Yes on Measure P

As usual, voters of Healdsburg will be casting votes about taxes, statewide bond measures and making choices for new city, county, state and Congressional leaders in the Nov. 4 General Election.
And, toward the bottom of their ballots, city voters will be asked to play scientists and decide whether continuing to add fluoride to their drinking water is a good dental health practice.
Deciding what is put in our drinking water — or left out — seems like a fair question. Enough city residents earlier this year signed a petition to challenge the City of Healdsburg’s fluoridation program, previously approved by voters in 1952, to require a new vote.
So voters will see a Measure P on their ballot that asks a very short question, “Shall the City of Healdsburg continue to fluoridate its water?” It may be a short question, but it is not so simple.
The lively campaigns for and against Measure P are pitting widely accepted support for fluoridation by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, American Dental Association and local dentists against “free-choice” advocates and some holistic health professionals.
Because Healdsburg is the only city that currently fluoridates its water and the County of Sonoma is considering launching a fluoridation program, Measure P is being viewed by some as a “test case” for a future county-wide ballot contest.
We believe the answer to Measure P is actually a very simple one. Yes, the City of Healdsburg should continue to fluoridate its water. Why? Because decades of evidence and scientific tests show that fluoridation is a very cheap and effective prevention treatment against tooth decay. More than two-thirds of the U.S. population is served by water systems with fluoridation programs. There is no known evidence of any real harm caused by this practice, outside of some very questionable reports being cited by the No on P leaders.
During a recent public forum on Measure P held Sept. 30 at The Healdsburg School, the supporting scientific evidence and testimony by local dentists overwhelmed the claims by anti-fluoride proponents that the practice causes lower IQ’s, thyroid issues or the likelihood of bone fractures.
Beyond endorsing Measure P, we are advocating for the County of Sonoma to not hesitate on also adding fluoride to its public drinking supply.
In this era of science deniers and denouncers surrounding climate change, childhood disease immunizations, second-hand tobacco smoke and the Theory of Evolution, we hope that Measure P is not a signal that more “junk science” propositions might be coming to future elections or local public debates.
Eliminating a tested or evidence-based safety measure from our public infrastructure or set of laws must be weighed with tremendous caution.
Automobile seatbelts are known to save lives. There’s a penalty for not using them. Should we repeal this law in the interest of “free choice?” We now know tobacco use causes cancer. We’ve outlawed smoking in public parks. That’s one loss for private rights and a victory for public health.
Too many parents, including an alarming number in Sonoma County, refuse to have their children vaccinated against whooping cough. We should tighten the rules for allowing parents to opt-out of these public health preventative programs.
How many kinds of Measure P votes do we want? Should we vote on a public policy about concussions in prep athletics? What about Healdsburg’s proposed traffic roundabout at Healdsburg Avenue and Mill Street? Should we have a vote on whether it will save lives or not?
There are many decisions we must make for our community and in our society that benefit the vast majority over the interests of the few. Keeping fluoride in Healdsburg’s drinking water is one of them. (Everybody driving on the right side of the road is another.)
There are also decisions and determinations best left to the experts. Sometimes this may be dentists and sometimes it might be traffic engineers. Isn’t that why we hire them?
— Rollie Atkinson