SDSDW Meeting

Saturday, January 28th ~ 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Event Location: Joyce Beers Community Center

Address: 3900 Vermont Street San Diego, CA 92103
www.sdsdw.org (We are also on Facebook!)

Our next San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water (www.sdsdw.org) meeting will be held in Hillcrest at the Joyce Beers Community Center on Saturday, January 28th at 2:00 p.m. The meeting is expected to conclude by 4:00 p.m. The center is located at 3900 Vermont St. 92103, near the Von’s / Trader Joe’s shopping center. There is plenty of free underground parking at the shopping center.

The meeting agenda will include presentations, videos and discussions covering two main topics: First, effective filtration techniques at home; and second, what steps we can take to achieve an honest investigation into the matter of Industrial Fluoridation. You are making a difference with your letter writing, e-mails and phone calls so thank you! Keep it up but remember to keep your comments civil, fact based and demand “DUE DILIGENCE” from our City officials whom we are paying with our tax money! They work for us – why are we being subjected to this “solution to pollution”?

You’ll find useful information and talking points on our website, in previous e-mail communication, and on FAN’s website (http://www.fluoridealert.org/). We hope to see you all on the 28^th!

Sincerely,

The SDSDW Steering Committee

↓ Location of SDSDW meeting place below ↓

View Larger Map

What’s in our tap water?

The Coast News
By Celia Kiewit

Did you receive your New Year’s gift from the water district?   In January we will be getting fluoride in our tap water!   Great, it protects the children’s teeth from cavities.  Or does it?  I had one week’s worth of fluoride treatments when I was a kid and I have no cavities.  Why then are so many people in San Diego spitting mad about this?

San Diego city water is fluoridated despite the will of the people who, according to Municipal Code 67, banned any addition of fluoride to the water supply.  Check with your district and ask some questions.  Why is this happening?  Where is it coming from, and what is the actual chemical content?  Some people are objecting strongly, yet their politicians don’t seem to want to talk about it.  Some City Council members actually approve.

No vote was allowed.

Is this ever a good idea for protecting the teeth of young children? Maybe, but not on a long-term cumulative basis.  Fluoride, in the form delivered by the European “chemical distribution” company, Brenntag, is right up there with lead and mercury.  From our local water district’s website:  “Fluoride… discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories.”  Not exactly a pharmaceutical grade.   Chemical distribution?  Sounds like a euphemism to me.  More research needs to be done on these guys.  And yes, over-fertilization and pesticides add to the problem of polluted water and run-off.  What’s in the purple pipe?  How about “Toilet to Tap?”  Now there’s a great marketing slogan!  See the USA Today article dated 3/2011, “How we get tap water from sewage.”  Is the solution to pollution dilution?

Who cares what’s in the tap water when no one drinks it anyway?  Something like 80 million plastic bottles of water are consumed every day in the U.S. alone.   Designer water can cost 3 times that of a gallon of gasoline.

Plastic leaches into the contents and eventually infects the food supply.   Don’t get me started on my PET peeve.
The massive business of water delivery, sourcing, filtering, and charging us when sometimes we don’t really know what’s in it, where it comes from, nor can we really object is brilliant marketing and we are the captive consumers.   Be sure to see the film “Tapped,” which features Algalita’s Charlie Moore, an excellent documentary exposing the truth about water—stream, tap, and bottled.  Is it stolen and sold back to us?  “Whiskey is for drinking, and water is for fighting over,” said Mark Twain.  Yep, water wars are on the horizon as H2O is being dubbed the “new oil.”

This precious life-sustaining resource is too often taken for granted.  Some think it should cost more to reflect its true value.  On a half-acre organic garden and orchard, I use very little water thanks to a drip system and homemade cisterns.   Maybe we should mandate filtration systems in new homes and retrofit existing homes and businesses similar to the low-flush toilet laws, carbon monoxide monitors, etc.

