Supervisor Don Saylor introduced a resolution on Tuesday that called for the Yolo County Board of Supervisors to support water fluoridation in Davis and Woodland. The resolution would pass by a 4-1 vote with only Supervisor Duane Chamberlain dissenting.
Supervisor Saylor told his colleagues, that a number of bodies within Yolo County, along with the Centers for Disease Control, the American Dental Association, the California Dental Association and numerous scientists and public health specialists, support fluoridation in the water.
Currently the cities of Davis and Woodland are deciding with respect to their joint surface water project whether to add fluoride to the water supply.
“A timely resolution from the Board of Supervisors that supports the actions of our health council would be appropriate as a part of the deliberative process in those two communities,” Supervisor Saylor said in introducing the resolution.
The resolution notes that “water fluoridation ranks as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century according to the Surgeon General,” “community water fluoridation has the endorsement of every major health organization in the United States and many other countries, as well as every Surgeon General for the past 50 years” and “in 2011 the Department of Health and Human Services reaffirmed the importance of community water fluoridation and recommended that fluoridation levels be at 0.7 milligrams per liter.”
It also noted, “More than half (68%) of the U.S. population lives in communities served by fluoridated water supplies” and argued “every person in a community can benefit from water fluoridation.”
“Low-income citizens with little access to dental care are at increased risk of dental decay,” “treatment for advanced dental disease can be thousands of dollars, potentially at tax payer expense” and “fluoridation is one of the most cost effective public health prevention strategies available today.”
The resolution notes, “Dental disease is the most prevalent disease for children in the United States,” “untreated dental decay can result in debilitating pain and infection, as well as missed days of school and work” and “every dollar spent on fluoridation saves at least thirty eight dollars in dental treatment costs.”
“In Yolo County the rate of untreated dental decay in Yolo County children ranges from 22 to 35 percent,” the resolution states. “The City of West Sacramento fluoridated their water supply in 2009 and since then the rates of dental disease among low income preschoolers and kindergarteners have decreased by 10% since fluoridation began in 2009.”
It argues, “All communities have the responsibility to offer fluoridated water in order to benefit their entire community, regardless of age, ethnicity or socioeconomic status.”
Dr. Carol Peresello Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Fluoridation on the Health Council told the board, “We do have this opportunity to improve the dental health of our citizens with the surface water project.”
“Fluoridated water is one of the single most important things that a community can do to protect all of its citizens – young and old – from tooth decay and tooth problems in their lifetimes,” she said.
Dr. Michael Wilkes, who chairs the Yolo County Health Council and is a professor of Medicine and Public Health at the UC Davis School of Medicine, told the board, “the issue of fluoride is really sort of a silly debate.”
“This issue of fluoride is really a no-brainer, it is something for which in my scholarly opinion, the data is so clear and so convincing,” he said, “the two elements in terms of its effectiveness at preventing tooth decay and its safety – that it really is the reason that all of the organizations… support it. They don’t just mildly support it, they majorly support it as a major health innovation.”
He noted that the Center For Disease Control calls it one of the major health innovations of the last 100 years – fluoride made number seven on the list.
He said that he sees exclusively poor patients, mostly adolescents in his practice. “I’m just bowled over when I see people from this county who have huge numbers of caries, or what you would call cavities, in their teeth that are completely preventable.”
He noted that these organizations are not lobbies. The ADA, for example, has something to lose by supporting this, “it’s a business deal-breaker to them. They’re not doing this for their own self-interest, they’re doing this because it’s in the public’s good.”
He argued that on the other side of the argument are a group of passionate people that he believes have misinterpreted scientific studies “to create lots of hoopla and fear.”
He noted the nearly 200 million people who use fluoridated water. “Surely if it caused the bad things that have been alluded to by those who oppose fluoride, we would have seen it.”
Dr. Wilkes addressed the issue of fluoride for infants. He said, “a developing child’s tooth is incredibly susceptible to the benefits of fluoride, not the harms of fluoride.”
