Why Does the Press Democrat Continually Insult Sebastopol and Even Lie About Us?

I am livid over a recent "Thumbs down" editorial in the Press Democrat slamming of our City Council about last week's vote to express our city's widely supported opposition to fluoridating county water.

What most bothers me the most is that the editorial stated that the reason our Council voted 5-0 to send a letter to Cotati to support their opposition to fluoridation was because they thought it was a "communist plot."

Unlike the editorial page editors of the PD, or its reporter, I was there that night, and one of about 15 citizens who spoke against fluoridating water, including two dentists.

This editorial is entirely inaccurate and the PD owes our City Council and citizens an apology for the snarky editorial (that I am copying below). Not one citizen or Council member mentioned a "communist plot." This is simply untrue. It is also obnoxious, and offensive.

Yet to the thousands of readers of that column, this biased, false characterization is the yet another example of how "crazy radical" we are in Sebastopol.

Seriously, does anyone out there at Wacco have a theory about why the PD's editorial page is so intent upon maligning our City and its progressive City Council? Therapists, pundits and tea leaf readers welcome to chime in as a reply to this. I am baffled...:hmmm:

For the record, as I reported here last week, more than a dozen citizens presented compelling evidence about why we stood unanimously against water fluoridation. Our Council members themselves provided additional rationales. Yet the PD's editorial page ignored reality, and instead, the decades old "communist plot" trope was trotted out, like a sick donkey being ridden by a lazy editor, to explain the vote. Along with a parroting of industry-provided, false "facts" about the efficiency of fluoridating water.


The editorial:

Press Democrat "Thumbs Down" Editorial Monday February 10, 2014

Let them stop eating cake What is it that San Jose, San Francisco, New York and 72 percent of the nation's population know that Sebastopol doesn't? It's that fluoridation is not a communist plot and actually helps reduce tooth decay, particularly for children. Nonetheless, the Sebastopol City Council voted 5-0 on Feb. 5 to oppose plans to fluoridate Sonoma County Water Agency supplies. The county has been looking at fluoridation since a 2009 report found this region is experiencing “a staggering burden of suffering and a growing oral health divide between rich and poor.” Fluoridation has been shown to decrease cavities in kids up to 40 percent. Studies also show that every $1 invested in fluoridation saves an estimated $38 in dental care. But here's the kicker: Sebastopol doesn't even get its water from the county. Furthermore, the council voted before even reading the final reports. Apparently that well of junk science and conspiracy was just too tempting to resist.

Who the hell owns the Press Democrat?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

I am livid over a recent "Thumbs down" editorial in the Press Democrat ...

---

I just came across this excellent column about "The Age of Ignorance" in the USA today (from the NY Review), and thought of the question I ask in this post Why does the PD do this? Are they aware of how closely their actions, and what results from misleading the public, resembles what is described here as a a national affliction? Excerpt from the column:

Widespread ignorance bordering on idiocy is our new national goal. It’s no use pretending otherwise... The ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state, such as the one we now have, is a gullible dolt unable to tell truth from bullshit.

This selected quote cuts both ways.
The editorialist's use of "communist plot" is a rhetorical flourish. Seizing upon it as evidence that the PD used it in a literal sense to explain the City Council's vote only serves to reinforce the negative stereotype to which you so stridently object.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

I just came across this excellent column about "The Age of Ignorance" in the USA today (from the NY Review), and thought of the question I ask in this post Why does the PD do this? Are they aware of how closely their actions, and what results from misleading the public, resembles what is described here as a a national affliction? Excerpt from the column:

Widespread ignorance bordering on idiocy is our new national goal. It’s no use pretending otherwise... The ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state, such as the one we now have, is a gullible dolt unable to tell truth from bullshit.

---

What's really almost funny about this stupid and bizarre editorial is that usually they characterize Sebastopol as being a haven for "lefty pinkos" who would no doubt be very supportive of a "communist plot."

