Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Results 1 to 13 of 13

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    Glia's Avatar
    Glia
     

    Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    Here's the agenda item:

    41. The County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors will meet in closed session for the following: Public Employee Appointment: Health Officer (Govt. Code Section 54957(b)(1)).

    The scuttlebutt is that all of the candidates are supporters/promoters of community water fluoridation. This is not exactly as surprise as the "public health" profession has long been co-opted by water fluoridation pushers. From what I personally have seen of this crowd in action over the past 15 months, they are not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed, either.

    If you would prefer that our county Department of Health Services not be a tool of the corporatocracy and do their job of protecting the genuine health of all residents of this fine county, contact the Board of Supervisors and tell them to just say no to any candidate who is NOT AGAINST community water fluoridation.

    A phone call to the clerk of the board is easy:
    (707) 565-2241

    Email works too if that is convenient for you:


    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  3. TopTop #2
    sharingwisdom's Avatar
    sharingwisdom
     

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    I emailed each supervisor last night, but wish I could have included this article that just came to me today...from The Lancet Neurology: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...article_upsell
    Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity

    Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.

    CNN has disclosed the same:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/14/h...ildren-brains/

    And Harvard have recently published a study proving that fluoride lowers IQ in children:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/2012...12+PRN20120724


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Glia: View Post
    Here's the agenda item:

    41. The County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors will meet in closed session for the following: Public Employee Appointment: Health Officer (Govt. Code Section 54957(b)(1)).

    The scuttlebutt is that all of the candidates are supporters/promoters of community water fluoridation. This is not exactly as surprise as the "public health" profession has long been co-opted by water fluoridation pushers. From what I personally have seen of this crowd in action over the past 15 months, they are not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed, either.

    If you would prefer that our county Department of Health Services not be a tool of the corporatocracy and do their job of protecting the genuine health of all residents of this fine county, contact the Board of Supervisors and tell them to just say no to any candidate who is NOT AGAINST community water fluoridation.

    A phone call to the clerk of the board is easy:
    (707) 565-2241

    Email works too if that is convenient for you:


    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  5. TopTop #3
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    I was shocked to see how much money the Supervisors have spent on promoting fluoridation. If this had been spent on dental care and parent education for the at-risk kids, they would not have to worry about tooth decay! Getting this information was not easy!

    HOW OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT TO PROMOTE FLUORIDATION

    Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Approved
    Fluoridation-related Expenditures 2012-2015
    (as of 3/31/2014, and excluding 2011 Oral Health Task Force Final Report)

    Information source:
    Email from JoAnn Borri
    Sonoma County DHS Compliance Officer
    (office: 707-565-4936).
    Subject: Requested Fluoride Information.
    Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:40 AM
    To: Dawna Gallagher Stroeh
    [Executive Director, Clean Water Sonoma-Marin]
    Cc: Pat Gilardi [District Director to Sonoma County Supervisor Susan Gorin];
    Lynn Silver Chalfin [Sonoma County Health Officer];
    Kim Caldewey [Health Program Manager assisting Lynn Silver Chalfin,
    Sonoma County Public Health];
    Alexandria Gonzalez

    Contract expired 5/2013 CDAF fluoridation overview for retailers
    The California Dental Association Foundation (CDAF) provided an overview of California fluoridation for
    water retailers and the public and assisted with the fluoridation assessment report. ($5,000).
    - Contractor: Department Health Services.

    3/1/2013-12-31-2013 - Lew Edwards Group public education campaign
    The Lew Edwards Group to develop a public education campaign related to oral health efforts ($70,000).
    - Contractor: Board of Supervisors.

    1/31/2013-12/31/2014 - CAP to lead oral health activities
    Community Action Partnership to lead community-based oral health activities ($90,000).
    - Contractor: Board of Supervisors.

    2/5/2013-1/31/2015 - KRCB Multimedia Campaign
    Rural California Broadcasting Corporation, dba KRCB North Bay Public Media for the Dialogue on
    Community Health Multimedia Campaign (an amount not to exceed $225,000).

