If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Florida Fluoride Is For Faucets - Not People!
FLORIDA FLUORIDE IS FOR FAUCETS - NOT PEOPLE!
WHY? BECAUSE ATOM BOMB TOXICOLOGIST HODGE MADE FALSE FLUORIDE SAFETY PROMISES In 1993, Darlene Sherrell and Martha Bevis (with the help of Florida Senator Bob Graham) forced our own National Academy of Sciences to admit that EPA's permissible level of fluoride can cause CRIPPLING skeletal fluorosis... Since CRIPPLING skeletal fluorosis is rare, I've started wondering what crippling skeletal fluorosis feels like BEFORE it becomes crippling... PERHAPS it feels like the "variety of musculoskeletal and other health ailments" - mentioned in The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson: "[b]aby boomers who have ingested a lifetime of fluoridated water...may be suffering a variety of musculoskeletal and other health ailments that can be traced back to [atom bomb toxicologist Harold Hodge's] false promise that fluoride in water was safe." [Bryson C. The Fluoride Deception. NY: Seven Stories 2004:221] I SAY AGAIN: FLORIDA FLUORIDE IS FOR FAUCETS - NOT PEOPLE! I say this because the 4th District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida says it! In 2001, Jesus F. Quiles sued the City of Boynton Beach, Florida for performing a medical procedure - fluoridating his water... Quiles lost the trial and appealed. The 4th District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida wrote: "The introduction of fluoride into the city's water is not a 'medical procedure'...[T]he city...is not seeking to introduce the mineral directly into Quiles's bloodstream...the city's fluoridation...stops with Quiles's water faucet. The city is NOT compelling him to drink it...." "...[The city IS though compelling Quiles to - TG^^^] filter it, boil it, distill it, mix it with purifying spirits, or purchase bottled drinking water." QUILES v. THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH CASE NO. 4D01-71 Opinion filed November 21, 2001 (emphases added) http://www.4dca.org/Nov2001/11-21-01/4D01-71.pdf ^^^The Court wrote "He is free to filter it" - but the city is obviously COMPELLING Quiles to PAY to filter his water (or boil it or distill it or...) The Court also wrote: "...His freedom to choose not to ingest fluoride remains intact." Nope. The City of Boynton Beach gave its residents the "free"dom to choose to PAY EXTRA to choose not to ingest fluoride. THE KICKER: The fluoride was neither intended for direct introduction into bloodstreams nor for direct introduction into mouths! It's not a medical procedure - the city's fluoridation effort stops with faucets, to paraphrase the Court. City of Boynton Beach fluoride was (and is) intended for FAUCETS! FAUCETS, FAUCETS, FAUCETS! JUST THINK... UNDER THIS FLUORIDA 4th DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DECISION... If an unlicensed quack city prescribes medicine for all city FAUCETS, the unlicensed quack city is not guilty of practicing medicine because it is only practicing on FAUCETS not people and the city is not in every resident's home *compelling* residents to take the medicine prescribed for FAUCETS! I think Fluorida's 4th District Court of Appeal is PRETENDING that the City of Boynton Beach was prescribing only for faucets. I think Fluorida's 4th District Court of Appeal is PRETENDING that the City of Boynton Beach did not intend the fluoride for residents' mouths and bloodstreams. I think Fluorida's 4th District Court of Appeal was (like most of America) deceived into being pro-fluoridation - was not aware of THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION that has been going on for decades. Now, fortunately, there is a book out by that name. I mentioned it above: The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson [NY: Seven Stories 2004]... Jesus F. Quiles was right. Fluoride is a toxin with adverse effects. As alluded to above, thanks to the efforts of Darlene Sherrell and Martha Bevis, our own National Academy of Sciences now indicates that the 3% of Americans who drink 5 liters of fluoridated water per day - in areas where water is 2ppm fluoride - HALF EPA's permissible fluoride level - may suffer CRIPPLING fluorosis in 10 years! Some might protest, "But cities only use 1ppm fluoride..." 1ppm is a FOURTH of EPA's permissible fluoride level. If HALF of EPA's permissible fluoride level (2ppm) can cause CRIPPLING skeletal fluorosis in 10 years... What can a FOURTH of that (1ppm) do in 40 years? I wonder what skeletal fluorosis feels like BEFORE it becomes crippling... Again quoting Bryson [2004]: "[b]aby boomers who have ingested a lifetime of fluoridated water...may be suffering a variety of musculoskeletal and other health ailments that can be traced back to [atom bomb toxicologist Harold Hodge's] false promise that fluoride in water was safe." [The Fluoride Deception. NY: Seven Stories 2004:221] REMEMBER: Up to 50% of children are suffering staining/mottling of their teeth (dental fluorosis)... What EXACTLY is happening in their bodies? We don't know! PREMATURE AGING? "Researchers from Harvard University and the National Institutes of Health knew in the 1960s that fluoride disrupted collagen synthesis. It was not until 1979-1981, however, that a new flurry of research activity in this area began." http://www.fluoridealert.org/aging-factor.htm My thanks to Andy for the aging info just now. THERE IS EVIDENCE OF OTHER RISKS... For example, there is a CANCER risk that EPA tried to cover-up... Dr. J. William Hirzy, one of the EPA scientists opposed to fluoridation writes: "EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus...for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue (9). The judge who heard the lawsuit...[found]...that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA..." http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm AND THERE IS POSSIBLE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM TOXICITY... See Dr. Phyllis Mullenix's work discussed in The Fluoride Deception... Mothers drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy may lower the IQ of their babies... See Fluoridated fetuses - lower IQ if moms drink fluoridated water? http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2662 The California Supreme Court wrote in the 1993 case of Daniel Thor v. The Superior Court of Solano County 93 C.D.O.S. 5658: "The common law has long recognized this principle: A physician who performs any medical procedure without the patient's consent commits a battery irrespective of the skill or care used." [Thor at 5659] The CITY [Escondido] is committing MASS battery - involuntary mass chemotherapy ("fluoridation")... Mass battery committed against children is mass child abuse. Now that The Fluoride Deception has been published, it is time to revisit the issue of putting toxic waste in drinking water. Here is the full text of Fluorida's QUILES decision... IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001 JESUS F. QUILES, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation, and GERALD BROENING, individually, Appellees. CASE NO. 4D01-71 Opinion filed November 21, 2001 Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Timothy P. McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case No. CL 00-7805-AD. Douglas A. Balog, Melbourne, for appellant. James A. Cherof, City Attorney, Michael D. Cirullo, Jr., Assistant City Attorney, and Josias, Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee The City of Boynton Beach, Florida, a municipal corporation. GROSS, J. Jesus F. Quiles appeals from a final order granting the City of Boynton Beach's motion to dismiss with prejudice his claim seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Quiles alleges that by voting to add fluoride to its potable water supply, the city violated his right to refuse medical treatment under the United States and Florida Constitutions, thereby exceeding its authority to enact such a measure. We affirm and write to address the constitutional issue. On January 26, 2000, the Boynton Beach City Commission held a public meeting to consider the merits of fluoridating its water supply, and to hear input from residents and other qualified individuals on the issue of fluoridation. After taking testimony, reviewing documents, and posing questions to the supporters and opponents of fluoridation in attendance, the commission voted unanimously to fluoridate its water supply. On August 11, 2000, Quiles filed suit against the city and its mayor alleging that the fluoridation measure violated his constitutional rights under the state and federal constitutions, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the city from fluoridating its water supply. On September 5, 2000, the city filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The trial court ruled that the city had the authority to add fluoride to its water supply, and that doing so did not implicate Quiles's right to refuse medical treatment under Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution. The Florida Constitution, as well as Florida law enacted pursuant to it, gives municipalities broad "governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services" and