The American Dental Association recently released a statement that warns that there is a “possibility that infants could receive a greater than optimal amount of fluoride through liquid concentrate or powdered baby formula that has been mixed with water containing fluoride during a time that their developing teeth may be susceptible to enamel fluorosis.”
The statement goes on to suggest that parents use water that is “fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride” to mix infant formula.
How do our county commissioners, who have repeatedly stated that it is their “right” to force us to ingest fluoridated water, propose to make unfluoridated water available to parents with young children?
Fluorosis, and the cosmetic dentistry that is employed to “fix” it, greatly boosts the income of dentists and increases dental costs to the general public. Fluorosis is also an indicator of fluoride poisoning and of what is happening inside the body. Children, with their rapidly developing bodies, and the elderly, with organ systems that aren’t as effective as younger people, are two of the most at-risk populations when it comes to fluoride’s negative health impacts.
It seems odd to me that anyone would want to add fluoride — a toxic chemical regulated as a drug by the FDA and as a contaminant by the EPA — to our water supply. What is wrong with pure, clean water? What legitimate rationale is there for polluting our water supply, our bodies and our environment?
Nan Laney
Sedro-Woolley

With modern dental products readily available, such as fluoride toothpaste, anti-cavity fluoride rinses, fluoride drops, fluoride tablets and topical fluoride applications, it is unnecessary and backward to consider adding fluoride to Skagit County water systems.
More than 60 years ago, when fluoride was first added to certain water systems, people didn’t have other options. But today, in the 21st century, we do. We can obtain and use fluoride products if we so choose. There is no logical reason for fluoridated water to be forced upon the public. The focus of tooth decay should be on removing the cause of decay, not just adding a chemical to the water and assuming the job is done.
I’m sure we are all well aware of what causes tooth decay. We would have to live in a cave not to know of all the sugar consumption in this country. For every holiday, there is special candy. Special treats are now an everyday thing.
We need to give attention to the cause of tooth decay, to focus on foods and beverages that are wholesome and nutritious. Fluoride is not a magic potion that guarantees strong, healthy teeth. If a person continues to eat foods high in sugar with little nutritional value, teeth will continue to decay. The expense of water fluoridation, without proper dental care and diet, is just very expensive water down the drain.
Information regarding proper diet and dental hygiene must be part of an educational process if dental decay is to decrease.
Audrey Yerger
Burlington

Regarding the Draft Resolution to fluoridate Skagit County PUD No. 1, there is one particular item that I find extremely disturbing. The final “whereas” attempts to classify dental caries (tooth decay) as a “contagious, infectious disease.”
This is clearly absurd and, in my opinion, it constitutes a fraudulent assertion on the part of the Skagit County Health Department. Dental caries are not spread through casual human contact, as is being suggested by wording in the resolution. Any such notion defies all logic and scientific reason.
Therefore, what I perceive to be deliberate intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who have authored this document demonstrates a complete absence of good faith that contaminates the entire proposal.
At the beginning of November, the American Dental Association was forced to concede to National Research Council findings that babies younger than a year old are at great risk of developing enamel fluorosis from ingestion of supplemental fluoride on a regular basis. Since this warning is now common knowledge within the medical and dental communities, neither the Health Department nor the Commissioners’ Office can claim that they are unaware of it.
Thus, should they decide to approve fluoridation, the county will also be liable for any damage inflicted upon the infant population as a result of this action. Especially in low-income households, parents will mix baby formula with tap water and there is little anyone can do to prevent it.
The only way to avoid costly litigation is to keep our water free of fluoride.
Don Johnson
Mount Vernon

I oppose the addition of fluoride to our public water supply. It is unreasonable and unfair to add a chemical that has been shown to be detrimental to infants and older people to the public water supply. Some studies have shown that fluoride reduces tooth decay, but other studies dispute those findings.
I urge our county commissioners and PUD to use an educational approach to reduce tooth decay. They should support a program that teaches parents and children the importance of good diet and dental hygiene to prevent decay in youngsters. Many dentists agree that, with such a program, tooth decay would not be a problem. They say that the at-risk populations for tooth decay are mainly people who are uneducated about dental health.
I am a professional research scientist. I have read numerous articles and reports about the pros and cons of fluoride in drinking water, and my overall conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence of the safety for the entire population, relative to the benefits to one component of the population, to force a toxic chemical onto people who do not need or want it. The demonstrated toxic risk is not worth it, especially when there are good alternatives. Please contact your county commissioners to let them know you do not want this dangerous chemical in our otherwise safe drinking water.
E. Eric Knudsen
Mount Vernon

I attended the county commissioners’ hearing regarding the addition of fluoride to our drinking water and left somewhat discouraged by the logic. The question is not whether or not fluoride might be beneficial to teeth. The question is ethical: How can government or the American Dental Association dictate to the populace what drugs we ingest? Health care professionals are supposed to “partner” with their patients regarding treatment, not mandate or force them into submission. When I go to the physician, I listen, sometimes get another opinion, do some research, but eventually make my own decision about what vaccinations, medicines or treatment I choose. For government and medical personnel to be making my decision for me is outrageous. “You will drink this fluoride! You and your livestock, your pets, your sick aunt and whoever!” Scary. Couldn’t we just continue to make our own health care decisions?
Carolann Tackels
Mount Vernon

Fluoride toothpaste warns to keep out of the reach of children and to contact a poison control center if accidentally swallowed; what more do you need to know? If you do online research, you will find that the fluoride someone wants to inject into your drinking water is a waste product of nuclear, fertilizer and aluminum production and has nothing to do with existing natural fluoride.
You might find that fluoride causes cancer, osteoporosis, arthritis, etc., and is the active toxin in rat and cockroach poisons.
You will find how Andrew Mellon of Alcoa, appointed secretary of the treasury, who was in charge of the U.S. Public Health Service, pushed a report with no studies, no data, that fluoride would be good for your teeth, in spite of previous research that had shown fluoride was toxic at 1 part per million.
Instead of industries paying for disposal in toxic waste sites, they could be paid for injecting it into public water systems. At that time (1944), the American Dental Association warned that fluoridated water causes osteoporosis, goiter and spinal disease. Ask yourself, why would businessmen “donate” $800,000 for fluoride injection equipment? Are they nice guys or making money on toxic waste disposal?
Joe Polednick
Alger

