I was reading the op-ed in the Sacramento Bee yesterday excoriating the Davis City Council for allowing politics to “trump” public health on the issue of fluoridation. I find it interesting the degree to which “politics” has become a bad word in our society, but even more so the fundamental disconnect between those living in this community and those who do not.
This is not something new. The Bee has often been an outside observer to Davis politics, often critical of the city’s land use policies or its progressive, citizen-based brand of politics. It is a strange animosity, given the fact that many of the Bee‘s reporters and editorial board members actually live in Davis.
The Bee wrote, “Confronted with passionate opposition to adding fluoride to the city’s water, the Davis City Council took the easy way out.”
“Justifying their vote Tuesday night against fluoride, council members said they didn’t want to jeopardize support for a massive project, essential to the future of Davis, to draw 12 million gallons of water a day from the Sacramento River starting in 2016,” the Bee continues. “They said that when voters approved the project in March, they didn’t know fluoride was part of the deal. Fluoridation costs would have added about $2 a month to residential customers’ water bills, and there’s already an initiative making the rounds to put rate hikes to pay for the water project on the ballot.”
They add, “The council’s politically expedient rationale may have sidestepped the shaky science behind some of the opposition to fluoridation. But now council members are obligated to follow through and find real alternatives to improve dental care, especially for poorer kids.”
I will leave to others to challenge the Bee on the shaky science assertion. It’s another unstated assertion on that issue, and while I understand this is an opinion piece, not a scientific journal, I still think there has to be more of an argument than an assertion.
But be that as it may, that is not where I am going. The Bee fundamentally does not understand Davis on this issue and, without a deep understanding of the city and how its governance works, they have no concept of consequences.
I think a conservative poster, a longtime Davis resident, has a far better understanding and finger on the pulse of this community.
He writes: “Conservatives hate all the social justice stuff that sets the personal responsibility bar low and trains the population to be more expectant and dependent on help. Libertarians hate being told by their government what they can and cannot do. Having fluoride in their drinking water really really feels like forced medication. Environmentalists dislike the adding of chemicals to our water. Putting fluoride in the water really, really feels like a form of pollution.”
Davis is a town of all three, and there are liberal libertarians who may support the government establishing a national health care, but are not going to support the government telling them that they can or cannot smoke marijuana.
This vote however, was not about the politics, it was about pragmatism. Pragmatism by the Davis City Council.
That pragmatism took several forms.
First, there is the cold, hard reality that the city voters, the ones that cared, were running at least five to one against fluoridation, perhaps higher. Now, does that mean if we took a poll that 70% of the voters would be against fluoridation? Not necessarily, but of the people who would come out to vote and work on an election, the tilt was toward the no side.
Second, the council understood that if they voted for fluoridation, there was a good chance it would be put on the ballot and lose. That’s a political reality. Given the issues on the plate for the council involving the city budget, fiscal sustainability, revenue, land use, why would they put a hugely contentious issue into play that is not part of the core function of the city?
Third, the water project was narrowly approved in March 54 to 46. There is the belief, and we have seen people on this site outright state it, that if fluoridation were in play, they would have voted no. Even people who were strongly in favor of the water project, like Alan Pryor who put up tens of thousands of his own money for the project, would not have supported it with fluoridation.
As Joe Krovoza noted, the water project is not done. It’s being challenged legally, there is an initiative circulating, its funding is not in place, it is not done. Fluoridation could have blown it up.
Those are the political realities that Davis leaders had to deal with and that the Bee essentially scoffs at.
They call it taking the easy way out, but in a way, the Bee has it easy – it is easy to fire shots from afar when you do not have to face the consequences of your actions.
And after wading through research, studies and analysis for the last six months, the science is not as overwhelming as you might think in favor of fluoridation.
The Bee writes, “Some environmentalists are now among the most vocal fluoride opponents. It’s true that federal officials are looking at lowering the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water following research into longer-term risks and the prevalence in toothpaste and other consumer products.”
They note, “Still, the public health establishment says that fluoridation remains a safe and effective method to prevent tooth decay and is one of the greatest public health accomplishments of the 20th century.”
But that is a 15-year-old declaration, and Alan Pryor cited unchallenged evidence that there is little difference in decay rates between communities that have fluoridation and those that do not.
