TAWAS CITY – A resolution to cease the fluoridation of drinking water in the Huron Shore Regional Utility Authority (HSRUA) system, is expected to be brought before all member municipalities which utilize the services of HSRUA, for their consideration.
Although no action has yet been taken, a preliminary discussion on the topic was held amongst Tawas City Council members, at their June 15 meeting.
As has been reported in this publication, HSRUA sources its water from an intake structure in Lake Huron, which is located near Tawas Point in East Tawas. The water is then processed at the nearby HSRUA plant on Baldwin Resort Road, before the clean and treated product is distributed to the users of the system – which entail Tawas City, the City of East Tawas and the townships of Baldwin, AuSable and Oscoda.
Should the Authority opt to discontinue its fluoridation practices, an “all-in” approach will be required. Tawas City Department of Public Works Director Gus Oliver advised during the recent council meeting that, if this is to occur, the aforementioned resolution must first be adopted by all five of the involved communities.
Ahead of the meeting, city officials were also provided with a memorandum from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, pertaining to the fluoridation of public drinking water, which contained links to several resources through which they could obtain additional information.
Tawas City Manager Annge Horning said that she highly encourages council members to do their own research, as well.
“HSRUA’s attorney is drafting a resolution for each member unit of government regarding water fluoridation that will be presented at a future meeting,” she elaborated, adding that the topic was on the agenda solely for discussion purposes at that time.
“You can research it to no end,” remarked Oliver, who further shared that discontinuing the use of fluoridation has been a topic of conversation among HSRUA representatives for some time now.
As for the draft resolution which is being prepared, “it’s up to you if you want to choose to support it or not support it,” he continued, reiterating that all of the stakeholders would have to be on board if it is to pass.
Oliver proceeded to list some of the reasons behind the impending proposal, including the fact that the process creates one more substance which HSRUA staff must deal with and be exposed to.
While giving a general overview, he pointed out that the target audience for fluoride in drinking water, is young children whose teeth are developing. Allof the water is being fluoridated, though, meaning that much of it is going to such uses as laundry, watering one’s lawn, cleaning their vehicles and so on.
In other words, “the percent of that fluoride that hits the target audience is so small – and then you have to get them to drink it,” Oliver continued.
“So we feel that, at the Huron Shores level, that it should be up to the parents to decide how they want to apply fluoride to their children; and it’s maybe not our job to medicate the public,” he said.
“I guess I agree with that,” Councilman Dave Lesinski responded.
He was admittedly “all for it” in the past but, upon doing more research, he also questioned the minuscule amount of fluoridated water that is actually being used for the intended purpose.
The other part of the problem, according to Lesinski, is that studies by such institutions as Duke, Yale and Harvard, have indicated that it is not a good thing for older adults. In particular, it has been shown that fluoride can lead to degenerative bones in the mouths of adults.
While it can be great for children as they’re developing, he said that researchers are now also discovering that fluoridation should maybe not be used along with formulas and the like.
Lesinski opined that people are already exposed to enough items as it is, from plastics in the environment, to chemicals and other substances in the foods they consume. When it comes to fluoride on top of this, then, “It makes me wonder if it’s a good thing.”
As such, “I’m not sure it’s our job to put chemicals in anything,” he went on. “I think it’s up to the parents. It’s not up to us.”
Expressing his opposition to incorporating fluoride into the water supply, he again stated that it should be a parental decision as to whether they want to, say, have a dentist treat their children’s teeth with fluoride.
For Mayor Jackie Masich’s input, she said that she is on the fence with this subject. “Because as you do the research, it becomes a rabbit hole. You look one way, and you can find a myriad of articles that support having it there. You look the other way, and then there’s just as many against it.”
She said that one thing which she hadn’t yet gotten to at the time of the meeting, but that she is interested in pursuing, is contacting some of the dentists in the area to get their thoughts.
The opinions of those in the field, she shared, would probably be her swaying decision.
As for conducting additional research, Oliver said that HSRUA’s intent was to give everybody some time to look into things further, ask questions as they see fit, et cetera. The Authority did not want to simply present a resolution to the various governing bodies, and then expect them to make a decision on it right then and there.
Councilman Ed Nagy asked what Oliver’s recommendation is, to which he answered that he was personally in favor of discontinuing the fluoridation.
When then asked to expand on the reason, Oliver first noted that it costs less than $1,000 per month for HSRUA to include the fluoride, so it’s not as though ceasing this element of their operations would result in a big cost savings. “But like I said, it’s an unnecessary chemical, in my mind, that we’re exposing the Huron Shore’s staff to.”
“That’s the one thing you said that I had not thought of, and had not come across in my research, was the staff,” Masich said.
“It’s actually a mineral,” Councilman Chuck Klenow weighed in, likening this to such similar processes as adding calcium to orange juice. “It’s an additive and, from what I’ve read anyway, as long as it’s maintained at the level that’s recommended by the EPA, it’s safe for all ages.”
He concurred with Masich, in that there is a vast amount of information which people can read both for and against the use of fluoridation, and that he is also on the fence in a way.
Klenow referenced the two locations which no longer allow the addition of fluoride in public drinking water supplies, on a statewide level, those being Utah and Florida. He explained that the ensuing data is not available, as these states have not yet been off of it long enough.
“But the two places that they took it off – Juneau, Alaska and Alberta, Canada – they saw, within five years, a tripling of the amount of tooth decay in the children,” according to Klenow.
Masich then shared that some of the articles she came across, mentioned an income-based aspect. She read that fluoride discontinuation would do more damage to low-income populations than it would to those of higher incomes where, apparently, the parents would be able to afford whatever their children would need to have done at a dentist’s office.
“One statistic I saw that was interesting, they said for every $1 used for fluorination, it saves $38 in dental fees,” Klenow pointed out.
For his feedback, Nagy said that as he was conducting his research, he discovered more articles that were in favor of this use, than opposed.
He reflected on how this has played into his own life, as well, and said that from the time he was born to moving to his current community of Tawas City, he has had fluoridated water all his life.
The topic at hand also caused him to think of those who have wells and supply their own water. “They have their choice of doing what they want,” Nagy said.
“The articles that I’ve read, support it,” he recapitulated. “And at this time, I would see an agreement to continue it.”
Horning advised that, just for the sake argument, there are other ways for children to get fluoridation. For instance, “They put fluoride in toothpaste and they also sell fluoride tablets.”
To compare, she said that when placing this on the same sort of level as vaccines, it can be viewed similarly to a community putting vaccinations into the water – and leaving people with no choice on whether they want to be vaccinated.
“When you think of how many people are against vaccinations out there, should it be a parental choice, of whether or not you want to treat your kids with fluoride?” she continued, explaining that she just wanted to throw this notion out there, as another side to the conversation.
Related to this, Nagy said that on his way to the meeting that night, he wore a seat belt because it’s required by law. “I also remember when we didn’t have to do that.”
Likewise, he had a motorcycle at the time when helmet use was mandatory; which is no longer the case.
There are articles and other information pertaining to each of these examples, and there’s also a controversial aspect to both, Nagy went on. “So, it certainly touches on independent thought.”
“I agree completely,” Horning concurred. This is why she e-mailed the council a couple weeks prior to their initial discussion on the potential change, given that there is so much information available on both sides.
And while Horning could also provide them with studies and data, she said that there are so many other things that could contradict it or support it, which is why she encouraged each of them to do their own research.
“But I also encourage you to talk to your neighbors,” she said, to see what those both young and old in the community think about the topic.
Horning informed the council that, again, a decision was not needed that night; nor would they be asked to vote on the resolution at their next meeting (on July 6). “You’ve got some time on this.”
She then stated that the other week, Nagy asked her how long it’s been that fluoridation has been added to the local water supply.
Horning, who also took the question to Oliver, said that it’s occurred since at least the existence of HSRUA – which was established in 1992. “I don’t know, though, if it was done before, when we were getting our water from East Tawas; when they had a treatment plant there, at the foot of the dock.”
Continuing the conversation, “And the other thought that I had – how much of the water are we actually drinking?” Masich wondered.
Several other representatives were in agreement, and commented on the fact that so many people drink bottled water now, versus tap.
As they do more research, Horning invited council members to reach out to Oliver if they have any questions. She also said Masich was correct in that it could be worth reaching out to some dentists, and seeking their opinions on the issue.
Original article online at: https://www.iosconews.com/news/article_a4286f22-544c-4b0a-8944-5e0157be6dd8.html