From the discussion thread on the Facebook page of Norm Roche, Pinellas County Commissioner:
DATE: October 8, 2011
TO: St. Pete Times Editors
FROM: Norm Roche, Pinellas County Commissioner, At-Large
RE: The fluoridation of Pinellas’ drinking water supply
I must say that I am very disappointed at the Times’ staff writers, opinion’ists, and editors for their less-than earnest and complete coverage of the facts relating to the Fluoride debate and Board members decisions thereof. The responsibility of The Forth Estate (the media) to present to its patrons true, factual, and unbiased reporting of our elected leadership and their actions is one that is equal to the level – if not even greater to the level – of that which is granted our elected leaders.
To set the record straight – from where this Commissioner sat, and stands for that matter:
• Fluoride has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with improving drinking water quality. It is a medical/chemical additive after the fact.
• The decision was not to take Fluoride out of our public drinking water supply; it was to halt the injecting of addition levels of Fluoride into our public drinking water supply.
• There was a lack of consensus even among those medical, dental, and chemical professionals who appeared before the Board to testified in favor of continuing the practice, as it relates to Fluoride use, best application (topical versus daily ingesting), forms of, or necessary levels and/or dosage.
• Although the reemergence of the issue was indeed a result of numerous discussions throughout our budget process, the fiscal impact to our County’s budget was the least of my concerns. In fact, the Commission directed staff to seek ways to use the savings to continue to get the treatment to those underprivileged and most in need of it.
• The Commission also discussed the various options with respect to brining the entire issue before the public – those who consume our water each and every day – in the form of a public referendum.
• The folks that appeared in opposition to the practice where not all, and in fact very few might even have been, associated with the Tea Party. Moreover, the fluoridation debate was and has been in existence long before the Tea Party emerged.
• The decision was not a final judgment, nor is the matter closed.
An earnest effort at research by those truly interested in the facts, to include the Times, will show that this issue has been active since 2003/04 - when fluoridation in Pinellas began. In fact, there were far more in opposition to it then, than there were those in favor of it. E-mails, letters, and citizens appearing before the Board - seeking reconsideration - have continued since. Furthermore, the entire debate has been active since water fluoridation first began in our country some 60+ years ago.
Moreover, the focus of the most recent opposition has been on the public's right to vote on the issue, and in particular in Pinellas; the industrial chemical used in the fluoridation of our water.
From my perspective, no reasonable public health debate is, nor ever should be, considered "over" when dealing with a public drinking water supply. Any error – human, scientific, or otherwise – in the scientific and/or chemical management and treatment of our public drinking water supply has the potential to impact the lives of 700,000+ residents in Pinellas within just 4-hours. This is serious business, and criticizing or dismissing it with pithy opinions and antidotal-based editorials is disingenuous at best, and brazenly irresponsible at its worst.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that using mercury to fill cavities was once considered safe, smoking cigarettes was once considered safe, wearing only a leather football helmet was once considered safe, et al...
From this Commissioner’s perspective; constant revisiting of the impact, data, research, and facts on both sides of the issue – particularly with respect to the treatment and stewardship of our public drinking water supply – is not only good, but wise public policy.
###
DATE: October 8, 2011
TO: St. Pete Times Editors
FROM: Norm Roche, Pinellas County Commissioner, At-Large
RE: The fluoridation of Pinellas’ drinking water supply
I must say that I am very disappointed at the Times’ staff writers, opinion’ists, and editors for their less-than earnest and complete coverage of the facts relating to the Fluoride debate and Board members decisions thereof. The responsibility of The Forth Estate (the media) to present to its patrons true, factual, and unbiased reporting of our elected leadership and their actions is one that is equal to the level – if not even greater to the level – of that which is granted our elected leaders.
To set the record straight – from where this Commissioner sat, and stands for that matter:
• Fluoride has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with improving drinking water quality. It is a medical/chemical additive after the fact.
• The decision was not to take Fluoride out of our public drinking water supply; it was to halt the injecting of addition levels of Fluoride into our public drinking water supply.
• There was a lack of consensus even among those medical, dental, and chemical professionals who appeared before the Board to testified in favor of continuing the practice, as it relates to Fluoride use, best application (topical versus daily ingesting), forms of, or necessary levels and/or dosage.
• Although the reemergence of the issue was indeed a result of numerous discussions throughout our budget process, the fiscal impact to our County’s budget was the least of my concerns. In fact, the Commission directed staff to seek ways to use the savings to continue to get the treatment to those underprivileged and most in need of it.
• The Commission also discussed the various options with respect to brining the entire issue before the public – those who consume our water each and every day – in the form of a public referendum.
• The folks that appeared in opposition to the practice where not all, and in fact very few might even have been, associated with the Tea Party. Moreover, the fluoridation debate was and has been in existence long before the Tea Party emerged.
• The decision was not a final judgment, nor is the matter closed.
An earnest effort at research by those truly interested in the facts, to include the Times, will show that this issue has been active since 2003/04 - when fluoridation in Pinellas began. In fact, there were far more in opposition to it then, than there were those in favor of it. E-mails, letters, and citizens appearing before the Board - seeking reconsideration - have continued since. Furthermore, the entire debate has been active since water fluoridation first began in our country some 60+ years ago.
Moreover, the focus of the most recent opposition has been on the public's right to vote on the issue, and in particular in Pinellas; the industrial chemical used in the fluoridation of our water.
From my perspective, no reasonable public health debate is, nor ever should be, considered "over" when dealing with a public drinking water supply. Any error – human, scientific, or otherwise – in the scientific and/or chemical management and treatment of our public drinking water supply has the potential to impact the lives of 700,000+ residents in Pinellas within just 4-hours. This is serious business, and criticizing or dismissing it with pithy opinions and antidotal-based editorials is disingenuous at best, and brazenly irresponsible at its worst.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that using mercury to fill cavities was once considered safe, smoking cigarettes was once considered safe, wearing only a leather football helmet was once considered safe, et al...
From this Commissioner’s perspective; constant revisiting of the impact, data, research, and facts on both sides of the issue – particularly with respect to the treatment and stewardship of our public drinking water supply – is not only good, but wise public policy.
###
