Danger Lurking in our Neighborhoods?
A Redding Homeowner Questions
the Safety at our Wells.
Note: A shorter version of this letter appeared as a "Speak Your Piece" in the April 7, 2002 issue of the Record Searchlight.

Dear Editor,

With regard to fluoridating Redding's water supply, I am very concerned about the safety of the workers and residents near the city well sites and the increased costs associated with adding fluoride to these wells.  I am the mother of two young children and we live on a street near Goodwater Avenue where three of these wells are located.  I am also a former employee of Colgate Oral Pharmaceuticals, so I recognize the benefits of fluoride, but I also know that concentrated fluoride chemicals can be very dangerous and even lethal.  It is this substance, in the form of fluorosilicic acid that will be continually added to and stored on-site at each of Redding's 15 residential well sites.  Decreasing tooth decay in our community is a wonderful idea, but storing these chemicals in our residential neighborhoods and populated areas is a dangerous and very costly undertaking that could have serious health consequences.

I have spoken to people at Shasta County's Department of Public Health and Redding's Water Department.  
I also contacted engineers and staff from the Water Quality Bureau of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The SF PUC authorities were very cooperative and answered all of my questions about their fluoridation process.  However, I am not receiving satisfactory answers from authorities here in Redding about managing this potential public health risk.

There are two important issues to consider. 1)  Is fluoridating the water the safest way to prevent tooth decay in this community or is it creating more hazards than it's worth?  2)  What is the total cost of fluoridation, including making these sites safe for Redding residents and city workers? 

Fluorosilicic acid is rated by OSHA as a hazardous material and it is extremely corrosive. The Occupational Health and Safety website says that there are only 5 materials that it does not eat through.  These wells are in residential neighborhoods where children are present.  What if there is a spill at the site?  How will the residents and the ground be affected?  City employees will have to suit up in protective clothing (chemical resistant aprons, gloves, goggles, and face shields) every time they handle it, whether they are delivering it to the wells, changing drums, or disposing of the residue.  (By the way, what do they do with that?)  A more basic problem is how do you safely transport this material into our neighborhoods without the potential of a spill or an accident where the drums are ruptured? The cost of the safe transportation, additional training, protective clothing, and disposal of the hazardous material must be considered.  

New buildings will have to be constructed at each well site because, according to Redding engineers, fluorosilicic acid cannot be stored in the current buildings where chlorine is present.  These new buildings will have to have temperature control and ventilation systems installed to reduce the amount of gases released into the air - another cost (and hazard) we must consider at each of the 15 sites.  There was a recent article in the paper referring to our water shortage and the possibility of creating even more wells as a solution to that problem.  The city needs to consider the cost of upgrading these new wells, too. 

Local authorities continually tell me that fluoridation is "successful" in other communities, particularly San Francisco.  This does not answer my questions.  Yes, they were able to put fluoride in their water, but my definition of success includes complete safety and cost-effectiveness.  Obviously, Redding is an entirely different type of community and my phone calls to San Francisco confirmed this when a water quality manager told me "that is comparing apples to oranges."; 
I was also told by the SF engineers "that the security of the well sites from unauthorized access and the safety provisions during the transport of the chemicals, to ensure full protection of residents, should be carefully considered and should be of primary concern to your city officials."
  
San Francisco does not have a single well to contend with; they have only one water-processing plant from a single source (the Hetch Hetchy reservoir) and it is located far from populated areas.  A tanker truck delivers the fluorosilicic acid and the workers simply connect the tank to the storage unit - never coming in contact with the hazardous material.   As to expense, the San Francisco PUC services 2.4 million people, which allows them to reduce the cost to 12 cents per person per year.   Also, being a primarily urban area, a significantly larger percent of their water is actually consumed by humans. 
At the height of Redding's water production (the month of July), one billion gallons of water are produced and only 0.25% of it is consumed by humans (99.75% being used for irrigation, manufacturing, household use, etc.).  Our Health Department is hoping to get our cost down to $1.50 per household per month!  The American Dental Association states that the average cost of community fluoridation in the U.S. is about 50 cents per person per year. 

Fluoridating Redding's water supply will cost about 9 times the national average, while less than 1% of the water will be consumed. The grant the city is receiving only covers the costs of the first year of fluoridation.  It is still unknown whether the grant will cover all the capital expenditures to upgrade our system or if it will also include the ongoing operation and maintenance costs.  When calculating these costs I want to know that they have solutions that guarantee our safety and nullify the risks associated with having fluorosilicic acid at the well sites.

Even if we can safely upgrade to fluoridation, there is no guarantee that we will have success in lowering tooth decay. The American Dental Association website explains that even when water is correctly fluoridated (at 1ppm), an adult has to consume at least two liters of the water per day in addition to brushing with fluoridated toothpaste to begin to receive the benefit of reduced tooth decay.  A child has to consume half a liter a day.  Of course, people drinking bottled water or using some filtration methods will receive no benefits at all.  Additionally, there are some citizens who do not want to ingest it and others who cannot consume it due to health problems. 

With regard to fluorosilicic acid, there were even more safety issues that I uncovered, but limited space does not permit delving into them.  Redding citizens must be made aware of all these concerns and be allowed to vote on this issue.  I am sure we all want our residents, especially our children and elderly citizens, to have healthy teeth, but fluoridating the water is just one of many methods a community can take to address the problem of tooth decay.  For example, for those who are interested, fluoride tablets could be supplied to them.  I think in the case of Redding, with all the complications, costs, and opposition to fluoridated water, the city should pursue solutions that are more cost-effective and safe.

Sincerely,

Donna K. Williamson
Redding, CA  96002



Note: A shorter version of this letter appeared in the April 7, 2002 issue of the Record Searchlight.
Links to other pages
Home
To Keep Hazardous Wastes from being dumped into our Neighborhood Wells
Vote Yes! on Measure A
(The Safe Water Inititiative) November 5, 2002
Page 2
Page 3
Write your Concerns to the City Manager. It is important the City knows we do not want hazardous chemicals in our neighborhoods!
Name:
Attn: Mike Warren, City Manager
Email:
admin@ci.redding.ca.us