From: Jeff Green - firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Santa Cruz qualifies
Congratulations to the people in Santa Cruz who kept this alive and did the serious and arduous work.
SANTA CRUZ, Calif.--(BW HealthWire)--Oct. 5, 1998--In yet another step defying an unfunded law requiring fluoridation of the entire state passed by the California Legislature in 1995, on Oct. 5, 1998, members of Santa Cruz Citizens for Safe Drinking Water submitted their initiative petition to the City Clerk with more than double the number of signatures necessary to qualify the Safe Drinking Water Initiative for special election. Upon validation of signatures from 15% of voters registered in the city of Santa Cruz, a special election will be scheduled for early to mid 1999. This initiative follows the enactment of an ordinance prohibiting fluoridation without a vote of the people, passed by the Santa Cruz City Council in March, 1998. The new ballot measure will further amend the Santa Cruz municipal code by prohibiting the use of the City's water supply to deliver any products or substances intended to affect the physical or mental functions of people consuming the public water, including fluoride, and once enacted by the voters can not be reversed by the City Council. "This initiative is not just about fluoride. The proponents of fluoridation have always attempted to characterize the issue of adding a contaminate to our water as a dental issue, when in fact it is about the appropriate use of our water supply. To convert our most precious resource into a delivery system for anything less essential to life is an abuse that we will not accept," said Lois Kirby, a committee member and one of the groups most ardent signature gatherers. "My vision of America, and Santa Cruz, does not include any government agency forcing me, my family, or my neighbors, to eat or drink anything for the rest of our lives without our individual consent, and the more than ten thousand people in this small community who signed this petition and the 98% of Europe that is now fluoridation-free certainly agree with me." "We were fortunate," said Jean Mauregard, another active member of the ballot measure committee, "that our City Council, lead by (Mayor) Celia Scott, passed an ordinance that at least temporarily protects us from the State usurping our right to choose what we eat and drink, but the discussion by some of the city council members at that time made it clear that they felt that what they could give us, they could just as easily take away, given the right political incentive. "I, for one, was not willing to let some backdoor campaign contribution decide whether we had access to unadulterated public drinking water." Francis Markovic, another member of the executive committee related, "We've followed this issue in other cities like Mountain View and Yuba City, and even Sacramento, and not once would any of their city council members address the simplest of questions: How much total fluoride exposure from all sources are individual communities already receiving? No competent purchasing agent or household consumer would spend hard earned money without first checking to see if they already had enough. "Independent laboratory reports show regularly consumed products such as Classic Coca Cola, Minute Maid orange juice, and Lucerne's 2% milk, contain more than the amount of fluoride they intend to put in our water; with Froot Loops, Gerber's baby juices, and almost every product with white grape juice, containing two, three, and four times the concentration due to fluoride-based pesticide residue and/or processing with fluoridated water. Fluoride can not be removed by filtration because the fluoride ion is smaller than the water molecule, and without any labeling requirements, most people are going to continue to be overdosed without ever knowing, even without it being put in our water." "This was a lot of work," said Linda Mauregard, a committee organizer, "but what kept me going was the need to let people know that they weren't getting the whole truth about fluoride, or the use of our water supply. Iodine was put in the water in the 1920s. People protested. And they really couldn't control dosage of iodine in the water any more than they can with fluoride. So universal access to iodine was created by adding it to salt. "If the U.S. Public Health Service could honestly produce science that would pass unbiased public scrutiny, they could have been delivering fluoride to every person in America for more than fifty years, just like they do iodine. So why haven't they? Because the fluoride that they put in our water is an industrial hazardous waste that comes straight from the scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry, that if not intended for our water supply would cost the industry approximately $1.40/gallon to be treated at the highest rated hazardous waste facility. "Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the water fluoridated never touches human lips. It ends up in exactly the places that these industrial wastes, by law, can not be dumped. I am not willing to drink industry's hazardous waste. Are you?" On July 2, 1997, National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 2050, the union that consists of and represents all of the toxicologists, chemists, biologists and other professionals at EPA headquarters, Washington, D.C., voted unanimously to co-sponsor the California Safe Drinking Water Initiative, citing, "Our members' review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children. "As the professionals who are charged with assessing the safety of drinking water, we conclude that the health and welfare of the public is not served by the addition of this substance to the public water supply." Safe Drinking Water Initiative Ballot Measure: Amendment to the Municipal Code Prohibiting the Use of the City's Water Supply to Deliver Products or Substances Intended to Affect the Physical or Mental Functions of Persons Consuming Such Water Whereas water is essential to all and the public water supply should be safe for all to drink; and Whereas individuals vary in their susceptibility and responses to various substances as well as in the amounts of water they consume; and Whereas alternative methods of delivery for all substances exist; and Whereas increased risk of hip fracture, cancer, neurological impairment, dental fluorosis and other harmful effects have been linked to fluoride in the scientific literature; and Whereas data from the U.S. Public Health Service and the State of California show no significant difference in decay rates of permanent teeth and dental costs in fluoridated and non fluoridated areas in California; and Whereas each individual possesses the inalienable right to choose or reject what he or she consumes; The public water supply shall not be used to deliver any product, substance, device, element, medicine or preventative agent with the intent or for the purpose of affecting the physical or mental functions of the body of any person consuming such water. No fluoride or fluorine-containing substance may be added to public water systems. All laws to the contrary are hereby repealed. Want more scientific information? Go to: http://www.cadvision.com/fluoride http://www.fluoride-journal.com http://www.sonic.net/~kryptox/fluoride.htm http://www.saveteeth.org