Lancaster — Lancaster City Council tonight will take up the issue of whether or not the city should put fluoride in the city’s drinking water.
A hearing is set for the regular council meeting at 7 p.m. Monday in the Education Service Center, 111 S. Broad St.
Few issues have raised as much controversy in City Council meetings as this one issue.
The legislation would add fluoride to the city’s drinking water up to a level of 1 milligram per liter. Estimates have the cost at adding the fluoride to the system at $8,500 per year.
Ever since the proposal was first brought to the council in November 2003, dozens of people have turned up to discuss the proposal.
Dr. Ron Heiber, a dentist, said he sees the effects of not having fluoridation in the water every day at his practice.
“By adding fluoride, you reduce the likelihood of cavities by 40 to 60 percent,” Heiber said. “You see the enamel treated by fluoride that is rust resistant. Those who do not have fluoride end up with bad areas all over their teeth.”
“It’s simple, safe, economical and effective,” Heiber said. “More than 8.9 million Ohioans have fluoride in their water systems and more than half of the U.S., we are lagging behind. It is a wonderful preventive health care. For every dollar spent, $80 is saved in dental care later in life.”
But for Jo Ann Bainter, Lancaster, putting fluoride in the water doesn’t make sense when people who want it can get it through other means, like toothpaste and supplements.
“Do I need fluoride to water the lawns,” Bainter said during the council meeting when the proposal was introduced. “This will just be a huge expense to the city. We don’t need it. People who want it can get it by other means.”
Councilman Wayne Roller, R-1st Ward, said he supports putting fluoride in the water if the people agree to it on a citywide ballot.
“But it should be by a vote of all the people,” Roller said. “If it was on a citywide ballot, I’d vote for it. But as a member of a nine-person council who will vote on it and force it on the people, I’ll vote no. It should be put on a ballot.”
For Councilman Rudy Touvell, D-6th Ward, the city should not be investing in new equipment to fluoridate the water.
“I’m willing to listen, and I’ve done a lot of research on my own. There is a lot of research both for and against adding fluoride to the water,” Touvell said. “But you know 80 percent of the water would go unused, right out onto people’s lawns and their cars. And to my knowledge, my yard hasn’t had a cavity in 35 years. In my own home, I have a filter device that actually takes fluoride out of water. Filters like that are being installed in many new homes.”
Touvell said he couldn’t see adding expensive equipment to the water plant when most of the fluoridated water would be just flushed down the drain.
Following the public hearing, a vote on the legislation is expected later near the end of the council meeting.
Print 
PDF