City may vote on fluoride
December 8th, 2004 - 8:25am


(Port Angeles) – A new wrinkle in the fight over fluoridation of the city of Port Angeles’ water supply. Last night, the city council heard about a possible vote of the people on fluoride. Ten thousand dollars has been talked about to fund the election. And last night’s suggestion surprised many council members. However, councilman Larry Williams…who opposes fluoridating the city’s water says the city has spent 50-thousand dollars and the water is still not fluoridated. He says another 10-thsouand dollars would be money well spent to find out if citizens want fluoride added. The idea may come up for a vote before the council in the future before possibly heading to citizens for their vote.


Idea of PA fluoride vote resurfaces

Peninsula News Network


Should Port Angeles residents have the opportunity to vote on adding fluoride to the city’s water? Two Port Angeles councilmen think so and are once more making moves to set up such an advisory vote.

It’s been almost two years since the Port Angeles city council voted to add fluoride to the city’s water, answering the call from the area’s dentists and doctors, who said fluoride was the best way to combat the “health crisis” caused by tooth decay.

But fluoride opponents have continued to do everything they can to block those plans. Last summer, they appealed the city’s decision on the grounds that Port Angeles should be required to do a full environmental study before putting fluoride in the water. That appeal failed, but as the year comes to a close, the water still doesn’t have fluoride.

And Councilmen Jack Pittis and Larry Williams still want to see a public vote before fluoride is added. During a discussion on the budget Tuesday night, Williams expressed concerns that the city had spent over 50-thousand dollars on the fluoride issue to date, mainly in staff time handling those appeals. He made a motion to tap into the council’s emergency funds and pay for an advisory election this coming year. Pittis seconded the motion, but the idea didn’t come to a vote. Staff explained it wasn’t necessary to specifically earmark the money for an election, that funds were available if the council chooses to schedule a fluoridation vote. It’s expected Williams and Pittis will bring the idea up for discussion again after the first of the year.



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref.]

Back to Current Edition Citizen Review Archive LINKS Search This Site