Expanding Water Fluoridation in Sonoma County

Every few years, the topic of Fluoride comes up, but this time, I didn't know that it was going to threaten our community's water. I have written articles on this board about this issue, and I'm going to re-post it again with some more information so people can be aware of its history and dangers.

I was a dental hygienist for 26 years before I retired in 1997 to go full time into my wholistic energy medicine practice. Prior, I did a tremendous amount of research on fluoride back in the 70's and have continued to study this subject. I was certainly bucking the ADA “good ol’ boys” years ago when I decided to talk to mother's groups, educating them to stop giving fluoride tablets and treatments to their children. I saw children vomit after fluoride treatments and refused to give them after realizing the toxic affect that was occurring. I was lucky enough to work for holistic dentists in Sonoma County that supported my research at that time. I, myself, have dental fluorosis (mottled teeth) from growing up in a fluoridated area on the East Coast.

Fluoride development is very political. I actually have books from the 1940's talking about the dangers of fluoride by dentists who hadn't been taken over by the Alcoa Aluminum Industry or Dupont. https://www.befreetech.com/fluoridation.htm

The first known instances of deliberate water fluoridation were in Nazi Germany ghettos and prison camps. Sodium fluoride was added to the human inmates' water to sterilize them and to cause them to become docile, subservient subjects willing to comply with orders.
https://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chr...pid_docile.htm

Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. Documents show that the first lawsuits against the American A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage. Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive US study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water, conducted in Newburgh, New York, from 1945 to 1955. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F", they secretly gathered and analyzed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens with the cooperation of New York State Health Department personnel. The original, secret version of a study published by Program F scientists in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)-considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies-for reasons of "national security". The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester-site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mindset, in which "national security" was paramount.
https://www.rense.com/health/alertflo.htm

This information came from declassified documents and much of the original proof that low-dose fluoride is safe for children's bones came from U.S. bomb program scientists. Now, researchers who have reviewed these declassified documents fear that Cold War national security considerations may have prevented objective scientific evaluation of vital public health questions concerning fluoride.

"Information was buried," concludes Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990's indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin, and might adversely affect human brain functioning, even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995, in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. https://www.fluoridealert.org/wastenot414.htm

Naturally-formed Calcium fluoride is NOT absorbed in the body the same as sodium silicofluoride (Stannous or Sodium Fluoride) since the calcium helps to neutralize the fluoride. Sodium Fluoride is rat poisoning. It comes with the skull and cross bone symbol right on the bottle. It is even listed in the Merck manual (standard manual used by physicians on disease and toxins) as a lethal poison. The types of fluoride used to treat water systems, fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, are actually untreated hazardous waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Cryolite is a food pesticide with a uniform fluoride tolerance of 7 ppm. Cryolite is used in the growing of all berries (blueberry, strawberry, etc.), and most, if not all, fruits and vegetables, and is the main source for fluoride levels in fruit drinks. Seven ppm is a very high amount of fluoride just in itself.

Since mid-1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has mandated all toothpastes containing FLUORIDE to carry this Warning: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek PROFESSIONAL HELP or contact a POISON CONTROL center immediately. If the words "professional help" and "poison control center" don't grab your attention, they should. And for good reason.

Fluoride has the ability to affect other chemicals and heavy metals; in some cases making them even more harmful than they would be on their own. For example, when you combine chloramines with the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to the water supply, they become very effective at extracting lead from old plumbing systems, promoting the accumulation of lead in the water supply. Studies have shown that hydrofluorosilicic acid increases lead accumulation in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich tissues. This is because the free fluoride ion acts as a transport of heavy metals, allowing them to enter into areas of your body they normally would not be able to go, such as into your brain. As fluoride increases the lead, it will replace the calcium in the bones which destroys bone strength and mineralization.

The thyroid is particularly affected by fluoride exposure because its store of iodine is depleted. Iodine deficiency depresses the thyroid's metabolic and immune functions, resulting in hypothyroidism and lowered immunity.

We are exposed to fluoride via far more sources than just drinking water. Many of the processed foods and beverages sold in the U.S. contain high levels of fluoride because they are made using fluoridated water supplies. Further, the processing these foods undergo often has the effect of concentrating the fluoride. Food types with particularly high levels of fluoride include processed cereals, juices from concentrate, and soda.

Mechanically deboned chicken is also a key source of concern. That’s because fluoridated water used on farms and to process animal feeds accumulates in animal bones, and chicken bones are especially brittle. As chicken is mechanically deboned, the deboning machine grinds significant portions of these fragile bones into a powder which then infiltrates the finished product. As a result, processed chicken products often have elevated levels of fluoride. (Mechanically deboned turkey and beef products aren’t nearly as much of an issue because their bones are much stronger.) Researchers studying the problem found that chicken-based infant foods have the highest fluoride levels found in this category of food, followed by chicken nugget/finger-type products, lunch meats, and canned meats.

Remarkably, fluorinated drinking water has not been shown to have any effect on tooth decay or the incidence of cavities. Tooth decay rates in Western Europe , where 98% of the population drinks non-fluoridated water, have declined as much and even more in some locales as rates in the U.S. since fluoridation began. British Columbia , where about 10% of the population drinks fluoridated water compared to 40-70% in the other provinces, has the lowest rates of tooth decay in Canada . In the largest fluoridation study ever undertaken, the National Institute of Dental Research tracked 39,000 children between the ages of 5 and 17. The results? No statistically significant differences in the dental health between children serviced by non-fluoridated and fluoridated water systems. Though fluoridation advocates commonly point out that public dental health in the U.S. has improved markedly since fluoridation began, many experts attribute this positive development not to treated water supplies but to increased public education and greatly improved dental hygiene practices being adopted by more and more Americans. EPA and HHS have been in consideration of lowering the current acceptable level of fluoride in the nation's public water supplies. This is the first time this has been considered in the past 50 years. This is being recommended as many additional sources of fluoride have become available since the 1960's. There is also an epidemic of dental fluorosis with the teenagers in the United States. https://voices.yahoo.com/epa-conside...e-7615400.html

Piggybacking on a recent government announcement concerning overexposure to fluoride, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has now announced that all infant formulas are contaminated with fluoride, and that when mixed with the fluoridated water provided in most US cities, the combination is a toxic threat to babies and infants. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly half of all US children are overexposed to fluoride. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...117760088.html

The National Kidney Foundation concluded several years ago that individuals with chronic kidney disease should be notified of the potential risk from exposure to fluorides. The document acknowledges gaping holes in research concerning kidney impacts from fluorides, lending new ammunition to the growing numbers of cities, health professionals, water agencies, and citizens who question industry and government assertions that water fluoridation has been proven safe. The statement formally cancels NKF’s previous position paper on water fluoridation and recommends that kidney patients be notified of the risks via the organization’s web site. https://www.fluoridealert.org/press/nfk2.html

In statements by the ADA that fluoride fights tooth decay, John R. Lee, M.D. (from Marin county), a fluoride toxicity researcher since 1972, calls that a myth. He further states the myth has been perpetuated via "clever propaganda." He believes adding fluoride to water supplies was a contrivance to dispose of waste byproducts from the fertilizer and aluminum industries. There is a large volume of evidence to support his belief. Dr. Lee has established a direct link between fluoride use, osteoporosis and increased incidence of hip fractures in his report, A Brief Account of the Fluoridation And Hip Fracture Problem.

More and more doctors and researchers are expressing concern over public exposure to the chemical, which has led some cities to vote against water contamination with fluoridation. Jonathon Wright, M.D., medical researcher of the Tahoma Clinic in Kent Washington says that, "When folks are fully informed (about fluoride), they usually turn it down."

I really recommend this excellent video by BBC correspondent, Christopher Bryson and author of The Fluoride Deception.
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4336262446047063653&q=The +Fluoride+Deception&total=34&start=0&num=10&so=0 &type=search&plindex=4

In awareness and healing,
Judy
www.thetamedicalintuitive.com

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

Every few years, the topic of Fluoride comes up, but this time, I didn't know that it was going to threaten our community's water.

---

Thanks so much for this very informative article.

Do you know the specifics of the areas that are threatened with fluoridation? And where to fight it?

Here in Marin we have fluoridation in all areas except Novato and unincorporated areas like W. Marin, the San Geronimo Valley, and several other areas.

I'm a member of the Fluoride Action Network, which is a satisfying organization to support, because every update you get is a list of more success stories of towns that have become fluoride free. Their strategy, not verbatim, is to get the rest of Canada which is over half fluoride free, plus NYC and LA, then the rest of the US will quickly follow on that momentum.

Meanwhile they have very effective templates and step by step plans worked out that people can use in their areas, and at their town hall meetings. We just need a few dedicated folks to step up to the plate and go to bat. Write them at www.fluoridealert.org and ask for them.

the sonoma county water agency, which is run by the sonoma county board of supervisors, supplies water to santa rosa, rohnert park, cotate, petaluma, and novato, about 600,000 people.

the ada, haven't they been in denial for decades about mercury fillings?

this effort is another example of cost benefit analysis in public health policy. dangers are known, but the benefit is calculated to be higher, and the relatively low cost is a very important part of the equation. its all about bang for the buck. vaccination, floridation, mercury fillings, clorination, there are safer proven alternatives to all these and the science is still developing, and the alternatives are more costly. the official experts are simply trying to make the best recommendation for the greatest number of people. they might be right (now), but in the long run, they are probably wrong, and they know it, but can't say it, because it is their job.

Thanks! Judy,

For all your research and gathering it together in one spot. Makes the work of protesting this idea SO much easier. Your information and ALL the links need to be required reading for our Supervisors / Board of Directors for the Water Agency. Each of them will be getting a copy from me.

With appreciation and admiration,
Cynthe (ie. Mudwoman)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

Every few years, the topic of Fluoride comes up, but this time, I didn't know that it was going to threaten our community's water. I have written articles on this board about this issue, and I'm going to re-post it again with some more information so people can be aware of its history and dangers.

I was a dental hygienist for 26 years before I retired in 1997 to go full time into my wholistic energy medicine practice. Prior, I did a tremendous amount of research on fluoride back in the 70's and have continued to study this subject. I was certainly bucking the ADA “good ol’ boys” years ago when I decided to talk to mother's groups, educating them to stop giving fluoride tablets and treatments to their children. I saw children vomit after fluoride treatments and refused to give them after realizing the toxic affect that was occurring. I was lucky enough to work for holistic dentists in Sonoma County that supported my research at that time. I, myself, have dental fluorosis (mottled teeth) from growing up in a fluoridated area on the East Coast....

---

That is exactly why the Public must speak out.

There is no argument that there has been a serious problem with access to affordable dental care; and thus higher rate of decay, etc.; for the 30 years I have lived here.

There are other factors that stem from culture and education; with regard to hygiene, diet, breast feeding. etc. Even overuse of bottles, and pacifiers can be factors; along with the ingredients of concern in their contents.

The fact that the Supervisors are being spoon-fed bad "science", on this, this many decades down the road; is very sad.

The fact that the Press Democrat buys it without review; is even worse. Then trying to pass the rebuttal off as conspiracy theory twice in the Editorials; is further proof that they were bought for increased content control.

If the PD was worth the .75 per day they charge at the newsstand; they would actually investigate what the opposition was supporting. They would not demean the opposition in the usual lazy way. They would let the voice of the majority in our community be heard with respect more often. At least allowing for the fluoride issue go to a vote, as the Sonoma County Water Coalition suggested 2 years ago.

If the Ag community takes a look at the science indicating harm to livestock, and the public looks at the risks to pets; maybe we can have a more fair fight with this toxic waste industry.

Most of the majority gave up trying to weigh in fairly with the Press Democrat, when they saw how distorted the truth got; and they chose not to give it their time and money.

I've bought the PD every day since I began to stop the unconstitutional wars with a letter writing campaign; I survey them for fairness and accuracy, in balance with this regions demographics.

They are neither. When NYT owned, they've not cared to corrected it when requested. I'll be moving into recourse next. After I give the new owners a crack at it.

I don't just mediawatch because of my amateur sociologist hobby; and intentions to stop war. It informs my work in advising many advertising budgets. Finding the best bang for the buck, to help my friends and clients get the word out on their good thing; makes us all happy.

Thanks to Barry and the rest of us, for keeping other pathways open for the truth to get out; and move our norm to a healthier degree.

SIDE NOTE ON PD ED: The other 2 glowing Willie Brown stories were additional air kisses to the 1%'s ass. He's pimped us out to China long ago; and he rubs it in our face all the time; if you ever read his Chronicle column, or hear him on the news, or his radio show with Will Durst. He constantly gloats about how much he's gotten away with. A clear sign of a sociopath.

There's almost always advertising money involved in which way the PD spins the news. Even thought this is a big industry no-no; it's quite known. This Conspiracy FACT, I will prove in due time.

What is evident here is: the 1% have misdirected nearly ALL of how government should work well. After 9/11, The loss of tax money returned to the cities, counties and states; has grown more severe each year. All basic services are strapped for 2 major reasons.

Willie Brown forged the way in the policies for benefits for Public employees; and now the unfunded liabilities of those obligations.

But even worse; the massive debt of all our unconstitutional wars of choice, not necessity; has not been corrected by his pals in the Senate; even when they controlled the majority of the House and Senate; and White House.

This is why state and local government fight for the crumbs; known as "pork". The Lobbyist are trained well to let them know when, and where the pots of money are to be found. This time the ADA is being driven by the profiteers of this toxin, who want all of us to ingest it.

If you were to audit the County of Sonoma's, and the Press Democrat's former, and future advertising relationships; due to a recent subcommittee's work; you may begin to see how some of the pieces I have, and will present, fit.

As for this headline from the PD's own editorial page Editor; if they were telling the truth about fluoride; this headline would come with x rays comparing their bone loss, and brain decay; with the amount of fluoride they've ingested.

Now if I were Senator; I would not advocate for fluoride, the bill the House just passed on California's water; the raising of taxes for anyone but the 1%; or the cutting of benefits for any of the 99% .

Instead, I'd just return the Dept. of Defense to Defense operations; not offensive. Install the Department of Peace for oversight. End the way the Federal Reserve operates; create state banks. Create jobs for our returning and current Veterans through: rebuilding America's Public Works and Transportation infrastructures; restoring our watersheds and wilderness; and safe, Green power production systems.

:waccosun: Stay tuned for more truth-leaking...

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...NEWS/120309919
GULLIXSON: Supervisors show backbone on fluoridation vote

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

the sonoma county water agency, which is run by the sonoma county board of supervisors, supplies water to santa rosa, rohnert park, cotate, petaluma, and novato, about 600,000 people.

the ada, haven't they been in denial for decades about mercury fillings?

this effort is another example of cost benefit analysis in public health policy. dangers are known, but the benefit is calculated to be higher, and the relatively low cost is a very important part of the equation. its all about bang for the buck. vaccination, floridation, mercury fillings, clorination, there are safer proven alternatives to all these and the science is still developing, and the alternatives are more costly. the official experts are simply trying to make the best recommendation for the greatest number of people. they might be right (now), but in the long run, they are probably wrong, and they know it, but can't say it, because it is their job.

---

THis information is should be looked at for the debate on Fluoride. Chlorine is even worse. HistoryofWaterFilters.com The Past, Present, and Future of Water Filtration Technolog

The History of Water Filters | Water Treatment Alternatives | How Safe is Your Drinking Water?

How Safe is Your Drinking Water? > Contaminants Resulting from Municipal Additives > Fluoride - Adverse Health Effects

Fluoride - Adverse Health Effects Fluoride can be one of the most volatile and active harmful chemicals in the body. Fluoride can attack mercilessly, against any age group, but its effects are especially harmful to developing children and the elderly. The detrimental effects of fluoride are varied. Below is a list of some of the recently documented, harmful effects of drinking fluoridated water: 1) Fluoride is known to cause dental fluorosis, a defect of the tooth enamel caused by fluoride’s interference with developing teeth. Its visible signs are mottled or yellowed teeth. Nearly 30% of children drinking fluoridated water suffer from dental fluorosis on two or more teeth (Hileman, 1988). 2) Fluoride is associated with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia. Fluoride enters the brain and enables aluminum to cross the blood-brain barrier, resulting in increased risk for these diseases. Fluoride has also been associated with low IQ and mental retardation in children (Hileman, 1988). 3) Fluoride can cause a crippling bone disease called skeletal fluorosis. In more mild forms, symptoms of this disease include chronic joint pain, similar to the symptoms of arthritis. Arthritis has now reached near epidemic levels in the United States, and the connection to fluoridated water should be considered. 4) Fluoride depresses the activity of the human thyroid gland and has been commonly used as an effective treatment for patients with overactive thyroids. Fluoride may depress the activity of the healthy thyroid, as well, resulting in an underactive thyroid, a common cause of obesity. More than 20 million people in the United States receive treatment for thyroid problems. 5) Fluoride disrupts the activity of normally functioning hormones. Fluoride can reduce levels of melatonin, the sleep hormone, in the body, causing chronic insomnia (Hileman, 1988). Most European countries have now rejected the process of water fluoridation. Their children’s teeth have not suffered from this rejection. The cost/benefit ratio of fluoridated water no longer warrants the presence of fluoride in drinking water.

Doesn't fluoride in water help prevent tooth decay?

That's the corporatocracy/establishment allegation and hardly a foregone conclusion.

However, good nutrition, effective dental hygiene, and healthy gums do a lot for preventing tooth decay and improving overall health. Most tooth loss is from gum disease, not decay. There are ways to improve dental health without "dosing" everyone who drinks the water, whether they want to ingest the stuff or not.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

Doesn't fluoride in water help prevent tooth decay?

---

We all get fluoride in our toothpaste already. The nice thing about toothpaste is you can spit it out and rinse. So why would they force it in our water unless someone is getting paid. I thought counties were cutting costs, we have to pay for the fluoride to be put in. If we already get it in our toothpaste why should we pay for it in our water while poisoning it in the process? There is no way the county should be forcing it in our drinking water. What is it going to save one guys teeth somewhere that doesn't brush? Olympic athletes do not drink water with fluoride in it because it effects their performance. It is a poison. This is a Nazi move on the part of Sonoma County.