Proposition 2, fluoridation of PUD water, did not pass — 52 percent does not equal 60 percent voter approval. The 60 percent voter approval law says that only the PUD can fluoridate water based on voter approval. I did not vote to poison myself, my family or my friends. Fluoride is very expensive to remove from drinking water. Your water filters will not remove fluoride.
Every day, more and more information about adding fluoride to drinking water urges more and more caution. Recently, the American Dental Association released new, more restrictive guidelines on the consumption of drinking fluoridated water.
Please do not allow anyone to poison your drinking water. Please attend the commissioners’ hearing Tuesday, Jan. 16, and/or send a letter/email to Skagit County commissioners and PUD #1 commissioners to not add fluoride to our drinking water.
Julian Pavesi
Sedro-Woolley

We consistently write legislation, file lawsuits, and spend millions all to keep pollutants out of our natural water; all to help fish and wildlife, and for humans to consume and play in. But recent studies of waterways near Seattle have revealed chemicals (mood-altering drugs and estrogen), which have survived treatment systems and are adversely impacting certain fish. Did I miss something? We’re planning to fluoridate everyone and everything when only a few people need limited fluoride for short durations? The “plan” is akin to killing an ant with a bulldozer. Where’s common sense?
Unnecessary and unlimited fluoridated water from thousands of Puget Sound households “forever” will eventually mix with other chemicals once assumed safe. Given enough time and enough mixing together, then what — great teeth supported by corroding bodies? Sixty years of fluoridation is nothing in terms of the Earth’s history. (How many households have bottled water and/or water filters “just in case?” Remember the chlorine overdose not long ago?)
Not all the voters voted. Those with fluoride and those outside the areas to be served couldn’t vote. And who knows where one might relocate someday that may or may not have fluoridated water? What’s next — more lawsuits?
I gave my daughter fluoride. For those who can’t obtain it, there’s money to be found. We spend billions subsidizing “projects” globally; certainly we’re smart enough to administer appropriate fluoride to those in need.
If the cost is mere pennies per dose, sell it along with cigarettes, alcohol, candy and fast foods.
Andrea Xaver
Big Lake

Skagit commissioners have been asked to dispense a drug: without an exam of the patient; without consent; without determining current individual exposure; without current benefit (research corrected for socioeconomics, delay in tooth eruption, access to dental care); without a clear evaluation of risks or costs of harm; without safety studies of chemicals; without determining how subgroups will be protected (infants, diabetics, athletes, laborers, children, elderly, those with allergies, etc.); without periodic review or an expiration date; and with themselves responsible for being doctor and learned intermediary, government regulatory agency, and pharmacist.
Jo Roark
Mount Vernon

Residents of Burlington, Mount Vernon and Sedro-Woolley have been subjected to harassment and pressure to fluoridate our water from three groups of lobbyists — Washington Dental Service Foundation, Citizens for a Healthy Skagit and Anacortes representatives.
WDSF of Seattle is offering almost $1 million to install the system at Judy Reservoir, which would provide fluoridated water to about 65,000 people in our three cities and surrounding areas.
As per a Skagit Valley Herald news article, 3/11/06, there are five small systems in the county that should also be fluoridated in order to cover all county residents fairly. The main system also receives unfluoridated water from the Anacortes system through three inter-ties. This would represent an additional cost of $1.61 million. What say you, commissioners and Board of Health, about this fact?
A recent dental alert by the ADA reportedly cautions that children younger than 1 and nursing mothers should not drink fluoridated water. Healthwise, there should never be a mass medication enforcement on all people. Troubling is the fact that so many dentists and doctors will not acknowledge new research, even by scientists, on the safety and effectiveness of fluoride, or why fluoride is banned in most of Europe, including all of Scandinavia. Water is our vital, most precious resource and any plans involving this resource should be paid for and managed by Skagit County, not a Seattlebased foundation. Paying our own way and not being put in a position of defending our water rights should be our very first consideration.
Doris Deamud
Mount Vernon

Small majority for spending 90 to 1

Much is being made of a “solid” majority vote on water fluoridation this past November, which was a 52/48 split in favor.
Given the amount of money spent by the proponents, it is surprising that the “pro” vote wasn’t a great deal higher. According to the Nov. 8 Skagit Valley Herald, $116,000 was spent by the proponents, compared with just $1,300 by the opponents. It took outspending the opponents about 90 to 1 to get a bare majority! This comes to more than $9 to get a yes vote, 11 cents for a no vote.
I looked up the names of the trustees of the Washington Dental Service Foundation, which contributed 83 percent of the $116,000. None of the dentists or others on this board were found in our Skagit County phone book. The question is: “Why are outsiders largely responsible for this push to fluoridate our water?” Another question should be asked: “Who is to gain financially?” Is the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid, the chemical used for water fluoridation, a convenient way to dispose of a costly waste product? The old adage “follow the money” seems appropriate here.
Proponents, what do you suggest the no voters do to avoid this substance? Are you willing to pay for costly systems to remove hydrofluosilicic acid from our water? There is no mandate to fluoridate our water supply. Work instead to make our water as pure as possible.
Emma Top
Sedro-Woolley

After months, or is it years, of reading about adding fluoride to drinking water in Skagit County, I feel compelled to add my 2 cents worth. Fluoride is available in tablets for about 1 cent per day. Tablets have replaced drops because it is easier to ensure a consistent (accurate) dosage.
Too much fluoride can cause yellowing of the teeth. If fluoride were to be added to our water, the medication would be added to everything we drink from the faucet, food prepared with tap water, our laundry, car washing from the garden hose, lawn watering, dish washing, etc. In addition, people who drink bottled water or get their water from a well would not receive fluoride. Medication through our water system is not the most effective delivery method for the reasons stated earlier in this letter. Let those who choose to use fluoride do so via tooth paste or tablet. I ponder why Anacortes residents are so vocal about the fluoride issue across the bridge in the valley?
Bob Williams
Burlington

