Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

[Glia]

Unless the city's wells run dry, or there is a restriction placed on how much the city can draw from the wells. The latter is an eminently possible if the "tribal land" the Graton Casino is parked on asserts its *federal* water rights, which trump local water rights.

Should the wells be unavailable for whatever reason, then the City of Sebastopol will be purchasing water from somewhere, and SCWA is the most likely vendor. Unless they can arrange some sort of special pipe carrying non-fluoridated water, then guess what, Sebastapolians will be drinking, bathing in, and watering gardens/crops with fluoridated water.

If an establishment is in the Sebastopol city limits, or any other city that does not get their water from the county (anybody have list?) then you be assured the water is not fluoridated. Establishments don't have a choice of where they purchase water from. Either they accept the city's water or they have their own well. There's no valve on your water pipe that you turn to the right to get water from your city and left to get it from the county.

What I will grant you, however, is that many people are not aware of where the city limits are.

[sebastacat]

Sebastacat has been informed that the list of members of the Sonoma County Water Agency Water Advisory
Committee and Technical Advisory Committee tells which municipalities purchase water from the
Sonoma County Water Agency:

1. City of Cotati

2. City of Petaluma

3. City of Rohnert Park

4. City of Santa Rosa

5. City of Sonoma

6. Town of Windsor

7. Marin Municipal Water District

8. North Marin Water District

9. Valley of the Moon Water District

I submit that if this proposal to fluoridate our precious Sonoma County Water Supply is enacted by our supes
(I mean, the Sonoma County Water Agency), it will be challenging, to say the least, the find an establishment
in this county that will NOT be serving fluoridated water to its patrons.

Also, not all organic food producers are located in the City of Sebastopol (which doesn't fluoridate its water), so you people who think that this isn't going to affect you, think again. When you take the fruits (and vegetables) of your labor to the various farmers' markets, I can assure you that you are going to be asked the following questions by numerous patrons:

What is the source of the water which you use to irrigate your crops?
Is it being fluoridated?

You'd better be prepared to have answers to those two salient questions.

[dzerach]

The link to Patricia Dine's April article:

https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/...icle-1333.html

Patricia Dines (a.k.a. EcoGirl), who lives just outside of the Sebastopol city limits, wrote an excellent article for her "Ask EcoGirl" column which gets distributed to City of Sebastopol residents in their water bills.

[dzerach]

Barry, I'm not trying to dogpile...would like to ask the bear if he knows which town he's in on any given day. The natural environment -- do boundaries of water delivery & jurisdiction mean much? Sierra Club opposes; they're one of the most mainstream/conservative environmental groups around. The more fundamental law of interdependence seems to dictate exchange and flow. County officials are exerting unilateral power to succeed (on this one issue); also possibly a shared concern in general. Not to mention the actual attention and money now being spent on their pet project (a fly in the hot cocoa for which people have to waste time playing linebacker) -- could be the same energy both sides aren't giving or won't have for other county concerns.

While Alexia's general point, that you may well be exposed to fluoridated water many places is valid, I want to point out that it's a bit over stated.

Not "All" restaurants, farmers, backyards, schools will be using fluoridated water. Only those establishmets that are using the county's water supply will be flouridated. The ones in cities that are not fluoridated, such as Sebastopol, will not be affected, nor will farmers and others that use well water.

That said, there are indeed many places where we will be medicated without our permission!

[gardenmaniac]

"... not all organic food producers are located in the City of Sebastopol (which doesn't fluoridate its water), so you people who think that this isn't going to affect you, think again. ... "

good point, sebastacat. I wonder what CCOF says about fluoride. (I just emailed them, will post the reply when it arrives.)

[sebastacat]

Thanks, Gardenmaniac, for your reply and efforts. I look forward to hearing what you find out from this agency.

I feel compelled to add one other thought: Those of you who are on wells think you are immune from this proposal? Better think again.

I was informed some time back that some of the various municipal water agencies must occasionaly "purge" their systems. And where does this so-called "purged" water go? Into the laguna.

And where does the laguna flow? Right into the heart of the west county: None other than Sebastopol!
And it keeps flowing throughout the west county from there.

Much of that laguna water seeps into our wells, and so do any minerals or contaminants that may happen to be present in it, and fluoride will be no exception.

So while many people in the west county may feel a sense of complacency and take comfort in the "this doesn't affect me" attitude, let me tell you that once this poison gets added to the main drinking water supply which is controlled by the Sonoma County Water Agency (I mean, the supes) which we now know is going to be supplied to a MINIMUM of NINE (9) municipalities, there will be no stopping the resulting contamination of our wells, groundwater, waterways, etc.

And once this poison gets into any of these things I have mentioned above, it will extremely difficult to get it out.

