Milk is good for teeth.

How about filling up the reservoirs with Milk?

Maybe we all just need to calm the fuck down.

How about just filling up the reservoirs with Prozac?

The amazing and scary thing to me is how easily some people can be made to believe the conspiracy theory that all those against fluoride are conspiracy theorists or otherwise anti-science and uninformed/misinformed. Do your own research people - anything else is just lazy and irresponsible. Read all sides, google, think, don't accept statements without understanding them and looking at data.

Yes, by all means don't trust actual scientific research promoted by "dentists" who secretly want you to develop flurosis! Do your own research! YouTube is full of good information on both sides!

Fluoridation Chemical Accidents: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals… Unless otherwise noted, the chemical involved is Hydrofluosilicic Acid or a similar fluoridation chemical. When not fully investigated by the National Response Center, it can simply be called "hazardous waste" and would not show up here due to inadequate accident reporting. Accidents where the medium is listed as "drinking water" are those where the spill or accident resulted in an overdose of fluoride in the drinking water system itself.

Acute Poisoning from Water Fluoridation: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/fluo…

"Inspection of public water systems and monitoring of fluoride concentrations are needed to prevent outbreaks of fluoride poisoning."
--Division of Field Epidemiology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.
Acute fluoride poisoning from a public water system.
N Engl J Med. 1994 Jan 13;330(2):95-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8259189

"Thousands of households had to wait almost a fortnight to be told they had drunk water containing 20 times the allowable limit of fluoride. [...] The investigation will also focus on why at least three safety devices failed at the plant, supplying homes in Brendale and Warner with 30mg/L of fluoride, when the limit is 1.5mg/L."
Damage control after fluoride blunder hits homes | The Courier-Mail | May 15, 2009
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/flourid…

But what will be the effect of fluoridated water on the erection I have from reading this thread full of hot, sputtery nonsense?

Steve R: Yes, it is indeed a battle of dentists vs. youtube videos. So glad you distilled it into its appropriate black and white components. Otherwise one might have to not take anyone's word for it and actually look at studies - studies that show effectiveness of fluoride, studies that show potential dangers of fluoride. Trust your dentists! Or be daring and trust youtube videos! Either way, trust someone's opinion instead of doing your own research. Oh wait, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I recommend the book "Trust Us, We're Experts."

"Clean Water Portland makes a show on its website of having the support of "over 60 Portland doctors," but the majority of those named are naturopaths, acupuncturists, and chiropractors—fields which help a great deal of people, but frequently come under fire from traditional medicine for lacking in scientific evidence."

This ridiculous sentence severely weakened your argument, and this whole article reads like a sleazy press release. Disappointing.

Homer, you make the TV character you're based off of look like a genius. I have some recommended reading for you as well:

Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standard (2006)

Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2012)

Evidence for Fluoride Effects on Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, (1982—1986)

The Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada (1994)

Water Fluoridation and the Environment: Current Perspective in the United States (2004)

Chronic fluoride exposure has a role in etiology of coronary artery ectasia: sialic acid/glycosaminoglycan ratio. (2011)

The Effects Of Fluoride On The Developing Human Brain. (1992)

The York Review – A systematic review of public water fluoridation. (2002)

The Iowa Fluoride Study (2009)

Science and Environmental Health Network. The Precautionary Principle: A Common Sense Way to Protect Public Health and the Environment. (2000)

Why did I read the comments? WHY WHY WHY

I think the move would have been to write the article as, "Fluoride is great because... YOUR MAMA!" It would have been a much more logical argument than the one posited above.

This film is full of whistleblowers who are doctors and scientists at the highest levels of the EPA and other relevant government agencies that talk about documents being shredded, top scientists who were fired for refusing to go along with the status quo. This stuff is toxic, period. Why do they care so much about dental health? Common, isn't that just a little crazy? People laugh at conspiracy theorists...I consider myself a liberal; a musician into peace and love. I believe all people are equal no matter what color they are, no matter how much money they make, no matter what they believe.

But honestly, over the last few years I have watched Obama go along with the status quo and beyond. See drones, Patriot Act, NDAA, these are very troubling. Our government simply does not love us. Period. It really doesn't take a Doctorate in history or bio-chemistry to see what is going on. I think right wingers are not empathetic enough, but liberals like me have been FAR too passive about understanding the dark side of our own government and how they are essentially purposefully trying to cull the population. It's the dark side of Human Geography and you can ignore if you wish. But the right and left have to come together in our humanity. Compared with all the Electro Magnetic Toxic Pollution, Chem Trails (which government officials admit exist now) and look into Aspertame and see if you want that in your chewing gum. Common, we the people are on the same side. There is a dark side of the force that loves it when we hate each other and disagree. Can we just agree on one thing that should be totally obvious like keeping our drinking water clean? Just this ONE thing, can we come together to protect each other and our children? Jesus. Please watch this movie. It say it all better than I can:

http://www.fluoridegate.org/the-film/

Thank you this is just the article we need! It will be such a shame if we vote this down. If it fails, I will be so ashamed of us as a city. I never imagined thinking that living in a vibrant, creative, liberal paradise could have a downside.

The Multnomah County Democratic Party hosted a Debate on the Fluoridation of Portland's Drinking Water Supply (Measure 26-151, that will appear on the May ballot) on Wednesday, April 10 at the Matt Dishman Community Center. Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxGiG8zHB…

What a great place for conspiracy collecting! Payoffs to the Mercury, of all papers -- industrial giants who want to sneak poison in your water cause ... just evil I guess, even Nazis themselves (in a classic 1950s bit from the John Birch society).

Before you watch all these YouTube clips against flourides, ask yourself a simple question -- if flouride was so dangerous, why would dentists and city officials want to put in THEIR OWN water, that they drink? If it's so dangerous, how come it's been used in every other major city in America for DECADES, but the antis can't show a single person harmed by it? I mean, that's hundreds of millions of people over decades....

One more thing -- for people who bring up Europe not flouridating water as much any more. That's because most European companies now flouridate their salt, or their milk. You could look it up you know.

