The Goffstown News ­ September 9, 2004

This week's stories: (click on the headline to jump to story)
The great fluoride debate: How do you decide?; Laws change on vote; The pros and cons:
More than 600 students in space for 450 crowd Weare Middle School
Monty offers land for kindergarten

The great fluoride debate: public health vs. individual rights

News Analysis

How do you decide?

By GINGER KOZLOWSKI
Staff Writer
editor@hooksettbanner.com

When it comes to matters of public health, it's often hard to know who to believe. For instance, we were told a low-fat diet was the way to go, now high fat and low carb is in vogue. Claims are made about supplements being safe because they are all natural, yet those same supplements can cause harm.

About some issues we are relatively sure. Smoking causes cancer. Too much alcohol is bad for you. Exercise is a good thing for your body.

And, until recently, fluoride in the water supply was generally considered safe and effective ­ even one of the top 10 public health achievements in human history.

The vote being made by Hooksett, Bedford, Goffstown, Londonderry and Manchester on Tuesday, Sept. 14, will be a difficult one for residents since there are two ways of looking at this issue.

Either you see it as a health issue or you see it as an individual rights issue.

Individual rights vs. the greater good of the community New Hampshire is well known for its Live Free or Die slogan. It is a credo many people live by here. For instance, this state allows adults to ride motorcycles without helmets because the prevailing sentiment is that the government has no right to tell adults how to act. If you believe the government has no right to put substances in municipal drinking water beyond what makes it safe to drink, you will undoubtedly vote against putting fluoride in the water. It's certainly possible for anyone interested in getting fluoride supplements to do so, allowing the population as a whole to avoid unwanted substances in the water. However, if you believe the greater good of the community is served by having fluoride, you will vote in favor of the question. This assumes the health risks of adding fluoride are negligible, and that the population as a whole will have stronger teeth and fewer cavities through the addition of fluoride. Health concerns So, if you would like to do the greatest good for the community, is fluoride the healthy benefit it has been promoted to be all these years? The two sides on this question are rather lopsided. On the pro-fluoride side is the body of scientific evidence, supported by endorsements from the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association and the Centers for Disease Control.

MORE THAN JUST A DRINK ­ Fluoride is currently added to water coming from Manchester Water Works. If removed, there are still fluoridated toothpastes and even fluoride gel that residents could use in its place. (Ginger Kozlowski Photo)

On the anti-fluoride side are innumerable groups such as Citizens Against Fluoride Exposure and Citizens for Clean Water. These are, on the whole, activist groups, grassroots efforts to take fluoride out of drinking water.


Anti-fluoride groups point out the warning on toothpastes urging a call to the poison control center if more than a tiny bit of toothpaste is swallowed. The compound used to fluoridate water has cancer-causing agents such as lead, mercury and arsenic in it. How could fluoridated water possibly be safe if it contains these elements?

The problem here is who to believe. The scientific community has certainly been proved wrong before. Sometimes it takes activist groups to get commonly held beliefs to be re-examined, such as the belief that mentally impaired people are only worth locking away. And as we see in the news every day, beliefs about what is or is not desirable in one's diet can change radically.
Play it safe, say the anti-fluoride people. Why force everyone to have a possibly dangerous substance in their water?

Because it is a greater benefit to the community, say fluoride advocates. The risk is so small as to be negligible, but the benefit is great to all, especially to those in our community who cannot afford fluoride treatments or visits to the dentist.

If you believe that science serves the greater good, you will vote for fluoridation. If you are not sure science has all the answers and would rather play it safe, you will vote against.

How many people believe in fluoride's safety will be answered with the Sept. 14 vote.

Why We're Voting

Laws change on vote

By DEVON CORMIER
Staff Writer
dcormier@yourneighborhoodnews.com

The referendum on community water fluoridation is just around the corner. Many people are asking, how did we get here ­ again?

On Tuesday, Sept. 14, Manchester, Goffstown, Londonderry, Bedford and Hooksett will vote on the issue of community water fluoridation because they receive water from Manchester Water Works. Auburn and Derry also receive some city water, but they won't be a part of that vote.

Richard DiPentima, deputy public health director of the Manchester Department of Public Health said the list of legalities leading to this vote dates back to 1998.

DiPentima said that two dentists working with the department of public health went to Manchester elementary schools each year for 20 years. Their data indicates that 60 percent of children have tooth decay. This report caused the department to spring to action in 1998.

