Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride [Archive]

sandoak

05-17-2013, 04:49 PM

Thanks for posting this.
Among the chilling items in the linked article, I was particularly chilled by this:
"The National Fluoridation Information Service of the Division of Dental Health of the US Public Health Service, an intelligence-gathering setup operating out of the PHS-controlled National Institutes of Health, was formally established to monitor and create databases on fluoridation critics in the medical professions. Fluoride heretics were subject to flailing in the press or outright expulsion from their professional organizations."

https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/131568.jpgWhile our county is dealing with administrators who want to dump fluoride in our water, it's nice to know that Project Censored's Media Freedom International is doing their work to investigate what the real background is around this issue.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31568
(https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31568)
While a recent New York Times editorial cites the Center for Disease Control’s claim that fluoridation is one of the top accomplishments in public health over the past century, [1] James Tracy reports that fluoridating the nation’s water supply appears to have been a carefully coordinated plan designed to shield major aluminum and steel producers from liabilities for the substantial fluorine pollution their plants generated. Thus American industrial interests, supported by public relations firms, have been the chief forces behind water fluoridation.

Tracy describes the fluoridation campaign as “a textbook case of social engineering,” and shows how it demonstrates the “tremendous capacity of powerful interests to reshape the social environment, thereby prompting individuals to unwarily think and act in ways that are often harmful to themselves and their loved ones.”
Source: James F. Tracy, “Poison is Treatment: The Campaign to Fluoridate America,” Global Research, June 23, 2012,

sebastacat

05-18-2013, 03:05 PM

And these five people want to do this to OUR water supply?

Pardon me, but I thought that they were elected to protect us from things that could endanger us.

How could this be?

But, wait, I thought that this was "progressive" Sonoma County.......

lilypads

06-01-2013, 09:23 PM

A History of Fluoridation Promotion<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
By Marlene Lily<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p> “The days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. To undermine<o:p></o:p>
scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy.”—President Obama,<o:p></o:p>
speaking to the National Academy of Sciences in 2009.<o:p></o:p>
_____________________________________________________________<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p> <o:p></o:p>
Fluoridation promotion came to be at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) via several bureacratic reorganizations.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The original government entity that did the research on naturally fluoridated communities was the US Public Health Service (PHS). In 1948, the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) was created, as one of the National Institutes of Health. It has since been renamed the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
USPHS and the NIDR had to "prove" that fluoridation was safe and effective, after the surgeon general endorsed it prematurely in 1950, under extreme political pressure from fanatic promotional dentists in several states. (Dentists now make more money in fluoridated communities, in part because of widespread fluoride-caused dental fluorosis.) <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
In addition to doing sloppy, biased research, NIDR housed a "political" office for promoting fluoridation, essentially a PR firm that was a resource for proponents around the country, disseminating propaganda and attacking fluoridation opponents. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
One of its major functions was keeping files on opponents--files full of information that could be used to discredit and dismiss individual opponents. Thus, the most slanderous, negative comments from fluoridation proponents who had had trouble with Dr. George Waldbott or Dr. Albert Burgstahler (early fluoridation opponents), or hundreds of others who questioned fluoridation, were collected at NIDR, unchecked for accuracy or fairness, and handed out on request to fluoridation proponents who encountered specific opponents in local campaigns. To state it simply, part of the function of this office of NIDR was to smear opponents--anything to win for fluoridation.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The political/PR function at NIDR was mostly the work of one man, John S. Small. He was a professional PR guy. When I worked on a very small California newspaper in the 1960s, one of my colleagues, I’ll call him Joe, was writing articles about fluoridation. Someone sent them to John Small, and he called Joe up one night at home, long distance from Washington. Big Brother was watching Joe! <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Small asked Joe all kinds of questions--why was he doing these stories, who was he working with, what was his agenda. Joe says he tried to be evasive and to find out more about who Small was and why he was interested in someone writing for a paper with a circulation of 3,000. (There were no efforts to fluoridate any local communities going on at that time.) That was Joe’s first encounter with NIDR's fluoridation promotion function--which was nasty and political, not scientific. Joe did not think this was an appropriate function of a government agency whose job it was to fund and conduct unbiased scientific research.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
After Joe got his Ph.D and did a post-doc, he moved to Washington, to work at the National Academy of Sciences. Shortly after that, he got a call from John Small, who was apparently still tracking him as a fluoridation opponent. Small wanted to know what kind of threat Joe posed. Joe invited him to lunch, and Small accepted. In Joe’s words, “I looked him in the eye and asked him if he was going to try to destroy my career because he thought I was out to kill fluoridation.” Joe assured him that he had moved on to other issues (it was true) and that Small need not worry about him. He ignored Joe after that.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
A few years later, maybe around 1978, Small invited Joe to lunch. When Joe sat down, Small handed him an expandable file folder, about six inches thick. He told Joe he was cleaning out his office and had a present for him. It was the NIDR file on Joe. It included everything Joe had ever written about fluoride, even college papers (Joe studied biology). <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The file included a couple of very nasty letters written in the 70s by a now-old man—bent over from possible fluoride-caused osteoporosis--who spoke at the Feb. 26, 2013, meeting of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. These letters told how this new and dangerous anti-fluoridationist (Joe) had emerged in California, and someone needed to put a stop to him. Small apparently never read the First Amendment to the Constitution. Congress, which the First Amendment says, “shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” funds the CDC and pays the “Big Brothers” who smear anti-fluoridationists, and try to shut them up. It’s taxpayers’ money being used to tell us lies so we accept being poisoned by fluoride.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
After his meeting with Small, Joe went to see Ralph Nader. Nader had opposed fluoridation starting in about 1970. Joe supplied him with “tons of material.” In his standard speech, for years, Nader questioned fluoridation and asked pointedly whether the audience thought it was OK for the government to keep files on citizens who--gasp!--disagreed with the government's view that fluoridation was wonderful. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
At some point, at least some of the function of promoting fluoridation moved from the NIDR in Washington to Atlanta, to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The websites of the NIDCR and the CDC are linked today, and the bromides about fluorides are still being promulgated at taxpayers’ expense, even though they ignore research and even though President Obama has proclaimed that the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. “The Story of Fluoride,” even now on the NIDCR’s website, is pure PR, and in my opinion has no place on the site of an agency that ostensibly represents science. It’s an example of how well public relations works. Though John Small retired in 1995, the CDC still has an office staffed with people whose job is promoting fluoridation, and the NIDCR is also doing its share.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
They may have dentists on staff, but their function is pretty much what John Small was doing at NIDR: to act as a resource for proponents, nationwide; to disseminate propaganda that touts the benefits and safety of fluoridation; to disseminate negative information about fluoridation opponents, many of them distinguished scientists, to help local pro-fluoridationists win campaigns, and to keep the positive propaganda flowing to Congress and the White House, to keep telling the lie that fluoridation is "one of the ten greatest public health advances of all time," to help shield fluoridation from political attacks. They are not scientists, they are not doing any research, they're just doing their job, which is to promote fluoridation.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
As David Kennedy, DDS, says, in the movie “Fluoridegate,” “It's not a conspiracy, it's a policy,” and these people have been hired to implement the policy. Should the bureaucrats finally be forced to admit fluoridation has been a terrible mistake, they would lose face and perhaps face lawsuits. But that is not a good reason why our water should continue to be poisoned or why we as taxpayers should be funding a PR agency for a toxic waste product that would be expensive to dispose of if it couldn’t be dumped in the nation’s water supply.

<o:p> </o:p>
<TT><o:p></o:p></TT>
<o:p> </o:p>

sebastacat

06-01-2013, 10:26 PM

WOW!!!Thanks so much, Lilypads, for posting one of the finest posts I have ever read since I have been a member of this forum. This should be required reading for the "supes," who "claim" they are doing the right thing by proposing to add this poison to our precious water supply.Keep writing and speaking out.

Last week, I talked to a few more citizens of our county and told them of the dangers of this poison, giving them references, the dangerous health effects associated with forced fluoridation and even some scientific data. They were not happy to hear that this is being proposed, and by the time I got done talking with them, they were totally against it.

Oh, yes, and before I forget, I informed them of the FACT that while Kentucky is the most fluoridated state in the union, they have one of the highest rates of dental disease in the nation -- a fact that our "supes" continue to conveniently ignore! In fact, it is often referred to by doctors and health officials as Kentucky's worst health crisis. Don't belive it? Google it in and see for yourself. It is classic concrete evidence that fluoridating drinking water will not prevent dental disease. Only regular dental checkups and taking responsibility for one's own dental health will.Again, bushels of gratitude!!

lilypads

06-02-2013, 09:54 PM

Lynn Chalfin, Sonoma County' Public Health Officer, wrote an article for the June issue of Sonoma Seniors Today in which she claims fluoride is a necessary nutrient: "Like Vitamin A, salt, or many other things, getting none of it is bad for you. . . ." This is NOT TRUE, and this debate was held among top scientists some 15 years ago, as is detailed HERE: https://www.fluoridation.com/fraud.htm Fluoride, like lead and cadmium, is a highly toxic mineral, which accumulates in bone. A doctor who is uninterested in science should not be in charge of the public's health!

Chalfin's whole article can be seen here: https://councilonaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/SST2013-06-Web.pdf Scroll down to page 4.

lilypads

06-02-2013, 10:03 PM

I know it's short notice, but there's a meeting tomorrow morning (Monday, June 3) at 9 am at the Sonoma County Water Agency, 35 Stony Point Rd. Lynn Chalfin will give a report on her fluoridation efforts, and there will be an opportunity for public comment.

Dr. Chalfin's report is scheduled first.
...
This is a public meeting.

Location:
Utilities Field Operations Training Center
35 Stony Point Road
Santa Rosa, CA

It is important to have a good turnout. Please share this message with
everyone who might be interested.

Also important:
In the public comment period AFTER the fluoridation discussion, if answers
haven't yet been given, Dr. Silver-Chalfin should be asked:

1. When will the final engineering feasibility study be complete?

2. When will water fluoridation be coming before the Board of Supervisors
for a vote?

If she waffles, those questions should be repeated by others until the
questions are answered.
______________________
(https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=386473594805789&set=a.385472704905878.1073741826.385465388239943&type=1&relevant_count=1)

sebastacat

06-02-2013, 11:06 PM

Thanks, Lilypads, for the reference to Dr. Silver-Chaflin's article.

So now she's making the fallacious statement that fluoride is a NUTRIENT? And, like Vitamin A, getting none is BAD for you?

I am in a state of shock. I simply cannot believe this.

This woman is a physician who was hired by our "supes" to implement this program and she's calling fluoride a NUTRIENT?

No, Dr. Silver-Chaflin. I will respectfully inform you that fluoride is a by-product of the phosphate-fertilizer industry and contains the heavy metals lead and arsenic, among others too numerous to mention.

Let us not forget that this is the SAME Dr. Silver-Chaflin who, when asked by Dr. Paul Connett, internationally recognized expert on fluoride and its dangerous effects on the human body, could not answer Dr. Connett's question, to wit: So, Dr. Silver-Chaflin, what is the MODE OF ACTION of fluoride?

Yes, silence can indeed be deafening.

I am calling on our supes to pay close attention to this. The foregoing question is so basic that any physician should be able to answer it without hesitation. And certainly, any physician who cannot answer a question so basic should not be placed in charge of placing a poison in our precious Sonoma County Water supply whose deleterious health effects to both young and old are not only well documented, but many of which are supported by scientific evidence derived from numerous studies conducted over the course of several years.

