Peer-reviewed studies have shown that LSD is an effective treatment for illnesses such as alcoholism, PTSD, etc. Many people suffering from such heavily debilitating conditions can't afford to purchase LSD or have difficulty getting access. Some of them end up in critical condition, even to the point of requiring emergency hospital visits and operations. So, in the name of humanitarian intervention and common decency, I propose we put LSD in our public water supply.

The city is quoted as saying that they intend to spend upwards of $500,000 to purchase fluorosilicic acid, the chemical used in water fluoridation. They have yet to say where they will be purchasing it from, but most of it comes from China nowadays.

I wonder how much cashola other municipalities across the country pay to fluoridate their water?

And what was that about a $5-7 million dollar treatment facility?

Of course other than that, there's no financial gain to be made. After all, think of the high cost of dental care that that the magical elixir fluoride helps prevent. So what if there's no conclusive evidence that water fluoridation actually does anything to prevent tooth decay?

But at least the phosphate fertilizer industry hasn't had to pay to dispose of their fluoride pollution, classified hazardous waste, in decades.

Congratulations to the "Whole Mercury Team" for using team work in being complete fuck ups. Are you sure not one of you could make the decision to label an obviously op-ed piece as so and then have the sack to sign your (....y'all?) name to it? I'm assuming some of you did get journalism degrees because it's quite clear that chemistry, biology and medicine aren't in the cards, apparently, for any of you. Only Ann Ramono gets a free dress day from the "Whole Team Mercury" bullshit, because she makes me laugh and has ovaries bigger than balls. The rest of you, sack the fuck up. If you're going to write something, put your name on it like a big boy. Beyond that, there's a tremendous amount of reading for you (...y'all? exactly how many are there of you?) to do on this subject.

This Mercury "article" acknowledges that pro-fluoride tried/is trying to rig the vote, but then endorses it anyway? Why would they need to rig the vote if their information is true and valid? And why is there an ad for "premium whole house fluoride water filter" at the bottom of this page...oh yes because nobody wants to drink this stuff. Fluoridation and covering the reservoirs, letting Nestle build a bottling plants (which they'll succeed in doing if this passes because demand for bottled water will spike), is all leading to the eventual privatization of our water. Go ahead and add coal trains too to add to our toxic load. I sure wish somebody at the Mercury could crawl out of the old paradigm and into the new - drinking fluoridating water really doesn't do much for oral health, it all goes straight down the drain and into the environment with no effect on anybody - just a legal way around pollution laws. It will be a such a sad mistake if it happens.

Fluoridated water does not prevent cavities. Clean water does not cause them. Water is not the problem. Well meaning people are mistakenly trying to treat the symptom, not the disease.

Let's face it. All the people voting for it, are the same people who vote YES on everything anyway.

Something in the water in Portland, indeed.

Perhaps The Portland Mercury should stick with the smarmy, self-indulgent pieces they endlessly churn out, instead of propaganda pieces that appear to be spoon fed to them by the pro-fluoride propaganda machines. Municipalities across the country are re-thinking their water fluoridation policies due to health and environmental concerns. Maybe try doing some actual *gasp* research...

This has to be the worst most poorly written article i have ever read. I am an anti-flouridation advocate and not a single one of those arguments i would use to say that flouridation is wrong. You're arguing against false statements to begin-with and trying to belittle the opposing side with your SAT worded comedy. known fact 1. Nazi's were the first to test flouride on humans to see if it would make them more docile because it is the only known mineral known to calcify the pineal gland in your brain known for your sense of awareness. known fact 2. Flouride is a poison, no animal on earth survives after eating enough of it, and it has even been known to melt holes through concrete. fact 3, In the long run flouride has also been known to do more damage than benefit the teeth.

"In the NRC 2006 report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, the National Research Council (NRC) reported that "several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride on thyroid function."

Specifically, the report discussed research showing that:

"fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations" with "similar effects on T4 and T3…reported in experimental animals."

In addition, the NRC discussed research linking fluoride to impacts on parathyroid activity, impairment of glucose tolerance, and possibly the timing of sexual maturity.

In light of these findings, the NRC panel recommended that the "effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States"
(1.). Despite this, proponents of fluoridation continue to ignore the scientific literature concerning the detrimental effects that fluoride has on the endocrine system." - Mary Shomon, The Daily Activity Every Middle Aged Woman Should Beware of (Aug, 2011).


As far as the cancer risk goes: http://youtu.be/ClqK7XvfLg0 .

Heart risk research from 2012: http://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecom…


Toxicity:
Akiniwa, Kenji, Re-Examination of acute toxicity of fluoride, Fluoride, 1997, 30:2, 89-104

"The acute toxic dose of fluoride has been believed to be 2 to 5 mg or 8 mg/kg of body weight. However, acute fluoride poisonings have occurred at doses of 0.1 to 0.8 mgF/kg of body weight in the USA. In Japan, a school-based anticariogenic program is being carried out with fluoride mouth rinses containing 500 to 2000 ppm sodium fluoride on approximately 158,000 persons, consisting mainly of elementary and junior high school children. Thus the safety problem of this treatment attracts much attention. Fluoride retention is said to be around 15 to 30% in fluoride mouth rinsing. In this paper, on the basis of toxic doses estimated in outbreaks of fluoride poisoning, the potential for acute poisoning by fluoride ingested during mouth rinsing is assessed. Acute fluoride poisoning is shown to be caused by exposure to lower doses of fluoride than commonly suggested. The toxic dose of fluoride should therefore be re-examined."

Science!
1. National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

2.Toxicol Ind Health. 2009 Feb;25(1):49-57. doi: 10.1177/0748233709102720.
Fluoride-induced thyroid dysfunction in rats: roles of dietary protein and calcium level.
Wang H, Yang Z, Zhou B, Gao H, Yan X, Wang J.
Source
Shanxi Key Laboratory of Ecological Animal Science and Environmental Medicine, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, 030801, People's Republic of China.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19318504?dopt=Abstract

3.Nuclear Medicine Communications:
January 2012 - Volume 33 - Issue 1 - p 14–20
doi: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32834c187e
Original Articles
Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease
Li, Yuxina; Berenji, Gholam R.a; Shaba, Wisam F.a; Tafti, Bashira; Yevdayev, Ellaa; Dadparvar, Siminb

4. Mary Shomon's quoted text, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles…

5. Akiniwa, Kenji, Re-Examination of acute toxicity of fluoride, Fluoride, 1997, 30:2, 89-104
http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-conten…

You're absolutely right Christopher, anyone who doesn't agree with us about how harmful water is to children must be an agent provacateur! Great thing to point out, because that makes us sound even more sane! But not too much because that would be deadly.

And Spindles, you're so right why do we even need libraries? Seems like an old fashioned boondoggle - all that expense and no financial benefit at all. And if there's no financial benefit, why have them around? Besides, poor kids can always get books from our exemplary, always well finaanced public school system.

I'd also love to hear your continued thoughts on the horrors of vaccinations and the EXTREME RISK they pose to children! It's just like water - toxic to the core!

Maxim - Water is DEADLY! You're obviously a paid commentator from the commercial water industry trying to poison our minds!

My aunt's cousin's husband had a disease and drinking water seemed to make it GET WORSE! Don't inflict this trauma onto our children. Think of their cute children faces, forced to drink something unpure like water when they could have milk or juice that at natural and have actual benefits!

Kids already get milk and juice at schools but nobody is talking about this. Communities everywhere are rethinking their water programs. End the scourge of public water NOW!

It's well known that the NAZIS forced public water and carried water supplies into battle. That's a FACT.

100% of people who drink water will die, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly. It can take years of agonizing torture before you're dead but it impacts 100% of us! If that statistic doesn't scare you, you're obviously a paid shill for Aquafina and Dasani just trying to protect their profits. The government gives them this poison at no profit for the citizens! They're just trying to protect their giant public subsidy! End public water now!

With Portland's high suicide rate, we should be adding anti-depressants to our water.

Ever since that disgruntled ex Mercury employee got hired by City Hall, the City has made the Mercury it's bitch.

Seems the pro side's responses to the anti's are always to ridicule, but strangely, almost never rebutt. I think that shows more than anything how both sides make up their mind. They seem to always think the anti side are conspiracy theorists. Whereas the anti side actually seems to understand the arguments on both sides. Labeling as fringe and ridiculing is the lazy way out of having to actually rebutt arguments. For instance, why is an increase in lead levels of children, found in this study in the journal Neurotoxicology, not something I should give a **** about? Can a pro side comment without riducule and with a decent argument? I would honestly love to see it happen.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1742005…

Screw you, Mercury. Playing the bad guy as a desperate ploy for more readers. Problem is, you might actually influence some otherwise intelligent people to vote the wrong way on this issue, and that is truly some shitty journalism.
I wear proof of the negative effects of fluoride on my teeth: obvious and distinctive discoloring left by the fluoride pills I was given by my teachers in elementary school. But that's the least of it. You've failed to address ANY of the key concerns Portlanders have about fluoridation. How about the fact that the ADA and CDC agree that parents should not use fluoridated water to mix infant formula (so thanks for adding the cost of bottled water to their grocery bill, jerks)? How about the fact that ONE 8 ounce glass of water contains your daily intake of fluoride, and that most adults should be drinking at least 70 ounces of water a day? Or that the maximum amount of fluoride that salmon can stand in our fresh water is .2ppm, and our new fluoridation system will be pumping 1 ppm of fluoride into our rivers and streams? In addition, our pets, of all sizes, drink far more water than we humans do, and are therefore at a greater risk of overexposure to fluoride. Let's not ignore the fact that in the first three months of this year alone 40 cities have rejected or removed fluoridation. Why pay for such expensive infrastructure when our city is so divided? If this measure passes, it will quickly be overturned, and we'll be left with the bill. Better to invest in something like mobile dental stations, that could travel through low-income neighborhoods, passing out fluoride rinse, floss, brushes and paste. That might actually (gasp!) make a real difference.

I love all you smart, thinking Portlanders!!!!!! Just say no to Fluoride!!! You totally made my day!!! (I'm not being sarcastic) Love, 35 year old thyroid cancer mommy who wants to live to see her baby grow up!!!!!! Bless each and every one of you!!!

All the people that are voting no on this; hate children and poor people. It's just that obvious. Shame on you people; please go kill yourselves.

I am a poor person and actually love my kids...

I really do WISH this whole thing was about addressing issues that really do keep low-income families like my own from getting the care we actually need; I really do wish this whole things was about addressing the issues that create financial strain and health struggles; I really do wish this was about taking positive steps in addressing the root of the problems we are all faced with. I really do wish this was about creating a place that supports all of Portland families... not just this idea about "teeth", but our health as individuals and as a community.

I am angry that it is the families, that make up the foundation of Portland, that are the excuses for self interested companies to make $. It isn't as cut and dry as the "make portland smile" signs make it out to be.
Don't be fooled by the misleading blanket statements about teeth. Don't be afraid of them calling us all conspiracy theorists- its embarrassing that this has become the defense.

I grew up in a place with fluoridated water and my teeth are blotchy because of it... (aka Fluorosis:over exposure to Fluoride) and although my teeth are pretty healthy (minus the embarrassing blotchy spots on my front teeth) my brother's teeth are full of cavities and problems. Don't fix something that isn't broken----- our drinking water. .... work on fixing the root of the problems.... if you really give a damn.

