Politics May 1, 2013 at 4:00 am

...And Why They're Still Wrong


"by the Mercury News Team"

Did you guys get a big fat check from Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland as well?

What a joke.
How about the argument that the government should not force the involuntary ingestion of ANY drugs, regardless of their health benefit? To me, this is the most important and most sane argument. I don't care if fluoride is completely safe, and will make all our teeth better - it should not be the government's mandate that I must ingest it in my water.
I predict mine will be the last comment on this thread.
Did voters take advantage of a policy that lets a sufficient number of interested people refer a vote by our elected representatives to the people? Is that election happening later this month? Did you register to vote in that election? Are you voting? Just asking. Because if this passes, it won't be a "government mandate."
LOL, this is terrible "journalism" (actually it's an opinion piece but you guys style yourselves as legit journalists). On the IQ argument you link it to Mercola without talking to the lead author of the Harvard IQ study who says it's critically important to consider total toxin load on brain drain, including water fluoridation. An article with similar claims of irrelevancy to water fluoridation in Kansas was debunked on his own website blog "Brain Drain". Way to distract from the actual issues. I don't have time to read your other arguments. Let's hope you did a better job.

I did find from just scanning the subheads that you didn't address what I think is the best argument. In the 70s and 80s there was an aluminum smelter on by the John Day Dam that was dumping 384kg of fluoride per day into the Columbia that was shown experimentally and via removal (the problem went away when they stopped dumping) to be causing a 50% Salmon die off.

The Portland treatment plant that dumps into the Columbia will not be able to remove any fluoride, and we know it actually concentrates it under many conditions (in others like with lots of rain water it can dilute it, too). On average, though, it will be dumping about 270kg of fluoride into the Columbia after processing based on basic flow rates.

While the concentrated fluoride dump will eventually be diluted downriver, the plume effects will be very similar to the plume at John Day, which could lead to a similar 50% salmon die-off. There's a comprehensive 1989 paper on this from the Journal of American Fisheries. I invite you to read it, you can find it with any web search engine.

This is one reason why Columbia Riverkeepers, the Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch, and the Green Party all oppose fluoridation in Portland.

I also see you didn't address the major ethical concerns of first do no harm and informed consent before medication.

None of the arguments you presented as the "best" arguments were what I considered major arguments against it. But arguing a strawman is an easy thing to do when you're not actually paying attention and are just misinformed journalists writing against deadlines taking the talking points from one side and running with them as opinion.

Way to be a mouthpiece for political consultant Wiener the assfucker (your word from your 2010 article on him).
Let's not kill all of them.
I've never lived in a city with a compulsory fluoridated water supply before; can someone explain to me the proper dosage I'm supposed to administer every day? How many glasses of water is too much or not enough, that kind of thing?

Denis, you're being a tool. Please stop. A government mandate passed by a majority is still a government mandate.
I think you guys should just go ahead & close commenting riiiiiight now.
Another poorly researched article by a Portland publication. Instead of finding arguments against those who are against fluoridation, maybe that time would be better spent actually RESEARCHING this topic. If you HAD you would find what everyone who is against this has found, that fluorosilicic acid causes harm. No one should be put at risk because of an optional chemical put in the drinking water.
I'm glad to see the Mercury covering the underrepresented side of this debate, whether you agree with this article or not.
From Sierra Club:
“Sierra Club opposes fluoridation because it would degrade some of the purest drinking water in the world. Kids are already bombarded with multiple toxins from plastics, pesticides and air pollution.”

From Columbia Riverkeepers:
“What we add to our drinking water, we add to our rivers and our salmon. Fluoride is a toxic pollutant that harms salmon and other aquatic life. At a time when many families continue to rely on the Columbia’s fisheries as an important source of nutrition and employment, we are concerned about a new source of toxic pollution into the Columbia River.”
If only ALL OF EUROPE had scientists to show them what the smart, smart scientists at The Mercury know about fluoride in water.
What a joke. It would be funny if this issue weren't so serious.
I just don't get Portland. When people here vote against Fluoride, they are voting against the health of children. Guess what, you can get a water filter if you don't want to drink the Fluoride. It's much cheaper for you to do that, than it is for most people to afford prescription Fluoride supplements. I've got kids with dental issues that only started when we moved to this area. I had no idea that Portland DIDN'T have Fluoride in it's drinking water until my kids started getting cavities (and we practice excellent dental hygiene). I am constantly amazed at how people here constantly vote against measures that help children--be it health, services or education.
I cannot express how disappointed I am with the Mercury. You cannot possibly watch the video below and agree that we need to spend over 6 MILLION dollars on something that does NOT work internally.

