My Personal Response to
the Recent Press Democrat Fluoridation
Article
From Patricia Dines • Editor of The Next STEP
newsletter • April 8, 2013
Re: "Sebastopol newsletter roils water on fluoride", by Guy Kovner, Press Democrat, April 5, 2013
|
The Press Democrat finally did publish my Letter to the Editor response. See www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-APD-LtE.html. Of course, that version is quite brief. This page offers my fuller response, with supporting information and links. |
|
Hi all - Well, I'm still astonished at the recent Press Democrat (PD) article, which I feel tried to fluff up two complaints (about a fluoridation article in a little innovative educational community newsletter) into something that might sound like a mini-scandal (to those who don't know the project). However, the facts just don't support the premise of the PD's article, and thus I feel that I need to set the record straight. Specifically: 1) The Next STEP newsletter is cool City-community project implemented by volunteers, for the purpose of fulfilling the City's policy to help residents avoid their use and exposure to toxics. This is not, as the PD article suggests, a generic official City newsletter or special "bulletin." It's also not "perspectives on dental health" or "official City policies digest." We educate people on toxics. The acronym "STEP" stands for "Sebastopol Toxics Education Program." Funny that the PD article didn't mention that illuminating fact. 2) The clear mission of The Next STEP newsletter is to support readers in taking action on toxics issues, at both the individual and community levels. We have a clearly-stated point of view, to avoid toxics. That's what we've been doing for over 12 years, in a style that's been developed collaboratively between community volunteers, City staff, the City Council, and readers. Thus it's just normal for us to digest lots of information from a range of sources on a variety of topics, then summarize the key points and actions for our readers, as we did with our article on community water fluoridation (CWF). We only have two pages, and so we need to get to the point quickly! So there's no news story there. 3) The Press Democrat (PD) article only quoted two people complaining about our article. Neither of them were concerned enough to even send us a letter. In the month since this edition of the newsletter came out on March 1, we had only received one letter disagreeing with this article. On the other hand, I've heard lots of folks say they appreciate this article for being (as usual) well-written, factual, and useful. So I don't see any roiled waters here. (For representative responses, see www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-Responses.html.) 4) One of the two people complaining to the PD (Barbara Graves) was previously employed by the Sonoma County Department of Health Services (DHS), the agency that is 100% cheerleading for CWF in its advice to the Board of Supervisors. So Ms. Graves is hardly a neutral observer making a neutral comment about the newsletter and its mission. 5) Both the City officials quoted in the story told me personally that they had zero issue with the newsletter article and thought it was totally appropriate for the newsletter. It's hard to tell that from the way their quotes got distorted by the PD, but they said that was their intent in what they said to the reporter. I called them because I wanted to know if they had concerns. They said they did not. The City Manager knows the history and mission of the newsletter and explained that to the reporter in great detail. Mayor Kyes is less familiar with the newsletter, and thus merely stated openness to the reporter's question about "what should be done." So to me the real story here is: "Toxics newsletter publishes toxics article. Two people complain." Why is that news? Especially in Sebastopol! Or maybe the real story is, "CWF proponent tries to deflect attention away from fact-based concerns by inaccurately attacking the messenger." Because I suspect that, if the newsletter article had been pro-CWF, there would've been no PD article and Ms. Graves would've been fine that we stated a recommendation. Or perhaps the real story is, "Slow news day at the Press Democrat. They see an opportunity to promote their pro-CWF agenda." Oh yes, did we mention that the PD editorial policy is pro-CWF, with no openness in their editorial viewpoint to the scientific reasons that people are objecting to it? Talk about a lack of balance. And a general newspaper actually does have an obligation to present the various views in a community fairly. That's a key part of its role in our society. Not to pick on, and try to bully, a little newsletter that dares to have a different viewpoint than theirs'. So, to me, instead of this non-story, there's a much more important question that the PD needs to be asking instead, which is: "Why isn't the DHS taking seriously and helping to bring forward the concrete scientific evidence that CWF is harmful not helpful to our shared health?" Wouldn't that be consistent with their mandate to serve public health? And their job of providing full information to the Board of Supervisors and thus support smart decision-making? Or another question: "Why isn't the Press Democrat writing to critique DHS for presenting totally pro-CWF information as imbalanced one-sided propaganda when its job is to protect our health?" Or, " And why doesn't the PD use its investigative efforts to bring forward the key facts that DHS is ignoring?" To me, there are plenty of places to hear the pro-CWF case stated as if it were fact -- including the PD's pages. Our newsletter's action sought to balance the community's conversation, and in a completely appropriate way. What could be more appropriate than a toxics newsletter bringing forward key toxic facts, especially that mainstream sources are not discussing! If the PD is so concerned about balance, I'd