Look, I understand if you stopped reading all the comments we’re still getting on our feature article this week (“The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoridation… And Why They’re Still Wrong”), because frankly one’s interest begins to wane after the 209th comment accusing us of being “bought off” by big money dental fertilizer arsenic companies. (Ummm… if that’s the case… WHERE’S MY MERCEDES???)
However! Now that it’s reached 330 comments (WOO-HOO!), a new player has entered the game who goes by the name of Pridge Wessea and is really causing certain people coniptions. Take it away, Pridge!
You’re absolutely right Homer – I hate how the discourse on public water is so negative and sarcastic when we are talking about POISON. People look at me like I’m crazy, but there’s not a single study out there that shows that water is 100% safe. People die from drinking it all the time. It doesn’t have a warning label, so how do you know when drinking it you’ve had too much?
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both drank water and now they’re dead – what further proof does anyone need?
Oh, and there’s much more here. ALSO! Paul Constant made note of this comment thread over at SLOG in Seattle where they’ve had fluoridated water for years. Their comments about our comments are also pretty priceless.
@14: “But it’s not just about hippies (and it’s definetly not “Birchers”), the people making the most noise about fluoride are the younger set, the kind of people who believe in homeopathy and that vaccines cause autism. They’re well organized and media-savvy.”
There’s no fucking difference between bircher christians and new-age antivaxers, there’s a reason why both take to Scientology and Ron Paul.
—Posted by undead ayn rand
Hmmf! They would say that—they’ve all been paid off by fluoridated chemical fertilizer poison Desani companies, too! (Consider this unfluoridated water… CHUMMED.)
I dunno, I think Pridge sort of gets close to making a decent point. First off, water, in large quantities, is indeed unsafe. You can die from drinking too much too quickly (as we saw a couple years ago when that mother hopped on a radio show and drank a few gallons in order to try and win a PS3 for her son). And when it comes to bottled water, there are very little regulations! For instance, Dasani isn’t required to distribute a certain quality of water. And the EPA does not test it.
In terms of public bodies of water, as we’ve discovered over the decades, crap (like Bisphenol A) gets into the water as a result of manufacturers/distributors not testing their chemicals and not managing their waste. The water needs to be constantly monitored. That’s why we have the whole Safe Water Drinking Act! http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sd…
So yes, of course, water CAN be bad for you.
Note: I’m not commenting on the flowride stuff.
GUYS IT’S TOO NICE OUTSIDE TO YELL ON THE INTERNET ABOUT CHEMICALS.
@ Drunk & Write
I don’t know about you guys, but today I’m gonna add some thong to my water. HOLLA!!
CAN I GET SOME EXTRA FLUORIDE IN MY BUD LIGHT LIME?
No no Humpey, I wouldn’t say that “they’ve all been paid off by fluoridated chemical fertilizer poison Desani companies”. I’d say they’re lazy and stupid.
Fuck Birchers, fuck Scientology, fuck comments, fuck comments about comments, fuck Ayn Rand (dead or undead), fuck Ron (and Rand) Paul, fuck chummed water, fuck George Washington, fuck cherry trees, fuck Seattle, fuck hippies, fuck the anti-vaccine fucks, fuck BPA, fuck homeopathy, fuck sharks, fuck misspelled bottled water brands, fuck new-age anything, fuck Thomas Jefferson, fuck dental fertilizer, fuck Slog, fuck nice weather, fuck fluoridation, and fuck me.
fuuuuuuuuck.
Does anyone not wonder about these folks? I mean, wouldn’t you feel a little odd screaming “CHEMICALS! POISON! TOXINS!” when the evidence just doesn’t remotely support your hyperbole? How have these people gone through life without seeing Dr. Strangelove? I mean, at least you would think that they would refrain from repeating General Ripper if they had seen it.
If not, what filter is lacking?
Seattleites were willing to
Make fun of Portlanders?
‘Tis passing strange!
It would be nice if the anti-flouride “activists” understood that adding fluoride to water is Mimicking a Natural Phenomenon. Scientists way back when noticed people in some places had tons of cavities & some had none. By using science to see what the difference between the two groups was, they found it was the amount of fluoride in the water. By mimicking the fluoride levels naturally occurring in some water, via adding a teensy bit of fluoride to water supplies, they found that cavities stopped happening where people had been getting tons of cavities. Also, studies of populations with natural fluorine in water, added fluorine and no fluorine, prove there’s no evidence that fluorine in water has ever harmed a human.
@ TrishaR, Unlike calcium or magnesium fluoride, which can occur naturally in water, the compounds used for artificial fluoridation—hydrofluosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride—are waste byproducts of industry, so toxic they must be recovered and disposed of at a hazardous waste facility. Rather than being purified to pharmaceutical standards, they are added to public water in their raw, industrial state. No water district in the country currently uses pharmaceutical grade fluoride because it is cost prohibitive.
And yes, there have been a wealth of studies that show beyond any doubt that fluoride has harmed humans and the environment. See: “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 York Review – A systematic review of public water fluoridation. (2002)”.
25 years ago, I had the honor to interview the late Dr. Albert Schatz.
Albert Schatz discovered streptomycin, the first effective antibiotic against tuberculosis.
Over the last 200 years, TB killed over a billion people, and killing is more humans than all other infectious diseases combined. Streptomycin was also the first effective treatment for bubonic plague (Black Death), tularemia, brucellosis and other serious infectious diseases for which there had been no effective treatment.
“…Fluoridation, is a major environmental pollutant, which along with many other chemicals, is now a major part of the threat to our survival…”
Please read:
“LOW-LEVEL FLUORIDATION AND LOW-LEVEL RADIATION
TWO CASE HISTORIES OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE”
by D. Albert Schatz
http://www.fluoridation.com/schatz.htm
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/382/files/…
Ya know, for years I’ve been saying that there is a large element on the left that is as crazy and stupid as on the right…
Makes it pretty hard to have a coherent or effective movement for social change when half the base is nuts. But who has the stomach for the necessary purge?
So our corporatocracy continues. I hope that people can at least get a glimmer of what I was getting at, after all this.
@Spindles, you do a good job of making your claims sound reasonable, but anyone who looks up your citations will find that you are distorting every single point. Jut the first two: Politifact ruled your claim that flouridation uses “toxic waste products of industry” as false.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements…
Then you cite “”Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standard (2006)”. Bullshit. This study says directly that it is NOT talking about flouridation levels — 0.7 to 1.2 ppm – but about the handful of communities where naturally occurring flouride is 4-5 times higher than this, 4 ppm or more. You are lying through your teeth.
http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Report-In-Br…
http://www.ada.org/4799.aspx
The NRC Panel unanimously agreed that the current Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for fluoride (4 ppm) is too high and does not adequately protect against adverse health effects.
They concluded the margin of safety between the current MCLG of 4 ppm and the recommended 1 ppm which is added to fluoridate drinking water. Several members of the NRC Panel also concluded there is no safe fluoride exposure level for those in our society who are most vulnerable to its deleterious effects, namely infants and children, the elderly, diabetics, high volume water consumers and individuals with decreased kidney and thyroid function.
Fluoridation chemicals are neurotoxic to about seven IQ points between two cities in China where the only difference is 0.3 and 2.7 ppm water fluoridation. Given that in the US, we are already exposed to fluoride via toothpaste, mouthwash, other dental products, beverages, food with fluoride used as a pesticide, our systemic exposure to fluoride is already quite high. Adding 0.7ppm to water would put our total exposure to near a 2ppm equivalent.
http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/…
You’ll note that the amount of fluoride dumped into the river that was causing fish die-off reported in the study is about the same amount that will be dumped into our water and thus dumped into our treated sewage at the Columbia River treatment plant effluent outlet. At 384kg daily at the aluminum smelter versus 250kg of fluoride per day from Portland’s water supply at current rates of consumption, it is critical to know that Salmon have negative effects starting at 0.2ppm in fresh water.
“Gish gallop”, Spindle. You do that very well. Check this recent letter out:
March 22, 2013
Dr. Myron Allukian, Jr.
Immediate Past President, American Association for Community Dental Programs
Associate Clinical Professor, Harvard School of Dental Medicine
Via email: myalluk@
Dear Dr. Allukian:
As Deans of Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Dental Medicine and the Harvard School of Public Health, continue to support community water fluoridation as an effective and safe public health measure for people of all Numerous reputable studies over the years have consistently demonstrated that community water fluoridation is effective, and practical. Fluoridation has made an enormous impact on improving the oral health of the American Our country is fortunate to have over 204 million Americans living in fluoridated communities and having access health and economic benefits of this vital public health measure.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey S. Flier, MD
Dean of the Faculty of Medicine
Caroline Shields Walker Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
R. Bruce Donoff, DMD, MD
Dean and Walter C. Guralnick Distinguished Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Harvard School of Dental Medicine
Julio Frenk, MD, MPH, PhD
Dean of the Faculty, Harvard School of Public Health
T & G Angelopoulos Professor of Public Health and International Development,
Harvard School of Public Health and Harvard Kennedy School
I guess it’s just me and my friends whose opposition to the bill rests almost entirely in the fact that our city leaders want to loot $5M from the citizens to give to some construction firm to build the fluoridation plant, at a time when the city is facing a $21M budget shortfall and laying off employees?
I mean, science-schmience, if we’re going to raise a multi-million dollar bond for public health, why can’t we just give the money directly to poor people, instead of contractors and a handful of temporary construction workers?
@Human in training, yes! except for the last one
Speaking of the Harvard school of dental medicine, let’s take a gander at the chairman of its department of oral health policy and epidemiology and his totally unbiased view on water fluoridation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBmVY8lUcXg
EXCESSIVE FLUORIDE IN DIET & ENVIRONMENT
“about 25 percent of children at 6 months of age ingested (fluoride) amounts greater than the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 0.7 mg/ l day”
Comment: Compare this level to .01, which is often referred to as an adequate intake for children 6 months old. Mother’s milk is .004 mg/l (ppm).
also…fluoride science is weak.
“the basis for the so-called “optimal” fluoride intake. It is unclear exactly how the upper limit of that range came into existence. This range has since been designated or stated as the optimal level for fluoride intake by many researchers, although there has been no scientific validation of this range for being considered “optimal.” There has never been a clear definition as to what the range is optimal for; is it for caries prevention or is it for the prevention of fluorosis? This “optimal” range was estimated before the widespread use of topical fluorides and other fluoride exposures, and prior to the generalized, widespread distribution of beverages…It is important to look at many of these different sources of fluoride intake in light of the increasing prevalence of dental fluorosis and greater emphasis on esthetic perceptions currently being seen in the United States and other developed nations…”
“Fluoride content of solid foods impacts daily intake” (Journal of Public Health Dentistry 72 (2012) 128–134)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2231597…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGLPEJTYS70…
Water Fluoridation – No Evidence of Beneficial Effect;
(5 Year Study of 51,683 in Portland)
Data from Kaiser Permanente
“…the effects were generally small…In Portland metro, there was no evidence of a beneficial effect of fluoridation on total costs; in fact, costs were generally higher among members living in the community water fluoridated (CWF) than in the (NF) nonfluoridated districts of the metropolitan area”
Citation – A comparison of dental treatment utilization and costs by HMO members living in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas" (J Public Health Dent. 2007 Fall;67(4):224-33)
http://katubim.s3.amazonaws.com/Maupome_fl…
THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF ARSENICIN WATER:
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal MCLG = 0 ppm
EPA Regulations: Arsenic in Drinking Water
“…If there is evidence that a chemical may cause cancer, and there is no dose below which the chemical is considered safe, the MCLG is set at zero.”
“Arsenic has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate.”
“The MCL is set as close to the MCLG…taking cost into consideration”
“…if the Administrator determines. . . that the benefits of a maximum contaminant level . . . would not justify the costs of complying with the level, the Administrator may…promulgate a maximum contaminant level that maximizes health risk reduction benefits at a cost that is justified by the benefits.”
“This was a significant change from the previous language as it allows the
cost of compliance to be an explicit consideration is setting MCLs. EPA
used this rationale when setting the arsenic rule and the uranium MCLs.”
COMMENT” It’s all about money folks.
http://water.epa.gov/learn/tra…
.010 parts per million (10 parts per billion) …this standard by January 23, 2006, providing “additional protection” to an estimated 13 million Americans.
COMMENT: So, logically: prior to 2006, 13 million Americans were at risk. More Americans are still at risk.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/…
“…EPA sets a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), the maximum level of a contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons would occur, and which allows an adequate margin of safety. MCLGs are non-enforceable public health goals. Since MCLGs consider only public health…When determining an MCLG, EPA considers the risk to sensitive subpopulations (infants, children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems) of experiencing a variety of adverse health effects…If there is evidence that a chemical may cause cancer, and there is no dose below which the chemical is considered safe, the MCLG is set at zero.”
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/…
CONGRESS FINDS FRAUD AT CDC REGARDING WATER SAFETY & LEAD
“CDC misled District residents about lead levels in water, House probe finds”
(Washington Post – May 20, 2010)
The nation’s premier public health agency knowingly used flawed data to claim that high lead levels in the District’s drinking water did not pose a health risk to the public, a congressional investigation has found. And, investigators determined, the agency has not publicized more thorough internal research showing that the problem harmed children across the city and continues to endanger thousands of D.C. residents.
A House investigative subcommittee concludes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made “scientifically indefensible” claims in 2004 that high lead in the water was not causing noticeable harm to the health of city residents. As terrified District parents demanded explanations for the spike in lead in their water, the CDC hurriedly published its calming analysis, knowing that it relied on incomplete, misleading blood-test results that played down the potential health impact, the investigation found.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte…
COMMENT: So, you want to blindly trust CDC? They are a military organization that follows orders from their superiors. You want to be a good soldier and take orders from their surgeon general? If they’d lie about lead in the water of our nation’s capitol, don’t you think they’d lie about the rest of the country?
Oregon DEQ Opposes Fluoridation
“AFSCME Local 3336 stands in opposition to the practice of fluoridating community drinking water systems.”
“…expressed concerns about potential water quality degradation from by-products of
fluoride production and uncertain health effects of fluoride ingestion.”
The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Local 3336 represents over
500 workers at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
http://www.afscme3336.org/docs/Letter_Fluo…
http://www.afscme3336.org/
EPA unions Oppose Fluoridation
http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTE…
http://youtu.be/ViNNIwmzTzI
COMMENT: Fluoride from toothpaste is already found in all sewage sludge 14.5 times (on average) above the EPA’s maximum contaminant level (4ppm). The sludge is a huge toxic waste nightmare, is not well regulated and is used as fertilizer.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/bio…
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/bio…
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/bio…