Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor on campaign calls, fluoride, planning

Protect public from campaign calls

I am so glad the primary is over. I am usually excited at election time, but this year was a nightmare.

I have two adopted special-needs children who take a lot of care. I pay extra on my home phone to have it unlisted, and I have it on the national no-call list.

But for some reason, candidates running for office have even unlisted numbers. I was getting four to six calls every day for candidates. I also was getting these calls on our cellphones, which really upset me because I pay for my minutes.

I contemplated shutting off my phones. But that only made me mad, because these candidates should not have that power over me or my life.

I also got three to eight fliers in the mail each day, in some cases as many as four fliers for the same candidate. When I see this many fliers from one candidate, it tells me the candidates are wasteful and not using resources wisely. They won’t get my vote.

We the people need protection from the bombardment.

My home is my safe haven, and I shouldn’t be harassed with multiple phone calls from candidates many times daily that take time away from children who need me. Something needs to change.



Issue isn’t fluoride

The issue in the fluoridation of the public water supply is not fluoride. Personally, I’m all in favor of fluoride and its positive effects.

The issue is: Should any government entity be in the business of dispensing any medicine to the public, regardless of the lofty goals achieved thereby?

Perhaps in an effort to cut down on police-involved shootings, drive-by shootings, gang violence, domestic violence and child abuse, the government should inject water with Prozac or Valium. Why not add an appetite suppressant to combat obesity? If the anti-cavity, pro-fluoride lobby is successful, which will be the next lobby to promote its own well-intentioned cause?

Is that the brave new world we hope to attain? I hope not.



Brushing reality

For many low-income families, toothbrushes are not always around. And when they are, it is anybody’s guess as to how much or how well they’re being used. Parents often are struggling so much themselves that they don’t provide supervision for the toothbrushing of the young. As a result, there is low fluoride intake with toothpaste and secondary tooth decay.

In a perfect world, kids brush their teeth and get fluoride from toothpaste. But many kids we see in our local clinics do not, and the only thing we can do realistically citywide is to provide them with water that has the fluoride they need. The added fluoride in the water does not harm the children fortunate enough to be in households with toothbrushes, toothpaste and parents available to check on the completion of the process, because it is well below the harmful levels and at levels comparable to what is found in nature.

Natural water needs a little boost in our town to help all our kids keep all their teeth.



Better plan

Recent concerns that Sedgwick County planning for sustainable development might become entangled with the dreaded United Nations Agenda 21 and invite further intrusion by the federal government into our affairs may have gotten things somewhat reversed (July 7 Local & State).

If you want Washington, D.C., heavily involved in local affairs, I would suggest doing no coordinated planning for the future. Then if the “free” market comes up a bit short on solutions to our mounting state, national and global problems, the Federal Emergency Management Agency can come in and manage the catastrophe for us.

There is definitely something in the water around here, and it’s evidently not fluoride.