In the aftermath of the fluoride vote last week, there have been some interesting letters to the editor in the local paper. The immediate reaction one might have is where were those people were during the policy discussion and why, if they are so embarrassed and outraged, did they not show up before now?
One writer, Jim Coulter, noted, “As the Sacramento Bee stated in an editorial Friday, Councilman Dan Wolk was the only member of the City Council with enough courage to recommend the implementation of fluoride in the new water project for the city of Davis.”
He called it “embarrassing” that “our other leaders were unwilling to acknowledge the broad support of the scientific community that has recognized fluoridated drinking water as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.”
He was, of course, not involved in the discussion. If he had been, he might have acknowledged, as Mark West did, that the scientific and health community that came out were badly out-maneuvered by the opposition.
As Mr. West noted, “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.”
Instead, Jim Coulter argues, “Fortunately, more than 70 percent of the country has avoided the anti-fluoride hysteria that began as a ‘communist plot’ in the 1950s and obviously still lives on in Davis as a conspiracy theory.”
Except none of that was the basis of anyone’s complaint and, if Mr. Coulter had participated, he would have known this.
David Kalb and Nancy Gelbard make the same error here when they write, “Well, we didn’t see that coming.” The writing was on the wall, so the only way they could have possibly not seen it coming was that they were not paying attention.
They continue, “We thought our ‘progressive’ town of Davis would see through the rhetoric and emotion and vote with the science-based assertion that fluoridation is a good thing.”
The problem is that an assertion is a good description of what many in the health community did – they asserted that fluoridation was a good thing and, when challenged, failed to mount a strong argument in rebuttal.
They continue, “At least once council member, Dan Wolk, stood tall and supported science and children’s health.”
They write, “It’s just a bad policy decision that the council doesn’t believe in prevention-based approaches to children’s health. According to CDC, for every $1 invested in fluoridating water, it yields approximately $38 savings in dental treatment costs. Instead, the council plans to ‘find alternatives’ to improve dental care – alternatives that will get us nowhere near the universal coverage that fluoridation provides.”
“We hope some ‘citizens’ group doesn’t now approach the Davis Council and ask them to come out against climate change or vaccinating children. Because these two issues also have their deniers and there is no telling what this council might do if a loud enough minority pressures them to ignore the science.”
Rich Rifkin, in a comment, added, “It’s easy to tell what the council will do ‘if a loud enough minority pressures them.’ They will vote the way the loud minority wants. It’s never a question of what the majority wants, or what the science says.”
The problem that Mr. Rifkin creates is that he assumes what the majority is, in the community. But what evidence does he have to support his contention?
Mr. Rifkin continues, “This was seen clearly with the plastic bag decision. It won’t solve any problems. It’s bad public policy. But a loud minority called for it. So the council gave them what they wanted. The same thing happened again with the 35-gallon garbage can issue. No way would a majority support that.”
My view remains as it was – first, Mr. Rifkin has no idea what the majority of the community wants and neither does the council. They only know what the portion of the population wants that is doing the talking. If people want to disengage from what local government is doing, they cannot come back after the fact and complain about public policy.
Worse yet, this was not going to be a costless decision. The calculation by council was that this was a bitterly contentious issue, it would end up on the ballot, it may well lose if placed on the ballot (based not only on public opinion but fifty years of history) and the case was not made by the health community that it was going to solve the problems as they purported.
One reader apparently approved of the action, writing, “I am so relieved that saner minds, sort of, prevailed in our recent fluoridation debacle. What troubled me most about this whole issue was the fact that we were even going down that path in the first place.”
The interesting part was this: “I never cease to be amazed at what our local batch of progressives want to stick their noses into.”
In fact, Mr. Stovall, the progressives for the most part opposed this policy. The people supporting fluoridation were people like Supervisor Don Saylor, considered a progressive by no one.
