Reply With Quote
Anyone in Austin? Where are my fellow lovers of liberty?
Fluoride Debate at University of Texas: Should this be in our water?
Location:
University of Texas Thompson Conference Center
2405 Robert Dedman Dr
Austin, TX 78705
(512) 471-3121
Expert for and against water fluoridation have been invited to discuss their perspective on this important topic. The panel of experts will field questions from the audience.
Dr. Paul Connett, a world-renowned expert on water fluoridation, is flying in from New York for this event. His new book will be available for purchase and signing.
Parking is at the Corner of Red River and Dean Keaton.
A bio for Dr. Paul Connett: http://www.stlawu.edu...
A letter of concern by Dr. Paul Connett: http://www.fluorideal...
Last edited by Parker2112; 11-02-2010 at 09:40 AM.
Anyone in Austin? Where are my fellow lovers of liberty?
LoL....I'm sure Chump will attend!!!
And for those clowns who claim that fluoridation isnt a cons utional issue, would you care to explain why the Libertarian party stands opposed to it?
In Austin.
Love liberty.
This "issue" is stupid and not worth my time.
"Love Liberty" was a reference to Libertarians. I thought it was self-explanatory. Sorry you didnt catch that.
Actually I did catch it. I vote Libertarian often. Did so just this past Friday. Still doesn't make this "flouride debate" any less stupid.
to each his own, but glad to hear someone else voted Libertarian.
Not sure how such an uncons utional govt action can be considered "stupid" though
Maybe you could explain it again. I could use the laugh.
Im sure there are some materials out there that fit your bill. Odds are about 75-80% that I will be there. I will be the one going balls out, with no skin off my ass.
Martin vs. Reynolds Metals Turns 50
Fluoridation Litigation in Oregon, Then and Now
By Antonia Giedwoyn
Fifty years ago this past August, legal history was made in the U.S. District Court of Oregon with a case involving exposure to fluoride. Half a century later, the heart of the case is still beating. Although the issue of human exposure to fluoridation chemicals in Oregon has changed shape, it remains capable of provoking litigation, now more than ever. The question is, would suits challenging mandatory water fluoridation in Oregon communities have a fighting chance?
The answer depends on whom you ask.
Towards the end of summer in 1955, the case Martin vs. Reynolds Metals proved for the first time in the United States that airborne particles from an aluminum reduction plant had caused illness to humans.
Rancher Paul Martin, his wife Verla and their daughter Paula had moved to their Troutdale, Ore. ranch in 1946. The approximately 2,000-acre property bordered the Columbia and Sandy rivers as well as Reynolds Metals Co., an aluminum factory whose major contaminants at the site included fluoride.1
Soon after moving to the ranch, Martin�s livestock became sick and died. In a letter to the family’s attorney, George Mead, Verla Martin described dead and sick horses on the property with backs “all blistered and burned from the fluorine fumes, so badly that they bleed.”
In a letter to then President Dwight Eisenhower, dated Feb. 4, 1953, Paul Martin wrote, “I own a beef cattle ranch which due to fluorine contamination has not been in operation for the past three years. Chemists found that the bones of these cattle contained fluorine in excessive amounts. Also that the liver, kidney and glands of these animals were damaged and high in fluorine content. The teeth of the animals were so diseased that a person could pull them out with their fingers. In the spring of 1950 I had over 100 head of grown cattle die, in fact the Western States Rendering Company picked up 13 dead cows in one day.”
Before long, the Martin family also became sick. Physicians diagnosed them with subacute fluorosis.2
“We were all three in good health before the Reynolds Metal Company opened this plant,” Paul Martin’s letter goes on to say. “After the plant had been in operation about a year, we all three started having digestive trouble, respiratory trouble and swollen, aching joints. We have written, signed reports from leading doctors stating that we all three have chronic fluorine poisoning, tests show that all three of us have damaged liver, kidneys and glands plus bone damage. I know you are a busy man, Mr. President, but I am hoping that you will be able to do something in regards to this mess, so that I may move back to my ranch and operate it.”
