8/13/2009 10:14:00 AM Battle lines drawn Efforts to add fluoride failed in 1974 and 1998
DENNIS MEYER/DAILY NEWSDR. BRAD KRIVOHLAVEK, a longtime Norfolk dentist, supports water fluoridation because he sees its as safe and effective for preventing dental decay, especially in children.
DENNIS MEYER/DAILY NEWSTHE REV. ARIN HESS places his anti-fluoridation binder into a filing cabinet that is packed with researching relating to water fluoridation. Hess has led opposition to fluoridation in the past.
Water fluoridation supporters in Norfolk are hoping the third time's a charm.
Efforts to add fluoride - a compound said to prevent dental cavities - to the city's water have failed twice, once in 1974 and again in 1998.
Even with the Legislature's recent support for fluoridation, convincing a majority of residents that fluoride is a safe and beneficial water additive this time around may be like pulling teeth.
If history is any indication, that is.
In 1974, fluoride was defeated after 1,471 Norfolkans cast ballots in opposition to fluoridation, while 1,314 voted for it. In 1998, opponents won more convincingly with 3,064 anti-fluoride votes and 1,161 in favor.
Norfolk must fluoridate by June 2010 - per statewide legislative mandate - unless the city opts out through a vote. Both fluoridation proponents and opponents have said they're brushing up for another extensive debate on the topic.
Opponents have vowed to fight communitywide fluoridation, a program they see as mass medication without universal consent but with potentially crippling effects on bones, thyroid, teeth and brain.
Supporters will promote it - with state lawmakers' backing - as the safest and most economical assault on tooth decay, which is the most prevalent chronic disease in the United States.
Former state Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney - a physician - reintroduced the fluoridation legislation in 2007 as a way to reduce what Nebraska has to pay in Medicaid costs for dental care of eligible Nebraskans.
Norfolk Sen. Mike Flood said he supported Johnson's bill as a way to slow a ballooning state budget and thus aid taxpayers in the area. Residents in Madison County alone received $772,601 in dental Medicaid assistance last year.
Opponents beg to differ, saying there's no proof that fluoridation will save money and that they'll work to expose that in the coming months.
With the help of a thick black binder packed with yellowed newspaper clippings, fliers and research documents, the Rev. Arin Hess of Norfolk said he "has every intention" to lobby city officials and residents against fluoridation.
"Why is it that we've had this massive increase in cancer?" asked Hess, who serves Community Bible Church in Norfolk. "Something has to be contributing to it. Is it fluoride alone? No. Is it a combination of other chemicals and preservatives, too? Yes, I think so."
Dentists who promote fluoridation, Hess acknowledges, wholeheartedly believe in the cause. And Hess distances himself from the adamant opponents who allege that medical professionals are in financial cahoots with the fertilizer industry that provides the compound as a byproduct of its manufacturing process.
"I believe we can approach it with a level head, without inflammatory conspiracy comments," Hess said.
"They're good people who just haven't seen all the research," he said of fluoride proponents.
City water officials mean well, too, he said. But they can't eliminate the risk of equipment malfunctions that could shoot "extremely dangerous" doses of hydrofluorosilicic acid - the fluoride compound used in water systems - into the tap, he added.
Hess said he plans to press the Norfolk City Council to put a fluoridation vote on the May primary ballot.
But Ivan Van Dyke, council president, said the council wouldn't initiate a fluoride vote.
"I think the sentiment of the council would be that the Legislature said to fluoridate water and we would simply allow that to go into effect," Van Dyke said.
The remaining option for Hess and fellow opponents is to have 15 percent of registered voters in the city - about 2,150 people - sign a petition seeking action.
From there, the council itself could either elect to reject fluoridation as the petition requests or submit it to the vote of the people, according to state statute.
"If the council doesn't want to put it on the ballot, they know we'll be carrying these around," Hess said as he held up a yellow flier arguing fluoride is a cancer-causing, IQ-lowering poison.
On the other side of the issue are Norfolk dentists.
Brad Krivohlavek, who's practiced in town for 30 years, said he and others would launch a more active pro-fluoride campaign this time if it's taken to a vote.
"It's just really frustrating," Krivohlavek said of the "blatant lies and misinformation" spread by the opposition.
"It's not a coincidence that children from fluoridated communities have better teeth," he said. "When people move here from another place with fluoride, they've had very little dental work done. You just don't see fillings or extensive dental work."
As for fluoride's adverse effects, Krivohlavek said, "most things in water are bad in excess." But at recommended amounts, fluoride isn't cause for concern, he said.
Three other Norfolk dentists agreed the city could benefit from fluoridated water.
