The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

The controversy continues Waterloo residents will be answering it soon in a June 8 plebiscite to determine whether this city will continue to have fluoridated water. Fluoridation is generally regarded as a safe, effective preventive against tooth decay. The practice is widely and heartily endorsed by various dental associations and such reputable bodies as the Canadian Medical Association, the Health League of Canada, the federal ministry of National Health and Welfare, Ontario‘s health ministry and the World Health Organization, to name a few. Its proponents point out that fluoride is a naturally occurring substance that, when found in moderate levels in water, produces remarkably sound teeth for its drinkers. By Philip Jalsevac To fluoridate or not to fluoridate â€" that is the question. Artificial fluoridation, they say, is merely man‘s effort to provide the beneficial substance in waters where nature hasn‘t produced enough. As the Canadian Dental Association says: "‘fluoride is a natural substance present in almost all water supplies. Fluoridation adjusts the level of the fluoride element to the concentration which nature has shown to be necessary for proper formation of bones and teeth." The result is that people, particularly young children, are less prone to tooth decay â€" one of the most common and costlyâ€"toâ€"remedy afflictions of man. That sounds simple enough â€" so why the controversy? First off, there are those who maintain that even a totally riskâ€"free, beneficial substance shouldn‘t be injected into the public water supply when its intended use is as a type of medication. They feel personal and free choice in what one ingests is paramount. Of course, what may make even these people more worked up in their attack is the perceived danger of fluoridation. What exactly is it that is injected into the water? In some areas, it‘s sodium fluoride. In Waterloo, hydrofluosilicic (HFS) acid is injected into the water supply. It‘s a chemical byproduct of the fertilizer manufacturing process used by Câ€"Iâ€"L Inc. in Toronto. And it‘s pretty strong stuff. An old industrial trade journal pubâ€" lished by the Dunlop Rubber Company says the acid "is a colorless, fuming and very corrosive liquid qhich reaches temperatures in excess of 212 degrees F. during processing. It is so corrosive, in fact, that without the protection afforded by the rubber linings (of storage tanks), the steel tank structures would be eaten away in a matter of hours." The Canadian Public Health Associaâ€" tion, in a 1979 report commissioned by Health and Welfare Canada, reports that ‘‘the acute lethal dose of fluoride for man is about five grams of sodium fluoride" and that the "probable range" for â€"HFS acid is anywhere from two to ten grams. Of course, the average daily intake in a fluoridated community is said to range from one to five milligrams â€" far below anything approaching a lethal dose. Nonetheless, some critics cite an event that took place in November of last year in Annapolis, Maryland, where it‘s reâ€" ported a city worker failed to shut off a valve and the level of fluoride in that city rose to about 30 times its normal level. One doctor described the outcome as ‘"a mass case of mild fluoride poisoning,"‘ and one man â€" a 65â€"yearâ€"old kidney dialysis patient â€" died as a result of what the state mredical examiner called "a FLUORIDATION toxic reaction leading to cardiac arâ€" rest." The examiner found excessive levels of fluoride in the man‘s body following an autopsy, and the item was duly reported in the Evening Capital paper with the blaring heading "Fluoride linked to death." Even at the minute levels of concentraâ€" tion fluoride is injected into the water system, some are concerned about its cumulative effect. John Marier, an analytical chemist with the National Research Council in Ottawa, told the Chronicle in an interâ€" view some months ago, that fluoride is one of a group of pollutants that "are persistent. That means they last forever and won‘t bioâ€"degrade â€" and they‘re biocumulative which means the more you take them into your body, the more your body burden increases." Marier‘s research has led him to express caution about the level of fluorideâ€"consumption from the environâ€" ment on the whole, not just in drinking water. j Humans absorb fluoride from industry smokestacks, food treated with fluorideâ€" containing fertilizers, and canned goods, beers and wines where fluoridated water is used in the manufacturing process. When this youngster drinks fluoridated water, he is said to benetfit in the reduction of tooth decay. But the controversy over fluoridation continues in spite of reputable claims to its safety. If there is a longâ€"term negative effect, Marier says "we‘re not dealing with something that‘ll hit you in a month. We‘re dealing with something that might hit you in 50 years." In 1978, the Quebec government of premier Rene Levesque introduced a moratorium on implementation of Bill 88, which was designed to make fluoridation compulsory provinceâ€"wide. The plan was halted following a report prepared for the government‘s ministry of the environment. The study team, headed by Dr. J. Benoit Bundock