More than 200 community members have signed the petition, which will
be presented to the city council.
One concerned citizen at the meeting said, "They (pro-fluoride group)
are trying to put us in a debate about whether fluoride is good or bad.
The issue is if they can force fluoridation upon us."
A pamphlet created by the group states that fluoride is readily available
to anyone who wants it.
"The local medical and dental community feels this is not enough,"
the pamphlet reads. "They are on a zealous mission to literally shove
fluoride down your throat, whether you like it or not. They are well-organized,
determined and they have no regard for your personal freedom of choice."
Those present at the meeting wholeheartedly agreed.
Dr. Keith Hediger and others in the group have contacted many individuals
throughout the United States who have faced similar dilemmas fighting
fluoride, including one of the leading crusaders against it, Dr. John
Yiamouyiannis.
The group shares many concerns about the effects of fluoridating the
water, including how to control dosage and the effect it will have on
the fishing industry.
Group member Bill Dalton feels the community has been railroaded by the
medical and dental community.
"We've only known about this for a number of weeks," Dalton
said. "Stop the rush."
Fluoride
Forum: Trying to separate science from opinion
Kodiak Daily
Mirror
June 13, 1996
By Amy Francisco, Mirror Writer
Health and safety issues of fluoridating city water were addressed by
professionals and community members during last night's public forum.
The panel was chosen to present their professional and personal views
on fluoride. Members included Jim Arneson, D.D.S.; Keith Hediger D.C.;
Paul Zimmer, M.D.; Bill Murdock, D.D.S.; Rebecca Neslund, D.M.D.; and
Mike Nielsen, D.C.
Audience members wrote questions on 3 X 5 note cards and presented them
to city council sub-committee member Robin Killeen, who along with city
council members Kathy Colwell and Steve Hobgrand organized the forum.
City mayor Carolyn Floyd asked the questions of the panel. Each member
had three minutes to answer.
The discussion ranged from fluorosis to the effects on the fishing industry.
One point repeatedly recognized during the forum, even professionals can
disagree.
"What I have read makes me suspicious. I'm not questioning the integrity
of anyone here, but I feel there has been a scam about fluoride,"
Hediger said. "I feel a lot of the health problems that we have today
are a result of the increase in fluoride. It affects our whole body, more
than just the hard tissue. There are other alternatives. If someone wants
to fluoridate they have the option to do that. I don't think it is right
to make it mandatory or force it on people who don't want it."
Other panel members agreed that adding fluoride to our bodies should
be a personal choice.
"I have a question about whether mass medication is wrong. It's
an ethical question. I also have a question about administering it without
a controlled dose," Nielsen said. "Is mass fluoridation right
even if the benefits are greater than the risks? I don't want to be in
the position of promoting something that we may find out decades from
now is not safe.
"Let's leave well enough alone and continue to do the best we can
within freedom of choice framework rather than have the government fluoridate
our water for us."
Most panel members agreed that fluoride does have a positive impact on
teeth when applied topically and correctly. However, they disagreed on
the systemic benefits, if any, fluoride provides.
Having too much fluoride in the body can cause fluorosis, a condition
which causes spots to appear on the teeth and can lead to more severe
dental decay.
"Fluoride does slow acid attack. You can actually heal teeth with
fluoride, and it does appear to help develop mature strong teeth,"
Arneson said. "But I see fluorosis enough that it concerns me. I
think it is a personal choice issue. I hope we all look at this issue
with great caution."
Because fluoridated water is used to make many of the processed foods
we eat, and fluoride appears in nearly all toothpaste, some panel members
questioned the need to add it to our own water supply as well.
Other panelists viewed the benefits as far outweighing the risk.
"I think it is very uncommon that you have an opportunity to do
something that easy that helps so many people," Zimmer said. "There
are few instances in medicine to do that. This is something that can benefit
those that cannot afford other alternatives. I think we have an opportunity
to help the common good and I think we should do it."
Neslund, who first approached the city council to consider fluoridation,
agreed with Zimmer.
"When we look at fluoridation, it is real important that we separate
science from opinion. Our lives are based on science," Neslund said.
"I think we have a problem here in Kodiak with decay and I think
it can be easily addressed with water fluoridation."
The sub-committee will present its report to the city council at the
June 25 work session. The report will include a recommendation of whether
to place the issue on the October ballot. The public is invited to attend
to hear the report and make comments.
"It's a scientific, political social issue. With regard to the community,
I have great faith in this community to decide whether it is in our best
interest to fluoridate our water system," Murdock said.
"I'm hopeful that the city council will give us the opportunity
to do that. If we decide to fluoridate our water system as a majority
of this community then so be it, and if we decide otherwise, then so be
that."
Fluoride: Report says put in on ballot, but some ineligible
to vote
Kodiak Daily
Mirror
June 26, 1996
By Amy Francisco, Mirror Writer
Put it on the ballot.
That was the decision of the ad-hoc committee appointed by the city council
to investigate the issue of adding fluoride to the city water.
The subcommittee presented their report and recommendation to the city
council at last night's work session. Committee co-chair Kathy Colwell
said the ad hoc members agreed "we should be governed by a small
group in favor of something or a small group against."
It should not be a council decision, Colwell said. She explained to the
council and more than 25 people present at the work session that failing
to put it on the ballot would mean the council has made the decision not
to fluoridate.
"The ballot box is really the way to involve the majority of the
public and is the most fiar way to address this issue." Colwell said.
That fairness is being questioned by Service District 1 residents. If,
after first and second reading, the council decides to place the issue
on the October ballot, only those approximately 3,550 registered voters
within the city would be eligible to vote. The approximately 1,800 registered
voters in Service District 1 would have not say in the decision.
"You are taking away our right to choose," Bill Dalton, concerned
citizen and Service District 1 resident, said at the meeting.
"We've been saying all along that we didn't want our choice taken
away by the ballot. But in fact, in the complexity of the borough and
city interaction, everyone who lives in Service District 1 and served
by the water supply is not going to be given any choice at all on this
issue - and that's not right."
The report included information on the history of fluoridation in the
US and Kodiak and the position of many public health services, local governments
and regulatory agencies. It also included relevant economic impacts and
responses from area processing plants and how fluoridating the water would
impact the fishing industry.
Reports can be picked up at the city clerk's office and will be available
at the council meeting.
Council members stressed the importance of community involvement in this
process. Citizens are welcome to speak or write letters to be read during
tomorrow night's council meeting. If the ordinance is passed by four council
members tomorrow, a second reading and public hearing will take place
July 11.
"Your input at these meetings is very much needed for us to make
decisions," committee member Steve Hobgood said. "Getting your
phone calls for and against things, that's how I weigh a lot of stuff
for my constituents. This is the time to come out if you're for or against
it, let yourself be heard either in writing or in person."
The meeting will begin tomorrow at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly
Chambers, located in the Borough Building at 710 Mill Bay Road. It will
be broadcast live on KMXT at 100.1 FM and on Cablevision Channel 3.
Letters
to the Editor:
Why
have expense of buying bottled water?
Kodiak Daily
Mirror
June 20, 1996
By Shirley Monty
I'd like to bring into the discussion about fluoridation of the Kodiak
water supply, another group of people to consider. Much has been said
about this subject, but I haven't seen any mention of the effect fluoride
might have on those who have immune system problems.
I am one of those who has to be very careful about anything taken into
my system as I have several immune system problems. It is no fun to have
allergic reactions. In fact, it can be life threatening.
It is easy enough for the likes of Dr. Martin to say there are "other
choices" for those who do not want to use the treated water, but
my question is why should we? If we are paying for the city water and
yet have to refrain from using it except for bathing or washing the floor,
do we get a rebate on our fee?
Many of us have to pay for medicine, doctor office calls, lab tests,
etc. because of our immune system problems. Why should we have the added
expense of buying bottled water when we are already paying for water from
the city?
It seems to me it is easier for those who want fluoride to get it in
toothpaste which everybody should be using anyway, than to force everyone
to pay for medication they do not want or that could even prove harmful
to them. I have to buy special toothpaste and mouthwash for one of my
immune system problems, along with other expenses mentioned above. Why
should I have to pay even more by being forced to buy bottled water?
I find Doctor Martin's letter very arrogant and typical of too many of
the professionals who think they know best what is good for us. Common
sense and knowing our own bodies and how they react is as important as
all his scientific theories. - Shirley Monty
Fluoride
more toxic than lead, slightly less toxic than arsenic
Kodiak Daily
Mirror
June 20, 1996
By Bill Dalton
To the editor: Last night after reading the Mirror, I could not help
but respond to Dr. Joseph Martin's letter to the editor.
In his letter, he expresses concern about the "paranoid" opponents
of water fluoridation and then a few paragraphs later he compares the
opponents to local militias, freemen and bombers of federal buildings.
This is a pretty slanderous statement Doctor, something I would not expect
from a responsible medical professional. I would suggest that you take
a look at the petition with over 200 signatures on it and see if you can
identify any of the militia, freemen, or building bombers that you mention
in your letter. On the contrary, on that list you will find citizens of
good standing of our community who happen to oppose water fluoridation.
Look at the imagery that you conjure up with your statement. It becomes
apparent who is paranoid. An apology is certainly in order for that outrageous
assertion, Doctor.
In his letter he goes on to label anyone that has presented opposing
information as anti-scientific or irrational, regardless of whether it
has been scientifically documented or not.
I would like to suggest to Dr. Martin that the U.S. Public Health Service
does not have a monopoly on science. Much scientific research has been
done internationally regarding the health risks associated with water
fluoridation.
The Pasteur Institute in France and the Nobel Institute in Sweden have
advised that fluoride be banned in their countries. Except for a few cities
in Spain, fluoridation of public water has been abandoned by all western
European countries.
