Fuss over the Sebastopol Next Step Newsletter

The PD has an article about a fuss over The Next Step newsletter which is mailed with the Sebastopol water bills that urged people to oppose Sonoma County's consideration of a water fluoridation plan.

Do you think the city-sponsored newsletter went too far in advocating opposition to flouride, before the city has taken an official position on this?

Barry


https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/...1206081330.png
Sebastopol newsletter urges opposition to county fluoride plan

By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 5:02 p.m.

Some Sebastopol residents, including a former city councilman, are objecting to a city-sponsored newsletter that urged people to oppose Sonoma County's consideration of a water fluoridation plan.

"Another embarrassment for Sebastopol," said Larry Robinson, a former three-term councilman who called the newsletter's article "totally inappropriate."

Robinson, who helped start the newsletter in 2000, said the article, headlined "Oppose Sonoma County Water Fluoridation," crossed a line between informing the public and engaging in advocacy.

"This does not represent city policy," Robinson said, noting that the newsletter, distributed six times a year in city water bills, "appears to represent the voice of the city."

Mayor Michael Kyes said he personally agreed with the article, but that the newsletter, "The Next Step" should not adopt "an advocacy position" until the council has done so first.

Asked about the ongoing practice under which no city official vets the newsletter's content, Kyes said: "I think that probably will change."

City Manager Larry McLaughlin said there is "no official city oversight" of the newsletter, which is "not intended to state city policy."

Continues at https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...p=all&tc=pgall

Barry, If you're taking an informal poll, then consider...

City Manager Larry McLaughlin said there is "no official city oversight" of the newsletter, which is "not intended to state city policy." If the City council wants some editorial input, fine, but a caveat in the newsletter
"not intended to state city policy."

seems clear enough to me that the City has no reason to be embarrassed by any of the articles.

Personally, I think it's a great newsletter and totally appropriate to oppose fluoridation.
Not the first time I disagree with the highly respected and supposedly retired Mr. Robinson.
Who wants to drink fluoride when they visit other communities in Sonoma County?
If they fluoridate, water rates go up to cover the cost, and then everything made in the areas served by SCWA will cost more.
If the Sonoma County Public Health director wants to get fluoride onto people's teeth, then the County can subsidize topical application of fluoride where it can do the most good and pay for it with an appropriate tax rather than force it onto every water consumer and collect money from every SCWA customer for a poison they would probably rather not drink.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

The PD has an article about a fuss over The Next Step newsletter which is mailed with the Sebastopol water bills that urged people to oppose Sonoma County's consideration of a water fluoridation plan.

Do you think the city-sponsored newsletter went too far in advocating opposition to flouride, before the city has taken an official position on this?

Barry

https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/...1206081330.png
Sebastopol newsletter urges opposition to county fluoride plan

Continues at https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...p=all&tc=pgall

---

Thank you, AJL, for the cogent response to this tempest in the teapot. The comment, "another embarrassment for Sebastopol", I find a sad and unnecessary legacy to perpetuate, when in reality, Sebastopol has had the courage to lead in so many arenas.

Patricia DInes has done an exemplary job, completely voluntary, that serves us all immensely.
Thank you for your work and all the volunteers who have helped along the way. To reiterate, it says, "not intended to state city policy."

If Larry Robinson would like to talk about embarrassments let's look at how he helped initiate a Toxic Free Zone and then voted to approve herbicides on city land in the Laguna when the issue became political and involved money.
This policy of using herbicides continues to this day.

Regards, Magick

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by AJL:

Barry, If you're taking an informal poll, then consider...

City Manager Larry McLaughlin said there is "no official city oversight" of the newsletter, which is "not intended to state city policy." If the City council wants some editorial input, fine, but a caveat in the newsletter
"not intended to state city policy."
seems clear enough to me that the City has no reason to be embarrassed by any of the articles.


Personally, I think it's a great newsletter and totally appropriate to oppose fluoridation.
Not the first time I disagree with the highly respected and supposedly retired Mr. Robinson.
Who wants to drink fluoride when they visit other communities in Sonoma County?
If they fluoridate, water rates go up to cover the cost, and then everything made in the areas served by SCWA will cost more.
If the Sonoma County Public Health director wants to get fluoride onto people's teeth, then the County can subsidize topical application of fluoride where it can do the most good and pay for it with an appropriate tax rather than force it onto every water consumer and collect money from every SCWA customer for a poison they would probably rather not drink.

