Bellefonte Water Authority Case Summary

902 Words4 Pages
Bellefonte borough council members had met in May to discuss the possible discontinuation of fluoride to its water system. Many local residents and area dentist disagreed with the decision. The decision came following an inspection by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. They determined that the authority was not adding the minimum amount of fluoride needed, and in order to add the correct amount, authority costs would increase up to 317,000 according to an estimate from Nittany Engineering and Associates. The authority would have to build a separate facility that includes an emergency deluge shower and storage dedicated solely for fluoride purposes. In early November, council held a public hearing in which local residents and council members voiced their concerns about the Bellefonte Water Authority’s decision to discontinue fluoridation. The majority present expressed strong concerns to keep fluoridation in the water, including concerns about health benefits of fluoride. In the U.S, approximately 70 percent of public water supplies are fluoridated, which equates to about 185 million people, according to FluorideAlert.org. Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to public water systems to help prevent tooth decay and cavities. According to the Livescience website, fluoride operates on…show more content…
“It’s proven that higher levels of fluoride can cause upper respiratory issues to workers.” “And I don’t want my coworkers or myself dealing with the long lasting effects of this damage.” said Woodley. “The debate is still going on, but we are already exposed to fluoride and chlorine in the air that is considered ‘safe’ by the government, we don’t need to add on to other serious medical issues.” said

More about Bellefonte Water Authority Case Summary

Open Document