Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

[lilypads]

Sebastacat, your concern is very relevant. "In the early 1950s American industry was plagued with a virtual epidemic of litigation." (FGD p. 298) Most of the litigation was about airborne fluorides that polluted pastures and crop land (and even a fish hatchery). Lawsuits addressed fluoride damage to cattle, fish, crops and people. There are pictures of cows suffering from fluorosis in George Waldbott's "A Struggle with Titans." The cows are emaciated and unable to straighten their front legs. There are also pictures of their fluoride-damaged bones. The issue of treated wastewater is HUGE, whether the water is used to irrigate pasture or whether it goes into the Laguna and the Russian River.

The more I learn about this, the more astonished I am that our PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER is promoting fluoridation. Anyone concerned about public health should be staunchly opposed to fluoridation, once they dig into the history and the science.

My grandfather was a farmer, and back in the day when he had a herd of milk cows, yes, indeed, he did have his own well(s) which were used for supply water to the cattle and to irrigate the pastures.

But then in the 1970's, things changed, and -- voila -- the City of Santa Rosa as well as other municipalities started provided the farmers with TREATED WASTEWATER.
...
The treated wastewater (which contains fluoride, probably from toothpaste, mouthwash, etc., and, soon, a copious amount of phosphate-fertilizer fluoride, if the supes have their way) which is used to irrigate and produce that nice, lush green pasture where all those cows graze is ingested by those same cows and makes its way into the human food chain.

Next time you have a glass of milk or eat that juicy steak, you just might be getting more fluoride than you think.

As for our wells, I agree that there is some NATURALLY OCCURRING fluoride present in just about all water, and, as Supervisor Gorin and others over in the Sonoma area correctly pointed out, water in that area contains MUCH MORE fluoride than water in other parts of the county.

[PDines]

Hi Howard - Great, thanks for the link to the SRosa stat. Good to know!

I googled the Sebastopol stat, and found the most recent report on the Sebastopol website. (See below.)
CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT for Calendar Year 2011 City of Sebastopol Municipal Water System July 01, 2012
Fluoride (ppm) June 2011 Sample Date .17
Range of Detections 0.15 –0.20
MCL [Maximum Contaminant Level = amount that's considered ok] 2
Typical Source of Contaminant: Erosion of natural deposits, water additive that promotes strong teeth; discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories.


https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/de.../2011_ccr_.pdf

Sorry, I saved the hard copy Sebastopol report from a couple of years ago. Your welcome to come over and look at my file or call public works. The Santa Rosa link is: https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/D...ort_Online.pdf

I would also disagree with your last paragraph. There's no difference between the fluoride in one compound versus another. Fluoride is the negative ion of the element fluorine. It's added to the water via a distillation-like process and contains nothing more than whatever is bonded to the fluoride ion in the gas. Sometimes its hydrogen and sometimes its silicon. The compound that was used to derive the gas is left in the tank, so to speak. The industrial byproduct toxic version you talk about doesn't come close to the water we drink. Natural fluoride, elementally speaking, is no different from the fluoride in the phosphorite rock that most U.S. systems use. This is basic chemistry and you do a disservice to your cause by not understanding it.

[PDines]

Hi Howard - Do you have a link with real evidence to support your assertion about what's left in the tank? You seem to be passing along a version of what the proponents say but they haven't provided evidence for, and which is contrary to the evidence we do have.

1) If you or anyone wants to sincerely understand what this material is, I suggest that you read the experience of Crescent City Citycouncilwoman Donna Westfall, who invested a great deal of energy into seeking the facts about the actual material. What she found was a key reason fluoridation was stopped there. The supplier of the material, that is simply put in the water supply, would not provide basic information about what is in the material, including contaminants.
https://www.healthyworld.org/SCFluor...onnaWestf.html

This material has not gone through FDA testing. So we do not even have a legal definition of what this material needs to be or what it's purity is! Proponents can claim whatever they want, but it doesn't make it true.

2) The EPA's professional union also provided this useful information.

STATEMENT ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION FROM THE EPA PROFESSIONALS UNION
NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


Silicofluorides: unrefined industrial waste
91% of Americans ingesting artificially fluoridated water are consuming silicofluorides1. This is a class of fluoridation chemicals that includes hydrofluosilicic acid and its salt form, sodium fluorosilicate. These chemicals are collected from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The scrubber liquors contain contaminants such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and radioactive particles2, are legally regulated as toxic waste, and are prohibited from direct dispersal into the environment. Upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a "product", allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Sodium fluoride, used in the remaining municipalities, is also an industrial waste product that contains hazardous contaminants.
==
Absence of safety studies on silicofluorides
When asked by the U.S. House Committee on Science for chronic toxicity test data on sodium fluorosilicate and hydrofluorosilicic acid, Charles Fox of the EPA answered on June 23, 1999, "EPA was not able to identify chronic toxicity data on these chemicals". 5 Further, EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory stated, on April 25, 2002, that the chemistry of silicofluorides is "not well understood" and studies are needed.
==
[**] FDA has never approved systemic use of fluoride
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December 2000 stated to the U.S. House Committee on Science they have never provided any specific approval for safety or effectiveness for any fluoride substance intended to be ingested for the purpose of reducing tooth decay.16


SOURCE: https://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluor...0-Fluoride.htm
NOTE: I made a handout PDF version of this. See MY PDF FLYER: http://www.healthyworld.org/GRAPHICS...uoridation.pdf

Sorry, I saved the hard copy Sebastopol report from a couple of years ago. Your welcome to come over and look at my file or call public works. The Santa Rosa link is: https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/D...ort_Online.pdf

I would also disagree with your last paragraph. There's no difference between the fluoride in one compound versus another. Fluoride is the negative ion of the element fluorine. It's added to the water via a distillation-like process and contains nothing more than whatever is bonded to the fluoride ion in the gas. Sometimes its hydrogen and sometimes its silicon. The compound that was used to derive the gas is left in the tank, so to speak. The industrial byproduct toxic version you talk about doesn't come close to the water we drink. Natural fluoride, elementally speaking, is no different from the fluoride in the phosphorite rock that most U.S. systems use. This is basic chemistry and you do a disservice to your cause by not understanding it.

[PDines]

Hi Howard -

Yes, let's talk chemistry. Often in this conversation I hear people use these two terms incorrectly. So let's be clear on them first:
1) Fluorine is an element and doesn't exist (long) without being in a compound of some kind.
2) Fluoride is a compound of fluorine with something else.