I admit at first glance the argument FOR is attractive (who doesn't want to help low-income families and kids), but the issues at hand run far deeper than a simple fix. Time and time again we have seen that it actually isn't a fix at all.

IF it's too easy and too good to be true, IT is.

Please educate yourself and look further into this issue before voting.

All the people that are voting yes on this; hate children, poor people, the environment, salmon, and are completely ethically bankrupt. It's just that obvious. Shame on you people; please go eat an entire tube of fluoridated toothpaste.

@Tiffany Rooprai I wonder if the people who bitch and moan about other people concerned about dumping fertilizer leftovers in our water get their condescending views from wearing Patagonia and Northface clothing. #seehowyourdipshitlogicworks?

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?

And we all know that Portland's bubblers are really poison delivery machines designed by the elite to kill off the underclasses, especially kids!

I'm glad we can stand together on this Homer and expose the lies of the profit-making bottled water companies. It's time to retire the bubblers that bubble out death - end the scourge of public water!

Spindles - you're so funny, but why didn't you mock the commenter by telling them to get vaccinated? Isn't that roughly the same thing? Bit it's okay, you're still witty. You could've also told him to go downtown and drink from a bubbler! I guarantee that commenter will be dead one day as long as they drink water. It's a FACT that water drinkers die!

I'm so glad we can stand together on the important topics of public water along with the evils of vaccination. All of society is one giant conspiracy - anyone who has any profit motive is obviously trying to kill us somehow.

Both the government and a large majority of the scientific community your the benefits of public water, but this is just a smokescreen for their REAL agenda - to kill us all! Like global warning or vaccinations, as long as there's a scientist somewhere who disagrees, you know everyone else is in collusion in a giant conspiracy together. I have studies to prove it and the Internet gives me all the positive reinforcement I need in order to speak the TRUTH about the horrors of drinking water.

Why won't you tell people what fluoride is? Where it comes from? How it's made? How much lobby money did you receive to publish this crap?

Pridge Wessea: You completely proved my point - your posts are 100% mocking, 0% substance.

@Homer - Why are you mocking me? I'm 100% serious about this serious threat to our neighborhoods, family, and children. Why are you trying to silence me? Are you a paid shill for the commercial water/POISON industry? Or part of the government that's working in collusion with it against it's citizens? All they care about is profit... maybe you're the same?

Water has NO WARNING LABELS. There's no way to know just how much will kill you! Show me a study that PROVES that water is 100% safe, that nobody has died from drinking water, and prove to the rest of us that you're more than just a money-grubbing paid commenter trying to spread FUD about this menace to our communities.

At the risk of sounding white trash, I just have to say FUCK YOU, YOU IDIOT MERCURY STAFF!!! I have read your rag for years and enjoyed your silly, crunky viewpoints. I am appalled and shocked at this sorry excuse for 'unbiased reporting' replaced with abject laziness. You've broken the first rule of writing: stick with what you know. Your reporting shines when you focus on hipster drivel. Apparently, I have a soft spot in my heart for that stuff? Who knew. Go fuck yourselves and your sad, "dizzying" search for truth. Oh, and stop being so fucking lazy and teach your kids to brush their fucking teeth. Assholes.

Pridge Wessea: Or perhaps fluoridating the water is simply a bad idea with some bad consequences - no conspiracy required.

WELL WELL WELL WHO'S BEING PAID OFF NOW? FUCKERS!!

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-30139-d…

That's the third-largest single donation to the anti-fluoride campaign, and brings Mercola's total donations to $26,975, including in-kind contributions of polling and a YouTube video.

Mercola runs Dr. Mercola's Natural Health Center in Hoffman Estates, Ill.—a hugely popular health products company and that directly markets items including fluoride-free toothpaste and water filtration systems to remove fluoride from kitchen taps.

Yeah tcraigherny, who's being paid off now? http://swoolley.org/files/cleanwater-vs-fl…

And that was over $143,000 paid by Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland in bribes ... I mean "special grants" to minority groups for their support.

Weird. I think the sanest argument against fluoridation of water is probably the one from this study among others on the National Institute of Health site that cites the links between fluoride exposure and lowered intelligence in children.

This study indicates that exposure to fluoride is associated with reduced intelligence in children. We have found a significant inverse relationship between intelligence and the water fluoride level, and intelligence and the urinary fluoride level....
It is very well established that fluoride can penetrate the blood brain barrier.[6–9,11,28] Also, it can pass through the placenta to the fetus,[6–9,11,29] and with subsequent continuous exposure to fluoride during childhood, it may have adverse effects on the developing brain, thereby causing decreased intelligence in children.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

Or the argument that it's unethical to medicate people against their will.

For a software engineer he sure is shit at spreadsheets.

Seth Woolley: Software Engineer, Election Activist <--- great source.

rainfade.... we know. Because you've posted your opinions a gazillion times in this thread under various names.

Communities that have rejected fluoridation since 1990: List: http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/commu… From the very start, water fluoridation has always been an unpopular program. In its 60+ year history, the majority of U.S. communities that have had an opportunity to vote on the measure have rejected it. Fluoridation was thus established in the U.S. not through public referenda, but executive actions by government bodies. For a brief history on public opposition to fluoridation in the U.S., click here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/fluor…

Most developed nations, including the vast majority of western Europe, do not fluoridate their drinking water. Cities that do not fluoridate their water include: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Basel, Berlin, Copenhagen, Florence, Frankfurt, Geneva, Glasgow, Helsinki, London, Montreal, Oslo, Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Tokyo, Vancouver, Venice, Vienna, and Zurich.

Since health authorities in North America have refused to let go of the fluoridation paradigm, local communities are doing the work for them. Since 2010, over 70 communities have rejected the practice, including over 30 communities like Calgary, Alberta (pop. 1.3 million people) and Albuquerque, New Mexico (pop. 500,000) that have voted to end their longstanding fluoridation programs.

Communities that have rejected fluoridation since 2010:
List: http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/commu…

@ tcraighenry, It's data compiled directly of the Oregon Secretary of State's website, you imbecile.

Actually, tcraighenry, I haven't. And, I only see one other comment about the links between fluoride exposure and children's lowered intelligence in this thread.

But, you're entitled to your wild-eyed conspiracy theory.

I'm curious though. What do you have against intelligent children?

And considering HKHP is using an auto-reporting service that files all of their transactions at literally the last minute before their deadline, for the least amount of transparency of course, we don't actually know just how much HKHP has in their coffers at present. We do know that over 95% of their campaign contributions are from corporate special interests and PAC's however.

Clean Water Portland gets 11+ times as many more individual donations *from Portland* as Healthy Kids Healthy Portland.

Individual donations from Portland:
CWP: 32.1%
HKHP: 2.7%

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%


Source:
OR Secretary of State (4/24/13)
http://www.oregonvotes.org/pages/cand/inde…
Analysis by Seth Wooley. Independently verifiable.

So link to that instead of your (?) Crappy YouTube video.

So go on and name these corporate interests. Also do you know what a PAC does and is for? The clue is in the acronym.

Oh sorry rainfade. It's just that you're playing that same old broken record. Honestly though, a little variation in patterns/grasping at straws/crazy might make you distinguishable

This is for you Yinzer V!
If you want to see the Philomath water analysis showing 46.5 mg. of arsenic per liter of water (the same concentration that will be added to Portland's water) I got a copy, scanned it, and posted it to my personal blog. You are more than welcome to check it out. http://inarasart.blogspot.com/2013/05/anti…

Well written, well researched. CWP: the truth hurts, doesn't it?

Portland Mercury, I am disgusted and ashamed that you call yourselves Portland's best alternative weekly.
This article is insane. It is a load of misinformed opinions, based on nothing but propaganda. Do your research before you print such obvious falsities. .
Want to actually be informed? Go to fluoridealert.org to find well researched evidence of why fluoridating drinking water doesn't actually work to lower cavity rates.
This is an industrial byproduct waste that we are talking about, not a pharmaceutical grade "safe" addition to water. It is a fact that fluorosilicic acid is regulated by the EPA as a toxic waste. Anyone go to middle school? Remember the Precautionary Principle, err on the side of intelligence and don't dump something in our water that may really be bad for us. It doesn't matter that there are studies that show that in safe doses it may be ok for us. There is a mountain of evidence that points towards doubt as to the effectiveness of fluoride in our water, and there is a mountain of evidence that points towards serious health risks of ingesting it. The CDC even says that the best and most effective use is topical.
I thought we lived in a democratic city, where people can choose what medication they take. If you vote yes, you are agreeing to install a compulsory medication program. Just because so many other cities in the countries do it does not make it right. Portland can be an example of a more sane way to live.
Kids need less chemicals in their bodies, not more. We need less chemicals in our watersheds, not more.
Thus begins my boycott of the Mercury. Goodbye and thank you for nothing.

Homer - then why are so many on the anti-side so conspiracy minded? For instance, the water-guzzling Spindles has said things about vaccinations that would find themselves at home with the things that are being said here. For instance:

"[V]ax-heads really show their true colors on threads like these. They are aggressively willing to stand by big government and the nakedly corrupt pharmaceutical industry with such a fervor and blind faith. Progressive indeed."
-Spindles

Sause: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/07/hey-stupid-fucking-anti-vaccine-baby-killers-stop-killing-our-babies#comment-10291250

Philomath water does not have 46.5 mg/L of arsenic in it. That would be 46.5 ppm, when the EPA limit for arsenic in drinking water is 10 ppb.

Did you actually test the Philomath *water* for arsenic from the taps? You tested the undiluted supplements, which would be highly diluted when put into the water supply.

Here is the City of Philomath 2011 Water Quality Report - showing ZERO arsenic. http://tinyurl.com/cjyvwr5

The 2010 Water Quality Report, also showing zero arsenic, is here - http://tinyurl.com/c4jcmce

Why isn't fluoridated salt used instead of water?

1) It would not be in our water. Good for fish and water supply.

2) In Europe (sans Ireland) they use salt because they believe that fluoride in water is an outdated process, overkill, and expensive.

3) Fluoridating salt is cheaper than 6-8 million to put it into our water supply.

I hope the Mercury reads and responds to the option of Fluoridating Salt. Cause this makes sense for both sides of the issue.

@Tom Servo1 - Iodized salt has been a huge contributor to the drop in goiter and cretinism. Fluoridation of salt could be practiced here, like it is in most of Europe, to reduce dental caries.

Wow Pridge Wesse, digging deep for that one. That's not totally creepy at all. And you're right, vaccines are better than mothers milk, they're all created equal, and there's never any profiteering ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-…

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,…

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/2009…

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new…

http://het.sagepub.com/content/31/10/1012.…

http://tribune.com.pk/story/293191/vaccine…

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/…

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32418446/ns/heal…

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

http://naturalsociety.com/3-girls-dead-oth…

http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index…

"a little variation in patterns/grasping at straws/crazy might make you distinguishable"

I'm sorry, tcraighenry, that posting links to scientific papers at the National Institute of Health, showing links between fluoride exposure and lowered intelligence in children makes you think that I'm crazy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

But, perhaps there's some other way for you to satisfy your inner self-righteousness than by risking my 8 month old daughter?

Also, does anyone know whether it's safe to garden with fluoridated water, or are there vegetables that concentrate the fluoride to unsafe levels?

Spindles - How many polio or smallpox epidemics have there been in the United States in recent history?

My father clearly remembers the last polio epidemic before the Sabin and Salk vaccines came about. If you think some people are scared of fluoride, think about the chance to catch a deadly or disabling communicable disease just by being out in public.

