Although Lynden has treated its water with fluoride for more than 60 years, it is now seriously considering removing fluoride from the city’s taps after a group of citizens expressed concern for the safety of the mineral. Those concerns have spread to social media, where a private Facebook group, Lynden Against Its Toxic City Water, has 421 members as of publication.
Lynden Mayor Scott Korthuis told the Salish Current that public hearings on the issue will be held during the city’s first city council meeting in May, with a council vote expected sometime between May and July. The issue has been discussed at several city council meetings over the past six months, and Lynden City Hall accepts written comment for the matter.
Current state law, through House Bill 1251 of 2023, requires that public water systems must notify all customers at least 90 days before a vote or decision on fluoride use, whether to start or stop the practice.
But there is also the possibility of a compromise decision.
Korthuis said if the council decides in favor of continuing fluoridation, the city could offer non-fluoridated water, via bottled water, to anyone who wants it, provided the number of people is small enough compared to the total customer base. of the city.
Previous thoughts
Korthuis said he’s personally heard more support for keeping fluoride than getting rid of it, and as a near-lifelong resident, he’s generally in favor of keeping it. While concerns about fluoride have occasionally been brought to his attention, the magnitude of concern about fluoridation is currently greater than he has previously seen as mayor.
“This is the first time it’s really gotten traction,” he said.
However, Lynden Council Member Gary Bode told the Salish Current that the majority of people he has spoken to do not want fluoride in their water. Many of those who have moved here recently, he added, didn’t know their water contained the additive until recently.
In Bellingham, fluoride has never been added to the city’s drinking water, although the city reviewed it in 1997 and 2005. In 1997, a city council passed a resolution against water fluoridation, which followed a statewide voter initiative. city for its addition in 2005. The initiative failed 53.03% to 46.97%.
Eric Johnston, the city’s director of public works, said there is currently no plan to change the city’s longstanding policy.
In Lynden, Bode said Lynden’s city charter prevents citizens from voting on the issue, leaving a majority of the city council to make any change.
Current concerns
The current debate over fluoridation, Bode said, boils down to two things: concern about possible long-term consequences of ingesting fluoride and the individual freedom of informed consent.
For decades, there wasn’t much information available to the general public to counter the idea that fluoridated water might have any non-dental health effects, Bode said. Treatments that were initially deemed safe until they were eventually revealed as otherwise, he added, have a long history. He mentioned thalidomidewhich caused birth defects when taken by pregnant women in the four years it was approved in Europe to relieve morning sickness. and DDTan insecticide ultimately linked to environmental degradation and possible human carcinogenic effects — was banned in the US in 1972 but is still used in some locations to control malaria-carrying mosquitoes. (Thalidomide has been approved for cancer and other treatments since 1998.)
“As much as we’re responsible for public health — an abundance of caution — we probably shouldn’t be doing that anymore,” Bode said. “There are too many questions about it.”
Regarding individual choice, Bode said that informed consent for medical treatment is something that does not apply to public water additives. He and others believe they should.
“Fluoride is not an essential nutrient for any reason,” Bode argued. “It’s basically a medical procedure and we don’t impose medical procedures. We shouldn’t do that in our time.”
While Bode said that lower, fluctuating levels of fluoride occur naturally in water, the CDC notes that these levels are not enough to make a significant difference in dental health when consumed. Fluoride occurs naturally at dentally significant levels in several counties in Eastern Washington The Ministry of Health reported.
Facts and figures
The anti-fluoridation Facebook group’s “about” statement calls the fluoride in Lynden’s water “toxic,” identifying it as hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS): a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum industries.
The CDC reports that community water systems typically use one of three additives, including HFS. Additives are either added directly to water stocks or dissolved in solutions before being added.
While Bode said numerous studies show that added fluoride can be toxic, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created an authority area in 1979 regarding additives in public drinking water. Although the EPA does not regulate the levels of these additives, it does mandate that the additives do not exceed the “maximum limitation level” (MCL) concentration.
All fluoride additives must meet strict quality standards to ensure public safety, the CDC says, including testing by the National Institutes of Health and the US National Standards Institute. Both entities are non-profit, non-governmental organizations. Additionally, more than 100 national and international organizations endorse water fluoridation, according to an August 2023 Washington Department of Health statement.
