Fluoridation debate likely

Press, 27 March 1981, Page 4

Fluoridation debate likely

The Christchurch City Council is getting ready for another debate on fluoridation of the city’s water supply.

Fluoridation was rejected by a 10-7 vote in 1979, and past councils have said that: even a supporting vote would be followed by a referendum.

Referenda on the issue have tended to lean heavily against fluoridation, and some councillors think that a poll would be a waste of money because its outcome could be so easily predicted. A report to the health and general committee yesterday said that a postal referendum could cost at least $54,000 for postage, material, and labour. No committees or commissions of inquiry have supported the use of referenda to decide the fluoridation issue.

Councillors yesterday said that the whole council should have a chance to read the fluoridation report, which again repeats

evidence of the benefits of fluoridation. The latest costs show that if would cost $943,000 to buy and install fluoridation equipment for the water supply system. Half of that would be financed by a new Government subsidy for local bodies faced with fluoridation costs.

In addition, annual operating costs of fluoridation could be $153,155. Cr Nola Massey, a fluoridation opponent, said that rising costs of renewing water mains — and the financial inability of the council to replace them fast enough — was enough of an argument! against taking on the added costs of fluoridation. If the council made a decision in favour of fluoridation and tried to raise the money by loan, there would be “no problem getting a compulsory loan poll,” said the committee’s chairman, Sir Robert Macfarlane, who is another opponent! of fluoridation.