Prosecuting attorneys Mead and Irving Rand alleged that toxic gases emitted from the Reynolds plant had poisoned the family. The jury and appellate court ruled in favor of the Martins.
Since that time, Oregon lawmakers have argued about requiring statewide water fluoridation. Most dentists say fluoride helps reduce tooth decay and that artificial water fluoridation is a harmless way for Oregonians who can’t afford toothpaste to access fluoride. Dentists began using fluoride as a topical treatment in the late 1940s, and in 1950, Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first U.S. city to put fluoride in its water supply. It is estimated that two-thirds of the public water supply is now fluoridated, and there an emerging movement calling for fluoridation in all public water supplies. The Centers for Disease Control hails fluoridation of public water supplies as “one of ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.” Its most vocal supporter is the 150,000- member American Dental Association, which has long championed the effectiveness and safety of fluoride in treating tooth decay. In its 2005 publication “Fluoridation Facts,”3 the organization notes that fluoridation is endorsed by both the National Ins utes of Health and the U.S. Public Health Service. The ADA points to numerous scientific studies finding fluoride to be safe; in its most recent fluoride report, the ADA dismisses reports to the contrary as “pseudo-science.”
On the other hand, critics point out that although the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has approved the use of fluoride products for topical application (such as toothpaste containing fluoride), it has never approved a fluoride compound for ingestion for the purpose of reducing tooth decay. (The FDA defines any fluoride product swallowed for a reduction in tooth decay as a drug.) Further clouding the issue is the fact that no federal agency currently regulates water additives, including fluoride. Finally, critics point to a growing body of scientific literature, including a recent Harvard study showing a strong link between fluoridaton and a rare but lethal form of bone cancer, that connects fluoridated water to health problems. Opponents of fluoridation believe that such evidence, along with the absence of FDA approval or a federal regulation scheme, might provide them their day in court.
In Oregon, legal activity spurred by concerns over water fluoridation has been modest since Martin. Oregon attorneys contacted for this article said they are unaware of any lawsuits that have challenged mandatory water fluoridation in Oregon communities. However, the current push by fluoridation proponents to fluoridate cities such as Portland and others that have resisted past efforts to do so could throw open the door to litigation.
“I definitely think there could be litigation if the legislature and dentists force fluoridation on Oregon,” said Brent Foster, a Mosier, Ore. attorney. “Given what the scientific and medical evidence now shows are the very real risks of drinking water fluoridation, both the state and cities would be legally negligent for adding these products into people’s drinking water.”
Foster was alluding to the distinction between what is known as the MCL (maximum contaminant level) and the MCLG (the maximum contaminant level goal). The MCL is the highest level of a regulated contaminant allowed in drinking water, whereas the MCLG, the goal, is defined as the level of a contaminant in drinking water at or below which there is no known or expected health risk. It’s the accepted scientific point of safety.
The distinction is discussed in detail in “Arsenic in Drinking Water 2001 Update,” a do ent written in response to the U.S. House Committee on Science in 2000 by NSF International, a company involved with the certification of water fluoridation chemicals. NSF provided data showing that manufacturers� samples had tested positive for lead and arsenic. In both cases, the levels were within the allowable limits (the MCL), but short of the EPA�s goal (the MCLG). The NSF do ent quotes the National Research Council, an organization whose research is frequently cited by both sides of the issue, as saying the levels of arsenic would result in more than one bladder or lung cancer per every 1,000 consumers.
Even though very low concentrations of arsenic in drinking water have been linked linked to cancer, not everyone agrees that mandating water fluoridation throughout Oregon could spur lawsuits, at least not successful ones. When asked whether Rep. Bob Jenson, chair of the Oregon House Water Committee, is concerned about the potential for litigation, an office spokesman dismissed the idea.
