SUMMARY
On the April 30, 2013 Sebastopol City Council meeting agenda, Councilmember Patrick Slayter had put a proposal to insert a pro-fluoridation flyer into the City of Sebastopol water bill. He said that this was because The Next STEP newsletter (a long-standing toxics newsletter) had provided (factual scientific) information on the toxic harm of this practice. He asserted that we needed to let the pro-fluoridation arguments be presented -- even though I as expert editor had reviewed all the evidence on both sides and factually concluded that those assertions weren't supported by the science, and provided the clear evidence supporting that conclusion!
To me, it would've been horrendous for the City to distribute this disproven fluoridation PR, because:
1) It would misinform people and get many folks upset that the City was apparently supporting this practice.2) This pro-fluoridation information is easily available. In fact, a key point for me is that the official conversation is too dominated by those claims and refuses to even reflect the evidence that disproves it. Our article was an attempt to illuminate what was not sufficiently being discussed, from the mandate of our newsletter.
3) This precedent with the newsletter to me would've challenged it at the foundation. Would that mean that every time I alerted folks to a toxic, the proponents of that toxic would get to put a flyer with their unvetted PR claims in the water bill? Say for Monsanto's Roundup product? Would I then have to worry about that with each article I wrote?
4) Plus, in 2010 The City Council overtly decided NOT to use the City water bill as a general communication medium, because it had become very cluttered and folks were complaining. The Council chose to affirm their past decisons to primarily put The Next STEP newsletter and City newsletter there, and only make very rare exceptions for special City-related business.
5) Most importantly, the vast majority of the feedback from residents was that they thought the original STEP article was entirely appropriate for the newsletter, and its underlying mission to alert residents about possible sources of hidden toxics.
I was delighted that many folks wrote letters and emails stating that they felt that STEP's original fluoridation article was fair, factual, and entirely appropriate for this newsletter. And many folks wrote their Councilmembers stating their objection to this pro-fluoridation flyer proposal. I am very grateful for that!
>> So I was glad to see Councilman Slayter WITHDRAW his proposal at the meeting. He said he did so because of feedback he received from community members. I was amazed, and actually impressed that he heard people enough to do that.
Councilman Slayter did however propose changes to The Next STEP process. Staff gently let him know that he couldn't just create a new topic, and that he needed to make a new and future agenda item to discuss that. Thus this was not discussed at this meeting. I will keep the community informed about what might come of that. (Note: If you want to be kept informed about any future developments in this process, I invite you to sign up for priority action alerts at www.patriciadines.info/EList.)
The comment period for this original agenda item was still held and everyone who spoke said that they were strongly supportive of the STEP newsletter and thought the fluoridation article was fair, factual, and entirely appropriate for the newsletter's stated mission. Many folks also spoke against fluoridation in general, and some encouraged the Council to take an official position against it.
>> I want to say that I am so deeply grateful for everyone who took the time to stand up for my fluoridation article in The Next STEP newsletter, and my work there in general, both by email and at the meeting. It has been so incredibly moving to me to see how many people really do value the hard work that I put into this newsletter -- to make it high-quality, useful, and of service to people and this town. What an honor to be in this relationship with this town. Thank you so much to everyone who spoke up. I am filled with gratitude....
I also want to note that all three Councilmembers there stated that there was and is no plan to fluoridate Sebastopol's water, if nothing else for technical and financial reasons. So that's great, and fine to say, since some folks weren't clear on this. And it was never proposed for Sebastopol. It's being proposed for the main Sonoma County water supply, which is distributed by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA); Sebastopol has its own supply.
However, as I noted in my original article, I still think the proposed fluoridation should matter to everyone in Sonoma County, as we all would be impacted by it in various ways. So even if our house doesn't get SCWA water, we still eat, dine, work, or go to school elsewhere in the county; and care about people elsewhere in the county. We all are impacted if more people in this county get sick, financially and emotionally. Also, sewage plants don't filter it out, so it goes into our shared environment, where it can harm salmon, creatures, plants, and ecosystems. The Llano Road treatment plant is just outside of Sebastopol and the water from it is sprayed onto fields there and elsewhere in the Laguna. Also, fluoridated water would get into our local food and beverages. And it would harm our reptuation as a healthy destination.
Thus I think that this proposal to fluoridate Sonoma County's main water supply should matter to all of us!
Best regards - Patricia Dines
==
* More details on the meeting are below.
* For actions you can take on fluoridation, see www.healthyworld.org/StopSCFAction.html.
* For my original announcement about this meeting, see www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridationSebCC-043013.html.
* For more about The Next STEP newsletter, see www.healthyworld.org/STEP-HistoryDesign.html
* 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.