Oooo, payoffs. What a conspiracy theory. Except for that tiny detail that DOPAC, the lobbying arm of the ADA, 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.

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.

And what was that about Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland bribing minority groups for support?

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-2056…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfbrLGwwZOM…

@Secretspy, you know what else you could look up? Only five nations in western Europe have any fluoridated salt, and 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.

At secret spy: the only conspiracy left is the conditioning by the pro side to get you to reflexively think those against fluoride in the water are conspiracy theorists. As far "but the antis can't show a single person harmed by it" I hope you're not serious. Even the pro side will admit it causes fluorosis. There's significant evidence that those with any kind of kidney impairment should avoid fluoride. Did you even bother to look after "the experts" tod you what to believe?

You forgot the most important argument: maybe there are chemicals in our water already, but they are there to make our water potable. Fluoride has nothing to do with making water safe to drink. At best fluoride is a preventative medication and only a petty, arrogant tyrant would feel they have the right to forcibly medicate the public water supply of an entire city against so much opposition. Welcome to the nanny state.

HERE'S AN ARGUMENT YOU FORGOT:

FUCK YOU, PORTLAND JERKURY!!!

Ever wonder why Portland has such a long history of opposition to fluoridation? It might have something to do with this (excerpt from "The Fluoride Deception" by Christopher Bryson):

Sold to New Yorkers as a public-health initiative, the Committee to Protect Our Children's Teeth had powerful links to the U.S. military-industrial complex, and to the efforts of big industrial corporations to escape liability for fluoride pollution. In 1956, for example, the Committees booklet Our Children's Teeth was hot off the press. Before most New York parents had an opportunity to read about fluorides wonders, lawyers for the Reynolds aluminum company submitted the booklet to a federal appeals court in Portland, Oregon, where the company had been found guilty of injuring the health of a local farming family through fluoride pollution (see chapter 13). Inside the booklet, the judges were told, "are to be found the statements of one medical and scientific expert after another, all to the effect that fluorides in low concentrations (such as are present around aluminum and other industrial plants) present no hazard to man." (Today such a pseudo grass-roots effort would be known as an "astroturf" organization because of its fake popular character and essentially corporate roots.) The committee was funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, and its goals were to break the political logjam in New York and to help topple dominoes across the country, according to the committee's program director, Henry Urrows. "That was the working assumption-our justification as far as the Kellogg people were concerned-and it turned out that was quite correct because we broke the back of the anti-fluoridation movement by winning in New York and Chicago," Urrows told me.

Well they didn't break Portland!

Read Chapter 13 here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/121795065/Christ…

Fluoridation litigation, then and now
Oregon State Bar Bulletin — Aug./Sept. 2005
http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin…

It's sad to see The Merc's "news team" put one-sided crap like this out there under the guise of a news article. God forbid you would have used some of that editorial might to actually look into who's really behind the big push for fluoridation in our city, because I'll bet you WW's Pulitzer it's a group/company that has nothing to do with public health.

WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT ALL OF THE CHEMICALS IN OUR WATER WORKS

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1206134714…

This article stinks of corruption or lack of research. Portland Mercury you should be ashamed of yourself for taking sides and for not doing your homework. I for one am going to stop reading your paper. I am a once long time reader, who after reading this does not trust your paper and will no longer read!

If the PM had done basic research they might have discovered that a Multnomah County program already exists to provide area children with FREE daily fluoride treatments.

MC Health Dept fluoride program details:

https://web.multco.us/health/school-fluori…

Portland Public Schools fluoride distribution info:

http://www.pps.k12.or.us/vida/5601.htm

So-the question is...who stands to gain financially from building a $5 million treatment facility which will cost $500K per year to maintain-that will be paid for increases to our water bills??

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/articl…

At a time when we're cutting city budgets, why add a costly program which essentially duplicates a child targeted fluoride distribution program in place now?

It makes no sense to medicate the entire population if it's "the kids" teeth HKHP is supposedly so worried about.

Wow, you literally spent MINUTES listening to Dr. Jay Harris Levy “speak eloquently..on a slew of [human fluoride exposure] studies”? Good job, Mercury!

...Actually, not good job. Not. at. all.

Because you didn’t really take it in, did you? You mustered – by my generous calculation – maybe A MINUTE of your precious research time focussing enough to retain what Dr. Levy said.

The rest of those 11+ eloquent minutes you spent half-dozing through a haze of caffeine and nicotine withdrawal summarily refute each of the major talking points espoused by the pro-forced fluoridation lobby.

Fail. Go smoke another coffin nail. But try doing it first this time. Eat a granola bar, jog in place – something, anything to wake your tired ass up. Now go hit that replay button:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30umO7s4Zj0

No worries, though. You belong to a thick and well-funded crew of equally tongue-tied and listless advocates in the pro-involuntary medication camp with whom to gather together and pat each other on the back in congratulations for your noteworthy and entirely mutual mediocrity.

You can shake hands, browse the party favors, snarf down some chex mix – you know, recheck your blood sugar levels – and read this:
http://www.mismanagingperception.com/fluoride-lobby-fumbles/

Oh. I guess that did work, either. Hmm, if all else fails perhaps you can lobby for adding fluoride to chem trails. You know, one bird two stones. I mean, we have to find something to do with all this INDUSTRIAL WASTE FROM THE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER AND ALUMINUM SMELTING FACTORIES. Why not make a buck and kill some ducks? Right? Right guys? Guys?

@ckd- agreed. This city cannot afford this. I wish more people understood that.

At Press5ForPigLatin: "because I'll bet you WW's Pulitzer it's a group/company that has nothing to do with public health." Zing! LOL

A new addition to the discussion of the meta analysis written by Harvard Adjunct Professor (not very high up the tenure scheme) is a letter signed jointly by the Deans of the Harvard, Dental and Public Health schools.

They state:

"As Deans of Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Dental Medicine and the Harvard School of Public Health, we continue to support community water fluoridation as an effective and safe public health measure for people of all ages.

Numerous reputable studies over the years have consistently demonstrated that community water fluoridation is safe, effective, and practical. Fluoridation has made an enormous impact on improving the oral health of the American people.

Our country is fortunate to have over 204 million Americans living in fluoridated communities and having access to the health and economic benefits of this vital public health measure."

One's attention is drawn to the letterhead and Harvard's Latin motto: Veritas - Truth

This surely underscores the correctness of the Mercury's view of the IQ matter.

I'm having deja vu, is it because this reminds me when the Mercury published that article in support of Charlie Hales? I can't remember, maybe it's the fluoride.

You almost had me ckd because money. But then the last sentence... welp.

I GUESS IT JUST DOESN'T HOLD WATER AMIRITE

Whatev Billy. Harvard is just a tool of the lizard people trying to control our minds through fluoride.

You really opened my eyes, Mercury. I'll never trust your voters cheat sheets again.

lol what you take that shit seriously?

Ha, I think we all know the Portland MERCURY is just laying the groundwork for introducing Polonium into the drinking water.

It is absolutely crazy to think that portland's water isn't fluoridated. for such a forward leaning city, that is pretty ass backward, to use a technical term. i grew up in colorado, and i give alot of credit for my dental health to the fact that my water was fluoridated when i was growing up; i had fewer cavities growing up than my sisters who grew up in portland. i have never met anyone who suffered from discolored teeth from fluoride nor anyone adversely affected by fluoride. and having the sierra club and others argue on the point that adding .7ppm of fluoride is going to pollute the river is bunk. it isn't going to have any detrimental impact, where as all that shit, piss, cleaning chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, oil, gasoline, diesel, plastic bags, and so on that are already accumulate in the river are where efforts should be placed to reduce pollution. the fact that the portland water bureau or whoever gives warning on not going into the river after it rains heavily because of the overflow is what they should be more concerned with, don't give me this bs that fluoride is going to to pollute the rivers. and if you swallow toothpaste when you're brushing your teeth the worst thing that will happen is that your stomach will be upset, you'd have to eat the whole tube to have to go to the hospital and even then you're not going to die. for f's sake, it's like you're all listening to jenny mccarthy for medical advice. it has been proven that fluoride is safe and extremely beneficial for your health.

HEY I know! how about adding vitamin C into our water. That's good right? Maybe some Vitamin D - makes sense with all the rain and clouds right? Why stop there? The point is that I don't want freakin fluoride. So why should I have to suck it down? It's medicating the water. Medicating the water makes no scientific sense. This is not an accurate way to treat a health concern... FULL STOP.

Oops, sorry Homer I think I misread your comment earlier. Holy Fuck, too many comments!

How exactly is a democracy fair? No matter what a little under 50% walk away unhappy. Mob Rule does not determine equality, it undermines it. If we withheld freedom to any sort of value we would not be voting on these issues to begin with. These types of mandates violate individual rights and property rights plain and simple. The government roll should be to uphold contracts not create them.

At Spindles: No worries! Appreciate your posts.

So does the other side still get to call it "mob rule" if your side wins the public vote?

Billy Budd is here, taking a break from performing as multiple handles on the Oregonian. Welcome, Billy Budd/MotherVoltaire/ToothTruth/Git-er-done. Still curious what lobbyist firm pays for your time.

@ Vera...You apparently don't understand the content of my post but to answer your question, yes, mob rule would apply in either outcome.

I know fluoride works to keep teeth healthy when it's there in just the right amounts. What else it may or may not do to us I can only shrug at.

I have to say, I have tried to weigh both sides of this case, but all I hear from the pro side is that it will help, and that fluoride is proven safe.

Aspirin is also proven safe, and the dosage is marked right on the bottle so we know how much to give a baby, a child, or an adult. Some scientists somewhere will decide on the dose for everyone in Portland, regardless of whether they are children whose parents are already brushing their teeth well or not.

I don't believe fluoride should be avoided, I just believe that the millions of dollars we're bound to spend setting up and maintaining this program could be spent differently to benefit children. The kids this will impact the most are poor kids. Even if we do implement it, those kids are still stuck eating the cheapest food in the store, which we all know is loaded with corn syrup. If we want to fix their teeth, we ought to figure out how to stop poor kids from eating poorly.

Seriously flawed article here, MERCURY- I didn't see any mention of dental fluorosis (which can harm if not ruin your teeth), and the fact that children are at highest risk of it, and that it is typically associated with cities implementing these programs- and also it is the major reason Fairbanks Alaska dumped their fluoride program last year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluoro… http://www.fairbanksalaska.us/wp-content/u…

I also saw a very clever brush-over of the source of fluorosilicic acid- by calling it an "industrial chemical", and not an "industrial chemical waste", you hide the fact that we don't manufacture this stuff to put into the water like we would the sodium fluoride we put into toothpaste. It is a byproduct of industrial processes, and it's only a by'product' if you can sell it to somebody, if you can't, then you have to figure out how to get rid of it, like any other industrial waste. You also mention that our water is tempered with chemicals we are unaware of anyway, so it's not pure bull run water... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorosilicic…

As for that pure water, here's last year's Safe Drinking Water Act report for Portland, which shows a range of .025 to .16 ppm naturally occurring in our water- http://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/articl…

Fairbanks' program took their water to .7 ppm, so it's probable that's about where ours will be. And basically, we'll be medicating every water drinker in order to ensure that some of our children who don't get enough fluoride can have better teeth.

Tap water must meet requirements bottled water is free to ignore, so even though our water is 'tempered', it's still pretty sparkly clean- http://news.consumerreports.org/safety/200…

If I may re-state that previous paragraph about chemical waste, there are companies which need to get rid of the waste created in the process of making money, and if they can generate a program where they can sell it to the government (to be disposed of in our drinking water) rather than pay to dispose of it...

When politicians whole-heartedly bother to back something, and there are also advertisements all over town which completely fail to mention that they are promoting water fluoridation... it would be bad enough if they were to gloss over topics like the above without actually informing people of the real science involved- no, they just don't tell you what you are voting for at all. That ticks me off and makes me suspicious and doubtful.

From the article: "It comes down to being thoughtful about how much fluoride your young child ingests." So parents who are not "thoughtful" enough to care for their child's dental health need to be sufficiently "thoughtful" to make sure they don't ingest too much fluoride, even though many will probably not even realise either that fluoride is added to the water or that it is a cumulative toxin, and even though there is no viable alternative to tap water for disadvantaged people. Give me a break.

In case anyone hasn't worked it out yet, the quote above posted by Billy Budd is a fabrication. It's in the same vein as what a couple of Kansas newspapers wrote in the lead up to the fluoridation vote in Wichita last year.

http://braindrain.dk/2013/02/fluoridated-w…
Here's what Philippe Grandjean, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote recently about the misrepresentation of research he co-authored on the link between fluoride and lowered IQ in children.
"neither [Kansas] newspaper checked their information with the authors, even though statements were attributed to them"
"On average, the children with higher fluoride exposure showed poorer intelligence test performance. The high exposures generally exceeded the concentrations normally occurring in fluoridated drinking water, but only 4 of 27 studies reached an excess of 10-fold, and clear differences were found also at much lower exposures.
Addition of fluoride to drinking water has been controversial since the very beginning in the 1940s. As noted in a National Research Council report, neither benefits nor risks have been thoroughly documented."
"Chemical brain drain should not be disregarded. The average IQ deficit in children exposed to increased levels of fluoride in drinking water was found to correspond to about 7 points - a sizable difference. To which extent this risk applies to fluoridation in Wichita or Portland or elsewhere is uncertain, but definitely deserves concern."

Why is the fact that Portland schools offer fluoride tablets NEVER mentioned in these discussions? The issue isn't fluoride or no fluoride - it is fluoride IN THE WATER or no fluoride IN THE WATER. Children throughout the region who reside where the water is not fluoridated have access to a FREE and voluntary program through the school to access fluoride tablets. https://web.multco.us/health/school-fluori…

Further, children can get fluoride by prescription from a doctor as well.

And of course, dental care is FAR MORE IMPORTANT, as IS noted in the above article.

But quit making it sound like these kids have no access to fluoride if we don't put it in the water. The program to ensure they DO have access has been in place for quite some time, and allows individuals to make the decision for themselves, instead of it being forced on those who do not want it by putting it into ALL the water.

For those of you Portland journalists and legislators who opt out of researching and hide behind the CDC's famous quote, you should know the CDC is covering themselves legally by revealing that it really doesn't know if fluoridation is safe because they point you to and want you to read the following “safety” Reviews

Below each is a short explanation of dire warnkings

1) United States Public Health Service Review of Fluoride: Benefits and
Risks, 1991

They report the following research still needs to be done

Conduct analytical epidemiological studies of osteosarcoma to determine the
risk factors associated with its development. Fluoride exposure and bone levels
of fluoride should be included in the study design.

Evaluate the scientific merit of conducting further animal carcinogenicity
studies which use a wide range of chronic fluoride doses. Industries sponsoring
studies of fluoride should be encouraged to make their data publicly available
to aid in this evaluation.

Conduct analytical epidemiological studies to determine the relationship, if
any, among fluoride intake, fluoride bone levels, diet, body levels of nutrients
such as calcium, and bone fractures.

Conduct studies on the reproductive toxicity of fluoride using various dose
levels including the minimally toxic maternal dose.

Conduct further studies to investigate whether or not fluoride is
genotoxic.

http://www.health.gov/environment/Reviewof…

2) Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Guidelines, 1997

Since fluoride is not a nutrient, this report set the adequate intake from all sources
to avoid children’s moderate dental fluorosis (yellow teeth) and, also, the
upper limit to avoid crippling bone damage -- which the IOM admits “is too high
for persons with certain illnesses…” They determined that babies up to 6 months
should never be fed more than 0.01 mg/L fluoride.

3) National Academy of Sciences This isn’t a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis. It found EPA’s current fluoride maximum-contaminant-level-goal (MCLG) for drinking water is not protective of health and must be lowered. EPA has yet to act upon this
recommendation probably because, if they were truthful, it would kill the US’s
fluoridation program. Several members of the NRC panel believe fluoride's MCLG
should be as close to zero as possible.(2006) This fluoride panel revealed science which shows fluoride, even at low doses, is harmful to the thyroid, kidney patients, bones, babies and people who drink lots of water.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1…

4) Australian Government

Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) conducted a systematic review published in 2007, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publica…

Results: “214 studies were
included. The quality of studies was low to moderate...At a fluoride level of 1
ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people
would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning.”

5) University of York

What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found

“We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.

We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.

What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.

This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.

An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.

The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.”

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.…

CWP if the measure passes it will be time to play your trump card. Make sure the suppliers are in compliance with NSF Std 60 and all the toxicological studies that are required.

A.4 Data requirements for new or updated risk assessments
A.4.1 General requirements

For each substance requiring a new or updated risk assessment, toxicity data to be considered shall
Include, but not limited to, assays of genetic toxicity, acute toxicity (1 to 14 d exposure), short-term
toxicity (14 to 28 d exposure), subchronic toxicity (90 d exposure), reproductive toxicity, developmental
toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, chronic toxicity (including carcinogenicity), and human data
(clinical, epidemiological, or occupational) when available. To more fully understand the toxic potential of
the substance, supplemental studies shallbe reviewed, including, but not limited to, mode or mechanism
of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, sensitization, endrocrine disruption, and other endpoints,
as well as studies using routes of exposure other than ingestion. Structure activity relationships, physical
and chemical properties, and any other chemical specific information relevant to the risk assessment shall
also be reviewed.

How is this still going on? I'd be more likely to vote against fluoride if its opponents weren't such sanctimonious douchebags clinging to ridiculously biased documentaries. Because um, that makes me doubt the credibility of their evidence even more.

It's smelling like a Tea Party up in here.

What are the plans of the anti-fluoridians if the vote passes?

Hey myscof. There's no evidence you kill babies but I'm not ruling it out.

@Aestro Just drop it I guess. But these damned loons are probably going to win and then will move on to banning the MMR vaccine.