    - Contractor: Director Health Services.
    3/1/2013-6/30/2015 - Advisory Committee facilitated by Cal State Sacramento
    [1] Direct staff to continue efforts to analyze the potential of fluoridation in Sonoma County including:
    [2] Convening an advisory committee to provide guidance on the fluoridation assessments, planning and
    implementation process, and
    [3] Enter into an agreement with California State University, Sacramento to facilitate the advisory committee
    and discussion with water retailers and community stakeholders ($54,936)
    - Contractor: Board of Supervisors.

    3/1/2013-9/30/2013 - Engineering Report
    MWH Americas, Inc. to develop a Preliminary Engineering Design Report for fluoridation of Sonoma County
    Water Agency's drinking water supply ($102,970).
    - Contractor: Board of Supervisors.

    PLUS STAFF TIME
    The Board of Supervisors directed staff to
    [1] determine upfront costs and
    [2] develop a financial plan,
    [3] provide information on
    a. health risks,
    b. environmental impacts, and
    c. health impacts to pets,
    [4] explore alternatives,
    [5] expand the Advisory Groups' role to explore available funding sources and
    [6] include measures of success in the marketing and outreach components.
    Board of Supervisors:
    [1] Accept staff report on continuing efforts related to oral health, and
    [2] authorize various activities relating to promoting and advancing oral health in Sonoma County
    _______________________________

    It will be interesting to see what the staff says about health risks. At the last Fluoridation Advisory Committee meeting, Lynn Silver-Chalfin said she had read "all the studies" (impossible--it would have been a full-time job for several years) and had found nothing to persuade her that fluoride was harmful to health.

    Irish scientist Declan Waugh HAS been studying health effects of fluoride for several years. It was largely his work that convinced the Israel Supreme Court to ban fluoridation. Here is what he said yesterday:

    "One good bit of news, after almost 12 months of research I finallly finished my research on fluoride and its contribution to asthma, bronchitis and COPD. Believe it or not, from the international databases of published scientific litetature I have identified 25 individual mechanisms by which fluoride exposure contributes to these conditions. Case histories and referenced peer reviewed studies are examined in detail, all the scientific evidence is gathered together with over 1000 scientific references. All that is left now are the final edits. Hopefully will be finished in a few days. To say the evidence is overwhelming is almost an understatement. Its quite simply staggering and a lot of highly educated professionals and patient advocacy groups will have a hell of a time explaining why they didn't investigate this before now."
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  7. TopTop #4
    theindependenteye's Avatar
    theindependenteye
     

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    (Elizabeth here) --

    That's a big chunk of change. Even though some of the programs listed might not have been solely dedicated to promoting fluoridation (what did KRCB actually broadcast, for instance?), the single fact that Silver-Chalfin is still unambiguously tooting that tin trumpet says something about the BofS's collective attitude. And when people have invested a lot in promoting the correctness of their view, they usually will fight tooth and nail to conceal, dismiss, or ridicult any inconvenient facts to the contrary. Nobody likes to admit they might have been misinformed.

    In other words, the only possibility of stopping this may lie in massive, massive vocal citizen response. Before the fact, not after the fluoride starts dripping. If we get a new public health officer on board who is fluoride-friendly, will there be any way to communicate directly with this person? It's unfortunate that so often S'pol is rated as tinfoil-hat territory, as witness the venom still present in any discussion of wi-fi. So there's already a problem in opposing something that has been blessed as a technological improvement, no matter what's known about it. Wi-fi seems to have a lot of scientific evidence regarding its safety -- not so fluoride.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  9. TopTop #5
    Dave's Avatar
    Dave
     

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    I am trying to understand the water fluoridation issue, and I am totally new to it. I don't claim to know anything beyond what I have learned this afternoon, prompted by the previous post. Thank you, sharingwisdom, for... sharing.

    I will share what I have learned from looking at the 2012 Harvard-affiliated meta-analysis that sharingwisdom referred to via this link:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/2012...12+PRN20120724

    Just to be clear, the Reuters link is not a Reuters news article, but a press release by an anti-fluoridation organization.

    Here is a news story about the study published by the Harvard School of Public Health:
    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fe...randjean-choi/

    In this story, I learned that the researchers compiled 27 studies published in China which, in total, tested the intelligence of over 8,000 children in China. Each of those 27 studies compared the intelligence scores of kids with "high" levels of fluoride exposure vs. the kids with "low" levels of fluoride exposure (as determined, in 22 of the 27 studies, by the naturally-occuring levels of fluoride in their drinking water). Apparently, there are different intelligence tests out there with different scales, so for the lay reader in their public statements (see link toward the end of my post), the researchers converted the scores to our well-known IQ scale (in which 100 is average intelligence), and found that, on average, the "high fluoride" kids scored 7 IQ points lower than the "low fluoride" kids.

