As we have previously reported, the issue of fluoride in the Davis water supply is not a new issue. At the very least, it appears to have come up at least four times previously – in 1960, 1964 (twice), 1971, and 1991.
Only in April of 1964 did the fluoride issue appear to win and, as John Lofland, professor emeritus from UC Davis and a local historian wrote earlier this week, even that victory was short-lived.
“Of the four episodes, this one in the winter and spring of 1964 was the most ordinarily political,” Professor Lofland writes. “By ‘most ordinarily political’ I mean that two named groups with a public leadership mounted campaigns in the forms of walking streets, organizing public debates, publishing advertisements, and the like.”
“At least as evidenced by Enterprise reporting, such features were much less visible or even present in the three other episodes. Specifically, the Davis Dental Health Council faced off against the Davis Pure Water Committee. The names of the organized leadership of both were reported in Enterprise stories,” he continues.
“Then Mayor Norman Woodbury was also president of the Davis Dental Health Council and fabled Dr. Herbert Bauer participated in its leadership,” the Professor writes. “Despite the pro-fluoridation forces seeming to be more ‘establishment’ than the anti-fluoridation side, the pro-side won the election by only 20 votes (1,483 to 1,463). But, even this weak victory was short-lived. An initiative campaign organized by the Davis Pure Water Committee led to a November election that reversed this early 1964 vote.”
As we previously noted, the issue would come up again in 1971 but the council voted it down. In 1991, we have minutes of the meeting in which a number of health officials spoke in favor of the proposal, as did members of the Natural Resources Commission.
According to the minutes, Lois Wolk moved and Maynard Skinner seconded a motion to “ask staff to analyze the issues involving ways to increase the use of fluoride for children as suggested by the Natural Resource Commission, i.e., school based programs, provision of subsidies, making information available to parents, and to request the Center for Disease Control to provide information to the City of Davis on the process and costs of fluoridating the wells.”
That motion was defeated 3-2 with Jerry Adler, Susie Boyd and Dave Rosenberg voting against the proposal.
Jerry Adler, seconded by Lois Wolk, then moved that “the Public Works Department continue to explore and define the engineering aspect and the cost aspect for fluoridation with a view towards bringing the matter to an advisory vote of the people in the next regularly scheduled municipal election or earlier election if there is an earlier municipal election.”
That motion failed, as well, with Maynard Skinner joining Susie Boyd and Dave Rosenberg in opposition.
The strongest advocate in the city of Davis is likely Supervisor Don Saylor. He authored the non-binding resolution that the County Board of Supervisors passed 4-1 last month.
In a recent article in the Sacramento Bee he argued that the issue was simply a matter of common sense, “Adding fluoride to drinking water in Davis and Woodland would improve dental health for 130,000 people, particularly low-income residents who can’t afford regular health visits.”
“This is a social justice as well as a public health issue,” Supervisor Saylor told the Bee. “It’s well past time to address this.”
“Dental care is out of reach for many,” Supervisor Saylor added. “There are still children who don’t have access to care. Topical (fluoride) applications are expensive and require dental insurance.”
“When you have the entire public health, medical and dental communities saying it’s a no-brainer, this isn’t something that’s recently come along,” Dr. Michael Wilkes, a UC Davis professor of medicine and chairman of the Yolo County Health Council, told the Bee.
“Fluoride, at the end of the day, is a public health issue,” Dr. Wilkes said. “At its core, it’s a social health issue. Those who benefit most are people with the least access to dental health.”
So in 1991, the Davis City Council, a very distinguished group that included five mayors (if you count the stint that Mr. Adler would serve), a future senator and a future judge could not even agree on a mechanism for putting the matter to an advisory vote.
Our view of the current issue is that the dynamics in the city really have not changed that much in the last 50 years since the issue first emerged.
Thus far, none of the five members of the current Davis City Council have stepped forward to champion the issue as their own. When we first talked to members of the council and city staff, there seemed to be a lukewarm approach (at best) and a vague notion that this would be put to a vote.
