Dr. Henry Wolthuis
Until her recent passing, the Lebanon Hospital Auxiliary Volunteers had a sweet little lady by the name of “Frankie,” who had the motto in life that “If it is going to be, it is up to me.”
We each need to have that perspective, and certainly I feel that way regarding the fluoridation issue.
I know our mayor and city manager personally, and have great respect and appreciation for the time and energy that they devote to the City Council. It isn’t easy, and no doubt sometimes thankless. Thank you very much.
Every issue has its proponents and opponents.
We have seen locally, and even nationally on the Supreme Court, major issues with councils and courts divided and the issues being determined by one vote. We don’t all agree, and opposition is American.
Fluoridation is no exception. We have always had our vehement opposition by a small group of people and we have it now.
The real question, however, is that once something has been decided, approved by the people, is there any wisdom or fairness to the majority to reopen it again just because a small handful of people who would have been in opposition in the first place have recently been vocal?
In the absence of new evidence, reopening the issue is not justified. I view this as something akin to starting a grass fire with your chainsaw. Your backpack of water can put it out versus letting it get out of control and having to call out the entire State Department of Forestry fire units.
If this matter is placed on the ballot, it will invite the floodgates to open, the community will be divided, we will need a full blown campaign to contain the negativism or to put our case in front of the citizens, with needed fund-raising, organization, campaigning, etc.
It is reported that Philomath recently made that mistake, requiring the citizens’ considerable effort and expense to get it back on the ballot where it passed again. Much of this can be avoided, if the council will do their homework and vote to continue an already established and successful program.
This program is appropriately in place, because it has already gone through scrutiny and passed by the residents of Sweet Home. It was established after great effort by some of our early physicians (Dr. Monson, Dr. Langmack and others) who are gone now, but they would turn over in their graves if they knew what was happening. The benefits have already been immense, and will continue to be so, if we continue this program.
Unfortunately, a number of issues which the opposition brings up are without documentation, and are contrary to endorsements and recommendations by respected professional organizations. Comments are often taken out of context, and words chosen to create fear. We hope that our citizens will be able to read beyond these things.
Municipal fluoridation is one of the most studied subjects that we have seen in our lifetime. Numerous studies and comparisons have been made over the years, applying the scientific method, meaning that studies have been done with adequate numbers to be statistically significant, and that methodologies used are such that the same findings could be repeated with similar results by other researchers.
The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the benefits of fluoridation.
Various government and health organizations, after thorough study, have endorsed municipal fluoridation. These are not sinister organizations, as sometimes portrayed, but along with university researchers, have brought solutions to smallpox, diphtheria, TB, AIDS and hepatitis. Together with Rotary International, the Centers for Disease Control and the Bill Gates Foundation, they are close to eradicating polio from the face of the earth.
Like fluoridation, the big hurdle with polio is not having vaccines available for children worldwide, but overcoming misinformation spread in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria where opponents have them believing that polio vaccine will sterilize their children, a misconception that allows polio to once again be on the rise. The above-mentioned supporting organizations have nothing to gain through their endorsements, unless their goal is to conspire with the United States government to poison the entire population and of course you and I know that is absurd.
The Centers for Disease Control has produced what probably is one of the best question/answer documents regarding fluoridation. A reference manual, with accompanying documentation, is available from Kalama City, Wash., which recently sorted through the same issues that Sweet Home is now facing. Statements by the Surgeon General of the United States support fluoridation.
I and others have done dental service missions in foreign counties and have seen what it is like for most of the population to be missing most of their teeth. We have taken for granted the benefits that we have experienced in the United States, including fluoridation in Sweet Home.
Projections indicate that it costs 50 to 72 cents per year per citizen to fluoridate our water. Healthcare cost savings are estimated at $38 for every dollar spent.
It is easy to look at those figures, but how do you ever put a price or a value on arriving at an elderly age and still have your teeth? Decay progresses to infections. How do you put a price on loss of missed work due to dental infections? How do you put a price on children who cannot concentrate, or miss school because of dental infections?
Dental infections showing up at the Lebanon Hospital Emergency room cost Samaritan Health Care over $1,000 per visit, much of it borne by the taxpayers.
Cindy Hallett works through Linn County and does dental screenings in Sweet Home Schools. I cannot say her observations are statistically significant, because of the low numbers involved, but she is not hesitant about her observations that dental conditions are considerably worse in those Sweet Home schools not on city fluoridated water.
These programs are safe at the recommended levels, and yes, from time to time EPA, or the Safe Drinking Water Act or other government agencies have made some adjustments in recommendations. I am grateful that we have engineers like Mike Adams, and CH2MHill to carefully monitor and engineer our water sources. They have left us with some of the highest quality water in the nation. That is what science is all about.
Sweet Home fluoridation has already been in effect for over 40 years, and I am not aware of a single health or medical problem that a doctor (s) has attributed to the fluoridation of Sweet Home water.
We talk a lot about the benefits for children, but as our population lives longer, and we have natural gum recession, our older population is more vulnerable to root decay, and so fluoridation is really a benefit to the entire population.
This program has a long history of success. It has been thoroughly researched and previously passed by the citizens of Sweet Home, either by vote or by their elected representatives. There is no reason to allow a small handful of opponents to disrupt what is already well established.
In our democratic society however, they too have their rights, and if they desire to do so, it should be their responsibility to gather the necessary signatures and place the issue on the ballot, not the City Council. I believe that the best choice for the council at this time, is to vote to keep an already successful program in place.
For those few who have personal preferences for no fluoride, there are companies that manufacture water filters that will remove fluoride from their water. You can Google them on the internet. That would be a better solution, than to deny the majority of our citizens these benefits.
One last comment, which is admittedly personal and not statistically significant, but I will share it anyway.
We had the opportunity to raise five children in Sweet Home. Of course, we are dental-conscious, and stressed proper diets, brushing and flossing, but when our last child finished high school (total age accumulation of 90 years) four of them had no cavities or fillings and the other one had one filling. This was not hereditary, as their mother and father (myself) had fillings in many of their teeth in their youth in a non-fluoridated community. I can’t help but give some credit to water fluoridation for that record.
We wanted you to read this before the public hearing, so you would have a little time to think about it, and if you desired to study references and resources.
To those who would be counted among the supporters of fluoridation, it is highly important that the Sweet Home City Council hear from you. Written testimony will be accepted until the public hearing on June 24. Supporters also need to attend this meeting to express their support.
My thanks to those in support and my respect for those in opposition.
Dr. Henry B. Wolthuis D.D.S., is a longtime local dentist who also has been a member of the City Planning Commission for many years.