Council steps back on fluoride debate

Healdsburg city councilmembers will make way for dental and medical professionals to write the argument on November’s ballot to keep fluoridating the city’s water system.
As the debate heats up, and begins to get personal, the city council doesn’t seem to have any interest in entering into the passionate debate.
While anti-fluoride activists continually make requests of the council during an open comment period of the city meetings, councilmembers are not discussing the validity of the arguments on their agendas, only addressing matters specific to the ballot.
On Monday, the city council discussed who would write the argument in favor of continuing to fluoridate the city’s water. The council, at Mayor Jim Wood’s request, decided on a group called Save Our Smiles, which he said is formed of medical and dental professionals up to date on the topic.
“It really is about having the people who have the most current knowledge, the best information, provide the rebuttal argument (on the ballot),” Wood said.
Wood, a dentist with more than 25 years of experience, said there are others in his profession who are experts on the issue.
Registered voters in Healdsburg city limits will be asked whether they would like the practice of fluoridating the city’s drinking water to continue. The city has been adding fluoride to the water supply since 1952, but this year a group of citizens gathered enough signatures to place the issue back in front of voters at the November general election.
Several anti-fluoride activists have since asked for the city to take part in a public forum and have also asked the city to send a letter to residents that includes warnings about fluorosis — a discoloring of tooth enamel that can occur in children’s teeth when they are overexposed to fluoride.
But the council has not engaged in either request and Wood said the tactics some are using have been disappointing — ranging from insulting phone calls to misleading statements.
“Even in the most heated issues we’ve had, we’ve never had people go out their way to be insulting and that’s what I fear that a public forum will degenerate into,” he said.
Wood said that if people really want to be make an informed decision about the potential benefits or risks of fluoridated water, they should consult their dentist and their doctors.
Wood was particularly concerned that anti-fluoride activists are using studies, like one done in China for example, to mislead voters.
“The study was done in an area where fluoride is way higher than we would ever put in the water, and they monitored children in the area and found there was a decrease in IQ by seven points. But the margin of error for the study was seven points. I just wish at some point, if they don’t want fluoride in the water, to just say that, instead of all this goofy stuff.”
He said a public forum would give equal weight to arguments that are not based on scientific study.
“There will be things that are said, that sound really authoritative, that have no basis in truth. That kind of information is a disservice to the public,” he said. “If you want credible information, go to the people you trust,” he said.
At Monday’s meeting, Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh, who is leading the effort to stop Healdsburg’s fluoridating practices, said the public would benefit from a public forum and urged the council to consider it.
“A great deal of education would be really useful right now,” she said.