Back in 1960, the voters of Crescent City were asked to vote on the following: “Shall the City Council of Crescent City adopt an ordinance providing for the fluoridation of the city water supply?” Out of 561 ballots cast that day, only 183 were in favor, and 370 against. Click here to read full document.
Back in the ‘60’s, people equated “fluoride” with “rat poison.” It made sense at that time to reject the scheme.
Fast forward to 1968. Resolution No. 1968-42 shows the City Council approving the addition of fluoride to the City’s drinking water. No vote by the public was taken.
Councilmembers Mouritsen, Yackamouih, Free, Nicholson and Peepe all voted for it. They did this under the auspices of the Health and Safety Code.
August 19, 1968, the City Council received a letter from Walter D. Barrett asking the council to consider the following suggestions regarding fluoridation.
• that the council rescind its previous action, or
• that the council by its own initiative place the matter on the ballot for a vote of the people, or
• that the council, preferably through a public statement, make clear its intention, if such intent actually exits, to proceed with fluoridation of the public water supply without a vote of the people. Click here to read full document.
Then the City Council finally issued Resolution No. 1970-9 approving the proposition to provide fluoridation of the City water supply on the April 14, 1970 ballot. The voter tally was 441 yes and 178 against. During this period water fluoridation products were beginning to come under scientific scrutiny as study after study began to show links to health hazards such as dental fluorosis, bone cancer, increased incidence of hip fracture and thyroid dysfunction.
Today, water fluoridation is losing support among many of its high profile former supporters, including:
• American Cancer Society
• American Heart Association
• National Kidney Foundation
• American Academy of Allergy and Immunology
• American Diabetes Association
• Society of Toxicology
• Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Activation Network
• American Psychiatric Association
• American Chiropractic Association
• American Civil Liberties Union
• National Institute of Law Municipal Officers
On March 16, 2009, Councilwoman Donna Westfall addressed her fellow council members and the public about the harmful effects of fluoride. One of her more derisive statements was the ludicrous philosophy that, “The solution to pollution is dilution.” Derisive because Crescent City adds industrial waste grade fluoride, not pharmaceutical grade. And 50% is excreted, while 50% remains in the body. Pull up www.crescentcity.org on your computer. Go to agenda/minutes. Scroll down to March 16, 2009 webcast and watch it.
Those of the public sitting in the audience that evening got to witness Mayor Kelly Schellong and Councilwoman Kathryn Murray rolling their eyes and making snide remarks to each other. Not the first time. And they wonder why more people from the public don’t attend council meetings.
While Councilman Charles Slert is quick to blame Westfall for costing the city expenses in excess of $66,000 at the May 17, 2010 council meeting, he along with the other 3 council members have neglected to do their due diligence in researching the history of having fluoride added to our water.
If the four council members were so intent on saving the city money, they could have listened to the public’s outcry and watched the video called, “Professional Perspectives on Fluoride.” (link to FAN’s website with video – http://www.fluoridealert.org/) They could have read the literature and test results handed them. They could have looked up and read that prior city council’s documents from the 60’s added fluoride without benefit of a vote. Instead Councilwoman Kathryn Murray stated that she still believes it’s safe.
To conclude. The City Council could have removed fluoride from the water by passing a Resolution just as the City Council 40 years ago added it by Resolution. This would have prevented time, money and energy spent in the fluoride initiative; contracting with the Del Norte County Clerk’s office to validate signatures, and having to put it on the ballot.
Recap on savings:
* $17,000/year taking fluoride out of the water (that’s just the cost of the chemicals, there’s an additional cost for maintenance).
* $?? to contract with County Clerk’s office to validate signatures. Unknown at this time.
* $?? to put the initiative on the ballot. Unknown at this time.
This article dedicated to the memory of Walt Morse, an avid anti-fluoride proponent.
PS. Warnings to parents that enfants under 6 months old should not drink fluoridated water or formula prepared with fluoridated water. People with false teeth get no benefit from fluoride. People with kidney disease should not drink fluoridated water.