YORKTOWN NEWS—Tuesday’s Yorktown Town Board meeting saw yet another lengthy public hearing, continuing the contentious conversation surrounding fluoridation. Well over 20 people spoke, with residents from both Yorktown and Somers expressing opposition to the continuation of the fluoridation program, calling for its stop. Several other residents, local dentists, and medical professionals were in favor of fluoridation while others questioned the board’s knowledge and the role of elected officials in public health decisions.
The hearing on Oct. 15 came after Supervisor Ed Lachterman decided to stop adding fluoride to the water supply in late September. At the time, it was said to be a “pause” while the board decides how to move forward with a permanent policy. On Sept. 26, Lachterman reversed an earlier decision to resume the long-delayed return of fluoride in Yorktown’s water supply, which had drawn criticism from a small but vocal group of residents who believe it is harmful.
Lachterman's decision to suspend fluoridation—just weeks after resuming it—came in response to a Sept. 24 ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen that ordered the EPA to strengthen its regulation of fluoride in drinking water. In his ruling, the federal judge said high levels of fluoride may pose an “unreasonable risk” to children’s intellectual development.
Resident Olimpia Goci, who has spoken at previous hearings, is opposed to fluoridating the town’s water supply. She said she is a concerned mother who loves the Yorktown community and urged board members and decision-makers to weigh all factors and address potential dangers as the conversation continues on the future of the town’s water supply.
“While the intention behind fluoridation is to promote dental health, it is crucial to consider the potential health risks and ethical implications involved,” she said. “The evidence suggests that excessive fluoride exposure can have harmful effects, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children.”
However, Shelley Reid of Mohegan Lake shared a memory from her college chemistry class during the hearing, recalling when the professor stated, “The definition of poison for a chemist is too much.” She expressed frustration over what she sees as the “demonization” of fluoride, urging the board to continue fluoridation.
“People keep saying you can buy fluoride supplements, you have access to fluoride supplements, you can get healthy food,” Reid said, adding that the fluoridation program helps “the underserved, the economically challenged, the people who don’t necessarily have the opportunity, the extra money in their pockets to get these extra things. So, it’s a public health good to put fluoride in the water for all people at a safe level.”
Reid asked the board for a follow-up on the $940,00 grant from the state department of health, questioning what would happen to that money if fluoridation is discontinued.
Mark Lieberman, a resident and co-chair of the Yorktown Democratic Committee, said the focus of the hearing was really about a person’s ability to be in charge of their own health.
“I am fully in favor of people being in charge of their own health for all matters,”" he said, adding, “I don’t see that consistency with the majority of the Town Board for all health decisions.”
He added if the board is going to take a position on health, it needs to “please be consistent.”
Dr. Carl Tegtmeier, a resident and local dentist, cautioned the board about where it gets its information and what studies to trust. While he acknowledged that a Harvard study had found fluoridation causes the loss of IQ, he went on to say the report was quickly retracted by the deans because it was “a poor study.”
“Where you get your information is very important,” he said .“In other words, there is no danger to the IQ. Did the board not read this when you were doing your homework? So why did you shut it down?”
By the end of the hearing, Lachterman asserted that pausing fluoridation was the right choice, but said he also believes that being able to vote it back in, if necessary, was the right course of action. He noted that both sides of the argument present research, with each essentially accusing the other of relying on junk science and propaganda.
“I'm not going to try to unravel that,” he said. “The judge made a decision, and I think that it's really, really important that we say, ‘let this play out properly.’”
The hearing was closed, with a five-day written comment period left open until Oct. 22. The board will likely see fluoridation back on its agenda in upcoming meetings, as it will eventually vote on a legislative change.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here