Voting on fluoride
EDITOR: The supervisors are spending money to study how to implement water fluoridation in Sonoma County. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Why don't they find out if residents want fluoridation before taking this step?
There is overwhelming evidence that fluoride is a serious toxin that has deleterious effects ranging from dental fluorosis to brain damage to brittle bones to arthritis. Fluoride taken orally hardly has time to affect teeth, and we ingest the major percentage of it. In addition, 80 percent to 90 percent of the fluoride in the water simply goes down the drain — and into our environment.
Most of Europe and other developed countries have ceased water fluoridation because of the public health risks associated with fluoride. There are apparently no benefits derived from putting fluoride in the drinking water, because studies have now shown that tooth decay is not halted by this practice. The EPA has designated fluoride as a hazardous toxic waste. But it looks the other way when we dump this toxic waste into our water supply. Why are our supervisors pushing fluoride on us, and when are we going to be able to vote on this issue?
Ignoring the real issue
EDITOR: I thought Ruben Navarrette's Thursday column (“Senator got scolding, not answers”) was one of his worst that I have seen in The Press Democrat.
First, Navarrette tells us that Sen. Ted Cruz is a friend of his for a decade. Then he proceeds to tell us how clever and brilliant Cruz is. He talks about how he grilled Chuck Hagel and Eric Holder. Throughout the column, he rarely mentions the substantive issue of addressing gun violence and the law that Cruz and Sen. Dianne Feinstein were discussing.
Hopefully, Navarrette will discuss substantive issues, not personalities, in future columns.
The wrong questions