Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: Feature: Politics

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

Forgive me if this is an issue I feel very strongly about...I don't consider BREVITY a plus when we are debating something as significant as this. Apparently the city council do, since they have conspired with the pro-fluoridation camp to by-pass the usual procedures for review and citizen input.

And BTW, my use of emphasis is not "random" is very intentional.

So yeah, dismiss me as a "nut-job". You are the oh-so politically correct, knee-jerk liberal who swallows what they are fed by the "reputable" sources hook, line, and sinker. I have friends like you. I don't hate you but I do sort of pity you.

Me, I'm probably further to the left and more progressive than you, have more of a concern for kids (esp. lower-income ones) than you (both as a former teacher of them and a parent), am graduating in the fall with my 2nd degree (top 10% of my class), and NEVER simply accept anything at face value without doing my own research to confirm or debunk.

To quote Tarentino, "You don't know me. You only THINK you do" (emphasis his).

Ridicule is one of the most powerful tools of dolts determined to preserve the status quo, often due to their own professional, financial , or personal/ego interests.

The man who discovered that simple hand-washing between autopsies and the delivery of children (Ignaz Semmelweis) was drummed out of the profession as a loon/nut-job and died penniless in an asylum. But he was RIGHT.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

He was right, too.

6 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Raven333 on 05/07/2013 at 4:10 PM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

Oh no, don't get me wrong. You being a nut job has nothing to do with the RANDOM emphasis or FOLKS.

Also brevity etc

5 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by tcraighenry on 05/07/2013 at 3:26 PM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

I really wish this article ended with, "That's the tooth."

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by yallarecrazy on 05/07/2013 at 3:24 PM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

Also - Did you know that WATER is POISON? Let's review the FACTS about the HORRORS of water:

1) Everyone (100%) of the people who've consumed water have died. It killed some of them quickly and some of them slowly, but in the end, everyone is dead. TRUTH. George Washington is dead today and we obviously have water to blame for it.

2) Water has no nutrients - if we have to drink it, we should at least have plants or animals filter it for us via juice or milk. Kids can get both in their schools.

3) There is not a single independently verifiable study done that shows water is 100% safe.

4) My aunt's cousin's husband had a disease and drinking water seemed to make it GET WORSE!

5) Public water is the most insidious of all. It's a giant subsidy to Coke and Pepsi who make Aquafina and Dasani, which is just filtered public water. They like public water because they make millions from it and it's impossible to trust anyone with a profit motive. Besides, if the city doesn't make a profit from it, why should we even have it?

6) Public water comes with NO WARNING LABELS. There's no way to know exactly how much is too much before it strikes you down. I know we all remember this:…

7) Public water is governed by regulations, and is pumped full of known toxins like chlorine. Obviously it's a conspiracy by the government and the chlorine industry to not only kill you, me, and all of our children but also protect their profits. Even if we're dead, they know the public water will flow.

8) Portland's bubblers are really poison delivery machines designed by the elite to kill off the underclasses and especially their kids!

9) The Nazis carried water supplies into battle. HITLER BATHED IN IT.

Remember: If anyone disagrees with you or complains about your methods or your studies or tries to keep you from speaking the TRUTH, they are obviously paid shills in collusion with government/corporations/corporate government who spend their entire time getting paid TRYING TO DESTROY THE FACTS. And of course they're going to insist that they're not, they'll say anything to DENY THE TRUTH!

You now know the FACTS about the poison that is water and the corrupt corporate subsidy to coke and pepsi and the chlorine industry through the public water complex. The facts are obvious and verifiable. Don't let anyone convince you differently. SPEAK THE TRUTH!

6 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Pridge Wessea on 05/07/2013 at 2:28 PM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

And attacks on the opponent's choice of words ("folks", "people") and/or EMPHASIS, neither of which have any bearing whatsoever on the argument at hand, always tend to sway me over to the other side. ;)

You know, about 15 years ago I spent several months researching fluoride/fluoridation in medical and scientific journals as part of a larger project. THAT is what formed my opinion on the subject. I've been interested in and following the topic ever since (and drinking fluoride-free water whenever I travel or live somewhere which fluoridates).

And why I'm so pissed about the misrepresentation of some recent landmark studies on the part of the pro-fluoridation forces. There has been some bad science on both sides, but by FAR, the worst has come from the pro-fluoridation FOLKS (oh no she DIDN'T!!! Using "folks" AND BOLDING at the same time! She MUST be a nut-job;)

One thing I've found very interesting is that there is very little "scientific disagreement" with the "fluoride GOOOOD" position among entities like the CDC or the ADA or among rank and file dentists (they tend to parrot the party line, using the same carefully worded and distorting sound-bites).

