Letters to the Editor


@Nata (asked a Biochemistry PHD and then consulted Wiki, my chemistry is not the best) "Neutralization of solutions of hexafluorosilic acid with alkalai metal bases produces the following alkalai metal fluorsilicate salts :H2Fis6+2NaOH_Na2Sif6+2 h2O." The end product is what is commonly used in fluoridation. Most of the chemicals are derived from the aluminum industry. My ex who is a biochemistry PHD and professor did not support this process but for different reasons than I've seen mentioned. I don't want to comment further as this is apparently a lightning rod for loonies
I grew up in Albuquerque, New Mexico where they have fluoridated the water for many years, and I am just fine. In fact, I have never had a cavity in my entire life. I have also never heard of anyone in any place who has suffered adverse effects from fluoride. I don't really understand what the big deal is. Maybe it'll cost a lot of money? That is probably about the strongest argument I can make against fluoridation. Otherwise, I do not see it doing harm. The whole thing seems silly. Perhaps everyone on both sides of this issue should focus their efforts more on helping low-income families in Portland gain access to better dental and health care.
Adding Fluorosilicic Acid to our public water supply does nothing to address the many deep, systemic issues that have created uneven medical access and nutritional access/education/habits among poor communities. As long as the cheapest and most accessible food is processed, sugary, and nutrient deficient, and as long as our healthcare system is controlled by for-profit interests, health problems like dental caries in poor (mostly minority) communities will continue to manifest, no matter how many additional chemicals we put in the water or air.

I'm reminded of when I used to teach in high schools and saw kids show up daily with nothing but Twizzlers or other candy in their backpacks for breakfast. This is a problem fluoridation CAN'T solve.

What fluoridation DOES do, however, is increase the daily chemical load on our bodies and our ecosystem, proposing a new substance to consume and inject into our biosphere over the long term. Portland's water already has three "sanitizing" agents in it. Is making it even more of a chemical soup really the wise thing to do in this day and age? With a planet and populace already ailing from the widespread and indiscriminate use of chemical agents, we might finally begin to question the wisdom of the "better living through chemistry" panacea, and we can instead begin to consider more sustainable, deeply curative approaches to fundamentally social issues of this type.

Water and air are fundamental to life, free and necessary to all. Is this not reason enough to protect their purity, and to find more acute solutions to acute problems such as the one fluoridation proposes to "solve?"
Wow, look at all the crazy motherfuckers that came outta the woodwork on that fluoride article!