    7 IQ points is a big difference.

    But, I thought skeptically, what do they mean by "high" and "low" levels of fluoride, and how does this compare to what is typically added to drinking water in the US?

    So I looked at the actual study to take a closer look at the numbers:
    https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/#t1

    Table 1 in this paper is really interesting, and I encourage you to take a look. It shows the actual fluoride levels in drinking water that were compared in each of the 27 compiled studies from China. Here is a direct link to Table 1:
    https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content...04912.t001.tif

    Here you can see that 26 of the 27 studies revealed lower average IQ scores for children with "high" levels of fluoride exposure, with only 1 out of 27 not showing any difference. A few of the "high" levels in drinking water are well above the 4 mg/L EPA allowable maximum (and 2 mg/L EPA recommended maximum), but in 9 of the 27 studies, the "high fluoride" groups have less than 3 mg/L fluoride in their water. In 17 of the studies, the "low fluoride" group had levels of around 0.3 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L. From what I have gathered, American drinking water is fluoridated to about 0.7 to 0.9 mg/L.

    Now take a look at Table 2, and here is a direct link:
    https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content...04912.g002.tif

    Here you can see, for each of the 27 studies, the SMD is shown (standardized mean difference: in other words, the difference in intelligence scores between the two groups of kids in each study), and by comparing Table 1 and Table 2, you can see that some of the studies that showed the biggest differences in intelligence scores (e.g. Xu et al, 1994; Seraj et al., 2006; Lu, et al., 2000) were comparing relatively small differences in fluoride exposure. For example, Xu et al. (1994) showed the largest difference of all the studies, and they were comparing children exposed to 1.8 mg/L in their water vs. those exposed to 0.8 mg/L. This is quite close to the difference between the American Dental Association's recommended fluoridation level of 0.7 mg/L and the EPA's recommended maximum level of 2.0 mg/L. Now, the Xu, et al. study itself is not the largest and it is but one of many, and I only cite it as an example. However, if you keep looking at the results of the studies in these two tables, you see the overall trend is quite compelling, and squares firmly with the conclusions of the Harvard-affiliated study's authors that their "results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment."

    In a "media statement" after the publication of this meta-study to facilitate a realistic interpretation of their study's results (www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/files/2012/07/Media-Statement_Fluoride-9-12-12-Revised2.pdf), the authors made a few points, including:

    "When considering the risks and benefits of fluoride exposure, the level of intake needs to be considered."

    and

    “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard."

    The authors' assessment of their own work seems quite reasonable to me. Most of the 27 Chinese studies that this meta-study looked at were comparing intelligence scores of kids exposed to similar levels of fluoride as American kids drinking fluoridated wate (sometimes a bit less, sometimes a bit more) vs kids exposed to two or three times that amount, and THIS difference in fluoride exposure seems to make a big difference in cognitive development. What it does not tell me, is whether the amount of fluoride added to bring it up to 0.7mg or 0.9mg introduced risks that outweigh its benefits.

    Dave
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by 7 members:

  11. TopTop #6
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    Very savvy reading of the Harvard study, Dave. I don't know how much time you want to devote to fluoride, but there's a lot of info on https://www.facebook.com/CleanWaterSonomaMarin. It's not organized at all; it's in chronological order by posting.

    In the last year plus, I have read 8 books and dozens of articles about fluoride. My suggestion, if you want to start with the best source, is read "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma," by George Waldbott, M.D. It's available online as a free download here: https://www.whale.to/b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdf Waldbott was a Michigan allergist who treated more than 500 patients for illness from artificially fluoridated water. Just as interesting as his reports on his clinical work is his description of the difficulties he and other scientists encountered trying to get their work published in the USA. (Before beginning his work on fluoride, Waldbott had published 130 articles on other subjects in major professional journals. He's an excellent writer.)

