Clean power costs
EDITOR: CEO Geof Syphers claims that Sonoma Clean Power will save customers $6 million a year over PG&E, “and it costs us nothing” (“Clean power savings,” Letters, June 16). Really? Am I to believe that he, the board and staff of Sonoma Clean Power work pro bono?
I’d like Syphers to tell us exactly how much the salaries and pensions of this venture will cost taxpayers. Unless he convinces me otherwise, it seems to me Sonoma Clean Power is an added layer of bureaucrats who produce nothing of value, analogous to insurance companies in health care.
And would he please explain why I’m required to opt out, rather than being asked whether I want to be in to begin with.
EDITOR: Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh (“Facts, not scare tactics,” Letters, Friday) purports to factually settle any debate over fluoridation, referring to a study from the National Institute of Dental Health. This institute is part of the National Institutes of Health, a government agency.
Here is a quote from the National Institutes of Health website: “Fluoride, a mineral found in rocks and soil, prevents tooth decay. Although dental caries remains a public health worry, it is no longer the unbridled problem it once was, thanks to fluoride.”
I suggest she and other readers consult the NIH website: nidcr.nih.gov/OralHealth/Topics/Fluoride/TheStoryofFluoridation.htm.
Sonoma County seems a strange place. Everyone is willing and eager to accept junk science. It reminds me of Col. Jack Ripper in “Dr. Strangelove.” We want to preserve our pure bodily essence with organic foods, avoiding fluoridation and vaccination, yet happily inhaling toxic “medical” smoke into our lungs.
I grew up in Chicago, where fluoridation began in the 1950s. All I can say about fluoridation side effects is that it makes everyone vote for Democrats.