At a meeting of the Japanese association for Cancer Research in Osaka
Japan, Drs. Tsutsui and Marama of the Nippon Dental College reported "Last
year at this meeting, we showed that sodium fluoride, which is being used
to prevent dental caries (cavities) produces chromosomal aberrations and
irregular synthesis of DNA. This year (1983) we report our findings that
malignant transformation is induced by sodium fluoride." Since that
time fluoridation of the water supply has also been abandoned in Japan.
Should we disregard the fluoride research and concurrent policy of entire
nations as anti-scientific or irrational as Dr. Martin would have us do?
I think not; these are very serious issues to consider.
Is it at all remotely possible that the U.S. Public Health Service is
lagging behind other developed nations with its fluoride safety policy?
Dr. Martin, it seems would shudder at such a thought, but the reality
seems to point in that direction.
In our own nation, The American Toxicology Association rates fluorides
as somewhat more toxic than lead, and somewhat less toxic than arsenic.
This is not common knowledge among people who use fluoride products regularly.
If we were told by well intentioned (possibly mistaken) health officials
that small amounts of arsenic or lead would be beneficial for our teeth,
would we agree to have it put in our water supply? Of course not. Again
it is a fact fluoride is more toxic than lead.
Regarding Dr. Martin's comments about low income families (the poor children),
it is my understanding that the Public Health Service already has programs
in place to provide fluoride to those who want it and qualify.
There are so many holes in Dr. Martin's letter that it becomes ridiculous.
I would suggest that a safer, more acceptable approach to preventing tooth
decay would be for the dental and medical community to go to the heart
of the matter and initiate a campaign to produce good nutrition and proper
dental hygiene. -Bill Dalton
Children
suffer the most from policy of not fluoridating
Kodiak
Daily Mirror
June 18, 1996
By Joseph M. Martin, M.D.
As a member of the Kodiak health community, I have been following the
debate on fluoridation of the public water supply with interest. I was
unable to attend the meeting that was held, but managed to listen to it
on the radio. For a physician, it was a very frustrating experience listening
to some of the opponents and therefore have elected to write you. I hope
you can take the time to listen to yet one more voice.
As you have already been told, the fluoridation of public water supplies
is recommended by the United States Public Health Service, American Academy
of Family Physicians, American Dental Association, and American Academy
of Pediatrics among others. All their data were provided to you as fact,
not opinion. This does not need rehashing. What is missing in this debate
are more basic issues, issues that this Council should consider as you
will be formulating public health policy.
It is becoming apparent to those of us in the scientific community that
Americans want very much to know about hazards to their health from things
they are exposed to in their everyday lives. This is as it should be,
as questions and skepticism ultimately lead to better community health.
Unfortunately, in deciding about health risks, a large segment of the
American public seems very comfortable in basing their decisions on methods
that can only be described as anti-scientific and irrational. Yet, like
it or not, science and the rules of reason and evidence are the only tools
we have to investigate risks to human health. If we want to deal with
health risks, we should not abandon science. The data, all of which are
available, support unequivocally the use of fluoride in public water supplies.
I firmly believe that if the Kodiak Council were considering building
a bridge, you would consult an engineer, not an astrologist. In considering
public health policy, why not consider the facts as provided by the State
Public Health Service and locally concerned medical personnel?
This debate should not be allowed to degenerate into a battle of opinion
as an opinion is not evidence of anything. Only a commitment to evidence
can test the hopes and fears and biases that otherwise would have full
sway. Science is not perfect, but it is the best method we have to answer
questions about the material world and to evaluate the myriad alleged
health risks that capture the public's attention.
It is astounding, although not totally surprising, to me to hear opponents
of fluoridation state that those who stand to gain from fluoridation are
the likes of, and I quote, "Exxon, DuPont… the polluters, and
the sugar companies." What are we to make of these paranoid and conspiracy
opinion and beliefs? Is the public to believe the United States public
health services, medical doctors and dentists are in the employ of Exxon
and candy companies? Should public policy be based on this type of thinking?
Opponents of fluoridation have also seized upon the issue of personal
freedom and choice, a popular tactic for some in an era of local militias,
freemen," and the bombing of federal buildings. Yet, the courts have
upheld time and again that the public health outweighs a person's liberties,
i.e. clean restaurants, immunizations for school enrollment, mandatory
isolation and treatment of active tuberculosis and notification of sexual
contacts of people infected with sexually transmitted diseases. American
society has benefited tremendously from this policy by obtaining one of
the highest standards of living in the world. Just travel out of the country
to confirm this. If an adult elects to not use the public water, they
have other choices. It is the children, (those who most benefit from fluoridation)
and in particular, the poor who do not have access to dental care who
suffer the most from a policy of not fluoridating the water.
Public health policy should be based on the soundest scientific data
we have available. If we resort to opinion and what "feels right,"
we stand to live out Carl Sagan's darkest vision: "It's a foreboding
I have - maybe ill placed - of an America in my children's generation
when clutching our horoscopes, our critical faculties in steep decline.
Unable to distinguish between what's true and what feels good we slide,
almost without noticing, into superstition and darkness." Joseph
M. Martin, M.D.
