Montague wastewater treatment supt. resigns

• Wastewater Treatment Superintendent Bob McDonald is leaving his position this week, having informed the Selectboard of his resignation on Aug. 19. Staff File Photo 

• 
  

By MAX MARCUS 

 

Staff Writer

Published: 9/11/2019 6:09:20 PM

 

MONTAGUE — Wastewater Treatment Superintendent Bob McDonald is leaving his position this week, having informed the Selectboard of his resignation on Aug. 19. His last day is Thursday.
In McDonald’s three years with Montague, his department weathered the loss of two major revenue sources: the Southworth paper mill, which closed in 2017; and the “Montague process,” an experimental sludge disposal program that, at its height in 2016, brought in $483,054 in revenue from other towns and reduced Montague’s own sludge disposal costs to $19,010.

The Montague process ran from 2010 to 2016. It worked by conditioning bacteria to consume sludge, and was apparently very effective: by 2016 there were 26 wastewater treatment plants in Franklin County contracting Montague to handle their sludge disposal.

“Montague was the regional solution for about four years,” said Franklin County Solid Waste Management District Executive Director Jan Ameen.

But because the Montague process involved large amounts of solid waste, inclement weather posed a risk of overflow into the Connecticut River. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) took notice, and in 2016 required the town to either end the process or invest in research to define exactly how it worked.

When the town tried to replicate the model in 2017, the DEP deemed it too unstable and ordered the town to end it — cutting the facility’s revenue source, and increasing the cost of disposing the town’s own sludge to about $400,000.

Meanwhile, in August 2017 the Southworth paper mill closed and left an unpaid sewer bill of $250,000. A prospective sale of the building to a Maine company called SBD Greentech was in the

Harmful Effects of Fluoride Continue to Mount

 

 

By Stuart Cooper, Campaign Director, Fluoride Action Network

Ending the addition of hazardous fluoridation chemicals — primarily hydrofluorosilicic acid — to the public's drinking water will be one of the greatest public health achievements of the 21st century.
With each passing month, the case against artificial fluoridation builds as new research showing harm is published, legal action advances, overfeeds and spills are exposed and local fluoride-free campaigns spread throughout the world.

Mounting Evidence of Harm

A number of significant studies — two of which were funded by the U.S. government (the National Institutes of Health, or NIH) — have been published in the last eight months linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and thyroid problems, and showing that pregnant women and infants in "optimally" fluoridated communities are exposed to significantly more fluoride than those in non-fluoridated communities.

In February 2019, a string of news stories — triggered by a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report¹ admitting that at least 40% of children are overexposed to fluoride — focused on kids swallowing too much toothpaste and neglected the significant exposure from fluoridated tap water.

Regardless, the defenders of water fluoridation are missing the real story. Dental fluorosis is a biomarker of overexposure to fluoride and the "elephant in the room" is what damage fluoride is doing to other tissues.

Recent scientific research indicates that exposure to fluoridated water may lower thyroid function,^2,3 particularly in those with an iodine deficiency. A new study also found that significantly more infants, particularly those under 6 months of age, will exceed the upper limit set by the Institute of Medicine for fluoride when consuming formula reconstituted with the "optimal" 0.7 parts per million (ppm), greatly increasing their risk of side effects.⁴

There are now over 350 published studies on fluoride's effect on the brain: 130 human studies, over 200 animal studies and 33 cell studies. This includes a major U.S.-government funded mother-offspring study conducted in Mexico City.⁵ This rigorous study — which controlled for many possible confounders — found a very strong association between fluoride levels in mothers' urine and lowered IQ for their offspring.

The fluoride levels in this study also correspond to levels in pregnant women living in "optimally" fluoridated areas in Canada according to an October 2018 paper.⁶

The same research team at University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health has since released additional findings that confirm and strengthen their 2017 fetus/IQ study.⁷ Very young children, aged 1 to 3 years, also show loss of IQ. In other words, their study now covers the ages of the offspring from 1 to 12 years.
 