---

Ms. Dines, a.k.a. EcoGirl, has absolutely nothing to apologize for nor to be ashamed of. I saw a couple of her articles on fluoridation when I attended the lecture given by Dr. Paul Connett a couple of weeks ago at the Glacer Center, and the one in the Sebastopol newsletter is similar. As far as I'm concerned, she has done a public service by providing timely information about this misguided plan. This is an extremely serious issue as the "supes" are proposing to fluoridate/medicate several hundred thousand people without their informed consent! Any physician who did this would have his license to practice medicine revoked summarily, so why do the supes feel that they have the right to do this to the good people of this county?

Also, Ms. Dines correctly points out that the fluoride used in the practice of dentistry is fundamentally different from that used in community water fluoridation, which is a byproduct of the phosphate-fertilizer industry. Before hearing Dr. Connett's presentation and before reading Ms. Dine's newsletter, I was not aware of this salient fact, and I doubt seriously whether many other people were either.
I do not believe that most people have any desire to ingest this stuff voluntarily, let alone have it put in their water without their consent and thereby ingest it involuntarily.

I wish to thank Ms. Dines for performing a public service by not only educating Sebastopol's residents about the dangers of fluoride, but also for informing many Sebastopol residents who were heretofore unaware of this proposal of its existence. I have been wearing proudly my "Sonoma County No Fluoride" shirt everywhere I go, and I have had several people come up to me and ask me about it, at which time I take the opportunity to, first, tell them that forced water fluoridation is being proposed by our Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, and second, to educate them as to the dangers of this poison. I also have given several people references, Web sites, etc., where they can get more detailed information.

Incidentally, I have yet to talk to one person who thinks that this is a good idea. In fact, many people have been very passionately vocal in expressing their opposition, and have offered comments such as, "Why are our supervisors even considering this?" "Don't they have better things to spend our tax money on?"
"This stuff is terrible." "If they want fluoride, they can get it from toothpaste." This is just a sampling of the many comments I have heard.

Finally, the words "not intended to state city policy" seem pretty clear to me. Perhaps before Mr. Robinson lobs any more unjustified criticism at Ms. Dines or the Sebastopol City Council, he might take the time to re-read his copy and find these words. He might also take the opportunity to reflect on all that Ms. Dines has contributed to the residents of Sebastopol over the past 10-plus years that she has written her column -- and for "Encouraging the eco-hero in everyone. Making it easy to be green!"

No, I do not think they went too far. The fact that the Press Democrat made it a cover story says a lot about them.

Unfortunately, I think I've been the only one to publicly request the Sebastopol City Council, (and all the other cities) take a stand via a resolution against water fluoridation.

I have been verbally and physically abused (shoved) by Dawna Gallager, (who is ironically leading the charge against fluoride as well), because of my position on getting the cities and Sonoma County Water Agency contractors to join in opposition to this. She is blind to how severely her tactics do not serve the goal of keeping toxins out of the water supply by being rude to not only me, but as I heard Patricia Dines and others at these meetings.

As I said to Dawna, this issue is too important for ego to get in the way. Multiple strategies are needed, as there is little chance that the Board of Supervisors will change their position, but it only takes 1 of the 8 contractors objecting to keep fluoride out of our water.

In my request for a meeting with Sarah Gurney and our City Manager to speak on this, and other important issues, he was willing, but she did not come through after several attempts.

Every time Sarah does this, Sebastopol is worse off, and in the case of my daughter, help does not come in time, even though I was begging for she and others to get involved with getting an investigation going on why the crimes of my child's father had been ignored and how that was linked to the Sebastopol Police Department.

The PD story was ironic coming from Larry Robinson, as some community members have concerns he may be demonstrating signs of early Alzheimer's. I truly hope someone is able to demonstrate to him the link to that disease and ingesting fluoride. He has been such an asset to Sebastopol and Wacco, it's sad to see him come out so strongly on the wrong side of a human and environmental health issue, which must remain a personal choice.

Unless we work together to defeat the state law mandating water fluoridation; there is no guarantee Sebastopol will not be forced to add it in the future. Dental health is a ruse on why they want us drinking this, the entities who want you dumbed down and complacent have the money and power to lobby state and federal government until all public drinking water is fluoridated.

