Expanding Water Fluoridation in Sonoma County

[sebastacat]

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.

[rikwiz]

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.

[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?

[Barry]

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

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...



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?

[sharingwisdom]

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.

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?

[geomancer]

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

[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!

BTW, oxygen also is a poison.

[ericvonk]

wow. who's your shrink?

[Mudwoman]

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.

[Mudwoman]

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?

[Peace Voyager]

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

[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?

[Howard]

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

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!

BTW, oxygen also is a poison.

[sharingwisdom]

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

[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.

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

.

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?

[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

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. .

[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 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

[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.

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.

[phooph]

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

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

[WolfCub]

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

[ericvonk]

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......?

[rossmen]

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...

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.

[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.

[intheflow88]

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

[intheflow88]

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)

[WeWe]

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.

[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.

[sebastacat]

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.

[kpage9]

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

[peggykarp]

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.

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.