Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Seattle’

Juanita Socks Seattle in the Kisser

October 16th, 2011 No comments

In a message dated 10/10/2011 9:41:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Nate.VanDuzer@seattle.gov writes:

Dear Juanita,

Thank you for your e-mail to Councilmember Burgess about fluoride. The attached Fact Sheet from Seattle Public Utilities contains information about the history of fluoride in our City’s water supply and why it continues to be provided.

Sincerely,

Nate Van Duzer

***

Dear Mr. VanDouzer,

Thank you for your reply.

Did you think that because my name is JUANITA that I must be stupid?!  Does the Seattle City Council think Hispanics are stupid?  That so called Fact Sheet is a bunch of baloney as you and Councilmember Burgess and the entire Seattle City Council ought to know.

Do you honestly think that I am stupid enough not to know the true facts about fluoridation for myself?  Or are you assuming that someone named JUANITA would not even be able to do research on the subject for themselves and that I just sit around all day eating tacos and doing a Mexican hat dance?  Shame on you and Councilmember Burgess for trying to hoodwink me with that insulting Seattle Public Utilities “Fact Sheet” so let’s stop playing games.

I know that Councilmember Burgess–as does every single other Councilmember- knows perfectly well about the lead, arsenic, mercury, chromium 6, radioactive contaminants, etc. and the FACT that hydrofluorosilicic acid–an unrefined hazardous industrial waste product–is infinitely MORE toxic than natural calcium fluoride.

I think you know these things too and if you don’t you better start educating yourself–if someone named JUANITA could possibly be smart enough to do some research for myself then I am sure that you can do some too.

If you already know these things about the toxic fluoridation then I really wonder how you sleep at night knowing that you are deliberately spreading purposefully misleading information that can and does lead to great physical harm to countless trusting people.  I know that there are certain things that I absolutely will not do because I have a conscience–and spreading purposefully misleading information that can and will cause harm to innocent people is certainly high on my list of absolute no no’s.  If my boss tried to get me to do something like that I would quit and seek employment elsewhere.

That so called Fact Sheet is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and you know it.  So interesting how it deliberately left out the FACTS about fluoridation that I listed above!

I am not being “provided” with fluoride–my Civil Rights are being violated by having it FORCED upon me against my will.  LULAC has stated that it certainly IS a Civil Rights Violation.

Hydrofluorosilicic acid is an unapproved drug.  You can quote Surgeon Generals, the ADA, the U.S. Public Health Services etc. all you like in your ridiculous “Fact Sheet” but the final Federal Court Ruling in Doe vs Rumsfeld states “that no one, not even the Federal government has the right to force anyone to take into their body a non approved drug.”

A FINAL FEDERAL COURT RULING certainly trumps any silly quotes in that deliberately misleading “Fact Sheet”.

I suggest that the City Council start giving some very serious consideration to stopping the fluoridation ASAP.  If they will not do it because it is the right thing to do then they better start trying to figure out how they are going to be paying their legal bills and resulting judgements when the Civil Rights Violations Lawsuits start because I do not think their municipal nor their private insurance is going to cover them in this situation.

Thank you for your time and attention to this extremely serious matter.

Juanita

Seattle Reduces Fluoride to .8 ppm

March 30th, 2011 4 comments

March 29, 2011

Dear Dr. Osmunson,

Thank you for your inquiry about the new developments in regard to fluoride in drinking water.  Seattle Public Utilities has been tracking this issue closely in order to follow the recommendations of our public health agencies in the most appropriate manner.  As it stands now, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services has proposed a recommended level of fluoride in drinking water and is accepting comments on that proposal until April 15.  We are anticipating that the final recommendation will be made in late summer or early fall.

Since the proposed recommendation was announced on January 7, we have been in contact with our local and state health departments.  With their support, we have adjusted the fluoride level in the water supply to the lower end currently allowed by state law, 0.8 mg/L.    We will continue to work with the Washington State Department of Health and Public Health Seattle & King County in preparation for a final federal recommendation on fluoride levels.  This information is posted on our website at: http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Water_System/Water_Quality/Water_Quality_Testing/index.asp

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Jim Nilson

———————————————-
Jim Nilson, PE
Sr. Water Quality Engineer
Drinking Water Division

Seattle Public Utilities

Ph. 206-615-1363
Fax 206-684-0206

email: jim.nilson@seattle.gov
http://www.seattle.gov/util

***

From Audrey Adams:

I just wonder, though, why the state would set a minimum limit if a water district choses to fluoridate?  I mean, really, what is the point when 40% of Washington is at zero, to mandate any water district that does fluoridate to do so at any minimum level?  That IS a roundabout mandate to fluoridate, is it not?  How can the state claim that the decision to fluoridate is a local decision if they are requiring a certain level for certain water districts?  Should we be pushing the state to list no minimum, rather only list a maximum?

Audrey Adams

***

From Dr. Bill Osmunson:

As a dentist for 25 years I failed to review the science and simply believed fluoridation was effective and safe.  No appology begins to correct the problem of adding toxins to your child.

It is hard to sleep knowing we public health professionals have contributed to so much harm.

Bill

 

I just wonder, though, why the state would set a minimum limit if a WD choses to fluoridate?  I mean, really, what is the point when 40% of Washington is at zero, to mandate any WD that does fluoridate to do so at any minimum level?  That IS a roundabout mandate to fluoridate, is it not?  How can the state claim that the decision to fluoridate is a local decision if they are requiring a certain level for certain WDs?  Should we be pushing the state to list no minimum, rather only list a maximum?
Audrey

Seattle Fluoridated in 1968

July 13th, 2010 No comments

Seattle voters approved fluoridation of city water on November 5, 1968.

