To the editor:
In reading Dan Donovan’s letter to the editor entitled “People must be held accountable for North Attleboro fluoride situation” (Nov. 19), I agree with Mr. Donovan’s assessment that “the real issue isn’t whether fluoride should be added to North’s water, that was decided by a majority of voters in 2000.”
However, as an extension of that assessment, I’m not aware that the vote to approve fluoridation of North’s water (in 2000) was an irrevocable decision, meaning that the voters of North Attleboro always reserve the right to vote again in the future to either reconfirm or reject continued fluoridation of North’s water.
Given that we’ve now been made aware by Mark Hollowell, director of the DPW (whose department administers this fluoride program) the reason for the program’s failure is that the chemicals used to fluoridate our water corroded the distribution tanks (constructed of concrete/steel) that contained the fluoride solution.
It becomes increasingly difficult to believe that a chemical solution that can corrode concrete/steel can possibly not be a risk to our health.
Perhaps, based on this recently disclosed information, the residents of North Attleboro might want to seriously re-consider whether or not we wish to continue with this fluoridation program or place this question on the ballot for a re-vote.
There is a significant cost involved whether we continue with fluoridation or terminate the program so any argument revolving around “cost” should not be a deciding factor. It seems to me there is ample information now known/disclosed that could strongly justify a re-vote to determine if we should go in a different direction regarding fluoride treatment of our water.