Note to our supes: Please, do yourselves and the residents of this county a real favor and abandon this misguided proposal once and for all. It does not have widespread public support, is not supported by concrete scientific evidence and will only continue to turn into an even worse public-relations nightmare than it already has.

And that doesn't even begin to take into account how anti-progressive water fluoridation will be perceived by others in the U.S. and indeed around the world who look to Sonoma County as a bastian of progressive thought and ideas.

dzerach

06-03-2013, 03:56 PM

Like infants, seniors are a sensitive population. Exactly how much would she like to see in the water for it to become "nutritious"?

Dr. Silver Chaflin (I underlined a few words): "Your body needs a little bit to maintain optimal health...Fluoride is already naturally present in our water, and water fluoridation simply adjusts the level slightly. "

Authorities have to first test the drinking water to know the current (fluctuating) fluoride levels before forcibly adding fluoride themselves (and constantly monitor once added).

"...and water fluoridation simply adjusts the level slightly. " Is this suppose to be a persuasive phrase instead of slimy-speak? She sounds like a used car salesman. It really is infuriating.

Thanks, Lilypads, for the reference to Dr. Silver-Chaflin's article.

So now she's making the fallacious statement that fluoride is a NUTRIENT? And, like Vitamin A, getting none is BAD for you?

This woman is a physician who was hired by our "supes" to implement this program and she's calling fluoride a NUTRIENT?

theindependenteye

06-03-2013, 05:37 PM

Fascinating to follow this issue. When I was a kid, fluoridation was just coming in, and as I recall, it was vehemently opposed by the Right as a Communist plot against the health of America, while enlightened, science-savvy liberals were all for it. Now things shift. Science is implacable, but our capacity to twist and tiddle science toward our own biases is infinite. The more information that can be garnered from the Web, the more baffling it is.

My own inclination would be to vote against it, if anybody asked me to vote. But I start to cringe at the rhetoric that it's some plot by International Dentistry to grow scabies on our teeth or by mining interests to cover up their sins. Let's look at the scientific references and be confused by those, not by hypotheses of malodorous intent. On rare occasions, people actually do things because they think they're good.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

sebastacat

06-03-2013, 06:26 PM

It just keeps getting better all the time!

Dr. Silver-Chaflin: I challenge you to show the people of Sonoma County one study -- just ONE STUDY --
that says that the human body NEEDS FLUORIDE.

I eagerly await your reply.

Glia

06-03-2013, 06:27 PM

Alas, this is *not* one of those rare occasions where people are doing something because they think it is good.

Shirlee Zane is doing this because she thinks it will bolster her run for state senate. (the only place Shirlee should be going is back to running a non-profit. She has gone cuckoo and her judgement has gone to hell in a handbasket.) Silver-Chalfin is also doing this to buff up her resume and as an ass-covering move for the "public health" crowd -- which has clearly outlived its usefulness, BTW.

Legitimate, properly-done studies are making it clear that ingesting fluoride has no effect on reducing dental cavities. It is also clear that ingesting fluoride causes a variety of developmental and physiological problems and abnormalities. Using fluoride as a topical application on teeth already erupted through the gum line does reduce the incidence of cavities on non-molar teeth by a small, but statistically significant, quantity.

Let's look at the scientific references and be confused by those, not by hypotheses of malodorous intent. On rare occasions, people actually do things because they think they're good.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

dzerach

06-03-2013, 07:16 PM

I haven't read every single post, but have yet to find anyone on waccobb ascribing evil intent. Her rhetoric is manipulative. It should instead be persuasive. Discovery-based. This sample, in context, made my skin crawl. "...and water fluoridation simply adjusts the level slightly. " Considering her target audience for that article, I think it's reprehensible.

.... I start to cringe at the rhetoric that it's some plot by International Dentistry to grow scabies on our teeth or by mining interests to cover up their sins. Let's look at the scientific references and be confused by those, not by hypotheses of malodorous intent. On rare occasions, people actually do things because they think they're good.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

Glia

06-03-2013, 08:16 PM

So this inaccurate blatant propaganda was distributed in a magazine published by the Council on Aging, where current 3rd District supe Shirlee Zane was the CEO before she ran for supervisor? What are the odds that this is mere coincidence?

Lynn Chalfin, Sonoma County' Public Health Officer, wrote an article for the June issue of Sonoma Seniors Today in which she claims fluoride is a necessary nutrient: "Like Vitamin A, salt, or many other things, getting none of it is bad for you. . . ." This is NOT TRUE, and this debate was held among top scientists some 15 years ago, as is detailed HERE: https://www.fluoridation.com/fraud.htm Fluoride, like lead and cadmium, is a highly toxic mineral, which accumulates in bone. A doctor who is uninterested in science should not be in charge of the public's health!

Chalfin's whole article can be seen here: https://councilonaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/SST2013-06-Web.pdf Scroll down to page 4.

lilypads

06-03-2013, 10:03 PM

So this inaccurate blatant propaganda was distributed in a magazine published by the Council on Aging, where current 3rd District supe Shirlee Zane was the CEO before she ran for supervisor? What are the odds that this is mere coincidence?

Actually, a couple months ago, I contacted the editor of Sonoma Seniors Today, and offered to write an article about fluoridation. The editor said she would have to present both the "pro" and "con" sides. I contacted the County Health Services Department and they gave the job of writing up the "pro" position to one of Chalfin's underlings. I was the one who initiated this debate.

I wrote my "anti" piece without ever seeing the "pro" article, and was surprised to see that it had Chalfin's name on it. I think the fact that this is in the Council on Aging's newspaper is excellent, if it gets people questioning the party line on fluoridation. Anyone who reads my article and goes to the Internet will find a huge amount of info just by Googling the names of the people I quoted. SST readers can also get an education by watching the movie "Fluoridegate."

Shirlee Zane is a strong supporter of fluoridation as a "social justice issue," and I addressed that in my piece also. I doubt she had any input into this process.

lilypads

06-03-2013, 10:09 PM

I'd like to know more about her "current thoughts" on the fluoride procurement source: How / What kind / From Where / From Whom (&why?). Bids?

This question was asked today, and Chalfin dodged it. She was also asked what type of fluoride would be used, and she answered by saying that any type of fluoride ionizes in water, so it basically doesn't matter.

She was asked where the fluoride comes from, and she said it comes from "crushed rock." The is another lie, because it is actually the smokestack scrapings from the fertilizer industry, which may make ITS product from crushed rock.

lilypads

06-03-2013, 10:15 PM

So this inaccurate blatant propaganda was distributed in a magazine published by the Council on Aging, where current 3rd District supe Shirlee Zane was the CEO before she ran for supervisor? What are the odds that this is mere coincidence?

Chalfin gave a (5th-grade level) Power Point presentation to the TAC today, which included the claim that fluoride is, like Vitamina A and salt, a necessary nutrient. I challenged that statement at the meeting, and said that there had been a letter signed by 15 of the nations top scientists available since 1998, which says that fluoride is NOT an essential nutrient. I'm hoping the members of the TAC make the effort to look for that letter. I did a Google search "Is fluoride a necessary nutrient?" and it popped right up at the top of the results list. Here it is if you haven't seen it: https://www.fluoridation.com/fraud.htm

lilypads

06-03-2013, 10:20 PM

sebastacat

06-04-2013, 12:16 AM

dzerach:

I agree with you. To my knowledge, there has not been any abscription of evil intent to anyone.
If there had been, perhaps it would have alleviated some of the frustration felt by many of the
anti-fluoridationists, for then we would have been able to better understand just exactly what is
driving the "supes" to go forward with such an anti-progressive and outdated policy.
As things stand now, we are left wondering why they remain so hell-bent and unwavering on carrying out this
rather scary proposal.

However, in Sebastacat's opinion, personal political aspirations are being put ahead of the greater public good.

The proposal to fluoridate our county's precious water supply runs counter to our progressive ideas and values.
In fact, when you stop and consider the numerous accompanying dangers which are associated with public water fluoridation, it's downright REgressive!

Sonoma County has long been known as a bastion of progressive ideas, politics and thought. But if this unpopular, unprogressive proposal is passed and implemented by our elected officials, that reputation will surely suffer.

I submit that accepting unsubstantiated junk-science over professionally conducted studies and proven scientific facts is doing a major disservice to the residents of this county. And to spend taxpayer money studying the subject of injecting this chemical into our water supply in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

Accordingly, I offer the following for your consideration:

1. It is not progressive that our county elected officials are even considering adding a chemical (not a "nutrient")
to our precious water supply whose dangerous side effects include -- but are not limited to -- increased dental fluorosis, increased susceptibility to fractures in both the young and old, decreased kidney function, interference with treatment by those undergoing dialysis, deposition of toxic substances in bones, decreased I.Q., to name but a few.

2. It is not progressive that the supes have hired as their chief health officer someone who has resorted to tactics of deception by referring to fluoride as a "nutrient" when no scientific studies or data exist to support
such an outlandish and unfounded statement. And to add insult to injury, this same chief health officer wrote an article which was published in a publication read by numerous senior citizens in which she states that all water contains fluoride and that adding it will just bring it up to the proper levels! And she conveniently leaves out the dangers to the elderly which can be caused by fluoride.

3. It is not progressive that the supes and this same chief health officer have closed their eyes and plugged their ears when the anti-fluoridationists have, on several occasions, attempted to provide them with numerous detailed scientific studies which took years to conduct as well as concrete evidence regarding the dangers of fluoride, only to be summarily rebuffed.

4. And it is not even remotely progressive to propose to mass-medicate thousands of people without their knowledge and consent with an unregulated, uncontrolled dose of a substance containing heavy-metals which is a by-product of the phosphate-fertilizer industry called fluoride!

Putting one's own personal political aspirations ahead of the common good is no way to run a county.
Sensitive decisions regarding the public's health must be made free of contaminating politics.

So far, from what Sebastacat has observed, that isn't what's happening.

And until it does, you can expect the anti-fluoridation battle to rage on -- and on.

lilypads

06-04-2013, 07:43 AM

Excellent statement. I hope you will carry your we;ll articulated position to any groups you belong to, so that we can develop a groundswell of opposition before it's too late.

dzerach:

I agree with you. To my knowledge, there has not been any abscription of evil intent to anyone.
If there had been, perhaps it would have alleviated some of the frustration felt by many of the
anti-fluoridationists, for then we would have been able to better understand just exactly what is
driving the "supes" to go forward with such an anti-progressive and outdated policy.
As things stand now, we are left wondering why they remain so hell-bent and unwavering on carrying out this
rather scary proposal.

However, in Sebastacat's opinion, ....

Glia

06-04-2013, 12:27 PM

Glia concurs 100% with Sebastacat.

dzerach:

I agree with you. To my knowledge, there has not been any abscription of evil intent to anyone.
If there had been, perhaps it would have alleviated some of the frustration felt by many of the
anti-fluoridationists, for then we would have been able to better understand just exactly what is
driving the "supes" to go forward with such an anti-progressive and outdated policy.
As things stand now, we are left wondering why they remain so hell-bent and unwavering on carrying out this rather scary proposal.

However, in Sebastacat's opinion, personal political aspirations are being put ahead of the greater public good. ...

Alex

06-05-2013, 09:49 PM

The whole excuse is to abate 'tooth decay in underprivileged children"?

It occurred to me that wherever you stand on the fluoride issue, even if just slightly concerned but thinking a little won't hurt or that it won't matter as much to people living in non-county-water areas like Sebastopol think again.

If the Sonoma Water Agency adds this toxic waste by-product to most of our backyard metro water supply, consider that it doesn't just get delivered to a kid's mouth in his house:

1. ALL the restaurants will be preparing food with, washing dishes in and serving you water with this toxin.
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.
4. These toxins will build and build in our soils from the massive amount of water used in our backyard agriculture.
5. ALL schools will only be able to provide toxic water to drink.
6. <... everything else I missed.....>

..... and it won't do a damn thing to stop the main cause of underprivileged child tooth decay which is the soda, chips, candy - citric acid, fructose and chemicals their parent gives them right after brushing their teeth..... the ingredients in nearly every product off the shelf in Safeway or any big-box/GMO/corporate grocery store.

More than anything, the bigger and local agendas behind fluoride is scary both that it's still being proposed, and that it means the truth in plain sight is still being ignored or dismissed by many.

sebastacat

06-06-2013, 12:36 AM

Alexia: Thanks for your enlightening and informational post.

What I gleaned from it was that you truly understand the ramifications that enacting this proposal will have on not only the residents of this county and beyond who are current users/consumers of water supplied by the Sonoma County Wager Agency (a.k.a. "supes"), but the dangers that fluoridating water could pose to potential users who may have no choice in the matter and those who think that they are invulerable to such a practice simply because the town or municipality in which they happen to reside does not currently fluoridate its water.

As I stated in one of my previous posts, should said town or municipality decide to purchase water from the
Sonoma County Water Agency in the future due to drought, undersupply, contamination or a supply well going dry, just to enumerate but a few reasons, they will most certainly be subjected to fluoridation -- perhaps unknowingly.

It has been stated that Sebastopol does not currently fluoridate its water supply and has no plans to do so in the future. And I know that the Sebastopol City Council has no plans to enter the anti-fluoridation foray at this time.

However, I truly believe that the majority of the Sebastopol City Council as well as a majority of Sebastopol residents are concerned about this serious issue and do not want fluoride to make its way into the municipal water supply -- ever.

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 every month which outlined the dangerous effects associated with water fluoridation. The same article appeared in the April issue, I believe, of the Sonoma County Gazette and is still probably available on that paper's Web site. I urge everyone to take the time to read it.

Since that time, Patricia has been asked to write several articles on this sensitive health issue, most recently, for a national publication.

There were a few negative naysayers in the community who tried to "make hay" out of Ms. Dines "Ask EcoGirl" column in which she discusses this issue -- only to have it blow up as egg on their faces.

Ms. Dines then wrote an outstanding post on this forum refuting the numerous fallacious misstatements of facts and unwarranted criticisms which were freely lobbed at her by these same individuals. And in my opinion, in doing so, she went from being "EcoGirl" to being "EcoHero." Thank you once again, Ms. Dines.

My point is that we need to follow her example and continue to speak out against the proposal to fluoridate our precious Sonoma County water supply. And we must take her advice and cite solid evidence backed by scientific studies conducted over the course of several years, and not offer up mere falsehoods, which may sound good, or engage in finger-waving and fear-mongering, which is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Let's tell them about Dr. Connett and his credentials, for starters, citing those who are really interested to the video posted here on WACCOBB of his outstanding presentation in Santa Rosa at the Glacer Center back in March of this year.

Let's tell them the real truth: that fluoride is NOT a "necessary nutrient," as Sonoma County's chief health officer said last week, but, rather, a by-product of the phosphate-fertilizer industry which contains lead, arsenic and other heavy metals which are harmful to the human body.

Let's tell them that once fluoride is introduced into the municipal water supply, it will be absorbed through your skin each and every time you shower or bathe -- whether or not you chose to use it to bruth your teeth!

Let's remind them that fluoride is very hard on kidney function and can impair the progress being made by those undergoing kidney dialysis.

Let's tell them about the Harvard University study which links fluoridation to decreased I.Q.s.

Let's tell them that most countries in the world -- including nearly all of Europe -- do NOT fluoridate their water supplies.

Let's tell them that once fluoride is introduced into the water supply, there will be NO WAY to regulate the dose which one ingests. It will be a classic case of being medicated against your will -- which is something for which a practicing physician could lose his license to practice medicine.

Let's tell them that this substance which our supes want to use to IMPROVE our dental health can actually harm teeth by causing a condition known as dental fluorosis, a disease which strips the enamel right off of one's teeth.

But, wait. I thought that drinking fluoridated water was supposed to IMPROVE one's dental health.

Finally, let's tell them that that's the biggest fallacy of all.

lilypads

06-06-2013, 09:05 AM

Great post!

A longtime friend of mine who has been concerned with fluoridation for more than 40 years says that the most effective argument is "forced medication" and the fact that there is no dosage control. Babies are especially at risk for this reason.

The other thing he says is that it's critical to fight fluoridation LOCALLY, since the pro-fluoride forces are doing everything possible to regionalize their efforts to fluoridate. This was demonstrated Monday, with the presentation by Marjorie Stocks, a lobbyist for the California Dental Association. In the San Diego area and the Bay Area, Stocks made it clear that the pro-fluoridationists are focusing on large areas.

My friend also pointed out that when fluoridation comes to a vote, 70% of the elections have resulted in NO votes.

Even though he's a scientist, he says that the powers that be pay no attention to the science.

Alexia: Thanks for your enlightening and informational post.

Barry

06-06-2013, 10:59 AM

1. ALL the restaurants will be preparing food with, washing dishes in and serving you water with this toxin.
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.
4. These toxins will build and build in our soils from the massive amount of water used in our backyard agriculture.
5. ALL schools will only be able to provide toxic water to drink.

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!

sebastacat

06-06-2013, 11:20 AM

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.
The only way for a consumer to know will be to ASK the owners of the establishment.

If they answer yes, that their water source is indeed fluoridated, I don't think it's going to be too good for business; and when word of it gets out, their business could potentially suffer.

Is that what we want for our business owners, who are trying to make an honest living as well as contributing mightily to the Sonoma County economy? I don't think so.

If this plan is enacted, will I ask the businesses which I patronize where they obtain their water and if the water that they are serving me is fluoridated? You betcha, and I encourage others to do the same.

If enough people complain, businesses will have to obtain their drinking water elsewhere, thus having an added expense to deal with in an already tough economy.

Who winds up suffering? The business owner first, since he will have to deal with the headache of now purchasing drinking water, at an added expense; and, second, the consumer, who will now have that added expense added on to the bill.

The county, of course, will remain relatively unscathed.

Yes, the debate does indeed rage on.....

Glia

06-06-2013, 11:25 AM

Your friend is right. The elected officials are, with rare exception, incapable of understanding the science -- as our Board of Supervisors so beautifully demonstrated at the hearing in February. This makes them very vulnerable to the siren song of unethical "authorities" like Silver and her fossil yes-man from UCSF.

What they do understand is looking like fools and potentially losing their jobs.

Even though he's a scientist, he says that the powers that be pay no attention to the science.

Alex

06-06-2013, 11:39 AM

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!

The sentence you left off just prior to what you quoted was intended to specify what I was including in the word 'all', which is the overwhelming bulk of our county.

If the Sonoma Water Agency adds this toxic waste by-product to most of our backyard metro water supply, consider that it doesn't just get delivered to a kid's mouth in his house:

I'll be glad to change it to
1. ALL those restaurants.......
(in all of Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Sonoma, Cotati, Forestville, North Marin, Valley of the Moon, Larkfield, Penngrove, Lawndale, Kenwood, Windsor)

But ALL Sebastopol restaurants will also be serving many newly fluoride watered and pre-washed fruits and vegetables and meats, cheese and eggs from fluoride fed animals from our backyard.

Barry

06-06-2013, 12:32 PM

sebastacat

06-06-2013, 12:45 PM

Thanks for the reply, Barry.

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.

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.

Glia

06-06-2013, 01:18 PM

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

06-06-2013, 01:42 PM

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

06-06-2013, 06:59 PM

The link to Patricia Dine's April article:

https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/sonoma-county-news-article-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

06-06-2013, 07:32 PM

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

06-07-2013, 05:35 PM

"... 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

06-07-2013, 07:06 PM

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

06-07-2013, 11:21 PM

geomancer

06-08-2013, 04:12 PM

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

06-08-2013, 04:57 PM

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

06-08-2013, 06:08 PM

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

06-08-2013, 11:51 PM

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

06-11-2013, 10:06 AM

...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

06-11-2013, 11:39 AM

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

06-11-2013, 12:57 PM

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

06-11-2013, 01:50 PM

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

06-11-2013, 02:37 PM

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

06-11-2013, 03:12 PM

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

06-11-2013, 03:28 PM

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

06-11-2013, 05:43 PM

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

06-11-2013, 10:03 PM

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

06-11-2013, 10:24 PM

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. (https://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 (https://www.patriciadines.info/PHMF.html)". 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

06-11-2013, 10:31 PM

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

06-12-2013, 11:57 AM

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 (https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/default/files/suekelly/2011_ccr_.pdf) 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 (https://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/fluoride_brief_final.pdf)]

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

06-12-2013, 01:32 PM

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

06-12-2013, 10:56 PM

<br><br>
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

06-12-2013, 11:42 PM

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

06-13-2013, 01:23 AM

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/2010/12/cities/healdsburg-approves-plan-to-use-wastewater-to-irrigate-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/repositoryfiles/ca3105p37-63276.pdf

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=20040916&id=luo0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=9CAGAAAAIBAJ&pg=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

06-13-2013, 09:05 AM

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/Documents/2012ConsumerConfidenceReport_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

06-13-2013, 10:09 AM

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

06-13-2013, 10:29 AM

"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.

lilypads

06-13-2013, 10:55 AM

Sebastacat, your concern is very relevant. "In the early 1950s American industry was plagued with a virtual epidemic of litigation." (FGD p. 298) Most of the litigation was about airborne fluorides that polluted pastures and crop land (and even a fish hatchery). Lawsuits addressed fluoride damage to cattle, fish, crops and people. There are pictures of cows suffering from fluorosis in George Waldbott's "A Struggle with Titans." The cows are emaciated and unable to straighten their front legs. There are also pictures of their fluoride-damaged bones. The issue of treated wastewater is HUGE, whether the water is used to irrigate pasture or whether it goes into the Laguna and the Russian River.

The more I learn about this, the more astonished I am that our PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER is promoting fluoridation. Anyone concerned about public health should be staunchly opposed to fluoridation, once they dig into the history and the science.

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.
...
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.

PDines

06-13-2013, 01:08 PM

Hi Howard - Great, thanks for the link to the SRosa stat. Good to know!

I googled the Sebastopol stat, and found the most recent report on the Sebastopol website. (See below.)
CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT for Calendar Year 2011 City of Sebastopol Municipal Water System July 01, 2012
Fluoride (ppm) June 2011 Sample Date .17
Range of Detections 0.15 –0.20
MCL [Maximum Contaminant Level = amount that's considered ok] 2
Typical Source of Contaminant: Erosion of natural deposits, water additive that promotes strong teeth; discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories.

https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/default/files/suekelly/2011_ccr_.pdf

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/Documents/2012ConsumerConfidenceReport_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.

PDines

06-13-2013, 01:24 PM

Hi Howard - Do you have a link with real evidence to support your assertion about what's left in the tank? You seem to be passing along a version of what the proponents say but they haven't provided evidence for, and which is contrary to the evidence we do have.

