On May 24, 1999, Governor Kenny Guinn approved Assembly Bill 284, a mandatory fluoridation law. The law requires the large water systems serving the Reno and Las Vegas areas to fluoridate their water. The concentration of fluoride must be not less than 0.7 ppm and not more than 1.2 ppm. The bill was sponsored by assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas. Ray Rawson, R-Las Vegas, was the leading fluoridation proponent in the Senate. The bill was opposed by assemblywoman Sharron Angle, R-Reno. Citing a 1992 rejection of fluoridation by the Washoe County Commission, she urged the Assembly to let the people of Washoe County vote on whether they should have fluoridation in their county.

On March 30, the Hutchinson City Council voted 3-2 not to apply for a fluoridation grant from the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund. The $100,000 grant was offered for injecting fluoride into the City's 16 wells. Among those who testified at the hearing was Albert W. Burgstahler, a retired chemistry professor from the University of Kansas. He expounded upon reports linking fluoride and osteoporosis, a bone disease that becomes more prevalent in old age.

Councilman Ron Leslie was the swing vote. He was concerned that water fluoridation would contribute to osteoporosis. He suggested it might be more effective to target dental care than to put it in everybody's water. A motion was made to accept the grant from United Methodist Health Ministry Fund, but spend it on education and topical fluoride applications. The motion failed, 3-2.

-- from the The Hutchinson News, March 31, 1999

Dr. Hardy Limeback is a professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto. He has been a consultant to the Canadian Dental Association for many years. He is a recognized authority on fluoridation. Those who promote fluoridation have often cited his work. In an interview for the Toronto Star, Dr. Limeback said that water fluoridation is not necessary. Although he still believes that fluoride toothpaste is effective in preventing tooth decay, he is concerned about the risk of getting too much fluoride from water. In fluoridated Toronto, people have twice as much fluoride in their hip bones as people in unfluoridated Montreal. High accumulation of fluoride makes the bones more brittle. Published scientific research studies have consistently shown that older people who drank fluoridated water for many years are more likely to get hip fractures. Dr. Limeback has quit drinking fluoridated water. Now he buys distilled water. He drank fluoridated water for 35 years. Now he has joint problems which cleared up when he switched to non-fluoridated water.

Most of the children in Dr. Limeback's dental practice have dental fluorosis. The teeth are mottled with white or brown spots and are weak and porous. This is an early sign that more fluoride is being accumulated than is good for the bones. That tiny one part per million of fluoride added to water is not so harmless because the fluoride continues to accumulate in the bones. Dr. Limeback was quoted as saying,

Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never. In fluoridated areas, people should never use fluoride supplements. We tried to get them banned for children but (the dentists) wouldn't even look at the evidence we presented. . .

Fluoride gets into food and beverage production in a variety of ways. There is now a lot more fluoride in food and beverages than could be imagined when water fluoridation was popularized 50 years ago. Dr. Limeback says that it costs more to treat the dental fluorosis than to treat the cavities which were hypothetically prevented by drinking fluoridated water.

-- abstracted from The Toronto Star, April 25, 1999

The Ministry of Health will order a review of the health effects of fluoride. Lord Baldwin, an opponent of fluoridation, welcomed the review, but would prefer a public inquiry so that the ethics of mass fluoridation could also be examined. In a separate study of diet and nutrition, fluoride in urine will be measured. Lord Baldwin said that this reflects a concession that not enough is known about the total consumption of fluoride to determine whether fluoride should be added to water. The decision of whether or not to support nationwide fluoridation will be postponed until the review of health effects is completed in about two years.

The Water Fluoridation Act of 1985 made the water companies responsible for deciding whether to fluoridate. The water companies are afraid of possible legal action and would rather have the health authorities decide. Scientific studies have reported that fluoride can cause depression of the immune system, impairment of IQ, increased risk of hip fractures, bone cancer and gastrointestinal disorders.

About 5.5 million people, 10 per cent of the population, live in areas with fluoridated water. The West Midlands and the North-East are the most fluoridated regions in the UK.

-- from "The Sunday Telegraph", 14 March 1999

In separate actions, three California water boards and a city council voted to reject the state's mandated fluoridation plan.