“The benefits are greater for infants than for adults,” he said
Rick Baker, who spent 37 years as a pediatrician and currently serves on the First 5 Yolo Commission, told the board that fluoridation would improve the dental health of all of our children, “particularly the underserved.”
He called this “a social justice issue,” arguing “we can provide for those who have difficulty being provided for.”
He argued that there was little he could do on this issue as a doctor other than prescribe fluoride. He said that at least one health plan he is aware of covers fluoride, but “the parents had to come in and get it – that was always inconvenient. They had to remember to give it on a daily basis.”
He argued the community fluoridation allows them to do this in a pro-active way, so that they can save money.
“For every dollar we spent on fluoridation, we save $38 on dental treatment,” he argued.
Supervisor Mike McGowan said that West Sacramento took the lead on this issue, “That was a big step for us, I’m very proud of the fact that we were able to get that done.” He urged Woodland and Davis to move forward on this: “regardless of the controversies, the public health benefit far far far outweighs the potential concerns – especially if you have concerns about those less fortunate.”
Supervisor Matt Rexroad, “For the city of Woodland, I’m confident that as the result of the fluoridation of water my community will be a better place several years from now.”
“I’m willing to vote for this today, but I think that in the future when we have medical issues come forward we should have a full staff report because these days there is a lot of information on the internet that is valid or invalid,” he said, adding that their health professionals who unanimously approved this have a handle on the research.
The dissenting vote came from Supervisor Duane Chamberlain who argued about why “you would want to fluoridate all this water” when only a tiny percentage of the water is consumed.
“Just fluoridate what you drink,” he said. “I’m going to vote no, because I don’t think we should be forcing this on everybody.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So, the Board of Supervisors may know what is best for all residents of Davis and Woodland. I say it is time to let all the people of Davis and Woodland to exercise their right to vote.
If our water supply is fluoridated out of the tap, then all water especially used in food and drink preparation whether cooked or not, and for all personal uses, not just tooth brushing and daily tooth care, will have fluoride in it. Is that what I wish for…I don’t know, but I sure would like to vote on it.
The benefits vastly outweigh the risks, I think.
Mike Harrington. If you are reading this, I will contact you later to discuss the opportunity to bring another lawsuit against the city for polluting the new expensive surface water with unneeded and harmful chemicals.
I have lost much respect for the medical profession that seems stuck in some strange nostalgic mindset related to fluoride. We are not a third-world country. We have fluoride in every toothpaste and mouthwash. If we have this many residence too lazy or two stupid to brush their teeth, then we should either work harder to educate them, or allow their teeth to rot into their head so natural selection helps ensure their children do not follow the same patterns of stupidity. If we have so many poor people that cannot afford toothpaste (I doubt there are many with the public assistance benefits we provide), then use the high cost of the water fluoride delivery system to supply them toothpaste.
If I had known that we would be adding fluoride to the water, I would have voted no on the surface water project.
I applaud Duane Chamberlain for his common sense, too bad the other tools on the board voted to perpetuate this fraud on Americans.
Read your tube of toothpaste people, a PEA SIZE AMOUNT OF TOOTHPASTE IS CONSIDERED TOXIC IF YOU SWALLOW IT. A cup of flouridated water has more than that.
As Mr Chamberlain points out, less than 1% of this water is drank. You get all of the flouride you need when you brush your teeth.
Mr Saylor should be ashamed of himself.
It’s as though the sky has fallen.
These few people don’t want fluoridated water, but happily brush their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste and thus acknowledge fluoride as beneficial in maintaining dental health.
Ryan,
Yeah, I take aspirin and vitamins and use toilet paper too, but I don’t want those things put in my drinking water. Please call back when your arguments make sense.
No one is suggesting that aspirin, vitamins and toilet paper be added to our drinking water.
@justoutsidetown (a.k.a Frankly?):
Let’s please try to elevate the level of this debate. Using pseudonyms and shooting from the hip is not going to help anyone clear away the mental cobwebs.
