“My read on this is we’re going to get 10 spokespersons against (fluoridation),” MacDonald said during council discussions on a consultative process likely to happen next month.
Council was discussing the next step as it tries to come to grips with resolving a long-standing issue over whether the city should resume the application of hydrofluorosilicic acid to the city’s water purification process.
City water has been without fluoride since 2013 when equipment failed, which to rectify, would cost the city about $300,000. Chemical costs total about $50,000.
The union representing purification plant workers claims the continued application would be unsafe.
But fluoridation has been touted as a very cost-effective way of reducing cavities (and associated dental bills) by health professionals, including the city’s chief adviser on the issue, medical officer of health Dr. Paul Roumeliotis.
Roumeliotis has requested to make another pro-fluoride presentation to council – but who else will speak on that side of the coin?
“It would be like having (anti-fluoride) speakers ganging up on Dr. Paul (Roumeliotis),” MacDonald said.
As a result, MacDonald fears the anti-fluoride group, which has shown to have many teeth, may drown out Roumeliotis’ lone voice.
She suggested that a limit be placed on the number of speakers for or against.