In 1998, the Manchester Department of Public Health teamed up with the Healthy Manchester Leadership Council to get a petition signed by 10 percent of Manchester's registered voters.

In step with past legislation, since Manchester is the owner of Manchester Water Works, only Manchester voters needed to sign the petition and vote.

In November of 1999, Manchester voters approved water fluoridation by a very slim margin. In 2001, a lawsuit was filed in Superior Court asking that Manchester be barred from fluoridating the water because outlying communities did not get to vote.

The court ruled all affected communities should vote, but because the law was unclear, it gave the city of Manchester until June 2005 to remedy the situation with new legislation. Manchester filed Senate Bill 449 in response, which would have established that only the community that owns the public water supply gets to vote. The Senate amended the bill, adding that every voter in any community that receives water from Manchester gets to vote.

Rotted baby teeth result from sugary drinks and no fluoride.  A milder case of fluorosis leaves white spots on teeth.

The House further amended the bill to say that communities with fewer than 100 direct connections to the water supply do not get to vote. Auburn and Derry are those communities. Manchester is also required to revote.

Now, a lawsuit has been filed by Auburn and Derry residents who receive city water and are being denied a vote. A hearing on the issue was scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 8, in the Hillsborough County Superior Court in Manchester. Results could not be obtained by press time.

Attorney Jed Z. Callen is representing Auburn residents Thomas Upham and David Lariviere, Derry residents Fred W. DeJong, and Kim and Charles Statler, and Manchester state Rep. Barbara J. Hagan.

Hagan said there are two parts to the lawsuit.

"Voters of Auburn and Derry are again being denied a vote on this issue," Hagan said.

She said this is unconstitutional and a denial of due process.

Also, Hagan said the lawsuit will address the wording of the ballot question. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is the actual material being added to the water, whereas the ballot question reads simply "fluoride."

Things to Consider

The pros and cons:

By DEVON CORMIER
Staff Writer
dcormier@yourneighborhoodnews.com

Since December of 2000, Manchester Water Works has been adding one part per million of hydrofluorosilicic acid, or fluoride, to its water. A meter monitors the amount of fluoride at all times.

Irene Beaulieu of the Central Hooksett Water Precinct said the precinct serves approximately 1,500 Hooksett households and businesses. The area that is serviced with city water runs from the Space Center to Granite Hills. Auburn has just under 100 service connections.

Tom Bowen, of the Manchester Water Works, said approximately 3,000 Bedford residents receive city water containing fluoride.

Bowen also said most of the Pinardville area in Goffstown is also served by Manchester, adding up to about 3,000 people. There are about 1,300 service connections to Goffstown residents, but, generally speaking, more than one resident uses the water for each connection.

Both opponents and proponents of fluoridated water have written and spoken extensively on the subject. The source of information is not always not clear, and the credibility of every statement is sometimes in question. These are some of the often heard and read-about reasons to support or denounce fluoride at the Sept. 14 vote.

The Manchester Department of Public Health has put out a lot of literature concerning the benefits of fluoride. Public Health Director Fred Rusczek has also spoken about the perceived benefits of community fluoridated water many times.  "We know that fluoridation is the single most important thing a community can do to improve oral health," Rusczek said. "It's not only beneficial to kids but to adults as well ­ if they still have teeth."

Adult teeth also get cavities more often without fluoride.

Pro-fluoride

These are some of the reasons to vote for continuing water fluoridation according to the Manchester Department of Public Health:

· Community water fluoridation is the single most effective way to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health.

· Fluoridated water is safe for all populations.

· Fluoridated water has been named one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.

· People who drink fluoridated water will have 35 percent less tooth decay.

· Water is the most effective way to deliver fluoride to the body.

· For every dollar invested in fluoridated water, $80 of dental treatment will be averted.

· It costs about a quarter per person per year to fluoridate Manchester's water.

· Close to 170 million people in over 10,000 American communities are drinking fluoridated water.

· Some communities have fluoridated their water for close to 60 years, Durham fluoridated its water in 1955, and was the first New Hampshire community to do so.

· Fluoridation of community water supplies is supported by many organizations, including the American Dental Association, American Medical Association, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and many others.

· Fluoridated water does not taste any different than non-fluoridated water.

· Fluoride is a naturally occurring element in water, food, rocks and soil.