At a time when our "supes" are proposing to spend millions of dollars on this poison to introduce it into our precious water supply, let us not forget that countries such as India, parts of Mexico, China and Africa are spending a fortune to try to get it out! That should tell our supes something right there.

I personally feel that the supes are in a real quandary over this one. To date, they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (close to a mill, I'll bet) on just studying an issue which is proving to be extremely unpopular with their respective constituencies. Do they abandon this proposal? Can they at this point and still save face?

On the one hand, if they do abandon it, it will be a popular decision and they can still perhaps save face.

On the other hand, questions will be asked about why they even embarked on such a misguided path in the first place, and they will be deemed fiscally irresponsible by many Sonoma County Citizens for having done so in the first place.

What to do.....oh, what to do.....

Personally, I feel that the cheaper and easier path will be to abandon this misguided proposal altogether, for if they do not, this issue most certainly will not go away by itself.

I just today spoke to a young woman who I felt must surely be unaware of this proposal, but to my amazement, she was very MUCH aware -- and is totally against it.

Yes, folks, the awareness factor is definitely kicking in due to the unselfish and unstinting stellar efforts of all involved.

As Dwight D. Eisenhower said in a campaign speech back in 1952 when running for president of the U.S.,
"We must keep up steam!"

And we have so many hardworking, dedicated and progressive individuals working tirelessly on this cause that I don't think that will be much of a problem.

[Scott McKeown]

Barry, I'm not trying to dogpile...would like to ask the bear if he knows which town he's in on any given day. The natural environment -- do boundaries of water delivery & jurisdiction mean much?

Um...well...trying not to be a contrarian here...but actually in this case water jurisdictions DO mean quite a bit.

[geomancer]

Not to worry about this - rainwater falling on the hills to the west either runs off or sinks underground and then moves downhill INTO the Laguna, not the other way. Water does not flow uphill (unless money is involved).

I feel compelled to add one other thought: Those of you who are on wells think you are immune from this proposal? Better think again.

I was informed some time back that some of the various municipal water agencies must occasionaly "purge" their systems. And where does this so-called "purged" water go? Into the laguna.

[dzerach]

Then I don't understand. How so? Scott, could you elaborate?

Um...well...trying not to be a contrarian here...but actually in this case water jurisdictions DO mean quite a bit.

[sebastacat]

I wasn't talking about rainwater falling on the hills. I was specifically referring to municipalities purging their water systems periodically and that water being dumped into the Laguna. This is something I was told by a good source is done periodically, and I feel it bears more study.

Since the Laguna is just a stone's throw from my home -- and many, many others as well -- we should all be deeply concerned about the possibility of excess fluoride contaminating our wells. I, for one, do not want to ingest this poisonous, toxic-waste by-product -- in ANY form or from ANY source -- period.

And the "supes" have no right to put this poison into our county's major water supply, let alone into our deliciate ecosystem, where it could leach into our private wells and cause potential contamination to our spawning fish and destruction to other life-forms which call the Laguna home as well.

Not to worry about this - rainwater falling on the hills to the west either runs off or sinks underground and then moves downhill INTO the Laguna, not the other way. Water does not flow uphill (unless money is involved).

[sebastacat]

Now that the original fluoride thread has been bifurcated and then trifurcated into at least three threads on the topic, I'm not sure where this post belongs, but I will post it here.

Today, while out shopping, I couldn't help but notice a big container seeking food donations for a children's charity. My interest was piqued, so I decided to walk over and check out the large, overflowing cylindrical bin.

To my amazement, the bin was chock full of so many chocalate bars and bags of mini Snickers that I found
it impossible to count them all. I just stood there with my mouth open thinking, Why would any person or establishment donate candy to a children's charify when it has been proven that consuming too much sugary candy contributes to an increase in cavities as well as tooth decay?

As adults, we should all be leading by example.

While I applaud what I am sure are good-faith donations by altruistic individuals, I believe that this is a classic example of how we, as a society, must be eternally vigilant in examining and re-examining our actions which may have a negative effect on not only our own dental health, but, in this case, the dental health of children as well.

Reducing the amount of sugar and candy that we consume is a laudable goal for all -- adults and children.

Hopefully, the charity that this copious amount of candy was donated to will distribute it to these children conservatively as treats, something which all children deserve every now and then, and something which the children who are served by this particular charity will, I'm sure, appreciate immensely.

And perhaps the adults running this charity can use this as a compassionate, instructive example about the dangers of consuming too much candy and surgar -- and the need for all of us to take at least some responsibility for one's own dental health.

And no amount of municipal water fluoridation by our county government is going to provide an acceptable substitute for that.

[Scott McKeown]

...but actually in this case water jurisdictions DO mean quite a bit.

Then I don't understand. How so? Scott, could you elaborate?

