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!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply



    New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply
    https://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/3...bolster?page=0

    Despite heated opposition, Sonoma County health officials are building their case that adding fluoride to public water supplies is the most effective way to prevent tooth decay and reduce costs of dental care for the greatest number of Sonoma County residents — a strategy some fluoridation proponents said could translate into broader political support of the additive.

    County supervisors and health officials say the matter is urgent, with 51 percent of kids experiencing tooth decay, according to a health department survey of kindergarten and third-graders released last month.

    “Tooth decay is one of the most common diseases among children, and poses an immediate and long-term threat not just to the teeth of young children, but to their overall health and development,” according to findings in the November survey.

    The health department report — one of three studies commissioned by county officials in two years — recommends fluoridation of county drinking water supplies. Two other health department analyses underway also endorse fluoridation of the county Water Agency’s supply, which serves 600,000 customers in the North Bay, including Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Petaluma, Windsor, Sonoma, Valley of the Moon and parts of Marin.

    Other reports gauge the cost of fluoridation and impact of the chemical compound on endangered and threatened fish such as coho and chinook salmon. Health officials pointed to the studies as evidence that adding fluoride to water improves public health without harming the environment.

    “When fluoride is taken in, it reaches every tooth in every mouth, every day,” said Kim Caldewey, a manager with the county’s Department of Health Services. “We think it’s a very safe, extremely healthy measure to improve the dental health of a community.”

    In a new report, county health officials now estimate the total cost of injecting fluoride into drinking water supplies at $587,000 per year, significantly less than the county’s previous estimate of $8.5 million for capital upgrades and $973,000 per year for operations.

    County health officials studying the matter say the retooled estimate is based on better science. The new proposal, outlined in a 116-page report by the Colorado-based engineering firm MWH Americas, Inc., could lay the groundwork for a countywide policy adding fluoride to drinking water supplies for the majority of Sonoma County residents. The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday is expected approve an additional $10,000 for the firm to complete its financial and engineering study.

    The original $103,000 contract was awarded at a contentious Board of Supervisors meeting in February 2013, when dozens of speakers packed a hearing room to protest fluoridation of the county’s primary water supply. Fluoride opponents cited faulty science and health problems they say is associated with the additive.

    “It’s not safe and it doesn’t work,” said Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh, a nutritionist and former Rohnert Park councilwoman who campaigned for Healdsburg’s failed referendum that would have removed fluoride from drinking water there. “But my first and foremost concern is that this would impose something on people, without their choice.”

    Measure P passed with 64.4 percent of the vote, upholding fluoridation of drinking water in Healdsburg city limits.

    “Healdsburg supported fluoridation of its water supply despite a vigorous campaign to take it out,” said Jim Wood, a dentist and former Healdsburg mayor who campaigned to keep the additive in Healdsburg’s supply.

    “My hope is that the county would support adding fluoride to its water,” said Wood, who was elected in November to the state Assembly and has resigned his seat as mayor.

    Fluoridation advocates say opponents are misguided and ignore overwhelming scientific data that fluoride added in minuscule amounts to the water — such as less than one part per million in Healdsburg — is essentially safe. Healdsburg residents have been drinking fluoridated water since 1952, when the city became one of the first in the state to add it. It is the only city in Sonoma County that adds fluoride to its drinking water.

    The county health department updated its annual cost estimates in a report issued Nov. 14. This week, it is scheduled to issue a long-term study projecting costs over a 30-year period. The idea is to gather feedback from the Fluoride Advisory Committee at its next meeting, set for Dec. 8.

    Recommendations are expected to go before the Board of Supervisors in the spring, officials said. Supervisors at that time would weigh in, and potentially move forward with fluoridation. Supervisor Shirlee Zane, who supports fluoridation, said Healdsburg’s vote to keep fluoridating its water indicates public support for the additive and potential buy-in from her board colleagues. “This board over the last four years has moved in the direction of adding fluoride to water supplies — it is a good public health care policy based on good science,” Zane said. “We are behind most other cities and counties in California.”

    Health officials said fluoride would not only improve health in the county, but reduce costs associated with dentist and emergency visits.