That money should be used for other purposes! Our state is in crisis mode. We have a lack of jobs, school programs are being cut, library hours being slashed, parks being closed down and we cant pay for medical, police are being laid off, people our loosing their homes and they want to use our money to fluoridate the water?!!! Someone in a county office is getting paid by the flouride people ... that person or group needs to be recalled.

Fluoridation has been the subject of many court cases wherein activists have sued municipalities, asserting that their rights to consent to medical treatment and due process are infringed by mandatory water fluoridation. Individuals have sued municipalities for a number of illnesses that they believe were caused by fluoridation of the city's water supply. In most of these cases, the courts have held in favor of cities, finding no or only a tenuous connection between health problems and widespread water fluoridation. To date, no federal appellate court or state court of last resort (i.e., state supreme court) has found water fluoridation to be unlawful.

So with all of the failures in court, maybe the only way to beat that in court is to make it a matter of religion. If you sue use the argument that it is against your religion. You wouldn't make Indians eat a cow and Jesus would not put poison his body.

In 2006, a 12-person U.S. National Research Council (NRC) committee reviewed the health risks associated with fluoride in the water and unanimously concluded that the maximum contaminant level of 4 mg/L should be lowered. Although it did not comment on water fluoridation's safety, three of the panel members, namely Robert Isaacson, Kathleen Thiessen and Hardy Limeback, expressed their opposition to water fluoridation after the study.

There have been cases of improper implementation of water fluoridation that resulted in overfluoridation that causes outbreaks of acute fluoride poisoning, with symptoms that include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Three such outbreaks were reported in the U.S. between 1991 and 1998, caused by fluoride concentrations as high as 220 mg/L; in the 1992 Alaska outbreak, 262 people became ill and one person died. In 2010, approximately 60 gallons of fluoride were released into the water supply in Asheboro, North Carolina in 90 minutes—an amount that was intended to be released in a 24-hour period.

Fluoridation can be viewed as a violation of ethical or legal rules that prohibit medical treatment without medical supervision or informed consent, and that prohibit administration of unlicensed medical substances.

Not for those of us who go to the trouble to get non-fluoridated toothpaste!

"Follow the money" is always a good place to start, especially with questionable government actions like this. In this instance, though, there's more to it than who is getting paid or making money. The fluoridation idea is being put forth as a "cheap fix" for kids with dental problems resulting from poor diet and lack of access to dental care. The latter problem is a direct result of our for-profit fee-for-service medical/dental racket. (Note that the terms "health" and "care" are not used in that sentence.)

Remember: the "cheap fix" is neither. What the county needs to be focused on is getting kids to a dentist and hygenist early and often. And the sooner we get rid of the for-profit fee-for-service medical/dental racket and particularly the for-profit insurance racket, the better off we all will be -- including the people attempting to practice medicine and dentistry.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Attic:

We all get fluoride in our toothpaste already. The nice thing about toothpaste is you can spit it out and rinse. So why would they force it in our water unless someone is getting paid.

---

It's been my experience, discussing this with both my professional-alliance dentists, and a friend or two over the decades, who have been, or still are, dentists, that, over the past 50-odd years, the income of said dentists has dropped considerably in areas where water is fluoridated as it has a profound positive effect on reducing children's cavities....and into younger adulthood too. I'd be interested in the 25-year-old study cited by previous writers, although I did not see any actual citation mentioned. I'll try Google. And many of the inferences are so indirect as to be suspect, such as the thyroid references, or the Ahlzeimer's/aluminum/brain-barrier connections. Some science references would help to counter the spurious allegations made with absolutely no factual basis, such as "Jesus" would not put poison in his body. Water in those days, flowing in stone aqueducts and stored in stone cisterns, is likely to have some minerals and possibly metals in solution; or did Jesus just drink wine? No one really knows, so all this magical thinking may please you, but much of it is nonsense.

I just want the community to know that I sent a 11 page PDF with links that expanded on what I wrote below, and sent it to Tony from the radio station and Brett from the PD. Another friend took excerpts of this and sent it to the water board and other gov't agencies. I'm happy to send it to anyone who wants to know about the history of Fluoride; the connections with the big corporations involved in getting rid of their toxic waste; the Doctors/researchers who lost their positions at universities for speaking out against fluoride; how fluoride works and what it affects in the body; the means we already get fluoride; what the results really are in the decrease of tooth decay; how the statistics have been mishandled and falsified; agencies, associations and studies; communities and countries against fluoridation. Keep this in mind... the fluoride and the nuclear industry go hand and hand.

Well Ericvonk, really you need citations. Its so easy to go to a forum and tell everyone with different beliefs than yours how they are all wrong. What are you a reporter do you work for someone concerned with this? Ok let me do your homework for you..... See the listed citations and links below. Point by point I don't have time for. Yes many dentist have been known to move to areas where there is no fluoride in the water, its better for business. Many other references are on Wikipedia. As for Jesus not knowingly taking poison into his body there are plenty of statements in the new testament to confirm just that, I will not be looking those up for you but try the Golgotha cross story. I also wont even bother with the was it grape juice or wine argument. The fact of the matter is that if you want to dictate that I should consume a substance that I don't want to.... well that is wrong.

Here are your citations... have fun.
^ ^{a b c} National Research Council (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-10128-X. Lay summary – NRC (September 24, 2008).. See also the CDC statement on the NRC report.

^ Budnick N (2006). "Fluoride foes get validation". Portland Tribune.

^ Limeback H (14 May 2006). "GUEST VIEW: The evidence that fluoride is harmful is overwhelming". The Standard Times (South Coast, MA).

^ Fagin D (January 2008). "Second thoughts about fluoride". Scientific American 298 (1): 74–81. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0108-74. PMID 18225698.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_poisoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flouride
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_floridation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_...on_controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_contaminant_level

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ericvonk:

It's been my experience, discussing this with both my professional-alliance dentists, and a friend or two over the decades, who have been, or still are, dentists, that, over the past 50-odd years, the income of said dentists has dropped considerably in areas where water is fluoridated as it has a profound positive effect on reducing children's cavities....and into younger adulthood too. I'd be interested in the 25-year-old study cited by previous writers, although I did not see any actual citation mentioned. I'll try Google. And many of the inferences are so indirect as to be suspect, such as the thyroid references, or the Ahlzeimer's/aluminum/brain-barrier connections. Some science references would help to counter the spurious allegations made with absolutely no factual basis, such as "Jesus" would not put poison in his body. Water in those days, flowing in stone aqueducts and stored in stone cisterns, is likely to have some minerals and possibly metals in solution; or did Jesus just drink wine? No one really knows, so all this magical thinking may please you, but much of it is nonsense.

---

I WOULD NOT ASSUME WE ALL USE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE!!

i've used un-fluoridated toothpaste for as long as i can remember. fluoride is poison but i think it's really too late. this information has been public for years. their plan is well in place, globally. filter, filter filter! :whistle:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Attic:

We all get fluoride in our toothpaste already. The nice thing about toothpaste is you can spit it out and rinse. So why would they force it in our water unless someone is getting paid....

---

It's a long time arriving, or, I haven't had my ear to the ground, close enough. The U.S. government has decided that fluoride is harmful...

" ... the latest scientific studies have finally made the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) change their tune ...

... EPA and HHS now recommend the level of fluoride in drinking water to be set “at the lowest end of the current optimal range”—that is, no more than 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water instead of the current recommended range which goes as high as 1.2 milligrams."

https://www.anh-usa.org/new-scientific-data-forces-government-to-reverse-its-stance-on-fluoride-in-the-water-supply/

It's well past prudent waiting, or casual drinking; it's our precious drinking water. Let's ensure that our elected representatives who direct our water agency are wise to the facts on water and fluoride; this is not a casual mixed drink. Fluoride and water can be harmful to our health.

Check this NYT article out: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/h...it_th_20120306
an excerpt: “We have had a huge increase in kids going to the operating room,” said Dr. Jonathan Shenkin, a pediatric dentist in Augusta, Me., and a spokesman for the American Dental Association. “We’re treating more kids more aggressively earlier.”
But such operations are largely preventable, he said. “I have parents tell me all the time, ‘No one told us when to go to the dentist, when we should start using fluoride toothpaste’ — all this basic information to combat the No. 1 chronic disease in children.”

yikes!

The SODIUM salt forms of fluoride that are put into drinking water supplies are the primary poison used in several commercial rat poison products. This type of fluoride is an industrial waste product that is very difficult to break down or to dispose safely. So what do the industries who generate this poison do? They make up a story that this form of fluoride is "good" for people's dental health, and sell that idea to people and governments in order to create a market to dispose of their industrial poison, cheaply (or maybe even at a profit!) and with impunity, by making people drink it in their water supplies!

There are people in isolated communities in Italy, where CALCIUM fluoride naturally occurs in the water, whose dental health actually does benefit without significantly deleterious associated health effects. This is where the idea of putting "fluoride" into water supplies originated; however, people blindly assumed that "fluoride" in any form has this beneficial property. I myself would not recommend putting even calcium salts of fluoride into drinking water supplies. However, sodium salts of fluoride are known poisons. I will not put these toxins into my body. I hope Sonoma County governments will not fall for the lies that fluoridating water supplies is "beneficial." If fluoride does get added to water supplies due to government idiocy (or perniciousness), I hope that restauranteurs will learn about this problem, and will filter the water they use in food preparation and to serve at tables (to remove both chlorine and fluorides, as well as all the other toxins in municipal water supplies). I myself will always ask at restaurants if their water supplies are filtered to remove these poisons before patronizing their establishments.

You might want to listen to this. Dr. John Doull says there may also be a link to cancer.
Dr. John Doull is the Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology and Toxicology in the Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics at the University of Kansas Medical School, and chaired the 2006 Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water. https://www.ksro.com/Programs/KSROAM...tryID=10356235

Thread Merge. Lets try to keep the relevant threads linked.

Expanding Water Fluoridation in Sonoma County

Threads Merged!

There are two related threads I have not merged, as they are distint:

The fluoridation of our public water supply (in WaccoTalk)
This is from 2009 with lots of good info. It's recently become active again.

Water Fluoridation Conversation with Dr. John Doull Now Available
Let's keep the above thread related to KSRO and the interviews there.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Attic:

Thread Merge. Lets try to keep the relevant threads linked.

---

Thanks Barry. :thumbsup:

Hi All,

If you'd like to add some juice to the No Fluoride effort in Sonoma County (which needs it), here's where to plug in: The Sonoma County Water Coalition, a consortium of about 31 environmental groups in Sonoma County

www.SCWaterCoalition.org

Environmental Center
55A Ridgway Avenue,
Santa Rosa

Stephen Fuller-Rowell
[email protected]

Please email Stephen and ask how you can help.

He says Sonoma County Health is supposed to report back to the Supervisors some time in January on the feasibility and cost of fluoridation.

I just got word that Marin spends $155,535 annually to fluoridate (cost of fluoride and operations and maintenance).

Based on what I've seen other communities and Fluoride Action Network succeed with, I think the 4 main points should be:

1) Fluoridation should be voluntary, not forced via water supplies.

2) Until they can show us the data showing fluoride is not toxic (which they can't) it's illegal to put it in our water.

3) The CA Safety Code law, that already provides FREE topical fluoride treatments to children in a much better, cheaper, accurate and effective and far safer than water fluoridation, is the argument we should push. I think this gives water board members a way out and a legitimate reason for not using water fluoridation that does not involve the normal emotional arguments. Another good point I think we should push is

4) that under CEQA law, they must do a study on the environmental impacts of water fluoridation. This has not been done in Marin and should be before continuing fluoridation. This study would also require money.

Don't put a lot of energy into the emotional anti-fluoride arguments. The pro fluoride side is just as fixed with their bogus scientific studies to "prove" it. It usually ends up as a fruitless power struggle.

The state of CA mandates fluoride for communities over 10,000 population, but it cannot enforce it because they don't pay for it.

The current climate around fluoridation is a massive wave to not fluoridate, coming from the people who face a well funded ADA and Cargill sponsored national campaign to fluoridate. Cargill makes fertilizer and sells the toxic waste from that in the form of fluoride to water treatment plants. Half of fluoride comes from China, where, incidentally, they will not fluoridate their water. 78 communities in the US and Canada have rejected fluoride since 2010!!

Prozac is 94% fluoride....go figure why they'd put it in the water!

Also, please subscribe to the Fluoride Action Network for lots of good resources in this effort. https://www.fluoridealert.org/take-a...-fan-movement/ They will be sending a lot of emails for their donation campaign during December, but their normal updates occur about once a month and are filled with inspiring successes.

Susan

this announcement appeared in the Sonoma County daily digest bulletin for 12 December 2012:

Sonoma County Health Services Announcements
12/11/2012
This information has recently been updated, and is now available at
https://www.sonoma-county.org/health...ents/index.asp

Request for Proposal - Fluoridation Advisory Committee Facilitator

Request for Proposal - Fluoridation Preliminary Engineering Design Report

Request for Proposal - Preventive Oral Health Public Communications Campaign - Consultant

Specifically, what can a senior in Sebastopol do? Time for this fluoride scam to be exposed!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Allorrah Be:

Specifically, what can a senior in Sebastopol do? Time for this fluoride scam to be exposed!

Rev. BE

---

www.SCWaterCoalition.org

Environmental Center
55A Ridgway Avenue,
Santa Rosa

Stephen Fuller-Rowell
[email protected]

Please email Stephen and ask how you can help. Then come back here and post it for the rest of us.

They (the pro-fluoride CA Dental Association) are going to put $50,000 into a public education campaign. We have a petition nearly ready to go. I'll post it here soon.

Thanks Glia for keeping us posted, and thanks to all!
Susan

Thanks for this post. I would like to know the source that 94% of Prozac is flouride, can you provide me with that or lead me in that direction, as that is so important and an excellent point.

I will contact the coalition, because this would be a travesty in sonoma county.
thanks

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by intheflow88:

Hi All,

If you'd like to add some juice to the No Fluoride effort in Sonoma County (which needs it), here's where to plug in:

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alaria:

Thanks for this post. I would like to know the source that 94% of Prozac is flouride, can you provide me with that or lead me in that direction, as that is so important and an excellent point.

I will contact the coalition, because this would be a travesty in sonoma county.
thanks

---

It was easy to google this...Fluoxetene Hydrochloride is in Prozac, Prolixin, and antipsychotic prescrition drug used to treat schizophrenia and 5 Fluorouracil used in cancer treatments that is so highly toxic that there is only a narrow margin for safety...risks of blood toxicity, gastrointestinal bleeding and even death.

https://www.livestrong.com/article/2...ription-drugs/ & https://www.antidepressantsfacts.com...uorophenyl.htm

And here's a great video about the history of fluoride as part of the phosphate industry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLWk3cBnHOg

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

It was easy to google this...Fluoxetene Hydrochloride is in Prozac, Prolixin, and antipsychotic prescritpion drug used to treat schizophrenia and 5 Fluorouracil used in cancer treatments that is so highly toxic that there is only a narrow margin for safety...risks of blood toxicity, gastrointestinal bleeding and even death.

---

google is all you ever need. By the way, it turns out that the water supply is over 60% hydrogen, even after the antipsychotics have been added. Google "Hindenberg" and you'll see what we have to fear!

Anyone who supports keeping fluoride out of our drinking water may join me in speaking with
Dr. Silver Chalfin at 2:30 this Thursday. Her office is at 3313 Chanate Road, Santa Rosa. It is just across the parking lot from Sutter Hospital.

Lynn Silver Chalfin, MD, MPH, FAAP
Health Officer
Department of Health Services Administration
Office: 707-565-4897

Or email her Assistant
[email protected]

Please call me first, I'm listed in Sebastopol.

Thanks,

Colleen Fernald

I have never had flouride. My son has never had flouride. We have both had one cavity each in our lives.....He is 23 and had a "white cavity"...no one knows what causes them, they are internal. I am 57 and mine was caused by the scraping of my teeth done while applying the "old style braces bands" I am 58 years old.
Fluoride is bad news, yet so many people are duped into beliving the opposite....Even people whos intellect I respected. It is as if they were trying to apply nuclear waste to our water because they do not know how else to get rid of it!
Marta May

Help Fluoride Action Network Meet It's Fundraising Goal by Dec 31st


December 28, 2012

DECEMBER BULLETIN #25

Dear Friends:

Yesterday was a fabulous day in our fundraiser but first let me tell you about FAN’s new video. It features Dr. Yolanda Whyte a pediatrician from Atlanta, Georgia (last year FAN helped to get Dr. Whyte to Milwaukee and NYC to help in the battles there). In this video she explains why she is opposed to fluoridation.

Watch FAN's New Video Featuring Dr. Whyte

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=6iu9HzaVbWQ

I believe this video (produced by Michael Connett and Kevin Hurley) will be a potent new weapon in trying to reach the ordinary person on this issue. It is only 4 minutes long but packs a powerful message especially for young parents. I think our revamped website easily wins the scientific arguments but if we wish to persuade the general public to end fluoridation we need communication tools like this.

But making videos like this is not cheap. It involves airfares, studio time, and editing time. So, if you like this video please consider making a donation to FAN. Right now we are about to reach a total that will keep us going (i.e. the basics: salaries, office expenses, travel, maintaining the website etc) but if we want to pay for exciting projects like this – that have the potential to outreach to millions more people - we need a little more from supporters like yourself.

Fundraiser update

We have just 4 days left to reach our goal of $100,000. Yesterday was our biggest day yet. We raised a staggering $12,612 from 25 people. This brings our grand total to $66,115 from 319 donors and very close to our next mini-goal of $70,000, which will trigger another $7,500 pledged by several of our most generous donors. All donations are tax-deductible.

If you can make a donation, however small, you can donate online (details) or send a check payable to FAN, 104 Walnut Street, Binghamton, NY 13905. All FAN premiums (T-shirt, Tote bag, Coffee mug) were made in the U.S. and every donation of $10 or more will receive a free copy of our DVD Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation.

