Comments
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.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
you are spewing bullshit. chlorine is a chemical. dumbass.
12
flouride is not medicine.
8
only if 10 is all we have left. wahahaha....
Also, some places, like Colorado, have natural fluorodation in their water, which is how this whole process was discovered in the first place.
Point B: you already have chemicals in your water, because, duh, public water supplies chlorinate that shit. I don't see anyone screaming about the actually damaging impact of chlorine in the water that keeps all the microbes at bay. Do you have a chlorine filter in your shower, where you inhale hot, vaporized chlorine particles? Go research that shit, you'll be in for a treat.
cue Spindles......
Fight the power! (That is, if you're not too sick and weak from vitamin and mineral deficiencies.)
For the fourth time since 1956, Portland voters reject fluoridation.
Okay, not all Americans are stupid. Just the majority of them. But deal with it, America: Collectively, you're a stupid, stupid country. And if you were so concerned about cavities you would wouldn't subsidize junk foods and processed foods through the Farm Bill.
The majority has been lied to. Look up the real facts about flouride at flouridedebate.com
Mandrake?
...
War is too important to be left to politicians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnA…
The water here in south King county is so filthy that for a while when I went to visit my friend in Portland I would bring some 5 gallon soft jugs to fill and bring back. Didn't know what it was but I felt much healthier when drinking Portland's water.
I subsequently switched to a mix of Pelegrino carbonated water and installed a reverse osmosis system under my sink.
However it was beyond the archaic plumbing system of my apartment so I scrapped it and started buying crystal springs at 10 for $10 from Fred Meyer.
When I visit Seattle the water is somewhat better but not as tasty as Portland's.
BTW, instead of ridicule (not actually a valid form of logic), maybe acknowledge that there are in fact risks from adding fluoride to the drinking water supply. It's not just toxicity. There are possible endocrine effects (hormonal embalances, endocrine disruption) from the EPA-regulated limits. I'm not saying this is enough to tip the scales away from the stated benefits, but I believe concerns should at least be heard/acknowledged instead of heaping prickish scorn on a population.
@19: is something we're pretty good at dealing with in low concentrations
Read the article I linked. Time and again, biological/medical scientists have proven that the scientists who came before them were entirely ignorant or suffered from serious misconceptions about how the human body works.
Here's a very good interview that lays out the anti fluoridation argument as well as one can:
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/201…
I know that it's easier to continue to pay for fluorosilic acid to be added to your water, even though for the same money you could have a much more effective and empowering result through treatment. But, I think Seattle could do better by trying to reach our high bar.
The levels for healthy thyroid function have been reassessed in recent years showing that far more people have under active thyroid then previously thought. Some of the symptom for under active thyroid are depression, inability to lose weight regardless of effort, tiredness, lack of energy. I read a recent study suggesting that as many as 20% of women over the age of 50 have low thyroid. So yes I think it is damn irresponsible to put fluoride in the water and it has nothing to do with the old Bircher argument.
I am not surprised.
O blah with de dah because you said blah and blah and now you say blee and bleech!!!
furthermore, if you think for moment about your curious statement "biological/medical scientists have proven that the scientists who came before them were entirely ignorant..." you should eventually realize that's tautologically silly in terms of how science progresses. ...oh well.
The science for the good benefits of fluoride indicates that the action is topical and not systemic, which could probably be done with fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash. Or if you didn't want to use fluoride and get the same benefits, you could just use a xylitol rinse.
Or go back to the Portland Mercury's thread - all mouth-frothing and virtually no reasonable answers to their points.
THAT is how they're being unreasonable. Reasonable words do not reside within frenzied statements.
Also, unfortunately, the public respect for institutions has been destroyed by the shockingly corrupt and incompetent performance of the elites in those institutions, from the Presidency to the Catholic Church to the banking system to college football, and ordinary people are too stupid to tell the difference between Joe Paterno and the Centers for Disease Control, which is an institution that HAS performed extremely well over the past fifty years. They say municipal water fluoridation is a good idea, because it is.
None of the anti-fluoridation science is any good, and, as you astutely note, none of the good science that the anti-fluoridation crowd brings out has anything to do with fluoridation. But there you go. On this subject, as with vaccines, the hippies all of a sudden turn into Alex Jones. The right doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity.
See what I mean? That's as unscientific a statement as can be. You better have something - anything - in order to say that you're being reasonable. But "absence of evidence" means that you have nothing.
