Letters
More on fluoride
I read with interest the column in the Oct/Nov issue of your great magazine giving both pro and con perspectives on the fluoridation of municipal drinking water. I thought the two perspectives put forth valid points from both sides of the debate. However I believe one important consideration was missed: fluoridation’s impact on the environment.
The argument for fluoridating 100 percent of the municipal water supply is that humans will consume the water, and that it in turn may assist in preventing cavities in young children. But consider the reality that only a very small fraction of our municipal water is actually consumed by people. The rest is used for other domestic purposes, such as bathing, laundry, dishes, car-washing, and lawn-watering. All the unused fluoride ultimately enters our ecosystem, with unknown long-term consequences.
If the human health impact uncertainty is not reason enough, surely further environmental questions validate the concerns.
I’m thankful for the community activists in Kitimat who lobbied for a municipal referendum on this subject. Ultimately the decision made by citizens was to stop fluorididating the water supply.
Surely there is a better way to target cavity prevention in young children, rather than exposing the entire human population and ecosystem to needless and potentially harmful fluoride.
Your Comments on Letters
No one has commented yet on this article.