Fluoride Follies

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #58 - NSF CERTIFICATION: A 25-YEAR SHAM

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Fri, 10 May 2013 05:47:16 GMT

                                                             The NSF Seal of Nothing

Today I'm going to talk about the National Sanitation Foundation (a.k.a. NSF) – and its treasured seal of approval behind which fluoridation purveyors – including the City of Austin – hide. When we had those public forums two years ago: you remember, the ones at which no public Q & A or challenge to the city's hand-picked authority figures was permitted, the Health & Human Services people parroted the CDC's “safe and effective” mantra, while the Water Utility folks parroted, the “NSF Standard 60-approved” mantra.

So what is this very special NSF Standard 60 mark of approval that confers a free pass to any fluoride vendor or user sporting it?

A bit of back story here. For years, EPA held the regulatory power over drinking water additives But in 1988, following an embarrassing scandal in which it caved to Dow Chemical's demands to double the acceptable fluoride level from 2 to 4 parts per million in order to accommodate a new pesticide the company was preparing to unleash on the environment, EPA decided to divest itself of the political hot potato of water fluoridation. It did so illegally transferring all responsibility for water additives to a private third-party entity outside of governmental reach. That entity was the NSF.

So again, what is NSF? It's a Michigan-based trade association whose members—mainly chemical suppliers—have volunteered to self-police, by setting standards for their own products. They have no accountability, nor are their documents subject to public scrutiny. With protection like that, they needn't consider anyone's interests but their own. They're the fox guarding the chicken coop. That's why we call NSF Standard 60 a sham.

But there's more. Even if NSF-60 were an honest certification, it would still be applied fraudently because NSF, in issuing it, violates its own rules. NSF-60 requires both safety studies and testing for impurities for every product certified. Safety studies are animal studies. But NSF doesn't conduct any. It relies on the vendors themselves to provide that information—if available. If it's not available, they simply issue a waiver.

Last January, my wife filed an open records request for those studies with the Austin Water Utility. She received a single document: a 2012 NSF laboratory report showing measurable quantities of arsenic, lead and mercury in Mosaic's fluorosilic acid. Safety studies were non-existent.

NSF says this is perfectly OK. We will continue to insist it isn't until we bring fluoridation in Austin to an end.

AUSTINITES! CLASS ACTION PLANNED - DO YOU (OR YOUR CHILD) QUALIFY? IF SO, PLEASE CONTACT US.

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:12:40 GMT

Friends of Fluoride Free Austin:

After over a year of preparation, we can at last announce that a major local law firm is ready to proceed with a suit against the City of Austin that claims damage to children's teeth due to the city's water fluoridation policies. Fluoride Free Austin is NOT the plaintiff in this action. It will be a class action lawsuit and we are seeking qualified plaintiffs. Recovery of monetary damages is likely.

We are seeking Austin area children and teens who acquired dental fluorosis due to drinking Austin tapwater at a critical developmental stage. The video below shows you what dental fluorosis looks like.

The criteria are:

1) Between the ages of 6 and 18 now

2) Raised on City of Austin tapwater between the ages of 1 and 7 (need not be current Austin resident)

3) Have white or brown marks on teeth as shown in the following video:



If any child among your family or friends fits this description, please have his/her parents contact us. Reach us by email at info@fluoridefreeaustin.com (a digital picture of the teeth is helpful) or call Rae at (512) 371-3786.

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #57 - UTAH SHAKES OFF FLUORIDATION

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:22:47 GMT

Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmembers. Nowadays, when people everywhere are struggling to shake off the burden of water fluoridation inflicted on them by others, I like to refer to current events. In Utah, earlier this month, the legislature passed a law which will effectively put an end to fluoridation in that state. Their Safe Drinking Water Disclosure Act requires a batch-specific certificate of analysis, by weight or percentage, for all components—including impurities—of every shipment of fluoridation chemicals bound for public drinking water supplies.

That's something they'll never get. Fluoride suppliers routinely refuse requests for such information. Activists and government officials alike in Florida, Arkansas, Washington and other states have tried in vain: one Florida councilman wrote to 30-plus vendors and received not a single response. Now Utah is saying: “No info, no sale.”

It's obvious why the vendors don't want their product information getting out. If it did, the criminality of selling the stuff for human consumption would emerge. However, they can't entirely prevent leaks. We have this document from Lucier, the direct predecessor of Mosaic Co., Austin's current fluoride supplier. Same operation, same product, different name.. It's exactly the kind of analysis Utah now demands, and it bears the caution: DO NOT SEND OUT. Indeed.

To take just the most obvious example of why they might not want it sent our: here's arsenic, a deadly poison we're all familiar with. It says you can typically expect 0.0035% arsenic in their witches' brew of unpurified scrubber liquor. Using a handy online converter, we see that that translates to 35,000 parts per billion: 3,500 times the what the EPA allows. Of course, it's not drinking water yet; it has to be diluted. If anyone poured it directly into Lake Travis, they'd be arrested. Yet the Austin Water Utility daily dumps it into our drinking water supply, where it's diluted to about 0.3 parts per billion. That might not sound like much. However, EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level GOAL is ZERO. i.e. there is NO safe level for arsenic, and yet here you are adding it day in and day out So people who are aware of this are understandably unhappy.

That's all for now. I'll return to this subject at a future date. Thank you.

SPELMAN: "I WAS ONLY LAUGHING AT MY OWN INABILITY TO CONTROL MYSELF." REALLY??