Our fundraising totals are updated regularly on our homepage and in these daily bulletins.

Thank you for all who have donated so generously so far and for all the other things you are doing to help end fluoridation worldwide.

Paul Connett, PhD,

Director of FAN, co-author of The Case Against Fluoride

Premiums

Click here for a visual image of each premium. Please note the size of your donation ($21, 41, 51 etc) is a code for us to know which premium you want.

• $21 you can receive a FAN bumper sticker.

• $41 you can receive the FAN coffee mug.
  

• $45 you can receive your choice of one of the other books on fluoride (see updated list below)
  

• $51 you can receive a FAN T-shirt. If you order a T-shirt please indicate in a separate email to[email protected]what size you want (small, medium, large, or X-large).
  

• $61 you can receive a FAN tote bag.
  

• $101, you can receive a copy of The Case Against Fluoride signed by the lead author.

Please Donate Today

This petition is based on a document approved by the Sonoma County Water Coalition:

Please join this campaign:

https://www.change.org/petitions/the...share_petition

The issue will be on the Board of Supervisors' agenda in January.

The Fluoride Free Movement has grown to include all of SF Bay Area. Check out our petition launch and March events:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?96289-Fluoride-Free-SF-Bay-Area-Petition-Launch-and-March-Events-Announcement&highlight=fluoride&p=163162#post163162

https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/...1206081330.png
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors weighs next step in FLUORIDE plan
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130220/ARTICLES/130229972/1350?p=all&tc=pgall

By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:30 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 10:09 a.m.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday could take the next step in a long-proposed plan to add fluoride to most of the county's drinking water.

The move is intended to improve dental health and is a common practice across the country, recommended by leading national and international health agencies. But it has sparked emotional protests from a wide range of opponents concerned about health implications and other issues.

The county has been studying the proposal for a year. A feasibility report examining health and legal issues is due out Thursday and will be the subject of a public meeting Friday, from 3:30 to 5 p.m. at a county health office at 3313 Chanate Road in Santa Rosa.

Dr. Lynn Silver Chalfin, the county's health officer, declined on Tuesday to discuss the report's findings.

Rita Scardaci, the county's health services director, said on Wednesday that the report does not make any “definitive recommendation” on the introduction of fluoride.

But county health officials continue to back that move, pointing to what they've called an oral health “crisis” among Sonoma County children, especially those from low-income families.

The Board of Supervisors last February backed study of water fluoridation as a key way to address the problem.

On Tuesday the board is set to consider approving the next step: a six-month, $103,000 study of the engineering changes necessary to fluoridate local drinking water.

The 2:10 p.m. hearing is likely to draw a large crowd, and pit supportive health officials against skeptics and activists who oppose the practice.

Water fluoridation has been backed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Surgeon General, the World Health Organization and the American Dental Association, which called it “the single most effective public health measure to prevent dental decay.”

Almost three-quarters of the nation's population served by public water systems — or about 196 million people — are receiving fluoridated water.

State law requires the practice for all public water suppliers in California with more than 10,000 connections. The unfunded 18-year-old statute has not been widely enforced.

Critics, including non-traditional health advocates, property rights activists and some environmentalists, have urged the county to reject water fluoridation. They've voiced concerns about government-imposed medication and health impacts on humans and on wildlife exposed to fluoridated wastewater.

Currently in Sonoma County, the only fluoridated water is delivered to residents of Healdsburg and the adjacent Fitch Mountain area.

The proposal would add fluoride to water used by nearly three quarters of the county, including 350,000 residents served by the Sonoma County Water Agency in Windsor, Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Petaluma, Sonoma and the Valley of the Moon.

The Sonoma County Water Agency also serves about 250,000 residents in Marin County. Of those customers, 185,000 people in south and central Marin — residents from Marinwood to Sausalito — already get fluoridated water. The roughly 65,000 residents who don't currently get fluoride — but who would under any Water Agency introduction — live in western and northern Marin County, including Novato.

Presentations at the Friday meeting will be given by Scardaci, Silver Chalfin, and Oscar Chavez, executive director of the Community Action Partnership, the anti-poverty nonprofit group.

Public comment is scheduled for 4:05 p.m.

Public comment will also be taken at the Tuesday Board of Supervisors' meeting.

Have you ever wondered why most major municipal water utilities across America continue to artificially fluoridate public water supplies when inexpensive fluoride toothpastes are readily available for those who choose to use them? Or why governments and medical groups continue to force fluoridated tap water on the public in spite of the fact that it has many known and proven health risks? These and many other pertinent questions find their answers in the hard-hitting documentary Fluoridegate: An American Tragedy, one of the most powerful documentaries ever made about the fluoride fraud.

If you click on the link in the email below that says "Fluoridegate(Full Film)" it will take you to a site where you can see the whole documentary and read a couple of good articles about the problems with putting fluoride in water supplies. This is an important health issue, and many people are unaware or believe it is harmless and even healthy. We need to do whatever we can to stop this.

Some of you are already very well educated on this topic, but may have patients, clients, students, friends and family who are not - so share this link.

This issue is important no matter where you are in the country, so please pass this info on, and watch the movie!

https://truth11.com/2013/01/30/fluor...oride-pushers/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zpw5fGt4UvI

Hello Community! Please pass the word and raise awareness and continue to put pressure on our board of supervisors regarding this critical issue... Below, I have pasted a copy of what I sent to the Board of Supervisors.

I would urge you to put aside all of the so called "expert" opinions and realize this basic fact: the oral and dental hygiene issue in our county involves a small portion of the overall population. You all can take the money proposed for water flouridation and create programs and services to address this particular group of lower-income folks and the elderly that CHOOSE to have topical flouridation or other solutions administered to them. The rest of the population can also CHOOSE what levels of flouridation they want along with other oral hygiene solutions. There is NO NEED to put flouride in the water supply. There is NO NEED to RISK the plethora of potential health problems by ADDING ANOTHER TOXIN TO OUR WATER SUPPLY. You should be standing up for our RIGHTS to clean and safe drinking water, NOT ADMINISTERING MASS FLOURIDATION OF THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY. This is the bottom line. Even if you believe that flourosilicic acid , as a compound from industrial waste, is safe to drink. Guess what, some of us DONT WANT TO DRINK flourosilicic acid. And, we have the RIGHT to say no, we do not think it is safe to drink. And , you DONT HAVE THE RIGHT, to make that decision for ME.


thank you - I trust you can do the right thing. Again, think about your legacy here as a politician. Not as just another politician who "caved in" to the so called "experts" and a 70 year old "establishment" process that is wrong. Remember that we were told that cigarettes and second hand smoke used to "be safe." And that we didnt need seat belts!...

https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/...1206081330.png

Board of Supervisors takes next step toward fluoridating county water
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130226/ARTICLES/130229619/1350?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar

By DEREK MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 7:45 a.m.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday pressed forward with a controversial plan to put fluoride into most of the county's drinking water during an emotional hearing in which dozens of speakers debated whether the chemical compound is a panacea or a poison.

Dentists and other health care professionals, along with a larger, more vocal contingent of fluoride skeptics, packed board chambers for the marathon five-hour public hearing.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...7_11-30-48.png

Despite reservations expressed by some supervisors, the board unanimously authorized additional financial analysis and engineering studies of adding fluoride to most of the county's drinking water. The final decision is not expected until March 2014.

"We can't ignore the data and the statistics in this county when it comes to the oral health epidemic," Supervisor Efren Carrillo said.

Dozens of speakers, however, expressed anger and dismay over the proposal, citing health concerns, distrust of mainstream science and doubts about how the county would be able to fund the project.

Based on preliminary estimates, the project could cost up to $8.5 million in capital upgrades to the county's central water system, plus ongoing upkeep starting at $973,000 a year, according to a county report.

"I'm assuming this will be necessary because our roads will be so bad we won't be able to drive to the dentist," said Elizabeth Van Dyke of Guerneville, in what became a recurring theme about the county's spending priorities.

Fluoride is a chemical compound and was introduced to U.S. drinking water nearly 70 years ago. About three-quarters of the nation's population served by public water systems, or about 196 million people, are now receiving fluoridated water.

The measure is backed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the surgeon general, the World Health Organization and the American Dental Association, which called it "the single most effective public health measure to prevent dental decay."

Currently in Sonoma County, the only fluoridated water is delivered to residents of Healdsburg, the adjacent Fitch Mountain area and Two Rock Coast Guard Base.

Dr. Lynn Silver Chalfin, the county's health officer, told the board that in Sonoma County every day, 10 to 12 children undergo general anesthesia while being treated for severe dental disease.

She cited a CDC study that found that for every dollar spent on community water fluoridation, the result is a $38 savings on dental expenses.

Stacey Stirling, dental operations manager for St. Joseph Health Sonoma County, described a 5-year-old girl whose face was so swollen because of oral disease her eyes were nearly shut.

Stirling said the girl's parents brought her to the emergency room and that she spent five days in the hospital. The total bill for her dental care: $80,000.

"We see children like this every day," Stirling said. "My fear is that we're going to see a death in Sonoma County, for those children who don't make it in in time."

Santa Rosa dentist Anthony Fernandez, a proponent of fluoride as a preventive measure, said the least expensive filling he offers is $160. He urged supervisors to "do the right thing," and for dramatic effect, he played the shrill sound of a dentist's drill on the public address system via his smartphone.

Opponents were not amused. Several speakers likened fluoride to a toxic substance they said can cause a range of health ailments when ingested, everything from bone cancer to hip fractures.

"You're listening to members of the dental association that gave us mercury," Dr. Robert Rowen, who has an integrative and nutritional family medicine practice in Santa Rosa, told the board.

He said if he were to prescribe medications the way he said supervisors are essentially considering with mass fluoridation, the medical establishment would "jerk my ticket," meaning strip him of his licence to practice.

Several speakers said county health officials should concentrate their efforts instead on getting children weaned off of sugar and soda drinks.

They also raised the issue of people taking personal responsibility to teach their children good oral-hygiene habits.

The dissenters clearly got to Supervisor Shirlee Zane, who said after more than two hours of public testimony, "We are so behind the curve here. Shame on us for being so far behind."

She then pointed her finger toward the audience and said, "I have listened to you. You will now listen to me."

That prompted Brenda Adelman, a Guerneville resident and longtime activist on Russian River water issues, to stand up and yell loudly back at Zane, "Please don't point your finger at me. That's clearly obnoxious."

Supervisor David Rabbitt, the chairman of the board, pounded the gavel several times seeking order.

"I'm not going on until they stop," Zane said.

The fluoridation project would affect three quarters of the county, including 350,000 residents served by the Sonoma County Water Agency in Windsor, Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Petaluma, Sonoma, Forestville and the Valley of the Moon. More than 50,000 Novato-area residents served by the Water Agency also would get fluoridated water for the first time.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle to the county's plans is that it would require the unanimous consent of all eight of the water agency's retailers.

Rabbitt cautioned that the last time those agreements were opened up for review it took "eight-and-a-half years to bottle it up again."

The Graton Community Services District is not one of the major municipal systems that receives water from the water agency. But Robert Rawson, the district's general manager, said the district opposes the fluoride project because he said the chemical will cause environmental damage, including to aquatic organisms.

Rabbitt and Supervisor Susan Gorin expressed concerns about how the project would be funded and, also, over how much money the county is spending on studies. The engineering analysis approved Tuesday is estimated to cost the county about $103,000.

At questioning from Gorin, County Counsel Bruce Goldstein said the cost of the flouride project could be passed on to ratepayers.

Gorin said she also was "conflicted" about putting fluoride in water, saying she's not expecting it to lead to "miraculous cures, especially among our disadvantaged population."

Thanks to the woman who posted those several passionate comments in the Press Democrat FOR fluoridation. While employing almost ALL possible grammatical variations of the root "fluoridate" along the way, she also variously misspelled each. One of her offerings, "flourinate," {flo-urinate} might work in the opposition's favor.

It appears that the move forward is forcing people who already know better to get on board politically and to start wasting money on this. I'm a tad outraged by the Press Democrat's stand -- their two pro-fluoridation editorials. I'd like to know the REAL ORIGIN of this new push locally and why that isn't being reported by the PD. I mean, HOW did it come up again, and WHOSE idea WAS THIS? AND timing: Seems TOTALLY Anachronistic. Who started it and what's going on in their heads that they think this will get them ahead politically. At best, it's lazy, sloppy health care. It's almost a way of saying, "Well, we assert that you are costing us a lot of money. Now, we are NOT going to actually help you in the ways that we are already really good at and know how to do; but we will fluoridate the water system just for you. (Personally, I don't see how it could possibly be cost effective, and obviously not more cost effective than educating and sweat equity, but I'm an idiot).

You don't cure ignorance with medication.

"Fluoridation is already common" is part of their justification package. Here we go again with the "But, Mommy, EVERYONE has one!" peer-group-knows best reasoning. OR, I WONDER, is it more accurate to say, "The decision to fluoridate the local water system was ONCE a common one. I'm trying to find this out. Currently, around 72% of the nation's population (not 3/4 of the municipalities necessarily) gets their water from public systems that add fluoride. Ok. But when did the meat of that actually hit the board -- a long time ago?? I found this oldie but goodie "big city" preponderance to be noteworthy -- "As of May 2000, 42 of the 50 largest U.S. cities had water fluoridation."

Here are the PD editorials. I don't "get" their fervor.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...202261039/1350

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...130209546/1350

I tried to find out if I grew up with fluoridation or not, and came across a wonderfully readable write-up from 2005 in the Eugene Weekly; and, the debate machine has not changed one iota -- look at the 38 dollar figure we are still using today!

https://www.eugeneweekly.com/2005/07/21/coverstory.html

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/...1206081330.png

Board of Supervisors takes next step toward fluoridating county water
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130226/ARTICLES/130229619/1350?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar

By DEREK MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 7:45 a.m.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday pressed forward with a controversial plan to put fluoride into most of the county's drinking water during an emotional hearing in which dozens of speakers debated whether the chemical compound is a panacea or a poison.

---

I am becoming more and more convinced that there must be some money exchange going on between fluoride producers and our supes. After all, the pesticide industry where the fluoride will come from, is awash in BILLIONs every year. I'm betting that some of that money is lining some pockets here in Sonoma County. No, I don't have any proof other than that's how our "democracy" works. We have the best democracy money can buy! Which is not democracy but oligarchy.

Thank you, Dzerach, for your great comment!:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DreadTori:

... No, I don't have any proof other than that's how our "democracy" works.

---

yeah, but your statement has that all-important truthiness about it, so it's even better than having proof.


Steven Colbert is a brilliant observer of our times.

So, Podfish, :hmmm: please clarify if you're disagreeing with me or not. I love Colbert and agree with you that he is a brilliant observer, but his definition of "truthiness" is basically negative since he applies it to folks who prattle lies, like FauxNews.

Are you saying that our democracy isn't run by money?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

yeah, but your statement has that all-important truthiness about it, so it's even better than having proof.


Steven Colbert is a brilliant observer of our times.

---

https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/...1206081330.png

Board of Supervisors takes next step toward fluoridating county water
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130226/ARTICLES/130229619/1350?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar

Quote:

---

"We can't ignore the data and the statistics in this county when it comes to the oral health epidemic," Supervisor Efren Carrillo said......

*Stacey Stirling, dental operations manager for St. Joseph Health Sonoma County, described a 5-year-old girl whose face was so swollen because of oral disease her eyes were nearly shut.....
*Stirling said the girl's parents brought her to the emergency room and that she spent five days in the hospital. The total bill for her dental care: $80,000.....

---

The oral health epidemic has not much to do with fluoride! Please, be not so naive!

The parents of the 5 year old girl should be hold responsible for the dilemma- nothing was mentioned about the "reason- onset of what actually happened" of her plight, didn't they notice till it was that far gone?

Educate parents to educate their children to brush their teeth twice a day and STAY AWAY from sugary drinks and candy- that starts as soon as children can hold a toothbrush!*

Fluoride kills your Enzymes in your body- from there your body turns autoimmune- it will attack itself...*
Google:
Glandular System and Fluoride- read,*and your hair will stand up straight and turn white its so scary!
Dentists are correct- fluoride is so toxic it kills so much every thing in your mouth.
But Dentists do not know much about the rest of your body. Every doctor is very specialist about the one part of the body they can practice in. (Should they know, they hardly will tell you- or not supposed to tell you...)
Dentists talk only about our teeth...

Most children like to watch, play games on their computer.
Why don't we add a little bit of education-advertising to it.
Like: When your teeth are rotten, you can not be superman anymore...
** * * * Little girl, keep your teeth white and healthy your prince charming will love you for it...Man made Fluoride is a very, very slow killer and it is mind bugling to think that anyone would like to add this substance to our still good drinking water!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DreadTori:

So, Podfish, :hmmm: please clarify if you're disagreeing with me or not. I love Colbert and agree with you that he is a brilliant observer, but his definition of "truthiness" is basically negative since he applies it to folks who prattle lies, like FauxNews.

Are you saying that our democracy isn't run by money?

---

I'm disagreeing with your form of argument. And I disagree with your filtering of Colbert's intention when he defines "truthiness". It has nothing to do with bad guys prattling lies. It has to do with people, independent of the moral correctness of their position, valuing ideas because they just ought to be correct, and not caring a hell of a lot whether there's defensible, factual evidence behind their position. Those on the side of the angels are at least as guilty of it. It doesn't matter whether I'm on your side or not; I think using that kind of logic makes the position sound weak.

Thank you for clarifying your meaning. I do feel that we humans have an inherent bullshit detector and you described it perfectly! There are all kinds of "facts" thrown around, but in spite of them, we humans tend to follow our gut. That's what I was trying to say, rather awkwardly.

You didn't answer my last question, though. :wink:

Regardless of whether or not my "form of argument" is acceptable to you, are you saying that democracy isn't run by money? Because that's my basic premise and it's what worries me about what may be happening here around fluoridation. Would you be surprised to learn that money did have something to do with this strong push for fluoridation and the underhanded way the supes have tried to push it? I know I wouldn't be.

