Fluoridation

The third skirmish in Cambridge's long battle over foundation will be fought in a referendum Nov. 5. If can extrapolate from past referenda--the fluoridation of City water was rejected by over 6,000 votes in and approved by 42 votes in 1959--the result should be a decisive victory for the profluoride forces. Both sides are confident of victory, however, and seems likely to admit permanent defeat.

Why fluoridation should be so controversial here is . The weight of medical opinion clearly supports it; public health officials from the national level down have issued endorsements; most large cities (with the notable exceptions of Boston, New York, and Los Angeles) have been fluoridating their water for years. An expert on Cambridge politics, who believes that ignorance and distrust are basic factors in the controversy, explains simply that "the uneducated people in East Cambridge think the educated people in West Cambridge are trying to poison them."

Whether or not this is true, the battle lines in the fluoridation dispute are clearly drawn between socio-economic groups. The progressive, "good government" people are campaigning for fluoridation, with the support of the University community and residents of the better sections of the city. Opponents of fluoridation generally live in the less wealthy middle and eastern parts of Cambridge. Although it is difficult to identify their leaders with any certainty, a prominent figure among them is Charles H. McGlue, an associate of Boston's former mayor James M. Curley and an extreme conservative.

The arguments used by both sides are familiar from earlier disputes in other communities. The antifluoridationists, while they may believe they are the intended victims of municipal genocide, have not said so. (Some antifluoridation literature, however, hints that the Russians have found fluoridation an effective way of eliminating minorities.) Instead, they claim that fluoridation causes mottled teeth, violates the rights of Christian Scientists, and rots the water pipes. The other side, in turn, repeats the customary rebuttals, primarily that flouridation results in healthier teeth.

A long-range goal of the profluoridationists is to remove the matter from the area of public debate, and make it, like any other public health question, the concern of the municipal health authorities. By an act of the legislature in May, 1962, Massachusetts became one of the three states--the others are Maine and Nebrasks--that require referenda to begin or end fluoridation. Mrs. Raymond A. Bauer, chairman of the leading profluoridation group, says that no action has yet been taken to change the law. Unless it is amended, however, there will undoubtedly be a fourth fluoridation vote in 1965, and probably others at irregular intervals thereafter.

Why fluoridation should be so controversial here is . The weight of medical opinion clearly supports it; public health officials from the national level down have issued endorsements; most large cities (with the notable exceptions of Boston, New York, and Los Angeles) have been fluoridating their water for years. An expert on Cambridge politics, who believes that ignorance and distrust are basic factors in the controversy, explains simply that "the uneducated people in East Cambridge think the educated people in West Cambridge are trying to poison them."

Whether or not this is true, the battle lines in the fluoridation dispute are clearly drawn between socio-economic groups. The progressive, "good government" people are campaigning for fluoridation, with the support of the University community and residents of the better sections of the city. Opponents of fluoridation generally live in the less wealthy middle and eastern parts of Cambridge. Although it is difficult to identify their leaders with any certainty, a prominent figure among them is Charles H. McGlue, an associate of Boston's former mayor James M. Curley and an extreme conservative.

The arguments used by both sides are familiar from earlier disputes in other communities. The antifluoridationists, while they may believe they are the intended victims of municipal genocide, have not said so. (Some antifluoridation literature, however, hints that the Russians have found fluoridation an effective way of eliminating minorities.) Instead, they claim that fluoridation causes mottled teeth, violates the rights of Christian Scientists, and rots the water pipes. The other side, in turn, repeats the customary rebuttals, primarily that flouridation results in healthier teeth.

A long-range goal of the profluoridationists is to remove the matter from the area of public debate, and make it, like any other public health question, the concern of the municipal health authorities. By an act of the legislature in May, 1962, Massachusetts became one of the three states--the others are Maine and Nebrasks--that require referenda to begin or end fluoridation. Mrs. Raymond A. Bauer, chairman of the leading profluoridation group, says that no action has yet been taken to change the law. Unless it is amended, however, there will undoubtedly be a fourth fluoridation vote in 1965, and probably others at irregular intervals thereafter.

Whether or not this is true, the battle lines in the fluoridation dispute are clearly drawn between socio-economic groups. The progressive, "good government" people are campaigning for fluoridation, with the support of the University community and residents of the better sections of the city. Opponents of fluoridation generally live in the less wealthy middle and eastern parts of Cambridge. Although it is difficult to identify their leaders with any certainty, a prominent figure among them is Charles H. McGlue, an associate of Boston's former mayor James M. Curley and an extreme conservative.

The arguments used by both sides are familiar from earlier disputes in other communities. The antifluoridationists, while they may believe they are the intended victims of municipal genocide, have not said so. (Some antifluoridation literature, however, hints that the Russians have found fluoridation an effective way of eliminating minorities.) Instead, they claim that fluoridation causes mottled teeth, violates the rights of Christian Scientists, and rots the water pipes. The other side, in turn, repeats the customary rebuttals, primarily that flouridation results in healthier teeth.

A long-range goal of the profluoridationists is to remove the matter from the area of public debate, and make it, like any other public health question, the concern of the municipal health authorities. By an act of the legislature in May, 1962, Massachusetts became one of the three states--the others are Maine and Nebrasks--that require referenda to begin or end fluoridation. Mrs. Raymond A. Bauer, chairman of the leading profluoridation group, says that no action has yet been taken to change the law. Unless it is amended, however, there will undoubtedly be a fourth fluoridation vote in 1965, and probably others at irregular intervals thereafter.