Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Why the Sacramento City Council Should Stop Fluoridation

Why the Sacramento City Council Should Stop Fluoridation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 173|Likes:
Published by fotogal51
Dear Sacramento City Council Member,

On behalf of members of Organic Sacramento and the greater Sacramento community, we are writing today about our drinking water. As the city is reviewing different cost saving measures, we encourage the city council to adopt Management Partner’s Recommendation 45 to eliminate the practice of water fluoridation thus saving almost $1 million a year in City of Sacramento’s Utilities Department expenditures.

This document will provide evidence of recent studies and video analysis to support your decision to immediately remove fluoride from Sacramento’s drinking water. In doing so, you will be helping Sacramento to join the community of progressive nations (98% of Europe) and U.S Cities such as San Jose, Santa Barbara, Davis, Santa Cruz, Modesto, Honolulu, Colorado Springs and many more which have chosen to provide their citizens with safe, medication and toxin- free drinking water. As the capitol city of the most environmentally progressive green state in America, we must lead California and our nation in heeding the NEW scientific evidence linking fluoridation with diseases such as hip fractures, fluorosis, brain disease, bone cancers, kidney disease and eliminate fluoridation!

We request that each member of the Sacramento City Council carefully review this informational packet so they may address this issue from a fully informed perspective.

Please consider the following before taking any action.

• Less than one percent (.14%) of Sacramento’s fluoridated water is used for drinking. As the annual cost of water fluoridation for the City of Sacramento is slightly less than $1,000,000, water fluoridation is an inefficient way to fluoridate and not a cost-effective use of taxpayer money.

• In only the past few years, new research warns of negative health effects of fluoridation and warrants further study.
Dear Sacramento City Council Member,

On behalf of members of Organic Sacramento and the greater Sacramento community, we are writing today about our drinking water. As the city is reviewing different cost saving measures, we encourage the city council to adopt Management Partner’s Recommendation 45 to eliminate the practice of water fluoridation thus saving almost $1 million a year in City of Sacramento’s Utilities Department expenditures.

This document will provide evidence of recent studies and video analysis to support your decision to immediately remove fluoride from Sacramento’s drinking water. In doing so, you will be helping Sacramento to join the community of progressive nations (98% of Europe) and U.S Cities such as San Jose, Santa Barbara, Davis, Santa Cruz, Modesto, Honolulu, Colorado Springs and many more which have chosen to provide their citizens with safe, medication and toxin- free drinking water. As the capitol city of the most environmentally progressive green state in America, we must lead California and our nation in heeding the NEW scientific evidence linking fluoridation with diseases such as hip fractures, fluorosis, brain disease, bone cancers, kidney disease and eliminate fluoridation!

We request that each member of the Sacramento City Council carefully review this informational packet so they may address this issue from a fully informed perspective.

Please consider the following before taking any action.

• Less than one percent (.14%) of Sacramento’s fluoridated water is used for drinking. As the annual cost of water fluoridation for the City of Sacramento is slightly less than $1,000,000, water fluoridation is an inefficient way to fluoridate and not a cost-effective use of taxpayer money.

• In only the past few years, new research warns of negative health effects of fluoridation and warrants further study.

More info:

Published by: fotogal51 on Jun 18, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/13/2012

pdf

 
 
10 Year UpdateFluoridation in Sacramento
Presented to theSacramento City Council by Organic Sacramento
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
 
 
 
Dear Sacramento City Council Member,
On behalf of members of Organic Sacramento and the greater Sacramento community, we are writing today about ourdrinking water. As the City is reviewing different cost saving measures, we encourage the City Council to adopt
Management Partners
Recommendation #45
to eliminate the practice of water fluoridation, thus saving almost$1 million
a year in City of Sacramento’s Utilities
Department expenditures.This document will provide evidence of recent studies and video analysis to support your decision to remove fluoride from
Sacramento’s drin
king water. In doing so, you will be helping Sacramento join the community of progressive nations (98%of Europe) and U.S Cities such as San Jose, Santa Barbara, Davis, Santa Cruz, Modesto, Honolulu, Colorado Springsand many more, which have chosen to provide their citizens with safe, medication and toxin-free drinking water. As thecapitol city of the most environmentally progressive and green state in America, we must lead California and our nation inheeding the NEW scientific evidence linking fluoridation with diseases such as hip fractures, fluorosis, brain disease, bonecancers and kidney disease
by eliminating fluoridation! 
We request that each member of the Sacramento City Council carefully review this informational packet so they mayaddress this issue from a fully informed perspective.Please consider the following before taking any action.
 
Less than one percent (.14
%) of Sacramento’s fluoridated water is used for drinking
. As the annual cost ofwater fluoridation for the City of Sacramento is slightly less than $1,000,000, water fluoridation is an inefficientway to fluoridate and not a cost-effective use of taxpayer money.
 
In only the past few years, new research warns of negative health effects of fluoridation and warrantsfurther study.
 
2010
- Over 2,700 Professionals Call for an End to Fluoridation of Drinking Water, this includes 418 Nurses, 385 PhD's -includes DSc (Doctor of Science); EdD (Doctor of Education); DrPH (Doctor of Public Health), 376 DC's (Doctor ofChiropractic, 326 MD's, 266 Dentists (DDS, DMD, BDS), 132 ND's (Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine)
2009
- As China is supplying much of Sacramento
s fluoride, and its inferior quality is causing increased maintenancecosts. Consider the town of Amsbury MA which had to pull its China-supplied fluoride in January 2010, when unknowncontaminants were found clogging its fluoride delivery plumbing.
2008
-
The American Dental Association’s 2008 Interim Guidelines
recommends the use of purchased fluoride-free waterfor powdered formula-fed infants (0-12 months)
to reduce the risk of fluorosis
.‖ Since
few families are aware of thisrecommendation, the city is overdosing the most vulnerable segment of its population.
2006
- EPA Headquarters Union National Research Council Report confirms EPA Union's 20-year-old concerns regardingfluoridation practices. The report
’s scientific expertise verifies
that low levels of fluoride in drinking water may have seriousadverse health effects including cancer in young males.
2005
- The CDC has provided evidence that 32% of American children have dental fluorosis, a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride. This takes the form of discoloration & mottling of the teeth.
2004
- The vast majority of Western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data fromthe World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact often lower, than the tooth decay ratesin the US and other fluoridated countries.
2001
 
 –
The CDC
’s
position is that "fluoride's predominant effect is post eruptive and topical
, as in use of toothpaste. Also,according to a 1999 report issued by the CDC,
―fluoride's actions
primarily are topical for both adults and children." This directly supports the elimination of water fluoridation, as it is not an effective route of fluoride delivery according to theCDC.We feel that the following material provides supportive evidence to eliminate
Sacramento’s
water fluoridation program.Respectfully submitted,Kim Glazzard, Executive DirectorOrganic Sacramento(916) 455-8415
 
Professional Perspectives: Fluoride in Tap Water
 January 15, 2008 
Part of a new series of "Professional Perspectives" on Fluoride. In this short video,Dr. Bill Osmunson -- a general and cosmetic dentist -- explains why he is now concerned about fluoride and waterfluoridation.
Fluoride Deception
 June 29, 2006 
In this video, award-winning journalist Christopher Bryson examines one of thegreat secret narratives of the industrial era; how a grim workplace poison and the most damaging environmentalpollutant of the cold war was added to our drinking water and toothpaste.
 
Get the Free E-Book:
www.scribd.com/doc/8487293/BOOK-The-Fluoride-Deception-by-Christopher-Bryson-2004 

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
zagreush7456 liked this
Jeff Green liked this
Dawn Bullwinkel liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->