1) If you or anyone wants to sincerely understand what this material is, I suggest that you read the experience of Crescent City Citycouncilwoman Donna Westfall, who invested a great deal of energy into seeking the facts about the actual material. What she found was a key reason fluoridation was stopped there. The supplier of the material, that is simply put in the water supply, would not provide basic information about what is in the material, including contaminants.
https://www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-DonnaWestf.html

This material has not gone through FDA testing. So we do not even have a legal definition of what this material needs to be or what it's purity is! Proponents can claim whatever they want, but it doesn't make it true.

2) The EPA's professional union also provided this useful information.

STATEMENT ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION FROM THE EPA PROFESSIONALS UNION
NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Silicofluorides: unrefined industrial waste
91% of Americans ingesting artificially fluoridated water are consuming silicofluorides1. This is a class of fluoridation chemicals that includes hydrofluosilicic acid and its salt form, sodium fluorosilicate. These chemicals are collected from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The scrubber liquors contain contaminants such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and radioactive particles2, are legally regulated as toxic waste, and are prohibited from direct dispersal into the environment. Upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a "product", allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Sodium fluoride, used in the remaining municipalities, is also an industrial waste product that contains hazardous contaminants.
==
Absence of safety studies on silicofluorides
When asked by the U.S. House Committee on Science for chronic toxicity test data on sodium fluorosilicate and hydrofluorosilicic acid, Charles Fox of the EPA answered on June 23, 1999, "EPA was not able to identify chronic toxicity data on these chemicals". 5 Further, EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory stated, on April 25, 2002, that the chemistry of silicofluorides is "not well understood" and studies are needed.
==
[**] FDA has never approved systemic use of fluoride
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December 2000 stated to the U.S. House Committee on Science they have never provided any specific approval for safety or effectiveness for any fluoride substance intended to be ingested for the purpose of reducing tooth decay.16

SOURCE: https://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
NOTE: I made a handout PDF version of this. See MY PDF FLYER: www.healthyworld.org/GRAPHICS/EPAUnionAgainstFluoridation.pdf

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/Documents/2012ConsumerConfidenceReport_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.

PDines

06-13-2013, 01:46 PM

Hi Howard -

Yes, let's talk chemistry. Often in this conversation I hear people use these two terms incorrectly. So let's be clear on them first:
1) Fluorine is an element and doesn't exist (long) without being in a compound of some kind.
2) Fluoride is a compound of fluorine with something else.

"At standard pressure and temperature, fluorine is a pale yellow gas composed of diatomic molecules, F2. Fluorine is the most electronegative element and is extremely reactive, requiring great care in handling. The compounds of fluorine are called fluorides. … Because of the difficulty in making elemental fluorine, most fluorine used in commerce is never converted to the free element." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine

So to me. it doesn't make any sense when you say "There's no difference between the fluoride in one compound versus another. "<there's no="" difference="" between="" the="" fluoride="" in="" one="" compound="" versus="" another.=""><there's no="" difference="" between="" the="" fluoride="" in="" one="" compound="" versus="" another=""> Do you mean fluorine in that sentence? That's the only way that sentence would fit the definition of compound.

However, even then what you're saying still doesn't make sense, because there are stark differences between fluoride compounds. The fact that chemical compounds can have very different characteristics is a key concept in chemistry and I'm astonished that fluoridation's proponents don't seem to understand this. They seem to think that fluorine is a rock found somewhere, all by itself. Nope, it's a gas and is used by industry in compounds with other materials. Those compounds have very different characteristics.

So, as I outline on https://www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html

1) * Fluoride in toothpaste -- "Sodium fluoride (NaF) is the most common source of fluoride, but stannous fluoride (SnF2), olaflur (an organic salt of fluoride), and sodium monofluorophosphate (Na2PO3F) are also used. Stannous fluoride has been shown to be more effective than sodium fluoride in reducing the incidence of dental caries[3] and controlling gingivitis.[4]" Notice that the medical field has spent time experimenting with fluoride compound they use, and refining that choice. It matters!

2) * Fluoride used for fluoridation -- "Cities all over the US purchase hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh pollution concentrate from Florida -- fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) -- to fluoridate water.
"Fluorosilicic acid is composed of tetrafluorosiliciate gas and other species of fluorine gases captured in pollution scrubbers and concentrated into a 23% solution during wet process phosphate fertilizer manufacture. ...
"Fluoridating drinking water with recovered pollution is a cost-effective means of disposing of toxic waste. The fluorosilicic acid would otherwise be classified as a hazardous toxic waste on the Superfund Priorities List of toxic substances that pose the most significant risk to human health and the greatest potential liability for manufacturers."

I would also add:

3) Another interesting fluorine compound is hydrofluoric acid (HF), a highly corrosive acid, capable of dissolving many materials, especially oxides. Its ability to dissolve glass has been known since the 17th century, so it's used for glass etching. However it makes it very challenging to find a container that can store it! "Hydrogen fluoride gas is an acute poison that may immediately and permanently damage lungs and the corneas of the eyes. Aqueous hydrofluoric acid is a contact-poison with the potential for deep, initially painless burns and ensuing tissue death. By interfering with body calcium metabolism, the concentrated acid may also cause systemic toxicity and eventual cardiac arrest and fatality, after contact with as little as 160 cm2 (25 square inches) of skin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid

>> So I don't think that someone exposed to HF would agree with the these that all fluorine compounds are the same and it doesn't matter what else makes up the fluoride compound...

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.</there's></there's>

sebastacat

06-13-2013, 02:04 PM

Thanks once again to EcoGirl -- my EcoHero!

Please send the information which you have posted to EACH AND EVERY ONE of the Sonoma County Supes.
They need to see this immediately.

Please also send it to the Chief Health Officer, Lynn Silver-Chalfin.

Once again, I reiterate: Our elected officials have a duty to open their eyes and read the information which we, as their constituents, place in front of them and to LISTEN to us when we present evidence, voice our opinions and list our concerns.

Also, some people on this thread need to come up to date on this issue. Much has been learned during the past several years which has definitely changed the minds and the opinions of even some of fluoridations' staunchest proponents all around the globe.

The least we can do as concerned citizens is to continue to glean as much knowledge as we can about the ill health effects of this dastardly chemical -- and to make sure that we don't do a disservice to others by passing on outdated and inaccurate information from a bygone era.

PDines

06-13-2013, 02:06 PM

OK, one more piece of info, because I think this is really important to understand, then I have other things to attend to!

For anyone who wants to learn more about the source of the chemical used in community water fluoridation - which is primarily the phosphate fertilizer industry - I suggest reading https://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/phosphate01. Here you'll see why they try to scrub the fluoride out of the fertilizer - because it causes harm when it goes into the environment. Also note this excerpt.

5. A Missed Opportunity: Little Demand for Silicofluorides

Considering the great demand among big industry for fluoride chemicals as a material used in a wide variety of commercial products and industrial processes, the phosphate industry could have made quite a handsome profit selling its fluoride wastes to industry. This was indeed the hope among some industry analysts, including the authors of the review noted above (Denzinger 1979).

However, the US phosphate industry has thus far been unable to take advantage of this market. The principal reason for this failure stems from the fact that fluoride captured in the scrubbers is combined with silica. The resulting silicofluoride complex has, in turn, proved difficult for the industry to separate and purify in an economically-viable process.

As it now stands, silicofluoride complexes (hydrofluorosilicic acid & sodium silicofluoride) are of little use to industry. Thus, while US industry continues to satisfy its growing demand for high-grade fluoride chemicals by importing calcium fluoride from abroad (primarily from Mexico, China, and South Africa), the phosphate industry continues dumping large volumes of fluoride into the acidic wastewater ponds that lie at the top of the mountainous waste piles which surround the industry. In 1995, the Tampa Tribune summed up the situation as follows:

“The U.S. demand for fluorine, which was 400,000 tons, is expected to jump 25 percent by next year… Even though 600,000 tons of fluorine are contained in the 20 million tons of phosphate rock mined in Florida, the fluorine market has been inaccessible because the fluorine is tied up with silica, a hard, glassy material.”

Of course, not all of the phosphate industry’s fluoride waste is disposed of in the ponds. As noted earlier, the phosphate industry has found at least one regular consumer of its silicofluorides: municipal water-treatment facilities. According to recent estimates, the phosphate industry sells approximately 200,000 tons of silicofluorides (hydrofluorosilicic acid & sodium silicofluoride) to US communities each year for use as a water fluoridation agent (Coplan & Masters 2001)."

As to the assertion that they distill this out in some way for water fluoridation use - I'd love to see evidence of this. All the evidence we've gotten is that they do not.

Also note how many key medical principles are being violated here, even though a medical benefit is being claimed. Medicines need to have one firm medical formula, which is used every time, then put that through a battery of testing to get approval with the FDA. Neither of those things are true with water fluoridation chemicals.

I think that some people IMAGINE that fluorine is like calcium, a mineral, an essential element in our diet. The proponents make it it sound like that.

But fluorine is NOT a rock. It's a gas, and it's found in COMPOUNDS with other materials, each of which have different characteristics. And it is NOT an essential nutrient in our diet. (See note 10, https://www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html).

Thus the claims being made are medical. But these fail at the most basic level - mode of action. We ask a really basic medical question - ok, what is the mode of action? How does it actually work to provide medical benefit?

And no answer will make sense. Because even the most mainstream of authorities agree that fluoride's mode of action is topical, i.e. by being put ON the teeth and interacting with the surface of teeth. They used to assert that it's mode was systemic, i.e. drink it and it helps the bones (again like calcium). But this has been DISPROVEN. Thus it makes no MEDICAL sense to drink it.

The bottom line is that there are a bunch of very simple clear scientific facts that undermine proponent claims and disprove this practice. What concerns me is why the proponents refuse to consider these basic facts, and instead keep making claims for which they do NOT have evidence and that have long been disproven.

That's why I keep emphasizing that we need to educate the population on the facts, vs. fringe theories. The science and the facts are really enough to disprove the practice of putting fluoride in our water. Mainstream people just need to get access to these facts, presented in a credible manner.

I've laid this out in an orderly way, with citations, at https://www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html

I hope this info is helpful - Best, Patricia

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.

Glia

06-13-2013, 02:18 PM

Reverse osmosis will not remove fluorine ions either. They are small enough to go thru the the RO membrane.

According to Connett, a process that does remove the small, highly electronegative fluorine ion is a "mixed cation-anion exchange resin water filtration system." After going through this system, essential minerals need to be added back to make "normal" good-tasting water. Any guesses as to how much such a system might cost?

Dr. Connett discussed this process during his presentation in Santa Rosa, which was recorded and is available on YouTube if you want to find out for yourself. Here's the link to that portion of the discussion:
https://youtu.be/LqSZJdpHfYY?t=1h38m50s

He also mentioned "bone char" as a filtering substance but did not go into detail about how it is used or where to get it. He did indicate that bone char is being used in India and China to remove naturally-occurring fluorides from their water supplies.

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.

sebastacat

06-13-2013, 02:26 PM

Thanks, Glia, for this information.

Since fluoride is especially hard on those with kidney problems and those undergoing dialysis, installing some type of effective filtration which you have described is going to be a MUST -- and also, I imagine, quite costly.

Question: Who is going to pay for such a system?

Howard

06-13-2013, 02:30 PM

This is how these conversations and constant hyperbole seem to spiral out of control in this forum. Tiring.

I stated three things I believe are facts and then I get overwhelmed with responses asking me for proof, links, etc:

Greater than 99% of the county farmers use well water (someone asked Barry why he assumed this),
That the fluoride ion in water systems that were derived from byproducts of industry or mined is the same fluoride ion that occurs in nature and
that the person who said they don't want any fluoride in their water is deluding themselves as it's present in all private and public water systems in the county. That's what I said. Facts, no?