We seniors have something in common with babies: We don’t need to be medicated via our drinking water (the American Dental Association has spoken for them). If our water is fluoridated, the 52 percent who want it that way will be telling us what we want.
If our water is kept fluoride-free, we 48 percent will not be interfering with the rights of the 52 percent to fluoridate or not, as they choose.
Don’t we all believe in freedom of choice?
Gordon H. Traylor
Mount Vernon

In November, voters were deprived of descriptive information in the “advisory ballot” question vital to making informed decisions — that it is fluorosilicic acid that is intended for PUD No. 1. This is not the same compound as Anacortes’ sodium fluoride so cannot compare. Fluorine, as a “wildcat” halogen, attaches itself to most anything.
Fluoridation in other cities does not prove safety any more than the use of tobacco has. There have never been clinical scientific studies of fluoridation cited as proof of its safety or effectiveness. Nor has fluoride even been considered an essential nutrient. Saying so is not proof. Furthermore, fluoride’s only proven benefit is when topically applied as in toothpaste.
When fluorosilicic acid is used, more chemicals, including soda ash, must be added to reduce corrosion of pipes. What does it do to human body plumbing? Seattle has experienced lead in its drinking water, particularly schools. Besides leaching from pipes, lead also accompanies the industrial waste product along with other contaminants like arsenic. All are cumulative in all organs of the human body!
Surely, the recent ADA advisory against use of fluoridated water for infants, as suggested by the National Research Council, should be respected. Body weight determines “dose” not population.
We must not tolerate police state methods of forced medication. Skagit County commissioners should reject forced fluoridation to allow citizens to make a choice. That is “democracy” in reality.
Ruth Thomas
Mount Vernon

I voted against adding fluoride to the drinking water. Doctors and dentists have said for years that the types of food and the amount of processed sugar we consume will greatly affect the condition of our teeth and body over time. Individually, we are responsible for the choices and risks we take with our health and well-being. As an individual, I have voted “no” to fluoridated water. I do not need or require the extra health risks it will impose.
Janine Smiley
Mount Vernon

Subject: “Voters rejected fluoride,” Nov. 22, 2006.
I have a copy of the subject 1985 Resolution. Commissioner Dahlstedt says, “That resolution has nothing to do with what we’re deciding. This was not a citizen-initiated resolution. The commissioners made the decision to go out for an advisory (vote).” The commissioner is right that the commission did initiate the advisory vote.
However, item 5 of the resolution says, “Advisory ballots will either be initiated A) directly by the board of commissioners, or B) by gathering of signatures of registered Skagit County voters via the petition method.”
Item 4 of the resolution says, “The advisory ballot shall receive at least a 60 percent favorable vote.” The resolution has everything to do with what you are deciding, commissioner, and the resolution very clearly shows that the advisory ballot failed!
The Skagit Valley Herald editorial (Nov. 17) last paragraph says, “We don’t think that course (rejection of fluoridation) is wise or defensible!” What if the commissioners follow the rules?
Eugene A. Corey
Mount Vernon

Do we really need fluoride added to our water supply? We are already getting plenty of fluoride every time we ingest certain kinds of food. The pro-fluoride people talk about adding fluoride 1 ppm to the water; they say that amount is safe.
If we only got fluoride from our local water, 1 ppm might be safe, but as already mentioned, we get fluoride from so many other sources. The pro-fluoride people seem to feel that by putting 1 ppm of fluoride in the water, everyone will get the same ideal amount. But, of course, this is not true. Each person’s consumption will differ.
We all know that brushing, flossing and keeping away from sweets, will, in most cases, help to prevent cavities.
A mature individual has the responsibility to maintain good personal hygiene, and parents (as mature individuals), should be capable of instructing children in proper personal dental hygiene. Government has no business forcing medication on the people. A one-size-fits-all “prescription” is not acceptable. To accept forced fluoride is to agree that mankind lacks intelligent responsibility.
Audrey Yerger
Burlington

In my research of the history of this county, I learned that the Environmental Protection Agency was first established in response to toxic-waste devastation right here in our own corner of the United States, in Whatcom County. Cattle were crippled and people were becoming very ill. The investigator revealed that fluoride emissions from the aluminum plant caused all of the problems. The new EPA established guidelines for keeping toxic fluoride out of the environment and for disposing of it. They do not have the power to regulate fluoride in our food and water, but just knowing that this toxin established the EPA is enough for me to want it in a safe place, far away from our water supply.
Terry Uridil
Sedro-Woolley

According to the American Dental Association, infants younger than 6 months old should have no fluoride. With that out on the table, I would love to see the evidence that fluoride will do no harm to infants, any takers?
With the new evidence out that fluoride is harmful to infants and that it will be absorbed into the skin, it sheds a whole new light on the subject, and the commissioners should be given all the time they need to make this most important decision.
Most of us know that the skin is absorbent, we know this to be true as it is how the patch works for people that quit smoking and for women who choose this method for birth control. The same applies for water and the chemicals it’s treated with. If we don’t heed the warnings of the ADA, our children, our future generation of Skagit County, may very well be paying the price for our stupidity.
We can’t leave our education up to the media; sometimes we have to make an added effort to educate ourselves. According to the FDA it is an unapproved prescription drug. (Why was it never approved? And why would we want drugs in our water?) The AMA states that they will not guarantee that no harm will be done and now the ADA has stepped onto the bandwagon with its statement that fluoride is harmful to infants. These groups are some of the largest and most powerful organizations in the nation.
Would it be wise to turn our backs on all the evidence and stake the future of Skagit County on a handful of uneducated pro-fluoride activists?
Jo Roark
Mount Vernon

