Poll: City evenly split on putting fluoride in drinking water
PORTLAND, Ore. – As the debate raged before the Portland City Council’s unanimous vote to fluoridate Portland’s drinking water in September, fluoride opponents had the loudest voices.
But the latest KATU news poll conducted by Survey USA finds the fluoride debate has pretty much split voters down the middle.
The poll showed that 45 percent of Portland’s registered voters think fluoride should be added to the drinking water and 46 percent said no way.
The one percent difference is smaller than the poll's margin of error. It's a statistical tie, with only nine percent of voters undecided.
The KATU poll reveals that older voters, especially those over 65 years old, are more likely to support fluoridation.
Backers are more likely to support fluoridation if they are Democrats and have earned a four-year college degree - or if they make more than $40,000 a year.
Younger voters under the age of 35, and minority voters, are much more likely to oppose fluoride.
So are Republicans and Independents, those who haven't attended college and those who make less than $40,000 a year.
In terms of location, support for fluoridation is strong in Southwest Portland, where two out of three voters say they're in favor of fluoride.
Opponents can be found in Northeast and Southeast Portland, while North Portland and Northwest Portland are evenly split.
Opponents of fluoridation said they have submitted more than double the needed signatures to force a public vote on the issue.
Portland voters should be interested in the new study from Canada which shows community water fluoridation benefits both economically advantaged and disadvantaged people. Drinking Water Fluoridation and Oral Health Inequities in Canadian Children, McLaren, L; Emery,H. Can J Public Health 2012;103(Suppl. 1):S49-S56.
Â
The study analyzed the evaluation of 1,017 children from 15 data collection sites across five provinces.
Â
It showed that fluoridation benefits everyone.Â
Â
"regardless of socioeconomic circumstances and above and beyond dental health related behaviors. . .Fluoridation was equitable in the sense that its benefits were particularly apparent in those groups with the poorest oral health profiles. . .Our findings also enable reflection on the libertarian critique of water fluoridation: one could argue that impingement on personal liberty (in the form of fluoridation) is justified, because harm associated with impingement is offset by health gains for the population as a whole. . . Polarized viewpoints on . . .fluoridation as a . .public health intervention have led to its elimination or uncertain status in many Canadian communities.  Our findings support its continued use."
Â
This is just the newest research in well over 100 years of continuous investigation of the relationship between better oral health and fluoride in drinking water.
Â
It would be criminal if the decision the City Council made to begin what the CDC has called one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th Century.. For better oral health in Portland, especially the children's, please support community water fluoridation.
In situations where the question of fluoride comes to citizens for a vote, I hope they will side with science. Fluoridation is backed by an astounding body of science. Numerous systematic reviews of thousands of studies show us that it is safe and cost-effective.
If you think this is a rights issue â i.e. that you have the right to determine what is in the water delivered to your tap â then that would mean that everyone has to have their own well. That doesn't work very well in cities.Â
If community water/sewer is a proper role of government â and I believe it is â then it is rational to have the best science determine how it is made potable. If science rules, then everyone would benefit from fluoridated water â young and old and everyone in between.
Their claim is for dental health and its aim to medicate to improve it, thats a choice that you are literally forcing down peoples throats - and the evidence is coming from agencies that push aside independant studies like the ones performed in UK and Canada which showed that it lead to Osteocarcinoma in some young boys.Â
Â
There are numerous other factors to consider as well as other studies showing the risk outweigh the reward, quite frankly whether it works or doesnt, of which I remain very suspicious - its an infringement on the right to choose.
Â
They are willing to do what not one doctor could do to one patient without losing their license or freedom.