The whole thing is disgusting. If the county spent the money they're spending on "studying" this issue and then the money they're going to spend on adding this crap to the water on dental care for poor and low income kids and adults it would probably cost a lot less and save a lot more teeth!!

Fluoride is an industrial waste material and forcing people to drink it and then flushing it down the river is bad for everyone.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

I am livid over a recent "Thumbs down" editorial in the Press Democrat slamming of our City Council about last week's vote to express our city's widely supported opposition to fluoridating county water. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by LRogers:

Fluoride is an industrial waste material and forcing people to drink it and then flushing it down the river is bad for everyone.

---

I haven't studied both sides of the fluoridation issue, so am pretty much neutral on it, but I must take exception to this reasoning. The fact that something is waste material, industrial or otherwise, tells us nothing about its toxicity. Industrial waste material includes things such as water vapor, other harmless chemicals, sawdust, food scraps, and animal manure. Reusing waste material, industrial or otherwise, is called "recycling". It can be good or bad depending on the specific situation. If you wanna make a case against fluoridation, go ahead, but triggering emotional responses by invoking red-flag phrases like "industrial waste material" doesn't constitute a reasonable case against anything.

Okay, Dixon, I should have said "toxic waste material."

Check out the info that the opposition to fluoridation have brought forward and you'll find out more about it. Including the unfounded statistics the pro guys use on their sides. Check out the countries in Europe that provide dental care to all and the good teeth their citizens have as a result.

And don't you think it's insane that Medicare doesn't cover dental care for seniors? Like--oh, well, who needs teeth after you reach 65?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I haven't studied both sides of the fluoridation issue, so am pretty much neutral on it, but I must take exception to this reasoning. The fact that something is waste material, industrial or otherwise, tells us nothing about its toxicity. Industrial waste material includes things such as water vapor, other harmless chemicals, sawdust, food scraps, and animal manure. Reusing waste material, industrial or otherwise, is called "recycling". It can be good or bad depending on the specific situation. If you wanna make a case against fluoridation, go ahead, but triggering emotional responses by invoking red-flag phrases like "industrial waste material" doesn't constitute a reasonable case against anything.

---

There is nothing 'emotional' about facts re: the kind of industrial-grade toxic fluoride that is added to drinking waters across the world.
In a response to a comment under the recent 'Sebastopol vote' article, Clean Water Sonoma-Marin added that the type of fluoride that is planned to be added to Sonoma County's drinking water will be hydrofluorosilicic acid. This information can be found
in the Draft Fluoridation Preliminary Engineering Design Report by the MWH company that presented to the Sonoma County Department of Health Services in June 2013. A critique of said report, by the head of the Technical Advisory Committee of the Sonoma County Water Agency can be found with a Google search.

When people respond with condescending comments like "it's emotional' they are usually in denial about the seriousness of an issue, and would rather 'not get involved' by educating themselves. I personally find the 'it's emotional' commentary an oppressive form of boring b.s.; patronizing patriarchy shushing up people who have the courage to 'call the kettle black'. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I haven't studied both sides of the fluoridation issue, so am pretty much neutral on it, but I must take exception to this reasoning. The fact that something is waste material, industrial or otherwise, tells us nothing about its toxicity. Industrial waste material includes things such as water vapor, other harmless chemicals, sawdust, food scraps, and animal manure. Reusing waste material, industrial or otherwise, is called "recycling". It can be good or bad depending on the specific situation. If you wanna make a case against fluoridation, go ahead, but triggering emotional responses by invoking red-flag phrases like "industrial waste material" doesn't constitute a reasonable case against anything.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kltkwmn~707:

There is nothing 'emotional' about facts re: the kind of industrial-grade toxic fluoride that is added to drinking waters across the world.

---

If indeed fluoridation is toxic at the dosages used, you're right; there's nothing emotional about those facts. But you miss my point. Lilith didn't cite any facts about toxicity in her post; she just threw out the term "industrial waste material" with the clear implication that that means it's toxic, and that just isn't true. It was an appeal to emotion rather than logic, which is not a path to truth when assessing issues like this. Even if we assume that her (and your) position on fluoridation is right (and it may well be), appeals to emotion like that only detract from your credibility, which can ultimately hurt your cause.

Quote:

---

When people respond with condescending comments like "it's emotional'...

---

You're needlessly (and insultingly) negativizing here. Pointing out that someone's argument is fallacious (in this case an emotional appeal rather than a rational argument) isn't condescending; it's reasoning. I would hope people would similarly point out my lapses when I make them; that's how we benefit from each other's perspective in dialogical reasoning.

Quote:

---

...they are usually in denial about the seriousness of an issue...

---

Well, that could hardly apply to me, as I haven't declared a position on the issue. I take some pride in the fact that I'm willing to publicly say "I don't know" when I haven't found time to research both sides of an issue, rather than jumping into one camp and yelling imprecations at those on the "other side". I'm wondering, Kit--have you studied material from the pro-fluoride folks as well as the anti-fluoride activists?

Quote:

---

...and would rather 'not get involved' by educating themselves...

---

Kit, for me to commit myself, even tentatively, to one side or the other would require at least a few hours of research on two or more sides of the issue. That doesn't sound like much until you realize that there are hundreds of people hollering for me to jump on their bandwagons--they think I'm a jerk if I don't commit myself to their side of the UFO issue, or gang-stalking, or Jesus, or Allah, or HAARP, or torture, or circumcision, or fat liberation, or anti-obesity, or food activism, or white power, or prison reform, or saving the bees, or veganism, or disability rights, or zero waste, or bicycling, or animal rights, or, or, OR!!! I'm overwhelmed! Have you "gotten involved" by educating yourself on two or more sides of all these issues? Of course not; it's virtually impossible. I probably won't find time to research your favorite cause(s) anytime soon. You can deal with that in a mature and tolerant way, or you can spew at people like me, thus driving us away from your side.

Quote:

---

I personally find the 'it's emotional' commentary an oppressive form of boring b.s...

---

Does this mean that you don't agree that some arguments sacrifice rationality for fallacious appeals to emotion? Or maybe you recognize that that happens, but you don't want someone to point it out when the emotional argument is in support of something you believe? Dig this: labeling something "oppressive" just because you don't want to hear it is a closed-minded defense mechanism.

Quote:

---

...patronizing patriarchy shushing up people who have the courage to 'call the kettle black'.

---

And so to point out the fallacy of an argument is "patronizing patriarchy"? And it constitutes "shushing" people? Everyone should just let crappy arguments go unchallenged, even though such arguments undercut the credibility of your position? You could have thanked me for helping to spruce up the anti-fluoridation argument by purging out obvious fallacies. Instead, you chose to say a bunch of snotty things based on needlessly negative interpretations: "condescending", "oppressive", "boring", "b.s.", "patronizing patriarchy", "shushing"--all of it gratuitously insulting bullshit. You're not doing your cause any good by publicly spewing like that.

I wish I could "express gratitude" for this post more than once. :thumbsup:
Dixon's post(s) had nothing to do with the fluoridation topic, he even stated he had no stance on the issue. He was elegantly criticizing someone's rhetoric, which should be done more often. The lack of reasoned, calm, logical remarks in discussions like this one is disturbing, annoying, and way too common.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

If indeed fluoridation is toxic at the dosages used, you're right; there's nothing emotional about those facts. But you miss my point. Lilith didn't cite any facts about toxicity in her post; she just threw out the term "industrial waste material" with the clear implication that that means it's toxic, and that just isn't true. It was an appeal to emotion rather than logic, which is not a path to truth when assessing issues like this.....