    In addition to our local Facebook page, a great info source is https://www.fluoridealert.org, the site of the Fluoride Action Network. They have a new service called Study Tracker, which you can find here:
    https://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/

    Forty or fifty years ago, because of his difficulty speaking and getting published in the USA, Waldbott founded the International Society for Fluoride Research. https://www.fluorideresearch.org/ Their publication, Fluoride Journal, is available free online. In some countries, such as India and some African nations, excessive naturally occurring fluoride causes serious health problems, and that is one subject often discussed in Fluoride Journal.

    Another scientist you might want to check out is Phyllis Mullenix. Her work on rats corroborates and expands the findings of the Harvard scientists.

    There's also an excellent online movie, "Fluoridegate." www.fluoridegate.org/‎ This gets into problems in the Environmental Protection Agency, among other things.

    The real question is how much time do you want to spend?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  13. TopTop #7
    Beverly Schenck's Avatar
    Beverly Schenck
     

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    You would be shock on how big money continues to support our supervisors. Follow the money and see why our supervisors are in support of fluoridating our waters. There is no democracy in Sonoma County, our political figures talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Supervisor Mike McGuire is a good example of how a corrupt figure continues to vote in favor of business, I know personally how he has worked.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by lilypads: View Post
    I was shocked to see how much money the Supervisors have spent on promoting fluoridation. If this had been spent on dental care and parent education for the at-risk kids, they would not have to worry about tooth decay! Getting this information was not easy!

    HOW OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT TO PROMOTE FLUORIDATION...
    Last edited by Barry; 04-11-2014 at 12:31 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. TopTop #8
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    I would not be shocked, Beverly, just dismayed and disgusted. I know Mike McGuire gets money from the California Dental Association, a big fluoride promoter. But he is on his way out of the BOS. We know he is not going to help change the fluoride mandate when he is in the state legislature, but I'm hoping others will. As the truth comes out more and more about its health effects, fluoridation is going to be a leaky boat to be riding in. I'm hoping McGuire will be replaced by Deb Fudge, who supports the individual's right to choose whether to consume this poison. Here's a new anti-fluoride music video created by Clean Water California: https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=ibS0G-OqfcY
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  15. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  16. TopTop #9
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by lilypads: View Post
    I would not be shocked, Beverly, just dismayed and disgusted. I know Mike McGuire gets money from the California Dental Association, a big fluoride promoter. ...
    I think it would be very helpful to research all donations to the BOS from explicit supporters of fluoridation.
    "Sunshine" is a better disinfectant than fluoride!

    (Activists should be sure to check out the link above)

    Barry

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  18. TopTop #10
    Beverly Schenck's Avatar
    Beverly Schenck
     

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    Supervisor McGuire has been in office for three years, his voting record continues to lean toward corporate rule, and now we want him in the senate, couldn't we do better?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by lilypads: View Post
    I would not be shocked, Beverly, just dismayed and disgusted. I know Mike McGuire gets money from the California Dental Association, a big fluoride promoter. But he is on his way out of the BOS....
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. TopTop #11
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    I would love to see an anti-fluoride candidate defeat McGuire. Is there one?

    Here is a new scientific article that reviews the history of fluoridation and concludes that its risks outweigh its benefits: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  21. TopTop #12
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    Thank you for making it easy to email my objections to fluoridation. I hope many many people did the same. Let's move it forward from WaccoBB to our world.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom: View Post
    I emailed each supervisor last night, but wish I could have included this article that just came to me today...from The Lancet Neurology: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...article_upsell
    Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity

    ...
    Last edited by Barry; 04-12-2014 at 12:55 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. Gratitude expressed by:

  23. TopTop #13
    Beverly Schenck's Avatar
    Beverly Schenck
     

    Re: Pro-fluoridation county public health officer to be appointed on April 8th

    I don't believe there is another democrat candidate that would challenge McGuire running position.. We'll be saddle with another corrupt political figure for many years to come, McGuire who's only interests are to make the very rich, richer.
    Quote Posted in reply to the post by lilypads: View Post
    I would love to see an anti-fluoride candidate defeat McGuire. Is there one?

    Here is a new scientific article that reviews the history of fluoridation and concludes that its risks outweigh its benefits: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-11-2014, 10:44 PM

Tags (user supplied keywords) for this Thread

Bookmarks