RED ALERT! RED ALERT! RED ALERT! FLUORIDE ON THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR THURSDAY, DEC. 15, 2011

Now, before we get too excited by this news, let’s understand that this is simply the City Council’s latest attempt to screw us. Still, it’s progress because we’ve forced them to respond in a way they never imagined they’d have to throughout their three years of sullen rudeness and ignoring us (or trying to) from the dias.  Poor things, we’re distracting them from their joy:  the joys of wheeling and dealing; of social climbing and endless grant getting and lavishly spending the taxpayers’ money.  What an inconvenience! They all must be gnashing their fluoride-perfect (grin)  teeth right now.

Friday, the following item appeared on the draft agenda for next Thursday’s City Council meeting: 

*****************
RESOLUTION NO.___________________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN:

The City Council supports the City Manager

3 thoughts on “RED ALERT! RED ALERT! RED ALERT! FLUORIDE ON THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR THURSDAY, DEC. 15, 2011”

  1. Yes their goal is to screw you at the city commission. They resent deeply your activity to inform them about their flawed failed fluoridation policy. They want to pull the rug out from under you after inviting you to stand on it. They do not want to see you speak ever again as they already have a position and facts and science only confuse their already stated position. They do not like looking like fools but are expert at it. They think that is your fault as you bring up the issue. You make their life complicated and they want it simple. You will win sooner or later. They know that so want you to lose faith by their delays. Good work. You have a far better team with far more knowledge and skill then theirs. But they control the way the game is played and can change the rules to their advantage. A single lawsuit can tip the scales over nite when it happens.

  2. Nov 16 2011 Daytona Beach Fl also had as a agenda item a statement on fluoridation reaffirming in a two page position statement. Really just policy statements and list of endorsements. Item 6C with comments allowed in 7 Public comments.
    No good reason either that I can figure out.
    One commissioner Gilliland did make a comment prior about my presence to argue against and that there were 100 studies for fluoridation for every one against. Dr Bonnie Sorensen Public Health boss did agree that I was correct about babies not needing fluoridated water because of cosmetic risk. She then went on to claim but really any damage was from poor parent supervision of toothpaste in brushing. She did not see this as a total exposure issue and has said fluoridation is the foundation of all public health policy. Is that the lies or lack of any benefit I wonder?
    The utilities manager is lost and clueless, Mitt Tidwell who did the presentation. You can go directly to the segments on the website. See how poorly fluoridation is defended. And why a agenda item for no good reason. The packet did include the old charter language with the commission claiming fluoridation harmless at 1ppm. That is what had to be changed back in 2007 but they never admitted that reason either even under repeated questions by one commissioner. The manager is dishonest as a rule for Mr Chissom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>