Regarding the two letters to the editor, Dec. 7, and this paper’s position on fluoride: Where is the “solid majority” they speak of? I don’t classify 52 percent to 48 percent as a “solid” majority.
It’s just a simple majority, this could be a vote of one. It should be more a super majority before something medical that affects us all is put into law. I guess it’s time for us purists to just roll over and play dead; it’s going to happen whether a super majority wants it or not. And at the discretion of three nonelected Board of Health members (our county commissioners) — one possible new member and one lame duck.
Notice, most letters are coming from Anacortes, where they are “stuck” with fluoride in their odd-tasting drinking water and want to make sure we are. Our oral health should be a family responsibility not up to those that have a personal bone to pick. One statement says, “fluoride is a safe and effective treatment.”
Well, so is rat poison when used medically for treatments by “physicians,” for other types of ills, and not by a board of commissioners.
So, what’s your point? Getting your “treatments” of fluoride should be left up to parents or guardians, and at a dentist’s office, or a pharmacy in the form of pills and toothpaste, and not in a pure water system.
The carrot: Dentists wanting to pick up the tab for the system placement. Last, but not least, has anyone noticed this paper’s personal editorials seem to be trying to micromanage our local governments with its “biased” positions to influence on many local issues?
Michael B. King
Burlington

A recent letter (“Commissioners, time to OK fluoride,” Dec. 7) about the fluoridation issue stated that “a solid majority of voters” had approved of adding fluoride to the water system provided by PUD #1 of Skagit County. The certified results were 52.07 percent approval and 47.93 percent opposed. I would not consider that a “solid majority.”
If the 52/48 vote equates to a valid statistical sampling of the desires of all PUD customers, and the commissioners approve of fluoridation, how do the fluoridation proponents (and commissioners) propose to satisfy the nearly 48 percent not wanting the added fluoride?
The benefits of fluoride can easily be obtained (fluoride drops, fluoride toothpaste and fluoride rinses) for the 52 percent without including it in the drinking water. Removing fluoride from the water, however, is not practically or economically feasible for the 48 percent not wanting it.
While I do not dispute the benefits of fluoridation, I do object to being forced to consume medicated drinking water. Let those PUD customers who want the fluoride obtain it by any one of the numerous alternative methods.
Richard Quam
Sedro-Woolley

On Oct. 1, I sent an e-mail to Citizens for A Healthy Skagit requesting the name of the person responsible for the accuracy of the “fluoridation facts” posted on its Web site and in its mailing. To date I have received nothing! The Skagit Valley Herald confirmed they received a copy of the e-mail. Thank you Mr. Wood!
For those of you who will be voting on Prop. 2 in November, I suggest you go to the Internet and look at what the National Research Council (NRC) has to say about ingesting fluoride. Check out “dental fluorosis” and how the younger generation (fetal to age 6) can have permanent dental damage. Then ask your dentist what it will cost to repair it!
For those of you who have (according to the Citizens Web site) given their support to forced fluoridation, I suggest you study up on the information available on the Internet and then you might want to reconsider your endorsement! It’s your future!
You may wonder why I am so concerned about forced fluoridation and what is in it for me? For me — nothing. I am concerned about the well-being of our very young and seniors. All I hear is how good it is for them, so prove it! Hearsay is not proof!
Eugene A. Corey
Mount Vernon

Fluoridated water is unnecessary

At the risk of being labeled a “bad doctor,” I must confess my opposition to Proposition 2. Simply stated, we have the ability to give children fluoride drops necessary for the building of strong teeth. I see no reason to dump all of the extra chemicals into our public water supply.
I am aware of all the data supporting the fluoridation of the water; however, I am an advocate for the purest water possible, free of chemicals.
Stevan W. Luther, MD
Clear Lake

Fluoridating isn’t government’s place

No, fluoride is not the “best tool we have to protect the oral health of children and seniors.” Our local citizens know that fluoride is not right for our community. Just because Anacortes and nearby communities have had fluoridation for years does not mean we want it and need it. Who are you to decide what is good for me?
Why are Anacortes and the other cities overflowing with dentists? The reason a lot of poorer people so seldom go to the dentist is the exorbitant fee you people charge! Instead of you spending so much money on advertising, why not take that money, buy fluoride pills, and offer free fluoride and dental services to the poor children. Then at least we have a choice.
The county commissioners have been slow to act because they are aware that government is not responsible for our children. The Lord gave children to parents, not to dentists and county commissioners. And we should be the ones to take care of our children’s teeth; if we don’t, it still does not mean that you should.
Another lie: ”Experience proves fluoridation is safe and inexpensive.” Inexpensive? Yes. Safe? No! The “experts” try to put this over on the “uneducated.” In many places fluoride was taken out of the water supply; it’s a poison and can cause severe problems. Why did you not mention that in your flier?
So fellow citizens: ”Vote no on Prop 2.”
Alice Sybrandy
Mount Vernon

To fluoridate or not to fluoridate, that’s the big question facing some of us. I have read the information that our knowledgeable people of the county have provided, and I still don’t know if forcing fluoride on everyone is the right path to take. I say forcing because that is what we would be doing. Why do we have fluoride, if we don’t want it? Don’t we know what’s best for our own bodies?
When my daughter takes her children to the dentist and they are given a fluoride treatment, the product is never swallowed. I’m sure it’s a more concentrated form, but not swallowed nonetheless. Maybe the PUD should bottle our wonderful pure water and put the prescribed amount of fluoride in it and make it available for our PUD customers. That way everyone would be satisfied that they were doing what they think is best for themselves and others.
If it comes to pass, that fluoridating our water was not a good idea, who would take responsibility? No one would because it would have been decided by just three people, our county commissioners. I will be voting no on the upcoming ballot.
I hope the people who think I should have fluoride in my water will rethink their position and realize that it’s not their decision to make whether I have fluoride or not.
Linda Milbourn
Sedro-Woolley

