MA: Fluoridation of Water Act (Passed)

[Hifly]

What all do you plan on having the region pay for?

Can you please rephrase that; I'm not familiar with American-style English. Is it directed at me?

[Hifly]

This sounds like a good idea as long as everything is regulated well.  I assume you have a scientific basis for the threshold level of fluoride?  

I'm wondering though, why limit it to cities with large populations?  These are the places we could cover with the 150k cap.

Nyman (DC)
Chicago, IL
Aurora, IL
Rockford, IL
Indianapolis, IN
Fort Wayne, IN
Louisville, KY
Lexington, KY
Baltimore, MD
Detroit, MI
Grand Rapids, MI
Kansas City, MO
St. Louis, MO
Springfield, MO
Columbus, OH
Cleveland, OH
Cincinnati, OH
Toledo, OH
Akron, OH
Virginia Beach, VA
Norfolk, VA
Chesapeake, VA
Richmond, VA
Newport News, VA
Milwaukee, WI
Madison, WI

We could probably cover about 20 more cities with a 100k cap.

Indeed, 0.7 mg/L is the recommended level by the US Department of Health and Human Services.
I put a 150,000 population threshold in place due to funding considerations, but if others are also supportive of the idea this bill can be amended to allow for a lower 100,000 threshold.
I am keen to hear what the Federalists think about this idea.

[Hifly]

What all do you plan on having the region pay for?

Can you please rephrase that; I'm not familiar with American-style English. Is it directed at me?

Under your bill, do you want the region or the cities to pay for the construction of the fluoridation facilities?  Do you want the region or the cities to pay for the fluoridation process?

Whichever is more effective and reasonable. I'm thinking the region pays for the fluoride compound and the cities for the fluoridation facilities. What do you think?

[Hifly]

Allow me to pop in here and say that I strongly oppose this bill and I urge my Assemblymen to vote against it, or for the Governor to veto it if it comes his way. The costs aside, I oppose this primarily for health reasons. Consumption of fluoride has been linked to decreases in IQ, disruptions in the brain and kidney, deterioration of the bones, increases in fluorosis, and other nasty things. Fluoride is a poisonous substance to the body that shouldn't be consumed. Toothpaste use is fine and should be encouraged, but I wouldn't want this to be included in the region's water supply.

I'm sorry but this is delusional claptrap; the levels of Fluoride that the population will be exposed to through water fluoridation is far far below the level required for toxic effects. The effects of my plan will be nothing but positive for the health of this region's population and any legislator with sense, whether on the Left or the Right will support this bill. I thank the Governor for understanding the significance of this plan.

[Hifly]

Mr Speaker can you please confirm whether citizens who are not members of this Assembly are still allowed to take an active part in the debate within the Assembly? It kind of ruins the point of having Assembly debates if citizens can occupy the chamber. Spiral should take his issues elsewhere; this is not the place for it.

[Hifly]

What do you mean by "fluoride compound"?

Fluoride is an anion (F-) and so it needs to be administered as a compound; Hexafluorosilicic Acid is the most commonly used now in the US. The acid will disassociate to form the F- anion.

[Hifly]

What do you mean by "fluoride compound"?

Fluoride is an anion (F-) and so it needs to be administered as a compound; Hexafluorosilicic Acid is the most commonly used now in the US. The acid will disassociate to form the F- anion.

OK, so you're saying that you want the region to buy the actual fluoride, but the individual cities will be in charge of building the fluoridation treatment and running the system, correct?

Yes. Does it sound like a feasible plan to you?

[Hifly]

I can certainly testify that the level of Fluoride in water is not uniform in the Mideast. This bill would ensure that the recommended 0.7 mg/L level is adhered to by all concerned cities.

[Hifly]

Good idea. Amendment to be introduced:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Hifly]

Uniform standards is a good reason to support the bill.  We may want to include annual inspections just to be sure.

If we're talking about uniform standards, why limit it to cities with populations above 150,000?  From my calculations, that accounts for 17.6% of the region's population.

Funding considerations but now that we've established that the cities will fund the facilities I can amend the bill again as follows;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we need to take a vote on this amendment?

[Hifly]

No, it's your bill, so the amendment is accepted as friendly.  But I don't think I'll be supporting this if we don't require the cities to pay for the fluoride; I see no reason to have the region pay for the chemical.

I suggest this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amendment is accepted as friendly.
Of course, we can make cities pay for the fluoride. The inspections now introduced will make sure they do the right thing anyway. Let the Game Mod know.

[Hifly]

May I request that we take a final vote on this?

[Hifly]

We don't have a cost estimate yet.  We can take it to a final vote without one if you'd like, but in that case, I'll be voting against it, as we have no clue if we could even afford this.

If we've heard nothing back from the Game Mod by next Friday/Saturday, we'll take this to a final vote. I'd like to get this done while Zuwo is still Governor.

Regarding the cost of the inspections, I can tell you that they will be very minimal. The main cost of inspections will probably be taking water samples to labs for analysis. This will really have minimal impact on our budget. I thus encourage you to please support this bill.

[Hifly]

I have now heard back from the Game Mod that this program will cost the region only $8.7 million per year. The cities will pay for the remaining cost of the program.
I ask the Speaker to please start the vote.

[Hifly]

The GM has returned analysis on the bill.  I just have one quick housekeeping amendment.  Clause 5 should be removed, as it is unnecessary and if filled in with a number, would cap how much could be spent on enforcement.  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fine by me.

[Hifly]

We will now take this to a final vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48-hour vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AYE