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 01:23:52 GMT

                                        Philip and Linda Greene speak before the Council
                                        Spelman explains his off-stage laughter. Or tries to.

At citizens communication on December 13, 2012 - the last City Council meeting of the year - an absurdity unfolded of a sort rarely seen on camera. Philip Greene was speaking: he urged the Council to heed the weight of evidence that ingested fluoride is not merely unnecessary but actually detrimental to the health of many. In ending, addressed the Council as to whether they had any studies which showed fluoride to be either safe or effective.

There was no response, of course. While Mayor Leffingwell waited in grim boredom for the buzzer to sound, councilmembers Bill Spelman and Laura Morrison enjoyed a joke together. This is a not unusual occurrence between the two "techies" on the Council, and is reminescent of the days when Randi Shade and Mike Martinez would sometimes put their heads together - literally - under the dais. (Sharing iPhone pictures, perhaps?). Councilmembers seemingly feel free to behave rudely during citizens communication, perhaps assuming that no one of consequence will notice them.

But Linda Greene noticed. And in turn, she called them out roundly on it. It was then that Spelman, known for his often quirky responses and clearly nonplussed, offered this extraordinary explanation:

"I wasn't laughing at Mr. Greene's speech. I was only laughing at my own inability to control myself."

Whaaaaaaaat???

Spelman, a professor at UT's LBJ School for budding bureaucrats, speaks the most arcane variant of bureaucratese I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot.  But as one of the seven lords before whom we're expected to supplicate, it befits us to understand what he is saying. Did he really laugh at his own inability to control himself? Or was the laughter a result of his inability to control himself? In either case, what exactly made that so funny to him? To councilmember Morrison?

He went on to try to explain that he wanted to engage with Philip Greene on the merits, but had to forego the opportunity, implying that rules prohibited Council from interacting with speakers during citizens communication.  While it's true such a state law does exist, the Austin City Council members routinely violate it, especially on pressing matters like dog parks and billboards.

Here's a YouTube of Spelman requesting more information of another Fluoride Free Austin speaker, Darcy Bloom, nearly a year ago. (the information was provided but no followup ensued).

So will Spelman and Philip Greene have their conversation - and, more importantly, will anything useful come of it?

Who knows? My own observation over more than four years of steady advocacy tells me that this Council has made little to no attempt to deal with us in good faith; that they're supremely uninterested in tackling an issue that holds a combination of scant rewards and great (perceived) political danger for them; and that they're wheel spinning in place, waiting for the clock to wind down and praying that fluoridation doesn't end on their watch.

But time is running out. The whole nation, not just Austin, is waking up, and they may not get their wish.

Meanwhile, if Spelman is laughing because...well...whatever that reason was he gave...then I just might be Whistler's grandmother.

A Pediatrician Speaks Out On Fluoridation

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:43:27 GMT

From the Fluoride Action Network, just in time for the New Year, comes this splendid video of Dr. Yolanda Whyte, a young pediatrician who nowadays devotes much of her time to educating the public about the hazards of water fluoridation, telling it like it is. Please watch it now - and pass it on.

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #56 - AWU FLUORIDATION EQUIPMENT FAILS FREQUENTLY; PEW PROPAGANDA LOSES GROUND

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 01:53:26 GMT

                               Like Garlic to Vampires: Pew Shrinks from FFA's Colorful Badge

Good afternoon. Today I’ll start with a document close to home. I just came across.this work order history for AWU’s fluoride operations for 2009-10. Now, when some of us toured the Ullrich plant in summer 2009, we were told in effect (despite the heavy corrosion we noted on-site): “Don’t worry, be happy. The operation is totally automated and therefore foolproof.” This report shows otherwise, revealing an ongoing series of problems with both pumps and gauges. True, it can be attributed to everyday industrial wear and tear. However, when the super-corrosive hazardous waste—yes, EPA-designated hazardous waste—added to our drinking water eats away at the machinery, pump leaks endanger the chemical workers in hazmat suits, while failed flowmeters can lead to overfeeds into the public water supply affecting everyone. Like one in Kalamazoo, Michigan earlier this year that made the news. Plus, if the chemical is corrosive enough to damage new, regularly serviced equipment, think what it’s doing to the lead-containing pipes in Austin’s older buildings.

On to another subject: the Pew Trusts. Pew is one of a trio of immensely powerful bureaucracies—along with the joined-at-the-hip CDC and ADA—that work feverishly to force fluoridation on the entire US population by influencing local governments. Its effects can be felt here in Austin, where, a year ago, Libby Doggett, acting unofficially and without authority, used the weight of her high level position at Pew to pressure Austin city councilman Martinez. More recently they’ve meddled heavily in the affairs of Portland OR and Wichita KS--suffering humiliating defeats in both places.

While most of the ADA’s and CDC’s talking points are crafted by nameless bureaucrats, Pew has a communications manager named Matt Jacob in charge of its message. In a recent presentation to Florida dentists, Jacob lamented the failure of his lobbyists to convince 100% of Americans to embrace industrial waste in their drinking water. And I’m proud to say he gave Fluoride Free Austin partial credit for that failure.

Jacob admitted we—the opposition—will win by talking about the very real health harm fluoride causes, unless his minions can distract the public with a brighter, happier “message wheel”: healthy teeth, attractive smiles, and all the favorable consequences thereof. But, we talk about those things too. We want them for everyone too. The difference is we appreciate that water fluoridation does absolutely nothing to bring them about.

CALLING ALL AUSTINITES!! DO YOU HAVE DENTAL FLUOROSIS? IF SO, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:19:14 GMT

For the past four years, Fluoride Free Austin has resolutely carried out its mission to educate Austin's City Council about the dangers of the toxic waste product - fluorosilicic acid - the city uses to fluoridate its drinking water. We've spoken hundreds of times before the Council and its attendant boards and committees; submitted reams of documentation to support our position; brought in internationally-acclaimed expert Dr. Paul Connett (twice) to plead out case.

For four years, the Council has arrogantly ignored us, taking refuge behind the advertising endorsements of medical bureaucracies (CDC, ADA et al) and setting up public "hearings" carefully rigged to ensure that the truth could never emerge.

But the Council did make one important concession. In December 2011 - following over a year of pressure from us - they agreed to include an "advisory" (they refuse to call it a warning) about mixing infant formula with fluoridated tapwater to the Drinking Water Quality Report mailed out to customers once a year. Fluoride and Infants, which also appears on the City of Austin's Water Utilities and Health and Human Services websites though not on the monthly water bill as we had requested, likely amused the Council and their puppet masters at the Department of Health and Human Services, since it actually amounts to a lightly-veiled endorsement of fluoride for babies. However, from the mix of half-truths and outright lies, a significant admission emerges:

"...some children may develop enamel fluorosis, a cosmetic condition where faint white markings or streaks may appear on the teeth. Fluorosis can affect both baby teeth and permanent teeth while they're forming under the gums."

The fluoride pushers would have us believe that enamel fluorosis is "only" a cosmetic condition, and one which only silly, overanxious would worry about at that. We, of course, recognize it as a symptom of poisoning: the first visible sign of acute fluoride toxicity.

We are interested in locating Austinites who suffer from this condition due to the city's reckless policy of fluoridation and failure to warn. If you are a lifelong Austinite under the age of 45 whose teeth resemble those shown in the video above, please contact us at (512) 371-3786 or info@fluoridefreeaustin.com.

AN INCONVENIENT TOOTH: GREAT NEW DOCUMENTARY

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:35:43 GMT

This stunning documentary, which features scientists, health professionals and activists, was recently released in Portland, Oregon, where powerful special interests - working behind the scenes for a year or more - have influenced the mayor and two of four City Council members (none facing reelection) to force water fluoridation on an unwilling public. It was produced, directed, shot and edited by Guy Wagner. Filming took place during the Fluoride Action Network's (FAN) Citizens' Conference of July, 2010.   Kudos to Mr. Wagner for his outstanding work.

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #55 - IT'S OFFICIAL: LOW-INCOME KIDS IN FLUORIDATED AUSTIN HAVE POOR DENTAL HEALTH

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:23:07 GMT

City Milks St. David's Dental Van for Photo-Op but Doesn't Contribute

Good afternoon, Mayor and councilmembers. Throughout our four years of speaking at City Hall against water fluoridation, one element has been conspicuously absent: the low income children in whose name the practice is implemented. Theoretically, the city fluoridates to provide “social equity” to economically disadvantaged children approximately 5 to 11 years of age— the period when the permanent teeth are coming in

I thought of this recently when I happened to discover—from the U.S. Census Bureau’s website—that over 20% of Austinites live below the poverty line today. That’s 162,000 people. This group doesn’t have much of a political voice. I can’t bring their kids here. But I can count them—again, from the Census Bureau’s 2010 Austin fact sheets. Within the age group in question: ages 5-11, there are 11,842 boys and 8,669 girls, making a total of 20,500 elementary school aged children. The City’s solution to their dental problems is to annually throw a half million dollars’ worth of toxic fluorosilicic acid into the community water supply, for them and everybody else to drink. That discharges all your obligation to them according to the CDC, whose marching orders you follow.

Are these kids getting any real dental care? We know 80% of dentists don’t accept Medicaid. We also know that you, the City Council, have no idea what—if anything— the city spends on direct dental services for our neediest children, because you’ve admitted it. Outside entities, it would seem, have taken over that responsibility.

The St. David’s Foundation Dental Program is one. They operate a fleet of mobile dental offices that rotate among AISD’s 50 Title 1 elementary schools, providing free dental care. This includes fillings, X-rays, root canals, extractions and emergency care, plus preventive measures like cleanings, sealants, and oral hygiene education. In school year 2009-10, they saw nearly 6,000 patients, most from Austin schools, and provided about $4.2 million in services.

80% of the second graders St. David’s personnel screened that year had identifiable oral problems. Yet those children grew up drinking fluoridated water. It doesn’t work. The city of Austin spent a half million dollars on fluoridation and got nothing. Half a million would buy and stock one of those dental vans. Or support the operation of one for a year. It’s time to put the taxpayers’ money to better use.

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #54 - INTRODUCING FLUORIDE FREE HOUSTON

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:13:09 GMT

                               Six Fluoride Free Houston Members Speak Before Their City Council

Good afternoon, Mayor and councilmembers. A year ago, on August 2, Mayor Leffingwell asked, while I stood at this podium, why Fluoride Free Austin didn’t simply follow the formal citizens’ initiative/referendum process to bring our issue to the ballot for a public vote. My response at the time was that any such attempt would instantly unleash a torrent of slick, expensive pro-fluoride PR funded by the powerful special interests with deep pockets that keep water fluoridation in place. We’d be grossly outspent where money talks loudest. But just last week, you, the Council gave us still another reason. You took advantage of an under-the-radar “work session” to vote onto next November’s ballot an 8-2-1 redistricting plan which directly competes with the 10-1 plan Austinites for Geographical Representation—via a petition drive—had successfully labored to place on that same ballot. You let AGR invest enormous time, energy and resources, then stepped in to undermine it. This hurtful action flies in the face of your own Charter Revision Committee's recommendation.

To change the subject: Fluoride Free Houston, founded in June, has already found an ally on the Houston City Council. He’s Jack Christie, a chiropractic physician who just might know something about health.  A chiropractor's rigorous educational program particularly emphasizes the musculo- skeletal system, including bone. And bone, as we know, is outstandingly vulnerable to damage by fluoride, which accumulates over time, causing brittleness and arthritis-like joint pain. On August 7 six Fluoride Free Houstonites appeared before their Council making varied points including one voiced by a Whole Foods employee to the effect that great numbers of savvy Houstonites are already abandoning tapwater for better options. If people aren’t drinking the fluoride anyway, he argued, why continue to pay for it? A refreshing approach—maybe it’ll fly in Houston. Here, it would seem, you don’t much care whether people drink the fluoride or dodge it, as long as the city continues to implement it.

The Houston Council listened with an attentiveness and respect rarely seen here. And Fluoride Free Houston members vowed to return and speak regularly for as long as it takes. I’ve posted a video on the www.fluoridefreeaustin.com front page. Please take a few minutes to hear what a medically-trained member of the Houston City Council has to say. Thank you.

SUPPORT FLUORIDE FREE KANSAS! (THIS VIDEO WAS CENSORED BY YOUTUBE)

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:28:23 GMT

STRANGE DAYS: MARTINEZ BLAMES STRANGER'S OUTBURST ON FFA'S LINDA GREENE; YOUTUBE CENSORS CLIP OF INCIDENT (BUT YOU CAN STILL SEE IT)

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:37:47 GMT

                                                        "Good job, Ms. Greene. He represents you well."

I guess we've finally made the big time! YouTube has seen fit to censor a 90-second videoclip I uploaded this morning- almost immediately. The clip, which was within the public domain, caught City Council Public Health and Human Services Committee chairman Mike Martinez sarcastically comparing Fluoride Free Austin co-founder Linda Greene to a stranger who wandered into the meeting apparently at random, suffered a panic attack, and was made to leave. It's nice to know the higher-ups are paying attention.

The date was this past Tuesday, June 19.   Greene and I attended the Austin City Council’s monthly PHHSC meeting and gave our separate 3-minute presentations during citizens communication.



Linda spoke second; her talk included a request to remove a flagrantly misleading statement from the city's "advisory" about mixing infant formula with tapwater that appears on WIC flyers and the annual Water Quality Report. As she returned to her seat a tall stranger standing at the back of the room asked her why Austin adds fluoride to its water, to which she replied, simplistically, “Greed.” At that, the man became agitated, breathing heavily and shouting for perhaps a minute until persuaded to leave.

It was then that Martinez made his outrageous remarks.

I uploaded the exchange to YouTube this morning and attempted to embed it in my blog.   But within 10 minutes the video was gone, replaced by this:

Obviously, the only “user” with the power to remove someone else’s video that quickly is the YouTube management.

The exchange can still be viewed online here: It occurs within the first 90 seconds of Band 3, "Status Report on the Animal Shelter."

After the meeting, Greene approached Martinez privately. She told him it was wrong to tar her name and Fluoride Free Austin’s by falsely linking them the disruptive actions of an unknown non-member. But she received no apology.

As long as we insist on bringing up the subject of fluoridation, “This is what you’ll get,” he told her.

*NOTE: The sentence Greene requested be stricken appears in red, below:

*****************

Water that is fluoridated at a level optimal for oral health (as is used in Austin) poses no known health risks for infants. However, some children may develop enamel fluorosis, a cosmetic condition where faint white markings or streaks may appear on the teeth. Fluorosis can affect both baby teeth and permanent teeth while they're forming under the gums.

If you're concerned about fluorosis, you can minimize your baby's exposure to fluoride in several ways. Breastfeeding is the best source of nutrition for infants. If breastfeeding is not possible, you can minimize exposure to fluoride by using ready-to-feed formula. You can also alternate using tap water and non-fluoridated water for formula preparation or mix powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with low fluoride water most or all of the time. However, if you use only non-fluoridated water--such as purified, de-mineralized, de-ionized, or distilled bottle water--to prepare your baby's formula, your baby's doctor may recommend fluoride supplements beginning at age six months.
.

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #53 - ELOQUENT SILENCE: CITY COUNCIL LETS US KNOW THAT WHAT AUSTINITES WANT DOESN'T COUNT

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:28:37 GMT

                    News Anchor Judy Maggio Announced the Survey Results

Good afternoon, Mayor and councilmembers. As you’re aware, about 3 weeks ago, on May 22, KEYE-TV aired a segment about fluoride and gave it Top Story billing. It was the first instance I’ve seen of genuinely serious, fair-minded coverage of the issue by any of Austin’s larger mainstream news organizations and my hat is off to the KEYE team who made it happen.

The piece was well-researched and well put together. The reporter interviewed a local biological dentist – the short definition of that is one who shuns the use of dentistry’s notoriously toxic materials: fluoride and mercury, replacing them with safer alternatives. She also interviewed Mayor Leffingwell and myself – separately, of course!

When I was interviewed in early April, I knew a major story was in the works, but didn’t realize the angle would be expense. Fluoride Free Austin has focused mainly on the “unsafe and ineffective” aspects of community water fluoridation. Yet the piece aired as a “Waste Watch” segment in the 10 p.m. news slot, complete with the results of a same-day telephone poll conducted by a D.C. firm with a fast turnaround time. You can see how it was worded, and the results: 49% called fluoridation a waste of money.



Very close! In fact it reminds me of last month’s Mayoral race. What this independent KEYE survey tells us is that the number of Austinites who don’t want fluoride, based on cost alone, approaches half at the very least. I say at the least because – again referring to the recent Mayor’s race - in that instance there were 3 candidates: with fully 12% going to the contender with the fewest votes. The current poll lacked the usual third choice—“Undecided.” Without knowing how many votes would have fallen into the “undecided” column had it been available we can’t be sure that the people who currently favor discontinuing fluoridation don’t equal or even outnumber those who would keep it. Either way, clearly a very large segment of our population opposes spending any more money on the program.

So let me ask this one question: Has the new evidence that opposition to fluoridation is much broader than you previously imagined changed your position in any way?  Thank you.

**************
Note: nobody responded to this question. While Spelman simpered, Tovo stared at another Fluoride Free Austin member in the audience and the others reacted in ways not recorded, Leffingwell barked "Next speaker!" and hurriedly moved on. The speech was later noted by KEYE-TV in the Waste Watch segment of their 10 p.m. news broadcast on June 14.

TWO RADIO SHOWS TO CATCH: TOMORROW (6-13) AND THURSDAY (6-14)

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:20:00 GMT

Hear Fluoride Free Austin activists discuss the health, environmental and political aspects of water fluoridation. The programs will later be archived on their respective websites.

Tomorrow, Wed. the 13th, John Bush will interview Dr. Neil Carman and Rae Nadler-Olenick on his 7-10 a.m. Rise Up Radio Show (listening details here: Our segment will come on at 9:15 a.m.

Then, on Thursday, the 14th, Stacy Guidry will interview Drs. Griffin Cole and Laura Pressley on the Shades of Green radio show on 91.7, at 1-2 p.m.

DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE! KEYE-TV TRIES TO DISAPPEAR ITS OWN FLUORIDE SURVEY: CALL TO NEWSROOM CONFIRMS "ALMOST 50-50" RESULTS

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:15:02 GMT

In the last few days, Austin KEYE-TV has made serious efforts to obliterate all traces of its recent poll showing that nearly half of Austinites think fluoridating our drinking water is a waste of money. Their website now offers a transcript from which all reference to the survey has been removed along with assurances that it contains the "text content" of the now-deleted video. Luckily, on June 1, we made a call to the station:

The unedited videoclip is still available - for a price - from Teleclip, Inc. of Austin.

KEYE-TV: IT'S OFFICIAL - HALF OF AUSTINITES DON'T WANT FLUORIDE

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 05:09:51 GMT

On Tuesday, May 22, ABC's local KEYE-TV broke a startling piece of news: nearly half of Austinites consider community water fluoridation to be a waste of money. The announcement by respected anchor Judy Maggio aired at 10 p.m. during the "Waste Watch" segment - following a telephone survey commissioned by the station itself - and was billed as a Top Story. Then it proceeded to disappear.

The saga really began back in early April, when a KEYE reporter contacted me for an interview. The reporter, who also interviewed a local dentist with a fluoride-free practice, was well aware of the health hazards of fluoride and strongly committed to doing the piece. I was glad to be part of it, though privately I had my doubts that such a story would ever air in Austin. I suspected it would be spiked - old timey newspaper parlance for forgotten, buried, killed, kaput - somewhere along the way to the broadcast studio.

I was told only that it would run "some time" in May. Weeks went by. Then, on 5/22, a day when I happened to be out of the country, it finally came up on the 10 p.m. news. By the time I reached an Internet cafe, the survey results had been edited out of the videoclip.  Within the next day or two, the clip itself vanished, replaced by a still shot of giant teeth:



As of today, we have been informed that the original video was "deleted" and is no longer available! A most extraordinary step for KEYE to take.

Clearly someone (or more than one) in a position of power did not want that information out there. But the genie of truth, once released, is not easily put back in the bottle. It exists in KEYE's chart  - captured in a screen shot (top) and the edited transcript, still available online (below):
********

Fluoridated City Water: Is It Worth The Added Expense? K-EYE Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Every time you take a drink of city water, or eat vegetables rinsed off in your kitchen sink, or eat pasta boiled in city water, you’re ingesting a small amount of fluoride - the same chemical found in most toothpastes and mouth rinses, which aims to prevent tooth decay.

Dr. Thomas Gent runs Sola Dental in South Austin - a "green" practice where patients' teeth are cleaned with essential oils, and toothpaste samples contain all-natural bentonite clay.

You won't find fluoride in his practice. After much research, Dr. Gent has concluded fluoride isn't the anti-cavity magic bullet taught in dental school.

In fact, he believes it's bad for you.

"It is a byproduct of fertilizer production, contaminated with arsenic, lead, and all sorts of bad stuff," said Gent, "and we put that in our water, with the idea that it reduces tooth decay."

Rae Nadler-Olenick heads up Fluoride-Free Austin, a grass-roots group lobbying the Austin City Council to stop fluoridation. She blames drinking city water on her husband's brittle bones.

"It's a slow acting toxin. Its effects are not immediately felt," said Nadler-Olenick. "You don't immediately fall over dead. The conditions it causes happen gradually."

Both the American Dental and Medical Associations endorse community water fluoridation. The Centers for Disease Control calls it one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

But Dr. Gent points to other published studies that show ingesting fluoride has never been shown to prevent tooth decay. Other studies show topical fluoride, as in toothpaste or mouth rinse, may have some benefit, but Dr. Gent believes even that is minimal.

"Brush your teeth," said Gent. "That's the number one way to prevent tooth decay."

The City of Austin spends almost half a million dollars a year adding fluoride to its water supply.

Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell says that until the CDC discourages the practice, Austin will continue it and spend the money.

"A lot of people, including my dentist, believe it's a very good thing to have fluoride in our water," said Leffingwell. "It's been a major factor in reducing tooth decay, especially in children."

When the U.S. began adding fluoride to its water, cavities in children began to decrease, which led experts to credit the drinking water. But according to the World Health Organization, similar declines were found in Europe at the same time, which has never fluoridated its water.

"It's a drug being put in our water, it acts as a drug, but never gone though the proper FDA approval process to ensure it's safe and effective," said Gent.

Some pediatricians recommended giving fluoride supplements to breast-fed babies because they aren't drinking formula made with fluoridated city water. Yet the CDC admits that fluoride is most beneficial after a child's teeth have come in, and then, only topically.

Ingesting fluoride has been linked to a host of health problems - not just brittle bones, but thyroid problems, and fluorisis.

"You'll see a lot of people who grew up in West Texas, where there's well water with a lot of naturally-occurring fluoride, and their teeth are completely marbled and brown," said Gent.

Yet Leffingwell still believes it is money well spent.

"If it benefits the people of the city, and saves our kids' teeth, I think that's certainly well worth it," said Leffingwell.

********
Our thanks go to the gutsy reporter who covered the taboo subject and to Judy Maggio for putting it out for the world to see.

Watch Walt Olenick's comment on the KEYE story at the City Council, June 7, 2012:

AUSTIN'S RACIST "GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT"

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Sat, 19 May 2012 17:30:11 GMT

Van Os: There at the Birthing Martinez: Current Beneficiary

When Dr. Laura Pressley ran for City Council Place 2 against incumbent Mike Martinez, she broke a long-entrenched taboo that designates two Council seats for individuals of specific racial/ethnic lineage. Originally Places 5 (Hispanic) and 6 (black), the arrangement has not resulted in improved representation of Austin’s minorities, leads back to big money and business as usual, and creates misgivings even in some of its beneficiaries. And it has taken on a life of its own: in 1997, when then-councilmember Gus Garcia attempted to break its stranglehold by switching from Place 5 to Place 2, the “Hispanic seat” simply followed him to Place 2.

Over decades, as the custom’s origin recedes in memory, many people have questioned the beginnings of the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” and whether it even exists. David Van Os, an attorney who was played an early role, has given an excellent account. Here it is, in his own words:

I was the lawyer who represented the NAACP and sometimes LULAC in long-running litigation to invalidate the Austin at-large system under the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.

We dissected the “gentlemen’s agreement” that reserved one seat on the City Council for African-Americans and one seat on the City Council for Hispanics.

The “gentlemen’s agreement” is not just a myth or metaphor. It began with real agreements.

But the communities of color were not parties to the “gentlemen’s agreement”. The “gentlemen’s agreement” was a consensus arrived at among the white business community in the early 1970s that they would not fund any white candidates for Places 5 or 6, in order to set aside those seats for Hispanic and African-American candidates, respectively.

It was for racist purposes.

The specific motivation was to let the “Blacks and Mexicans” have one seat each in order for the City to be able to defend the voting rights lawsuits that everybody knew were coming, and thus preserve the at-large system. It was not for the purpose of ceding representation to the communities of color, it was for the purpose of maintaining the at-large system. That was what the business interests wanted because they believed maintaining the requirement for candidates to campaign city-wide would maintain the need for business money to run campaigns and thus keep promoting the elections of candidates friendly to the business interests.

The result was that one Hispanic and one African-American were able to get elected in each Council election as long as they were the choices of the majority of white anglo voters and the white business community.

This is where the alliances between conservative white business interests and certain elements of the communities of color started to bloom. The white anglo grassroots voters did not contribute campaign dollars to the Hispanic and African-American candidates like they did to the anglo candidates. So Hispanic and African-American candidates learned to look to the business interests to finance their campaigns, and the business interests were pleased at the opportunities to purchase City Council candidates who turned into compliant City
Council Members.

At the same time, ironically, the anglo-dominated grassroots progressive movement was successful in winning the majority of Council seats in several elections in the 1970s and 1980s, and really changed the political climate of Austin overall in a gradual sea change. It was the progressive takeover of Austin-Travis County politics. City Council politics through the series of elections won by the progressive grassroots in the 70s and 80s did in large part forge the rise of liberal Democratic predominance in Travis County, which by the early 1990s became pretty much politically institutionalized.