Dawna's tactics to silence and censor other fluoride opponents only serves those profiting from fluoride, and getting the public to passively conform to the rest of their toxic agenda.

It's fine for some to play it safe and be the middle ground; but you will not been viewed as the safe middle, if you thwart those with a broader stance.

No matter what your position is, please view this for important health information related to fluoride.

How to Decalcify Your Pineal Gland

www.collective-evolution.com/2013/03/29/how-to-decalcify-your-pineal-gland/

Doesn't matter if I like you or not; when you act on behalf of our mutual best interest I'll likely be your most vocal champion; and when you do not, your loudest critic. All that really matters is results, not who got us there.

I hope you all will consider this the next time I'm way out front on something. Let's get the petty personal stuff out of the way before even more quality of life has eroded; and more folks are harmed or killed because you were too afraid to get involved and take action.

Thanks,

:waccosun: Colleen Fernald

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

The PD has an article about a fuss over The Next Step newsletter which is mailed with the Sebastopol water bills that urged people to oppose Sonoma County's consideration of a water fluoridation plan.

Do you think the city-sponsored newsletter went too far in advocating opposition to flouride, before the city has taken an official position on this?

Barry

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Magick:

Thank you, AJL, for the cogent response to this tempest in the teapot. The comment, "another embarrassment for Sebastopol", I find a sad and unnecessary legacy to perpetuate, when in reality, Sebastopol has had the courage to lead in so many arenas.

Patricia DInes has done an exemplary job, completely voluntary, that serves us all immensely.
Thank you for your work and all the volunteers who have helped along the way. To reiterate, it says, "not intended to state city policy."

If Larry Robinson would like to talk about embarrassments let's look at how he helped initiate a Toxic Free Zone and then voted to approve herbicides on city land in the Laguna when the issue became political and involved money.
This policy of using herbicides continues to this day.

Regards, Magick

---

:waccosun: Thanks for pointing this out Magick.

I am addressing it on this thread:

Ludwigia in the Laguna

Thanks for your comments regarding the Next Step newsletter. I note that all of you who wrote to say it was appropriate for the newsletter to take a position on fluoridation, agreed with the position the newsletter took.

However the fuss is about that it took a position at all, not which position it took, given that it is a city sponsored newsletter and the city doesn't have a position on this yet.

I also want to point out that the phrase "not intended to state city policy" is not included in the newsletter. That was just Larry McLaughlin's commented that was quoted in PD article.

What if the newletter had cited other "facts" that supported fluoridation and advocated support for it? Would you still think it was appropriate for the city sponsored newsletter to take a position on this issue, even if you disaggreed with the position?

Barry:

While it is a good question which you pose, I must now ask a rhetorical question:
Why would Sebastopol bother to enlist the services of someone to write an opinion which does not match the environmental and ecological values of the vast majority of city residents?

As far as I am concerned, this is just more of the same: the Press Democrat attempting to embarrass our progressive city council every chance they get--and by using whatever tools are available to them to do so.

I believe that our largest daily paper must have hit rock bottom to try to pass this non-issue off as front page news. It is THEY who are the embarrassment, NOT our dedicated, progressive city council.

The answer is simple. Advocacy positions are not appropriate for a city newsletter. I’d bet those giving their full-throated support for the anti-fluoridation article appearing in the newsletter would take a dimmer view had a CVS supporter used the newsletter to share their position with the citizenry. Neither is appropriate. And for anyone to assume they know how the majority of Sebastopol's citizens feel about a particular issue is a bit on the pompous side.

Dear twodogs:

Thank you for your post.

While I can appreciate your question regarding whether or not those who have no problem with the city publishing and sending out a newsletter stating a position which is the opinion of one of its authors would be as upset if that same newsletter were to state a pro-CVS position, I have to say that comparing the two hotbutton issues is akin to comparing apples to oranges; there simply is no comparison. Why? One issue involves issues of planning, aesthetics, traffic and environmental concerns, while the other -- forced fluoridation -- involves sensitive issues regarding one's own health and not wanting to have to ingest a chemical compound which is known to include arsenic and lead, as well as other highly toxic chemicals, and having to do it against their will once said compound is introduced into the community water supply.

