Utah lawmakers vote to say farewell to fluoridated drinking water
A controversial bill to prohibit the introduction of fluoride into public drinking water systems in Utah passed the Senate Friday and is destined to become a new law if Gov. Spencer Cox signs it.
HB81 by Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain, would zap the injection of fluoride, derived from hydrofluorosilicic acid, into drinking water. As a concentrate in its undiluted form, hydrofluorosilicic acid is classified as a hazardous, poisonous material. While it contains fluoride, it also contains arsenic, lead, copper, manganese, iron and aluminum. It is a byproduct from phosphate mining operations.
That chemistry debate came up Friday prior to the Senate's passage of the bill on a 18-8 vote.
Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, argued that fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral and tests show that many communities exceed the dosage amount of injected water systems of .007 parts per million recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
That dosage, however, is under review given a California federal court decision on the issue.
'I don't really have a dog in the fight whether we fluoridate our water or not, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the legislature telling Salt Lake City, Brigham City, Helper and Davis County that their local authorities can't do what their residents have voted to do, so that's why I'll be voting no,' he said.
Both Davis and Weber counties have previously voted to introduce fluoride into drinking water by a vote of the citizens, as has Brigham City.
But Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, emphasized the bill allows people to go to a pharmacist to get fluoride supplements for dental care.
'This bill does not prohibit anybody from taking fluoride in whatever fashion they want. It just disallows people who do not want fluoride from having to consume fluoride in their water,' he said.
Cullimore's district envelopes Sandy which had a disastrous overfeed of fluoride in 2019.
In that incident, the well's pump was operational, and when an alarm went off and was cleared, the fluoride pump began to work, discharging the fluoride. Because it is 20% denser than water, it displaced the water and was fed by gravity into a portion of the drinking water system.
Residents began to complain as early as Feb. 6 in 2019, when a resident was informed by the public utilities department that it was a water softener problem. The resident, however, didn't have a water softener at the home.
The Utah Division of Drinking Water was notified Feb. 8 and told the city to expand what it was sampling for and the geographic area as well.
In testimony before Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, R- South Jordan, stressed a number of factors.
'My response to those would be that there is a difference between medicated fluoride that is added to water, and the element fluoride that occurs naturally because it exists in our world. All medications come prescribed at a dose. Right? You take Tylenol, you're taking one pill, you are getting 200 milligrams. And you know, any prescription you get you're going to get, you're going to have so much. This is what is right that's judged by medical professionals for your condition. That is not possible when what you do is add medication to a universal good that everyone has immediate access to, but that nobody is drinking the same amount.'
Supporters of the bill pointed out that it is the only 'medication' added to drinking water.
The bill has faced stiff opposition from dental professionals who argue it has been key to improving dental health in children. While getting a prescription may seem easy at first glance, they have emphasized it places undue burdens on communities.
The bill passed 18-8 in the Senate after passing the House. It is up to the governor on what happens next.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Senate passes budget giving Browns $600 million, tax cut to wealthy, more public school money
Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.) The Ohio Senate has passed a $60 billion state biennial operating budget, which includes a tax cut for the wealthy, some increased public education funding, and $600 million in funding to the Cleveland Browns for their new stadium. The total budget is expected to be around $200 billion once federal dollars come in. Ohio House Bill 96 was voted on mainly along party lines, 23-10. State Sen. Bill Blessing, R-Colerain Township, joined the Democrats to vote no. The senators increased the amount of money going to public schools from the Ohio House's proposal. The Senate budget gives public schools about $100 million more than the House. Although they follow most of the Ohio House's proposed budget, which only gives schools about $226 million of an increase for school funding, the Senate changed the funding 'guarantee' amount. Right now, some districts have guarantees that a portion of their funding will not be reduced, even if their enrollment goes down This $100 million added back would only go to high-performing or 'improving' districts. However, to be fully funded based on statistics from the Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP) from 2021, schools would need an additional $666-800 million, compared to the $226 million given by the House. Still, the Senate's version is closer to the FSFP than the House's. 'We're following the funding scheme that was put together in the first place,' Senate Finance Chair Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, said. 'Our bill is the closest way to get there.' They also raised the House proposal's cap on districts' rainy day funds to 50%, instead of 30%. This would mean that the schools would have to refund anything above that back to the taxpayer to provide property tax relief. 