He cited evidence that the dosage limitations are based on two quarts a day consumption that a lot of people will exceed, and the people most in need of fluoride treatment will never receive.
The Bee then closes with a judgmental statement: “Only Councilman Dan Wolk stood up for the right policy. He is going up against Krovoza, along with several other candidates, for the state Assembly seat being vacated next year by Mariko Yamada. On this issue, Wolk demonstrated real courage.”
Having spoken to Dan Wolk, I believe he was sincere in his vote and he came out in favor of the issue long before this vote.
Is it politically courageous? I’m not sure. In a way, being the only one to vote for a measure is a way to have your cake, without facing the consequences of your actions.
Had this been a 3-2 vote in favor of fluoridation, the consequence would have been an election, a defeat of fluoridation, and possibly the entire water project. Council had to weigh that in their decisions. That is something that neither Dan Wolk nor the Bee ever had to grapple with.
The Bee makes the disparaging comment about Mayor Krovoza: “Krovoza, however, says there should be an ‘exceptionally high bar’ for government to put a substance in people’s bodies. Coupled with a very divided community, he wasn’t willing to stick his neck out for fluoridation.”
It would be like criticizing a politician in the south for not sticking his neck out for the Affordable Care Act – if the entire constituency would simply overturn his actions anyway, what is there to gain?
At the end of the day, the four members of the city council may have questioned some of the science behind fluoridation, but they really questioned the politics of the city and how they would make a vote stand up without unraveling a mess of other problems.
In the end, I thought Mark West had some of the best analysis of what went wrong, He wrote yesterday, “I thought the public health community as a group devalued the intelligence of the public and the Council.”
He continued, “The opponents of fluoridation presented their data, and were prepared to talk about the science of fluoridation, whereas almost to a person the proponents presented their credentials and basically said ‘trust me, I know what is good for you.’ “
” ‘I believe in science. I believe in evidence,’ ” he wrote. “So do I, and I really wish the proponents had deigned to present some as the outcome may well have been completely different.”
At the end of the day, even that might not have been enough. But I think the proponents failed to fundamentally engage and respond on this issue and the council saw this as an issue that would distract from their most critical concerns.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Perhaps outsiders have a perspective unavailable to aloof, self assured Davisites. I think most of the council rook the path of least resistance. I suspect many are as tone deaf to the message this sends as they were to the Pike scandal.
your view is that the davis city council should have gone against public opinion, pass something that would have gone on the ballot, been overturned, and possibly killed the water project, are you crazy? and what does this have to do with pike?
What’s crazy is to purposefully limit our water supply, putting the community in a very precarious position, to constrain residential growth. This is the argument many made before the water project passed. Now many are threatening to overturn the water project, thereby purposefully limiting our water supply, in order to prevent fluoridation. The willingness to accept increasingly lower water quality from deteriorating wells to prevent fluoridation makes no sense to me whatsoever.
This is a game of chicken on a community-wide scale. I’m just waiting for someone to threaten our food or oxygen supply in order to win their policy battle.
-Michael Bisch
I think another aspect of this issue was the fact that we do NOT have fluoridation currently…..to choose fluoridation was not the default action. Keeping it NO was. Although I am still for fluoridation for the health reasons, etc,, I have stepped back and realized the “politics” and the passion, stronger in numbers at least on the NO side…..to keep it as NO took less energy; I don’t mean that disparaging, but I am pretty sure if we had already had fluoridated water, this discussion and decision would have ended differently….comments?
I think that Lois’ status as a state senator had more to do with the editorial than did the issue of fluoridation in Davis. It reads more like a campaign mailer to me.
SODA
[quote]I think another aspect of this issue was the fact that we do NOT have fluoridation currently…..to choose fluoridation was not the default action. [/quote]
I think that there is probably some validity in this point of view. At the beginning of the discussion it would seem that some commenters were unaware that there was already some fluoride in our water.