"At standard pressure and temperature, fluorine is a pale yellow gas composed of diatomic molecules, F2. Fluorine is the most electronegative element and is extremely reactive, requiring great care in handling. The compounds of fluorine are called fluorides. … Because of the difficulty in making elemental fluorine, most fluorine used in commerce is never converted to the free element." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine

So to me. it doesn't make any sense when you say "There's no difference between the fluoride in one compound versus another. " Do you mean fluorine in that sentence? That's the only way that sentence would fit the definition of compound.

However, even then what you're saying still doesn't make sense, because there are stark differences between fluoride compounds. The fact that chemical compounds can have very different characteristics is a key concept in chemistry and I'm astonished that fluoridation's proponents don't seem to understand this. They seem to think that fluorine is a rock found somewhere, all by itself. Nope, it's a gas and is used by industry in compounds with other materials. Those compounds have very different characteristics.

So, as I outline on https://www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html

1) * Fluoride in toothpaste -- "Sodium fluoride (NaF) is the most common source of fluoride, but stannous fluoride (SnF2), olaflur (an organic salt of fluoride), and sodium monofluorophosphate (Na2PO3F) are also used. Stannous fluoride has been shown to be more effective than sodium fluoride in reducing the incidence of dental caries[3] and controlling gingivitis.[4]" Notice that the medical field has spent time experimenting with fluoride compound they use, and refining that choice. It matters!

2) * Fluoride used for fluoridation -- "Cities all over the US purchase hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh pollution concentrate from Florida -- fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) -- to fluoridate water.
"Fluorosilicic acid is composed of tetrafluorosiliciate gas and other species of fluorine gases captured in pollution scrubbers and concentrated into a 23% solution during wet process phosphate fertilizer manufacture. ...
"Fluoridating drinking water with recovered pollution is a cost-effective means of disposing of toxic waste. The fluorosilicic acid would otherwise be classified as a hazardous toxic waste on the Superfund Priorities List of toxic substances that pose the most significant risk to human health and the greatest potential liability for manufacturers."

I would also add:

3) Another interesting fluorine compound is hydrofluoric acid (HF), a highly corrosive acid, capable of dissolving many materials, especially oxides. Its ability to dissolve glass has been known since the 17th century, so it's used for glass etching. However it makes it very challenging to find a container that can store it! "Hydrogen fluoride gas is an acute poison that may immediately and permanently damage lungs and the corneas of the eyes. Aqueous hydrofluoric acid is a contact-poison with the potential for deep, initially painless burns and ensuing tissue death. By interfering with body calcium metabolism, the concentrated acid may also cause systemic toxicity and eventual cardiac arrest and fatality, after contact with as little as 160 cm2 (25 square inches) of skin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid

>> So I don't think that someone exposed to HF would agree with the these that all fluorine compounds are the same and it doesn't matter what else makes up the fluoride compound...

I would also disagree with your last paragraph. There's no difference between the fluoride in one compound versus another. Fluoride is the negative ion of the element fluorine. It's added to the water via a distillation-like process and contains nothing more than whatever is bonded to the fluoride ion in the gas. Sometimes its hydrogen and sometimes its silicon. The compound that was used to derive the gas is left in the tank, so to speak. The industrial byproduct toxic version you talk about doesn't come close to the water we drink. Natural fluoride, elementally speaking, is no different from the fluoride in the phosphorite rock that most U.S. systems use. This is basic chemistry and you do a disservice to your cause by not understanding it.

[sebastacat]

Thanks once again to EcoGirl -- my EcoHero!

Please send the information which you have posted to EACH AND EVERY ONE of the Sonoma County Supes.
They need to see this immediately.

Please also send it to the Chief Health Officer, Lynn Silver-Chalfin.

Once again, I reiterate: Our elected officials have a duty to open their eyes and read the information which we, as their constituents, place in front of them and to LISTEN to us when we present evidence, voice our opinions and list our concerns.

Also, some people on this thread need to come up to date on this issue. Much has been learned during the past several years which has definitely changed the minds and the opinions of even some of fluoridations' staunchest proponents all around the globe.

The least we can do as concerned citizens is to continue to glean as much knowledge as we can about the ill health effects of this dastardly chemical -- and to make sure that we don't do a disservice to others by passing on outdated and inaccurate information from a bygone era.

[PDines]

OK, one more piece of info, because I think this is really important to understand, then I have other things to attend to!

For anyone who wants to learn more about the source of the chemical used in community water fluoridation - which is primarily the phosphate fertilizer industry - I suggest reading https://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/phosphate01. Here you'll see why they try to scrub the fluoride out of the fertilizer - because it causes harm when it goes into the environment. Also note this excerpt.

5. A Missed Opportunity: Little Demand for Silicofluorides

Considering the great demand among big industry for fluoride chemicals as a material used in a wide variety of commercial products and industrial processes, the phosphate industry could have made quite a handsome profit selling its fluoride wastes to industry. This was indeed the hope among some industry analysts, including the authors of the review noted above (Denzinger 1979).

However, the US phosphate industry has thus far been unable to take advantage of this market. The principal reason for this failure stems from the fact that fluoride captured in the scrubbers is combined with silica. The resulting silicofluoride complex has, in turn, proved difficult for the industry to separate and purify in an economically-viable process.

As it now stands, silicofluoride complexes (hydrofluorosilicic acid & sodium silicofluoride) are of little use to industry. Thus, while US industry continues to satisfy its growing demand for high-grade fluoride chemicals by importing calcium fluoride from abroad (primarily from Mexico, China, and South Africa), the phosphate industry continues dumping large volumes of fluoride into the acidic wastewater ponds that lie at the top of the mountainous waste piles which surround the industry. In 1995, the Tampa Tribune summed up the situation as follows:

“The U.S. demand for fluorine, which was 400,000 tons, is expected to jump 25 percent by next year… Even though 600,000 tons of fluorine are contained in the 20 million tons of phosphate rock mined in Florida, the fluorine market has been inaccessible because the fluorine is tied up with silica, a hard, glassy material.”

Of course, not all of the phosphate industry’s fluoride waste is disposed of in the ponds. As noted earlier, the phosphate industry has found at least one regular consumer of its silicofluorides: municipal water-treatment facilities. According to recent estimates, the phosphate industry sells approximately 200,000 tons of silicofluorides (hydrofluorosilicic acid & sodium silicofluoride) to US communities each year for use as a water fluoridation agent (Coplan & Masters 2001)."