There is a lesson in all of this, and it’s a lesson that I noted a few weeks ago when the council passed the single-use bag ordinance, wood burning, and variable rates for waste containers. If the public does not show up at council meetings, and does not pay attention to what the council is doing, they really have no right to complain when the council votes in ways that they disagree with.
Of course, the comments have to be credible.
Mr. Rifkin actually came to speak out against the plastic bag ban, and he said, “We have no problem in the county with plastic bags floating around. The Natural Resources people will say, you’ll see them all over the county, I’m a bicyclist, I ride every single county road that there is around here. I ride road 28H by the dump, they say there’s plastic bags all over there, I rode out there this morning, there were none.”
Lucas Frerichs was among several who responded to the provocative comments by Rich Rifkin.
“It was mentioned by Rich Rifkin that he has not ever seen a wayward plastic bag floating around here in travels throughout Yolo County,” Councilmember Frerichs stated. “I’m just assuming the sun must have been in his eyes on those many sojourns around the county.”
“I, on the other hand, both when I’m out in a vehicle, on a bike, in the Yolo Bus,” he continued, “see wayward single-use plastic bags all over the place.”
“They’re all over the place. It’s long past time for the city of Davis to act on this,” he said.
The next day, I drove on the same road and pointed out to my passengers all the plastic bags lying around.
Credible arguments – and that was one of the problems with the fluoridation debate. But if you did not watch the meeting and did not participate, it would have been difficult to understand the degree to which the health community was simply out-argued by the opposition.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“But if you did not watch the meeting and did not participate, it would have been difficult to understand the degree to which the health community was simply out-argued by the opposition.”
Davis, Veritas ab concensus.
[img]http://discountposterstore.com/img/galileo-galilei-in-questions-of-science-famous-person-classroom-poster_6198_500.jpg[/img]
Biddlin ;>)/
[quote]that the scientific and health community that came out were badly our maneuvered by the opposition.
This is certainly a true statement, with emphasis on the word “maneuvered”. The opponents were enormously successful in mounting their campaign against fluoride. It is not true that their campaign had more scientific validity. There was what I believe was a strategic error on the part of the public health community to not actively engage the community due to their desire to avoid a “dueling tables” approach at the Farmer’s Market.
This allowed the opponents to unopposed mount a significant what I would all “disinformation campaign”.
My evidence for this. I had asked one of the participants at the table whether if I could demonstrate that some of the assertions they were making were false, they would stop making that claim and stop distributing that literature. His reply was “maybe”. When I did bring in the requested information, they did not honor my request and continued to present the same arguments.
biddlin
[quote]
it would have been difficult to understand the degree to which the health community was simply out-argued by the opposition.”
[/quote]
This comment would have some validity if the decision had actually been made after the October 1st meeting and if that had been the only opportunity for the CC to weight the actual scientific facts. This however is not the case. This comment ignores that all of the scientifically relevant information had been laid out by both sides over the course of three evenings to the WAC ( all televised so that it could have been seen by the CC)
which determined after much lengthier consideration of the facts that the proponents made the more compelling scientific claims, so much so that the vote from the WAC was 6-1-1. Every single CC member had decided upon their vote prior to the beginning of the CC presentations on 10/1. If you do not believe this to be true, you have only to ask them.
[quote]if the public does not show up at council meetings, does not pay attention to what the council is doing, they really have no right to complain when the council votes in ways that they disagree with.[/quote]
On this we fundamentally disagree. Any citizen has the right to make whatever comment they like about an action of the CC at any time. Of course it is true that the comment will be more effective in achieving the desired goal if it is made before the decision is finalized, but that does not abrogate the individuals right to state their opinion. I would also point out that it is probably more effective, if one values the opinion of someone in either the health care community or any other venue, to seek out their opinion prior to making a definitive decision, and this also was not done equally.
I think that a strategic error was made by the proponents in not awakening the portion of the public who would have favored fluoridation, but did not realize that there was even a question about its being passed because they underestimated the ability of the opponents to play upon public fears of some attempt to
“poison” children. No I am not exaggerating, those words were put forward on these threads more than once.
