corruption

OVER 800,000 FREED FROM FLUORIDATION IN 2016

By Fluoride Action Network – December 23, 2016 –

More than 450 communities throughout the world have ended existing fluoridation programs or rejected new efforts to fluoridate either by council vote or citizen referendum since 1990.  In 2016 alone, we’ve confirmed that at least  26 communities with more than 845,000 residents voted to end fluoridation, bringing the number of victories since 2010 to at least 219 communities, representing approximately 6.5 million people. Most of these victories were the result of citizens organizing local campaigns and voicing their opposition to public officials, with many working in coordination with FAN or using our materials to educate their neighbors and local decision-makers about the serious health risks associated with the practice.  Some of 2016’s victories included:

  • Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District, Maine  (30,000)
  • Mackay Regional Council, Australia    (124,724)
  • Bedford, England, U.K  (166,252)
  • Gladstone Regional Council, Queensland, Australia  (73,335)
  • Wakefield, England, U.K.  (77,500)
  • Cornwall, Ontario, Canada  (46,340)
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico  (157,428)
  • Newport, Oregon  (10,120)
  • Guilford Township, Pennsylvania  (26,000)
  • Whakatane, New Zealand  (37,000)
  • National Fluoridation Stats Show Tipping Point Has Been Reached

    Center For Disease Control (CDC) fluoridation statistics for the U.S. have been released for 2014, and they show exactly why the fluoridation-lobby has been pouring more money and resources into promoting the practice and fighting our efforts: WE ARE WINNING!

    For the first time in nearly 40 years the percentage of the U.S. population served by community water systems receiving fluoridated water decreased, from 74.6% to 74.4%.  The percentage of the U.S. population receiving optimally fluoridated water (natural and artificial) also decreased, from 67.1% to 66.3%.

    Also decreasing:

    • The number of water systems providing fluoridated water (natural or artificial);
    • The number of water systems adding fluoride, and
    • The number of water systems providing naturally “optimal fluoride” levels.

    Why Government Officials Opposed Fluoridation in 2016

  • “Ten people have emailed me to tell me they want fluoride, as opposed to the hundreds who have told me they don’t want it.  I’ve listened and reviewed the material sent to me…therefore, what I have been doing is listening to the people. Overwhelmingly the people have said they don’t want fluoride in their water. Whatever their reason doesn’t really matter. They are telling me to support them.”
    Mayor Leslie O’Shaughnessy, Cornwall, Ontario

    “Councils are not engaged in public health. Local Government doesn’t carry that expertise. The senior levels of Government are being quite mischievous here. This has become a pattern over the past couple of years. This council has never voted against fluoride. This council has voted against the method of delivery.  Why not have a form of delivery that you can go buy that service. This is not a sledgehammer to just whack everybody over the head with.”
    Council Mayor Bob Manning, Cairns Regional Council (Australia)

    “We are making this change because the authority recognizes there are conflicting opinions about the benefits of water fluoridation…We believe we should not put anything into the water that is not required by regulation to maintain the potability and pH balance of your water.”
    Guildford Water Authority (Pennsylvania)

    “The pipe at the “T” by the air stripper has had to be replaced in the area where fluoride is pumped into the water supply due to corrosion. It has been replaced for the 3rd time since installing the air stripper in 2012 at a cost of $850 for the replacement parts.”
    Ron Jean, Streets Superintendent for the City of Attica (Indiana)

    “I have read the reports’ pros and cons.  I have seen firsthand what the fluorosilicic acid  does to pipes, the concrete. It was a hard decision, but I thought, weighing both sides, that it’s better not to add something that could be destructive — we’re told in small amounts it’s not destructive — but I just thought it’s better to err on the side of safety.”
    Board Member Bill McGriff, Soddy-Daisy (Tennessee)

    “Tooth decay is not a result of lack of fluoride but a result of too much sugar. And the DHBs, Dave [Macpherson and] Martin [Gallagher] should start addressing that issue.”
    Siggi Henry, Hamilton City Councilor (New Zealand)

    “After considering the overall annual operational and maintenance expenses, including testing, the committee decided it was not worth the expense to continue infusing fluoride into the village’s water system for such a small added value.  There are 1,000 milligrams per liter of fluoride in most tooth paste (about 2,000 times more than is available from treated water), as well as many other avenues, such as mouth washes and dental application.”
    Dale Kropidlowski, Saukville Water Superintendent (Wisconsin)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.