.

Updated: Water District Board Supports Fluoridation

Three organizations will contribute more than a third of the cost of building fluoridation facilities at the water district’s three potable water treatment plants.

 

On Tuesday, Dec. 18, the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors voted to enter into agreements with three private funders, which have committed to reimbursing the water district for $2.4 million of the costs associated with fluoridating much of Santa Clara County’s water supply.

With Tuesday’s action, the district’s chief executive officer, Beau Goldie, is authorized to negotiate terms and conditions of reimbursement agreements with The Health Trust, First 5 Santa Clara County and the California Dental Association Foundation. Final draft agreements will be brought back to the board of directors for approval.

The three organizations’ contribution would cover more than a third of the cost of building fluoridation facilities at the water district’s three potable water treatment plants. The total estimated capital cost to fluoridate at the three plants is $6.6 million. After recovering $2.4 million of this cost from the three private funders, the district could make up the difference by increasing the cost it charges retailers for treated water by $3 an acre-foot over a 30-year period.

In addition to the capital cost, the district estimates that ongoing annual operating and maintenance costs will be $989,000. This cost could be paid for by raising treated water charges by an additional $9 an acre-foot.

The total increase in treated water charges would result in an estimated increase of 50 cents on the monthly water bill of a household of five, which typically uses one-half acre-foot of water per year.

Several parts of Santa Clara County already receive fluoridated water, including the Evergreen area of San Jose, parts of Mountain View and areas served by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's Hetch Hetchy system. In Santa Clara County, the SFPUC system serves Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto, Stanford University, Ames Research Center, and parts of Milpitas, Mountain View, north San Jose (Alviso), Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

In November 2011, the water district board of directors adopted policy language to support fluoridation at its three treatment plants and at three water supply wells located in Campbell. Subsequently, the three water supply wells were dropped from the fluoridation plan because the wells are only used as a backup water supply.

Community water fluoridation is supported by most major national and international health service organizations. Supporters include: the American Dental Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recognized the fluoridation of drinking water as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. San Jose is the largest city in the United States without complete fluoridation.

--Santa Clara Valley Water District

 

Also on Palo Alto Patch

Going to the Rose Bowl Parade?

Zuckerberg Donates Half-Billion Dollars to Charity

Stanford Geophysicists: Major Earthquakes Coming

Palo Alto Patch Business Directory

Don't miss important news Subscribe to our daily newsletter.

| Like us on Facebook |Blog for us | Follow us on Twitter|

 

fluoride December 24, 2012 at 10:41 AM
The NSF does not have a single study and defers to the suppliers. The suppliers should have them. They do not. Carroll- Boone Water District and Crescent City have written to over 40 suppliers of the drug for the tox studies and have not received a single reply. Selmer, Tennessee asked for the Health Department to produce one chronic tox study in 2009, they could not. Looks like it is against the law. Who is responsible to check that the drug is in compliance with the law? The City and/or water departments attorney along with their Municipal League Risk Management Pool . A water operator cannot substitute endorsements for due diligence. The water operators are the only ones that can select and ultimately be responsible for the benefits or harm from consumption of the product. NSF Standard 60 and the NSF web site state repeatedly that toxicological and health studies are required. However, NSF representatives have admitted that NSF does not obtain toxicological studies on fluoridation materials from the fertilizer company suppliers nor does it do its own toxicological studies on fluoridation materials – despite the fact that NSF has its own toxicologists on staff[13] and runs its own toxicological department.[14]. NSF does not even follow its own rules. Instead of setting a.4 ppm MAL, maximum allowable level, which would be one-tenth of the EPA 4.0 ppm MCL, NSF sets a 1.2 ppm MAL.
fluoride December 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Who is in charge of the fluoridation medicine? The National Sanitation Foundation. The NSF REQUIRES numerous toxological studies proving it's "safe and effective" under NSF/ANSI Standard 60. 1. NSF is not requiring so-called "certified" companies to comply with this Standard 60, section 3.2.1 requirement. 2. NSF Standard 60 is NOT being applied by NSF to the companies that they “certify”. 3. Test reports are not accessible by the public to confirm accuracy because they are protected “by nondisclosure agreements”. 4. NSF tests the contaminants they wish to define as contaminants, but omit the actual product, which is also a contaminant, for inclusion under their own requirements. 5. No site license is available from any importer/manufacturer, processer, distributor, and seller of fluoridation products to demonstrate that they are in compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices. 6. There is no batch testing, the Certificate of Analyses for hydrofluorosilicic acid does not necessarily reflect the ACTUAL content of the fluoride product delivered to any municipality.
jwillie6 December 25, 2012 at 03:17 PM
Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. No adult has ever walked out of their doctor's office with a prescription for the fluoride drug because it is deadly poison and the body has no known use for it. It is never included in any multi-vitamin formulation. Drinking it to prevent tooth decay is as foolish as drinking sunscreen to prevent sunburn. Every fluoride toothpaste tube carries the warning "if swallowed, call a poison control center immediately." 50% of all fluoride you consume builds up in the body, in the bones, brains and other organs, so exactly why would adults want to take this poison.
Tooth Truth December 26, 2012 at 09:07 PM
There are, indeed, authorities that insure the purity of fluorosilicic acid: American Water Works Association and NSF/ANSI. Their standards are higher than for pharmaceutical grade fluoride. If these standards don't inspire confidence, what will? http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engine... http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet.pdf Research has been ongoing for decades regarding the public's ingestion of fluoride from all sources. That is what lead to the recent recommendation to lower the level from 0.7-1.2 ppm to 0.7 ppm. These studies even take into account current climate, e.g. that people in warmer areas of the USA drink more water than in cooler climes. A prescription for fluoride tablets is required because the prescribing authority is responsible for knowing if the client's drinking water is fluoridated or already has naturally ideal levels of fluoride – to avoid over dosing. According to the EPA, fluoridation has a wide margin of safety and is safe for humans and the environment.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something