Expanding Water Fluoridation in Sonoma County

[Svea]

Hi Everyone,

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

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

Svea

[intheflow88]

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

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

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

[dzerach]

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

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

The issue of sensitive populations is worth revisiting.

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

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

cdc.gov:

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

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

What are the adverse health effects of excessive fluoride exposure?

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

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

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

cdc.gov:

“Are children or adults exposed to too much fluoride?

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

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

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

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

How is HHS developing new recommendations?

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

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

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

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

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

The Environmental Protection Agency -

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

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

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

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

My rant:

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

LASTLY, Oregon:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[intheflow88]

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

Thank you!!!!

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

Also,

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

Locations are both in Santa Rosa.

[Barry]

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

You can hear the KPFA interview here.

[Glia]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

- Kirsten

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. ...

[Glia]

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

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

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

[tommy]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

- Kirsten

[sebastacat]

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

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

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

- Fluoride is NOT a nutrient.

- Your body does NOT need fluoride.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- 97 percent of Europe does NOT fluoridate their water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Big sugar promotes the use of fluoride.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mudwoman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DreadTori]

I met Paul Connett, PhD on Sunday at the planning meeting; he graciously allowed anyone to download his power point presentation, which I did, onto a thumb drive, last night at the Glaser Center talk. He was very clear that we ALL have to get involved and learn and remember as much of the facts as we can. There were quite a few of us who downloaded his presentation so among us we should be able to get it printed up and/or make it available online.

Hearing his comments about Dr. Silver-Chaflin's (SP?) behavior yesterday was quite illuminating, "talked like a robot" and "she has an agenda." This woman should lose her license to practice medicine. For those of you who weren't there, a complaint has been filed about her with the Sonoma County grand jury.

Awesome recap!

[DreadTori]

If you look deeply enough, Tommy, you'll find that those "documented oral health benefits" are not true. Get a copy of Paul Connet's book on fluoridation or go to the Fluoride Action Network website; you'll find 17 years of research from all over the world that debunks the oral health through water fluoridation argument. Many of us who attended Dr. Connet's talks on Sunday and last night were able to download his power point presentation. My hope is that we can get that posted here soon.

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

[sharingwisdom]

I so appreciate your time and energy to report this educational meeting presenting Dr. Connett for the community. I had planned on coming but wasn't able to. Many of his points were the same as I've shared for several years on this forum (and his presence sounds like it added a great depth to this topic). What I didn't read below was about the calcification of the pineal gland from fluoride...I've seen some horrendous pictures of this, but he sure covered alot despite this.

I wrote to several supervisors almost two months ago, and Susan Gorin was kind enough to acknowledge that she received my information. Efren has not. No surprise.

And just like I've heard on this forum, there are many who buy into what the ADA/their dentists say. In having worked in this field for years, I can tell you that it's no different than any other backroom disinformation of the Big Pharm industry.

Again, much gratitude!

Last night, I attended an outstanding presentation by Dr. Paul Connett

[sebastacat]

Thanks, SharingWisdom, for your kind words.
I had to step out for a moment to take a refreshment break (yes, the sponsors were kind enough to provide refreshments!) and I may have missed this important point about what happens to the pineal gland from overfluoridation. When I came back into the room, I seem to remember some rather scary pictures up on the screen, but then the subject changed. At any rate, thanks for filling in this important blank.

Keep on posting. Your posts on this issue have certainly inspired me to get involved! Onward!

[intheflow88]

03-25-2013 Paul Connett - YouTube Santa Rosa Fluoride Town Hall meeting‏

[DreadTori]

Thank you so much for posting this link! I passed it on to the Sonoma County Stop Fluoridation group on yahoo groups and posted on my Facebook page. I suggest everyone pass this on to as many people as possible.

03-25-2013 Paul Connett - YouTube Santa Rosa Fluoride Town Hall meeting‏

[sebastacat]

Thanks so much for posting Dr. Connett's outstanding presentation

I was just reminded by a friend whom I told about the "supes" plans for forced fluoridation of something ominously funny from an old movie, Dr. Strangelove, starring Peter Sellers. In one scene, his co-star, Sterling Hayden, is telling him about plans for using fluoridation to rob bodily fluids, among other things. It appears as though the director, the late, great Stanley Kubrick, was trying to warn us of the dangers of fluor back in '64!
Go to Youtube and Google in "Dr. Strangelove fluoridation, and several clips of this famous scene will pop up for your viewing pleasure.

Again, I ask: What are our government's true motives? It's time we hear from them. And what is this business about not wanting to review any of the "opposition's" materials? Excuse me, but I thought that that was what they were getting paid for, NOT to exact draconian policy and junk science on the masses.