I know, your answer to my last concern will be met with something such as: But they don't HAVE to drink it if they don't want to. WRONG! If you are one of us who is still lucky enough to be able to afford something called gasoline, you just might want to treat yourself to a day-trip to another municipality, and -- low and behold -- said municipality JUST MIGHT purchase its water from -- you guessed it! -- the Sonoma County Water Agency!

If, after filling your vehicle with gasoline, you have a little bit of money left in your pocket, you just might want to grab a bite to eat at one of the municipality's fine restaurants. Your waitress will not only bring you a glass of nice, ice-cold fluoridated H2O, but the plate of food which you are about to indulge in and enjoy has ALSO been prepared with said fluoridated H2O! What to do....oh, what to do......

If you wish to label any one of the posters -- including me -- as "pompous," that certainly is your prerogative and your right as a citizen.

However, when it comes to my health, I will make no apology for expressing my opinions nor for seeking the truth behind any governmental proposal which seeks to endanger my good health and the health of the citizens of our community, county and beyond. If you wish to label me as "pompous" for doing that, I will accept the label gladly.

I applaud these brave souls who have taken the time out of their busy lives to post under this forum and support Ms. Dines for having the courage to alert her community and county to this dangerous and draconian proposal.

As for purporting to know what the people of this community want, I'd be willing to bet the farm as well as my last bottom dollar on this: The people of this town do NOT want to ingest any chemical compound which contains arsenic, lead and other toxic compounds which could potentially endanger their health.
And I doubt that you want to either. At least I hope not.

The next time you read a post by someone who is trying to enlighten those members of our community who may not be aware of this upcoming proposal, may not be aware of the dangers of water fluoridation or are simply on the fence, remember that not only are they trying to protect their own health, they are trying to protect the community's health as well; and since you are a member of the community, that includes YOU.

you missed the point!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sebastacat:

Dear twodogs:

Thank you for your post....

---

Just wanted to clarify the issue about topical fluoride being different from what is being put in the water. Technically, what is put in toothpastes, in dental office fluoride trays and rinses have a different name and source. There is now even a fluoride varnish applied in dental offices as well which is usually 5% sodium fluoride, (22,600 ppm fluoride). PERIOMED (stannous fluoride) rinse is Stannous fluoride 0.63% concentrate (0.12% w/v fluoride ion). Stannous fluoride and sodium fluoride are salts which have different masses, since tin and sodium metal have different masses. When the salts are dissolved, they dissociate into their component ions, but they are both extremely toxic.

Over 10,000 calls are made to poison control centers in the United States each year after children have swallowed toothpaste (stannous fluoride). Have you ever taken the time to read the label on a tube of toothpaste? One sample from a fluoride toothpaste selected at random reads:" Active Ingredient Sodium Fluoride – Warning – Keep out of reach of children. If accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center immediately. (Incidentally, a tube of commercial toothpaste contains enough fluoride in it to kill a child of around 20 pounds or the average 9-month-old.)"
https://www.biologicaldentist.com/62...or-your-teeth/

Over 95% of toothpastes are fluoridated. In April of 1997, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration made it mandatory for toothpaste manufacturers to carry a warning label on all fluoride toothpaste to protect children. Fluoride has a very low molecular weight and each time you brush your teeth, approximately 0.5 mg. of fluoride is absorbed through the mucus lining of the mouth. Studies show that children can swallow large amounts of fluoride when they brush, particularly when using toothpaste with bubble gum and candy flavors. According to the Department of Heath & Human Services, sodium fluoride is not just used to prevent dental caries. It is also a registered rodenticide and pesticide. That's right, sodium fluoride is a rat poison and roach killer.
https://www.healthymuslim.com/articl...--a-poison.cfm

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) typically label sodium fluoride as “…toxic by ingestion, inhalation and skin contact” and that PPE (personal protection equipment) for handling should include safety glasses and gloves ^[2]. Fluorides are more toxic than lead and only slightly less poisonous than arsenic … and these toxins can enter your body from brushing your teeth or rinsing with many popular dental care products!
https://www.globalhealingcenter.com/...e-is-fluoride/

Happy brushing and rinsing!

Ms. Femald,

I think it is unfortunate that you are bringing slander and personal attack into this conversation. Your slurs against Larry Robinson reflect very poorly upon your character and reduce this important issue to a very low level of discourse... I believe you owe him an apologie.