Thanks for your patience, Barry!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I'm disagreeing with your form of argument. And I disagree with your filtering of Colbert's intention when he defines "truthiness". It has nothing to do with bad guys prattling lies. It has to do with people, independent of the moral correctness of their position, valuing ideas because they just ought to be correct, and not caring a hell of a lot whether there's defensible, factual evidence behind their position. Those on the side of the angels are at least as guilty of it. It doesn't matter whether I'm on your side or not; I think using that kind of logic makes the position sound weak.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DreadTori:

You didn't answer my last question, though. :wink:...are you saying that democracy isn't run by money? Because that's my basic premise and it's what worries me about what may be happening here around fluoridation. Would you be surprised to learn that money did have something to do with this strong push for fluoridation and the underhanded way the supes have tried to push it? I know I wouldn't be.

---

I don't have a strong interest in this issue, but since you ask directly...

no, I don't think this is purely driven by money, and I strongly doubt it's being backed by the supes in return for campaign contributions or trips to the Bahamas. Of course moneyed interests play a huge role in our government (I deliberately avoided calling it a "democracy" just to keep that dog sleeping a bit longer) and I'd be surprised if vendors of flouridation equipment stay away from debates like this. That doesn't mean that the government is run by money in the simplistic way you imply. Money gives you a loud voice, but people resist listening to blowhards. Look at the research from newly-fashionable statistician Nate Silver - there's a natural curve of influence vs. spending. It's just one of many factors at play. I think the public debate on this issue is more from the emotions than on most. Sure the benefits of flouride for teeth can be challenged, but a lot of people are swayed by "it's for the children!! and for POOR children at that!". And the debate stops there for them. Others don't want their precious bodily fluids contaminated; without compelling evidence for its complete safety and great public benefit, they won't go for it. Others hate it as a sign of government intrusion, or pandering to the irresponsibility of the individual (see a recent post about lazy parents who won't brush the damn kid's teeth).

Personally, I don't find it a very significant threat to health of the general population, I think it's likely that it's of benefit in some cases, I don't think it rises to the level of a major public-spending boondoggle or indicates corruption of local politicians by powerful external forces. Many people have a lot more fear of possible health hazards than I do, or a larger sense of outrage when the undeserving realize gains at their (indirect) expense. So they react more strongly. I can't say I care a lot how it comes out.

The video and unofficial minutes for the Board of Supervisors meeting on 2013-02-26 is now available on the County of Sonoma website at https://supervisors.sonoma-county.or...d=1001&id=1002

Archived Agenda for February 26, 2013
Archived Video for February 26, 2013
Unoffical Minutes for February 26, 2013

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

PressFascist.com

Board of Supervisors takes next step toward fluoridating county water

---

The Fluoride Deception - Christopher Bryson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReJhMxTJVyo

The Fluoride Deception - Mike Adams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXw9mK9KwkE
https://www.naturalnews.com/031547_f...ial_waste.html
https://www.naturalnews.com/documentary.html

FLUORIDE SPILL EATS HOLES IN CONCRETE - Rock Island, Illinois
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szL2Ofzvpcs

An Inconvenient Tooth - Fluoride Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQArORf_Dcs

Glendale City Council - Fluoride
Published on Feb 28, 2013
Tony Passarella speaking to the Glendale City Council against water fluoridation in Glendale California on February 26th 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk9ZdhMrbtk
==================================

The Girl Against Fluoride
https://thepressnet.com/2013/02/19/t...ainst-fluoride

Plant City now fluoridating its water supply
https://www2.tbo.com/news/plant-city...ply-ar-645261/

Water fluoridation ends today
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-...-today/4547258

Cairns council votes to dump fluoride
https://bigpondnews.com/articles/Nat...de_840763.html

A Victory for Liberty in The Fluoridation Wars
https://dprogram.net/2013/02/08/a-vi...oridation-wars

Fluoridation a ‘lousy medical practice’ says Doctor
https://usahitman.com/flmpsd

Fluoride returns to Pinellas County water
https://pinellaspark.wtsp.com/news/n...s-county-water

I did not see the fluoride portion of the agenda on the video link.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

The video and unofficial minutes for the Board of Supervisors meeting on 2013-02-26 is now available on the County of Sonoma website at https://supervisors.sonoma-county.or...d=1001&id=1002

Archived Agenda for February 26, 2013
Archived Video for February 26, 2013
Unoffical Minutes for February 26, 2013

[/B][/SIZE]

---

Those who went to that meeting a few days ago will have gained a better feel for what is really going on, but...

I found the following to be an illuminating chronology:

2011 (June) - The Sonoma County Task Force on Oral Health- Six months is spent to develop a strategic plan to address the dental care disparities.

Their final report -- June 2011 -- did NOT recommend fluoridation as a strategy.

The reason: they were only seeking solutions that could be implemented within three years. Issues such as fluoridation of the county water system, and augmenting dental insurance coverage, were NOT considered for that reason. Their stated goal WAS to use current resources, or resources likely to be available within the near future. Fluoridation was viewed as falling outside of those perimeters.

IN OTHER WORDS, first things first! Let's first see what can be ameliorated with the strategies and recommendations we came up with during the first six months of 2011.

https://www.californiahealthline.org...ma-county.aspx

https://www.fluoridealert.org/news/s...h-care-crisis/

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...news?p=1&tc=pg


Well, the supervisors haven't given it ANY TIME AT ALL TO WORK! ...Nor could I find anyone in decision-making positions bringing up fluoridation in the 2011 PD articles.

So, what happened?

2012 (February 28) - Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Chair Shirlee Zane is pleased to announce that Lynn Silver Chalfin, MD, MPH, has been selected as Sonoma County Health Officer.

2012 (April) - Dr. Silver Chalfin will begin her service.

Board Chairwoman Shirlee Zane, commented, "I am confident that Dr. Silver-Chalfin will assist us in achieving our goal to become the healthiest county in the state by 2020."

Rita Scardaci, Director of Health Services - "Her work in health policy provides a seamless match with our efforts to make Sonoma County the healthiest county in the state by 2020."

Lynn has a progressive understanding and has bravely tried to address problems at their source. Here, as someone concerned with obesity and diabetes, she has a lot to say about sugar:

https:// https://press.sonoma-county.org/content.aspx?sid=1018&id=2421

She's considered "a good match" in part because she has already coordinated a response (in NYC) to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes.

IN ADDITION, SOME MAY BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING ALSO MAKES HER A GOOD MATCH?: she has worked internationally on health policy, where water fluoridation might make more sense to some people in some places? BRAZIL: percentage of population receiving fluoridated water, including both artificial and natural fluoridation: 60 - 80 percent. If you go to wikipedia, you'll see the three RED countries, the ones that are fluoridators: U.S., Australia...and Brazil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country

Brazil -- "Water fluoridation was first adopted in Brazil...in 1953. A 1974 federal law required new or enlarged water treatment plants to have fluoridation, and its availability was greatly expanded in the 1980s, with optimum fluoridation levels set at 0.8 mg/L. Today, the expansion of fluoridation in Brazil is a governmental priority; state-sponsored research points to a sharp correlation between the availability of fluoridation and benefits to human health."

About Dr. Silver-Chalfin -- "In 1989, after completing a residency in pediatrics and a fellowship in international health, Dr. Silver-Chalfin moved to Brazil, where she spent the next 14 years working as a professor of public health, a researcher, and an administrator. She left Brazil in 2002 to become a visiting scholar at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and then became assistant commissioner of public health for New York City in 2004."

https://www.scma.org/magazine/articles/?articleid=584

Dr. Silver Chalfin: "Some of the problems here [in Sonoma County] are the same as in NEW YORK [with significant and duly noted differences, I would hope, for cris' sakes]. Tobacco and obesity are also epidemics here, and we need to address them. We have significant health disparities and communities within the county that suffer from both poverty and higher disease rates. We need to reduce those disparities."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

The video and unofficial minutes for the Board of Supervisors meeting on 2013-02-26 is now available on the County of Sonoma website at https://supervisors.sonoma-county.or...d=1001&id=1002

Archived Agenda for February 26, 2013
Archived Video for February 26, 2013
Unoffical Minutes for February 26, 2013

[/B][/SIZE]

---

Found this tidbit on the Sonoma County Medical Association web site:

SCMA weighs in on fluoride debate

SCMA is supporting a measure requiring fluoridation of the water supplied by the Sonoma County Water Agency and other local water systems. In a Feb. 20 letter to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and members of several local city councils and water districts, SCMA President Dr. Walt Mills noted that, “This measure will have a significant impact on reducing health disparities and improving the oral health of our children and of Sonoma County residents of all ages.”

The letter was submitted prior to a contentious Board of Supervisors meeting on Feb. 26, during which both advocates and opponents of fluoridation spoke at length. Among the speakers was Health Officer Dr. Lynn Silver Chalfin, who noted that on a typical day about a dozen local children need general anesthesia for treatment of severe dental disease. She also described a CDC study finding that every dollar spent on fluoridation results in $38 in savings on dental care.

At the end of the meeting, the supervisors voted unanimously to authorize a financial analysis and engineering studies on the fluoridation measure. The process of making a final decision on fluoridation is expected to take about a year. During that time, SCMA members are encouraged to contact their county supervisor or city council members to discuss the fluoridation proposal. As Dr. Mills observed in a separate letter to local physicians, “Fluoridation in Sonoma County will not happen without the active support of the local health care community.”
https://www.scma.org/news/#a820

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by dzerach:

Those who went to that meeting a few days ago will have gained a better feel for what is really going on, but...

About Dr. Silver-Chalfin -- "In 1989, after completing a residency in pediatrics and a fellowship in international health, Dr. Silver-Chalfin moved to Brazil, where she spent the next 14 years working as a professor of public health, a researcher, and an administrator. She left Brazil in 2002 to become a visiting scholar at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and then became assistant commissioner of public health for New York City in 2004."

https://www.scma.org/magazine/articles/?articleid=584

Dr. Silver Chalfin: "Some of the problems here [in Sonoma County] are the same as in NEW YORK [with significant and duly noted differences, I would hope, for cris' sakes]. Tobacco and obesity are also epidemics here, and we need to address them. We have significant health disparities and communities within the county that suffer from both poverty and higher disease rates. We need to reduce those disparities."

---

“She [Dr. Silver Chalfin, Sonoma Co. Public Health Officer ] also described a CDC study finding that every dollar spent on fluoridation results in $38 in savings on dental care.”

I would think the CURRENT accuracy of this figure should be at least revisited? Because I came across the same exact statement in a 2005 Eugene Weekly article. Well, who knows how old it was THEN, in 2005. And, of course, now, it’s eight years later!

https://www.eugeneweekly.com/2005/07/21/coverstory.html

“She [Dr. Silver Chalfin, Sonoma Co. Public Health Officer ] also described a CDC study finding that every dollar spent on fluoridation results in $38 in savings on dental care.”

Not that anyone could know what this figure really means ANYWAY..

...because where’s the “baseline?” Just thoughts: I mean, what is she comparing it to – which OTHER possible ameliorative measures? Also, within what kind of a time frame? Short term? Long term? For all anybody knows, the county might be able to save a helluvalot more by implementing other strategies.

At any rate, they should be making that transparent – how was that savings figured? Context, please. Plus, I thought I saw somewhere that the cavity-reduction has only been measured at 10 per cent . Which seems attractive to large cities, I guess, like a band-aid would. The pro side should be able to tell us HOW MUCH actual cavity-reduction can be expected and how they came up with that estimate.

Lastly, I wanted to underline this apparent fact from one of the PD articles. Because, if true, fluoridation is SUCH a long term adventure to even arrive at, and they are proceeding to spend lots of money on it without firm ground. Eventually, won't this first have to be approved by ballot measure?

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...arch?p=3&tc=pg

“But even if the study finds a funding mechanism for the program, fluoridation still has to be approved unanimously by all eight of the county's water retailers. Rabbitt said the last time a multi-agency agreement was undertaken in the county, it took more than eight years to finalize.

The Board of Supervisor's final decision on fluoridation is not expected until March of 2014.”

Lastly, shouldn't the county supervisors be held accountable for that 2011 report from the Sonoma County Task Force on Oral Health, which was six months in the making, and did not recommend fluoridation, but did recommend, in great detail and with much enthusiasm, a whole bunch of other stuff. Why is the county not waiting to first measure the results of those recommendations and strategies? Are they even being implemented? If so, are results even being evaluated? Too early? The work of this task force WAS a big deal -- and then poof. :hmmm:

https://www.californiahealthline.org/...ma-county.aspx

https://www.fluoridealert.org/news/so...h-care-crisis/

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...news?p=1&tc=pg

(I don't know, I may have missed something obvious -- apologies if this is so -- my time on the computer is limited for at least the next 3 weeks, starting today. My old home computer was trashed by an unexpected voltage meltdown. Karmic, I'm sure!)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Found this tidbit on the Sonoma County Medical Association web site:

SCMA weighs in on fluoride debate

SCMA is supporting a measure requiring fluoridation of the water supplied by the Sonoma County Water Agency and other local water systems. In a Feb. 20 letter to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and members of several local city councils and water districts, SCMA President Dr. Walt Mills noted that, “This measure will have a significant impact on reducing health disparities and improving the oral health of our children and of Sonoma County residents of all ages.”

The letter was submitted prior to a contentious Board of Supervisors meeting on Feb. 26, during which both advocates and opponents of fluoridation spoke at length. Among the speakers was Health Officer Dr. Lynn Silver Chalfin, who noted that on a typical day about a dozen local children need general anesthesia for treatment of severe dental disease. She also described a CDC study finding that every dollar spent on fluoridation results in $38 in savings on dental care.

At the end of the meeting, the supervisors voted unanimously to authorize a financial analysis and engineering studies on the fluoridation measure. The process of making a final decision on fluoridation is expected to take about a year. During that time, SCMA members are encouraged to contact their county supervisor or city council members to discuss the fluoridation proposal. As Dr. Mills observed in a separate letter to local physicians, “Fluoridation in Sonoma County will not happen without the active support of the local health care community.”
https://www.scma.org/news/#a820

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

Doesn't fluoride in water help prevent tooth decay?

---

I have three responses to that question:

1. Even if it does---and that's debatable---are you seriously prepared just because of that "fact" to overlook its extreme toxicity? Do some research on the toxicity of (sodium) fluoride, and if you have any sense of self-preservation at all you will see how bad an idea it is to invite it into your body.

2. Decent dental hygiene also helps prevent tooth decay. What do you think people did for centuries before there was fluoridation of municipal water supplies? Whenever I see people entertaining the thought of using fluoride once they've been informed of its very serious toxicity, I have to think that they must be lazy about keeping their mouths clean if they are prepared to cede responsibility for the prevention of tooth decay to a toxic chemical.

3. Gosh, people can get into a whole lot of trouble by being ignorant about chemistry (which involves learning which kinds of elements and compounds are incredibly toxic), and sadly, I find that most people are quite ignorant about chemistry. That's a risky thing to be ignorant about when our whole world revolves around it and is made of it. Everything in our universe is chemistry.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by datars:

The Fluoride Deception - Mike Adams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXw9mK9KwkE

---

I have been reading plenty about the negative side of using fluoride and how it is produced- its toxic...

But I have not found anything about the "good" fluoride- the production and where it comes from.

So much negative is out weighting the good, isn't that a very simple sign of not to use that stuff till we are 99% sure about the good of it? Do we really want to risk our health for generations to come, pollute lakes and oceans etc, more than we already do?

Politics and ignorance can be hurtful.*

Robert Isaacson served on a committee convened by the National Research Council (NRC) in 2003 at the request of the EPA to study the effects of fluoride in drinking water. He is a distinguished professor emeritus of psychology at Binghamton University in New York. After serving on the NRC committee for 3 years and co-authoring its 506 page report, Isaacson posted an article online in which he stated his opposition to water fluoridation. Here's the link:
https://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chr..._position2.pdf

John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee, expressed concern about the link between fluoridation and thyroid disease: "The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored." Addressing the general question of fluoridation, Doull said: "What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled....But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this has been going on." (Scientific American, January 2008)

The complete 2006 NRC Report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, is available for free online at https://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=1

I am continually amazed at the ability of taxpayer funded public health experts to throw out numbers like this without accountability or questions from our taxpayer financed elected officials who are tasked with overseeing the spending of County money.

Here is a question that I would have liked a responsible, responsive supervisor to have asked:

"So, Dr. Chalfin, if $38 was saved on dental care for every dollar spent, are you suggesting that your Department of Public HEalth has done as assessment showing that this will result in $8 million x 38 being saved, or $300 million? Have you looked at the other methods of delivering fluoride or treatment directly to the population impacted by tooth decay, and found that it cannot effectively be accomplished sooner, for less than $8 million, without requiring all residents of our County, including those who object, to drink a lower grade of fluoride in their water as well"

Or maybe a newspaper reporter that made this point? Unfortunately for the taxpayers and citizens of this county, many reporters seem to only have time to take stenography by the powerful and corporations with vested financial interest, as opposed to providing intelligent analysis and questions on our behalf.

$38 in savings for every dollar. Sounds like a bargain. But does it mean anything?

Meanwhile, $8 million is a lot of money to for something so many citizens are concerned with and object to...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by dzerach:

“She [Dr. Silver Chalfin, Sonoma Co. Public Health Officer ] also described a CDC study finding that every dollar spent on fluoridation results in $38 in savings on dental care.”

I would think the CURRENT accuracy of this figure should be at least revisited? Because I came across the same exact statement in a 2005 Eugene Weekly article. Well, who knows how old it was THEN, in 2005. And, of course, now, it’s eight years later!

https://www.eugeneweekly.com/2005/07/21/coverstory.html

“She [Dr. Silver Chalfin, Sonoma Co. Public Health Officer ] also described a CDC study finding that every dollar spent on fluoridation results in $38 in savings on dental care.”

Not that anyone could know what this figure really means ANYWAY..

...because where’s the “baseline?” Just thoughts: I mean, what is she comparing it to – which OTHER possible ameliorative measures? Also, within what kind of a time frame? Short term? Long term? For all anybody knows, the county might be able to save a helluvalot more by implementing other strategies.