[Barry]

Here's a couple of clips:

[podfish]

I was just reminded by a friend whom I told about the "supes" plans for forced fluoridation of something ominously funny from an old movie, Dr. Strangelove, starring Peter Sellers. In one scene, his co-star, Sterling Hayden, is telling him about plans for using fluoridation to rob bodily fluids, among other things. It appears as though the director, the late, great Stanley Kubrick, was trying to warn us of the dangers of fluor back in '64!...

Again, I ask: What are our government's true motives? It's time we hear from them

Somehow I don't think Sterling Hayden was the hero in that one...

[DreadTori]

You know that we're never going to hear the truth about why fluoridation of our water is so important to the supes or to our county health officer, Dr. Silver-Chaflin. I've said before that I believe that money is involved somewhere even though I have no proof. It's some of that "truthiness" Barry and I discussed a few weeks ago.

I totally agree with you, Sebastacat, on the issue of some of them not wanting to see "the opposition's" information. ( I hate the way they call us the "opposition, which makes us sound contrary and whiney) They are making decisions that affect over 600,000 people as well as all our watersheds, all the living beings in that watershed, and ultimately, the Earth itself. It just makes me wonder often what is wrong with these people who think that we can continue to poison our only home and not be adversely affected?! There is no Planet B that we can escape to! It doesn't matter how rich you are or how much political or financial power one might have; this is the ONLY HOME WE HAVE. And once it's gone, that's it; it's gone forever.

I was taught to always think seven generations ahead and plan for those descendants' health and safety as well as that of the earth itself. I cannot understand the mind-set that these people have that they have the right to do whatever they want regardless of how it affects others. This is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility, in my opinion. Like Paul said on Sunday and Monday, "Why do we think we can improve on Nature when it has worked perfectly for millions of years?!"

Thanks so much for posting Dr. Connett's outstanding presentation

I was just reminded by a friend whom I told about the "supes" plans for forced fluoridation of something ominously funny from an old movie, Dr. Strangelove, starring Peter Sellers. In one scene, his co-star, Sterling Hayden, is telling him about plans for using fluoridation to rob bodily fluids, among other things. It appears as though the director, the late, great Stanley Kubrick, was trying to warn us of the dangers of fluor back in '64!
Go to Youtube and Google in "Dr. Strangelove fluoridation, and several clips of this famous scene will pop up for your viewing pleasure.

Again, I ask: What are our government's true motives? It's time we hear from them. And what is this business about not wanting to review any of the "opposition's" materials? Excuse me, but I thought that that was what they were getting paid for, NOT to exact draconian policy and junk science on the masses.

[Claire]

I have not had time to read most of this thread so this has probably already been posted somewhere but just in case...
Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children's IQ

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

In this Huff Post article there is a link to the 32-page report.

[Glia]

Clearly they are not working for us. They are serving their egos, or a rescue fantasy, or Doug Bosco, or some other mystery master. So if they are not working for us, then why are we paying them?

... Again, I ask: What are our government's true motives? It's time we hear from them. And what is this business about not wanting to review any of the "opposition's" materials? Excuse me, but I thought that that was what they were getting paid for, NOT to exact draconian policy and junk science on the masses.

[intheflow88]

Clearly they are not working for us. They are serving their egos, or a rescue fantasy, or Doug Bosco, or some other mystery master. So if they are not working for us, then why are we paying them?

Paul Connett said in that video that speaking this scientific info to Lynn Silver-Chafin was like speaking to a robot, and that her job depended on getting fluoride in Sonoma County. It seems that someone has set her up to do this job.

He also said the remedy is to get such an upswell of public opinion against fluoridation that the idea is ridden out of town on a rail. Be sure to make a point of speaking about it where ever you go to people who are not aware yet. This is key. We need BIG public opinion against this.

You can listen to the first part of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=LqSZJdpHfYY where Paul makes 12 compelling reasons against fluoridation, memorize a few and share with many people.

The one that even avid pro fluoride people can agree on is this is a civil rights issue. No one should be forced to drink medication without their consent.

The second biggest one is this is not pharmaceutical grade fluoride. This is hexafluorosilicic acid which comes trucked labeled as hazardous waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry and is sold to water treatment plants as fluoride. It includes arsenic, radiation and other seriously toxic elements. And it is not acceptable to raise cancer and other illness rates to prevent tooth decay.

These 2 reasons are the ones that hundreds of town councils around the world have given as to why they refused or discontinued water fluoridation. They also said they didn't want to be in the role of practicing medicine. Keep it simple.

[Glia]

Dr. Connett's presentation at the Glaser Center on 25 March 2013 covered, among many other things, the weakness of the evidence of "oral health benefits" and the lie-by-statistics methods used by the water fluoridation promoters.

Here's a link to the video on YouTube for that section of his presentation (1:12:12 thru 1:19:55):
https://youtu.be/LqSZJdpHfYY?t=1h12m12s

If you look deeply enough, Tommy, you'll find that those "documented oral health benefits" are not true. ...

