Setback for sonoma county fluoridation plans

To All,

This should be of special interest to everyone concerned about the county's plans to add fluoride to drinking water in Sonoma County.

Larry Hanson


SETBACK FOR SONOMA COUNTY FLUORIDATION PLANS

By Lynn Kwitt, Fluoride Free Sonoma County

Dec 4, 2013

In an unprecedented 5-0 City Council vote on November 12, Cotati joined a growing number of college towns including Davis, California, and Portland, Oregon, voting to keep fluoridation chemicals out of their water supply.

Cotati is one of nine major cities and water districts supplied by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). These cities and water districts deliver drinking water to more than 600,000 residents in portions of Sonoma and Marin counties. Only Santa Rosa, Petaluma and the North Marin Water District have more than 10,000 connections and are subject to the California State AB733 mandate to fluoridate if funding is available. Because Cotati and the other five jurisdictions in the SCWA service area have fewer than 10,000 connections, they are not subject to the State mandate and are free to choose whether or not to fluoridate.

The relationship between SCWA and the nine cities and water agencies it supplies (commonly referred to as the ‘Contractors’) is governed by a complex agreement. According to the Technical Advisory Committee of the Contractors, this agreement would need to be amended by unanimous vote of all nine Contractors before fluoridation could be undertaken. The current agreement took several years to negotiate.

The November 12 Cotati City Council hearing was prompted by a Sonoma County Grand Jury report, which recommended that both sides of the issue be heard. After hearing presentations and public comment, the Cotati Councilmembers expressed concerns about the cost impacts, overall potential health risks, inefficiencies of the plan, and the lack of choice.

The Councilmembers also expressed concern during their deliberations about how fluoridation would be paid for after First 5 tobacco tax funding of the startup capital cost and maintenance during the first two or three years ended.

When asked afterwards to comment on the unanimous vote, Cotati Mayor Mark Landman said, “We concluded that more cost effective and equitable alternatives exist for dental health in Sonoma County, and that would be a better course of action. More importantly, ‘choice’ was the word we heard repeatedly from our citizens. They asked us to respect their choice to decide what medications their families receive, and we agreed as an elected body that this decision should remain theirs.”

The presentation supporting fluoridation was made by Sonoma County Department of Health Services representative, Kim Caldewey. She described an increase in dental-related visits to emergency rooms and charity dental clinics in Sonoma County between 2008 and 2012, and outlined unmet needs for dental care among the county’s economically disadvantaged children. She argued that fluoridating drinking water supplied to the SCWA service area would be the most cost-effective approach to addressing the issue of dental decay.

The argument against water fluoridation was presented by Cotati endocrine specialist Richard Shames M.D. and Stephen Fuller-Rowell, co-founder of the Sonoma County Water Coalition. Fuller-Rowell said he spoke as a grandfather who drinks tap water. Shames and Fuller-Rowell explained the ethical issues of mass medication, the impossibility of controlling dosage because people drink different amounts of water, the proven ineffectiveness of fluoridation as a solution to tooth decay, the increasing sophistication of voters who are more likely to to do their own research, and the inefficiencies of adding fluoride to the water supply when more than 99% goes ‘down the drain’.

To highlight the lack of practical effectiveness of the proposal, Fuller-Rowell pointed to a 2013 SCWA survey which revealed that only 14% of the Latino population in Sonoma County drinks regular tap water. Yet Latino children are the Health Department’s key target constituency, as they have the highest rate of tooth decay.

Fuller-Rowell further explained that fluoridation would conflict with existing public policy in several key areas. SCWA and its Contractors have run Take It from the Tap campaigns in recent years to build trust in the county’s tap water. He suggested that consumption of bottled water would rise again if fluoridation went ahead. Additionally, Sonoma County has invested heavily in salmon restoration programs which could be jeopardized by fluoride residues in irrigation run-off and in wastewater.

In conclusion, Fuller-Rowell observed: “It’s time to move beyond the magical thinking from the 1950’s that believed fluoride would give us all perfect teeth without affecting anything else in our bodies or in the world around us.”

A member of the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Basin Advisory Panel, former Rohnert Park City Council member Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh, raised the issue of the cost impact of fluoridation on proposals to use aquifer storage and recovery to balance seasonal supply and demand. Fluoride would need to be removed from drinking water before being injected into groundwater. This cost was not addressed in the feasibility study by the county.

The PEW Center on the States, in a February 2012 presentation, reported recent changes in attitudes toward fluoridation, especially those of young people and intellectuals. Polls showed a drop in those “strongly supporting fluoridation” from 62% in 2005 to 26% in 2011. Reading between the lines the message was that the days of not engaging in public debate on fluoridation are gone; and in fact, avoiding the debate is creating suspicion and distrust of government.

Clint Griess of Clean Water California, an organization working on fluoridation issues at the state and local levels, noted this trend: “The worst fear of water fluoridation proponents in California is the emergence of a politically sophisticated and dedicated movement to counter their well-funded, behind-the-scenes lobbying of local and state officials. People of every political persuasion are coming together and rapidly learning what it will take — personally and collectively — to defeat what we see as an affront to public health, the right to consent, and plain common sense.”

