Dear Editor,
The Rutland City Aldermanic Public Works Committee is preparing to re-examine the practice of fluoridation of the water supply. I made the request for this fresh look at the Nov. 1 Aldermen’s meeting, and the request was supported by 11 local and area citizens and approved unanimously by the board.
Here are seven reasons justifying not only the request to re-examine fluoridation but ending the practice altogether. Citizens who spoke out Nov. 1 made many of these same points.
1. Fluoridation is an obsolete public health measure that poses unreasonable risks to infants and adolescents and likely risks to adults.
2. Fluoridation is unethical. Residents may be unaware they are ingesting a tooth decay drug, or they may be unable to afford the cost of buying fluoride-free drinking water.
3. The effectiveness of fluoridation remains unproven after 70 years of government support. An affordable, more effective alternative exists in fluoridated toothpaste. The CDC agrees topical application of fluoride, with toothpaste for instance, is most effective.
4. Fluoridation is wasteful and a risk to the environment. Most of Rutland’s fluoridated water goes down the drain and into Otter Creek, untreated.
5. The fluoride put in Rutland’s water is fluorosilicic acid, a highly corrosive substance that would be illegal hazardous waste if dumped into a river or stream. Yet it runs through our water system and bodies and winds up in the environment.
6. Most of the world rejects community fluoridation, even if allowing fluoride as an additive to salt or milk. The CDC’s claim that fluoridation is one of the “10 great public health achievements” of the 20th century is not supported by science. The refusal of most developed countries to adopt the practice of fluoridation gives the lie to the CDC claim.
7. The city faces unknown liability from harm that fluoride can cause to its residents and visitors.
Jack Crowther, Rutland