At any rate, they should be making that transparent – how was that savings figured? Context, please. Plus, I thought I saw somewhere that the cavity-reduction has only been measured at 10 per cent . Which seems attractive to large cities, I guess, like a band-aid would. The pro side should be able to tell us HOW MUCH actual cavity-reduction can be expected and how they came up with that estimate.

Lastly, I wanted to underline this apparent fact from one of the PD articles. Because, if true, fluoridation is SUCH a long term adventure to even arrive at, and they are proceeding to spend lots of money on it without firm ground. Eventually, won't this first have to be approved by ballot measure?

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...arch?p=3&tc=pg

“But even if the study finds a funding mechanism for the program, fluoridation still has to be approved unanimously by all eight of the county's water retailers. Rabbitt said the last time a multi-agency agreement was undertaken in the county, it took more than eight years to finalize.

The Board of Supervisor's final decision on fluoridation is not expected until March of 2014.”

Lastly, shouldn't the county supervisors be held accountable for that 2011 report from the Sonoma County Task Force on Oral Health, which was six months in the making, and did not recommend fluoridation, but did recommend, in great detail and with much enthusiasm, a whole bunch of other stuff. Why is the county not waiting to first measure the results of those recommendations and strategies? Are they even being implemented? If so, are results even being evaluated? Too early? The work of this task force WAS a big deal -- and then poof. :hmmm:

https://www.californiahealthline.org/...ma-county.aspx

https://www.fluoridealert.org/news/so...h-care-crisis/

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...news?p=1&tc=pg

(I don't know, I may have missed something obvious -- apologies if this is so -- my time on the computer is limited for at least the next 3 weeks, starting today. My old home computer was trashed by an unexpected voltage meltdown. Karmic, I'm sure!)

---

More information regarding the dangers of fluoride:

CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Fluoride

A new study in the Journal of the American Dental Association finds once again that, contrary to what most people have been told, fluoride is actually bad for teeth.

Exposure to high levels of fluoride results in a condition known as fluorosis, in which tooth enamel becomes discolored. The condition can eventually lead to badly damaged teeth. The new study found that fluoride intake during a child's first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formula.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is of a similar opinion. According to their website:

"Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis."

https://worldtruth.tv/cdc-and-ada-no...sing-fluoride/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by bigwonder:

More information regarding the dangers of fluoride:

CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Fluoride

A new study in the Journal of the American Dental Association finds once again that, contrary to what most people have been told, fluoride is actually bad for teeth.

Exposure to high levels of fluoride results in a condition known as fluorosis, in which tooth enamel becomes discolored. The condition can eventually lead to badly damaged teeth. The new study found that fluoride intake during a child's first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formula.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is of a similar opinion. According to their website:

"Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis."

https://worldtruth.tv/cdc-and-ada-no...sing-fluoride/

---

Here's a link to the official study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...?dopt=Abstract

I just watched this fairly long but very informative investigative video (cited in an earlier post) about fluoridation and am amazed that our County Supervisors are moving this proposal through. I re-read the article: not just $8 million to start, but an additional $900,000 EVERY YEAR of our tax money. And for what? The video here noted,

"98% Western Europe has rejected fluoridation of water and yet their children's teeth are just as healthy as children's teeth in the U.S."

98% is pretty close to consensus. And when it comes to which democracy has a less corrupted system of scientific evaluation, the US, with the corporate corruption of our political system, is WAY behind the public health practices of our European allies.

I wish that our five supervisors would take 27 minutes and watch this video. If anyone reading this knows them personally, please email them this video link...maybe it will turn their thinking around, before they dump this poison into our water system, then raise our rates to pay for it...

It is called, 'The Fluoride Deception," an interview by Chris Bryson, a former BBC investigative journalist who spent ten years researching his book, by the same name...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReJhMxTJVyo&feature=player_embedded

PS: I notice Sebastopol is not mentioned in the PD articles about what communities will be affected by the fluoridation scheme. Does anyone know whether Sebastopol water is fluoridated or will be affected by this?

sebastopol city water is supplied by local wells and floride is not added. other sonoma county towns north of santa rosa also have local systems, as well as much of rohnert park. the sonoma county water agency is the big water dog of the northbay, with plentiful supply from the warm springs dam. their current restriction is fish concerns in dry creek. groundwater resources in the santa rosa plain are maxed out so if sebastopol did need more water, or existing wells failed or became (more) contaminated, the town would need to become a contractor with the water agency.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

PS: I notice Sebastopol is not mentioned in the PD articles about what communities will be affected by the fluoridation scheme. Does anyone know whether Sebastopol water is fluoridated or will be affected by this?

---

Thanks to all Waccob posters who have taken time to post some truly intelligent, articulate and enlightening comments against forced fluoridation of our precious water by the "enlightened" Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. You have inspired me to finally write a post of my own and weigh in on this issue.

I had seriously contemplated attending last week's B.O.S. meeting regarding this extremely important issue, but then I paused for a moment and asked myself a question: Why bother to attend when they seem to already have their minds made up?

Based on what I have since learned, it appears I made the right decision.

I heard all about Supervisor Zane's contemptuous behavior towards the anti-fluoride crowd. And after observing her unwarranted mistreatment of former supervisor Ernie Carpenter at the meeting regarding the proposed changes to the medical marijuana rules back in December of 2012, I believe it.

By the way, a public official should NEVER shake their finger at any member of the public. We elect public officials with the hope that they have acquired not only the necessary intelligence, life skills, et cetera, to perform the job to which they were elected, but also that they will endeavor to treat members of the public who come before them with at least a modicom of courtesy and respect. In my opinion, Supervisor Zane has failed miserably in this regard.

Now, on to the topic at hand. What can I possibly say about the issue of forced fluoridation that hasn't already been said? Plenty! It is, without question, one of the most misguided, hair-brained and just-plain-stupid ideas I have ever heard proposed. And the fact that it is even being considered by our current B.O.S., while our county roads are being allowed to deteriorate to unrecognizable rubble and library hours are being drastically cut, should give the residents of this county cause for concern.

To all of you in the health care community who think that this is going to be an overnight panacea for dental disease, I challenge you to offer me some good, hard evidence for your position.

And to all of you so called "tax-revolt, fixcal-conservative" types, where is the outrage? This questionable proposal is going to cost milllions of tax dollars to implement - YOUR tax dollars!
Why are you not loudly and vocally questioning and complaining about this? What are you afraid of?

I read a story recently about a doctor who saw a child whose dental condition required 80,000 dollars worth of treatment. It was truly sad.

However, I believe that no amount of water fluoridation is ever going to prevent, much less solve, such serious dental problems. Teaching children to take personal responsibility for their dental health, by brushing three times a day, flossing regularly and using a dental rinse, is the best safeguard against dental disease.

I have lived in Sonoma County my entire life -- 51 years -- and have NEVER lived in a residence that was served by fluoridated water. I am blessed that at all residences where I have lived, we had excellent, clear, drinkable well water. In fact, when I lived at the west end of Sebastopol Road, we had a capped artesian well; a man who was born in the house came down the driveway in 1977, to once again see his boyhood home and to have "one more glass of the wonderful water," told me so.

Did I ever have any cavities back in the day? A few. And considering all the candy I consumed as a kid, I feel I like I got off pretty easy. I even had a deciduous baby tooth until I was 45 years old! From the time I was 18, the dentists keep telling me it would soon be gone, but it would take 27 long years for that to happen...

My parents and my elementary school nurse instilled early on that dental health was of paramount importance. Perhaps before the "supes" proceed with this unpopular, expensive, untimely and misguided porposal, they may want to consider another alternative: dental education. I can guarantee you it will be money well spent. It will also be a whole lot cheaper.

Oh, yes, one more thing: It won't poison those among us who don't wish to be poisoned by fluoride.

This is a letter i wrote to the press democrat who's staff writer Mr. Gullixson seems extrordinairly in favor of water fluoridation. ..."Lets take a look at this issue of fluoridation pragmatically . The project could cost up to $8.5 million in capital upgrades to the county's central water system, plus ongoing upkeep starting at $973,000 a year..That is a tax payer expense. If we do not put Fluoride into the water we incur only the usual expenses as county water controllers have it.
Now lets look at the fluoride in pragmatic terms. It is said that fluoride is 'safe' to consume at 0.7 parts per million. Oh good. So we hire an 'expert' to keep those ppm's under control . We are hoping it is not the same kind of experts that they hired to keep Fukushima safe for public consumption or the FDA who keeps tabs on the ammoniated beef piling into the guts of unsuspecting school children for years. No our experts will know .07 is not .7 or .77 or .08 god forbid. So lets say our team of experts messes up maybe they were texting their lover and just left the spickett on a weee bit too long. What happens will the responsible party be accountable? WHo will pay the emergency medical and environmental costs? The symptoms of 'overdose" symptemology of fluoride poisoning are as follows...Abdominal pain, Abnormal taste (salty or soapy taste),Convulsions, Diarrhea ,Drooling, Headache, Heart attack, Irregular heartbeat, Nausea, Shallow breathing, Slow heartbeart, Tremors, Vomiting, Weakness. Will the supervisors still have the 'backbone to support the people adversely affected. WIll they have an emergency action plan so that all will be cleaned up and put right? How much of the tax payer dollars will be put aside for this ? Do you have the back bone to find out for us MR. Gullixson?"
I mention 'backbone' several times as the writer states that the supervisors have back bone for going ahead with the poisoning of the citizens and make them pay for it plan.

I guess I'm one of the minority that is FOR fluoridation and based mainly on the reports of a couple of dentist friends over the past 4 decades or so. Sounds to me like there's a lot of "Henny Penny" - sky is falling kind of hysteria about this issue. I haven't heard of anyone either dying of fluoridated water, or even getting all the scary symptoms described by rikwiz. I don't doubt they exist; I just don't see those numbers being statistically-significant. Our western life-expectancy seems to be getting longer and longer, especially in the past century.

There will always be an "all-natural" cohort group that won't want fluoridation, eschews vaccinations, eats only organic, avoids meat, and makes copious use of alcohol-saturated "wipes" to prevent contagion. But when it comes to water consumption, I would think the average person uses far more water for flushing toilets and taking showers, neither of which include internal consumption. Seems to me that would be a far stronger argument against fluoridation: it's a waste of treated water. As to how much we all actually drink...probably a very small percentage of household water usage. Sure, some is used to reconstitute frozen juice; many make coffee and tea; some cooking is done in water. The bottled water industry probably provides a large percentage of the water we actually drink; some of that is spring water; some of it includes "naturally-occuring minerals", some of it is tap water (Aqua Fina and Dasani) and some of that includes added minerals, some of which might also be toxic in large quantities.

Lots of home water comes through manmade pipes, many of which are made of concrete or other stone-based material, some comes through plastic, some through copper. Is anything dangerous leeching during that passage to our taps? Much public drinking water is chlorinated and yes, some folks object to that too. Lots of us are on wells, many of which contain high levels of one element or another (manganese and iron are common); in recent years the seeping of MTBH (is that the right acronym?) from leaking gas tanks has polluted many home wells.

It's difficult, if not impossible, to live in a totally "natural world", and one might be right to do what one can to minimize exposure to dangerous matter. But at least some of the population believes in the preponderance of benefit over danger. One might also worry more about a number of other life effects: parts falling off airplanes (true); sinkholes burying people alive (true); volcanoes (true); tidal waves (true); bicyclists run off the road (true); the intense marketing of salt/sugar/fat brainwashing our kids (true); and the subtle desensitizing effect of extreme violence depicted in addictive video games, and too many "entertainment" motion pictures and TV programs (all true too). How much, in this miazma of life-threatening exposure, does the fluoridation of water really matter?

I heartedly recommend you watch the video posted below. Seems like there is good reason to be concerned.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

I just watched this fairly long but very informative investigative video (cited in an earlier post) about fluoridation and am amazed that our County Supervisors are moving this proposal through. I re-read the article: not just $8 million to start, but an additional $900,000 EVERY YEAR of our tax money. And for what? The video here noted,

"98% Western Europe has rejected fluoridation of water and yet their children's teeth are just as healthy as children's teeth in the U.S."

98% is pretty close to consensus. And when it comes to which democracy has a less corrupted system of scientific evaluation, the US, with the corporate corruption of our political system, is WAY behind the public health practices of our European allies.

I wish that our five supervisors would take 27 minutes and watch this video. If anyone reading this knows them personally, please email them this video link...maybe it will turn their thinking around, before they dump this poison into our water system, then raise our rates to pay for it...

It is called, 'The Fluoride Deception," an interview by Chris Bryson, a former BBC investigative journalist who spent ten years researching his book, by the same name...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReJhMxTJVyo&feature=player_embedded

PS: I notice Sebastopol is not mentioned in the PD articles about what communities will be affected by the fluoridation scheme. Does anyone know whether Sebastopol water is fluoridated or will be affected by this?

---

I use to be a dental hygienist for 26 years. I've written lengthy articles on this forum about fluoride in the past. I know the politics and the history. It's been a 38 year research project for me. Your dentist friends' have taken info from the ADA. One of the things I find so interesting is that dentists and doctors will leap to defend this practice of water fluoridation at every opportunity. And why? Is it because there's good scientific evidence that fluoridation is somehow beneficial to the public? No! It's because they've been told to support it by their associations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association. https://edgemagazine.net/2011/09/hol...time-has-come/ The AMA uses the same political lobbyists as the big pharmaceutical companies.https://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200906110008 Dentists who disagree with the ADA are often legally harassed, like whistleblowers and get their license revoked or research funds eliminated.

"Information was buried," concludes Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, and now a critic of fluoridation. The animal studies that Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990's indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin, and might adversely affect human brain functioning, even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995, in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. She later lost her position in speaking out. https://www.fluoridealert.org/wastenot414.htm

Dr. Hardy Limeback, was the Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto and former president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research. He was on the panel of the National Research Council that published the scientific indictment of fluoride. Like many practicing dentists, Dr. Limeback used to promote fluoride, but when he learned the truth, he recanted his earlier position and apologized for misleading the public. Since then
he's been a leading opponent of fluoridation. Yet his integrity has also cost him professionally. Since changing his position, Dr. Limeback also has not received any research grants. https://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...Poisoned-Water

There is NO healthy benefits of Fluoridated water. And fluoride gets absorbed through the skin when showers or baths are taken. In heated water, Fluoride does not get evaporated but more concentrated. Remarkably, fluoridated drinking water has not been shown to have any effect on tooth decay or the incidence of cavities. Tooth decay rates in Western Europe , where 98% of the population drinks non-fluoridated water, have declined as much and even more in some locales as rates in the U.S. since fluoridation began. British Columbia , where about 10% of the population drinks fluoridated water compared to 40-70% in the other provinces, has the lowest rates of tooth decay in Canada . In the largest fluoridation study ever undertaken, the National Institute of Dental Research tracked 39,000 children between the ages of 5 and 17. The results? No statistically significant differences in the dental health between children serviced by non-fluoridated and fluoridated water systems. Though fluoridation advocates commonly point out that public dental health in the U.S. has improved markedly since fluoridation began, many experts attribute this positive development not to treated water supplies but to increased public education and greatly improved dental hygiene practices being adopted by more and more Americans. EPA and HHS have been in consideration of lowering the current acceptable level of fluoride in the nation's public water supplies. This is the first time this has been considered in the past 50 years. This is being recommended as many additional sources of fluoride have become available since the 1960's. There is also an epidemic of dental fluorosis with the teenagers in the United States.
https://voices.yahoo.com/epaconsider...e-7615400.html

Fluoride is listed in the Merck manual (standard manual used by physicians on disease and toxins) as
a lethal poison. The types of fluoride used to treat water systems, fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, are actually untreated hazardous waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Much of the fluoride added to municipal water supplies across the United States is imported from China, and is contaminated with heavy metals, according to a warning by Bernard Miltenberger, president of the Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland. The report noted that the fluoridation chemicals used for the city's water had been evaluated, and were found to contain lead levels of 40 milligrams per bag and arsenic levels of 50 milligrams per bag.
https://timesnews.com/letters2/x1004927893/Chinese-fluoride-is-a-homeland-security-matter


So your summary is that adding fluoride to the water doesn't matter because there are so many other toxins in the environment and naturally occurring changes on the planet? This makes as much sense as ditching the whole constitution because many of our rights have been negated. It's time to be conscious of our choices and being responsible for how we interrelate with our environment and with each other. Because things have become more and more toxic doesn't mean we should add more to the toxic mix. We need to ask the questions to find out what is really being put in our food, water and products we buy. It's time to say NO to what is purposely and intentionally harmful. You can eat whatever 'food' you chose, vaccinate yourself with what you want, and drink Fluoride with zeal, but to call it hysteria for people who chose a more conscious lifestyle is about your opinion and nothing more.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ericvonk:

I guess I'm one of the minority that is FOR fluoridation and based mainly on the reports of a couple of dentist friends over the past 4 decades or so. Sounds to me like there's a lot of "Henny Penny" - sky is falling kind of hysteria about this issue. I haven't heard of anyone either dying of fluoridated water, or even getting all the scary symptoms described by rikwiz. I don't doubt they exist; I just don't see those numbers being statistically-significant. Our western life-expectancy seems to be getting longer and longer, especially in the past century.

There will always be an "all-natural" cohort group that won't want fluoridation, eschews vaccinations, eats only organic, avoids meat, and makes copious use of alcohol-saturated "wipes" to prevent contagion. But when it comes to water consumption, I would think the average person uses far more water for flushing toilets and taking showers, neither of which include internal consumption. Seems to me that would be a far stronger argument against fluoridation: it's a waste of treated water. As to how much we all actually drink...probably a very small percentage of household water usage. Sure, some is used to reconstitute frozen juice; many make coffee and tea; some cooking is done in water. The bottled water industry probably provides a large percentage of the water we actually drink; some of that is spring water; some of it includes "naturally-occuring minerals", some of it is tap water (Aqua Fina and Dasani) and some of that includes added minerals, some of which might also be toxic in large quantities.

