Fluoride Debate Hits Ballots

      SAN ANTONIO (AP) - Paul Wiegand guides his dental mirror around the tiny mouth of 4-year-old Matthew Wetesnik. He counts eight cavities - two so deep they will need root canals.

      Leaning over the anesthetized boy, Wiegand repeats the plea of health officials and dentists in the nation''s eighth-largest city: Put fluoride in city water and children will suffer fewer rotted teeth.

      On Nov. 7, voters will reply. The question of whether to fluoridate the water is on the ballot in San Antonio as well as Abilene; Clark County, Nev., which includes Las Vegas; Spokane, Wash.; Leavenworth, Kan.; Brattleboro, Vt.; Utah''s Salt Lake and Davis counties; and the Utah cities of Logan, Providence, Nibley, Hyrum and Smithfield.

      For decades, public health officials have promoted fluoridation as a cheap, easy way to prevent tooth decay. San Antonio Water System officials estimate fluoridation would cost an average of 12 cents a month per household.

      But trying to get fluoride in the water has ignited controversy since 1945, when Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first U.S. city to add the cavity-fighting mineral.

      The current efforts are the third in San Antonio and Spokane. Cumberland, Md., residents ousted a mayor who briefly fluoridated their water in 1990. This year they voted to allow it.

      Roughly 56 percent of Americans were drinking fluoridated water in 1992, the most recent federal estimate. Since then, big cities including Los Angeles and Sacramento, Calif., have added the chemical.

      During the Cold War, some opponents feared fluoridation was a communist plot. Today, they often argue fluoridation is mass medication from an intrusive, costly government.

      At a recent forum on the Brattleboro measure, Selectman Daryl Pillsbury told the crowd, ``I live in Vermont for a very good reason: clean air, clean water, clean everything.''

      Pillsbury''s children get topical fluoride treatments at school, he said. He dislikes the idea of adding something to community water that not everyone wants or needs.

      ``I''m leaning toward no,'' Pillsbury said to shouts and applause from a divided audience.

      Opponents across the country cite studies suggesting fluoride causes such ailments as brittle bones and cancer. National health experts say such claims are groundless. The American Dental Association, American Medical Association, World Health Organization and federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorse fluoridation.

      The CDC ranks it among the 20th century''s top 10 public health achievements.

      A comprehensive review of fluoridation research published this month in the British Medical Journal found no evidence of harm. While it linked flouride to white spots on teeth, a cosmetic condition, the report found that fluoridation cuts tooth decay about 15 percent.

      Support from health experts doesn''t sway longtime fluoride foes like Kay Turner, 53, a San Antonio small-business owner.

      ``I''m very, very concerned about the long-term effects of ingesting this toxic substance,'' Turner said. ``Fluoride will be just like tobacco, asbestos, lead, DDT, benzene. Remember when those were safe?''

      On the Net: http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoride.html

      http://www.fluoridealert.org

     

Copyright 2000 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.