Comment Archives: stories: Feature
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
96% of Europe does not add fluoride to its water, and Germany has banned fluoride all together. The Mercury is paid-for main-stream media cloaked in its "alternative" dressings.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
The Fluoridated toothpaste that the Mercury's staff uses has a warning printed right on the label. The warning reads that if a person accidentally swallows some they should call poison control. My Fluoride-Free toothpaste has no such warning. After reading their cover story I'll be living Portland Mercury-Free as well. Vote NO on 26-151; It's the sane human thing to do.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@sethwoolley I like how in your opening paragraph you mention you didn't actually read the article. I didn't read your other paragraphs, let's hope you did a better job.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
"In its proposed prohibition on sulfuryl fluoride, EPA acknowledged that the pesticide's residues on food are "responsible for a tiny fraction of aggregate fluoride exposure" but deemed that children's total contact with fluoride in the environment -- through drinking water as well as toothpaste -- posed an excess risk of tooth and bone damage."
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/11/11…
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
I grew up in various places with fluoridated water and have good teeth! My sister did too and has bad teeth!
There's my anecdotal evidence for the day.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Sonja won
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
I grew up with fluoridated water and have enough cavities to prove that the water didn't prevent them. The cavities were not the result of clean drinking water. They were the result of poor dental hygiene and a diet of sugary foods and drinks. The problem that kids are having isn't caused by non-fluoridated water. Clean water does NOT cause tooth decay. The problem is cultural and socio-economical. I suspect that poor kids don't drink a lot of water when they can get two-liter bottles of cola for a buck. If adding fluoride to the water didn't prevent my cavities, it won't prevent theirs; changing our consumption and hygiene behaviors will.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Honestly, I'm kind of on the fence here but have been slowly leaning more and more towards the anti-fluoridation people. The reason is because despite that this debate has been going on for quite some time none of the questions raised by anti-fluoride people have been addressed in a reasonable matter. At first I expected these "conspiracy" theories to be put swiftly to bed by someone simply releasing some actual scientific studies with irrefutable proof that fluoride in the water is safe and effective. But none have come to light. The pro-fluoride groups, this Mercury article, and just about every comment on here that is for the measure resort to the same tactics: making jokes and/or saying trust the (insert some group we should trust without evidence ). Why not just present some evidence?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
People in Beaverton have fluoridated water.
Have you been down to the "entertainment zone" blocks lately?
Yea, please vote NO.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
The Mercury is the FOX news of weeklies.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Fluoride supporters are well-meaning do-gooders. They are well aware that anyone who wants fluoride can get it, but they are worried about the social equity of cavities (poor kids get them more than rich kids who presumably get fluoride pills from their doctors). They fail to take into account the growing masses of people who can't cope with the toxics in their environments. 15% of school kids are now diagnosed with ADHD and while no one knows what causes it, everyone pretty much agrees that toxics exacerbate it at least. Portland already has terrible air quality. Do we really need to burden the underclass of the health world by putting toxics in the water too? I am certain that this campaign suffers from shortsightedness and probably more than a little self-righteousness. A lot of money is getting spent to convince good hearted people that this is the right thing to do...but it isn't. Before you vote, read the facts: http://www.katu.com/news/problemsolver/Bef…
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
The CDC and the ADA warns against using fluoridated water with baby formula. Is this not reason enough?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Activism through commenting on the Mercury website!
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Hey, Portland Mercury - did you know the US is one of a very few number of first world countries who add fluoride to any of their municipal water supplies? Most European countries have examined, and then rejected water fluoridation. For good reasons. And guess what? Do any of those non-fluoridated countries have greater amounts of cavities? Nope. You may have also missed the study done by KATU when the public records request also showed that Oregon communities showed no significant difference between those with fluoridated water vs. those without (EXCEPT for Portland, which has about 5% fewer cavities - some crisis, eh?).
You may not also know that municipal water supply fluoride is made from industrial waste byproducts. None of it is pharmaceutical grade fluoride (too costly), neither is it guaranteed not to be harmful by its suppliers.
Finally... love the argument that there are already low levels of fluoride in our water. There are also low levels of arsenic. Should we add more of that, too?