But if one actually READS the literature, examines the decades of studies and the reviews of them published in peer-reviewed journals since, or even delves deeper and looks at the raw data and design of some of the studies used to defend fluoridation (all of which I have done) one begins to see a clear pattern of research scientists (you know, like those at the EPA who demand in their contracts that they be provided with fluoride-free water?) who generally concur that:

*Fluoride is a poison; a known neurotoxin, which readily crosses the placenta/blood-brain barrier, and very close on the same toxicity continuum as lead and mercury.

*Fluoridation, even at "optimum levels", carries significant health risks to the population in general but especially to certain segments of the population (i.e. fetuses, infants, children, the elderly, and those with particular medical conditions).

*Ingested fluoride carries minimal to no dental benefits; only TOPICAL application has been shown to have any significant merit, an admission the ADA has finally made, though they still cling to the disproven rationalization that the trace levels in saliva from ingestion confer any significant benefit.

*Fluoride added to chlorinated drinking water (which ours is) significantly increases the bio-availablity of both lead and arsenic. Both of which are also present in varying amounts in most water supplies.

*Much more research on humans is needed given both the strong indications of potential and actual harm in both humans and non-human animals and the relative paucity of decent, recent data (see, the thing is, when you just conclude a thing is the greatest thing since sliced bread, you don't tend to fund or otherwise bother to conduct much research on it. That poses a problem to scientists trying to evaluate the actual risks and benefits. Same way the Reagan/Bush era de-funding of research on cannabis, which they had de facto decided was BAD, set research on the benefits and risks of that substance back decades. But it IS very handy to be able to say "there are no definitive studies proving such and such." Well no FUCK! Studies have to be DONE to produce results, definitive or otherwise).

I guess we will have to just agree to disagree on this one. :)

6 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Raven333 on 05/07/2013 at 2:22 PM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

@Raven333 - Cool story bro.

3 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Pridge Wessea on 05/07/2013 at 1:56 PM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

Random caps and calling people folks always brings me around! Also what is scientific disagreement.

3 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by tcraighenry on 05/07/2013 at 12:53 PM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

P.S. I earned my 1st degree in Child Development and spent 20 years working with young children, both here in Portland and elsewhere, most of them lower-income.

I NEVER saw (or have seen since) the sort of rampant, ER-requiring dental decay so emotionally described by the pro-fluoridation camp.

The only case of anything like that I ever saw was in my nephew from a heavily fluoridated area of Texas (now a 23 year old Marine) who was allowed to suck on a bottle full of apple juice (re-consitituted with fluoridated tap water) until the age of 4. His front teeth rotted down to the gum and he required extensive treatment to remove them and install a bridge so his adult teeth would come in properly.

I'm sure such cases do occur, but it is NOT due to lack of fluoride in the water. It is due to poor nutrition, poor dental care habits, and lack of access/utilization of routine dental care (which again, is FREE to all lower-income children in Portland!)

The idea seems to be that we can't trust poor parents (or ANY parents) to be responsible and ensure their kids do what REALLY prevents we should medicate everyone en mass with a known neurotoxin. Sweet.

7 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Raven333 on 05/07/2013 at 12:04 PM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

Re' the Harvard study (which I have actually READ, thank you very much, and so know that the pro-fluoride team is LYING when they claim that the anti-fluoride team is LYING about its findings) a few quotes from the AUTHORS might clear things up...

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and OTHER POISONS (emphasis mine) that cause brain drain." Philippe Grandjean, senior author, noting that fluoride is a known neurotoxin which readily crosses the placenta, potentially placing developing brains at significant risk.

Indeed, fluoride falls between lead and arsenic on the federal government's own toxicity tables.

And the union representing scientists at the EPA has, for years, included among their demands that they be provided fluoride-free water at work. These are the folks who have READ, WRITTEN and UNDERSTAND the studies, folks! They don't want to drink the shit!

The Harvard study itself, even though examining mostly data from high fluoride areas, DID conclude an average IQ decline of 7 points for children in fluoridated areas, and specifically noted that this effect was found even in populations exposed to "optimal" levels, though to a lesser but still concerning extent.

In a statement issued 3 months after the initial release of the study, the authors, under fire for reviewing mostly studies of high-fluoride areas of China (they lamented the paucity of U.S. studies to anaylize) stated:

"These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.

ON THE OTHER HAND (emphasis mine), neither can it be concluded that no
risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify
what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible
adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard."

The overall gist of the study (and I DO know how to interpret these things...finishing up my 2nd degree at the moment and have done extensive research in medical/scientific journals both for school and work) is that there IS a significant IQ lowering effect from fluoride exposure, even at lower levels (though of course more pronounced at higher exposures, as with ANY poison/neurotoxin) and that much more research should be done on the effects on human fetuses/infants/children (as opposed to the numerous animal studies which support significant harm to the developing brain from even moderate exposure levels).