    “Fluoridation is an essential component in prevention of dental disease in both children and adults,” said Rita Scardaci, director of the county’s health department.

    Some supervisors said public health benefits should be weighed against other budget priorities.

    “We’re trying to balance fixing our roads, ensuring homeless are housed and we’re looking at universal preschool,” said Supervisor Efren Carrillo.

    Carrillo acknowledged, however, potential cost savings and health benefits of fluoride.

    “Fluoridation could give us the biggest bang for our buck, so I do believe that it could be one strategy to improve oral health countywide,” he said.

    Gallagher-Stroeh, who opposes the additive, said she plans to introduce a ballot measure in 2016 to remove fluoride from Healdsburg’s water supply.

    “I quit my job to do this full-time,” she said. “I’m going to start working on stopping this county-wide.”

    You can reach Staff Writer Angela Hart at 526-8503 or [email protected]. On Twitter @ahartreports.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-02-2014 at 02:29 PM.

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

  2. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  3. TopTop #2
    Thad's Avatar
    Thad
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    My brother and sister were born overseas where they had added fluoride to the waters, they both ended up with brown teeth.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    ...“It’s not safe and it doesn’t work,” said Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh, a nutritionist and former Rohnert Park councilwoman who campaigned for Healdsburg’s failed referendum that would have removed fluoride from drinking water there. “But my first and foremost concern is that this would impose something on people, without their choice.”...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  5. TopTop #3
    wisewomn's Avatar
    wisewomn
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    My son grew up without fluoride in the water and without topical applications by the dentist. We ate an organic, whole foods lacto-ovo vegetarian diet. He never had a cavity until he was 26. By that time he had started eating meat and junk food. Now he's trying to get back to his childhood diet.

    Anyway, I view water fluoridation the same way I view enforced sterilization and other things of that ilk.

    Why not take the money they're proposing to spend on that crap and invest it in free/low cost dental clinics staffed by some of these overpaid dentists who are touting forcing fluoride down everyone's throats, literally? They could provide nutritional education at the same time.

    At the very least, there should be an opt-out option for people who don't want it, as there is with Sonoma Clean Power. Let the powers-that-be figure out how to implement it.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-03-2014 at 11:50 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  7. TopTop #4
    AllorrahBe
    Guest

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Barry, thanks for posting this. I totally missed it in my perusing of the pd.
    Rev. BE
    Last edited by Barry; 12-03-2014 at 11:49 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by:

  9. TopTop #5
    Glia's Avatar
    Glia
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    And that's only the damage that is visible!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Thad: View Post
    My brother and sister were born overseas where they had added fluoride to the waters, they both ended up with brown teeth.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  11. TopTop #6
    luke32
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by thad: View Post
    my brother and sister were born overseas where they had added fluoride to the waters, they both ended up with brown teeth.
    lol
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. Gratitude expressed by:

  13. TopTop #7
    sharingwisdom's Avatar
    sharingwisdom
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    This is a strictly a political, not a health issue, because Sodium Aluminum fluoride (cryolite) comes from aluminum smelting and pesticides, and fluorosilicic acid is acquired through scrubbing the chimney stacks of phosphate fertilizer manufacture. The CDC approximates that 95% of our water is fluoridated with this compound already. So why push more fluoride when they are already poisoning us, and the decay rate hasn't dropped?

    And the supervisors know it isn't healthy if they read anything we brought to them. I've talked to at least one with several other people present. None of the supervisors even came out to hear Dr. Paul Connett, world reknown Professor of Chemistry and expert on what fluoridation does, to discuss the topic in Santa Rosa last year...not even dentists...because they don't have the facts to refute him. https://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html I have his DVD info of the talk with studies and statistics.

    There is nothing healthy or supportive in fluoridation in the strengthening of tooth structure at all. I can attest to that with the fluoridosis (mottling) of my teeth that has affected my bones, having grownup in a fluoridated area. I've written on this board about it many times as a former dental hygienist. I've heard of the whistleblowers being condemned and then ostracized from their field...and the ADA like the AMA putting out their scrupulous corporate-based falsified disinformation. Is this that different than what is happening in the Big pharma and Big corp bullying mindsets?