Keep the poison out of our water. Do a Google search for fluoridation danger and do your own research. My children ages 16, 13 and 10 have never had water with fluoride in it, they have just had dental sealants and brushed every day and have never had any cavities.
I urge everyone that is in Skagit County to really inform yourselves before you vote. There is no way for anyone to opt out of being poisoned by fluoride once it has been voted in.
One example states, “if you have cereal with milk and a coke, you have overdosed on fluoride. You have exceeded the American Dental Association’s recommended daily dose by over 130 percent.”
Please keep fluoride out of our water and vote no on Proposition 2.
Kelly Elder
Sedro-Woolley

Everyone in area would get fluoride

There are people here who would like fluoride in their water. I would rather have the purest water I can get. Most importantly, I would like the right to choose. I don’t think it is right to decide this for everyone. I have been reading articles on the Internet about one doctor, also a dentist, who, in 1999 apologized publicly for pushing fluoride. To me he is a hero for telling the truth even though it was a hard thing to do. I felt, for myself and family, it was worth checking out.
Bobbi Gustafson
Mount Vernon

Vote no on fluoride proposition

First do no harm: Medical professionals who value their status take this seriously. So I am puzzled why many dentists in Skagit County want to have chemical fluoride added to our water supplies. Are they not aware that the American Academy of Pediatrics as well as the American Dental Association say no fluoride for children younger than 6 months of age?
In 1980, manufacturers of infant formula agreed to no longer use fluoridated water in baby formula due to health concerns. If medical professionals are not aware of such an important fact, how can we trust them? And if they are aware of it, and still advocate fluoride in the water system, how can we trust them?
Will the county PUD supply bottled water to everyone having a medical sensitivity to chemical fluoride? It would seem more logical and cheaper to just provide fluoride toothpaste to people in the county who can’t afford it, rather than expensive, mass forced medication.
It would be abnormal and immoral for medical professionals, parents, grandparents, etc., to knowingly add a harmful chemical to water that would be ingested by small children. Let’s hope the pro-fluoride advocates will remove their blinders and see the truth about fluoride.
When you pay your PUD bill, make a notation that you do not approve of forced fluoride medication, and vote no on Proposition 2.
Audrey Yerger
Burlington

Forced medication isn’t appropriate

Fluoride or no? There are pros and cons for having a countywide community water fluoridation plan. The main reason that the “for” picketers cite is “improved oral health for the economically challenged population that cannot afford dental care.”
I recently read an article that quoted Julia Hokanson of the Washington Dental Association as saying “they, the medical, dental and public health communities, are charged with ensuring the health of the community, and if we can’t trust them to look out for our health, who can we trust?”
My perspective is that we have to trust ourselves to make the personal, perhaps family, choice for fluoride. The public Health Department makes available, free of charge, several types of birth control. To my knowledge there is not any mandated birth control in our water. Perhaps the Washington Dental Association would consider giving the $1.2 million grant they offered to the Health Department so they could offer “Swish and Spit — Do Not Swallow” treatments to those who want it, free of charge.
I want to be provided with safe, clean drinking water. I do not want my government to decide what medical conditions I may or may not have to be treated through community water. The EPA has not been able to verify if the water fluoride treatment plan is safe and effective for all, in fact they suggest it may be harmful for some. I encourage you to vote no — I know I will.
Valentina Scott
Mount Vernon

Significant reasons not to fluoridate

Water fluoridation — get the facts before you vote. Sodium fluoride used in toothpaste is pharmaceutical grade and tested. Fluorosilic acid used to treat drinking water is a hazardous waste product. Fluoride’s benefits are topical not systemic. The great majority of fluoridated water washes dishes, clothes, showers you, and waters your lawn and garden.
A bowl of Wheaties, 8 oz. skim milk and 8 oz. orange juice equals 233 percent of fluoridation’s goal of 1.0 mg/day. Nearly two-thirds of children in fluoridated communities show signs of dental fluorosis.
Two-thirds of voting communities since 1999 rejected water fluoridation. Fluoridation is unsafe because it accumulates in our bones, accumulates in our pineal gland and causes dental fluorosis in children. Do you see a pattern? This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Fluoridation is unethical because it violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medication. Also, the municipality cannot control the dose to the patient. It ignores the fact that some people are more susceptible to fluoride’s toxic effects and it violates the right to individual choice.
More and more scientific communities are rejecting water fluoridation because of its harmful effects. Please think about your family before you vote.
Julian Pavesi
Sedro-Woolley

Studies show fluoride’s ill effects

Fluoride is a toxin that builds in the body over the years. Recent independent research by scientists not associated with the dental trade, including double blind studies with rigorous scientific standards, have this to say about adding fluoride to the water:
In 1995, neurotoxicologist and former director of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, published research showing that fluoride — built up in the brains of animals — caused damage to the brain adversely altering their behavior patterns.
A study published in Brain Research shows that rats drinking only 1 part per million fluoride (NaF) in water had histologic lesions in their brain similar to Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.
The Department of Health in New Jersey found that bone cancer in male children was between two and seven times greater in areas where water was fluoridated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) researchers confirmed the bone cancer-causing effects of fluoride at low levels in an animal model. A study in Japan has shown that fluoridation of water is linked to uterine cancer deaths. Fluoride gradually builds up in the bones and causes adverse changes to the bone structure. Studies have shown that fluoridation leads to increases in hip fractures. In Rhuematology International, researchers found a link between fluoride exposure and the development of osteoarthritis. The studies go on and on and on. And this is healthy for us? Vote no on Proposition 2.
Elke Siller Macartney
La Conner

