Poison in the water? Let's talk - Isthmus

Poison in the water? Let's talk
Some want to rethink Madison Water Utility’s fluoridation policy
Bill Lueders on Thursday 03/19/2009, (2) Comments, (1) Like

"From our perspective," says Heikkinen, "this is a public policy decision that should be made by elected officials."

Related Files:

PHMDC fluoridation overview 0109.pdf

Article Tools:

Read more Watchdog items

Email this article

Print This Article

Email the author

Like This Article

Bruce Rideout was expecting a different reaction. He thought his recent email to the Madison Water Utility questioning its addition of fluoride to drinking water would get a curt reply, or none at all.

Instead, Rideout began hearing "from all these people strongly encouraging me" to raise the issue at the Water Utility Board’s next meeting on Tuesday, March 24. (It’s at the Water Utility, 119 E. Olin Ave., 4:30 p.m.)

"I was kind of taken aback," says Rideout, a town of Blooming Grove resident whose water comes from Madison. "It was almost as if they were waiting for somebody to come forward."

Among those who replied was board president Jon Standridge. He expressed his view, prompted by a Wisconsin Water Association session on the subject, that Madison "should probably readdress the issues of continuing fluoridation" in light of "new information that has become available since the decision" to fluoridate Madison’s water was made in 1948. And while local public health authorities back fluoridation, Standridge advised, "I do not see this as a closed issue, but one that merits further discussion."

Rideout, who plans to attend next week’s meeting, agrees some arguments against fluoride run to the "conspiratorial." But he’s also seen articles "from highly competent scientists" suggesting that fluoride in water may do more harm than good.

Fluoride, naturally present in most water sources, is added to reduce the incidence of tooth decay. But some dispute whether this is effective, and link fluoride to an increased risk of hip fractures and other maladies. Even Madison recognizes that fluoride can be harmful; in August 2007 it shut down a well that was adding too much of it.

"There are a litany of health hazards related to fluoride," says Rideout, noting that people have died from ingesting large amounts. "I have serious questions about the addition of a toxic chemical to water."

While most large municipal water systems add fluoride, 361 of the state’s 614 water systems do not. Some communities have rejected calls to add the chemical.

Last July, the village of Poynette in Columbia County stopped adding fluoride, which one local official dubs "poison." In response, the Madison and Dane County Public Health Department launched a fluoridation review.

"We initiated it ourselves," says Tommye Schneider, the department’s director of environmental health. "We wanted to be prepared, in case this issue started coming up in Dane County."

Completed in January, the review (PDF) called "the continuation and expansion" of fluoridation "a public health imperative."

Tom Heikkinen, Water Utility general manager, notes that "fluoridation of drinking water systems has been a subject of debate since it was started." His office frequently gets letters and emails on the subject.

And while Heikkinen is confident "there is no harm in fluoridating our water supply," he says the Water Utility Board is interested in exploring the issue further. The use of fluoride is now required by city ordinance.

"From our perspective," says Heikkinen, "this is a public policy decision that should be made by elected officials."

No Watchdog allowed

The Dane County Republican Party has banned the guy who writes Isthmus’ popular Watchdog column from its public events because it did not like a web article about its election night party last Nov. 4.

"If you show up, you won’t be invited in," says Bill Richardson, the county GOP spokesman. "The freedom of our speech is to allow people in or not. You’re one we don’t allow in."

The web offering interviewed attendees and included snippets of overheard conversations ("You know, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Democrats started using the Koran"). It noted that one local Republican, without apparent protest, handed out a transparently fraudulent letter from a "German Lady" warning Americans of the many similarities between Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler. (The email is posted along with the article.)

Richardson praised Isthmus’ web article on Nov. 5, the day it was published. "We were glad you attended our party to watch the elections last night and appreciate you taking the time to listen to a wide range of opinions offered," he wrote as a posted comment. "You...could have been with people who shared more closely your views and their popcorn with you — in happy contentment. Instead you talked, listened, overheard, read the views of others and wrote it up for all to read."

Sometime afterward, presumably after drawing flak from his fellows, Richardson amended his comment to liken the report to a turd left in a punch bowl by a wedding guest.

Richardson, in an interview, insinuated that the story was inaccurate but hung up without providing specifics. Call it the freedom of his speech.

Yes, we have no misconduct

A city of Madison internal review has cleared Human Resources director Brad Wirtz and City Engineer Larry Nelson of misconduct (see "Allegations Fly at Water Utility," 12/18/08).

A 12-page Department of Civil Rights report, completed in February and provided to Isthmus, found both men blameless for a conversation in which they speculated about a sexual relationship involving two Water Utility employees.

The employee who complained alleged that Nelson "yelled" his alleged comments; the investigators found no evidence to support this. But it did say loose talk about the matter by an unidentified Human Resources employee "should be a concern."

It was the second major probe in recent months to fully exonerate high-ranking city officials of alleged misconduct (see "Briski Cleared in Probe," 3/6/09). Indeed, both called the honesty and integrity of the complainers into question.