like to suggest they first look at their own actions. I'd suggest that they think critically about the pro-fluoridation PR. Even in this particular article, they assert as facts assertions that have been disproven (for instance the claims that CWF helps children's dental health and doesn't harm the environment). Then I encourage the PD to include in their new stories the important opposition facts, stated in ways that respects their scientific foundation. This would be a much more helpful use of their energy than trying to smear a little toxics newsletter for writing an article that is entirely within its mission. I understand that some people think that CWF is just safe and effective. They don't understand that they've just bought a PR story. But many folks who have had that belief (including top scientists and public health officials) have had the courage to go look at the foundational science, listen to the opposition's evidence, and been stunned to find that CWF is actually not proven to be either safe or effective. These once-proponents have become opponents -- that's how persuasive the science is against this! And that's what I found when I went to look at the facts on both sides -- that, to me, the science just didn't support the pro-CWF claims. And it was that key information that I passed along to our readers -- as my perspective, in an article that has my name on it. I encourage everyone, including the PD, to be willing to look at the opposition's evidence with an open mind. I think you might be surprised to find out what's there. Many of the pro-CWF assertions are just plain false. The real picture is much different. We will all have to live with the impacts of the Supervisors' choice regarding CWF -- on our health, environment, and pocketbook. We have a right to hear the full story. Right now we are not getting that from DHS, or the PD. We also need the PD to: get the important facts right, see what the story factually is, put its limited resources on the issues that are actually important for our community, and aim its critiques towards the people in power who actually are acting contrary to their responsibilities. That seems more useful than unfairly smearing a little toxics newsletter that, completely within its mandate, concluded that there's factually a risk of harm from CWF and shone a light on key toxics information that the DHS (and the PD) is ignoring. And to me there is even a deeper question, and I encourage everyone in Sonoma County to not let our attention be deflected away from this: "If the factual scientific concerns about CWF are real, then why are we even considering putting it into our shared water and environment?" This is the bottom line to me: We should not add a material to our shared water for medical purposes unless it's 100% conclusively proven safe, effective, and necessary -- and enough so that it warrants the cost and unilateral imposition on the vast majority of our population. To me - CWF fails on all these counts. There is substantial factual counter-evidence on all three elements. Thus I feel that CWF should be rejected. I hope that this PD article will help us all see the hidden reality, and stand up for our rights. In service to the community - Patricia Dines
* For more about The Next STEP's history and design, see www.healthyworld.org/STEP-HistoryDesign.html. * For more about our article on CWF, see below. * For actions you can take on fluoridation, see www.healthyworld.org/StopSCFAction.html. * For my summary of what I see as the key problems with CWF, see www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html. This includes citations, as well as links to taking action. I also outline 5 key ways that the Supervisors can help fix its decision-making, which I think its very much biased towards CWF. I wonder if the PD will dare to report on that imbalance? * To read the original PD article, and perhaps comment on it, see these two locations on the PD website. (Each has its own comment thread.) www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130404/ARTICLES/130409769/1042/opinion?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar * The PD also did an editorial maligning us, based on the same false assertions in their first article. http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130408/OPINION/130409697/1043/opinion03?p=all&tc=pgall * To read the original STEP newsletter and other back issues, see: www.healthyworld.org/STEPRecent.html * For more about the April 30, 2013, Sebastopol City Council meeting linked to STEP and our water fluoridation article, see www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridationSebCC-043013R.htm. * I also encourage people to read this advice from Donna Westfall, a former City Councilperson in Crescent City, who was shocked to discover the reality of CWF and acted to stop it there. www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-DonnaWestf.html * I often hear about top scientists and proponents of CWF looking deeper into the science, being stunned that it doesn't support the claims, and becoming opponents. For instance, you can also read the experience of Dr. J. Colquhoun, BDS, MPhil, PhD, DipEd. He was a strong proponent of CWF as Principal Dental Officer of Auckland, the largest town in New Zealand. He traveled and promoted CWF, and was appointed chairman of a national "Fluoridation Promotion Committee". But then he started looking deeper into the science, and found it just didn't support the claims being made about CWF. He now speaks out against CWF. Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation (Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41 29-44 1997) http://www.fluoridation.com/colquh.htm * If you want to get announcements when each STEP newsletter is put online, I invite you to sign up on my very low email list at www.patriciadines.info/EList. You don't have to live in Sebastopol to receive these! Also, I have an option there for you to sign up for a STEP priority action alerts list, so you be informed if there any future developments in this process or STEP in general. |
