<b>Negatives of fluoride</b>
EDITOR: Unlike Penny Vanderwolk ("Positives of fluoridation far outweigh negatives," Close to Home, Friday), I am against wholesale fluoridation of the public water supply. I'm not a member of the Sonoma County Oral Health Task Force. However, I am a retired registered nurse who can read.
I disagree that "all credible and current medical science supports fluoridation as the single most effective strategy for preventing dental caries," that opponents tout "psuedo-scientific" evidence against fluoridation or that they are dishonest about their true fears. There is plenty of actual scientific evidence questioning the wisdom of adding a by-product of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers to public water supplies.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, 90 percent of fluoride added to public water comes from just that. Too much fluoride exposure causes dental fluorosis. Again, according to the CDC, as of 2010, 41 percent of children age 12-15 had some form of dental fluorosis. And a 2009 study of 600 children in Iowa found no significant link between fluoride exposure and tooth decay.
You are permitted to your opinion as I am to mine. But you are out of line when you accuse those with a differing opinion of being fearful or embracing junk science.
EDITOR: Sonoma County swoons at any project that is described as "green" or "sustainable." Sonoma Clean Power would create no power. The only jobs it would create are for an over-priced management team. And clean? Carbon credits are not clean. Biomass is not clean.
Proponents argue that money will be saved because there are no shareholders to demand a share of the profits. But they will buy all the power from out-of-state (Texas?), for profit, brokers. PG&E will distribute the power. That is two sets of shareholders who will reap rewards. And what California regulations will be required of the out-of-state energy producers? What happened to buy local?