One of the biggest Mercury fails, EVER.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Most well reasoned, Sonja,
Now in your opinion, WHY is flouride REALLY being pushed?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
I am really appalled by the ridiculous article you've put out. First and foremost, the large majority of these alleged concerns that the opponents of fluoride have are ridiculous.
Fluoride is yet another one of the "ingredients" that have been added to our environment and bodies without our direct consent, and most importantly, without extensive study. Sure, some studies may find that fluoride, topically, can strengthen tooth enamel. The studies that haven't been done are the systemic effects. What's even worse, is that you literally write in the article (regarding the cancer aspect of the debate) that there is conflicting findings in studies regarding cancer. CANCER. why in the WORLD are we even humoring fluoride when there haven't been enough studies to prove, concretely, that we, and the other inhabitants of this planet, aren't negatively affected?!?
The truth is, this planet is already full of our byproducts from industry. The chemicals we find in our bodies and bloodstreams are alarming. They often originate from chemical, pharmaceutical, and agricultural industry byproducts. The overall health of the average person in this country is not good. The low-income regions and minority groups are struggling even more. To ADD yet another chemical to the mix (and if i hear one more time that the industrial byproduct version of fluoride that will be used is "natural", i will scream) to aid in preventing dental caries, only to increase the rate of organ and glandular issues, what sort of help are we offering?
I think it is insulting to think that we, as a city full of dedicated, positive, and progressive people, are told to resort to further chemically treating the water rather than investing that money into an empowering alternative.
Fluoride won't teach populations we're concerned for about the many components that increase the risk for dental caries and discomfort. Fluoride won't teach our children to brush, to not drink soda and processed foods. Fluoride won't teach our children the value of hygiene. Most importantly, fluoride won't pass down that knowledge from generation to generation, enabling a cyclical and growing rate of education and empowerment through personal action.
For the amount of money that the city is proposing to use towards the fluoridation facility, we could build, staff and stock multiple mobile dental units that could be transported to areas in the city, including schools, where children are having issues. They could be set up in neighborhoods to allow families to participate in their health together. Wouldn't you rather see that level of comradery than to set up a plant for chemical disposal?!?
I see the pessimists' side. They want to believe that people can't change. They want to believe that social work and assisting others by means of action and community is in vain. I think that it is the entire premise of being a human- to assist, to nurture, to discover. We could be doing those things.
So, stop using the whole "bandwagon appeal." Portland has never been on the bandwagon. Portland has done a phenomenal job (quite inspirational, really) at going against the grain and surpassing other cities in their innovative alternatives.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Have pets?
"Environmental Working Group found that eight major brands of dog and puppy foods have up to 2.5 times more fluoride than the E.P.A.’s maximum legal dose allowed in drinking water. (Maximum legal allowable fluoride in water is 4ppm however the recommended amount that water companies add to water is 0.7ppm). These 8 brands of dog foods contain an average of 9mg of fluoride per kilogram of dog food. Ouch.
On the up side, the study also tested two dog food brands that do not contain detectible levels of fluoride: one is made with vegetarian ingredients and the other is made by a small manufacturer.
Little research has been done on the effect of fluoride on dogs. However in 2006 the National Research Council published research noting numerous adverse health risks of fluoride on humans, including disruption of the brain, kidneys and thyroid, bone fractures and joint pain (among others).
Worth noting is: the amount of fluoride in the tested pet foods is higher than the amount of fluoride associated with the development of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in young boys. Speaking of osteosarcoma, nearly 10 times as many dogs get this deadly and painful bone cancer each year as people do. Is it possible that osteosarcoma in dogs might be tied to fluoride consumption – like it is for boys? To date, no research has been done on this question."
This is a good, quick read. http://fluoridedetective.com/pets/
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@Happy_Hippo, I think people believe that waste water treatment magically removes or diludes toxins to undetectable levels before it reenters the water supply. Once again as I have in the past, I'd like to point out that the city consulted with exactly ZERO surface water specialists before voting to fluoridate the water supply. Our local ecology is very unique, and in turn extremely sensitive to minor fluxes in chemical composition. If you live here, and enjoy going outside, and enjoy the nature here, you're on the hook to protect it. Please don't let politicians force through irresponsible practices on the local level.
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Prozac, whose scientific name is fluoxetine, is 94% fluoride. "Any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically". -Charles Eliot Perkins, prominent U.S. industrial chemist. NO on 26-151!