Make no mistake, the municipal water supply cannot be allowed to deteriorate into a sewer, nor should it be manipulated by the powerful.  This public utility must remain just that, publicly accountable to the citizens.  When someone upstream is eliminating and someone downstream is drinking, standards must be maintained externally, come hell or high water!

Hydrofluorosilicic acid: Is this toxic waste and a carcinogen?  Is this a “bait and switch” whereby something that sounds like a good idea is really a toxic waste product that somebody upstream needs to get rid of?  I’d like some answers.

Celia Kiewit is an Encinitas resident.

Related posts:

1. Carmel Valley, Del Mar to have fluoride added to water
2. Water district stands up to keep water rates down
3. Fluoridated water for Del Mar by year’s end
4. The village’s real water dilemma was where to get water in the first place
5. Water, sewer rate increases for Carlsbad

Filed Under: Community Commentary

Tags: Celia Kiewit • Fluoride in water

Alleging willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, attorneys for citizen/consumers from San Diego, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties filed a lawsuit in the public interest of millions of consumers in Southern California, citing that MWD of SoCal has made claims of safely and effectively treating and preventing dental disease in recipient consumers, while selecting and delivering a hydrofluosilicic acid drug through their water system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness, nor in the expected dosages delivered by MWD through retail water districts, either topically, systemically through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through baths and showers.

In legal action which may impact the decision-making of water districts across the country employing the same practices, the lawsuit filed on August 9 in U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, addresses the Constitutional right of Plaintiffs to be free of bodily intrusion from a drug that has not been approved for MWD’s intent to alter the physical structure and bodily functions to make a person’s teeth more resistant to the demineralization process of tooth decay without their consent.

While some consumers may elect to purchase bottled water for drinking, virtually all consumers are captive to exposures from baths and showers, as simple filtration and most non-commercial methods do not remove the product, resulting in exposures to consumers similar to that of medications delivered by seasickness or nicotine patches.

“This case does not challenge the public policy of fluoridation,” states Kyle Nordrehaug, attorney for the Plaintiffs. “It does challenge MWD’s bait and switch tactics of orchestrating statements by them and their down-line distributors of water to individual consumers when MWD knew that the actual drug product that they deliver had never had a toxicological study performed on the health and behavioral effects of its continued use until 2010, much less approval for MWD’s perpetuation of absolute health claims.”

Despite early misrepresentations in the media, MWD of SoCal is not compelled to fluoridate its water by the State of California, and the costs of adding the unapproved drug are being borne by consumers in the form of rate hikes without water districts providing ratepayers clear notice of what the extra costs are for, or obtaining their consent.

The lawsuit’s filing clarifies that Congress has established that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the only government entity with the authority to approve claims of safety and effectiveness for products intended to treat and prevent disease, and that not only has the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency never had that authority, but in 1988 abandoned authority for safety standards for all direct water additives, including fluoridation chemicals.

While the Plaintiffs do not seek an award for any physical harm, they do point to evidence concerning safety/harm and effectiveness that by law and for consumers’ protection requires that the product be thoroughly evaluated, and approval given, for any claims and MWD’s intended health impact, before exposing consumers without their consent.

Plaintiffs point to MWD’s misrepresentations and omission of any notice of contraindications, government recognition of susceptible populations, and scientific evidence of disproportionate harm to children, Latinos, and African Americans, from the particular harmful side effects from the hydrofluosilicic acid drug selected by MWD, above other forms of fluoride.

“This lawsuit pushes past the rhetoric and reliance on unaccountable endorsements or opinions that usually accompany this subject, and focuses on whether MWD of SoCal adds hydrofluosilicic acid to public drinking water in order to treat or prevent dental disease, and whether FDA regulates products intended to treat disease, or not,” said Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and spokesperson for the Plaintiffs.

“In essence,” continued Green, “the Plaintiffs are saying, ‘Don’t tell us, or the media, or the court how safe it is. Go tell it to the FDA through the evaluation process and get approval for the claims for the specific product you deliver, and don’t administer it to us topically, systemically through our ingestion, or through our skin from our baths and showers, without our consent until you do.”

PLEASE NOTE: No member of SDSDW, partnering organizations or any fluoridation opponent is authorized to speak about this lawsuit publicly.  If you are contacted by members of the press, or anyone with questions about this lawsuit, please refer them to Jeff Green or Attorney, Kyle Nordrehaug. Their contact information is at the bottom of the press release.
Thank you SDSDW.

Contacts:

Jeff Green, Plaintiff Spokesperson

Citizens for Safe Drinking Water 
(800) 728-3833

greenjeff@cox.net keepers-of-the-Well.org

Kyle Nordrehaug, Attorney

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhomik

(858) 551-1223

August 1, 2011 6:30 PM

Event Location: St. Stephen’s Cathedral Church of God
(619) 262-2671  ‎ ststephenscogic.org

5825 Imperial Avenue, San Diego, CA 92114
Click Here for Google Map and Directions

Effective February 2, 2011 a new Fluoridation program went into effect throughout San Diego. Is your tap water more toxic and dangerous now because of this program?  Join us and you decide for yourself.  The star panelist will be former chemistry professor, author and internationally renowned speaker: Paul Connett, PhD. Search YouTube for much more on Paul and this essential issue.

“The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There” by Paul Connett, Phd

This event is hosted by

Hosted by: Bishop McKinney – a former probation officer, licensed Family Counselor, and author of eight books; and San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water. www.sdsdw.org

We have a very important month ahead of us.  Paul Connett is in town this month and several events are planned.  Additionally, an important town hall is going to occur in Southeast San Diego.  We really need your participation.  It’s time to demonstrate by action that San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water is a strong and active group.  The upcoming meeting will explain our plans and your need for visible and active participation.

Date:             Saturday, July 16, 2011
Time:             2:00-4:00 p.m.
Location:  Joyce Beers Community Center located at 1230 Cleveland Avenue, San Diego  CA  92103

At the Ralph’s Shopping Center in Hillcrest (off University Avenue)

Fluoride’s ability to damage the brain represents one of the most active areas of research on fluoride toxicity today. Eighteen carefully-controlled human studies in China, Iran, and Mexico have been conducted, showing alarming results relating to both the developing brains of children and to adults’ brain function.

“Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.”

- National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 186.

“A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.”
- National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 187.

“These negative correlations between IQ and urinary As and between IQ and urinary fluoride indicate that exposure to high levels of As or fluoride, or both, could affect children’s intelligence… This study indicates that exposure to fluoride in drinking water is associated with neurotoxic effects in children.”
-Wang SX, et al. (2007). Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children’s IQ and growth in Shanyin county, Shanxi province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(4):643-7.

“Higher drinking water fluoride levels were significantly associated with higher rates of mental retardation (IQ <70) and borderline intelligence (IQ 70-79)… In endemic fluorosis areas, drinking water fluoride levels greater than 1.0 mg/L may adversely affect the development of children’s intelligence.”
- Xiang Q, et al. (2003). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94.

Although research is continuing and it important to carefully examine each study on its own merits, the existing research alone should be enough for our governmental agencies to step back and take a second look at fluoridation programs.

DailyFinance

Unknown to most Americans, a surprising number of U.S. cities have drinking water with unhealthy levels of chemicals and contaminants.

In fact, some organizations and state environmental agencies that collect and analyze water data say the level of chemicals in some Americans’ drinking water not only exceeds recommended health guideline but the pollutants even exceed the limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the national legal authority in these matters.

The website 24/7 Wall St examined the quality of water supplies in most major America cities, using data collected from multiple sources for five years (ending in 2009) by Environmental Working Group (EWG), based in Washington, D.C. The fact that the data covered a half-decade is important because it shows that the presence of certain chemicals is persistent.

Cities in Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Georgia provided insufficient data to be included in EWG’s database. Some other major cities outside of these states also failed to submit information, including Detroit, Salt Lake City and Washington, D.C.