'The priority is not, obviously, in fully funding education, investing in our children and our future,' Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said. The Senate's budget proposal still includes $600 million for a new Cleveland Browns stadium in Brook Park. However, the funding structure differs from what the Browns proposed and what the House approved earlier this year. The House proposed borrowing $600 million by issuing bonds and repaying the debt, with interest, over 25 years, at a cost of about $1 billion. The Senate is proposing a $600 million grant for the stadium using unclaimed funds. That's other people's money that the state is holding, from things like forgotten bank accounts, rent, or utility deposits or uncashed insurance policies. The Ohio Department of Commerce's website states the state is sitting on $4.8 billion in unclaimed funds. Asked about the possibility of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine vetoing that provision, Cirino noted that DeWine said publicly he did not like the debt arrangement of the House for the $600 million. DeWine himself had proposed raising gambling taxes. 'I'm pretty confident and feel good that the governor and the House will look at our approach to it,' Cirino said. Ohio Democratic lawmakers remain staunchly opposed to the project. 'If they could find that money for the Browns and their stadium's move to Brook Park, why didn't they decide to use those funds for the schools?' Antonio asked. The budget also includes a 2.75% flat income tax. There are three income tax brackets in Ohio. Those making up to $26,000 do not need to pay state income tax. Ohioans earning between $26,000 and $100,000 pay a tax of 2.75%. Those making more than $100,000 have to pay 3.5%. State data reveals that this flat tax could result in a loss of about $1.1 billion in the General Revenue Fund. 'The dollars that we're foregoing in the flat tax are already incorporated into our overall spending,' Cirino said. Funding for schools, Medicaid, libraries, lead abatement, food banks, and child care face funding decreases from the current status or from the governor's budget. Asked about these cuts these cuts to social services for lower-income people while giving a tax cut to the state's highest earners, Cirino said Republicans think it's going to be good for the economy. 'It's going to be good for attracting people,' Cirino responded. Antonio disagreed. 'It's a gift to the wealthiest among us on the backs of the poorest and lowest-income and middle-class folks in the state of Ohio,' she said. Senate Republicans propose giving $20,000 to top high school students to encourage them to stay in the state for their higher education. The Governor's Merit Scholarship was passed in the House budget. Already existing, the House language would extend the proposal that gives the top 5% of each graduating high school class $5,000 a year to attend a public or private school in Ohio. But the Senate version reduces the scholarship to the top 2% of students. The money would also have strings attached. The scholarship recipients would be required to reside in Ohio for three years after graduation. There would be an 'expectation' that the money would be returned if they leave within the three years. Now, the Senate and House leaders will enter a conference committee, a closed-door negotiation period to create a final budget. Once a decision is made, both chambers must pass the combined bill. If it passes through both sides, it will be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for review. In the past, he issued dozens of line-item vetoes on operating budgets. Line-item vetoing is the ability for the governor to pick and choose which policies within a larger piece of legislation get to stay or must go. The deadline for the budget to be passed is July 1. Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on X and Facebook. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Are States Gearing Up to Ban Nonstick Cookware?
Photo: Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images If frying eggs or bacon is a regular part of your morning ritual, take note. Soon, your ability to use nonstick cookware may come down to where you live. New York state lawmakers recently introduced a bill that would prohibit 'the manufacture, sale, and use' of cookware containing polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), the primary substance used to create a nonstick surface. Though the chemical compound, commonly known by the brand name Teflon, is approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration, New York has now joined a growing list of states that are proposing to ban—or in some cases, have already banned—nonstick cookware in their territories. Find answers about nonstick pans Is New York banning nonstick cookware? Are nonstick pans safe? What happens when PFAS accumulate in the body? Should consumers throw out nonstick pans? What other states have banned nonstick pans? In January of this year, two New York State senators introduced Senate Bill S1767, which if passed, 'prohibits the manufacture, sale, and use of cookware containing polytetrafluoroethylene.' In the bill's justification, the sponsors write that the chemicals used in nonstick pans are 'within the family of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) which are known to have severe health effects such as harm to reproductive and bodily functions, developmental effects in youth, increased cancer risk and increased risk for high cholesterol and obesity.' It acknowledges that additional research is needed to determine the full scope of risk, but 'we should not leave people vulnerable to the potential negative health effects,' it concludes. The bill is currently in Senate committee, meaning it hasn't been brought to the floor for voting by the whole legislative body. Once on the floor, it needs to be approved by both the New York State Senate and Assembly, then signed into law by the governor. I Tried It I Tried It: Our Place's Cast Iron Always Pan Is The Real Deal Your favorite pan now comes in a sturdier version There is little debate about the safety risk of nonstick pans that do not use Teflon coating, for example ceramic or cast-iron pans. However, those that do use PTFE have raised concerns in recent years. 