I think that many posters here are making essentially the same point that perhaps I did not make very clearly in my article “Devaluing Public Health”. Or maybe some readers could not get past the fact that I was a supporter of fluoridation. Virtually everyone who has written about this has introduced the idea that fluoridation and the water project were tied together and there were also other political considerations, such as, how many votes will this cost, not only in terms of the water project, but also in terms of my own political aspirations . Please not that in my piece, I did not say that the council members did not consider or care about public health, but rather it was “devalued” with regard to their other priorities. Since I quoted words that each of them spoke from the dias in explaining their “no” vote, I honestly do not see how it could be disputed that
the public health was not their primary decision making factor since they each said as much.
“….he came out in favor of the issue long before this vote.”
It is naive to believe that Dan Wolk’s position on fluoridating Davis’ water supply was not considered in his “handlers'” Assembly primary political calculations . With the likelihood that Davis’ democratic primary vote will be split between Krovoza and Wolk, the winner will most likely be determined by the rest of the vote cast for this Assembly seat. A pro-fluoridation position probably “sells” well with the non-Davis vote who traditionally are not particularly engaged both politically and intellectually and support status-quo thinking and Establishment leaders .
Much has been made that the proponents did not engage the community. DP pointed out that I was an exception to this and that I was willing to engage and inform. People use this as a criticism of the public health community seeing it as elitist. I think this may be overlooking another factor. People in the public health sector have a responsibility to use restraint within the framework of their job and community obligations.
While the opponents had no obligation to represent their arguments truthfully and could essentially get up and say anything they like, the proponents are held, both by themselves and the community to a higher standard.
I will provide just one example. At the initial WAC meeting, and in some previous threads here, there was a claim made several times by one opponent that fluoride was linked to breast cancer. This claim died down after a while, perhaps in response to my expertise in this area and my assertion, made whenever this came up that it had no basis in the physiology of the breast, nothing that met even the level of association, and zero
supporting studies. Had the proponents had a fully engaged expert on every aspect of the health and environmental risks to debunk the claims of risk that were being made on minimal, if any evidence, would the outcome have been different ? I doubt it. And the reason is that there is a small cadre of folks so committed to the defeat of fluoride and/or the water project that they were willing to put extensive amounts of time and energy into this.
Local doctors and your public health community cannot and would not take this approach. Where there is not data, they did not state that they had it. They did not twist numbers to try to prove something that is not demonstrated. One poster has said that the proponents must meet a higher standard. This is true, but not in the way she means. The proponents must meet the standard of current evidence and practice. Regardless of win or lose on this particular vote, the proponents will remain responsible for the provision of individual and public health services. The opponents will be completely free to do what ever they want now that the issue including making good faith efforts which some will probably do, stepping away from the issue entirely since the “no” vote won, or mounting a referendum if the “yes” vote prevailed.
One more point about “elitism” or arrogance on the part of medical care providers.
This is often true. However, no one has brought up the fundamental arrogance of believing that as a non health care professional, the ability to quote from articles suggested on an antifluoridation site makes you as knowledgeable in the field as someone who actually does this for a living.
Not one bit of “arrogance” in that position ?
I was once told that for impactful change the stakeholders will generally settle in thirds: 1/3 strongly for, 1/3 strongly against, and 1/3 that don’t care or that can be swayed (the swing vote). Then the campaign starts and you end up with a binary yes or no vote.
Of course these division depends on the magnitude of impact: change perceived to be of little concern will skew the percentages so that there is a much larger number of swing vote.
I think the difference with Davis that outsiders do not understand is the political engagement factor. Mostly it is a good thing… a possible model for how Democracy and communitarianism works as well as it can (although I think there is always room for improvement with any system or porocess). Davisites care about almost all public policy decisions, and we are engaged.
And, Frankly, I think the Vanguard has helped with that engagement.
I don’t like to lose. But when an issue is as well vetted as was the fluoride issue, I think we should all take a deep breath and be thankful for our community involvement, and accepting of the final decisions.
It is those impactful policy decisions where the community involvement was lacking that give me heartburn and cause some long-lasting resentment. Plastic bags, Obamacare… those two policy decisions come to mind. Also, I will feel the same if we don’t have an open debate about the Mace 391 parcel and lock it up in an ag easement.
I think outsiders don’t understand this community ability to engage and have influence in policy decisions. They are more used to, and more comfortable with, letting their elected officials make most of these decisions. Frankly, they just don’t get it.