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

1. A 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(and REAL journalists) to get the data released before the vote. Someone did not want us to see it!

Before you vote please watch:
Did you forget about your own story? Maybe you are on HKHP's list of people and orgs who were bought? Disgusted with you and I will boycott you forever and a day.


Yes, I can also write the words "there is no evidence" in big fat fonts. And they also won't mean squat. This is sensationalist, cowardly garbage, dear news team. The news is that you're bending over for some really nasty political interests. Enjoy being rode.
Can anyone suggest a good reverse osmosis filtration system that doesn't cost an arm an a leg?
Brenna-- That hip Randian argument you and others provide is unfortunately ridiculous. You aren't mandated to drink tap water to begin with. You could buy bottled water. Or you could drink water that hasn't been, oh I don't know, collected and treated by public utilities already. Because you're already doing that.

Which leads me to my second point: Water is a public resource managed by public institutions run by publicly elected representatives for the public good. The Government has also FORCED you to drink cleaner water using that FASCIST Clean Water Act and COERCED you to breath cleaner air using that COMMUNIST Clear Air Act. The Government is also forcing you to have police, fire, and military protection. How dare they! STATISTS! I fight fight Kin Jong Un all by myself, thank you very much!

You not caring if something is safe, beneficial, or economical but rather if it steps on paranoid/ill-informed people's precious pinky toes is straight up ridiculous. What right is being tread on here? How is your life made worse by this? Oh right, consequences don't matter! Just the ability to choose demonstrably inferior outcomes.
Can anyone suggest a good family dental care plan that doesn't cost an arm and a leg?
I fully agree with brenna that this is the most logical argument against this issue. Anyone who doesn't see the problem with that clearly hates freedom of choice and just freedom In general. You might need the government and general public to hold your hand through life but some of us are actually capable of making those choices for ourselves.
Very disappointed in you Portland Mercury. Why wouldn't you do the people of this city a true service and offer a view of BOTH sides of the issue? Why not mention that the FDA has never approved fluoride supplements for the prevention of tooth decay? In fact, those that have been reviewed were rejected. The FDA also classifies fluoride as a drug. People rallied to gather more than 40,000 signatures in order to have the opportunity to vote on this issue. Clearly there is a large enough chunk of Portland's population that feels the risks far outweigh the 'possible' benefits.
I have fluorosis. It occurred through ingesting the drinking water in the city I was raised in (Denver). As a developing child people started asking me if I drank a lot of coffee at age 8. I was first asked if I smoked cigarettes at age 10. All because of my teeth. Every dentist I have ever been to has stated this is incredibly common in numerous parts of the country that inject fluoride into their water systems. To get a sense of what what my grill looks like do a google image search of "fluorosis". If Portland wants to help it's kids smile like me... go nuts.
Alice is right. I hate freedom. That's why I let the nanny state decide everything I do, like which side of the road I drive on, whether or not I can buy chemical weapons, or if it's permissible for me to buy a wife or sell kids into slavery.
Who in their right mind reads this paper any way. I have lived here 57 years and have never picked it up. I will now get it to line my cats litter box with.
Excellent article. The only thing I take issue with is referring to the antifluoridationists as skeptics. When people repeatedly deny the scientific consensus, we should call them "deniers." Same goes for climate change.
The Portland Mercury outdid themselves on this one. Great Job! A very interesting, easy to read and informative article on why fluoridation is effective, safe and right for Portland. We need more journalism like this. Fluoridation will reduce tooth decay in Portland residents by at least 25%. We are looking at healthier teeth, better breath and more people smiling. Good job Portland Mercury, I have a lot of respect for your newspaper now. #VOTEYES!
All people who drink fluoridated water eventually die. Every single one of them. This is an irrefutable fact. Think about it.

Also, Hitler.
Meh. Wish you folks had found something better to expend your energy on.

Also, did you just call my chiropractor and acupuncturist quacks? What, you're medical scientists now?
Nm, I'm convinced. Everyone who drinks fluoridated water with get fluorosis, a life-threatening disease. I also have decided to not read papers whose news stories I comment on; having no idea what article you're talking about clearly makes sense. Also, I've decided to build the CRC by myself; I don't need the government holding my hand on that one!
@Seth, nothing new here. Also didn't someone comment last week that The Mercury does not take sides.? It appears not to be the case, but I am not very smart I guess
Stand with Amber Richardson, stand agin' the scary water chemicalators!

