Say No to Fluoride
Jenson Hagen
The decision to inject fluoride into our drinking water bothers me to no end. I always appreciated the fact that Portland resisted this practice, mainly because I would rather avoid any potential long-term consequence of ingesting additional fluoride.
Many will give reason for and against fluoridation, but the one conversation that receives little attention is feeding children endless amounts of junk food. Nothing else is worse for kids' teeth than allowing bacteria to feed on simple sugars, which are now found in everything they eat. We would have no reason to fluoridate water if children ate a more nutritious diet.
We have advanced enough to pump fluoride into an entire city's drinking supply, but we can't get our brain's around how to feed kids food that won't cause their teeth to rot. And so as I walk through grocery stores or flip the radio on in my car, I hear advertisements about the need to combat childhood obesity. Does it strike anyone that the potential solution to rotting teeth and oversized waistlines is to exercise restraint and governance over what children consume.
Thankfully, I grew up in a household that focused on healthy choices. For me, junk food was a rare occassion, but I know how other families eat. Their cupboards are full of sugary cereals, sugary snacks, sugary drinks, sugary processed meals, and you get my point. Don't think for one second that evaporated cane juice and agave nectar are somehow better than high fructose corn syrup because the research says they are not. Thus, we have a health epidemic where the solution does not need to be weight-loss pills and fluoridation.
I voted to get the issue put on the ballot where I will gladly vote NO to fluoridation. I hope the next ballot measure we sees deals with the food content in our schools. Feed kids a nutritive diet, not fluoride.
5:42 p.m.
Sep 27, '12
We would have no reason to fluoridate water if children ate a more nutritious diet.
Absurd. Even if you ate nothing but fresh apples and raw carrots, you'd still have rotting teeth if you didn't take care of them.
I'm not a dentist, and I'm not a scientist. But I do know that I can trust the CDC.
Here's what they say:
Not just "kinda good" or "better good than harm", but rather one of the ten "great public health achievements of the 20th century."
That's good enough for me.
8:51 p.m.
Sep 27, '12
The Linus Pauling Institute wrote an amazing overview of fluoride. True, it reduces cavities (caries). But there are consequences to our GI Tract that would be hard to research, i.e., low-level irritation.
It's important to note the food sources of fluoride. Providing children with a well-balanced diet will provide them with micronutrients, including fluoride.
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/fluoride/
11:27 p.m.
Sep 27, '12
Jenson, that link specifically says there are no health effects of optimally-fluoridated water. It mentions that there is stomach upset in treatment for osteoporosis, but this is at doses of 50mg/day. The average fluoride consumption through water fluoridation is about 2mg/day. So, you would need to drink about 200 glasses of water per day to reach that dosage, and the water would probably kill you long before you got stomach upset from fluoride.
9:58 a.m.
Sep 28, '12
(on the CDC website, Fluoride Fact Sheet Community Water Additives http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm) Water fluoridation chemicals used: Hexafluorosilicate and Fluorosilicic Acid, inorganic compound chemicals that are the by product of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers. It's industrial grade, not pharmaceutical grade, never been tested or approved by the FDA (I called them myself). Also on the CDC site: "FDA has regulatory oversight on food additives, which includes bottled water, and EPA has regulatory oversight on direct additives in public drinking water supplies." The EPA Union of Scientists requested a ban of the use of fluoridation chemicals because of the findings by scientists of the damage to human health (see statements submitted by them http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/629FINAL.htm and http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm. On the CDC site, it lists fluorides as a toxins. Read 2006 EPA Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water by the National Research Council and Academy of Scientists on the health damage done by water fluoridation chemicals 2006 EPA Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER: A Scientific Review of EPA's ... www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2006.pdf. Also, Harvard Dental School, Bassin www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd27/bassin.pdf, 2001 and Kingston and Newburgh, New York case studies, show the link to osteosarcoma and young boys. In the Kingston/Newburgh, NY study comparing a fluoridated community with a non-fluoridated community, the incidence of bone cancer in boys was 13.7% rate (fluoridated) to 7% rate in non-fluoridated.