But the downside to Davis’s engagement is some decision analysis paralysis resulting from the parts of the community that are uninformed but passionate, and from parts of the community that have hidden agendas and will gin up that uniformed passion.
Again, that is where the Vanguard has added value… to help get the information out there so we are more able to make decisions on fact and not just passion.
Maybe David should develop a business plan to launch Vanguards in all these communities so they can be more like Davis.
+Had the proponents had a fully engaged expert on every aspect of the health and environmental risks to debunk the claims of risk that were being made on minimal, if any evidence, would the outcome have been different ? I doubt it.”
I’m afraid that the above comments only strengthens the “arrogance and elitism” argument.
Question:
Was the boondoggle “Toad Tunnel” an example of “Progressive, citizen-based brand of politics?
[i]Was the boondoggle “Toad Tunnel” an example of “Progressive, citizen-based brand of politics?[/i]
I think that was a situation where few cared, and there was uniformed passion driving it.
Would we build a toad tunnel today?
I doubt it because cost is a bigger concern and there would be more people that cared enough to be engaged with the decisions process.
This brings up a tangential but related point.
There are things that progressives want to do but cannot because our budget situation causes more stakeholders in opposition. Look at Obamacare at the national level for an example. The federal budget deficit and debt are the primary weapons still being launched against it.
If progressives want more Toad Tunnel-like policy decisions made, they would be well-advised to start supporting other policy decisions to cut spending and increase revenue.
They cannot continue that same broken fake solution of raising taxes and expect to have enough resources to fund their progressive agenda.
[quote]Would we build a toad tunnel today? [/quote]
I hope so. It’s popular with tourists.
[quote] However, no one has brought up the fundamental arrogance of believing that as a non health care professional, the ability to quote from articles suggested on an antifluoridation site makes you as knowledgeable in the field as someone who actually does this for a living.[/quote]
You raise a point that is worthy of reflection.
Does a gynaecologist have more expertise on flouridation than an engineer or statistician or chemist?
Or just more arrogance?
The Sac Bee is lined up with the Koch brothers. Anything good for business, like selling chemicals to add to drinking water, the Bee will support.
Since the fluoride proposal was separated from the Measure I Ballot, it appears that the SWP supporters considered its application a net negative. Attempting to back the fluoride application into the SWP after the election is a clear case of “Gotcha Politics”(also known as bait and switch). This maneuver played very poorly within Davis, and cost the fluoride proponents dearly.
EAGLE EYE
[quote]The Sac Bee is lined up with the Koch brothers. Anything good for business, like selling chemicals to add to drinking water, the Bee will support. [/quote]
lol, only a Davis liberal could find a way to associate the fluoridation debate in Davis to the Koch brothers. By the way, the SacBee is a very liberal newspaper.
[quote]Would we build a toad tunnel today?[/quote]
[quote]I hope so. It’s popular with tourists.[/quote]
And maybe we could get Stephen Colbert to come back…
[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-27-1999/colbert—tunnel-vision[/url]
I enjoyed medwomans comment, and J.R.’s response:
Medwoman: [quote]However, no one has brought up the fundamental arrogance of believing that as a non health care professional, the ability to quote from articles suggested on an antifluoridation site makes you as knowledgeable in the field as someone who actually does this for a living.
[/quote]
J.R.’s response:
[quote]You raise a point that is worthy of reflection.
Does a gynaecologist have more expertise on flouridation than an engineer or statistician or chemist?
Or just more arrogance? [/quote]
I kind of figured that my 11 years of higher education, including my M.D. degree, meant that I could make some intelligent comments about water fluoridation. Apparently, medwoman would disagree.
Medwoman, do you think that being a gynecologist makes you a fluoridation expert? Does your expertise in gynecology make you knowledgeable in the field of fluoridation?
JR
[quote]Does a gynaecologist have more expertise on flouridation than an engineer or statistician or chemist?