For the ages of 1 to 3 years, for every 1 mg/L increase in the urine fluoride level of their pregnant mothers, the children averaged 2.4-point lower IQ scores. The finding was statistically significant and accounted for potential confounding factors.

They concluded, "Our findings add to our team's recently published report on prenatal fluoride and cognition at ages 4 and 6–12 years⁸ by suggesting that higher in utero exposure to F has an adverse impact on offspring cognitive development that can be detected earlier, in the first three years of life."
This was followed up by another published paper that linked higher levels of urinary fluoride during pregnancy with more symptoms of ADHD⁹ — the second study to do so.¹⁰

World Expert on Lead Now Warns of Fluoride's Neurotoxicity

As if the recent research condemning fluoridation couldn't get any worse, a major review article in the journal Pediatric Medicine by David Bellinger, Ph.D., professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, has included fluoride in a list of chemicals known or suspected to interfere with the neurodevelopment of children.¹¹

Bellinger, recognized as one the leading experts in the world on the neurotoxicity of lead, holds three important positions in Boston: two at Harvard and one at Boston Children's Hospital.

In his review of fluoride's neurotoxicity, Bellinger cites the meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies from China and Iran;¹² a follow-up study in China he co-wrote¹³ and the more recent U.S. government-funded mother-offspring studies from Mexico City.^14,15

While the mainstream media covered the Choi meta-analysis from 2012, they have ignored all the major neurotoxicity studies published since then. Meanwhile, they continue to go overboard on low-quality studies that focus on tooth decay.
According to Paul Connett, Ph.D., Fluoride Action Network (FAN) director, "We hope that when more pediatricians read about these important neurotoxicity studies — especially the mother-offspring studies — that they will warn women of child-bearing age to avoid all sources of fluoride during pregnancy and parents not to bottle-feed their infants with formula prepared with fluoridated tap water."

Help FAN's Precedent-Setting Neurotoxicity Lawsuit

These new scientific findings further strengthen the evidence of fluoride's neurotoxicity. The fluoride levels at issue in these studies are within the range that pregnant women in the U.S. are receiving, so the findings are clearly relevant to our ongoing legal case against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In November 2016, the FAN together with a coalition of organizations and private citizens, presented a petition to the EPA calling on the agency to exercise its authority to prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to the public's drinking water supplies under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The EPA dismissed our petition, which prompted our coalition to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court. Since then, we've had several significant legal victories. First, Judge Edward Chen denied the EPA's motion to dismiss the case. Second, the judge denied a request by the EPA to prohibit our attorneys from obtaining internal documents and our experts from using the recently published studies mentioned above.

The third victory came in October 2018 when the EPA objected to sharing internal documents — or allowing their employees to be deposed — about their acknowledgment of and concerns about the known risks associated with fluoridation. Judge Chen ruled the EPA had to share this crucial information (see the Judge's full ruling).¹⁶

Yet another victory came in April 2019 when the court compelled EPA to both produce further documents and produce three more of its scientists for deposition.

Support Needed

We are now entering the final phase before our historic trial begins. The judge originally scheduled the trial for the beginning of August 2019, but due to the recent government shutdown, the federal court was also closed and the trial has been moved back several months to late 2019 or early 2020.

In the meantime, our legal team will continue conducting the discovery phase, interviewing EPA officials and collecting internal documents. FAN urgently needs your help to ensure we can provide the funding necessary for the foremost scientific experts in the world to present the best case at trial.

The primary expense at this point is the experts, who will need to spend considerable time preparing reports, preparing for their depositions and testifying in court. To fund these specific legal costs, FAN is currently running a spring fundraiser.
You can follow it on social media using the hashtag #FluorideLawsuit. So, please consider becoming a supporter of our historic legal action by making a tax-deductible donation today that will be doubled for a limited time.

Fluoridation Overfeed Sickens Hundreds

The latest research isn't the only fluoridation fiasco being ignored by the media and the dental lobby. Fluoridation-related accidents, malfunctions, overfeeds and worker errors have shockingly become commonplace. The most recent example is the current fluoridation crisis and negligent actions of elected officials occurring in Sandy, Utah.

