Alaska - Fairbanks fluoridation debate remains uncertain

Fairbanks fluoridation debate remains uncertain
by Josh Armstrong
The only certainty in the fluoridation debate is that nothing’s really certain.
As the six members of the city’s Fluoridation Task Force discussed studies on the health risks associated with fluoride, they routinely raised questions about how the studies could be applied to the question of whether Fairbanks should fuoridate its water.
The panel was created to make a report — and possibly a recommendation — on the city’s decades-old practice of adding fluoride sulfate to its drinking water.
But while an overwhelming amount of information exists in support of either side, there are a dearth of peer-reviewed studies that supply a definitive conclusion, said Paul Reichardt, a former University of Alaska Fairbanks dean and chairman of the task force.
“The studies are really tough to do, so if you’re looking for a bulletproof study, you’re not going to find it,” he said.
Task force member and UAF geochemistry professor Rainer Newberry pointed out that the fact-finding process is further muddled by unpredictable variables — such as how much water an individual drinks and how much fluoride is naturally occurring in water supplies.

“Let’s face it, if we can do it all over again, we wouldn’t,” Newberry said of fluoridating the water supply a half-century ago. “It’s nutty. It’s absolutely nutty ... just the whole notion that we know what the mean water consumption is going to be.”

The task force’s final report does not need to include recommendations on how the city should act, Reichardt said.
Beth Medford, a pediatrician in her first meeting as part of the task force, relayed concerns about fluoridation’s effects on infants and children because they drink more water and their smaller bodies make them more susceptible to illness.
“It bothers me that we’re using a concentration and don’t know how much or how little you’re getting,” she said.
The passion stirred by the debate was apparent yet again during public comments at the beginning of the meeting.
Seven people spoke against fluoridation in public testimony. Some used strong accusatory language, such as Charles Edwardson, who called fluoridation “unconsented, slow genocide” and said the city of Fairbanks was an accessory to a crime if it chose to continue fluoridation.
Gloria Desrochers, a staple of the task force’s testimony period, called the practice a predatory invasion of rights.
“I just wanted to give you that word: predatory,” she said. “I hope you take it home with you. I hope it circles around in your brain and makes you sick, so to speak.”

The task force’s next meeting will be at 7 p.m. May 4 in the City Council chambers.