<p>Emotions ran high in Edgartown this week over a recent board of health decision to move forward with a plan to add fluoride to town water.</p>
Emotions ran high in Edgartown this week over a recent board of health decision to move forward with a plan to add fluoride to town water.
At a meeting Tuesday, members of the water commission and some town residents continued to call for the board of health to rescind its vote, amid heated questions about the process.
Opponents are circulating a petition calling for water fluoridation to be placed on the ballot at the town election this spring.
Petitioners stood outside the Old Whaling Church before a special town meeting Tuesday to gather signatures.
The issue was discussed at a water commission meeting a few hours earlier, which was attended by two of the three board of health members, the town health agent, a handful of residents and selectman Art Smadbeck.
The board of health is scheduled to take up the issue again at a meeting next Tuesday.
The board voted in October to take steps to fluoridate the town water supply, following a process dictated by state law. Residents have 90 days after notice of the vote to gather a petition, signed by 10 per cent of voters, to bring the issue to a binding town vote.
Fluoride has been added to public water since the 1940s to prevent tooth decay. According to the Centers for Disease Control, about 75 per cent of people in the United States receive fluoridated public water. On the Vineyard, Oak Bluffs is the only town that adds fluoride to water.
In Edgartown the board of health’s decision sparked debate at a meeting last week. Discussion centered on whether there was another option to bring the issue to a town vote and concerns that fluoridation would go through without town residents weighing in. Health agent Matt Poole and board members Harold Zadeh and Dr. Garrett Orazem have said they are doing their jobs in protecting public health, and that they followed state law and what they thought was the best process to bring the issue to a town vote.
Board of health representatives also said they support the petition initiative, saying that their vote to pursue fluoridation was the first step and they welcome a binding town vote.
Mr. Poole said Tuesday that the board is waiting for more information from town counsel and the Department of Public Health, though it is clear that the only way to bring the issue to a binding town vote is through the process that board has already taken. He said they would wait to discuss the issue at a meeting next Tuesday, including whether to change course and pursue a nonbinding referendum at the town election.
Some who attended the water commission meeting Tuesday heatedly called for the board to rescind the vote. Water superintendent Bill Chapman said he was disturbed by the process. “I think it was a big position to take without consideration of the impact it would have on this board, this department. Your decision was made one-sided,” he said.
“No board, government, local agency or otherwise should tell a community what medication they’re going to take,” he added, comparing it to the board determining whether white bread is allowed on store shelves in Edgartown. “The stuff you’re asking us to put it in this water system has a skull and crossbones on the back.”
Water commissioner James E. Kelleher said his concerns focused on the water department. “It doesn’t give us any time to figure out what this is going to do to our system,” he said. “That’s all I care about, is delivering our water. We don’t even know the cost.” He also wondered how fluoride would affect coastal ponds and shellfish.
Commissioner David Burke, who has been leading the petition effort, had strong words for the board of health members.
“I would to say that I believe your actions thus far have been deceptive, tricking us all, trying to slip it through,” he said. “Forcing us to go to a petition, lack of communication, lack of transparency, and you have been given multiple times the ability to rescind and you haven’t, you keep putting it off and putting it off.” “Shame on you guys, that’s all I have to say. Shame.”
Dr. Orazem, a longtime dentist on the Island, defended fluoridation. “We all need it and it helps us all,” he said. “That’s not my opinion, that’s the Centers for Disease Control opinion.”
“You should be ashamed of yourselves,” said one woman who declined to give her name to a reporter.
“Oh, hardly,” Mr. Orazem said. “We’re doing our jobs.”
He said all board of health meetings are public and agendas are also posted publicly. Mr. Poole said the board of health anticipated all along that there would be a petition and vote.
In the end the board of health members said they would revisit the issue soon and made it clear they’d had enough.
“We’ve taken our licks for 30 minutes,” Mr. Poole said.
“We’ve declared a meeting on our schedule this coming on Tuesday. Everyone in this room is trying to bash us,” Mr. Zadeh said. “We’re trying to work with the town. If we made a mistake, we make a mistake. We are moving ahead.”
Comments
Some still mistakenly cling
jwillie6 Lafayette, LASome still mistakenly cling to the disproved belief that fluoride helps CHILDREN’S teeth as they form. That hypothesis was thoroughly disproved a quarter century ago.
It is important to ask --- exactly why should an ADULT be sentenced to take this toxic chemical, fluoride, in every glass of water every day of life?
Fluoridation results in slow poisoning over a lifetime which causes premature ageing, thyroid damage, dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, ADHD, brittle bones (broken hips & arthritis), kidney damage, cancer and other health dangers.
Read this excellent book, "The Case Against Fluoride" authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.
So, while 74% of the U.S. is forced to drink fluoridate water, only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their water. China and Japan have rejected it many years ago.
jwillie6 – You can’t get
Randy Johnsonjwillie6 – You can’t get anything right, can you? You can’t even reference your own highly biased, un-reviewed source, the Case Against Fluoride, correctly. It is customary for scientists to count only individual, unique references, and not count duplicate referrals to the same reference – which is a good way to inflate the numbers. There are not “1,200 references (over 80 pages)” as anyone who reads the book can easily discover. The majority of those “references” are not to legitimate scientific research anyway. This opinion piece was published in 2010, so it hardly qualifies as current work in any case.
Alison Campbell took the time to evaluate the "references"
~> Search on -- Alison Campbell references-in-the-case-against-fluoride
If Connett's book "offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of fluoride" then it is quite obvious why he and other anti-F activists have not been able to convince representatives of over 100 national and international health organizations (WHO, ADA, AMA, etc.) that his "over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages)" should overturn the scientific consensus?
The danger of unreviewed "non-fiction" books is that anyone can write them without proving their claims, so often they contain more fiction than would a novel.
The bottom line: Fluoridation opponents have not been able to produce any legitimate evidence that fluoridation at optimal levels causes health problems that would outweigh the proven benefits. The "over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages)" are simply representative of the poor quality studies &/or misrepresentations and twisted conclusions of legitimate research that have been cherry-picked and placed on anti-fluoridation sites and other literature.
Yeah Shame on them for trying
Heath MarterYeah Shame on them for trying to slip this. Adding the arsenic laced chemical waste hydrofluorosilicic acid is no joke... It's the waste from the fertilizer and alluminum factories look it up... You don't want it... And btw there are 0 studies hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe or effective
The real “shame” is with
Steven SlottThe real “shame” is with antifluoridationists such as Heath who willfully disseminate false claims and misinformation about a public health initiative which has provided a very valuable disease prevention benefit to hundreds of millions of individuals of all ages for the past 72 years, with no proven adverse effects. Heath, should take his own advice and “look it up”, from reliable, respected sources. Given the antifluoridationists’ disdain of valid facts and evidence, it’s highly doubtful that he will, but in the fantasy world where that might happen he would find:
1. The amount of detectable contaminants, including arsenic, in water fluoridated with hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is zero. In order to detect any contaminants whatsoever takes ten times the manufacturer recommended single use amount of HFA. Even then contaminants are only detected in less than 50% of random samples, and in that less than 50% of samples the minuscule level of detected contaminants is far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety.
Obviously, neither arsenic, nor any other contaminant, is of any concern in optimally fluoridated water.
Intelligent readers seeking accurate information on the contents of fluoridated water will want to view the “Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Substances” located on the website of NSF International. Other readers who wish to remain as woefully uninformed as is Heath will be fine in following his lead in lazily perusing nonsense posted on little antifluoridationist websites and blogs.
Wonder why Heath doesn’t fear-monger about the levels of arsenic in seafood and countless other food and beverages In which it is prevalent?
2. There is no “waste from the fertlizer and aluminum factories” involved in water fluoridation.
3. Once introduced into drinking water, HFA immediately and completely hydrolyzes. The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and the afore mentioned barely detectable contaminants. After this point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It is gone before the water even leaves the treatment plant. It does not exist in water at the tap. It is not ingested.