M.D., concluded that the levels of fluoride from industry and in the general environment were enough of a threat to human health without adding the substance to the drinking water. And one of the most widelyâ€"recognized opponents of fluoridation, Dr. George L. Walbott M.D., of Warren, Michigan, has said of the many reputable groups who support the practice that "their culâ€" pability is constantly increasing as more and more evidence of harm from fluoriâ€" dation comes to light." In the foreword to Walbott‘s book Fluoridation â€" the Great Dilemma,‘"‘ Dr. Alton Oscher, M.D., professor of surgery at the Tulane University School of Medicine, writes ‘"it is generally believed that most persons tolerate fluoride (less than 1â€"2 mg/day) fairly well during good health â€" but we really do not know." Dr. Patrick McTaggartâ€"Cowan, former executive director of the Science Council of Canada, has told the Chronicle that overburdens of fluoride cannot be taken lightly." While not opposed outright to fluoridaâ€" tion, he feels municipalities that practice it should also provide a fluorideâ€"free source of water to those sensitive indiâ€" viduals who do not tolerate the substance very well. "Some members of the public can‘t take it," he said. Those who have warned about an excessive intake of fluoride have claimed that potential debilities include everyâ€" thing from mongolism, cancer, arthritic pains and respiratory ailments to abnorâ€" mal kidney and thyroid function, anemia, enzyme function disorder, allergies, chromosome damage and abnormalities in brain and muscle cells. And even some of the uncertainties of groups that endorse fluoridation â€" such as the Canadian Public Health Association â€" have fanned the flames of dissent. The association, in its 1979 report, says fluoride is mutagenic (causes cell damâ€" WATERLOOQ CHRONICLE, WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1981 â€" PAGE 5 And it cites a report by the National Academy of Science to dispute the claim of slow poisoning through accumulation. The report says "the daily intake reâ€" quired to produce symptoms of chronic toxicity after years of consumption is 20 â€"to 80 milligrams or more â€" far in excess of the average intake in the U.S." Fluoride is usually introduced into the water supply at a ratio of only one part per million, one of the main reasons its proponents say it can cause no harm. So those are some of the claims and viewpoints which have stirred the emoâ€" tional controversy that surrounds fluoriâ€" dation. But what of the other side? Practically every negative claim, when attributed to normal ingestion of fluoridated water at the recognized safe level, has in turn been claimed to be disproved by various doctors, scientists, public health bodies and medical and dental institutions. For instance, the Royal Coliege of Physicians and Surgeons in England concluded in 1976 report that "there is no evidence that fluoride increases the incidence or mortality of cancer in any organ," and a recent world Health Organization report has declared that ‘"‘the only sign of physiological or pathoâ€" logical change in lifeâ€"long users of optimally fluoridated water supplies ... is that they suffer less from tooth decay." The highlyâ€"regarded Consumers‘ Union (CU) of New Jersey, U.S.A., in its Consumer Reports magazine of August, 1978, flatly states that fluoridation is ‘‘*safe, economical and beneficial. The survival of this fake controversy repreâ€" sents, in CU‘s opinion, one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation." The article debunks the notion that fluoridated water is poisonous, stating "‘*you‘d have to drink at least several hundred gallons at one sitting to get a lethal dose. The water alone would kill you first." age) in some plant and animal orgaâ€" nisms, but "the variable results with respect to effective doses and species sensitivity make extrapolation to the human condition difficult at present, and point to the need for further research." As for its corrosiveness, they point out that other substances, such as the chlorine used to treat water impurities, are highly corrosive and toxic themâ€" selves in concentrated form, but are regularly consumed without ill effect when used in the right measure. As for its cumulative nature, the Canadian Public Health Association claims that "adults readily excrete 90 per cent of fluoride ingested." Other proâ€"fluoride claims abound. The eminent Dr. Benjamin Spock, for one, is quoted as saying "if your city has fluoridation, you are fortunate... the health of our people depends on it."‘ And the Canadian Dental Association reports that in Edmonton, where fluoriâ€" dation began in 1967 â€" the same year as in Waterloo â€" there was a reduction of almost 70 per cent in tooth decay among children aged 6 to 17. In a 1977 statement, Dennis Timbrell, Ontario‘s minister of health, said "I have no hesitation in stressing the importance of fluoridation for early prevention of tooth decay and in urging its adoption by municipalities, wherever feasible, as a wellâ€"proved public heaith measure." People drinking fluoridated water can only hope that Timbrell is right. He may very well be, but the conâ€" troversy â€" "phony‘‘ or otherwise â€" gives no sign of letting up.