Council divided on fluoridation letter

A county proposal to fluoridate Sonoma water has left a sour taste in the mouths of some on the Sonoma City Council – which voted Monday to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors expressing opposition to the plan.

The council’s decision, however, was split like a broken denture – with councilmembers Laurie Gallian and Madolyn Agrimonti on the losing end of the 3 – 2 vote in favor of the letter.

The question of Sonoma County adding fluoride to the drinking water has floated to the surface in recent months, as the County Department of Health Services is moving forward with plans for a fluoridation program in the County water systems – with a recommendation expected before the Board of Supervisors sometime this spring.

Fluoridation ?proponents say that by injecting the additive in miniscule amounts – 0.7 parts per million is the proposed level – it is a safe method to effectively prevent tooth decay.

Opponents, however, argue that the government has no right to force citizens to ingest an additive by injecting it into the water supply. A 2014 report by Colorado-based engineering firm MWH Americas Inc. estimated the cost to inject fluoride into Sonoma County water at about $587,000 per year. About 65 percent of Californians are currently serviced by fluoridated water systems.

The council considered at its previous meeting whether to send a letter submitted by anti-fluoridation activist Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh to the Supes, but voted to have city staff revise the letter to better reflect Sonoma doubts about fluoridation.

Among other things, the new letter reflects Mayor David Cook’s concern that the fluoridation program may compromise the city’s groundwater banking project.

Over the course of the council’s recent fluoride-themed meetings, public comments focused on everything from the need to help low-income and underserved kids prevent tooth decay, to questions of the health effects of too much fluoride, to various conspiracy theories involving more diabolical reasons the government wants to fluoridate the water. The March 2 meeting was no different in its breadth and diversity of opinions about fluoride.

David Chambers, of Sonoma, appealed to the council to consider the positive effects fluoridation has had on curbing tooth decay and lowering dental-care costs.

“Fluoride has risks, but they are vanishingly small,” said Chambers. “Ask yourselves if you have allowed yourself time to look at the benefits of fluoride.”

Sonoma resident Stan Pappas approached the benefits of fluoride from a more personal view.

“I had nine cavities (growing up) in the 1940s,” said Pappas. “Then they came out with fluoride (in the water) and I haven’t had a cavity since.”

Sonoma resident Edward Shoop told the council that the number of dental professionals that attest to the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation programs is enough for him.

“When I hear several dentists come out and speak against their own self interest, that says something,” said Shoop.

Fluoridation is widely advocated in mainstream medicine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Dental Association all strongly encourage the practice.

However, fluoridation doubters were out in equal number March 2, with residents voicing concerns that a county program would put the overall fluoride intake at an unhealthy level.

Oakmont resident Gail Hartman said that, “No one is addressing dosage.”

“Now it exists in other (products),” said Hartman. “Nobody’s keeping track (of the dosage).”

Santa Rosa dentist Laura Gaeta-Wilson offered a more alarming view of fluoridation.

“Pets are going blind and have thyroid disease,” she said of over-fluoridation. “It’s the most dangerous thing we could do.”

Peter Chernoff, who claimed to hail from “Sonoma County at large,” read a poem that asked if the next step was to “fluoridate animals in the zoo?”

“We are largely made up of water/ Every son and daughter,” rhymed Chernoff, before being cut off at the end of his allotted three-minute comment time by Mayor Cook.

In the end, the council majority chose to err on the side of fluoride caution.

“My problem is with the delivery system,” said Councilmember Gary Edwards. “I’d rather have fluoride go in the right dose.”

Cook agreed, saying, “Fluoride in the aquifiers – I don’t want it.”

Agrimonti and Gallian, however, asked that the communication with the Supes reflect their two votes against the letter.

“Are we all hearing the same information – are we all working from the same base?” asked Gallian. “It’s too soon to be sending this letter.”

Peter Chernoff ... read a poem that asked if the next step was to ‘fluoridate animals in the zoo?’