Tag Cloud
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Sacramento's drinking water in good shape
by Brandon Darnell, published on August 18, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Storyline: Local Government
Loading images
Sacramento’s drinking water meets or surpasses all state and federal health requirements, according to the city’s report on water quality relative to public health goals.
It does not, however, meet every public health goal as set by the state.
“We may not meet all those goals,” said Jessica Hess, spokeswoman for the Department of Utilities. “We probably never have met all those goals, since they’re set at a level so high to encourage jurisdictions to do better.”
Hess said the city’s water facilities don’t all have the technology to even measure the levels set forth in the state public health goals.
“The goals are set for levels that are very difficult for folks to attain, and there are some challenges for that,” Hess said. “It requires testing that our current facilities are incapable of reaching.”
The state report is mandated every three years by law, and it measures samples taken from the city’s water supply with acceptable levels of contaminants in reaching the state goals.
Those contaminants include arsenic, bacteria and fluoride, among others.
According to the report, the goals are not enforceable.
The federal and state requirements, however, are enforceable, and the results are sent to city water users every year.
“The city’s drinking water is excellent...passing all state and federal standards,” said Mike Yee, plant services manager for the Department of Utilities, at Tuesday’s City Council meeting.
No one spoke on the matter at the required public hearing Tuesday night, and the council accepted the report, which can be viewed online here.
Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
More than 3,000 professionals (including over 270 dentists) urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html
Untested and unregulated Sodium Fluoride sourced from China - this is what the city of sac knowingly adds to our drinking water.
Why is the city council igorning all the recent studies in peer-reviewed medical literature indicating that fluoridated drinking water can have detrimental side effects. Health risks associated with low-to-moderate doses of fluoride include: dental fluorosis; bone fracture; bone cancer; joint pain; skin rash, reduced thyroid activity; and IQ deficits.
The city council has been recently informed of all the dangers but continues to brush off any criticism of water fluoridation. Professional scientists, doctors, and yes - dentists have all spoken out recently against continuing water fluoridation.
Fluoridation is a bad medical practice. It is unethical, ineffective, and poses serious health dangers, especially for vulnerable subsets of the population. Instead of science, we get its promotion via a long list of dated endorsements, from associations and agencies, most of which are not on top of the current primary literature and who take the word of the ADA and CDC on this issue, at face value.
It seems the city council is spellbound by the unqualified fluoride salesmen over professionals who are trying to protect us. What will it take for them to wake up?
For those who fear a dental crisis if fluoridation is stopped, it should be noted that at least 5 modern studies have shown that when fluoridation is stopped, tooth decay has not gone up
Watch 15 scientists explaining why fluoridation is a risky and inappropriate medical practice. These scientists include one Nobel Prize winner, three members of a National Research Council committee that published a groundbreaking report on fluoride's toxicity in 2006, and two former EPA scientists. see video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7547385139152764985&hl=en#
See over 2,700 Professionals call for an end to fluoridation of drinking water
http://www.fluoridealert.org/statement.august.2007.html
The EPA headquarters professionals' union opposes fluoridation
http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
More Links:
www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm
www.garynull.com/storage/pdfs/UpdatedFluoride.pdf
www.keepers-of-the-well.org/Introduction.html
www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html
www.fluoride-history.de/
Despite 60+ years of water fluoridation, Americans are spending more than ever on dental care. "between 1998 and 2008 the increase in the cost of dental services exceeded that of medical care and far exceeded the overall rate of inflation," according to Slate Magazine. Americans paid 44.2 percent of dental bills themselves compared to 10.3 percent of physician costs, Slate reports. (3)
Dentists pat themselves on the back claiming they are the only profession endorsing something that would put them out of business. But apparently the more fluoride people get, the more money dentists make.