But seriously, the medical and biological research community all agree that flouride is safe. If you believe there isn't enough evidence in this area, then you're ignoring the very simple evidence we have that fluoridation of the water supply results in better dental health and...that's it. There are no negative side effects that we know of. So why don't we base our evidence on what we know, rather than coming up with all these crazy ideas about how what we don't know my be WORLD SHATTERING.
Lots of false comments, like the guy who implied that Portland has better dental health than other cities with fluoride in their water (um what?) or 28 who is confusing resistance to antibiotics amongst bacteria with resistance to anti-microbial in general (fluoride is used to increase tooth health, not in concentrations that would sterilize water) are just trying to complicate an issue that is not complicated.
Portland made the wrong decision.
The onus is on you to prove something DOES hold exist and hold true when subjected to challenges, if we are talking science.
But you are not talking science. You are talking bullshit.
In science, "absence of evidence" is not evidence of...anything.
Meanwhile, there is ample evidence that fluoride is safe.
2. What 19 said - "chemicals" are not inherently bad - just about everything is a "chemical", and "organic" is not inherently good - the are many chemicals and compounds that are organic that will kill you at very low levels of exposure. The deliberate widespread exposure of humans to foreign substances has saved millions, probably billions of lives - from clean water to vaccines and antibiotics.
The genetic manipulation of food crops to increase yields may be the single greatest lifesaver in the history of humanity. I do agree that GMO manipulations involving the genetics of wholly different organisms introduced into food crops deserves intense scrutiny and skepticism (it's a bad idea to build insecticide into food), but at the same time, genetic modifications are leading to medicines and therapies that save lives and reduce suffering. For me the, key, and the hard part, is where to draw the line (rather than simply always bad versus "no worries").
That is exactly why your blanket statement that "fluoride is safe" is utter bullshit and why I said we should exercise caution and suspend judgement. I didn't say fluoride is disastrous nor am I making any wild conspiracy claims.
For Blip, I read this metaanalysis earlier. It is again not conclusive. I offer no endorsement and I make not one claim about fluoride-rich China wrt to the USA. BUT I do say, more research needs to be done especially given the resolution of our studies over 40 years.
What have you people got against doing more science and being agnostic rather than practicing ignorance and snap-judgment?
I'm just pointing out various things I've come across. I only have a dog in the fight of not making judgments about things that are not settled.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/13/1…
I believe that it's ridiculous to say one thing deserves more study than another, but I nevertheless agree that government funding should be increased for all science.
At a minimum, those genetically engineered crops should withstand the same scrutiny as any man-made product introduced into the food supply. If those crops are shown to sicken and kill mammals, then they should not be released to the public for general consumption. The reason why I dislike GMOs is because Monsanto seems allergic to the very concept of testing their products, and I'm not seeing the government pushing for much in the way of consumer safety.
@45,
I think it's also worth discussing the ways in which the medical establishment is inherently corrupt and incompetent. Like how oncologists admit that they wouldn't submit themselves to the same painful, debilitating treatments they subject their patients to. Or how many doctors are either too scared or too greedy to be honest with their terminal patients. Aside from preventive care, I don't trust most doctors to be honest with me or to look out for my interests. That's a problem.
60% of the people of Portland Voted - MOTHER FUCKING VOTED ASSHOLES. This is Democracy. It doesn't FUCKING matter what you think. It doesn't matter if you agree or not.
Calling voters "Stoopid" GOLDY does not win people over to your point of view.
All future articles published by you GOLDY, I will have to take with a grain of salt based on your inability to RESPECT 60% of the Portland Voters.
Your attitude is disrespectful. Now try again. Write an article that promotes fluoride in water without calling an entire city "Stoopid" - you flaming asshole.
The reasons given for increasing tooth decay in Seattle toddlers (and toddlers in other cities) include NOT providing sufficient fluoride, as parents feed their kids crap and fail to brush their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste.
Yours is a textbook example of the anti-science stupidity run amok in Portland that will condemn so many of their residents to lifelong poor dental health. No doubt you oppose vaccination and pasteurization. It would be amusing to consign you to a 15th century existence if you weren't so detrimental to public health.
" anti-science stupidity run amok in Portland "
What evidence do you have for the reason(s) people VOTED?
If you lived here you would know the vote was about a City Council and Mayor making a decision without getting public approval. Rather than do the hard work of educating the electorate a decision was made "for our own good."
If you believe in Democracy you would have voted against Fluoride in this case. It will be several years of hard work before the issue will be re-addressed. Hopefully it will be done from the ground up rather than from the council down.
