The Skagit Public Utility District wants to pass the fluoride buck to the customers and the blame to the county with a new line item on water bills titled “County Mandated Fluoridation.”

PUD General Manager David Johnson said early estimates indicate the utility district will pay $135,000 each year for sodium fluoride and maintenance costs. Customers will cover that cost through a usage-based rate assessed at each bill period.

The wording is more than a simple explanation. Johnson wants customers to know who is behind the county-wide fluoridation.

Read The Full Story

On your marks, get set, rant, rave and rage…

Smith said the dental foundation would help pay for any reasonable building costs above the $1.2 million and discounted the SEPA concerns wholesale.

“It’s not a barrier to fluoridating water,” she said.

If Laura Smith isn’t concerned about the health of the Skagit County Citizens then of course she wouldn’t be concerned about SEPA.

I think its a good idea to put “County Mandated fluoridation” on the bill, then we will know who the responsible parties are and who to sue.

I find it truly amazing that our news source in the Skagit Valley always seems to cast doubt on comments made by concerned citizens of this county, and yet seem to swallow each and every bit of diatribe originating with the dental crowd that wants to poisen our water supply.

Hey isn’t this an unfunded mandate that Skagit County is forcing on PUD.  Didn’t County Staff just get high marks for saying “enough is enough”.  Maybe PUD should too.

“I find it truly amazing that our news source in the Skagit Valley always seems to cast doubt on comments made by concerned citizens of this county, and yet seem to swallow each and every bit of diatribe originating with the dental crowd that wants to poisen our water supply.”

That’s because the Herald, along with most other left-leaning news organizations, believes the average citizen to be incapable of making decisions where the individual and collective welfare is concerned.

It’s certainly a good thing we have these brilliant people leading us through the dark. (please note dripping sarcasm)

They don’t believe in the welfare of the individual… even though the Constitution is based on that concept.

>> early estimates indicate the utility district will pay $135,000 each year for sodium fluoride and maintenance costs<<

SODIUM Fluoride?  Oh, really?  Maybe the reporter doesn’t know but there are a few types of Fluoride and SODIUM Fluoride is not commonly used for water treatment.  Hexafluorosilicic acid is commonly used for water fluoridation. 

The “fluoride” added to water supplies is actually a by-product (toxic waste) of the phosphate fertiliser industry, called Hexafluorosilicic acid.  H2SiF6 is a by-product from the reaction of fluoroapatite with sulfuric acid.  Hexafluorosilicic acid cannot be stored in glass or unlined metal containers, it is so corrosive.  Hexafluorosilicic acid is shipped to the water treatment plants in specially lined tanks, containing 4,000 - 5,000 gallons.

Yep, it works out great for that industry...not having to safely dispose of their waste products. No worries, they’ll just get the Public to drink it.

Neither one of those fluorides are very good, they’re both toxic. Another thing they have a hard time understanding is that fluoride is a salt. What about the people that are suppose to be on low sodium diets?

NOW, they have a green resolution to turn off lights and computers in government offices. Gee Wally, I thought people just flipped a light switch and wha-la lights are off, no, instead they had to waste alot of time and tax payer money making a resolution to flip a switch and power down their computers. Where is all this concern about the environment coming from, Munks and Dahlstedt certainly didn’t care about the environment when they voted yes on fluoride.

Actually Munks and Dahlstedt are to blame for fluoridation, the bills should read “alleged commissioners Munks and Dahlstedt are responsible for drugging the water”. They voted for it and they will need to take responsibility when things go wrong.

The pro-fluoridation camp always warns people to beware of the Internet and all of the bogus information out there. Not so oddly enough, the FAQ section at the web site for Citizens for a Healthy Skagit is loaded with “facts” that can be disproved by most kids who are still in junior high school.

For instance:
17. Is fluoride a byproduct from the fertilizer industry?