Christopher Errante--this article reads like your HKHP FAQ--are you sure the merc didn't plagiarize off you guys? Also, how much is Healthy Kids Healthy Portland paying you people to be on the internet all day?
How on earth does one interpret numbers on the order of a 50% tooth decay rate as not a dental health crisis?

Also, I'm glad I won't see any more stupid comments from l_dingleberry.
"...a Harvard study that suggested fluoride could inspire higher rates of bone cancer in boys—but even the study's authors cautioned the need for further research."

Oh well, never mind then, I guess the "further research" will just have to include all the boys in Portland drinking artificially fluoridated water. If it doesn't worry the Mercury News Team then why would it worry anyone else?
Because 50% tooth decay means those kids have one cavity or more. How old were you when you had your first cavity? I was 6 or 7, I believe, and I grew up drinking fluoridated water. All the fluoride in the world won't make a damn bit of difference if so many kids continue to subsist on high fructose corn syrup and fast food. Duh.
This article is just, well, stupid.

It takes the arguments against fluoridation and turns them into hyperbole. The characterization of the anti-fluoride movement is far off. The science is not all on the side of fluoridation. And by science, I don't mean institutions. Institutions (especially government ones, but also private associations) are often slow to change, by virtue of their simple existence as steady institutions. It is not enough to cite the AMA, ADA, etc etc. There are many question marks being raised by scientists about the safety of water fluoridation. It is true that there is a big difference between total fluoride exposure and the levels in tap water (the fact being that fluoride can be ingested from other sources, and its toxicity is determined by total ingested, not amount ingested per; in other words, some people drink more and have higher exposure levels than others). We always pause when we have a serious question as to whether we will be endangering ourselves. Why should we be so swift when it comes to fluoride?

It's criminal when 'journalists' boil down serious issues with serious consequences and make them into some hateful satire of a competing point of view. I'm not in the position of saying that pro-fluoride activists are crazy, evil corporations trying to poison the public into submission. Most anti-fluoride people in Portland do not feel this way. We are a critical people. What we see is our well-meaning neighbors advocating for the conventional wisdom of fluoridation, a conventional wisdom that has been challenged more and more thoroughly in recent years. The vast majority of European countries have removed fluoride from the water supply (some never had it at all) and they make their fluoride available in other ways.

What the anti-fluoridation side is saying is that there needs to be a thorough examination of the safety of water fluoridation. That is not such an insane claim when looking at the significant body of conflicting scientific information. There are plenty of doctors and dentists on each side of the issue. Pro-fluoridation advocates present this issue as if it's something like climate change, where 98% of the scientists are pro fluoridation (like 98% of climate scientists believe climate change is human caused). But it is not that way at all. There is significant dissent in the dental, medical, and scientific circles when it comes to fluoride. The conventional wisdom is being challenged.

The point is: the question should at least be examined before we put a potentially dangerous chemical that is labeled a toxic and hazardous substance willingly into our water supply. We need to worry about the total intake of fluoride and whether adding that much fluoride through tap water is too much. We need to consider and seriously do a cost benefit analysis, given the known and accepted risks associated with fluoride exposure (it wreaks havoc near fertilizer plants), and figure out if there are more effective methods we can employ to protect dental health. Already, many environmental organizations in Oregon have come out against water fluoridation as too big of a risk to the environment *and* human welfare. Where do you think the fluoride's ending up, anyways?

Even Ralph Nader, the consumer protection hero of the working class, submitted a comment to the City of Portland, urging them to forego water fluoridation because the negative impacts of water fluoridation (like dental fluorosis, higher than acceptable fluoride exposure) disproportionately affect the poor.

Point being: I see the anti-fluoridation activists as the reasonable ones. They are the ones stepping back and asking for a stronger inquiry into whether fluoride in our tap water is the best way to improve dental care. We need time to consider the recent body scientific evidence that casts doubt on water fluoridation. Then we need to give people time to experiment with other methods of improving dental health while we assess the dangers of fluoride. We have no shortage of fluoridated toothpaste in the meantime.
Aw, man. Now my article about fluoride isn't going to be the one with the most wackadoo comments. Thanks, actual news reporters. Thanks a lot.
"Mercury News Team" wrote this? You mean this joke of an article needed more than one idiot to write?! Beyond pathetic.