As to the assertion that they distill this out in some way for water fluoridation use - I'd love to see evidence of this. All the evidence we've gotten is that they do not.

Also note how many key medical principles are being violated here, even though a medical benefit is being claimed. Medicines need to have one firm medical formula, which is used every time, then put that through a battery of testing to get approval with the FDA. Neither of those things are true with water fluoridation chemicals.

I think that some people IMAGINE that fluorine is like calcium, a mineral, an essential element in our diet. The proponents make it it sound like that.

But fluorine is NOT a rock. It's a gas, and it's found in COMPOUNDS with other materials, each of which have different characteristics. And it is NOT an essential nutrient in our diet. (See note 10, https://www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html).

Thus the claims being made are medical. But these fail at the most basic level - mode of action. We ask a really basic medical question - ok, what is the mode of action? How does it actually work to provide medical benefit?

And no answer will make sense. Because even the most mainstream of authorities agree that fluoride's mode of action is topical, i.e. by being put ON the teeth and interacting with the surface of teeth. They used to assert that it's mode was systemic, i.e. drink it and it helps the bones (again like calcium). But this has been DISPROVEN. Thus it makes no MEDICAL sense to drink it.

The bottom line is that there are a bunch of very simple clear scientific facts that undermine proponent claims and disprove this practice. What concerns me is why the proponents refuse to consider these basic facts, and instead keep making claims for which they do NOT have evidence and that have long been disproven.

That's why I keep emphasizing that we need to educate the population on the facts, vs. fringe theories. The science and the facts are really enough to disprove the practice of putting fluoride in our water. Mainstream people just need to get access to these facts, presented in a credible manner.

I've laid this out in an orderly way, with citations, at https://www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html

I hope this info is helpful - Best, Patricia

I would also disagree with your last paragraph. There's no difference between the fluoride in one compound versus another. Fluoride is the negative ion of the element fluorine. It's added to the water via a distillation-like process and contains nothing more than whatever is bonded to the fluoride ion in the gas. Sometimes its hydrogen and sometimes its silicon. The compound that was used to derive the gas is left in the tank, so to speak. The industrial byproduct toxic version you talk about doesn't come close to the water we drink. Natural fluoride, elementally speaking, is no different from the fluoride in the phosphorite rock that most U.S. systems use. This is basic chemistry and you do a disservice to your cause by not understanding it.

[Glia]

Reverse osmosis will not remove fluorine ions either. They are small enough to go thru the the RO membrane.

According to Connett, a process that does remove the small, highly electronegative fluorine ion is a "mixed cation-anion exchange resin water filtration system." After going through this system, essential minerals need to be added back to make "normal" good-tasting water. Any guesses as to how much such a system might cost?

Dr. Connett discussed this process during his presentation in Santa Rosa, which was recorded and is available on YouTube if you want to find out for yourself. Here's the link to that portion of the discussion:
https://youtu.be/LqSZJdpHfYY?t=1h38m50s

He also mentioned "bone char" as a filtering substance but did not go into detail about how it is used or where to get it. He did indicate that bone char is being used in India and China to remove naturally-occurring fluorides from their water supplies.

A carbon filter will not remove fluoride. The only type that will remove it is reverse osmosis, which is expensive and wastes a lot of water. Avoiding black tea is a good idea regardless of the fluoride content of the water used, since black tea itself contains a lot of fluoride. Green tea contains less.

[sebastacat]

Thanks, Glia, for this information.

Since fluoride is especially hard on those with kidney problems and those undergoing dialysis, installing some type of effective filtration which you have described is going to be a MUST -- and also, I imagine, quite costly.

Question: Who is going to pay for such a system?

[Howard]

This is how these conversations and constant hyperbole seem to spiral out of control in this forum. Tiring.

I stated three things I believe are facts and then I get overwhelmed with responses asking me for proof, links, etc:

1. Greater than 99% of the county farmers use well water (someone asked Barry why he assumed this),
2. That the fluoride ion in water systems that were derived from byproducts of industry or mined is the same fluoride ion that occurs in nature and
3. that the person who said they don't want any fluoride in their water is deluding themselves as it's present in all private and public water systems in the county. That's what I said. Facts, no?

I learned about chemistry a few decades ago and don't think much has changed regarding the elemental chart. I believe in the scientific principle. I don't believe that what is unknown is harmful by default. I can't disprove everything you or the wi-fi sensitive or the UN taking over planning crowd or the everything man-made is bad diviners say because I'm not an expert in much of anything (and neither is anyone on this forum nor any councilperson I know).

Because I can't disprove something is bad for you or can't prove that it's OK, some would conclude that it's harmful. The so-called precautionary principle. Well that can be said about anything and everything. In that case, there's no reality, right/wrong, good/evil, etc. Sorry, but that's what it boils down to for me.

BTW, I'm not so sure fluoridation of the water is a good thing because of its impact on older folk's bones. I have no doubt that it decreases the incidence of caries [cavities? - Barry] in kids and adults based on my non-expert reading of those smarter than I. Lower socio-economic households benefit greatly from this since they have less access to medical attention. The taxpayers must pick up the costs of medical attention for the disadvantaged. That's what the supervisors are grappling with. Costs v benefits not "being bought by the fluoride lobby" as some have stated.

Hi Howard - Do you have a link with real evidence to support your assertion about what's left in the tank? You seem to be...

[sebastacat]

WOW............

Who says that the "supes" must pick up the tab for the disadvantaged?
And...does that mean that the rest of us who do not wish to be medicated against our will have to suffer?

We are tax-paying citizens, too, no? And, unfortunately -- and frustratingly -- a lot of us aren't being listened to, despite having scientific studies, evidence and facts to back up our genuine concerns.

If the supes are truly concerned about the disadvantaged, they can undertake a program which consists of both education, where school nurses will visit the various schools as they did when I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, who will educate them in detail about how to brush their teeth, the types of toothpastes which are available, flossing, the importance of regular dental checkups and advice about diet and which foods and drinks to avoid, and a mobile dental clinic and perhaps addityional stationary dental clinics in addition to the ones which are already up and operating. That will be a much better expension of money -- and a whole lot cheaper, too -- than spending millions of dollars on mass-medication now and in the years to come -- which, as you correctly state, can be very harmful on the elderly.

And, yes, we need to be concerned about the elderly as well. Too often in this society of ours, they are cast aside and their needs neglected. As the Press Democrat article said a couple days ago, elder abuse has jumped something like 40 percent! Let's show them the respect and concern which they deserve and not add to their problems by adding this stuff to the water which many of them drink.

