MAILBAG:

There are more than 200 registered candidates for President of the United States. (votesmart.org). There are about 20 viable candidates from all parties. Included in that 20 most viable is an amazing number of people currently holding public office. That would include United States senators, representatives and state governors.

Now this campaign, as most of you know, is the longest running in history. We are paying the salaries and supporting the benefit packages (which you should know are far in excess of anything the public has access) for these public servants while they are out campaigning. These public servants are essentially taking a two-year paid leave of absence to seek a better job. Would someone like to explain how we are getting what we voted for and are paying for from someone serving as a U.S. senator, representative or governor who is running a two-year campaign for president?

I find that remarkable! What company in the world would give its CEO a two-year paid leave of absence while he/she seeks another position? The answer is, of course, none. Congressional approval ratings are at about 11%, and that is lower than any occupation I can think of, including “journalist.” The prospect of this country electing a true leader who will garner the respect of its citizens and that of the free world is dismal.

I fault the electorate that stands by, year after year, and lets these so-called public servants fleece the public. An overdue task is to throw most of these entrenched politicians (state and federal) out of office and seek new points of view.

JACK STRATTON

Costa Mesa

 Fluoridated water could be harmful to people

Recently the Daily Pilot published an article by Ron Vanderhoff (“Fluoridated water for plaque, not plants,” Sept. 29) regarding the Municipal Water District’s announcement that fluoride will be added to our water to help prevent tooth decay.

Acknowledging that water fluoridation is a contentious subject that has been hotly debated for decades and does not “weigh in” on the usual issues such as dental health or medical studies. Vanderhoff sticks to fluoride’s effects on plants.

Vanderhoff points out that fluoride does not break down, is cumulative, and presents problems for plant growers. Therefore, professional growers do not use it. That is why, Vanderhoff says, that beautiful plants fresh from the nursery, often do not retain their beauty in their new environment at home with fluoridated water.

Bottom line: Fluoridated water is not good for plants.

If it is not good for plants, why should we believe it is good for humans? The American Dental Association announced a change in its policy regarding fluoridated water in November 2006, demonstrating the opinion that it may actually be harmful to some of the population.

Its new recommendation is that only purified, distilled, demineralized water, or water produced by reverse osmosis be used in the preparation of infant formula in the first year of life.

Are we then to believe that fluoridated water is good for the rest of us, has no deleterious effects and, in fact, is beneficial? Even if that is true, any questionable benefits would be derived only during the early years when tooth buds are still developing. To impose the expense and possible deleterious effects of adding fluoride to municipal water supplies is neither reasonable nor practical.

In my opinion it would be irresponsible.

As a registered dental hygienist with a bachelor’s degree in dental hygiene from the University of California at San Francisco, and with 30 years of experience in private dental practice, I am adamantly opposed to the state’s mandate to fluoridate public water. A far better alternative would be the voluntary topical application of fluoride by a licensed professional.

ILA JOHNSON

Costa Mesa