It causes dental and skeletal fluorosis, thyroid damage, neurotoxicity, behavioral changes including hyperactivity, aggressiveness and diminished cognition. Dr. Kathleen Thiessen http://www.sw4sc.org/met_kmt_talks.html Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Fluoride Poisoning: - Washington Action for Safe Water washingtonsafewater.com/.../PHYLLIS-J-MULLENIX-PHD-Fluoride...
I've heard the argument from those who grew up with fluoridation, "I'm fine, so it's okay." Not everyone contracts a disease, but the fact that it's been proven to be damaging to segments of the population should be enough for it not to be in our drinking water. If it was your son or a family member who was diagnosed with osteosarcoma because of fluoridation, would it be okay? Our city council has no right to roll the dice with our health and something as fundamental and necessary as access to clean, safe drinking water.
No one has the right to decide what you will or will not ingest. Not even your medical professional can force you to take medication without your consent. Fluoridation is mass medication. It is a civil rights violation. Even if it were 100% safe, which it clearly is not, it is not right for the water system to be used as a "medicine" delivery service.
6:41 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
The rights of the citizens of the Portland metro area are being taken away by this City Council decision. We all have a right to choose what we want to expose ourselves to. Isn't this why smoking was banned in restaurants and workplaces?
Ah, you're about to say that fluoride and smoking have nothing in common?!
How long was it that people smoked tobacco before it was finally shown to cause cancer and other health problems? And before that, how often did you see doctors promote smoking? Often, doctors were big endorsers of smoking, as can be seen by looking at cigarette ads from the 40's and 50's. And now, any doctor worth their medical degree will tell you that smoking causes harm and is a stupid idea.
I don't consent to being drugged by the water bureau and I don't buy your argument that it's okay because the CDC says it is.
11:25 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
Good nutrition is a wonderful idea...and make it affordable. People in poverty do not always make nutritious choices due to finances..Fluoride has been shown in studies to cause problems..including learning disabilities...even China does not put fluoride in their water...that's pretty low on the totem pole if you ask me..yet we still do...The bottom line...People in Portland should have a choice..not a mandate from lobbyists who have somehow convinced Sam and Randy that they need to do this. I have to wonder if there is not some selfish, monetary, career after mayordom reason that Sam pushed this through, knowing how people have voted it down time and time again...What is Sam up to, now that he is out of a job?
6:12 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
Would that be the same federal agency that told us that the US blood supply was perfectly safe in the 80's?
Tell that to the thousand's of hemophiliacs and their family members that died.
10:10 a.m.
Sep 30, '12
I like how so many people like your reply. Now I know why we went to war in Iraq. Yes, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Yes, home prices will increase forever. Yes, it's completely safe to put fluoride in our water.
Actually, there is research saying that it does pose a risk to some populations but research goes way over the head of ditto heads.
4:18 p.m.
Sep 30, '12
Jay Harris Levy, DDS
Argument Against Portland Fluoridation
• 35% of Oregon children have untreated tooth decay, ranking Oregon fifth from last among all states according to the Center’s for Disease Control and Prevention. o True, but according to the 2007 Oregon Smile Survey, the percentage of children with untreated tooth decay in the Portland metropolitan area was only 21% well below the national average of 29% which includes fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. o Unfortunately, the percentage of children with untreated tooth decay in the rest of Oregon was a whopping 44%, far above the national average. This statistic highlights the problems in our state with poverty and limited access to dental care in rural areas. • The benefits of fluoridation of the public water system in the prevention of dental disease has been scientifically substantiated with over 65 years of experience. o In 1999 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conceded that Fluoride’s predominant mechanism of action was topical not systemic.
“Fluoride’s caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children.” (CDC: MMWR. October 22, 1999 / Vol. 48 / No. 4) o There has never been a study involving randomized clinical trials to support the safety and effectiveness of fluoride. According to the “York Review” a Systematic Review of existing literature on Fluoride performed in 2000:
“This review presents a summary of the best available and most reliable evidence on the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation. Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research conducted in this area. The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities. ... Any future research into the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation should be carried out with appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the existing evidence base.”
(McDonaugh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, et al., “Systemic Review of Water Fluoridation,” British Medical Journal 321, no 7265 (2000).)
6:21 p.m.
Sep 27, '12
I'm with Jenson. There are many ways to get kids fluoride without dosing 200 million gallons/day. while we can control how much fluouride is put into the water, we cannot control who intakes it and how much they receive.
