Evening star., 1952-03-09
Captive potients and DRINKING Voter

hearings, just cOncluQeQ py the House COM
mittee on Chemicals in Foods, should persuade
the Commissioners to reconsider their decision
to begin using a f1uoride compound in Wash
lngton's water supply this spring.
Reconsideration does not necessarily mean
abandonment of the project. 1t does mean re-
viewing decision on the basis Of all the testi-
nnony, pro and con, that was not available when
the original decision was reached. For the first
time since the fluoridation rage hit the country
aS wholesale method Of preventing or retarding
tooth decay in children, public forum has been
provided for expert witnesses to testify on both
sides Of the issue and to submit themselves to
examination by committee OF Congress The
chief thing revealed by this testimony is that
the experts disagree among themselves.
Those who recommend caution, and delay,
In medicinal treatment of city populations by
the water they must drink are not crackpots or
obstructionists. They are specialists in their own
fields whose convictions are entitled to respect.
Those who must make the final decision on
what is to be done in Washington, whether it
Is the Commissioners or the appropriations COM
mitteeS of Congress-, or both should read the
testimony and the forthcoming report of the
committee before deciding to add WaShingtonS
population to the increasing number of human
guinea pigs already enlisted in the great
experiment.
Up to this time, the debate over use of
duorides in Washington has been conducted
purely on the issue of cost. The Commissioners
at first did not want to spend the money. But
they changed their minds, the appropriations
committees went along, and the decision was
reached on that basis There was no authoriz-
ing legislation, as such-merely an appropria-
ton to purchase the chemicals and equipment.
There was of course, supporting testimony by
dentists, public health authorities and doctors,
who thought it was fine thing and perfectly
safe. But there was no expression from the
doubling ThomaSeS, whose number seems to be
increasing all the time judging from the articles
that are appearing, pro and con, in profess
sional magazines.
One recent article, for example, in the Janu-
ary Journal of the American Public Health Assoc
cation reaches this conclusion: "There is insufh-
cient evidence at the present time to justify the
use of any fluoride compound other than sodium
duoride, except on a study basis as the huori-
dating agent of a community water supply"
The District is planning to use sodium silicofuo-
ride, because it is cheaper. We are more or
less dependent on the advice of the experts.
But when the experts begin to disagree, and
to the extent that marks their debate over
huoridation, the laymen who make the political
decisions would be well advised to delay until
more is known than appears to be known re-
garding all effects of the chemical when added
to drinking water.
Laymen who have watched the rise and fall
of so many fads among the medical men have
a right to demand more unchallenged proof OF
public benefit than the House hearings have
produced, before subjecting the people here to
enforced medication through the public drinking
water supply. The Supreme Court now has before
1t an issue involving the legality of compelling
captive audiences on public vehicles to listen
to radio advertising What about captive pa
Hents, who must drink medicated water because
somebody says it will help their teeth?