Expanding Water Fluoridation in Sonoma County

[intheflow88]

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


December 28, 2012

DECEMBER BULLETIN #25

Dear Friends:

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

Watch FAN's New Video Featuring Dr. Whyte

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

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

Fundraiser update

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

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

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

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

Paul Connett, PhD,

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

Premiums

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

• $21 you can receive a FAN bumper sticker.

• $41 you can receive the FAN coffee mug.
  

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

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

• $61 you can receive a FAN tote bag.
  

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

Please Donate Today

[Peace Voyager]

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

Please join this campaign:

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

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

[intheflow88]

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

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

[Barry]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[qidancing]

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

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

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

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

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

[knobbyfun]

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

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


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

[Barry]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dzerach]

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

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

You don't cure ignorance with medication.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DreadTori]

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

Thank you, Dzerach, for your great comment!

[podfish]

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

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


Steven Colbert is a brilliant observer of our times.

[DreadTori]

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

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

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


Steven Colbert is a brilliant observer of our times.

[edie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[podfish]

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

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

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

[DreadTori]

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

You didn't answer my last question, though.

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

Thanks for your patience, Barry!

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

[podfish]

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

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

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

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

[Glia]

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

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

PressFascist.com

Board of Supervisors takes next step toward fluoridating county water

[datars]

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

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

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

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

[datars]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peace Voyager]

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

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

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

[/B][/SIZE]

[dzerach]

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

I found the following to be an illuminating chronology:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

So, what happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/B][/SIZE]

[Glia]

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

SCMA weighs in on fluoride debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dzerach]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCMA weighs in on fluoride debate

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

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

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

[tziferon]

Doesn't fluoride in water help prevent tooth decay?

I have three responses to that question:

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

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

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

[edie]

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

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

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

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

Politics and ignorance can be hurtful.*

[peggykarp]

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

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

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

[Peacetown Jonathan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bigwonder]

More information regarding the dangers of fluoride:

CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Fluoride

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

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

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

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

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

[Barry]

More information regarding the dangers of fluoride:

CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Fluoride

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peacetown Jonathan]

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

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

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

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

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



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?

[rossmen]

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

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?