agent erica

I was recently listening to the radio when I heard that the government would soon be adding flouride to the water in San Diego.  “Whaaatt??” I said out loud - I thought those days were over.  I couldn’t believe my ears so I began doing a little research to find out the deal with the water situation in California. 

According to the San Diego County Water Authority (http://www.sdcwa.org/manage/fluoridation.phtml), former Governor Pete Wilson signed a bill in 1995 Authorizing the California Department of Health Services to require water suppliers to flouridate their public water supply.  The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California is not one that is required to flouridate, BUT they decided to flouridate on their own based on recommendations from the California Department of Public Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

SCARY.  Why would they recommend such a thing when there is evidence that flouride can be harmful and why isn’t there a bigger stink about this??!!  Well, I aim to do my best to get to the bottom of this.

The SDCWA.org website says that, “Naturally occurring fluoride levels range from 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million, and water in San Diego County is currently at 0.23 parts per million on average. Fluoride will be adjusted to the optimal range for dental health of 0.7 to 0.8 parts per million.”  I personally don’t understand why we want to raise the natural levels of flouride in the water to levels that might be dangerous.  First I want to find out what scientists and health experts have to say about flouride.

 I found an article online from Fox6 written in late 2007 about the flouride controversy in San Diego.  A group called Citizens For Safe Drinking Water is quoted saying the the flouride added to water is, “not a natural product at all, it comes from the phosphate fertilizer industry “ (http://www.fox6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=9113DA9C-216A-41F2-9CC6-322B7D5ACFA3&gsa=true).  Sounds even scarier…but read the article to see both sides.  The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine is quoted saying that the plan will expose more than 64,000 children a day to unsafe fluoride levels.  Children may develop flourosis - a condition where teeth develop a dark stain - and in some cases, substantial erosion of enamel can occur.  But the general dental community seems to support the use of flouride in the water…so the conflicting viewpoints are still confusing me. 

Either way, I don’t understand why our government would pay (didn’t we just have budget cuts?) to essentially medicate the entire population without allowing us to vote on it (what happened to democracy!?) and especially when there is an alternative.  If one wants to use flouride, one can easily buy toothpaste with flouride in it or even mouthwash.  So WHY are we all being subjected to this?  Something is wrotten in the state of Denmark, my friends.  My first thought is that there must be some political reason…or perhaps I am missing something here.

According to another very informative article on SignOnSanDiego.com, “The annual cost of fluoridation ranges from 50 cents per person in large communities to $3 per person in smaller communities” (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070916-9999-1n16fluoride.html).

 And, not all dentists agree with adding flouride to water:

“Dr. David Kennedy, a retired San Diego dentist who opposes fluoridation, disputes those studies. He cites other studies – hotly contested by proponents – showing the dangers of fluoridation. “Do you think it’s appropriate for a government to put a chemical in the water that causes disproportionate harm?” he asked.

Green, leader of the anti-fluoride group, said fluorosilicic acid, the chemical used to fluoridate water, has not been tested to determine its long-term effects. The chemical contains arsenic and lead, which could lead to lung or bladder cancer, he said. “

Well folks…this debate is TO BE CONTINUED.  But I suggest doing your own research and reading the articles I cited.  One way to avoid drinking tap water and also avoid buying plastic bottled water (because of their harmful effect on the environment and also because almost all plastic bottles leach into the water) is to do like I have recently done and invest in GLASS containers for your home and then carry around a lighter aluminum container (sold at most eco-conscious establishments such as Whole Foods, Henry’s, etc. and Sigg water bottles are sold online too).  I recently bought a 5 gallon glass jug at a local water retailer that sells super-purified water which I can then refill at 35 cents a gallon (they have a giant several-tank system in the store that takes everything out of the water including flouride, chlorine and everything else - and if you want to you can remineralize the water yourself by adding salt or crystals, or so I’ve been told).  This glass jug sits atop a ceramic base (certified lead-free ceramic) with a spout (the spout is admittedly plastic, but tiny).  I calculated the intial cost of buying the jug and ceramic base will equal the amount I spend in a year on plastic bottles…and then after a year I will be saving money.  I’ve stopped buying plastic water bottles altogether and it’s been great for my peace of mind :) and darn if I didn’t reduce my carbon footprint by quite a bit!!  Now all I need to do is stop eating meat…

(Since I’m on the eco-friendly rant, I’ll explain what I mean by “now all I need to do is stop eating meat.”  A Japanese study done in 2007 found that every kilogram of beef you eat produces more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than if you drove three hours and left a 100 Watt lightbulb burning at home for nearly 20 days.)