KUDOS TO COLLEGE STATION'S CITY COUNCIL
FRONT: (L to R) Blanche Brick, Mayor Nancy Berry, Katy-Marie Lyles
BACK: (L to R) Karl Mooney, Jess Fields, Julie Schultz, Dave Ruesink
One week ago today, on September 22, the City Council of College Station, Texas displayed a level of enlightenment that our own governing body in “progressive” Austin has yet to achieve. They voted – by a solid 6 to 1 margin – to discontinue fluoridation of their water supply.
Addition of industrially-spawned fluorosilicic acid to “optimize” College Station water’s already highish 0.4 ppm natural calcium fluoride content began 22 years ago with a grant from the Texas Department of State Health Services (formerly Texas Department of Health), -- goose-stepping follower of fluoridation’s booster-in-chief the federal Centers for Disease Control.
0.4 ppm, while significant, is generally below the threshold to produce visible dental fluorosis.
The city’s proposed shift in policy first came late last month, with City Manager David Neely’s recommendation that the fluoridation be dropped in Fiscal 2011 for budgetary reasons. That was soon followed by a thoughtful, intelligent blog piece by Water Services Director David Coleman enumerating reasons for abandoning the program.
Coleman noted that the CDC’s endorsement of “optimal” water fluoridation (to which both the Austin City Council and the Austin-Travis County Department of Health and Human Services slavishly subscribe) is a recommendation only, not a mandate; and that the aquifer-fed local water already contains half of CDC’s recommended allotment. He also cited the hazard the highly corrosive fluoridation chemical presents to city employees who handle it (a danger the Austin Water Utility blandly denies). Only last did he list the cost factor.
His conclusion gives the nod to free choice:
“In summary, our experience has been that for every person who supports the addition of fluoride to the drinking water, another person opposes the practice. Given this lack of consensus and the other factors mentioned in this blog, we believe that mass medication in the form of fluoride is not warranted.”
The City Council members, in the end, agreed with him. The grace with which they handled the contentious subject matter would be unheard of in Austin, where egos and political considerations and private interests rule. These folks clearly had the public good at heart. And they had done their homework. They listened with equal respect to an 11th-hour parade of witnessing pro-fluoride dentists and to a compelling report by water director Coleman representing the opposite view. They bantered amiably among themselves. And then - each by his or her own route - they reached their joint conclusion that water fluoridation was not needed in the city of College Station. Only one - councilwoman Blanche Brick - dissented.
Their reasons given ranged from purely budgetary considerations to health concerns to lack of a perceived need to administer fluoride through the municipal water supply. Two referenced Fairbanks, Alaska, where a local committee convened to study the issue recently led to the end of fluoridation in that city.
A video of the September 22 meeting archived here, is well worth watching. The pertinent section runs from approximately 35:00 to 1:35:00.
Categories: health wellness environment politics
Tags: fluoride water fluoridation college station utilities
Great article!
Reply to this