The Loveland Utilities Commission approved the continued fluoridation of the city’s water after months of public meetings on the issue.
Commissioners voted in favor of fluoridation based on testimony by health experts and recommendations from health agencies.
The discussion resurfaced after resident Larry Sarner found out that the city had stopped fluoridating its water for a period of time in 2010 and didn’t resume until 2013 because of maintenance of the facility. When the city resumed fluoridating, the levels didn’t return to pre-2010 levels until Sarner pointed it out to staff members who hadn’t realized what happened.
Health officials recommend fluoridation of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million for the prevention of tooth decay. According to Scott Dickmeyer, water treatment manager, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection Agency came up with the standars based on research from the National Research Center in 2011. The research stated that the levels would differ in the 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million range based on specific locale’s ambient annual temperature. The reasoning, he said, is because it was theorized that people in colder climates drank less water, and therefore needed a higher dose. The city of Loveland’s standard was approximately 0.9.
However, later research indicated the theory was not correct about drinking levels based on climate. Officials expect the Health and Human Services Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to make the new standard 0.7, so Loveland switched to that level. But the department hasn’t released an official recommendation, something it’s been working on for four years, according to Sarner. Dickmeyer said it’s because of the volume of public input staff members are going through. The official recommendation is expected to come out in the first quarter of 2015.
Additionally, he said the water treatment plan is moving from a powdered form of fluoride to a liquid form at the expanded water treatment plant, which is expected to be completed in about 18 months.
“The liquid form is much easier to dose and is much more reliable,” Dickmeyer said in an interview, noting that it’s also safer to handle.
Although Loveland Water and Power Director Steve Adams asked the commission to vote on whether to continue fluoridation, City Council approved a resolution in 1952 requiring the city to fluoridate its water based on health agency standards. The water treatment plant began feeding fluoride into the city’s water in 1954.
“Based on scientific information and all we heard, it’s pretty clear from what they had to say tonight that continuing to feed fluoride is a public good,” Adams said.
The next step he outlined for the commission is to give him input on the level of fluoridation. But Adams said it’s ultimately his decision based on a council directive — one that he plans to make the first week of December after looking into the research and finishing reading all the letters from health officials and constituents.
After that, it’s hard to tell what could be the next step. Adams said he’s taking it one step at a time and though he doesn’t anticipate setting the level below health standards, he doesn’t like to address what-if scenarios. Still, because of the City Council resolution, if it did fall below standards, staff would have to address on the council about why they made that decision.
“I have those experts in public health establishing a range … I don’t know in what circumstances I’d go below,” he said.
Once he establishes the level, the issue could be concluded, unless opponents of fluoridation find a way to continue the discussion.
Several commenters in the public forum from the dental health community expressed support for fluoridation and the impacts it has for people. Many of them also recommended increasing the levels back to 0.9 until official standards come out stating otherwise, especially since there was a period where the water wasn’t being fluoridated at all.
“I believe fluoridation is a healthy practice … it’s not associated with any negative health effects,” Dr. Bill Bailey said.
Dr. Craig Seager who brought a petition from health professionals in Loveland or who treat Loveland patients advocating for fluoridation said fluoridation also bridges the gaps in socio-economic statuses of families who can’t afford to get regular, preventative dental care.
But opponents like John Meaders and his wife Donna Meaders said there are several government agencies and countries that have decided to stop fluoridating their water. John Meaders called it a poison that had many negative health affects on the body. Donna Meaders said in an interview that the problem is officials aren’t looking into the problem and just taking the health professionals’ word.
“If they really represent me, they would research both sides of the story … Do your homework, not just what they tell you to do,” she said.
Print 
PDF