Michelle Noe

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peace Voyager:

No, I do not think they went too far. The fact that the Press Democrat made it a cover story says a lot about them.

Unfortunately, I think I've been the only one to publicly request the Sebastopol City Council, (and all the other cities) take a stand via a resolution against water fluoridation.

I have been verbally and physically abused (shoved) by Dawna Gallager, (who is ironically leading the charge against fluoride as well), because of my position on getting the cities and Sonoma County Water Agency contractors to join in opposition to this. She is blind to how severely her tactics do not serve the goal of keeping toxins out of the water supply by being rude to not only me, but as I heard Patricia Dines and others at these meetings.

As I said to Dawna, this issue is too important for ego to get in the way. Multiple strategies are needed, as there is little chance that the Board of Supervisors will change their position, but it only takes 1 of the 8 contractors objecting to keep fluoride out of our water.

In my request for a meeting with Sarah Gurney and our City Manager to speak on this, and other important issues, he was willing, but she did not come through after several attempts.

Every time Sarah does this, Sebastopol is worse off, and in the case of my daughter, help does not come in time, even though I was begging for she and others to get involved with getting an investigation going on why the crimes of my child's father had been ignored and how that was linked to the Sebastopol Police Department.

The PD story was ironic coming from Larry Robinson, as some community members have concerns he may be demonstrating signs of early Alzheimer's. I truly hope someone is able to demonstrate to him the link to that disease and ingesting fluoride. He has been such an asset to Sebastopol and Wacco, it's sad to see him come out so strongly on the wrong side of a human and environmental health issue, which must remain a personal choice.

Unless we work together to defeat the state law mandating water fluoridation; there is no guarantee Sebastopol will not be forced to add it in the future. Dental health is a ruse on why they want us drinking this, the entities who want you dumbed down and complacent have the money and power to lobby state and federal government until all public drinking water is fluoridated.

Dawna's tactics to silence and censor other fluoride opponents only serves those profiting from fluoride, and getting the public to passively conform to the rest of their toxic agenda.

It's fine for some to play it safe and be the middle ground; but you will not been viewed as the safe middle, if you thwart those with a broader stance.

No matter what your position is, please view this for important health information related to fluoride.

How to Decalcify Your Pineal Gland

www.collective-evolution.com/2013/03/29/how-to-decalcify-your-pineal-gland/

Doesn't matter if I like you or not; when you act on behalf of our mutual best interest I'll likely be your most vocal champion; and when you do not, your loudest critic. All that really matters is results, not who got us there.

I hope you all will consider this the next time I'm way out front on something. Let's get the petty personal stuff out of the way before even more quality of life has eroded; and more folks are harmed or killed because you were too afraid to get involved and take action.

Thanks,
:waccosun: Colleen Fernald

---

Thanks, SharingWisdom, for your outstanding educational post. Each time I read one of your posts, I come away with an important piece of knowledge that I theretofore lacked.

I especially agree with you about how we ingest fluoride each time we brush our teeth and use dental rinses which contain fluoride. I recently changed toothpaste and am now brushing only with toothpaste which is fluoride-free. No only do I not have that irritating tingling feeling in my mouth all afternoon, but, even more importantly, I no longer am getting after-lunch stomachaches. It was a good move, and I feel better as a result.

We are so fortunate to have you, someone who has worked in the dental field, posting on this forum.
Thank you.

Let me state it more clearly. And that point is that a city financed newsletter should not be the vehicle for ANY person or group to advocate their personal perspectives/opinions/positions. If you believe that it is appropriate then you must also believe it appropriate when someone with positions that markedly differ from yours to do likewise. It’s a slippery slope. That’s the point.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by twodogs:

you missed the point!

---

Twodogs: Thank you once again for posting.

While I agree that it may be a bit of a "slippery slope," my defense of Ms. Dines taking the opportunity to inform people of this serious issue remains unwavering.

I have always thought that the purpose of a newsletter is to inform, educate and enlighten its readership. Why bother going to the trouble of securing authors, having them write informative columns, paying the exorbitant costs of printing and, finally, distributing and mailing it if this is no longer going to be the ultimate goal? I, for one, have better things to do than to sit down and read a newsletter whose contents have been reduced to milk toast and pablum.