Six days after the Cotati vote, Sonoma County Health Officer Dr. Lynn Silver Chalfin, the leading fluoridation advocate in Sonoma County, announced her resignation. In her message, Dr Silver Chalfin described Sonoma County as “ … an extraordinary place, beyond its obvious physical beauty, the residents are engaged in trying to create a better community in a way I have not seen anywhere else I’ve lived. That is a very precious asset which you are nurturing successfully. Your dedication, skills and service provide critical support to making progress.” In a subsequent statement to the Sonoma County Press Democrat newspaper, Dr Silver Chalfin denied that her departure had anything to do with her strong advocacy for fluoridation.

So, after all is said about the subject: is it possible to influence Santa Rosa to not fluoridate our water & how can we begin to do that? Larry

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by larryjhanson:

In an unprecedented 5-0 City Council vote on November 12, Cotati joined a growing number of college towns including Davis, California, and Portland, Oregon, voting to keep fluoridation chemicals out of their water supply....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by larrymiller:

So, after all is said about the subject: is it possible to influence Santa Rosa to not fluoridate our water & how can we begin to do that? Larry

---

I went to the meeting of the Fluoridation Advisory Committee last week. The audience was very small. There's a new member--Jack Atkin of the Sonoma County Taxpayers Assn. I think that's good news. My hope is that he will draw attention to the ridiculous cost of this plan, which will ultimately fall on the rate payers. (Santa Rosa water rates will be going up yet again in July, WITHOUT fluoridation. There's a meeting about it at City Hall "at or after 5 p.m." on Jan. 7.)

The gist of the FAC meeting was that the whole process is now in slow motion. Last summer, the DHS put out a request for proposal for an anvironmental assessment, and no proposals were submitted. Now they have to redo the RFP and provide more time and money and see if anyone comes forward with a proposal.

The FAC will develop its recommendation for the DHS in late summer or early fall.

Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh pointed out that the SCWA is not required to fluoridate under AB733 because it's a wholesaler, and only has 156 connections. Lynn Silver-Chalfin agreed with that and said only the cities of Petaluma and Santa Rosa actually fall under the AB733 mandate. But Penny Vanderwolk, a committee member, said the DHS push to fluoridate is not because of the AB 733 mandate but because of children's dental health. (Penny was the author of a letter to the PD a few months ago that drew a lot of attention.)

Laura Gaeta-Wilson, D.D.S., (she wasn't there) has developed a financial analysis of the cost to give fluoride tablets to the at-risk children. She thinks there are only 2800 of them. They could all get the tablets and dental sealants for about $500 each--or about $1 million total, MUCH less than the cost of fluoridation, with no environmental damage and without poisoning the entire population.

Committee member Stephen Fuller-Rowell, of the Sonoma County Water Coalition, said that in terms of value for money, fluoridation is a very inefficient use of public funds. Committee member Ernie Newbrun, a retired dentist and longtime fluoride promoter, disagreed and said "the answer is in the literature." Stephen said, "I've read the literature and it's not there."

Howard Pollick, D.D.S,, another longtime fluoride promoter (in the audience) asked if the FAC has a scientific subcommittee. Chalfin said a scientific subcommittee could be considered. (Chalfin has resigned from her position as County Public Health Officer.)

Penny said that the scope of the committee's work is engineering and environmental. Other than the environmental ones, scientific considerations are outside the scope of the committee. I remember that at one earlier meeting I attended, Chalfin said health effects would not be discussed. (I wonder if the supervisors are aware that the committee has been limited in this way. Taking the most important topic off the table is an interesting strategy for the "health" department, especially after the Grand Jury issued a mandate to the supes and the DHS to present "both sides.")

Chalfin said she has "read all the studies," and has not seen anything that would make her change her mind about the saftely and effectiveness of fluoridation.

I have encouraged Deb Fudge, who is running for 4th District Supervisor, to schedule an informational meeting for the Windsor City Council like the one that was held in Cotati. She has said she would not say anything about fluoridation until she hears about it at a public meeting. She is not willing to look at the Clean Water Sonoma Marin Facebook page (https://www.Facebook.com/CleanWaterSonomaMarin). Meetings like the one in Cotati need to be held in Sonoma, Santa Rosa, and Petaluma, as well as Windsor.

Now that the time pressure is off, it appears that this can be done, since it honors the Grand Jury's mandate to present "both sides." Both sides have never been given equal time at any events organized by the County.

So far, the candidates for 4th District Supervisor are treating fluoridation like a hot potato. Nobody is willing to take a position. They need to hear from their constituents. Having no opinions is not a quality I would want to encourage in a public official.

As for Santa Rosa, Julie Combs (and I believe Gary Wysocky) are against fluoridation. We need to see what it will take to have a meeting before the Santa Rosa City Council. It will probably happen after the first of the year.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

Regarding the question about influencing Santa Rosa on not putting fluoride in drinking water, there has been a campaign county-wide because the Sonoma County Water Agency water contracts its water throughout most of the county. Gettng individual cities to reject fluoride is another nail in fluorides coffin. Interested people in the campaign can get connected via a listserv called Stop Sonoma County Fluoridation ([email protected]).

