This article really hit me the wrong way (Link...).

No matter what your position on the fluoridation of water is, I doubt you will agree that such an important decision should be made based purely on decree of the Mayor and professional fatigue:

“After the careful consideration of a request from the Blount County Mayor’s Office to reconsider fluoridating the county’s water system, SBCUD felt it was no longer in our best interest to exhaust the time and efforts of our executive staff in another public fight over such a divisive issue.

“We understand that our decision will be disappointing to many of our customers and for that we are very sorry. We regret that we are not able to meet the individual desires of each of customers on both sides of the issue.”

Lemme guess: the Mayor is the one who appoints members of the Utility Board and he made it clear he could replace folks who didn't go his way. Is there a copy of the "request from the Blount County Mayor's office"?

While undeniably controversial, the South Blount Utility Board's decision NOT to fluoridate was entirely defensible. There is plenty of evidence to the potential dangers. Not to mention that years of committee/community work had gone into making and evaluating the decision. Then all efforts were undone by a single megalomaniac who can't leave anything up to the people responsible for it?

Perhaps the Mayor never saw this video, from a state legislator who has such items as these on his curriculum vitae:

Fellow, American Academy of Family Physicians
Tennessee Academy of Family Physicians
American Medical Association
Tennessee Medical Association
Lewis County Medical Examiner
Lewis County Health Council

While the Mayor is out and about making decrees, perhaps he will also decree that all families in the South Blount Utility District receive the warning that baby formula should NOT be prepared with the new fluoridated water and that these families must now invest in bottled water or ready-to-eat formula? This is according to the American Dental Association: (Link...). Oh, and while they still promote fluoride in the water the CDC agrees with this assertion that infants are receiving too much and goes on to say that 33% of children in the U.S. have very mild to mild fluorosis and that they've recently discovered this effect is on the permanent teeth as well: (Link...)

It now appears that the amount of the fluoride contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a child’s risk for developing enamel fluorosis, particularly if the child’s sole source of nutrition is from reconstituted infant formula.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but it seems to me it is far easier to provide annual fluoride treatments (and virtually all toothpastes on the market are fluoridated) to the underprivileged than it is to provide bottled water or ready-mix formula to the underprivileged.

When I was a kid, a hundred years ago, they actually gave out fluoride treatments to kids who qualified at school. Don't they still do that?

From the DT Link... :

In September 2006, the county’s undedicated fund balance, its equivalent of a savings account, had dipped to just about $800,000 because of the spending of previous commissions.

“That was frightening,” Cunningham said. “We were in precarious financial shape as related to our rainy-day fund.”

Because of spending restraint and other measures, the fund balance now stands at about $3.2 million and is expected to reach about $6 million next fiscal year, Cunningham said.

“We’re moving in the right direction,” he said. “We need to continue building this fund (to about $9 million). I’m asking your help in doing that.”

The mayor also went on at length about having a ridiculous arrangement with an insurance policy that cost $300K a year, had a $250K deductible and only paid a max of $1million. He stated we had never paid more than the deductible (although we are a couple of broken arms away from it staying that way) Smartly, we dropped that policy and are now self insured.

The mayor also stated the "rainy day fund" was needed in case of a catastrophe. The question: Why do we need two different "insurance" policies?

At any rate, would it be more likely that Blount is going to have a "catastrophe" or a certain bank will get $9million dollars richer?

Wouldn't you trust yourself with your money in case of a "catastrophe" more so than you would trust Blount County's fiscal governence? "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." used to be a joke. I don't think many local and national leaders get it anymore.

Given some of the recent discussions here, you might find this interesting.