You insult the intelligence of almost everyone in Portland.
Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights.
Cross DW, Carton RJ.
Int J Occup Environ Health.
2003 Jan-Mar;9(1):24-9.

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]
I will say this: The illustrations are hilarious. Thank you, Alex Despain!
Can someone get the fluoride out of my tea please. :(
Since we already address the issue of low income children having access to dental care with OHP's Healthy Kids Initiative, that provides free physical, mental and dental health care to all low-income children in Oregon, why do we need to fluoridate our drinking water?
@MBr I would be more convinced if that was a full article and not just an abstract. I can copy and paste persuasive papers too!

Does CDC consider the opinion of the NRC on fluoride in drinking water in its own recommendation on community water fluoridation?

Yes, CDC considers comprehensive reviews by the NRC and other systematic scientific studies in its recommendation that community water fluoridation is a safe, effective, and inexpensive method to reduce tooth decay among populations with access to community water systems. Water fluoridation should be continued in communities currently fluoridating and extended to those without fluoridation.
@CleanWaterMan we need more comments from you because no one understands what side you're on.
@Katrina have you checked out eligibility for the OHP lately or
Fred I don't understand, I can go to the ada website or Youtube? I had no idea such options existed!
Confronting the Myths of Water Fluoridation Promoters

Proponents of fluoridation possess a wide repertoire of incorrect statements about the science and unfounded generalizations about those who disagree with them. We have reproduced and refuted some of the commoner ones in this chapter:

Truthout sounds legit.

My fellow Americans... Wow! Okay, thats the first thing I have to say is just WOW! By now, I'm sure you've all heard the nefarious rumors about Barack Obama that your mom has read about in her forwarded e-mails. YES, its true that he refuses to salute the flag or sing the national anthem or recite the pledge of allegiance! YES, its true that he wouldn't wear the pin with the American flag on it! YES, it is TRUE that his middle name is Hussein! HUSSEIN! You just don't get any more terroristy than that, people. A liberal terrorist.. my God!! YES, its true that he hates apple pie and baseball! TRUE, ALL TRUE! But thats not even the worst of it! NO! For today I finally realized whats really going on and its much much worse.. Barack Obama is a freakin' alien!!!!! (!!!!!!!) *screams*

Here's a well-written account of the great fluoridation debate of April 10th, 2013: http://www.mismanagingperception.com/fluor… This link also contains *the actual video footage* of the entire debate, courtesy of the Multnomah County Democrats (just scroll down to the bottom for that), so you can see for yourself. Enjoy!
mismanagingperception sounds legit

Answer this question if you can. Do you know anyone who actually saw Barack Obama in Hawaii? He said he was visiting his ailing grandmother. What was he really doing? Why was his plane off the radar for over an hour? Can anyone answer that question?

Two years of painstaking research have finally paid off. We know who, or should we say what, Barack Obama really is. He was not born in Kenya. He was not born in Hawaii. Now the astounding truth can be told just in time to save the United States from disaster.

Barack Obama was born on the 4th planet from Epsilon Eridani ten and a half light years -- 63 trillion miles -- from our Earth.

To the anti-flouriders who claim that "Yes" advocates are all being bribed: You lost my vote.
"I had no fixed opinion on whether or not fluoride should be added to drinking water... Slowly, I came to the conclusion that there were strong experimental and clinical indications that fluorides present health hazards to people in many ways. The more I learned, the more I became convinced that the addition of fluorides to drinking water was, and is, a mistake."
-- Dr. Robert L. Isaacson, co-author
of the National Academy of Sciences
National Research Council
"Fluoride in Drinking Water" report

“The NRC report is relevant to many aspects of the water fluoridation debate… [T]he report discusses the wide range of drinking water intake among members of the population, which means that groups with different fluoride concentrations in their drinking water may still have overlapping distributions of individual fluoride exposure. ln other words, the range of individual fluoride exposures at 1 mg/L will overlap the range of individual exposures at 2 mg/L or even 4 mg/L. Thus, even without consideration of differences in individual susceptibility to various effects, the margin of safety between 1 and 4 mg/L is very low.” [...] "Elimination of community water fluoridation at the earliest possible date would be in the best interest of public health."
-- Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, co-author
of the National Academy of Sciences
National Research Council
"Fluoride in Drinking Water" report

“In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming.”
-- Dr. Hardy Limeback, co-author
of the National Academy of Sciences
National Research Council
"Fluoride in Drinking Water" report
A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards
Publication Year: 2006
Well clearly Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland is giving us all.... what? Something? Someone gave me a t-shirt last night. But it was for an unrelated organization. But maybe they did it in secret.
The American Dental Association continues to endorse fluoridation of community water supplies as safe and effective for preventing tooth decay. This support has been the Association's position since policy was first adopted in 1950. The ADA's policies regarding community water fluoridation are based on the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed, credible scientific evidence. The ADA, along with state and local dental societies, continues to work with federal, state and local agencies to increase the number of communities benefiting from water fluoridation.