Fluoridating water is not the answer

Re: Mr. Cooley and Ms. Schoonover letters, Oct. 15.
Your desire to make us more healthy is admirable, and I agree with healthy teeth, but why do you feel the best way is by use of fluoride in our drinking water? Just adding another chemical to what we are already subjected to, with no say in how it’s administered, isn’t the answer.
Just forget all the rhetoric, right and left, and think of the rest of us that want clean, pure (as possible) water and feel confident it’s going to stay that way without the expense of building, and maintaining, chemical pumps. Bottom line: I and many others just want clean, chemical-free water, and if you need fluoride, go buy the tablets, toothpastes or whatever it’s available in.
As for Ms. Schoonover’s statements about all the children with “severe dental caries,” I wonder where they came from, and why the parents let them get that way. Even fluoride couldn’t prevent what I’m hearing from you about those children’s dental problems.
I know the dentist society said they would pay for the installation, but I bet we already paid through higher dental bills. First, try going to preschools, high schools and migrant camps where I bet most of your cases came from, and teach or preach good dental hygiene. Don’t say fluoride is best for the rest of us, some of whom may be intolerant of such chemicals and need to avoid them. But you don’t care about them, right?
If passed, you may force me to purchase a reverse osmosis filtering system to keep my water pure and clean.
Michael B. King
Burlington

RE: Fluoridation. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH, Bellevue dentist, joins snubbed greats like Albert Schatz, Ph.D., and Dr. Honoris Causa, discoverer of streptomycin and author of a study on fluoridation in Chile in the 1970s that was refused three times by the editor of the ADA Journal.
His recent letter to the biased Skagit Valley Herald was refused saying they limit contributions “pretty much” to local topics and local authors. The Herald editor did not define “local”: county, state, town? Are the authorities promoting PUD fluoridation, such as the Washington Dental Service, local?
It is appalling that professionals, commissioners and others are willing to risk other people’s health when they don’t know their medical histories. The truth is that fluorosilicic acid does not occur in nature, but is industrial toxic waste diluted in drinking water for disposal. Not pure, it is contaminated by varying amounts of lead, arsenic, beryllium, vanadium, cadmium, mercury, radium and radionuclides, silicon, and bauxite. Coverups and denial do not equal “facts” or “safe and effective.”
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Repairing damage of fluorosed teeth can amount to more than $100,000 per person in a lifetime. Furthermore, forced fluoridation encourages distrust in professionals. Artificial fluoridation at what cost?
Having followed both sides of the “protected pollutant” for 31 years, recognizing that fluoridation propaganda is “belief,” I urge voters to vote no on Proposition 2 for continued clean and safe Skagit Valley water.

Ruth Thomas
Mount Vernon

Studies show fluoride is not effective

Recently, the science of opposing fluoridation was questioned. I would like to point directly to some interesting articles on the subject.
The National Institute of Dental Research of the United States Public Heath Service concluded:
“The average number of decayed, missing, and filled permanent teeth per child was 2.0 in the fluoridated areas, 2.0 in the non-fluoridated areas. … The percentage of decay-free children in the fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas was 34 percent and 35 percent respectively.”
Elsewhere, studies in New Zealand and Australia have demonstrated that fluoridation has failed in their countries. In a 1972 paper, researchers used the official results from the U.K. Department of Health’s 11-year study to show that cavities in the treated and control areas were almost identical.
And those are just studies about efficacy. Even more alarming are the studies about toxic fluorine in our environment, the prevalence of fluorosis and the effects of bone damage in the aged. It’s just not reasonable to willingly increase the amounts of fluoride we consume by voting to introduce it into a clean water system.
I think it is clear that humans are having an impact on the environment. Here is an opportunity to vote simply not to impact the environment. If you believe that fluoridation of teeth prevents tooth decay, then let’s vote to provide free topical application to resident children whose parents wish them to receive it and keep it out of our clean water system.
Tom Pickett
Mount Vernon

Please join me in voting against putting fluoride in our public water. This is wrong to force the health hazards, the cost, and the danger to our environment. Every time we shower, do laundry or use public water, it goes out into the waterways — a poison. I don’t think so. Couldn’t the good intentions of the dentists give free care to the ones who cannot afford fluoridation in the dentist chair? The goal has always been to have pure clean water — please don’t add chemicals. I read the labels of six different brands of toothpaste, and they all had fluoride and a warning not to ingest more than the size of a small pea. And if you do, seek medical attention. Please vote against it.
Norma Waits
Mount Vernon

I’m a resident and dairyman in the county and I’m concerned with the health of our population, both rich and poor. Fluoride is not the solution! The best dental health exists in third-world nations that are on traditional diets. We need to get people to take care of themselves and avoid carbonated, high fructose drinks, among many other simple things that can be done.
Fluoride is in drinking water across the country, and the problem of dental health is an epidemic in those areas as well as those without fluoride. It is what we eat!
The other fact is that we must not force those in our community to drink a product that they feel is a poison. Look at any toothpaste tube and you’ll understand that it is a poison. A little poison here and a little poison there hides the tracks of the causes of sickness in our community.
So please let us drink healthy water from our taps, water that is not contaminated for the benefit of those trying to sell their industrial waste as a medicine for the community.
Steve Schleh
Mount Vernon

Re: water fluoridation. I don’t think I know much about this issue one way or another. But I am getting a hard sell from Citizens for a Healthy Skagit (phone calls, letters, pamphlets, signs all around town). Oddly enough, there are no Internet links suggested where I can Google up the research myself. Makes me curious. What about you?
Margaret Struck
Mount Vernon

As votes are being cast for very important issues this fall, I feel an increasing sense of urgency about one in particular: water fluoridation.
If voters, ratepayers, our Skagit County Health Board and, indeed, dental professionals were aware of the preponderance of reasons to not put fluoride in our water, it wouldn’t even be an issue. There are so many concerns about health impacts, cost to taxpayers and even the effectiveness of water fluoridation that, alongside the low cost and ease of getting dental-grade fluoride in toothpaste or mouthwash, it seems absurd to even propose dumping it in our pristine water. Some points:
In 2005, 7,000 EPA employees called for a national moratorium on water fluoridation due to public health concerns.
The EPA has stated that children younger than 6 months of age should not ingest fluoridated water, even in formula.
Data from the World Health Organization show the same declines in tooth decay in countries with and without fluoridated water since the 1960s.
Fluoride used in fluoridation programs is not dental grade. It comes from a number of industrial processes.
Finally, it makes no sense to treat people with fluoride via the water system where more than 90 percent of it is used to wash cars, water lawns or flush toilets, does it?
If you want to ingest it you can always just swallow your toothpaste — just ignore the warning printed on the back of every tube. Vote no on Proposition 2!
Don Smith
Sedro-Woolley