Proposed federal fluoride cap too high
7:41 p.m.
Sep 27, '12
Every dentist I've been to since I move here 4 years ago knows I didn't grow up here before I even say a word. I grew up in the Bay Area where they fluoridate. Enough evidence for me.
6:02 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
A lack of fluoride does not cause cavities.
Poverty equals cavities.
Poor dental habits equal cavities.
Better nutrition and education will equal better dental health.
1:06 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
So no one from Portland has good teeth?
10:22 a.m.
Oct 2, '12
That's misleading anecdotal evidence. My 27 year old daughter has never had fluoridated water and never had a cavity.
Results will vary.
8:52 p.m.
Sep 27, '12
Jenson, I support your right to debate the wisdom of adding fluoride to to our public drinking water. However your argument confuses public health and individual health decisions. City Commissioners have no control over what I eat, how much I eat or when I eat it.
11:39 a.m.
Sep 28, '12
Thank you for making my point. City Commissioners should not be telling me to drink fluoride. Let me choose what minerals I consume, not force fluoride on me.
1:03 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
No, Jenson, you misunderstand my point. The City of Portland operates a water department. The decision to add (or not add) fluoride to the City-owned and operated water system is the City Commissioners to make as granted in the City Charter, policies and procedures adopted by ordinance (enacted by duly elected officials) and (probably) case law. Now you can legitimately argue that there was insufficient public input into the decision to fluoridate, but that's not what you're saying. OTOH, City Commissioners have no legal authority over grocery stores, dentists, or school lunch programs. The best they can do to improve diets and dental care is offer some meager public education. Which City department would you suggest take that on? Police? Parks? Central Accounting?
I don't see that fluoridation, improved diet and accessible dental care are mutually exclusive strategies, and I'm not necessarily a big proponent of fluoride. I grew up with it in my water supply (in that reactionary city San Francisco) and have had a lifetime of dental issues. My message to you is to think through your arguments more carefully. You can argue (as others have) that it was a poorly researched decision or that it was made in haste. But don't argue that "they" (who is "they", anyway?) should arrange for healthy food and dental care for all. Elected officials must make decisions within the limits of their authority and resources.
9:26 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
Adding fluoride to the water is not making the water safe, it's adding a drug to the water to treat a medical condition.
That's an important distinction that appears to be lost on supporters of fluoridation.
Does it make sense to add a drug to everyone's drinking water for a health concern for part of the population?
Does it make sense to deliver a drug in a manner that provides no control over the dosage delivered?
Does it make sense to require those who wish to avoid fluoride to buy bottled water?
9:18 p.m.
Sep 27, '12
Just like there is no one solution for global warming, there is also no one solution for improving the health of our teeth. We need policies that support healthier food choices, and we also need fluoridation. We know (1) fluoridation reduces tooth decay by about 30%, (2) it saves about $38 for every $1 invested, and (3) there is no credible evidence of any negative health effects of fluoridation at optimal levels. Altogether, it sounds like a pretty great policy to me that we should all support.
See: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/benefits/background.htm
10:18 a.m.
Sep 28, '12
Dr. John Colquhoun's, former Principal Dental Officer, Auckland, New Zealand (and former proponent of water fluoridation)wrote an article in 1997 "Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation". He talks specifically about reports claiming water fluoridation is effective. I hope that more of the public actually does the research to find out what I did about water fluoridation. I didn't believe what pro or anti proponents said and looked for myself. I had hoped to find that it was "safe and effective", but unfortunately discovered it's even worse than I had heard.
6:41 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
Is Dr. Colquhoun's paper peer reviewed?
1:22 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
We don't "know" any of the things you claim. Those are called estimates, Mel, and are the result of models and extrapolations. Do you need a refresher in epistemology? Scientific methodology? Oh yeah, lobbyist. That's who I want to get my science from. The guy paid to spin it in the interests of the people who pay him. Regardless of what the facts are, conflict of interest should be on everyone's mind when you open your mouth on this issue.
