Fluoridation costly, unneeded

I truly hoped that this issue had not only died but had been cremated so that it never had the chance to be resurrected.

Why does this keep coming around? Those who propose fluoridation continuously speak about the dental health of the population and the underprivileged in particular. Good dental hygiene is paramount to good dental health. No amount of added fluoride will replace bad habits.

In Spokane, we add a trace amount of chlorine at the source to protect the system as a whole. With 27 reservoirs and around 1,000 miles of pipe, it is a “better safe than sorry” measure that benefits all within the distribution area. Fluoridation doesn’t necessarily give us those same benefits.

I do not know how many cities that fluoridate also chlorinate. I do know that a very large percentage of what we use in our households is not consumed but rather used for everything but drinking.

We might be better served to offer fluoride to anyone who requests it rather than add it to our water.

A quick internet search states a savings of $32 per person per year in dental costs. I see nothing that talks about the costs of equipment, maintenance and personnel needed to supply the product to the public. My guess is that the increase in utility bills will far outweigh those savings.These costs are not minimal and ultimately must be carried by the same underprivileged that some are trying to help.

I’m afraid that we will go down a rabbit hole that has been taken over by something that bites.

Bill Foreman

Spokane