At this point the best action to take is to sue the city for operating outside of it's charter. They have no legal basis to prescribe, distribute, and apply medicine to all residents of the city against their will.

If they don't consider this a medical treatment, then what is the basis for adding it to the water?

This is exactly the reason that the European Union banned Fluoride. You cannot add medicine to municipal water supplies.

You voted these guys into office. Should Stumptown now be known as Stupidtown?

One would think that all the breweries would start some sort of class action fuss!
But then the city would like to close all profitable businesses just for fun!

The sodium fluoride chemicals are derived from the nuclear, aluminum, and fertilizer industries. These are not pharmaceutical grade. Known individual toxic and carcinogenic contaminants include; Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, (these 3 combined are identified as a lethal wood preservative),Copper, Lead, Mercury, etc. These will be in the water used to feed fresh and healthy produce to Portland children from local gardens.

That is the difference between representing the will of the electorate and thinking you know best and you need to drag us poor boobs along with you.

Can I buy some of these fluoride tablets over the counter at Walgreen's?

OH? I need a PRESCRIPTION from a DOCTOR?

Maybe we should put medical marijuana in the water FIRST... it might make citizens more pliable.

I read the story in the press about a guy who led a successful ballot initiative around 1980 regarding fluoride in Portland's water.

Has anyone got any knowledge of the text of this initiative or know whether it has any validity today? Did it enjoin future consideration of fluoride without a public vote, for example?

Where would one look for information on 30 year old ballot initiatives?

Re-reading my comment I realize it was probably not a statewide ballot initiative if it only related to the City's plan to fluoridate its water, but I am still interested in its history and language.

Reader:
Not sure how far back the Mult. Co. Elections office has past information on line. If you give them a call they can probably direct you to their archives in some form. I have always found them to be a pretty helpful bunch.

After being in public service for a couple of decades, why are Sam/Rand trying to fast track fluoridation now?

They haven't convened a single blue ribbon "Fluoridate our Water" commission for 20 years, but now it's on the fast track.

How much has Weiner been paid, and how much more will they pay him when it becomes law?

Maybe we should put medical marijuana in the water FIRST... it might make citizens more pliable.

I think the plan is to eventually just put it in the ambient air.

Here is a link to the Oregonian's recent article about Roger Burt's fight against fluoridating Portland's water supply.

"Portland voters approved fluoridation in 1978, but Burt helped lead the 1980 ballot fight that overturned that decision. He spent eight years as the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit accusing Multnomah County health officials of improperly using county time and money to campaign for fluoridation. (Burt won.)"

The 1978 ballot measure to require fluoridation is located here.

CAPTION: Fluoridation of Municipal Water System

Requires the fluoridation of water furnished through the municipal water works. Requires that the equipment, method, and manner used to do this be in accord with State of Oregon rules and regulations concerning public health.

The vote was 71,151 in favor and 68,760 opposed.

Here is a link to the 1980 ballot measure to overturn the fluoridation requirement.

"CAPTION: Eliminates Mandatory Fluoridation of City Water
Repeals Section 11-107 of the Portland City Charter which requires fluoridation of water supplied through the municipal water works. Passage of this charter amendment would eliminate the manadatory requirement that Portland's water supply be fluoridated."

Sadly, it says nothing about requiring a future public vote to change that rule.

The measure passed by a vote of 62,076 to 53,680.

Maybe Randy thinks the fluoride with fix the LT2 problem and save us rebuilding reservoirs or lids?

Then again, that'd kill most of his future jobs prospects.

Let's see if Commissioner Randy has the courage to post a comment explaining his rationale.

Well surely someone is getting paid off big , or getting future considerations after they leave office. [samrand] BUT the third vote for this un-democratic fiasco is Mr. Fish , and Nick , if you run for any office again , Portlanders will make your attempt at election most unpleasant !

I wouldn't be surprised if all this PWB BS was secretly agreed on and signed into place 10 years ago, but just now being revealed as terms in office come to a close.

I just saw a TV commercial put out by http://everyonedeserveshealthyteeth.org/. Who's putting up the money for that? Their domain name record lists a domain registrar front company as the owner. It was created in mid-July 2012.

Further searching is too painful on an iPhone.

I don't give a damn how good this is for us, I will not be medicated without my consent, by government, "for my own good".