People who don't know what they are talking about need to curb the certainty. There are a lot of know-it-alls in this city who are full of crap. People keep throwing around numbers without any clue where they come from or what they mean. The people who aren't claiming certainty? Scientists themselves. Wanna know why? Because it's unscientific to make guarantees and espouse certainty. Science is an inherently skeptical practice.
The City of Portland should have commissioned a study itself so that the process had some form of credibility. Instead, the fluoride folks chose to rely on lobbyists to push the issue through as fast as possible when there was clear uproar in the community.
Now we're going to get a year and a half to debate "the science" because you jackasses didn't care a bit about public process on an issue with a lot of meaning to a lot of people. Regardless of what the science says (I'll read the studies myself, rather than take your compromised word, Mel), your strategy was cynical, ridiculous, and I hope you get embarrassed.
1:49 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
And by the way, a cost/benefit analysis is not the same as a comprehensive risk analysis. I'm not sure why a city that has the precautionary principle enshrined into law skips over even considering broad environmental and population system effects -- and on this, there is plenty of studying to be done -- and instead starts immediately talking about cost.
Has anyone even asked if it bioaccumulates in our local flora and fauna? (Just look up "fluoride bioaccumulation" on Google Scholar). Does anyone care? Or are we going to make only the arguments and answer the only the questions that can get our measure passed as quickly as possible? Scientific... pffff... cherry picking and confirmatory evidence abound.
There's so much we don't know on this issue. Stop pretending we know things we haven't even studied yet.
9:25 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
Why commission a study to re-discover what has been found scientically sound over and over again? Should the City perform tests to see if gravity still works when making code on necessary fall protection in buildings?
10:00 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
You think gravity and fluoridation are on equal ground? Seriously? Hyperbole or science - choose now.
Why do people claiming science on their side continue to speak in certainties? I know that pro-fluoridation folks are claiming science as an authority and there clearly are scientific bodies in support, but if you actually read the studies instead of the press releases, there's a lot less certainty and more qualification about well, pretty much everything. In addition, we are speaking in terms of evidence and lack thereof. If you haven't studied something -- i.e. fluoride on our natural environment -- how could you have evidence about it? And why would do that? Oh, I dunno, because we care about ourselves and our environment? Seriously, think.
You always re-check hypotheses. THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE IS. It's a continuous process. Systems sciences are complicated. Anyone pretending to "know" anything for certain are full of it.
How fluoride effects the human and natural environment is not as simple as throwing a ball up and down over and over. Anyone who would claim so demonstrates a serious ignorance about the chemical nature of life and the history of environmental disruptions caused by humans who "knew" what they were doing.
Science isn't a bludgeon you use to smite your enemies. It's a process that is supposed to be skeptical. If you were serious about the methodology, you'd be honest that there is a lot of nuance involved and things that we know we don't know.
10:11 p.m.
Sep 27, '12
If not adding fluoride to water encouraged better diets, wouldn't we see that by now? You're trying to claim that things will change if we keep everything the same. That makes no sense.
6:57 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
Lots of things need to change, but adding fluoride is not one of them.
Fluoride WON'T brush your teeth for you.
Fluoride WON'T floss your teeth for you.
Fluoride WON'T take the sugar or other crap out of your diet.
Fluoride WON'T fill in the gaping nutritional holes in many childrens bodies.
Fluoride WILL be harmful to people with kidney problems.
Fluoride WILL be harmful to people with thyroid problems.
Fluoride WILL be harmful to people with chemical sensitivites.
Better to be safe than sorry.
Swish, don't swallow!
10:54 p.m.
Sep 27, '12
...imagine the good of both better diets and fluoridated water!
This is the part that kills me about this whole 'debate'. You can go into any supermarket and buy a range of fluoridated waters. Some from the Swiss Alps, some from more local springs. People tout the natural goodness of their well water... But having the city provide that same benefit for the rest of us? Oh, that's obviously the city out to poison us... because they hate us.. or something.
Let's examine your argument a moment, Jenson. Would you support a city-wide mandate that reduced the amount of sugars and high-fructose corn syrups in products marketed for kids? Maybe a complete ban and replacement with Xylotol, which although less sweet and more expensive, seems to actively retard decay-causing bacteria?
6:22 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
This is a civil rights issue, Jason. I have a right to choose what I put into my body and what I don't. If our water is fluoridated, then my rights to choose have been taken away from me.
