Originally published November 4 2015
VICTORY: Texas college town overwhelmingly votes to stop adding fluoride to drinking water
by Julie Wilson staff writer
(NaturalNews) Opponents of water fluoridation have finally earned a victory in the fight against fluoride! San Marcos, Texas, a college town located just 25 miles south of Austin, voted to stop adding the industrial toxin hydrofluorosilicic acid to the water yesterday with overwhelming support.
The votes in favor of Proposition 1 to stop adding fluoride to the public water supply came in at about 61 percent, with 39 percent opposing the measure. The victorious outcome was made possible by committed voters and the efforts of grassroots groups who worked tirelessly to get the measure onto the November 2015 ballot, despite facing many obstacles along the way.
Fluoride-Free San Marcos helped get the measure on the ballot, while another Texas organization supported their efforts, aiding in the initiative's success.
Texans for Accountable Government (TAG), an Austin-based trans-partisan political action committee, spearheaded the anti-fluoride campaign, playing a large role in the Election Day results. Leading up to the election, TAG volunteers conducted phone banking, as well as walked the streets of San Marcos going door-to-door educating residents about the adverse health effects of drinking fluoridated water.
TAG volunteers gathered Tuesday night at the popular Irish pub Sean Patrick's in San Marcos to celebrate their victory.
61 percent to 39 percent, San Marcos residents vote out fluoride
On Tuesday, anti-fluoridation activists showed up at the polls to inform voters about the dangers of water fluoridation, urging them to support the measure to remove it.
San Marcos joins the growing list of a few other Texas cities that don't fluoridate their water, including Lago Vista, College Station and Alamo Heights, according to FluorideAlert.org.
Anti-fluoridation activists have been unbreakable in their efforts to end water fluoridation in Austin; however, they have not yet been successful. But the rejection of fluoride in the neighboring town of San Marcos will serve as a great example, illustrating the public support against it and highlighting its cost-saving benefits.
The fact that water fluoridation even made the ballot was a victory in and of itself, as activists were nearly stopped when the city sued Fluoride-Free San Marcos petitioners on June 17, arguing that the signatures they gathered were somehow invalid.
City of San Marcos sues activists of petition to remove fluoride
Activists with Fluoride-Free San Marcos submitted more than 1,600 signatures in an effort to place a city-charter amendment on the November ballot to stop adding fluoride to the water supply.
However, in May, the City of San Marcos said the petition was invalid because it lacked an oath affirming the genuineness of the signatures. The city's lawsuit was particularly vicious, as it tried to force anti-fluoride petitioners Kathleen O'Connell, Sam Brannon and Morgan Knecht to pay $100,000 in attorney fees.
Refusing to give up, activists responded by having Austin attorney Brad Rockwell write San Marcos officials informing them that "the charter's petition requirements are superseded by the Texas Local Government Code under Section 9, which does not require an oath or affirmation from petition [circulators]," reported KTSW.
On August 14, Judge Boyer ruled in the anti-fluoridation activists' favor, instructing the City of San Marcos to process the petition and put the proposed Charter Amendment on the November ballot.
Even then, the City of San Marcos wouldn't back down, filing an "emergency appeal with the Austin Court of Appeals." The status of their appeal is unknown; however, it's unlikely it will go anywhere, as the people of San Marcos have illustrated their stance on the matter.
Hydrofluorosilicic – byproduct of phosphate fertilizer industry The reason water fluoridation is so controversial and largely opposed is due to its severe health effects, and the fact that it's forced mass medication without informed consent.
City officials follow the antiquated advice of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which argues that water fluoridation helps reduce tooth decay; however, science illustrates no decline in tooth decay in fluoridated municipalities.
Additionally, water fluoridation causes a multitude of some pretty serious side effects, including it's interference with neurological development and a reduction in the IQs of children exposed to the toxin.
Fluoride is also believed to cause depression and weight gain by disrupting healthy thyroid function, as well as dental fluorosis in children, a condition that alters the appearance of tooth enamel, leaving permanent white stains.
While some naturally occurring fluoride is added to the public water supplies, it's largely supplemented by hydrofluorosilicic acid.
The silicofluorides used for water fluoridation are unprocessed industrial byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry, which makes a profit by selling its waste to American cities.
The language of Proposition 1 forbids agents of the City of San Marcos from adding fluoride to water supplies. Some critics and concerned activists have pointed out that it contains a loophole allowing the city to buy water from the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority that has already been fluoridated; however, the GBRA does not yet fluoridate its water supplies, according to Sam Brannon of Fluoride-Free San Marcos.
Another ballot measure, Proposition 2, was also approved by voters, though not by much, with over 44% voting against it. Prop 2 is expected to make it more difficult for citizens to place petitions on the ballot, and activists are already planning to oppose it in court.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml