Are we still debating fluoride in the water supply? In 2014--almost 2015? After all the years, all the research, all the experts' advice, all the evidence?
It appears so. Ah, what a wonderfully small and argumentative state, Arkansas. Folks in these parts will argue about barbecue. Which may be more worthy of debate than fluoride in the water.
If you'll remember, the state legislature had to get involved in the fluoride wrangling in 2011, after Arkansas received an F grade by the Pew Center when it comes to the dental health of children. In its Act 197 of that year, the legislature required larger water systems--those serving 5,000 people or more--to add fluoride to the water. But in Newton County, the quorum court is balking. This month, the panel voted unanimously to oppose fluoridation and supports a repeal of Act 197.
"Instead of them forcing it on all the water systems, [the quorum court] wanted each water system to make up their own mind about whether they wanted the fluoride or not," said the county judge, Warren Campbell. "I'm hoping they don't put it in our water system."
Ooooh-kay. Some of us thought the debate about fluoride in the water ended decades ago when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put out its Top 10 list of public health achievements in the 20th Century--and it included fluoridation of drinking water. Along with things like immunizations, warnings against tobacco and improvements in workplace safety. That's good company to have when it comes to improving health in this country.
Some of us can remember when fluoride in the water was a Communist Plot to dumb-down our kids so the commies could win the Cold War. Thankfully, nobody is using that argument anymore. Nowadays, folks are talking more about the costs and even the so-called hazards of fluoride. And, as off-base as they are, those folks need to be heard in this freedom-loving country. Give them the opportunity to make their case. Then point them to the CDC's website.
What disturbs most about this particular story out of Newton County was the wording of the quorum court's resolution. Instead of sticking to a debate about costs and local control, the JPs went where they shouldn't. They opposed its water authority's efforts to add fluoride to any public water systems that have "opposed such poisoning of their water supply."
Poisoning? Oh, please.
Let's keep the debate based in reality, shall we? Decades of research has shown that the minuscule amount of fluoride added to water is enough to protect teeth against cavities, but not enough to poison anybody.
Come, let us reason together. And leave the scare tactics out of it.
Now then, on your marks, get set, debate--yet again.
Editorial on 12/27/2014