Massena village trustees agree to continue with fluoridation of water

Jun 08, 2023

Reporter/Editor

Massena village trustees have agreed to continue adding fluoride to village water after hearing from several residents who supported its continuation. Christopher Lenney/Watertown Daily Times

MASSENA — After hearing from several speakers on Tuesday, the Massena Village Board agreed to continue adding fluoride to village water.

By a 5 to 1 vote, trustees agreed to purchase hydrofluosilicic acid (HFS), which is used for fluoridation, for the 2023-24 fiscal year, a decision drawing applause from the 16 residents who attended the meeting

HFS had been removed from a request for supplies by the Department of Public Works during May's meeting after Trustee Kenneth J. McGowan suggested that adding fluoride to the water was an outdated practice like adding medicine to the water without any control over the dosage. Mr. McGowan cast the lone "no" vote during Tuesday's special meeting.

He reiterated his concerns after several speakers addressed the merits of adding fluoride to water.

Among those supporting the use of fluoride was Margaret Demo, who described herself as "a concerned parent and citizen."

"Since I have heard about this issue, I have been very disturbed to think that there is even a possibility of removing the fluoride from the water," she said. "I have three sons that are in the 40s, 50s age range, and they have benefited greatly from having the fluoride in the water. One of my sons never had a cavity. The other two have had one, two tops, and they’ve been fortunate that they were able to have the fluoride and good dental care."

Ms. Demo said she was speaking on behalf of all children, "but especially the children that will not have the benefit of good dental care through no fault of their own."

"I don't know the whole thing about why it's even being raised and who it will benefit to take this away from the children. I wish that you would just leave well enough alone," she said.

Dr. Charles Negus also spoke in favor of fluoride.

"I practiced dentistry here for 43 years. We had this discussion 58 years ago. It has been in the water for 57 years," he said. "This is a recommended treatment by the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization. The World Health Organization said fluoridation of the water supply was the most important health gain in 50 years, and that's because dental decay attacks not just your teeth, but the whole body because of its start in the whole digestive system."

Dr. Negus said there were no adverse effects "reported by any reputable researcher, and I want to stress the word reputable."

"Our opponents will say have everybody give their children fluoride tablets. Physicians will tell you the compliance rate for taking prescribed medication or written prescription is at best 60%. If you’re going to rely on people to take a non-prescribed medication, I think you will find it will be even less, and that will affect our poorest people," he said.

Dr. Johnny Johnson, the president of the American Fluoridation Society, also suggested that removing fluoride would be a bad decision.

"Water fluoridation is not something that we just dreamed up or, as you will hear some say, we couldn't find a way to get rid of it. It was a toxic byproduct of some industry. This is just laughable because it is something that you’re asked to believe. There is a conspiracy that others will tell you that we as dentists were told in dental school that fluoride was good for the teeth. Therefore, we began telling people that because we helped the industry get rid of something they couldn't get rid of," he said via Zoom from Florida.

Dr. Johnson said there have been almost 7,000 pieces of research in the National Library of Medicine on water fluoridation.

"The preponderance of the evidence, the overwhelming preponderance of any literature is what we make our decisions on," he said."What we make our decisions in public health is what does the main point of the body of evidence show, and it shows that water fluoridation is effective in reducing cavities above and beyond those already reduced by fluoride in toothpaste."

He said the leading health and scientific organizations in the world "support water fluoridation as effective and safe," including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association, the Centers for Disease Control, and the U.S. Department of Defense, which he said "requires every base with 3,300 troops on them to fluoridate the water everywhere in the world because they know it increases readiness for our troops."

While other speakers endorsed the use of fluoride, Robert LeBoeuf spoke out against it, something he said he had begun doing about 20 years ago.

"I started a movement against the fluoride about 20 years ago, probably in this room. I engaged Dr. Paul Connett, who's one of the world's leading researchers on fluoride. He has a mountain of evidence against fluoride. The studies show the percentage decrease in cavities is tiny," he said.

Mr. LeBoeuf said he was also concerned that fluoride was a medication.

"What right does anybody have to medicate somebody else against their will?" he asked. "The other thing that bothers me about it, and Dr. Connett brought this up quite a bit, is you can't control dosage. It's in just about every liquid. So, you’re getting it everywhere you turn. If you look at the studies, there's a pile of evidence against it."

"I don't know how you could drink enough water to overdose yourself," Dr. Negus said. "He's concerned about forcing medication on people. If you follow his line of thinking, we should also take chlorine out of our drinking water. That's a chemical sister of fluoride. I beg you not to take chlorine out of the water. We would have dysentery before you turn around."

Despite the public comments, Mr. McGowan remained steadfast in his opposition to fluoridation of the water. He shared some statistics, including the amount of water that went through the water treatment plant, how much water had been billed by the village, and how much water is consumed by an individual in a year. By his count, just under 2 million gallons of water could be used for drinking compared to the 466 million gallons he said was going through the water treatment plant. Fluoridation currently costs the village $22,364 for the year

"How much of the water is being drank? I think with that $22,000, maybe there's a different avenue we could go because most of that water is not being utilized. I think we could utilize that somewhere else," Mr. McGowan said.

He suggested that fluoride isn't necessary in the water, whether or not somebody wants it.

"If somebody wants to do something extra, you let them do it. Why are we mandating people against their will? That should be my family's responsibility," he said.

Although she voted in favor of purchasing the HFS, Trustee Christine M. Winston said she was concerned about excess fluoride and its adverse effects.

"We’re not proposing that you put excess fluoride in the drinking water. You’re doing it in a controlled fashion," Dr. Negus said.

"But how can it be controlled," Ms. Winston asked, "if we’re already getting it in other foods that we’re consuming, other products? It's hard to know how much each and every one of us is getting. While we definitely do not want to have dental decay be an issue, there are other things we could do in the community."

Mayor Gregory M. Paquin said he had looked at research and spoke with dentists in the community and is comfortable with his decision to continue fluoridating the water.

He addressed overdose concerns, saying, "One 8-ounce glass of water, 90% of the fluoride is going to leave your body within 90 minutes through sweat, spit and urination. The other 10% gets absorbed back into the saliva, helping with its hardening of the enamel."

"So, the $20,000 we spend is probably the most cost-effective way to deliver the right amount of fluoride for children in their infancy until 17 years of age and it still benefits adults," Mr. Paquin said.

He said if the village didn't provide fluoride in the water, the Department of Health would require it to come up with another program to provide it.

"That's going to cost more than $22,000, I’m quite sure," he said.

Mr. Paquin cited several of the 120 organizations that support community water and wondered why the village wouldn't follow their recommendations.

"If they’re saying this is good, what are we doing?" he said.

Johnson Newspapers 7.1

Reporter/Editor

Log In

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,racist or sexually-oriented language.PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming anotherperson will not be tolerated.Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyoneor anything.Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ismthat is degrading to another person.Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link oneach comment to let us know of abusive posts.Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitnessaccounts, the history behind an article.