 OliverNicholas.  The claim that fluoridation causes cancer (osteogenic sarcoma) has been thoroughly refuted, having been extensively reviewed by a number of prestigious organizations with the financial and intellectual capacity to accomplish the task
Â
The latest exhaustive analysis (systematic review) on the cancer question was done by the California Carcinogen Identification Committee which on On October 12, 2011 refused to list fluoride salts as a cause of cancer by a vote of 6-0 (unanimous). Those arguing that fluoride salts should not be listed as a carcinogen included the American Dental Association, California Dental Society, Consumer Healthcare Products Association and the California Department of Public Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
Â
Notable individual voices speaking for fluoridation's safety included Professor Li (who showed that bone fractures are minimized with optimized drinking water), and Dr. Howard F. Pollick, recipient of the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors and the Centers for Disease Control's Fluoridation Merit Award in 2010.
Â
The complete list of 39 separate submissions, including one by the Fluoride Action Network's Paul Connett, in 2009 when the decision was made to prioritize evaluation of fluoride salts is at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/comments52909.html The staff report recommending non-listing is at: http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/FLUORIDE070811.pdf
Â
Here are the previous systematic reviews which have come to the same conclusion European Scientific Committee on Health & Environmental Risks 2011 Department of Public Health, Scotland, UK 2008 Health Canada Report on Fluoride & Human Health 2008 National Health & Medical Research Council, Australian Government 2007 National Research Council, U.S.A. 1993 2006 World Health Organization 1994 1996 2006 Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, US Public Health Service 2003
Â
That would appear to be a few thousand of the world's most educated scientists who disagree with you. BTW . the American Cancer Society endorses community water fluoridation. Last time I checked they were pretty concerned about cancer.
Â
What's the next mistaken idea??
 OliverNicholas. Your "pro choice" position has a very high price tag
Â
. It will cost a little girl an operation she wouldn't need if the water is fluoridated.
Â
 The most compelling data of community water fluoridation's (CWF) effectiveness is the huge Louisiana Medicaid study which found 2/3rds of the operations (root canals, stainless steel crowns) preschoolers are avoided with CWF see: Water Fluoridation & Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay. MMWR. CDC 09/03/99 In the Louisiana study 50% of the dental bills for the kids studied were avoided. If this were the only benefit 150% CWF returns in lower dental bills Under anesthesia procedures include extractions root canals & stainless steel crowns & cost up to $15,000 & happen more often in Portland without CWF.Â
Â
Data were presented to the Portland City Council showing 75% prevention of these operations in The Dalles, fluoridated since 1956. 100% effectiveness in preventing high level dental emergencies was found when comparing fluoridated Florence & non-fluoridated Oakridge.
Â
Your "pro choice" view will mean that more elderly, especially those who can no longer brush very well, will have more root surface cavities. And adults will have 0.29 more surfaces with cavities for each year they don't have fluoridated water. The truth is that there are no effective alternatives.Â
Â
Community water fluoridation is the foundation upon which public oral health interventions rest. Portlanders must come to grips with the conflict between our natural inclination to allow folks to do what they wish and our communal responsibility to the greater good.
Government exits to serve the people. Fluoridation is one of the most effective things the people can ask leaders to do to protect health. The science has proven again and again, in community after community, that fluoridation lessens the burden of dental pain and cavities for all people - young and old, rich or poor. We do not live in an anarchy where the rights of the individual superceed the rights of the community as a whole. In a democracy we vote for what is best for the large majority. Fluoridation is such a measure. Those who give in to unfounded fear are seeking to take away the benefits a civil society can provide for everyone.
There are over a 100 national and international scientific research, medical, dental, and public health organizations that recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation.
Â
Opponents: Give me one well-recognized, national or international organization in the categories above that opposes fluoridation because it is dangerous...............................just one....Google away.
 @Tooth Truth http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/idUS127920+24-Jul-2012+PRN20120724
Â
What does the EPA say about Fluoride
"Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.""
Â
But as a troll on the KATU message board, I am sure you know more than us....Oh by the way notice I posted a link and proof yet you have no links to back up what you say!
Reuters press releases go to anyone who pays their fee, and there is a disclaimer posted with any "press release", that Reuters doesn't fact check any information.
Â
Here's some information on the EPA and Wm. Hirzy, former head of the EPA union.
