Comment Archives: stories: Feature
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
steve h: also, be sure to check out some history of the fish/fluoride debate: http://www.nofluoride.com/Salmon.cfm
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
steve h: http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/… is the actual study I'm referring to.
Total fluoride discharges will be similar to the plant in 1982 when mass die-offs were detected before they had to reduce discharges. This is just one life form harmed at low concentrations. Certainly others would be as well.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@Yinzer V-"scare-mongering conspiracy theorist"? Wow, that is really offensive. I will say, however, that you are smart for being one of HKHP's paid thugs. Just remember that others are too. I have a Master of Arts in Teaching, and a Bachelor of Arts in English, as well as being a CANCER SURVIVOR and a very happy artist mommy. Let's play nice, ok? However, since you asked, here is a metal by metal comparison of the EPA limits vs. what was discovered in Philomath's "Fluoridation Chemicals" last month. And just for everyone's reading pleasure, any adverse health effects from exceeding these limits, straight from the EPA's own website! (And yes, indeed I do have a copy of the report in my hand. How lovely!!!)
ARSENIC (Skin damage or problems with circulatory systems, and may have increased risk of getting cancer)
EPA Limit 0.010 mg/L
Philomath 46.5 mg/L
ALUMINUM (No side effects)
EPA Limit .05-.2 mg/L
Philomath 6.93 mg/L
MERCURY (Kidney damage)
EPA Limit .002 mg/L
Philomath .004 mg/L
LEAD (Infants and children: Delays in physical or mental development; children could show slight deficits in attention span and learning abilities
Adults: Kidney problems; high blood pressure)
EPA Limit ZERO
Philomath .002
CHROMIUM (Allergic dermatitis)
EPA Limit .1 mg/L
Philomath 1.55 mg/L
SELENIUM (Hair or fingernail loss; numbness in fingers or toes; circulatory problems)
EPA Limit .05 mg/L
Philomath .4 mg/L
CADMIUM (Kidney damage)
EPA Limit .005 mg/L
Philomath .008
And just for fun, these are the side effects of exceeding the EPA limit for Flouride, which is 4 mg/L: Bone disease (pain and tenderness of the bones); Children may get mottled teeth.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
I lost some respect for your dumb ass, smart ass paper after reading this really shitty article. I hope you DID receive some money from a corporate douche association... You do not help children's teeth this way. Adding chemicals to a municipal water supply has nothing to do with children's dental health. Vote NO NO NO. When I lite camp fires this summer, I will take pleasure in using a Mercury and not Nickel Ads, or the WW, or Exotic. If they do start adding these chemicals I will feel good about tossing water balloons on you fools this winter too. Mercury Staff can go get fucked.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Come on people, let's call it what it is.
Has anyone here actually read a mercury piece (if you can even call it that) before this? Because I sure haven't. Stop encouraging these idiots and their publicity stunts. Remember, they HAD to - they need readers. Journalism is dead.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
I wonder if the same people who bitch and moan about the fluoride in Portland's water supply worried about the contents of the ink in their tattoos?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Wow! Glad to see so many people educated about the dangers of Fluoride. I helped get signatures last year for Clean Water Portland. Only idiots are dumb enough to believe the liberal pussy lies and biased propaganda of corporate fascist New World Order America. I'd say more, but fellow patriots of mine above already have LOL. Thanks guys keep it up! And just remember everytime you pick up a Portland Mercury you are reading pussy liberal biased neo Nazi propaganda.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
having a niece and nephew who suffer from fluorosis, i can tell you this is not a make believe issue and the cause wasn't from parental neglect. it was due to a municipality over-fluoridating the public water. it is ugly and degrades teeth and bones. while these issues might be minute, they do predicate concern.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
It's funny how the article portrays the vote no campaign as "anti-fluoride". Will people that crusade against rape be classified as "anti-sex"? I'm sure most no voters brush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste. They just don't want their water supply polluted.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
The second comment on this thread nailed it, for me.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Communities Which Have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990
http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/commu…
Communities that Have Rejected Fluoridation Since 2010
http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/commu…
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
I'm sure what I'm about to say has been said idk at least 10 times out of 224 proceeding comments. Fluoride does occur at trace levels in our environment but there is sound scientific evidence showing that our local ecology would not like the amount of fluoride added to our water supply by treated wastewater discharge, which does not remove fluoride. The reason there is not a lot of science to back up the few studies that exist is because no one is researching it. Allowing some people who are willing and able to pony up the money to do a long term risk assessment study can put this bit to rest, but until the science actually backs up the claim that fluoride doesn't negatively affect our local ecology, this gets a no vote from me. I believe the person who wrote this article would do themselves a service by researching this issue a bit farther than, "Fluoride naturally occurs in our water, so you're wrong, and we dump lye in our water so it's fine." That's adapting a dangerous rationale in my opinion, and seems like lazy reporting by you guys. I still believe this is an issue that was largely ignored by both sides of the debate.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Christina - please compare the levels of the elements you mention to EPA standards, or else you're just a scare-mongering conspiracy theorist.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Channel 8 just reported that a chemical analysis was done on Philomath's "Flouridation Chemicals" (the same chemicals that are going to be used in Portland) and the results show disturbingly high levels of Arsenic, Aluminum, Chromium, and Selenium, as well as concerning levels of lead, cadmium, and mercury. I just can't believe that people don't realize (or maybe just don't care)-YOU WILL BE DRINKING THIS STUFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Real statistics on how Mult. Co. cavity rates are higher per capita than similar-sized cities who fluoridate would be helpful. This article's bias is not obscured in any manner. After all, they do have their advertisers to feed don't they?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
I lived in Montgomery Co., Maryland where I grew up in 50s & 60s with one of the first fluoridated water systems. My parents both had a terrible time with cavities. I am 63. No cavities. Bones and other organs so far just fine. Just saying.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@Roger - I plan to use the free market if this doesn't pass - by filling up jugs with Vancouver tap water and bringing it over the border to drink. I don't want to drink this unwholesome Portland water just to satisfy the tinfoil-hat crowd.
And I would also suggest Googling the water quality reports for cities with fluoridated water, such as Seattle, Kansas City, Denver, Pittsburgh, and Milwaukee - none show elevated levels of arsenic, and only Denver's shows elevated lead levels (caused by leaching from pipes).
Clean Water Portland is using scare tactics about "chemicals" and "arsenic and lead" to scare people away from an inexpensive public health solution to tooth decay.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
How embarrassing.
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
As a physician, a native of a city that fluoridated it's water, and a member of thebCareOregon board, I need to debunk some of these STUPID comments.. The most vunerable of our children are missing school because of tooth decay. When I see patients bring their 1 year old in with soda or juice drinks in the bottle, I talk to them about theirs kids teeth. A lot of people do not know better. Some if it is cultural. For instance, in the Black community, my community, babies as young as 3-4months are started on juice. Most of the physicians in Portland, who are white, do not know that. Cultural incompetence keeps them from better informing the parents. Fluoride would help these babies.
Let me put it to you like this. Better education now, means someone is less likely to rob Your house later. If the kid is missing weeks worth of school due to dental pain now, where are they going to be financially in ten years?