---

Here's a letter to the editor I recently sent in:

The editorial Let them stop eating cake (Feb 5th)is entirely ignorant. Sebastopol citizens did not vote against fluoridation because it is a “communist plot,” as it was suggested. In fact, not a single person who spoke against fluoridation at the city council meeting made mention of anything remotely like a communist plot. Rather, a dozen people (2 of whom were dentists), gave an abundance of valid facts and statistics about the potential risk and uselessness of fluoridated water. Smearing progressive, well-researched voices as hyped up on “junk science and conspiracy” is shockingly ignorant and insulting. It should also be noted that more recently, Portland and Davis citizens voted overwhelmingly against fluoridation, another fact that the editorial forgot to research.

As a native Sebastopolian, I am exasperated by this recklessly un-researched slam-article. This is a matter of professional ethics. The statements made by the editorial are false, and I would like to see a public apology made to the Sebastopol City Council and citizens.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by haammer:

The editorial Let them stop eating cake (Feb 5th)is entirely ignorant....
As a native Sebastopolian, I am exasperated by this recklessly un-researched slam-article. This is a matter of professional ethics. The statements made by the editorial are false, and I would like to see a public apology made to the Sebastopol City Council and citizens.

---

I'm not on the same side of this issue as you are, but I completely agree that the PD was lazy and showed disrespect, not only for those who they falsely represented but for their readership as a whole. When you can't tell from an article what the writer actually observed as opposed to what they think, it's not journalism. It violates the implied contract between the press and their readers in a very destructive way.

"podfish" wrote,

Quote:

---

"When you can't tell from an article what the writer actually observed as opposed to what they think, it's not journalism."

---

Absolutely correct. That piece was not journalism, it was OPINION.

I have no opinion on the topic of fluoridation of SoCo drinking water. I do however, take issue with the panning of the PD's quality of journalism based on an editorial piece.

An editorial article is an opinion piece; in fact the PD calls their editorial section "OPINION." Kind of blatant. It should not be judged next to the PD's standard of news reporting. Instead, reference their actual news article on the topic, here:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...cles/140209799 (misuse of the word "affects" instead of "effects" not withstanding).
I think that article is fairly well balanced.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I'm not on the same side of this issue as you are, but ...

---

Thanks for this well written letter to the editor re this issue, Haammer. And thanks for posting it on WACCO. Perhaps it will bring the discussion back to the actual issues. Lilith

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by haammer:

Here's a letter to the editor I recently sent in:

The editorial Let them stop eating cake (Feb 5th)is entirely ignorant. Sebastopol citizens did not vote against fluoridation because it is a “communist plot,” as it was suggested.....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by LRogers:

Thanks for this well written letter to the editor re this issue, Haammer. And thanks for posting it on WACCO. Perhaps it will bring the discussion back to the actual issues. Lilith

---

Just to clarify: are the "actual issues" you mention those about fluoridation of drinking water in Sonoma County? If so that topic is here:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...-Sonoma-County

This thread stemmed from the OP's claim about the Press Democrat's so-called continuous insulting of and lies about Sebastopol.

This thread was never really directly about the pros/cons of fluoridation of drinking water in Sonoma County.

I have been meaning to respond to some of the commenters on this board who call the PD's comments about "communist plot" merely standard "rhetorical flourish," as well as this thought that followed:

That piece was not journalism, it was OPINION.

I have no opinion on the topic of fluoridation of SoCo drinking water. I do however, take issue with the panning of the PD's quality of journalism based on an editorial piece.


After reading these, I re-read the original editorial (copied again below), considering what my fellow pundits on this board had posted.

I have been a journalist now for more than 35 years--one who has written many strongly worded opinion columns, as well as investigative articles.

There is a difference between expressing what you think as opinion, and deliberately mis-characterizing what people who hold a different opinion think, in order to insult, and diminish, their perspective.

This is a professional line, one that is not to be ethically crossed, in an editorial, or an opinion column, or an article.

The PD crossed this line, quite clearly. The "communist plot" comment was in the opening, suggesting this fear was what drove the Council to its vote. And then, again, in the closing description of why our Council voted as it did, stating, "that well of junk science and conspiracy was just too tempting to resist."