Anti-fluoride

Citizens Against Fluoride Exposure, headed by Manchester resident Lloyd Basinow, and other opponents of community water fluoridation have put out literature, spoken publicly and filed lawsuits to express their beliefs about fluoridating the water.

"No citizen should be forced against their will to consume toxic chemicals such as mercury, lead, iron and arsenic in their drinking water as the Water Works has publicly admitted is contained in their fluoridation agent, hydrofluorosilicic acid," Basinow said. "If allowed to continue, what next will be added to the water without our knowledge and consent in the name of the public's welfare and interest?"

These are the arguments of Citizens Against Fluoride to vote not to continue fluoridating the water:

· Fluoride contains lead, arsenic, cyanide and mercury.

· The Federal Environmental Protection Agency has said these things should be at zero to ensure that there are no health risks.

· Fluoride comes from industrial waste.

· Too much fluoride can cause fluorosis, which can cause spotting on teeth and possibly lead to skeletal problems. · The American Dental Association receives money for endorsing fluoride. · All residents who receive city water should get to vote, including Auburn and Derry who are currently being denied the vote. · Some populations, including the diabetic, people on dialysis, children, the elderly and others can be vulnerable to contaminants that fluoride contains and will have to buy bottled water.

Too much fluoride causes fluorosis. This is an extreme case.

· Fluoridated water tastes bad.

· Contaminants in fluoride build up in the body and can cause cancer.

· Fluoridated water can contain contaminants that adversely affect the development of children.

· People who want fluoride can buy it at one of many area stores, why force it on everybody?

· Baby formula should not ever contain fluoridated water or it could adversely affect your child.

· Fluoride can adversely affect the environment and wildlife.

Weare

More than 600 students in space for 450 crowd Weare Middle School

By JENNIFER CLAISE
Staff Writer
jclaise@yourneighborhoodnews.com

The beginning of the year at Weare Middle School was like that of any other school, where students outfitted with new clothes and backpacks were excited to see their friends and eager to be back in class, not yet bored with their daily routines.

During art and the breaks between classes, students chatted excitedly with friends and stopped to say hi to Principal David Pabst.

But what makes them different from some other students in the state is that their school facility, which consists of two separate buildings, has reached "the end of its useful life as a school," according to Superintendent Christine Tyrie.

The school, which was built for a capacity of 450 students, now has about 610, according to Pabst. The electrical system is not expected to last much longer, and the heating system is no longer adequate, so the temperatures can fluctuate wildly. Additionally, 21 out of the 24 classrooms do not meet state guidelines for minimum square feet. And the problems continue. Art classes are held in what used to be a garage, where the door is often left open even in the middle of the winter, since the heating system can cause temperatures to reach into the 90s, according to Assistant Principal Meeta Brown. "You never quite know how it's going to be in there," said Brown, who has been in her position since 1991. The majority of special education classes are held in former storage closets, and the cramped speech and language classroom used to be a bathroom. The only storage space the school has is underneath the gym, where the former locker rooms and showers are packed with desks, boxes and other assorted items. The area has been deemed structurally unsafe for students, so they have no place to shower or to change before gym class.

GARAGE AS CLASSROOM ­ The art classes at Weare Middle School are held in a garage, where tables and supplies are packed into a small space. The temperature in the garage fluctuates between 60 and 90 degrees, and the door is often left open, even in winter, when it gets too hot. There are also offices in former bathrooms at the school. (Jennifer Claise Photo)

This is a major problem, according to Pabst, since some seventh- and eighth-graders have to travel between the gym and their main building ­ in the sweaty clothes they wore in gym class ­ in the middle of winter.

"They're wet, and it takes one full minute for them to get from building to building," Pabst said. "It only takes 15 seconds for frostbite to set in, and we had 29 days that were below zero last winter."

Some seventh- and eighth-graders must also leave their main building to get to the cafeteria. Fifth-graders, sixth-graders, and the rest of the seventh- and eighth-graders, who have classes in the white building, must travel outside to get to their art, music and tech classes in the main building.

Every 50 minutes, there are about 150 students moving between the two buildings, Brown said. And in the winter, it is very difficult for the school's maintenance staff to keep the outside pathways cleared of snow and safe for student travel.

