When the Water Board recommended the city stop fluoridating the water, the city manager denigrated them and called for public input. However, public input opposed fluoridation.
Only the dental industry spoke in favor of fluoridating with an industrial waste from Cargill pollution scrubbers.
More than 60 health-care providers signed a petition to stop fluoridation because public drinking water is not an appropriate way to deliver a drug. It ignores dosage and informed consent.
So the city selected a small group (to study fluoride) and told them to ignore the questions of freedom of choice and informed medical consent. For a year, the public was forbidden to even speak at its meetings while errors were made and evidence omitted.
The study group released its fraudulent report. National experts commented on the overwhelming amount of errors and omissions in the report. The errors were never corrected. The public’s comments and the comments of experts were never included or addressed. The city basically eliminated public input.
Why does the city conduct extensive outreach and surveys on radon but refuses to do any outreach or conduct even one survey on fluoridation? Are we a system of laws affording equal treatment, or are we subject to the whims of the city manager? Back-door politics shouldn’t dictate what we have to drink for the rest of our lives.
When I complained about this process and asked the city to provide me with a filtration system to take out fluoride, the city manager told me to sue the city.
Interestingly, the harm caused by fluoridation has been proven in court. In Safe Water Foundation v. City of Houston, Judge Anthony Farris found: “That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies … may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man.”
These findings of fact were specifically sustained and upheld on appeal. What remains at issue is whether the government has the right to harm the public. The government’s right to harm us can be reversed. Until then, are we without recourse?
The government itself may be forced to admit it’s been harming us all these years. They’ve decided to study, for the first time, the industrial waste used to fluoridate.
This waste has never been proven to be the tiniest bit safe or effective. Now they’re being forced to study it because it’s shown to increase lead uptake in children.
Why do we continue fluoridating with industrial waste that increases lead levels in children? The government has admitted that fluoride works topically, not by swallowing it, yet they want to force us to swallow it. Why?
Is this really a health decision, or is it hazardous waste disposal? If it’s a health decision, why is dosage being ignored? Why does the Board of Health admit that infants drinking formula made with city water will be overdosed by 100 times and think that’s OK?
Why do they admit the rest of us are being overdosed by two to six times? Do they think we should stop brushing or eating to cut out the overdose?
Why do they misrepresent the risk of one cavity, and try to scare the public into thinking this is a looming health threat? Preventing one cavity is hardly worth irreversible lead damage.
Those on City Council who vote tonight to force us to drink industrial waste that makes our kids more stupid and violent have no excuse for their reckless and irresponsible behavior.
* Cherie Trine lives in Fort Collins.
Print 
PDF