in before the nutjobs to compliment the use of "knavery" in the headline!

I think you cut the full quote off: "We certainly would have liked to get those numbers earlier... so that we could reconsider whether drugging every man, woman, child, plant, and animal in Portland and the Willamette watershed is actually an effective approach to a problem that seems much more responsive to other, less invasive tactics."

From what I hear, at this point just about everybody appears to be in on the evil conspiracy.

When i was growing up, my dad always had me wash and wax his car in order to keep the paint job in prime condition and to keep any rusting or deterioration from occurring.

I feel like such an idiot now when i think about all of the time and effort i wasted applying soap and wax directly onto the car instead of simply just pouring it down the gas tank.

(And for all of you nutjobs out there worried about chemicals messing with your engine, rest assured: soap and wax are scientifically proven to be just fine for a car's innards, so long as they're mixed with gasoline at a concentration of no more than 0.43 parts per gallon. Fucking duh.)

Remind me not to let you work on my car or teeth.

If we can simply look at what happened here in Portland, it clears up everything.

1. Mel Rader's Upstream lobby group uses the 2007 OR "Smile Survey" data to declare a "dental crisis" and lobbies City Council ($9000) to fluoridate PDX. City Council obeys 5-0.

2. The 2012 OR Smile Survey comes out proving that not only do we *not* have a dental crisis but our teeth are better than the fluoridated areas in Oregon!
IOW, fluoridation of the water had no positive effect on
preventing cavities.

Note: it took two Freedom of Information Act requests to get the data released before the vote. Someone did not want us to see it!

Before you vote please watch:
http://www.katu.com/news/problemsolver/Bef…

Non-fluoridated Portland's dental health stats from the 2007 Smile Survey were far better than the state average, and better than the national average. The 2012 Smile Survey that was supposed to be released in January of this year and has only now seen the light of day thanks to the continued efforts of one journalist (you may have to look up that word Merc) show Portland's dental health stats have only gotten better. I'd love to see how the pro-fluoride group could use that to their advantage, although they are experts at distorting statistics and pumping out misleading and outright false information.

This is troubling that Upstream and OHA worked so hard to keep this new information from the voters. They did not want it released until after the election. Dirty corrupt people.

Did anyone else notice that there are groups that AREN'T doing as well tooth-wise? "Black and Asian students actually saw an increase in cavities. So did kids who don't speak English at home." THAT'S EXACTLY WHO FLUORIDE IS SUPPOSED TO HELP. And they're not doing as well as all the fresh-faced little white kids. But of course, who cares about black and Asian kids if our precious white flowers are doing better (but STILL not as good as Seattle). Jesus people, it's not all conspiracies and poison.

It's funny that the pro-fluoride lobbyists used the 2007 Smile Survey to "prove" that there was a "dental crisis". Now the 2012 Smile Survey is out, showing that non-fluoridated Portland has fewer problems with kids' dental health than Oregon's communities with fluoridated water.

You might think they would tuck their tail between their legs and scamper off, but instead they are proclaiming even louder and more obnoxiously that they were right, when so clearly they are not. How does this make any sense?!

A 10% reduction in kids with cavities over a 5 year period seems like a pretty good result from existing programs. I even bet that we can do better going forward, all WITHOUT fluoridation chemicals. Let's keep doing what we're doing and further support the fluoride tablets and sealants programs in the schools, which the Oregon Health Authority has said is "almost 100%" effective in preventing cavities. Along with prevention education and working on minimizing junk food and sugar in kids' diets we will achieve an even lower rate of kids with cavities.

Fluoridation chemiclas are truly a risk we can't afford. Portland can further improve kids' dental health without adding contaminated fluoridation chemicals to our water. This has already been proven, please vote NO on fluoridation chemicals when you get your ballot in a few days!

STOP DRINKING FUCKING BIG GULPS AND YOUR TEETH WON'T ROT. I CAN'T STAND PORTLAND LIBERALS TALKING ABOUT A NON-SOLUTION LIKE IT'S THE ONLY SOLUTION. AND I'M, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, A PORTLAND LIBERAL.

ERN, just a quick headsup. The negative rates for minorities and poor kids are the same in fluoridated communities. Check Vancouver. They have the same problem. It's because what really causes tooth decay isn't some magical "deficiency". It's dental access, education, and diet. There are much better alternatives. The low income minorities in the fluoridated cities are part of those numbers too. How has fluoridation helped them? There is no dental "crisis" in Portland, and there never was. Let's not become a dumping ground for 1.1 million pounds of fluorosilicic acid, which would go to a toxic waste dump, pesticides, or rat poison if not in drinking water. Vote NO in May!

@ERN, Oh please, even the CDC has published studies that show that not only do minorities have significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis, the staining, pitting and in severe cases destruction of the enamel on the tooth surface - a direct result of over exposure to fluoride - but that minorities have have more severe forms of the condition.

There has never been any well controlled, double blind studies on the effectiveness of systemic water fluoridation. Dental caries have dropped at the same rates in fluoridated, and non-fluoridated countries.

We do know for an absolute fact however that over exposure to fluoride is attributable to dental fluorosis, up 41% nationally since the practice of water fluoridation began. And this is to say nothing of the health risks found by the meta-studies of both Harvard researchers and the National Research Council that warrant much needed further study..

I was laughing, laughing uproariously as I read through the arguments in opposition in the voter's pamphlet.

I CAN'T WAIT TO VOTE FOR FLOURIDATION!

Clearly, there's one lesson in all of this: if the Mercury ever wants to hit the blog commenting motherload, they'll write a post about fluoridating bicycles.

Everything you need to know about fluoride in 20 minutes:

http://youtu.be/GX0s-4AyWfI

C'mon you hippie bastards - vote YES for fluoride.
It doesn't hurt you and besides, it helps the poor kids.

Everything you need to know about fluoride in 20 minutes:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GX0s-4AyWfI

The whole thing is silly. Layers of conspiracy about a single digit change in the percentage? Fluoridation helps prevent cavities. It is not a panacea. I could care less what the cavity rate in Portland is, but if we can reduce it by the proven efficacy and safety of water fluoridation in conjunction with every other effort being made by public health officials, dentists, schools, etc., then let's do it.

Fluoridation is an environmental injustice that hits poor children of color the hardest.

Protect ALL kids. Vote NO.

http://afrocentricnews.com/afro/fluoridega…

'Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland' & The Portland Fluoride Saga
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfbrLGwwZOM
Transcript and Documentation:
http://pdxagainstfluoride.wordpress.com/20…

'Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland' & Fluoride By The Numbers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La8qUyzSUmo
Transcript and Documentation:
http://pdxagainstfluoride.wordpress.com/20…

Fluoride 101: A Response to Dr. Wu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30umO7s4Zj0
Published on Apr 27, 2013
Dr. Jay Levy, a practicing dentist in Portland, exposes the demonstrably false claims recently made by Dr. Phillip Wu, in a video made by Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland. To dig deeper into the fluoride issue, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org.

Fluoride CAN be harmful to certain segments of the population. It is not a panacea. Some people may benefit from exposure to fluoride (although, as your dentist will verify, topical application is far more effective), but YES there are people who will be harmed by the introduction of increased levels of fluoride into Portland's municipal water supply. Folks who have thyroid deficiencies, certain types of cancer, or kidney problems will face greater complications in the fight against their illnesses. Why is it OK to overlook these folks when we're talking about the (alleged and unproven) benefits to kids? Those kids can and do get treatment for their dental problems in other ways, as Portland's decreasing rates of dental decay clearly show -- but the only recourse for at-risk people if Portland votes to fluoridate our municipal water will be to buy expensive filtration systems or, worse, bottled water. Not OK!

Clearly supporters of fluoridation dislike cancer patients and folks with thyroid problems. Vote YES on fluoride -- because cancer patients suck!

(Of course this isn't true, but this is the same kind of disrespectful rhetoric that is used against fluoride opponents when minority and poor kids are brought up in the conversation. We don't want fluoride in our water because we want all people to be given a CHOICE, not be forced to swallow a chemical with, at best, negligible benefits. There are many more effective, less expensive ways we can improve the dental and overall health of underprivileged children, and we are all in support of those programs. When it comes to fluoridation of the public water supplies, though: My body, my choice. That should resonate in Portland, of all places.)

Fluoridation and the Environment, full version (high.res.)(31:07)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PYej_OgZHE (April 2013)
The actual science on fluoridation: its effect on salmon and the environment, efficacy for dental health, and safety for human consumption.

Fluoridation and the Environment, short version (med.res.)(5:36)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAlpz-aBSAs
Be sure you vote by May 21st.

Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1274962…
Cross DW, Carton RJ. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2003 Jan-Mar;9(1):24-9.

Abstract:
Silicofluorides, widely used in water fluoridation, are unlicensed medicinal substances, administered to large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner. Fluoridation fails the test of reliability and specificity, and, lacking toxicity testing of silicofluorides, constitutes unlawful medical research. It is banned in most of Europe; European Union human rights legislation makes it illegal. Silicofluorides have never been submitted to the U.S. FDA for approval as medicines. The ethical validity of fluoridation policy does not stand up to scrutiny relative to the Nuremberg Code and other codes of medical ethics, including the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999. The police power of the State has been used in the United States to override health concerns, with the support of the courts, which have given deference to health authorities.

PMID 12749628 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Damned Hippies and Conspiracy Theorists are aligned together to fight the AMA, ADA, and 99% of pediatric doctors.
And you know, these wackos just might win. Pathetic, and sad for the poor kids.

The Oregon Health Authority has never questioned whether fluoridation actually prevents cavities. They've always just assumed it does, but now let's consider that the original Grand Rapids study was sponsored by Alcoa. That's a huge conflict of interest because it resulted in their conversion of toxic waste disposal expenses into profits. I also read somewhere that the study cherry picked towns and excluded by something like a 5 to 1 margin those that did not support their hypothesis. If anyone can confirm or refute with reputable sources please let me know. And then there's Kentucky with their high cavity rates (and/or untreated decay? sorry I don't have enough time to answer my own questions tonight haha) despite the fact the entire state of Kentucky is fluoridated. And rampant decay is still very high in large fluoridated cities like Chicago. And untreated decay is significantly higher for low income kids in fluoridated Vancouver and King County. If fluoridation is really so effective, why is it apparently not making a dent for those people? We have way more than enough reasons to question whether fluoridation is effective in Oregon. There are also way more than enough indicators for likely effects on soft tissues even from optimal 0.7 ppm levels. No randomized controlled trial using fluosilicic acid has ever been conducted, and the National Research Council in 2006 recommended that those studies should be done. So here's a compromise proposal for all the fluoridation supporters. Since there is no crisis, how about you vote no for now and wait for those studies to be done. How about you be activists for full disclosure. Actually let's make that a demand rather than a mere suggestion, because the fact is you're trying to reverse a decades long status quo that was established by generations of Portland voters before you. Try to learn from their ahead of the curve intelligence and wisdom instead of resorting to fear based "dental health crisis" manipulation and dogmatic dismissals reminiscent of Rome's treatment of the "heretic" Galileo.

THE NEVERENDING FLUORIDE STORY

There's a dental health crisis in Portland! Our children are in pain!

Actually the untreated dental decay rate you're referencing applies to the average of the entire state of Oregon. Portland's 21% rate is significantly below the national average of 29%. In rural Oregon the rate is 44%, but those people would not "benefit" from Portland fluoridation. You can verify the stats by looking them up in the Oregon Smile Survey which you yourself have referenced as "proof" that there's a dental health crisis in Portland.

But there's still a crisis here because fluoridated Seattle and Vancouver across the Columbia river both have lower rates!

Close examination of the Smile Surveys from both reveals that the poor kids in those fluoridated areas still have significantly higher decay rates than the not poor kids, which indicates that fluoridation makes little if any difference. In Vancouver the average decay rates improved over a 5 year period even though the water fluoridation level did not change, but the poor kids still have higher rates. The factors indicated for the differences were race, immigration status, and socioeconomic. Fluoride was not indicated as a factor at all. Keep in mind we're talking about untreated decay, so the factor we should be looking at is what % of Washingtonians vs Oregonians have dental insurance (see below).
The Pro-Fluoride campaign justifies its advocacy by contrasting Portland and Seattle, but they're not only comparing apples and oranges, but conveniently leaving out a myriad of other variables that play into community health:

Each city used different age groups of children - Seattle's were around 5 and Portland's were around 8. These studies were never intended to be compared with one another, and scientifically, they shouldn't be.

Seattle has an 8% higher rate of dental sealants than Portland, very important in preventing cavities, a reduction of 70% according to the CDC.
Seattle enjoys a higher avg. income than Portland by appx. 10k; more than any other correlational factor, it is poor socio-economic status that is predictive of higher rates of dental health problems, not the fluoridation chemicals in the water or lack of them.
Finally, the difference between Oregon and Washington are stark in terms of dental health care available to the poor. Oregonians are served by 11 low income dental health clinics. Washington, with not quite twice the population, is served by 115.

Either way, there's still no crisis in Portland. Comparisons to Seattle and Vancouver are cherry-picking compared to the entire country. Many of our nation's fluoridated cities such as Chicago still have rampant decay.

Whatever, fluoride prevents cavities and it's cost-effective so we should do it anyways!

1) What happened to "dental health crisis"?

2) More recent studies reveal that the remineralization properties of fluoride are topical and that systemic ingestion provides little if any additional benefit. Also there are non-toxic ways to remineralize teeth. Nutrition and dental hygiene are far more important for the prevention of cavities.

3) You're ignoring the emerging science indicating negative health effects, particularly for subsections with conditions that are more susceptible.

The question you gotta ask yourself is whom to believe.
99% of all medical and dental professionals, whom support fluoridation, or these other people.
Think of the Global Warming debate. 99% of scientists say that people have begun to have an affect on our envirornment, but the other 1% can find someone out there to support their argument too, right?
Whom you gonna believe, the many or the few?
I'll put my trust into the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association, and the vast majority of Pediatric Doctors before believing these other bozo's.
Vote YES folks.
For the poor kids.

By the way Dirk are you saying "the fluoride debate keeps getting uglier" because CWP questioned whether fluoridation lobbyists -- whose entire "dental health crisis" I just proved has been fraudulent from the beginning -- might have known about the new data? Or are you saying it's getting uglier because the OHA sat on the report for so long? And they obviously support fluoridation regardless of the facts.

@Frankieb, The ADA and AMA are not even accepted science organizations. The ADA is essentially a paid PR firm for fluoride products and distributors and a guild protection entity for the monopoly of dentists licensed through them.

The ADA has also been lobbying against Medicare since 1965 and lately they've been heavily lobbying for a repeal of parts of the new health care law that would permit independent dental health-care practitioners from operating outside the ADA’s monopoly privilege, offering basic dental treatment at reduced costs.

The Dentists of Oregon PAC is a lobbying arm of the ADA and has been one of the largest funders of Healthy Kid's, Healthy Portland from the get-go.

@ Frankeib, 99% of dentists and medical professionals oppose fluoridation. See, I can pull stats right out of my ass too.

So, the ADA are just a bunch of hacks out there shelling a product - fluoride - that will essentially hurt their buisness ?? Is this really the argument you want to make?
The AMA is not an accepted science organization? Is this really an argument you want to make?
And on the subject of funding, while it is true that Dentists of Oregon, against their own financial interests, are supporting fluoridation and putting their money behind it, why not question the funding for the No Fluoride
campaign, which is mostly out of state?

It was DOPAC that gave Upstream Public Health the initial $50,000 so they could quietly lobby the City Council in secret and off their public calendars, violating the city’s lobbying and reporting requirements.

It was DOPAC that was 'passing though' funds to state legislator campaign PACs who could then transfer a contribution in the identical amount to HKHP's campaign and make it appear as though they were garnering legitimate favor from said legislator. Every one of HKHP's transactions filed through Orestar was auto-filed at literally the last minute ... except the politician campaign PACs that donated. This establishes that they’re knowingly hiding what they want for as long as possible.

As far as consensus. I guess 97% of Western Europe and the majority of the developed nations on Earth who do not fluoridate their water are crazy conspiracy theorists.

You must not be referring to those parts of Western Europe that put fluoride in their salt supply, right?

Only five nations in western Europe have any fluoridated salt, and what do you know? They don't force an entire population to ingest it. Stores offer the option to purchase non-fluoridated salt, kinda like how it's optional to buy non-fluoridated toothpaste. But your crowd has never really been that interested in freedom of choice, have ya?