I learned about chemistry a few decades ago and don't think much has changed regarding the elemental chart. I believe in the scientific principle. I don't believe that what is unknown is harmful by default. I can't disprove everything you or the wi-fi sensitive or the UN taking over planning crowd or the everything man-made is bad diviners say because I'm not an expert in much of anything (and neither is anyone on this forum nor any councilperson I know).

Because I can't disprove something is bad for you or can't prove that it's OK, some would conclude that it's harmful. The so-called precautionary principle. Well that can be said about anything and everything. In that case, there's no reality, right/wrong, good/evil, etc. Sorry, but that's what it boils down to for me.

BTW, I'm not so sure fluoridation of the water is a good thing because of its impact on older folk's bones. I have no doubt that it decreases the incidence of caries [cavities? - Barry] in kids and adults based on my non-expert reading of those smarter than I. Lower socio-economic households benefit greatly from this since they have less access to medical attention. The taxpayers must pick up the costs of medical attention for the disadvantaged. That's what the supervisors are grappling with. Costs v benefits not "being bought by the fluoride lobby" as some have stated.

Hi Howard - Do you have a link with real evidence to support your assertion about what's left in the tank? You seem to be...

sebastacat

06-13-2013, 02:52 PM

WOW............

Who says that the "supes" must pick up the tab for the disadvantaged?
And...does that mean that the rest of us who do not wish to be medicated against our will have to suffer?

We are tax-paying citizens, too, no? And, unfortunately -- and frustratingly -- a lot of us aren't being listened to, despite having scientific studies, evidence and facts to back up our genuine concerns.

If the supes are truly concerned about the disadvantaged, they can undertake a program which consists of both education, where school nurses will visit the various schools as they did when I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, who will educate them in detail about how to brush their teeth, the types of toothpastes which are available, flossing, the importance of regular dental checkups and advice about diet and which foods and drinks to avoid, and a mobile dental clinic and perhaps addityional stationary dental clinics in addition to the ones which are already up and operating. That will be a much better expension of money -- and a whole lot cheaper, too -- than spending millions of dollars on mass-medication now and in the years to come -- which, as you correctly state, can be very harmful on the elderly.

And, yes, we need to be concerned about the elderly as well. Too often in this society of ours, they are cast aside and their needs neglected. As the Press Democrat article said a couple days ago, elder abuse has jumped something like 40 percent! Let's show them the respect and concern which they deserve and not add to their problems by adding this stuff to the water which many of them drink.

And if they are truly concerned about the non-disadvantaged, they will not attempt to force an unpopular program on the masses and saddle us all with the bill.

The money which they will save from enacting all of the above can then be used to re-open our libraries to their original full operating schedule as well as fixing our embarrassing road system, things which will truly benefit all who call this county home.
---oOo---
APPENDAGE TO AN EARLIER POST: When I said that I did not want to ingest any fluoride, I was referring to any ADDED fluoride. Since that's what we've been discussing in this forum is the ADDITION OF FLUORIDE by our county government, I thought that it was mutually understood. If I was unclear, I am taking this opportunity to make myself unmistakably clear now, as just about all water has at least SOME naturally occurring fluoride.

Glia

06-13-2013, 03:08 PM

BZZZZZZ, sorry Howard, you are wrong once again. Lower socio-economic households are actually harmed by fluoridated water. And since ingesting fluorides and/or fluorine ions has been proven to NOT reduce dental cavities, there is no benefit from it either. Fluoridating the public water supply violates all principles of medical ethics.

The *only thing* that the Supervisors and the rest of us really need to be discussing is how to provide preventative care and treatment to all who need it, regardless of their ability to pay. In other words, we need to be working on creating a county medical/dental care system, complete with an actual publicly-funded and transparently administrated county hospital, not wasting time and energy haggling over poisoning the public water supply.

Lower socio-economic households benefit greatly from this since they have less access to medical attention. The taxpayers must pick up the costs of medical attention for the disadvantaged. That's what the supervisors are grappling with. Costs v benefits not "being bought by the fluoride lobby" as some have stated.

lilypads

06-13-2013, 05:34 PM

Here's the page on Dr. Connett's site regarding water filters: https://www.fluoridealert.org/content/water_filters/

Reverse osmosis will not remove fluorine ions either. They are small enough to go thru the the RO membrane..

lilypads

06-13-2013, 05:39 PM

FLUORIDATION AS A ‘SOCIAL JUSTICE’ ISSUE<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
By Marlene Lily<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>
When I went to the Sonoma County Supervisors' meeting on February 26, 2013, one of the main points made by people from the health department and some supervisors, including my supe Shirlee Zane, is that fluoridation is a "social justice issue" --that poor people have dental decay because of lack of access to dental care, and many young children, mostly Hispanic, have to undergo dental sugery under anaesthesia, as many as a dozen a week. (The Press Democrat covered this part of the meeting very well.) So in addition to mitigating the suffering of children, fluoridation of the public water supply--if in fact it did reduce dental decay--would save the County money. (County officials have not even begun to consider the cost of hip fractures and other health problems caused by fluoride.)

But there are several problems with the social justice argument. If it's a social justice issue, why are top Civil Rights leaders--including the Latino group LULAC, the Portland NAACP, Ambassador Andrew Young, and Rev Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter and niece--calling for an end to fluoridation? One reason is that African Americans have 2 alleles (genetic peculiarities) that make them more susceptible to dental fluorosis, and Hispanics have one such allele. Some 40% of US kids 12-15 living in fluoridated areas now have dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is only the VISIBLE sign of systemic poisoning. Other changes, including those in bones and the brain, are invisible.

One speaker at the supes meeting said that she gave her daughter fluoride tablets and fluoridated bottled water as a child so she would have strong teeth and bones. But now, in her 30s, she has crumbling teeth and brittle bones. It is well known now that fluoride is beneficial only when used topically, not when ingested. Ingesting fluoride weakens both bones and teeth.

Another problem with calling fluoridation a "social justice issue" is that Blacks and Hispanics, as Ambassador Young said in his letter to the Georgia legislators, are disproportionately affected by diabetes and kidney disease. People with those conditions are more susceptible to serious damage from fluoride.

And finally, because low-income families cannot afford bottled water, or may be less likely to understand the importance of bottled water for baby formula, their babies, unless breast fed, are most likely to get a toxic overdose of fluoride. One article said they would get 175 times the dose an adult would get. There is no safe dose for babies. The USA now ranks 42nd in the world in infant mortality. That's a shameful statistic. And fluoride is very likely one of the reasons. Fluoride is more toxic than lead. The EPA scientists’ unions—some 7,000 scientists--are asking for the safe level of fluoride to be pegged at ZERO.

The social justice angle in the fluoridation debate is actually the need to PROTECT African-Americans and Hispanics from fluoride.<o:p></o:p>
https://www.drchetan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/dental-fluorosis.jpg

Top of Form 1<o:p></o:p>

BZZZZZZ, sorry Howard, you are wrong once again. Lower socio-economic households are actually harmed by fluoridated water. And since ingesting fluorides and/or fluorine ions has been proven to NOT reduce dental cavities, there is no benefit from it either. Fluoridating the public water supply violates all principles of medical ethics.

The *only thing* that the Supervisors and the rest of us really need to be discussing is how to provide preventative care and treatment to all who need it, regardless of their ability to pay. In other words, we need to be working on creating a county medical/dental care system, complete with an actual publicly-funded and transparently administrated county hospital, not wasting time and energy haggling over poisoning the public water supply.

sharingwisdom

06-13-2013, 10:33 PM

Fluorine should not be confused with fluoride, although in the early fluoridation literature the words were used interchangeably. Fluorine is an element. Fluoride denotes that fluorine has combined with other elements and formed a compound, e.g. hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6) sodium silicofluoride (NaSiF6) sodium fluoride (NaF) and calcium fluoride (CaF2).

Hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is one of the most commonly chosen chemical used to fluoridate public water supplies.

Some of the contaminants reported as present in fluorine bearing substances hydrofluosilicic acid and other silicofluorides used in fluoridation programs include arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, crystalline silica, fluorine, hydrogen fluoride, iron, iodine, lead, lead 210, mercury, phosphorous, polonium 210, radon 222, selenium, silica and silver. Some specific agents used or present in phosphate/hydrofluorosilicic acid processing include oil based de foamers, dioxins, polymers, petroleum products, naphthalene, chlorides, sulfides and synspar.

"Traditionally, fluorspar (https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/fluorspar/280499.pdf) has been considered to be vital to the Nation's national security and economy. It is used directly or indirectly to manufacture such products as aluminum, gasoline. insulating foams, refrigerants, steel, and uranium fuel. Hydrofluoric acid (HF) was consumed in the manufacture of uranium tetrafluoride, which was used in the process of concentrating uranium isatope 235 for use as nuclear fuel and in fission explosives. It also was used in stainless steel pickling, petroleum alkylation, glass etching, treatment of oil and glass wells and as a feedstock in the manufacture of a group of inorganic fluorine chemicals that include chlorine trifluoride, lithium fluoride, sodium fluoride, sulfur hexafluoride, tungstun hexafluoride and others used in diaelectrics, metallurgy, wood preservatives, herbacides, mouthwashes, 'decay-preventing' dentrifices and water fluoridation."

A Congressional investigation also revealed the following: (https://www.keepersofthewell.com/Introduction.html)

* EPA confirmed that the two compounds used almost exclusively in the U.S. for fluoridation have never, ever been studied for their effect on health or behavior.

* NSF International, the private organization certifying fluoridation chemicals, confirmed that it is doing so in violation of its own standard requiring manufacturers to submit any available published and unpublished toxicological studies on both the fluoride compound and any contaminants contained in the product. NSF disclosed in the investigation that they have no such studies on file
https://www.thehealthvine.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36&Itemid=58

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/Documents/2012ConsumerConfidenceReport_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.

sebastacat

06-13-2013, 10:57 PM

Thanks once again, SharingWisdom, for your incredible research effort which you put into
your most recent post.

Sebastacat has a confession to make: When I read the list of chemicals which you listed, it made me shiver.
And to think that our supes and that our Chief Public Health Officer wish to inject a poison into our water supply which contains several of the unpronounceable chemicals listed makes this Sonoma County native shake his head in disbelief and shame.

But, wait, I thought that a public health officer was supposed to protect ALL of the residents of a jurisdiction of which they have been given charge.

Giving her the benefit of the doubt, that she has been aware of the information contained in your post, or at least that she's aware of it now since you have posted it here for all to see, if she does eventually sign off on this proposal, wouldn't she, at the very least as a physician, be guilty of medicating several people against their will?

I think that this bears serious investigation.

Several anti-fluoridationists have complained to me privately that they are frustrated that each and every time that they attempt to present the latest scientific evidence and supporting studies to Dr. Silver-Chalfin, they feel that they are being rebuffed. But when she presents her science, she expects them to accept it as gospel -- even after the anti-fluoridationists discredit it with their science!

This sounds like the ultimate exercise in frustration.

I feel that this woman has a duty as a physician to the people of this county first and to the "supes" second.

And if she winds up ultimately breaching that duty, I feel that she should be held accountable.

lilypads

06-14-2013, 11:48 AM

Fluorine is a gas. When the gas combines with other elements, it creates solid compounds (salts).