According to the American Cancer Societymany population-based studies have neither documented nor fully proven that fluoridated water is linked to cancer, either in laboratory mice or in humans.
Talking to experts
Local health officials believe concerns about fluoridated water are unfounded.
Jonathan Henry, associate dental director for Unity Care Northwest — a federal health care center that provides dental care to some of Whatcom County’s lowest-income patients — said the concentration of fluoride in drinking water is much lower than the amount found in toothpaste or what is applied to the teeth during dental cleaning.
Those applications are topical, not ingested, but he said that still doesn’t mean fluoride from the water is likely to cause adverse health reactions, now or in the future.
“When you add it to city water, they can titrate the concentration so that it’s easily regulated and well within safe limits,” he said. “There are no known chemical hazards with this product [at regulated concentrations].”
Fluoride in water, Henry added, provides a local benefit every time a person drinks water.
“Your mouth is moistened and the inside of your cheeks, your tongue and your saliva are bathed in this fluoride,” he said. “It’s just a much smaller dose and you take it every day.”
Both bones and teeth absorb fluoride, Henry noted. Too much of it over long periods of time can cause what’s called “skeletal fluoride,” which builds up too much in the bones and leads to stiffness and joint pain. In an adult, however, about 50 percent of the fluoride consumed will simply be excreted in the urine, Henry said. Fluoride levels in most drinking water are well below the maximum that fluoride would cause in healthy children and adults, he said.
Amy Harley, a pediatrician and co-health manager for the Whatcom County Department of Health and Community Services, echoed the message that fluoridated water is safe.
“As far as I know, there is no firm and conclusive evidence that community water fluoridation causes any adverse health effects other than dental fluoridation – the staining of the teeth that you can get when too much fluoride is consumed too early in tooth development” , he said.
Many other products that are ingested—foods like milk and wheat—are fortified with vitamins for the good of public health, and fluoride is no different. Just the same, he also notes that concerns about fluoride toxicity are not categorically untrue—if consumed in excessively large amounts, any number of vitamins and minerals can have negative health consequences.
When asked about where citizens can get information about public health issues, Henry said he recommends getting advice from health experts you know and trust personally.
“It’s easy to go online and find a lot of different claims and a lot of information,” he said. “Ask anyone who is a public health expert. We all agree that fluoridation is a win-win for society. We’re just preventing disease and there’s absolutely no harm in it.”
Harley agrees.
“Information that is complex can be confusing,” he said. “It’s never wrong for people to ask questions, and we know the intent is to protect the health of themselves, their children and their community.”
Possible effects
If Lynden stops fluoridation, the effects could range from negligible to negative on several fronts.
Financially, Korthuis says ending fluoridation would save the city less than $25,000 a year — a very small percentage of its total annual budget.
A potentially more noticeable effect can occur on people’s teeth. Other cities that have ditched fluoride have seen their residents’ dental health deteriorate, especially among young people.
In 2007, Juneau, Alaska voted to remove fluoride from the capital’s water system. A decade later, a study by University of Alaska Anchorage’s Jennifer Meyer — assistant professor of health sciences — and Vasilios Margaritis, an oral health epidemiologist, reviewed Medicaid dental claims records for 1,900 children in Juneau.
The study found that children under six had more cavity-related procedures — about $300 more per year per child — after fluoride was removed from the city’s water supply.
“The cost of a fluoride management program to actually fluoridate the water is pennies compared to the cost to treat a cavity,” Meyer said. he told NPR in 2019.
Henry echoed that sentiment.
“The downside of having to buy your own fluoride is that it’s expensive,” he said. “The downside to seeking dental care, in general, is that it’s expensive. Water fluoride in Lynden is one of the best ways we can go [low-income] people.”
The Windsor, Ontario, city council voted to remove fluoride in 2013, but ended up bringing it back just five years later by the same margin it was originally abolished.
At the end of the day, it appears the fluoride debate in Lynden’s water system will end up being settled by whichever sources the city council trusts most.
“[As] one of the city councilors said to me at one of the meetings, ‘Go ahead and bring your truckload of information, and I’ll bring the truckload of information,'” Korthuis said. “There’s a lot of information, pros and cons, on the internet or wherever else you want to find it.”
The Salish Current originally published this story March 22, 2024
