Several months ago, news stories and letters to the editor focused on the announcement that fluoride would be added to the water provided to Waterworks District 29 which serves Malibu.
The fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies and for most folks the issue was ended with resignation.
Not so for some, who are continuing to challenge not only the efficacy of fluoride in the water supplies, but the political process of how it got into the local water supply.
Activist Bob Singer, who has been involved in many local actions, is trying to keep the case for opposition to fluoridation alive, including raising money for the Safe Drinking Water Legal Fund, an undertaking of the San Diego-based Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, which plans to litigate what it calls “a violation of constitutional rights to be free of bodily intrusions by forced medication with an unapproved drug.”Singer and others contend the issue of exposing an entire populace to the treated water has been settled in favor of anti-fluoride activists.
The local activist cites from his half-inch-thick whitepaper research to show that fluoridation has no effect on reducing tooth decay, that the chemical is a toxic substance and is a health hazard to vulnerable members of the population.
“If you are a customer of the Department of Water and Power or any Metropolitan Water District member agency [Waterworks District 29] you should demand that your district send a letter telling the MWD to remove hydrofluosilicic acid and its contaminants from the water,” he said.
Singer seems clear about the research which makes a distinction. “It is totally accurate to state that ingested fluoride provides no significant reduction in tooth decay. However, it is not accurate to say that fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, as topically it can have an impact,” he added.
The political activist insists the law AB733 does not even mandate the chemical because a water district with 10,000 connections was required to fluoridate, if and only if funding was made available by third party funders, not ratepayers.
“In this case, you can verify with the DWP if any funds were ever granted to cover the operations and maintenance or any significant amount of the capital improvement costs. Rate payers paid and continue to pay to have the water poisoned with a hazardous waste,” he added.
Singer is quick to point out that most water filters on the market do not remove fluoride unless they are specifically manufactured to do so. The expensive reverse osmosis water filters will remove up to 90 percent, according to Singer, but are not suitable if you want to avoid bathing in the fluoridated water.
“Instead, why not help the plaintiffs who are now prepared to file a constitutional claim in federal court to protect our rights under the 9th and 14th amendments,” Singer urges.
For more info, log on to Keepers-of-the-Well.org or call 800-728-3833.
Print 
PDF