Reading "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma" (FGD) helped me understand that--in contradiction to what Lynn Silver-Chalfin told the SCWA TAC on June 3--different fluoride-containing compounds are not equally toxic. Least toxic are calcium fluoride and magnesium fluoride, most toxic are sodium fluoride and hydrofluosilicic acid and other fluorine/silicon compounds. In naturally fluoridated water, where the water is hard (i.e. contains a lot of calcium and magnesium) the damage to humans drinking it is much less (even if the fluoride content is greater) than it is where the water is soft.

In response to a question, Silver-Chalfin claimed that "all fluoride ions are the same," and that it doesn't matter what fluoride compound is used, because they all disassociate (ionize) in solution. According to FGD, because the calcium ion is ++, it tends to grab on and hold more of the fluoride ions, so that they do NOT all ionize in solution.

One of the worst effects of fluoride described in FGD was when babies were given fluoride tablets, in some cases the fluoride converted the hydrochloric acid normal in the stomach to highly corrosive hydroFLUORIC acid, which destroyed the membranes lining the babies' stomachs, causing hemorrhage and death.

Fluorine should not be confused with fluoride, ...

lilypads

06-14-2013, 12:32 PM

Sebastacat, your frustration has been shared by many honest scientists for sixty-plus years. Chalfin is following to the letter the "playbook" laid out in a speech made in 1951 by Wisconsin dental health officer F.A. Bull, entitled "Promotion and Application of Water Fluoridation." (FGD, p.264-6) "Bull instructed his colleagues to describe mottled teeth to the public and to the profession as 'egg-shell white' and 'the most beautiful looking teeth that anyone ever had,' even though these teeth are known to turn brown and brittle in later years. . . . During the question and answer session following his talk, Bull again evaded the scientific issues. . . .Bull's keynote speech reveals the heart of early fluoridation efforts and the key emphasis on Madison-Avenue promotion, not on scientific evidence. . . .The promotional design evolved by Bull . . . was promptly taken up by the American Dental Association. . . .In February 1953, the ADA issued a brochure that is a masterpiece in the art of engineering consent." (The brochure was later published in the ADA magazine.)

Among the key elements of Bull's playbook are 1. Using "authorities" and endorsements, rather than scientific evidence to promote fluoridation, 2. Avoiding debate with fluoridation opponents, 3. Giving fluoridation opponents no time to speak at public meetings, 4. Downgrading and smearing fluoridation opponents, regardless of their scientific credentials. We have seen these techniqures used here in Sonoma County by our "public health officer" and her pro-fluoridation associates.

The ADA went even further than Dr. Bull, suggesting that fluoridation should be labeled "nutritional," "tooth building," and "a public health measure." "The procedure should be compared with the addition of such genuine tooth-building elements as calcium, as well as with 'fortifying milk with sunlight Vitamin D.'" (FGD, p 271).

"The ADA panphlet and especially Bull's statements . . .show the fluoridation movement in its true light. Neither the pamphlet nor Bull's talk presented any scientific data on fluoride and its effect on human health, which should have been of primary concern."

If anyone can dig up a copy of the brochure or the magazine article, I would love to see it. It's called "How to Obtain Fluoridation for Your Community Through A Citizens Committee" American Dental Association, Chicago Feb. 1953, revised 1963.

Incidentally, I believe I heard Silver-Chalfin say on June 3 that the Fluoridation Advisory Committee would NOT be discussing "health issues." Did anyone else hear that?

Several anti-fluoridationists have complained to me privately that they are frustrated that each and every time that they attempt to present the latest scientific evidence and supporting studies to Dr. Silver-Chalfin, they feel that they are being rebuffed. But when she presents her science, she expects them to accept it as gospel -- even after the anti-fluoridationists discredit it with their science!

This sounds like the ultimate exercise in frustration.

sebastacat

06-14-2013, 01:53 PM

LilyPads.....

I wish to take this opportunity to sincerely thank you for the incredible amount of time, energy and research which you have been putting into this important and timely topic, which I consider a threat to the health of the citizens of this county. And that goes for everyone else who has been doing such diligent research in an attempt to supply the citizens and elected officials of this county with the latest science and the most recent, up-to-date information.

Thanks also for taking my concerns seriously and not dismissing me out of hand, or -- worse yet -- tarring and feathering me as a right-wing fear-mongerer for simply raising what I feel are honest, legitimate concerns which I as a concerned citizen have heretofore been using this forum to express.

Unfortunately, I see a striking similarity between those tactics and tactics which you referenced above.
Name-calling, mischaracterization and vilification are not acceptable means of communication between mature progressive adults.

While I am truly grateful for what you have uncovered in your last post, it is the words that you reported which were apparently uttered by our "public health officer," Dr. Lynn Silver-Chalfin, which now have Sebastacat alarmed: Health issues will not be discussed.

But, wait, I thought that the job of our public health officer was to look after the public's health, no?

If this is, in fact, true, that she did utter these words, I find that to be creepily Orwellian -- except that it's not occurring in 1984, it's occurring in 2013, almost 30 years after the original prediction!

Whether or not she actually said these words MUST be verified; and if she, in fact, did, she must be called on it, as that is a reflection that she clearly does not have the best interests of the majority of the citizens of this county in mind. And if she didn't say them, we must ask her now: Will the public's health be discussed and considered?

Once again, thanks to all of you who are as concerned as I am about this important issue and are taking time out of your busy lives to raise your concerns. And to those of you who have and are continuing to do research and address these concerns, all I can say is: You make me proud to be from Sonoma County!

Glia

06-14-2013, 03:26 PM

When Silver repeatedly spews the canned line that "a fluorine ion in solution is a fluorine ion, and it does not matter where it comes from" she is telling only half the story, which is a lie by omission. The rest of the molecule that the fluorine ion was attached to is also in solution, and it very definitely matters what the other stuff is!

Once again, either Silver is incredibly incompetent or she is a bald-faced liar. Either way, why are we tolerating her being on our county's public payroll? It seems to me that it would be far better to not give her an opportunity to puff up her resume by poisoning us by getting rid of her. This is (allegedly) a democracy, not a dictatorship... for now, at least.

Glia

06-14-2013, 03:56 PM

Lilypads and Sharingwisdom, thank you both for your thorough and well-presented information.

Part of Silver-Chalfin's schtick is to repeatedly describe Sonoma County as "behind the rest of California" and "not up to par" (or something to that effect) because we do not fluoridate our water. Her implication is obvious: that we are a bunch of country bumpkin dumb-asses because we have not fallen for the fluoridation PR.

I contend that rather than being "behind" we are, along with the people of Portland, AHEAD of the rest of California and indeed the U.S. as a whole. Yes, this is an agricultural county, but it is not populated with the bumpkins that Silver clearly expected. However, we do have enough agricultural experience to know a steaming pile of horse manure when we see it.

Sebastacat, your frustration has been shared by many honest scientists for sixty-plus years....

dzerach

06-14-2013, 04:39 PM

Howard, of the many corrections that could be made, a few really should be made...One such would be your misrepresentation of the precautionary principle as concerns evidence-based dentistry and public policy. May I please share my appreciation of your interest in speaking precisely and not engaging in hyperbole? Especially in the context of how a dialectic, such as the one here concerning water fluoridation, isn't a mere intellectual exercise but portrays an issue that has real consequences for people.

Over time, HHS continues to lower the allowable maximum amount of fluoride in the drinking water as other sources of fluoride present in our environment continue to increase. Science at work. The CDC continues to call for more research, in part based on what is being discovered about sensitive populations.

So, the Precautionary Principle is actually this: Minimize risk in the setting where harm is possible, but not necessarily confirmed, and where the science is not settled.

Because I can't disprove something is bad for you or can't prove that it's OK, some would conclude that it's harmful. The so-called precautionary principle. Well that can be said about anything and everything. In that case, there's no reality, right/wrong, good/evil, etc. Sorry, but that's what it boils down to for me.
PDines took your concerns seriously, devoted half a day to laboriously refute with REAL science and hard core specifics in readable prose -- you absurdly toss off in a blur as nihilism.

I can't help but find your interest in this issue to be an interest in the unquestioned status quo. Not in the fullness of scientific investigation or principles. Either way, most assuredly, you represent the belief of many when you shared this concern:

"Lower socio-economic households benefit greatly from this since they have less access to medical attention. The taxpayers must pick up the costs of medical attention for the disadvantaged. That's what the supervisors are grappling with."

Please review my earlier posts about the county's Oral Health Task Force findings. They spent a lot of county money and time on an earlier, very recent project and everyone was excited about it for lots of good reasons. Sorry that all of a sudden everyone now thinks water fluoridation as public policy is medical attention. It's not. In the context of safety and effectiveness not conclusively proven, where is money better spent to actually solve the problem at hand, scientifically-speaking?

You're right, the taxpayers must pick up the cost. The county's pet project has ZERO terminus in that regard:

The authorities currently estimate fluoridation of SCWA drinking water supply to cost the county up to $8.5 million in capital upgrades. Plus: ongoing upkeep STARTING AT $973,000 a year. Recently, the board voted unanimously to spend $103,000 on an engineering and design report. Meanwhile, Gov. Brown is threatening to take up to $21.6 million away from Sonoma County by the 2015-2016 fiscal year, which Zane calls voodoo accounting. And so it goes.

Money well-spent to solve the problem or unquestioned status quo run amok.

And, by the way: yes, the elemental chart has changed.

sharingwisdom

06-14-2013, 08:15 PM

Questions, Howard.

If teeth and bones are composed of the same minerals (calcium deposits, though bone is derived from mesodermal embryonic tissues whereas teeth are mesodermal and ectodermal origin with the enamel being the hardest material in the body...harder than bones), then wouldn't adding fluoride that damages the bones by demineralizing them (as you mentioned the hips in elderly), damage the teeth? Would it not demineralize the teeth? Is this not what fluoridosis is?

Did you know that the elderly are told to take Calcium supplements with fluoride to strengthen their bones? But you are realizing that it's caused the opposite. Perhaps deeper questioning of who authorizes studies is necessary.

Since 2006, the CDC and ADA have actually said that there should be no fluoride for babies (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/parents-should-be-warned-fluoridated-water-is-not-recommended-for-infants-104488049.html). So how would one get the fluoride out of the water to make it safe for them and their mammas (in ingesting the water and then nursing their babies...there is a transfer). Do you think that if it's not good for babies (and those under kidney dialysis https://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/kidney01/) that it would be good for the rest of us?

Did you know that there are even studies on the season uptake of fluoride that have been studied? Children aged 12-72 months had higher fluoride intake (mg F/kg bw) from beverages in summer (P<.05), and fluoride intake from beverages increased with monthly temperature (P<.001). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562941
This is probably because these little ones are drinking more liquids in hotter seasons...seems logical. Thus it's raising the levels with what else they are ingesting as well.

If the studies you are reading are not from independent scientific sources, but corporate-funded universities or labs, would this not mean that there is or could be a large bias slant? Have we not seen this happen in other areas like GMO's?

And by attempting to make your point by saying you're using scientific principles, which you have not stated studies that use them, that you can't disprove everything said but not proving anything, and then eluding to something completely off topic to make things seem like conspiracy theories (wifi sensitive etc), is not staying with what the discussion is about. It's diversion and opinion, not facts.

Just looking at things logically and in who you give credence to.

This is how these conversations and constant hyperbole seem to spiral out of control in this forum. Tiring.

I stated three things I believe are facts and then I get overwhelmed with responses asking me for proof, links, etc:

Greater than 99% of the county farmers use well water (someone asked Barry why he assumed this),
That the fluoride ion in water systems that were derived from byproducts of industry or mined is the same fluoride ion that occurs in nature and
that the person who said they don't want any fluoride in their water is deluding themselves as it's present in all private and public water systems in the county. That's what I said. Facts, no?