My husband and I own and operate a local dairy farm. A few years ago an EPA inspector noticed the mercury thermometer in our milkhouse. He said we should replace it because it could break and the mercury could get into the water system and perhaps kill some fish.
Some time later another government agency had a program to trade mercury thermometers for non-mercury ones at no cost to the farmers. We signed up for that deal, and an agent came to our farm. As she was replacing our mercury thermometer, my husband asked what the agency did with the mercury it collected. She said they clean it and sell it to dentists.
My point is this: Dentists still use mercury fillings regularly, telling people that they are perfectly safe. I guess fish are more important than people. This same establishment of medical personnel is now telling us that water fluoridation is perfectly safe. Somehow, I see a double standard here. Really, I don’t believe them.
This is really a form of tyranny. We, personally, are completely dependent on PUD water for ourselves and our cows. A vote on fluoridation was taken 30 years ago, and the people voted no!
The information on the lack of safety of water fluoridation has only increased since that time. The water supply should never be used to medicate. The mandate of the PUD is to provide the purest and safest water possible. Please vote no again. Our freedoms are at stake!
Emma Top
Sedro-Woolley

Fluoride tablets can only be purchased by prescription. If fluoride can only be purchased by prescription from your dentist or doctor; then fluoride must be a drug. So how can fluoride be added to our water without a prescription from your doctor?
Your doctor must make sure that your prescription for fluoride does not react with your other medications and that fluoride is not contraindicated for your physical and mental conditions. So how can the ADA prescribe for people that will be affected by fluoride without a physical exam? The answer is simple. The ADA is not set up to protect people. The ADA is nothing more than a union for dentists to protect their interests.
It costs $4,000 to dispose of 1 ton of fluoride toxic waste. Less than 1 percent of water is used for drinking or cooking; the rest is flushed down your toilet or sink. It looks like a very ingenious way to get rid of fluoride toxic waste and get you to pay for it with your taxes and fluorosis of your children’s teeth. You may save $140 to repair a cavity, only to pay $10,000 to $30,000 to repair the dental fluorosis that the ingestion of too much fluoride causes. Protect your health and wallet. Vote no on fluoride.
Donna Johnson, R.N.
Mount Vernon

Lots of people do not want fluoride in their water. That should be enough reason to not put it in. People who don’t want to drink it will be forced to buy bottled water or an expensive reverse-osmosis machine that wastes several gallons of water to filter one gallon. No water filter will remove fluoride.
What does fluoride do to cats, dogs, parakeets, tropical fish, organic gardens?
We need to be able to choose what we drink. The dental commission’s money is better spent offering free toothpaste and reduced-cost dental care to low-income people.
The bottom line is that no one should be forced to ingest substances they don’t want, and be forced to pay to do so. Vote no on Prop 2!
And vote no on I-933. It will not protect farmers or stop eminent domain. It will allow developers to purchase farmland and sue when they can’t build strip malls. Our farmers need help and support. I urge you to buy local produce and support our important agriculture that is struggling to survive, and vote no on I-933.
Jan Gordon
Bow

I don’t really have strong feelings about fluoridation. It would be nice if it helped people. Still, since most food and drink products are already made with fluoridated water, aren’t we already getting enough?
That so much money ($70,000+) has come in from out-of-county does disturb me. Whenever someone has enough of a vested interest to buy an election 9-to-1 with cash, I get wary.
To me, having heard so many people voice concerns and worries over the toxicity of fluoride, the issue is one of the role of government. If 51 percent of the county (juiced by outside money) votes to fluoridate our water, that leaves the other 49 percent without a choice in the matter, since common filters do not eliminate fluoride.
Just being a good neighbor, that is unacceptable to me. Doesn’t everyone have a right to consume the purest water available? Is it really the role of the majority to tamper with such a fundamental source of life? Is it really the role of government to add things to our water, instead of just removing impurities?
In the end, isn’t this just a matter of respect between neighbors? Even if I really wanted fluoride in my water, I would not vote for this initiative because it would force my neighbor, who might not want it, to drink it and feed it to his family. That seems wrong.
I encourage Skagitonians to ignore the outside special interests, respect their neighbors and friends, and vote against government-forced fluoridation.
Douglas Mills
Burlington

When making a decision, your best tool is education on the subject matter.
Here’s a few facts on fluoride and several sources of data to verify the facts.
According to Dr. William Hirzy, a chemist at American University and vice president of EPA’s Professionals Union in Washington, D.C., “The difference between the levels of fluoride causing toxic effects and the levels added to water to prevent tooth decay is vanishingly small and deeply troubling.”
The fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an “unapproved drug.” The proper use of any drug requires an understanding of how much is too much.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) no longer argues that fluoride absorbed from the stomach via drinking water helps teeth. Instead, the argument goes, fluoride strikes at dental decay from “outside” the tooth, or “topically.”
“The American Medical Association is not prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either longterm or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects.” (Dr. Flanagan, assistant director of environmental health, American Medical Association.)
Don’t believe me or others. Without data, opinion prevails. Check the facts.
Rich Helinski
Mount Vernon

