Fluoride Legislation Dies in Committee

Truckee River image by Bob Conrad.

A bill that would have mandated fluoride in Reno’s water supply died in committee on Friday. The bill was sponsored by assembly members Amber Joiner (D-Reno) and Michael Sprinkle (D-Sparks).

Assemblyman Michael Sprinkle
Assemblyman Michael Sprinkle

While experts generally agree that fluoride offers public health benefits, the cost of adding fluoride to the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) system was estimated to cost ratepayers an additional 9-percent increase on top of an already estimated 13.5-percent rate increase in the coming five years.

TMWA’s board unanimously spoke against the legislation, citing its potential cost and calling it an unfunded mandate.

Board Vice Chair Vaughn Hartung called the bill a “circumvention of the voters,” saying that Nevada law requires a vote of the people. In 2002, 58 percent of Washoe County residents voted against water fluoridation.

According to TMWA:

It directly contradicts the will of Washoe County voters. In 2002, a countywide vote was taken in Washoe County where 58 percent voted against fluoridation. The Board felt that the present bill, as introduced, circumvents that vote and that any fluoride decisions should require a vote of the public.

Commenters on the Nevada Legislature website also overwhelmingly denounced the legislation. One person wrote:

This bill takes the same approach that we so abhor about national politics. “We politicians know what’s best for you!” and “Washoe County, you’re too stupid to know what’s best for you so we will save you from yourselves.” You are mandating fluoridation without the courage of putting it to a public vote. It’s unconscionable that two Northern Nevadans are pushing this to a State-wide vote, rather than Washoe deciding what Washoe wants.

Listen

Listen to an interview about the legislation from our media partner, Reno Public Radio: http://kunr.org/post/water-flouridation-bill-receives-strong-opposition#stream/0

Get the Scoop on Reno News



About Bob Conrad 814 Articles
Bob Conrad is proprietor and co-founder of ThisisReno. He manages ThisisReno and Conrad Communications, LLC, his marketing communications consulting company (disclosure: client work includes projects funded by grants through UNR) and is an adjunct faculty member at Truckee Meadows Community College. He is a contributor to Reno Public Radio.

9 Comments

  1. Fluoridation is not an appropriate issue for voters. It is an issue of science and public health. Legislators should just consult the state public health department and regulate accordingly.

    Citizens should not have the power through voting to deprive their neighbors of the healthful and unique benefits of fluoridation. These are benefits of a mineral nutrient that cannot be duplicated by other forms of fluoride or dental hygiene.

    Tooth decay is the most common disease. The price of not fluoridating will cost citizens a great amount in dental repairs. It takes a heavy toll on our health care resources.

    • You are so out of touch, I hope you are never my nurse. FLUORIDE is and has been proven to be a poison to the human body and actually causes decay off teeth. Back in the 50’s citizens were sold a bill of goods by a medical chemical company that has been proven to be a total scam. Look it up….

      • I whole heartedly concur Joyce! LindaRosaRN if want fluoride, you can self administer. Don’t force me or others in the community to be poisoned by your out of touch need to put fluoride in our water supply. Citizens should have every right to choose what they are consuming.

  2. Randy, you seem to have all the “right” information about fluoridating a water supply. Who do you work for? Why are you so interested in mandating a neurotoxin be placed in the water supply of a community that already voted NO against that happening? Not only do the people of Washoe County not want the price of their water to be increased, they also have something called the internet these days and are waking up to the fact that they don’t want to be poisoned by corporate greed.

  3. I just want to remind readers that many pro-flouride commenters do not live here, don’t know what’s pericular to our water sytem and state laws, and would not have to pay for fluoride. Some are even paid to keep the profluoride campaign going. We’re not listening….

    • Marlene Olsen – In case you haven’t noticed, these posts are visible around the world, and a lie is a lie regardless of where it is told. Fluoridation opponents do not present legitimate, accurate information, so their disingenuous tactics need to be exposed so the public is not scared by fear-mongering. If you live in Reno, then I respectfully suggest that you spend several weeks carefully examining the evidence. If you are not a scientist, try to find someone who will help you compare specific claims made by both fluoridation supporters and opponents with the actual evidence. If you have an open mind, you will quickly discover that fluoridation opponents distort the evidence and use studies that have little credibility.

      That is why virtually all of the national and international science and health organizations (and their thousands of members) continue to recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation for preventing dental decay. That is also the reason there are no such organizations I am aware of that accept the anti-F opinions.

      Have you read the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health I cited earlier? I have a link to hundreds of supporting documents on my website you can access by clicking on my name.

  4. if fluoride is for teeth, why not get fluoride treatments at the dentist? why distribute a drug in the water supply?

  5. jwillie6 (that is your real name, right?) – Anyone who follows your antics on the comment sections of almost any article that mentions fluoride or fluoridation can observe your remarkable ability to copy/paste anti-F propaganda with no supporting evidence, with a complete disregard for truth and with a gift for distorting evidence so it is completely meaningless.

    The WHO graph to which you presumably refer (with no citation) is nothing more than an example of how fluoridation opponents (FOs) extract numbers out-of-context to try and establish cause and effect relationships. This article discusses that particular scam technique along with other ways FOs distort and fabricate “evidence” in an attempt to support their .
    ~> openparachute(-dot)wordpress(-dot)com/2016/07/14/misrepresenting-fluoride-science-an-open-letter-to-paul-connett/

    Rational individuals seeking to actually understand the risks and benefits of fluoridation can ask themselves three simple questions.
    1) If the WHO data actually supported the anti-F claims – not only about decay rates but the claimed harm from fluoridation, why would the organization continue to recognize fluoridation as safe and effective?
    2) Why would over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their many thousands of members – experts in their fields) — as well as six Surgeons General since 1982 — recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation as a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay and resulting health problems? These organizations include The WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association.
    ~> ada(-dot)org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts/fluoridation-facts-compendium
    ~> ilikemyteeth(-dot)org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/
    3) Why are there no nationally or internationally recognized science or health organizations that support the anti-F opinions?
    This 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health provides an excellent summary of the evidence that supports fluoridation as safe and effective:
    —> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.”
    —> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.”
    —> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.”
    ~> who(-dot)int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf

    Jwillie6 (or whoever you are), instead of simply copying/pasting more unsupported nonsense (or referencing Connett’s work of fiction), provide specific references (and quotes by the authors from those studies in context) that you think prove any of your claims. Then there will be specific evidence of how fluoridation opponents have cherry-picked poor quality studies, taken information out of context and fabricated claims in an effort to support their fear-based propaganda.

  6. Fluoridated Countries Do Not Have Less Tooth Decay Than Non-Fluoridated Countries

    According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between developed countries that fluoridate their water and those that do not.

    Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor that can adversely affect your bones, brain, thyroid gland, pineal gland and even your blood sugar levels.

Comments are closed.