And while Supervisor Saylor has been a strong advocate, in many ways, he is the wrong voice to lead on this.
While much of the rest of the country has long since resolved the issue of fluoridation, it remains problematic in Davis.
Our view at this time is as follows. First, with no strong advocate on the Davis City Council there will be no one attempting to shepherd a measure through council. On an issue like this, that is going to make it difficult to pass.
Second, there is a vocal group of unknown size that is vehemently opposed to this measure.
There is a group of health advocates who are supporting this measure, as was the case in the past.
With a polarized community, council, again lacking a champion on the issue, is unlikely to make a decision on their own. That means it is far more likely that they either choose to do nothing or punt and put it on the ballot.
The most likely time that the issue would go on the ballot is June of 2014. That is a council election and while the council might be reluctant to run for reelection on the same ballot as a fluoridation issue, right now only one of the five members of the city council is up for reelection.
Council elections in June are generally low turnout elections. There are essentially two groups opposing fluoridation. One is a small but vocal group of conservatives, who see the issue as a threat to personal liberty and choice. The other is a larger block of liberal and progressive voters who see fluoridation as a health risk and an environmental hazard.
On the other side, you have the more mainstream health advocates who are strongly believing that fluoridation is a critical issue to protect dental health, primarily of disadvantaged children who lack access to medical care and perhaps the diligence of parents to protect their teeth.
In the middle is the larger group of the populace who are perhaps inclined to lean toward fluoridation, but lack the passion of the opposition.
In a general election, it seems possible that that middle group would come out to vote and prove decisive. In a primary, the more extreme voters, the ones with passion on the issue, are the most likely to come out and vote and may tip the scale against the measure.
It is worth noting that, at least in 1964, that is the opposite of how things worked where, in the primary, the voters very narrowly approved fluoridation only to lose in the general.
There are reasons to believe the dynamic has switched – the electorate in Davis has moved well to the left of where it was in the early 1960s, and the general inclination of voters is probably to lean toward fluoridating the water, unless presented with a strong and persuasive case against it.
In short, we think if the council does move forward with this measure, it will be as an advisory vote and we believe that, unless that advisory vote is placed on the November 2014 election ballot (50 years to the month after the 1964 vote), it will once again fail.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If we don’t know how many opponents there are, can we really say that the issue is politically polarized?
We know that each meeting a large number of people come out opposed to the measure. We do not know however, how many people they represent in total.
Don’t forget, though, that if we’re talking about adding water to the system from river water that has been processed, then we lose the distinction between what is “pure” (natural) and what is not.
Put fluoride in the water and Mr. Harrington and I will become best buddies peppering the city with as many lawsuits as we can think of.
This issue makes we want to punch my dentist and demand that we put diet pills in his hamburgers.
Not that I would do these things because I respect his right to not be punched and respect his right to get fat from eating as many hamburgers as he wants to. I also respect his right to be stupid and make his kids fat as long as we are teaching nutrition in their crappy schools.
But I might ask my dentist if he supports fluoridation of our drinking water and then take a page out of the Mike Harington playbook to hire college students to picket his office.
It’s already in your water, Frankly. The question is: What should the level be?
No lawyer will take your case, if you do not even know what the issue is.
We need to put vitamins in our water too!
I can find a lawyer to take any case.
Please stop wasting our time with this anti-intellectual stuff, Frankly.
Fluoridation is a “no brainer” alright, i.e. stupid.
Water fluoridation is rejected science in most of the world There are now safer and much cheaper ways to distribute fluoride to those who want it.
brianriley429, talk about anti-intellectual! Putting a drug into the drinking water. I often find that those people thinking they are the smartest in the room are often blind and ignorant and prone to defending traditions of idiocy. Ernesto has it right. The concept of adding fluoride to the water is a stupid idea.
