PPF 2015 Annual Newsletter - Protect the Peninsula`s Future

Protect the Peninsula’s Future Newsletter
November 1, 2015 OUR ANNUAL MEETING: THURS. Nov. 12
The meeting will be preceded by a no-­‐host dinner at 6:00 PM, at The Dynasty Restaurant, 380 East Washington Street, Sequim. (Just east of the Clallam Co-­‐
Op parking lot.) The Annual Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. Please RSVP to Kjersti Reed, phone: 360.504.2423, or email: [email protected] (please put “PPF Annual Meeting" in the subject line) so she can let them know how many of us to expect—thank you! PPF’s 42nd Year—Steve Koehler This past year we’ve been engaged in issues related to fluoridation, Critical Areas/Agricultural Exemptions, electro-­‐
magnetic radiation, bio-­‐mass pollution, Port Angeles Harbor cleanup, use of sewage sludge, electronic warfare within our local national forests. A few of these huge issues are reported on in this newsletter. Stay strong folks.
Our right to know has been sold for $56K—Eloise Kailin
Washington State Dental Foundation (WDSF) paid the Washington State Health Department (DOH) $56,030 for Smile Survey 2015 and in exchange it got extraordinary influence over survey results. Background: On August 18, 2015 Port Angeles City Council was presented evidence that Smile Survey information shows pro-­‐
fluoridation bias, that available essential knowledge is hidden in the last two Smile Surveys. The last Clallam County Smile Survey to disclose the numbers of cavities in children located in or out of areas that were fluoridated was Smile Survey 2000-­‐2001. Then children in fluoridated Forks had far more cavities than children in non-­‐
fluoridated Port Angeles and Sequim. Surveys 2005 and 2010 only provide percentages that lack location indicators, thus are useless for assessing fluoridation's efficacy. Previous Smile Surveys have already disclosed that there is little or no benefit from fluoridation: In 1995 a statewide survey of dental health of third grade schoolchildren scored cavities counted for tooth surfaces. (There are up to 127 tooth surfaces, counting top and 4 sides per tooth). A decrease of a statistically insignificant 0.65 of one surface difference in cavities was found for children living in fluoridated areas compared to those in non-­‐fluoridated areas. Dental fluorosis was duly noted in 7.6% of the total examined. Smile surveys might disclose an increase in fluorosis, so promoters of fluoridation don't look! That 41% of teenaged children in a major nationwide survey had dental fluorosis as of 2007 should have led to recording of this condition on all subsequent surveys. It is now established fact that population exposure to fluoride from foods, beverages, dental products, medications, is close to equal that once received only from water. Neither the 2005, nor 2010 Survey, examined for fluorosis. The statistics are closely guarded, basically unavailable to the public PPF 2015 Newsletter 2
Extensive Public Disclosure requests and repeated visits to offices of Clallam County Health and Human !
Services over a six-­‐month period “liberated” over 800 emails and other documents. Clallam's Public Health Program Manager Christina Hurst told me the requested numbers were on a thumb drive held by Dr. Tom Locke, Clallam County Public Health Officer. Her attempts to access it failed, and she finally told me that State Health Department had the thumb drive. State Dept. of Health Public Records Coordinator Kendra Morrison confirmed they had the thumb drive, but refused to disclose contents because it had been given them “for safekeeping.” Furthermore the County had chosen to conduct its own survey, and hire its own dental examiner, therefore the testing results are neither the property or responsibility of the state, and do not appear in state totals. The County, however, was paid costs of the survey by the State. An email from Dr. Tom Locke, Jan 15, 2015 to Christina Hurst RE 2010 Smile Survey informs us: “Elementary2010-­‐
Clallam.Idb is a locked Microsoft Access database file. I don't know who created it—probably the State or the WA Dental Services Foundation (which did some of the data analysis). It can only be opened by the creator. I don't have the access key. …The documents I submitted are the entirely (sic) of our records on the 2010 Smile Survey…” THE GRANT AGREEMENT: A Grant Agreement for a grant of $56,030.00 is accepted subject to terms and conditions of the grant application and this agreement between Washington Dental Service Foundation (WDSF, the Grantor) and Washington State Department of Health (DOH, the Grantee) for purposes outlined in the Scope of Work for the 2014-­‐2015 Smile Survey. The Grant requires close supervision by representatives of WDSF of all stages of the Smile Surveys from planning to publication. On page 1 “ ...the Grantee must seek prior approval of all press releases or other information intended for the media or the public, including program and educational materials...”The WDSF President &CEO signed this Aug. 28, 2014. Exhibit A: Scope of Work Section 1—Statewide Survey Duties: The Foundation is to provide staff for collaboration on this project, and is to: “Review handouts and provide feedback prior to distribution.” Under “Data Analysis:” The Foundation is to “Participate in meeting with Grantee and other stakeholders to review and discuss data analysis findings.” This is done prior to drafting the report. Under “Data Sharing:” The State is to provide the full data set to the Foundation and the Foundation will “Sign data sharing agreement as needed”. As to “Develop Report” the State will “Allow Foundation to review and provide comments on draft report prior to finalizing. If situations or disagreements on findings or implications of results arise, discuss these areas with the Foundation prior to finalizing the report; however final approval of report will rest with DOH.” In other words, the fox is well established in the hen house but DOH retains final responsibility—EXCEPT FOR COUNTIES THAT CHOSE TO HIRE THEIR OWN EXAMINERS, LIKE CLALLAM COUNTY, WHICH IS EXCLUDED FROM THE STATE REPORT. On “Disseminate Report” the state says: “in conjunction with Foundation, develop and execute dissemination plan”. The Foundation says: “In conjunction with Grantee, develop and execute dissemination plan; consult with DOH on cases where interpretation of data released may differ from Statewide Report” Section 2: County Level Surveys. Foundation provides staff and specifies a person, Lee Ann Cooper, as described in Exhibit C to be hired by the State to facilitate the Survey. In addition to $56,030 granted to State DOH, the Foundation will provide up to $42,000. to Department of Health to support Lee Ann Cooper's services and related Administrative fee. The total budget for this PPF 2015 Newsletter 3
survey is $199,094 which includes Ms. Cooper's $42,000. For County level surveys, “Data Analysis”: the Foundation is to “Conduct additional analysis of data as needed.” Under “Data Sharing” the State promises: “With consent from Local Health Jurisdictions, provide county data on request.” The Foundation says: “With consent from Local Health Jurisdictions, provide county data on request. Under “Develop Reports” the State will: “Develop standard data reports for counties; provide standard report to each county.” The Foundation will: “Assist with the development of standard data reports for counties; Ensure data reports are developed for all participating counties.” and for “Data Analysis” the Foundation is “to conduct additional analysis of data as needed.” It is now apparent why roadblocks were thrown in my way, for once the data disc was unlocked, we had the evidence the Dental Foundation has worked so hard to hide, namely, that water fluoridation in Forks is ineffective at reducing cavities. By leaving the Dental Foundation in charge of Clallam County's Smile Survey, the State Department of Health created an opportunity for that Foundation to manipulate and hide data. For a paltry $56,000 “grant” from the Dental Foundation, the Department of Health virtually walked away from their mission to protect the citizens' right to information that would allow them to make informed health choices. Nippon Biomass Project Update—Bob Lynette The Nippon’s biomass project—a large-­‐scale wood biomass co-­‐generation project designed to operate with the existing mill in Port Angeles, was approved by all permitting agencies several years ago. It would more than double the amount of wood burned and produce about 20 MW of electricity, which would be sold on the open market. Protect the Peninsula’s Future and six other organizations objected to the granting of the air operating permit for the project. Although we had other objections, we were primarily concerned because even the best emission air filtering systems could present serious health threats to the surrounding communities. We worked with the local group of the Sierra Club, our air quality regulatory agency, Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA), and our legislators to provide for funding for additional particle air monitoring systems. The new systems would improve visibility of our air quality and would measure the very small particulates. It would also allow evaluation of how much of the air pollution was coming from the Nippon plant. The monitors would later be moved to Pt. Townsend to measure the air quality in that area. We got the funding and the program was implemented. More information about this study can be found at ORCAA’s web site www.orcaa.org/air/saturation-­‐studies/clallam-­‐county . RAYONIER-PORT ANGELES HARBOR CLEANUP—Darlene
Schanfald
For twenty years, PPF has been a partner in seeing Rayonier Inc. clean up its pollution
on the Strait of Juan de Fuca in Port Angeles. As you may know, this cleanup morphed
into something larger once the WA State Legislature passed the Puget Sound
Partnership Initiative in 2007. The Rayonier cleanup morphed into an entire Port Angeles
Harbor –wide cleanup, WA State Ecology’s second highest cleanup priority under the Initiative.
