Let’s not forget about the fatal police shooting

It has now been more than seven months since Jason White was shot multiple times and killed by a Sunnyvale Public Safety Officer about 100 yards from his boyhood home on Dec. 15.

Ultimately, we may all conclude that the police action was necessary and justified; however, there has been no public explanation of what occurred and why.

Why the delay and lack of transparency in determining the facts? When, if ever, will the family’s multiple requests for the facts and the rationale be honored, so that they can start moving toward closure?

Presumably, the officer is also in limbo, likely on indefinite administrative leave.

Surprisingly, such cases are investigated solely within the police department itself, with the report being sent to the district attorney for review. There’s no assurance that the details of the investigation will ever be released to the public, even after appropriate redactions.

Why the delay? Why the secrecy? Why the stonewall? Why does it take more than seven months to articulate a rationale? Will the family ever be told the detailed justification for this action?

Bottom line questions: How can a citizen’s life be taken without requiring a public explanation after seven months? In such matters, should our Public Safety Department really be exempt from reasonable oversight by and accountability to the Sunnyvale citizenry?

We should all contact our Public Safety Department, the Santa Clara County district attorney and Sunnyvale City Council to demand immediate answers to these questions.

One can contact our city leadership team with comments at: ecityhall.sunnyvale.ca.gov.

Phil Smith

Sunnyvale

Residents should know what’s in their water

Sunnyvale should be complimented for listing side effects of fluoride, lead nitrate and chloramine in its 2012 water quality test results published this month and mailed to city residents.

It becomes one of few cities in the nation that alerts parents of the American Dental Association announcement in 2011 that fluoridated water should not be put in baby formula because it may “cause an increased chance of fluorosis,” staining of permanent teeth. Some 41 percent of young teens in the U.S. now have fluorosis.

Two-thirds of the U.S. is fluoridated, although only 5 percent of the world is.

The report also says that “elevated levels of lead which may come in fluoridated water can cause serious health problems for pregnant women and young children.” The type of fluoride now used in water is hydrofluosilicic acid, a toxic waste product of fertilizer, which pulls lead out of old water pipes in old houses, which passes the lead into children.

Harvard University last year agreed with 26 studies from China and other countries that high lead levels do cause a significant lowering of children’s IQs.

Parents should be alerted to having water tested or running tap water 30 seconds before using it. The city is not responsible for lead in water caused by old plumbing. Helpful steps are available at water.epa.gov/drink/info/lead.

Nitrate in water can be a health risk for infants younger than six months of age by interfering with the capacity of infant blood to carry oxygen. Symptoms are shortness of breath and blueness of skin. Nitrate levels above 45 mgL can also affect pregnant women and those with specific enzyme deficiencies.

Water in Sunnyvale is treated with chloramine, a combination of chlorine and ammonia, to provide protection against pathogens. It can affect kidney dialysis.

The full article is printed on the Sunnyvale city website.

Sunnyvale north of Central Expressway has fluoridated water by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, SFPUC; water from Central Expressway to El Camino Real has blended water; south of El Camino Real currently is fluoride free but will be fluoridated in the next few years by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, SCVWD.

Arlene Goetze

Sunnyvale

Valley Water doesn’t care about Rancho

Neither the Santa Clara Valley Water District nor the Committee for Green Foothills cares about wasting $7 million in taxpayer money on a proposed flood basin in Rancho San Antonio County Park, one of the largest open spaces in Santa Clara County. Half a million residents enjoy Rancho San Antonio annually.

The proposed 15-acre Rancho flood basin will remove more than 100 trees and 200,000 cubic yards of soil. It will destroy the existing wetland basin, something that would never be permitted if proposed by the private sector.

The water district can not defend its hydrology calculations, which independent local engineers Richard Moll and Mike Hayden say are exaggerated by at least 20 percent. Both Moll and Hayden contend the proposed Rancho basin will not have any meaningful flow.

Do we have a different standard for the water district here?

In planning the Rancho basin, water district engineers seem to have ignored warnings that altering the existing basin may destroy the natural wetland meadow and drop the natural, historic water table.

On June 25, I telephoned the Committee for Green Foothills asking for support in the form of a letter to the water district questioning their plans for a basin at Rancho San Antonio County Park, then followed up with environmental impact and hydrology reports from local experts.

So far, no one has responded.

Cynthia Riordan

Saratoga