Or just more arrogance?[/quote]
Absolutely not. Which was why I specified my limited area of expertise every time I spoke and in the beginning when I began posting. This was to inform people about my area of expertise, not to claim to be an expert in fluoridation. If you actually read my posts, or listened to my public comments you would know that I chose a very specific and limited role for my factual presentations. I limited myself to areas in which I have specific expertise ( breast cancer, fetal development, limited endocrinology and osteoporosis) or those areas in which I had specifically sought the expertise of my colleagues ( endocrinology, pediatrics, allergists, oncologist, perinatologist). With regard to the literature, it is true that I did not read the hundreds of references on the FAN site, but I did read every single article that was referred to me specifically by any of the opponents. Due to the time involved, this meant that I only had time to focus on the claims of the opponents and did not revisit the literature with regard to benefits, nor did I review the environmental literature and stated as much in public.
This is all I have claimed. I believe that I have been very transparent. If you consider full disclosure arrogance, so be it.
tleonard
[quote]I kind of figured that my 11 years of higher education, including my M.D. degree, meant that I could make some intelligent comments about water fluoridation. Apparently, medwoman would disagree.
[/quote]
I honestly do not understand why you persist in making this a personal issue.
This is not the first time that you have demonstrated your degree of animosity. Multiple threads ago you did
what you perceived as “outing” the identity of rdcanning and myself despite a Vanguard policy of allowing posters to remain anonymous if they choose. Of course this had no effect as rd and I had already made our identities public. It was clear however, that you intended it to have some effect. I continue to post under my pseudonym mostly out of pure laziness since it takes time to open a new account.
Early today, you implied that you knew that some of your comments could be perceived as “snarky”. And then you make a comment assuming you know what I would think. It was rd, not me, that questioned your understanding of science. So, I would really appreciate it if you would not attribute to me statements that others have made, and stop implying that you know what I think. What I have consistently questioned is your statements and claims. I honestly do not understand why you feel the need to attack personally.
Davisite2
If you believe that , I would recommend asking Alan Pryor or Pam Neiberg or ttLeonard if that would have changed their minds and ended their opposition.
Thanks for that link B. Nice! I forgot about it.
Don – are you serious that the toad tunnel is a tourist attraction?
Assuming that is true, what is the benefit to the city?
More people.
More traffic.
More pollution.
I would worry that so many people walking around that area might disturb the remaining toads. However, I heard a rumor that they all packed up and moved away where there are more jobs and more shopping alternatives. We might have to rename it the “Toad-less Tunnel”.
This is true: I often see small groups of people down at the post office end of the tunnel, taking pictures. I don’t know if a toad has ever been seen there. I personally relocated a large number of them at the time of construction, so maybe I got all of them.
Tourism is good. We should encourage toad-related visitors, and sunflower-seekers, and downtown dipsomaniacs, and people who like little boutiques. Keep Davis Weird.
“Tourism is good. We should encourage toad-related visitors, and sunflower-seekers, and downtown dipsomaniacs, and people who like little boutiques. Keep Davis Weird. “
Sounds like the quirky Davis I haunted in the 70s. I miss it terribly, but alas, the arrow of time is one-way!
Biddlin ;>)/
We have not all left town.
Having cast aside public health for other political considerations I hope that the Davis City Council doesn’t try to invoke public health as a reason to criminalize the use of fireplaces in the private homes of its citizens deputizing the same pitchfork and torch bearers as opposed Fluoride to turn in their neighbors and have them hauled before the local magistrate for the age old practice of lighting a yule log.
[quote]Having cast aside public health for other political considerations I hope that the Davis City Council doesn’t try to invoke public health as a reason to criminalize the use of fireplaces in the private homes of its citizens deputizing the same pitchfork and torch bearers as opposed Fluoride to turn in their neighbors and have them hauled before the local magistrate for the age old practice of lighting a yule log.[/quote]
Age oldness is not justification for actions that effect public health. (especially other people’s health)
I have been out all afternoon, or I would have responded earlier. Medwoman, I am surprised at your response. You make repeated statements that fluoride opponents don’t care about public health, and that “No one has brought up the fundamental arrogance of believing that as a non health care professional, the ability to quote from articles suggested on an antifluoridation site makes you as knowledgeable in the field as someone who actually does this for a living.” This was a rather aggressive statement of yours, among many other rather aggressive statements that you have made about fluoride supporters, some of them directed at me personally, and I’m surprised that you don’t recognize it as such. You seem indignant that I would respond, “I kind of figured that my 11 years of higher education, including my M.D. degree, meant that I could make some intelligent comments about water fluoridation. Apparently, medwoman would disagree.” I gave what I considered to be a tongue-in-cheek response to what I actually considered to be an inappropriate comment of yours. You are calling my response somehow “personal.” I don’t really understand what you are talking about. Were you offended because I went on to ask “Medwoman, do you think that being a gynecologist makes you a fluoridation expert? Does your expertise in gynecology make you knowledgeable in the field of fluoridation?” This question is a logical extension of the rather condescending statement that you made. You broached the subject of credentials, not I.
