Huntingburg Council votes down motion to stop adding fluoride to drinking water
The Huntingburg Common Council voted 3 to 2 to continue adding sodium fluoride to the town’s water supply.
The Council began discussions on the issue after being approached by a resident of Huntingburg, Brendan McCormick, about his concerns with the practice. McCormick gave a twenty minute talk about the adverse effects of fluoride and submitted references to support his concerns at the January Common Council meeting. (Story here)
The council then heard from James Powers, Manager of the Fluoridation Program for the state. He informed the council of the state’s position on continuing fluoridation of the city water supply and referenced studies to support that stance. (Story here)
Utilities Superintendent Tony Traylor informed the council last night that despite the natural occurrence of fluoride, the source used to fluoridate the city water comes as a byproduct from the manufacturing of aluminum and fertilizers. “They scrape this powder left on the walls of the tanks after they produce the fertilizer,” he told the council.
The city adds the sodium fluoride powder to a saturation tank and draws off of it to maintain a level of .7 to 1 part per million in the city water.
Gregg Miller, chief plant operator for the city water plant, stated he has problems with adding a material that is a known poison to the city water supply. “They started this back in the 1940’s, back when they were exposing radiation to our soldiers cause that was the norm,” Miller said. “This material is basically a poisonous material and it bothers me to put it in our drinking water. I’ll put it in at a safe level but it really bothers me. That’s just my take on it.”
Councilman Steve McPherron made a motion the city discontinue the practice of adding the fluoride to the city water. Councilman Glen Kissling immediately stated he wouldn’t support the motion based on information he had gleaned from local dentists.
“You’re affecting these children that don’t get to the dentist before they are four or five years old,” he said. “
Councilwoman Linda Summers called the practice mass medication and has repeatedly stated she has never supported adding it to the water. “Before they are four or five they still have their baby teeth,” she told Kissling.
She added that children would get fluoride for their permanent teeth when they start brushing. “The way we are doing it now it is no choice,” she said. “It’s mass medication. I feel it’s something we should really consider because people have a choice to get their own fluoride.”
McPherron agreed with Summers and stated, “In my own family we don’t give our children fluoride toothpaste and it’s not even recommended until a certain age.”
The motion failed with Amy Lehr being the tie breaker stating she would like to revisit the issue after she conducts some research on her own.
“I’ve called several dentists and they support it,” Kissling said.
Kissling added Dr. Kenneth Troutman of Troutman Family Dentistry supports the practice and told Kissling he personally sees a difference between the teeth of people on fluoridated water and those that aren’t.
McPherron stated his dentist supports fluoridation of city water supplies but his dentist also smokes.
Utilities Superintendent Traylor stated he doesn’t personally support the practice due to the low impact it has on cavities. “It benefits the teeth on the smooth surfaces but 85% of your cavities are in the fissures of the teeth,” he said. “It’s a proven fact that fluoride doesn’t take care of the fissures of your teeth, just the smooth surfaces.”
Mayor Denny Spinner stated he supports the practice of adding the fluoride to the city drinking water. “I would side with the majority on this,” he said. “I certainly honor the opinions of Councilman McPherron and Councilwoman Summers. We had a good discussion and took a vote, that’s what government is all about. I was pleased with the process.”
The mayor acknowledged the source of the fluoride did concern him but with health experts stating it was a safe source he trusted in the process.
[fbshare type=”button”] [twitter style=”horizontal” source=”dcfreep” float=”left”]
If you drink filtered water, odds are your system removes the fluoride. If you drink well water, you don't get fluoride. I woul dlike to see the stats showing people with filtration systems and/or drink well water have worse teeth.
Regardless if you support or don't support, this data should be very accessible. I have had a filtration system for 10 years, and all my kids grew up drinking water that went through it. My kids have great teeth.
Laws put in place because of how life was 70-100 years ago seem silly unless you can quantify the need still exists.
Fluoride can be removed by Reverse Osmosis Filtration, Activated Alumina Defluoridation Filtration and Distillation Filtration. Fluoride cannot be removed with standard carbon filtration that are available through Brita, Pur and other mass market pitcher-based filtration systems.
I concur. Less is more and with the seemingly high amounts of cancer we have in this area the fewer chems. we induce the better. That said, I don't have data that says flouride precipitates cancer or any other adverse health issues in the amounts added to our potable water. If it is not necessary to keep the water clear, free of microbes or change the taste/smell then it is probably not needed.
On another note, I think most people would have a fit if they saw what was actually in their water lines comming into their homes. I have snaked copper lines and the amount of calcium?, lime and other gritty yuckies that come out make the patoka river look clean. You can't see it when you are cooking or pouring a glass of water but that stuff is still there and going into your body. Yes, I have a whole house pre/sediment filter and having a RO system installed for drinking water/ice maker.
I went in and proved the hazards of fluoride being bad for the brain, kidneys, teeth (Yes, bad for teeth), intestine, thyroid, bones, and others. A few dentists say they support poison in the water though so some on the council vote to continue the poison…
I proved it was BAD FOR TEETH, using peer-reviewed science. Fluoride has benefit to teeth, when applies topically. The systemic ingestion to try to benefit teeth from the other side though is wack-science.
One fact that I brought up though; fluoride advances cancer at a faster rate than any other compound known to man. It may or may not cause cancer, but it speeds the process up guaranteed.
I will be campaigning against the members that voted to side with fluoridation. I will do what it takes for this decision to haunt them at the ballot. Amy wants time to do more research, I can respect that, though I would've discontinued the practice until I figured out what I wanted to do.
Then again, maybe I just run for at-large. 14-year Navy veteran, going to USI for business management, concerned member of the community and willing to look at FACTS and not necessarily opinion of dentists. I would have invited the dentists to come PROVE their opinion and opened up the subject to more open discussion, but all this dentists stuff happened behind the curtain.
Could you share your references, I'm curious about this and would like to look into this further.
You can share privately if you would like: {jonschipp +[at]+ gmail.com}
Nevermind, I found it here: http://www.duboiscountyfreepress.com/huntingburg-council...
Brendan, stick to your guns and keep moving forward on this issue. Myself and others that are concerned about this matter have made a mental note on the counsel's actions, and we would be happy to support you when that time comes. Maybe Amy will have done her research by then and can choose which side of the fence that she is on.