Your number 1 reason-- that water fluoridation prevents cavities-- smells like bullshit to me. You state that Portland's kids have a "problem" with cavities but don't go on to add any data comparing our kids' dental health with that of kids who live in areas where they do add fluoride. That data could have an impact on folks' decision, and its absence seems telling.

It's a weekly newspaper that makes its money off advertising. It doesn't exactly have room for full academic studies. Take some initiative and look it up yourself if you doubt it so much.

I don't care what "the science" says. I simply believe the government should not be in the business of mandatory medication in the water supply. Not on my dime, thanks. Chems to make water SAFE for consumption? Ok. Medication? Nope, not into it. Why do so many pro-fluoridation folks hate freedom? ;)

Portland Public Schools has a Flouride program in place. Do the low income children go to school? Please see the link: http://www.pps.k12.or.us/vida/5601.htm.
This is a quote from their web page: A daily fluoride tablet program is offered upon request at no cost to schools or families.

The European argument against fluoridation seems good but I would argue that the European NATIONAL health care initiatives such as fluoride supplements in schools, toothpaste, etc. makes the need for fluoridated water irrelevant. The general populous is getting the necessary dosage. Because the US health care system is broken the most vulnerable segments of the population are missing the boat on adequate dental care. Irrational social paranoia left over from the 50's and 60's is driving the anti-fluoride debate. The overwhelming scientific consensus shows no risk, significant upside and minimal cost. Where do you stand on the climate science? Show some consistency folks....

Thanks for the article, PDXM. I got this comment on my FB after posting it: "We've been goose-stepped into purchasing this program at a lofty sum, so who exactly is proposing to SELL it to us? The answer, which this ever-so-cynical rag does not dare mention is that the entire premise of the mass fluoridation of our water is a toxic waste disposal scam.
Just follow the money." Do you know where PDX is buying the fluoride and how the lobby works? I'm pro-fluoride, but it's a good question.

Wait a goddamned minute ms. Are you suggesting that an entirely different model of healthcare/dentistry and infrastructure might lead to different solutions to the same problem?

Watch it, they'll down vote you with great vigor.

@Anti So I don't know. Do you just read and watch anti-fluoridation stuff because school programs are being chopped left and right. (Also yes attendance and graduation rates are down for children below the poverty line. So.)

To tcraighenry: I recommend voting based on what you believe is the right vote based on the science, and whether you feel medication belongs in the public water supply. I consider City Hall meeting with lobbyists illegally off the record, then trying to force this on a populace that has twice rejected it, to be pretty d-baggy, but it's irrelevant to whether fluoride belongs in the water (though I suppose you could argue it might be relevant as to whether you support this particular measure, given its history).

First thing beyond the whole it is illegal for the Government to mass medicate us, Fluoride is a poison. Check your toothpaste the next time you brush. There is a very clear warning about not swallowing it and calling poison control if you do. Fluoride, if you ask every dentist in the country they will tell you that any child under the age of 2 should NOT ingest fluoride. So now in the guise of protecting our kids we are poisoning them at an even younger age. There 2 very (actual) sane arguments against Fluoride. Also if you are drinking a lot of water don't you now have to start measuring how much fluoride intake you are getting?

@Jim Blakley: Clearly you don't realize that fluoride is a magical substance - it's 100% safe in the water, but dangerous when put in toothpaste! The fluoride can sense the context.

At ms: "The overwhelming scientific consensus shows no risk" that's simply not true. I've already posted a link to a study in the journal NeuroToxicology (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1742005…), and there are others, that show increased lead levels in children consuming silicofluorides versus sodium fluoride or no fluoride. And there is significant data showing dangers for anyone with kidney impairment.

I have a very personal story about how fluoride exposure affected my life, was very strongly linked to my Thyroid Cancer, and that I had to deal with all of that RIGHT AFTER I HAD A BABY!!!!!! (See below)
Did you do any actual new research or did you just recycle and perpetuate everyone else's? No harmful chemicals???? Check out this recent development in Utah, where they actually tested the contents of the "fluoridation chemicals" and found them to have extremely high levels of arsenic, lead, aluminum, and mercury:
http://www.dmlawfirm.com/utah-halts-fluori…
And no credible studies linking fluoride with adverse health effects? Check out this
recent report prepared for the Government of Ireland, The World Health
Organization, and the European Commission comparing the disease and mortality
of the fluoridated part of Ireland versus the unfluoridated population.
Osteosarcoma, Alzheimers, Arthritis, SIDS, Down's Syndrome...
http://www.enviro.ie/Feb2013.pdf
97% of the world doesn't fluoridate. And there have been many studies done
internationally. One must question why the truth has been supressed here. I am
so thankful the truth is being reported elsewhere in the world.

This issue touches me very personally. Here's my story:

In August of 2012, during my 6-week post-partum check-up, my midwife was feeling the front of my neck and she stated, “Wow, your thyroid is really swollen”. I asked, “Uh, where’s my thyroid?” She put my fingers on the front of my neck and had me feel where there was indeed, a large lump on the right side of my neck. She ordered a blood test to assess my thyroid levels, thinking that my thyroid was just swollen due to working overtime to make thyroid hormone, perhaps due to a previously undetected hypothyroidism. The blood test came back with reasonably healthy thyroid hormone levels, so hypothyroidism was ruled out as a cause for the lump. My primary care doctor ordered an ultrasound to take a closer look. Based on what they found during the ultrasound, a biopsy was then ordered. The biopsy revealed that the lump (now we knew it to be a tumor) was cancerous. I remember going into shock. I had just turned 35 a few days earlier. I had given birth in mid-July to my
long-awaited first child, William, and now I had Thyroid Cancer.

