Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Patt Morrison for Thursday, January 20, 2011


Thursday, January 20, 2011

1-3 p.m.





1:06 – 1:58:30




2:06 – 2:30

Fluoride is good for you…but it’s also bad. Fluoride in water debate is back

Is the government controlling us or, as stated in the film Dr. Strangelove, controlling “our precious bodily fluids,” by putting fluoride in our drinking water?  In the 1950s and 60s, the John Birch Society shouted yes—that fluoridation of water was evidence of Communist control.  Would you be surprised if we said this was relevant again?  Well, not the Communist part, but the Department of Health and Human Services did just recommend a lower level of fluoride in drinking water—the first time it’s done so in 50 years.  Studies now show that people are getting more fluoride than they need because of toothpaste, mouthwash, and brushing three times a day.  While fluoride has brought down cavity levels immensely since it was put into our water, studies now also relate it to increased spotting and streaking on children and adolescents’ teeth, brittle bones, thyroid damage, and increased risk of bone cancer.  There’s still debate on the topic—with some thinking the limit should remain as is, some thinking the limit should be decreased, some thinking there should be no fluoride in our water, and some thinking there shouldn’t even be fluoride in toothpaste!  Do you appreciate the favor of fluoridation of your water from your government?



Bob Block, MD, FAAP, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma; President-Elect of the American Academy of Pediatrics


  • As with most dentists and pediatricians, he agrees w HHS recommendation for lower limit of fluoride but also thinks fluoride is a good thing in our water


TBD—Environmental Working Group


2:30 – 2:39




2:41 – 2:58:30

Buy on Amazon while it’s still tax-free: taxing online sales up for consideration again

It’s been considered before and has failed each time:  placing a California state sales tax on online purchases made through internet retailers that are based outside of the state.  Last time, in 2009, a bill made it through the legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger.  This year there is a new and improved budget deficit and a real push in Sacramento to both cut from the budget and fine new sources of revenue where ever possible.  Enter the latest incarnation of an online sales tax, the “E-Fairness Legislation” that would force major online retailers, like Amazon and Overstock, to collect sales taxes on California purchases.  Supporters of the bill estimate that it could generate between $250 - $500 million for the state.  Perhaps not coincidentally, brick-and-mortar retailers like Barnes & Noble (a big competitor to Amazon) are supporting the online sales tax.  Given the depressing budget situation that the state faces, is it time to end the internet’s the tax-free status in California?



Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-14th District (Berkeley, Oakland); author of the E-Fairness legislation



Jonathan Johnson, president of



Jonathan Serviss
Senior Producer, Patt Morrison
Southern California Public Radio
NPR Affiliate for Los Angeles
89.3 KPCC-FM | 89.1 KUOR-FM | 90.3 KPCV-FM
626.583.5171, office
415.497.2131, mobile /



nyscof said...

Fluoridation Ineffective & Harmful, studies show

More than 3,270 professionals (including over 290 dentists) urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation citing scientific evidence that fluoridation is ineffective with serious health risks. See statement:

Also, 11 US EPA employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals call for a moratorium on fluoridation across the country. New York City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr has introduced legislation to stop fluoridation in New York City.

The Fluoride Action Network is working with Dr. Mercola to educate legislators and the media about the health hazards associated with water fluoridation which isn't revealed to them by those lobbying in favor of fluoridation:

For more info http://www.fluorideAction.Net

Anonymous said...

Regarding HB 153, we feel it is simply unwise to attempt to build a system of taxation based purely on a retailers self-chosen marketing practices – because they will simply discontinue those practices.

Less than one year ago when this matter came before the California legislature in AXB8, the State of California's own analysis on fiscal effect was estimated at approximately $160 million annually (reference -

Regarding HB, 155 we believe it will be challenging to enforce such excessively burdensome reporting requirements on retailers, particularly because they may violate consumer privacy protections in the state of California.

We would recommend that California seriously consider enacting sales tax legislation to bring California into compliance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (or SSUTA).

Enacting SSUTA legislation could allow California to collect $1.44 Billion annually, MORE THAN 10 TIMES the revenue potential of AB 153.

We sincerely hope that legislators in California will recognize HB153 and 155 legislation are interim measures, which will not solve this problem in a meaningful way over the long term. Instead, we urge California to move down a parallel path to becoming a full SSUTA member state and supporting federal legislation (the Main Street Fairness Act), which we expect will be re-introduced into Congress shortly.