Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
| By Dan Cooper Staff Intern LONGMEADOW The Select Board voted down a petition for a non-binding referendum to discontinue the use of fluoride in the water supply at their Feb. 20 meeting, and according to the Board of Health Director, the petitioners did not follow the proper procedure to conduct the action. "It was not the proper procedure to have fluoride removed from the water supply according to state law," Beverly Hirschhorn told Reminder Publications. "A petition has to be brought up at Town Meeting to allow Longmeadow to file special legislation for a binding referendum to discontinue fluoride," she said. "The special legislation then decides whether or not to discontinue the addition of fluoride in the water supply," Hirschhorn said. " The other way is the Board of Health can just decide to stop fluoridating the water supply itself." Hirschhorn said the town of Longmeadow never puts more than one part fluoride per million parts water (PPM) into the water supply, as it was voted on. "The Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommends between .7 and 1.2 PPM as a maximum for fluoridation of water, so we are right where we should be," Hirschhorn said. Hirschhorn said the Water Department checks the fluoride level in the water every day. "That includes Sundays and holidays, so they are essentially checking it 365 days a year to make sure the fluoride level does not exceed the maximum." Hirschhorn said the idea for Longmeadow to fluoridate their water initially came from Springfield. "Springfield had a referendum in 1983 concerning fluoridating their water supply. The referendum was defeated," she explained. "If it had passed, that would have meant all communities that purchase their water from the Springfield Water Department, including Longmeadow, would automatically have been fluoridated." Hirschhorn said the Board of Health then decided it would be a good idea to fluoridate their water supply. "The board decided it was a safe and effective public health measure that would benefit the residents," she said. Hirschhorn said the binding referendum was passed in 1987. "We needed grant funds to get the equipment for fluoridation, so that caused a year-and-a-half delay. We started fluoridating our water in 1989," she said. Hirschhorn said that, currently, 63 percent of the Massachusetts population is using fluoridated water. "Aside from Longmeadow, the only other local areas fluoridating their water is Holyoke and Amherst," she said. "Most of the eastern part of the state uses fluoridation." The recent issue over fluoridation arose following a report from the CDC that focused on children from birth to age eight. The report stated that too much fluoride during the time teeth are forming can contribute to a disease called enamel fluorosis. Enamel fluorosis is a disease that effects the surface of developing teeth. It can cause, according to the CDC web site, "barely noticeable white lines or spots to pitting and staining of the outer enamel layer." Eleanor Stolar has been one of the leading proponents against Longmeadow's decision to fluoridate its water supply. "I feel that fluoride should be topical, such as toothpaste, and should not be ingested," she said. "I agree that it is helpful for teeth, but it should not by swallowed, in my opinion." Stolar said she feels the issue has been downplayed. "There has been more research done on how harmful fluoride can be for children, and I will try to make people more aware of its dangers. I am very disappointed by the Select Board's decision, but it is just a little stumbling block," she said. Stolar added that she has already submitted a warrant article to have the fluoride question appear at the Town Meeting. "We have learned more about fluoride than we did in 1989. Nothing in this world is the same as it was in 1989," Stolar said. |