We are sending out a quick update on the menacing battle of the mandatory State water fluoridation issue (ACT 197 of 2011). Yes, there still is a battle raging for freedom of choice which includes medical ethics violations in the Natural State. This issue is going to court and will be filed or has already been filed in Boone County Circuit Court by the Ozark Mtn. Regional Public Water Authority (OMRPWA).
Secure Arkansas applauds OMRPWA for filing this much-needed one of a kind lawsuit! Never in the history of water fluoridation has a legal action been filed for such a unique situation. (As always, be sure to click the links throughout this article as they have very good information!)
This water district was formed because 18 small towns and water districts had groundwater wells that at times did not provide enough water, had contamination issues, and some had such high naturally-occurring calcium fluoride that the affected water districts were ordered by the Arkansas Department of Health, numerous times, to remove the fluoride from their water supply. This Arkansas Department of HealthWater Quality Report (see MCL violations shown in Appendix G "Chemical Maximum Contaminant Level Violations".) from 2012 shows 5 of the 18 OMRPWA customers’ systems that ADH issued violations for exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of Fluoride. OMRPWA customers who were in violation are: East Newton County; Mockingbird Hill; Morning Star; Nail-Swain; & SDM. The year 2012 is the last full year before OMRPWA went on line. Past water reports before OMRPWA was formed show that several of the 18 entities were out of compliance for several different reasons, and some are listed above. If these water districts were having a hard time removing fluoride from the water, can you imagine how difficult it is to remove for consumers of water systems that add it?
To our knowledge, there were no National Safe Drinking Water Act required notices, except for the annual water report that many people don’t see or understand. So basically, consumers were drinking water that contained, at times, over 6 ppm of known toxic levels of fluoride and were only given notice once a year, not at the moment it was out of compliance with the MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level). The EPA’s MCL for naturally occurring fluoride is 4ppm. Major violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act occurred for several years because of the difficulty of removing fluoride from some of their water wells. The high amount of fluoride in their water was one of the reasons why OMRPWA water district was formed.Several of these water districts were simply trying to protect their customers from receiving the damaging effects of accumulated fluoride in their customers water supply. No truer words have ever been spoken than in this 1983 Transcript of Surgeon General’s (Koop) Ad Hoc committee where it is stated: “ You would have to have rocks in your head, in my opinion, to allow your child much more than two parts per million.” Numerous water operators also know how dangerous and corrosive it is to handle this toxic_”chemical”_poison, let alone to ingest into the human body.
Many of OMRPWA’s 18 customers have already stated that they will disconnect from the water system and return to the use of their currently shut down groundwater wells if fluoride is fed into the water they purchase.These customers are very unhappy about having fluoride forced on them when, just a few short years ago, ADH was issuing violations to them because they had naturally occurring fluoride in the water. Any of the 18 customers leaving OMRPWA would leave them owing millions of dollars with not enough participation to pay the cost of developing the new water district. OMRPWA believes they only have 18 customers, not the 5,000 that is subject to the State mandate. Each one of the water districts that joined OMRPWA all have under 5,000 water customers which would not be affected by ACT 197 of 2011. The Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) considers these 18 entities separate except when it comes to fluoridating the water.
Shown directly below is a Harrison Daily news report about the Water fluoridation issue going to court. (Click here to read it online directly from the source.)
Fluoride issue at Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority going to court
Posted: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:45 am
Staff Report firstname.lastname@example.org | 0 comments
Fluoride issue at Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority going to court
The state Health Department’s decision about fluoridation of a local water system could now be heading to Boone County Circuit Court.
The Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority board is set to meet at 6 p.m. Thursday at Valley Springs City Hall and board chairman Andy Anderson is expected to address the fluoridation issue again.
Anderson and other authority officials appeared before the Health Department’s Administrative Board in late March to appeal Act 197, which requires all water systems with more than 5,000 customers to fluoridate water.
The authority argued that it technically sells water to 18 water systems and none of those individual systems have 5,000 customers, so it should be excused from fluoridation requirements.
But that Administrative Board didn’t agree and said the authority was not in compliance with the law, and even threatened to fine the authority $500 a week if it didn’t comply.
Anderson went to the full Health Department board meeting in late July, he said.
He had hoped to remind that board about the contaminants in the fluoridation chemicals, the problems those chemicals cause, and also make sure they were aware that Act 197 was passed because of fraudulent information, Anderson said in an email.
Anderson also maintains that fluoridation may reduce equipment life by up to 40 percent. In addition, he said the authority’s customers and their customers have indicated that they do not want fluoride in their water. Some have even said that if fluoride is added, they will pull out of the water system.
But Anderson said he wasn’t even allowed to speak and the full Health Department board rubber stamped the Administrative Board’s decision.
