 |
|
|
|
|
Fluoridation plan sparks controversy
Some say city barred discussion of issue
By Daniel Hindin
Some local residents are up in arms after Sunnyvale's Aug. 8 city council meeting in which the council unanimously voted to place a measure on this year's Nov. 7 ballot that would call for the fluoridation of Sunnyvale's water. Many members of the public spoke out about the negative effects of adding fluoride to drinking water.
"I am appalled that the medical profession has promoted the fluoridation of water," says Bille Baerwald, a Mountain View resident and spokesperson for Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (CSDW). "There are chemicals in fluoridated water that are considered hazardous waste. The fluoridation process adds lead, arsenic, and cadmium to our drinking water."
CSDW is an educational group formed by several residents of Mountain View. This group was formed two years ago when the city of Mountain View went through the same process that Sunnyvale is going through right now.
Mountain View resident David Lamar, who is also associated with CSDW, has filed a lawsuit against his city for recent switch to fluoridated water.
"There have been no environmental impact statements on the fluoridation of water. Fifty tons of toxic chemicals are put into our water each year as a result of the fluoridation process. The chemical they put into our water is not of pharmaceutical grade. It's a fertilizer byproduct," he said. Lamar refers to a 1997 letter from E.A. Storey, a representative a Chemifloc Ltd., which provides fluoride treatment for water. In his letter, Storey mentions the use of fertilizer byproducts in the fluoridation process.
The idea of fluoridating water is not new to Sunnyvale. Residents of Sunnyvale voted against fluoridation in 1954 and again in 1965. Letting the issue sleep for 35 years, the city has brought it up again because of some potential changes in the Hetch Hetchy Water system.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which provides Sunnyvale with 40 to 60 percent of its water through the Hetch Hetchy system, is considering replacement of its existing fluoridation system on the San Francisco Peninsula with a new system-wide fluoridation facility in the East Bay.
As a result of these potential changes, Sunnyvale will be forced to accept the fluoridated water or seek other sources. Besides the water from SFPUC, Sunnyvale receives water from the Santa Clara Water District and from the city's own wells.
"Sunnyvale never investigated their entire range of possibilities," says Lamar. "If SFPUC fluoridates, Sunnyvale can still buy water from Santa Clara."
But David Nettle, the city's acting director of public works, said that they have investigated the possibilities. "We're lucky to have two water sources. It was vital during the 1989 earthquake. When transmission lines from SFPUC went down for 24 hours, we were still able to receive water from Santa Clara," he said.
Nettle says that Sunnyvale already has water reserved for itself from SFPUC. "We could only really depend on the Santa Clara Water District to supply us with enough water during wet years. But during dry years it could be a real problem," he said.
San Jose attorney Gary Wesley has already threatened to file a suit against Sunnyvale's city attorney and the entire city council, with the exception of Council member Fred Fowler who wasn't present at the Aug. 8 meeting. Wesley says the council acted in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which states that the public must be allowed to comment on each item up for action before action is taken.
At the beginning of the public comment portion of the discussion on fluoridation, Mayor Pat Vorreiter specified that speakers only speak to whether they thought the measure should be placed on the ballot or not. She specifically stated that she would not entertain any arguments as to the positive or negative effects of fluoride. Wesley and many other people in attendance at the meeting felt that discussing the positives and negatives was directly pertinent to the decision of whether or not to put the measure on the ballot. When they were not allowed to speak to that issue, they were outraged.
Because, according to law, decisions about what measures will be put on the ballot for the November election must be made by Aug. 11, the council felt that it was necessary to go ahead and make that decision.
However, Council member Julia Miller stated that she felt the process had been too rushed. She said that she only got the information on the Saturday before the meeting and was forced to vote on Tuesday.
Council decided it would have a public forum prior to the election in which people could debate about the effects of fluoridation. The time and date of the forum have not yet been announced.
For information on the pros and cons of fluoridation, log on to www.nofluoride.com or www.ci.sunnyvale.ca.us.
|
|
|
|
Sunnyvale, California Since 1994