to "exercise any power for municipal purposes." Art. VIII, § 2(b), Fla.Const.; § 166.021, Fla. Stat. (2000). In defining the scope of a "municipal purpose," Florida courts have long held that "[i]t is the duty of public authorities in municipalities to protect the safety, the health and the general welfare of the citizens" and that "[t]his duty involves sanitary and health regulations." Garvin v. Baker, 59 So. 2d 360, 364 (Fla. 1952). Such proper municipal health regulations include the regulation of a municipality's waterworks. See State v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 47 So. 358 (Fla. 1908). Ordinances regulating municipal water treatment "are not expressly or by fair implication limited to the establishment of a municipal plant." Id. at 361. In fact, adding fluoride to the water supply of a municipality has been specifically upheld as a valid exercise of a municipality's police power. See City Comm'n of Fort Pierce v. State ex rel. Altenhoff, 143 So. 2d 879, 888-89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Quiles does not argue that the city is without authority to run its own water treatment facility or regulate its own water supply. Nor does he object to the city adding chlorine to its water supply. Quiles objects only to the fluoridation of the water because he believes that fluoride has no real health benefits and that it is not necessary to make the water potable or fight serious disease; it is added to water merely as a prophylactic measure to fight tooth decay. He argues, therefore, that to add fluoride to the water supply is beyond the city's police power, and courts should apply the highest standard of judicial review, strict scrutiny, to such a decision. Quiles contends that drinking fluoridated water can cause a host of adverse health effects. Because of these adverse health effects, Quiles chooses not to ingest fluoride. Being forced to consume fluoride through the city's water supply, Quiles asserts, amounts to "compulsory medication" that violates his right to privacy set forth in Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution. In arguing this position, Quiles relies on Singletary v. Costello, 665 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In Singletary, this court stated that a competent person has the constitutional right to choose or refuse medical treatment and that right extends to all relevant decisions concerning one's health. Courts overwhelmingly have held that a person may refuse or remove artificial life support, whether supplying oxygen by a mechanical respirator or supplying food and water through a feeding tube. Id. at 1104 (quoting In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 11-12 (Fla. 1990)). The right identified by this court in Singletary is not qualified "on the basis of the denomination of a medical procedure as major or minor, ordinary or extraordinary, life-prolonging, life-sustaining, or otherwise." Id. (quoting Browning, 568 So. 2d at 11 n.6). Quiles argues that this court should extend the holding of Singletary to require a compelling state interest in order for the city to fluoridate its water. In doing so, Quiles equates the fluoridation of city water to the complusory medical treatment at issue in Browning and Singletary. This case is distinguishable from Singletary and Browning. The introduction of fluoride into the city's water is not a "medical procedure," as contemplated by either this court in Singletary or the supreme court. Browning, 568 So. 2d at 11 n.6. Importantly, the city proposes to fluoridate the water before it enters each household in the city; it is not seeking to introduce the mineral directly into Quiles's bloodstream. Therefore, the city's fluoridation of its water stops with Quiles's water faucet. The city is not compelling him to drink it. He is free to filter it, boil it, distill it, mix it with purifying spirits, or purchase bottled drinking water. His freedom to choose not to ingest fluoride remains intact. The cases upon which Quiles relies involve the state's power to physically force "artificial lifesupport" directly into the body of an individual claiming the right to refuse such treatment. Browning, 568 So. 2d at 11. They involve highly invasive procedures where the state sought to override a person's freedom to choose. This is a far cry from the action taken by the city in this case. Quiles argues that the city's power should be limited to protecting the health of its citizens, and not merely improving it by preventing certain conditions. We agree with the second district's analysis in Altenhoff: [T]here is, in logic, a valid factual distinction between preserving health on one hand and improving it on the other . . . . We do feel, however, that it is a distinction which the courts should not be made to suffer in arriving at a determination as to whether a particular public health measure is or is not a reasonable or legitimate exercise of power to legislate in the public interest on the state or local level. 