Comment Archives: stories: Feature
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Prescription medication =/= drug. Would you call a topical cream a drug? Not to mention the word "drug" doesn't really mean anything in a medical sense.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Lobbyists:
Jessica Adomson lobbies for:
Northwest Career Colleges Federation
Oregon Public Broadcasting
Brielyn Atkins lobbies for:
Oregon Violence Against Women PAC
Christel Allen lobbies for:
American Lung Association of the Mountain Pacific
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians
Oregon Housing Authorities
James Anderson lobbies for:
American College of Emergency Physicians, Oregon Chapter
Jeff Anderson lobbies for:
United Food & Commercial Workers Local 555
Anyway, just a few names from our state.
http://www.oregon.gov/OGEC/Pages/forms_pub…
(I believe they have to register, so there's your list.)
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@Homer said: "LobicSabre: Funny, the NIH seems to think fluoride is a drug - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginf…"
Funny because they never actually call it a drug on that page. Did you read it before you posted that link.
Further, why would you reference a page talking about medicinal fluoride when we're talking about fluoride added to public drinking water? The two are similar things, but not the same. Nowhere in that page does it talk about fluoridated water. It talks about fluoridated dental products.
Your false equivalency makes your argument invalid.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
LobicSabre: Funny, the NIH seems to think fluoride is a drug - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginf…
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
"Lobbying is just a group of people acting on behalf of another group of people because the original people don't have time to hang around Salem or wherever. "
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Man, I have some great swamp land in Florida you might be interested in.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@Paul Cone, chiropractors and acupuncturists *are*, for the most part, quacks.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
1. They don't really have anything. The reason China stopped putting fluoride in the water was because they couldn't adequately control the dose they were providing alongside the pollution and run off in the water. Also China is really fucking big. They have to use steam powered trains to get across the country. But that's the study they like to harp on.
2. They don't refute the ADA or the CDC's claims that fluoride in the water is a good thing.
3. Lobbyists and PACs aren't inherently evil Mr. Burns style organizations trying to kill us with aluminum manufacturing bi-products.
4. Europe isn't a singular entity. When pointed out that countries in Europe do have fluoridation, they got nothing.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@brenna, fluoride isn't a drug. Your argument is invalid. See point #2 in the article above.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@disastronaut: So, you don't have any specific rebuttal to the article so you resort to poisoning the well? That's so typical of anti-fluoriders. Grow up!
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Lobbying is just a group of people acting on behalf of another group of people because the original people don't have time to hang around Salem or wherever. They aren't inherently evil.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
tcraighenry: When lobbyists serve as end-runs around the democratic process, I don't care who they claim to be serving.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
You also know that lobbyists act on behalf of citizens as well as corporations? Much like PACs.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_…
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)
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
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.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
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.
Nigeria
South Africa
Hong Kong
Israel
Japan
South Korea
Malaysia
Singapore
Vietnam
France (naturally fluoridated) - European
Ireland - European
Spain - European
United Kingdom (natural and artificial) - European
Canada
United States
Australia
New Zealand
Brazil
Chile
Here are a list of countries that don't (but did, or have high water pollution, naturally occuring fluoride in high doses:)
China
India
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Switzerland
Countries that support it but haven't implemented it:
Denmark
Finland
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.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
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.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
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.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
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…
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
It's simple: if you want fluoride in your water, buy fluoride supplements.
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
tcraighenry: Are you for real? druginfo/meds is in the url. The first section id "Why is this medication prescribed?" WTF? I was refuting the statement "fluoride is not a drug." Which is a common, and intentional error, on the pro side. It is being used as a drug - the NIH agrees. I know the pro side hates it being called a drug, because then you can say it forced medication, and be entirely accurate. Still that pesky thing called the truth.