It's because of anti-vaxers like you that measles and whooping cough are making comebacks in the United States; you are destroying the herd immunity that protects people who cannot be vaccinated because of infancy or allergy, or who have compromised immune systems (people with AIDS, organ transplant recipients).

Why was this rushed through? The citizens who placed this on the ballot acted in good faith, using the democratic process. It was supposed to be voted on in May 2014, after a reasonable scientific and financial review. We don't even know how much this is going to raise our water bills. I would guess a lot more than a family's year supply of fluoride toothpaste.

All else aside, a "yes" vote on this is a yes vote for graft and corruption.

@altogetherPDX - It says in the article above - an average of $3 per household per year (AKA less than a tube of toothpaste). No one is hiding that information.

Thank you for pointing that out - but I think that is the cost of the fluoride itself, not the cost of the "7.6 million dollar fluoridation plant" and all the other city add-ons.

Unfortunately, we will not know until we get our quarterly ever-increasing bill in the mail.

Of all the straw men to pick on, the Mercury picked a good one. Yes, part of the fluoridation debate is about how much crock and pseudo-science each side can chuck out. Ok, another element is how all that bullshit snowballs and some wingnuts get tossed in. The anti-fluoridation side seems to be chock full of irrational arguments and morons.

The little part of the brain that your straw man is missing is the one great, big, whopping, and important argument that medication without consent is unethical.

rainfade: your cognitive dissonance is astounding.

August.g, to an authoritarian, left or right, ethical arguments are immaterial.

Cut back on the hyperbole for two seconds and maybe, just maybe, you won't sound like a loon

Re' the Harvard study (which I have actually READ, thank you very much, and so know that the pro-fluoride team is LYING when they claim that the anti-fluoride team is LYING about its findings) a few quotes from the AUTHORS might clear things up...

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and OTHER POISONS (emphasis mine) that cause brain drain." Philippe Grandjean, senior author, noting that fluoride is a known neurotoxin which readily crosses the placenta, potentially placing developing brains at significant risk.

Indeed, fluoride falls between lead and arsenic on the federal government's own toxicity tables.

And the union representing scientists at the EPA has, for years, included among their demands that they be provided fluoride-free water at work. These are the folks who have READ, WRITTEN and UNDERSTAND the studies, folks! They don't want to drink the shit!

The Harvard study itself, even though examining mostly data from high fluoride areas, DID conclude an average IQ decline of 7 points for children in fluoridated areas, and specifically noted that this effect was found even in populations exposed to "optimal" levels, though to a lesser but still concerning extent.

In a statement issued 3 months after the initial release of the study, the authors, under fire for reviewing mostly studies of high-fluoride areas of China (they lamented the paucity of U.S. studies to anaylize) stated:

"These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.

ON THE OTHER HAND (emphasis mine), neither can it be concluded that no
risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify
what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible
adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard."

The overall gist of the study (and I DO know how to interpret these things...finishing up my 2nd degree at the moment and have done extensive research in medical/scientific journals both for school and work) is that there IS a significant IQ lowering effect from fluoride exposure, even at lower levels (though of course more pronounced at higher exposures, as with ANY poison/neurotoxin) and that much more research should be done on the effects on human fetuses/infants/children (as opposed to the numerous animal studies which support significant harm to the developing brain from even moderate exposure levels).

I do not appreciate being lied to and manipulated, as I have been by the pro-fluoride dogs in this fight, who parrot all the same tired, distorted sound-bites as predicatably as any fringe internet conspiracy site. Have you READ your voter's pamplet yet? UGGHH! (though it DOES, interestingly, contain an argument in opposition from one of the authors of a study the pro-fluoride team has repeatedly mischaracterized...but I guess she doesn't really understand what the study she co-authored MEANS;)

Even less do I appreciate being condescended to (esp. by the local weekly rag's news team and celebrity gossip columnist...Ann, I love you, but you are testing my loyalty!).

I resent the hell out of the way this matter has been bullied through without the usual citizen input or review period (gee, wonder WHY the pending report on the DECLINING rate of cavities among Portland children is not being released until after the vote? or WHY there has been virtually no formal review of the scientific and medical literature surrounding the issue? WHY is it being rushed to a vote under the threat that the city will go ahead and approve millions in spending for it regardless?)

I'll be voting a big fat HELL NO on this one! As will my 21 year old son (who has excellent teeth "despite" being born and raised in Portland with no fluoride in his water OR toothpaste OR in any other intentionally administered form.)

Same for his 13 year old sister, but she's too young to vote.

And BTW, both have qualified for (and GOTTEN) FREE dental care through OHP from birth through age 18. Like ALL lower-income kids in Portland. Spare me the "poor kids" shit.

P.S. I earned my 1st degree in Child Development and spent 20 years working with young children, both here in Portland and elsewhere, most of them lower-income.

I NEVER saw (or have seen since) the sort of rampant, ER-requiring dental decay so emotionally described by the pro-fluoridation camp.

The only case of anything like that I ever saw was in my nephew from a heavily fluoridated area of Texas (now a 23 year old Marine) who was allowed to suck on a bottle full of apple juice (re-consitituted with fluoridated tap water) until the age of 4. His front teeth rotted down to the gum and he required extensive treatment to remove them and install a bridge so his adult teeth would come in properly.

I'm sure such cases do occur, but it is NOT due to lack of fluoride in the water. It is due to poor nutrition, poor dental care habits, and lack of access/utilization of routine dental care (which again, is FREE to all lower-income children in Portland!)

The idea seems to be that we can't trust poor parents (or ANY parents) to be responsible and ensure their kids do what REALLY prevents decay...so we should medicate everyone en mass with a known neurotoxin. Sweet.

Random caps and calling people folks always brings me around! Also what is scientific disagreement.

@Raven333 - Cool story bro.

And attacks on the opponent's choice of words ("folks", "people") and/or EMPHASIS, neither of which have any bearing whatsoever on the argument at hand, always tend to sway me over to the other side. ;)

You know, about 15 years ago I spent several months researching fluoride/fluoridation in medical and scientific journals as part of a larger project. THAT is what formed my opinion on the subject. I've been interested in and following the topic ever since (and drinking fluoride-free water whenever I travel or live somewhere which fluoridates).

And why I'm so pissed about the misrepresentation of some recent landmark studies on the part of the pro-fluoridation forces. There has been some bad science on both sides, but by FAR, the worst has come from the pro-fluoridation FOLKS (oh no she DIDN'T!!! Using "folks" AND BOLDING at the same time! She MUST be a nut-job;)

One thing I've found very interesting is that there is very little "scientific disagreement" with the "fluoride GOOOOD" position among entities like the CDC or the ADA or among rank and file dentists (they tend to parrot the party line, using the same carefully worded and distorting sound-bites).

But if one actually READS the literature, examines the decades of studies and the reviews of them published in peer-reviewed journals since, or even delves deeper and looks at the raw data and design of some of the studies used to defend fluoridation (all of which I have done) one begins to see a clear pattern of research scientists (you know, like those at the EPA who demand in their contracts that they be provided with fluoride-free water?) who generally concur that:

*Fluoride is a poison; a known neurotoxin, which readily crosses the placenta/blood-brain barrier, and very close on the same toxicity continuum as lead and mercury.

*Fluoridation, even at "optimum levels", carries significant health risks to the population in general but especially to certain segments of the population (i.e. fetuses, infants, children, the elderly, and those with particular medical conditions).

*Ingested fluoride carries minimal to no dental benefits; only TOPICAL application has been shown to have any significant merit, an admission the ADA has finally made, though they still cling to the disproven rationalization that the trace levels in saliva from ingestion confer any significant benefit.

*Fluoride added to chlorinated drinking water (which ours is) significantly increases the bio-availablity of both lead and arsenic. Both of which are also present in varying amounts in most water supplies.

*Much more research on humans is needed given both the strong indications of potential and actual harm in both humans and non-human animals and the relative paucity of decent, recent data (see, the thing is, when you just conclude a thing is the greatest thing since sliced bread, you don't tend to fund or otherwise bother to conduct much research on it. That poses a problem to scientists trying to evaluate the actual risks and benefits. Same way the Reagan/Bush era de-funding of research on cannabis, which they had de facto decided was BAD, set research on the benefits and risks of that substance back decades. But it IS very handy to be able to say "there are no definitive studies proving such and such." Well no FUCK! Studies have to be DONE to produce results, definitive or otherwise).

I guess we will have to just agree to disagree on this one. :)

Also - Did you know that WATER is POISON? Let's review the FACTS about the HORRORS of water:

1) Everyone (100%) of the people who've consumed water have died. It killed some of them quickly and some of them slowly, but in the end, everyone is dead. TRUTH. George Washington is dead today and we obviously have water to blame for it.

2) Water has no nutrients - if we have to drink it, we should at least have plants or animals filter it for us via juice or milk. Kids can get both in their schools.

3) There is not a single independently verifiable study done that shows water is 100% safe.

4) My aunt's cousin's husband had a disease and drinking water seemed to make it GET WORSE!

5) Public water is the most insidious of all. It's a giant subsidy to Coke and Pepsi who make Aquafina and Dasani, which is just filtered public water. They like public water because they make millions from it and it's impossible to trust anyone with a profit motive. Besides, if the city doesn't make a profit from it, why should we even have it?

6) Public water comes with NO WARNING LABELS. There's no way to know exactly how much is too much before it strikes you down. I know we all remember this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16614865/ns/us_n…

7) Public water is governed by regulations, and is pumped full of known toxins like chlorine. Obviously it's a conspiracy by the government and the chlorine industry to not only kill you, me, and all of our children but also protect their profits. Even if we're dead, they know the public water will flow.

8) Portland's bubblers are really poison delivery machines designed by the elite to kill off the underclasses and especially their kids!

9) The Nazis carried water supplies into battle. HITLER BATHED IN IT.

Remember: If anyone disagrees with you or complains about your methods or your studies or tries to keep you from speaking the TRUTH, they are obviously paid shills in collusion with government/corporations/corporate government who spend their entire time getting paid TRYING TO DESTROY THE FACTS. And of course they're going to insist that they're not, they'll say anything to DENY THE TRUTH!

You now know the FACTS about the poison that is water and the corrupt corporate subsidy to coke and pepsi and the chlorine industry through the public water complex. The facts are obvious and verifiable. Don't let anyone convince you differently. SPEAK THE TRUTH!

I really wish this article ended with, "That's the tooth."

Oh no, don't get me wrong. You being a nut job has nothing to do with the RANDOM emphasis or FOLKS.

Also brevity etc

Forgive me if this is an issue I feel very strongly about...I don't consider BREVITY a plus when we are debating something as significant as this. Apparently the city council do, since they have conspired with the pro-fluoridation camp to by-pass the usual procedures for review and citizen input.

And BTW, my use of emphasis is not "random"...it is very intentional.

So yeah, dismiss me as a "nut-job". You are the oh-so politically correct, knee-jerk liberal who swallows what they are fed by the "reputable" sources hook, line, and sinker. I have friends like you. I don't hate you but I do sort of pity you.

Me, I'm probably further to the left and more progressive than you, have more of a concern for kids (esp. lower-income ones) than you (both as a former teacher of them and a parent), am graduating in the fall with my 2nd degree (top 10% of my class), and NEVER simply accept anything at face value without doing my own research to confirm or debunk.


To quote Tarentino, "You don't know me. You only THINK you do" (emphasis his).


