1. They don't really have anything. The reason China stopped putting fluoride in the water was because they couldn't adequately control the dose they were providing alongside the pollution and run off in the water. Also China is really fucking big. They have to use steam powered trains to get across the country. But that's the study they like to harp on.

2. They don't refute the ADA or the CDC's claims that fluoride in the water is a good thing.

3. Lobbyists and PACs aren't inherently evil Mr. Burns style organizations trying to kill us with aluminum manufacturing bi-products.

4. Europe isn't a singular entity. When pointed out that countries in Europe do have fluoridation, they got nothing.

@Paul Cone, chiropractors and acupuncturists *are*, for the most part, quacks.

"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. "

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Man, I have some great swamp land in Florida you might be interested in.

LobicSabre: Funny, the NIH seems to think fluoride is a drug - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginf…

@Homer said: "LobicSabre: Funny, the NIH seems to think fluoride is a drug - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginf…"

Funny because they never actually call it a drug on that page. Did you read it before you posted that link.

Further, why would you reference a page talking about medicinal fluoride when we're talking about fluoride added to public drinking water? The two are similar things, but not the same. Nowhere in that page does it talk about fluoridated water. It talks about fluoridated dental products.

Your false equivalency makes your argument invalid.

Lobbyists:
Jessica Adomson lobbies for:
Northwest Career Colleges Federation
Oregon Public Broadcasting

Brielyn Atkins lobbies for:
Oregon Violence Against Women PAC

Christel Allen lobbies for:
American Lung Association of the Mountain Pacific
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians
Oregon Housing Authorities

James Anderson lobbies for:
American College of Emergency Physicians, Oregon Chapter

Jeff Anderson lobbies for:
United Food & Commercial Workers Local 555


Anyway, just a few names from our state.

http://www.oregon.gov/OGEC/Pages/forms_pub…

(I believe they have to register, so there's your list.)

Prescription medication =/= drug. Would you call a topical cream a drug? Not to mention the word "drug" doesn't really mean anything in a medical sense.

tcraighenry: Are you for real? druginfo/meds is in the url. The first section id "Why is this medication prescribed?" WTF? I was refuting the statement "fluoride is not a drug." Which is a common, and intentional error, on the pro side. It is being used as a drug - the NIH agrees. I know the pro side hates it being called a drug, because then you can say it forced medication, and be entirely accurate. Still that pesky thing called the truth.

A topical cream for something like acne is also a medication. Would you call that a drug?

I gotta ask at this point. Homer are you just trolling?

tcraighenry: ? Your ad hominem does not serve this discussion. Perhaps you should look in a mirror.

@Home said: "tcraighenry: Are you for real? druginfo/meds is in the url. The first section id 'Why is this medication prescribed?' WTF?"

Yup, WTF, indeed. Why, when it talks about products labeled as medications with fluoride in them, do you then call fluoride a drug. You're making a leap that your link doesn't support.

"I was refuting the statement "fluoride is not a drug." Which is a common, and intentional error, on the pro side."

No, you didn't refute anything. Nowhere in that link is fluoride called a drug, which is what you're claiming it is. The pro side isn't making an error in pointing this out and you have yet to support your claim to the contrary. It seems the common and intentional error lies in your argument, not the argument on the pro side.

"It is being used as a drug - the NIH agrees."

No, it is being used in products labeled as medications. It is *this* specific definition that NIH agrees with. They do *not* call it a drug, as you do.

"I know the pro side hates it being called a drug, because then you can say it forced medication, and be entirely accurate. Still that pesky thing called the truth."

No, the pro side sees the ridiculous idea of calling a mineral a drug because it isn't a drug. You need it to be falsely labeled a drug for your argument about "forced medication" to have any weight, which it does not.

Is adding iodine to salt forced medication, too? Do you even know why iodine was added to salt?

So, yes, about the pesky thing called truth. You don't seem to be working with much of it on your side.

It's a legitimate question given you won't respond to a single refutation against your evidence.

Anyway. Let's recap.

1. Europe isn't a progressive hive mind
2. That Chinese study wasn't in a controlled environment
3. Lobbyists aren't inherently evil and neither are PACs. (Unless you consider lobbying for the Umatilla and emergency room doctors evil.)
4. Your definition of drug is bizarre and unfounded.