Here are personal and federal reasons why we all need to vote no on Proposition 2, which asks whether Skagit PUD water should be fluoridated.
When I was 43 years old I had a medical examination to determine what was causing my lower throat illness. The doctor said that the checking of interior liquids showed there was fluoride inside my lower throat and down toward my intestine. He said, “Don’t drink fluoridated water as it is part of what is causing your problem.”
Four months ago, I had another medical test and I said I only drank filtered water and the doctor said that’s the right thing to do as fluoridated water is dangerous for seniors.
Also the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says no fluoridation for infants as it is harmful to them.
The drug companies that demand loading our drinking water with fluoride are doing so because they want millions of dollars and don’t give a darn about our health and safety. They paid a Harvard University scientist mega bucks to say using fluoridated water was OK.
The fluoride makers and dentists who insist people use it are unconscionable, greedy liars just like most members of the Greedy Old Party in Congress are. They all need to be jailed for threatening our health, safety and violating our human rights.
Richard H. Royston
Mount Vernon

I have been diagnosed with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities. That means that my body can no longer cope with the many chemicals I encounter in daily life. I have been forced to wear a filtration mask to do any shopping I need to do (I can no longer shop just for fun); I have to buy and eat organic foods (no more cheap fast food); and I have to buy bottled water. I am the equivalent of a canary in the coal mine. What’s happened to me has been happening to other people all around the country and it’s happening more and more frequently as we continue to expose ourselves to chemicals and gases like no other generation has.
Why don’t the dentists and doctors take fluoride directly to the people they claim they’re most concerned about? My children were given fluoride treatments in their elementary school in Texas. Fluoride drops are readily available and inexpensive.
Surely there is a better way to get fluoride to those who need it than to just blanket the whole county with the stuff. I no longer believe in “safe chemicals,” I don’t care what anyone or any study says. We are not all made the same; what is considered a safe dose for one person could be deadly for another.
I strongly urge the voters of Skagit County to vote no on Proposition 2 this November and to vote against it in the future should it become an issue again.
Sue Brown
Mount Vernon

Washington Dental Service Foundation of Seattle will pay almost $1 million to install the fluoridation system. Skagitonians, are you really comfortable with Seattle “contributing” all that money, no strings? There must be a contract between Skagit PUD and the foundation, and the terms of the contract should have been presented to the public before votes are cast, not when the system is started.
A blanketing of forced medication is like a doctor writing out the same prescription for all from toddlers to elderly. Everyone’s immune system and tolerance levels are different. Health research groups are finding water over-fluoridated since many foods and beverages contain fluoride. Young children are most susceptible to fluoride accumulation in bones and tissue.
Japan, Germany, France, Belgium and all Scandinavia have banned fluoride because of health concerns. In Washington state, Bellingham has turned down fluoride three times; and water is not fluoridated in Spokane, Wenatchee, Olympia, Goldendale, Kennewick, Sequim, Sumner, Milton; and a number of cities in the U.S. don’t have it. For those who wish it, brush with fluoride toothpaste, take fluoride pills, paint fluoride on teeth, buy bottled water with fluoride, but don’t force it on all of us. Especially, Seattle and Anacortes, please mind your own affairs and stop pushing your views via signs, literature, buttons and ads upon our three cities. What’s in it for you? Also, please note the large pro-fluoride ads in the paper. They kind of point out who’s got the backing of money.
Doris (Dorlee) Deamud
Mount Vernon

From the pro-fluoride side, all you hear is “safe and effective,” I would love to know where they get their information.
From what I have read, fluoride is neither safe nor effective, and I have done a lot of research. Fluoride has never been approved by the FDA. The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high toxicity. Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program.
It is illegal to mass-medicate citizens against their will and yet this is happening to 60 percent of the citizens in the United States!
There is fluoride in our processed foods, pop, juice, baby formula, baby foods, dog foods; they also put it in prescription drugs, insecticides, pesticides, rodenticides, cleaning products, etc. We are told that the safe level of fluoride is 1 ppm, but there is no way to know how much we are getting because we are already ingesting so much through our foods. Now they want to add it to our water.
On the USDA Fluoride Database, there is a long list of foods and how much fluoride is in them. Through our foods we are already being overdosed and it is affecting our health. The EPA has set a limit to how much fluoride can be added because an excess amount over years can cause bone disease and tenderness in the bones.
As Nancy Reagan so aptly put it, “Just say no!”
Jo Roark
Mount Vernon

The August issue of Prevention had a long and thoughtful article about the pros and cons of fluoridating water. (There are a lot more cons than pros). I had always thought it a good idea, but after reading that, I will vote against Proposition 2.
Prevention is not exactly a wild-eyed radical magazine, and they do their homework on all health issues. They quote studies done by a “panel of dentists, toxicologists and epidemiologists assembled by the National Research Council (NRC), which determined that the level of fluoride allowed in community drinking water in this country is too high.”
Fluoridation should be studied more as new research is done, and given a great deal of scrutiny before forcing it on all of Skagit County residents.
Wike Maria White
Mount Vernon

Archived Opinion Editorials
With Great appreciation to Don Johnson who saved these Opinion articles for the Skagit Clean Water website

OK, all politics aside. Since the ADA has acknowledged that infants should have no fluoride prior to 6 months of age, it would not make a lot of sense to fluoridate the water in Skagit County. Since fluoride is ingested through the skin when bathing, infants would be at risk for fluoride poisoning. Do the citizens of Skagit Valley really want to risk this? If the commissioners approve fluoridation, what will they be willing to do to keep the infants safe from harm? Will they be willing to put treatment plants inside every home that has infants to keep them safe?
The American Medical Association won’t guarantee that no harm will be done by ingesting fluoride, the FDA won’t approve fluoride, the EPA won’t allow the toxic waste (which is fluoride) to be put in oceans, lake, streams etc., because of its high toxicity, but yet they will allow it in the public drinking water. You will only hear the pro-fluoride activists talk about teeth; you will never hear them talk about the damaging effects on the rest of our bodies.
Fluoride is indefensible and undebatable as the pro-fluoride activists well know. They would never get caught up in a public debate because it would be a losing proposition for them. Are there any pro-fluoride activists that would care to debate this issue in a public forum?
Jo Roark
Mount Vernon