Ridicule is one of the most powerful tools of dolts determined to preserve the status quo, often due to their own professional, financial , or personal/ego interests.

The man who discovered that simple hand-washing between autopsies and the delivery of children (Ignaz Semmelweis) was drummed out of the profession as a loon/nut-job and died penniless in an asylum. But he was RIGHT.


"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

—
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)


He was right, too.

Last I heard, debate requires two willing opponents. And if there aren't any, then you're just really arguing with yourself.

edit: "The man who discovered that simple hand-washing between autopsies and the delivery of children (Ignaz Semmelweis)...would prevent the so-called child-bed fever which killed scores of women delivering in hospitals....was drummed out of the profession as a loon/nut-job and died penniless in an asylum. But he was RIGHT."

It's a shame he had no evidence and germ theory was only proven after his death I guess.

National Academy of Sciences acknowledges that fluoride in drinking water makes children less intelligent.

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

Read if you are able.

Fluoridation measures have been voted down three times already: let the citizens of Portland choose how and if to fluoridate their own water, rather than getting an imprecise dose through drinking water.

The Department of Health and Human Services has recently lowered the recommended dosage of fluoride because there is greater access to fluoride in the form of toothpastes, and mouth rinses for examples. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/…

Your paper blows... totally blows!

Can anyone tell me how the levels in the study in China compare to ours? I am confuse about translating that because they didn't measure in ppm. Help.


Also, both towns had fluoridated water. So

I guess I can read or whatever.

blownspeakers: I would say water fluoridation has been mainstream for quite a while. It is those opposed to water fluoridation that are being ridiculed. I don't think it's at the point where the pro side is violently opposing them - yet. Once Portland says no, other parts of the country will also. That's when the establishment will get serious about their violent opposition. Then, many years from now, water fluoridation will seem a quaint, if shocking, part of our history. Europe's ahead of us, as usual.

the Harvard Link is here, on the Harvard Website.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

Really the studies were done in china, harvard reviewed the study

The researchers conducted a systematic review of studies, almost all of which are from China where risks from fluoride are well-established. Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in groundwater, and exposures to the chemical are increased in some parts of China. Virtually no human studies in this field have been conducted in the U.S., said lead author Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH.

So yes and know. Given there is reasonable concern for harm, there is no eithical argurment for this violation of the most basic of human rights. The right to medical self determination.

Nazi doctors were executed for their human experiments without consent.

Do we need a Nuremberg trial for the ADA, the same people who tell us that mercury in the mouth is stable and safe, despite rational science pointing out it is toxic going into the mouth, and toxic coming out of the mouth.

In lawsuit against the ADA the ADA rightly pointed out they are NOT a public health organization.

Basically they can say whatever they want. They are an association that endorses products and policy and makes a good dollar doing it.

The ADA states that their endorsements are totally bullshit.

Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury

The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA's only alleged involvement in the product was to provide information regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury

F u, mercury news team!

@tcraighenry: 1mg/L is approximately 1ppm. - http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/chemist…

The difference between (avg) .36 ppm and (avg) 2.47 ppm was a shocking 8 IQ points lower, and way more kids under 70 IQ. Can we please just stick to toothpaste and stop messing around with the idea of adulterating our water with this dangerous substance?

I love the argument that, "it's an element". Lithium is a similarly sized element, that also passes the blood-brain barrier and also has significant stupefying effects on the brain. Want some in your water?

Read the full report. There's not enough data for the scientists to draw conclusions about a safe level.

If it's a linear relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ (nobody's got enough data to say that it is or isn't), then the HKHS proposal is going to sacrifice about 2.5 IQ points from my cute little bug and everyone else's. (And maybe all of us adults too.)

Is it a linear relationship? Is .7 ppm a safe level for brain development? Are Mercury staff taking fluoride colonics?

More study is needed.

It's most likely that my posting here is poorly timed and I'm sure there are people who will get offended at whatever I have to say (This is after all, the internet).

Firstly, I'd like to address poisoning of salmon. Overtly high levels of fluoride can do away with a salmon population because raised levels of fluoride can kill the fish. Here's the problem with that argument against fluoridated water: the fluoride doesn't go in the river itself.

In fact, the Mercury News Team assertion about the purifying processes of water (involving lye which is not as the authors said "toxic" but just highly basic to the point of being dangerous to touch, ammonia which if not removed from water can cause serious respiratory problems and chlorine, which is in fact toxic if not removed after the process) are true. And these are necessary! Without this, there's a very likely chance that nature will show you who's boss, delivering a water-born virus or bacteria straight to your body.

So what's my point? These chemicals would harm plenty of natural organisms if they were added in the source. But fluoride instead would be added in the same chemical plants that purify the water that leads to your faucets. Rather than going into the ecosystem that nourishes salmon, fluoride goes instead into your faucets at home. So if you wanted to kill salmon, then I guess you could turn your faucet on into a nearby fresh-water stream, though you'd have to pump an exorbitantly expensive quantity of water from your pipes.

The second argument, one that as a fan of not having the government impinge on rights seems contrary to that opinion, is the idea of "FORCED" fluoridation. What this argument consistently leaves out is that this is a measure is one chosen by the people. You can complain about the government's secret plans in your tin-foil hat, but it wouldn't change the fact that people ultimately decide their own fate in this scenario. So the government isn't FORCING fluoride onto you, your neighbors would be.

Which brings me to the third point. I don't live in Portland, which may bring some flack this way. In fact, I live in New Orleans (which is actually known for its notoriously corrupt governmental facilities which happens to include its rundown water-treatment plant) and before that I lived in San Diego. Both of these places fluoridate water and rates of bone cancer and mental retardation are no higher than in non-fluoridated Europe. What is better is the rate of tooth decay (severely decreased).

