was resolved today, 6-21-17, with the attached Order on Remand Finding Compliance. Clallam County adopted its first Growth Management Act (GMA) Critical Areas Protection Ordinance in 1999. Protect the Peninsula’s Future (PPF) and Washington Environmental Council (WEC) challenged to the GMBH (among other challenges) that the exemption in the Ordinance from stream and wetland protection for existing and ongoing agriculture did not meet the GMA requirement “to protect” these sensitive critical areas. In 2000, the Growth Board found the County’s 1999 agricultural critical areas exemption invalid and not in compliance with the GMA. Today the GMBH found the County had come into compliance with the GMA requirements with respect to existing ongoing agriculture. The case has taken more than 17 years to resolve this issue. In its decision the Growth Board acknowledged the tireless efforts of Dr. Eloise Kailin, who was the  Committee Chair for this project since the beginning.

Lynn Eccles │Administrative Assistant
Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office

Change of Government Letter to Port o’ Call Editor by Eloise Kailin M.D.—Our Water Our Choice Chair

From: Eloise Kailin M.D., Chair Our Water Our Choice PAC

A petition to City of Port Angeles for Change of Government , signed by over a thousand registered voters, and certified by County Auditor has been waiting since last May for the City Attorney to issue its ballot title.

This petition which gives voters more voice in City governance would change our present form of city government to its previous, more spending restricted form—no doubt a reason city staff dislikes it. It was necessitated because 4 of 7 City Councilpersons in December, 2015 refused to follow a 57% NO Fluoridation vote of all city drinking water customers. The Fluoride Four declared they trusted health officials, one said that parents were incapable of making the right choices for their children’s dental health, and besides city council was elected to make this medical choice for them. So they voted to continue fluoridation for another ten years. The resulting uproar led to a moratorium on fluoridation. Another citizen vote on fluoridation is to be held November of 2017. Will we ever get to vote on the petition?

Reversion of city government to its more conservative form is a democratic choice granted by the state legislature to its citizens. After approval in a general election this change requires re-election of the entire city council: The present City Council is questioning this provision which we think is frivilous since this practice is spelled out in state law and was followed by Sequim when that government was changed.

On Nov. 5, 2013 The City of Port Orchard voted in a general election on a change from the old form of government (RCW 35) to the newer one (RCW 35A) which we have in PA. Result: A SMASHING DEFEAT over 68% NAY to our current form in PA.

Why such a strong response? See Voter pamphlet, “Rebuttal to the Argument For” : “This measure promotes a much larger government, reduces accountability to the people and further isolates citizens from our elected officials.”

If passed by PA,one of the citizen benefits is that ALL committee meetings must have provision for public comment, of which the most important is probably the Utility Committee in PA, which entirely lacks such provision.
We look forward to a ballot title proposal.

The Story Behind the PDN’s 2-26-17 Story on Rayonier Inc. & Its Toxic Waste Cleanup

Todays Peninsula Daily News ran this story: http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/rayonier-20-year-anniversary-sees-site-still-dormant-with-2026-as-cleanup-target/

20 years and still waiting!  What the reporter did not include (see link above to the PDN story of Rayonier’s Port Angeles Mill closure 20 years ago) is the background of the citizens actions to ensure Rayonier did not leave Port Angeles its toxic waste, as was done when, in 1994, it closed its Hoquiam plant, and was done by another corporation in Bellingham.

From 1988-1996
Clean Air Now (CAN) formed trying to get agencies to force Rayonier and the other mills in Port Angeles to cleanup its air emissions.  CAN was one of the first Ecology Public Participation Grant (PPG) recipients, and with those funds set up a call in HELP line from those feeling impacted by the air emissions.  CAN was handed over to retired Barbara and Dr. Richard Osborne, who for 5 years continued the call in line and daily filmed the air stack emissions of all the mill plants and matched them to the calls.  After 5 yeas and 3000 calls, they mapped where the calls came from to show denseness of the impacts over which parts of town.

Late 1996 and Beyond
When, In late 1996, Rayonier announced it was closing its Pt Angeles Mill, the Olympic Environmental Council with the help of WA Toxics Coalition (WTC) formed a western WA environmental coalition of 14 organizations (including WTC, Puget Soundkeepers Alliance, WAshPIRG, WEC, Sierra Club, Protect Peninsula’s Future, People for Puget Sound, and others) and local citizens.  The USEPA National Ombudsman, based in D.C., agreed to take on the case, which prompted Region 10 to meet with the Coalition and get involved.  In early 1997, Region 10 agreed to do a full investigation of where we asked them to.  This included the Port Angeles Harbor, the mill site, town soils and eastward, and 3 landfills Rayonier owned or used.  Two landfills and the mill area ranked for Superfund Priority list.  (Politics, again, kept the 3rd from a full investigation and listing.)

Denial and politics stepped in from Rayonier’s local friends, including the City of Port Angeles, EDC, Port of Port Angeles, Chamber, etc. and traveled up the political chain to Representative Lynn Kessler, the Director of Ecology-Tom Fitzsimmons, and Governor Locke and then to Senator Murray and Congressman Norm Dicks who, in turn, leaned on EPA to hand over the cleanup to the Ecology Division that oversaw Rayonier and allowed the pollution.  (They understood each other.)

It took the environmentalists and tribal concerns 7 years to have the cleanup handed over to Ecology’s Toxics Cleanup division, which should have had cleanup oversight from the beginning. It took the environmental coalition to press Ecology to set a dioxin soil cleanup level for children. Throughout, until a few years ago, Rayonier fought Ecology every step of the way.  With a change in corporate staff in Jacksonville FL a few years ago, Rayonier began to cooperate.

Early in the 2000s, Dr. Eloise Kailin worked with WA State Dept of Health and created the statistics of deaths from 1990-1997 in subcensus tracts from the then Daishowa Paper Mill on Ediz Hook to east of the Rayonier Mill.  Findings overlapped with those of the Osborne’s call in map.  In 2008, Ecology released its own findings of the levels of dioxins in soils in and around the City of Port Angeles.  It coincided with the Osborne-Kailin maps.  Citizen science and agency science backed up one another.

It is always interesting to hear the City of Port Angeles, the economic development agencies and the business community gripe, but never admit their parts in caring more about Rayonier than the health of the community and the environment.  And almost none of them show up to community presentations Ecology hosts or the PPG recipient Olympic Environmental Council hosts to bring the community up to speed.

PS:  As to “HarborWorks,”  the citizens did not want it or their $1.5M spent on it.  HarborWorks was a backroom deal, as the agency and state records showed.  Again, the City, Port and business community wasting resources.  Shirley Nixon, Norma Turner and I started a citizen petition which other citizens readily took.  We collected 800 signatures within two weeks and turned them over to Ecology who took note of the community’s sentiment, which coincided with Rayonier’s decision not to deal with HarborWorks.

It is hoped that we can see this area restored to its once natural beauty of a clean beach, a natural flood plain, a restored Ennis Creek, and where nature and humans can once again safely use.

—Darlene Schanfald