News
North won't vote on fluoride
Top Headlines A majority of selectmen said Thursday they do not favor putting a non-binding referendum on the ballot, saying the question would not change fluoridation of the town's water. Town counsel has ruled that since voters approved fluoridation in November 2000, only voters can decide to remove it. However, state law does not contain a mechanism for voting out fluoride once it has been approved. The board of health is currently suing the town's department of public works in an effort to halt fluoridation, which a majority of the board opposes. "I'm not a big fan of nonbinding questions in general. I think if people are asked to cast a vote, there should be consequences to it," Selectman William Moffitt said. "The results of the question wouldn't solve anything. Whomever lost would question the legitimacy of the question. "But even if the question isn't on the ballot, the issue will definitely be on the ballot," he added. Moffitt was referring to the contested race for a three-year seat on the board of health. Incumbent Diane Battistello, who is opposed to fluoridation, is facing a challenge from John Donohue, who supports the additive. Selectmen Chairman John Rhyno had suggested selectmen consider placing a non-binding question on the ballot to poll voters about fluoridation. He hoped the ballot question might convince the board of health to drop its lawsuit against the town. "One of the things I hate to see is the town spending thousands and thousands of dollars for legal fees that could be spent for other things," Rhyno said. Moffitt said fluoride was approved by 59 percent of the town's voters at a presidential election in which more than 12,000 residents cast ballots. A town election does not receive as large a turnout. "We've been hearing a lot of noise, but it hasn't come from a whole lot of people. I don't see where there is a legitimate issue for the town to get involved," Moffitt said. Battistello said the outcry about fluoride is not coming from just two members of the board of health. "It's increasingly coming from residents," she said. Battistello said she attempted to set up a fluoridation seminar at Sturdy Memorial Hospital in Attleboro to talk about anti-fluoridation research, but the hospital was not interested. "It's very sad when the medical community is not open to hear about the topic," she said. Donohue said he did not see that a ballot question would bring any resolution to the issue. "This is a no-win situation for the town," he said. "I've been doing some research, and 122 (Massachusetts) cities and towns have fluoride. Attleboro has been fluoridated since 1973, and other towns have had fluoride since the 1953. At no time have we heard public health officials there saying fluoride is a bad thing." Selectmen said it appears the only way to halt fluoridation would be to appeal to the state Legislature for a special act that would allow another binding vote. "The only way to solve this is for a home rule special action statue," Town Administrator Judith Robbins said. "Those who oppose what is currently going on would be better served finding a way to approach the state."
Post Your Comments Susan wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:58 PM: " A study associating ostesarcoma a malignant bone cancer, was published in "Cancer Causes and Control" an online peer review journal of Harvard University. See article published in the Harvard Crimson at http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512585
also
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514514
"In addition to the recent Harvard researcher's epidemiological study linking young males consuming fluoridated water and a 5-fold increase in osteosarcoma, there are other studies waving a red flag regarding cancer. There was the Burk-Yiamouyiannis long-term cancer study showed a 5-10% overall increase of cancer in select large cities with fluoridated water versus another set of large cities without fluoride in their municipal water. The B-Y study has been held up as valid scientific evidence in several courts of law. Through the late 80s and ending in 1990 there was a long-term rat study of sodium fluoride and carcinogenicity in which the initial findings of multiple tumor endpoints would have ended fluoridation. However, the government bailed fluoridation out at the last minute before officially publishing the final version of the NTC report. ALL CANCER ENDPOINTS IN THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM WERE SYSTEMATICALLY DOWNGRADED BY A QUICKLY FORMED COMMITTEE AT THE END, AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER PROVIDED A VALID SCIENTIFIC EXAPLANTION TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS TO WHY THEY DID THIS! Still the final version of the NTC study lists sodium fluoride as an equivocal cause of osteosarcoma in young male rats. Since the NTC study, there was also a study by the New Jersey Department of Health and Human Services. Their study too found a strong epidemiological link of osteosarcoma for those males living in fluoridated New Jersey communities."
- Taylor Young
" Danny wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:02 PM: " Since, they are now no longer, able to blindly Trick, Mislead, or Brainwash the Entire Population, thanxs to the Resources of the Internet & elsewhere, what are they going to do now, to keep protecting their pockets etc.?