“That doesn’t appear very likely to us,” said attorney Shaun Jillions, addressing the topic on behalf of Jenson. “Communities throughout the nation have been fluoridated for over 60 years…and we have not been made aware of a single do ented case that was successful…they can’t definitively demonstrate that fluoride is having that effect on them,” Jillions said, referring to health problems.
However, as Martin vs. Reynolds vividly demonstrated 50 years ago, it is possible to convince a court of fluoride-related harm to human health. Nowadays, because it’s not a matter of a sick family living near a polluting factory but rather one of adding chemicals to the public’s drinking water for claimed medicinal purposes, fluoridation litigation is trickier.
That’s the one thing everyone seems to agree on.
Courts in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas concluded after extensive expert witness testimony that fluoride in the water at 1 part per million has aggravated existing illnesses, caused adverse health effects and is linked to increased cancer deaths. But higher courts ruled in these cases that challenges involving representative government in the form that they were pleaded, as attacks on public policy, required a higher legal standard than proof.
“It’s hard to find the actual jurisdictional trigger. It would definitely be an uphill battle,” said Melissa Powers, (What do you know? My old professor! Small world sometimes.) a Portland attorney with the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center. “The case law is really terrible; the cons utional challenges have failed across the board.”
One example is Coshow vs. the City of Escondido, argued in California’s Fourth Appellate District Court. The plaintiffs did not challenge the public policy of fluoridation, but instead claimed the government’s conduct permitting fluoridation was uncons utional because it violated the cons utional right of bodily integrity and privacy under the Ninth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Cons ution and Articles 1 and 7 of the California Cons ution.
The respondents argued that the city is required by California law to fluoridate the drinking water and that the city’s fluoridation plan was subject to review and approval by the California Department of Health Services in agreement with the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
“The city can’t do anything until the state gives us a permit to do so,” said Jennifer McCain, assistant city attorney for Escondido, speaking before the case was heard by the California appeals court. “Fluoridation in the state of California has been deemed cons utional for a long time, so we don’t believe the plaintiffs’ case has any merit based on existing legal authority.” The city’s response did not address the issue of harm.
Last month, the appeals court came to an unpublished conclusion affirming the lower court’s decision to allow fluoridation to continue. The plaintiffs are expected to ask the California Supreme Court to review the issue, according to Jeff Green, a spokesman for the plaintiffs and volunteer national director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, a group that actively participates with Oregon affiliates involved in water safety and standards.
Cons utional challenges are just one possibility, experts say. A suit for negligence is another possibility. According to Foster, legal challenges could be built around the fact that fluoride has never been approved as a drug by the FDA and that adding it to water for the purpose of treating human health is a violation of federal law.
“What creates a new opportunity for litigation on fluoride is not a change in the law, but the incredibly large body of science which clearly shows there are serious reasons to be concerned about adding fluoride (to drinking water),” he said.
Last year, Foster represented several Hood River residents challenging the city’s proposed ballot measure asking whether residents favor fluoridated water. Because the measure did not disclose the three fluoride compounds that would be used, they contended the city’s ballot language was unfair and misleading, and that the ballot measure needed to list the chemicals and clarify that they contain contaminants. Foster and the residents reached a settlement with the city attorney, he said, but the city council eventually pulled the measure.
Since then, voters of Hood River recently enacted a law that restricts the amount of contaminants that can be present in chemicals added to water to treat people. The vote essentially prohibits fluoridation chemicals from being added.
Nationally, the case of Doe vs. Rumsfeld may shed another light on the issue of current fluoridation litigation. The lawsuit, filed in 2003 in the District of Columbia on behalf of six military service members, concerned the right to informed consent as it related to anthrax vaccinations during a time of war.
The case parallels the fluoridation suits in that the anthrax vaccines were not FDA approved at the time they were mandated. The court ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense must halt the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program until or unless the vaccine was approved by the FDA. Within a month of the ruling, the FDA gave its approval, and the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program has resumed for service members who consent to the inoculation.