The editorial also suggests that Sebastopol's City Council acted without "reading the final report." As though they, and we, the many critics of fluoridating water, do not have an abundance of data available to form our opinion, without the Supervisor-funded study. Here are cogent 50 arguments against fluoridation, all footnoted. I challenge anyone to read this and call it junk science. Or, to find allegations of a "communist plot."

In my experience, the people I have interviewed, and heard speak against fluoride, are better informed than those, like the PD editorialist, who support spending a million a year to put a substance in our water that will make it less healthy to drink, especially for infants under two years of age, household pets, and livestock.

Those who support fluoridation have more faith in authority than those who oppose it. The opposition believes that lobbyists exert undue influence over professional organizations, like the American Dental Association, and our political process, in matters of public health.

But this does not make us believers in junk science, or communist conspiracies.

The PD's editorial was unprofessional, misleading, and insulting.

Sebastopol deserves better.

And so do the subscribers of the Press Democrat.




Press Democrat "Thumbs Down" Editorial Monday February 10, 2014

Let them stop eating cake What is it that San Jose, San Francisco, New York and 72 percent of the nation's population know that Sebastopol doesn't? It's that fluoridation is not a communist plot and actually helps reduce tooth decay, particularly for children. Nonetheless, the Sebastopol City Council voted 5-0 on Feb. 5 to oppose plans to fluoridate Sonoma County Water Agency supplies. The county has been looking at fluoridation since a 2009 report found this region is experiencing “a staggering burden of suffering and a growing oral health divide between rich and poor.” Fluoridation has been shown to decrease cavities in kids up to 40 percent. Studies also show that every $1 invested in fluoridation saves an estimated $38 in dental care. But here's the kicker: Sebastopol doesn't even get its water from the county. Furthermore, the council voted before even reading the final reports. Apparently that well of junk science and conspiracy was just too tempting to resist.

You infer that they are "deliberately mis-characterizing what people who hold a different opinion think, in order to insult, and diminish, their perspective."


I infer dry sarcasm.

AMEN brother. The Nazis used fluoride to pacify prison populations.

Check your facts before making assertions even about Nazis:


https://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ude-nazi-myth/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ronaldo:

Check your facts before making assertions even about Nazis:
https://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ude-nazi-myth/

---

Great article, Ronaldo!
Quote from the article:
"...the first large-scale fluoridation in history, not in Europe, but in Grand Rapids, Mich., in 1945."
I have family in Grand Rapids, which happens to be a hotbed (coldbed?) of Christian fundamentalism, so I can readily believe that there's something in the water there that makes people stupid. :wink:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ronaldo:

Check your facts before making assertions even about Nazis:

---

..but it sounds so truthy. Why ruin it?

(I'm doing my part to keep Colbert's great neologism from disappearing...)

I'm wondering if the PD has the ability to squash opinion/editorial pieces that might prove unfair and unpopular, as this one has. I don't remember if anyone actually identified the writer, but keep referring to the PD. I don't know what the guidelines are for opinion pieces, but most newpapers have some. On the other hand, the PD may not give it much thought, or if they do, might even realize that a piece like this would bring controversy, and that it's not always a bad thing to get people riled up, in the publicity business. It might even sell more papers.

It's interesting that anyone can get away with calling science "junk science", and on top of that insinuate that the council members are communists, but obviously they do.
That's because they're not on WaccoBB. We wouldn't let them get away with it here!

I think I saw a retort to the PD from one of our members. I would think there would be lots of them, to make the PD sit up and take notice, and maybe even have the person who wrote the editorial apologize, if it was an employee.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

Who the hell owns the Press Democrat?

---

https://www.sonomamediainvestments.com/leadership-team/

The Lancet, the world's oldest and most prestigious medical journal, recently published a report classifying Fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin. The report puts Fluoride in the same category Arsenic, Lead, and Mercury. Read for yourself...

https://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/...BlaiXPhJTjuTsu

Thanks for posting this, J. Maybe/hopefully this will carry some weight with the county, with dentists, with people who have been on the fence about this stuff. Spend the money on dental care for low income people.

