Sparked by one city councilor’s concerns, Scappoose plans to re-examine its practice of putting fluoride into the water supply, a common way to combat tooth decay that nonetheless remains controversial.

Debates over water fluoridation have been ongoing for 65 years, ever since communities across the country first began applying the chemical to municipalities’ water supplies. In 2010, 66.2 percent of the U.S. population — more than 308 million people — received fluoridated water in their homes. The rate in Oregon is much lower, with 22.6 percent of the population getting fluoride from water, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

At an amount of 0.7 parts per million, Scappoose has been applying fluoride to city water since 2000 when the city council first approved the practice. At the time, 35 residents signed a petition in opposition to the fluoride plan while a number of local dentists spoke in favor. Since then, the debate has popped up a few more times, with the council continuing to stay course.

Pros and Cons

Opponents of water fluoridation fear potential harms from taking on excess fluoride, which can lead to discoloring of teeth, while others don’t believe it is the place of government to mass-medicate its citizens. Classic movie fans will remember a famous satirical speech in 1964’s “Dr. Strangelove” where a crazed general espouses fluoridation as a communist conspiracy to “sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”

However, dentists and health experts are resolute in their conclusion that water fluoridation is a safe, effective and inexpensive way to aid dental health, especially in lower-income homes where children might not otherwise get enough fluoride. The CDC ranks water fluoridation in the top 10 public health achievements of the last century.

While some might benefit from having this easy access to fluoride for their children, Scappoose City Councilor Judie Ingham said she had a disparate experience more than a decade back. Not knowing the city fluoridated its water at the time, she had her young son also take vitamins containing fluoride and use fluoride toothpaste.

This disproportionate amount led to her now-adult child being diagnosed with fluorosis, a condition caused by ingesting high concentrations of the chemical during dental development. Those with fluorosis have notable discoloration of the enamel, which can range from mild to severe.

Downsides to fluoride

As the water fluoridation practice expanded across the country — as well as an increased availability of fluoride supplements — studies in the 1980s began to show instances of dental fluorosis increasing as tooth decay rates dropped, according to a 2004 CDC study.

Ingham is not eager to get her son’s medical condition out in the public, but hopes sharing her family’s situation will do some good. The public should be informed of this topic, she said, which is why she asked the city council to take a look at the issue at its last meeting. The council will hold a public hearing on fluoridation Aug. 20.

“It’s putting something in the water that we don’t need in the water,” she said. “There’s enough stuff in our water already.”

Should it go to a vote?

As he explained at the July 2 city council meeting, City Manager Jon Hanken thinks the topic should have been placed on the November ballot so the public could make the choice themselves. But Ingham and other councilors thought it best that they make a decision after getting feedback from the community.

“My fear is if people are uninformed about it they are just going to think, ‘Well, we’ve had it all this time ... “ Councilor Mark Reed said about wanting the council to make the final decision whether to keep fluoridation or not. “I’d rather see the people educated about the pros and cons.”

Ingham agrees, saying residents need to be educated enough to make the “right decision.”

“In some instances, the council is better equipped to make those decisions,” she said.

Hanken still thinks a vote is the best way to approach the issue.

“To me, a vote for the public is the easiest way to address this,” he said, while acknowledging it’s now too late to get it on the November ballot.

The city spends about $5,000 a year to add fluoride to the water supply.

Hanken said he has heard the debate before in his years working for the city and, considering the health of children is involved, predicts high emotions from both sides.

Ingham feels those strong emotion herself.

“It hits pretty close to home,” she said.