On behalf of the NAACP I filed a long-anticipated voting rights lawsuit against the City in 1984. MALDEF came into the case a few weeks later, represented by lawyer Jose Garza of San Antonio. The case was hotly litigated back and forth between the trial and appellate courts for the next 5 years. There were also at least two charter referendums during that period of time asking the voters to approve a change to single-member Council districts. The referendums failed because they could not draw the favorable margins out of the white liberal precincts that those precincts gave to the Austin Progressive Coalition slates. Many white progressive voters were fooled by the illusion of equal access to the political process created by the two minority-held Council seats - just as the business moguls who manipulated the “gentlemen’s agreement” into being foresaw. After two trials and two appeals we ultimately lost the lawsuit for the precise reason that the business interests intended - the courts held that since one Hispanic and one African-American were consistently getting elected to the Council, thus occupying 2 out of 7 or 28% of the Council, the communities of color therefore had equal access to the political process so there was no Voting Rights Act violation.

Jose Garza and I argued vigorously that channeling minority political access into two designated Council seats in elections whose outcomes were controlled by the majority white community rather than by the minority communities themselves was NOT equal access to the political process as the Voting Rights Act guaranteed. A few years earlier we would have won the day with that argument. But the federal district court in Austin was now occupied by a new Reagan-appointed Republican judge, James Nowlin, who was not sympathetic to our plea that the Voting Rights Act guaranteed the communities of color self-determination rather than paternalism.

The trial evidence demonstrated overwhelmingly that the candidates who got elected in those two seats were chosen by the white business community, not by the communities of color that they supposedly represented. Former City Council Members who were “beneficiaries” of the “gentlemen’s agreement” testified on behalf of the plaintiffs. Former City Councilman Jimmy Snell, the second African-American to serve on the Austin City Council and later - and at the time of the trial - the first African-American County Commissioner in Travis County history, now deceased, was particularly courageous on the witness stand. He described how the white business interests told him when he ran for the Council that they had made sure there would be no white candidates against him in Place 6, but that he had to tow the line. In a dramatic courtroom moment, Snell described Carole McClellan (she of later more names) as Mayor, warning him when on the Council that he had to vote the way she wanted him to vote on behalf of the interests of the white business community or they would make sure his political funding dried up.

Ed Wendler, now deceased, courageously stepped forward and volunteered to the NAACP to take the witness stand. He put his law practice in jeopardy by describing in detail conversations in which he participated in the 1970s about making sure there would be no credible white candidates for two places on the Council in order to defeat the expected voting rights lawsuits over at-large elections and assure that the “minorities” who got elected would be “safe”. Wendler named names and risked the loss of business clients and friendships in the cause of justice, equality, and truth. He was a real warrior for justice that day in the courtroom.

Meanwhile over the years a few of the “minority” candidates, like Gus Garcia, rejected the business paradigm for Hispanic and African-American candidates and stuck to their progressive political-economic-social roots when they won their elections. Sadly, most did not.

The racist roots of the present Austin system go back much further than the 1970s. Before the charter change of 1953, the City Council was elected on a single plurality ballot that provided a crude form of proportional representation. All candidates ran together on one ballot. The City Council had 5 seats at that time. The top 5 vote-getters were the winners of the election. People did not run in designated places, there was no requirement of a 50%+1 majority, and there were no runoffs. The top five vote-getters by pure plurality were the newly elected Council.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, all across the South there were African-Americans returning to civilian life from service in World War 2. Having fought for their country they were not too excited about returning to Jim Crow segregation. They began to assert themselves. For example in Austin in about 1948, a young African-American veteran by the name of Volma Overton refused to move to the back of a city bus.

Most of the municipal election systems at that time were not majority-place elections. They were plurality election systems. Under the single-ballot plurality systems African-American communities in the South, newly empowered by so many among their communities returning from the war with a new sense of self-esteem, began to experience a political renaissance. African-American citizens were starting to step forward and enter into local elections and assert voting strength and Austin was part of it.

In 1951 the Austin NAACP president, Arthur B. DeWitty, ran a vigorous race for the City Council. He finished sixth, just a few votes out of winning a seat on the Council. Most of the white community went into shock over a Black man coming so close to getting elected to the City Council. The Council proposed a charter revision - to discard the one-ballot plurality election system and institute designated places with a requirement that it took a 50%+1 majority to win, thus necessitating runoffs if no candidate won a majority the first time. This happened across the South for the purpose of thwarting the newly rising Black political consciousness. The point of a designated place-majority system is that Black candidates could never win because at best they would get isolated head-to-head against white candidates in runoffs. This is the origin of the designated-place majority election system in the South. Notice that in most of the North and the Midwest, municipal elections are won by plurality, no majority vote requirement, no runoffs. The charter election was held about a year after the 1951 elections. The day before the charter election day, the front page of the Austin Statesman ran a special editorial column urging citizens to pass the charter change because the proposed new system was needed to prevent minority groups from being able to win elections to the City Council. The charter change passed. Arthur DeWitty didn’t run for the City Council again. The nascent rising Black political consciousness came to a halt. No Black ran for the Austin City Council again until 1967 or 1969.

This history is documented in contemporary newspaper articles of the time and records of white civic leaders’ openly expressed intentions and motivations. It was partly on the basis of this historical evidence that the federal courts ordered Travis County to be divided into single-member state legislative districts beginning with the 1974 primary elections. Previously the 4 state representatives from Travis County represented the whole county in a multi-member district and were all elected county-wide. A young Gonzalo Barrientos got elected to the legislature in 1974 from a new single-member southeast Travis County district. Wilhelmina Delco got elected from a new northeast Travis County single-member district.