“Contrary to the lower court decision being appealed in the Escondido case, this District of Columbia court concluded that forced medication with a substance that was not approved by the FDA for the specific disease and manner in which it was delivered was an arbitrary act and is thus uncons utional,” Green said. “The salient point is that the court’s decision to restrain government on this basis is not contested by the Department of Defense and further clarifies an issue that we believe will be an important consideration in cases involving the selection of fluoridation chemicals intended to treat humans.”
CONCLUSION
Approximately 20 percent of Oregonians currently drink fluoridated water. If the percentage of Oregonians drinking fluoridated water jumps high enough, particularly if it’s due to state or federal legislation or municipalities instead of voters having chosen it, court clerks may find themselves adding a growing number of fluoridation suits to the docket. And attorneys on both sides, arguing as heatedly as their Martin vs. Reynolds predecessors, will anxiously wonder whether they’ll hear echoes of that David and Goliath case.
ENDNOTES
1. Public Health Assessment of Reynolds Metals Company. January 14, 1997. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Superfund Site Assessment Branch
2. Reynolds Metals Company vs. Paul Martin. Plaintiffs� direct examination, p. 492, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals, San Francisco, Court Case Papers and Printed Matter, Case # 14990, transcript of record in six volumes, Folders 14990-14992, Boxes 5888-5890, RG 276
3. From the website of the American Dental Association, http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx.
Why would we want to explain your stance for you? Isn't that your job?
Fallacy: Burden of Proof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
You claim flouride in the water violates the cons ution. What part?
Can't explain it, huh?
Are you too lazy to crib the answer, or was there nothing there to support your thesis that fluoridation is uncons utional?
Promise or threat?
Balls on the floor where anyone can step on them, no skin left on your ass. I've seen this movie before. It doesn't end well for you.
The fourteenth amendment. Now tell me why.
If you want a good laugh, why should I oblige? And if you want the info, why should I trouble myself? Your daily output is usually nothing more than insults and attempted wit, so what do I owe you for that, pardner? Answer: not enough to mandate me teaching you the scope of the 14th and the right to make medical decisions for self and family under the SC's recognized right to privacy. So I wont.
Just as I thought, it's the same bs you gave us before. Good luck finding a lawyer to take that case.
I am eager to hear Parker2112's cons utional argument as well.
Not someone else's.
Why would we want to explain your stance for you? Isn't that your job?
Your claim, your burden of proof.Fallacy: Burden of Proof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
If it violates the cons ution, then you can easily explain which section and how that is applied and understood.
BS? Which one: The 14th, the SC's delineation of a right to privacy, or the right to make medical decisions for self/family under right to privacy, or all the above?
I already did, you are too slow on the uptake. Just that quick and you are already behind the game. Man, you must have made some intelligence officer! That might explain why the American people get ed on a regular basis...the MIC puts dumb-asses behind desks to buy what they are told and do as little independent thinking/analysis as possible. That certainly fits your current profile.
Second sight flare up. sorry.
LMAO at you spending more time cutting and pasting than following the conversation...
In human-computer interaction, cut and paste and copy and paste offer user-interface paradigms for transferring text, data, files or objects from a source to a destination. Most ubiquitously, users require the ability to cut and paste sections of plain text. This paradigm has close associations with graphical user interfaces that use pointing devices such as a computer mouse (by drag and drop, for example).
The privacy issues seems to fall apart once it is established that folks may choose to not drink the water.
It has its problems sure, as the article pointed out as well. But that doesnt make the argument laughable. For a certain segment of the pop, there is no choice but to drink it. Its a matter of finding the right plaintiff. Think about the litigation againnst tobacco, and how long it took to produce a ready-made client to crack what had been years of failed lawsuits.
Stay tuned. And if you want to see me in the flesh, lets do this chump.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
