Evening star., 1952-03-04

~---~->->--~------>
their support for fluoridation Of
water. Then committee members
set out to find an alternative.
While conceding that fiuerides
help prevent tooth decay, they
wanted to know whether it would
be safer to put the chemical di-
rectly on the teeth, in milk or in
pills rather than in all of a citys
water.
These suggestions were turned
down by John D. Porterfield,
spokesman for the Association of
State and Territorial Health on
GERS. He testified that painting
teeth was too expensive, making
people take pills was impossible,
and putting the chemical in milk
would let control get out of the
hands of skilled technicians.
ANA Repeats Endorsement.
Mr.. Portefield, the Ohio State
health officer, said the Association
of Health Officers strongly backed
fiuoridation as the simplest,
cheapest way to reach the most
people. The American Medical
Association submitted a written
statement repeating AMA's stand:
'Fluoridation of public water sup
plies in concentration not ex-
|ceeding one part per million is
non-toxic and its principle is in
dorsed."
The District plans to start
huoridating water this spring at a
ratio of one part fluoride to q
million parts of water.
Representative Miller, Repub-
lican, of Nebraska. an opponent Of
|fluoridation. suggested that per-
sons wanting fluoride might be
able to take it In tablets. Rep
lresentative Hedrick, Democrat, OF
West Virginia threw out the idea
lof putting the chemical in milk
with the idea of reaching children,
who are most responsive to the
benefits of fluoride. Representa-
tive Abernethy, Democrat, of Mis-
lsissippi said this was an Inter.
esting" idea.
Sees No Valid Objection.
When Mr.. Porterfield argued
that putting the chemical in milk
would be too complicated, Repre-
sentative Hedrick snapped, well.
I'm convinced that I don't need
amy fluorine in my system"
Since fluorine is most effective
among children, and since they
drink more milk than adults, I
don't see why we can't put it in
milk"
Mr.. Portefield tried to ease the
committees fears that f1uorida-
tion of water might harm some
lperSons. He said that -huoridated
water approaches a concentrating
producing mild mottling in q
small percentage of individuals.
II do not think this constitutes
a valid objection" Mr.. Porter
field testified. 1.-THE mildest mot
tling is apparent only on skilled
clinical examination.
Even in the occasional case
where mild mottling might be
more visible, it could be objec-
'tionable only on esthetic cosmetic
grounds. On the other hand,
carries (tooth cavities) formation
lis Objectionable on the grounds
not only Of esthetics but Of
health.
Challenged by Chairman.
IF had to choose between 10
per cent of the community's chill
dren having mild nothing and SO
per cent of them having extern
sive carries, I would unhesitatingly
choose the mottling.
THE association took due cog
nizance OF the alleged hazards Of
this practice and found no sup
porting evidence. The associa-
Ition is seriously concerned with
the kind of information given
lcredence in this hearing and urges
that extreme care be used in
weighing the evidence which, in
the view of the State health au-
lthorities of the United States, is
overwhelmingly in favor of the
general use of controlled fiuori.
Idation of public water supplies"
Chairman Delaney, showing
more hostility toward fiuoridation
than ever before, challenged Mr..
Porterfield to single out any anti
fluoridation witness whose testi-
Imony could not be accepted. Mr..
Porterfield declined. Mr.. Delaney
suggested some persons might be
trying to discredit witnesses with
lwhom thew diSapreod