[quote]This is not the first time that you have demonstrated your degree of animosity. Multiple threads ago you did
what you perceived as “outing” the identity of rdcanning and myself despite a Vanguard policy of allowing posters to remain anonymous if they choose. Of course this had no effect as rd and I had already made our identities public. It was clear however, that you intended it to have some effect. [/quote]
The very first day I posted on the Vanguard, Matt Williams outed me. Here is the exchange:
[quote]Brian Riley
05/12/13 – 01:08 PM
…
Once again, the readers of this blog should be cautioned that “tleonard” is most likely just another pseudonym for the same *one* person who is attempting to create the illusion of a groundswell of support for anti-fluoridation quackery.
Matt Williams
05/12/13 – 01:34 PM
…
Brian, once again you are seeing demons where there are no demons. Terri Leonard, MD has sent direct e-mails to every member of the WAC outlining her own personal perspective on this issue. Her first e-mail began,
“Dear Mayor Krovoza, Mayor Pro Tempore Wolk, Councilmember Swanson, Councilmember Frerichs, Councilmember Lee, and Members of the Water Advisory Committee,
I am an M.D. and a mother of four children (ages 4 to 8) and I adamantly oppose water fluoridation. Water is for everyone, but fluoride is not. I support the right of an individual to ingest fluoride if he or she so chooses (although that is not a choice that I would make for my family, and I will discuss my reasons below). At the same time, I expect to be supported in my right to NOT ingest fluoride if I so choose. “
Her e-mail ended as follows,
“Thank you for carefully considering these concerns.
Sincerely,
Terri Leonard, M.D.”
I do not agree with all of the points Dr. Leonard makes, but I respect her right to make those points. You should respect her right as well.
[/quote]
This was my first day of posting of posting on the Vanguard, ever. I had made all comments under the name tleonard. Matt Williams told everyone that I am Terri Leonard, and he posted part of a letter that I wrote to the WAC and City Council which revealed personal information about my family. I was surprised, but I figured that that was how things were done here on the Vanguard, especially since Matt is officially affiliated with the Vanguard. When I later mentioned your and rdcannings names in a post, I was not “intending it to have some effect.”
[quote]Early today, you implied that you knew that some of your comments could be perceived as “snarky”. And then you make a comment assuming you know what I would think. It was rd, not me, that questioned your understanding of science. So, I would really appreciate it if you would not attribute to me statements that others have made, and stop implying that you know what I think. What I have consistently questioned is your statements and claims. I honestly do not understand why you feel the need to attack personally. [/quote]
Here is what I wrote:
[quote]medwoman, my questions to you are not meant to me snarky. My questions stem from a belief that one has an obligation to present one’s evidence for the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation if one is going to write an article entitled “Devaluing Public Health.” You state that Lucas Frerichs demonstrates a lack of appreciation for evidence. What evidence?
You state, “So essentially, this decision was made not on the basis of any consideration of public health with careful weighting of the evidence on both sides…” Again, what evidence?
You state, “I believe in science. I believe in evidence.” What evidence?
You state, “We educate.” Please do. Tell us your evidence for the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation. [/quote]
I was sincere when I wrote that my question was not meant to be snarky. I sincerely wish that you would share the evidence that you believe to compellingly support your pro-fluoridation stance.
[quote]And then you make a comment assuming you know what I would think. It was rd, not me, that questioned your understanding of science. So, I would really appreciate it if you would not attribute to me statements that others have made, and stop implying that you know what I think.[/quote]
I am just bewildered by the above statement. What are you talking about?