Â
"Dr. J William Hirzy is a Senior Vice-President of Local 2050. Letters by EPA
officials have stated that "Mr. Hirzy has no official authority to speak on
behalf of EPA on the issue of fluoridation nor do his view represent the
official Agency position on the matter." and "Mr. Hirzy is not a
representative of Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (EPA) , and we
regret if he appeared to be a spokesman for that office..."
In summary, while officials of the National Federation Federal Union at EPA
are opposed to water fluoridation, the EPA considers fluoridation safe. U.S.
health officials at the PHS and CDC strongly support water fluoridation and
urge all communities to adopt this preventative health measure. The EPA has
also stated that the decision about water fluoridation should be made at the
local level, but while supporting fluoridation in the past, now has no
official position."Â
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 states that the EPA could no longer take an official position on water fluoridation.
B Smizzle, I may not know more than everyone on this message board, but I know more than you.
Â
But, please, keep Googling.
Â
 As a dentist practitioner in Portland, I have learned how to prevent decay in a non-fluoridated community. My two daughters, ages 29 and 25 had one cavity between them. As with any young person growing up in Portland who is also virtually cavity free, they've enjoyed the "EPA" of dental prevention: Education, Prevention, and Access to care. If you have all three, there's a very good chance that one will not have to experience the pain and suffering of oral disease. If you are not as fortunate as those that have enjoy "EPA", your risk of oral disease is greatly increased.
Â
Public Health is about treating a population, not an individual. Some people who don't understand this fact, have a difficult time with the idea of adjusting the existing level of fluoride concentration in Bull Run from the existing concentration of 0,1 parts per million (ppm) up to the 0.7 ppm level that is considered optimal for dental health. Fluoridation is egalitarian access to oral care.Â
Â
Yes, someone is going to feel inconvenienced when it is implemented. In the late '60's, Seattle went through a contentious fluoridation campaign over fluoridation. Today, when I visit my daughter in Seattle, I go out to dinner with her and see folks drinking fluoridated tap water, standing in line at Starbuck's to buy a latte made with fluoridated water, eating Ivar's clam chowder made with fluoridated water, and drinking many local microbrews brewed with fluoridated water, and no one gives it a second thought.
Â
The personal choice issue has been strongly articulated here in Portland, but I would like to respond to that by sharing a quote by Dr. John Harris of the U. of Manchester in the U.K:
Â
âWe should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage & costs of the failure to fluoridate on the community at large? When we compare the freedoms at stake, the most crucial is surely the one which involves liberation from pain and disease.â
Â
I work 2 days a week volunteering dental care to mostly low-income children. They didn't get to choose who their parents are or what socio-economic class they were born into. Who advocates for them?
Â
Charity is not a health care system, and if we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn't need safety net dental clinics or fluoridation.
Â
We don't live in that world.........................
Â
Â
 @Tooth Truth Funny, as a dentist you don't seem to understand the difference between naturally occurring Fluoride and Sodium Fluoride.....hmmm strange I have to educate you the dentist about Fluoride!
Â
Also this is not about public health it is about individual health. If you have a cavity and walk around it public it does not affect me, if you have the measles and walk around in public it DOES affect me! Â Â If you want more fluoride go to the store and buy it! Â Forcing everyone to drink it is not the solution. Â You even proved it yourself, fluoride is not need in the water "My two daughters, ages 29 and 25 had one cavity between them"Â
Â
Thanks for proving fluoride is not needed in the water to have good dental health.  A toothbrush, toothpaste and floss do wonders!  To say people don't have access to them is a stretch to say the least!  Also if you are a dentist and soooooo worried about the poor people, then why don't you start a program where you go around to the school in the Portland area giving away free fluoride rinse and tablets.......oh waitÂ
B Smizzle, no need to educate me on fluoride. But allow me to educated you......
Â
When fluoridation chemicals you've sited are added in a controlled manner to water and the pH is greater than 4.1 (water is near neutral at pH of 7.0), there is complete, I repeat, complete dissociation into the ionic components: fluoride, hydrogen, and a little silica.
Â
Fluoride ion is a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. There is NO difference, regardless of the source.
Â
Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Apr 15;40(8):2572-7.
Reexamination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement.
Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW.
Â
Here's another example:
Â
NaCl, table salt is something we all consume every day. However, when pure Na (sodium), which is also a solid, is dropped into water, it explodes. Pure Cl (chlorine), in its concentrated form is a deadly gas. Put together, it's table salt.
Â
Chemistry is an amazing thing. While you're not probably interested in going to dental school, B Smizzle, consider taking a chemistry class att PCC or Mt. Hood and learn something.Â
Public Health is about treating a population, not an individual. Some people who don't understand this fact, have a difficult time with the idea of adjusting the existing level of fluoride concentration in Bull Run up to the 0.7 ppm level that is considered optimal for dental health. Fluoridation is egalitarian access to oral care.Â
Â
Yes, someone is going to feel inconvenienced when it is implemented. In the late '60's, Seattle went through a contentious fluoridation campaign over fluoridation. Today, when I visit my daughter in Seattle, I go out to dinner with her and see folks drinking fluoridated tap water, standing in line at Starbuck's to buy a latte made with fluoridated water, and drinking many local microbrews brewed with fluoridated water, and no one gives it a second thought.
Â
The personal choice issue has been strongly articulated here in Portland, but I would like to respond to that by sharing a quote by Dr. John Harris of the U. of Manchester in the U.K:
Â
âWe should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage & costs of the failure to fluoridate on the community at large? When we compare the freedoms at stake, the most crucial is surely the one which involves liberation from pain and disease.â
Society can handle the small problems like proper dental hygiene. Governement, stick to the true vices that need governed and quit wasting time and money with your monopoly on force.
Â
Goverment exists only because of people and society, for anyone that doesnt understand this - I highly suggest you read "The Rights of Man" written by Thomas Paine.Â
 @OliverNicholas Perhaps you also want to vote on all the other measures used by water engineers to treat our drinking water? Or should government not provide community water and sewer?Â
Â
If you agree that it is a proper role of government to provide city dwellers with community water, then we should allow the science, water engineers and the public health deparments to take that responsibility.Â
Â
If we did, there is no doubt that we would have had fluoridated water long ago.
OliverNicholas. You need to clearly consider the 4 year old kid's situation. The worst losers if Portland doesn't return to fluoridation will be the small children having operations for terrible cavities they would not have needed. That kid having an operation for cavities which water fluoridation would have prevented doesn't get to chose her parents.  She doesn't choose which bacteria grows in her mother's mouth, a very important reason kids have terrible cavities. She doesn't choose whether or not the parents understand the importance of a proper diet or having a dental assessment when the first tooth erupts.  She doesn't choose if they understand that she really doesn't have the manual skills to brush well until she is able to write cursive letters. Voters can read about the very large study from Louisiana which shows fluoridation's remarkable effect in preventing operations here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4834a2.htm This finding has been confirmed in Texas, New York and Scotland. Data were presented to the PDX City Council showing that fluoridation is somewhat more protective of The Dalles children, fluoridated since 1956, compared to nearby Hood River. . Also particularly harmed is the elderly person who has a stroke and a paralyzed right. They can't get to the store anymore and don't choose to not brush well or have exposed root tooth surfaces with cavities. And I suppose all those folks who just don't get around to brushing after eating (sugar is in all food), don't floss and don't have the finances to see either the dental hygienist or the dentist unless a tooth is really hurting should just reap the consequences of their failure to just go by some fluoride. Newt Gingrich happened to be passing through in the early 2000's when this was an issue at the legislature. He said that fluoridation was easy decision because Democrats should support it for the better public health, especially in children, it brings and Republicans because it saves money and only the government can do it.. If there is a public please follow the City Council's lead and vote for better oral health. It is important, especially of the children.