See:
http://www.oralanswers.com/2011/04/is-there-more-fluoride-in-a-pea-sized-amount-of-toothpaste-or-a-liter-of-water
As I have said many times before-“The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen!”
The average Davisite uses 160 gallons of water per capita per day for all of their needs. But most people only drink a liter or two of water per day and very often that is bottled water or other drinks. But for purposes of illustration, let’s say the average Davis resident actually consumes 2 liters per day.
Well, this represents only about 1/3 of 1% of the water we use each day – yet fluoridation proponents propose to fluoridate 100% of all of water delivered to Davis.
160 gal per capita per day times 68,500 people in Davis equals 11.508 million gallons per day.
Multiply that times 8.34 lbs per gallon times 365 days a year times the proposed fluoride dosage of 0.7 ppm and that equals 24,522 lbs of fluoride we would inject into our water supply each year. That is more than 12 tons of what is otherwise considered to be a hazardous waste were it have to be disposed of by means other than putting it into our water.
But if we each actually only consume 2 liters per day of that delivered water, that means that we are actually ingesting only about 80 lbs of that 24,522 lbs (12 tons) of fluoride we actually put into the water.
Where does all the rest go? Well, a lot of it goes on our lawns and parks where our kids play and the rest of it goes through our sewer system and into our beloved wetlands…you know the ones we are trying to save by paying a $100,000,000 for the surface water plant.
Even if you acknowledge that drinking fluoride is effective in preventing cavities, which I adamantly do not believe, am I the only one who thinks this is a ridiculous way to deliver a medication to our community, where 99.66% of it is wasted and simply goes out into the environment. I don’t think you could design a less effective way of delivering medication to the community if you tried.
Fortunately, I am not the only one who feels this way as you will certainly hear from the community as we get into this debate. Nor do the 97% of Europeans and all of Japan who do not drink fluoridated but have cavity rates as low or lower than in the US.
“I have lost much respect for the medical profession that seems stuck in some strange nostalgic mindset related to fluoride.”
based on what? because you read a few internet sites on the subject and cherry-picked some findings? you think you have the expertise to dispute researchers and people who have spent decades working in the field?
“Please call back when your arguments make sense”
pot meet kettle
“As I have said many times before-“The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen!””
Explain how that applies to this case? we’re not dealing with the federal government. in fact, in this case, the BOS has no authority, they are making a recommendation. so again, explain how your example applies?
The ONLY active ingredient in my tube of toothpaste is “Sodium fluoride 0.243%”
the Warnings say: ‘If more than that used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away”
Why would I need additional fluoride in my water?
I supported Measure I but I am opposed to fluoridating our water supply. The money it would cost to do this would be better spent giving fluoride drops to those who would benefit from/need it.
Without expressing an opinion on this topic one way or the other, since I’ve not read recent literature on the issue, I will point out that if fluoridation goes forward, there is a way to remove it from your drinking water.
Because the water in our house is softened (yes, that’s another issue), and softened water can contain high levels of sodium chloride, we have used a reverse osmosis system for many years to remove anions, cations, and organics from our drinking water. The water it produces is very high quality, and after the initial cost of the system, costs very little to maintain. A lot of commercial bottled water is produced by this method.
I realize that this is not a solution for very low income people who do not want to drink fluoridated water, but it certainly gives another choice for people like us who do not want to buy bottled water because of the actual and extended costs. My bottled water comes from my RO system into a bicycle water bottle. It makes excellent coffee, too.
[i]@justoutsidetown (a.k.a Frankly?):[/i]
Nope. But I agree with justoutside town in this case.
2cowherd
“The ONLY active ingredient in my tube of toothpaste is “Sodium fluoride 0.243%”
the Warnings say: ‘If more than that used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away”
Quantity matters. In my toothpaste, fluoride is also the active ingredient, and there is a warning against swallowing. It however contains
Fluoride at 5000 ppm, not the 0.7 ppm proposed for the water supply. These amounts are simply not comparable. If anything, your concern would favor not keeping fluoride toothpaste in your house, but rather using fluoridated water especially if you have children at home who might be tempted to swallow when brushing.
