Facebook
RSS![[Masthead]](http://www.carrollconews.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (6)
BERRYVILLE -- State Rep. Bryan King, R-Berryville, said Friday he is working with Rep. Loy Mauch of District 26 to sponsor a new bill requiring full disclosure of fluoride products in their raw state for use in drinking water.
This new bill will follow an attempt by Mauch last year to introduce House Bill 1205, the Arkansas Water Additive Act. The Act established criteria for disclosure of content, impurities, testing and origin of anything added to drinking water supplies beyond those required by law for disinfection.
The bill stated these disclosures are essential so the safest products can be chosen for public health and so effective emergency response can be mounted should the need arise.
According to René Fonseca, a water operator with the Carroll-Boone Water District who went to Little Rock to testify in favor of the bill, Mauch was not able to introduce it because the wrong bill was put forward when it came his turn to speak.
The house committee overseeing the bill was going to cancel testimony, but committees chairmen allowed testimony as some had traveled long distances to speak.
Fonseca, one of 12 Carroll-Boone water operators who all oppose adding fluoride to the drinking water supply, as mandated by Gov. Mike Beebe in Act 197, testified that as a water operator he wanted specific information about any products the water district must add to the water to ensure he is complying with American National Standards Institute 60 with regard to adding contaminants to the water. Carroll-Boone must comply with the Clean Water Act, the Enhance Surface Water Treatment Rule and the state's rules and regulations pertaining to public water systems.
CBWD has not been able to obtain a list of products from any of the 49 suppliers it made a request of, Fonseca said.
In a letter to the state Bureau of Legislative Research, King asked about a bill requiring full disclosure.
Legislative attorney Mike Feehan replied that Arkansas presently does not require such disclosure, as Mauch's bill would have specified.
The requirements of Act 197 are that water districts serving 5,000 or more customers must fluoridate their water and that tax or service revenue cannot be used to fund startup costs.
"I felt the over-analyzed the bill," King said of committee members who reviewed Mauch's first attempt, "and I feel maybe we can address those things before bringing it to committee again."
Even though the City of Eureka Springs passed Resolution 600, opposing the state's mandate, it will have little effect, King said. Eureka Springs is one of the four member cities that make up CBWD.
It has twice in the past, before the state mandate, voted down a proposal by the other three member cities of Berryville, Green Forest and Harrison to fluoridate the water.
King said when the issue first surfaced, he didn't have a lot of concerns about fluoride, but he was educated when it became a debated, "hot button" issue.
"When you have water operators who work for Carroll-Boone expressing concerns about it -- and they are the experts -- you give it a lot more attention," he said. "And there are a lot of other people with concerns that should be addressed."
He also is against the state mandating it.
"I feel it should be a vote of the people," King said. "It's a local issue."
He said he and Mauch are working on reframing the bill to introduce in January, when the legislature reconvenes.
Comments
NOT BREAKING THE LAW IS NOT A CRIME
Stop accepting delivery of fluoridation drugs
Fluoridation laws, state mandated or at the local level, are causing the cities and water operators to break federal FDA laws who will ultimately be liable for purchasing / receiving unapproved drugs and repackaging (diluting) fluoridation drugs
Under the FDCA, every person engaging in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of drugs in any establishment which he or she owns or operates, is required to immediately register his or her name, places of business, and all such establishments. 21 U.S.C. § 360(c). The terms "manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing" include repackaging or otherwise changing the container, wrapper, or labeling of any drug in furtherance of the distribution of the drug from the original place of manufacture to the person who makes the final sale to the ultimate consumer or user. 21 U.S.C. § 360(a)(1).
Is the city registered for repackaging (diluting) fluoridation drugs??
Illigally accepting unapproved drugs for final sale to the ultimate consumer is breaking Federal FDA law.
Under the FDCA, the doing or causing of the following acts, among others, is prohibited:
a. The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any drug that is misbranded (21 U.S.C. § 331(a».
b. The receipt in interstate commerce of any drug that is misbranded, and the delivery or proffered delivery thereof for pay or otherwise (21 U.S.C. § 33 1 (c».
c. The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of an unapproved new drug (21 U.S.C. § 331(d».
d. The doing of any act with respect to a drug, if such act is done while the drug is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce. which results in the drug being misbranded (21 U.S.C. § 331(k».
