Don’t look to the Sonoma County grand jury for much guidance when it comes to deciding on whether the county should fluoridate its water. The panel issued a remarkably tepid analysis of the issue today, concluding with this bold statement, “Research on both sides of the issue is voluminous. The grand jury takes no position on this issue but recognizes that are many matters of concern.”
Wow. It leaves one to wonder why they even bothered.
The report that was included in today’s newspaper offered only summaries, and directed readers to the grand jury web site for a full analysis.
I would instead direct readers to a 10-part series of editorials written by the Tampa Bay Times last year addressing the issue thoroughly due to a movement among some newly elected officials there to stop fluoridating the region’s water.
The first editorial, “Reverse the decay of common sense,” notes, “The evidence that fluoridating drinking water is safe and prevents tooth decay is overwhelming and widely embraced.“ Meanwhile, they conclude that most of the “studies” and claims to the contrary are based on voodoo science and alarmist talk.
That might explain why 75 percent of the rest of the nation, including the cities of New York and San Francisco, have fluoridated water, with no peer-reviewed, published studies showing how the residents there are worse off for the experience. On the contrary, they have fewer dental problems than we do, particularly among low-income children.
These editorials are worth reading. Earlier this year, they earned the Tampa Bay Times the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing in 2012.
- Paul Gullixson