You have a right to do whatever you want to your body, as long as it does not infringe on my right to do as I like with mine.
Fluoridating the water, takes away the rights of all the people out there who do not want fluoride in the water.
This is a civil rights issue!
3:40 a.m.
Sep 28, '12
Jenson you are correct. On top of this, the fluoridationists brought no evidence that any Portland child is fluoride-deficient. Studies show that some children already receive 6 times above "optimal" levels of fluoride from foods, beverages and dental products.
The fluoridationists did however, bring evidence showing that children are dentist-deficient. Ironically, Portland's own ignored government study shows that Portlanders have less tooth decay than surrounding fluoridated areas.
When a dentist peers into someone's mouth, the only thing he is detecting is socio-economic status. 80% of dentists refuse to treat low income Americans so they aren't seeing devastated teeth despite living in fluoridated areas.
Hospital Emergency Rooms are treating these children that dentists neglect and there is an upswing in "dental care", which usually is just yanking teeth or prescribing pain killers, in all fluoridated cities.
Also 130 million Americans don't have dental insurance. Many with dental insurance can't afford dentistry high fees. THAT is the real problem which could be solved by allowing Dental Therapists to work in Oregon as they have for decades in other first world countries and very successfully.
The problem is that the very powerful and rich dental lobby influences our legislators to reject them because the dental unions don't want any groups infringing upon dentists' lucrative monopoly no matter how many children must suffer.
Then they fool well-meaning people to lobby for fluoridation instead because they know fluoridation has never hurt dentists' bottom line.
9:53 a.m.
Sep 28, '12
Yes Nys,
The pro-fluoridists will pat themselves on the back once we start dumping fluoride into our water supply thinking they've reduced cavities by 50%. So kids will only have 2 rotting teeth instead of 4! Hurrah!!!
I will happily remind them that we have a chance to reduce 100% of rotting teeth through ensuring kids eat properly, take care of their teeth, and have access to dentist. But this would take too much effort to implement for the pro-fluoridists. It's much easier to dump fluoride in our water supply and call it a day.
We do nothing here to address the cause of rotting teeth. We have merely patched a leak. We see that this problem is much larger than teeth. It's coiled together with childhood obesity, depression, fatigue, and so many other health conditions kids and adult face. We don't eat right and we don't ALL have access to healthcare providers.
Let's not address these larger problems. Let's just dump fluoride in our water.
12:39 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
This is just beyond dumb. The life time cost of a cavity acquired as a 10 year old is well over $2,000. The life time cost of fluoridation is about $50.
Fluoridation is highly effective in preventing the operations necessary for preschoolers with mouth fulls of cavities.
An incremental improvement is very important.
You'll have to call out the tooth fairy to get entire populations to change, have good oral hygiene and afford regular dental visits.
6:05 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
The FDA lists fluoride as an "unapproved drug". I do not consent to being drugged by the water bureau.
If you can't see that this is a civil rights issue then you aren't paying attention.
9:25 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
How does the FDA list bird poop?
6:57 p.m.
Sep 29, '12
Billy Budd-Do you even live in Portland or are you just some traveling talking head? If you believe so strongly in what you preach then you shouldn't have any trouble admitting who you really are... We're all real people here. Either be real, too or go away!
10:33 a.m.
Oct 2, '12
Fluoridation is highly effective in preventing the operations necessary for preschoolers with mouth fulls of cavities.
Not true.
10:56 a.m.
Sep 28, '12
Haven't seen you around these watering holes before, Nys.
Where in Oregon do you live, again?
8:45 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
But that same all powerful dental lobby wants fluoride in our water in order to make LESS money filling cavities.
10:57 a.m.
Sep 28, '12
Just say KNOW to irrational hyperbole. From the WW's "Dr. Know Column several weeks back:
There’s no evidence to support the claim that drinking water with fluoride has benefits to our oral health. Just take a look at the World Health Organization chart on fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated countries. —Mia N.
It’s funny you should cite the WHO as a source. I happen to have right here its gripping 134-page “Fluoride in Drinking Water,” which states—and I quote—“Fluoride has beneficial effects on teeth at low concentrations in drinking water.”
It’s not difficult for an uninformed layman to go on the Internet and find evidence that fluoride kills. (In fact, the less well-informed you are, the easier it is!) It’s also not difficult to go on WebMD and convince yourself you have cancer.
Much of the confusion seems rooted in the fact fluoride occurs naturally in some groundwater, sometimes in high enough doses to cause health problems. Most credible sources cited by fluoride opponents (including this WHO report) are talking about this, not about low-dose public fluoridation programs.
But who needs appeals to authority, anyway? We can do the science ourselves!
About 200 million Americans have fluoridated water today, and the program began in 1945. That’s, conservatively, 250 million people, over four generations. With apologies to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, I believe this represents the largest clinical trial in human history, by about three orders of magnitude.
So, show me the bodies—if fluoride is deadly, there should be thousands! Show me the mutant kids with three arms and gills, scrabbling through the rubble of our once-proud civilization, and I’ll believe in the fluoride apocalypse.
Maybe the folks who dreamed up fluoridation in the ’40s were taking a chance, but I’d say we’ve dodged the bullet. Anyway, when it comes to planet-dooming perils, we’ve got bigger fish to fry.
11:51 a.m.
Sep 28, '12
What right do we have to change the water at all? Have we forgotten the millions of organisms that inhabit this Earth that do not have teeth? Those demanding fluoride do so out of some misguided humanist view that we are some divine legend who may alter the land and sea however they see fit. I want our elected representatives to have a biocentric view of our place in the world. Humans are not the most important thing, and we should respect the planet that supports us according.
4:25 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
Huh? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Are you aware that the fluoride concentration of the ocean is naturally twice the level of optimally-fluoridated drinking water. Plus, the only substance that is really harmful to other life is the chlorine that we add to the water, but it's important that we don't have micro-organisms in our drinking water.
6:16 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
We're not talking about fluoridating the ocean, Mel! We're talking about fluoridating our drinking water, but since you brought it up...the ocean has salt in it, which negates the harmful effects of fluoride on ocean life.
When fluoride is introduced into fresh water, it will harm the fish and other creatures that live there. What are you going to say when all the salmon are gone because they can't spawn when they are exposed to fluoride?
But again the main argument against fluoridation is that we do not consent to being drugged by the water bureau.
This is a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE!
The City Council, the City, the Water Bureau, none of them have a right to force medication on me or my family.
12:20 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
I'm not as concerned, frankly, about whether or not to flouridate the water as I am over two other points in this issue:
The Council knew people were concerned about this and that there was going to be a vote on this in May 2014. So they moved up the deadline to add the flouride to March 2014. Why not allow people to vote on this? Then, win or lose, both sides can say they had a voice.
For that reason, I wanted to sign the petition to put this on the ballot in 2014; however, I was told I was ineligible since I live in Gresham, not Portland. Despite the fact that my water is contracted through Portland and this issue will affect me. So, even if there is a vote, I have no voice.
People losing their voice, through deadline manipulation or voting restrictions, concerns me more than whether or not flouride is in my water.
And FYI, I grew up with flouride in my water and in a healthy eating household. Still got plenty of cavities. Does flouride help prevent cavaties? Sure. Is it the miracle cure for cavaties that some in the pro-flouride crowd are claiming? No. Given the opportunity to vote on this issue, I'm not sure how I would vote. But it's irrelevant as I'll never get the opportunity.
12:35 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
I think you should be more concerned about the little kids who will have operations they otherwise wouldn't need given the passion with which opponents bring their mistaken views to the political discussion.
7:09 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
This is what's called fear mongering, Billy Budd! What about the folks with the kidney problems or the folks with thyroid problems or the people who are allergic to fluoride?
What about the poor, minority family who has a five year old with kidney problems, but can't afford to buy a filter to get the fluoride out of their water? Is it okay to subject that family to potentially life threatening medical issues?
You are making this an us against them issue. You are saying that anyone who wants to stand up for their own civil rights doesn't care about kids dental health. This simply is a LIE, that you are spreading to make people feel like if they aren't pro-fluoride, they hate poor kids.
Why don't you take your concern for the poor kids and put your time into starting a program that would promote better dental hygiene in young kids?! How about get the schools to start having kids brush their teeth after they get back from lunch? How about start a program that would actually help the problem instead of one that, at best, is a band-aid on a broken leg.