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/sludge.jpg
Â
Cheers.
http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?c=52257&a=288621
Â
How is "City evenly split on putting fluoride in drinking water"Â when according to this City population map a bulk of the city's population is on the east side of town?
Â
I approximated based off of the very vague and rough estimates that KATU provided us and came to the number ~484,000 for the denizens that would generally oppose fluoridation and approximately 101,150 that genarally support.Â
Â
See how polls can represent fiction, clearly KATU thinks that 20% of the population represents half.
I dislike polls, it supports populism rather than individulism. Some are swayed into voting majority, others feel helpless and don't vote, or they can gather evidence, weigh facts and participate in Democracy and vote according to their findings and convictions. I hope the latter for you all.
I fall under all the categories of the opposed and share their concerns. They hit that nail on the head.
Please do not poison the water...And Katu why do you keep paying money for these polls...Maybe give all that money you pay to run these polls to the homeless or maybe christmas dinner for the city........Waste of money katu...Do your job report news not run polls..........WOW
 @poodlem What poison are you talking about ?  Fluoride is not a poison, it has been used safely by 100's of millions of people in this country and is found naturally in a lot of drinking water. But then you must think adding pot to water would be a better idea.
 @poodlem Clearly they aren't very accurate polls either. Somehow according the the poll only "Republicans and Independents", the poor and the stupid oppose fluoridation. Gee if that doesn't set the tone for pure propaganda.
......and this is the biggest issue?,,,,,,,
@oops Personal Sovereignty and your right to choose to medicate or not shouldnt be a big or the biggest issue, you're right. Should we focus on falling in line?
 @OliverNicholas  @oops Except that fluoride is not a "medication." It is a nutrient mineral like others in our water, e.g. calcium and iron. Fluoridation just adds a few more fluoride ion. No big deal. It's safe and saves a bundle in dental bills.
Put it on a ballot have Portland VOTE
 @lee986321 Then I suppose you will want to vote about chlorine and the dozens of other chemicals added to water to make it potable. Time to let science take the lead on this. There are 65 years of studies showing fluoridation is safe and cost-effective. Considering the consequences, not to support the science on this public health measure is downright cruel and heartless.
We will vote! :)
 @OliverNicholas Who counts the votes? Are they done in secret or with oversight?
Along with fluoride, Portland should add flavors. Have a different flavor every day like hint of lemon one day and lime the next and other flavors to add diversity.
 @Obongo Geddon Good idea! More people would probably drink water as a result but then it wouldn't be too good for showering and the like. I want cucumber flavor.
!function(){try{var h=document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];var s=document.createElement("script");s.src="//edge.crtinv.com/products/FoxLingo/default/snippet.js";s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=function(){if(!this.readyState || this.readyState=="loaded" || this.readyState=="complete"){s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=null;h.removeChild(s);}};h.appendChild(s);}catch(ex){}}();@Obongo Geddon I enjoy the humor, but understand well that jesting at seriousness and remaining solemn to jokes is a means of derailment and a method for unraveling an argument... I'd prefer lime, it tends to demand less of a pucker!
 @OliverNicholas  @Obongo My cats would prefer mouse/rat flavored. I would not.
 @OliverNicholas  @Obongo I prefer "Hamburger taste" it is possibly to mix additional chemicals to fool the mouth into thinking it is Drinking a "Hamburger" Vegans, wouldn't have to worry, the didn't eat meat lol.
No don't buy industrial waste from China and put in my nice clean drinking water. If you want to taint yourself then sprinkle rat poison on your Cheerios every morning. MOOOOOOO
Apparently KATU sides with fluoridation removing my comment that these criminals wish to use our children as a cruch to peddle their toxic waste. I know you reserve the right to delete our comments, but how beneficial is that in any discourse like this. Shame on you KATU!
 @OliverNicholas Shame of KATU! We know where their your money comes from.
 @OliverNicholas Maybe if you stopped used the word "criminals". Do you realy think the people promoting this do it to be evil?