LH

I have yet to make one of these meetings. One question that I would ask is, 'where exactly is the fluoride sourced from?'/ 'from where is Sonoma County going to be receiving the aluminum and pesticide waste product?' Alcoa?
I'm wondering if Sonoma County officials have an answer to that.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lilypads:

I went to the meeting of the Fluoridation Advisory Committee last week. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kltkwmn~707:

One question that I would ask is, 'where exactly is the fluoride sourced from?

---

I don't think anyone has named a company who will provide the product. The Engineering Report, which you can find on the Department of Health Services' website, says that the product will be hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA), a substance that has never been tested for safety in humans and animals. Nor has it ever been shown to reduce tooth decay. Most of the HFSA used in the USA comes from Florida, but I believe some also comes from China. HFSA contains arsenic and lead and in some cases cadmium and radioactive materials.

Fluoride proponents like Lynn Silver-Chalfin and Howard Pollick state that all fluorine compounds completely ionize in solution; therefore they all have the same effect on teeth. But chemists dispute this facile claim. If this is a subject that interests you, look for the articles by Richard Sauerheber on this site: https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/

Calcium fluoride (the kind found in naturally fluoridated water) does not completely ionize in solution, which is one of several reasons it is much safer than sodium fluoride and HFSA.

On the Clean Water Sonoma Marin Facebook page, there is a complete download of a book about fluoride written in 1937 by Kaj Roholm. You can find his ranking of the relative toxicity of fluoride compounds by scrolling through it. https://www.Facebook.com/CleanWaterSonomaMarin Those things don't change.

Three supervisor seats are coming up next November: MacGuire, Rabbit and Zane. Candidates will try their best to AVOID making any statements or commitments. It is up to voters in these districts to show up at debates and call their offices and ask to speak to the candidate and learn where they stand on this insane fluoride scheme, then report back to the voters. If we can make this a campaign issue, and perhaps sway Susan Gorin, and get two more votes, we can defeat this insane expensive proposal to sound millions making our drinking water less safe.:Yinyangv:

PJ, you are absolutely spot-on that this needs to be a red-line issue for elected officials and candidates at all levels. Along with public employees such as the ones running our county Department of Health Services (DHS), they all need to get the message that supporting/promoting water fluoridation is career suicide.

One correction, however: Zane is not -- unfortunately -- up for election in November 2014. her term lasts until 2016. IMO she and Carrillo should both be recalled in a county-level housecleaning.

MacGuire is rumored to be gunning for the State Senate seat currently occupied by Zane's buddy Noreen Evans. He is a professional politico and will probably go with whoever screams the loudest or has the most money to throw around. Right now the fluoridation pushers have the money and have clearly co-opted the state First Five "children's health" program, which has turned out to be about anything but children's health.

Susan Gorin has proven that she can think for herself, on this issue at least! So far she has been the proverbial breath of fresh air and should be commended. :):

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

Three supervisor seats are coming up next November: MacGuire, Rabbit and Zane. Candidates will try their best to AVOID making any statements or commitments. It is up to voters in these districts to show up at debates and call their offices and ask to speak to the candidate and learn where they stand on this insane fluoride scheme, then report back to the voters. If we can make this a campaign issue, and perhaps sway Susan Gorin, and get two more votes, we can defeat this insane expensive proposal to sound millions making our drinking water less safe.:Yinyangv:

---

The fluoridation wheels are turning slowly enough now that it's quite possible to Supes will be voting on it AFTER the 2014 election, rather than next March. So it should definitely be an election issue.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

Three supervisor seats are coming up next November: MacGuire, Rabbit and Zane. Candidates will try their best to AVOID making any statements or commitments. It is up to voters in these districts to show up at debates and call their offices and ask to speak to the candidate and learn where they stand on this insane fluoride scheme, then report back to the voters. If we can make this a campaign issue, and perhaps sway Susan Gorin, and get two more votes, we can defeat this insane expensive proposal to sound millions making our drinking water less safe.:Yinyangv:

---

It's true, follow the money on McGuire and you'll see how his votes in the past have been paid for by large corporations. He is a puppet for anyone that can contribute large amounts to his campaign. We deserve an individual that cares for our environment and the people they represent.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

PJ, you are absolutely spot-on that this needs to be a red-line issue for elected officials and candidates at all levels. Along with public employees such as the ones running our county Department of Health Services (DHS), they all need to get the message that supporting/promoting water fluoridation is career suicide.

One correction, however: Zane is not -- unfortunately -- up for election in November 2014. her term lasts until 2016. IMO she and Carrillo should both be recalled in a county-level housecleaning.

MacGuire is rumored to be gunning for the State Senate seat currently occupied by Zane's buddy Noreen Evans. He is a professional politico and will probably go with whoever screams the loudest or has the most money to throw around. Right now the fluoridation pushers have the money and have clearly co-opted the state First Five "children's health" program, which has turned out to be about anything but children's health.

Susan Gorin has proven that she can think for herself, on this issue at least! So far she has been the proverbial breath of fresh air and should be commended. :):

---