6:38 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
We did allow people to vote on this. It was called an election for city council members. People voted for the persons they thought would best represent them. We can't have a vote on every single issue or democracy gets even further clogged to the point of not working.
2:21 p.m.
Sep 29, '12
Are you new in town, or have you just not been paying attention? Yes Devin, people HAVE been allowed to "vote on this" before, and have voted three times against it. This issue, specifically.
It may be forgiveable that you haven't paid attention to city history, but the City Council clearly had no reason to believe this was something that constituents wanted. Could opinions have changed since the last time Portlanders voted NO to fluoride? Only one way to find out: Ask them!
Please make sure you sign the referendum petition, so we will ALL have the opportunity to voice our opinions on this issue. It is clearly too important for 5 politicians to decide alone (with or without the gracious help of a team of paid lobbyists).
6:22 p.m.
Sep 30, '12
Eric, When I moved here has nothing to do with my ability to discuss fluoridation of the water.
Without intentionally trying to sound flippant, why do past referenda make a difference? This is how sausage gets made, sometimes. Let's flip the script to something we're probably all in agreement about: the rights of gays to get married. New Yorkers voted down gay marriage in 2009. In 2011 the Leg there passed gay marriage. Should it have gone to referendum again? Yes, apples and oranges (a fundamental right v. fluoride in the water). But, where do we draw the line on "but we voted that down before?" If you don't like the result, vote the bums out or pass a referendum.
9:23 p.m.
Sep 30, '12
Devin, I didn't vote for that city council as I don't live in Portland. Gresham contracts with Portland for our water. Portland didn't tell any of the surrounding cities that get their water from Portland what they were doing until it was a done deal. And this IS worth voting on, as evidenced by how many people on both sides of the issue have strong feelings on it. A referendum after the fact will be too late. The money will have been spent to add the flouride by tgd time we can vote on it. And by we I mean those who did elect the councilors who are running roughshod over so many people's concerns.
12:23 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
Liberal Oregonians must confront the conflict between their general inclination to assist disadvantaged people and their fear and abhorrence of community water fluoridation (CWF).
Progressive political philosophy that government is the proper agency to address social problems and buffer socioeconomic injustices. Yet many see CWF as an illegal mass medication with a material derived from an industry whose fertilizer products are fouling ecologically critical estuaries. It comes uninvited and unwanted into their homes through the water tap. It conflicts with profound decisions they have made as to what and how they eat. While filters and distillation systems exist, CWF brings an inconvenience and expense to those committed to its avoidance
As equally clear is the fact that The Oregon Supreme Court ruled CWF legal:
(it is) "no more practicing medicine or dentistry or manufacturing, preparing, compounding or selling a drug, than a mother would be who furnishes her children a well-balanced diet." "But the liberty secured by the Constitution ..does not import an absolute right in each person to be ..wholly freed from restraint
"Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
After 65+ years with CWF serving large populations we have an overwhelming and easily verified consensus among mainstream scientists that it is safe, effective and inexpensive
Portland's referendum signature gatherer's demand that the community accord them a "choice" has costs
A 4 year old having an operation for cavities which fluoridation would prevent doesn't get to chose her parents, her diet, her lack of dental care, or the bacteria in her mother's mouth an important reason for the terrible cavities
17 year olds will have about 1.6 more tooth surfaces with cavities. Adults loose a tooth surface for each 3.5 years they don't have CWF
The Elderly don't choose to not brush well or have exposed root tooth surface cavities
Folks who just don't get around to brushing regularly, don't floss & don't have the finances for preventative dental care in the minds of the referendum advocate apparently should just reap the consequences of their "choice"
The City Council voted unanimously for CWF because both the science and the humanitarian arguments were so clearly made by the large group of medical, dental, public health and Civil Rights advocates in the Everyone Deserves Health Teeth Coalition.
On the other hand, impassioned opponents brought worries about MY vegetables, MY body, MY rights, MY alternative health views - the caps here reflect that fact that much of the time they were yelling
The issue here is what is best for the community's greater good. Progressives all too often oppose with a knee-jerk response to superficially appealing arguments. Portland's oral health is thereby harmed
12:56 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
"The City Council voted unanimously for CWF because both the science and the humanitarian arguments were so clearly made by the large group of medical, dental, public health and Civil Rights advocates in the Everyone Deserves Health Teeth Coalition."