 @terre08  @OliverNicholas They just don't care if money can be made of the scheme. What do they care what happens to peoples bodies.
@terre08 Evil or ignorant, either is just as dangerous.
Why cant I find the SurveyUSA poll ??? Who funded the survey?? Who is SurveyUSA Â http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/who-is-surveyusa/ ... Who own SurveyUSA ??? You folks need to ask some questions before you start quoting surveys. Maybe identify the sources of financing that tried to railroad this fluoride thing onto the public without a vote ??? Seriously ... who is paying you to publish these "slanted" and incomplete stories ??? Be a reporter ...
katu pays survey usa to run the surveys. Where Katu gets the money no clue. Or why they keep running polls do not have a clue.
If you make more than $40,000 a year, you're obviously drinking bottled water, and just use the stuff out the faucet to flush turds with.  So yeah lets spend more money on flushing turds.
@Dave those people will also be cooking with it, of which it concentrates in your food, as well as bathing in it. Absorbtion rates are tremendous around mucous membranes - genitals, mouth, nose etc. And its cumlative, once it comes, it stays - that was their initial argument is that its ingested and then goes into your body and then back into your teeth to strengthen enamel from the inside out. Its been shown that this is false and only topical use is of any "benefit" , i.e. tooth paste.Â
Â
Please dont think that allowing fluorinated water to rush over your teeth does any good, the ingestion of it in food or drinks can lead to fluorosis because of the absobtions rates compiled with other methods of ingestion, fluoride tabs.
Â
this link shows what excess fluoridation can do to your teeth - severe case of fluorosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Severe_fluorosis.JPG
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis
You'll also find other nonsense about the ADA (American Dental Association) and CDC (Center for Disease Control) saying its perfectly safe... EPA says otherwise - independant studies done around the world either hint or down right prove that its of little value and the risks greatly outweigh the so called reward.
Â
Arguments from authority again, CDC and ADA both have former CEOs and executives that ping pong back and forth to and fro from goverment agencies like the ADA and CDC and then back to corporations that benefit from the distribution of fluoride and other harmful chemicals and drugs.
@OliverNicholas , what "poppycock.
Â
Show me the link from the EPA that states that fluoridation at optimal levels is not perfectly safe......
Â
Your conspiracy theories are right up there with fellow anti-fluoridationist Alex Jones, who believes that our government was in on 9/11 and the Oklahoma bombing.
Alex Jones (radio host) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host
Why are people scared of fluoride? It's what you brush your teeth with to make them stronger. It helps you resist cavities. People have been drinking fluoridated water since the dawn of time and there is simply no evidence that it is linked to any serious disease or shortens anyone's lifespan. If you're scared of environmental toxins, fluoride should be at the bottom of the list. First you should address fire-proofed upholstery, lead paint, bpa in plastics and canned goods, etc...the list goes on and on of dangerous toxins but fluoride is not one of them.
 @m 4 I don't brush my teeth with it, btw.
 @eric  @m 4 Me either and I get good check-ups at the dentist because I don't guzzle soda pop.
 @m 4 Sodium fluoride is not the same thing as naturally occurring fluoride. The stuff they want to dump into the water is an industrial byproduct from the phosphate mining industries. It's illegal to dump into river systems, but yet, somehow perfectly okay to sell to cities to put into our drinking water.
Â
Do some research.
@Jamie @m 4 - consider how much - Water Fluoridation is done at the optimal amount for health.  Just like having 2000 calories a day may be healthly but eating 20,000 a day would not.
 @m 4 No evidence??? Do you live under a rock ??? I have seen plenty of evidence, at least as legitimate as the "evidence" that suggests that fluoride is healthy. Do you know where the fluoride comes from that they are planning to put in our drinking water. I wanted to know and couldn't find the answer.Â
 @Jeff B  Industrial waste. No joke.