“Age oldness is not justification for actions that effect public health. (especially other people’s health)”
Ah yes, the Davis city council for public health sometimes. just not when it comes to the teeth of poor children.
tleonard
[quote]I am just bewildered by the above statement. What are you talking about?[/quote]
I have never, never questioned your credentials. I simply do not know what your credentials are and there fore have absolutely nothing to say about them. It was rd that made a comment about your understanding of science. I have not said one word about that since I have know idea how scientifically astute you may be.
I have criticized positions that you have taken when I do not agree with them, just as I criticize positions taken by my colleagues when I do not agree with them. None of them have ever claimed I was “arrogant” based on difference of opinion.
And are you suggesting that because Matt Williams “outs” you, I have some responsibility for that action, or that I somehow deserve the same ?
[quote]And are you suggesting that because Matt Williams “outs” you, I have some responsibility for that action, or that I somehow deserve the same ?[/quote]
No, I am asking for your understanding for an honest mistake that I made. I really had no idea that mentioning your or rdcannings name was against Vanguard policy. After Matt Williams nonchalantly wrote about who I am, I honestly thought that such behavior was typical and commonplace. I had not been a reader of the Vanguard previously. It was only my passion about the fluoride issue that prompted my foray into Vanguard posting, and I had not read the Vanguard previously. I was told that people were writing comments about fluoride on something called the “Vanguard.” That was the extent of my knowledge about the Vanguard. So I offer my apologies for outing you.
tleonard
I have no problem with honest mistakes ( especially since I make many myself) ; )
What I do continue to have problems with is this comment of yours:
[quote]I kind of figured that my 11 years of higher education, including my M.D. degree, meant that I could make some intelligent comments about water fluoridation. Apparently, medwoman would disagree. [/quote]
It was rd that made the comment questioning your appreciation of science. I have no idea how you got the idea that I would disagree with the value of anyone making “intelligent comments” about any subject.
Disagreeing with your interpretation in no way means that you can’t make intelligent comments. I am sorry if you feel I have implied that my disagreement with your positions reflects on your intelligence.
Medwoman, my comment was in response to your comment
[quote]However, no one has brought up the fundamental arrogance of believing that as a non health care professional, the ability to quote from articles suggested on an antifluoridation site makes you as knowledgeable in the field as someone who actually does this for a living. [/quote]
I was making a tongue-in-cheek response to your comment. I am the poster who most frequently quotes from fluoridealert.org, the site to which I assume you were referring in your comment. Therefore I assumed that your comment was directed at me. I was responding to your comment (which I believed was directed at me) that I am not as knowledgeable in the field [of fluoridation] as someone who actually does this for a living. Again, it was a tongue-in-cheek response. I know that your comment did not make assertions about intelligence, or lack thereof.
[quote]Ah yes, the Davis city council for public health sometimes. just not when it comes to the teeth of poor children.[/quote]
Do you think they were convinced that the addition of fluoride to the water would have had a significant effect on the kids who severely need dental care? While I have no personal concerns with the addition of fluoride in the water and would have welcomed it, as I believe it would have benefited my children and others like them (who brush, floss, limit sugar, go to the dentist etc) I’m not convinced it would have had a significant impact of the kids with really bad dental hygiene. Before I’m ready to say that the council was against public health on this one I’ll what and see if they come through with their promise to peruse alternative dental care for those who need it the most.
” I’m not convinced it would have had a significant impact of the kids with really bad dental hygiene.”
I’m not convinced that having a fire in my fireplace is having a significant impact on the community. Certainly not to the extent that fires should be banned for five months of the year. I would like to see the evidence that firewood smoke diluted over 300 feet has such a significant adverse impact that we need to deputize the community to make people outlaws in their own homes. By the way to my knowledge no other community, including those with much worse air issues use 300 feet for enforcement purposes.
[quote]I’m not convinced that having a fire in my fireplace is having a significant impact on the community. Certainly not to the extent that fires should be banned for five months of the year.[/quote]
From my understanding this is a complaint based ordinance. I got the impression that there weren’t that many complaints last year.