How to Spot 11 Types of Media Bias

Journalism is tied to a set of ethical standards and values, including truth and accuracy, fairness and impartiality, and accountability. However, journalism today often strays from objective fact; the result is biased news. Bias isn't necessarily a bad thing, but hidden media bias misleads, manipulates and divides us. This is why AllSides provides hundreds of media bias ratings and a media bias chart.
Seventy-two percent of Americans believe traditional news sources report fake news, falsehoods, or content that is purposely misleading. With trust in media declining, media consumers must learn how to spot types of media bias.
This page outlines 11 types of media bias, along with examples of their use in popular media outlets. Download this page as a PDF.

11 Types of Media Bias

and how to spot them

1. Spin 2. Unsubstantiated Claims 3. Opinion Statements Presented as Facts 4. Sensationalism/Emotionalism 5. Mudslinging/Ad Hominem 6. Mind Reading 7. Slant 8. Flawed Logic 9. Bias by Omission 10. Omission of Source Attribution 11. Bias by Placement Some Final Notes on Bias

---

1. Spin

Spin is a type of media bias that means vague, dramatic or sensational language. When journalists put a “spin” on a story, they stray from objective, measurable facts. Spin is a form of media bias that clouds a reader’s view, preventing them from getting a precise take on what happened.
In the early 20th century, Public Relations and Advertising executives were referred to as “spin doctors.” They would use vague language and make unsupportable claims in order to promote a product, service or idea, downplaying any alternative views in order to make a sale. Increasingly, these tactics are appearing in journalism.

Examples of Spin Words and Phrases:

• Emerge
• Serious
• Refuse
• Crucial
• High-stakes
• Tirade
• Refuse
• Crucial

• Landmark
• Latest in a string of...
• Major
• Turn up the heat
• Critical
• Decrying
• Offend
• Stern talks

• Offensive
• Facing calls to...
• Meaningful
• Even though
• Monumental
• Significant
• High-stakes

Sometimes the media uses spin words and phrase to imply bad behavior. These words are often used without providing hard facts, direct quotes, or witnessed behavior:

• Finally
• Surfaced
• Acknowledged
• Emerged

• Refusing to say
• Conceded
• Dodged

• Admission
• Came to light
• Admit to

To stir emotions, reports often include colored, dramatic, or sensational words as a substitute for the word “said.” For example:

• Mocked
• Raged
• Bragged
• Fumed

• Lashed out
• Incensed
• Scoffed
• Frustration

• Erupted
• Rant
• Boasted
• Gloated

Examples of Spin Media Bias:

“Gloat” means “contemplate or dwell on one's own success or another's misfortune with smugness or malignant pleasure.” Is there evidence in Trump’s tweet to show he is being smug or taking pleasure in the layoffs, or is this a subjective interpretation?
Source: Business Insider

In this example of spin media bias, the Washington Post uses a variety of dramatic, sensationalist words to spin the story to make Trump appear emotional and unhinged. They also refer to the president's "vanity" without providing supporting evidence.
Source: Washington Post

Top of Page

---

2. Unsubstantiated Claims

Journalists sometimes make claims in their reporting without including evidence to back them up. This can occur in the headline of an article, or in the body.
Statements that appear to be fact, but do not include specific evidence, are a key indication of this type of media bias.

Examples of Unsubstantiated Claims Media Bias

In this media bias instance, The Daily Wire references a "longstanding pattern," but does not back this up with evidence.
Source: The Daily Wire

In late January 2019, actor Jussie Smollett claimed he was attacked by two men who hurled racial and homophobic slurs. The Hill refers to “the violent attack” without using the word “alleged” or “allegations." The incident was revealed to be a hoax created by Smollett himself.
Source: The Hill

This Washington Post columnist makes a claim about wealth distribution without noting where it came from. Who determined this number and how?
Source: Washington Post

Top of Page