Contact Us   •   About Us   •   Advertise   •   Sitemap   Subscriber Services   •   Skagit Valley Herald E-Edition  
   
 Opinion
      Search goskagit:        


All is ready for PUD to fluoridate

Skagit Valley Herald
April 03, 2008 - 08:16 AM


Comments (12)   |   Email Story   |   Print Story   |   Share This Story: [?] del.icio.us Digg Google Bookmarks NewsVine StumbleUpon YahooMyWeb
ADVERTISEMENT:
By HAL CLURE
Voices of the Valley

Wherever I go, people ask, “We voted for water fluoridation in 2006, when is the Skagit County PUD going to start fluoridating the water?” It’s a good question, and given recent developments, the answer should be soon, very soon.

Washington state’s attorney general has just released a formal opinion on an issue the PUD has raised repeatedly over the past four years. Can the county commissioners, acting as the Board the Health, require the PUD to fluoridate the water? According to the attorney general, the answer is yes.

This legal opinion removes the last barrier to community water fluoridation in Skagit County.

The Skagit County prosecuting attorney sought the attorney general’s opinion because the PUD had raised questions about the legality of the county commissioners’ order. The answer from our state’s highest legal authority was unequivocal.

“A county health board may lawfully order the fluoridation of a water supply system owned and operated by a public utility district and located within the county’s jurisdiction,” Attorney General Rob McKenna stated.

Now that the PUD is legally required to proceed with water fluoridation, it is time to do so — and quickly. It’s been four long years since this issue was first raised in our community. It is time to move on.

Let’s review where we stand.

* There have been four years of public debates, hearings, workshops and discussions.

* Numerous community organizations and local medical, health and dental experts have endorsed fluoridation.

* The voters approved water fluoridation 17 months ago.

* The county commissioners voted to require the PUD to begin water fluoridation.

* The funding for the fluoridation equipment has been secured.

* The agreement for designing and constructing the facility is complete and ready to be signed.

* And now, the state attorney general confirmed that the county commissioners have the legal authority to mandate water fluoridation.

Everything is set and ready to go.

The PUD has stated that it is neutral on the issue of water fluoridation. However, it wanted the legal and technical issues to be addressed. All of these issues have now been resolved. It is time to sign the final agreement and begin construction. This project should be completed fairly quickly. As an Anacortes water official was recently quoted in the Skagit Valley Herald as saying, water fluoridation is a very “simple process.”

We cannot afford to spend more public resources talking about this issue. It’s time for action, not words. It is time to follow the will of the voters and work together to fluoridate the water and improve the oral health of everyone in our community. Too many young children and aging seniors have already missed out on the benefits of water fluoridation. Too much money has been spent treating dental decay that fluoridation could have prevented.

The money for the equipment has been donated by a nonprofit foundation. This is a very generous gift that will improve the health of Skagit County residents for generations to come. We must seize this opportunity, not back away from it.

More than 180 million people throughout the country receive the health benefits of fluoride. Just recently, after a thorough evaluation of the science, Southern California began fluoridating the drinking water that goes to 18 million residents. Now it is our turn.

We have a financial incentive to prevent dental disease. More importantly, we have an ethical responsibility. Depriving people of this inexpensive health protection is just plain wrong. It is time to take action to protect oral health through water fluoridation. The health benefits will be significant — and so will the cost savings.

* Hal Clure, M.D., is a retired family physician and co-chair of Fluoride for a Healthy Skagit.

More from opinion
Most Recent

Most Commented

Most Read



Report Violation  Posted by *shrug*  on  April 03, 2008 - 02:18 PM

You know, it's really great that the newspaper is so pro-fluoride. Maybe THEY can answer this question: Where is the fluoride that will be going into our water supply coming from? Or how about this question: What are parents of infants (for whom exposure to fluoride can be harmful) supposed to do when it comes to bathing their babies? Or feeding them formula? By putting fluoride in the water supply, they are making it nigh impossible to keep fluoride out of the system of infants. So how about it, SVH? Give us the story on THOSE details about fluoride.
Report Violation  Posted by Don Johnson  on  April 03, 2008 - 08:14 PM

Over our dead bodies there will be fluoridation in PUD water! The Skagit Valley is a lot safer with Hal Clure in retirement. Unfortunately, he is still capable of putting people in the hospital in my opinion.
Report Violation  Posted by Don Johnson  on  April 04, 2008 - 02:09 AM

Have you ever noticed how pro-fluoride zealots speak in generalities and not specifics? Even when they do, they consist of things that are taken out of context or are outright lies. First the SVH editorial staff and now Clure is claiming that the Attorney General has given his blessing for our outlaw BOH to ram down our throats its likely backdoor deal with the WDSF. It comes as no surprise that Clure wants it done quickly before anyone has a chance to address the criminal aspect behind the vote on Resolution #20070284. The Attorney General may want offer an opinion on elected officials who violate State Law flagrantly and others who cover it up shamelessly. From what I have observed, the level of corruption in Skagit County is cancerous and it must be excised.
Report Violation  Posted by Don Johnson  on  April 04, 2008 - 02:16 AM

Regarding my complaint as to the legitimacy of certain items in case law, I have received the following communication from Janelle Guthrie, Communications Director, Office of State Attorney General Rob McKenna:

“I received your phone call on the Attorney General’s Office public comment line regarding: AGO 2008 No. 5-Authority of county health board to order fluoridation of water supply.

“I understand your concerns and wish to reassure you that you still have options in your fight against fluoridation. (continued below)
Report Violation  Posted by Don Johnson  on  April 04, 2008 - 03:43 AM

The form you submitted contained the following errors
Unable to receive your comment at this time.
Report Violation  Posted by Don Johnson  on  April 04, 2008 - 03:44 AM

“An Attorney General’s Opinion is an assessment of the law by the Attorney General’s Office, and does not represent a policy choice for or against fluoridation. As the attorney general’s office, we are required to provide to elected officials upon request our best assessment of how a law might be interpreted should it be challenged in a court of law and that is what we did in this case.
Report Violation  Posted by Don Johnson  on  April 04, 2008 - 03:45 AM

(continued from above) “Ultimately, your local government exercises the policy decision whether to fluoridate. If you wish to impact that decision, your concerns are best directed to your local government officials who are charged with making that policy decision. (continued below)
Report Violation  Posted by Don Johnson  on  April 04, 2008 - 03:46 AM

“Finally, the courts are not bound by our decision if the matter ends up in court. Should you and others with similar concerns choose to file suit challenging the local ordinance, our opinion will be considered, but ultimately the courts will decide the constitutionality of such an ordinance.

“I hope this information helps address your concerns and I appreciate your contact with our office.”

The dishonesty that defines the pro-fluoridation movement has been exposed once again. They would have everyone believe that the AGO opinion is an endorsement of their position. This is par for the course since their entire package is based on meaningless endorsements from lobbyist groups in lieu of any medical or scientific fact.
Report Violation  Posted by tea_time  on  April 04, 2008 - 04:57 PM

What else are we going to put in our water supply? Where is the line drawn from readily-available substances (that come with risks, by the way) that one can choose to ingest, to force-feeding substances to the population? Scary precedent if you ask me.
Report Violation  Posted by Jo Roark  on  April 07, 2008 - 10:59 AM

Right on Don!!! I am glad you emailed the AGO and got the real story, maybe you should start your own newspaper!
I wonder what the cost would be between treating a cavity or treating endocrine system failure? Or bone cancer? Or fluoride poisoning? I can only assume that treating bone cancer, the endocrine system or fluoride poisoning would be much more expensive than treating a cavity. So where is the logic Mr. Clure?
The PUD is not legally required to fluoridate, the AGO simply gave their opinion.
If I tried poisoning someones water I would go to jail and in my opinion that is where the people that push this toxic substance need to be.
Report Violation  Posted by Jo Roark  on  April 07, 2008 - 08:44 PM

BTW, lets not forget about the meeting with the PUD, the County and the public. Hopefully, the people that are pushing fluoride will bring more to the table than meaningless endorsements.
Report Violation  Posted by Jo Roark  on  April 09, 2008 - 09:08 PM

It is scary tea time, that is why we cannot allow it in our drinking water..

Page 1 of 1      

Have something to say? Add your comment!

You must be a logged in member in order to comment.
Don't have an account? Sign up here. It's simple and free!



Auto-login on future visits

Forgot your password?











ADVERTISEMENT:
  © 2007 Skagit Valley Publishing Company Privacy Policy | Terms of Use