Time to move on with fluoridation

In 2006, the World Health Organization convened 80 experts from 30 countries to review all the scientific evidence related to community water fluoridation. After a through review, the experts reaffirmed the efficiency, cost-effectiveness and safety of the daily use of optimal fluoride. They declared “universal access to fluoride for dental health is a part of the basic human right to health.”

Scientists and medical and health experts stand firm in their support of water fluoridation. Through the past 60 years, that support has not wavered despite ever-changing, unproven claims by a smattering of persistent opponents.

Magazine articles, unproven assertions and Internet Web sites are not a substitute for peer-reviewed science. Perhaps most telling is that in November 2007, after a through analysis of opponents’ claims and a careful review of the science, Southern California began fluoridating the drinking water of 18 million residents.

As the San Diego Union said in an editorial, “Given fluoridation’s vast record as an easy, cheap way to improve dental health, Green (the leader of the fluoride opposition group) is engaged in outrageous fear-mongering.”

It is time to heed the advice of the experts and the vote of the people in Skagit County and move forward with water fluoridation.

Hal Clure, M.D.
Co-chair, Citizens for a Healthy Skagit
Anacortes


Washington could use a Prop. 13

When the lady wrote about Proposition 13, it tempted me to respond, but I felt that the people of Skagit Valley would realize she had an ax to grind and not pay any attention to her opinion. Since that time, a couple of other people have taken the time to respond.

I also was living in California when Howard Jarvis was able to have Prop. 13 put on the ballot and passed by a very large majority of the voting public. Those, such as the lady, who said that almost all the ills in California could be attributed to Prop. 13 have been proved wrong. The letter writer should take the time to search the Internet, and she would find that her opinion has not stood the test of time.

I will add that you could transfer your Prop. 13 benefits to some of the other counties in California where it was accepted, but not all. Washington state property taxes are now reaching the same level of absurdity that California did when Prop. 13 was put into law. Maybe it’s time for a Washington state Proposition 13.

Gene Ogden
Mount Vernon


Prop. 13 detrimental to education

I don’t know if the writer a few weeks ago had the advantage of an education in California before Prop. 13, but if he/she did there was a great educational system from which he/she benefited. My major education, including a B.A., was in other states, but I did take advantage of the opportunities presented.

Now look at the results: Before Proposition 13, California had one of the best educational systems in the country and now has one of the worst. There were probably other detrimental consequences with which I am not familiar.

Unfortunately, I voted for Proposition 13 in California. Property values were rising rapidly and it seemed like we wouldn’t be able to retain our residence. A large part of this was ignorance on our part. Actual taxes are a combination of property assessment and tax rate on that property.

Although we had college degrees, we still failed to take the latter into account. Actual taxes would probably not have increased that much. No one seemed willing or able to explain this to voters. Maybe we were just not listening to the right people! We certainly didn’t take the time to investigate.

We elect representatives to make decisions for us. Part of their job is to determine the consequences of laws that are passed. That is one of the reasons we have representative government instead of having citizens vote on every law. If our elected representatives don’t serve our interests, they can be voted out of office, and more suitable laws and regulations can be instituted.

Most voters in Washington will not be informed about unintended consequences that could occur if we approve a similar proposition. Propositions are very hard to amend or repeal and can be damaging for many years.

Lawrence L. Maddox
Burlington


Ballot was not user friendly

Re: Rejected ballots (SVH Feb. 18):

I agree with Gladys Hinshaw that ballots could have been better designed. The instruction sheet did not add any information to that on the ballot. It simply said to sign “the declaration” on the return envelope. It did not instruct us to select party affiliation, which I almost missed on the ballot because of the way it was arranged. It was not very user friendly.

News items did not warn us about the necessity of signing party affiliation to have our votes counted. Just the opposite. No instructions on what to do if we were independent of either party. Such confusion might teach some of us that honesty doesn’t pay.

Please make instructions complete and clear, and make ballots neat.

Ruth Thomas
Mount Vernon