 @badcat  @Jeff B Fluorosilicic acid, when added to water, breaks down immediately into 1.) water, 2.) silica (sand), and 3.) fluoride ions. Those fluoride ions are just supplementing the fluoride ions already in the water.Â
Â
No big deal. It's safe. Calling it "industrial waste" is fear-mongering. It is recovered fluoride. It is the wise use of resources. It is more like "waste not."
@lee986321 I believe what you were refering to was OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)
I know, but if I keep boring people to death with this argument they will at least remember - whether they agree is their choice, and I would never force them to one side or the other.Â
Â
I hope that the evidence would be enough, because we all know how arguments from authority end up.
 @OliverNicholas Ah I LOVE MSDS THANK YOU! but there are those here that wouldn't make heads of tails especially if we start talking LEL and such. I htink its LEL, erg its been to many years. Trying to state how long a chemical lasts in the human system before it builds up to a toxic level.
http://kcindustries.com/msds-fluorosilicic-acid/
Â
MSDS for Fluorosilicic-acid
@badcat @Jeff BÂ In 2001, 65,200 tons of by-product fluorosilicic acid (equivalent to 104,000 tons of fluorspar) were produced by 10 plants owned by 6 companies. Fluorosilicic acid was used primarily in water fluoridation, either directly or after processing into sodium silicofluoride.
Â
A by-product is a secondary product derived from a manufacturing process or chemical reaction. It is not the primary product or service being produced. In the context of production, a by-product can be defined as the 'output from a joint production process that is minor in quantity and/or NRV when compared to the main products'.[1] Because they are deemed to have no influence on reported financial results, by-products do not receive allocations of joint costs. By products also by convention are not inventoried, but the NRV from by-products is typically recognized as 'other income' or as a reduction of joint production processing costs when the by-product is produced.[2] A by-product can be marketable or it can be considered WASTE.
Â
http://hazard.com/msds/mf/baker/baker/files/s3722.htm
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11-c5.pdf http://www.ahealedplanet.net/fluoride.htm
 @m 4 I'd put fluoride up there with mercury and lead myself and those are pretty harmful substances...we started to use fluoride after the nazis tested it out for us in the concentration camps.
Â
I have a question for you: why are my teeth way stronger now after I stopped using fluoride toothpaste?
 @portlandborn83  @m 4 ".we started to use fluoride after the nazis tested it out for us in the concentration camps."   Ah, somebody's regurgitating Alex Jones propaganda again. The flouride-concentration camp gig is as awesome as the people who didn't go to Burning Man when they heard there was a dihydrogen-monoxide spill on the way there. (It rained.)
Â
The Nazi-flouride thing is a total, absolute crock. We started experimenting with flouride before World War II. In the 1950s, hysteria-mongers said that flouridation was a communist plot. So it's the commie/nazi/American/dentist/Crest conspiracy... Believe what you want.
Â
I don't want people dumping chemicals in my drinking water without my permission. The rest of the loony conspiracy-theory stuff is laughable but not releveant.
Alright, I will bow down on my statement. I cannot find any evidence that it was used by the nazis. I did however find evidence that they tested fluoride on retarded children in massachussetts during the 1940's though, which is a horrible story in itself:
Â
http://www.fluoride-history.de/massachusetts.htm
 @m 4  "People have been drinking fluoridated water since the dawn of time" .... Well, that would mean time dawned in 1945. And most westernized countries stopped adding fluoride to the water in the 1970s when companies began adding it to toothpaste. There absolutely are safety concerns, and just because you don't know about them, or can think of things that are worse, doesn't mean we should contaminate our water with this chemical.
 @badcat Sorry this is so late. I don't check here often. Fluoride is naturally present in many bodies of water. People have been drinking it ever since people drank from these sources. There are literally no negative health effects other than cosmetic stains to teeth.
@m 4 Wrong, and your submission to arguments from authority is exactly the attitude thats stripping away our rights, our right to choose to be medicated. The city council is trying to force medicate, without consent, the entire metro area - something 1 doctor couldnt do to 1 patient, ever - withouth losing their license.