@112 could you please post some more opinions so I can determine if you are an ironic comedy genius or a real life anti-science tard? Either way, I say: LOL

@114: I'd agree if this was a case of nerds worshipping "science" memes and image macros but not actually educating themselves. Perhaps that's what they meant (generously)?

Weep for your precious bodily solids, O Portland. Weep.

Let's see on one side the debate we have the entire accountable medical, heath and scientific establishment saying fluoridation is safe and effective.

On the other side we have... who do we have? A couple of chinese medicine partitioners, some guys on Penny-farthings who grow civil war beards for sport, Anti-taxers, Anti-vaxers, Conspiracy lunatics, and finally the Grandpa Simpsons of Portland who just hate their mayor for what ever insane reason.

Golly. Who to side with? It's a conundrum.

@117: But they have Harvaaaaoh shit http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/inde…

stupid, stupid, Goldy is more like it...

As a cavity preventative the beneficial properties of fluoride are purely topical. Ingesting it serves no purpose whatsoever, in fact it's a toxin.

That's why when you're at the dentists and you're getting a fluoride treatment, you don't swallow it, you spit it back out. Or like sunscreen--you don't drink it, you apply it on your skin, topically.

No sensible person would EVER put fluoride in drinking water. Sure the fluoride manufacturers stand to benefit, but that's about it.

Lol, Fluoride Truthers, come to save the day and avoid their children from ever having the horror of (at worst) a fluoride spot on their tooth.

Seriously, you're terrible people and you should feel terrible.

" in fact it's a toxin"

Protip: The word "toxin" is a sure sign for someone who doesn't know their ass from a homeopathic remedy.

@122: Ooh, that's cute. You cuntpaste a story all over SLOG and change 6.7% to 35%. Didn't the article already support the point you're trying to make? 2edgy4me

Wow, what a brilliant article, coming from Goldy, who apparently hates science, does zero research, thinks she's some kind of genius, and actually has shit for brains. Do you think 97% of Europe is also stooopid for rejecting toxic fluoridation? What about Japan, which also doesn't have any fluoridation, and is known for having one of the highest IQs in the entire world? What about the fact that 94.4% of the ENTIRE WORLD rejects fluoridation -- since its quackery that only Republicans, corporate trolls, and dumbasses like Goldy would support? What about the other 1/3 of America, which also doesn't support putting toxic fluoride chemicals in their drinking water? What about the fact that, according to the CDC, 40.7% of American adolescents have been so overdosed with fluoride that they are suffering from fluoridosis?

Reality: Portland is one of the most educated, politically aware, progressive places in bass-ackwards Amerikka, and is aligned with almost the entire world on this issue -- whereas Goldy is aligned with the Republicans and corporations and right-wing nutjobs.

God, what a ridiculous piece of idiotic horseshit your fact-less, brainless comment is. Either you're a total moron, or paid off to say whatever the marketing scum working for the fluoride industry want you to say.

The science is settled whats next your going to tell me the global warming science is not conclusive?

Portland is a poor man's Seattle

We're not all Portlandia cliches down here. I ride a bike but it's not gluten free. I voted for fluoridation.The problems were that 1) voter turnout is always especially low for anything not in November, 2) there wasn't much else on the ballot, and 3) the anti people were much, much more vocal and had more of a presence everywhere.

Most of us figured it was sensible and would pass, and so there wasn't enough pro-fluoridation messaging out there until late in the game. Meanwhile, the anti crowd was knocking on doors, flooding online comments, and planting signs on peoples yards. I'm not sure what the actual turnout was, I would guess something like less than 40% easy.

But hey, at least we still have a basketball team. Take that!

"Reality: Portland is one of the most educated"

You're evidence to the contrary.

lolololol The Fluoride Industry.

@126 that same well poisoning is exactly why your side lost. Rather than respond to real concerns of sincere people, the pro-F folks branded anyone questioning anything as ignorant loons. There are legitimate reasons to be against this, our appear to be, but you couldn't bother with trying not to insult people from the outset. Not least of our concerns is the fact that even if only a minority could be severely affected, the benefit to the majority should not necessarily override the concerns of that minority.

Hey ayn rand, water fluoridation is losing ground nationally. We won't stop until it's eradicated. http://www.mismanagingperception.com/cle…

@129: Antivaxers, climate-change denialists, creationists, flat-earthers and all people who don't understand what the word "toxins" can be stomped under the boot of progress and reality for all I give a shit.

You're not "winning", you're a faddish cult and stupid people bonding to other stupid people is not evidence of anything but how shitty our public education system is.

@128: "real concerns of sincere people"

You should try offering some sincere concerns, because all you're appealing to is the usual band of homeschooling fearmongering idiots who "known better" because of whatever the fuck they heard from Alex Jones this week.