Test results from EWG’s national database covered “a total of 316 contaminants in water supplied to 256 million Americans in 48,000 communities in 45 states.” According to the data, among the contaminants were 202 chemicals that aren’t subject to any government regulation or safety standards for drinking water.

Based on the EWG’s methodology, 24/7 Wall St. came up with its 10 worst cities list. These cities’ water quality rank is based on three metrics, in order of increasing importance:

• The percentage of chemicals found based on the number that were tested for.
• The total number of contaminants found.
• The most dangerous average level of a single pollutant.

Here’s that list, in descending order, with the city’s water utility in parenthesis:

10. Jacksonville, Fla. (JEA)
Located on the northeast coast of Florida, Jacksonville is the state’s largest city. According to EWG, 23 different toxic chemicals were found in Jacksonville’s water supply. The chemicals most frequently discovered in high volumes were trihalomethanes, which consist of four different cleaning byproducts — one of which is chloroform. Many trihalomethanes are believed to be carcinogenic. Over the five-year testing period, unsafe levels of trihalomethanes were detected during each of the 32 months of testing, and levels deemed illegal by the EPA were detected in 12 of those months. During at least one testing period, trihalomethane levels were measured at nearly twice the EPA legal limit. Chemicals like arsenic and lead were also detected at levels exceeding health guidelines.

9. San Diego (San Diego Water Department)
Located on the Pacific in Southern California, San Diego is the country’s eighth-largest city. According to California’s Department of Public Health, San Diego’s drinking water system contained eight chemicals exceeding health guidelines as well as two chemicals that exceeded the EPA’s legal limit. In total, 20 contaminants have been found. One of those in excess of the EPA limit was trihalomethanes. The other was manganese, a natural element that’s a byproduct of industrial manufacturing and can be poisonous to humans.

8. North Las Vegas (City of North Las Vegas Utilities Department)
North Las Vegas’s water supply mostly comes from groundwater and the Colorado River, and doesn’t contain chemicals exceeding legal limits. However, the water supply did contain 11 chemicals that exceeded health guidelines set by federal and state health agencies. The national average for chemicals found in cities’ water exceeding health guidelines is four. North Las Vegas had a total of 26 contaminants, compared with the national average of eight. The water contained an extremely high level of uranium, a radioactive element.

7. Omaha (Metropolitan Utilities District)
The land-locked city of Omaha gets its water from the Missouri and Platte Rivers, as well as from groundwater. Of the 148 chemicals tested for in Omaha, 42 were detected in some amount, 20 of which were above health guidelines, and four of those were detected in illegal amounts. These were atrazine, trihalomethanes, nitrate and nitrite, and manganese. Atrazine is an herbicide that has been shown to cause birth defects. Nitrate is found in fertilizer, and nitrite is used for curing meat. Manganese was detected at 40 times the legal limit during one month of testing.

6. Houston (City of Houston Public Works)
Houston is the fourth-largest U.S. city. It gets its water from sources such as the Trinity River, the San Jacinto Rivers and Lake Houston. Texas conducted 22,083 water quality tests between 2004 and 2007 on Houston’s water supply, and found 18 chemicals that exceeded federal and state health guidelines, compared to the national average of four. Three chemicals exceeded EPA legal health standards, against the national average of 0.5 chemicals. A total of 46 pollutants were detected, compared to the national average of eight. The city water has contained illegal levels of alpha particles, a form of radiation. Similarly, haloacetic acids, from various disinfection byproducts, have been detected.

5. Reno (Truckee Meadows Water Authority)
Reno gets most of its water from the Truckee River, which flows from Lake Tahoe. Of the 126 chemicals tested for in Reno over four years, 21 were discovered in the city’s water supply, eight of which were detected in levels above EPA health guidelines, and three of these occurred in illegal amounts. These were manganese, tetrachloroethylene and arsenic. Tetrachloroethylene is a fluid used for dry cleaning and as an industrial solvent, and is deemed a likely carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Arsenic is a byproduct of herbicides and pesticides, and is extremely poisonous to humans. During at least one month of testing, arsenic levels were detected at roughly two and a half times the legal limit.

