tcraighenry: When lobbyists serve as end-runs around the democratic process, I don't care who they claim to be serving.
You also know that lobbyists act on behalf of citizens as well as corporations? Much like PACs.
I uh, you really need to be more specific when you're talking about "Europe." There are huge ranges in infrastructure, size, health models, and types of government. The UK, for example, is currently governed by the Conservatives who are far from progressive. And the supreme court of Ireland decided that fluoride was an ok thing to use.
Additionally, if you're talking about the European Union specifically this is the same body that says feta cheese isn't feta unless it comes from Greece.
Do they have better policies about some things? Sure. Do they have incredibly bizarre and fucked up policies about things? Absolutely!
The point is, you can use a single country as a model but using "Europe" is misleading and inaccurate.
(Hey we're going to sell gold next week. Wait! The minute I said that the price plummeted? HOW BIZARRE)
Do you really not get the point I was making? I'll clarify, just in case you actually tried to understand the point I was making and didn't: most of Europe does not add fluoride to their water (and no, naturally occurring is not adding, because silicofluorides ARE different than naturally occurring fluoride - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1742005…). As a group, admittedly heterogeneous, but still, they are light-years ahead of us in terms of outlawing practices/chemicals which are unhealthful or morally wrong. Looking where they are collectively (not all, but most) on this issue, given their positions on other issues, might be a good start to where actual progressives come down in this issue.
You know "Europe" isn't one big country right? It's made up of a large number of countries...
Also am I missing something or is there no mention of fluoride in that article?
Here I will be helpful. Here are a list of countries that have fluoridated water.
France (naturally fluoridated) - European
Ireland - European
Spain - European
United Kingdom (natural and artificial) - European
Here are a list of countries that don't (but did, or have high water pollution, naturally occuring fluoride in high doses:)
Countries that support it but haven't implemented it:
The percentages range wildly because, like the US, many countries allow local municipalities to decide on whether or not they want to add fluoride. Additionally, countries like France that have naturally occurring fluoride in high concentrations in ground water don't add it but also don't remove it.
I repeat: Europe is not one big country. There are 4 European countries with fluoridated water and 2 that actively support it but haven't/can't implement it.
People always want the easy fix. Lets not exercise and eat right to lose weight, just give me a pill. How about we invest in dental hygiene/education vs treating and entire population that does not need nor want fluoride in their bodies nor discharged into their rivers.
The dosage question is also a major concern. Kids drink very little water. Athletes (many whom choose Portland as their training ground) drink large amounts. Lets avoid the ungreen solution of purchasing bottled water when we have clean tap water as a viable option.
emstern1: This whole measure started out because a private lobbying group, Upstream Public Health, met covertly (http://blog.oregonlive.com/portlandcityhal…) with City Hall, to push a measure Portlanders have twice rejected. Portlanders had to actively fight to get this on the ballot rather than have it be enacted. The whole thing reeks of a complete subversion of the democratic process, not an example of it.
Yeah, let's definitely not follow Europe's lead in not having fluoride in the drinking water. What do they know? http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/20…
It's simple: if you want fluoride in your water, buy fluoride supplements.
This is apples to oranges. Lithium is a drug used for relatively rare disorders (that's been proven over what, 60 years of use?) While fluoride is used for people who have teeth. Which is almost everyone.
You still didn't answer the questions about the origins of the fluoride in China. Plus Harvard analyzing a different study to confirm the conclusions drawn by another organization doesn't mean squat.
I think it's funny you're rambling on about how people in white lab coats lie while.... posting a whole bunch of links to thinks people in white lab coats say.
No, I don't believe all meds are a ploy of "the man". I do happen to notice though that profit motive and public health aren't always in concert, and that people wearing lab coats aren't always telling the truth, often because people looking to make $$ have misinformed them. (Look up Vioxx for a recent super-lethal example.)
But, even though lithium is good for some brain disorders doesn't mean you put it in the water for everyone at uncontrolled doses. Still, lithium can cause cognitive problems (hence: stupefying).
I'm not sure, but I believe the fluoride in those Chinese studies was naturally present.
The Indian study I linked earlier in the thread was I believe also from high naturally present fluoride.
nih.gov has a whole bunch of studies linking fluoride exposure to lower intelligence. I just posted one.
@rainfade Lithium's long been a treatment for various brain disorders. Another element with a public health use.
Though your complaining that lithium is "stupefying" is pretty telling. Are you one of those people that believe all medz are a ploy of The Man?
Putting fluoride in water and leaving it up to the public =/= nazis.
Anyway, so was the fluoride put into the water in China manufactured for improving public health or was it industrial waste run off?
It's most likely that my posting here is poorly timed and I'm sure there are people who will get offended at whatever I have to say (This is after all, the internet).
Firstly, I'd like to address poisoning of salmon. Overtly high levels of fluoride can do away with a salmon population because raised levels of fluoride can kill the fish. Here's the problem with that argument against fluoridated water: the fluoride doesn't go in the river itself.
