It’s almost official. Portlanders will probably get to vote—yet again.. ugh…—on the wisdom of joining much of the rest of the United States in joining one front in the ongoing war against childhood tooth decay by adding fluoride to our municipal supply.

The city auditor’s office says a referendum challenging the Portland City Council’s unanimous approval of fluoridation is cleared to appear on the May 20, 2014, primary election ballot—unless the council decides, for whatever reason, that the expense of a special election, held before then, is worth the cost.

The referendum’s success was all but certain after it was announced last week that only 3 percent of some 40,000 signatures turned in by fluoridation foes (they only needed nearly 20,000 good ones to qualify) were invalid. The city auditor’s paperwork is here.

I wonder if the cost considered by city commissioners, as they decide whether to leave this for 2014 or not, will include politics. Dan Saltzman and Nick Fish will both appear on the ballot for re-election, should they choose to run again, and both came out as strong supporters. (Fish went so far as to announce his support well before a vote was scheduled.)

The push could bring out a bunch of voters who otherwise wouldn’t cast ballots in those races, adding a little bit more spice to their campaigns. Then again, support for fluoride also was supposed to make a difference for Amanda Fritz, who faced the equally pro-fluoride Mary Nolan. But it didn’t.

Meanwhile, the O reports that fluoride foes also are looking at a separate initiative that would ban any future city plans to add fluoride to Portland’s water supply. I think I’m going to hide.

Denis C. Theriault is the Portland Mercury's News Editor. He writes stories about City Hall and the Portland Police Bureau, focusing on issues like homelessness, police oversight, insider politics, and...

17 replies on “In Unsurprising News, Fluoride Cleared for 2014 Vote”

  1. So what if most of the rest of the country has fluoridation? They don’t have the same ecosystem we have here. Put fluoride in toothpaste and other products, and get it at the dentist. I’m not aware of any other substance needing to be added to the entire water supply, and why has there been so little attention paid here to the environmental impacts? Why is the only Fish involved in the discussion here the one named Nick?

  2. I mean, obviously chlorine is added to the water supply, for example, but I meant a substance added for a kind of passive medicinal benefit when there are other means available.

  3. Nice job, 20-somethings. I guess when you don’t pay property taxes, it’s easy to call for an unnecessary vote.

    It’s ironic that these low IQs are worried about fluoride because it might lower IQs.

  4. Yeah, add whatever you want to whatever, just don’t make us vote on something. And other species? What?!

    We would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you goddamned kids!

  5. People are really stupid. Anti-flouride people are in tin foil hat territory. Basically Jenny McCarthy. These same people probably get all mad at republicans for denying climate science.

  6. For someone who so supported the occupy movement, I’m surprised to see Denis against giving citizens the right to vote on something that affects each individual. It’s great you’re pro flouride, but how about letting our voices be heard instead of endorsing mandates.

  7. “For someone who so supported the occupy movement, I’m surprised to see Denis against giving citizens the right to vote on something that affects each individual.”

    Let’s start by learning to spell fluoride, then you can read the big books with the facts.

  8. All the white middle class anti-science conspiracy theorists who think vaccines cause autism and fluoride is mind control should self-deport to, I don’t know, northern Idaho or something. Or Alaska. Dig a friggin well and keep your Whooping Cough to yourselves.

  9. http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823

    Why is there no critical questioning of fluoridating the water? Seems rather nanny-state. The wiki page about this controversy mentions a debate in Sweden and a gentleman testifying against pointed out it is pharmacologically unethical to issue a mass chronic poisoning-err, mass medication such as this and should be individually tailored.
    It all has insufficient data and just because it is seemingly popular (except it is banned in several developed countries) does not mean it should be given a blanket of trust.
    This should be questioned and criticized for something that would affect the wider population.

  10. Oh, it has “insufficient data”, does it? How much more would qualify as “sufficient”? Surely you have a number in mind. As well as a way to quantify such things.

  11. Adding fluoride to the water isn’t free. It seems like the money spent on doing that would be better put towards actual dental hygiene programs for youths. Even with fluoride in the water you would still have to brush and go to the dentist. It isn’t a catch all.

  12. That’s right bitches. Even though a sane society wouldn’t put it to a vote to add poison in its drinking water, the big monied lobbyists who paid off City Council are going to be handed their hat by Portland voters …j ust like they have been three times since 1990. But hey, don’t be disappointed Mercury, I’m sure you’ll get plenty more ad revenue from the lobbyists in the run up to the vote.

    Oh, and this:

    Harvard Study – Published in National Institute of Health Journal finds fluoride lowers children’s IQ:
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/…

    “The average loss was only half of one IQ point, but some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride
    areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of
    compensating for the toxicity.”

    2006 National Academy of Science reviews the scientific studies which have been performed on fluoride, and concludes: “It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” (bottom of page)
    http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2…

    A list of studies finding association between fluoride and reduced IQ from countries that don’t have a vested political and financial interest in fluoridating their water (the practice is banned in most countries):
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/brain…

    PhD fetal pathologistDr. Vyvyan Howard, who is a professor of developmental toxico-pathology at the University of Liverpool and University of Ulster, president of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment and former president of the Royal Microscopical Society and the International Society for Stereology, and general editor of the Journal of Microscopy – said in a 2008 Canadian television interview that studies done in several countries show that children’s IQ are likely to be lower in high natural water
    fluoride areas.

    He said that these studies are plausible because fluoride is known to affect the thyroid hormone which affects intelligence and fluoride is also a known neurotoxicant. Such studies have not been conducted in
    countries that artificially fluoridate the water such as the US, UK and Canada, but should be, he said.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/experts-disagree-on-…

    “Portland City Council calendars don’t show meetings reported by fluoride lobbyists: Portland City Hall roundup”
    http://mobile.oregonlive.com/advorg/pm_292…

  16. Suggestions for pro-fluoridation campaign slogans:

    “Don’t like it? Blabby thinks you’re nuts.”

    “If you can’t trust Randy Leonard, who can you trust?”

    “When it says Fluor-Ida, it’s all-righta!”

Comments are closed.