Here we go again...

The attorney for Citizens for Blount County’s Future (CBCF) sent legal documents on Monday to, among others, the Board of South Blount County Utility District, Mayor Jerry Cunningham, Micky Roberts, and to the Blount County clerks of court (to insure public court notice), and to the District Manager of SBCUD, Henry Durant.

(link...)

Seems as if the county government hasn't sent anyone a press release on this one.

Anyway, the letter and its numerous attachments give "Actual and Constructive Notice" to the SBCUD and local county government. It appears that 1.) the demand by Mayor Cunningham (through his written requirement that the paid SBCUD board members vote to add fluoride--hydrofluorosilic acid--to the water supply) and 2.) the board's subsequent capitulation to the Mayor's demand to do so creates legal liability for the Board.

Apparently, neither SBCUD nor the Blount County Health Department have given a legally adequate statement or a notification to the customers of the district regarding the problems with introduction of hydrofluorosilicic acid to their drinking water.

The letter also addresses the subject of whether SBCUD comes under any ethics policy itself. And if failure to give adequate notice to the community of a new additive that creates specific complications for certain age groups, those taking certain medications (like fluoride supplements) and those with specific health problems is not an ethical concern, I don't know what is.

The Notice itself is entitled "Potential of Non-compliance, Misrepresentation and Liability" by SBCUD as to the proposed fluoridation of the water supply of the district. It looks like this might be the first step to another lawsuit against the county.

Remember back when the news of this first broke out, a water district spokeswoman said:

"District Manager Henry Durant has been getting a lot of phone calls from people that are upset,” said utility spokeswoman Stacie Keller. “We don’t usually get phone calls (about issues). When I talked with the secretary (Tuesday), they had gotten 10 to 20 calls from customers who were upset and said, ‘You should have done a survey and asked our input.’

and

“As we have stated in the past, the benefits of fluoridation in public water is a very inconclusive issue, with valid research and arguments to support both sides. SBCUD wants to remain focused on moving forward and does not want to allow the issue of fluoridation to diminish our district’s progress nor hinder us from achieving our future goals.”

Link...

So, what will the Mayor and the Health department and the utility district do when the district has gone on record as saying that “the benefits of fluoridation in public water is a very inconclusive issue” and they are faced with a legal notice stating that they need to legally prove that hydrofluorosilicic acid meets all state and federal safety mandates?

That could be funny to watch.

Keep up the good work Citizens!

Radio Discussion

Truth Radio AM 1470 (link...) will have a discussion on the topic at 5:15 today.

Tune in!!

Good Show

It was lucky for the mayor that he had a distraction while a lawyer was on Harry's show discussing the Board's issue with the liability of fluoridation. I think Harry at Truth Radio stated a recording would be available for those that ask.

It's a shame that it takes a lawyer from Knox County to step in on behalf of Blount citizens. Many thanks to Mr. Mabry.

Learned Intermediary

Here's an article about the fluoridation letter from the DT: (link...)

It sounds to me like our friend Mabry's on to something with the "learned intermediary" angle. The South Blount Water District people are probably well educated on providing clean water, but are not physicians. My take on it is that if they aren't qualified to write a prescription for fluoride supplements, they probably aren't qualified to dump it in our water with any degree of confidence about its safety or effectiveness.

"Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference." --Voltaire

KNS article 5/1

(link...)

He said South Blount's legal team has recommended the utility proceed with its plans.

"We don't have any choice," Durant said, "but to do what we said we were going to do."


To do what we said we were going to do
WHEN? Remember in 2006 when SBUD sent out it's annual water quality report and the following phrase appeared on it?

South Blount County Utility District does not add fluoride
in any form to its product; keeping the water you consume
as pure as possible.

Geeze, who is the legal team for SBUD?

Anyone want to engage in a bet?

My money is on Goddard and Gamble.

"Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference." --Voltaire

Aha! A "legal team" will benefit from fluoride

No choice? I don't know whether I'm more sad to see what people will do for insurance or that someone in authority really believes we elected a King.

Of course, there is a choice. Like the choice a water customer will have of suing a board member should their health be effected. But hey, I smell a monetary windfall for a "legal team", so you can bet your ass their going ahead. When this happens, will it be us taxpayers* paying for this "legal team?

*the ones who didn't ask for this chemical to begin with

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

State .GOV

Wire Reports