And if they are truly concerned about the non-disadvantaged, they will not attempt to force an unpopular program on the masses and saddle us all with the bill.

The money which they will save from enacting all of the above can then be used to re-open our libraries to their original full operating schedule as well as fixing our embarrassing road system, things which will truly benefit all who call this county home.
---oOo---
APPENDAGE TO AN EARLIER POST: When I said that I did not want to ingest any fluoride, I was referring to any ADDED fluoride. Since that's what we've been discussing in this forum is the ADDITION OF FLUORIDE by our county government, I thought that it was mutually understood. If I was unclear, I am taking this opportunity to make myself unmistakably clear now, as just about all water has at least SOME naturally occurring fluoride.

[Glia]

BZZZZZZ, sorry Howard, you are wrong once again. Lower socio-economic households are actually harmed by fluoridated water. And since ingesting fluorides and/or fluorine ions has been proven to NOT reduce dental cavities, there is no benefit from it either. Fluoridating the public water supply violates all principles of medical ethics.

The *only thing* that the Supervisors and the rest of us really need to be discussing is how to provide preventative care and treatment to all who need it, regardless of their ability to pay. In other words, we need to be working on creating a county medical/dental care system, complete with an actual publicly-funded and transparently administrated county hospital, not wasting time and energy haggling over poisoning the public water supply.

Lower socio-economic households benefit greatly from this since they have less access to medical attention. The taxpayers must pick up the costs of medical attention for the disadvantaged. That's what the supervisors are grappling with. Costs v benefits not "being bought by the fluoride lobby" as some have stated.

[lilypads]

Here's the page on Dr. Connett's site regarding water filters: https://www.fluoridealert.org/content/water_filters/

Reverse osmosis will not remove fluorine ions either. They are small enough to go thru the the RO membrane..

[lilypads]

FLUORIDATION AS A ‘SOCIAL JUSTICE’ ISSUE

By Marlene Lily

When I went to the Sonoma County Supervisors' meeting on February 26, 2013, one of the main points made by people from the health department and some supervisors, including my supe Shirlee Zane, is that fluoridation is a "social justice issue" --that poor people have dental decay because of lack of access to dental care, and many young children, mostly Hispanic, have to undergo dental sugery under anaesthesia, as many as a dozen a week. (The Press Democrat covered this part of the meeting very well.) So in addition to mitigating the suffering of children, fluoridation of the public water supply--if in fact it did reduce dental decay--would save the County money. (County officials have not even begun to consider the cost of hip fractures and other health problems caused by fluoride.)

But there are several problems with the social justice argument. If it's a social justice issue, why are top Civil Rights leaders--including the Latino group LULAC, the Portland NAACP, Ambassador Andrew Young, and Rev Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter and niece--calling for an end to fluoridation? One reason is that African Americans have 2 alleles (genetic peculiarities) that make them more susceptible to dental fluorosis, and Hispanics have one such allele. Some 40% of US kids 12-15 living in fluoridated areas now have dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is only the VISIBLE sign of systemic poisoning. Other changes, including those in bones and the brain, are invisible.

One speaker at the supes meeting said that she gave her daughter fluoride tablets and fluoridated bottled water as a child so she would have strong teeth and bones. But now, in her 30s, she has crumbling teeth and brittle bones. It is well known now that fluoride is beneficial only when used topically, not when ingested. Ingesting fluoride weakens both bones and teeth.

Another problem with calling fluoridation a "social justice issue" is that Blacks and Hispanics, as Ambassador Young said in his letter to the Georgia legislators, are disproportionately affected by diabetes and kidney disease. People with those conditions are more susceptible to serious damage from fluoride.

And finally, because low-income families cannot afford bottled water, or may be less likely to understand the importance of bottled water for baby formula, their babies, unless breast fed, are most likely to get a toxic overdose of fluoride. One article said they would get 175 times the dose an adult would get. There is no safe dose for babies. The USA now ranks 42nd in the world in infant mortality. That's a shameful statistic. And fluoride is very likely one of the reasons. Fluoride is more toxic than lead. The EPA scientists’ unions—some 7,000 scientists--are asking for the safe level of fluoride to be pegged at ZERO.

The social justice angle in the fluoridation debate is actually the need to PROTECT African-Americans and Hispanics from fluoride.
https://www.drchetan.com/wp-content/...-fluorosis.jpg

Top of Form 1

BZZZZZZ, sorry Howard, you are wrong once again. Lower socio-economic households are actually harmed by fluoridated water. And since ingesting fluorides and/or fluorine ions has been proven to NOT reduce dental cavities, there is no benefit from it either. Fluoridating the public water supply violates all principles of medical ethics.

The *only thing* that the Supervisors and the rest of us really need to be discussing is how to provide preventative care and treatment to all who need it, regardless of their ability to pay. In other words, we need to be working on creating a county medical/dental care system, complete with an actual publicly-funded and transparently administrated county hospital, not wasting time and energy haggling over poisoning the public water supply.

[sharingwisdom]

Fluorine should not be confused with fluoride, although in the early fluoridation literature the words were used interchangeably. Fluorine is an element. Fluoride denotes that fluorine has combined with other elements and formed a compound, e.g. hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6) sodium silicofluoride (NaSiF6) sodium fluoride (NaF) and calcium fluoride (CaF2).


Hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is one of the most commonly chosen chemical used to fluoridate public water supplies.


Some of the contaminants reported as present in fluorine bearing substances hydrofluosilicic acid and other silicofluorides used in fluoridation programs include arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, crystalline silica, fluorine, hydrogen fluoride, iron, iodine, lead, lead 210, mercury, phosphorous, polonium 210, radon 222, selenium, silica and silver. Some specific agents used or present in phosphate/hydrofluorosilicic acid processing include oil based de foamers, dioxins, polymers, petroleum products, naphthalene, chlorides, sulfides and synspar.

"Traditionally, fluorspar has been considered to be vital to the Nation's national security and economy. It is used directly or indirectly to manufacture such products as aluminum, gasoline. insulating foams, refrigerants, steel, and uranium fuel. Hydrofluoric acid (HF) was consumed in the manufacture of uranium tetrafluoride, which was used in the process of concentrating uranium isatope 235 for use as nuclear fuel and in fission explosives. It also was used in stainless steel pickling, petroleum alkylation, glass etching, treatment of oil and glass wells and as a feedstock in the manufacture of a group of inorganic fluorine chemicals that include chlorine trifluoride, lithium fluoride, sodium fluoride, sulfur hexafluoride, tungstun hexafluoride and others used in diaelectrics, metallurgy, wood preservatives, herbacides, mouthwashes, 'decay-preventing' dentrifices and water fluoridation."