Wow ayn rand, so if the science doesn't validate you own personal opinion it doesn't count? I didn't know it worked that way. Because even though the most comprehensive studies to date on water fluoridation (See: "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standard (2006)", "Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2012)", "Evidence for Fluoride Effects on Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, (1982—1986)", "The York Review – A systematic review of public water fluoridation. (2002)", "The Iowa Fluoride Study (2009)") have all shown the practice to not only have zero effect on dental health, but also to have very real health and the environment risks in concentrations not just below the EPA's maximum containment level of 4 ppm, but below the "optimal fluoride level" .7 ppm.

But that hasn't stopped the CDC, whose dentists are hired to promote fluoridation and not study it, from championing water fluoridation's alleged benefits despite the fact that their own website rarely links to actual studies, and when they do they ignore the reviews that always say the evidence for fluoride's effectiveness are mixed. It makes one wonder why the NIH refuses to fund new studies on the matter?

It also hasn't stopped protectionist guilds like the ADA, an organization who does not conduct their own science, to promote the benefits of systemic fluoridation. And even though the ADA has been fighting against Medicare/Medicaid since 1965, and is now lobbying against mid-level dental practitioners which would greatly help those in poor and rural areas, they really care about dental health ...

But it doesn't take a scientist to figure out the utter lack of effect water fluoridation has on dental health. Oregon's rate of dental decay: 44%. Non-fluoridated Portland's rate of dental decay: 21%, a figure that's dramatically lower than the rest of the state and lower than the national average. Hell, Texas has the highest decay rate in the nation at 43% and also has 80% of its population drinking fluoridated water. Kentucky, the state who sits just ahead of Oregon in its dental health numbers with a dental decay rate of 34.6% has 99.9% of its population drinking fluoridated water. I should also mention dental caries have been in decline at the exact same rate across fluoridated and non-fluoridated nations alike.

But when you have no ethics perhaps the other points are moot anyways, right? Water fluoridation is a grievous violation of medical consent laws. The fluoride added to drinking water meets every legal definition of a drug. The fluoride added to dental products is strictly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, yet what is added to municipal water is not overseen by any regulatory government agency. Fluoride is not a nutrient, it is not an essential mineral, and it is not added to make drinking water potable. Fluoride is added to treat people under the banner of it having a medicinal purpose. All medicines prescribed by doctors have a specific dosage based on the nature of the problem, age, gender, existing medical conditions, treatment, and consent of the patient. Water fluoridation is the mass medication of an entire population without any medical diagnosis whatsoever and without any regard for consent, case specifics of the individual, of dosage.

Remember that last one folks, dosage. Because there is no way to control how much fluoride (fluorosilicic acid waste byproduct of phosphate mining) you're ingesting from the water. This is not including other sources of fluoride exposure via toothpaste, mouthwash, other dental products, beverages, food with fluoride used as a pesticide.

And yes, science and integrity are prevailing as more than 120 communities have rejected fluoridation worldwide over the past 3 years alone: http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/com…

Ayn Rand, you are a knuckle dragging, anti-science authoritarian who clings to the prevailing orthodoxy with a fervor that is only matched by religious extremists.

@132: There hasn't been any science that proves it toxic to humans in the doses put into the water supply.

Nothing you have offered implies that it harms humanity, so i can safely count you as a damaged kook.

And "religious extremists"? There's a reason why the loopy "What the Bleep" new-agers on the extreme left and the John Birch society on the extreme "take 'em out of public schools because of LIBRUL INDOCTRINATION" right both agree on fluoridation, overlap on homeopathy, believe public health is "mind control", etc.

@132: Oh no, a non-fluoridated city has less tooth decay than the fluoridated boonies? I'm SURE that's entirely because of the fluoride, and not because people who live in rural areas have more difficulty finding a dentist near them. Spindles, even if your talking points weren't 100% guano, you still wouldn't pass muster because of your tendency to wildly and paranoidly attribute causation.

In a case of unchecked cavity paranoia *undead ayn rand* downs a cup of pure flouride every morning... witness the evidence in full display. Absolute mind rot.

but oh right, flouride is not a toxin. Only to rats.

Fluoridation is a scam and always has been. Sorry Seattle. You have a lovely city, but a crappy publication in the form of the Stranger which has spread its infection to our own Mercury, a once good paper. Science is not on the side of Fluoridation. You can keep your Fluoridated water and your snarky, uninformed responses. First off, take some chemistry, toxicology and environmental health courses because you are showing YOUR stoopidity! There are plenty of resources for you to figure out that Fluoride by ingestion does nothing. There is plenty of data to show that Fluoridated regions have NO better teeth than unfluoridated areas. Portland, as always is ahead of the curve and on the right side of history.