I learned about chemistry a few decades ago and don't think much has changed regarding the elemental chart. I believe in the scientific principle. I don't believe that what is unknown is harmful by default. I can't disprove everything you or the wi-fi sensitive or the UN taking over planning crowd or the everything man-made is bad diviners say because I'm not an expert in much of anything (and neither is anyone on this forum nor any councilperson I know).

Because I can't disprove something is bad for you or can't prove that it's OK, some would conclude that it's harmful. The so-called precautionary principle. Well that can be said about anything and everything. In that case, there's no reality, right/wrong, good/evil, etc. Sorry, but that's what it boils down to for me.

BTW, I'm not so sure fluoridation of the water is a good thing because of its impact on older folk's bones. I have no doubt that it decreases the incidence of caries [cavities? - Barry] in kids and adults based on my non-expert reading of those smarter than I. Lower socio-economic households benefit greatly from this since they have less access to medical attention. The taxpayers must pick up the costs of medical attention for the disadvantaged. That's what the supervisors are grappling with. Costs v benefits not "being bought by the fluoride lobby" as some have stated.

Glia

06-14-2013, 10:06 PM

Thanks for that catch, Lilypads! I edited my post to reflect Connett's comments during the discussion and what is on the referenced web page.

While there does seem to be some contention as to what exactly happens with fluorine ions in a reverse-osmosis filtration device, there is agreement that RO does not get all of the fluorine out.

Here's the page on Dr. Connett's site regarding water filters: https://www.fluoridealert.org/content/water_filters/

rossmen

06-14-2013, 10:07 PM

howard the history of applied science is full of very bad mistakes. when people take the time to dispute your facts with referenced research and obvious errors and you call it hyperbole and tiring, you betray your own intelligence. while we might argue whether fluoridation is a very bad mistake or just a minor one, clearly educated laypeople discussing the current scientific understanding and history of fluoridation show that its day is done. as an experienced local government person your monkey see hear do no evil attitude simply explains why the bos is considering it.

This is how these conversations and constant hyperbole seem to spiral out of control in this forum. Tiring.

I stated three things I believe are facts and then I get overwhelmed with responses asking me for proof, links, etc:

Greater than 99% of the county farmers use well water (someone asked Barry why he assumed this),
That the fluoride ion in water systems that were derived from byproducts of industry or mined is the same fluoride ion that occurs in nature and
that the person who said they don't want any fluoride in their water is deluding themselves as it's present in all private and public water systems in the county. That's what I said. Facts, no?

...

lilypads

06-14-2013, 11:13 PM

Interesting that you should bring up Orwell, Sebastacat. In my effort to condense Waldbott's summary of F.A. Bull's 1951 speech, I left out the following part: "In fact, a new terminology, requiring George Orwell's "double-think," was proposed for many other concepts related to fluoridation. The term 'artificial fluoridation' was to be avoided. 'There is something about the term,' [Bull] advised 'that means a phoney. . . .We call it 'controlled fluoridation.' The word 'experiment' should never be used. 'To take a city of 100,000 and say, 'We are going to experiment on you, and if you survive, we will learn something' - is kind of rough treatment on the public. In Wisconsin, we set up demonstrations. They weren't 'experiments." Bull even objected to the name 'sodium fluoride' since this compound, which was at that time being used for fluoridation, was also widely known as rat poison. The term 'fluoride' would be less objectionable, he advised. . . .

"A. Taylor had just presented experimental evidence that fluoride causes earlier tumor formation and shortens the lifespan of cancer-prone mice. . . . Bull commented on this important scientific finding: 'When this thing came out we never mentioned it in Wisconsin. All we did was to get some publicity on the fact [!] that there less cancer and less polio in high-fluoride areas. We got that information out to the public so that if the opposition did bring up this rumor they they would be on the defensive rather than have us on the defensive.' 'The best technique is the reverse technique, not to refute the thing but to show where the opposite is true.'

"This promotional approach of calling bad good, and sour sweet has been used repeatedly in the campaign for fluoridation. Again, in Orwell's 1984, this process is called 'Newspeak,' where what is true becomes 'false,' and the false becomes 'true.' Promotion of fluoridation was to be pushed vigorously, even if accounts about health hazards were were grossly distorted or ignored most of the time. The truth of the matter is that no studies were then available on the relationship of fluoride to the incidence of cancer or poliomyelitis." (FGD, p. 265)

But, wait, I thought that the job of our public health officer was to look after the public's health, no?

If this is, in fact, true, that she did utter these words, I find that to be creepily Orwellian -- except that it's not occurring in 1984, it's occurring in 2013, almost 30 years after the original prediction!

dzerach

06-14-2013, 11:32 PM

"If anyone can dig up a copy of the brochure or the magazine article, I would love to see it. It's called "How to Obtain Fluoridation for Your Community Through A Citizens Committee" American Dental Association, Chicago Feb. 1953...."

How to "git 'er done!," in your community, which is exactly the approach sups are taking....For now, an excerpt from this same seminal pamphlet? Can't help but share! (Christopher Bryson quoted from it in his 2004 critical history & good read, The Fluoride Deception):

"At no time should the dentist be placed in the position of defending himself, his profession, or the fluoridation process....(Fluoridation) should not be submitted to the voters, who cannot possibly sift through and comprehend the scientific evidence." (1953, revised for publication in the early1960s, and on and on...)

During a cursory search for a pdf upload of the whole leaflet, I instead stumbled upon a free online copy of another historical work previously mentioned by lilypads. This one VERY lengthy, detailed -- and similarly intriguing.

just finished reading the excellent book "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma," By George Waldbott, MD, published in 1978

Someone purchased a tonic domain (.to) and uploaded a free copy of this historical work at: https://www.whale.to/b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdf. ... the tome will take a few minutes to download after the click. (Please see lilypads June 12th 03:32 PM post).

THE PLAYBOOK

Please reference a recent official document, "Sonoma County Fluoridation Assessment Draft Report"

https://www.sonoma-county.org/health/publications/pdf/oralhealthfluoridation.pdf

Journey to page 26 in your pdf viewer, or page 22 in the document itself, a paragraph called, " Potential Support to Fluoridation in Sonoma County." Followed by the paragraph entitled, "Potential Concerns to Fluoridation in Sonoma County." "Possible concerns about fluoridation in Sonoma County may arise from three primary sources: agricultural, environmental, and water interests." And that's it. Here's a piece of the local version of the playbook. Note the tone, never a minor part of communication.

Possible Concerns About Fluoridation in Sonoma County:

Agricultural: "Although it has been demonstrated that fluoridated water does not affect the safety or taste of agricultural products, it is important to address the potential concerns of growers. Healdsburg has long maintained its successful agricultural endeavors with fluoridated water in place."

Environmental: "(These) concerns are generally expressed through various local community
grassroots environmental organizations. It is important to engage these organizations to understand their concerns and attempt to educate the community on the scientific basis of fluoridation. No significant negative environmental impact of water fluoridation has been established. Concerns may be framed as protecting freedom of choice, while fluoridation advocates argue that the public water supply is designed to protect public health (REALLY??) and it is more important to protect people’s health than to protect some people’s concern for their freedom to use unfluoridated water. " (Firstly, please notice how illogical this faux-syllogism is. Uh, no.)

Water Interests: "There are several organizations in Sonoma County that are involved with water-related issues....Local water retailers and political leaders express concern about how the cost of fluoridation will be addressed and what impact it will have on their ratepayers. Several individuals have expressed concerns over fluoridation efforts in the county, and further input from this sector is expected. The Department of Health Services has held a number of meetings to receive input from all sides of the debate and will continue to do so. It will be important to hear the opinions of all, to broadly engage and educate members of the community and to seek to address any concerns raised. Fluoridation has, unfortunately, not been the object of consensus in many communities, and the creation of public policy has generally required weighing the public benefit for many in relation to the concerns of some residents. "

As former city councilwoman Donna Westfall previously commented regarding The Next Step newsletter's alleged advocacy against fluoridation, "(Welllll...) this absurd practice of adding HFSA is based more on politics than science."

sebastacat

06-14-2013, 11:45 PM

To LilyPads and dzerach:

I wish to reiterate everything that I said in my post made at 1:53 p.m., but I will add one word:

WOW!

Okay. Sorry. Sebastacat just couldn't limit himself to adding just ONE WORD.

I MUST respond to the part of your post, dzerach, about the document stating that "Healdsburg has long maintained its successful agricultural endeavors with fluoridated water in place."

But, wait, I thought that most of those gigantic vineyards and wineries were located OUTSIDE of the City of Healdsburg and are actually located in the County of Sonoma....and, adopting the assumptions of a couple of our posters for the sake of convenience....don't those vineyards and wineries -- some of which are located a great distance from the City of Healdsburg and are nowhere near the fluoridated municipal water supply -- have their own private water wells? And, if so, may we safely assume that the only fluoride in said well water would be NATURALLY OCCURRING fluoride?

The idiocy of this sentence in the report is almost incomprehensible.

Apparently, Dr. Silver-Chalfin must think that not only are we country bumpkins, but that we're full-fledged idiots!

Not so, Dr. Silver-Chalfin. Your misleading statements, including those which were published and distributed to numerous senior citizens, your inane comments made in task-force meetings and your robotic responses to Dr. Paul Connett's most basic questions lead me to seriously question your motives as well as your qualifications for the position for which you were originally hired.

Finally, to all posters: Please keep up your outstanding research and good work. You've more than proven that you're capable of "comprehending" scientific evidence. In Sebastacat's opinion, you are all doing Sonoma County proud!

lilypads

06-14-2013, 11:47 PM

Howard, I have attached below the label from a truck carrying hydrofluosilicic acid from a Florida phosphate fertilizer plant (where it is scrubbed from the smokestacks--a toxic waste product) to a city in Texas, where it is added to the water supply as a "health promoting" product. Nothing has been done to this substance to purify it. By transporting it from one place to another, It is magically transformed from hazardous waste into a product that reduces tooth decay, "Safe, effective, and increasing," in the words of Lynn Silver-Chalfin on June 3. Fluoridation of the water supply solved many problems for industry. (1) Disposal of large quantities of hazardous waste--now it could be SOLD instead of incurring costly disposal fees. (2) When everyone is drinking fluoridated water, it's hard for them to sue companies for polluting the environment with fluorides--who can determine where the fluoride that harmed you came from? It's not from our aluminum plant, it's from your water.

I know it's hard to get your head around this. But the close cooperation of government and industry that resulted in water fluoridation has been thoroughly documented. The book ""Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma" is worth every penny of the $5 a used copy costs on Amazon.

Fluorine should not be confused with fluoride, although in the early fluoridation literature the words were used interchangeably. Fluorine is an element. Fluoride denotes that fluorine has combined with other elements and formed a compound, e.g. hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6) sodium silicofluoride (NaSiF6) sodium fluoride (NaF) and calcium fluoride (CaF2)....

lilypads

06-14-2013, 11:57 PM

Great find! Great post!

How to "git 'er done!," in your community, which is exactly the approach sups are taking....

lilypads

06-15-2013, 12:22 PM

Dzerach, I just tried to use the link you provided for "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma," and after a wait got the message "The file is damaged and cannot be repaired." This happened twice. Was anybody able to access this download?