A Congressional investigation also revealed the following:

* EPA confirmed that the two compounds used almost exclusively in the U.S. for fluoridation have never, ever been studied for their effect on health or behavior.

* NSF International, the private organization certifying fluoridation chemicals, confirmed that it is doing so in violation of its own standard requiring manufacturers to submit any available published and unpublished toxicological studies on both the fluoride compound and any contaminants contained in the product. NSF disclosed in the investigation that they have no such studies on file
https://www.thehealthvine.net/index....d=36&Itemid=58

Sorry, I saved the hard copy Sebastopol report from a couple of years ago. Your welcome to come over and look at my file or call public works. The Santa Rosa link is: https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/D...ort_Online.pdf

I would also disagree with your last paragraph. There's no difference between the fluoride in one compound versus another. Fluoride is the negative ion of the element fluorine. It's added to the water via a distillation-like process and contains nothing more than whatever is bonded to the fluoride ion in the gas. Sometimes its hydrogen and sometimes its silicon. The compound that was used to derive the gas is left in the tank, so to speak. The industrial byproduct toxic version you talk about doesn't come close to the water we drink. Natural fluoride, elementally speaking, is no different from the fluoride in the phosphorite rock that most U.S. systems use. This is basic chemistry and you do a disservice to your cause by not understanding it.

[sebastacat]

Thanks once again, SharingWisdom, for your incredible research effort which you put into
your most recent post.

Sebastacat has a confession to make: When I read the list of chemicals which you listed, it made me shiver.
And to think that our supes and that our Chief Public Health Officer wish to inject a poison into our water supply which contains several of the unpronounceable chemicals listed makes this Sonoma County native shake his head in disbelief and shame.

But, wait, I thought that a public health officer was supposed to protect ALL of the residents of a jurisdiction of which they have been given charge.

Giving her the benefit of the doubt, that she has been aware of the information contained in your post, or at least that she's aware of it now since you have posted it here for all to see, if she does eventually sign off on this proposal, wouldn't she, at the very least as a physician, be guilty of medicating several people against their will?

I think that this bears serious investigation.

Several anti-fluoridationists have complained to me privately that they are frustrated that each and every time that they attempt to present the latest scientific evidence and supporting studies to Dr. Silver-Chalfin, they feel that they are being rebuffed. But when she presents her science, she expects them to accept it as gospel -- even after the anti-fluoridationists discredit it with their science!

This sounds like the ultimate exercise in frustration.

I feel that this woman has a duty as a physician to the people of this county first and to the "supes" second.

And if she winds up ultimately breaching that duty, I feel that she should be held accountable.

[lilypads]

Fluorine is a gas. When the gas combines with other elements, it creates solid compounds (salts).

Reading "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma" (FGD) helped me understand that--in contradiction to what Lynn Silver-Chalfin told the SCWA TAC on June 3--different fluoride-containing compounds are not equally toxic. Least toxic are calcium fluoride and magnesium fluoride, most toxic are sodium fluoride and hydrofluosilicic acid and other fluorine/silicon compounds. In naturally fluoridated water, where the water is hard (i.e. contains a lot of calcium and magnesium) the damage to humans drinking it is much less (even if the fluoride content is greater) than it is where the water is soft.

In response to a question, Silver-Chalfin claimed that "all fluoride ions are the same," and that it doesn't matter what fluoride compound is used, because they all disassociate (ionize) in solution. According to FGD, because the calcium ion is ++, it tends to grab on and hold more of the fluoride ions, so that they do NOT all ionize in solution.

One of the worst effects of fluoride described in FGD was when babies were given fluoride tablets, in some cases the fluoride converted the hydrochloric acid normal in the stomach to highly corrosive hydroFLUORIC acid, which destroyed the membranes lining the babies' stomachs, causing hemorrhage and death.

Fluorine should not be confused with fluoride, ...

[lilypads]

Sebastacat, your frustration has been shared by many honest scientists for sixty-plus years. Chalfin is following to the letter the "playbook" laid out in a speech made in 1951 by Wisconsin dental health officer F.A. Bull, entitled "Promotion and Application of Water Fluoridation." (FGD, p.264-6) "Bull instructed his colleagues to describe mottled teeth to the public and to the profession as 'egg-shell white' and 'the most beautiful looking teeth that anyone ever had,' even though these teeth are known to turn brown and brittle in later years. . . . During the question and answer session following his talk, Bull again evaded the scientific issues. . . .Bull's keynote speech reveals the heart of early fluoridation efforts and the key emphasis on Madison-Avenue promotion, not on scientific evidence. . . .The promotional design evolved by Bull . . . was promptly taken up by the American Dental Association. . . .In February 1953, the ADA issued a brochure that is a masterpiece in the art of engineering consent." (The brochure was later published in the ADA magazine.)

Among the key elements of Bull's playbook are 1. Using "authorities" and endorsements, rather than scientific evidence to promote fluoridation, 2. Avoiding debate with fluoridation opponents, 3. Giving fluoridation opponents no time to speak at public meetings, 4. Downgrading and smearing fluoridation opponents, regardless of their scientific credentials. We have seen these techniqures used here in Sonoma County by our "public health officer" and her pro-fluoridation associates.

The ADA went even further than Dr. Bull, suggesting that fluoridation should be labeled "nutritional," "tooth building," and "a public health measure." "The procedure should be compared with the addition of such genuine tooth-building elements as calcium, as well as with 'fortifying milk with sunlight Vitamin D.'" (FGD, p 271).

"The ADA panphlet and especially Bull's statements . . .show the fluoridation movement in its true light. Neither the pamphlet nor Bull's talk presented any scientific data on fluoride and its effect on human health, which should have been of primary concern."

If anyone can dig up a copy of the brochure or the magazine article, I would love to see it. It's called "How to Obtain Fluoridation for Your Community Through A Citizens Committee" American Dental Association, Chicago Feb. 1953, revised 1963.

Incidentally, I believe I heard Silver-Chalfin say on June 3 that the Fluoridation Advisory Committee would NOT be discussing "health issues." Did anyone else hear that?