Dentists' Nominal Net Income for 2000 was $533,000 up from $141,000 in 1982, according to the American Dental Association Survey published in the March 2005 Journal of the American Dental Association. During the same time period, the number of Americans living in fluoridated communities went from 116 million to 172 million. (4)
Analysis of Kumar’s data: http://tinyurl.com/MoneyDownTheDrain
3) Slate Magazine, "The American Way of Dentistry, The Oral Cost Spiral" by June Thomas (September 29, 2009)
4) Fluoridation Statistics: http://www.cdc.gov/nohss/FSGrowth_text.htm
When water fluoridation was first introduced en masse in the 1950s, dentists argued that fluoride needed to be ingested by children -- while their teeth are developing -- in order to be effective. This argument, which also underpinned the introduction of fluoride drops and pills, was based on the belief that ingested fluoride would accumulate in developing teeth and make the fluoride-enriched. teeth stronger for life. Over the past 30 years, however, this theory has been put to the test and almost unanimously rejected by dental researchers (Featherstone 2000; Fejerskov 2004). A new theory has taken its place: Fluoridefs primary benefits do not come from being swallowed, but come instead from being applied topically to the outside of the tooth while in the mouth. While the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was late in coming to terms with this new paradigm on fluoride, it finally came on board in 1999. According to a 1999 report issued by the CDC, fluoride's actions "primarily are topical for both adults and children." CDC repeated this position again in 2001, stating: "fluoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical." The implications of this new consensus are as obvious as they are important: If fluoride has little benefit when swallowed, there is no need for a fluoride chemical to ever make it past the mouth and into the bloodstream. As noted by the recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, in pharmacology, if the effect is local, it's awkward to use it in any other way than as a local treatment. I mean this is obvious. You have the teeth there, they're available for you, why drink the stuff?. However, despite the fact that CDC is now on record stating fluoride's benefits are primarily topical, a study published in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry reports that most practicing dentists and dental hygienists are not yet aware of this development. According to the study . which surveyed dentists and dental hygienists from Indiana and Illinois -- only a small minority of dental professionals are aware of the new research. In Indiana, for example, only 25% of surveyed dentists correctly identified the topical effect of fluoride, while in Illinois, the respective figure was just 14%. According to
the authors:
"Our main findings are
a) that in 2005, 4 years following the release of the CDC's sentinel recommendations, a considerable proportion of dental professionals in Indiana still did not understand fluoride's predominant mode of action."
Not only were the dentists behind in their knowledge of fluoride research, but the survey also found they didn't even know basic information about fluoride, such as how much fluoride is in toothpaste or high-fluoride gels.
b) As noted by the authors: "Another important finding was the inability of respondents to correctly identify the concentration of commonly used fluoride products." This raises the question: If, after 60 years of water fluoridation, most dentists still donft know how fluoride actually works, or how much fluoride is in the products they prescribe, what else do they not know? Do they know how fluoride affects other tissues in the body besides the teeth?
REFERENCE: 7) Yoder KM, et al. (2007). Knowledge and use of fluoride among Indiana dental professionals. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 67(3):140-7.
According to the American Dental Association (ADA), children under 1 year of age should not receive infant formula made with fluoridated water. Babies exposed to fluoridated water are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a tooth defect caused by fluoride-induced cell damage within the teeth. Other harm is also likely. According, for example, to the US National Research Council, “it is apparent that fluorides can interfere with the functions of the brain.” The danger that fluoride poses to the brain is likely greatest during fetal and infant development, as during this time the barrier which protects the child’s brain from environmental toxins is not yet fully formed. Thus, chemicals that find their way into a baby’s bloodstream can penetrate into the brain.
see links above
Selected citations (not complete list-not enough time or space to list them all):
Burt, BA. Fluoridation and social equity. J Public Health Dent 2002;62(4): 195-200
Slade GD, Spencer AJ, Davies MJ, Stewart JF. Influence of exposure to fluoridated water on socio-economic inequities in children's caries experience. Community Dent Oral epidemiol 1996;24:89-100.
Horowitz HS. The effectiveness of community water fluoridation in the United States. J Public Health 2000;21:403-36.
Newbrun E. Effectiveness of water fluoridation. J Public Health Dent 1989;49(5):279-89.
Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. Recent trends in dental caries in US children and the effect of water fluoridation. J Dent Res 1990;69(Spec Iss(:723-7.
-- Water fluoride chemicals boosts lead absorption in lab animals’ bones, teeth and blood, was reported by Sawan, et al. (Toxicology 2/2010). Earlier studies already show children’s blood-lead-levels are higher in fluoridated communities, reports Sawan’s research team.
-- State University of New York researchers found more premature births in fluoridated than non-fluoridated upstate New York communities, according to a presentation made at the American Public Health Association’s annual meeting on November 9, 2009 in Philadelphia.
-- New York State Department of Health dentist J. V. Kumar published national statistics in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association which show similar cavity rates regardless of water fluoride content, However, dental fluorosis rates increased along with water fluoride levels. See analysis “Fluoridation No Benefit; Definite Harm,” by Kathleen M. Thiessen, Ph.D., SENES Oak Ridge, Inc., Center for Risk Analysis here: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Clinch_2009_No_Benefit_Definite_Harm.pdf
-- The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Canada’s leading voice on environmental health issues, released a statement opposing fluoridation. (2)
-- May 2009, Great Lakes United (GLU) supports the end of water fluoridation. GLU is made up organizations representing environmentalists, conservationists, hunters and anglers, labor unions, community groups, and citizens of the United States, Canada, and First Nations and Tribes. (13)
-- The National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation support replacing it with this caution: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.” (3)
-- Researchers reported in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal that fluoridation never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (4)
-- “A qualitative review of ...studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ,” concluded Tang el al., in "Fluoride and Children’s Intelligence: A Meta-analysis” in Biological Trace Element Research (5)
-- Scientific American editors wrote in January 2008, "Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland"
-- Dr. A. K. Susheela, a leading fluoride expert, explains in a video why US physicians overlook fluoride as a possible cause of diseases commonly caused by fluoride. http://tinyurl.com/Susheela
-- A study in the Fall 2008 Journal of Public Health Dentistry reveals that cavity-free teeth have little to do with fluoride intake. Researchers report, "The benefits of fluoride are mostly topical…while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake."