Ralph Nader on water fluoridation:


The committee’s conclusions regarding the potential for adverse effects from fluoride at 2 to 4 mg/L in drinking water do not address the lower exposures commonly experienced by most U.S. citizens. Fluoridation is widely practiced in the United States to protect against the development of dental caries; fluoride is added to public water supplies at 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. The charge to the committee did not include an examination of the benefits and risks that might occur at these lower concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.

Pretty lame, antis, pretty lame.
A Republican group in Kansas wants Topeka city officials to remove fluoride from the city's drinking water in order to preserve the intelligence of legislators in the state's capital.

Citing concerns about the chemical's impact on IQ, the Kansas Republican Assembly, a conservative group that has campaigned against fluoridation, is sending a letter to Topeka's top leaders urging that the city's fluoride pipe be shut off during the annual legislative session. A draft of the letter and the minutes of the group's January meeting where the proposal was made surfaced on the KRA's website in recent days.

Off topic but, does your webmaster know what a hr tag is?
The tea partyers issue dire warnings of the threat posed by government, but their movement ignores the threat from corporate America: pollution, dangerous products and banking practices that brought us the worst economic crash since the Great Depression.

Sharron Angle, the Republican Senate candidate in Nevada, proposed removing government-ordered fluoride from drinking water. But is she expressing similar concern about toxic chemicals corporate polluters put in her tea?

The goal is to alter behavior by chemically changing the way in which the brain functions. One of the primary methods through which this is achieved is by fluoridating water and food supplies. Blaylock explains how fluoride opportunists seized upon falls in dental cavities, which were occurring naturally as a result of increased calcium intake and better diets in the west, to claim that mass fluoridation was the answer, while burying a plethora of studies that proved adding fluoride to water did not reduce cavities at all and in fact in several instances increased dental cavities.

Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk and...ice cream. Ice cream, Portland Mercury readers, children's ice cream...

You know when fluoridation first began?

Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946. How does that coincide with your post-war commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core commie works!

I first became aware of it during the physical act of love. Yes, a profound sense of fatigue... A feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
To the person concerned that flouride is going to hurt salmon... it's actually not going to hurt salmon. The amount of fluoride added to the river is completely insignificant. Peak water demand from the Bureau of Water is less than 150 million gallons a day. That may sound a lot, but... the sewage treatment plant discharges to the Columbia River, the flow of which is 160 billion gallons a day, i.e. 1,000 times the total flow from Portland.

Additionally, per http://or.water.usgs.gov/pubs_dir/Pdf/colu…, the background flouride concentration in the Columbia river is from 0.1 to 0.2 mg/L. From the Columbia River WWTP NPDES Permit Fact Sheet, the dilution at the mixing zone boundary is 97:1. So, after dilution at the mixing zone boundary, the flouridation of Portland's water supply would add 0.007 mg/L of fluoride to an existing 0.100 to 0.200 mg/L. Not really significant. Certainly not for salmon. This argument just doesn't fly.

To everyone that loves pointing out that there are "economic interests" pushing this, don't forget that environmental activists have an economic incentive to rile people up... it's how they make money. It's their job. They don't all have pure motives. (Many many do, but not all of them.)
Amy Goodman & Juan González present "The Fluoride Deception" on Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/17/the_… (June 17, 2004).

Journalist Christopher Bryson claims in his new book "The Fluoride Deception" that the post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water was less a public health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride–including the government’s nuclear weapons program. [includes transcript].

Hailed as a harmless chemical that would prevent tooth decay, new evidence shows how fluoride could be linked to serious health problems. [...] According to Bryson, research challenging fluoride’s safety was either suppressed or not conducted in the first place. He says fluoridation is a triumph not of medical science but of US government spin.

