The Sonoma County Gazette: Community News Magazine
Sonoma County Gazette
| more

Photo Gallery

What Fluoridation Case is Being Made?


What Fluoridation Case is Being Made?

By Larry Hanson
The Press Democrat printed an article written in the December 2nd issue saying that Sonoma County is, “Making a Fluoridation Case,” for adding fluoride into the drinking water for Sonoma County residents. But has the county made a case or have they simply made weak or empty assertions? 
The first part of the case states there is an “urgency” because 51% of Sonoma County kids experience tooth decay. Really, an urgency? Hasn’t this condition been around for decades and the solution to tooth decay known?  It is indisputable that tooth decay results from sugary drinks and foods and from not flossing and brushing regularly.  When I was a teacher in elementary schools we had dental programs that provided education on taking care of one’s teeth which include what foods to not eat. This was effective in reducing incidences and levels of decay in children’s teeth. This is a solution that is not controversial and treats the problem directly without exposing everyone else to potential health problems and those that do not have tooth decay problems. This safe and viable alternative was not properly considered by the county. 
Safe for Infants?
Another part of the county’s case states that, “We think it’s very safe, extremely healthy measure...”  What is really “extreme” is the assertion that adding an FDA unapproved and untested drug is “extremely safe” when added to water the public will be drinking at unknown quantities. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that infants are susceptible to the effects of low dose fluoride. The county does not recommend that infants drink the water. Mothers, in addition, should not drink this water because it will be in mother’s milk. Rather, unbelievably, they say mothers and other care givers of babies need to get their water for baby consumption elsewhere. When this was explained to the Board of Supervisors at a meeting, the Supervisors apparently thought this was acceptable. How will they warn all mothers in Sonoma County so unintentional fluoride intake can be averted?  In addition, there are hundreds, possibly thousands of residents who have weaker immune systems that compromise their health where fluoride ingestion on a regular basis is not safe. And for the rest of us totally healthy individuals, independent studies have indicated that fluoride ingestion over time may adversely effect normal function compromising our immune systems. All of this is left out of the county’s case for fluoride and the PD’s coverage of this.
Wise use of tax dollars?
Regarding cost, the county’s assertion that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars is a cost effective method to deal with tooth decay is very weak. Thousands are spent now on a study and thousands will be spent to buy the fluorosilicic acid (fluoride additive) processed from industrial waste. This cost will all be borne by the tax payer, you. Why did the article not include these facts?
Tried and rejected?
Not mentioned in the county’s case is that the experiment for adding fluoride to drinking water has been done in many other places in the world and rejected in many places like much of Europe and recently in Ireland and Israel. Is it irrelevant that whole populations of people have undone their treatment of water because they deemed it unsafe or ineffective?  The county thinks so because they don’t mention it. 
What about the Healdsburg experiment?
Finally, there is an assertion that because Healdsburg has fluoridated its drinking water for decades that it is “essentially safe”.  What was not mentioned is that if this Healdsburg experiment was so effective, why is there no evidence and no studies to support the effectiveness of ingesting fluoride and the safely of the total health of the Healdsburg community. Are Healdsburg residents’ oral and other health better than other residents in the rest of Sonoma County?  You would think if this were true, they would be touting this fact. But this is unknown. Could Healdsburg residents be experiencing more than average health problems? Again, unknown.  
The county seems to be making blind assertions about fluoride effectiveness and safety when there are safer and known effective alternatives. You have to ask yourself, why would they do this?


This is a very interesting article on fluoridation.

The world has learned the truth that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health, so only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their drinking water, more in the U.S. than the rest of the world combined. Last year Israel banned fluoridation. 
 Data from the World Health Organization shows  that the tooth decay rate in Europe with 3% fluoridation is as good or better than any fluoridated country including the U.S., with over 70% fluoridation. That shows just how ineffective fluoride is for teeth.

To see why fluoride is dangerous, Google "Fluoride dangers" and read a few of the over 1,000,000 articles,many by M.D.'s, dentists and medical scientists.

In addition, Fluoridation is a WASTE of Tax Money.

All Civil Engineers and all water managers know that people drink only 1/2% of the water they use. The rest goes directly down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc.
So for each $1000  of fluoride added annually to drinking water, people drink $5 and $995 is wasted down the drain. Children would drink only $0.50 (fifty cents). 

That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.

 - James W. Reeves,  Ph.D.,  Retired Professor of Civil Engineering