Also, while I in no way am advocating for censorship for this -- or any other -- newsletter, perhaps the city government will in the future review it before printing and distribution. However, that being said, I do not believe that the authors who have been enlisted to write their respective columns should have their hands tied too tightly. Now that certainly would slant the newsletter in an unwanted direction!

But my faith in the community having the ability to filter, absorb and process information remains, and I believe that is the best tool that we have: the ability to arrive at our own opinions and conclusions after doing our own fair amount of due diligence.

In this case, Ms. Dines just happens to be the one who helped press the button on this hot-button issue, and I thank her for doing so.

I'd like to thank you sebastacat for this line in your response as I sign-off on this issue for the last time. "Now that certainly would slant the newsletter in an unwanted direction!" That is simply hilarious!.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sebastacat:

Twodogs: Thank you once again for posting.

While I agree that it may be a bit of a "slippery slope," my defense of Ms. Dines taking the opportunity to inform people of this serious issue remains unwavering.

I have always thought that the purpose of a newsletter is to inform, educate and enlighten its readership. Why bother going to the trouble of securing authors, having them write informative columns, paying the exorbitant costs of printing and, finally, distributing and mailing it if this is no longer going to be the ultimate goal? I, for one, have better things to do than to sit down and read a newsletter whose contents have been reduced to milk toast and pablum.

Also, while I in no way am advocating for censorship for this -- or any other -- newsletter, perhaps the city government will in the future review it before printing and distribution. However, that being said, I do not believe that the authors who have been enlisted to write their respective columns should have their hands tied too tightly. Now that certainly would slant the newsletter in an unwanted direction!

But my faith in the community having the ability to filter, absorb and process information remains, and I believe that is the best tool that we have: the ability to arrive at our own opinions and conclusions after doing our own fair amount of due diligence.

In this case, Ms. Dines just happens to be the one who helped press the button on this hot-button issue, and I thank her for doing so.

---

Twodogs:

The "wrong direction" to which I was referring in my last post was censorship.

I am glad that you found that line "hilarious." I hope it also made you laugh.

If it did, I will retire this evening knowing that this day of my life and my time on this earth has indeed been well spent.

Thank you.

A personal note from Patricia Dines, Editor of The Next STEP

Hi all - First I want to say how moved I am by nearly all the comments here, not only for the support, but also because I feel that most folks really "get" what the newsletter is and thus why I still feel that the fluoridation article was completely appropriate for its context. So thank you all for your clarity of sight and support. It means a lot to me.

Second I want to say that I think that the PD article completely mischaracterizes the newsletter, tries to fluff up two people who complained (one of whom used to work for fluoridation proponent DHS) into something more than that, falsely presents the opinions of the City Manager and Mayor - and uses all that to try to force the question into an either/or choice about whether we should've published this article.

But to me the whole foundation of their argument AND FRAMING crumbles if just a few additional facts are added to the picture.

Note: I've put my full response, with links to added information, at this webpage https://www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-APD.html. But I've given some of the highlights here.

1) The first and most important point I think is that the defined mission of The Next STEP newsletter is to educate people about toxics and help them avoid exposure by taking action at both the personal and community levels. Why wasn't that stated on the first page, at the start of the PD's story? Because then there'd be no story!

So this is not, as the PD article suggests, a generic official City newsletter or special "bulletin." It's also not "perspectives on dental health" or "official City policies digest."

This is a City-community project that educates people on avoiding toxics, to help fulfill the City's stated goal of helping its residents avoid the use and exposure of toxics. The acronym "STEP" stands for "Sebastopol Toxics Education Program," which is stated in each issue. It's funny that the PD article didn't mention that illuminating fact. We have a clearly-stated point of view, to avoid toxics.

Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) would add toxics to our water.

>> Hence, it was entirely within the scope of our newsletter for us to talk about the reasons for concern and what folks can do about that. This is about our relationship with our readers, and our service to them.

2) This project clearly states in each issue that it's implemented by volunteers, i.e. we do all the work to create the content and layout the letter. Thus the City gets positive results towards its goals with almost no work or expense on its part. (The City basically just does in-house copying; there's no extra postage because it goes in the water bills.) It's also clear that the content is written by me as one of those volunteers. This article was signed by me, for goodness sake.

>> Thus this is not about the City "sponsoring" this newsletter. This is about the citizens stepping forward and doing the work needed to help the City reach its goals, in a periodical clearly written for this project and its goals. This is about a cool innovative project to help create a healthier world.