Lilith

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

The Lancet, the world's oldest and most prestigious medical journal, recently published a report classifying Fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin. The report puts Fluoride in the same category Arsenic, Lead, and Mercury. Read for yourself...

https://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/...BlaiXPhJTjuTsu

---

Haven't seen any comments on this statement:

"the Sebastopol City Council voted 5-0 on Feb. 5 to oppose plans to fluoridate Sonoma County Water Agency supplies. ... But here's the kicker: Sebastopol doesn't even get its water from the county."

I've also read that Sebastopol's water has been fluoridated for years. Can that be true?

I suggest watching this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Bq...DUpMgC-L9QySta

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I haven't studied both sides of the fluoridation issue, so am pretty much neutral on it, but I must take exception to this reasoning. The fact that something is waste material, industrial or otherwise, tells us nothing about its toxicity. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

The Lancet, the world's oldest and most prestigious medical journal,

---

Wait, what? "Most prestigious?" In who's estimation? Most INFAMOUS, maybe. While the Lancet does enjoy a very high impact factor (39-ish) that doesn't convey it's respect/popularity, which has dropped precipitously in recent years. Anyway NEJM trumps it by a WIDE margin by any measure (impact factor of 58 and definitely the most widely known/respected scientific journal of almost any topic).

Quote:

---

recently published a report classifying Fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin. The report puts Fluoride in the same category Arsenic, Lead, and Mercury. Read for yourself...

---

I did read it for myself, did you? Did you follow any of the reference links? I was very un-impressed with this paper.
At first I was just skimming, and was hard-pressed to find where it even referenced fluoride. A search of the article for the letters "uorid" reveals only 5 mentions of the word "fluoride" in the entire article, one of which is the sole reference to a study on fluoridation of water. This sole reference was co-authored by Grandjean, one of the authors of this paper. So the author's only reference to back up his claims about fluoride is his own "study." I put "study" in quotes because that particular paper is itself a pretty weak one. Have you read it? It does no basic science at all; it's basically a review paper also, just like the one that references it. Anyway this thread is not about that paper but here's a link to it for anyone interested: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...hp.1104912.pdf
Warning: it's not very impressive, as scientific medical papers go.

With a quick search I found that fluoridated water is usually in the range of 0.4 ~ 0.9 mg/L concentration. Grandjean uses data from Chinese studies, most of which referenced water with 5x to 10+x the concentration of normal fluoridated water (e.g. about 2~10mg/L). Upon review of these Chinese studies, the authors come up with an average IQ drop of ~7 for children exposed to these excessively fluoridated waters. While 7 IQ points could be statistically significant (the authors don't say, which makes the fact that these papers were published at all REALLY surprising) 7 IQ points is not a large gap. The standard deviation for most (maybe all?) IQ tests is 15, so we're talking a value that is ~46% of the standard deviation. That's reasonable in my experience, but it's not huge. So not terrible, but not earth-shattering results. However, the authors make NO association with the concentration levels; there were no data comparing X fluoride concentration to fluoride-free water. Virtually all the comparison data sets were within the range of the recommended dental theraputic range. So *at most* all this paper can claim is that EXCESSIVELY HIGH levels of fluoride are POSSIBLY bad.

However (again) even that kind of claim is a stretch for these authors' works. Nowhere did they account for other possibly confounding factors when it comes to explaining the apparent drop in IQ scores. Remember cardinal rule #1 for statistics: correlation does not imply causation. All they have shown is a correlation. Here's a great correlation study for you to chew on:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/...anics-copy.jpg


That chart is obviously just to show a point; it's not the topic at hand. There are other issues with this paper, too. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Not something you want to hang your hat on, IMO.

Hi Geoff -

Nope, Sebastopol absolutely does not fluoridate its water. Healdsburg does, and I think also a smaller water company near there.

In terms of the question about Sebastopol not getting water from the County -- the City officials and people speaking addressed this quite specifically.