The ordinance seems similar to the noise ordnance. Lets say I have a neighbor who plays loud music every once and a while, or has a dog that barks continuously for longer then 15 minutes (after which time it the owner is in violation of noise ordinance) on occasion. Are they in violation yes, is it likely they will get reported by a neighbor, probably not. But if this happened all the time, as they case with my neighbors dog, who would start barking almost daily around 5 AM, all evening, and into the night. Also they would also leave the dog outside when they went away on long weekends, and it would bark all day and most of the night for 3 days straight. At this point I’m glad there was a noise ordinance in place, (not just for my sake, but for the poor neglected dogs.)
Now our subdivision is only 10-15 years old, so wood smoke in general is not a problem. But the other night someone nearby was burning. I have no respiratory problems but while sitting outside my eyes got itchy and watery and my throat got irritated, so I went inside. I usually sleep with a window open, but couldn’t do so that night. Was it so bad that I would have tracked down the burner and report them, no. But if it was happening all the time then I’m glad I have the option of doing so.
My guess is that having an occasional fire is not going to be a problem for most people. If this becomes an issue council seemed clear that this was an ongoing process that would be re-evaluated again in a year.
B.Nice
[quote]Before I’m ready to say that the council was against public health on this one I’ll what and see if they come through with their promise to peruse alternative dental care for those who need it the most.[/quote]
I want to make something clear about my position. I do not believe that the council is “against public health”.
I do believe that public health was clearly not the top priority of three of the council members who actually said as much from the dais. Because health, both of individuals and the community, is my top priority, it should be unsurprising to anyone who has read my posts that I was disappointed that it was not their top priority as well. I do not think the council, some of whom are personal friends, are evil or callous. I simply do not believe they shared my priority in this case.
Regardless of what they choose to do now, any project will be limited in scope, since as you noted it will be likely to involve a very much smaller portion of the community, will not be able to target the range of ages that fluoridation would have reached, and will likely be under constant funding pressure.
The Oakland A’s won a squeaker tonight. Go A’s.
Just thought I’d throw my two cents in since everyone else is posting off topic and it seems to be okay tonight.
Medwoman: “I want to make something clear about my position. I do not believe that the council is “against public health”. “
So we can be clear, I never believed you felt this way, I was responding to Toad’s comment.
My impression, council wasn’t convinced that adding fluoride to the water would have a significant effect on public health, not that public health wasn’t a top priority.
“Just thought I’d throw my two cents in since everyone else is posting off topic and it seems to be okay tonight.”
Matt is keeping Don busy with an interesting conversation regarding Urban Boundaries.
Glad you are enjoying it B. Nice. 8>)
B.Nice
[quote]My impression, council wasn’t convinced that adding fluoride to the water would have a significant effect on public health, not that public health wasn’t a top priority.[/quote]
I would like to believe that this is the case. However, my understanding is that privately, the likely vote was at least three against before the WAC had even heard all of the relevant information.
I think if they had been convinced by WAC that fluoride would have a significant impact on public health they would have voted differently. Now I also think if the water project wasn’t an issue they may have also voted differently. But these two factors combined…
I don’t think the general public was convinced of the benefits either, otherwise I think Rochelle’s letter ratio would have been different.
As I have said to Growth Izzue and Michael Harrington when they clamor for Council to decree that a vote must tale place for Cannery, the Council will not succumb to a whisper, but they will succumb to a roar. The anti-fluoridation community roared and Council heard. The Cannery Vote crowd in Davis has thus far only been a whimper.
“The ordinance seems similar to the noise ordnance.”
This is not what Alan Pryor is advocating. He wants to make it so any visible smoke can be cited. Not fifteen minutes, not on no burn days, not by the city but by any neighbor who lives within 300 feet. If it was a simple nuisance abatement process it would be one thing but its not its much more invasive than that.
I got the impression from Alan that he wanted this to be a complaint based ordinance that targeted chronic burners. The reason he wanted the complaint to have to come from a neighbor living within 300 feet was that so people walking/biking by a house that is burning couldn’t complain. He seemed to be the one who was really pushing the 15 minutes, because, as he said it takes time to get a fire hot enough to burn cleanly. I’m not sure why burn or no burn days are relevant to this issue. Again if chronic burners are the target, and their smoke is bad enough and continuos enough that it is effecting a neighbors health and quality of life does that days burn status matter.
My guess is that like last year there will be few complaints, but if my neighbors all the sudden decided to have a continuous Bon fire all winter long, I’ll be one of them.