Oh go bite me. Don't put climate deniers and anti-Flurodidationists in the same sentence you twerps. Typical ignorance of the Precautionary Principal and science, period. This is not a cult. This is where the world is headed. Your acceptance of toxins is part of the sad history of this planet. How DARE you proclaim that we must be subjected to these toxins. Go drink some DDT!

@138: And Anti-vaccinationists, don't forget that y'all are as stupid as them.

@136: The difference between "helpful" and "toxic" with a substance often only involves the dosage. I can drink chlorinated, purified water, but I'm not going to drink bleach. Do you often use words you don't understand?

I have no problem with vaccines having had just about all of them. But there is no excuse for mercury preservative in any vaccine, let alone in childhood vaccinations. Additionally, many vaccines have cause some serious side effects (Smallpox et al) and many have not been effective (Whooping Cough). As far as flu vaccines, I will never get one of those. They also have not been very effective. My immune system is working well. Don't think you know it all by making judgements about people and their choices Miss 139.

@136: You realize that, in high enough concentrations, water and salt are also toxic? And that arsenic may be an essential nutrient?

Let's talk numbers. It all comes down to concentration and dosage. At different doses the same element can have different effects. What are the concentrations of fluoride that cause skeletal fluorosis? According to the WHO, concentrations above 1.5 g/L are a problem. The CDC recommended concentration for drinking water is 0.7-1.2 mg/L. The EPA maximum allowable concentration is 4.0 mg/L, and the recommended maximum is 2.0 mg/L. This is almost a thousand times less fluoride per liter than that which could cause problems such as skeletal fluorosis.

Oh, and here's a fun one for tea drinkers. Did you know that black tea contains anywhere from 0.7-6.0 mg/L fluoride? The amount depends on the form of tea and its source.

@140: Are you posting this from 14 years ago?

So you're justifying these toxins? Yeah duh, anything is a toxin in the right dose. I teach toxicology. That does not justify Fluoride in water and where have you been? It doesn't work. What part of doesn't do you not comprehend and what part of forced chemical intake do you not get. Shame on you. Also Arsenic is NOT an essential nutrient. Go back to school. Arsenic also accumulates in rice. So, what's you point. That doesn't make it good. Your arguments are fallacious. I have an MS in occupational and environmental science and 36 years actual experience. I think I know what I am talking about.

And yet you apparently still don't understand what "toxins" are.

"forced chemical intake"

How can someone with a degree of any sort not understand that "forced chemical intake" is what happens with every meal?

You use these words as if they were new and unfamiliar to you. I'm sure you can have a degree, but it sure doesn't sound like it.

@124: Most uninformed post ever? In Europe, they generally don't drink tap water, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to fluoridate the dishwater. And if you're holding Japan up as a paragon of dental practice, you obviously have never set foot there. "What about the fact that 94.4% of the ENTIRE WORLD rejects fluoridation?" I gotta confess, I'm not gonna follow the lead of India, Pakistan, Egypt and Nigeria on this this one, thankyaverrymuch. As for the rest of you anti-fluoride nutters, if Spindles is the one who is most vigorously making your case, you might want to think it through again.

@137: Fluoridation isn't about ingestion. While the water is in your mouth, some of the fluoride gets incorporated into the outer layer of your tooth enamel, changing it from hydroxyapatite to the more acid-resistant fluoroapatite.
Aaand in fact, areas that fluoridate their water supply do in fact have less cavities. Sources: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11… http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/855

@145/146, come on now, let's not let facts get in the middle of a naturopath's wet dream.

ayn rand...how appropriate...what a ignorant fool you are. If you have no choice but to ingest Fluoride because it is added to your water, that IS forced, unless you just avoid your tap water for any consumption. Yes I have a degree, and a damn good one...typical ad hom classy attacks by the disinformed Fluoride folks. An MD in a local paper knew less in his column when he didn't know what an element was. Yeah baby, I know what I'm talking about. Maybe you should listen and learn.

146...that process cause fluorosis as well.
145...no association between fluoridated regions and lower cavity rates...NONE!
Oh yeah and Miss Rand...144...you forcibly ingest chemicals with your meals? WTF crap are you eating, and whose forcing you to eat them?

@149: "you forcibly ingest chemicals with your meals? WTF crap are you eating"

Oh holy lol.

Greg (151); I am fully aware of As role in methionine metabolism. You underestimate the amount of knowledge out there and marginalize those against Fluoride and you changed the subject. This is about Fluoride, not Arsenic. That study, and others, on Arsenic's role points to ultra low concentrations of Arsenic. We're talking below trace levels and there is no evidence it is an essential nutrient. It merely facilitates a metabolic function at extremely low levels. Fluoride has NO such function in any living organism. I appreciate that you see the benefits of no Fluoridation. I have been very objective in buying into Fluoridation when I was younger. Since then, there is no basis to back Fluoridation either from a dental health prevention or from a health standpoint.