"Dr. Robert Kehoe, who headed up the laboratory at the University Of Cincinnati, spent his entire career telling the United States public health community that adding lead to gasoline was safe. That's now being discredited. He was also one of two leading public health scientists saying that adding fluoride to water was safe and good for children. [...] the second was a fellow scientist by the name of Dr. Harold Hodge. For most of the Cold War, Dr. Hodge was the leading scientist assuring the nation of the safety and effectiveness of adding fluoride to water supplies. Dr. Hodge had his public hat, he had his private hat. He was the senior toxicologist for the Manhattan Project to build the world’s first atomic bomb. [...] Edward Bernays is a legendary figure in the 20th century. He is the father of public relations. He understood that you could harness liberal sentiment for commercial gain. He says that helping out on the fluoride campaign in New York in the early 1960’s interested him because it related to problems of engineering consent. So, he was the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain."
--Christopher Bryson, journalist and author of 'The Fluoride Deception', on Democracy Now!

(Excerpts from: Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/17/the_…)

“Journalists and watchdog groups regularly raise hell about just the sort of industry corruption of public health policy described in The Fluoride Deception. We don’t brand the watchdogs as conspiracy theorists; we thank them for doing their job. After reading Bryson’s account of our national infatuation with fluoride, it’s hard not to wonder how we could have ignored so serious an issue for so long.”
--Natural Resources Defense Council, “On Earth” Newsletter, Fall 2004.

“Bryson, an investigative reporter, explores various aspects of fluoride information and disinformation, from huge industrial exposures in making atom bombs to the much lower doses desired to protect teeth from decay. This is a well-researched, well-written, and well-referenced account… [A]n interesting, thought-provoking, and eye-opening work. Summing Up: Recommended. All levels.”
CHOICE Magazine (Current Reviews for Academic Libraries) March 2005
We just pulled our advertising with the mercury. If you would like to see some of the sane reasons to not take a chance with fluoride, check out: https://www.facebook.com/HealthyPortlandFo…
That's a mature response to an opposing view point!
Chris Christie Is A Lizard Person

Hey, guess what America. The Governor of New Jersey is a lizard person! I bet you didn’t know that.

did anyone notice that at the end of #2 they admit that there is already flouride runoff in the water as it is? so say they add their 0.7 parts per million, that is in addition to what is already runoff into the water, can they control what the run off amounts are? will they adjust their add-ins based on the run off content in each area? Did you know that poisons take longer to leave your body than nutrients do? so the more tap water you drink the more the poisons build up... I live in a flouridated state and see plenty of people who drink the tap water and have horrendous teeth, it doesn't do shit. The article said their was no definitive link between flouride and mental health issues or physical health issues, but it failed to mention there is no definitive proof that there is no link either... it works both ways...
someone said, "well you don't have to drink tap water, you can buy bottled water or a water filter that removes flouride" you do realize that the filters that actually remove flouride are near $1000, cavity filled with state medical costs about $30, an extraction without medical can run anywhere from $30-$75... toothepaste only costs about $2 and can lasts a few months if you brush morning and night... over brushing is also bad as it strips away the enamel...
You um, do know that fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical right?

Wonder how long that will last...
Research findings from The Iowa Fluoride Study


The "optimal" intake of fluoride has been widely accepted for decades as between 0.05 and 0.07 mg fluoride per kilogram of body weight (mg F/kg bw) but is based on limited scientific evidence. The purpose of this paper is to present longitudinal fluoride intake data for children free of dental fluorosis in the early-erupting permanent dentition and free of dental caries in both the primary and early-erupting permanent teeth as an estimate of optimal fluoride intake.

Given the overlap among caries/fluorosis groups in mean fluoride intake and extreme variability in individual fluoride intakes, firmly recommending an "optimal" fluoride intake is problematic.
steve h, according to your arguments the mixing zone at John Day Dam for the aluminum smelter plant would have also been diluted effectively. As I pointed, the mixing is not complete. Water samples taken from the plant showed mixing wasn't complete until you got some distance downriver. With Salmon and their migration patterns, we know there was a 50% die off and the study proves the lack of forward progress with a specially set up salmon migration simulator of the mechanism of action based on concentrations actually measured in the water.

Your response doesn't hold water.
A 2005 TIME Magazine Story


"And in Western Europe, where the drop in tooth decay in recent decades is as sharp as that in the U.S., 17 of 21 countries have either refused or discontinued fluoridation, contending that fluoride toothpastes offer adequate protection. (Only Ireland adds fluoride to most of its water systems, while Switzerland fluoridates its salt.)"