Cap'n Randy wants us to set sail on the Fluoride Sea? This is as about outdated as beachcombing on the Tethys Sea. Thanks, anyway, Cap'n Randy. I get my fluoride at the dentists office. That way it stays in my teeth instead of getting into my stomach, intestines, bloodstream and kidneys.

I'm confused.

We have this latest Stanford study saying non-organic food is okay because the the level of pesticides is acceptable. Then we have those saying "not true". But many of the "not true" people want fluoride. Which is it, on this level of poison in our bodies?

Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.
Thomas Jefferson

I don't give a damn how good this is for us, I will not be medicated without my consent, by government, "for my own good".

The Mayor just sent out a paper of why he is for fluoride. It looks like a script sent out of the fluoride industry. In my opinion he and Randy and Fish have behind the scenes and now apparent for all to see sold us out, for what? They have broadcasted their vote already. Power and arrogance could not even wait for the pretense of a public hearing. They act like dictators, have done so for some time, sitting up there on their perches at council hearings voting against the public interest, and they have gotten by with it.
Will the public become engaged this time and say enough is enough?

The whole floridation racket is an example of something that is happening in a larger context:

First, there is a quiet campaign with no publicity, meetings, likely one-sided "information" supplied to commissioners, ignoring a Harvard medical study and many others which seriously question the safety of floride and the fact that the "floride" used to a by-product of industrial production with many contaminants which are documented.

Second, then an annoucement two votes are already committed, without so much as one hearing and those votes are from lame ducks. The third vote comes from Fish.

Political ads supporting the idea start showing on the T.V.

Then, the apparent leader (a lame duck at that) on the council announces the city will move up the introduction of the chemical brew a year and a have early (suspicously before it could be referred to the voter for a vote.

Mayor Adams states, “Both the construction of the system and the fluoride supply will be put out for public bid in a very proscribed and transparent fashion."

The whole process has been a rush job and much of the "persuading" has been done in the back room in the dark away from public scrutiny, so for Mayor Adams to then turnaround and talk about transparency has the whiff of hypocracy.

Here on this board, commenters try the classic, "anybody who is against this is a tinfoil hat wearing scaremonger," tactics. But the facts & evidence are put out about the Harvard study and other studies and the facts:

"The sodium fluoride chemicals are derived from the nuclear, aluminum, and fertilizer industries. These are not pharmaceutical grade. Known individual toxic and carcinogenic contaminants include; Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, (these 3 combined are identified as a lethal wood preservative),Copper, Lead, Mercury, etc."

The "tin foil hat" comments stop, apparently those commenters realize this board is a lost cause for that most pernicious of tactics. Shout down your opponents with charges of "tin foil hat wearing".

But interestingly enough, without even attempting to refute the evidence presented by opponents.

Yes, the whole thing stinks.

Is this what our process has come to?

I'm worried, not just about this, but about our democratic processes in general because this kind of thing is happening more and more at all levels of government.

One thing I can tell you, do not get apathetic or this type of process will get even more prevalent.

Yesterday, while commenting on the Huffington Post Live blog, I actually saw Commissioner Fish spending about 16 minutes of City time, talking on that blog. It was clear that he was in his office at city hall, and then he announced: I have to go to a meeting. I believe it was played back from an earlier session and then broadcast during the Democratic convention. I could see the green trees out his window---- and they had a vote in council at 9:30 am.
Can we nail him on this abuse? Fish is just part of the liberal cabal wishing to inflict progressive ideology on us.

Jim Evans,
Yes, it has become more prevalent.
Apathy has let their mode of operation go on and then the arrogance and power of just they do it because they can makes it worse.
The other matter is that we need injunctions to stop projects, and/or take these people into courts. This takes an enormous amount of energy, time and of course money!
We need whistle blowers and we know how that has been dampened down and those people sacrificed in ways.
Then there is the matter of the courts. What happened to our judges and the rule of law? When we see at the national level what has been allowed and then overlooked,
in my view, not only sad by terrifying.
Then there is the matter of the media. We need investigative reporters and papers who are not controlled by the same interests who are not for the public interests. I often think if the public doesn't get the information - how can they respond? I have found the critical issues I have been concerned about, when I talk to people they simply do not know what is going on.
The list is long, at my last class reunion a classmate responded with something like how did this happen, I guess we were asleep at the wheel?