Yes I can. Barry made this point:

Not "All" restaurants, farmers, backyards, schools will be using fluoridated water. Only those establishmets that are using the county's water supply will be flouridated. The ones in cities that are not fluoridated, such as Sebastopol, will not be affected, nor will farmers and others that use well water.

sebastacat responded to Barry's point by saying:

But Barry, how will an unsuspecting consumer know WHERE the water is coming from? Just because an establishment is located within the city limits of a certain municipality does not mean that they do not purchase their water from the Sonoma County Water Agency nor that their water isn't fluoridated.

Then you also responded to Barry's point with:

Barry, I'm not trying to dogpile...would like to ask the bear if he knows which town he's in on any given day. The natural environment -- do boundaries of water delivery & jurisdiction mean much?

I was saying that Barry's point is correct. A restaurant located in the city of Sebatopol (the example he used) does not get its water delivered by the Sebastopol City Water System one day, then delivered by the County Water Agency the next, and by who knows on the next. Let's at least establish that restaurants in cities such as Sebastopol that do not fluoridate their water systems will not have fluoridated water. So yes, boundaries of water delivery and jurisdictions do matter in this discussion.

Scott

[Barry]

I was saying that Barry's point is correct. A restaurant located in the city of Sebatopol (the example he used) does not get its water delivered by the Sebastopol City Water System one day, then delivered by the County Water Agency the next, and by who knows on the next. Let's at least establish that restaurants in cities such as Sebastopol that do not fluoridate their water systems will not have fluoridated water. So yes, boundaries of water delivery and jurisdictions do matter in this discussion.

Thanks Scott!
Sebastacat (and echoed by Glia) had countered earlier:

However, were you here back in the REAL drought years of 1975-1977? Wells went dry all over this county at an alarming rate, and people had to have water trucked in from outside sources. It could happen again.....

Also, if a small municipality like Sebastopol had one of its wells go dry and had to make up the shortfall, they may have no choice but to purchase water from the county, since the "Sonoma County Water Agency" controls a huge amount of the salable water supply in this county.

In the context of this discussion, I would call that fear-mongering. I'm opposed to the county medicating the water, but let's not whip up fears beyond what's appropriate. If we were to experience a drought like we did 35+ years ago, and the county had proceed to fluoridate its water, there would be lots of attention paid to that fact, assuming anybody still cared.

For now, if you are in a city that does not use county's water supply, you can be assured the water is not fluoridated.

2. Our organic farmers will have no choice but to water their otherwise masterfully tended fruits and vegetables with toxic water.
3. Our local farmers will be forced to serve toxic water to all their cows, chickens, goats, ducks... that they are otherwise trying so hard to feed and raise in optimal conditions and producing our wonderful organic meat, cheese and eggs.

I'd be very suprised to learn that farmers are using the county's water supply rather than having their own well.

Fear-mongering is a really low tactic often used by the right wing to control the "sheeple". It really offends me when its employed in service of progressive goals.

[sebastacat]

You're making lots of assumptions, Barry.

I'd be very suprised to learn that farmers are using the county's water supply rather than having their own well.

The first one is that all organic food-producers have their own private well. Where did you get that information?
That, right there, is a major assumption. Until a formal poll is taken, we have no way of knowing WHAT the water source is which is utilized by ANY farmer in this county -- organic, inorganic, cattle, milk, chicken, etc.

I'm opposed to the county medicating the water, but let's not whip up fears beyond what's appropriate. If we were to experience a drought like we did 35+ years ago, and the county had proceed to fluoridate its water, there would be lots of attention paid to that fact, assuming anybody still cared.

The second assumption you make is when you added the words "assuming anybody still cared."
Were you here back in the mid-70s when we had the most hellacious drought in the history of this county?
Did you know someone whose well went dry and had to have water trucked in by the tanker full? Did you have the experience of witnessing gardens and fields all across this county dry up, become parched and turn ugly brown?
Did you witness cattle die?

I did. And so did lots of other people. And, yes, I still very much care -- and I'm sure that several others who lived through that trying time do as well.

In the context of this discussion, I would call that fear-mongering. ... Fear-mongering is a really low tactic often used by the right wing to control the "sheeple". It really offends me when its employed in service of progressive goals

This, my friend, is not fear-mongering, as you suggest, but a recitation of facts which have happened and which some of us are still alive to remember.

Fortunately, for me and my family, we were among the lucky ones whose well didn't go dry. And that's because, living at the west end of Sebastopol Road, we had a capped artesian well as our water source. However, seeing huge tanker-trucks going up and down the freeway and traversing county roads delivering water was a common sight during that drought. And let's not forget that we had far fewer people calling Sonoma County home back then. Since then, our population has grown exponentially.

As the saying goes, "Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it."

What started out as a well-intentioned post regarding possibly having to obtain water from a source which could potentially fluoridate its water has now turned into a thread about faucets and fear.