When William was 10 weeks old, on September 27, 2012, I had my entire thyroid removed. The cancer had spread beyond the thyroid sac onto the surrounding tissue, most concernedly the lymph nodes and a neighboring nerve that was adjacent to my right vocal cord. I couldn’t sing to my baby for about 6 weeks after that, because of damage that occurred during the surgery. This was really sad, as I was accustomed to singing to him constantly, and we didn’t know at that time that my voice would eventually come back. For all we knew, the voice loss would be
permanent. Post-surgery it was decided by my surgeon that it was extremely advisable that I also undergo a radioactive iodine treatment to kill all the remaining cancer cells that were still around the area of my thyroid. This would mean
that I would have to stop breastfeeding, because it would take 3 months for the
radiation to work its way completely out of my breast milk. I was a passionate
advocate of breastfeeding, and very proud of William and my success in that area. I made enormous quantities of milk, and he in turn ate with gusto and grew fat and healthy, in the 95th percentile for height and weight. Weaning William broke my heart. But the doctors said that it was more important that I do the radiation as soon as possible so that William would have his mommy around to see him grow up.

On January 9, 2013, I had my radioactive iodine treatment and then went home to live in my basement for 2 weeks. William had to go to my parent’s house for 2 weeks for his own safety, since I was extremely radioactive. My husband had to stay upstairs too. After the first week, we took walks with my parents, but I had to stay across the street from the rest of them so I wouldn’t radiate them. I would cry on
these walks because it was torture to see William but not be able to hold him
and comfort him. He looked very confused and upset and wouldn’t smile at me at all.
I felt he looked at me accusingly, like “Why are you doing this Mommy?”

Over the course of this experience I have been researching possible causes for my cancer, as it is so strange to get cancer at such a young age, and I admit it, I was extremely angry about the whole thing. I knew I was supposed to be thankful to be alive, and I was, but I still felt so much grief about what the cancer had cost me. My naturopathic doctor mentioned in passing that the thyroid cancer rate had increased 400% in San Francisco following the fluoridation of the water there. I
researched that statistic to its primary source, and found that it was true,
that according to The New England Journal of Medicine’s article on “Occurrence
of Thyroid Cancer in San Francisco” dated July 14, 1955, this had been the case. The link to this article can be found at:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM19….

A very academic study: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=…

A very well-researched and
well-cited paper detailing the undeniable connection between fluoride and
Thyroid Cancer can be found at: http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lfluoride…

Another: http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarilee…

Another: http://www.naturalthyroidchoices.com/Fluor…

And I could keep going. So you might wonder, when was I exposed to fluoride? Well, I lived in Beaverton for 3 years, and they fluoridate the water there.
Additionally, I was on Prozac for 4 years, which is very high in fluoride content. As well as other exposures over the past 35 years-toothpaste, pesticide residue on my produce, bottled beverages, and any naturally occurring fluoride in the environment.

My suspicion is that my Thyroid Cancer was caused by fluoride exposure.

Therefore if Portland fluoridates its water, then my cancer could return. I would really prefer that this not happen. I would really like to see William grow up.

And don't delete my comment like Willamette Week did yesterday. I will post it over and over and over and tell everyone about it. If you have never had cancer at the age of 35 RIGHT AFTER YOU HAD A BABY then you cannot possibly understand my passion and tenacity. It is a force to be reckoned with. I will never shut up about the truth.

Basic research reveals the following:

1) All Portland schoolchildren between the ages of 3 and 5th grade can receive FREE fluoride tablets at school.
Districts served include:
■Portland Public School District
■Centennial School District
■David Douglas School District
■Gresham-Barlow School District
■Parkrose School District
■Reynolds School District
■Corbett School District
https://web.multco.us/health/school-fluori…
2) All uninsured Oregon children under the age of 18 are eligible for free/low-cost dental care coverage through the Oregon Health Plan.
http://www.oregonhealthykids.gov/families/…
3) There are quite a few dental clinics in our community that offer free/low-cost dental care to those who need it.
http://www.coalitionclinics.org/dental-res…

I myself grew up on free dental care from the Russell Street Dental Clinic in Portland. I did not grow up on fluoridated water. I have excellent teeth. My mother was just very diligent about taking me twice a year for cleanings and check-ups. We were very poor but she made it a priority.

I would bet that a large majority of the people opposing fluoridation also snicker at conservative Republicans who deny the existence of climate change. Apparently, scientific illiteracy knows no ideological boundaries.

The number of tinfoil hats that I have seen around town lately is astounding.

An unsigned editorial? The Merc has just jumped past the Willamette Week in stodginess with this one. I'm Looking forward to your upcoming editorials on climate change and creationism.

Is Wayne LaPierre on your news team? The logic of 'There's already stuff in the water, so we might as well dump more stuff in.' sounds similar to 'Criminals don't obey the law, so we shouldn't have laws.'

How sad. I grew up one of ten kids, we were by societies standards "poor". Just the people this forced medication is supposed to 'help'.

I have beautiful teeth because we ate a basic diet, oatmeal in the morning, beans, rice, tortillas, a little cheese. Sometimes peanut butter and other special meals. Treats were few and far between, mainly birthdays, we ate them up as soon as we could. Oh we also brushed off and on. We were all strong, slim, healthy. When someone got the measles, chicken pox or mumps others would come over to try and get it. That was the thinking, get exposed and develop immunity.

Now I see many get 'free' junk food for breakfast and lunch at school. Food as reward is rampant in schools and elsewhere. If the state cared about kids health they would first quit feeding all the junk food in schools; french toast, cinnamon buns, fries, hamburgers, hotdogs. Until they do that dental and other diseases will increase.

Flouride is a diversion instead of doing something meaningful do something the industrial fertilizer chemical industry needs to get rid of. Good job Mecrury adding to the insult.

@Gil Johnson: I don't snicker at Republicans who deny the existence of climate change, because I happen to believe condescension is unhelpful and immature. I merely think they are wrong, based on the science. I also oppose fluoridation, based on the science. As I've already stated, I have a serious problem with the implications of this study, published in the journal NeuroToxicology, that silicofluorides (of which fluorosilic acid is one) increased lead levels in children, compared to sodium fluoride and no fluoride. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1742005… There are similar studies that suggest the same thing. I also have serious reservations about fluoride's effect on kidneys for those with pre-existing kidney problems. I also philosophically oppose medicating a common water supply, regardless of the supposed benefits. Lastly, KATU's research, using data from the state of Oregon, shows that current fluoridation is not preventing caries here. http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-30098-s…

Further proof of the ongoing corporate conspiracy to sell un-needed fluoride to the gullible masses: /sponsor-graphics/edit

Put listerine in the water! Less cavities it's proven! (brought to you by the kind people of Listerine inc)

Aside from the obvious PR in this article, did the staff actually do any research of their own into where the Fluoride used in the water will come from? Had they done a proper job as a "reporter", they would have learned that the majority of Fluoridation is sourced from industrial waste.

