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…
The CDC and the ADA warns against using fluoridated water with baby formula. Is this not reason enough?
Activism through commenting on the Mercury website!
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.
Most well reasoned, Sonja,
Now in your opinion, WHY is flouride REALLY being pushed?
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.
"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/
@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.
@ Steve R. & kungfu:
That's the thing -- I think an extreme majority of the people that are anti-fluoridation (especially those that regularly read this publication) are firm believers in evolution and global warming, and think things like homeopathy and the idea that vaccines-equal-autism are bullshit. That's what makes this debate so odd -- it's one of the very few where the lefties are split.
Fuck you for putting the MAN WOLFS alongside the caption on the cover!!! I want to keep kids healthy by NOT flouridating the water! Flouridation started by the nazis to dumb down the IQ of other countries. Look it up. Thanks for not mentioning the costs that this crap will cost btw. AND if they are even POTENTIAL RISKS with this shit and not a direct correlation, I'm sure as hell not going to take it with anyone's kids! Lastly, the article doesn't mention how it isn't using naturally occuring Flouride, but FSA, which is an unpurified byproduct of industrial fertilizer manufacturing, not the flouride found in toothpaste! Also look into "Flourosis," which is the main threat to over-use. Like a commentor on here already said, how much is a low dose, high, etc. How much can you ingest and it be ok? Or before it cause damage? Too much of anything is not good.
AP: Drugs found in drinking water
A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans.
People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers or lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue.
Another issue: There's evidence that adding chlorine, a common process in conventional drinking water treatment plants, makes some pharmaceuticals more toxic.
If I told you substance X was proposed to be put in the water, and there are credible studies, one of which is in the journal Neurotoxicology, that definitively, statistically demonstrate an increase in lead levels in children vs not having it in there, and no one has rebutted that study, what would you conclude? If you're honest, you and everyone you know would immediately demand it not be in the water. But somehow, when Substance X is fluoride, you trust "the experts" more than yourself. Why?
At Steve R: Why? Is it because it's easier for you to lump those with genuine scientific concerns about the safety of fluoride in with loonies than it is to do the more difficult job of researching the science and their arguments and rebutting those arguments intelligently?
Evolution. Check. Global warming. Check. Fluoride. Check.
It's beyond libertarianism at this point, Steve. With the push-polls and bizarre arsenic scare stories, they're firmly into Rove territory now.
I'd be curious to know how many fluoridation opponents:
* already own expensive water filtration systems
* spend 100s on unproven nutritional supplements
* believe childhood vaccinations cause autism
* believe in homeopathy
* have their kids in charter schools
* call themselves progressive while espousing hard-core libertarianism
@Christina - anti-fluoride people have compared fluoridation to rape and Nazism on this thread. I would think that is rude.
If you have the report, scan it and put it up on the Clean Water Portland website so we can take a look at the whole report, just like we can look up the Grossjean/Choi study (the Chinese study) that Clean Water Portland selectively quoted from. The Philomath water quality report is available online from the City of Philomath's web page; I have accessed it.
@ Homer, wouldn't it be, that circa 1957 the FDA accidentally almost created birth defects, or they just picked one or 20 or 80 in a bunch and said, here, birth defects by allowing Thalidomide.
And when they *do* actually look, they find things like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1742005… (increased lead levels in children with silicofluorides vs sodium fluoride and no fluoride)
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |