After listening to speakers and reading a variety of information, Cambridge City’s council chose to continue researching whether the town should keep adding fluoride to its drinking water.
Members voted to table the matter at its Sept. 9 meeting. They will discuss fluoride again at their 6 p.m. Oct. 14 meeting in town hall.
Council President Jim McLane said he had forwarded a lot of supplied information about the pros and cons of fluoride to fellow councilors for their consideration.
Councilor Jim King, echoed by Debbie McGinley, said he didn’t see a strong reason to not continue fluoride, but he was open to better understanding residents’ concerns before making a choice. Gary Cole said he’d been inclined to support its removal after an initial discussion at August’s meeting, but was more hesitant to stop fluoride treatment.
The U.S. Public Health Service recommends the addition of fluoride to drinking water to reduce the risk and severity of tooth decay, one of the most common preventable chronic diseases in children.
Ken Risch, superintendent of public works, said he’d read that fluoride can cause lead from old pipes to leach into water. Health experts have established that normal levels of public water fluoridation cannot cause pipe corrosion.
Dr. John Roberts, a Connersville dentist, said fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in many communities’ water already, and it’s at a very safe level in Cambridge City.
McLane said the town’s natural water fluoridation is 0.2 mg/L and that some fluoride is added to get it to the recommended level of 0.7 mg/L for tooth protection. McLane said recent testing showed the town water’s fluoride level at .66 mg/L after fluoride is added.
Roberts said those who don’t want it in their water can buy something from their water service to remove it, but it shouldn’t be removed from water for the thousands who benefit.
Roberts said nothing has been researched more than fluoridation for decades. Years ago, there were theories that it was a Communist plot, would ruin pots and pans, or kill goldfish, but none of those turned out to be true, he said.
Town laborer Chris Stapleton, who adds fluoride to the water, asked if the town would pay for a local fluoride study. Some councilors said they were open to that idea, but weren’t sure how much analysis would cost or how much time it would take.
Stapleton said some products such as asbestos and lead that were previously thought to be healthy or neutral later were found to cause cancer.
He said fluoride should be an individual’s choice to add, and not be forced on them through town water because that violates their “right to informed consent to medication.”
“We don’t want fluoride in our drinking water,” Stapleton said. “If we decide we need fluoride, we’ll go see a dentist or we’ll take a supplement.”
Though some lawsuits have been brought against municipalities in the U.S. seeking the removal of fluoridation, courts have uniformly ruled that treating drinking water with fluoride is a reasonable public health practice.
“I haven’t seen anything to change my mind to take it out yet, but I’m willing to keep looking, I’m willing to keep listening,” McLane said.
“Please do,” Stapleton said.
Updated September 23 at 12:38 p.m. to note that Council President Jim McLane said recent testing showed the town water’s fluoride level at .66 mg/L after fluoride is added. The originally noted wider range of fluoride amounts in the town’s treated water was provided during August’s council meeting.
Updated September 19 at 11 a.m. with additional information clarifying that the town’s natural fluoridation level is 0.2 mg/L and that levels are usually 0.5 to 0.8 mg/L after fluoride is added. An earlier version of this article had an incorrect amount for the natural level.
A version of this article appeared in the September 18 2024 print edition of the Western Wayne News.