||
|
1) The chemicals used in CWF include toxics that are known to cause health and environmental harm at dosage levels we might experience here. Thus it is a toxic and within the scope of our newsletter. 2) The proposal to do CWF in Sonoma County is relevant to people in Sebastopol. Yes, the City has its own wells. However, we still care about our county, and (as we stated in the article) we still are likely to be exposed to this SCWA water -- for instance when we go to work, play, school, restaurants, friends' houses, etc. in other areas of the County. We also have people we care about in other places in the County; we enjoy and support locally-made food and beverages, which are at risk of getting this fluoride in them; and we care about the local environment. An estimated 99% of fluoride in the water ends up in the environment (most sewage plants don't capture it), and from there it can cause harm to plants, crops, animals, ecosystems, and get into our aquifers. 3) I've heard from lots of Sebastopol folks who know the newsletter and found our article useful, well-written, and entirely appropriate for the newsletter. I am very grateful for them taking the time to share their views and show their support of our project. Even folks who wanted to try to understand the PD article, and went back to read our original article, told me they shook their heads and thought, "Huh? I don't see what the PD is fussing about." For typical comments, see this online conversation http://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?97305-Fuss-over-the-Sebastopol-Next-Step-Newsletter&p=164845 4) My personal opinion is that the PD writer had already decided to write a "scandal" article, and wasn't interested in understanding the actual nature of this newsletter or if these two complaints were fair or typical. I felt when he interviewed me that he'd already decided his conclusion, and just ignored key points that I was making. It's unfortunate that he would put his "story" above the facts or seeing the value of our cool innovative volunteer community project. 5) However I'm grateful that the vast majority of people I've heard from weren't distracted by the innaccurate PD article, and have spoken up in strong support of our article, our project, and our years of service to the community. I hope that instead of being distracted by this red herring, we can all put the focus where it needs to be -- why the DHS is NOT informing us on the science that disproves CWF at its very foundation.
I understand that some people just think CWF is good. I did read the information on both sides. I think most of the CWF supporters mean well. And I wish the claims were true. If I had thought any aspect of it had merit, I would've presented it. But I just don't feel that the facts support CWF or its big claims. I encourage everyone to look at the opposition facts and see how they reveal the lack of foundation under the proponent case. There are many stories of people (including prominent proponents and top scientists) who believed in CWF -- until they went to look at the science directly and found that it just doesn't match the proponent claims. There are just basic foundational facts that undermine the whole case for fluoridaiton. These are simply outdated beliefs. So for instance: 1) Even very mainstream experts now acknowledge that the positive effect of dental fluoride happens from topical application on teeth, not by ingestion. 2) No community water fluoridation material has gone through an FDA testing and approval process, as other medical materials must. 3) The material they would add to our precious water supply isn't pharmaceutical grade dental fluoride, but a very different compound that largely comes from the pollution scrubbers of the fertilizer industry and is contaminated with other toxics. 4) The providers of this fluoridation material refuse to provide a MSDS of what it contains. 5) It's known medical advice that certain members of the public should not consume fluoridated water, including infants and kidney patients, and thus they would have to pay for an expensive system to remove it from their home's water and try to avoid it wherever they go. Many folks won't know to do this, or won't be able to afford it, and thus would be exposed against their will. 6) There's a vast amount of evidence linking excess fluoride exposure to health and environmental harm. 7) We're likely already getting over safe levels of fluoride from our toothpaste, food, beverages, medicines, environmental pollution, and more. 8) The science does not show CWF to be safe and effective. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Thus I think the real question we need to ask is: "Why is this contrary information totally missing from the DHS presentation?" Why isn't DHS letting the Supervisors know that key aspects of CWF are subject to debate. That's where the key imbalance is, and the one that should concern all of us. These are our County staff advising our Board of Supervisors on a decision that will impact the health and pocketbooks of many people. We have a right to expect them to make a neutral assessment and at least offer both sides of the picture. One of the key principles in medicine is "informed consent," that a patient must be informed not just of the possible benefits of a procedure but also the possible downsides. So too a community has a right to hear not just from the one-sided boosters of a practice that will impact so many of us, but to know both the pros and cons. I hope that this article will help bring forward the hidden reality, and stand up for our rights. Patricia Dines |
This entire website is (c) Community
Action Publications, 1998-2013. All rights reserved.
Page last updated 5/28/13
www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-APD.html