[Barry]

Here's a great post by Donna Westfall that appeared as a comment on the PD's article on the fuss over The Next Step newsletter advocacy against fluoridation:

As a former city councilwoman, I was instrumental in investigating my constituents complaints about the harmfulness of water fluoridation. As a result I helped in getting an initiative to the ballot and we successfully voted in a moratorium on Nov 6, '12 to turn off the toxic industrial waste fluoride (HYDROFLUSOLICIC ACID OR HFSA) because our supplier UNIVAR, (formerly Basic Chemical Solutions) would not provide three things:

1.) Toxicological report.
2.) Listing of contaminants.
3.) Proof that their product was safe for all water consumers, infants to seniors.

This absurd practice of adding HFSA is based more on politics than science. Why should a water department be given the power to medicate anyone when they don't take a health history, they don't pass out a listing of side effects or monitor the dose. This is tantamount to gross negligence. Water consumers started to send in their payment UNDER PROTEST so that when the class action lawsuits begin they would be covered.

After adding water fluoridation for 44 years, our town had 70% cavities in our childrens' teeth,(this figure was quoted from Dr. Susan Wellman, dentist who is pro-fluoride) high obesity rates and low test scores. Hardly an endorsement for continuing this unethical practice. We were also ranked 34th in the nation for cancer while Brookings, Oregon..... just 25 minutes north of us.... was ranked 765th in the nation for cancer for the same time period and Bookings never fluoridated their water.

We have high rates of not only cancer, but thyroid, diabetes and kidney disease all with links to HFSA. One constituent ended up in ER with seizures after showering for 10 minutes. Her doctor has subsequently written a letter describing her allergic reaction to water fluoridation. She was on a medication which contained fluoride and that in combination with absorbing this poison transdermally by showering put her in the Emergency Room.

New Hampshire Governor Lynch signed into law on Aug 4, 2012 infant warnings concerning mixing fluoridated water with formula because of the high prevalence of fluorosis. Fluorosis is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. Our Environmental Protection Agency announced in early 2011 that 41% of our nations teenagers had fluorosis and recommended cutting the parts per million down to.7. Our city council reduced the ppm from 1.2 to.7. That was a step in the right direction but not nearly enough because our EPA is doing nothing to really test or protect the public from this toxic industrial waste product. The only safe level when considering the addition of HFSA to drinking/bathing water is ZERO.

The State of Kansas, has successfully entered House Bill 2372 on January 18, 2013 listing the harm of water fluoridation. If passed, Kansas will become the first fluoride-free state in the United States.

If you happen to call the NSF (which is not a government agency) and ask them questions about the testing they do on HFSA, they will tell you that they won't provide that information because of non-disclosure agreements. If you call the manufacturer, distributor or supplier, they will not provide information about the 3 requested docs listed in my opening paragraph above as I already did that back in 2011. I sent out over 40 letters and got zero responses.

I predict that water fluoridation will become one of the biggest frauds and scams ever perpetrated against the public in the 20th and 21st century. That phrase often quoted by the CDC as being one of the best things since sliced bread was made up by a Public Relations guy. It's time to stop quoting that drivel. Water fluoridation will be compared to Tobacco science, DDT science, Asbestos science, Thalidomide science, etc.

It is my opinion based on the research I've done which has been extensive these last 5 years, that it's all about the money. Some brilliant schemers came up with this idea to get rid of toxic industrial waste by saying it was good for children's teeth. That's a bunch of baloney. It's good for the bank accounts of the producers of HFSA because if they had to get rid of their toxic industrial waste legally, it would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. Instead they dupe the politicians with fraudulent science and endorsements which is not science and sell them a product in which humans are utilized to filter this poison through their bodies while 99% goes down the drain. The dumb politicians buy it hook, line and sinker and shut their brains down. They become incapable of independent thought as I witnessed first hand with my fellow council members and other councils I've visited. But the HFSA manufacturers, suppliers and distributors are laughing all the way to the bank because they've got these municipalities paying them for poison. Plus, I checked out our retirement accounts and lo and behold, the MOSAIC company is one of the funds city employees can invest their retirement money in. Again, as I said, brilliant scheme from start to finish. I just hope to see the day that some of them end up in prison.

But here's the part they don't tell you. In 2011, our city finished a $43.8 million upgrade/expansion on our waste water treatment plant with state-of-the-art technology that utilizes MBR or Membrane Bio-Reactor technology. When I asked our Public Works Director if this gets the fluoride out of the water, he replied, "NO." So this poison is going into our Pacific Ocean.

Poison the public. Poison the oceans. Poison the food and beverages. Because of that, we are all already over-fluoridated.

Please do your homework.

[sharingwisdom]

Just excellent! Exactly what I've said for years...Big Industry and money in the pockets. I'm grateful that more and more people are waking up to the pseudo-science that has been propagated on us in many areas and fluoride is just one component.