“Putting a drug into the drinking water. “
it’s more accurate to say that you’re putting a chemical in the drinking water. we do that all of the time whether it’s chlorine, ozone, or fluoride. you’re only complaining about one specific chemical.
The FDA has repeatedly confirmed its position that fluoride is a drug.
in the same way that an anti-dandruff shampoo is considered a drug…
“The FD&C Act defines drugs, in part, by their intended use, as “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease””
and
“. For example, a shampoo is a cosmetic because its intended use is to cleanse the hair. An antidandruff treatment is a drug because its intended use is to treat dandruff. Consequently, an antidandruff shampoo is both a cosmetic and a drug.”
you’re getting caught up on semantics, you’re basically putting a chemical into the water to treat it, much as you would chlorine or ozone.
[quote]…you’re basically putting a chemical into the water to treat it, much as you would chlorine or ozone. [/quote]
That’s incorrect. Ozone and chlorine are put into the water to disinfect the water of pathogenic organisms such as bacteria and cysts to prevent communicable human diseases. Fluoride is classified by the FDA as an “unapproved drug” and is put into the water to affect people and not treat the water to purify it of organisms. I’d also note the reason the FDA classifies fluoride as an “unapproved drug” is because it has never been subjected to the rigorous double-blind studies to prove efficacy and safety as are all other drugs approved for human and animal use.
Frankly: [i]Put fluoride in the water and Mr. Harrington and I will become best buddies peppering the city with as many lawsuits as we can think of. [/i]
…and you can get more comfortable with Obamacare because fluoride treatment for children is one of the preventive services offered for children ([url]http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html#CoveredPreventiveServicesforChildren[/url]), thereby countering the argument that low income children wouldn’t get adequate preventive dental care without fluoridation.
So Frankly, since you know what’s a “drug” and we don’t, and flouride is a “drug,” what do you propose we do with the flouride that is *currently* in the groundwater? Are you drinking it yourself?
brianriley429: The FDA says it is a drug. Are you suggesting that we just ignore what the FDA says?
If you are adding a substance to the water to treat some health issue, and that substance is named as a drug by the FDA, then you are adding a drug to the water. The small amounts of fluoride that exist in the water, just like the small amounts of other elements that exist in the water, are not drugs in that they are not formulated and dispensed by people to treat health issues.
Name one other drug that is added to water to force medicate an entire population. Why not add vitamins too. There are a lot of malnourished kids out there. Don’t you think adding vitamins to the water would help people and provide the level of social justice that you fluoride advocates are demanding?
wdf1: I don’t have a problem with kids getting topical fluoride treatments. Preferably, they would just brush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste twice a day, but too many uneducated and/or lazy parents out there not training them to do so.
As for Obamacare, it is not needed and it will cause so large a mess in our healthcare system that a few cavities in the teeth of a few kids will be the least of our problems.
Once again, since the fluoridaters want to add a foreign substance to our drinking water it’s up to them to prove that it’s actually needed, not feasible to administer in another way and safe beyond a doubt. The burden is on you, not the people who prefer to keep their water as pure as possible.
because people are thinking?
[b]FLUORIDEGATE [/b]is a new documentary that reveals the tragedy of how government, industry and trade associations protect and promote a policy known to cause harm to our country and especially to small children who suffer more than any other segment of the population. [url]http://www.fluoridegate.org/[/url]
Sorry, Frankly. Your answer shows that you are shooting from the hip and don’t know what you’re talking about. Naturally occurring fluoride is not something that can be just brushed aside as negligible. You’re going to have to do your homework if you want people to take you seriously.
No. That doesn’t make any sense. Naturally occurring fluoride is bad too. Just because there is some there doesn’t make it OK to add more.
There are a lot of good reasons to not consume Davis tap water, but since that is impossible, we should do our best to get it as clean as reasonably possible.
@Ernesto: Who says it’s bad? What’s the evidence? Give me a citation to a scholarly journal that is peer reviewed.