"Fluoride is nature's cavity fighter, in a nutshell," said David Merritt, who's practiced since 2000.
But, indicative of the biting controversy surrounding fluoridation, most calls made to dentists requesting comment were not returned. The Daily News left messages at every dental clinic in town.
One dentist said he couldn't discuss fluoride for fear of irritating his fervently anti-fluoride patients.
It seems unlikely that Norfolk will fluoridate without a vote - or at the very least a heated discussion.
Reader Comments
Posted: Sunday, August 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Jim Schultz
Wonder if the enlightened medical professionals that have read the current science detailing near useless ingested fluoride will speak out? Within the EPA science unions a revolt of honest professionals have been trying to halt fluoridation for over 2 decades. This started in 1985 when President of the Headquarters union discovered the fraud and altered documents which incorrectly allowed fluoridation violating standard safety guidelines in SDWA. It is not even legal to medicate water for treating people under SDWA. When researched they discovered the FDA had never even reviewed or approved ever any ingested fluorides. Instead it was classified as new unapproved after 60 years of use. Sort of grandfathered in as used prior to 1938 but the shocking twist it that was for rat poison and insecticide as the human use started in 1945. Close enough for government work. They claim thousands of studies proving benefit and safety but a closer look in 2000 Your Review in UK discovered of the 3200 studies they reviewed not a single was was high quality class A bias unlikely. Very poor design and quality was was typical. The chair of the review had to make it clear none proved safe. It even gets stranger as the specific product used in 90% plus of fluoridation actually is captured smokestack toxic waste of fertilizer factories. Huge areas were destroyed around the plants killing cattle and crops and trees from airborne fluorides. From 1957-68 government data shows more lawsuits on airborne fluorides the the other top 20 contaminates combined. Some truely evil stuff.The EPA by 1972 had ordered the scrubbers but then allowed this toxic sludge to be used for water treatment knowing it had destroyed cattle bones and teeth with many dying or crippled. Now for the extra strange the mines also produced huge amounts of yellowcake uranium suppying up to 75% of all US uranium needs for nukes and power plants. Seven recover plants in Florida and 2 in Lousiana recoeved hundreds of tons of uranium with there last plant closing in Lake Wales in 1998 in AEC production data tables. So all this radioactive soup of decay products is left in the products of stored forever in the huge mountains of gypsum too radioactive for even china to use in drywall. The AWWA b703-06 standard for this product H2SiF6 has a list of the 20 contaminates allowed never mentioned to the public. Ask for the list as it is public records. The theory was 1ppm would benefit only young kids with a preeruptive ingested benefit making enamel stronger and fluoride rich and no more then 10% of the kids would be damaged by fluoride toxicity damaged teeth. They got all the facts wrong but still do not admit it. Any benefit is topical at much higher levels then 1ppm(1000ppm and stronger). Any benefit is post eruptive only on exposed teeth and at higher levels. Right from the start dental fluorosis was much higher and is current skyrocketing out of control. Our foods and beverages are now often contaminted with fluorides and fluoridated termite tenting chemicals are being used just the last few years in storage and food processing facilities leaving huge fluoride residues on 200 food groups which includes almost all foods. The worst is dried eggs at 900ppm and grain products at a range of 70-130ppm. Any processed grain product is allowed up to 70ppm. As crazy high as these are the FDA had had to pull batches exceeding the allowed levels. This has not been mentioned to the public or dentists. No wonder so many people have fluoride toxicity damaged teeth even in never fluoridated cities. Double and even triple damage does happen in fluoridated cities proved the UK York review with 48% after fluoridation but only 15% before. This huge increase in discolored brittle porous ugly enamel has been a cash cow for dentists being huge money makers for dentists but often needing redoing for a total of 5 times in a lifetime. This is a huge expense as veniers are often over 1000 bucks each tooth. Bones and thyroids and joint pain and rashes ans stomach ailments (IB)with kidney damage and lower IQ having 23 new studies most from China. The CDC admits now we are buying this toxic waste product from China as they sell their toxic waste cheaper and US plants were running short so had jacked prices up just like gas prices. http://www.fluoridealert.org has the links to the data.
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009
Article comment by:
nyscof
Please ask all the dentists who are and will be lobbying for fluoridation if they accept Medicaid patients. If they truly care about the dental health of low-income residents, dentists would welcome them into their dental chairs - something that 80% of dentists in the US refuse to do
It's hard to take any dentist seriously who claims fluoridation helps poor people and then he or she won't actually treat their inevitable tooth decay.
Do dentists know the side effects of fluoride drugs, whether fluoride is dispensed in their office, by prescription or via the water supply. If they do not, then they have no credibility about dispensing fluoride drugs to an entire population