Thank you for proving your point. Comparing Segregation to Fluoridation does not seem to be a reasonable argument to me. Therefore one of us indeed stoopid and does not deserve respect. As to which one of us this applies to, well, you have my vote.
Still my original comment was about the vitriolic disparagement of the voters of Portland...or the more ignorant among us. Even acknowledging the *potential* of harm from adding something to the water supply doesn't mean one needs to be against it for all its benefits or take an emotional stance...or even take an ignorant stance about unstudied second-order effects. There's a difference there.
The vote had nothing to do with Fluoride for some of us. The vote was a rebuke of an over-extended Mayor and City Council.
I will not deny that some of the vote was anti-fluoride, but it was not the entire 60% majority.
You want to talk about chemicals in your drinking water? Forget about fluoride, you know what else they put in there? Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO). Tons of it.
DHMO is a colorless, ordorless chemical compound found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol. DHMO is a major component of acid rain!!! Did you even realize that was in your water???
Do you know how many cancer cases are linked to dihydrogen monoxide consumption? 100%. Every single one. Stroke? Dihydrogen monoxide. Heart disease? Dihydrogen monoxide again. It's at the root of every modern illness that has plagued us ever since the government started dihydrogen monoxide distribution to the population.
Don't even get me started listing all the chemicals the governemnt is pushing on us. Sometimes I begin to think that it's nothing but chemicals every where you look. Nothing but. Call me paranoid if you like but there I said it.
"Dentists offer a number of reasons so many preschoolers suffer from such extensive dental decay: endless snacking and juice or other sweet drinks at bedtime, parents who choose bottled water rather than fluoridated tap water for their children, and a lack of awareness that infants should, according to pediatric experts, visit a dentist by age 1 to be assessed for future cavity risk, even though they may have only a few teeth."
Bad diets and bottled water
When any government ignores prior votes and decides "What's best" for their citizens.
Voting against those decisions is not "spite"
But you just keep on insulting voters. I'm sure you're winning someone over to your opinion. Just not me.
Tooth decay has been decreasing for Portland kids, Seattle's is on the rise.
Since nobody but me drinks tap water anymore, I think maybe Portland and other cities should follow that European example and start fluoridating our salt instead. Or just throw in the towel and start fluoridating Gatorade. Your average rider of the 358 consumes 256 ounces of that sugar water a day.
2. These scientists believe the issue is settled and there is enough evidence to conclude that fluoride is, indeed, as safe as claimed.
3. These scientists are better equipped to make this decision than the general public. We can either accept their expertise or reject it UNLESS...
4. THEY ARE INVOLVED IN A CONSPIRACY TO (blank).
That last one seems like a stretch.
I'm just going to point out that there have been no health deficiencies indicated to be caused by fluoridated water over the many decades it's been added to municipal water supplies and there is no evidence that it causes any harm. Therefore the onus of proving it is harmful, rather than helpful, falls on the opponents. Interestingly, those same opponents seem to all be non-experts with fears based on...nothing...
So which version of reality should I believe.
Problem solved.
@ 77, link (to a reputable site) or it didn't happen.
Uhm, legislators are supposed to make laws based on what's best for the citizenry. You could say that's actually their job. I find it hard to believe that people in Portland voted against fluoride because they're against representative government generally.
Portland is not mentioned anywhere on that page.
Someone really needs to learn them some science. Go science.
There's no "onus" on my part. I'm actually not strongly opinionated one way or the other wrt to fluoridation. But there's studies and they're far more inconclusive than you suggest.
For example, the meta-analysis of studies in neurotoxicity that I pointed to earlier shouldn't be dismissed so easily. It's an edge case but it is indeed an indicator of the need for further investigation.
Representative Democracy in the United States includes several instances of "Checks & Balances"
The Municipal Government in the City of Portland ignored a history of voter rejection of Fluoridation. Deciding that they knew best this government ignored popular opinion.
Keeping a government accountable to the voters is something Portland should be applauded for. Instead the superiority of this blog raises it's ugly head and calls the neighboring citizens "Stoopid"
A simple "I disagree with your decision, but respect your right to make it" is called for. But go ahead and continue to call us names.
(start sarcasm font here)
I hate to give the GOP credit for anything, but I can see why they hate Seattle.
(end sarcasm font here)
(Although I note, sadly, that Spindles seems to have crawled out from whatever hole he'd been hiding in for the occasion.)