3) In creating our newsletter, it's normal for us to digest lots of information from a range of sources on a variety of topics, then summarize the key points and actions for our readers, as we did with our article CWF. That's what we've been doing for over 12 years, in a style that's been developed collaboratively between community volunteers, City staff, the City Council, and readers. We distill the key points and suggested actions for our readers. We don't tell people to "lobby" anyone. We tell them ways they can protect themselves, including participating in our democratic process. This is so standard for newsletters to do that I can't believe the PD is trying to make an issue of it.

>> So to me there's simply no news story there.

4) The PD article only quoted two people complaining about our article. Neither of them were concerned enough to even send us a letter. Since this edition of the newsletter came out on March 1, we had only received one letter disagreeing with this article. On the other hand, I've heard lots of folks say they appreciate this article for being (as usual) well-written, factual, and useful.

>> So, contrary to the PD article's frame, I don't see any roiled waters in the community here.

5) One of the two people complaining to the PD (Barbara Graves) was previously employed by the Sonoma County Department of Health Services (DHS), the agency that is 100% cheerleading for CWF in its advice to the Board of Supervisors.

>> So Ms. Graves is hardly a neutral observer making a neutral comment about the newsletter and its mission.

6) Both of the City officials quoted in the story told me personally that they had zero issue with the newsletter article and thought it was totally appropriate for the newsletter. It's hard to tell that from the way their quotes got distorted by the PD! The City Manager knows the history and mission of the newsletter and explained that to the reporter in great detail. Mayor Kyes is less familiar with the newsletter, and thus merely stated openness to the reporter's question about "what should be done."

• • •
>> Thus I feel that the PD has attempted to create a story out of thin air that just isn't the truth of the situation out here in reality.

>> Instead, the actual story here is: "Toxics newsletter publishes toxics article. Two people complain." Why is that news? Especially in Sebastopol!

>> Or maybe the real story is, "CWF proponent tries to deflect attention away from fact-based concerns by inaccurately attacking the messenger." Because I suspect that, if the newsletter article had been pro-CWF, there would've been no PD article and Ms. Graves would've been fine that we stated a recommendation.

>> Or perhaps the real story is, "Slow news day at the Press Democrat. They see an opportunity to promote their pro-CWF agenda." Oh yes, did we mention that the PD editorial policy is pro-CWF, with no openness in their editorial viewpoint to the scientific reasons that people are objecting to it? Talk about a lack of balance! And a general newspaper actually does have an obligation to present the various views in a community fairly. That's a key part of its role in our society. It however is not its mandate to pick on, and try to bully, a little newsletter that dares to have a different viewpoint than theirs'.

>> Instead of this non-story, I think there are much more important questions that the PD needs to be asking. Such as: "Why isn't the DHS taking seriously and helping to bring forward the concrete scientific evidence that CWF is harmful not helpful to our shared health? Wouldn't that be consistent with its mandate to serve public health? And its job of providing full information to the Board of Supervisors to support smart decision-making?"

Or another question we might all ask: "Why isn't the Press Democrat writing to critique DHS for presenting totally pro-CWF information as imbalanced one-sided propaganda when its job is to protect our health?" Or, "Why doesn't the PD use its investigative efforts to bring forward the key facts that DHS is ignoring?"

There are plenty of places to hear the pro-CWF case stated as if it were fact -- including the PD's pages. We just sought to bring some balance to the community conversation, from the viewpoint of our periodical's mission.

So if the PD is so concerned about balance, I'd suggest they first look at their own actions. I'd suggest that they think critically about the pro-fluoridation PR. Even in this particular article, they assert as facts claims that have been disproven (for instance, the claims that CWF helps children's dental health and doesn't harm the environment).

Then I encourage the PD to include in their news stories the important opposition facts, stated in ways that respect their scientific foundation. This would be a much more helpful use of their energy than trying to smear a little toxics newsletter for writing an article that is entirely within its mission.

>> The overall bottom line here is that we ALL will have to live with the results of the Supervisors' decision here - in our health, environment, and pocketbooks. Thus we have a right to hear not just the PR claims but also the problems with CWF, and include them as part of our decision-making. It's also entirely appropriate for a toxics newsletter to alert people to the risks of this toxic. What would be great is if we also heard about these risk from our general newspaper and our Department of Health Services.