From the EPA: 95% what's used in the process comes from the industrial waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry, in the form of sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid. Which are classified as hazardous waste by the EPA. The other 5% source comes from the manufacture of hydrogen fluoride which is used in the manufacturing of solar panels and electronics.

Furthermore, industrial sources have been found to contain arsenic and lead, even though for the most part the NSF/ANSI standards are pretty stringent over purity so only rarely do the impurities happen. But still, do we really want to add even more junk to the water we drink?

Obviously there's money to be had by passing off industrial waste as being "good" for us. And if Fluoridation passes, Portland will be yet another in a long string of suckers who buy into this B.S.

It is also painfully obvious that the Mercury needs cash, so took a big old donation for this piece of yellow journalism.

if they cared about your kid's teeth, they would mail your kids free fluoride tablets. Portland's water has always been so much better than the water in say california new york mexico hawaii etc, let's have a bunch of transplant eastcoast hipsters and californians vote to change our city yeah!

Whoops, wrong clipboard paste. Oh well. There's like 200 comments. No one will notice. Hell, I can just paste in random shit at this point and it will get ignored like everything else is getting ignored.Six years have passed since I resolved on my present undertaking. I can, even now, remember the hour from which I dedicated myself to thisgreat enterprise. I commenced by inuring my body to hardship. Iaccompanied the whale-fishers on several expeditions to the North Sea;I voluntarily endured cold, famine, thirst, and want of sleep; I oftenworked harder than the common sailors during the day and devoted mynights to the study of mathematics, the theory of medicine, and thosebranches of physical science from which a naval adventurer might derivethe greatest practical advantage.

Lorem ipsum, Graham.

This is ridiculous.

I just can't bring myself to give a shit about this either way.

Thanks, Mercury, for letting us know you cannot be trusted.

The Mercury believes what the CDC says? They obviously haven't seen The Walking Dead.

@C&B: For professional reasons, I have to repeatedly fill in a large number of text boxes with text over and over again. I find Lorem Ipsum to be some peasant-class shit. Real men use classic works from Gutenberg.

@David, all Portland Schoolchildren between the ages of 3 through 5th grade are eligible to receive FREE fluoride tablets at school.
https://web.multco.us/health/school-fluori…

I'm not going to get in the ridiculousness of this thread--not reading any other comments. But I do want to say THANK YOU for this! I agree and appreciate that the Mercury (as well as other news outlets) are fluoride supporters. Let's hope common sense prevails.

calling it a "vast, VAST minority of dentists" that oppose flouridation makes it sound like there are a ton of dentists against it, and seems to weaken that part of your argument as it comes across the page.

maybe try a "miniscule minority" or something similar.

There are two things at work here: #1 white guilt. Mandating that an entire population drink fluoridated water will not absolve any racism that has occurred in your personal or collective history. And the NAACP's endorsement for the Clean Water Campaign should wake you up to the fact that not all African Americans agree with fluoridation. #2 The belief in fluoride is a religion. In other words, it involves believing, not thinking. Furthermore, the Mercury has now just proved that their claim to be an alternative news source is entirely bogus. The Mercury is mainstream and it seems proud of it. OMG, what do you not get about informed consent and civil liberties..this mandate to drug the water is a clear violation of our civil rights. And dismissing chiropractors and acupuncturists for not being scientific like the CDC, what and the AMA? Those bastions of truth? Please!!!

Can we get back to talking about how vaccinations cause autism, please?

what about the fact that forcing medicine on people is just downright creepy?

Guys, you really need to check yourselves. First, the guilt tactic is no bueno. I'm sure it is not people's intention to not take care of one another, but there are some studies that have been done that raise red flags, and people are RIGHT to be concerned about them. Money talks, and if you put enough research into finding out how good something is, and neglecting to put enough money into how bad something is, it makes for a compelling brainwash to use on people.

Secondly, I don't know where you guys got your information about fluoride being a mineral, but that is absolutely false. I can tell you that without a doubt, but whether you would believe me or not is the question. Before your article misinforms people, I would STRONGLY encourage you to do further research on what chemistry defines fluoride as; chemical properties, how it reacts with other elements, MSDS information, and the like. If you're nice, you may want to update your article.

Thirdly, I'm not sure where you guys got your statistics for rates of cavities in school children, how many doctors in Portland actually support fluoridation, how many doctors in Portland are against fluoridation, how many doctors in Portland are indifferent about fluoridation, what healthy doses of fluoride are, etc.., but I want your sources. ALL YOUR SOURCES ARE BELONG TO ME! Send me what you got. Post them as a comment in this thread.

This is the most amazing election ever

I thought this was a comment section. Why all the essays?

Point 1 response:
-Statistical evidence shows equal or even fewer cavities in our region when compared to a Fluoridated city of EQUIVALENT population and demographics.
-fluoride actually only effects teeth when applied topically. Ingesting fluoride kills "friendly" probiotic bacteria that your body depends on in your G.I. Tract. And also upsets the microbiological food chain from the bottom up.
- fluorides are not simply a natural mineral and therefore safe. It is a class of substances both natural and artificial ranging from slightly hazardous to extremely hazardous.
- the CDC actually posted a 187 page toxicology report on all known types of fluorides and fluorines which clearly defines hazards of long term exposure to standard "drinking water levels" of fluorosilic acid. Despite the CDC's party line endorsement of fluoridation, many individuals within the CDC have spoken against fluoridation.

Point 2 response:

The argument of this point is that because they already put harmful chemicals into municipal water why should we be upset about 1 more?
This one is ridiculous and isn't even worthy of a response.