I believe that all of the posters -- including me -- who have presented scenarios and asked questions have done so out of genuine concern for not only their respective livelihoods, including organic farming, but also out of concern for their fellow citizens and their community as well. To label that as "right-wing fear-mongering"
is beyond the pale.

Gardenmaniac has posted that she has contacted CCOF so see how the fluoridation of water will impact organic certification, and all posters here who are involved in producing all those beautiful and delicious fruits and vegetables for their livelihood I'm sure are anxiously awaiting her reply.

And as Dr. Connett, who has a PhD. in environmental toxicology, said at his outstanding presentation last spring,
once fluoride is introduced into the water supply, it is going to be very hard to get it out. And I would add that that would include soil, the laguna, private wells, our pets -- and our bodies.

If you wish to use the ultra-right-wing punishment of tarring-and-feathering those of us who continue to speak out against this draconian proposal out of genuine concern simply because we are citing actual events from the past and possible scenarios which may present themselves in the future, I suppose that that is your prerogative.

But just remember, we do so out a genuine concern for our fellow citizens -- including you -- and for our community and county as a whole.

[dzerach]

Note: After writing this and before having posted it, I see that Sebastacat in the meanwhile posted at least one similar point, which I'm relieved to see. I'm posting this AS IS anyway b/c I tried to write carefully. Rewrites are time/labor-intensive as we all know.

Let's at least establish that restaurants in cities such as Sebastopol that do not fluoridate their water systems will not have fluoridated water. So yes, boundaries of water delivery and jurisdictions do matter in this discussion.

and

For now, if you are in a city that does not use county's water supply, you can be assured the water is not fluoridated.

It's a great discussion. I continue to disagree with the above assertions that the group clearly shares. Barry, it's your choice to post or not, but please reconsider whether or not the different ways this can be questioned is fear-mongering! What we need are facts, and the facts are involved. I propose taking a long-term view, not a short-term view. Gila relayed historical facts and made a wise point. In the West, the water situation is always volatile. This is even true in the Pacific NW. That's why management gets so complex and why people should not be making assumptions. (I don't hear Gila implying that people are welcome to feel powerless and afraid.)

I hope you can see why I disagree after reading this post and why it's impossible to lay down a rebuttal in just a few sentences.

But first, Scott, for clarity's sake, I myself was speaking of the surrounding natural environment -- not restaurants. As a basic element of life it's impossible to truly contain water. That's the general idea, highly simplified. But it gets much more specific.

In connection, I thought you, and of course others in dialogue, were asserting that SCWA fluoridation won't have an impact on the whole watershed, which includes Sebastopol. I'm asserting they do and will.

Barry, if you feel I'm fear-mongering instead of trying to shine light, or that people are going to just freak out, then dont post this. There's no reason to freak out. There's a ton of time to fight back. I would like to establish something conclusively b/c it's an important matter to see settled and unfortunately there is still a lot of room for disagreement. Sierra Club opposes water fluoridation out of an understanding of the WHOLE environmental impact. More importantly for our discussion: everyone relies on the same watershed, no? Are there not implications?

In the interim between others' possible responses to Scott, Barry and Geomancer, I've been trying to research the question. Even more specifically, it truly does NOT look like a Sebastopol well user would have to directly be using SCWA TO BE directly effected by it in the wells. The water situation in Sonoma County is VERY involved. It's a quietly hot, political topic sans fluoridation. It really does look like there is --as Geomancer metioned, "paid" (forced)-- direct physical intermingling between SCWA and Sebastopol's wells made possible? The info is difficult to follow &interpret if you're not an expert, which I'm clearly not. Maybe an experienced or well-connected person reading this would like to take on settling the question with expertise and evidence? I'll wait to post these links and maps that I found. I think the physical perimeter of direct influence is an aspect of this controversy to NOT leave unsettled on the wacco thread. We need facts to conclude. There are long-standing, comfortable assumptions and opinion at work here and I find it difficult to buy into it.

[peggykarp]

We all agree that fluoridating Sonoma County's public water supply is a terrible idea. Let's not waste our energy quibbling about how much or how little fluoridated water would be ingested by Sebastopudlians. We are fortunate we would not be as affected as other towns, but as responsible citizens we should still do what we can to support the efforts to stop it.

But IMHO, I do think the most effective arguments are usually the ones stated with the least drama.

[sebastacat]

I do not want to ingest ANY fluoridated water, period. No matter where I may chose to travel and alight in other parts of this county, I want to have the assurance at all times that I will not be medicated against my will.

No drama there; just stating a fact.

[lilypads]

The sugar industry has long been a big supporter of fluoridation. Fluoridation gives the public the false idea that kids can eat large amounts of candy and still not worry about cavities. As Andrew Young said in his letter to the Georgia legislature, "We have a cavity epidemic today in our innter cities that have been fluoridated for decades."