Yes, and luckily the appearance of impropriety was avoided... oh wait...
6:27 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
Almost every public water supply source in Kentucky is fluoridated yet, juvenile tooth decay runs rampant. The problem lies in proper oral hygiene, not fuoridating the water supply. Once again some folks choose the sledgehammer approach when a more focused strategy would yield better, more cost effective results.
6:36 p.m.
Sep 28, '12
Can we please let anti-scientific nonsense go back to being solely in the realm of the lunatic right wingers? Fluoridation and vaccination seem to bring out this odd irrational bent in many of us on the left and I just don't get it. I will almost always support government intervention in areas of providing and promoting public health, and fluoridation is no exception. Some company or other is ALWAYS the beneficiary of being the supplier of a governmental need so just because there is that big evil capitalist profit here doesn't meant this is inherently wrong. On matters of "poisoning," the dose equals the poison so please learn a bit about epidemiology, or if you don't have the time to do so, defer to sound epidemiologists. As a side note, representing victims of toxic exposure has taught me there are some bunko doctors out there; however they almost always have one thing in common: raking in beau coup dollars to skew science. Folks at the CDC or WHO on the other hand, I just don't buy that they are "bought and paid for." They are scientists actually concerned about health and welfare.
11:07 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
"I will almost always support government intervention in areas of providing and promoting public health, and fluoridation is no exception." And you would have been on the side of some horrific interventions in the past -- probably championing the wide application of DDT because it was considered "safe and effective." Sterilization? Scientifically necessary for the good of the species! Mother's milk? Bad for the child, use formula. Etc., etc., etc.
Believe it or not, there are skeptics on fluoride who aren't anti-science. Some of them even study, practice, and teach science. Since conclusions based on scientific evidence depart from the empirical component -- we move from direct evidence to broader narratives (stories in other words) -- there is plenty of room for disagreement over which story is correct.
Because someone disagrees with your conclusions -- which likely weren't reached by science; probably deference to other people you trust to perform science -- they aren't necessarily anti-science. One can actually be pro-vaccine, pro precaution on climate science, and skeptical on fluoride.
"Anti-science" and "conspiracy theorists" may describe some people, but it's not adequate to dismiss principled criticism and calls for more study before we introduce an industrial waste component into our environment.
Precautionary Principle Please.
10:28 a.m.
Oct 2, '12
I'm all for science as well:
Dr. William Hirzy & EPA Union on Fluoridation
12:44 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
http://www.mismanagingperception.com/you-hate-children/
6:46 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
Ah, yes, I remember the days when the John Birch Society proclaimed fluoridation a Communist plot to sterilize America. And the famed character of Dr. Strangelove, Gen. Jack Ripper, initiated nuclear war in order to prevent the contamination of our "precious bodily fluids." I see Fluoridation "trutherism" has new converts today. Fluoridation has been happening naturally and by fiat in communities throughout the country with the great effect of eliminating unnecessary tooth decay in the young and tooth loss in the old. My grandmother died at advanced age with all her own teeth and not one cavity, having grown up in a community with naturally occurring fluoride in the water.
9:00 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
A guilt by association argument and an anecdote. Thanks for adding to the quality of public discourse you're so worried about.
7:01 a.m.
Sep 29, '12
Is no one else troubled by this statement:
...I know how other families eat. Their cupboards are full of sugary cereals, sugary snacks, sugary drinks, sugary processed meals, and you get my point.
That's an awfully presumptious statement.
10:23 a.m.
Oct 2, '12
Perhaps he has been in many famililies' kitchens and has seen what is in their cupboards.
8:40 a.m.
Oct 3, '12
I am surprised at the uninformed opinions expressed here by people who think they are being progressive in voicing anti-science and anti-medical views. There is general consensus in the medical community that fluoridation is valuable in preventing cavities and has no untoward effects. Look at all the communities nationwide who are fluoridated. Are they suffering?
The same arguments being used here against fluoridation are those used against vaccinations. These "no" people would like us to go back to the 19th century. Wake up all you progressives!