I'm voting NO and will continue to get my fluoride from toothpaste.
I just hope the bill passes so these anti-fluoride jerks move away (p.s. good luck finding a place to live that doesn't have fluoride in their water).
This is the last time you will catch me clicking on a link from the aptly named Portland MERCURY. At least Willamette Week took a stab @ objectivity. Y'all just openly checked y'all's JSchool credentials @ the door & stumped for HKHP. Try 2 be less transparent in the future, Kay?
Portland doesn't get a whole lot of sun. Should we put vitamin D supplements in the water? A lot of folks in this city have seasonal depression. Should we put anti-depressants in the water? Naturally occurring fluoride is not the same as Hexafluorosilicic acid. If city council is so concerned with the dental health of low income families they could use the 5million+ dollars they are trying to spend on purchasing industrial by-products to help fund adequate dental care for those low income families. You are tools and your paper has sucked for a long time.
Fluoridation is an environmental injustice that hits poor children of color the hardest.

Protect ALL kids. Vote NO.


If Brazil - the hottest nation in the world - puts fluoride in their water, let's just stop debating right now.
From KATU's research, via wweek since KATU's link isn't working:

Among the findings revealed through KATU's public records requests: children in areas with fluoridated water show little difference in the number of cavities they suffer, compared to Portland. As Bailey-Shah reports:

"You'd think the kids with fluoridated water would fare better. But in the Problem Solvers’ analysis, the results were nearly the same:

53.7% of the kids in the non-fluoridated areas had one or more cavities

52.03% of kids in fluoridated areas had one or more cavities

47.81% of kids in the Portland water district (which is currently fluoride-free) had one or more cavities."
Everything you need to know about fluoride in 20 minutes:

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.


I have yet to see this addressed by anyone in this debate.
Those for and against fluoridation agree that too much fluoride is a bad thing and can damage teeth and bones. The EPA says water concentrations at 4 parts per million can cause bone damaging skeletal fluorosis. Toothpaste has 1,000 ppm with a poison warning to not swallow.

So both sides of this issue should be signing the petition against pending legislation that would allow fluoride residues on foods e.g. 900 ppm fluoride on dried eggs. That's if they want to protect Americans and not fluoride and their own political viability.

Petition is here: http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2…
So I think you have to add two things to your "sane" arguments list:

1. What are we getting for 5 million dollars, if we already are doing better than areas with fluoride (and areas with fluoride aren't doing better than those without outside of Portland). I mean, we're not made of money.

2. Lead levels not going up in children is a good thing.
Hi, I'm the Portland Mercury and I believe everything my government tells me! They've never been caught lying before, I'm quite sure. Iraq was totally responsible for 9-11 ...AND we would have never found those weapons of mass destruction had we not invaded! This country has never been caught experimenting on people and the government should totally medicate our water with a toxic by-product of Aluminum. It only makes sense! I mean common! Hitler put flouride in the water of the concentration camps because he damn well cared about the dental health of the Jewish people. That's a documented fact! I know, because I'm the Portland Mercury PHD.
to seth w, I'd like to see that report on the discharge from the aluminum smelter because I doubt the discharge conditions are even close to similar. Do you have a link?

Did you look at the numbers I presented? After approximately 100:1 dilution in the mixing zone, the amount of additional flouride (0.007 mg/L) coming from the treatment plant is less than one tenth the uncertainty in the actual background concentration of fluoride in the Columbia River (0.100 to 0.200 mg/L). There is no way that adding 0.007 to a naturally varying value of 0.100 to 0.200 mg/L can possibly have an effect. If you can't see that, then I really don't know what else to say.
J. William Hirzy PHD was the former EPA Senior Scientist (Risk Assessment) This is the guy that would know. He said they falsified facts and documents to draw ridiculous conclusions about the safety of Flouride in drinking water. Maybe you should look at all the PHDs that are whistleblowers saying how dangerous Flouride is here:


"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great IG Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years` research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine--any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically." CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1954.
To Homer, check out this website: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/nohss/ByState.asp…

From the CDC: 35% of 3rd graders in Oregon have untreated tooth decay and 27% of the Oregon population has fluoridated water. 15% of 3rd graders in Washington have untreated tooth decay and 63% of the Washington population has fluoridated water.
Clean Water Portland has ten times more grassroots in support base than Healthy Kids Healthy Portland.
Donations less than $100:
CWP: 17.0%
HKHP: 1.6%