'PTFE belongs to a subgroup of what is known as PFAS,' explains Bruce Jarnot, PhD, global materials compliance expert, toxicologist, and product compliance advisor at Assent. PFAS are often colloquially called 'forever chemicals,' because they don't degrade over time, and the human body cannot metabolize them. In some instances, this can come in handy. PFAS are used to insulate leads in a pacemaker or used in hip joint replacements since they are inert. 'In these instances, it's fine, it's inert,' Jarnot says. 'But there are other considerations to take into account when considering potential laws like New York State Senate Bill 1767.' The first, he says, is the environmental waste and pollution that manufacturers of products containing PFAS make. 'We all have the monomers—the building blocks of polymers like Teflon—inside us from the manufacturing phase,' Jarnot says, adding that the waste ends up in water and soil, which eventually makes its way to the humans. 'So there's a strong argument against PFAS in general. Because they stay put in the body, and they can accumulate over time when they're in our environment.' In cookware specifically, that potential risk increases because the products are used with high heats. 'That's probably the highest heat environment that a material like Teflon is exposed to. So when you have a pacemaker implanted, it's at body temperature. If you're searing fish or steak in a fry pan, it's being exposed to much higher heat,' he says. Chemical reactions occur faster in hot environments, and, 'You could have decomposition of the polymer giving rise to some really nasty airborne PFAS. And there is probably some internalization of these decomposing products at high temperature.' According to the the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exposure to PFAS could be harmful to human health. 'Scientists at EPA, in other federal agencies, and in academia and industry are continuing to conduct and review the growing body of research about PFAS. However, health effects associated with exposure to PFAS are difficult to specify for many reasons,' the agency says. For that reason, more research is required to determine the exact risks. As Jarnot explains, toxicologists often say that it's the dose that makes the poison. 'So here you have something that's not metabolizing and that is accumulating in your body, creating aggregate exposure. In that case, every bit you add to your exposure cup counts.' Even in states where nonstick pans are legal, some consumers may consider discarding theirs because of potential risk. 'As a toxicologist, I still use Teflon pans,' Jarnot admits. 'But you should never heat them without something in it, and should avoid very high heat.' That said, eliminating nonstick pans could be an easy way to minimize exposure to PFAS. 'You're getting exposure in almost all drinks—water, wine, beer, soda—because it's in the water these drinks are made from. But you need water, you need food. So one of the places you could easily omit exposure is in cookware,' Jarnot adds. Multiple states have passed or are considering legislation about polytetrafluoroethylene in their territories. California, for example, passed a law that states cookware with intentionally added PFAS must be disclosed on product labels; however, it hasn't passed a full ban. Others, like Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island have passed laws that go into effect over the next few years and ban products with intentionally added PFAS. Minnesota passed a law banning PFAS in a number of consumer goods, including cookware, which went into effect in January of this year. Originally Appeared on Architectural Digest More Great Stories From AD Not a subscriber? Join AD for print and digital access now. This Lower East Side Loft Is a Sexy Riff on '90s Basements How a Financial Influencer Upgraded Her Brooklyn Apartment on a Budget 13 Best Platform Beds of 2025 We Use In Our Own Bedrooms
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate GOP blocks pair of resolutions on Qatari jet
Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a Democratic push to combat the White House's potential acceptance of a luxury Qatari jet to become the next Air Force One aircraft. The votes on a pair of resolutions disapproving of Trump administration arms deals was triggered by Democrats in response to the news about the plane, which is valued at $400 million and would be handed over as gift. That has angered many Senate Democrats who have likened the transaction to blatant corruption. One resolution targeted an arms deal with Qatar worth $1.9 billion, while the second took aim at a $1.6 billion deal with the United Arab Emirates. Both resolutions failed 39-56. 'My case is that so long as the relationship is corrupted by the gifts to Trump, we can't move forward on these arms sales,' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told reporters earlier this week. 'There are legitimate underlying policy debates on the two sales, but my case here is you should look beyond the merits of the sale and really focus on the corruption.' Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined Murphy in support of the resolution. The Qatari-owned Boeing jet would be gifted with the intention of using it as Air Force One throughout the remainder of Trump's term before it would be transferred to his presidential library. The Qatari arms sale includes eight MQ-9B armed drones and hundreds of tail kits, 500-pound bombs and Hellfire II missiles. Although Republicans have not joined in the Democratic chorus to intensely criticize the potential transaction, they are not warm to the idea either. A number of Republicans have indicated they are uneasy with the arrangement due to safety, espionage and practicality concerns. Some have wondered publicly why the plane is even necessary given the vast cost for it to be retrofitted for it to only fly for a short period of time. The issue cropped up again on Wednesday as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined to tell senators multiple times about the cost of the jet during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. 'You will have that number, Senator. It just can't be talked about in the public,' Hegseth told Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who was visibly frustrated. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