The Austin City Council at-large, majority-place system is thus historically rooted in overt, willful racism. It should be sent to the dustbin of history for that reason alone, and should have been sent there 20 years ago. But there are many other good, progressive reasons to go single-member. Having lived in San Antonio for 9 years in a pure single-member system, I can attest that it does indeed facilitate less expensive campaigning, fewer media driven campaigns, and more grassroots candidates and Council members. Certainly it does not bring Utopia. The business interests and lobbyists are still able to buy candidates and Council seats, but to a somewhat lesser extent. Today a majority of the San Antonio City Council are grassroots women. The city staff tries to bamboozle them just like in Austin, lobbyists try to stick to them like velcro just like in Austin, but the election campaigns are highly grassroots, except for the citywide election for Mayor; there are bona fide grassroots progressive social justice activists on the Council; and the Council members clearly endeavor to be responsive to the concerns of neighborhood and community groups in their districts. It is commonsense that such results would arise, and they do in a lot of the district elections, though clearly not all and not all the time.

David Van Os
2008

AUSTINITES! A MESSAGE FROM LAURA PRESSLEY: VOTE SATURDAY MAY 12

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:48:27 GMT

Dear Lovers of Austin.... Your vote FOR Dr Laura Pressley this Sat, May 12th will make a HUGE difference in Our Quality of Life!
Precisely because only 7% turn out to vote in City Elections

From: purerainlaura@aol.com
Subject: Pressley For Austin -- Election Day is Saturday, May 12th
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 10:47:20 -0400

Dear Friends, Family and Colleagues,

Thanks for all your encouragement and support with our campaign for Austin City Council. Only 7% come out to vote in City Elections, I need your help to win and to make a difference.

Final Election Day is this Saturday, May 12th and voting will occur at our precinct locations:

Precinct Look Up by Voter Name: http://www.traviscountytax.org/showVoterNameSearch.do

Election Day Voting Locations by Precinct: http://www.co.travis.tx.us/county_clerk/election/20120512/eday_polls.pdf

This will be a close election, so please vote and send the message we want someone with a business and technology background at City Hall to stop the wasteful spending, stop the subsidies to developers, and protect our environment.

We have an important Call to Action to get the vote out:

Please contact all your friends, family and co-workers in Austin and tell them why you are supporting our campaign. There is a better way to run our City Hall and here are the changes we will make:

a) Cut costs at Austin Energy to prevent the increases in our electric rates,
b) Stop the corporate subsidies to wealthy corporations such as Apple,
c) Protect our health, environment, neighborhoods and schools,
d) Provide real traffic solutions by transferring commercial traffic from I-35 to SH 130,
e) Stop the subsidies to large developers, and
f) Bring lean business practices to city hall and cut waste in our $2.8B budget.

We need you to forward this email, post on Facebook, and post on LinkedIn, that you are supporting us and are getting the vote out. It will help a great deal! Thanks everyone...See you at the polls!

All my best,
Laura

Laura Pressley, Ph.D.
Candidate for Austin City Council, Place 2
www.PressleyForAustin.com
P.O. Box 10102
Austin, TX 78766
Cell: 512-762-3825

THE CAMPAIGN HEATS UP: GREAT NEW VIDEOS FROM GRIFFINCOMM

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:39:38 GMT

Laura Pressley shines; Mayor Leffingwell and Councilman Spelman demonstrate their ignorance about fluoride, mayoral candidate Clay DaFoe makes some good points. Where is Mike Martinez, Pressley's opponent?


                             Libertarian Party Candidates Forum April 21, 2012


                              Mike Martinez Supports Corporate Welfare


                   Mike Martinez' Contribution to Eastside Gentrification

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #52 - FUN QUIZ

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 22:01:58 GMT

Mayor Leffingwell: What Was He Thinking?

Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmembers. The subject is water fluoridation and today I thought we’d lighten up with a short fun quiz—just a few questions to think about. Each of these questions is valid for at least one of you, though I won’t be providing any answers. Well, maybe one answer. Here we go:

Q.1 Which one of you suffers from a fluoride-related health condition?

Q.2 Which of you has a spouse who suffers from a fluoride-related health condition?

Q.3 Which of you has family with fluorosis-stained teeth due to a natural fluoride source?

Q.4 Which of you told me privately in your office in mid-2009 that you realized the original impetus for water fluoridation rose from a need to dispose of post-WWII industrial waste?

Q.5 Which of you says you don’t need to be educated?

Q.6 Which of you has conceded in print that you know fluoridated water is bad for kids?

Q.7 Which of you has an aide who won’t drink fluoridated water?

Q8. Which of you has close ties to the nation’s largest non-fluoridated city?

And a Bonus Question:

Which of you is self-depicted singing in the shower in a You Tube video watched by thousands?

Oops…I gave it away. Well, that’s not a fluoride question anyway—except that it illustrates a good way to take in fluoride without drinking it.

It also moves me to wonder out loud just what it cost to make the slickly-produced 2 minute 15 second video it comes from. Since it didn’t involve hiring a tanker truck, it was probably comfortably under $186,000. But whatever the cost, Fluoride Free Austin doesn’t have that kind of advertising money to spare. That’s why we’re slow to undertake a petition drive. On a level playing field, we would win. But unfortunately the field is far from level, and funding makes all the difference.

That concludes today’s quiz. I’ll post the questions—minus answers—on the Fluoride Follies blog for our readers to ponder. And they might also ponder why a Council which by now has so much negative information about water fluoridation, is so adamant about keeping it anyway. Thank you.