    There are big warnings even being put out by the CDC to not allow infants to have fluoridated water because it causes neurological impairment (besides lowering of the IQ) and dental fluorosis...even the ADA said this years ago but then they just peddled backstream with their rhetoric about everyone else who disagrees with them. What about the kidney dialysis and thyroid patients? Fluoride is a killer. What are these people going to do? What about our plants absorbing the poison? Our pets? What about the accumulation of this toxin in our systems? This isn't CaFl.

    More than 400 communities ended existing fluoridation programs or rejected new efforts to fluoridate either by council vote or citizen referendum since 1990. In 2014 alone at least 30 communities providing water to more then 9,961,111residents rejected or ended fluoridation. This includes Israel, and Ireland will likely be next along with Canada. 4,564 professionals including MD, PhD, DDS, RN, etc have signed petitions urging others to oppose Fluoridation.

    Here is a short video of Amy Goodman from 'Democracy Now' discussing fluoride with Journalist Christopher Bryson who wrote, "The Fluoride Deception" saying that the post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water was less a public health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride--including the government's nuclear weapons program....the Manhattan project. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YDeMaR38uE

    When the article below says that, "Fluoride could give us the biggest buck," makes me wonder from which corporation, which engineering firm. Looking at the connections says alot.

    There is the supervisor meeting at 3313 Chanate at 10 AM this coming Monday morning if you'd like to tell them to stop their toxic agenda from going forward.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-03-2014 at 11:48 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. Gratitude expressed by 7 members:

  15. TopTop #8
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    About 70% of the USA is fluoridated, and yet there are "dental health crises" in all major cities, even though they're fluoridated. If the story the Health Dept. is telling us is true, how can this be?

    Kentucky, which is 100% fluoridated, has the worst oral health in the country. How can this be?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  16. Gratitude expressed by 8 members:

  17. TopTop #9
    Thad's Avatar
    Thad
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    The one with the darker teeth died of a strange cancer

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Glia: View Post
    And that's only the damage that is visible!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. Gratitude expressed by:

  19. TopTop #10
    Glia's Avatar
    Glia
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    The chances are good that is NOT just a coincidence!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Thad: View Post
    The one with the darker teeth died of a strange cancer
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  21. TopTop #11
    Glia's Avatar
    Glia
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Because ingesting fluoridated water is not effective, and these "dental health crises" are a ginned-up ruse, that's how!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by lilypads: View Post
    About 70% of the USA is fluoridated, and yet there are "dental health crises" in all major cities, even though they're fluoridated. If the story the Health Dept. is telling us is true, how can this be?

    Kentucky, which is 100% fluoridated, has the worst oral health in the country. How can this be?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  23. TopTop #12
    Jude Iam's Avatar
    Jude Iam
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    jeeez - wouldn't you know it... efren backs fluoride (from below):

    “We’re trying to balance fixing our roads, ensuring homeless are housed and we’re looking at universal preschool,” said Supervisor Efren Carrillo.

    Carrillo acknowledged, however, potential cost savings and health benefits of fluoride. (sic)
    “Fluoridation could give us the biggest bang for our buck, so I do believe that it could be one strategy to improve oral health countywide,” he said. (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/3...bolster?page=0)

    Maybe he was thinking about something else during the vast information campaign, debates, etc. revealing fluoride's detriments; smart people paying attention - with no vested interest - are against it.
    efren is supposed to be REPRESENTING US.
    DO let him know your thoughts: 565-2241
    AND let us know the response you get from him and his office.

    best, jude
    Last edited by Barry; 12-04-2014 at 10:56 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  24. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  25. TopTop #13
    AllorrahBe
    Guest