In its own review ("Cieslewicz’s Office Closes Door on Complaints," 1/9/09), the mayor’s office suggested Nelson was wrong to have discussed the issue with Wirtz. But the Department of Civil Rights deemed this an appropriate discussion. It also found no evidence to support that Nelson retaliated against one of the employees.

County withholds death-probe report

Dane County officials are stonewalling on releasing the findings of a state investigation into the death of six-year-old Deshaunsay Sykes-Crowder.

The state gave its preliminary report to the county in late February and a final report sometime last week, officials confirm. Leslie Hamilton, assistant corporation council for Dane County, last Friday apprised Isthmus, "I think it’s safe to assume that the final report will be available from the county for release to the public sometime today." But as of press time, no report. Hamilton on Tuesday said she’s "still waiting for the decision of the record custodian," whom she did not identify.

Earlier, Hamilton suggested the report would not be released until it was reviewed by County Executive Kathleen Falk. State law says requested records must be released "as soon as practicable and without delay."

Hmmm, why do we suspect the county may deem April 8 an ideal release date?

Comments (2)

From Bill Anderson on 03/23/09 at 11:41 am

I too have a few concerns about chemicals that the water utility adds to the water supply.

I do not necessarily oppose the chlorination of water as a measure for bacteriological safety, so long as it is done only with true chlorine in small measured quantities, and the utility is absolutely certain that other compounds such as chloromine and heavy metals (sometimes present in cheaper chlorine bleaches as a by-product manufacturing) are not being introduced with the addition of chlorine.

Chlorine is simple enough for the average person to get rid, since it is volatile and will gas off with boiling, letting the water sit out for a day, splashing/aerating the water, or running the water through a carbon filter. However, chloromine and heavy metals are much more difficult to get rid of, and can cause serious health problems, as can chlorine which hasn't been removed from drinking water.

I strongly oppose the fluoridation of the water supply, for a number of reasons. The fluoride being put into the water supply is the by-product of the production of petro-chemical fertilizers and pesticides for industrial-scale agriculture. It only serves to make larger profits and less waste to dispose of for the companies which manufacturer these chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Fluoridation of water amounts to a public subsidy for unsustainable agricultural practices.

Some in the scientific community debate the merits of fluoride for human health. Many of the forces working in favor of fluoridation have financial and political investments in fluoridation, so your average doctor or dentist has probably only heard one side of the fluoridation story. However, there is a growing body of scientific evidence which show that internal ingestion of fluoride is dangerous, particularly to babies and youth.

Regardless of the merits or dangers of fluoridation, it is wrong to expect that every single person requires the same level of fluoride in their diet. What if the public water utility were to intentionally put other pharmaceuticals, drugs, or nutritional supplements in the water supply, because some scientist determined they were in the interest of public health? Would this be acceptable?

I do not think so. If a person wants unnatural levels of fluoride in their drinking water, there are systems they can buy to introduce it in measured amounts at the tap, or they can purchase pills or other supplements which contain fluoride. But once fluoride has been introduced into the water, it is difficult for the average person to get rid of.

The city of Madison should take the lead in ending the fluoridation of water. Most other "first world counties" outside of the United States and United Kingdom stopped fluoridating their water years ago (including Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland) while countries with health-safety records like China have taken the lead in introducing fluoridation to their public water supplies in recent years. I think we can do better than that.

The water utility should be lobbying the city council to repeal the ordinance requiring fluoridation of water. If there are people that want unnatural levels of fluoride in their drinking water, they can add it themselves. But it is simply immoral that the city is purposefully and intentionally medicating people against their will, using a chemical with questionable merit.

From New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation on 03/24/09 at 10:36 am

“Second Thoughts about Fluoride,” reports Scientific American “Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland,” reports Scientific American editors (January 2008). “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift,” writes author Dan Fagin. “Fluoride, the most consumed drug in the USA, is deliberately added to 2/3 of public water supplies theoretically to reduce tooth decay, but with no scientifically-valid evidence proving safety or effectiveness,” says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. Fagin, award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, writes, “There is no universally accepted optimal level for daily intake of fluoride.” Some researchers even wonder whether the 1 mg/L added into drinking water is too much, reports Fagin. After 3 years of scrutinizing hundreds of studies, a National Research Council (NRC) committee “concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid – the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism,” reports Fagin. Fagin quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly, “The thyroid changes do worry me.” Fluoride in foods, beverages, medicines and dental products can result in fluoride over-consumption, visible in young children as dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. We can’t normally see fluoride’s effects to the rest of the body. Reports Fagin, “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.” “(E)pidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Fagin. Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin. Levy will study fluoride’s effects on their bones. Over 2200 professionals urge Congress to cease water fluoridation and conduct Congressional hearings because scientific evidence indicates fluoridation is ineffective and has serious health risks. Support them; write your representative here:http://congress.FluorideAction.Net “(G)enetic, environmental and even cultural factors appear to leave some people much more susceptible to the effects of fluoride,” writes Fagin “What the [NRC] committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride … for too long… and now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says, “ In the scientific community, people tend to think that its settled… But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began, In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”

WATCHDOG

Comments (2)

Log in or register to comment