It is nice to finally get a look at the “anti-fluoridation” advocates’ reasoning (“Taking a principled stance on water fluoridation,” Jeff Irish, David Graves and Rick North, Guest Opinion, January 8).
I grew up in rural areas, getting water from a private well or spring, and as such, had many cavities. In moving to Spokane, I expected my children to have many advantages I did not. This was borne out by the 70+ page booklet of classes available when they attended Central Valley High School.
However, the lack of fluoride in the Spokane area’s water supply has always puzzled me. Many dentists, including the one we went to, gave our children fluoride drops as babies to make up for this lack. As one was a valedictorian from CV, and the other graduated in the top 20, the use of fluoride clearly did not adversely affect the ability of my children to function at a high level and be productive members of society.
That does not take away from the allergic reaction some people have to it. I have an allergic reaction to the adhesive on Band-Aids. Does that mean that Band-Aids should be banned from the store, since I have an allergic reaction to them? It is clear that options were available to this person to alleviate this reaction. However, keeping children from having cavities is a laudable, and easily attainable, goal.
I appreciate the thoughtful and scientifically sound method the city is taking to evaluate this change. Keep up the good work.
Ann L. Winkler