|
MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE APRIL 30 MEETING When Councilperson Slayter was withdrawing this agenda item, he unfortunately made a negative comment about The Next STEP fluoridation article, saying that he heard from "lots" of folks that maybe it went too far in "advocacy." Boy, I'd love to have a conversation to define THAT word! It's a trigger word, but as far as I can tell it just means recommending people do something. However, our action-oriented focus is part of what folks have requested and love about the newsletter! I also question his assertion that "lots" of people had any concern. The overwhelming feedback I've heard is that folks appreciated this information and found it totally appropriate for this newsletter. I'm also concerned that he didn't perhaps understand the basic design of the newsletter, even though I've sent him information on it. For instance, just the day before in an email, he called it a "community newsletter." But the fact that this is a toxics article in a toxics newsletter is key to understanding its context. Because conversation had happened on the agenda item, folks asked for the comment period to happen anyway, since this item was on the agenda. And I was so moved and grateful to hear what everyone said -- about the newsletter, and the fluoridation article -- the same thing I've heard over and over from people -- that they felt it was fair, factual, and completely appropriate for the newsletter. In my comment I indicated that that is the vast majority of feedback that I have heard from folks. I said that before the Press Democrat (PD) article came out, the article had been out for over a month and we'd only heard from ONE person disagreeing with it. Thus I think the PD stirred up and tried to assert something that just wasn't happening within the community. (For my response to the PD article, you can see www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-APD.html.) I also provided the Council with a packet of information I had prepared. On top was a page of the representative feedback I've seen from people. (You can see that at www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-Responses.html.) I also provided more information about the science that undermines the claims of fluoridation at their very core. This is not a "he said/she said" situation, with valid claims on "both sides." This is a powerful vested interest making appealing claims that time and again many scientists have demonstrated are just not supported by the science. That's why the vast majority of countries do not fluoridate, and think that it's barbaric that we still do. This is like DDT, tobacco, mercury amalgams, and so many other things that were promoted by the status quo long after the evidence proved otherwise, needlessly harming so many people, creatures, and ecosystems along the way. (I've summarized my factual scientific concerns about fluroidation, with citations, at www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html.) In my original STEP article, I was just letting folks know the solid scientific evidence of fluoridation's toxicity and harm, per the mandate of our newsletter. I felt that I had an ethical obligation to do so. To me the real question never was why I provided this information -- but why the Department of Health Services (DHS) does NOT. They are 100% pro-fluoridation advocates, when to me their job as staff for our democratic government should be to give people full information to make our decision -- including about the known harm of this material. Contrary to DHS assertions, this is NOT proven safe and effective! So to me that's where I think we need to redirect people's attention -- to getting this important information about the harm of fluoridation to Sonoma County residents, into our County conversation, and into our shared decision-making. Only by many of us insisting on this will his information be included. (More about actions you can take are on my action page on this topic www.healthyworld.org/StopSCFAction.html.) --- On a personal note, I want to say that the PD article and ensuing kerfuffle has had an interesting effect on my life. At first, I felt it was an unfounded attack on my work, which was hard for me, because I put so much effort into being professional, caring about quality and usefulness, and listening to and respecting all stakeholders and agreements. It made me feel unseen and a little discouraged. BUT THEN when I saw so many people stand up and say that they do see and value what I've been doing -- wow, how amazing it is to feel the caring and support of my community. It really is an incredible experience and such a blessing. It's also actually pushed me farther into being concerned about this fluoridation issue. I got a taste of how the truth really does get suppressed on this topic. They attack the messenger, with blatant untruths that might be persuasive to folks who don't know the facts. I've seen much more extreme examples, but to experience a little of it myself is quite revealing. It gets me even more fired up to stand up for the truth, and our true best interest. >> Because we will live with the results of these decisions, all of us, in our health and environment and future. We have a right to make informed choices about our well-being. And it's incredible for me to live in a community where so many other people share those values, who care enough to speak up for the truth and each other. It's incredible for me to have stood up for our well-being, and find others standing up with me. For the weird creature that I am -- life doesn't get much better than that! In gratitude to you all... Patricia |
|
REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS AT THE MEETING Councilmember Sarah Gurney Nancy (Jonavie) "As far as her, the article in The Next STEP - basically, the fluoridation industry already has well-publicized their point of view. So Patricia was really just sort of balancing their very unbalanced point of view by giving a little of the other side -- like the actual scientific side. So I think that it's very important that she does do that, in the same way - I know we're talking about pesticides being used today - but in general the City is not into that. Y'know, if she talked about Roundup, would we have to have a flyer from Monsanto in the water bill?… I mean - that's a bit weird. "I would like to say one thing. Time magazine, back on April 1 2010, had the 10 most common household toxics listed. Fluoride was one of the 10 and the health hazards were considered to be, what they wrote, Time magazine - neurotoxic and potentially tumoragenic if swallowed. The American Dental Association advises that children under 2 not use fluoride toothpaste. "In addition to that, the fluoride that is being used to fluoridate water is not pharmaceutical grade, it's not the sodium fluoride like is in toothpaste. Not that I'm saying that's totally safe, but there is some evidence that topical application may help prevent cavities in children or some other people. But - the fluoride being used in water is not that. It's hydrofluorosilicic acid. And Dr. William Hershey, senior chemist as the EPA stated, "If this stuff, hydrofluorosilicic acid, gets out into the air, it's a pollutant. If it gets out into the river, it's a pollutant. If it gets out into the lake, it's a pollutant. But if it goes right straight into your drinking water system - it's not a pollutant." And then he ended his statement with, "That's amazing." "So just because our county has caved to - whatever pressures it's caved to - and just because the Department of Health Services is promoting propaganda that I think is very unsound, and so do many many scientists. I actually feel that rather than providing more propaganda for this industry, the fluoridation industry -- as a public service, Sebastopol City Council could come out, could adopt a resolution against fluoridation in Sonoma County. Seriously. We could do that. We could help the citizens of Sonoma County who don't happen to live in a more enlightened city, to help them from being poisoned." Unnamed male |
This entire website is (c) Community
Action Publications, 1998-2013. All rights reserved.
Page last updated 5/28/13
www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridationSebCC-043013R.htm