Alan Pryor,
Since you do not believe that ingested fluoride is effective in cavity prevention, then I trust that you also believe that the European countries that have chosen the strategy of fluoridating their salt instead of their water are also in error ? Or am I misreading your position ?
the epa has strict guidelines on the quantity in the water supply. i see this as a non-issue.
i respect people like alan pryor’s intellect, but at the same time, i think he something thinks he knows more than experts who are actually doing the research. i’d like to see a public health official or pediatrician who is opposed to fluoridation. i’d also suggest, agreed with dr. wilke, that you’re har-pressed to find a conspiracy here – what do the public health people have to gain from fluoridation?
Davis Progressive: Here is a pediatrician who opposes fluoridation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iu9HzaVbWQ And here is a Portland, Oregon dentist’s response to false and misleading statements made about that pediatrician’s reasons for opposing fluoridation.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30umO7s4Zj0
[quote]Dentist Caree Alexander , a former Navy practitioner, then a private practice dentist for 20 years, says fluoridation is “totally ineffective and actually damaging as well.”(5)
Dr. Alexander says, “When I graduated from University, we weren’t given any information about where [fluoride] came from. We all assumed it was [pharmaceutical-grade] calcium fluoride.”
Prominent NYC dentist and Huffington Post Contributor, Dr. Thomas Connelly , writes, “I do not see the good in fluoridating our drinking water … To me, the ‘bad’ it can (potentially) do outweighs the good.”(6)
Dr. Andrew Harms , former President, Australian Dental Association, who once supported fluoridation, says, “I deeply regret this … when I did read the science about 10 years ago, I started to get serious concerns.”
Dr. Harms says, “To my amazement, when I tried to raise the issue with the [Australian] Dental Association, whom I thought were interested in the science and … integrity, there was no interest. In fact there was a lot of pressure against me to say anything at all. There was a great concern about upsetting our principle sponsors, the toothpaste manufacturers, who heavily compromise our University,” says Harms in a video documentary, Firewater. (7)
Dentist Hardy Limeback , Ph.D., University of Toronto Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, apologized for promoting fluoridation because toxicology research shows the purported benefits no longer outweigh the risks.(8)
Dentist Bill Osmunson , Fluoride Action Network spokesperson, promoted fluoridation for 25 years until his patients persuaded him to read the science, “It [was] like a knee in the gut,” he says. “Science has turned against fluoridation and we must stop adding fluoride to water.”(9)
Dentist David Kennedy , International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT), past president and Fluoride Information Officer, says, “Water fluoridation delivers a drug to infants at a level which would be gross malpractice if prescribed by a physician or dentist.” (10) IAOMT is a network of dental, medical and research professionals which supports the effort to inform consumers about health risks from water fluoridation.
Over 3,790 professionals, including 324 dentists, signed a statement opposing water fluoridation. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals-statement.aspx
Attorney Paul Beeber , NYSCOF President, says, “The National Research Council reported that fluoride, even at levels used for fluoridation, can damage bones and teeth, disrupt thyroid function, be harmful to kidney patients and that studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ and cancer are plausible.”
Dentist Jennifer Luke , Ph.D., says, “My [published] work showed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland and lowers melatonin production in animals. I find it extraordinary that no government promoting fluoridation has chosen to pursue these worrying findings.”(11)
Dentist and Doctor of Medical Science, Elise Bassin , published unrefuted scientific evidence showing that fluoride can increase the risk of osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer) in boys and young men.(12)
About 250 communities have stopped fluoridation in recent years.(13)
[/quote]
A 10% reduction? If this stopped a fatal disease dead in its tracks, there may be justification for placing fluoride in all our water when only a fraction of that water is ingested. The “It’s for the children” Express has left the station. Good luck stopping it in this world where we believe “experts”, “scientists” and “organizations” whose name are familiar. They must know what they are talking about.