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Please keep sharing your wisdom; I have been stressed about this recently, as more articles keep being written about how safe it is, blah-blah-blah! If it ain't safe for a baby's brain, it ain't safe for a senior's brain. The teen brain may be a different thing altogether ~ but that's another story for another day!
    Rev. BE
    Last edited by Barry; 12-05-2014 at 08:46 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  26. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  27. TopTop #14
    learningcoach's Avatar
    learningcoach
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Barry, thanks for presenting THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY.
    I am just wondering if you personally have been led to a reasoned conclusion in the matter.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply
    https://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/3...bolster?page=0
    Last edited by Barry; 12-13-2014 at 03:34 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  29. TopTop #15
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Dr Kathleen Thiessen Ph.D. Senior member of the United States National Research scientific Committee which examined fluoride in drinking water in 2006 has just published a new paper investigating the economic risks associated with water fluoridation. This is a must read for anyone interested in how Taxpayers money is flushed down the drain with community water fluoridation and the report highlights the hidden costs associated with water fluoridation including the costs of treating dental fluorosis, of accidents and overfeeds, of occupational exposures to fluoride, of promoting CWF, and of avoiding fluoridated water. Here is the link to the study:
    https://www.maneyonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000093

    And here is a brief excerpt:

    FLUORIDATION COSTS

    In 2010, amid a budget crisis, the City of Sacramento,
    CA, instructed all departments to review programs
    and services. Mr. Marty Hanneman, then Director of
    the Department of Utilities, wrote in a memo to the
    City Council:

    “The City of Sacramento has been fluoridating its
    water supplies just over 10 years. Within that time,
    the actual cost of operating and maintaining the
    fluoridation systems has proven to be considerably
    more than the initial estimate. … The fluoridation
    infrastructure at the E.A. Fairbairn Water Treatment
    Plant is overdue for replacement and will be
    very expensive to replace. … Fluoridating water is a
    very costly and labor intensive process and requires
    constant monitoring of fluoride concentrations to
    ensure proper dosages. … The chemical is very
    corrosive, so all equipment that is used in the
    fluoridation process has a very short life expectancy
    and needs to be replaced frequently. … but also
    causes frequent and complex system failures.”

    From: “A critique of recent economic evaluations of
    community water fluoridation”

    By Lee Ko & Kathleen M. Thiessen

    International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014

    Here is a video of a Sacramento water treatment operator talking about why he opposes fluoridation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=droIzzkawWg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=droIzzkawWg
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

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

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by learningcoach: View Post
    Barry, thanks for presenting THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY.
    I am just wondering if you personally have been led to a reasoned conclusion in the matter.
    The clearest conclusion that I've come to is that it is improper public policy to medicate drinking water against many people's desire. Let the people who want their drinking water medicated buy fluoridated drinking water without inflicting it on others. People should not be medicated without their consent.

    What would be somewhat better than the Board of Supervisors deciding for the county if the water should be fluoridated, would be a county wide election, preferably requiring a supermajority, to see if the people give their consent.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-15-2014 at 10:35 AM.

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

  32. Gratitude expressed by 7 members:

  33. TopTop #17
    wisewomn's Avatar
    wisewomn
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    In principle, Barry, a countywide election is a worthy idea. However, since we are dealing with individual choices--and therefore the wishes of the minority must be respected--in healthcare, I much prefer the idea of letting those who want fluoride in their water obtaining it individually--either through fluoride provided by the county or fluoridated water provided by the county, perhaps for a small extra charge and by container.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    ...What would somewhat better than the Board of Supervisors deciding for the county if the water should be fluoridated, would be a county wide election, preferably requiring a super majority, to see if the people give their consent.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-15-2014 at 12:29 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  34. Gratitude expressed by 7 members:

  35. TopTop #18
    AllorrahBe
    Guest

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    In a perfect world, we could also talk about the chemtrails "medicating" us and all of the animal kingdom, and the gmo's threatening everything else on the planet...but I wholly support your conclusion. Thanks for making your personal view public.
    Rev. BE
    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    The clearest conclusion that I've come to is that it is improper public policy to medicate drinking water against many people's desire. ...
    Last edited by Barry; 12-15-2014 at 10:37 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  36. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  37. TopTop #19
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by AllorrahBe: View Post
    In a perfect world, we could also talk about the chemtrails "medicating" us and all of the animal kingdom, and the gmo's threatening everything else on the planet...but I wholly support your conclusion. Thanks for making your personal view public.
    Rev. BE
    I don't think chemtrails are an effective way to deliver flouridation.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  38. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  39. TopTop #20
    spam1's Avatar
    spam1
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    The clearest conclusion that I've come to is that it is improper public policy to medicate drinking water against many people's desire. Let the people who want their drinking water medicated buy fluoridated drinking water without inflicting it on others..
    How is this any different, in principal, to requiring a motor cycle helmet (many riders claim the helmets interfere with sight and hearing and make riding more dangerous), or seat belts, or bike helmets, etc? Seems all of them are public action forcing public opinion (expressed through elected representatives) of appropriate behavior (intake of fluoride) for the good of the individual despite the individual's objection. I'm for removing most laws regulating behavior that only effects the individual in question (hard drugs is on the slippery slope, I haven't fully come to terms with it).
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  40. Gratitude expressed by:

  41. TopTop #21
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by spam1: View Post
    How is this any different, in principal, to requiring a motor cycle helmet (many riders claim the helmets interfere with sight and hearing and make riding more dangerous), or seat belts, or bike helmets, etc? Seems all of them are public action forcing public opinion (expressed through elected representatives) of appropriate behavior (intake of fluoride) for the good of the individual despite the individual's objection....
    no, it's got some fundamental differences.

    If you're a nanny-state supporter, there's less of a difference because indeed they're both ways for society to compel people toward healthful behavior.

    But many people also drag in a pragmatic argument as well. Sometimes that's a mistake in my opinion because it muddies the original point. Is it a moral case being made, or a purely practical one? Switching back and forth dilutes the argument in my mind. Anyway, the pragmatic case for helmets and seatbelts is, given that we're not going to let you lie in the street with your head split open if you don't have a way to pay for the ambulance, you need to wear the damn helmet to save us money - and consider yourself lucky we let you ride at all. Flouride is somewhat different - it's not such a raw money-saving proposition for society at large; the case is built more on its efficiency. Dumping it straight into the water system is a simpler way to make it available to everyone and its cost is amortized across the whole population. So think of it as a cheap bennie - a public service like restrooms in parks, providing a convenience that not everyone needs but avoiding problems that may be more costly overall.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  42. Gratitude expressed by:

  43. TopTop #22
    gardenmaniac's Avatar
    gardenmaniac
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    More important than saving money, dumping it straight into the water system is not about saving (us) money; rather, it gives producers of (toxic) fluoride waste a way to dispose of same. For free. Worse that that - they probably get paid for it. By us.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    ...Fluoride is somewhat different - it's not such a raw money-saving proposition for society at large; the case is built more on its efficiency. Dumping it straight into the water system is a simpler way to make it available to everyone and its cost is amortized across the whole population. So think of it as a cheap bennie - a public service like restrooms in parks, providing a convenience that not everyone needs but avoiding problems that may be more costly overall.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  44. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  45. TopTop #23
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac: View Post
    More important than saving money, dumping it straight into the water system is not about saving (us) money; rather, it gives producers of (toxic) fluoride waste a way to dispose of same. For free. Worse that that - they probably get paid for it. By us.
    that's always seemed to be the least plausible of the claims against flouridation. There's an ungodly amount of nasty crap spewed into the air and water by industrial processes. I've never seen a case made as to why they'd really bother. There's got to be cheaper and easier ways of disposal that would fly under the public's collective eye, so why choose a technique where there's potential backlash?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  46. TopTop #24
    wisewomn's Avatar
    wisewomn
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    My understanding is that the industry used to store fluoride in metal drums as hazardous waste. Disposal costs were high. Then they discovered they could fob it off on cities and get paid for it. Problem solved!

    BTW, did anyone else catch the letter to the Editor in the PD a couple of days ago from the retired physician who said that no one had yet mentioned the link between fluoride and thyroid disease. He said in his career he had seen the cases of thyroid disease increase significantly when fluoride was added to the local water supply.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    that's always seemed to be the least plausible of the claims against flouridation. There's an ungodly amount of nasty crap spewed into the air and water by industrial processes. I've never seen a case made as to why they'd really bother. There's got to be cheaper and easier ways of disposal that would fly under the public's collective eye, so why choose a technique where there's potential backlash?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  47. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  48. TopTop #25
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    To the person who was asking about fluoride and fish: The author of this letter worked for years for the National Marine Fisheries Service and recently retired from a senior position there (from the Dec. 7 Press Democrat).

    "EDITOR: I’m perplexed by the position taken by several members of the Board of Supervisors in favor of drinking-water fluoridation. Science seems to support the benefits to dental health, but it also acknowledges damage to the aquatic environment.

    The supervisors also serve as the directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency, an agency that has in recent years spent millions of dollars on efforts to prevent the extinction of salmon and steelhead in the Russian River basin. Why then would they be considering adding another toxin to the habitat they seek to restore?

    Fluoride is not removed by sewage treatment, accumulates in the environment and is known to have deleterious effects on salmonids. Other pharmaceuticals in the watershed, introduced through the sewage system, already pose a poorly understood threat to fish and wildlife.

    If the county is serious about restoring our salmon and steelhead, the supervisors should adopt a precautionary approach and not add another toxin into the mix. The $587,000 per-year estimate of the costs of fluoridation is cited as the primary barrier to supervisors’ support. Supervisors should also consider the additional costs of undoing some of the positive fisheries conservation work undertaken to date by the county.

    DICK BUTLER

    Cloverdale "

    A Draft Aquatic Assessment has been presented to the Fluoridation Advisory Committee, and can be read on their website: https://www.sonoma-county.org/health/meetings/fac.asp Responses have come from the Sonoma County Water Coalition and the Sierra Club. The excellent letter from the SCWC may be too long to post here. Check their website.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-17-2014 at 01:08 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  49. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  50. TopTop #26
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by spam1: View Post
    How is this any different, in principal, to requiring a motor cycle helmet (many riders claim the helmets interfere with sight and hearing and make riding more dangerous), or seat belts, or bike helmets, etc? Seems all of them are public action forcing public opinion (expressed through elected representatives) of appropriate behavior (intake of fluoride) for the good of the individual despite the individual's objection. I'm for removing most laws regulating behavior that only effects the individual in question (hard drugs is on the slippery slope, I haven't fully come to terms with it).
    Your motorcycle helmet doesn't make me sick. My neighbor's seatbelts don't cause my hips to fracture. Both Reuben Feltman, DDS, in New Jersey and Hans Moolenburgh, MD, in the Netherlands found that about 1 per cent of the population gets seriously ill when fluoride is added to the public water supply. In Sonoma County and Northern Marin, that's about 4000 people, most of whom will not know WHY they're sick, because their doctors have never been taught to recognize the symptoms of fluoride intoxication.
    Last edited by lilypads; 12-16-2014 at 11:11 PM. Reason: typo
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  51. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  52. TopTop #27
    spam1's Avatar
    spam1
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by lilypads: View Post
    Your motorcycle helmet doesn't make me sick. .
    You miss the point...
    Here are two cases where the state (some would say the nanny state) says "we know how to care for you better than you know yourself)

    1) Helmets are good, you must wear a helmet. The slightly specious argument is that "if you crash, we have to treat you". Specious because from a cost standpoint, riding without a helmet is much more likely to kill you and so the costs would be lower, than extended treatment. The real argument is that one people get power and control over others, they love to exercise it for "our own good".

    2) Cavities are bad, Fluoride can help prevent cavities, if there are bad side effects, we (government representatives) decide they are not bad enough to overcome the good.

    this quote by C.S. Lewis exemplifies my view:
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  53. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  54. TopTop #28
    gardenmaniac's Avatar
    gardenmaniac
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    great quote, spam1. I read the last sentence - "To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” - as the crux of the biscuit.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by spam1: View Post
    this quote by C.S. Lewis exemplifies my view:
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  55. Gratitude expressed by:

  56. TopTop #29
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by spam1: View Post
    ...
    2) Cavities are bad, Flouride can help prevent cavities, if there are bad side effects, we (government representatives) decide they are not bad enough to overcome the good.
    ...
    You are assuming that fluoride really does reduce tooth decay. I am not convinced. Neither was John Colquhoun, DDS, Ph.D., the Chief Dental Officer of Auckland NZ, after he spent years promoting fluoridation, and more years studying the decay statistics of NZ children (where they keep better records than they do in the USA, since children there get dental care through the schools). Here's his article "Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation": https://www.slweb.org/colquhoun.html

    If you read the early history of the fluoride promotion project (Waldbott, "A Struggle with Titans," Bryson, "The Fluoride Deception,") you'll see that there was a HUGE fluoride disposal problem after World War 2, AND there were hundreds of millions of dollars worth of lawsuits against fluoride polluters, companies like Alcoa and Kaiser. Promoting fluoride as being "good for children's teeth," was a way to put a positive spin on a toxic waste product and make people receptive to ingesting it so it would be hard to be sure who was suffering from its toxic effects. I don't want to oversimplify, and I suggest you do the reading. Both books are available for free online downloads.

    At the same time, for more than sixty years, the science about fluoride has been suppressed, as you can read here: https://www.slweb.org/hileman4.html Chapter 18 of George Waldbott's "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma," goes into more detail. That book is available for free download here https://www.whale.to/b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdfhttps://www.whale.to/b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdf Scroll to page 318.

    There is a lot of money in fluoride, and there are a lot of people who stand to lose if there are class-action lawsuits by those who've been harmed by fluoride. So the pressure to fluoridate by the CDC and the ADA continues, even as the studies showing the harm from fluoride continue to accumulate. The "safe and effective" mantra is chanted by public health officials at every level, even though there have never been studies showing that it's safe OR effective.

    The most recent and ongoing study, funded by the NIH, the Iowa Fluoride Study, has found no reduction in tooth decay in children receiving fluoridated water, but a significant increase in dental fluorosis, AND a reduction of bone density of about 5% in fluoridated girls.

    There are many books and articles about fluoride. Here's a good place to start: https://www.facebook.com/CleanWaterSonomaMarin
    Last edited by lilypads; 12-17-2014 at 12:59 PM. Reason: typo
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  57. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  58. TopTop #30
    sharingwisdom's Avatar
    sharingwisdom
     

    Re: New studies seek to bolster case for fluoride in Sonoma County’s water supply

    You are correct about the storage of fluoride...it was originally a waste product of Alcoa Aluminum Industries in the 30's and 40's. I use to have the original pamphlets and studies with dentists saying not to use fluoride. With areas that were studied that had high natural fluoride, CaFl, there seemed to be lower caries rate until dentists found out that people's teeth became mottled, overly brittle and would shatter when drilled. CaFl can actually be eliminated from the body differently than what happens with sodium fluoride and silicofluorides. The sugar and Alcoa decided to use part of the studies' info about less caries without mentioning the drawbacks...typical industry propaganda styles.


    And though I don't read the PD, it is true what the physician said about the thyroid being affected.. I researched this years ago as a dental hygienist, and mentioned it on this forum a year ago. I also listened to Dr. Shames, endocrinologist right here in Sonoma county on KOWS about 4 mos ago, discuss the endocrine system and how fluoride affects the Thyroid. Fluoride depresses it, so considering how high the rate of hypothyroidism is, particularly among women, fluoride intake is a dangerous thing to happen. It also affects the pineal gland and kidneys. Industrial wastes like Fluoride as well as herbicides and pesticides (which fluoride is used for as well) are best kept out of our food and water supplies.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn: View Post
    My understanding is that the industry used to store fluoride in metal drums as hazardous waste. Disposal costs were high. Then they discovered they could fob it off on cities and get paid for it. Problem solved!

    BTW, did anyone else catch the letter to the Editor in the PD a couple of days ago from the retired physician who said that no one had yet mentioned the link between fluoride and thyroid disease. He said in his career he had seen the cases of thyroid disease increase significantly when fluoride was added to the local water supply.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  59. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-09-2013, 12:55 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-08-2012, 11:40 PM
  3. SC Board of Supervisors seek to put fluoride in our water 2/28
    By Peace Voyager in forum General Community
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-02-2012, 08:17 PM

Bookmarks