Now, Anderson said, the authority plans to appeal the last decision to Boone County Circuit Court.
At its December meeting, the authority board was told that legal costs would be about $12,500. It was agreed that each local water system would pay its share of the costs.
But, Anderson said this week that although each water system is asked to contribute $695 toward legal expenses, those systems have contributed just $5,565 and legal costs to date are over $7,100.
* If you would like to help with this legal challenge, please contact Ozark Mtn. Regional Public Water Authority and donate to the their legal fund.
Reasons why Secure Arkansas opposes water fluoridation:
It violates the individual’s right to informed consent to human treatment.
Once added to the water there is no way that the dose each individual receives can be controlled.
Nor can we control who receives the treatment– it goes to everyone regardless of age, health or nutritional status.
No doctors are overseeing the treatment or monitoring side-effects.
It is difficult and expensive to avoid, as cheap filters don’t remove the fluoride, and bottled water expense is out of reach for some. This makes it doubly unethical for low-income families who don’t want this treatment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never regulated fluoride for ingestion. According to the FDA, fluoride is an “unapproved drug”.
Incredibly, after 70 years, there has not been one single individually-based, randomized control trial (RCT) to demonstrate safety or effectiveness.
Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No one has ever shown that no fluoride in the diet develops a disease. An individual can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride. Tooth decay is not caused by too little fluoride, but by poor dental hygiene and a poor diet, including too much sugar.
There is not one biological process in the body that needs fluoride to function properly, but many are harmed by it.
Nature in her wisdom has kept fluoride away from the baby. The level in mother's milk is very low (0.004 ppm, NRC, 2006; 0.004 to 0.008, Sener, 2007) Thus, the breastfed baby is protected from fluoride, but that protection is removed by water fluoridation. A bottle-fed baby who is fed powdered formula mixed with fluoridated tap water (at the new recommended guideline of 0.7 ppm fluoride) gets over 100 times more fluoride than a breastfed baby.
Even promoters of fluoridation now admit the predominant mechanism of fluoride’s supposed beneficial action on the teeth is topical, not systemic (CDC, 1999). In other words, one doesn't need to swallow this toxic substance to get the purported benefit. Brushing the teeth with fluoridated toothpaste is a more rational delivery system, which minimizes exposure to other tissues AND does not force it on people who don’t want it.
Fluoridation promoters have wildly exaggerated the benefits of swallowing fluoride. A recent Cochrane review (the gold standard for evidence-based medicine) concluded that the scientific studies that have purported to demonstrate effectiveness have been of a very poor quality.
Fluoridation poses many health risks.
Of particular concern is the large number of animal and human studies that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic.
There are many other health concerns. These include lowered thyroid function; accumulation in the human pineal gland (Luke1997,2001); ADHD (Malin and Till,2015); accumulation in the bones (arthritis,NRC,2006, increased hip fractures in the elderly, and an increased risk of osteosarcoma in young boys when exposed in their 6th -8th years (Bassin et al,2006).
We at Secure Arkansas still believe that forced water fluoridation is a major issue regarding freedom of choice and that this issue should not be ignored. At a time when so many water facilities are producing unsafe water — as seen all over the country — our attention should be focused on safe drinking water for all.
”We've been lied to about the safety of our water. It's time to rise up!”
“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 22 — 1787
It is very important that you contact your_own_state_representative_and senatorabout repealing this mandate, before the 2017 legislative session ever begins. The fluoridation issue must be returned back to the local residents and not left in the hands of bureaucrats and special interest groups.
We are warning the Secure Arkansas “Alert” recipients to especially keep an eye on both the House and Senate Public Health Committees the next legislative session. Some of the legislation coming from there could be harmful to the public. Most of us can recall how the Arkansas Senate Public Health Committee locked out any relief for the public and our environment from the ominous fluoride mandate ACT 197 issued in 2011.
You see, here in Arkansas there is a family monopoly on state public health policies. The family actors who enter the stage are:
It seems that the Arkansas Board of Health calls the shots for our lawmakers, especially the Senate Public Health Committee and they enforce it on the general public by passing corrupt legislation. Your lawmaker is told what to do and when to do it, then given support to carry out their agenda. That’s why you can’t get their ear with your cries for help!
Here in Arkansas, several thousand bills are handed out before or during each legislative session and are given to your legislator to file and bring forth results as required by their handlers. If the bill gets out of committee and makes it to the floor of the chamber, then it will likely pass. Follow the money to see who controls your lawmaker. The legislator who controls the bill can work hard to get the bill passed or crash a bill if he/she wants to. The general public would never know the difference. If the “powers that be” do not want the bill to pass… most likely, it won’t pass. The majority of bills that come into Arkansas are NOT written by our lawmakers! Corporations and nonprofits are behind most of the legislation. Secure Arkansas will try to keep you posted on some of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC’s) legislation that we be coming to our state capitol this next 2017 session via their representatives who pose themselves as our state lawmakers!