In fact, the Mercury News Team assertion about the purifying processes of water (involving lye which is not as the authors said "toxic" but just highly basic to the point of being dangerous to touch, ammonia which if not removed from water can cause serious respiratory problems and chlorine, which is in fact toxic if not removed after the process) are true. And these are necessary! Without this, there's a very likely chance that nature will show you who's boss, delivering a water-born virus or bacteria straight to your body.
So what's my point? These chemicals would harm plenty of natural organisms if they were added in the source. But fluoride instead would be added in the same chemical plants that purify the water that leads to your faucets. Rather than going into the ecosystem that nourishes salmon, fluoride goes instead into your faucets at home. So if you wanted to kill salmon, then I guess you could turn your faucet on into a nearby fresh-water stream, though you'd have to pump an exorbitantly expensive quantity of water from your pipes.
The second argument, one that as a fan of not having the government impinge on rights seems contrary to that opinion, is the idea of "FORCED" fluoridation. What this argument consistently leaves out is that this is a measure is one chosen by the people. You can complain about the government's secret plans in your tin-foil hat, but it wouldn't change the fact that people ultimately decide their own fate in this scenario. So the government isn't FORCING fluoride onto you, your neighbors would be.
Which brings me to the third point. I don't live in Portland, which may bring some flack this way. In fact, I live in New Orleans (which is actually known for its notoriously corrupt governmental facilities which happens to include its rundown water-treatment plant) and before that I lived in San Diego. Both of these places fluoridate water and rates of bone cancer and mental retardation are no higher than in non-fluoridated Europe. What is better is the rate of tooth decay (severely decreased).
Moreso, the poisonous effects of fluoride are only from studies with high quantities. In fact, that's how lab studies mostly work. I have worked in a research lab for a few years now, and I can tell you that the majority of research uses unrealistic levels of chemicals to prove a point. This argument was lost on some of the commenters on this article. .7 ppm is not much more than you're already getting from your toothpaste. And your fluoridated mouthwash (if you're into the whole anticavity thing). It's a supplement to help your teeth.
So that's most of my argument. I'm not a Portland native, so maybe I am not so strongly against the typical fluoridation of water like most of the United States, but I think the health benefits outweigh the "correlations" in studies that people site.
Best of luck on your decision Portland.
@tcraighenry: 1mg/L is approximately 1ppm. - http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/chemist…
The difference between (avg) .36 ppm and (avg) 2.47 ppm was a shocking 8 IQ points lower, and way more kids under 70 IQ. Can we please just stick to toothpaste and stop messing around with the idea of adulterating our water with this dangerous substance?
I love the argument that, "it's an element". Lithium is a similarly sized element, that also passes the blood-brain barrier and also has significant stupefying effects on the brain. Want some in your water?
Read the full report. There's not enough data for the scientists to draw conclusions about a safe level.
If it's a linear relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ (nobody's got enough data to say that it is or isn't), then the HKHS proposal is going to sacrifice about 2.5 IQ points from my cute little bug and everyone else's. (And maybe all of us adults too.)
Is it a linear relationship? Is .7 ppm a safe level for brain development? Are Mercury staff taking fluoride colonics?
More study is needed.
F u, mercury news team!
the Harvard Link is here, on the Harvard Website.
Really the studies were done in china, harvard reviewed the study
The researchers conducted a systematic review of studies, almost all of which are from China where risks from fluoride are well-established. Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in groundwater, and exposures to the chemical are increased in some parts of China. Virtually no human studies in this field have been conducted in the U.S., said lead author Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH.
So yes and know. Given there is reasonable concern for harm, there is no eithical argurment for this violation of the most basic of human rights. The right to medical self determination.
Nazi doctors were executed for their human experiments without consent.
Do we need a Nuremberg trial for the ADA, the same people who tell us that mercury in the mouth is stable and safe, despite rational science pointing out it is toxic going into the mouth, and toxic coming out of the mouth.
In lawsuit against the ADA the ADA rightly pointed out they are NOT a public health organization.
Basically they can say whatever they want. They are an association that endorses products and policy and makes a good dollar doing it.
The ADA states that their endorsements are totally bullshit.
Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury
The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA's only alleged involvement in the product was to provide information regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury
blownspeakers: I would say water fluoridation has been mainstream for quite a while. It is those opposed to water fluoridation that are being ridiculed. I don't think it's at the point where the pro side is violently opposing them - yet. Once Portland says no, other parts of the country will also. That's when the establishment will get serious about their violent opposition. Then, many years from now, water fluoridation will seem a quaint, if shocking, part of our history. Europe's ahead of us, as usual.
Can anyone tell me how the levels in the study in China compare to ours? I am confuse about translating that because they didn't measure in ppm. Help.
Also, both towns had fluoridated water. So
I guess I can read or whatever.
Your paper blows... totally blows!
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |