Comment Archives: stories: Feature
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Fluoridation measures have been voted down three times already: let the citizens of Portland choose how and if to fluoridate their own water, rather than getting an imprecise dose through drinking water.
The Department of Health and Human Services has recently lowered the recommended dosage of fluoride because there is greater access to fluoride in the form of toothpastes, and mouth rinses for examples. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/…
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
National Academy of Sciences acknowledges that fluoride in drinking water makes children less intelligent.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=…
Read if you are able.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
"'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."
So, Raven -- since the benefits of water fluoridation is what is being "violently opposed" here, what you're saying is...
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
It's a shame he had no evidence and germ theory was only proven after his death I guess.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
edit: "The man who discovered that simple hand-washing between autopsies and the delivery of children (Ignaz Semmelweis)...would prevent the so-called child-bed fever which killed scores of women delivering in hospitals....was drummed out of the profession as a loon/nut-job and died penniless in an asylum. But he was RIGHT."
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Last I heard, debate requires two willing opponents. And if there aren't any, then you're just really arguing with yourself.
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"...it 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.
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
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
I really wish this article ended with, "That's the tooth."
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:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16614865/ns/us_n…
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!
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. :)
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@Raven333 - Cool story bro.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Random caps and calling people folks always brings me around! Also what is scientific disagreement.
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 decay...so we should medicate everyone en mass with a known neurotoxin. Sweet.
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.
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
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
August.g, to an authoritarian, left or right, ethical arguments are immaterial.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
rainfade: your cognitive dissonance is astounding.
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.
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Your paper blows... totally blows!