People are encouraged to research the Facts & Educate themselves on this Fluoride Business.
Plz see Interview with Christopher Bryson, Author of "The Fluoride Deception", which is freely available Online, you'll then know, why this Toxic Waste, continues to be claimed 100% Safe & what the REAL Motives are behind it, how this Business got started etc.
Go to www.Google.com Click VIDEO Type fluoride
It is first on the List and has been given a 5 Star Rating.
We now live in the 21rst Century!!
Think what happens to Big Business, who sell this Garbage, then Dump it into Drinking water & elsewhere + the Economy, when this 'Fluoride' Sludge was no longer claimed Perfectly safe via Mainstream!
Profits are going to go down etc; you'll get the Picture.
Just follow the Money!
" realist wrote on Feb 2, 2007 3:35 PM: " dan k.'s attitude is exactly why there cannot be a rational debate.
While there are extremists on both sides of this issue many on the pro side automatically dismiss the concerns of the anti side because, well, they're obviously all right wing crazies.
The other side must be a bunch of left-wing commie hugging big brotherists.
Is it right to tell people if you don't like it - dring bottled water? It would actually be cheaper for the schools to issue flouride tablets to the children than to put it in everyone's drinking water. (Flouride does nothing for adults)
As a professional I recognize the studies that favor flouride. I also recognize the right to not take medication if you don't want to and not to have to incur extra cost to avoid it.
If dan k wants flouride, why can't he move to a town where it's not a controversy.
" dan k. wrote on Feb 2, 2007 1:18 PM: " Water itself will kill you if you drink too much, but is necessary for life itself. The sun will give you sun-poisoning if you get too much, but provides vitamin D. Flouride, at the low concentrations used in the water to prevent tooth decay, is not dangerous. Everyone knows it is in the water and if you don't like it, MOVE, or drink bottled water like all those health conscious people who have cavities. You loonies are not content until you stick your self-rightious noses into everyone elses' business. Why don't you folks just not wear your seatbelt, play tag on the pavement, ride a bicycle with no helmet, eat some trans-fat, inhale some second-hand smoke, spank your child, play soccer without a helmet, and vote on homosexual marriage. " Looney wrote on Feb 2, 2007 12:10 PM: " Everyone opposed to flouride in the water is a loon. Flouride is wonderful.
Forget the fact that this amounts to the town prescribing medication.
Some side effects include: Discolored teeth, bone problems, neurlogical problems and possible link to cancer. Ask your doctor if flouride is right for you. If not, too bad. Start drinking bottled water. " anon wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:01 AM: " There are too many NA residents complaining about it to have been a real vote in 2000.
The DEA calls fluoride a carcinogen. The AMA calls it a corrosive poison. Delta Dental, while they advocate fluoride, does not cover repait to teeth damaged by it. The NEJM reported a study showing high levels of fluoride in osteoporosis sufferers. The US Army knows it contributes to abnormal brain function in children.
Let the voters decide, but give them the facts! " wasting-money wrote on Feb 2, 2007 8:47 AM: " Flouride is a waste of money.
It offers no health benefits to adults. And I don't think children in the US even drink tap water now. When ever you see someone from age 1 to 15 with a legal beverage it's usually a juice box, Mountain Dew, RedBull or something from Dunkin Donuts. Okay, maybe the DD drink has tap water in it. " B-Boy wrote on Feb 2, 2007 8:40 AM: " NYSCOF, if you're so convinced that fluoride causes cancer, then why are the cancer rates in communities with fluoridated water comparable to the canver rates in communities without fluoridated water? Answer me that, and maybe I'll listen to the rest of your ill-conceived argument. " Not really - wrote on Feb 2, 2007 8:37 AM: " What's really pathetic is that as soon as the heat gets turned on some of the politicians decide that is the time to let the voters decide. " NYSCOF wrote on Feb 2, 2007 5:45 AM: " It's pathetic that the laws will not allow the removal of chemical from drinking water that is so harmful to humans that it's been linked to cancer when
- that chemical is not required to purify the water
- that chemical is non-essential to the water drinker
- that chemical is an impure waste product of industry
Maybe when it hits the pocketbook, legislators will find a way to get out of this regulatory circus.
Florida newspapers are reporting that there's a shortage of fluoride chemicals which is ratcheting up the cost four-fold, so far. " or
|