[i]Sorry, Frankly. Your answer shows that you are shooting from the hip and don’t know what you’re talking about. [/i]
brianriley429, you appear to be playing an imbecile game of asking questions to claim intellectual superiority. First you claim that fluoride is not a drug and are proven wrong. Then you move to another question about naturally-occurring fluoride and just decide by yourself that my answer to your question is not good enough.
It is really quiore simple. Fluoride is a drug when administered to address a health problem. It is no different than say iron, which if put in pill form and prescribed by a doctor to address anemia is a drug. Let’s play your game and ignore what the FDA says and claim that iron and Fluoride are supplements when used to address health issues. Let’s let you win this silly game of semantics and see where it gets you. Nowhere because the same problem exists… forcing a population of people to injest a supplement intended to treat a specific health issue which only a small minority of the population actually needs. This practice breaks the hyppocratic oath that doctors take. It does harm. It does harm just like dumping extra iron in the water would do harm. It does not matter that the compound or element is natually occuring. Adding it to the water to address health issues is a dispensing of medicine, Dispensing of any medicine in the water is Orwellian. It was 60 years ago when the practice started, it most certainly is today when we have 100 brands of fluoride toothpaste available.
One last point. It is lazy. You are others supporting this practice are lazy. If you want to help prevent children from getting tooth decay, go out and handout bubblegum-flavored fluoride toothpaste and teach kids how to brush. Advocate for this education in the schools. Show pictures of ugly toothless people and tell the kids how they will look if they don’t brush.
But stop advocating to pollute our water system with added drugs or supplements that the majority of us do not need and do not want.
Frankly, I think you are stuck on ignorant for this issue. Like many, you have dug in your heels in support of a old practice… in your rational mind you know it is highly problematic, and note that 90% of other industrialized countries have stopped the practice… but you just can’t let go. Maybe it is an addiction you have?
OK, Frankly. Let’s suppose there’s a community of nomads that decides it wants to address a health issue by drinking water that contains fluoride. They decide that the amount occurring naturally in the ground water where they ate at isn’t high enough of a concentration, so they all move 100 miles south where there is double the concentration. Does their mindset somehow turn all that fluoride in the ground water in the second location into medicine?
*where they are at
That strawman scenario does not hold up to being useful because we are not a community of nomads. We are an industrialized modern society with 100 brands of fluoride toothpaste… many of them very inexpensive.
If a community of nomads had fifteen grocery stores and ten drug stores all stocking at least 50+ brands of reasonably-priced fluoride toothpaste, and a flow of constant information reminded them that people should brush at least twice a day with fluoride toothpaste, they would soon forget about fluoride in the water an would move on to more important things like economic sustainability.
But let’s say your poor, uneducated and toothpaste-less nomads moved over to that water source with higher PPM of natural fluoride.
From Unicef’s position on water fluoridation…
[quote]Throughout many parts of the world, high concentrations of fluoride occurring naturally in groundwater and coal have caused widespread fluorosis – a serious bone disease – among local populations. [/quote]
I think any nomads that did this are extinct.
Naturally occurring fluoride in well water is a huge problem in certain parts of the world.
I can’t imagine anyone seeking added fluoride in their well water. There is no nutritional requirement of the body for fluoride.
Haven’t either of you guys ever taken a chemistry class?
I would like to address a common error that I have seen in several arguments for fluoride addition to municipal water, including from Don Saylor as noted above:
[quote]“Dental care is out of reach for many,” Supervisor Saylor added. “There are still children who don’t have access to care. Topical (fluoride) applications are expensive and require dental insurance.”[/quote]
as well as from Michael Perrone in a recent Enterprise guest editorial:
[quote]“Could there be a tax to pay for fluoride for people who can’t afford it?”[/quote]
These statements are incorrect and unnecessary, respectively. Topical fluoride treatments are included in the Affordable Care Act’s Covered Preventive Services as of September 23, 2010 as “Fluoride Chemoprevention supplements for children without fluoride in their water source.” Since the primary group in question is the indigent, they are already covered for fluoride supplements (as a chewable tablet) at no cost through Medi-Cal.