We mentioned ALEC a bit earlier. We wrote in this article about a video put out by Moyers & Company in which they [followed] up on a breakthrough 2012 report about ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. A national consortium of state politicians and powerful corporations, ALEC presents itself as a “nonpartisan public-private partnership,” but behind that mantra lies a network of lobbying and political action aimed to increase corporate profits at public expense without public knowledge.
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC — A.K.A. Koch Brothers)supports the toxic fluoridation of the public water supplies! Chemicals are big business for the Koch brothers – who are the main creators of the Tea Parties, Americans For Prosperity, and FreedomWorks.
Click here to see all the other supporters of fluoridation besides ALEC. American Dental Association (ADA) is now a member of ALEC. They are playing a heavy hand in Arkansas policies. Check here to see the article “The Corporations, and Dentists, That Still Love ALEC”.
And you already know that the Arkansas Department of Health promotes water fluoridation. You’ll recall from one of our previous alerts that:
at the same time our current Chief Dental Officer for U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Lynn Douglas Mouden, DDS MPH, was the Director of the Office of Oral Health for the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH), he was also one of the directors of Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation as shown on the990_IRS_2011_filing_for_Delta_Dental Foundation.
This is a direct conflict of interest on the part of Arkansas Department of Health (ADH). Remember, Delta Dental is the only group providing grants to water districts for water fluoridation. Why would they want to push for fluoridation unless they receive some benefit from it? Delta Dental is also a member of Arkansas Oral Health Coalition, an ADH nonprofit corporation. Arkansas Oral Health Coalition (AOHC) has a filing status here in our state as a Nonprofit Corporation, #800044782 with the Arkansas Secretary of State.
There is no such thing as free money. The grant being made available by Delta Dental will not be there to cover the cost to replace the water infrastructure that is destroyed by fluoridation. Fluoridation can reduce the equipment life by up to 40%. The same goes for the plumbing system in private homes and businesses. Also another thing to think about is Chloramine + Lead Pipes + Fluoride = Contaminated Tap Water. Don’t believe it when the Arkansas Department of Health tells you there is no Lead problem in Arkansas water. Anytime that fluoride is added to a municipal water supply treated with chloramine, lead_levels in that water system can increase by up to 800 to 900%.
"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century." – Robert Carlton, Ph.D, former EPA scientist, 1992
A complete investigation is required of ADH by Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge’s office to clear the conflict of interest between ADH and Delta Dental. (…IF they can investigate impartially because they have moderated for the Board of Health meetings).
A Delta Dental representative attends most (if not all) of the ADH board meetings. Usually, Weldon Johnson stands by in order to say that Delta Dental will provide the start-up grant money for the water district. He always seems to have his contract in hand for the water district representative to be forced to sign and to be obligated to pay! One thing that both Delta Dental and Arkansas Department of Health seem to be forgetting is: for a contract to be legal, it must be an agreement between at least two persons and/or parties. The water district CANNOT be forced to sign the Delta Dental contract if they don’t agree with the terms. There is NO COURT of Law that will force a party to sign a contract if both parties are not in agreement to the terms.
The following definition of “contract” is being inserted below so everyone can understand what a contract is. No one, especially ADH, can FORCE anyone to sign a contract with DELTA DENTAL, with which other parties are not in agreement. A contract is by definition an agreement between parties, entered into voluntarily, with respect to what one or more will do in the future…
A contract is a legally binding or valid agreement between two parties. The law will consider a contract to be valid if the agreement contains all of the following elements:
offer and acceptance;
an intention between the parties to create binding relations;
consideration to be paid for the promise made;
legal capacity of the parties to act;
genuine consent of the parties; and
legality of the agreement.
An agreement that lacks one or more of the elements listed above is not a valid contract.
It’s not legal to force someone to sign a contract at gunpoint; if it was, then without the idea of “signing under duress,” someone could hypothetically get anyone to sign anything. Instead, the justice system recognizes that some contracts are not valid because of the state of mind that the signee was under when signing.
Any type of threats, intended harm, or stress put upon a person in order to get them to perform an act they would not normally perform would be considered duress. A contract is not validly signed unless it is signed by each participant’s own accord and own free will.
Also, an IRS investigation may be necessary of Delta Dental to see if Delta Dental has violated IRS regulations.
As always, you can find our email articles posted on our website:SecureArkansas.com. The Search box is a handy tool.
For more information about FLUORIDE, just type it into the Search box on our website, and click Enter!
Securing the blessings of liberty,