1) First, what's not clear in the PD article is what the Sebastopol City Council did - which was to support Cotati in their speaking out against fluoridation. Anyone has the right to speak out against anything. Sebastopol did so as its own position and in support of a sister city that does receive SCWA water.

2) We're not in a separate vacuum-sealed locale in Sebastopol. We visit other towns, go to restaurants, work, school, friends' houses, etc. and thus would be exposed to fluoridation chemicals. We have people we care about in other areas -- friends, family, co-workers, employees, etc. We are not separate.

Additionally, we all are impacted by the reputation of this county, in tourism and so much more. Right now, we have a clean healthy image -- good air, water, food, biking, redwoods, ocean, etc. But that would be impacted by putting toxic chemicals into our shared water supply.

3) Fluoridation chemicals are NOT the pure stuff used in dentist offices. They're not even the same chemical compound. They did NOT go through the FDA testing and approval process as a medicine. They are demonstrated to be harmful to our health and environment, both in themselves and in the toxic chemicals that pollute them (because they're waste from an industrial scrubbing process). If the use of these chemicals causes health care costs to increase (which I feel they would) that would impact our county budget, etc. We would all pay the price.

4) The water treatment plant is right outside our town and on the precious Laguna. Fluoridation chemicals are NOT removed by water treatment and would go into our shared environment in large quantities, likely impacting wildlife and ecosystems -- and going into our shared water supplies -- including potentially the wells in Sebastopol and elsewhere.

==
I've spent years studying the fluoridation issue, and to me the evidence against it is very strong. But unfortunately, SOME medical mainstream people keep repeating the old beliefs and not looking at our updated understanding. However, once people look at the actual facts, they don't go back to repeating the pro-fluoridation story. The evidence just isn't there. Many prominent scientists are strongly against the practice, including previous proponents. That's why most countries do NOT add fluoridation chemicals to their shared water supplies.

I just encourage people to look at the case against fluoridation before forming an opinion. I think they might be surprised how different the facts are from the claims. Part of what's difficult is that some people who oppose fluoridation can make untrue claims (i.e., I don't think the evidence is there that the Nazis used it). This can make people skeptical of the opposition. But there's a very clear logical scientific case against community water fluoridation (CWF), and I think that once people see it, they don't go back.

>> And once you see it -- you don't want it in anyone's water supply -- especially the county where you live, the ecosystem, the aquifers. That's why people -- and cities -- are speaking up.

>> We have a right to speak up, and I'm incredibly proud of both Cotati and Sebastopol for doing so -- and for all the citizens who supported them in doing so. It can be hard to do this when the proponents are so vicious and unwilling to look at the facts. But we have a right to stand up for the truth and for our well-being.

Folks who are willing to see behind the wizard's curtain might want to read an article I wrote outlining the key reasons CWF just doesn't make sense - with citations - at www.patriciadines.info/PHMF.html.

I hope this information is helpful and supports us all in acting for our shared well-being in factual and constructive ways.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:

Haven't seen any comments on this statement:

"the Sebastopol City Council voted 5-0 on Feb. 5 to oppose plans to fluoridate Sonoma County Water Agency supplies. ... But here's the kicker: Sebastopol doesn't even get its water from the county."

I've also read that Sebastopol's water has been fluoridated for years. Can that be true?

---

I am surprised that you were "hard pressed to find" where the article mentioned fluoride. Here it is excerpted:

A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44 Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies. Further characterization of the dose–response association would be desirable.

So the counter argument is that the study was flawed. "Nothing to see here folks," move on, and trust those with a vested financial interest, the associations and lobbyists and those who have entered government through the revolving door, or those who receive campaign contributions from them, to act as guardians for our public health.

Questioning authority, friends, means questioning the addition of toxic chemical additives to our water system. There are easier ways to address tooth decay than making everyone drink the kool aid. Um, I mean the fluoridated water. :waccosun:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by seenhear:

...
At first I was just skimming, and was hard-pressed to find where it even referenced fluoride....

---