Point 3 response:

Fluoride is not entirely undetectable to taste. It is very subtle and nearly indistinguishable to most people. That however, was not really an argument of anti fluoride folks.
Professional brewery's know that boiling will dissipate chloramines from water before brewing begins. Unfortunately, Fluorides, and fluorines DON'T work that way. They will remain after boiling. The yeast cultures will fight against them every step of the way in fermentation and the culture will be weak when the batch is done. Will it taste different? No, but that's irrelevant. The presence of fluoride in every part of our food supply in unpredictable concentrations is

Point 4 response:

-Dr. Wu claims that fluoride acts systemically. It get's into your system and for a few hours you will secret fluoride with your saliva. The article also admits that this amount is not a sufficient topical amount to prevent tooth decay. It is sufficient to cause pancreatic, thyroid, liver, and kidney distress. This is known to the medical community to be true. The ADA is made up of dentists who deal with teeth. Not medical doctors who deal with organs.
The 1990 CDC report that gets spread around is 23 years old. Since that time there are volumes of data linking fluoride to a wide range of medical issues.

Point 5 response:

The argument here is that many things including fluoride are harmful in high enough doses. Well we are just discussing fluoride not the other things. -In the amounts that it would be administered (without consent) as a drug in the water supply it may be less harmful on entry, but fluid dynamics suggest that it will concentrate and diminish in an unpredictable way once it is out in the world. It is impossible to predict what individual dosages would be per person. As well as what other exposures each person would have.
-Philadelphia is paying an enormous amount of money to reduce the Fluoride in it's municipal water, because the levels became (unpredictably) too high. This process is extremely difficult costly and inefficient for a city that has had devastating financial lows, yet they see this as a necessity and are spending the money.
-Fluoride, as stated above, is linked to a wide range of illnesses. Many people with those conditions, such as diabetics, cancer patients, etc... Are more sensitive to very small amounts of fluoride.
Did fluoride cause their conditions? Who knows, but these people have to live with weakened immune systems and hypersensitivity to toxicity.
-This speaks nothing to the ethical debate of whether it's o.k. To force a population of people to ingest a medication against their will!

Point 6 response:

This argument suggests that the scientific and medical community is not equally divided about fluoridation. It also go's on to question the validity of naturopathic and holistic medicine by simply stating that those forms of medicine have come under fire in the past by others.
- when speaking about the scientific and medical community we are not speaking locally we are speaking about the worldwide community and it's body of knowledge which is divided if not largely against fluoridation.

Point 7 response:

The argument, if it makes one here, is that the Harvard study which showed evidence of fluoride actually reducing cognitive function in children was flawed. The proposed reason was that the study showed statistical analysis from an area in china with a high concentration of fluoride. It also tries to disqualify the study itself because of the route in which it became popularly cited.
- who cares if the study was posted on cracked.com and then reposted on Reuters? The fact is the Harvard study did take place and it did show evidence of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water having reduced cognitive function.
- the dosage in the Chinese municipal water was not ridiculously high in fact not much higher than Philadelphia's peak area which prompted the city to pay to have fluoride levels reduced through processing.
- also the dosage of the study was by far less then dosages administered topically both by dentists and in many public schools (.25mg - 1.5mg)
-A study by Florida State University found that fluoride at .45 ppm by itself a strong enough sedative to significantly retard sensory and mental reaction time. .7 to 1.2 is the standard drinking water levels. Pharmaceutical companies began to pair it with other sedatives because it compounds and amplifies the effects. Fluoride paired with Valium becomes Rohypnol. Stelazinum is a powerful fluoride based sedative used in nursing homes and care facilities.

Whoever posts the highest word count wins?

More evidence to support NO on fluoridation. Press Conference today May 2, 2013

New Toxicity Test Confirms Arsenic in Fluoridation Chemicals Used in Oregon

At a press conference earlier this morning, Clean Water Portland, the Sierra Club and other opponents of fluoridation released results of tests on a sample of fluorosilicic acid (FSA) used to fluoridate water in Philomath. This is the same fluoridation chemical the Portland Water Bureau says would be used in Portland. The City of Philomath sent the FSA samples directly to a highly respected toxicity lab in Washington, and results were returned last week.

William Hirzy, Ph.D., a chemist at American University in Washington, D.C., said if the same compound is used in Portland, it would raise arsenic rates in the city’s water more than 12 percent above Portland’s highest recorded arsenic levels in 2012 (1.2 ppb). Hirzy’s recent study on the effects of arsenic levels in drinking water resulting from the addition of fluoridation chemicals is available at cleanwaterportland.org.

Did someone who was anti-fluoride come into the Mercury office and shit all over the floor while shouting "Clean water rules, your face drools!"?? This whole campaign was a lot nicer a couple weeks ago when certain people weren't running around accusing others of wearing tinfoil hats and being up there with gun nuts and climate change deniers. No wonder there are nearly 200 comments here, you're giving people a reason to feel like they need to defend themselves. The thing that shocks me the most about this article is not that you all barely expand on any idea but that you're so damn rude to the other side.

I'm sorry the lack of fluoride in Portland ate your baby. I'm sorry the lack of fluoride in Portland dumped pig blood on you at your prom. I'm sorry the lack of fluoride in Portland convinced you try to try anal sex and then didn't call you back. But maybe stop hurtling out insults and instead try to engage in an intelligent debate so we can all move forward with this and not hate each other when it's all over. Or better yet, stop trying to post about political issues and go back to letting me know if the cocktails at Church are worth Bay Area prices.

@Steve R: There's no prize for last place, if that's what you're going for.

I use to volunteer for a youth shelter in Portland and We gave out tooth paste and brushes constintley and there is many programs kids can get into for dental work. I also lived in NY and WA, they have fluoride in their water. I also brush my teeth twice a day and Guess what, I still got cavities. If you think kids teeth will get better from drinking fluoride, it won't . If the kids get cavities it's there own fault or their parents not making sure they brush.

Taking all comments on this thread into account, you have collectively written 20,013 words on this topic.

Hey Denis, et al., where's your Blogtown post on the arsenic test CWP just released?