Re: *edit* water fluoridated info, maybe a bit misleading

Here is some local info that you might find of interest. It concerns the recent vote to not fluoridate in Altoona. This info comes by way of an inside contact I know personally.

Through the local news paper, I'd been following the build up to this recent vote during the past few months as there have been frequent articles, to include a rather surprising (in a nice way) scathing Letter to the Editor from a local resident nearly begging the authorities to not fluoridate. I've had several conversations with inside-contact guy the past few months. About 3 weeks ago I brought up with him in converstation how the Altoona vote was soon to be done and he told me at that time, quite confidently, that the measure would be voted down. He was reluctant to tell me at that time, but subsequently, at my gentle urging, he told me about some inside info he had that helped him be so confident. He told of a particular monthly town council meeting that occured several months back when the it had finally been approved / tabled that there would be a vote on the issue in the near future. At that meeting there were various people from the public who came and spoke before the water authority (5 member water authority). There was some oddity about one person in particular (said to be a real whacko paranoid Conspiracy lunatic who wanted to rant & rave for hours at a time and taking up all the meeting's time. There was however another individual who spoke....(drum roll please).... a retired dentist!, who spoke in simple and clear terms in describing the numerous health ills to come from fluoridating water. In the process, I believe he also put a "bug in their ear" so to speak by implying that there could well be future liablities to be incurred by municipalities who previously decided to fluoridate.

When the measure was voted down last week, the newspaper interviewed 4 of the 5 authority members, one of them was a yes man recently appointed, so his rational for voting yes was not worth questioning. Of the 4 no votes, three of them were briefly interviewed by the newspaper. Their rationale's for ultimately voting no were 1) sort of all over the map and 2) largely wishy -washy (IE> none of them expressed much in the concern for OTHERS who may be harmed as a result of fluoridation. However, one of them clearly expressed concern for their own personal self, stated outright " I would have gladly voted yes to approve fluoridation, but there is the uncertainty of potential for future liability that decided my mind... besides, as Water Authority, our job is to provide pure water.... if somebody else wants us to also medicate the water... that's not our job and besides, people can still go to their drug stores and get fluoride medication that route the way they already have been for years".

As it turns out, the big push locally to fluoridate was coming from a "partnership" that had formed at the behest of.... The Altoona Hospital... surprise of surprises, right? ;)