Battle for fluoride backers

Nebraska's largest cities began adding fluoride to their public water systems decades ago.

But in smaller towns like York, Lexington and Valentine, adding the cavity fighter has been largely a nonstarter.

Last November, 49 Nebraska towns splashed cold water on proposals to add fluoride to public water supplies.

Voters in 12 other cities and towns endorsed the idea. Now three of those towns — Wakefield, Yutan and Wahoo — have either re-voted or are reconsidering.

Earlier this month, Wakefield residents rejected fluoride after voting on it a second time. Yutan plans a mail-in election on fluoride next month. And in Wahoo, a petition is circulating to put the measure back on the ballot.

Mary Holbrook of Yutan believes fluoride offers no health benefits. She says it's a toxin.

“I've just read a lot of stuff over the years about it,” Holbrook said. “I do a lot of research on vitamins and herbs, and I try to eat healthy.”

David O'Doherty, executive director of the Nebraska Dental Association, said it's been “a frustrating process” trying to convince people of fluoride's proven health benefits.

“The science is clear,” he said. “Communities with fluoride treatment have 25 to 40 percent fewer cavities than those that do not.”

More than 70 percent of Nebraskans already have fluoride in their water, including those in Omaha and Lincoln, which began adding it in 1968 and 1970, respectively. Kearney began fluoridation in 1975.

In Iowa, about 92 percent of the population has fluoride added to their water, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Nationwide, the percentage of fluoridated public water systems is about 63 percent, according to the American Dental Association.

“The question has been settled for most of the state and most of the nation for decades,” O'Doherty said.

Nebraska towns and cities are taking up the issue now because of a bill passed last year by the Legislature. Towns and cities with populations of 1,000 or more were ordered to either fluoridate their water or take the matter to voters before June 1, 2010.

Norfolk, a city of more than 21,000, will vote on the question in May.

Health officials had hoped that most city councils would vote fluoride in, but most communities have decided to leave the matter up to local voters.

O'Doherty said fluoride has been a tough sell because of confusing ballot language, misinformation about its effects and concerns about the cost.

Val Bard, manager of the Little Red Hen Theater in Wakefield, said she was one of the citizens who asked for another vote after fluoride was approved in the November election.

Bard, 53, opposes adding fluoride but said she also was concerned that many people in the town of 1,200 had difficulty with the ballot question.

“My mother-in-law said afterward, ‘Now what exactly did that (ballot question) mean?' She and a lot of others were confused by the language,” Bard said.

O'Doherty agreed that the ballot language was troubling. In effect, he said, a “yes” vote was against fluoridation and a “no” vote was for it.

“Many of these votes last November were very close,” he said. “We think that the language might have hurt our cause as well.”

The Wakefield City Council ordered a second vote Sept. 15, and fluoride was rejected 135-8.

Wakefield City Administrator Jim Litchfield said “the coffee shop talk” before the second vote centered on costs.

“Many of our senior citizens said, ‘If it's going to cost me money, I don't want it.' ”

The Legislature estimated that initial costs for fluoridation would be about $5,000 per treatment point and $1.63 per person annually for chemicals to treat the water.

In the case of Yutan, three treatment points are proposed, making the initial startup cost about $15,000.

The American Dental Association counters that the costs of fluoridation are offset by savings in dental care. The organization's “Facts About Fluoride” booklet states that $38 is saved on dental treatment for every $1 spent on fluoridation.

The Yutan City Council scheduled a re-vote via mail. Ballots will go out Oct. 26 and must be returned by Nov. 10.

Holbrook submitted 60 signatures on a petition seeking the re-vote in Yutan, a town of about 1,100. She also was concerned about ballot language, but she said her bigger concern is about fluoride's health effects.

Holbrook is not swayed by fluoride's long list of endorsements from health organizations such as the American Dental Association, the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society.

“Our government hides a lot of stuff from us,” she said. “The government is going to say what they want.”

Proponents of fluoride say Internet sites such as “The Keepers of the Well” and “The Flouride Action Network” confuse the issue by stating that fluoride is a poison. “They stir up mistrust of the government and play on people's fears,” O'Doherty said.

Fluoride, taken in large enough quantities, is toxic.

But salt, iron, vitamin A, vitamin D, chlorine, oxygen and even water can be poisonous when consumed at abnormal levels, says the American Dental Association.

The amount of fluoride added to water systems is between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million gallons of water. That amount, the dentists say, won't hurt anyone.

In Wahoo, Bill Miners is circulating a petition trying to get the fluoride issue back on the ballot.

Miners will need the signatures of 402 registered voters to force a re-vote in the town of approximately 4,000. The latest that petitions could be submitted is April 15, he said. The Saunders County clerk would then have 60 days to set an election date.

Miners, 66, believes the “Joe Six Packs” of Wahoo were confused by the ballot language. He said he's also concerned about the added expense for his community.

“Those things aren't what I am really worried about,” Miners said. “Fluoride itself isn't so good for you. This stuff is just the same as mercury, lead and arsenic.”

Miners said he also is concerned about allowing government to add more chemicals to water systems, other than those that clean up impurities.

O'Doherty said the Nebraska Dental Association will keep urging that fluoride be added to every water system.

“People are going to believe what they want to believe,” he said. “It's like the people who don't believe in the moon landing. It's very discouraging, but we will continue to try and get the facts out to the public.”

Contact the writer:

444-1272, kevin.cole@owh.com