On April 6, the Board of Directors of Lakeside Water District, which services customers in east San Diego county, voted unanimously to pass a resolution to oppose the addition of fluoride to their water system and, mirroring the City of La Mesa's resolution of March 9, requested that Helix Water District, which wholesales the water that Lakeside ultimately receives and delivers, ensure, "...That every means available and necessary is used to vigorously oppose putting fluoride in the water supply."

By a majority vote, at its meeting on March 24, 1999, the Riverview Board of Directors, which also receives wholesaled water from Helix through Padre Dam, supported Helix's decision to reject a fluoridation grant, citing, "...(T)here is certainly a lack of evidence at this time to support the fluoridation of the area's water supply."

In an afternoon meeting on April 7, Helix Water District, which is ranked No. 1 on the State's fluoridation priority list, formalized their previous Board action of March 17, 1999 in the form of a resolution. The resolution cites the complexity of controlling the dosage delivered to Helix customers and wholesale recipients when blended with other waters, the health concerns for individuals who have negative physical reactions to fluoride while fluoride is readily available from other sources, Helix's central mission and focus to deliver pure water to its customers, and sister agencies' objections to fluoridation.

The resolution calls for a request that funding for fluoridation of Helix's water be withheld, that the State immediately reconsider Helix's position on the fluoridation priority list, and that the State reconsider its approach to mandating Helix to fluoridate rather than the Metropolitan Water District.

The proponents of fluoridation made a lengthy presentation describing their opinion of the benefits of fluoridation; however, the statement delivered by David Nelson, a fluoridation consultant for the State, received the most attention from the Board.

Nelson stated that he did not want the Helix Board to think that he was threatening them, or that he wanted to force Helix into fluoridating, but that his task force would be issuing a grant to Helix to fluoridate and that there were procedures that included fines and writs (court orders).

Harold Ball, a previous school principal and Mayor, with more than 20 years as Director on the Helix Water Board, scolded the proponents of fluoridation for attempting to characterize individuals who question the safety of fluoride as quacks by stating that he had done his own investigation, citing text books that described the aggressive electron-seeking nature of fluoride and its affinity for bone, as well as studies linking fluoridation to a higher incidence of hip fracture published in such journals as the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Ball expressed his frustration by Nelson's edict, stating that he had taken an oath to vote his conscience for the betterment of those customers he served, and that he resented that Nelson was telling the Helix Board that their determination didn't matter, as it would be preempted.

Helix President Barbara Barber summed up Board Members' comments by stating that a review would show that each of them had expressed themselves as being basically pro-fluoride, but that Helix had historically concluded that it was not appropriate to use the water system to dispense fluoride, especially when fluoride can be made available by other means, and that no new information had come to the Board that supported changing that conclusion. The resolution was passed with a 5-0 vote.

The momentous importance of another item on the agenda, in which the Board of Directors made the decision to develop an amendment to a construction contract for treatment plant upgrade and expansion, to include the construction of facilities for ozonation, appeared to be lost on the crowd of supporters advocating the addition of another contaminant. Utilizing ozonation rather than chlorine as a first stage disinfectant is expected to drastically reduce the amount of chemicals added, and is estimated to reduce the presence of trihalomethanes by approximately 75%.

On the evening of April 7, the City of Escondido, which is No. 4 on the State's fluoridation priority list, ratified an ordinance that prohibits the addition of any substance to the water, including fluoride, that is intended to treat humans, rather than improve the drinkability of the water.

"I wasn't elected to sit idly by, or to provide political cover, for state legislators that rubber-stamp industry's attempt to recycle hazardous waste by dumping it into our drinking water," said Escondido Council Member Keith Beier.

"Our water department calculates that we would be buying more than 33 tons of a substance that can't be given to us for free because it is classified as a toxic hazardous waste; yet, we are supposed to accept that, if we pay $0.35 per gallon and they slap a new label on the container, this same toxic waste can be shipped to us untreated, directly from the scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry that they use to keep fluorine from becoming airborne and killing everything in sight, and that on the truck-ride here it will magically be converted to a safe and desirable nutrient. The kicker to this scheme is that the amount intended for the targeted children is only 16 pounds of that 33 tons."

by Jeff Green, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, 2425 Third Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101, (800) 728-3833

Los Angeles Citizens for Safe Drinking Water files lawsuit to stop fluoridation of Los Angeles, California

Los Angeles Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and eight of its members took legal steps on March 22, 1999 to stop fluoridation of the city's public water supplies.