"Only five nations in western Europe have any fluoridated salt"
and don't those countries populations represent the majority of Western Europe?
I mean, we are talking Germany, France, Spain...

*Whoosh* - The sound of the concept of choice going right over frankieb's head.

And evidently right over many Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc etc etc etc. too. Guess we all just want to nefariously cram fluoride into a stupid populace for kicks.

Refereeing of course to the minority of countries that fluoridate their water, and have seen the exact same decline in dental caries since 1970 as the one's that don't. I guess.

As the science continues to raise doubts over water fluoridation's safety and efficacy more and more nations and municipalities will continue to oppose the outdated practice, like Israel here, whose Health Minister just signed new regulations for stricter supervision of water supplies that included canceling mandatory fluoridation: http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/Ne…

Israel, where in the south of the country it is un-needed to fluoridate the water supply because it occurs naturally in abundance?
Israel, where 65% of the people allow fluoridation?

The survey statistics are not all that informative standing alone. But what we can see is that there still is a dental crisis, with some 50% of young children still experiencing one or more cavities.

By the way, we really need to know what the "one or more" means? How many more than one?

In fluoridated communities is it common to have people reach age 18 with not a single cavity. These people are likely not to need root canals, caps, extractions or dentures. That is something we should want for all children.

Nutritional deficiency increases susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. Poor people are also less able to afford alternatives to fluoridated tap water, and treatment of dental fluorosis, which are expensive. Children are usually not able to make health decisions for themselves, have greater fluoride exposure than adults, and greater susceptibility to neurotoxicity from fluoride than adults. African Americans have an increased risk of fluoride toxicity. Fluoridation is an exercise in kicking people when they are down.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111…
http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/denta…
http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/nutri…
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=…
p 3 of the 2006 National Research Council report on fluoride in drinking water: "On a per-body-weight basis, infants and young children have approximately three to four times greater exposure than do adults."

In 2007, when the ADA tried to over ride public sentiment in Juneau, Alaska, it bought 24/7 advertising to gin support. The Chicago-based dental union saturated Juneau with more than $150,000 in media buys. Sixty years of fluoride propaganda prevented many people, agencies and non-profits from mounting a critical examination. The prevailing current forced many to go along, trusting that experts knew best. Opposition formed at the health food store and with the help of a naturopath with moxie, the ADA's drum banging amounted to a trifle. Once voters understand that the health of salmon was involved, the ADA never regained momentum. The election results were overwhelmingly supportive of clean water. Final tally: 62/38 percent.

In the final paragraphs of this link, see the comments of Dr. Hardy Limeback, head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, Ontario. Limeback pulls back the cover hiding the truth behind organized dentistry's active support of fluoridation. Limeback's comments dovetail with those of Dan Germouse at 1:49 AM.

http://dremilykane.com/2007/10/11/juneau-a…

NEWS FLASH! Eleven of the EPAs employee unions have been trying to get the EPA to classify fluoride as a 'zero-tolerance' substance for years now, as a carcinogen! As the nation's ONLY "protected pollutant" fluoride has a special place in the American legal landscape. Wonder why all that is....hmmmmm
Sorry Merc "News" staff. you got this one WRONG!
fluoride will, at best, prevent 1 cavity over the lifetime of someone exposed to it in drinking water, HAS been linked to adverse health effects by a Harvard study (had a little too much to drink the night before you did that part of your "research"?), and can be provided in ways that don't force people to be exposed to a toxic, carcinogenic substance. Based on your support of fluoride in drinking water, due to the large number of "studies" that support it, one can only assume that you also support the following ideas: Iraq deserved to be invaded (all of the intelligence said so, right?), the moon landings never happened (all those you tube video can possibly be wrong), and that the CIAs historically repeated efforts at overthrowing democratically elected governments were justified ( those barbarians can't possibly be trusted with democracy!). There's lot of written support for those ideas. The question is, who is the source and do their arguments hold water?

I would like to learn more about the ADA being a guild protection entity for the dental monopoly. That is outrageous. It should be like the olden days when one could get a haircut and a tooth pulled at the local tonsorial parlor.

Ahahahaha, you fuckin dum-dums. "An Inconvenient Tooth"? I'm dying here, I'm dead.