I do not appreciate being lied to and manipulated, as I have been by the pro-fluoride dogs in this fight, who parrot all the same tired, distorted sound-bites as predicatably as any fringe internet conspiracy site. Have you READ your voter's pamplet yet? UGGHH! (though it DOES, interestingly, contain an argument in opposition from one of the authors of a study the pro-fluoride team has repeatedly mischaracterized...but I guess she doesn't really understand what the study she co-authored MEANS;)

Even less do I appreciate being condescended to (esp. by the local weekly rag's news team and celebrity gossip columnist...Ann, I love you, but you are testing my loyalty!).

I resent the hell out of the way this matter has been bullied through without the usual citizen input or review period (gee, wonder WHY the pending report on the DECLINING rate of cavities among Portland children is not being released until after the vote? or WHY there has been virtually no formal review of the scientific and medical literature surrounding the issue? WHY is it being rushed to a vote under the threat that the city will go ahead and approve millions in spending for it regardless?)

I'll be voting a big fat HELL NO on this one! As will my 21 year old son (who has excellent teeth "despite" being born and raised in Portland with no fluoride in his water OR toothpaste OR in any other intentionally administered form.)

Same for his 13 year old sister, but she's too young to vote.

And BTW, both have qualified for (and GOTTEN) FREE dental care through OHP from birth through age 18. Like ALL lower-income kids in Portland. Spare me the "poor kids" shit.

8 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Raven333 on 05/07/2013 at 11:29 AM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

Cut back on the hyperbole for two seconds and maybe, just maybe, you won't sound like a loon

3 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by tcraighenry on 05/07/2013 at 10:37 AM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

August.g, to an authoritarian, left or right, ethical arguments are immaterial.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by rainfade on 05/07/2013 at 10:29 AM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

rainfade: your cognitive dissonance is astounding.

3 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by tcraighenry on 05/07/2013 at 10:19 AM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

Of all the straw men to pick on, the Mercury picked a good one. Yes, part of the fluoridation debate is about how much crock and pseudo-science each side can chuck out. Ok, another element is how all that bullshit snowballs and some wingnuts get tossed in. The anti-fluoridation side seems to be chock full of irrational arguments and morons.

The little part of the brain that your straw man is missing is the one great, big, whopping, and important argument that medication without consent is unethical.

6 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by august.g on 05/07/2013 at 10:13 AM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

Thank you for pointing that out - but I think that is the cost of the fluoride itself, not the cost of the "7.6 million dollar fluoridation plant" and all the other city add-ons.

Unfortunately, we will not know until we get our quarterly ever-increasing bill in the mail.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by altogetherPDX on 05/07/2013 at 9:28 AM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

@altogetherPDX - It says in the article above - an average of $3 per household per year (AKA less than a tube of toothpaste). No one is hiding that information.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Adam Caniparoli on 05/07/2013 at 9:21 AM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

Why was this rushed through? The citizens who placed this on the ballot acted in good faith, using the democratic process. It was supposed to be voted on in May 2014, after a reasonable scientific and financial review. We don't even know how much this is going to raise our water bills. I would guess a lot more than a family's year supply of fluoride toothpaste.

All else aside, a "yes" vote on this is a yes vote for graft and corruption.

4 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by altogetherPDX on 05/07/2013 at 8:52 AM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

Spindles - How many polio or smallpox epidemics have there been in the United States in recent history?

My father clearly remembers the last polio epidemic before the Sabin and Salk vaccines came about. If you think some people are scared of fluoride, think about the chance to catch a deadly or disabling communicable disease just by being out in public.

It's because of anti-vaxers like you that measles and whooping cough are making comebacks in the United States; you are destroying the herd immunity that protects people who cannot be vaccinated because of infancy or allergy, or who have compromised immune systems (people with AIDS, organ transplant recipients).

6 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Yinzer V on 05/07/2013 at 8:16 AM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

"a little variation in patterns/grasping at straws/crazy might make you distinguishable"

I'm sorry, tcraighenry, that posting links to scientific papers at the National Institute of Health, showing links between fluoride exposure and lowered intelligence in children makes you think that I'm crazy.…

But, perhaps there's some other way for you to satisfy your inner self-righteousness than by risking my 8 month old daughter?

Also, does anyone know whether it's safe to garden with fluoridated water, or are there vegetables that concentrate the fluoride to unsafe levels?

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by rainfade on 05/07/2013 at 8:15 AM

Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...

@Tom Servo1 - Iodized salt has been a huge contributor to the drop in goiter and cretinism. Fluoridation of salt could be practiced here, like it is in most of Europe, to reduce dental caries.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Yinzer V on 05/07/2013 at 12:08 AM

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC

115 SW Ash St. Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204

Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Production Guidelines | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy