One would think the CDC’s recent highly publicized retreat from its 50-year-old standard for “optimally” fluoridated” water might spark a least a tad of curiosity in our City Council.  But no. When I brought the F-word before them again last week the seven received the news that CDC's pronouncements aren't infallible in stony silence, as if fearful that the barest hint of acknowledgment would bring down the wrath of unspecified but very powerful forces. There they sat—the same Council that willingly engages with citizens oppressed by ugly billboards—mute as rocks.  My invitation to ask questions fell on deaf ears. 

What is it with these people?  It’s not that they’re stupid.  Although it clearly doesn’t take a towering intellect to get on the Austin City Council, I credit them with being at least as smart as the next person.  And a lot of Austinites, despite years of fluoride-is-great-for-your-teeth propaganda, have already cottoned on.  Why don’t the Council?  They have children and grandchildren who will suffer from the imposition of fluoridation.  They can’t protect them forever even if they drink non-fluoridated water at home. 

In a talk at the LBJ school last year, councilmember Randi Shade, a mother of two, let it slip that she knew all about not giving fluoridated water to babies - from her doctor.  (Obviously, dodging the tainted water is no problem for her.) Shade allowed as how some people felt “passionate” about the issue.  That was simply not her strength, she explained, and helpfully suggested that we talk to some other council member who specializes in health issues. 

And who might that be?   Laura Morrison, who claims protecting the environment and improving public health among her pet issues?  No, she doesn't have enough "bandwidth" to tackle this one.  I pulled up the online agendas of the past year’s Council meetings and searched on the word “health.”  It turns up rather sparsely, more often in connection with social services or logistics than with health directly.  AIDS/HIV and mental health get a measure of attention.  But there is nothing about dental care.  Nothing to help people with now-endemic diabetes, kidney disease, crippling arthritis.  One item did catch my attention.  On October, 14, the Council authorized a 12-month contract for provision of services to sickle cell anemia sufferers “in an amount not to exceed $107,123.”  The City’s contract for fluoridation chemicals covering that same time span allows for an expenditure of up to $728, 200.    

I reluctantly conclude that no Austin City Council member gives health a very high priority.  That might seem counterintuitive in a city that paints itself so mellow and caring.  But while Austin may once have been the mellowest of towns, today it’s a high-stakes place, a power city run (with rare exceptions) by professional politicians.  Such pros much prefer to work on large-scale projects like billion dollar water treatment plants that aren’t needed and light rails that nobody wants to ride, or wildly popular crowd pleasers like prettying up our parks.  A slot on the Council is a rung up the ladder to higher office or a ticket to a lucrative consultant career later on.  Why would an ambitious politico want to invest time in espousing an issue—like public health—that carries so few tangible rewards?

On May 13 2010, I asked this question  of the City Council:     

". . .I would like to know who among you uses unfiltered tap water as your primary source of drinking and cooking water?  Any volunteers?"

There were none at first.  Then, after a long, stunned silence, Bill Spelman (I'm told, though I missed the moment) gingerly half-raised his hand.  

Four days later, a second council member privately back-pedalled:  h/she claimed to have misunderstood the question.  That this person suffers from a medical condition closely linked to too much fluoride didn't seem to matter. 

It matters, however, to those of us who believe we should not be required to consume a toxin used in pesticides along with the municipal drinking water we pay taxes for.  I have no quarrel with anybody wishing to ingest fluoride.  They should purchase their own; it's widely available in many forms, including fluoridated bottled water.  

When pressed to justify their refusal to move on fluoride in any way despite the existence of legitimate, very serious questions, Mayor and individual council members take refuge in the excuse that "the people" voted for it.  But that was almost 40 years ago, before the explosion of diabetes, kidney disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, hypothyroidism - all aggravated if not caused outright by fluoride - had turned Americans from the healthiest people in the developed world to one of the sickliest.   

Fortunately, we don't have to wait 40 years to vote in City Council elections.  Members serve 3-year staggered terms.  Indeed, three of them (Chris Riley, Laura Morrison and Randi Shade) have already announced their 2011 bids for re-election.  Water fluoridation must emerge as an election issue.  Bringing it up at candidate forums and other political events will raise its visibility city-wide and can only do Austin's many communities a favor.