The fluoride used in drinking water is pure. Every batch of fluoride is rigorously tested to ensure that it meets or exceeds national and international safety standards. And, as to any suggestion that drinking fluoridated water is toxic, the exact opposite is true. Communities with fluoridated water are simply healthier than communities without fluoridation. Their rates of oral disease are dramatically lower, and when oral health improves, so does overall health.

Fluoridation has proven itself so safe and beneficial that its opponents have to rely on scare tactics and distorted truths. In this case, their claim is based on the fact that in nature, fluoride is often found mixed with other very useful minerals. And one of those other minerals is used as a component of fertilizer.

What a load of garbage! The fluoride used in drinking water is pure? Pure what? The only fluoride found in nature is calcium fluoride, not sodium fluoride or hydrofluosilicic acid.

The claim that fluoridated communities are healthier is quite simply not supported by statistics compiled by the CDC, the WHO, and insurance companies, such as the Kaiser Health Maintenance Organization. For details, examine Water Fluoridation Intervention: Dentistry’s Crown Jewel or Dark Hour? from the respected International Society for Fluoride Research.

For another thing, pro-fluoridationists like Skagit County Health Officer Howard Leibrand cannot make up their minds whether fluoride is a drug or a nutrient (see Fluoride would bank health dividends, SVH, 9/1/2006). Nutrients do not kill bacteria, such as streptococcus mutans, but drugs do. That makes fluoride a drug, no matter what you hear from its pushers. Fluoridating the water supply is nowhere near the same as fortifying milk with vitamin D and calcium or iodizing salt. When purchasing food products at a grocery store, people still have a choice in the matter.

Here’s another good one:
14. Shouldn’t we have the right to choose what we consume?

Fluoridation benefits everyone, just like seatbelts, or adding vitamin D to milk or iodine to salt.

Our high rate of oral disease is bad for everyone. The simple fact is our water doesn’t naturally contain enough fluoride to keep our mouths healthy. If we had been fluoridating, many painful and expensive cases of oral disease across the community, from children to seniors, rich to poor, would have been prevented.

When people can’t pay for dental care, the community as a whole must pay.

Notice how “Healthy Skagit” avoids a direct answer to its own question. The claim that fluoridation benefits everyone is patently false. You may get a ticket for not using your vehicle’s seat belt, but it is still a choice. The board of health does not come and fasten it for you each time you go for a drive. And there is that deceitful vitamin D and iodized salt analogy again.

If fluoridation does indeed benefit everyone, why did a 12-year-old boy die from oral disease in fluoridated Prince George’s County, Maryland in February 2007? It either works for everyone or it doesn’t. See For Want of a Dentist, Washington Post, 2/28/2007. (This news item actually focuses on the issue of insurance coverage.)

The bottom line is that pro-fluoridationists will gladly deny an individual’s freedom of choice, which is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

Unlike the plague, tuberculosis, or a pandemic-scale flu virus, tooth decay cannot be spread through a community by casual contact between human beings. Still, aided by the Skagit County Prosecutor’s Office, two of the Skagit County Commissioners have mandated that dental caries is an infectious and contagious disease. How many people have actually seen and read Resolution #20070284? It clearly violates the legislative intent behind a health board’s so-called “police powers” as defined in RCW 70.05.060.

edit: corrected typo

Guess what, folks? In announcing what was then an upcoming community input meeting hosted by the PUD, the Skagit Valley Herald saw nothing wrong with taking a cheap shot and printing an inflammatory statement that belongs on the editorial page. When it came to reporting the news by sending a reporter to cover the meeting, the SVH decided that it didn’t rate, that the event wasn’t important enough. At least that is what I was told when I called the paper and asked to know where was its follow-up?

“The Skagit Public Utility District wants to pass the fluoride buck to the customers and the blame to the county with a new line item on water bills titled ‘County Mandated Fluoridation,’” is how the story associated with this discussion forum began. So much for objectivity in journalism.