-- Research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009). indicates that blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups. (13) Osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, occurs mostly in children and young adults
-- All infant formula, whether concentrated or not, contain fluoride at levels that can discolor teeth - even organic, according to research published in the October 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association. (16)
-- A Tennessee State legislator, Joey Hensley, who is also an MD is urging all Tennessee Water Districts to stop fluoridation, reported a Tennessee newspaper on 11/29/08. At least 30 Tennessee water districts have already complied with his request.(6)
-- Mt Pleasant, Michigan Fluoride Commission votes to suspend fluoridation (17)
-- Crowley, Louisiana suspends fluoridation. (18)
-- Sandpoint, Iowa stops fluoridation July 2010 (19)
On 1/5/09, the Burlington Board of Health recommended that Burlington cease fluoridation because fluoridation can harm some people. (7)
On 1/6/09, a Canadian town, Drayton, stopped fluoridation, not to save money, but because it was in the best interests of residents, said the Mayor. (8)
The Arkansas Oral Health Director is accused of giving eight "false or misleading statements" on fluoridation to an Arkansas legislative Committee. (12)
If you find it hard to understand why people object to fluoridation then you obviously have no idea about respect for other people. It is really very simple - most people do not want someone spiking their drink or telling them they have to take a medication because someone else thinks it's good. You cannot walk into someone's house and put a fluoride tablet in a drink without their permission, so why on earth would it be alright to do it through the public water supply? We all pay for the water. If you want fluoride, then go eat some toothpaste, but stop trying to force your beliefs onto other people.
If you do not understand this - maybe you should talk to your local clergyman or therapist.
-b
"Fluoride is not medication!"????? "a natural mineral" ????? ladies and gentlemen this is a scientific breakthrough Phosphate Fertilizer Industry is now producing a "natural" waste byproduct LOL, DentalGuy who are you kidding. As others have said before Sacramento purchases synthetic fluoride from China, this stuff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuhTTJRp2v4
ABC: US Government Recommends Reducing Fluoride Intake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YDOd0IAuas
AP: US Says Too Much Fluoride in Water
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euv1aZbQ2qA
AP: Too Much Fluoride Causing Splotchy Teeth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07uJ-CxtI1E
FOX: USA Admits Adding Fluoride To Water is Damaging Teeth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp3wJjzrrhE
sodium bisulfite
sodium hypochlorite
chloramine
chlorine
arsenic
and the list keeps going
america and california still have the cleanest drinking water in the world. people in africa would drink a barrel of fluoride compared to the disease infested, untreated groundwater they drink. or what about our friendly neighbors to the south, mexico. i am sure you have all heard of the term "montezuma's revenge". that isn't from tacos.
most of the sacramento areas drinking water comes straight out of the ground with little or no treatment at all. it is pumped from the ground to a storage tank. from there maybe some chemicals are pumped in (but this is only to meet the CPDH minimum drinking requirements of either parts per million or parts per billion depending upon the chemical used or being treated for). there are large water treatment plants in the area (like fairbain or san juan) that actually use a full-blown water treatment plant. and the only reason chemicals are dumped into the water there is to prevent lime build-up in the distrubution piping. it would be very bad to replace 50 miles of 72" pipe because of blockage in the line. most of the treatment is done via clarifiers and separators.
is fluoride bad? i am sure it ain't great for us. any chemical you put in your body will have some effect on your system. i suggest you call your local water agency's general manager or take a tour of a water treatment plant (they will do that for the public) and learn a little but about where your water comes from.
The fluoridation of drinking water is one of the cruelest hoaxes ever perpetrated against the public in the history of mankind. Fluoride used is actually an industrial waste product from the manufacture of fertilizer and aluminum, and is second to mercury as the most toxic substance known. It contains lead, arsenic, mercury, radium, and other contaminants. Most of Europe (16 countries) has rejected fluoridation and is 98% fluoride free. and the WHO reports that they have a better tooth decay rate than any fluoridated country.
There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that drinking fluoridated water has any effect on cavity reduction — NONE! Please don't take my word for it; do some of your own research. The best source for information on the health hazards and ineffectiveness of fluoridation can be found here: (www.fluoridealert.org).
P.S. you still have not answered my question
ABC: US Government Recommends Reducing Fluoride Intake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YDOd0IAuas
AP: US Says Too Much Fluoride in Water
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euv1aZbQ2qA
AP: Too Much Fluoride Causing Splotchy Teeth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07uJ-CxtI1E
FOX: USA Admits Adding Fluoride To Water is Damaging Teeth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp3wJjzrrhE