Fluoride: Friend or Foe?

Last week, the Pottstown Borough Authority held three public hearings on whether to remove fluoride from the public water supply.

No Pottstown residents attended.

That surprised Brent Wagner, utilities coordinator. He scheduled the various meetings for the convenience of people who work different shifts, he said.

In addition to the borough, the Authority serves Upper, Lower and West Pottsgrove townships and North Coventry Township.

Municipal officials from Lower Pottsgrove and North Coventry were at the hearings, Wagner said. 

P.J. McGill of Sanatoga was the only area resident that attended.

Removal of fluoride -- which, in the borough's case comes from China and is entered into the water supply as a liquid -- could mean a savings of up to $55,000 per year, Wagner said. 

The Authority, which includes roughly 12,000 water meters, will decide whether to hold another public hearing or vote on the issue at its next meeting, 7 p.m. Aug. 16.

If the board votes to remove fluoride from the water, it could take up to six months to get final approval from the state Dept. of Environmental Protection, Wagner said. 

"Right now, our permit says that we are to add fluoride," he said.

Across the state, roughly 110 water systems add fluoride to their water and 2,065 do not.

Pottstown started adding fluoride to its water in the 1960s. 

Since that time, the addition of the compound to water has remained controversial around the world.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services website, HHS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this year announced standards and guidelines on fluoride in drinking water "to provide the maximum protection to the American people to support good dental health, especially in children."

HHS proposed the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water "be set at the lowest end of the current optimal range to prevent tooth decay, and EPA is initiating review of the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water."

The American Dental Association in January commended federal agencies responsible for public health and safety for "recalibrating the ratio of fluoride to water that they consider optimal based on scientific evaluation and the full appreciation of fluoride received from all sources," the organization states in a press release.

"As a science-based organization, the ADA supports the Department of Health and Human Services’ recommendation to set the level for optimally fluoridated water at 0.7 parts per million. This adjustment will provide an effective level of fluoride to reduce the incidence of tooth decay while minimizing the rate of fluorosis in the general population."

Not everyone agrees.

The Fluoride Action Network's website states, “Over the past ten years a large body of peer-reviewed science has raised concerns that fluoride may present unreasonable health risks, particularly among children, at levels routinely added to tap water in American cities ... In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk."

The International Anti-Fluoridation Database says, "We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic."

And the Associated Press in January wrote, "A scientific report five years ago said that people who consume a lifetime of too much fluoride  -- an amount over EPA’s limit of 4 milligrams -- can lead to crippling bone abnormalities and brittleness."