Lots of home water comes through manmade pipes, many of which are made of concrete or other stone-based material, some comes through plastic, some through copper. Is anything dangerous leeching during that passage to our taps? Much public drinking water is chlorinated and yes, some folks object to that too. Lots of us are on wells, many of which contain high levels of one element or another (manganese and iron are common); in recent years the seeping of MTBH (is that the right acronym?) from leaking gas tanks has polluted many home wells.

It's difficult, if not impossible, to live in a totally "natural world", and one might be right to do what one can to minimize exposure to dangerous matter. But at least some of the population believes in the preponderance of benefit over danger. One might also worry more about a number of other life effects: parts falling off airplanes (true); sinkholes burying people alive (true); volcanoes (true); tidal waves (true); bicyclists run off the road (true); the intense marketing of salt/sugar/fat brainwashing our kids (true); and the subtle desensitizing effect of extreme violence depicted in addictive video games, and too many "entertainment" motion pictures and TV programs (all true too). How much, in this miazma of life-threatening exposure, does the fluoridation of water really matter?

---

BTW, oxygen also is a poison.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311151255.htm

Fluoride in Drinking Water Cuts Tooth Decay in Adults, Study Shows

Mar. 11, 2013 — A new study conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Adelaide, Australia, has produced the strongest evidence yet that fluoride in drinking water provides dental health benefits to adults, even those who had not received fluoridated drinking water as children.

In the first population-level study of its kind, the study shows that fluoridated drinking water prevents tooth decay for all adults regardless of age, and whether or not they consumed fluoridated water during childhood.

Led by UNC School of Dentistry faculty member Gary Slade, the study adds a new dimension to evidence regarding dental health benefits of fluoridation.

"It was once thought that fluoridated drinking water only benefited children who consumed it from birth," explained Slade, who is John W. Stamm Distinguished Professor and director of the oral epidemiology Ph.D. program at UNC. "Now we show that fluoridated water reduces tooth decay in adults, even if they start drinking it after childhood. In public health terms, it means that more people benefit from water fluoridation than previously thought."

The researchers analyzed national survey data from 3,779 adults aged 15 and older selected at random from the Australian population between 2004 and 2006. Survey examiners measured levels of decay and study participants reported where they lived since 1964. The residential histories of study participants were matched to information about fluoride levels in community water supplies. The researchers then determined the percentage of each participant's lifetime in which the public water supply was fluoridated.

The results, published online in the Journal of Dental Research, show that adults who spent more than 75 percent of their lifetime living in fluoridated communities had significantly less tooth decay (up to 30 percent less) when compared to adults who had lived less that 25 percent of their lifetime in such communities.

"At this time, when several Australian cities are considering fluoridation, we should point out that the evidence is stacked in favor of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water," said Kaye Roberts-Thomson, a co-author of the study. "It really does have a significant dental health benefit."

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. G. D. Slade, A. E. Sanders, L. Do, K. Roberts-Thomson, A. J. Spencer. Effects of Fluoridated Drinking Water on Dental Caries in Australian Adults. Journal of Dental Research, 2013; DOI: 10.1177/0022034513481190

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2013, March 11). Fluoride in drinking water cuts tooth decay in adults, study shows. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 12, 2013, from https://www.sciencedaily.com* /releases/2013/03/130311151255.htm

Oxygen and fluorine are the most electronegative elements and will rip just about anything apart to satisfy their electron needs. The advent of oxygen in the ancient Earth's atmosphere (a waste product from plants) has been described as the most massive gas poisoning known.

Arsenic is a "natural" substance, too, but you probably do not want it in your water!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

BTW, oxygen also is a poison.

---

wow. who's your shrink?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/...1206081330.png

Board of Supervisors takes next step toward fluoridating county water
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130226/ARTICLES/130229619/1350?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar

---

Was out-of-town helping my elderly parents, when this meeting happened or I would have attended. Glad to see it was standing room only.

I am profoundly dismayed that our supervisors are spending over $100,000 on a fluoridation engineering analysis. Wouldn't even a portion of the $$$ be MUCH BETTER SPENT on nutritional education and dental hygiene training, supplies, and support for our at-risk population?

Am outraged County Counsel Bruce Goldstein said the cost of the flouride project could be passed on to ratepayers. Who gives him the right to force us to pay for a mass medication policy we strongly disagree with?

If you're opposed to flouridation, please email / phone ALL our supervisors, Mr. Goldstein, Dr. Lynn Silver Chalfin (the county's health officer) to protest the flouridation, and their skewed priorities in choosing to have the engineering study done, rather than educating the at-risk population.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DreadTori:

I am becoming more and more convinced that there must be some money exchange going on between fluoride producers and our supes. After all, the pesticide industry where the fluoride will come from, is awash in BILLIONs every year. I'm betting that some of that money is lining some pockets here in Sonoma County. No, I don't have any proof other than that's how our "democracy" works. We have the best democracy money can buy! Which is not democracy but oligarchy.

---

Yeah, have to agree with you. Looking VERY suspicious. Where's the money? Who benefits?

The key to stopping this is to get the Sonoma County Water Agency contractors to say no. It only takes one of them to stop this toxin from poisoning us.

Having tracked water issues for 9 years here; and following the County's investment in water fluoridation feasibility for the last year; this is the best use of our time.

Please let the City Council members, Public Utilities Directors and the Marin Board of Supervisors hear from you often.

• City of Cotati
• City of Petaluma
• City of Rohnert Park
• City of Santa Rosa
• City of Sonoma
• Town of Windsor
• Marin Municipal Water District
• North Marin Water District
• Valley of the Moon Water District

https://www.scwa.ca.gov/water-advisory-committee/

Here is a template resolution these elected officials could pass:

https://www.scwatercoalition.org

Petition to the MMWD Board Members to Discontinue Fluoridating the Water in Marin County, California
__________________________________________________________

To The Honorable Board Members of Marin Municipal Water District,
Cynthia Koehler
Jack Gibson
Armando Quintero
Liza Crosse
Larry Russell

Krishna Kumar – General Manager


WHEREAS water, our most precious resource, is essential to all and the public water supply should be safe for all to drink, and

WHEREAS; You the MMWD board members are authorizing the continuation of water fluoridation in Marin County. You, the MMWD board members have the authority to end water fluoridation in Marin County. You, the board members are also legally responsible for water fluoridation in Marin County. We citizens of Marin County ask you to take responsibility for the leadership role for which you have volunteered and to do what is right and in the best interest of your fellow Marin County citizens and our environment. Take a vote now and end the dangerous practice of water fluoridation in Marin County.

“Role of Board of Directors
The board establishes policy on the district's mission, goals, and operations. It represents the general public in deciding issues related to water supply. The board also has the authority to adopt ordinances that have the force of law within the district.”

WHEREAS; Under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) law, the MMWD must do a study on the environmental impacts of water fluoridation. This study has not been done in Marin and should be completed before legally continuing to fluoridate our water. 99% of all fluoride added to the water goes down the drain and into the environment. The fact that this study has not yet been done is egregious negligence on the part of the MMWD.

WHEREAS you say the reason you are fluoridating our water is because it’s good for children’s teeth, and California state law mandates it [but cannot enforce it because it will not pay for it]; however the California Health and Safety Code law sections 104830-104865 already provides FREE topical fluoride treatments to children in a much more effective, cheaper, accurate, and far safer way than water fluoridation:

“CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 104830-104865
104830. Pupils of public and private elementary and secondary schools, except pupils of community colleges, shall be provided the opportunity to receive within the school year the topical application of fluoride or other decay-inhibiting agent to the teeth in the manner approved by the department. The program of topical application shall be under the general direction of a dentist licensed in the state and may include self-application…”

And,

WHEREAS 41% of American children have dental fluorosis, a disfiguring mottling of the teeth caused by excess fluoride, according to evidence from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Dental fluorosis is not simply a "cosmetic effect"; Dental fluorosis is the first visible sign of whole body fluoride poisoning; These children will have to live with this disfigurement for the rest of their lives or undergo expensive treatment for it, and

WHEREAS the MMWD is potentially subjecting itself to costly litigation because of health damages by continuing to use fluoride in our water, and

WHEREAS hydrofluorosalicilic acid, the type of fluoride used in our water, is a waste product from the phosphate mining industry and is classified as hazardous waste, andhas never been required to undergo randomized clinical trials for safety or effectiveness by any regulatory agency in the world. and

WHEREAS fluoridated water provides an uncontrolled dose of fluoride to citizens, some of whom may drink significantly large quantities due to their occupation, outdoor activity, special diet, health conditions (such as diabetes mellitus and diabetes insipidus), or medications being taken, and

WHEREAS water fluoridation forces the entire population to participate in a medical process that is only intended for children; Fluoride is the only substance added to public water for the purpose of treating and preventing a health condition in the body, rather than treating the water itself (such as chlorine being added to kill microorganisms), and many citizens may feel it is not morally or ethically justifiable to dose citizens with this substance or any other forced medication in water, and

WHEREAS according to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is post eruptive and topical." In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion; There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it, and

WHEREAS 50% of ingested fluoride is deposited in the bones of children, while only about 10% is stored in adults; the National Research Council in 2006 reported that American infants and young children are being exposed, on a body weight basis, to 3-4 times the amount of fluoride as are adults, and young children’s bodies are especially susceptible to harm from chemical exposures due to their rapidly growing cells and tissues, and

WHEREAS as recently as November 9, 2006 the American Dental Association (ADA) raised concern that parents and caregivers of infants under 1 year of age may wish to use non-fluoridated water when mixing infant milk formula for their babies, but this is cost prohibitive for low income families, and

WHEREAS alternative methods of fluoride delivery exist; and we are already over exposed to fluoride in foods and beverages, and

WHEREAS addition of fluoride to municipal water supplies has documented significant, adverse health effects; For example:

a) Risk to the brain. 23+ human studies and 100+ animal studies link fluoride to brain damage and lowered IQ. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water.
b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain.
c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture.
d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20.
e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy;

In addition, studies have shown that fluoride toxicity can lead to a wide variety of health problems, including: increased lead absorption, disruption of the synthesis of collagen, hyperactivity and/or lethargy, muscle disorders, arthritis, autism, Alzheimer’s, bone fractures, impaired sleep by impairing melatonin production by the pineal gland, inactivation of 62 enzymes and inhibitor of more than 100, inhibited formation of antibodies, genetic damage and cell death, increased tumor and cancer rate, disrupted immune system, damaged sperm and increased infertility;
Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus, U.S. National Cancer Institute said, “Fluoride causes more human cancer, and causes it faster, than any other chemical,” and

WHEREAS for health reasons, people are increasingly forced to use reverse osmosis water filters to take the fluoride out; These filters are costly and waste three gallons of water for every one they filter, which defeats our water conservation efforts, and

WHEREAS until MMWD can provide the toxicology data showing fluoride is safe, it's illegal to put it in our public water, and

WHEREAS each individual possesses the inalienable right to choose or reject to consume fluoride medication; therefore

We the undersigned citizens of Marin respectfully demand that MMWD DISCONTINUE using our public water supply to deliver the medicine fluoride.

Petition text is subject to minor revision – with the understanding that your opposition to fluoridation is not subject to change.

Communities in California which have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990:
Napa, California August 17, 2010
Mammoth Lakes, California November 8, 2005
Redding, California November 5, 2002
Watsonville, California November 5, 2002
Modesto, California November 7, 2001
Woodside, California September 2000
Santa Barbara, California November 23, 1999
El Carjon, California April 27, 1999
Helix Water District, California April 7, 1999
Lakeside Water District, California April 6, 1999
Riverview Water District, California March 24, 1999
La Mesa, California March 9, 1999
Santa Cruz, California March 4, 1999
Suisun City, California May 1, 1997
Redwood Valley, California February 6, 1993
Los Altos Hills (Purissima) California 1993
Davis, California December 14, 1990
Morgan Hill, California March 7, 1990

As someone who has a health condition where I am not supposed to be exposed to fluoride in ANY form (drinking water, bathing water, water vapor from shower, toothpaste with fluoride, fluoride dental treatments) and the cost of a whole-house reverse osmosis water filtration system (the only kind of filtration system that removes fluoride) STARTS at $10,000, I'd like to know if the Board of Supervisors will be paying for my whole-house filtration system? Or do they want me to send all my medical bills to them when I am poisoned by the water? Maybe I should send them my moving expenses when I have to leave my home of 28 years?

I don't care if ONE study proves that fluoridated water helps decaying teeth in adults or kids; it's FORCED MEDICATION, which is wrong and should be illegal if it isn't already.

And has anyone realized that we are being exposed to countless chemicals everyday and wondered how putting fluoride in the mix will change and react with all those other chemicals?

If you can get another two or three people to agree with you, you'd probably be able to get the City Council to enact an emergency ordinance banning oxygen.

On a serious note, there is indeed arsenic in the City of Sebastopol's drinking water along with fluoride, chlorine, chromium, iron, sodium, etc. I suspect that it's also in the well water in the surrounding unincorporated areas since they're all naturally occurring or a by-product of modern civilization.

Howard

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Oxygen and fluorine are the most electronegative elements and will rip just about anything apart to satisfy their electron needs. The advent of oxygen in the ancient Earth's atmosphere (a waste product from plants) has been described as the most massive gas poisoning known.

---

Arsenic is a "natural" substance, too, but you probably do not want it in your water!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

BTW, oxygen also is a poison.

---

Wonder where Chapel Hill and U of Aussie got it's grant money from. Independent studies...I doubt. All you have to do is read the history and politics and it becomes quite clear whose agenda fluoride really is.

“Ever since the mid-1970's, when fluoridation activities transferred from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to the CDC under the directorship of William Bock, dental health professionals have been the sole body of experts directing the agency's stance on water fluoridation. Glaringly absent from this list are... well, any health expert outside the Oral Health Division. Apparently, no toxicologist has ever been directly involved in the decision process; nor any minority health professionals, or experts on internal medicine or diabetes, for example. This flies in the face of what the agency claims, and what water, health and political leaders have believed about the way the CDC operates. Without these additional experts from other fields, can we reasonably believe that the agency has properly assessed the research on whole-body harm from fluoridation.” https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...-dentists.aspx

Medical writer Joel Griffiths explains that "it was abundantly clear to both industry and government that spectacular U.S. industrial expansion - and the economic and military power and vast profits it promised - would necessitate releasing millions of tons of waste fluoride into the environment." Their biggest fear was that "if serious injury to people were established, lawsuits alone could prove devastating to companies, while public outcry could force industry-wide government regulations, billions in pollution-control costs, and even mandatory changes in high-fluoride raw materials and profitable technologies." https://www.tldp.com/issue/157-8/157fluor.htm

At the Mellon Institute, Alcoa's Pittsburgh Industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. Alcoa-sponsored biochemist Gerald J. Cox immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that, 'The case should be regarded as proved.' In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made - not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims.
https://www.tldp.com/issue/157-8/157fluor.htm

Hubert A. Arnold, Ph.D., former professor at UC Davis who taught a course on statistical frauds, and "The Statistical Frauds Group" back in 1980 wrote a letter which stated, “We investigated all manner of questionable statements and activities, some qualitative, but most of them quantitative. We conducted interviews and collected published matter, and analyzed all these, using standard statistical procedures. In addition to deliberate frauds, errors in judgment or method were examined. Often it was difficult to detect if there was a deliberate fraud. We looked over statements by manufacturers or purveyors of consumer goods. But a very copious source was papers in medical research journals. Particularly good examples of blatant statistical misconduct were found in the Public Health Service reports. The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude. Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement. Uproarious laughter frequently ensues. No special statistical equipment is necessary to detect those peccancies. Of course the class and the Group soon tired of those infantilities, and sought and found greater challenge….By the way, a study by John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burke on possible connection between cancer and waterborne fluoride was fairly tightly reasoned. The statistical procedures were standard, and much better applied than in much of the Public Health work. https://www.nofluoride.com/UC_Davis_letter.cfm

And to add to anyone who has health conditions, kidney dialysis has specific issues around fluoride which can be deadly. For infants, even the ADA came out in 2006 warning its members that fluoridated water should not be mixed into concentrated formula or foods intended for babies one year and younger and infants... fluoride is very dangerous.

Fluoride is in so many foods already....deboned chicken; Quaker Oats (a unit of PepsiCo) manages a processing plant that emits roughly 19,000 pounds of sulfuryl fluoride yearly. Sulfuryl fluoride is a toxic greenhouse gas used to treat crops, like oats, in storage; food types with particularly high levels of fluoride include processed cereals, juices from concentrate, and soda; Cryolite has over 7 ppm is used in the growing of all berries (blueberry, strawberry, etc.), and most, if not all, fruits and vegetables, and is the main source for fluoride levels in fruit drinks; Prozac is a fluorinated drug called "fluoxetine". Paxil is a fluorinated drug called "paroxetine" (also called Seroxat, Aropax)...Fluorophenyl compounds have shown to disturb thyroid hormone activity in several ways, specifically in the liver and at the hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid (HPT) axis.

The comprehensive review of the scientific literature on fluoride exposure and thyroid toxicity was conducted by a panel appointed by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC). It found that fluoride exposure was associated with low levels of thyroid and parathyroid hormones, and an abnormally enlarged thyroid gland (goiter). They also found that fluoride tended to concentrate in the thyroid more than in any organ but the kidneys. https://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert...ecurity-matter

.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DreadTori:

As someone who has a health condition where I am not supposed to be exposed to fluoride in ANY form (drinking water, bathing water, water vapor from shower, toothpaste with fluoride, fluoride dental treatments) and the cost of a whole-house reverse osmosis water filtration system (the only kind of filtration system that removes fluoride) STARTS at $10,000, I'd like to know if the Board of Supervisors will be paying for my whole-house filtration system? Or do they want me to send all my medical bills to them when I am poisoned by the water? Maybe I should send them my moving expenses when I have to leave my home of 28 years?

I don't care if ONE study proves that fluoridated water helps decaying teeth in adults or kids; it's FORCED MEDICATION, which is wrong and should be illegal if it isn't already.