4. Riverside County, Calif. (Eastern Municipal Water District)
Riverside county is a 7,200-square-mile area located north of San Diego, part of California’s “Inland Empire.” The county is primarily located in desert territory, and so the water utilities draw their supply from the Bay Delta, which is miles to the north. The water in Riverside County contained 13 chemicals that exceeded recommended health guidelines over the four tested years, and one that exceeded legal limits. In total, 22 chemicals were detected in the district’s water supply. The contaminant exceeding legal health standards was tetrachloroethylene.

3. Las Vegas (Las Vegas Valley Water District)
Located in the Mojave desert, Las Vegas gets its water from the Colorado River through miles-long intake pipes. While its water doesn’t exceed the legal limits for any single type of contaminant, Las Vegas’s water has a large range of pollutants. Of the 125 chemicals tested for over a five-year period, 30 were identified in some amount, and 12 were found in levels that exceeded EPA health guidelines. These chemicals included radium-226, radium-228, arsenic and lead. The two radium isotopes are commonly found around uranium deposits and are hazardous to human health, even in small quantities.

2. Riverside, Calif. (City of Riverside Public Utilities)
Riverside, with a population slightly greater than 300,000, gets most of its drinking supply from groundwater. Regulators in the city of Riverside, which has a different water-treatment facility than the rest of Riverside County, detected 15 chemicals that exceeded health guidelines and one that exceeded legal standards. In total, 30 chemicals were found. Since 2004, the water has almost consistently been riddled with alpha particle activity, traces of bromoform (a form of trihalomethane) and uranium, causing an unusually unhealthy water supply.

1. Pensacola, Fla. (Emerald Coast Water Utility)
Located on the Florida Panhandle along the Gulf of Mexico, Pensacola is Florida’s westernmost major city. Analysts say it has the worst water quality in the country. Of the 101 chemicals tested for over five years, 45 were discovered. Of them, 21 were discovered in unhealthy amounts. The worst of these were radium-228 and -228, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, alpha particles, benzine and lead. Pensacola’s water was also found to contain cyanide and chloroform. The combination of these chemicals makes Pensacola’s water supply America’s most unhealthy.

© 2011 AOL Inc. All rights reserved.

I am obliged to respond to a letter to the editor in today’s Portsmouth Herald. The letter was regarding House Bill 312, relative to notices added to water bills in order to advise parents of some children less than 12 months of age of the risks of dental fluorosis. The author of the letter stated, “State Rep. Rich DiPentima, D-Portsmouth, a member of the subcommittee, who has written multiple letters to the editor supporting water fluoridation, is said to have been instrumental in the committee’s decision to recommend the bill be killed.” Said by whom?

The facts are that the author of the letter never attended either of the two subcommittee meetings.  The fact is that during the first subcommittee meeting, I volunteered to draft an amendment to improve the bill and make it acceptable to all parties.

At the second subcommittee meeting, I had in hand an amendment (2011-0248h) that would have done two things.  It would have changed the word “warning” to “statement” and it changed the wording of the statement to be consistent with that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association.  I was fully prepared to offer this amendment and, if adopted, move an ought to pass motion on the bill.  However, during this second meeting, a number of additional potential problems with the bill were presented.  The most concerning was that the bill would present possible constitutional issues by placing an unfunded mandate on local communities.  The bill also would have only provided a notice to parents who use water from fluoridated communities and would not inform parents living in communities served by small water utilities or those with private wells with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride.  The members of the subcommittee, as such, decided that this bill was inexpedient to legislate and that the issue is best addressed by physicians and dentists discussing the matter with parents directly.

These are the facts of this matter presented by one who was actually at the meeting, not based on an unnamed secondhand source. Other members of the subcommittee will corroborate my statements if anyone wishes independent confirmation.

Rep. Rich DiPentima
Rockingham District 16
Portsmouth