Coastal Voices: Measure A, Prop 37 are healthy choices

By Dale L. Bohling October 30, 2012 02:07 pm

What an opportunity for California and especially Crescent City voters to have more of a hand in their own health.

First there will be Proposition 37 for state-wide voters to simply require labeling of GMO products. It does seem like a natural right to have knowledge of what ingredients are contained in food we consume.

The other opportunity presents to  Crescent City  residents under Measure A, the  mandate for  the supplier of the  hydrofluorosilicic acid to present a “clean bill of health” for the substance, which is  infused into the  municipal water  supply. No submission of the health voucher, no adding it to the water. Perfectly reasonable if it is non-hazardous.

As with the Monsanto/GMO industry, fluoride has another corporate giant as its creator; Aluminum Company Of America. According to, a scientist awarded a grant by ALCOA in 1939 presented the initial proposal to add flurosilicic acid to municipal water and in 1945 the idea was put into motion in Grand Rapids, Mich. Shortly thereafter the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation and many cities and some entire states adopted the practice.

The wretched irony of this arrangement  works out well for the aluminum industry as well as the fertilizer industry since they both  market the byproduct of their industrial enterprises called silicofluoride, a toxic waste containing lead, cadmium arsenic and other toxins. Instead of bearing the cost of disposing of the sludge (currently estimated at $8,000 a truckload) they, instead, market it for a staggering profit. And the compliant FDA has not conducted a meaningful test on the poisonous additive to date.   

 So much for “the arrangement.” Now why should anybody complain about drinking somebody’s waste? Can an argument be made for calling a halt to mass poisoning? A reasonable mind could easily conclude that it is at least unhealthy and at worst  it can, in some cases, eventually be  lethal. Its use is hawked  as a tooth saver by dentists and dental hygienists, but such was not always the case. A 1944 editorial in The Journal of American Dental Association  warned that ... “water fluoridation  presented  prospects for  harming human health that far outweighed those for good,” according to several websites.

Whatever happened to the virtue of wisdom? Current wisdom of fluoridation contends that it is essential for dental health but one has to wonder how effective it can be in a water cocktail of arsenic, lead and cadmium as it flows past a person’s teeth and into the gut.

What then? It accumulates in the bones, according to a July 24, 2012, Harvard University  report of  a study conducted by university researchers. In the report, which focuses on the adverse effects of fluoride on children’s neurodevelopment, the report flatly contradicts a Triplicate article stating that the state’s Public Health Department’s guide to fluoridation makes that it only accumulates in minute amounts.

Seniors need to heed that warning as they are at a stage of life where brittle bones are a real concern. Even allowing for the  tenuous argument that fluoridation protects teeth,  can one say that teeth are more important than the brain (for instance)? A recent study also  indicates that the F -acid  can pass the placental barrier and find a home in the developing fetus.

The irony of the situation is that Del Norte County is home to the waters of the pristine Smith River, reputed to be the cleanest river in Western America, and  Crescent City pollutes its own water with industrial waste and ratepayers foot the bill!

Many of us decry socialized medicine while tolerating the  governmental force-feeding of fluoride to citizens, some of which suffer various maladies as a result. It seems to this writer that the blitheful acceptance of “authority”  stands in  need of a re-examination  of the  issue. Do your own research — draw your own conclusions.

Vote “yes” on Measure A.

Dale L. Bohling is a Crescent City resident.