And has anyone realized that we are being exposed to countless chemicals everyday and wondered how putting fluoride in the mix will change and react with all those other chemicals?

---

I was in Target one day looking for some distilled water. I couldn't find any in the aisle where they sell bottled water so I asked and was told it was in the baby section. I found gallon jugs of specially prepared distilled water from which to make formula. It had a pink label with a picture of a baby and proudly listed fluoride as an ingredient. I was astounded. Ruth

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

And to add to anyone who has health conditions, kidney dialysis has specific issues around fluoride which can be deadly. For infants, even the ADA came out in 2006 warning its members that fluoridated water should not be mixed into concentrated formula or foods intended for babies one year and younger and infants... fluoride is very dangerous. .

---

I saw the same thing in a Raley's store. If anyone knows how to get the ADA's "official" recommendation to avoid fluoride in infant formula, we could send it to the store management. So far, all I've found is BS like the following:

The panel suggested that when dentists advise parents and caregivers of infants who consume powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula as the main source of nutrition, they can suggest the continued use of powdered or liquid concentrate infant formulas reconstituted with optimally fluoridated drinking water while being cognizant of the potential risks of enamel fluorosis development.

Source: https://jada.ada.org/content/142/1/79.full

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

I was in Target one day looking for some distilled water. I couldn't find any in the aisle where they sell bottled water so I asked and was told it was in the baby section. I found gallon jugs of specially prepared distilled water from which to make formula. It had a pink label with a picture of a baby and proudly listed fluoride as an ingredient. I was astounded. Ruth

---

One lying report vs. the truth?

As an investigative journalist, I would really question this report from UNC, referenced above. First,. note that it found that fluoride cut tooth decay by "as much as" 30%. Hmm. What was the AVERAGE?

Then one needs to ask: why Australia for the study? and what is unique about that country. Well, it has three huge cities and hundreds of tiny towns in rural areas where there is no water system. So I am sure that the study measured city dwellers vs. rural folks. Imagine the number of co-factors involved in that beyond their water?? City people tend to work out more, be more affluent (more dental care) spend more on supplements, smoke and drink less, especially in Australia.

This report stinks. I imagine anyone digging deeper will find it funded by a fluoride-selling, or water system selling, vested financial interest.

I am grateful for Wacco and our community, I which we can support one another in understanding, and responding to, the reality beyond the corporate propaganda machine masquerading itself as news and science.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

Fluoride in Drinking Water Cuts Tooth Decay in Adults, Study Shows
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0311151255.htm

Mar. 11, 2013 — A new study conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Adelaide, Australia, has produced the strongest evidence yet that fluoride in drinking water provides dental health benefits to adults, even those who had not received fluoridated drinking water as children.
...
The results, published online in the Journal of Dental Research, show that adults who spent more than 75 percent of their lifetime living in fluoridated communities had significantly less tooth decay (up to 30 percent less) when compared to adults who had lived less that 25 percent of their lifetime in such communities.

---

And here is an article about the specially formulated distilled water for babies:
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/nu...ified-fluoride

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

I saw the same thing in a Raley's store. If anyone knows how to get the ADA's "official" recommendation to avoid fluoride in infant formula, we could send it to the store management. So far, all I've found is BS like the following:

The panel suggested that when dentists advise parents and caregivers of infants who consume powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula as the main source of nutrition, they can suggest the continued use of powdered or liquid concentrate infant formulas reconstituted with optimally fluoridated drinking water while being cognizant of the potential risks of enamel fluorosis development.

Source: https://jada.ada.org/content/142/1/79.full

---

There is a fascinating interview about water fluoridation on "Red Ice Radio". It is between the host and Dr. Paul Connett. The first hour is free and can be downloaded however the second hour can only be watched by members. The membership is inexpensive and well worth it. The first hour of all interviews are available for for free. Henrik is a stellar interviewer.
Link to interview:
https://www.redicecreations.com/radi...RIR-130314.php

Um......."City people tend to work out more...".....I'd be interested in valid statistical data to back up this claim (talking to a guy who wants more 'science'....)... Has he ever been a farmer? You know, those guys who don't live in big cities....and don't have to go to a gym for a workout....the guys who get a workout every day.....jes' wondering......?

it is interesting to read this study. the 30% was for cavities. when in came to more serious decay the benefit was 11%. down under was chosen because of statistical availability for both tooth decay and floride in water. tooth care culture and socioeconomic status was included in the analysis.

what if what everybody says is true? fluoride is both poison and strengthens enamel? i guess the sups want to doctor the water because they can pass on the cost to 600,000 ratepayers and they believe to will help the poor. its a feel good freebie. it is interesting that the study does not quantify the benefits of brushing, flossing, and a lower sugar diet. probably possible since the study controlled for it. just doesn't fit the agenda...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

One lying report vs. the truth?

As an investigative journalist, I would really question this report from UNC, referenced above. First,. note that it found that fluoride cut tooth decay by "as much as" 30%. Hmm. What was the AVERAGE?

Then one needs to ask: why Australia for the study? and what is unique about that country. Well, it has three huge cities and hundreds of tiny towns in rural areas where there is no water system. So I am sure that the study measured city dwellers vs. rural folks. Imagine the number of co-factors involved in that beyond their water?? City people tend to work out more, be more affluent (more dental care) spend more on supplements, smoke and drink less, especially in Australia.

This report stinks. I imagine anyone digging deeper will find it funded by a fluoride-selling, or water system selling, vested financial interest.

I am grateful for Wacco and our community, I which we can support one another in understanding, and responding to, the reality beyond the corporate propaganda machine masquerading itself as news and science.

---

The elephant in the living room on this issue is ANYTHING in the water system (besides water) including chlorine is dosing people with medicine they have not agreed to take,whether or not its good for you is a separate topic.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nicofrog:

The elephant in the living room on this issue is ANYTHING in the water system (besides water) including chlorine is dosing people with medicine they have not agreed to take,whether or not its good for you is a separate topic.

---

Nico, you are right on the money. This is the strongest argument for why we should not have fluoride in our water. But please don't weaken it with the chlorine part. Fluoride is a drug. Chlorine is a disinfectant. We need some sort of disinfectant in our water. Hopefully when we all get enlightened we'll use safer alternatives to chloramine and chlorine such as UV light, ozone, and granular activated carbon. When we get done with the fluoride issue we'll work on the chloramine issue. Chloramine is much more toxic than chlorine. Please sign our petition for Marin to that effect: https://www.change.org/petitions/mmw...arin-county-ca

Layna Berman will be interviewing fluoride scientist and activist Paul Connett Phd. this Tuesday March 19th from 1-2pm on KPFA 94.1 fm. Tune in and enjoy!

Also, Paul Connett is in Santa Rosa next Sun the 24th and Mon the 25th for events each day. I hope to see you there.

Sunday, March 24, 2013
1:00 to 4:00 p.m.

Dr. Paul Connett, International Anti-Fluoridation Authority
Film & Planning Session
To Stop the Proposed Fluoridation of Sonoma County Drinking Water

Agenda
1:00-1:15 p.m. Introduction by Paul Connett
1:15-2:20 p.m. FluorideGate: the documentary
Snack Break
2:40-3:15 p.m. Discussion of how other communities
Have dealt with the fluoridation issue
3:15-4:00 p.m. Planning our next steps

Lomitas School House
2421 Lomitas Avenue
(From Mendocino Avenue, turn on Chanate, take first right onto Lomitas)
Santa Rosa, CA 95404

$5.00 donation requested / No one turned away

RSVP and/or Information
707 547-7006 or [email protected]


Monday, March 25, 2013
Print this flier to share with family and friends:
https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/173419...archEvents.pdf

6:00 to 8:00 p.m.

Paul Connett will give a PowerPoint talk, followed by a Town Hall style meeting on water fluoridation in Sonoma County. Public officials will be invited.

At the Glaser Conference Center
547 Mendocino Avenue (between 7th & 10th Streets, south of College Avenue)
Santa Rosa
$5.00 donation requested, no one turned away
RSVP and/or Information: 707 547-7006 or [email protected]


About Paul Connett
A scientist specializing in chemistry and toxicology, Paul Connett first discovered problems with the science behind fluoridation years ago when he joined his community's successful effort to get fluoride out of their hometown's drinking water. Dr. Connett is now the international authority on halting fluoridation of public water systems.

Professor Emeritus, Environmental Chemistry & Toxicology, St. Lawrence University
Ph.D. in Chemistry, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire
B.A. (Honors) in Natural Sciences, Cambridge University, England.
Director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN)
Executive Director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project (AEHSP)
Author, The Case Against Fluoride (2010)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nicofrog:

The elephant in the living room on this issue is ANYTHING in the water system (besides water) including chlorine is dosing people with medicine they have not agreed to take,whether or not its good for you is a separate topic.

---

This is a great point--the gov't. should not be adding anything to our water without our knowledge and consent. Perhaps the even bigger point might be, they continue to do it and we continue to let them.

Another point that most people don't know, according to Weston Price, dental cavities can be avoided and even healed with the proper diet (Googel it), which would include raw butter and milk--something the gov't seems to be making harder and harder to get. So if the government was really concerned about our health and number of cavities it seems like it would want to make sure there were no barriers to obtaining the items in a proper diet. That's a win-win.

Maybe we shouldn't reward this irrational behavior with a paycheck. Or how about a little non-compliance--no body in Sonoma County drink a Coke or eat at McDonald's until everything is taken out of our drinking water that shouldn't be there. They need to know we are not all sleeping.

Help! Help! The Paranoids are after me! Raw butter and milk, eh? Like, the stuff Alta Dena Dairy is closed down for every few years ? From Google: "Alas, after my first year as a raw foodist, reality bit me (with its own perfectly-whittled incisors): 14 cavities in one dental visit."

I GUESS THIS IS NOT THE GOOGLE REFERENCE YOU WANTED TO USE TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE..... Life is just not as perfect as everyone would like: if there is fluoride IN the water, anti's can buy bottled bulk water for their own use. ANd if fluoride is NOT in the water, pro's can buy fluoride-loaded toothpaste and mouthwash.

veryone calm down: these are not good arguments. Instead you should be arguing that the amount of fluoride that the Feds say CAN be added, is more than the Feds say can be dumped into streams (as in from a wastewater treatment plant). And it's hard or almost impossible to remove. THAT should be your argument against adding it to the water supply, not whether it's good for you or not.

Thanks for posting, environk.

However, perhaps our "googled raw foodist" didn't practice proper oral hygiene, in which case NO amount of raw food, fluoride or anything else is going to help them avoid 14 visits to the dentist for cavities. It gets back to what I and several of the other posters having been preaching: responsibility for one's own dental health.

Also, while I agree with your excellent point about fluoride being extremely difficult to remove from water, please do not dismiss those who continue to raise the point that fluoride is bad for the human body. It is, and that should be reason enough for our elected officials to back off of this horrible proposal.

Also, it follows that if this stuff is so difficult to remove from the water supply after it is put in, so, too, must it be difficult -- if not impossible -- to remove from one's own body. The insightful comment made by one of the posters about people undergoing dialysis needing to avoid any amount of fluoride at all costs truly scared me. Why the "supes" are not even considering this is appalling -- and we should ALL be outraged.

I so agree with erik (not enviro).

and am directing my outrage at the less neat and tangible fabric of institutionalized greed that runs our economy.

flouride seems like a particularly specific issue for the privileged.

ah....been waiting to say that for a while now.

kathy

There's no contradiction between the plausible claim that raw dairy may prevent cavities and someone getting a slew of cavities following a year of raw food. That person, I'm willing to bet, ate a lot of fruit. Many people on the raw food diets go overboard on fruit. Too much fruit, especially dried fruit, can wreck your teeth. The combination of fruit acid and sugar is bad news for teeth.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ericvonk:

Help! Help! The Paranoids are after me! Raw butter and milk, eh? Like, the stuff Alta Dena Dairy is closed down for every few years ? From Google: "Alas, after my first year as a raw foodist, reality bit me (with its own perfectly-whittled incisors): 14 cavities in one dental visit."

I GUESS THIS IS NOT THE GOOGLE REFERENCE YOU WANTED TO USE TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE..... Life is just not as perfect as everyone would like: if there is fluoride IN the water, anti's can buy bottled bulk water for their own use. ANd if fluoride is NOT in the water, pro's can buy fluoride-loaded toothpaste and mouthwash.

veryone calm down: these are not good arguments. Instead you should be arguing that the amount of fluoride that the Feds say CAN be added, is more than the Feds say can be dumped into streams (as in from a wastewater treatment plant). And it's hard or almost impossible to remove. THAT should be your argument against adding it to the water supply, not whether it's good for you or not.

---

Hi Everyone,

I rarely post, but have been really interested in this topic. I personally would like to keep my right to choose to either use fluoride or not for my teeth. Recently my dentist wanted me to try a prescription fluoride toothpaste, which has me thinking more about whether I want this substance in or around my body.

And I would also like to mention that the Sonoma County Water Agency has been adding Sodium Hydroxide (Lye) to the water supply for quite some years. My Dad, who retired as the Chief Engineer of the Water Agency once told me they added something to help slow down corrosion of the pipes. The stuff also collects on chrome and glass and other types of surfaces, creating lots of spots and build up. It turns out that it is because of the Sodium Hydroxide they add to our drinking water. You can visit their agency website and read about why they do it. I'm not sure that it relates to the fluoride issue directly, but I thought that while we are all pondering what might go into our water in the future, we might want to consider what is already in it.

Svea

Hey ya'all. Marin's first water board meeting on fluoride had about 70 people and we're looking to expand to 300. Everyone who was there to speak out did a great job and Paul Connett was there to help us. Our petition has over 600 signatures. That's round one and we're off to a good start.

Layna and Paul Connett's radio show on KPFA was awesome and you can check out the replay here until April 2nd. After that head on over to https://yourownhealthandfitness.org and look for past shows.

To plug in and find the 2 Sonoma county petitions go to https://fluoridefreesonomacounty.org...ea-action.html

When we talk about public health, I feel it’s important to keep the following in mind:

What the government considers to be the meaning of the word “safe” is not what a layperson would understand the meaning of the word to be. They are always working with “maximizing benefit and minimizing risk.” It doesn’t mean there aren’t any adverse health effects! There are, and everywhere in the professional literature: this is acknowledged.

The issue of sensitive populations is worth revisiting.

In the United States, the Sierra Club opposes mandatory water fluoridation. Some reasons cited include possible adverse health effects, harm to the environment, and risks involving sensitive populations.

The following is from the Center for Disease Control’s own website. Some of this text has already been posted, but I also find the whole spiel in context to be of interest.

cdc.gov:

“Is there fluoride in infant formula? Should I try to remove fluoride from infant formula?

All formulas, either concentrates or ready-to-feed, have some fluoride, but most infant formula manufacturers develop their products to ensure low levels of fluoride. A recent study by the American Dental Association (ADA) confirmed that fluoride concentrations in commercially available infant formulas are very low. It is not possible to remove this small amount of fluoride by filtering or boiling the formula; however, at normal consumption amounts, infant formula alone does not contain fluoride at levels that would be higher than the daily upper limit established by the Institute of Medicine. In liquid or powdered infant formula concentrate, the majority of fluoride comes from the water used to mix the formula. Some parents may choose to use bottled water.
To learn more, check out the CDC's Bottled Water and Fluoride and FDA’s Website: https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm203620.htm/

What are the adverse health effects of excessive fluoride exposure?

Children under age 8 and younger exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride have an increased chance of developing pits in the tooth enamel. Excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may increase the likelihood of bone fractures, and may result in effects on bone leading to pain and tenderness, a condition called skeletal fluorosis. Severe skeletal fluorosis is a rare condition in the United States. The EPA exposure analysis suggests that the effects on bone in adults are of greatest concern for those living in areas with high natural background levels of fluoride and favoring beverages, such as tea, that are high in fluoride."

[[www.eugeneweekly.com/2005/07/21/coverstory.html:“When we ingest fluoride in water, it changes the calcium phosphate structure on the tooth's surface, resulting in enamel that is about 10 times more acid-resistant than teeth that have not been exposed to fluoride. That helps to prevent cavities, but it also makes teeth more brittle. Teeth that have been exposed to fluoride tend to break more easily than those that have not.

What happens to teeth often happens to bone. According to fluoride critic Dr. Hardy Limeback, head of preventative dentistry at the University of Toronto, 95 percent of ingested fluoride ends up in bones, not teeth. And what happens there worries some scientists and doctors.”]]

cdc.gov:

“Are children or adults exposed to too much fluoride?

Based on the data evaluated in this risk assessment, EPA concludes that it is likely that some children 8 and younger are exposed to too much fluoride at least occasionally while their teeth are forming because of their high fluid intake relative to their body weight and/or because of high natural levels of fluoride in their local drinking water. The impact of overexposure on the risk for pitting of enamel in one or more teeth depends on the frequency and duration of the overexposures.

Adults exposed to excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may have increased likelihood of bone fractures, and may result in effects on bone leading to pain and tenderness. For effects to teeth, children are most likely to be affected by excessive exposure to fluoride because it impacts teeth while they are still in formative phases. Children aged 8 years and younger exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride have an increased chance of developing pits in the tooth enamel, along with a range of cosmetic effects to teeth .

Why is the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) developing new recommendations for community water fluoridation?

Sources of fluoride have increased since the early 1960s. At that time, drinking water and food and beverages prepared with fluoridated water accounted for nearly all of an individual’s fluoride intake. Today, water is just one of several sources of fluoride. Other sources include dental products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, prescription fluoride supplements, and professionally applied fluoride products such as varnish and gels. Recognizing that it is now possible to receive enough fluoride with slightly lower levels of fluoride in water, the HHS set out to develop new recommendations for community water fluoridation.

How is HHS developing new recommendations?

In September 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services convened a panel of scientists from the across the U.S. government to review new information related to fluoride intake and to develop new recommendations for community water fluoridation.

The scientists reviewed the best available information on: the prevalence and trends in dental caries, water intake in children in relation to outdoor air temperature, changes in the percentage of U.S. children and adults with dental fluorosis, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new assessments of cumulative sources of fluoride exposure and risks of children developing severe dental fluorosis.