Clean Water Portland gets a much higher percentage (11+ times) of individual
donations *from Portland* than Healthy Kids Healthy Portland.
Individual donations from Portland:
CWP: 32.1%
HKHP: 2.7%

OR Secretary of State https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/got… analyzed by Seth Wooley (4/24/13).
Fluoridation would mean spending millions of dollars to add 1.1 million pounds a year of fluorosilicic acid, an unpurified byproduct of fertilizer production, to our water. Fluorosilicic acid is not the same as the pharmaceutical-grade fluoride found in toothpaste, and contains arsenic and lead.
The people who started HKHP don't care for children teeth (I'm sure some of the volunteers they reeled in do), they care for profits. Follow the dollars, there isn't a dental crisis in Portland.
I am voting NO.
How about we just have water in our water? Would that be OK?

If you want some toxic chemicals added, I'm sure there are plenty of Aluminum plants that would be happy to get rid of their toxic waste by giving you some to put in YOUR water.

Meanwhile, leave mine the fuck alone. Thank you.

By the way, I'm the Portland Mercury, I also play the role of every unbelieving parent in every science fiction movie ever made. I'm super likable!
To Steve H: I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The important metric to look at is caries experience, not whether that caries experience is treated or not. Oregon is slightly higher at 66.3% vs Washington at 57.9%. Absent other data, you might suspect fluoridation has something to do with that 8.4% difference, since Washington has more than twice the amount of fluoridation. However, KATU's research gives us direct data that allows us to compare how well fluoridation is working in this state vs non-fluoridation, which I think is vastly more informative. And the answer is, it's not preventing caries.
As the comments

Used to be the commies. Now it's the self proclaimed libertarian who doesn't want the Govt
to force their medication. Appears you also don't like vaccinations.
Nobody going to tell me what to do. What a bunch of paranoid self important asses.
To David White: How dare people think they should have a say in what goes into their bodies!
I am late to the party on this one.

So it is that the Portland Mercury finally comes out of the closet as the same brand of corporate cheerleadering, anti-science snakes that defended the junk science of the tobacco industry, the nuclear power industry, and those who were on the record that DDT was safe, and asbestos was safe, and mercury fillings were safe, and BPA was safe, and thalidomide was safe, and leaded gasoline was safe, and on, and on.

I surely hope the people of Portland are not as gullible, lazy, and ethically bankrupt as the staff of this opinioneering, pathetic excuse for a 'news' vehicle. I'll leave you with some quotes from other 'crazy' conspiracy theorists:

"The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects." - Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association.

"Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population long before they reach old age" -Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA Scientist.

"fluoride exposure, at levels that are experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain." Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, May 2000

"The plain fact that fluorine is an insidious poison harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amounts, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that fluoridation of the water supply is 'safe.'" Dr. Ludgwig Grosse, Chief of Cancer Research, U.S. Veterans Administration.

In Harlem, NY, which has been fluoridated for 32 years, "There's more dental decay among these kids; we see the beginning of inflamed gingivitis in their mouths." American Dental Association, May 2000

"All of the organizations promoting water fluoridation agree that dental fluorosis, which is the first visible sign of systemic poisoning, increases with water fluoride levels." Dr. Kennedy, Past President of International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and a practicing Dentist for 20 years.

The Washington Bureau editor of AD Impact, the monthly publication of the Academy of General Dentistry, wrote last year that supporters of fluoridation have had an "unwillingness to release any information that would cast fluorides in a negative light," and that organized dentistry has lost "its objectivity - the ability to consider varying viewpoints together with scientific data to reach a sensible conclusion."

"That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as is contemplated by [Houston] City Ordinance No. 80-2530, may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." - Judge Farris, presiding judge in a case involving the fluoridation of Houston's water.

The former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association said he often received telephone calls from irate AMA members and letters from state medical societies and AMA officers "threatening political action against the editor and the Journal for publishing what offended them ideologically, or more likely imposed on (physicians') ability to earn money." (article) - Mr. Lundberg, editor of JAMA for 17 years

"Fluoride has been shown to adversely effect the central nervous system, causing behavioral changes, increased hip fractures and reproduction problems." Natick Report Research Team
[Research Microbiologist, U.S. Army, Dr. B. J. Gallo, Environmental Chemist, J. Kupperschmidt Apollo Program Project Scientist, Dr. N.R. Mancuso, U.S. Army Natick Research Labs, A. Murray, Molecular Biologist, Dr. Strauss]

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.