Supervisors Vote 4-3 to Keeps Fluoride in County Water
At the February 13th Board meeting, Supervisor Skinner motioned to end the uncertainty over the issue of fluoridation of county water. The motion was debated and ultimately passed 4-3. Board member positions are below as well as how they voted.
There are two key points I took away from the Supervisors' debate on fluoride.
First, there seems to be this push by several supervisors that the county is not informing Spotsy residents that fluoride is in their water. This is false. The County provides an annual water quality analysis report that clearly states the amount of fluoride in the county water supply. I have added the link below to these reports. If citizens are unaware or fail to read this yearly report it would seem unlikely they would notice or care about a sentence on the back portion of their water bill that highlights fluoride is added.
Second, no supervisor or citizen in support of removing fluoride presented any body of credible evidence that fluoride has been proven harmful. Statements were made that studies show that fluoride is harmful, but those specific studies were never cited publicly to allow for the broader population to review this material. However, the Rappahannock Area Health, who supported water fluoridation, presented numerous studies that demonstrated that it was safe. Spotsylvania recently lowered the level of fluoride added to county water, since citizens have more access to fluoride by commercial means than in the past. This should give increasing confidence to citizens that someone is monitoring the chemicals being placed into our water supply. However, several times supervisors have used this adjustment to insinuate that fluoride is bad, which is the ultimate reason for the reduction.
It is very unclear why several supervisors have taken such a hard-line stance against water fluoridation, while presenting very poor arguments for its removal. I will not speculate on those reasons. I will say that this issue in particular should cause each citizen to ask themselves how their elected officials process, weigh and deliberate on facts, and make decisions.
Chairman Benton – Voted No; Believes government should not dictate what citizens digest into their bodies
Vice Chair Trampe – Voted No; Provided no public comment.
Supervisor Marshall – Voted Yes; Asked about cost of adding notification to water bill about fluoride additive. The answer was one-time cost to change the bill template of $50.00.
Supervisor McLaughlin – Voted Yes; Stated he agreed with some of Supervisor Ross' points (unspecified), seemed to voice support for notification on water bill.
Supervisor Ross – Voted No; Insinuated Board being pressured by Fluoride Lobby; Supports county survey and notification on water bill. Continued to express concerns over safety and necessity of fluoride in water.
Supervisor Skinner – Voted Yes; Motioned to end uncertainty and keep fluoride in water.
Supervisor Yakabouski – Voted Yes; Believed uncertainty needed to end, would revisit if credible evidence was presented that fluoride was a danger.
Click here to read Jeff Branscome Free-Lance-Star article for more details.
Click here to watch the February 13th debate on fluoride. See Minute Marker 41:50.
Click here to review one of my previous posts on fluoride.
Click here to review the County's annual water quality reports. They are publicly available online as far back as 2013. I'm sure by contacting Public Works, a citizen could retrieve older editions.