There is no good evidence that fluoridation actually reduces tooth decay. That's why prestigious Ph.D. dentists John Colquhoun in Auckland NZ and Hardy Limeback in Toronto CHANGED THEIR POSITIONS and went from being strong fluoridation supporters to fluoridation opponents. To read what they learned when they studied the data and why they changed their positions,, click here: https://www.facebook.com/CleanWaterSonomaMarin

Today, while out shopping, I couldn't help but notice a big container seeking food donations for a children's charity. My interest was piqued, so I decided to walk over and check out the large, overflowing cylindrical bin.

To my amazement, the bin was chock full of so many chocalate bars and bags of mini Snickers that I found
it impossible to count them all. I just stood there with my mouth open thinking, Why would any person or establishment donate candy to a children's charify when it has been proven that consuming too much sugary candy contributes to an increase in cavities as well as tooth decay?

As adults, we should all be leading by example.

While I applaud what I am sure are good-faith donations by altruistic individuals, I believe that this is a classic example of how we, as a society, must be eternally vigilant in examining and re-examining our actions which may have a negative effect on not only our own dental health, but, in this case, the dental health of children as well.

Reducing the amount of sugar and candy that we consume is a laudable goal for all -- adults and children.

Hopefully, the charity that this copious amount of candy was donated to will distribute it to these children conservatively as treats, something which all children deserve every now and then, and something which the children who are served by this particular charity will, I'm sure, appreciate immensely.

And perhaps the adults running this charity can use this as a compassionate, instructive example about the dangers of consuming too much candy and surgar -- and the need for all of us to take at least some responsibility for one's own dental health.

And no amount of municipal water fluoridation by our county government is going to provide an acceptable substitute for that.

[gardenmaniac]

I've emailed and voice mailed, but so far, no response from CCOF. I'll keep trying, and will be sure to post any reply I get.

I'm asking the vendors I know at other Farmers Markets for input/feedback. What about our local farmers: Laguna? First Light? New Family? Armstrong Woods? French Garden? Singing Frog? Ken Orchard? Anyone else? Are any of you following this thread? Is there anything you can add to this discussion?

You're making lots of assumptions, Barry.

The first one is that all organic food-producers have their own private well. Where did you get that information?

[PDines]

I think there's another dimension to add to this - all this fluoride is going to end up in the environment and I think potentially in all water supplies (individual wells, other water sources, etc.). i.e. it will potentially permeate our environment. This will happen when people water yards and gardens with this water. Plus, sewage treatment plants, even the new-fangled ones, don't remove the vast amount of fluoride from the water. I think the EPA stat was 99.9% leaves the sewage treatment plants. Our major treatment plant here is on Llano Road (very near to Sebastopol), and the treated effluent is put into the Laguna ecosystem.

Thus I think it's a fallacy for people to think there's going to be a neat dividing line between places that use SCWA treated water and places that don't. That's why I'm not emphasizing which towns this happens to. I don't think a map is useful. It makes it too easy for people to say "well, it doesn't apply to me" and not participate. Especially the West County people who are more willing to look beyond surface stories and see the facts. We need those folks taking action on this issue.

My message is that this is happening to our County's main water supply and will go into our shared environment. We (and the people we care about) drink water in many places, not just at home, but also at school, work, restaurants, parks, other people's homes, etc. Plus this risks getting into our locally made food and beverages, and harm our reputation as a healthy destination. Who wants to try to anticipate and avoid all those possible sources of exposure? I think those kind of big picture statements are what's key. I think getting too detailed on what towns use SCWA is less important for messaging. What's more important is for people to see past the ADA propaganda to the fact that this is harmful, not proven safe and effective, and a bad use of our community's efforts. Once people see that, then we can act to stop it.

That said, I think that your idea of a list of cities and municipalities who purchase their water from the S.C.W.A. would be very helpful to all of us. A map could then be created showing just how large an area we are talking about. It certainly would help us to understand the magnitude and scope of the issue which we are now confronting.

[PDines]

Thanks all for the passion and concern about this vital topic. And thanks Sebastacat for your kind words about my work. I blush! But really it's nice to see my efforts appreciated.

I am very passionate about us speaking out in ways that are factual, fair, empowering, and effective. I think those qualities help increase our success on any issue. I work hard to do that in my own writing, and I appreciate when folks also aim for those qualities, which I think many folks on this thread have.

Along those lines, I wanted to offer folks a few resources:

1) I've created a handy webpage summary of what I see as the key problems with CWF at www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html. This focuses on what I see as the key points for people to understand, stated factually without the fringe arguments, and including citations for each point. It also has links to taking action, including in Sonoma County. And it offers my proposals for fixing the process with the Board of Supervisors, which I feel is currently biased towards CWF. Read this to learn more, identify key points you might make, and get supporting citations. You can also forward the link to others.