How to "git 'er done!," in your community, which is exactly the approach sups are taking....f adding HFSA is based more on politics than science."

lilypads

06-15-2013, 03:13 PM

In my search for working downloads of Dr. Waldbott's books, I found this tribute from "Fluoride" magazine. (The magazine is available free online.) This tribute gives us an idea of what kind of a man and what kind of a doctor Waldbott was. One of those who wrote a tribute is Sebastopol's John. R. Lee, M.D., who passed away about ten years ago. I had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Lee, who was also a strong opponent of fluoridation. Dr. Lee's articles on fluoridation can easily be found with a google search. Here is the tribute to Dr. Waldbott: https://en.netlog.com/The_HEART_O_Texas/blog/blogid=3828921

Dzerach, by using Firefox instead of Internet Explorer, I was able to get the link you provided for "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma" to work. Also there are still 4 copies of the book on Amazon for less than $1.

To those interested in digging deeper into fluoridation, here is the link to FLUORIDE Journal, the online magazine of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR), which was founded by George Waldbott, M.D. https://www.fluorideresearch.org/

Dzerach, I just tried to use the link you provided for "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma," and after a wait got the message "The file is damaged and cannot be repaired." This happened twice. Was anybody able to access this download?

lilypads

06-15-2013, 04:52 PM

Here's one more link for those interested in more details on fluoride toxicity. This came from "Fluoride" (see below) and includes material from "The Great Dilemma" and other sources: https://www.pauapress.com/fluoride/files/1418.pdf If only 1% of Sonoma County residents were to suffer from fluoride toxicity, that would still be 3,000 people whose lives and health would be seriously disrupted until they discovered the cause of their illness and remedied it by avoiding fluoridated water. There is no need for those people to get sick at all IF FLUORIDATION IS STOPPED BEFORE IT HAPPENS.

We need to get our friends in the medical and dental worlds reading and considering this material.

dzerach

06-15-2013, 07:53 PM

Problem solved. Good to know!

Dzerach, by using Firefox instead of Internet Explorer, I was able to get the link you provided for "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma" to work. Also there are still 4 copies of the book on Amazon for less than $1

Dzerach, I just tried to use the link you provided for "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma," and after a wait got the message "The file is damaged and cannot be repaired." This happened twice. Was anybody able to access this download?

lilypads

06-16-2013, 10:14 PM

This is a post from 4 months ago on the StopSCFluoridation yahoo Group. I am copying it here because many people in the West County have animals, and even though many of them are on wells, people who care about animals will be interested to hear what happened to the Justuses' horses and dogs when they drank fluoridated water:

Hi all. I am Cathy Justus, FAN National Spokesperson Against Fluoride Poisoning In Animals. I am also on the Second Look Executive Advisory Committee which is for helping those who have been fluoride poisoned. www.slweb.org (https://www.slweb.org/) I learned as a child about fluoride and how toxic it is from my dad who was very much into health. We lived in a non-fluoridated town in Calif.

My husband, our horses, dogs, and I moved to Pagosa Springs, CO in 1978 to continue to breed and raise quality Quarter Horses. We enjoyed one of the top three best quality water in the U.S. coming from the Continental Divide for 7 years until our town fluoridated it. Our horses ills started and continued to get worse over time. We lost 8 horses and 4 dogs to this cumulative, virulent toxin fluoride. We own the first horses to be diagnosed with Chronic Fluoride Poisoning from artificially fluoridated water, not because it isn't happening, but because vets, like doctors are not taught the many and varied ailments fluoride can cause. They just name the symptoms and treat those.

There have now been an editorial and two peer reviewed published manuscripts published in the journal FLUORIDE, The Quarterly Journal of the International Society For Fluoride Research on our horse/fluoride story. www.fluorideresearch.org/391/files/3911-2.pdf (https://www.fluorideresearch.org/391/files/3911-2.pdf) , www.fluorideresearch.org/391/files/3913-10.pdf (https://www.fluorideresearch.org/391/files/3913-10.pdf) , and www.fluorideresearch.org/392/files/39289-94.pdf (https://www.fluorideresearch.org/392/files/39289-94.pdf) Dr. Kennedy and the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology have produced a short documentary on our story called "Poisoned Horses". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TwwNZyROA

I have been asked to and have spoken at the Fluoride Conference in New York twice. I am still on this journey despite fluoridation ending in Pagosa Springs in 2005, because I believe God gave me this journey and it would be a disservice to my animals who suffered and died to teach me so much first hand knowledge, and to all those, human and animal alike, who are suffering now without this knowledge. I was raised to be independent of the good or bad opinion of others, do my own research, and find the truth. If I hadn't done that my animals would still be sick and dying. What we witnessed here caused by artificial fluoridation, I would not wish on anyone or anything. WE ARE PREVAILING IN STOPPING FLUORIDATION !

sebastacat

06-16-2013, 10:53 PM

Thanks once again, LilyPads, for this emotionally moving story. I continue to be amazed at what your outstanding and diligent research turns up.

What this woman went through with her beloved pets should be a wake-up call for all to take action against this unpopular, misguided -- and now I will add the adjective "dangerous" -- proposal. It just goes to show you that once this poison gets into our water supply, there are going to be numerous untold consequences for years to come. How many of you want something like this to happen to your pets and those of others? Not many, I'll bet.

And that is why our "journey" will continue until our "public health officer" and the "supes" who, in their infinite wisdom, hired her come to their senses, put the public's health at the top of the list of importance and shelve this proposal for good.

Glia

06-17-2013, 11:09 AM

Please see new post at https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?98925-The-Fluoridation-Advisory-Committee&p=167838#post167838 for the latest info on the June Fluoridation Advisory Committee meeting.

Glia

06-17-2013, 11:49 PM

The foreword to the Fluoride Fatigue booklet (1418.pdf link below) by Albert Burgstahler, PhD hits the nail on the head:

FOREWORD BY PROFESSOR EMERITUS ALBERT W BURGSTAHLER
This is a vitally important book that has been long needed and begging to be
written. Although dental public health officials in countries promoting water
fluoridation adamantly deny the existence of illness caused by fluoride in
drinking water, undeniable medical ill effects from fluoride added to drinking
water have been known and reported since the start of water fluoridation over
50 years ago. Even today, those who experience these adverse effects, whether
from fluoride in their drinking water or from other sources, know only too well
how insidious these ailments can be, what a relief it is to find out what is
causing them, and how easily they can often be overcome simply by reducing
excessive intake of fluoride.

Those who deny reality and persist in discounting sensitivity to fluoride in
drinking water are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. They would do
well to heed what Dr. Spittle has reported here and stop continuing to promote
and be misled by scientifically indefensible claims that do not hold up under
scrutiny.

Albert W Burgstahler, PhD (Harvard, 1953)
Professor Emeritus of Chemistry
The University of Kansas, USA
Editor, Fluoride
Website for Fluoride: https://www.fluorideresearch.org

Dr. Burgstahler is one of several people interviewed in an excellent movie called An Inconvenient Tooth. This movie was produced as part of Portland's successful campaign to keep fluoride out of their water supply. The full movie (almost 3 hours) is available on YouTube.

Here's a link to Dr. Burgstahler's segment in which he describes his personal experience with endocrine problems caused by drinking fluoridated water.
https://youtu.be/sh-oeu2L8yM?t=2h21m52s

Here's one more link for those interested in more details on fluoride toxicity. This came from "Fluoride" (see below) and includes material from "The Great Dilemma" and other sources: https://www.pauapress.com/fluoride/files/1418.pdf

If only 1% of Sonoma County residents were to suffer from fluoride toxicity, that would still be 3,000 people whose lives and health would be seriously disrupted until they discovered the cause of their illness and remedied it by avoiding fluoridated water. There is no need for those people to get sick at all IF FLUORIDATION IS STOPPED BEFORE IT HAPPENS.

We need to get our friends in the medical and dental worlds reading and considering this material.

lilypads

06-20-2013, 05:13 PM

I just did some reconnaissance on 625 5th St. It's located between Humboldt and Riley. The closest parking is the 5th St. garage. The entrance is on Orchard, just north of 5th. The parking lot on the south side of 5th St. has 2-hour meters.

Please see new post at https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?98925-The-Fluoridation-Advisory-Committee&p=167838#post167838 for the latest info on the June Fluoridation Advisory Committee meeting.

lilypads

06-20-2013, 10:33 PM

This site goes through the American Dental Association's Pro-Fluoridation
arguments and refutes them, point by point:
https://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

I found it with a Google search: "Fluoride and pipe corrosion," which is
Question 33 here.

I just did some reconnaissance on 625 5th St. It's located between Humboldt and Riley. The closest parking is the 5th St. garage. The entrance is on Orchard, just north of 5th. The parking lot on the south side of 5th St. has 2-hour meters.

lilypads

06-20-2013, 11:14 PM

From the site linked previously, Under the question, "Is fluoride safe?" I excerpted what they said about fluoride and lead. The following is a quote:

John D. MacArthur states, "History repeats itself. Just like the acidic leaves that leeched lead from the paint on that 18th century roof, fluosilicic acid leaches lead from plumbing. This was graphically demonstrated in two communities that stopped fluoridating their water systems. Their lead levels dropped significantly. During a 1992 drought in Tacoma, Washington, they temporarily stopped fluoridating their water and lead levels dropped from 32 ppb (parts per billion) to 17 ppb. When Thurmont, Maryland stopped fluoridating their drinking water in 1994, the lead level in homes dropped from 30 ppb to 7 ppb. (The EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level is 15 ppb). ("Fluoride Banned in Thurmont, Maryland," Frederick Post , Feb. 3, 1994, p. A-9.) Also see, 13-5: "Letter from C.R. Myrick, Water Quality Coordinator, Tacoma Public Utilities to Washington State Dept. of Health", Dec. 2, 1992, in which he states: "It is interesting to note the 90th percentile lead concentration was 17 ppb this time compared to 32 ppb last time. We have not been using fluoride since the drought this summer." Fluoride was held responsible for the high lead level.

In research funded in part by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training (published in August 1999 in the International Journal of Environmental Studies), a survey of over 280,000 Massachusetts children, comparing a matched group in 30 towns that do not use silicofluorides to children in 30 communities that use these chemicals to fluoridate, showed that when silicofluorides were present in the water the children were more than twice as likely to suffer from blood lead above the danger level of 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood. The correlation with blood lead levels is especially serious because lead poisoning is associated with higher rates of learning disabilities, hyperactivity, substance abuse and crime. (See 13-6: "Water Treatment With Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity," by Roger D. Masters and Myron J. Coplan from the International Journal of Environmental Studies, 1999, Vol. 56. pp. 435-449).

"Children who are black or Hispanic given the same exposures as white children absorb significantly more lead. ... This means that the level set by EPA is marginally safe for white adults, but unsafe for African American or Hispanic children." (See 13-7: letter by William L. Marcus, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., Board Certified Consulting Toxicologist).
Herbert L. Needleman, of the University of Pittsburgh's School of Medicine, said he “found much higher lead rates in a group of juvenile delinquents than in a control group.” He used 416 youths-216 delinquents and 200 in a control group. Adjusting for such factors as race, parental education, occupation, family size and crime rate in the neighborhood the youths came from, he found those with high lead levels were twice as likely to be delinquent than those with low levels. ("Chemicals and Crime: A Truly Toxic Effect," by Judy Mann, May 26, 2000, page C 11, Washington Post.
<o:p> </o:p>

This site goes through the American Dental Association's Pro-Fluoridation
arguments and refutes them, point by point:
https://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

I found it with a Google search: "Fluoride and pipe corrosion," which is
Question 33 here.