I believe that had the proponents engaged in the same no holds barred way as did the opponents, this outcome might have been very different.
” Any citizen has the right to make whatever comment they like about an action of the CC at any time. Of course it is true that the comment will be more effective in achieving the desired goal if it is made before the decision is finalized”
Though our use of language differs, I believe we are actually stating the same thing.
“My evidence for this.”
This anecdotal report of one individual who,IMO, represents a quite small percentage of the vast majority of the Davis voters who dismiss outlandish anti-fluoridation arguments while still believing that the evidence that now exists(unchallenged by proponents) does not support the conclusion that fluoridating our water supply will significantly reduce childrens’ tooth decay. It is not “evidence”.
“I thought the public health community as a group devalued the intelligence of the public and the Council.”
And with so little cause.[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pvbMhOHsg6w/TyAFU0ZnC5I/AAAAAAAABW4/3LOupwbSXPs/s1600/STUPID.jpg[/img]
Medwoman, perhaps you misinterpret my comment.
“If people want to disengage from what local government is doing, they cannot come back after the fact and complain about public policy.”
I think it was Woody Allen who observed that… in a democracy, decisions are determined by those who “show up”.
They voted against Fluoride to save the water project. It is because of dogged opposition to growth and the fear of the latest petition on the rates that they caved. It has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with the economics.
Next up making it illegal to have a fire in your fireplace. Will they go for freedom or unsubstantiated and dubious environmental concerns? Show up to find out.
medwoman… with all due respect… I used fluoridated water from birth to age 25… my parents insisted I brush my teeth at least once a day… by the time I was 16, had a couple of cavities (“soft spots” in my molars.
I would not be advocating removing fluoridation if it existed in Davis. On the otherhand, I did not advocate ADDING fluoride at this point. I am convinced that the scientific evidence of the benefit to the community is weak, to say the least. I am convinced that the argument that fluoride, in the concentrations advocated, is a danger, is weaker still.
My vote would be [b]not to fluoridate[/b]. The cost, particularly to retrofit existing wells, and monitor the combined well/surface water supply, maintain the fluoridation system, is in my somewhat humble opinion, not justified by the “possible” (and, in my opinion, UNLIKELY) benefit.
I believe that there is a real risk that fluoridation would lead voters to scuttle the surface water project. Fluoridation of the surface water is minor compared to all of the costs related to adding fluoridation at the well-heads that would remain. with no surface water, MORE wells would have to be ‘up-graded’, with even greater costs, both for fluoridation and for other costs inherent in having no surface water source.
I believe that if the CC vote had gone the other way, it would have been truly a pyrrhic victory for those who advocate fluoridation.
But these are only my beliefs and opinions.
[quote]Instead, Jim Coulter argues, “Fortunately, more than 70 percent of the country has avoided the anti-fluoride hysteria that began as a ‘communist plot’ in the 1950s and obviously still lives on in Davis as a conspiracy theory.”[/quote]
Wow, Mr. Coulter should watch the replay of the city council meeting in question. He is making the same mistake that the water fluoridation proponents made during the discussion leading up to the vote, engaging in name-calling and ad hominem attacks rather than concentrating on the science.
[i][b]Three Observations[/b][/i]:
(1) People are TIRED of heavy-handed, top-down management (governance) of their lives at all levels today. The fluoride issue was just one more intrusion;
(2) If the SWP proponents had included fluoridation as part of the Measure I ballot, they might have gotten both the SWP and fluoridation (or neither); and,
(3) People’s trust and respect of governmental authority is at an all-time low today for a variety of reasons. Fluoride proponents played into this fear by attempting to back in the fluoride issue after the fact (approval of the SWP). I call this bait and switch process “Gotcha Politics”, and it played very poorly in Davis.