2) I was thrilled to be asked to write an article in Pacific Health Magazine, which is a medical periodical in northern California. My article here is written with the medical/scientific person in mind, and works for a pretty mainstream audience. You could refer very mainstream folks to this page and/or use it as a handout. You can read the webpage and download the PDF of the article at: "Understanding Concerns About Community Water Fluoridation". The article refers readers to the webpage, which has citations for every key point.

3) I have various other key resources and actions on my Action page, https://www.healthyworld.org/StopSCFAction.html. This includes my email/online group, for connecting with other concerned folks; other local webpages, groups, and Facebook pages; helpful handouts for key points; a link for Supervisor email addresses; links to more info on the SCWA water contractors and a suggested action there; and a link to Paul Connett's book chapter responding to pro-fluoridation claims.

I hope this info is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions or thoughts about them!

Patricia :-)

[sebastacat]

Thank you for this great post, EcoGirl!

I will refer people to these excellent resources which you have offered. It will be very helpful to have so many to refer people to.

Thanks, too, for making it unmistakably clear that if this proposal is enacted, geographic lines will mean nothing.
Some people have tried to take comfort from the fact that the City of Sebastopol does not fluoridate its water supply, but that doesn't matter, as there are so many other ways that this terrible chemical will make its way into
our bodies, our Laguna -- and our lives.

Again, much gratitude!

[Scott McKeown]

There are many reasons people are opposing the proposal for mass fluoridating Sonoma County's water supply, and there is much conflicting information, and so it's a worthy exercise to unpack each issue separately and investigate deeper into the general claims that are made in order to get the most accurate information possible. I would like to again note Patricia Dine's excellent summary of the concerning issues on the link she created and posted previously: https://www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html

So a valid question has been raised (among many): If Sonoma County fluoridates its water, will it affect Fluoride levels in the water systems of nearby cities that do not fluoridate, and also private wells? (There is also the issue of the environment in general and I've posted the Sierra Club's policy statement about fluoridation below.)

As a non-expert I'm curious to find out more about this issue.

Taking Sebastopol as the example, according to the most recent City of Sebastopol Consumer Confidence report that I could find online, in June 2011 (the sample date) the Fluoride level in Sebastopol city water was .17 PPM. BTW, according to the same report, the MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) which is described as "the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water", is 2.0 PPM. The MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) is 1.0 PPM and is describes as, "the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)." (Note -- I am not endorsing this information, just noting that it's on the City of Sebastopol's Consumer Confidence report. And my understanding is that the proposed Fluoride level for county water would be .7 PPM, but I could be wrong about that.)

Also noted on the report is that the "typical source of contaminant" for Fluoride in water is "erosion of natural deposits, water additive that promotes strong teeth; discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories."

So one question on the table (again taking Sebastopol as an example): at the depths and sources from which the water is currently taken, would fluoridating Sonoma County's water system potentially (within a reasonable chance) increase the Fluoride level of the City of Sebastopol's water from its current level of .17 PPM to something greater? And by how much?

I'm hoping some local experts might weigh in about this.

Sierra Club statement below.

Scott

Sierra Club Conservation Policies

Policy on Fluoride in Drinking Water

The Sierra Club recommends lowering the maximum contaminant level of fluoride in drinking water from the present 4mg/L to a level shown not to harm aquatic ecosystems or human health. [National Research Council, Fluoride in Drinking Water: a Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, March 2006]

The Sierra Club understands the historic reason that fluoridation of public water supplies has been promoted and that it may have been historically justifiable (162 million people get fluoride added to their municipal water supply at the recommended level of 0.7-1.2 mg/L). There are now, however, valid concerns regarding the potential adverse impact of fluoridation on the environment, wildlife, and human health.

Therefore, the Sierra Club believes that communities should have the option to reject mandatory fluoridation of their water supplies.

To protect sensitive populations, and because safer strategies and methods for preventing tooth decay are now available, we recommend that these safer alternatives be made available and promoted. If fluoride is added to municipal water supplies, sodium fluoride rather than flourosilicate compounds should be used because the latter has a greater risk of being contaminated with such heavy metals as lead and arsenic.

Before a water supply is fluoridated, there should be a local assessment of the impact on affected aquatic ecosystems. This assessment should examine background fluoride levels and estimate what the levels will be after fluoridation. It should also assess the effect of this increased fluoride on downstream aquatic ecosystems.

Board of Directors, June 19, 2008

[lilypads]

I just finished reading the excellent book "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma," By George Waldbott, MD, published in 1978. It includes a table showing "Recommended Maximum Levels of Ions in Water Used for Drinking and Cooking, 1939." The maximum amount for fluoride is .1 ppm (that's one-tenth). At that time even the official USPHS regulations stated: "The presence of . . . fluoride in excess of .1 ppm . . . shall constitute ground for rejectsion of the water supply." (p. 302).