Several anti-fluoridationists have complained to me privately that they are frustrated that each and every time that they attempt to present the latest scientific evidence and supporting studies to Dr. Silver-Chalfin, they feel that they are being rebuffed. But when she presents her science, she expects them to accept it as gospel -- even after the anti-fluoridationists discredit it with their science!

This sounds like the ultimate exercise in frustration.

[sebastacat]

LilyPads.....

I wish to take this opportunity to sincerely thank you for the incredible amount of time, energy and research which you have been putting into this important and timely topic, which I consider a threat to the health of the citizens of this county. And that goes for everyone else who has been doing such diligent research in an attempt to supply the citizens and elected officials of this county with the latest science and the most recent, up-to-date information.

Thanks also for taking my concerns seriously and not dismissing me out of hand, or -- worse yet -- tarring and feathering me as a right-wing fear-mongerer for simply raising what I feel are honest, legitimate concerns which I as a concerned citizen have heretofore been using this forum to express.

Unfortunately, I see a striking similarity between those tactics and tactics which you referenced above.
Name-calling, mischaracterization and vilification are not acceptable means of communication between mature progressive adults.

While I am truly grateful for what you have uncovered in your last post, it is the words that you reported which were apparently uttered by our "public health officer," Dr. Lynn Silver-Chalfin, which now have Sebastacat alarmed: Health issues will not be discussed.

But, wait, I thought that the job of our public health officer was to look after the public's health, no?

If this is, in fact, true, that she did utter these words, I find that to be creepily Orwellian -- except that it's not occurring in 1984, it's occurring in 2013, almost 30 years after the original prediction!

Whether or not she actually said these words MUST be verified; and if she, in fact, did, she must be called on it, as that is a reflection that she clearly does not have the best interests of the majority of the citizens of this county in mind. And if she didn't say them, we must ask her now: Will the public's health be discussed and considered?

Once again, thanks to all of you who are as concerned as I am about this important issue and are taking time out of your busy lives to raise your concerns. And to those of you who have and are continuing to do research and address these concerns, all I can say is: You make me proud to be from Sonoma County!

[Glia]

When Silver repeatedly spews the canned line that "a fluorine ion in solution is a fluorine ion, and it does not matter where it comes from" she is telling only half the story, which is a lie by omission. The rest of the molecule that the fluorine ion was attached to is also in solution, and it very definitely matters what the other stuff is!

Once again, either Silver is incredibly incompetent or she is a bald-faced liar. Either way, why are we tolerating her being on our county's public payroll? It seems to me that it would be far better to not give her an opportunity to puff up her resume by poisoning us by getting rid of her. This is (allegedly) a democracy, not a dictatorship... for now, at least.

[Glia]

Lilypads and Sharingwisdom, thank you both for your thorough and well-presented information.

Part of Silver-Chalfin's schtick is to repeatedly describe Sonoma County as "behind the rest of California" and "not up to par" (or something to that effect) because we do not fluoridate our water. Her implication is obvious: that we are a bunch of country bumpkin dumb-asses because we have not fallen for the fluoridation PR.

I contend that rather than being "behind" we are, along with the people of Portland, AHEAD of the rest of California and indeed the U.S. as a whole. Yes, this is an agricultural county, but it is not populated with the bumpkins that Silver clearly expected. However, we do have enough agricultural experience to know a steaming pile of horse manure when we see it.

Sebastacat, your frustration has been shared by many honest scientists for sixty-plus years....

[dzerach]

Howard, of the many corrections that could be made, a few really should be made...One such would be your misrepresentation of the precautionary principle as concerns evidence-based dentistry and public policy. May I please share my appreciation of your interest in speaking precisely and not engaging in hyperbole? Especially in the context of how a dialectic, such as the one here concerning water fluoridation, isn't a mere intellectual exercise but portrays an issue that has real consequences for people.

Over time, HHS continues to lower the allowable maximum amount of fluoride in the drinking water as other sources of fluoride present in our environment continue to increase. Science at work. The CDC continues to call for more research, in part based on what is being discovered about sensitive populations.

So, the Precautionary Principle is actually this: Minimize risk in the setting where harm is possible, but not necessarily confirmed, and where the science is not settled.

Because I can't disprove something is bad for you or can't prove that it's OK, some would conclude that it's harmful. The so-called precautionary principle. Well that can be said about anything and everything. In that case, there's no reality, right/wrong, good/evil, etc. Sorry, but that's what it boils down to for me.

PDines took your concerns seriously, devoted half a day to laboriously refute with REAL science and hard core specifics in readable prose -- you absurdly toss off in a blur as nihilism.

I can't help but find your interest in this issue to be an interest in the unquestioned status quo. Not in the fullness of scientific investigation or principles. Either way, most assuredly, you represent the belief of many when you shared this concern:

"Lower socio-economic households benefit greatly from this since they have less access to medical attention. The taxpayers must pick up the costs of medical attention for the disadvantaged. That's what the supervisors are grappling with."

Please review my earlier posts about the county's Oral Health Task Force findings. They spent a lot of county money and time on an earlier, very recent project and everyone was excited about it for lots of good reasons. Sorry that all of a sudden everyone now thinks water fluoridation as public policy is medical attention. It's not. In the context of safety and effectiveness not conclusively proven, where is money better spent to actually solve the problem at hand, scientifically-speaking?

You're right, the taxpayers must pick up the cost. The county's pet project has ZERO terminus in that regard:

The authorities currently estimate fluoridation of SCWA drinking water supply to cost the county up to $8.5 million in capital upgrades. Plus: ongoing upkeep STARTING AT $973,000 a year. Recently, the board voted unanimously to spend $103,000 on an engineering and design report. Meanwhile, Gov. Brown is threatening to take up to $21.6 million away from Sonoma County by the 2015-2016 fiscal year, which Zane calls voodoo accounting. And so it goes.

Money well-spent to solve the problem or unquestioned status quo run amok.

And, by the way: yes, the elemental chart has changed.

[sharingwisdom]

Questions, Howard.

If teeth and bones are composed of the same minerals (calcium deposits, though bone is derived from mesodermal embryonic tissues whereas teeth are mesodermal and ectodermal origin with the enamel being the hardest material in the body...harder than bones), then wouldn't adding fluoride that damages the bones by demineralizing them (as you mentioned the hips in elderly), damage the teeth? Would it not demineralize the teeth? Is this not what fluoridosis is?

Did you know that the elderly are told to take Calcium supplements with fluoride to strengthen their bones? But you are realizing that it's caused the opposite. Perhaps deeper questioning of who authorizes studies is necessary.