...
I predict that water fluoridation will become one of the biggest frauds and scams ever perpetrated against the public in the 20th and 21st century. That phrase often quoted by the CDC as being one of the best things since sliced bread was made up by a Public Relations guy. It's time to stop quoting that drivel. Water fluoridation will be compared to Tobacco science, DDT science, Asbestos science, Thalidomide science, etc.

It is my opinion based on the research I've done which has been extensive these last 5 years, that it's all about the money. Some brilliant schemers came up with this idea to get rid of toxic industrial waste by saying it was good for children's teeth. That's a bunch of baloney. It's good for the bank accounts of the producers of HFSA because if they had to get rid of their toxic industrial waste legally, it would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. Instead they dupe the politicians with fraudulent science and endorsements which is not science and sell them a product in which humans are utilized to filter this poison through their bodies while 99% goes down the drain. The dumb politicians buy it hook, line and sinker and shut their brains down. They become incapable of independent thought as I witnessed first hand with my fellow council members and other councils I've visited. But the HFSA manufacturers, suppliers and distributors are laughing all the way to the bank because they've got these municipalities paying them for poison. ...

[Barry]

I don't think I've seen this posted yet...

Here's the website and the full film for Fluoridegate! https://www.fluoridegate.org/

[DreadTori]

Thanks for posting this, Barry!

For those of you who have not seen this film, please don't be turned off by the first few minutes of somber music; to me, it was kind of cheesy. The film is filled with facts about how fluoride got pushed on us, health info on the dangers of fluoride, and great commentary by so many scientists, some of whom worked at the EPA. It is well worth watching. I guarantee that you'll learn a lot.!

[Mudwoman]

I so appreciate your time and energy to report this educational meeting presenting Dr. Connett for the community. I had planned on coming but wasn't able to. Many of his points were the same as I've shared for several years on this forum (and his presence sounds like it added a great depth to this topic). What I didn't read below was about the calcification of the pineal gland from fluoride...I've seen some horrendous pictures of this, but he sure covered alot despite this.

I wrote to several supervisors almost two months ago, and Susan Gorin was kind enough to acknowledge that she received my information. Efren has not. No surprise.

And just like I've heard on this forum, there are many who buy into what the ADA/their dentists say. In having worked in this field for years, I can tell you that it's no different than any other backroom disinformation of the Big Pharm industry.

Again, much gratitude!

Thanks for writing our supervisors sharingwisdom.

Not that I'm any great fan of Efren, but when I emailed ALL our supervisors on this issue OVER a year ago (mid-March 2012), Efren was the only supervisor who replied to me personally.

I also received an acknowledgement from Michelle Whitman, District Director to Supervisor Shirlee Zane.

The rest of the supervisors and their staff didn't have the courtesy to respond....even with a generic reply (ie. "Thanks for your email.") Tsk, tsk.

Obviously, we need to direct 'polite' intensity their way on this issue. Make them feel the heat of our disapproval.

[dzerach]

Just re-posting the names of two reports as handy reference. They are both on the same page at the county's website:

https://www.sonoma-county.org/health...ions/index.asp

Scroll down to section: "Assessments and Planning Reports."

I. The Final Report of the Sonoma County Task Force on Oral Health (pdf) posted February 28, 2012 is the 4th report listed. This project predates the county's hiring of Dr. Silver-Chalfin. The work was performed during six months of 2011.

II. Sonoma County Fluoridation Assessment Draft Report (pdf) posted February 26, 2013 and prepared by Dr Silver Chalfin is the 8th report listed.

---

Sonoma County Fluoridation Assessment Draft Report (pdf) posted February 26, 2013 and prepared by Dr Silver Chalfin --

She has personally chosen to entitle this official record: "Life is Better with Teeth." (You don't say? No kidding?) And so, the pathos begins, with more therein. Anyone arguing for fluoridation is going to have to resort to cheesy rhetoric from which a student of the discipline can make swiss cheese. A few of my personal favorites from her Executive Summary:

"Creating local policy in favor of fluoridation is complex..."

and

"... developments in California, beginning with AB 733 (the Fluoridation Act of 1996), have helped to move fluoridation forward, particularly in the metropolitan areas of southern California. In the last five years, the percentage of Californians who receive fluoridated water has risen from 27 to 58 percent. (AN INTRIGUING SLIPPERY SEGUE ENSUES -- she's a master:)

Although the Fluoridation Act of 1996 applies to retail water systems with over 10,000 connections, requiring them to fluoridate if funding is available, recent approaches to fluoridation have begun with an investigation of regional water delivery systems, which often involve a wholesale system.

By the way, you won't find any pathos-type rhetoric in the oral health task force's earlier 2011 project -- transparent, honest, and savvy, an example of both passion and sobriety.