While opponents and proponents argue the benefits of fluoride in drinking water, one fact is undeniable: It will be the poor who will be impacted most by April’s citywide vote.
If fluoride opponents have their way, the population who can least afford dental care, specifically the children of the poor, will shoulder the burden. It will be lifelong.
I’ve worked in public school (low- income) dental clinics trying to restore what is tough to reverse when fluoride has been absent in early childhood. Drinking water remains the appropriate and most affordable vehicle to get this tooth-decay preventative to kids who aren’t likely to see a dentist until it is too late.
You don’t hear about rickets, goiter, beriberi and pellagra in 2017. It’s because these diseases have been eradicated. Compassionate leaders listened to scientists, and then saw to it that milk was fortified and bread flour and cereals were enriched.
Consider those who grew up in Boston in the early 1900s. Eighty percent of the children had rickets.
As one who appreciates all that organic vegetables offer, I remain grateful that I can afford this choice. I understand why fluoride opponents want a choice, too, but at what cost to the population that will suffer the consequences if fluoride is removed?
My children benefitted by regular dental visits. As adults, they can choose to pick up a bottle of spring water whenever they please. I hope that along the way they learned that Durango has plenty of families not so fortunate.
I’d be disappointed if they didn’t understand the economics, or worse, if they displayed a “let them eat cake” elitist posture when it comes to the community’s water supply.
Karen Brucoli Anesi
Durango