Since 2006, the CDC and ADA have actually said that there should be no fluoride for babies (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...104488049.html). So how would one get the fluoride out of the water to make it safe for them and their mammas (in ingesting the water and then nursing their babies...there is a transfer). Do you think that if it's not good for babies (and those under kidney dialysis https://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/kidney01/) that it would be good for the rest of us?

Did you know that there are even studies on the season uptake of fluoride that have been studied? Children aged 12-72 months had higher fluoride intake (mg F/kg bw) from beverages in summer (P<.05), and fluoride intake from beverages increased with monthly temperature (P<.001). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562941
This is probably because these little ones are drinking more liquids in hotter seasons...seems logical. Thus it's raising the levels with what else they are ingesting as well.

If the studies you are reading are not from independent scientific sources, but corporate-funded universities or labs, would this not mean that there is or could be a large bias slant? Have we not seen this happen in other areas like GMO's?

And by attempting to make your point by saying you're using scientific principles, which you have not stated studies that use them, that you can't disprove everything said but not proving anything, and then eluding to something completely off topic to make things seem like conspiracy theories (wifi sensitive etc), is not staying with what the discussion is about. It's diversion and opinion, not facts.

Just looking at things logically and in who you give credence to.

This is how these conversations and constant hyperbole seem to spiral out of control in this forum. Tiring.

I stated three things I believe are facts and then I get overwhelmed with responses asking me for proof, links, etc:

1. Greater than 99% of the county farmers use well water (someone asked Barry why he assumed this),
2. That the fluoride ion in water systems that were derived from byproducts of industry or mined is the same fluoride ion that occurs in nature and
3. that the person who said they don't want any fluoride in their water is deluding themselves as it's present in all private and public water systems in the county. That's what I said. Facts, no?

I learned about chemistry a few decades ago and don't think much has changed regarding the elemental chart. I believe in the scientific principle. I don't believe that what is unknown is harmful by default. I can't disprove everything you or the wi-fi sensitive or the UN taking over planning crowd or the everything man-made is bad diviners say because I'm not an expert in much of anything (and neither is anyone on this forum nor any councilperson I know).

Because I can't disprove something is bad for you or can't prove that it's OK, some would conclude that it's harmful. The so-called precautionary principle. Well that can be said about anything and everything. In that case, there's no reality, right/wrong, good/evil, etc. Sorry, but that's what it boils down to for me.

BTW, I'm not so sure fluoridation of the water is a good thing because of its impact on older folk's bones. I have no doubt that it decreases the incidence of caries [cavities? - Barry] in kids and adults based on my non-expert reading of those smarter than I. Lower socio-economic households benefit greatly from this since they have less access to medical attention. The taxpayers must pick up the costs of medical attention for the disadvantaged. That's what the supervisors are grappling with. Costs v benefits not "being bought by the fluoride lobby" as some have stated.

[Glia]

Thanks for that catch, Lilypads! I edited my post to reflect Connett's comments during the discussion and what is on the referenced web page.

While there does seem to be some contention as to what exactly happens with fluorine ions in a reverse-osmosis filtration device, there is agreement that RO does not get all of the fluorine out.

Here's the page on Dr. Connett's site regarding water filters: https://www.fluoridealert.org/content/water_filters/

[rossmen]

howard the history of applied science is full of very bad mistakes. when people take the time to dispute your facts with referenced research and obvious errors and you call it hyperbole and tiring, you betray your own intelligence. while we might argue whether fluoridation is a very bad mistake or just a minor one, clearly educated laypeople discussing the current scientific understanding and history of fluoridation show that its day is done. as an experienced local government person your monkey see hear do no evil attitude simply explains why the bos is considering it.

This is how these conversations and constant hyperbole seem to spiral out of control in this forum. Tiring.

I stated three things I believe are facts and then I get overwhelmed with responses asking me for proof, links, etc:

1. Greater than 99% of the county farmers use well water (someone asked Barry why he assumed this),
2. That the fluoride ion in water systems that were derived from byproducts of industry or mined is the same fluoride ion that occurs in nature and
3. that the person who said they don't want any fluoride in their water is deluding themselves as it's present in all private and public water systems in the county. That's what I said. Facts, no?

...

[lilypads]

Interesting that you should bring up Orwell, Sebastacat. In my effort to condense Waldbott's summary of F.A. Bull's 1951 speech, I left out the following part: "In fact, a new terminology, requiring George Orwell's "double-think," was proposed for many other concepts related to fluoridation. The term 'artificial fluoridation' was to be avoided. 'There is something about the term,' [Bull] advised 'that means a phoney. . . .We call it 'controlled fluoridation.' The word 'experiment' should never be used. 'To take a city of 100,000 and say, 'We are going to experiment on you, and if you survive, we will learn something' - is kind of rough treatment on the public. In Wisconsin, we set up demonstrations. They weren't 'experiments." Bull even objected to the name 'sodium fluoride' since this compound, which was at that time being used for fluoridation, was also widely known as rat poison. The term 'fluoride' would be less objectionable, he advised. . . .

"A. Taylor had just presented experimental evidence that fluoride causes earlier tumor formation and shortens the lifespan of cancer-prone mice. . . . Bull commented on this important scientific finding: 'When this thing came out we never mentioned it in Wisconsin. All we did was to get some publicity on the fact [!] that there less cancer and less polio in high-fluoride areas. We got that information out to the public so that if the opposition did bring up this rumor they they would be on the defensive rather than have us on the defensive.' 'The best technique is the reverse technique, not to refute the thing but to show where the opposite is true.'

"This promotional approach of calling bad good, and sour sweet has been used repeatedly in the campaign for fluoridation. Again, in Orwell's 1984, this process is called 'Newspeak,' where what is true becomes 'false,' and the false becomes 'true.' Promotion of fluoridation was to be pushed vigorously, even if accounts about health hazards were were grossly distorted or ignored most of the time. The truth of the matter is that no studies were then available on the relationship of fluoride to the incidence of cancer or poliomyelitis." (FGD, p. 265)

But, wait, I thought that the job of our public health officer was to look after the public's health, no?

If this is, in fact, true, that she did utter these words, I find that to be creepily Orwellian -- except that it's not occurring in 1984, it's occurring in 2013, almost 30 years after the original prediction!

[dzerach]

"If anyone can dig up a copy of the brochure or the magazine article, I would love to see it. It's called "How to Obtain Fluoridation for Your Community Through A Citizens Committee" American Dental Association, Chicago Feb. 1953...."