Moreso, the poisonous effects of fluoride are only from studies with high quantities. In fact, that's how lab studies mostly work. I have worked in a research lab for a few years now, and I can tell you that the majority of research uses unrealistic levels of chemicals to prove a point. This argument was lost on some of the commenters on this article. .7 ppm is not much more than you're already getting from your toothpaste. And your fluoridated mouthwash (if you're into the whole anticavity thing). It's a supplement to help your teeth.

So that's most of my argument. I'm not a Portland native, so maybe I am not so strongly against the typical fluoridation of water like most of the United States, but I think the health benefits outweigh the "correlations" in studies that people site.

Best of luck on your decision Portland.

Putting fluoride in water and leaving it up to the public =/= nazis.

Anyway, so was the fluoride put into the water in China manufactured for improving public health or was it industrial waste run off?

@rainfade Lithium's long been a treatment for various brain disorders. Another element with a public health use.

Though your complaining that lithium is "stupefying" is pretty telling. Are you one of those people that believe all medz are a ploy of The Man?

No, I don't believe all meds are a ploy of "the man". I do happen to notice though that profit motive and public health aren't always in concert, and that people wearing lab coats aren't always telling the truth, often because people looking to make $$ have misinformed them. (Look up Vioxx for a recent super-lethal example.)

But, even though lithium is good for some brain disorders doesn't mean you put it in the water for everyone at uncontrolled doses. Still, lithium can cause cognitive problems (hence: stupefying).

I'm not sure, but I believe the fluoride in those Chinese studies was naturally present.

The Indian study I linked earlier in the thread was I believe also from high naturally present fluoride.

nih.gov has a whole bunch of studies linking fluoride exposure to lower intelligence. I just posted one.

This is apples to oranges. Lithium is a drug used for relatively rare disorders (that's been proven over what, 60 years of use?) While fluoride is used for people who have teeth. Which is almost everyone.

You still didn't answer the questions about the origins of the fluoride in China. Plus Harvard analyzing a different study to confirm the conclusions drawn by another organization doesn't mean squat.

I think it's funny you're rambling on about how people in white lab coats lie while.... posting a whole bunch of links to thinks people in white lab coats say.

It's simple: if you want fluoride in your water, buy fluoride supplements.

Yeah, let's definitely not follow Europe's lead in not having fluoride in the drinking water. What do they know? http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/20…

emstern1: This whole measure started out because a private lobbying group, Upstream Public Health, met covertly (http://blog.oregonlive.com/portlandcityhal…) with City Hall, to push a measure Portlanders have twice rejected. Portlanders had to actively fight to get this on the ballot rather than have it be enacted. The whole thing reeks of a complete subversion of the democratic process, not an example of it.

People always want the easy fix. Lets not exercise and eat right to lose weight, just give me a pill. How about we invest in dental hygiene/education vs treating and entire population that does not need nor want fluoride in their bodies nor discharged into their rivers.
The dosage question is also a major concern. Kids drink very little water. Athletes (many whom choose Portland as their training ground) drink large amounts. Lets avoid the ungreen solution of purchasing bottled water when we have clean tap water as a viable option.

You know "Europe" isn't one big country right? It's made up of a large number of countries...

Also am I missing something or is there no mention of fluoride in that article?

Here I will be helpful. Here are a list of countries that have fluoridated water.

Nigeria
South Africa
Hong Kong
Israel
Japan
South Korea
Malaysia
Singapore
Vietnam
France (naturally fluoridated) - European
Ireland - European
Spain - European
United Kingdom (natural and artificial) - European
Canada
United States
Australia
New Zealand
Brazil
Chile

Here are a list of countries that don't (but did, or have high water pollution, naturally occuring fluoride in high doses:)
China
India
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Switzerland



Countries that support it but haven't implemented it:
Denmark
Finland


The percentages range wildly because, like the US, many countries allow local municipalities to decide on whether or not they want to add fluoride. Additionally, countries like France that have naturally occurring fluoride in high concentrations in ground water don't add it but also don't remove it.

I repeat: Europe is not one big country. There are 4 European countries with fluoridated water and 2 that actively support it but haven't/can't implement it.

Do you really not get the point I was making? I'll clarify, just in case you actually tried to understand the point I was making and didn't: most of Europe does not add fluoride to their water (and no, naturally occurring is not adding, because silicofluorides ARE different than naturally occurring fluoride - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1742005…). As a group, admittedly heterogeneous, but still, they are light-years ahead of us in terms of outlawing practices/chemicals which are unhealthful or morally wrong. Looking where they are collectively (not all, but most) on this issue, given their positions on other issues, might be a good start to where actual progressives come down in this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_…

I uh, you really need to be more specific when you're talking about "Europe." There are huge ranges in infrastructure, size, health models, and types of government. The UK, for example, is currently governed by the Conservatives who are far from progressive. And the supreme court of Ireland decided that fluoride was an ok thing to use.

Additionally, if you're talking about the European Union specifically this is the same body that says feta cheese isn't feta unless it comes from Greece.

Do they have better policies about some things? Sure. Do they have incredibly bizarre and fucked up policies about things? Absolutely!

The point is, you can use a single country as a model but using "Europe" is misleading and inaccurate.

(Hey we're going to sell gold next week. Wait! The minute I said that the price plummeted? HOW BIZARRE)

You also know that lobbyists act on behalf of citizens as well as corporations? Much like PACs.

tcraighenry: When lobbyists serve as end-runs around the democratic process, I don't care who they claim to be serving.

Lobbying is just a group of people acting on behalf of another group of people because the original people don't have time to hang around Salem or wherever. They aren't inherently evil.

@disastronaut: So, you don't have any specific rebuttal to the article so you resort to poisoning the well? That's so typical of anti-fluoriders. Grow up!

@brenna, fluoride isn't a drug. Your argument is invalid. See point #2 in the article above.