Therefore, the real question is why Heath and other antifluoridationists seem to think there should be safety and effectiveness studies on a substance which is not ingested and comes into no contact with consumers. Perhaps Heath would “enlighten” us with an answer to that question.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Communications Officer
American Fluoridation Society
Quoting from CDC site: "EPA
Neil Off IslandQuoting from CDC site: "EPA Regulatory Criteria for Fluoride Additives - All additives used by water treatment plants, including fluoride additives, must meet strict quality standards that assure the public's safety. These additives are subject to a stringent system of standards, testing, and certificates by AWWA and NSF International. Both of these organizations are nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations."
Yep, force it on us because
Slater MVYep, force it on us because "it's good for you!" Here's an idea, TRY BRUSHING YOUR TEETH AND CUTTING BACK ON SUGAR! Just another example of government overreach. Don't you have more important things to spend your time and money on? Aren't there any other pressing public health issues that require your attention, maybe an opioid epidemic? What a joke.
Slater, dental decay is the
Steven SlottSlater, dental decay is the most common chronic childhood disease. It is a serious bacterial infection which occurs in close proximity to the brain with a direct pathway to the rest of the body via the bloodstream. Children have died as a direct result of this infection.
Your callous attempt at minimalization and dismissal of this overwhelming problem is indicative of a profound lack of understanding of science abd healthcare. Edgartown is fortunate to have public health officials who do understand scientific research, who do rely on valid facts and evidence, and who do place the best interests of the health and well-being of the citizens of Edgartown above the predictable bashing they receive from the small, yet very vocal, group of uninformed self-serving activists who place their skewed personal ideology against fluoridation above all other condiderations.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Communications Officer
American Fluoridation Society
What should be alarming to
Steven SlottWhat should be alarming to the citizens of Edgartown is having a water superintendent, Bill Chapman, who bases his opinions on nonsense spoon-fed from antifluoridationist groups, rather than on the peer-reviewed science and recommendations from those most qualified to render appropriate ones.
To enlighten Mr. Chapman with facts of which he, being in a position of public responsibility, should already be aware:
1. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water which humans have been ingesting since the beginning of time. To suddenly proclaim these ions to be “medication” is obviously ludicrous. No court of last resort has ever upheld the nonsensical “forced medication” argument of antifluoridationists.
2. He and his department exist to professionally and competently implement and maintain the policies and decisions of the local officials to whom he answers, in full compliance with the US Safe Drinking Water Act.....not to make those decisions. If he believes his department incapable of the proper handling of fluoridation substances and the myriad other routine, raw, undiluted water additives for which they have responsibility he should either institute wholesale changes in his department or resign and be replaced with someone more suitable for the position.
3. Does he not understand that undiluted chlorine, ammonia, and myriad other substances routinely added to public water supplies are as toxic as are undiluted fluoridation substances? If not, he has no business being in such a position of public responsibility and trust.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Communications Officer
Anerican Fluoridation Society
The reason some other
BobThe reason some other countries do NOT put fluoride in their water supplies include: their water has natural levels of fluoride above what is recommended (China and Sweden, for example); and water supply sources vary widely, so the fluoride is put in salt and/or milk, instead (Japan and Germany, for example). Please don't assume that countries that do not fluoridate their water deem it dangerous. Such ignorance is far more dangerous in the long run as it can lead to greater dental decay, especially for children.
Contrary to Steven D. Slott’s
Debra M. Gaines EdgartownContrary to Steven D. Slott’s statement, water supplies are not fluoridated simply with fluoride ions identical to those which have always existed in nature. Fluorine, F does exist naturally in the environment, however, it exists as a gas, is very toxic and is one of, if not the most reactive of all elements.
In fact, fluoridation of water supplies is under taken with one of three synthetic industrially produced chemicals: Sodium Fluoride NaF, Fluorosilic Acid H2SiF6 or Sodium Fluorosilcate Na2SiF6.
This information alone, is reason enough to rescind the order to fluoridate our entire municipal water supply and to take some time to responsibly research the methodology, cost, potential impacts, concerns of residents, the purpose and reasons for doing so, and alternative practices.
Add new comment