I really don't get the big fuss. Fluoride prevents cavities. Sure, you can brush your teeth with fluoride-containing toothpaste or use a fluoride tablet or rinse. But there's also the argument that many low-income folks don't have access to, or avail themselves of, appropriate dental care products. At least this ensures that they get some modicum of cavity prevention. Bottom line is that fluoride has been in municipal water systems for over 60 years. If there was a huge health concern, wouldn't there be more actual deaths, disabilities and other documented adverse effects instead of hypotheticals? This seems like a tinfoil hat club issue.

OK, jmh. By your logic, there is no problem with radioactive waste seeping into the ground water at Hanford becasue there are no "measurable" effects and its been there for 60 plus years. Just don't eat the sturgeon.

The bottom line is that kids already have access to fluoride through school programs. If I were any type of food manufacturer, brewery owner, distiller, etc, etc, I would be concerned about the cost of additional filtration systems, not to mention the additional $5M pop on the City's budget.

Who are you suggesting is wearing the tin foil hat?

The "SamRand way" is the way to override the public's wishes.

jmh,
You don't get it. Some of us do care what we eat and drink and don't want this product coming out of our tap and reject having the entire community medicated, our environment fluoridated. This will be in water we use to grow our food, etc. all water usage and then a run off into our rivers. There are people in our community who cannot tolerate fluoride effects.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030952_CDC_fluoride.html
For one thing, do you know where fluoride comes from? It turns out that so-called "fluoride" is really fluorosilicic acid, a toxic waste byproduct of the phosphate mining industry. If it wasn't being dumped into the water supplies of major cities, it would have to be disposed as a hazardous toxic waste chemical under EPA rules.

This pro fluoride group portrays those who don't want fluoride as fearful?
Very telling I think as to who really are the fearful ones that are afraid of the science on this, don't want the public to have time to find out or have a say on this that the campaign had to do a stealth behind the doors lobbying hush hush and now a rush rush??
What is this pro fluoride group afraid of?

This city so much wants to be like Europe. They make visits there all the time bringing back praises about how efficient and modern they are.

Well, fluoride has been banned in Europe for health reasons. Do you expect to see the council wishing they were more like Europe on that issue?

F No!

And if they force Fluoride into our water supply, the local beer makers will not be able to export their product to Europe - as any product containing Fluoridated water is banned there.

Now that is really progressive! NOT!

"Bottom line is that fluoride has been in municipal water systems for over 60 years. If there was a huge health concern, wouldn't there be more actual deaths, disabilities and other documented adverse effects instead of hypotheticals?"
I'd maintain people are much dumber than they were 60 years ago...

...as any product containing Fluoridated water is banned there.

Good point, What about the specialty distilleries importing to Europe? The wine industry?
I know some of these wineries are outside of pdx, but concern is that if they can get Portland, next is the state. Have no confidence that Kitzhaber will stop the state from being fluoridated. This is serious and so little time to have a community dialogue with the science on this and communication on this as adults and done with respect and integrity instead of name-calling, propagandizing and fast tracking this.

I'm not "pro" fluoride - as a practical matter, I would prefer not to see additional city expenditures. I just don't understand the intense resistance to fluoridated water.
Presumably almost any additive to a water supply could, if ingested in large enough quantities, cause health problems for a least a sensitive portion of the population. But I think the benefits of fluoride outweigh the (largely theoretical) risks.
Comparing it to radioactive waste is not credible. The health risks of exposure to radioactive waste have been well documented.
All I'm saying is that there are more pressing issues to worry about. Like whether we have a nutcase or a liar as our next mayor, whether the cost of paying public retirees will exceed the cost of those currently working, whether bikes will take over the city, etc.

jmh,

Could it be that you are uniformed and parroting pro-floride proponents?

There is no natural substance called "floride".

There is a natural chemical element called fluorine (big difference).

As clinamen stated, "floride" is an artifical waste product from an industrial process.

There are numerous studies, the most recent from Harvard Medical school that concludes "floride" is potentially dangerous to the brain, on a line like mercury.

"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," noted the Harvard research scientists about the results of their study, echoing claims by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that there is substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity associated with the chemical. “The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment.”

The researchers also expressed concerns about the potential of fluoride to cause irreversible brain damage in unborn children. "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta,” they observed. “Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."

The study, which was published on July 20 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, also called for further studies on the issue. While fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animals and adults, not enough was known about the chemical’s effects on the neurodevelopment of children, the researchers said.

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” noted senior study author Philippe Grandjean, a professor of environmental health at Harvard. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

There some two dozen studies that show the same results.

Again, when some proponents claim "floride" occurs naturally in water supplies, they are either misinformed or they are outright lying.

Flourine is a natural chemical element, while "floride" is a by-product of an industrial process, in other words, it is an artificial and mad-made substance.

This needs a vote of the people.

Adams and Leonard are gone come January, but Nick Fish will not. Perhaps, Nick Fish does not want to be a political lightning rod where roughly half the voters of Portland will be against you for this issue and the ones that aren't already were for some reason or another.

That sets up a competive election for Nick Fish.

Nick Fish, think about this and change your mind and indicate, given Portland voters have rejected floridation three times, that it isn't a good idea to go along with two lame ducks on this issue.

As for Gov. Kitzhaber endorsing this, he should be ashamed of himself.

Governor, go read the Harvard study and then think again.

You are a doctor, arn't you?

You do respect science don't you.

I don't want my brain "bathed" in a industrial chemical waste product known to reduce intelligence particulary for young children and even the unborn.

"The demand for fluoride additives benefits companies that can market their waste products as fluoridating agents to water utilities. Industries such as USSteel, DuPPont, Alcoa, Allied Chemical, and the Florida phosphate fertilizer industry all profit from selling fluoride byproducts they have generated (Kauffman, 2005)."

Follow the money and it will explain why so many have been duped by this whole thing.

And studies question the whole argument that "floride" even reduces cavities.

Floridation has been one big lie told so many times that it passes for the truth.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I recall from university chemistry class that fluorine is a highly reactive halogen like chlorine and that it's bad, bad for your body.

I also recall that fluoridation works by altering the mineral structure of your teeth and bones by replacing the hydroxyl ion with a fluorine one, thus making bone mineral harder and less prone to acid attack.

Dental caries is a curse, dental care is expensive, and most dental insurance sucks even if you do have it.

Locally applied and controlled fluoridation of tooth enamel is probably a really good thing. Putting it in the general water supply for everything, everywhere is probably not and may over time, prove to be stupid, like water supply systems made of lead pipes.

But it's for social equity, so poor and rich alike have the same number of cavities.

Also fluoridation might help the thinking of the Portlandia population. I posit that the goofy thinking comes from an absence of fluoridation. The second part of the test is to add fluoridation. I predict that the thinking (as well as teeth) will vastly improve. Run the test. You have nothing but your teeth, condo bunkers, streetcars to nowhere, and wasteful redevelopment projects to lose.

Given how stupid much of the Portland population is I wonder if the water hasn't been fluorinated for years..

What happens if Gresham or other big consumer says no we will not buy