143 So. 2d at 888 (emphasis in original). As long as a municipality is acting within its legal and constitutional limitations, it is not the duty of the courts to judge the wisdom of a municipality when adopting health measures, whether those measures act to protect or improve the health of its citizens. We agree with the second district in Altenhoff, and hold that the City of Boynton Beach has home rule authority to fluoridate its water, and that the decision to do so is neither an arbitrary nor unreasonable imposition on the constitutional rights of its residents. 143 So. 2d at 888; see, e.g., Young v. Bd. of Health of Somerville , 293 A.2d 164, 165 (N.J. 1972) ("courts throughout the nation have been virtually unanimous in . . .upholding fluoridation of drinking water as a valid public health measure whenever a challenge has been presented"); Schuringa v. City of Chicago, 198 N.E.2d 326, 333-34 (Ill. 1964) (holding that a municipality has the power to fluoridate its water which is "reasonably related to the common good" and not "unreasonable or arbitrary"); Kraus v. City of Cleveland, 127 N.E.2d 609, 613 (Ohio 1955) (rejecting the arguments that fluoridation is an infringement on individual rights and is mass medication). The trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint is affirmed. GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL THE DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING. Opinion filed November 21, 2001 http://www.4dca.org/Nov2001/11-21-01/4D01-71.pdf The Supreme Court of Florida blithely rubberstamped the GROSS decision... Supreme Court of Florida FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 2002 CASE NO.: SC02-217 Lower Tribunal No.: 4D01-71 JESUS F. QUILES vs. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, ETC., ET AL. __________________________________________________ _________________ Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on jurisdictional briefs and portions of the record deemed necessary to reflect jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b), Florida Constitution, and the Court having determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction, it is ordered that the Petition for Review is denied. No Motion for Rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(d). ANSTEAD, C.J., and HARDING, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. A True Copy Test: bh Served: DOUGLAS A. BALOG MICHAEL D. CIRULLO JOSIAS GOREN HON. MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER, CLERK HON. TIMOTHY MCCARTHY, JUDGE HON. DOROTHY H. WILKEN, CLERK http://www.flcourts.org/sct/clerk/di...2/8/02-217.pdf My thanks BTW to Quiles's attorney Douglas Balog, Esq. for recently calling my attention to Quiles vs. City of Boynton Beach. My comments are interspersed #####. ----- Original Message ----- From: Balog, Douglas To: Todd Gastaldo Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:50 PM Subject: Fluoridation as 'battery' (attn: Chris Bryson - and Atty Doug Balog) Todd, I brought suit against the City of Boynton Beach, Florida (and their Mayor) several years ago for violating a person's constitutional right of privacy to be free from government interference in personal decisions by adding artificial fluoride to the drinking water. The trial Judge threw it out and let me appeal up to the 4th District Court of Appeal. You can read the decision he http://www.4dca.org/Nov2001/11-21-01/4D01-71.pdf Basically, the weakest link of that argument is what I lost on: there is nobody holding a gun to your head and forcing you to drink fluoridated tap water. ##### Douglas, forcing people to pay MORE for water - as their FAUCETS are fluoridated makes no sense at all! Sure it is inconvenient to buy bottled water or install a reverse osmosis filter system, but unfortunately, inconvenience doesn't violate any statute or break any law. ##### Hmmmmm... The City of Boynton, Florida fluoridates FAUCETS - not intending the medication for mouths or blood streams - and no obvious fraud is occuring? #### As you once noted, Doug... "There is a rebuttable presumption that all legislation is constitutional, and "those challenging a statute must prove unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt...the rational basis test does not apply if the statute 'interferers [sic] with the free exercise of some fundamental personal right or liberty.'" http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000074.htm #### The City of Boynton fluoridated FAUCETS - not intending the fluoride for bloodstreams or mouths - and now residents of the City of Boynton CANNOT freely exercise the fundamental right to drink water without toxic waste in it! Same thing with the "medication without consent" theory. Every time someone drinks tap water, they are consenting to the ingestion of prescribed levels of lead, arsenic, fluoride, mercury, etc. ##### Good word PRESCRIBED. The City of Boynton prescribed for FAUCETS - not people - an obvious fraud - or so I say... Those contaminants are allowed to be in or added to the water under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is publicly available. (see, e.g., http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch6AschXIIpB.html) Thus, I believe the "medication without consent" claim is without legal merit and cannot be the basis for a lawsuit because the tap water was ingested voluntarily, and the contaminants in it are publicly made known. Battery is slightly different, and it is both a tort and a crime. Criminal battery is the "application of force to another, resulting in harmful or offensive contact." I simply don't see any application of force by adding chemicals to the water supply. #### I see PLENTY of force - CHEMICAL force. Hydrofluoric acid is thought to do to enzyme systems ON A MOLECULAR LEVEL what it did to the hydrofluoric acid workers who literally melted. See Bryson's book. Bryson doesn't call fluoride "so muscular a chemical" for nothing! (See The Fluoride Deception 2004:xv.) The tort of battery is defined as when someone intentionally caused harmful contact, or offensive contact to the Plaintiff's person, or to some logical extension of the Plaintiff's person without consent or other privilege. #### My post (forwarded below) mentioned a San Diego County (City of Escondido) case. Here is what a San Diego County website says: "A battery (Calif. Penal Code '243) is, essentially, the 'willful use of force or violence upon another.' This means, any physical contact with another person, to which that other person has not consented." http://www.sandiegocriminaldefense.c...dbarttery.html #### Maybe San Diego County is similar to Pinellas County, FL? 12% of people in Pinellas County - according to a Pinellas County survey - OPPOSE having the county put the toxic chemical fluoride into their drinking water. #### Douglas, if I shoot a bullet through the air at you resulting in MECHANICAL contact - it is a battery - but if I shoot a chemical at you through your water supply resulting in CHEMICAL contact - you don't see any force?! Not even on a molecular level? Sheesh! #### Here is what you wrote in 1997: "the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists fluoride between cyanide and mercury, two toxic substances that the public would certainly never tolerate to be purposely added to their water supply..." http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000074.htm Again, if you drink tap water, you are consenting to whatever is in there, so long as it is below the maximum limits for contaminants published in the Safe Drinking Water Act. #### Since atom bomb toxicologist Hodge's false safe fluoride promise is now exposed (thanks to Sherrell and Bevis and Florida Senator Graham - and thanks to Drs. Mullenix, Hirzy, Coplan - sorry I can't mention everyone - read The Fluoride Deception - it is time for courts to take The Fluoride Deception in hand and look at not just fluoride but that Safe [sic] Drinking Water Act too... Best regards, Douglas Balog, Esq. ##### READERS: It is STUPID for the City of Boynton Beach to prescribe fluoride for FAUCETS - probably it was only a ruse used by Florida's 4th District still unaware of the fluoride deception going on... Pro-fluoridation propaganda is still quite heavy and it is likely that judges are just as susceptible. #### The California Supreme Court got it right in THOR. When a city medicates with fluoride - even if the fluoride is good for people - it is a BATTERY if the people don't consent - and (I might add) it's usually the unlicensed practice of medicine to boot. ##### Here is the post to which Attorney Douglas Balog responded... -----Original Message----- From: Todd Gastaldo ] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 7:44 PM To: Cc: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Subject: Fluoridation as 'battery' (attn: Chris Bryson - and Atty Doug Balog) CHRISTOPHER BRYSON (The Fluoride Deception [2004]) Ever hear of the California Supreme Court's 1993 THOR decision? Attorney DOUG BALOG (Fluoridation of Public Water Systems: Valid Exercise of State Police Power or Constitutional Violation? [1997]) http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000074.htm Great essay! According to the California Supreme Court's 1993 THOR decision, failure to obtain consent is "battery" - even a medical procedure is necessary! See below. ISN'T FLUORIDATION CHILD ABUSE? OPEN LETTER (archived for global access; see below) Attorney Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) BLUMENTHAL & MARKHAM 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, California 92037 (858)551-1223 via David Markham Kyle, Shouldn't you be filing 11165PC Suspected Child Abuse Reports? Shouldn't Judge Dana M. Sabraw IMMEDIATELY grant your public prayer "For a temporary and permanent injunction that enjoins the Defendant CITY and/or its agents and employees from injecting hydrofluorosilicic acid into the Escondido drinking water supply at excessive levels"? You wrote in your THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (Macy et al. v. City of Escondido et al.^^^): "[T]he CITY has utterly failed to obtain the informed consent of those individuals it now seeks to medicate with contaminated Hydrofluorosilicic acid. The requirement of obtaining a person's informed consent before initiating treatment is an elementary requirement of the common law..."^^^ The California Supreme Court wrote in the 1993 case of Daniel Thor v. The Superior Court of Solano County 93 C.D.O.S. 5658: "The common law has long recognized this principle: A physician who performs any medical procedure without the patient's consent commits a battery irrespective of the skill or care used." [Thor at 5659] The CITY [Escondido] is committing MASS battery - involuntary mass chemotherapy ("fluoridation")... Mass battery committed against children is mass child abuse. Shouldn't you be filing 11165PC Suspected Child Abuse Reports? Shouldn't Judge Dana M. Sabraw IMMEDIATELY grant your public prayer "For a temporary and permanent injunction that enjoins the Defendant CITY and/or its agents and employees from injecting hydrofluorosilicic acid into the Escondido drinking water supply at excessive levels"? (Isn't involuntary mass chemotherapy obviously illegal at ANY level?) Please respond. Thanks. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo ^^^SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SHIRLEY MACY, an individual; PAUL COSHOW, an individual; ROBIN WINTON, an individual; SABRINA GESE, an individual; OWEN MORRISON, an individual; DOTTIE GLEN, an individual; JOY ALSOBROOK, an individual; AL MCGOWEN, an individual; JIM PETERSEN, an individual, ROES 1 through 1,000, Inclusive, on behalf of themselves, on behalf of the general public, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ESCONDIDO; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendant. CASE NO. GIN 015280 CLASS ACTION THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR (1) DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST CITY OF ESCONDIDO, (2) DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND (3) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [Filed in accordance with Order of the Court dated September 6, 2002] Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw Dept.: 24 K:\D\NBB\Citizens.Water\ESCONDIDO\p-complaint-3AMD.wpd http://www.keepersofthewell.org/cour..._Complaint.pdf For the complete post in which appeared the Open Letter to Attorney Kyle Nordrehaug above... See Isn't fluoridation child abuse? http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2655 No response yet from Attorney Kyle Nordrehaug; perhaps my email has not yet been forwarded to him. I just called his office. The secretary gave this address: Hopefully Attorney Nordrehaug will file 11165PC (11166PC?) Suspected Child Abuse Reports and ask Judge Sabraw to IMMEDIATELY stop the mass child abuse. Many people visiting Disneyland are likely opposed to having their water doctored. Hopefully, Orange County Calif. (Disneyland) DA Tony Rackauckas is asking a court to immediately stop injecting hydrofluorosilicic acid into Disneyland drinking water. I will cc him again via . I will also again cc Oregon State Attorney General Hardy Meyers via . Thanks for reading everyone. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo One last note: Mass involuntary chemotherapy ("fluoridation") was begun in Pinellas County inspite of a Pinellas County survey which found, "12% were opposed...37% could not form an opinion on the issue." http://pubgis.co.pinellas.fl.us/pcuw...tion/index.cfm ASSUMPTION: Florida's Supreme Court agrees that the medical procedure called injecting hydrofluorosilicic acid into drinking water to prevent cavities is a battery if performed without consent - as is occurring in 12% of Pinellas County residents surveyed. ANYONE can report child abuse to Pinellas County Sheriff Everett Rice. Reports from health professionals are MANDATORY if child abuse is suspected. Sheriff Rice can be emailed via his Pinellas County Sheriff Child Protection Investigation Division via Hood River Mayor Paul Cummings is currently speaking in opposition to fluoridation, according to Dr. Paul Connett's most recent Bulletin. I will cc various Hood River addressees including Hood River Police Chief Tony Dirks in hopes that they will forward my email to the mayor. This post will be archived for global access within 24 hours in the Google usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "Fluoridation as 'battery' (attn: Chris Bryson - and Atty Doug Balog)" END Gastaldo's post which Quiles' attorney Douglas Balog, Esq. recently responded to... A few last notes... CDC recently pulled the ol' "we're putting toxic waste in the water because poor kids don't have dentists" gag with me... Thankfully, Mike Coplan, PE offered me some key info... See DOH! Is CDC's Homer Simpson creating violent kids? (Read Westendorf - and Masters and Coplan) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2657 Someone from CDC also told me recently that EPA is concerned about fluoride safety. Excuse my French, but this is bull****. (My thanks to Christopher Bryson and his info in The Fluoride Deception.) EPA's maximum permissible level of fluoride - 4ppm - was arrived at because EPA told South Carolina to bring its fluoride level down to EPA's PREVIOUS maximum of 2.3ppm ... South Carolina sued - so EPA simply raised the maximum permissible level to 4ppm! There was a problem though: 4ppm causes staining/mottling of teeth ("dental fluorosis") rather fast... EPA AND "FUNKY" TEETH When an EPA scientist told other EPA scientists that he was "being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have 'funky' teeth"... 1500 EPA scientists and others came out opposed to fluoridation. EPA still promotes fluoridation though. What a crime - putting toxic waste in drinking water. See EPA scientist Dr. J William Hirzy's article: http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm THOR is a California Supreme Court decision; so I'd like to see an end to fluoridation in California prior to Prof. Connett's 1st Citizen's Conference on Fluoride at the end of this month. For conference details... See The Disneyland DA and The Fluoride Deception... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2629 THE DISNEYLAND DA - and SCHROEDER... Disneyland DA Tony Rackauckas's campaign manager was California Chiropractic Association ("freedom of choice in healthcare") Honorary Member Michael Schroeder, former chairman of the California Republican Party. See ACLU to end fluoridation? http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2661 Disneyland DA Tony's spokeswoman - Deputy DA Susan Kang Schroeder - is Attorney Michael Schroeder's wife. Disneyland DA Tony is BIG on making tap water safe so mothers can give it to their babies. Why is Disneyland DA Tony dragging his feet on getting a known toxic waste out of Disneyland's drinking water? I'll cc him again at: I'll also cc Oregon Attorney General Hardy Meyers at: Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo This post will be archived for global access within 24 hours in the Google usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "Florida Fluoride Is For Faucets - Not People!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chemically beating children: Pinellas Poisoners Heilman and Talley | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 4th 04 11:26 PM |
Tiny babies/Toxic fluoride (also: Yay! Kiwis reject fluoridation in the Rotorua District) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | June 30th 04 06:14 PM |
Disneyland's toxic drinking water (also: Bizarre Irish fluoride blarney) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 6 | June 30th 04 04:05 PM |
The Disneyland DA and The Fluoride Deception: Did UCLA coerce dental student silence? | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | June 26th 04 03:54 PM |
Fluoride Linked to Low IQ, Studies Show | NYSCOF | General | 3 | August 29th 03 03:38 AM |