This new information led HHS to propose changing the recommended level for community water systems to 0.7 milligrams per liter.” //end cdc quote.

[[Over the years, the feds have continued to lower the recommended fluoride concentration for water system fluoridation programs. The recommended level to ADD to the water supply used to be 1.0 milligrams per liter. It’s now at 0.7 mgs per liter. The Center for Disease Control ENCOURAGES more research on effects.]]

Flouride is classified as a contaminant by the federal government, not a drug. So, what does the Environmental Protection Agency have to say?

The Environmental Protection Agency -

The EPA's enforceable standard for the highest level of fluoride that is allowed in public water supplies is 4.0 milligrams per liter. "This level is set to protect against risks from exposure to too much fluoride." WHEREAS...

The HHS (Health and Human Services) proposed recommended optimal added level of 0.7 milligrams per liter is set to:

• promote public health benefits of fluoride for preventing tooth decay while minimizing the chance for dental fluorosis.

They are openly admitting to “side effects” and are trying to strike a balance. As we can see, due to the agency’s different specialization of interest, the EPA naturally cares even less about dental fluorosis!

My rant:

I’d like to add as an observation that teeth are not destroyed by sugars, fruits, etc., but by the failure to brush afterward – or just brush twice a day, with or without toothpaste. After eating, the damage to teeth isn’t immediate! It takes a long time of committed neglect for cavities to develop (not removing the offending mico-leftovers in your mouth once enjoyed – it’s called build-up!). The failure to support parenting, to educate, to develop an incredibly simple, cheap and easy habit. (Buy a new toothbrush frequently, and/or keep several different kinds in daily use. Fun for kids and the inner child! ) Teeth are bone that are part of our FACE, an important part of our BODY, and must last a lifetime. It’s a matter of developing a personal habit like any other, whether beneficial or detrimental. Teeth are part of the body’s intelligent digestive system, breaking large bits of food into ever smaller bits. SALIVA, a revered chemical in other, intelligent cultures, a naturally occurring, beneficial and complex chemical that our own bodies produce, is also a VITAL part of protecting teeth and the whole digestive process!)
end rant.

LASTLY, Oregon:

According to the Oregon Dental Association, only about 20 percent of residents drink fluoridated water.

As such, a brief, fun article -- On Sept. 12, 2012, the Portland City Council unanimously approved an ordinance to authorize the Portland Water Bureau to fluoridate the city’s water supply. The ordinance passed without due public process and amidst fierce protest from the Oregonian editorial board.Fluoridation Fight Returns (September 26, 2012)
https://www.eugeneweekly.com/article/fluoridation-fight-returns

The article includes a counterpoint in procedure and attitude: a smaller city, Eugene. What I keep seeing is how fluoridation is more of a LARGER city thing. I find it unusual that a community like SoCo would seek out this option as a solution.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

I saw the same thing in a Raley's store. If anyone knows how to get the ADA's "official" recommendation to avoid fluoride in infant formula, we could send it to the store management. So far, all I've found is BS like the following:

The panel suggested that when dentists advise parents and caregivers of infants who consume powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula as the main source of nutrition, they can suggest the continued use of powdered or liquid concentrate infant formulas reconstituted with optimally fluoridated drinking water while being cognizant of the potential risks of enamel fluorosis development.

Source: https://jada.ada.org/content/142/1/79.full

---

I just got word that Dr. Paul Connett has been confirmed to speak on 2 different Sonoma radio stations on Monday, March 25th live in studio. Please help get the word out and contact any one you know with the info.

Thank you!!!!

Monday, March 25th
Dr. Paul Connett
_______________
Anytime between 3 - 4:30 pm. (begin listening at 3 pm so you don't miss him)
KSRO
1350 AM
live in studio

Also,

his power point presentation at the Town Hall Meeting on the proposed water fluoridation in Sonoma county on Mon March 25th at 6pm

Locations are both in Santa Rosa.

I caught part of an interview with Dr. Paul Connett on KPFA a while back and found it quite interesting. I reccomend you tune in to one of the radio interviews above or better yet one of the live events today or tomorrow listed here.

You can hear the KPFA interview here.

Audio of the Feb. 26th "oral health" presentation by the Sonoma County Health Department and the subsequent public comment and discussion is now available on YouTube. The county does not record digital video of the afternoon Board of Supervisor's sessions due to budget constraints, but they do make an audio recording using an omni-directional microphone. The sound quality is not so good, but it is certainly better than nothing.

I got a copy of this audio recording on CD from the Clerk of the Board, beamed a copy of the files over to Barry, and he then posted it on YouTube. Go team!

Those of you with knowledge of the water fluoridation issue, please listen carefully to the statements made by the County Health Department employees. If they are giving "misinformation" the board of supervisors and the public (and that certainly seemed to be the case), then we need to have documentation of that.

Part 1 County Dept. of Health presentation (Dr. Silver-Chalfin, et. al.) and Public Comment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSW_51ni2BI

3rd District Supervisor Shirlee Zane rants and goes ballistic toward the end here:
part 2 - Board Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzZh3CQLkzg


Also, the full text of the "Sonoma County Fluoridation Assessment" report (subtitle: "Life is better with teeth!") submitted by County Public Health Officer Lynne Silver Chalfin MD is available on the Sonoma County Health Department web site at:
https://sonoma-county.org/health/pub...uoridation.pdf

The slides presented by the County Health Dept. staff during the meeting are now available online here:
https://sonoma-county.granicus.com/M...meta_id=109421

- Kirsten

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

I am continually amazed at the ability of taxpayer funded public health experts to throw out numbers like this without accountability or questions from our taxpayer financed elected officials who are tasked with overseeing the spending of County money. ...

---

The presentation by and discussion with Dr. Connett yesterday (Sunday 24 March 2013) was excellent and quite informative.

Dr. Connett's book, The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There, is available on Amazon.com in both paperback and Kindle format. Sales of the book help finance his work and make him available to communities like ours defending themselves from this idiotic idea.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-...ainst+fluoride

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

... I recommend you tune in to one of the radio interviews above or better yet one of the live events today or tomorrow listed here.

---

Why do you think floridation, with so many documented oral health benefits, attract opposition?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Audio of the Feb. 26th "oral health" presentation by the Sonoma County Health Department and the subsequent public comment and discussion is now available on YouTube. The county does not record digital video of the afternoon Board of Supervisor's sessions due to budget constraints, but they do make an audio recording using an omni-directional microphone. The sound quality is not so good, but it is certainly better than nothing.

I got a copy of this audio recording on CD from the Clerk of the Board, beamed a copy of the files over to Barry, and he then posted it on YouTube. Go team!

Those of you with knowledge of the water fluoridation issue, please listen carefully to the statements made by the County Health Department employees. If they are giving "misinformation" the board of supervisors and the public (and that certainly seemed to be the case), then we need to have documentation of that.

Part 1 County Dept. of Health presentation (Dr. Silver-Chalfin, et. al.) and Public Comment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSW_51ni2BI

3rd District Supervisor Shirlee Zane rants and goes ballistic toward the end here:
part 2 - Board Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzZh3CQLkzg


Also, the full text of the "Sonoma County Fluoridation Assessment" report (subtitle: "Life is better with teeth!") submitted by County Public Health Officer Lynne Silver Chalfin MD is available on the Sonoma County Health Department web site at:
https://sonoma-county.org/health/pub...uoridation.pdf

The slides presented by the County Health Dept. staff during the meeting are not available online but can be obtained from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

- Kirsten

---

Last night, I attended an outstanding presentation by Dr. Paul Connett regarding water fluoridation. For those of you who weren't able to attend, I wish to tell you that he is an engaging, dynamic speaker whose knowledge of his subject is stunning. You missed a great talk.

By the way, he did something that few other speakers whose lectures I have attended during the course of my life have been unable to do: keep me on the edge of my seat for a solid two hours listening intently. Thank you, Dr. Connett. I hope that you keep abreast of Sonoma County's forced-fluoridation issue and return soon to help us win the battle here.

Since I am sure that there are Waccobbians who were not able to attend, I am going to provide a synopsis of the many important points that Dr. Connett made. He shared such a wealth of information with the audience that there was no way that I could possibly capture it all. However, I feel compelled to share several highlights. Please keep in mind that I will endeavor to be as accurate as possible, but I was writing very fast, and if I am not one-hundred-percent accurate, I apologize in advance.

- Fluoride is NOT a nutrient.

- Your body does NOT need fluoride.

- Tooth decay is NOT caused by a lack of fluoride, it is caused by too much sugar.

- Fluoride poisons enzymes in your body, both the bad ones AND the good ones.

- The proponents claim that the usual dosage of 1 ppm for fluoridating water is small. It is not!

- The level of fluoride in most municipal water supplies is 200 times that found in mothers milk. This is
of great concern as babies need very little fluoride.

- Fluoridation is a very poor medical practice. Once it is in the water, you cannot control the dose because that depends on how much a person drinks.

- We also get fluoride from fertilizers, air pollution, meat and dental products. Adding fluoride to the water supply will increase the amount of fluoride that some people already ingest from other sources.

- People with poor kidney function should NOT ingest fluoride. (This is especially important for people undergoing
dialysis.)

- Once fluoride is added to the water supply, we cannot control who gets it.

- Adding fluoride to the water supply violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication. Our local government is attempting to do to everyone what an individual physician can do to no one! And if he did, he would have his license revoked.

- The FDA has never regulated fluoride to fight tooth decay, either as a prescription or as an additive to water.

- There have been no chemical trials to demonstrate fluoride's effectiveness or safety.

- It is ineffective. The evidence that water fluoridation prevents tooth decay is weak.

- Any benefit from fluoride is topical; i.e., when it is applied directly to the teeth.

- Swallowing and ingesting fluoride does NOTHING to stop tooth decay. It simply DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

- Many years ago, fluoride tablets were given to pregnant women to ingest, with the hope being that the new-born baby would be born with strong teeth. Once again, IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! ANY BENEFIT IS TOPICAL!
By the way, the above practice has long been discontinued - thankfully.

- Chemicals used in the production of fluoride are industrial-waste products derived from air-pollution-control systems of the phosphate-fertilizer industry and contain MANY pollutants, including -- most significantly -- ARSENIC!! This will increase cancer rates across the board. (Question: After reading the above, how many of you pro-fluoride folks STILL want to ingest a nice, cold glass of fluoridated H2O?)

- There is strong evidence that our children are being overexposed to fluoride. 41 percent of American children aged 12 to 15 have some form of dental fluorosis, and this is an indication that children have been overexposed to fluoride.

- Teeth are not the only tissues in the body impacted by fluoride. Babies' bones, brains and endocrine gland cells are impacted as well. (But, wait, I thought that the reason that fluoridation is even being considered is to HELP the children....)

- A very important point: There is no adequate margin of safety to protect the entire population from the deleterious effects of water fluoridation. There is no way to regulate how much any one person ingests. The pro-fluoride folks keep coming back to the 1ppm argument, but unfortunately, many public officials do NOT understand the difference between the terms "concentration" and "dose."

- Overdosing can lead to increased incidence of the following: hip fractures, bone fractures, lowering of IQs and thyroid problems.

- India, China, parts of Africa and parts of Mexico are spending a FORTUNE trying to get fluoride out of their water at a time when our public officials are contemplating spending a FORTUNE trying to put it in! (But, wait, I thought that this was progressive Sonoma County....)

- Fluoridation may be killing a few young men each year. Some studies have found an association with incidence of osteosarcoma.

- More than half of the people in the world who ingest fluoridated water are U.S. residents.

- 97 percent of Europe does NOT fluoridate their water.

- Tooth decay has been declining all over the world for many years. In fact, in a graph which Dr. Connett showed us, it was hard to tell the difference between those countries which fluoridate their water and those which do not. I believe that this data was provided by the World Health Organization.

- Dr. Connett told us that a report by Dr. John Duall in Scientific American, 2008 is must-read material. In it, Dr. Duall says something to the effect of: We've been going with the status quo too long. It's time we take a fresh look. We don't have enough data (regarding fluoride). (Note: When I get time, I'm going to read this.)

- There is strong evidence that fluoridation can cause bone damage. A trial done in Newburgh-Kingston, New York, in 1956 reported twice the incidence of cortical bone defects in children in the fluoridated-water community (13.5 percent) compared with the non-fluoridated-water community (7.5 percent). (Note to those of you with children: Do you want YOUR children's bones to be compromised?)

- A study, Alarcon-Herrara, in Mexico in 2001 found that as the severity of dental fluorosis went up, so did the incidence of bone fractures - in almost linear fashion.

- The first symptoms of fluoride poisoning of bone are identical to those of arthritis. Arthritis affects 68 million people in the U.S.

- Fifty (50) percent of the fluoride you ingest goes into your bones, and, if you have poor kidney function, up to 90 percent!

- Hip fractures are of great concern, as these affect the elderly most. A study done in China showed that there was a direct link between the parts per million of fluoride and the incidence of hip fractures.

- A study by Xiang, et al., in China showed that IQs in children went down 5 to 10 points across the whole age range; the higher the level of fluoride in the blood, the lower the IQ was. Xiang estimated that the threshold for lowering IQ was at 1.9 parts per million, which means that a child drinking two (2) liters of water at one (1) part per million would get a higher dose!! (It gets back to that pesky "concentration versus dose" thing.)

- A recent study done in Iowa showed that there was no relation between fluoride ingestion and tooth decay, showing that ingesting fluoride will NOT stop tooth decay! Any benefit (once again) is topical.

- Dr. Connett told us that when he asked Dr. Lynn Chaffin, Sonoma County Public Health Officer, What is the mode of action of fluoride? she would not answer him. He said the saliva left his mouth......Now, I will ask: What is she trying to hide from the residents of Sonoma County? This is basic knowledge, and not only should she know it, she should not withhold it, not when something so serious as forced water fluoridation is being proposed.

- Fluoride can be absorbed through the skin. Dr. Connett reported that he has observed some people who have bathed in fluoridated water develop red blotches on their skin.

- Tea contains LOTS of fluoride, but coffee does not. All of you coffee-drinkers out there can breath a sigh of relief.....

- A recent survey of dentists conducted in this country which was cited by Dr. Connett showed that 50 percent of dentists did NOT feel comfortable recommending fluoride. (Note: Don't automatically assume your dentist is pro-fluoride. Take the time to find out, and, if necessary, offer to give him some current information.)

- Big sugar promotes the use of fluoride.

- Toothpaste manufacturers will take a big hit of liability if it comes out that fluoride is bad. The American Dental Association's credibility is also on the line, as they have been its biggest promoter for years.

The turnout at this event I felt was tremendous, and there were lots of intelligent questions submitted, which Dr. Connett took time to patiently answer.

As far as attendance by public officials is concerned, the only ones in attendance were Gary Wysocky and Julie Combs of the Santa Rosa City Council and Mark Landman of the Cotati City Council. The crowd acknowledged their presence and expressed its appreciation by giving a rousing round of applause.

However, I must say that I found it extremely disappointing that NOT ONE MEMBER of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors was in attendance. This is particularly disturbing, since they are the ones who will ultimately vote on whether to put this pricey poison into our water supply, and thereby our bodies as well. In the opinion of this life-long resident, the people of Sonoma County deserve something better from their top elected officials than five no-shows.

At the end of the evening, I left the Glacer Center with renewed vigor, inspiration, and fear -- that's right, fear, fear of what will happen to the citizens of Sonoma County and beyond if this misguided, anachronistic, draconian policy is enacted by our "supes."

I believe that forced fluoridation is part of a master plan concocted by two of our "supes" who have aspirations to seek higher political office in the future. If they are successful in getting this plan enacted, they will have a notch on their belts to impress some of their economically disadvantaged voters, who might be impressed by such a thing, hoping that they are and will remain unaware of the true motives, inaccuracies, junk science and misinformation behind their hidden agenda.

It is now up to the anti-forced-fluoridationists to unite to stop this madness. We MUST prevail. We will get little, if any, help and support from the mainstream media, so tell your relatives, tell your acquaintances, tell your friends. You'll be surprised how few people out in our community know about this plan -- and that's exactly what the "supes" are banking on.

But above all else, do not despair, for as one fellow activist told me at the conclusion of Dr. Connett's presentation, "We are the media!"

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sebastacat:

Last night, I attended an outstanding presentation by Dr. Paul Connett regarding water fluoridation. For those of you who weren't able to attend, I wish to tell you that he is an engaging, dynamic speaker whose knowledge of his subject is stunning. You missed a great talk.

By the way, he did something that few other speakers whose lectures I have attended during the course of my life have been unable to do: keep me on the edge of my seat for a solid two hours listening intently. Thank you, Dr. Connett. I hope that you keep abreast of Sonoma County's forced-fluoridation issue and return soon to help us win the battle here.

Since I am sure that there are Waccobbians who were not able to attend, I am going to provide a synopsis of the many important points that Dr. Connett made. He shared such a wealth of information with the audience that there was no way that I could possibly capture it all. However, I feel compelled to share several highlights. Please keep in mind that I will endeavor to be as accurate as possible, but I was writing very fast, and if I am not one-hundred-percent accurate, I apologize in advance.

---

Awesome recap! I was there as well. Took notes, but not as extensive as yours. Went tired and exhausted, which I promptly forgot about for the entire two hours. It was a fascinating, empowering presentation. Wish even more folks had been there.

What now? Educate every one you know who lives in Sonoma county....and the SF Bay area: MOST IMPORTANTLY our supes, first and foremost, and our city council members. The request is that we remain civil and polite, but insistent. We have nature and science on our side.

A point that was made...referring to the chemical mix being an air pollution waste...is that if it is not being used as a "product" (ie. water additive), then it is classified as a hazardous waste and cities/counties can be fined severely for not handling it properly.

Plus whatever water dept. personnel are responsible for adding it to our water and monitoring it, have to be Haz-Mat trained....and, of course, by the nature of the job will be endangering their own health. So who wants to do THAT job?

Spread the word. Share this information with as many folks as you can. YOU can make a difference.