he debate on whether to fluoridate community water supplies has come a long way in the past half century.
Anti-fluoridation arguments have shifted from the 1950s John Birch Society position of it being a communist plot to environmental and health concerns bolstered by articles on research studies.
That is real progress, and the new anti-fluoridationists should not be dismissed out of hand. Local proponents of Measure B, which would end the fluoridation of Palo Alto's water supply -- at least in the short term -- are sincere, concerned individuals, some of whom have credible histories in the local environmental movement.
Both sides in the Measure B debate base their arguments on foot-high stacks of documents -- if the debate was measured by weight, it would be a draw.
But a review of the respective studies by the Weekly indicates that the preponderance of scientific weight and large studies falls heavily on the pro-fluoridation side. And even if Measure B were to pass in Palo Alto next Tuesday, there is a move to fluoridate the entire Hetch Hetchy water system within about two years.
The anti-fluoridationists, however, go beyond the stack of studies in their arguments against fluoride. Local psychologist Susan Willis, a leader of the Palo Alto Citizens for Safe Drinking Water group behind Measure B, says her concerns were triggered by seeing a picture of a bag of concentrated fluoride with a "Toxic" warning label and skull-and-crossbones. An earlier bout with breast cancer deepened her concern about risks in what people ingest. Her concern is commendable.
Yet that toxic warning by itself is hardly a basis to oppose water fluoridation -- many substances we encounter during our daily lives become toxic at some level of concentration.
But fluoridation opponents go further into what becomes today's conspiracy theory, and it's a two-parter:
First, that theory holds that government health agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), that support fluoridation don't want to lose credibility or face increased liability by admitting they may have been wrong.
Second, the theory is that the type of fluoride used in water supplies is a toxic waste that emanated originally from the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb and is now produced as a waste product in manufacture of phosphate-based products. By selling it as a anti-tooth-decay product, corporations make money instead of having to dispose of it through expensive toxic-waste-disposal methods.
Well, maybe. But that's a pretty long stretch, and the drumbeat repetition of the "toxic waste" argument undermines the more solid-sounding articles that do raise important questions about public health.
Legitimate questions and fears should be addressed -- but the vast preponderance of evidence and years of overall-health studies still come down on the side of fluoridation.
Vote NO on Measure B.