Further down, it was stated, “But PUD commissioners have been slow to begin the process and questioned whether the Skagit County commissioners had the authority to order fluoridation. The commissioners issued the order in their capacity as the county board of health.” The inescapable truth is that Skagit County has had only one lawfully seated commissioner since January 3, 2005. As a result of their failure to qualify for their elected offices per State Law, Don Munks and Ken Dahlstedt do not have the authority to mandate a bathroom break, much less any form of legislation!

At the June 26th community meeting, Washington Dental Service Foundation attorney Faith Ireland became visibly shaken as I started my three-minute speech. “State Law and criminal statutes must apply to everyone or they mean nothing!” I began. She knew exactly where I was headed and that there is no legitimate fluoridation mandate for anyone to enforce. This is not idle speculation.

An examination of public records exposes the fact that neither Munks nor Dahlstedt filed their Oaths of Office properly for their current terms under State Law. RCW 36.16.060 reads as follows — “Every county officer, before entering upon the duties of his office, shall file his oath of office in the office of the county auditor. . .”

According to the minutes of the first County Commission meeting of 2005 on January 3rd, both Munks and Dahlstedt were indeed in attendance. Also, documents found at the Skagit County Auditor’s web site confirm that the Oaths of Office for Munks and Dahlstedt were subscribed and sworn to before Judge John M. Meyer.

However, this occurred on January 10, 2005 — a full week after that initial commission meeting.

There is no mention of a grace period in the above statute. This is ultimately significant in light of the fact that RCW 42.12.010(6) designates this pair of events as a cause of vacancy in their offices. The law states, “Every elective office shall become vacant on the happening of any of the following events: (6) His or her refusal or neglect to take his or her oath of office, . . . or to deposit such oath . . . within the time prescribed by law;. . .”

For the past year, attempts to have Skagit County Prosecutor Rich Weyrich honor the Oath to which he has sworn — to support the Constitution and Laws of the State of Washington — have been stonewalled and met with outright deception.

On April 16, 1963, Attorney General John J. O’Connell issued AGO 1963 No. 17. He wrote, “Our supreme court has held that the occurrence of an event designated in RCW 42.12.010 occasions immediate forfeiture of office and creates a vacancy.”

Whether or not it meets with the approval of the Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, the above paragraph provides more than adequate proof that Don Munks and Ken Dahlstedt have indeed been holding office outside of the law for the past three years; and therefore, they had no authority to approve Resolution #20070284 at the very least.

The full case has been reviewed by the State Attorney General’s Office and not one piece was rejected as erroneous. Per State Law, it is now in the hands of Governor Gregoire. Will she act?

For what it is worth, Skagit Valley Publishing also has its copy.

I’ve written it once and I’ll write it again:  In my opinion you are playing right into the pro-fluoride group’s hands by confusing the issue with this “oath of office” argument.  The more light they can divert away from the core issue - fluoride - the better they like it. 

The fluoridation of Skagit PUD water needs to be stopped before it gets started by showing all the claimed benefits of fluoride to be BS and by making the public aware of the dangers of fluoride.  If you want to fight over whether or not two of our three County Commissioners are occupying their offices illegally you should take that battle far away from the fluoride issue.

Ok, Irtnog maybe I can shed some more light on this. What Don is doing is all about the fluoridation. The county commissioners are not really county commissioners because they didn’t get their oaths done on time. Since they are not county commissioners then they have no right to mandate fluoridation or to force the PUD to add it to the water. So if Gregoire does her job then the 2 alleged county commissioners will have to step down and all of the decisions the commissioners have made will be null and void, including the mandate to fluoridate. With the signing of a document by Gregoire there would be no fluoridation mandate. Its actually brilliant.

