USA - Hastings Tribune on another fluoride vote
Hastings Tribune on another fluoride vote
HASTINGS _ We can hardly think of another issue that has more controversy decade after decade than that of fluoridating the city's water. It started back in 1955, and 53 years later, the same issue is once again prompting heated debates and talk of petitions.
On one side of the issue, proponents of fluoridated water say that fluoride, a naturally occurring mineral, promotes healthy teeth in everyone from children to the elderly by strengthening tooth enamel and reversing low levels of tooth decay.
While almost all water contains some amount of fluoride, the water in most communities does not have the levels necessary to affect tooth health, proponents say. In those cities, including in Hastings, many children are prescribed fluoride tablets and fluoridated toothpaste by their pediatricians or dentists.
In stark contrast are opponents who say fluoride is a poison that ranks just slightly less toxic than arsenic. It can cause everything from premature aging to weak bones to cancer, opponents say, citing the labels on fluoride toothpaste that warn against ingestion.
Other opponents have taken less of an alarmist stance, stating simply that taxpayers shouldn't bear the cost for the dental health of the entire community, and that residents who want to benefit from fluoride can do so on their own through toothpastes, mouthwashes and tablets.
With such strong opinions on each side, we are glad the Hastings City Council plans to put the issue on the ballot in November. The council already has done its part by its show of support of the legislative bill earlier this year. But the ultimate decision needs to be that of the voters.
Remarkably, this will be the fourth vote on the issue in 50 years, and opponents have won each time: in 1960, 1968 and again in 1974.
In each election, dentists and medical professionals from towns with fluoridated water, such as Superior, testified about the reduced cavity rate they had personally witnessed with the addition of fluoride.
But other dentists, lawyers and even a Hastings mayor testified that fluoride was a deadly poison, that it corroded water pipes, faucets and plumbing fixtures, and even that it had a communist influence.
The 1974 vote in opposition to fluoridating the city's water stood until this spring, when the Nebraska Legislature passed LB245. The law requires communities with more than 1,000 people to fluoridate their water supply by June 1, 2010, but cities can opt out of the law by a vote of the people.
We anticipate that besides the aforementioned arguments on both sides of the issue, the potential cost to taxpayers of fluoridating water will play a big part in how the election turns out. Hastings Utilities said that to add fluoride to each of the city's wells would cost more than $1 million, with an annual operating cost of $91,000.
On the other hand, if the city waits to add fluoride until a new water treatment facility is built in the next three to 10 years, the cost would be around $300,000, with annual operating costs of around $32,000.
We foresee those costs being a debilitating factor in combination with the current state of the economy and fuel prices.
Nevertheless, we hope the council decides to place the issue on the ballot and let voters once again make their voices heard. On an issue this controversial, we think a vote of the people isn't just the best way to decide the matter, it's the only way.
HASTINGS _ We can hardly think of another issue that has more controversy decade after decade than that of fluoridating the city's water. It started back in 1955, and 53 years later, the same issue is once again prompting heated debates and talk of petitions.
On one side of the issue, proponents of fluoridated water say that fluoride, a naturally occurring mineral, promotes healthy teeth in everyone from children to the elderly by strengthening tooth enamel and reversing low levels of tooth decay.
While almost all water contains some amount of fluoride, the water in most communities does not have the levels necessary to affect tooth health, proponents say. In those cities, including in Hastings, many children are prescribed fluoride tablets and fluoridated toothpaste by their pediatricians or dentists.
In stark contrast are opponents who say fluoride is a poison that ranks just slightly less toxic than arsenic. It can cause everything from premature aging to weak bones to cancer, opponents say, citing the labels on fluoride toothpaste that warn against ingestion.
Other opponents have taken less of an alarmist stance, stating simply that taxpayers shouldn't bear the cost for the dental health of the entire community, and that residents who want to benefit from fluoride can do so on their own through toothpastes, mouthwashes and tablets.
With such strong opinions on each side, we are glad the Hastings City Council plans to put the issue on the ballot in November. The council already has done its part by its show of support of the legislative bill earlier this year. But the ultimate decision needs to be that of the voters.
Remarkably, this will be the fourth vote on the issue in 50 years, and opponents have won each time: in 1960, 1968 and again in 1974.
In each election, dentists and medical professionals from towns with fluoridated water, such as Superior, testified about the reduced cavity rate they had personally witnessed with the addition of fluoride.
But other dentists, lawyers and even a Hastings mayor testified that fluoride was a deadly poison, that it corroded water pipes, faucets and plumbing fixtures, and even that it had a communist influence.
The 1974 vote in opposition to fluoridating the city's water stood until this spring, when the Nebraska Legislature passed LB245. The law requires communities with more than 1,000 people to fluoridate their water supply by June 1, 2010, but cities can opt out of the law by a vote of the people.
We anticipate that besides the aforementioned arguments on both sides of the issue, the potential cost to taxpayers of fluoridating water will play a big part in how the election turns out. Hastings Utilities said that to add fluoride to each of the city's wells would cost more than $1 million, with an annual operating cost of $91,000.
On the other hand, if the city waits to add fluoride until a new water treatment facility is built in the next three to 10 years, the cost would be around $300,000, with annual operating costs of around $32,000.
We foresee those costs being a debilitating factor in combination with the current state of the economy and fuel prices.
Nevertheless, we hope the council decides to place the issue on the ballot and let voters once again make their voices heard. On an issue this controversial, we think a vote of the people isn't just the best way to decide the matter, it's the only way.
posted by Bill at
9:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home