On July 8 in the Open Forum, Annette Osterlund suggested that the organization Clean Water Advocates of Boulder was being deceptive with its petition to alter the way the city of Boulder fluoridates its water supply. My recent encounter with Rob Weiner, the initiator of the proposed ordinance, confirms that this is true.
To begin with, the advocates reference a 1990 document from Lucier Chemicals, the supplier of the hydrofluorosilicic acid that Boulder uses to fluoridate its water, that suggests the product exceeds acceptable contaminant levels. This 16-year-old document by no means confirms that the level of arsenic and lead in Boulder water exceeds the maximum allowable level, or even the maximum contaminant level goal (or MCLG). A quick visit to the city of Boulder’s website confirms lead levels at 2.8 ppb, which is well below the MCLG of 15 ppb.
Clean Water Advocates’ representatives claim they are not against water fluoridation, just the method that is currently used by the city of Boulder as well as thousands of other cities. However, they know that if the ballot initiative passes, it will result in the discontinuation of water fluoridation in Boulder. They request that the source of fluoride be pharmaceutical-grade and be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, yet the FDA does not have jurisdiction over municipal drinking water; the EPA does. Of the more than 10,000 communities in the United States that fluoridate their water, none of them uses pharmaceutical-grade fluoride, which is what CWA requests. It simply is not feasible, and they know it.
For perspective on water-contaminant level, let’s consider water-quality reports from the town of Erie, which discontinued fluoridation in 2001. Erie residents who consume water from the Erie Water Facility are exposed to no fluoride, but lead levels of 8.5 ppb. Erie residents who consume water from the Left Hand Water District are exposed to a 1.1 ppm level of fluoride, and yet the lead level is only 3.7 ppb. It is apparent to me that the level of contaminants associated with the hydrofluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate water has little or no correlation to the level of contaminants that may naturally be found in a municipalities’ water supply.
I think it is reasonable to debate the merits of modifying a public resource such as water in order to achieve a reduction in dental decay. However, the methods being employed by Clean Water Advocates of Boulder are indeed misleading, disingenuous and highly suspect.
David Jackson, DDS, practices in Boulder and lives in Longmont
The preceding was originally published as a letter to the editor of the Boulder Daily Camera on July 22, 2006.
This message is from the Vote No on 2B Committee,
supported by the many very concerned health professionals serving the people of Boulder.
