Fluoridation debate spoils political waters

"It's added for the protection of the people," said Beverly Hennessey, public relations officer for San Francisco's PUC.

"But some people say large amounts of fluoride can be toxic."

Dr. David Nelson, a fluoridation consultant for the California Department of Health Services, contends that the fluoridation of water has been proven safe by over 55 years of science.

"This issue has been looked at more than any other public health intervention. It's safe, and it's cost effective," Nelson said. "Opponents think there is a huge conspiracy in dumping it in the city's water supply - that fluoride is toxic waste."

"It's found in the earth, trees, plants and water," Nelson added. "All we do when we fluoridate water is adjust the amount in the water with a stream from our storage tanks. Some water supplies have enough so we don't add any."

Opponents of fluoride say that no fluoride is good fluoride, and safety equipment can't prevent fluoride from adversely effecting people. "It's the most negatively charged element in the world," said Jeff Green, director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water. "If you look at it's chemistry, it's the most aggressive seeker of another electron, and the most interactive of all elements in the world."

According to Green, this makes fluoride the bully of the periodic chart and the prized chemical of industry because of its ability to disrupt bonds between other elements. One reason why Green claims fluoride is one of the most highly utilized chemicals in insecticides and rodenticides.

Green noted that fluoride is already present in Coca-Cola, Wheaties, tomatoes, lettuce, and a plethora of other foods. "You have to look at total exposure from all sources, not just the water supply," Green said. "The combination has gotten so high that 66.4 percent of the children who live in communities with fluoridated water now have the visible display of fluoride poisoning — white spots on teeth — a window to what's happening in your body, in your brain and your heart."

In direct conflict to its decades of support, the ADA recently wrote a cover story published in the American Dental Association's magazine July 2000, stating that ingesting fluoride by swallowing does not reduce tooth decay or have positive health benefits.

"The bible of the American Dental Association said fluoride is effective when topical — if it's applied to the teeth. But when swallowed it's no good," Green said.

San Mateo County Supervisor Jerry Hill remains supportive of Fluoride in the water supply, contending that decades of health benefits have been clearly established. "You can buy untreated water," Hill said. "It's available, but I think fluoride is creating a much safer, healthier environment for all of us."

Assistant Director of Burlingame Public Works Dept., Frank Erbacher, said that the present debate over fluoride will not effect Burlingame because their water is already fluoridated. "Once you're fluoridated you can't get unfluoridated," Erbacher said. He noted that since he took office 25 year ago Burlingame has had fluoride in its water. He said that for anything to change, it would have to take place in the engineering realm rather than the political.

Debate is not limited to San Mateo County. In the U.S. House of Representatives, Ken Calvert, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, sent a set of questions to EPA Administrator Carol Browner in an attempt to better understand the EPA's position on Fluoride in the water supply. In response to the EPA's answers, James Sensenbrenner, Jr., chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Science, wrote to Citizens for Safe Drinking Water stating, "I am sorry to say that EPA's answers were extremely insufficient, and as such, the investigation will continue."

The SFPUC will be excepting public input on the plans until their Feb. 13th deadline — results of the survey will then be present to the SFPUC commissioners by the plan's project engineer.