There are a couple of local blogs opposing fluoridation, too. Check out the McMinnville-based one: http://macsaferwater.wordpress.com/for example.

The sad thing to see is the hysteria fostered mainly by dentists and their hygienists. It is a total puzzle, since most opposition centers on freedom of personal decision-making, the fact that fluoridated toothpaste is ubiquitous, and mass municipal medication.

Purity of Essence.

Commie plot

...do whatchoo wanna do...

My hygienist here in Salem worked in Portland for several years before returning to Salem and noted that patients in Salem had much better teeth. I am 42, lived in Salem my whole life and have zero cavities.

This has to be about money. Selling waste products and fluoride coming in from China, unbelievable that anyone would want that stuff in our drinking water!!

Unfortunately, our elected officials don't care about the health of the community, they are more interested in their career or who knows what these days. Across the board, they just don't seem to be working for the best interests of the people.

That we know now because they are not stepping up to save our good Bull Run drinking water and the entire sustainable system. If there is one elected official who is willing to do everything they can to save our water, then speak up!

As far as the fluoride issue, we need to look at who is getting campaign funds from those who are pushing fluoride.

I think of all the arguments against mass fluoridation ... Arguments that ultimately persuade me that it's not something we should do... The weakest is the "they're doing it to make money."

No, they're doing it out of an excess zeal, a belief that the ends (better health) justify the means (treating an entire population without their consent with a chemical known to be slightly toxic at higher doses).

If dentists were all corrupt and wanted to make money, there wouldn't be Any pushing fluoride except through prescription, which they would then write. There's just no money in public fluoridation of water supplies for dentists. So while the better case is against, it's time to recognize that the pro fluoridation types aren't evil villains. They're just wrong about how far government should go to improve people en masse.

What bugs me most about fluoride is the precedent ... I have actually heard cardiologists suggest that we should be putting statins in the water supply -- and while that sounds insane, the logic of fluoridation, applied to a much graver health risk, can get you there pretty fast. They weren't seriously proposing it, but they were using it as a way of suggesting how safe they are and how beneficial they are. That's what persuaded cities and towns all over the US on fluoride, so it may just be a thought experiment now, but I don't like the fluoride precedent hanging there.

Someone told me that the gov't is now requiring children to be purposely exposed to the measles virus!?

...There's just no money in public fluoridation of water supplies for dentists...

Need to clarify, never stated that it was about money for the dentists...or that it is the dentists who are pushing fluoride. Some may be advising the use of it, yet others are not.

On the September 28th thread (link above) sheila posted this:
http://www.wholehousewaterfilternow.com/fluoride-in-the-water/

China does not allow fluoride to be put in the water at all. They know it is too toxic and it causes damage. Therefore, what China does is they take their waste products of phosphate fertilizer, which is fluoride, and ship it to us here in America. China is where most of the fluoride comes from. We actually drink what the Chinese will not allow in their water. Does that make any sense to you because it sure does not to us!

We use all the fluoride we make here in the United States but it has been viewed to not be enough. Therefore, we actually have it imported from China. To clarify, we import industrial waste from China so we can put in our water. How do you feel now? And of course the waste is contaminated with lead, arsenic, radium, aluminum and a host of other contaminants. It is not a cleaned up pharmaceutical grade that is put in our water but rather a lesser grade.

I found that information very troubling, if it indeed is the case, we need to know what is it all about then? Can it be about health now if it is not a cleaned up pharmaceutical grade?

Will add, I don't like the idea of fluoride precedent either,
...or mass medication in our water which is how I view fluoride.

Corporate flouride industry argument for adding chemical waste to our water - "its for the children". Gee, that sounds so familiar.

Is the next step to put micro chips in our arms for ID?
It's for the children...no more baby snatching, right?

I think it's probably a bit of all the above, and as we well know, our local leaders will spare no penny doing what they think best.

A) Flouride doesn't work. This is medically proven because the amount of Flouride that is present on a healthy tooth is essentially the same as that on a tooth with decay. (Flouride only coats the outside of the tooth.)

B) The amount of flouride that is considered poison in toothpaste is suddenly OK if it is contained in our drinking water. Ever notice the poison warning on toothpaste where it says don't swallow? Yet they try to make a case that drinking flouridated water is OK!

C) If the ADA ever fessed up to the extremely unhealthy practices of using Mercury for fillings, they would be subject to lawsuit city. They run any dentist who disagrees with them out of business (there are hundreds of examples). So these guys are dangerous, vindictive, and anti-science. They lack credibility, not only on Mercury, but Flouride too.

Fluoride chemicals used in drinking water originate from the nuclear, aluminum, and fertilizer industries as toxic waste by-products. Leonard, Novick, Adams, and Nolan all support fluoridation. Remember this as you vote.

Having seen the pain and shame suffered by poor people with extensive tooth decay, I side with the pro-fluoride crowd, at the lower concentration recommendation. Anyone who doesn't want it can avoid tap water.

Sorry Sal, but the decay needs to be addressed to the poverty issue, not an unnecessary one size fits all unwanted medication. We have yet to see the nutritional benefits of added Aresenic and Lead in drinking water.

Avoid tap water? That added expense helps the poor person how?

Sal:...Anyone who doesn't want it can avoid tap water.

Why should the major portion of the population avoid tap water? Don't want to have to buy bottled water because some want fluoride!
Anytime I hear "This is for the children"
the red flag goes up, since in so many other ways children are not cared about...so why this big concern about the children regarding fluoride, efforts might be better put to address malnutrition and poverty of the children of our country rather than trying to shove this waste product into the drinking water...how can that possibly be helpful to anyone?? and least of all to the children??

Furthermore, there is more to a body than teeth here, what does fluoride do to the whole body? If anyone wants fluoride, I am sure proper doses of pharmaceutical grade could be made available, as money is available for all kinds of programs, and if there isn't money available for those who really want this, then that makes no sense either as there is always money for the wars, bailing out wall street, the list is enormously long!
Question is why aren't those who advocate for fluoride advocating for dollars for those they think need it instead of propagandizing and pressing that everyone should have to take this in their drinking water?

I strongly object for several reasons -
to waste products now as fluoride, to no way of knowing the dosage one would be getting as that makes no sense whatsoever, and to what I consider mass medication (or whatever fluoride is now with the waste products, etc.) in our drinking water.

Chlorine is highly toxic as well. We'd all be much better off if the nanny state stopped forcing that down our throats, right?