The Complaint for Validation and Injunctive Relief filed in Los Angeles Superior Court against the Los Angeles City Council and the Department of Water and Power cited more than 20 separate causes of action.

"The City Council has to once again be reminded that the people of Los Angeles have already spoken on this matter," said Paul Borraccia, a local spokesperson for Citizens for Safe Drinking Water. "In 1975, after our city council made the same mistake of attempting to take the decision about what we eat and drink out of the hands of the people, 213,000 voters in a citywide referendum rose up and said by a wide margin that we are just not going to convert our public water supply into a mass medication system, or a dumping ground for hazardous waste."

The lawsuit charges that the defendants failed to give sufficient notice regarding the dangers of fluoridation, the total contents of the substance hydrofluosilicic acid to be added to the water, and the availability of less intrusive alternatives.

"This isn't just a simple case of a difference of opinion about public policy," said Michael Delaney, another plaintiff and spokesperson for the group. "The City Council and DWP have a fluoridation agenda that can't stand up to public or scientific scrutiny. So a report ordered by the Council in November 1995 regarding the funding, implementation schedule, and health hazards for fluoridating was not delivered by the DWP on January 23, 1996 as ordered. The safety reports that were completed by the DWP on December 7, 1997 were not made available to the Council until January 15, 1999, after the chemical contract was already approved by the subcommittee and up in front of the full Council for a vote. The safety report was withheld from the public until January 22, 1999, three days after the final vote and the chemical contract was approved, so that there could be no opportunity for informed and meaningful commentary.

"The reports failed to review any scientific data regarding hydrofluosilicic acid, the specific substance they are intent on adding to our water, which includes numerous toxic chemicals listed under Proposition 65."

The request for injunction charges that the defendants failed to review and consider new medical and scientific safety data that contradicts the data that was available to the State Legislature in 1995 when they passed the unfunded AB733 calling for fluoridation of water systems with more than 10,000 connections.

Policy recommendations for controlled dosage drops and tablets, which are intended to substitute for fluoridated water in non fluoridated communities, were revised downward in 1995 by the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics due to fluoride exposure from all other sources, with the result that mass delivery of the "optimal" amount of fluoride in the water would exceed what any professional in the country could ethically prescribe in controlled doses for a child under 6 years of age, even after individual evaluation.

The lawsuit further charges that the defendants fluoridation plan discriminates against minorities, lower income, the ill, uninsured, children, elderly, and other disadvantaged persons, and that the defendants failed to evaluate the likelihood of fluoride causing brain damage and lower IQ in children.

"The City Council has tried to use the State law for political cover, claiming that they are just abiding with State law and that the ratepayers and taxpayers would never be effected, when in fact the Council is acting entirely on their own and spending millions of dollars from the DWP general fund," said Delaney.

Individual plaintiffs will be attending the regularly scheduled City Council meeting at 10:00 A.M. to personally assure at the public comment period that the Council is informed directly of the causes of action filed. They will be available for further comment to the press at that time.

by Jeff Green, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, 2425 Third Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110, (800) 728-3833

Los Angeles Citizens For Safe Drinking Water, P.O. Box 55335, Sherman Oaks, CA 91413, (818) 780-3833 -- Paul Borraccia

The City of Escondido, which is listed fourth on California's fluoridation priority list, took a stand yesterday to protect their citizens against the State's plan to fluoridate their public water.

Following more than 40 speakers, and at times contentious discussion between Councilmembers, the City Council passed an ordinance that prohibits the addition of any substance to the water, including fluoride, that is intended to treat humans, rather than improve the drinkability of water.

While promoters of converting the water supply to a delivery system for fluoride contended that there was no evidence to show that any harm to individuals had ever come from "optimal" levels of fluoride in the water, Councilmember Keith Beier questioned whether health professionals endorsed the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) revised policy recommendations for controlled dosage drops and tablets that are used as a substitute for fluoridated water in non fluoridated communities.