Progress is being made, though slowly. Several polluters have stepped up to partner with Ecology on
cleanups. KPly/PenPly is no more and we soon expect a Cleanup Action Plan from them, as well as from
Rayonier. The public will be notified when these Plans are released. The public will be able to comment on
the plans.
PPF 2015 Newsletter 4
To receive a brochure depicting the types of sediment contaminants found at each polluter’s site, contact me
at [email protected] . This lovely brochure also includes an historical timeline of the Harbor’s
development and historic photos.
If you have an organization or a school class that would like me to give a brief presentation, please let me
know.
SEWAGE SLUDGE AS COMPOST? YUCK! —Darlene Schanfald
A new project for PPF is its opposition to the land spreading of toxic sewage
sludge.
Municipalities have been turning its solids from wastewater treatment plants into
“compost/fertilizer/soil amenities”. Over the years this toxic material has been
given or sold to farmers for soil fertilizer, including to CAFOs (concentrated
animal feedlots) where the animals graze on these lands, ingest some waste,
which winds up in food sold to humans. As well, some of these wastes are
dumped in our forestlands, including DNR lands. Too, the public can drive up to municipal sites and load up
their trucks by the tons, such as in Jefferson County and Port Angeles City. Or the public can purchase this
toxic material bagged, such as Port Angeles City’s “Garden Glory.”
Everything entering a sewer ends up with a modicum of treatment in the sewage sludge and spewed into water
bodies with the effluent. This includes thousands of contaminated pollutants, viruses, harmful bacteria,
pharmaceuticals, personal care products, etc. Seafood and land grown food has been shown to take up some
of the contaminants.
Municipalities only have to test for a few pathogens and metals. Only eight or nine metals and phosphorus,
nitrogen and potassium levels need be labeled on packaged compost containing sewage sludge. We say
BUYER BEWARE!
To learn more, email me at [email protected] for hardcopy or an electronic copy of IT IS YOUR RIGHT
TO KNOW, an overview of how sewage has been allowed to become “compost”, and its impacts to soils,
aquatic environments and human health impacts.
A good read about this issue is the 2014 book, Science for Sale, by former EPA scientist Dr. David L. Lewis. It
can also be checked out from the North Olympic Library System.
Again, if you have an organization or school class that would like a presentation, please contact me. And
watch for community presentations as advertised in local newspapers.
Electro-magnetic warfare on the Peninsula:
To the Editor, PDN 10/10/2014—From Eloise Kailin, M.D.
Thanks, PDN for alerting us to proposed use of the North Olympic Peninsula as a training ground for electronic warfare. Caution! The official notice says only persons who file in a particular format by a specific date will have standing to object to this or related permit approvals. The Environmental Assessment (EA) fails to disclose radiation harm to humans and wildlife. Contemporary studies report lower sperm counts for military personnel operating mobile radar, and other effects including immune system damage and DNA double strand breaks. The EA proposes a 714-­‐foot safe separation area from its fixed emitter on a tower at about the same height as the third PPF 2015 Newsletter 5
floor of the hotel section of the Pacific Beach Resort and Conference Center. But the hotel is only 400 feet away. There is an unreasonable risk of direct beam radiation of occupants. There is no discussion of interruption of recreational uses, or harm to hikers, hunters, hang gliders, or those in low flying non-­‐military airplanes. The mobile emitters pictured in the EA do not allow adequate view of people or animals that might enter the separation zone and so significant harm could be done to them if they cross the red tape. Emitters putting noise into space in the frequency ranges allocated to other communication systems can destroy critical communication functions such as banks, internet or TV when a satellite or other mobile antenna using similar frequencies passes in the path of the emitter beam. To make comments: http://tinyurl.com/PDN-­‐electrowarfare
Protect The Peninsula’s Future—P.O. Box 1677 Sequim, WA 98382 www.olympus.net/community/oec/ppf.htm