Within 12 years, WITHOUT ANY NEW EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT FLUORIDE WAS SAFER THAN HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DETERMINED, because of a PR job conducted primarily by the aluminum industry, as was explained in the first articles on this thread, fluoride was being added to pubic water supplies at 10 times this level and more. Reports of the illnesses caused by the fluoride were suppressed. Reports that non-fluoridated communities were seeing reductions of tooth decay at comparable or even greater rates than those of fluoridated communities were suppressed. Scientists who criticized fluoridation saw their grant monies disappear and suddenly found it impossible to get their work published in scientific journals.

There are several copies of this book available on Amazon for just pennies, plus postage--less than $5. If anyone really wants to know the history of this battle, up to 1978, I highly recommend buying a copy.

[Howard]

I do not want to ingest ANY fluoridated water, period. No matter where I may chose to travel and alight in other parts of this county, I want to have the assurance at all times that I will not be medicated against my will.

No drama there; just stating a fact.

I'm afraid you're SOL if you drink water from anywhere in the County without putting it through a carbon filter first. For instance, Sebastopol's water report shows a level of 0.13 ppm in our water. Same for Santa Rosa. I'd put my money on any well water in the County having similar concentrations. Better not drink the water or coffee or tea from any restaurant as I doubt they filter it for fluorides. No pasta boiled in water ....

Also, I've never seen a farmer in this County, organic or otherwise, use anything but well water. I've been on 100's of farms through my work and for pleasure and none use municipal water. Way too expensive. Barry gets an A+ for his assumption.

Howard

[sebastacat]

No, neither of you do. In fact, Sebastacat, being in a fairly good mood today, will forego giving you both the grade he feels you both deserve for your unfounded assumption and will opt instead to give you both an "I" -- for Incomplete.

My grandfather was a farmer, and back in the day when he had a herd of milk cows, yes, indeed, he did have his own well(s) which were used for supply water to the cattle and to irrigate the pastures.

But then in the 1970's, things changed, and -- voila -- the City of Santa Rosa as well as other municipalities started provided the farmers with TREATED WASTEWATER.

And as our very own EcoGirl informed us last night, 99.9 percent of fluoride does NOT get removed from the treatment process, but makes it back out into the environment.

Apparently, none of the "100s" of farms which you have visited was a dairy farm, or else you would not have made such an unfounded and erroneous statement. In fact, if those dairy farmers didn't get that treated wastewater, many of them would be out of business. I wonder what health hazards await their cows when they begin ingesting copious amounts of fluoride?

(If my grandfather were alive today, he would NOT be happy, and neither would my grandmother -- who, by the way, was against fluoridation of municipal water.)

The treated wastewater (which contains fluoride, probably from toothpaste, mouthwash, etc., and, soon, a copious amount of phosphate-fertilizer fluoride, if the supes have their way) which is used to irrigate and produce that nice, lush green pasture where all those cows graze is ingested by those same cows and makes its way into the human food chain.

Next time you have a glass of milk or eat that juicy steak, you just might be getting more fluoride than you think.

As for our wells, I agree that there is some NATURALLY OCCURRING fluoride present in just about all water, and, as Supervisor Gorin and others over in the Sonoma area correctly pointed out, water in that area contains MUCH MORE fluoride than water in other parts of the county.

So why, then, put the public's health at risk by adding more? And how will you control the dose?

Answers to the above test questions: A. You shouldn't. B. You won't.

And in the case of the water over in the Sonoma Valley area, it may actually be beneficial to REMOVE some of the fluoride to bring the levels down, but our "supes" want to waste our money and spend millions to bring the level up! All of this at a time when countries such as China, Africa, India (whose water contains VERY HIGH levels of naturally occurring fluoride) as well as parts of Mexico, are spending millions to try to get it out!

Sebastacat is shaking his head in utter disbelief. Go figure.

I say to the supes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Hillary said, "It takes a village."

I say, "It takes a politician -- to screw it up."

[PDines]

Well, as I said, I think it's a bit of a rabbit hole to try to trace every way that we could get exposed to fluoridation of our water supply. But since this has become a thread here, I want to provide information that treated wastewater is regularly put onto farms, vineyards, playgrounds, etc. in Sonoma County. Including in Healdsburg which already fluoridates its water. Since fluoridation is apparently not removed by sewage treatment plants (as well as most pharms BTW), this will go wherever the water goes. Here are some citations and details for that. The cumulative exposure from a wide range of sources can easily put us over "safe" limits, and I think it's ultimately impossible to track once its released. The best way to avoid exposure is to not put it into the water in the first place.

(1) LINK #1
https://www.watchsonomacounty.com/20...ate-vineyards/

Healdsburg approves plan to use wastewater to irrigate vineyards

"The City Council on Monday unanimously approved a project to irrigate more than 300 acres of vineyards with highly treated wastewater from Healdsburg’s new state-of-the-art treatment plant."