Oh, and I don't know why the PD decided I live in Graton. My address is in Sebastopol, not far from town.

I hope that our STEP article, and the PD attempt to smear it, will help us all see the hidden reality, and stand up for our rights.

In service to the community -

Patricia Dines
Freelance Writer, Editor, and Graphic Artist
Editor, The Next STEP newsletter

FOR MORE INFORMATION
* For those who want more specifics on the above points, see https://www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-APD.html.

* I've summarized what I see as the key problems with CWF at www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html. This includes citations, as well as links to taking action. I also outline 5 key ways that the Supervisors can help fix its decision-making, which I think it completely biased towards CWF. I wonder if the PD will dare to report on that imbalance?

* To read the original PD article, and perhaps comment on it, see these two locations on the PD website. (Each has its own comment thread.)
www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130404/ARTICLES/130409769/1042/opinion?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar
www.watchsonomacounty.com/2013/04/featured-articles/sebastopol-newsletter-urges-opposition-to-county-fluoride-plan

* The PD uses its manufactured story to attack the newsletter again at:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...p=all&tc=pgall

* To read the original STEP newsletter and other back issues, see:
www.healthyworld.org/STEPRecent.html
www.healthyworld.org/GRAPHICS/STEP/stepvol13no2.pdf

* I also encourage people to read this advice from Donna Westfall, a former City Councilperson in Crescent City, who was shocked to discover the reality of CWF and acted to stop it there. www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-DonnaWestf.html

WOW!!!!!

I said, "You go, EcoGirl," and you did!!

Thank you for writing and posting one of the finest posts that I have ever read on this forum.

I note that in your article, you said that the P.D. should use its "investigative efforts."
I regret to inform you of this, but their "investigative efforts" went out the window the minute that
the new owners took over. And so did their credibility. And so did their objectivity. And so did their sense of journalistic decency. And so did their sense of fairness. And, perhaps most important of all, so did their passion for reporting the truth to the public which they claim to serve.

As for the editorial department, I think that their motives and ultimate goals have now become quite transparent: If any governmental body does not go along with their agenda in lockstep, they are going to make it their mission to destroy them by using their new toy -- the Press Democrat itself. As far as I am concerned, they are nothing more than goons in suits.

I once again applaud your contributions to the citizens of Sebastopol and surrounding areas, both past and present, and it is my sincere hope that you will continue not only to author your informative, entertaining, enlightening and educational column, but that you will continue to have the courage to speak out when you feel that the health of the citizens of Sebastopol, West County and beyond is being threatened by proposals being put forth by those very persons whom we have elected to protect us.

Thank you.

Sebastacat

I have only recently returned to wacco, and I am thrilled to see a thriving, well-groomed, well-attended community nexus, doing what community nexi (?) are supposed to do—provide a venue for debate about meaningful issues that affect our lives.


The “fluoride issue” is a case in point. Good work, wacco community!

I also wanted to deeply thank everyone who stood up for The Next STEP newsletter, and our toxics article in the toxics newsletter, and against one Sebastopol Councilmember's proposal to put pro-fluoridation information into the Sebastopol water bill. Because of public response he WITHDREW that proposal at the Tues. City Council meeting. And during the public comment for that item everyone who spoke was strongly supportive of the newsletter, saying that our fluoridation article was factual, fair, and completely consistent with our stated mandate.

However, Councilperson Slayter said that he might in the future propose changes to the process for the newsletter. So I'll keep folks updated on that. (If you want to be kept informed about any future developments in this process, I invite you to sign up for priority action alerts at www.patriciadines.info/EList.)

You can see my full report of the meeting and issue at www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridationSebCC-043013R.htm.

I've also posted a roundup of useful resources on the Expanding Water Fluoridation in Sonoma County thread here.

I totally agree. It would be WAY too dangerous to include both sides of the issue. That would be called democracy.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by twodogs:

I totally agree. It would be WAY too dangerous to include both sides of the issue. That would be called democracy.

---

You comment confuses me and doesn't seem to reflect the facts of this particular topic. Have you educated yourself on this particular issue? It seems to me that you're imposing a framework that doesn't fit this situation, and in a demeaning fashion. I can explain more, but I don't know how much time to spend responding to you if you aren't interested in actually understanding.