Public Health Professionals Who Oppose Fluoridation:
The 1500-member union representing US EPA scientists and related fields unanimously voted to support bills actually banning fluoridation, arguing in detail how they science they have seen showed fluoridation as a health hazard and noted that EPA’s decision not to ban fluoridation (just limit its dose) was a political one, not driven by or supported by the scientists.
Water Project:
I too voted for the water project not expecting fluoridation. I’d have given it more thought but happily can afford and have a RO filter.
10% reduction:
10% of 25%, or 2.5% — could that not be within statistical error? If not 2.5% for a fraction of the population is a small fraction of benefit better served by direct donation of fluoridated toothpaste and toothbrushes to that population IF you are convinced (1) it helps their teeth, and (2) that help outweighs harm it may do to their brains, thyroid, pineal gland, or kidneys. As noted above the EPA scientists took studies detailing these things very seriously.
On fluoridated salt in Europe (mentioned above):
I don’t know how many countries do this but it’s a better solution than dispersing fluoride throughout the ecosystem and into everyone in the water supply – you can choose what salt you buy. Suggestion: don’t fluoridate our water but import salt, give it to each low income family in ample annual supply (salt’s cheap), and let them choose fluoridated or not.
@medwoman – the problem with water fluoridation is there is no effective way for sevsitive people to easily control their exposure levels. It’s in your shower water, it’s in foods from restaurants, its in prepared foods, toothpaste. For people with kidney distinctions, for example, that’s a problem.
Fluoridated salt is much more easily avoidable for fluoride sensitive persons. This is why most European countries have gone with that solution.
distinctions –> dysfunctions 🙂
“WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION” link:
http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
Some excerpts:
“hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis”
“From a risk assessment perspective, … brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.”
” Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.”
“We applied EPA’s risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. …Application of this methodology … leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. …On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.”
Somehow I cut the link posting it. Trying again:
[url]http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm[/url]
@Adrienne: You are providing that link without providing the context as to when it was written. According to the Wayback Machine, that was posted on the Internet 10 years ago. See:
[url]www.web.archive.org/web/20030202150558/http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm[/url]
(copy and paste the above link into your browser)
[–edited to make link work–Don]
This is terrible news. The risks of fluoridation certainly do not outweigh the benefits. There are no benefits to increased osteoporosis, bone cancer and the dangers posed by other fluoride toxins in the water supply. Mass medicating the public with hydrofluorosilicic acid, a by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry is criminal. If people want fluoride, then let them decide and take it independently. No one should be forced to bath and consume this dangerous toxic metal. It is nearly impossible to remove from drinking water except by reverse osmosis or distillation which strips out all the minerals in your water as well, thereby also contributing to bone demineralization. Most of Europe and many countries have banned adding fluoride to the water supply. Fluoride is detrimental to anyone with kidney disease and diabetes. Bad move Davis. You have been bought off and brainwashed by the big money fluoride racketeers. Shame, shame, shame!!! I thought Davis was a more ‘enlightened’ community. I lived there for over 25 years. It seems that Davis is now as corrupt and infiltrated with political pundits as anywhere. How sad.
If you really want to reduce dental cavities, then brush your teeth and stop drinking sugary sodas and other sugary foods – or at least, rinse and/or brush your teeth if you do. Mass medicating the pubic water supply is NOT the solution. Those who take good care of their mouths and teeth, should not be forced to be exposed to a dangerous toxin that they don’t want because of others who won’t take care of their dental health.
Some useful tips:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/VanguardInstructions.png[/img]
@Don, I’m not sure that the [url] [/url] function always works in the case of web.archive.org hyperlinks, because they have double instances of “http”, which sometimes gets in the way.
Do you trust Harvard researchers? Reuters seems to.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/idUS127920+24-Jul-2012+PRN20120724[/url]
And HuffPo:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html[/url]
And please peruse the long-running top dog activist site, [url]www.fluoridealert.org[/url], which has really refined their delivery of relevant facts, so as to point out first and foremost:
“quick fact:
More people drink fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.
quick fact:
No difference in tooth decay between F and NF countries.
quick fact:
There is no need to swallow fluoride — it works topically.
“