This means that nearly everyone involved in fluoridation drugs/chemicals in interstate commerce, such as manufacturers, packers, distributors, and retailers, is responsible for assuring that he or she is not dealing in products that are adulterated or misbranded, even if someone else caused the adulteration or misbranding in the first place. If you introduce it into interstate commerce or receive it in interstate commerce, you are responsible. The law applies to components and packaging as well as to finished products.
U.S. cities have been ignoring Food Drug and Cosmetic Act regulations by infusing industrial fluorosilicic acid into water supplies for a long time now. Also the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits substances from being added other than to sanitize water, and the Water Pollution Control Act Section 101a established by President Kennedy decrees that the natural chemistry of U.S. water supplies must be maintained (other than to sterilize the water).
Delta Dental withholds ratepayer premiums, that should have been used to cover more of one's dental costs, and uses the ill-gotten wealth to force cities to infuse industrial fluorosilicic acid diluted hazardous waste into water supplies, in gross violation of all of the above Federal water laws. The Eureka Springs water operators must stand their ground in unity and never order the illicit chemicals and follow Federal water laws. All citizens are honor-bound to follow these laws. No State law can be less restrictive than the SDWA and most State laws do not mention the use of fluorosilicic acid as source material, which is widely used nevertheless. Cities are not mandated by the State to use this material. The FDA ruled from 1963-1993 that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient and addition into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug.
With soft water lacking sufficient antidote calcium, fluoride is fully assimilated. Fluoride incorporates into atherosclerotic plaque in coronary arteries in cardiovascular disease victims (Yuxin, Nuclear Communications, Jan 2012) and heart attack rates increase signficantly in cities analyzed before and after fluoridation. Enough. Dr. Richard Sauerheber
There are good data describing the remarkable purity of fluoride water additives. The majority of the samples have NO detectable contaminants. The purity is mandated by National Sanitation Foundation Standard 60. The testing is more specifically rigorous that required for medication (USP).
read:
http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distri...
The business about the coronary artery is totally baloney. No real scientist believes this. The misinterpreted scientific study was about a nuclear medicine imaging technique. It was designed to explore ways that heart arteries could be identified that might be at high risk for causing a heart attack. It has no information whatsoever to ionic fluoride (the kind in water) possible relationship to heart disease.
A complex sugar was labeled with radioactive fluoride. The fluoride is part of the sugar molecule which attaches itself to inflamed atherosclerotic plaque. This reaction has absolutely nothing to do with the ionic fluoride which is used in water fluoridation.
This terribly mistaken interpretation of a radiographic imaging technique is but one example of anti-fluoridation activists misleading the general public.
This example is probably one of the best for showing how the Internet propagates total falsehoods and how those opposing water fluoridation's important improvement in oral health use that falsehood politically.
Read the paper for yourself:
Nuclear Medicine Communications . 33(1):14-20, January 2012
The water operators are being responsible in asking for documentation that the products that they are using is complying with NSF Standard 60:
http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distri...
They are not protesting fluoridation. They are simply asking for verification that the product that they are using complies with NSF Standard 60. There's a huge difference between being responsible vs opposing a proven health benefit.
The safety of the water supply falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA, not the FDA:
CDC:
"FDA Regulatory Criteria for Fluoride"
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate additives to community drinking water, because its regulatory reach concerns the safety and efficacy of food, drugs, or cosmetic-related products."
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_she...
THE STUDY BY YUXIN USED SODIUM FLUORIDE. Yes, please read it yourself. Here is the abstract.
Abstract
Objective: The feasibility of a fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan for imaging atherosclerosis has not been well documented. The purpose of this study was to assess fluoride uptake of vascular calcification in various major arteries, including coronary arteries.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the imaging data and cardiovascular history of 61 patients who received whole-body sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT studies at our institution from 2009 to 2010. Fluoride uptake and calcification in major arteries, including coronary arteries, were analyzed by both visual assessment and standardized uptake value measurement.
Results: Fluoride uptake in vascular walls was demonstrated in 361 sites of 54 (96%) patients, whereas calcification was observed in 317 sites of 49 (88%) patients. Significant correlation between fluoride uptake and calcification was observed in most of the arterial walls, except in those of the abdominal aorta. Fluoride uptake in coronary arteries was demonstrated in 28 (46%) patients and coronary calcifications were observed in 34 (56%) patients. There was significant correlation between history of cardiovascular events and presence of fluoride uptake in coronary arteries. The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events.
Conclusion: sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT might be useful in the evaluation of the atherosclerotic process in major arteries, including coronary arteries. An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.