Another major problem, according to Pabst and Brown, is that the school does not have the resources to keep up with the curriculum they should be offering at the seventh- and eighth-grade levels. For example, science classrooms are not equipped with water, gas or safety showers.

"They can't really be called labs, at all," Brown said. "We really can't offer them the education they should be getting at this level. Quite simply, our physical plant is not condusive to a middle-school education."

Despite the school's many problems, Pabst said that many parents and town residents are unaware of the poor conditions because the students generally have a good attitude about their surroundings, and the teachers do a good job of keeping them happy.

"They certainly do make the best of it, and they don't go home complaining," said Pabst, adding that many of the students have never seen another middle school for comparison.

Still, talk of a new middle school has been circulating amongst the students for some time now.

"The kids are very excited about a new middle school. I have heard them talking about it a lot," Pabst said.

Brown said she hopes that more parents and residents will come in to check out the facility for themselves.

"This is their building, and they need to know what happens here," Brown said. "I hope people will ask us the tough questions, and determine for themselves whether this is a building that works for what they're trying to put in it."

The next public meeting with Team Design, Inc., the architectural firm working to design a new school, will be held Tuesday, Sept. 14, at the middle school.

Goffstown

Monty offers land for kindergarten

By RUSS CHOMA
Staff Writer
rchoma@yourneighborhoodnews.com

Local developer Ed Monty said he is formally offering the school district a piece of property adjoining Goffstown High School for the construction of a public kindergarten.

Monty, who represents the development firm Brookfield Investments Group, said his company put the offer in writing with a letter to the school district on Friday, Sept. 3. Monty said the offer, which he said came "with no strings attached," is a possible solution to the town's dilemma if the current site cannot be used to construct the school.

School officials said they had received the letter, but until it was brought to the attention of the board, could not comment.

The land, which Monty described as 10 to 12 acres behind the Villa Augustina School, and adjacent to the Goffstown High School football field, has been discussed as a possibility in the past. In 2002, SAU 19 Superintendent Darrell Lockwood and Monty worked with contractor T.F. Moran to develop a rough school site plan, just to see if a school could be located on the site.

School board member Scott Gross said that when Monty offered the land originally, the board rejected it because of those issues of space and wetlands.

"He did come before the board, with the same type of thing, but when we looked at it, it clearly wasn't big enough," Gross said. "It wasn't appealing at the time."

Although nothing came of the discussions, Monty now says the offer for the land is formally on the table. He also believes past concerns over wetlands on the parcel could easily be addressed.

"I can tell you it's going to require some form of wetlands work," Monty said. "But show me a piece of land in New Hampshire that doesn't under the new (state) regulations."

Monty said he could say "with substance, you can certainly place the school that Darrell designed (conceptually in 2002) on that property."

Monty said his offer could be expanded to include as much as 14 acres. Brookfield Investments controls approximately 109 acres in two separate parcels and is currently seeking to develop a large portion of the property into residential units.

That proposal has been on the table for several years, and following the planning board's rejection of the plan, it is currently being appealed to Hillsborough County Superior Court. According to Monty, a court-ordered "workout" between Brookfield Investments and the town is nearing completion. Following those negotiations, Monty said the current proposal being considered calls for 120 units of one-level, "garden style" apartments, Monty said. It would also include 30 townhouses.

Bias against Monty?

Monty said he is concerned that school or town officials may have a bias against him.

"My question is, what do you have against Brookfield?" Monty asked, saying his company's suggestion has never been taken seriously, even though he believes it is a legitimate offer.

Monty said he has consistently shown good will toward the town with several of his developments, including spending more than he was required to to provide extra water lines, allowing a ball field to be irrigated. He suggested a bias might exist because he is not a Goffstown-based developer.

"There aren't many guys out there who would've done that," Monty said. "They don't like me, because I'm from Bedford."

Lockwood and Gross both said any suggestion of a bias against Monty is untrue.

Gross praised Monty for his quality residential development, but said school officials have to be suspicious of any offer "unless it's an outright donation of land that's already subdivided."

"From the school board's perspective, there's no bias against anybody. We'd listen to anyone's offer for free land," Gross said. "But you've got to be very careful with developers."

Monty reiterated his promise that any offer was "no strings attached."

"We could say it was a gift from my heart," Monty said, responding to questions over his motivations for making the donation. "And it's probably 95 percent from my heart, but 5 percent is that we expect (town and school officials) to be cordial to us."