Medi-Cal eligibility was recently expanded as well to allow even more children to qualify, and those with private or employer-sponsored health insurance also have coverage at no cost (deductibles, co-payments, and co-insurance are waived for all preventive services and treatments).
Therefore, as a question of access and cost for the indigent, these arguments are moot.
[quote]Naturally occurring fluoride is bad too. [/quote]
Ernesto,
It is the quantity of the fluoride in the water that is good or bad, not its mere presence. This is illustrated in one of the FAN cited studies in which Bhatnagar et al proposed, as a treatment for fluoride toxicosis, providing the patient with “safe drinking water” defined by these researchers as < 1ppm of fluoride. If fluoride at any level is a danger, why were they not promoting treatment with water containing no fluoride. Yellow [quote]as a question of access and cost for the indigent, these arguments are moot.[/quote] I would love to believe that you are correct in this assessment as is comes closer to my desired outcome of access to quality health care for all. However, as providers from Communicare have stated, there are not enough providers to cover for the number of children needing this care. Therefore, unless we suddenly have many more dentists offering their time for free or minimal compensation, this is simply not going to take care of the access problem, even here in Davis.
Medwoman, fluoride supplements do not need to be prescribed by dentists (although they certainly can). They can be prescribed by a pediatrician, family doctor, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant, for example. It can be (and should already be) prescribed during a routine well-child exam with sufficient refills to last until the next routine well-child exam for every child in Davis. If a child’s parent objects to fluoride supplementation, they simply need not fill the Rx. While there certainly is a shortage of dental care at Communicare relative to the demand, there is ample availability for routine well-baby and well-child care within Davis and Woodland.
Fluoridation Opposition is Scientific, Respectable & Growing
More than 4,500 professionals (including 343 dentists and 538 MD’s) urge that fluoridation be stopped because fluoridation is ineffective and harmful. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/text/
In 2006, a National Research Council expert panel published a fluoride report which revealed that fluoride, even at low doses added to water supplies, can be especially harmful to the thyroid gland, kidney patients, babies, seniors and people who drink high amounts of water. They also revealed critical fluoride safety studies have never been done and studies linking fluoride to cancer and lower IQ are plausible.
Thirty-seven human studies now link fluoride to lowered IQ, some at levels considered safe in the US. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/iq-facts/
After 68 years of water fluoridation, the Centers for Disease Control reports that up to 60% of 12-15 year-olds are affected with fluoride overdose symptoms – dental fluorosis, white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. Yet, cavity crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities and states http://www.FluorideNews.Blogspot.com
The CDC reports that 225 less communities adjusted for fluoride between 2006 and 2008. About 100 US and Canadian communities rejected fluoridation since 2008; many in 2012.
Recently, both Wichita, Kansas and Portland, Oregon rejected fluoridation 60% to 40%. Hamilton, NZ, councilors voted 7-1 to stop 50 years of fluoridation after councilors listened to several days of testimony from those for and against fluoridation (June 2013) Hamilton joins 30 other regional NZ that don’t fluoridate.
Windsor, Ontario, and Cairns, Australia stopped fluoridation this year. Windsor’s Mayor, who has a chemistry background, explains why he voted with the majority to stop 51 years of water fluoridation in this radio interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gJcjYl_2MQY
Most of Western Europe and major world cities do not fluoridate the water. Yet tooth decay rates are similar to those of the US.
Responding to the above post…. Take a look at the brilliant (sarcasm) public relations of the fluoridealert.org folks. They posted this (below) probably without even realizing that it supports their opponents!
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/anti-fluoride-campaigners-bamboozle-with-pseudoscience
Here’s a clickable hyperlink:
[url]http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/anti-fluoride-campaigners-bamboozle-with-pseudoscience[/url]
In other words, they are identifying *themselves* as being practitioners of pseudoscience.