On November 5, 1968, Seattle voters approve fluoridation of city water. Supporters assert that fluoride will reduce tooth decay in children. Opponents claim that the chemical is harmful and an unwanted intrusion by government.

Twice before in Seattle’s history, fluoridation was the topic of a public referendum. In 1952, the citizens of Seattle voted 45,612 for and 88,168 against fluoridation. In 1963, the proposal was once again defeated, although by a smaller margin of 58,593 to 43,747 votes.

The fluoridation question resurfaced on the City Council’s agenda in 1968. Proponents of fluoridation included the State Health Department, Dental Associations, and a group of women called Mothers for Fluoridation. On April 8, 1968, the Mothers’ group presented Council President Floyd C. Miller with a petition bearing approximately 3,500 signatures requesting that the city?s water be “adjusted to contain one part fluoride for every million parts of water” (The Seattle Times, April 8, 1968).

Statistics showed that fluoride hardened teeth, and thus reduced tooth decay by as much as 65 percent. In presenting the petition, Patricia Schultz said that, based on State Health Department statistics, parents would save between $700,000 and $1 million per year in dentist bills as a result of fluoridation. Dr. Olin Hoffman, head of the State Health Department?s Dental-Health Section, described fluoridation as “one of the greatest public-health measures of all time” (Seattle Times, May 14, 1968). One of the key arguments put forth by those in favor of fluoridation was that underprivileged and low-income families could not afford proper dental care for their children, so voluntary fluoridation, such as drops, tablets or vitamin-additives, was out of the question. Fluoridation of the city’s water would therefore be of great benefit to the poor.

Unwanted Doctoring

Opponents of fluoridation, such as the Pure Water Association, were equally vociferous, and dismissed State Department estimates as unsound. They also raised the mass medication question. This held that fluoridation would force a treatment upon those who oppose it on religious grounds. Others warned of health hazards, such as mottled teeth, illness, or even death. Some opposition pamphlets were quite extreme in their views. One pamphlet stated “once the authorities have gotten around to doctoring your water to stop your teeth from rotting (through fluoridation), it is only a short step to doctoring it to prevent your mind from functioning” (The Seattle Times, November 1, 1968)

In the hopes of finding a happy medium between the two sides, B. J. Hartz, a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Washington, proposed adding fluorides to milk instead of to water. Unfluoridated milk would continue to be available, of course. This suggestion was quickly dismissed by the Seattle-King County Health Department, for numerous reasons, including cost, effectiveness, and control.

A public hearing on the fluoridation issue took place on June 28, 1968, after which the City Council voted 5 to 4 to fluoridate Seattle?s water. Existing laws granted state and local officials the power to compel fluoridation without first seeking a public referendum. However, according to the City?s Charter, opponents had 30 days following the Council?s vote to gather signatures equal in number to 8 percent of the votes cast for Mayor in the last general election (in this case approximately 14,000 signatures were needed), to put the question to a public referendum.

Surprisingly, however, on July 22, 1968, City Council did an about face by choosing to refer the fluoridation issue to voters. Councilman Tim Hill, who had pushed strongly for fluoridation, said “I am literally shocked and amazed that members of the Council who voted against putting this on the ballot would now change their minds without even discussing the matter beforehand.”

Myrtle Edwards (1894-1969), one of the two Council members who changed her vote, defended her actions by saying “some poor people are really frightened of fluoridated water” (Seattle P-I, July 23, 1968).

On November 5, 1968, Seattle voters approved the fluoridation proposal by 121,047 to 93,142. In a public statement by Dr. Sanford Lehman, Director of Seattle-King County Health Department, fluoride was to be added to the City?s water “in order to reduce the incidence of dental caries (tooth decay) among young people in a long-range preventative program” (The Seattle Times, December 13, 1969). The estimated cost for equipment and operation was $0.20 per person, per year. On January 12, 1970, Canadian-made liquid fluoride officially began to flow into Seattle City water.

In 2000, a study in the British Medical Journal credited fluoride with reducing tooth decay by 15 percent, but acknowledged that mottled teeth occurred 48 percent of the time.

Sources:

City of Seattle Archives, Series 1802-B4, Box 1, Folders 8, 9, and 10, Files 216078, 247766, and 262435; “Council Reversal Leaves Fluoridation Up to Voters,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 23, 1968, p. 1; “Mothers? Group Petitions for Fluoridation of City Water,” The Seattle Times, April 8, 1968, p. 3; Herb Robinson, “Fluoridation Battle Looms Once Again,” Ibid., May 14, 1968, A; Douglas Willix, “City Council Approves Fluoridation,” Ibid., June 28, 1968, p. 1; “City Council Hears Fluoridation Pleas,” Ibid., June 28, 1968, p. 31; “Fluoridation of Milk Supplies Instead of Water is Proposed,” Ibid., August 4, 1968, p. 20; Herb Robinson, “Fluoridation Foes Scare Tactics are Unprecedented,” Ibid., November 1, 1968, p. 11; “Fluoridation of Milk Opposed,” Ibid., September 5, 1968, p. 2; “Date for Fluoridation Set,” Ibid., December 13, 1969, p. 33; Al Dieffenbach, “Fluoride Will Begin Flowing in Limited Amounts This Week,” Ibid., January 11, 1970, p.A-1; Emma Ross, “Study: Fluoridation Harmless,” Ibid., October 6, 2000, p. A-23. By Heather Trescases, December 07, 2002