Added Bonus or Health Hazard? Panel Debates Fluoridated Water

By Teresa Rochester

The only thing the two sides could agree on was that the amount of fluoride in bottled water varies.

Other than that proponents and opponents of water fluoridation could find no common ground Thursday night at an informational forum on fluoridation hosted by the League of Women Voters.

A standing room only crowd - which included five City Council members -- packed into a meeting room at the Ken Edwards Center to hear a lively debate over the pros and cons of possibly putting the compound into Santa Monica's water supply. Both sides accused each other of spreading lies.

Supporters argue that fluoridated water is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent cavities, particularly for low-income children who tend to have higher rates of tooth decay. Opponents argue that fluoride is already widely available in food and drinks and that too much can cause health problems.

"They are here to scare you and mislead you," said Dr. Ernest Newburn of fluoridation's opponents. Newburn's criticism was met with heckles from the crowd.

Panelists opposing fluoridation said the compound leads to fluorosis, a speckling of the teeth. The opposition also argued that the side effects could be crippling and affect minorities more than whites, a charge proponents scoff at.

"Minorities suffer a lot more fluorosis than whites," said Dr. David Kennedy. "The spots on the teeth are a window to what's going on in the body… They say that fluoride is so toxic it kills the germs when it splashes against your teeth. If it's that toxic I don't want to drink it. I want water in my water."

Fluoride has been a hot topic across the county since 1945, when Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first city to put fluoride in its water to deter tooth decay. In 1995 California Gov. Pete Wilson approved legislation that requires cities with more than 10,000 people to fluoridate their drinking water.

Across the United States 60 percent of Americans drink fluoridated tap water. In California 70 percent of the population is not drinking the pumped-up water. Last year Los Angeles officials voted to add fluoride to their drinking water, as did San Diego. Earlier this year Sacramento officials also voted to add the compound to its water.

In April of 1996 Santa Monica officials surveyed residents, 70 percent of whom said they too wanted fluoride in their water. However, no formal action was brought before the City Council. That may change.

Officials plan to have a comprehensive study on the controversial effort before the council in October. Gilbert Borboa, the City's utilities manager, estimated that setting up a fluoridation system would cost $300,000. It would then cost $30,000 to $35,000 annually to maintain.

Thursday night's debate seemed to leave City officials with more questions than answers.

"I wish the issue was as clear as our tap water," said Councilman Kevin McKeown after the debate.

Councilman Paul Rosenstein, who is spearheading the drive for fluoridation wasn't impressed with the opposition's arguments.

'The real tragedy is we didn't do it for 40 years," Rosenstein said. "This is a proven method of improving the public health with no harmful effects. It is sad to see the fear that is caused by wild and unsubstantiated claims that are based on quackery."