To medwoman
[quote]This allowed the opponents to unopposed mount a significant what I would all “disinformation campaign”. My evidence for this. I had asked one of the participants at the table whether if I could demonstrate that some of the assertions they were making were false, they would stop making that claim and stop distributing that literature. His reply was “maybe”. When I did bring in the requested information, they did not honor my request and continued to present the same arguments. [/quote]
I assume since I was the only man at the anti-fluoridation table that your reference to “His reply” refers to me. I recall your delivering some information to our table that you claimed refuted our information. But after our investigation, we considered your arguments tangential and not germane to the claims we had made about proven or suspected health risks and lack of efficacy of fluoridation. Obviously, however, you took umbrage at our dismissal of the “facts” you presented. You seem to think, though, that you should be the final arbiter of what is valid scientific evidence and if you say it, then others should accept it as fact. However, we had other doctors, dentists, and pharmacists advising us on the veracity of the scientific information we presented and they all agreed our arguments had more support based on the scientific literature than opposing information presented to us by by fluoridation supporters.
I would also suggest that the tone of your posts (including the reference to our “disinformation campaign”) was part of the problem with the campaign strategy used by the supporters of fluoridation. In many, many cases that strategy degenerated into name-calling by the most prominent supporters of fluoridation. This included public references to fluoridation opponents as “conspiracy theorists”, “anti-government extremists”, “zealots”, and “alarmists”, among many others. I think our consistent message of relying on the scientific literature to make our case was what ultimately proved to be decisive in swaying the public’s opinion and Council’s decision. We very intentionally and correctly assumed the public and Council were very educated people and that they respected that we relied on objective facts to make our case.
Mr. Pryor,
The more I read your comments, the more respect I have for your discipline and adherence to sound argument.
[b]Sound Argument[/b]
Fact based truthful statements, presented in a logically valid argument.
If forces your opponents to respond with fallacious argument (appeal to authority, appeal to the expert) and ad hominem attack (“you conspiracy theorists, you”).
You and I don’t not agree on all issues, but I can always rely on a fact based argument from you that requires analysis and thought on the part of the reader.
Sorry: “do not agree…”
“I think our consistent message of relying on the scientific literature to make our case was what ultimately proved to be decisive in swaying the public’s opinion and Council’s decision.”
You are wrong. The reason the council voted no was because they were worried it would cause a do over election on the water system and it would be defeated. Several members of the council said as much before voting. In reality they trust the medical professionals more than the anti-fluoride and anti-immunization types but they are constrained by the political reality of trying to get the Cr(VI) out of the water supply, something much more dangerous than fluoride.
“The reason the council voted no was because they were worried it would cause a do over election on the water system and it would be defeated. “
that’s certainly one reason.
A most gracious and generous assessment of their motives, Mr. Toad. Dan Wolk has gained a great deal of respect from me.
Biddlin ;>)/
Alan Pryor
Unless you have aged significantly and/or I was blind folded, you are mistaken since I was not referencing a conversation with you. I do not remember the gentleman’s name with whom I spoke but it was on two different occasions, one to hear the claim that he was making and the second to refute it. Perhaps someone who manned the table besides you will recall the exchanges and tell you who he was.
[quote]We very intentionally and correctly assumed the public and Council were very educated people and that they respected that we relied on objective facts to make our case.[/quote]
And do you not feel the same about the members of the WAC whom after much more consideration, and little mention of the number of no vs yes letters, came to the opposite conclusion ?
Alan
[quote] I recall your delivering some information to our table that you claimed refuted our information. But after our investigation, we considered your arguments tangential and not germane to the claims we had made about proven or suspected health risks and lack of efficacy of fluoridation[/quote]
It is interesting that you recall this in view of the fact that I never delivered any information to your table.
This was a verbal exchange between the gentleman in question and myself which I recall very clearly because I had intended to bring a copy of the study in question which I had accidentally left at home. I verbally gave him the references to the study in question which was a refutation of his claims of pre existing water contamination specific to our area.