… "Reclaimed water has been used for years on wine grapes and other crops in parts of Sonoma County that include the prestigious Carneros region, according to Jim Flugum, Healdsburg’s assistant public works director.

"“It’s not new. It’s just new in the northern part of the county,” he said.
…
"Highly treated wastewater produced in Sonoma Valley irrigates vineyards, pastures, golf courses and playgrounds. It also is used to restore a saltwater marsh.

"Santa Rosa’s regional wastewater system uses more than one billion gallons of highly treated wastewater to irrigate more than 6,000 acres of farmland and vineyards."

Matt Wells adds
"SRJCs Shone Farm uses Windsor waste water on their vineyards with no problem at all."


(2) MORE ON THIS AT THESE TWO LINKS
https://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repos...5p37-63276.pdf

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...g=5455,1666007

---

Thanks for the info about Sebastopol's water report showing a .13 ppm level. Do you have a link for that? I think that means we're a candidate for removing not adding fluoride. That would be key information to bring into this conversation. My understanding is actually that it does vary quite a bit in the county, so we'd need the info for each area.

I would also add that, while total exposure does matter, there is a difference between natural fluorides and the fluoridation product that would be used, which also has toxic materials in it. Whatever the natural fluoride level is, I wouldn't want to add the industrial byproduct toxic version.

I'm afraid you're SOL if you drink water from anywhere in the County without putting it through a carbon filter first. For instance, Sebastopol's water report shows a level of 0.13 ppm in our water. Same for Santa Rosa. I'd put my money on any well water in the County having similar concentrations. Better not drink the water or coffee or tea from any restaurant as I doubt they filter it for fluorides. No pasta boiled in water ....

Also, I've never seen a farmer in this County, organic or otherwise, use anything but well water. I've been on 100's of farms through my work and for pleasure and none use municipal water. Way too expensive. Barry gets an A+ for his assumption.

Howard

[Howard]

Thanks for the info about Sebastopol's water report showing a .13 ppm level. Do you have a link for that? I think that means we're a candidate for removing not adding fluoride. That would be key information to bring into this conversation. My understanding is actually that it does vary quite a bit in the county, so we'd need the info for each area.

I would also add that, while total exposure does matter, there is a difference between natural fluorides and the fluoridation product that would be used, which also has toxic materials in it. Whatever the natural fluoride level is, I wouldn't want to add the industrial byproduct toxic version.

Sorry, I saved the hard copy Sebastopol report from a couple of years ago. Your welcome to come over and look at my file or call public works. The Santa Rosa link is: https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/D...ort_Online.pdf

I would also disagree with your last paragraph. There's no difference between the fluoride in one compound versus another. Fluoride is the negative ion of the element fluorine. It's added to the water via a distillation-like process and contains nothing more than whatever is bonded to the fluoride ion in the gas. Sometimes its hydrogen and sometimes its silicon. The compound that was used to derive the gas is left in the tank, so to speak. The industrial byproduct toxic version you talk about doesn't come close to the water we drink. Natural fluoride, elementally speaking, is no different from the fluoride in the phosphorite rock that most U.S. systems use. This is basic chemistry and you do a disservice to your cause by not understanding it.

[lilypads]

A carbon filter will not remove fluoride. The only type that will remove it is reverse osmosis, which is expensive and wastes a lot of water. Avoiding black tea is a good idea regardless of the fluoride content of the water used, since black tea itself contains a lot of fluoride. Green tea contains less.

I'm afraid you're SOL if you drink water from anywhere in the County without putting it through a carbon filter first.

[sebastacat]

"Teacher, teacher, can you teach me. Can you tell me what I need to know?" -- .38 Special

Apparently, some of us still need a bit of teaching -- or at least have some serious catching up to do.

Thank you, LilyPads, for bringing us into the 21 century on the ineffectiveness of carbon filtration.

Thanks, too, to Ms. Dines (once again) for helping us to understand the dangers of what can happen when too much fluoride is added to a municipal water supply or private well which already contains too much.

Look at what happened in countries such as China, Africa, India and parts of Mexico when they added too much: The result was decreased IQs and a much higher incidence of dental fluorosis.

Also, the fluoride which will be procured comes from the phosphate-fertilizer industry, and it is been proven to contain, as Ms. Dines has correctly stated, toxic substances -- such as arsenic, lead, etc. Why take the chance of adding this poison to our drinking-water supply?

I recently had the opportunity to review a comprehensive Canadian study done in 2010 which stressed OVER AND OVER AND OVER again that the amount of fluoride which is currently present in a water supply MUST be taken into consideration before a municipal government adds fluoride to its drinking water.

Question for Howard: Are you FOR or AGAINST fluoridation of our Sonoma County Water supply?
Please, tell us where you really stand.