Anyway, if you're truly not opinionated one way or the other, why don't you take down "goodteeth" for his or her logical fallacies? You know, give us some reason to believe you on this point, because you're solely arguing with one side here.
???
1st - I'm not arguing the "science" of the issue. "Real" or otherwise.
2nd - Who the heck is "goodteeth?"
Goes to pantry
Takes out tub of infant formula
Reads the fine print
Thought so. You are a damned liar.
"A vast majority of scientists believe there is a medium called aether." Is that statement really immune to logical fallacy? The same is true for an argument from ignorance. Just because peer reviewed studies have not actually been produced, doesn't mean the phenomenon they haven't studied doesn't exist.
Why would I spend time engaging the supposed crazies and random link posters as you have done? You're the one who's saying everyone's unreasonable. I'm honestly not trying to be. I'm preaching caution when it comes to voluntary issues in public health. How about engaging my opinion and facts rather than dismissing me as part of the supposed crazies.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/i…
Six months ago, I was skeptical but after months of reading source material and looking at what is proven to work, I am against adding fluorosilic acid to the water. I realize that most people in Seattle have given up on things that work. But, maybe, someday, wiser minds will prevail.
The idea that medical science is often incorrect in its conclusions and recommendations (always stated with such confidence and authority) is not a tautology.
Interesting that you specifically picked out aether which is a belief of pre-scientific theory science and pre-peer review.
You are, of course, correct to reject majority opinion as a good reason to believe something. But the answer for that is not to reject the opinion of experts but to make certain they are taking their duties of objectivity and peer review seriously. Seems to me you don't care for any of that.
@ 96, by your logic, we should also question whether the planets revolve around the sun. After all, absence of evidence to the contrary isn't evidence of absence.
Sorry, dirac. If they keep testing and retesting and retesting and conclusively find that fluoride is responsible for the things alleged, then fine. But until then, the best policy is the one that follows the science, and at this point we have more data and evidence regarding fluoride than we do for climate change.
Finally, I object to you attributing words that I have not actually written. I certainly have not said that everyone on the antifluoridation side is crazy. While I have yet to encounter one who is reasonable (and one can be sane and unreasonable at the same time), I never libeled the antifluoridation people like that.
Two things.
The cdc page you linked says it's fine and, at worst, there is a mildly higher chance that your child could suffer from fluorosis if you use tap water EVERY TIME to reconstitute formula and all you feed them is formula.
This is fluorosis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluo…
The major health side effect...is completely cosmetic.
Not really that scary.
Oh, and by the way, a quote from your article @58 which you seem to think makes some kind of anti-flouridation argument:
"Dentists offer a number of reasons so many preschoolers suffer from such extensive dental decay: endless snacking and juice or other sweet drinks at bedtime, parents who choose bottled water rather than fluoridated tap water for their children, and a lack of awareness that infants should, according to pediatric experts, visit a dentist by age 1 to be assessed for future cavity risk, even though they may have only a few teeth."
Well, at least you are honest enough to recognize that your earlier statement was alarmist bullshit.
And really - a CDC 'warning' that is multiply nuanced ("may be," "increased chance," "mild") about a minor side effect of excess fluoride consumption is pretty weak sauce.
Fuckin' hillbillies. These Portland voters are the same kind of people who are against Daylight Savings Time because it fades the curtains.
@99 "pre-scientific theory science and pre-peer review."
LOL, what is this? I'm curious since the aether was still well accepted into the 19th century and my impression is that the Enlightenment Era was ostensibly the birth of modern science.
"Seems to me you don't care for any of that." Forgive me if I don't take your word as authority on that! ;)
OK, let's go forward awhile. Entanglement had been roundly ridiculed by a great deal of scientists and scientists of high repute. The phenomenon has been proven time and again.
What about the assertion that SSRI's are better than placebo for mild to moderate depression? Not according to recent work by Irving Kirsch and others in modern placebo science.
These are majority opinions, subject to peer review, that have been called into question by "real" science.
@102 OK, Matt. Like with so many other things I'll agree to disagree but you do have a knack for lumping people together and mischaracterizing their opinions. Why am I not reasonable for questioning consensus opinion in the best way I can?
For example, why am I obligated to defend Spindles and goodteeth if I happen to disagree with you? Does that mean I agree with them? I think that's nonsense.
Anyway, if I do that, I'm hardly alone. Slog doesn't exactly inspire a lot of nuanced debate, and that's something that results from the tone set by its editors and writers.