Since you haven't refuted anything up there, I win!

http://thesaurus.com/browse/medication

You'll find a word there that starts with d. Maybe thesaurus.com is in on the conspiracy as well!

Fluoride in the water is being used for EXACTLY the same purpose as that link.

More synonyms in that entry: healing, elixir, placebo, treatment

Fluoride is also an elixir, a placebo and a treatment by your logic.

I need to clarify what an ad hom attack is for you btw. It would have been an ad hominem if I would have said "well your opinions don't matter because you're a troll." Asking if you're participating in behavior that is like a troll is not an attack on your credibility. It's a question about your intent.

"Fluoride is a toxic molecule that wreaks extensive, often irreversible, havoc on the body. The thyroid is particularly affected by fluoride exposure because its store of iodine is depleted. Iodine deficiency depresses the thyroid's metabolic and immune functions, resulting in hypothyroidism and lowered immunity.
Unlike iodine, which the body cannot store long-term, fluoride is a problematic and persistent toxin. Its effects are systemic and only about half of what is ingested can be excreted; the rest is stored in bones and tissues, blocking access to other elements, like iodine.

Fluoride and iodine are both halogens. Fluoride, the negative ion of the element fluorine, easily displaces iodine in the body because it is much lighter and therefore more reactive.

Fluoride exposure can come from multiple obvious and not-so-obvious sources. In addition to dental hygiene products and drinking water, many breakfast cereals, juices from concentrate, soda and other processed foods contain alarming levels. Fluoride-containing pesticide use means that the environment is being flooded with fluoride by conventional agriculture (http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-pesticides.htm). Also, many antidepressants contain large amounts of fluoride and are widely prescribed, often for a lifetime of use.

Lack of iodine shuts down production of thyroxine, the thyroid prohormone that controls metabolism, and, in one way or another, impacts every aspect of health.
But the action of iodine in the thyroid is not limited to metabolism; it also has an important immune function. If the thyroid is deficient in iodine, a critical step in immunity will be reduced or eliminated." Marianne Leigh

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031317_fluoride_iodine.html#ixzz2Sl8hN2US"

"natural news"

Find out the answers to the three questions asked by Howard Patterson, M.E.M. in the video below.

The Real Questions about Fluoridation.
#1. Does it work?
#2. Is it safe?
#3. Is it safe for the environment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PYej_OgZHE

Fluoridation and the Environment (high resolution)

Howard Patterson, M.E.M./Flying Karamazov Brothers

Published on Apr 11, 2013

The actual science on fluoridation: its effect on salmon and the environment, efficacy for dental health, and safety for human consumption. Please watch before you vote!

There is a worldwide movement to stop forced Fluoridation of public water systems. It is successful in many communities.

My hope is that Fluoridation of public water systems will soon be a thing of the past!

===

Our water WILL NOT BE POISONED with toxic industrial waste, which is exactly what Fluorosilicic Acid is. Our water will not be contaminated. Get out of our water system with your drugs and industrial waste. Make your money elsewhere.

There are very likely grounds for a lawsuit if this measure passes, according to the Oregon State Bar.

See this page: http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin…

And please see this page. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/for-a…

Please share with everyone freely. Thank you!

===

http://fluoridefreekansas.org/2012/11/vict…
Read what happened in Wichita! Victory against the MACHINE.

Adding Fluorosilicic Acid to our public water supply does nothing to address the many deep, systemic issues that have created uneven medical access and nutritional access/education/habits among poor communities. As long as the cheapest and most accessible food is processed, sugary, and nutrient deficient, and as long as our healthcare system is controlled by for-profit interests, health problems like dental caries in poor (mostly minority) communities will continue to manifest, no matter how many additional chemicals we put in the water or air.

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

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

Water and air are basic to life, free and necessary to all. Is this not reason enough to protect their purity, and to find more acute solutions to acute problems such as the one fluoridation proposes to "solve?"

Oh look, an OHSU doctor was just caught red-handed stealing signs outside the headquarters of Clean Water Portland. The good doctor also works for the Oregon Health Authority, the state agency that was deliberately delaying the results of the new Oregon Smile Survey.

http://www.katu.com/politics/Man-caught-st…

@Spindles - not condoning sign-stealing, but your side is into arson - check the KATU link you posted.