How to "git 'er done!," in your community, which is exactly the approach sups are taking....For now, an excerpt from this same seminal pamphlet? Can't help but share! (Christopher Bryson quoted from it in his 2004 critical history & good read, The Fluoride Deception):

"At no time should the dentist be placed in the position of defending himself, his profession, or the fluoridation process....(Fluoridation) should not be submitted to the voters, who cannot possibly sift through and comprehend the scientific evidence." (1953, revised for publication in the early1960s, and on and on...)

During a cursory search for a pdf upload of the whole leaflet, I instead stumbled upon a free online copy of another historical work previously mentioned by lilypads. This one VERY lengthy, detailed -- and similarly intriguing.

just finished reading the excellent book "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma," By George Waldbott, MD, published in 1978

Someone purchased a tonic domain (.to) and uploaded a free copy of this historical work at: https://www.whale.to/b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdf. ... the tome will take a few minutes to download after the click. (Please see lilypads June 12th 03:32 PM post).

THE PLAYBOOK

Please reference a recent official document, "Sonoma County Fluoridation Assessment Draft Report"

https://www.sonoma-county.org/health...uoridation.pdf

Journey to page 26 in your pdf viewer, or page 22 in the document itself, a paragraph called, " Potential Support to Fluoridation in Sonoma County." Followed by the paragraph entitled, "Potential Concerns to Fluoridation in Sonoma County." "Possible concerns about fluoridation in Sonoma County may arise from three primary sources: agricultural, environmental, and water interests." And that's it. Here's a piece of the local version of the playbook. Note the tone, never a minor part of communication.

Possible Concerns About Fluoridation in Sonoma County:

Agricultural: "Although it has been demonstrated that fluoridated water does not affect the safety or taste of agricultural products, it is important to address the potential concerns of growers. Healdsburg has long maintained its successful agricultural endeavors with fluoridated water in place."

Environmental: "(These) concerns are generally expressed through various local community
grassroots environmental organizations. It is important to engage these organizations to understand their concerns and attempt to educate the community on the scientific basis of fluoridation. No significant negative environmental impact of water fluoridation has been established. Concerns may be framed as protecting freedom of choice, while fluoridation advocates argue that the public water supply is designed to protect public health (REALLY??) and it is more important to protect people’s health than to protect some people’s concern for their freedom to use unfluoridated water. " (Firstly, please notice how illogical this faux-syllogism is. Uh, no.)

Water Interests: "There are several organizations in Sonoma County that are involved with water-related issues....Local water retailers and political leaders express concern about how the cost of fluoridation will be addressed and what impact it will have on their ratepayers. Several individuals have expressed concerns over fluoridation efforts in the county, and further input from this sector is expected. The Department of Health Services has held a number of meetings to receive input from all sides of the debate and will continue to do so. It will be important to hear the opinions of all, to broadly engage and educate members of the community and to seek to address any concerns raised. Fluoridation has, unfortunately, not been the object of consensus in many communities, and the creation of public policy has generally required weighing the public benefit for many in relation to the concerns of some residents. "

As former city councilwoman Donna Westfall previously commented regarding The Next Step newsletter's alleged advocacy against fluoridation, "(Welllll...) this absurd practice of adding HFSA is based more on politics than science."

[sebastacat]

To LilyPads and dzerach:

I wish to reiterate everything that I said in my post made at 1:53 p.m., but I will add one word:

WOW!

Okay. Sorry. Sebastacat just couldn't limit himself to adding just ONE WORD.

I MUST respond to the part of your post, dzerach, about the document stating that "Healdsburg has long maintained its successful agricultural endeavors with fluoridated water in place."

But, wait, I thought that most of those gigantic vineyards and wineries were located OUTSIDE of the City of Healdsburg and are actually located in the County of Sonoma....and, adopting the assumptions of a couple of our posters for the sake of convenience....don't those vineyards and wineries -- some of which are located a great distance from the City of Healdsburg and are nowhere near the fluoridated municipal water supply -- have their own private water wells? And, if so, may we safely assume that the only fluoride in said well water would be NATURALLY OCCURRING fluoride?

The idiocy of this sentence in the report is almost incomprehensible.

Apparently, Dr. Silver-Chalfin must think that not only are we country bumpkins, but that we're full-fledged idiots!

Not so, Dr. Silver-Chalfin. Your misleading statements, including those which were published and distributed to numerous senior citizens, your inane comments made in task-force meetings and your robotic responses to Dr. Paul Connett's most basic questions lead me to seriously question your motives as well as your qualifications for the position for which you were originally hired.

Finally, to all posters: Please keep up your outstanding research and good work. You've more than proven that you're capable of "comprehending" scientific evidence. In Sebastacat's opinion, you are all doing Sonoma County proud!

[lilypads]

Howard, I have attached below the label from a truck carrying hydrofluosilicic acid from a Florida phosphate fertilizer plant (where it is scrubbed from the smokestacks--a toxic waste product) to a city in Texas, where it is added to the water supply as a "health promoting" product. Nothing has been done to this substance to purify it. By transporting it from one place to another, It is magically transformed from hazardous waste into a product that reduces tooth decay, "Safe, effective, and increasing," in the words of Lynn Silver-Chalfin on June 3. Fluoridation of the water supply solved many problems for industry. (1) Disposal of large quantities of hazardous waste--now it could be SOLD instead of incurring costly disposal fees. (2) When everyone is drinking fluoridated water, it's hard for them to sue companies for polluting the environment with fluorides--who can determine where the fluoride that harmed you came from? It's not from our aluminum plant, it's from your water.

I know it's hard to get your head around this. But the close cooperation of government and industry that resulted in water fluoridation has been thoroughly documented. The book ""Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma" is worth every penny of the $5 a used copy costs on Amazon.

Fluorine should not be confused with fluoride, although in the early fluoridation literature the words were used interchangeably. Fluorine is an element. Fluoride denotes that fluorine has combined with other elements and formed a compound, e.g. hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6) sodium silicofluoride (NaSiF6) sodium fluoride (NaF) and calcium fluoride (CaF2)....

[lilypads]

Great find! Great post!

How to "git 'er done!," in your community, which is exactly the approach sups are taking....

[lilypads]

Dzerach, I just tried to use the link you provided for "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma," and after a wait got the message "The file is damaged and cannot be repaired." This happened twice. Was anybody able to access this download?

How to "git 'er done!," in your community, which is exactly the approach sups are taking....f adding HFSA is based more on politics than science."