The revised policy recommendation was published by the AAP and the American Dental Association (ADA) in 1995 in order to reduce the risk of fluoride poisoning to children from over-exposure to fluoride from all sources, not just the water. The AAP and ADA schedules show that infants should have no further exposure to fluoride even if there is no fluoride in their drinking water.

Councilmember Beier further questioned why professionals were required to evaluate a child's weight, growth and development, unusual susceptibility, and total exposure to fluoride from all sources before being able to prescribe even 1/4 of what that child is expected to receive in the water. Beier noted that the amount of fluoride the State was intending to put in the water exceeded the amount that any health professional could ethically prescribe to a child under 6 years of age.

Supporters of the ordinance displayed sodas, fruit juices, white grape juice, baby foods, and cereals bought from their neighborhood stores that contain up to 6 times the amount of fluoride intended for their water, yet contain no labeling so that parents could limit their children's intake.

David Nelson, the fluoridation consultant for the state Department of Health and Human Services, offered the State's opinion that the ordinance would not prevail against the State.

In an aggressive tone, Nelson indicated that they had no intent at this time to force fluoride down the city's throat, but that they certainly had the power to do so, and that it might come to that.

Nelson contended that the determination of which communities were to be fluoridated, and how a $10 million grant from California Endowment for implementation of fluoridation is spent, was his agency's own internal decision, and that they might just skip around the priority list and provide funds to Cities that want to fluoridate.

In what some audience members could only imagine was a mis-statement, although uncorrected, Nelson additionally stated that if the City did not pass the ordinance, and accepted $10 million, the city could sit back and let the State's legal department and the Health and Human Services fight the lawsuits that would come up.

A contentious moment of the meeting occurred in response to Beier's statement that, after his listening to hours of discrepancies between the fluoridation proponents' own facts and representations, and the recognition that the substance to be added to the water was an industrial hazardous waste, he was trying to determine what was driving the ADA and others to push so hard. Referring to the millions of dollars paid to the ADA for the endorsement of fluoride products, Beier suggested that one should just, "follow the money."

Escondido's stance against the State's plan to fluoridate was one of several that took place during the month of March.

On March 2, the voters in Santa Cruz affirmed a March 1998 ordinance passed by the city council that prohibited fluoridation without a vote of the people, and expanded the ordinance to include prohibition of any substance intended to affect the physical or mental functions of persons consuming the water.

On March 9, the City of La Mesa voted unanimously to pass a resolution supporting the prohibition of fluoridation, and requested that Helix Water District, which supplies water to their city, ensure, "...That every means available and necessary is used to vigorously oppose putting fluoride in the water supply."

On March 17, Helix Water District, listed as No. 1 on the State's fluoridation priority list, directed their staff to advise the California Department of Health and Human Services, a fluoridation task force coalition, and the other water agencies and communities that they service, that Helix will reject any grant offered them that would require that they add fluoride to their water.

On March 22, members of the Los Angeles chapter of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water filed a lawsuit containing more than 20 causes of action against the Los Angeles City Council and Department of Water and Power, as Los Angeles prepares to fluoridate based on a vote of the City Council. Los Angeles was the last major city in California to allow the people a say, in 1975, which resulted in 213,000 citizens of Los Angeles voting to reject the 1974 City Council's decision to fluoridate.

by Jeff Green, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, 2425 Third Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101, (800) 728-3833

When fluoride is added to municipal water systems, its concentration in the water has to be carefully controlled to prevent outbreaks of fluoride poisoning. Over the years, there have been incidents where malfunctioning equipment resulted in fluoride overfeeds which resulted in death or serious illness. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1994 reported such an incident in Hooper Bay, Alaska.

Now, there is concern about what might happen to computer controlled water quality monitoring in the year 2000. Senator Bennett (R-Utah) told a story about what happened at a water purification plant in Utah. The story was reported in the Salt Lake Tribune, on January 18:

"Curious about what would happen when the new millennium ticks in, a water-purification plant in Utah set its clocks ahead to Jan. 1, 2000. With computers ill-equipped to handle the new date, the plant malfunctioned, dumping poisonous quantities of chlorine and other chemicals into the water."

Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM recommends that cities and municipalities disconnect water fluoridation equipment during the Y2K rollover to prevent possible fluoride fatalities.