How long have you been fighting fluoridation Irgnog? What have you added to the fight? Have you been to any of the PUD meetings to voice your opinion? Did you show up on Thursday to voice your opinion? Have you gone door to door to approximately 7000 homes in Skagit County giving information on the dangers of fluoridation? Have you met with the county commissioners and voiced your concerns? Were you at the meeting the day the county commissioners voted on fluoride. Did you attend any of the public meetings with the county commissioners. Have you tried to convince them of the dangers of fluoridation for the last 4 years? Did you copy DVD’s by the thousands and hand them out? Did you bring people in like Paul Connett, Paul Ruben, Bill Osmunson and Avery Martin? (By the way the county commissioners never showed up to any of the meetings). We have given the county commissioners a library of information on the dangers of fluoridation, the stack was about a foot thick, they were inundated with paperwork. My sister, Don and I have done an incredible amount of work, same with my other sister before she died. My sister paid for most of the materials, it wasn’t cheap either especially when she flew Paul Connett out from the eastcoast. They aren’t going to change their minds, so we will have to do it for them, one way or another. Now they have completely closed themselves off from the issue and won’t talk to anyone about it anymore.

Nearly every case of fluoridation across the nation has lost when the only thing they fought with is the dangers of fluoride. We have a corporate government and judges are a part of the corporate system.

Irtnog - 28 June 2008 04:02 PM

I’ve written it once and I’ll write it again:  In my opinion you are playing right into the pro-fluoride group’s hands by confusing the issue with this “oath of office” argument.  The more light they can divert away from the core issue - fluoride - the better they like it. 

The fluoridation of Skagit PUD water needs to be stopped before it gets started by showing all the claimed benefits of fluoride to be BS and by making the public aware of the dangers of fluoride.  If you want to fight over whether or not two of our three County Commissioners are occupying their offices illegally you should take that battle far away from the fluoride issue.

Okay, Irtnog, I’ve written it more than once but I’ll keep on repeating it: No Oath >> No Office >> No Mandate

There was a doctor in the audience Thursday night who stopped me as I left the auditorium at B-E. He said that I was spot on and congratulated me on my speech and for the level of research that went in to putting it together. He continued by saying that I must be frustrated by all of the people who heard my words and still don’t get it. I responded by telling him, “You got that right.”

Irtnog, you are entitled to your above opinion. However, since it has no merit, I will simply ignore it. The arguments over whether fluoridation is good or bad contain so many gray areas that the pro-fluoridationists love keeping things going in circles. They will always point to endorsements by the alphabet agencies, who are driven by corporate interests — not science. That is what you are advocating.

Good ol’ boy elected officials — such as Munks and Dahlstedt — don’t listen to facts. The only thing to which they pay attention is money being waved in their faces — one tactic employed by WDSF’s Tracy Garland. A year ago, Southern California’s Metropolitan Water District heard testimony from research scientists David Kennedy, DDS and Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D. The fluoridated water is now flowing.

The law is not open to interpretation. Faith Ireland gets it. Rich Weyrich gets it. That is why he has spent a whole year stonewalling efforts to have Munks and Dahlstedt removed from office. He is only compounding his own problems by violating his Oath of Office in his failure to enforce the law, which is Official Misconduct. The Attorney General’s Office gets that, too! We are waiting to find out where the loyalties of Governor Gregoire lie and if she gets it.

I am not going to discourage anyone from arguing the science behind water fluoridation because pressure must be maintained from all directions. However, Irtnog, until you have accomplished something on which you can report, please refrain from offering advice.

We are not just complaining about fluoride being added to the water, we are doing something about it. So Irtnog, want to come and join us? We have plenty for you to do.

You are right Jevernew, the editors at the Skagit Valley Herald has decided their gods now, its become “all about them”. Its no longer a “news” paper, the paper is just being used to try to sway the public in whatever direction they think we ought to go but we’re on to them. We need a real newspaper in this town, one that just reports the facts instead of continually trying to force their unwanted opinions on us.

The Skagit Valley Herald always sides with the county and other corporations so they can be a part of the good ole boy club. In the end they will realize they have cut off their nose to spite their face because they get most of their money from the masses, not the county or other corporations.