I went to the “Clean Water Portland” campaign kick off last night, to mostly shake hands and see what people were talking about.
I am attempting to stay bilateral on the issue and not take any sides. One of my biggest complaints on the issue is that studies on both sides are very murky and inconclusive. On the other hand, the government handles fluoride in a very underhanded, murky, and sometimes arguably criminal manner. If I had any objection to fluoride, its the way they are handling it, and not the fluoride itself.
Portland’s Case For Fluoride
Strengths of The Case for Fluoride
The entirety of their want to insert fluoride into the water supply is to help people with the highest poverty levels maintain healthy teeth. There is evidence to support that besides young children get large health benefits.
Portland Poverty Levels.
Portland: 20.3%
Whole state: 19.0%
The national average of below poverty levels is 12.2%. We are 8% above the national average for poverty. This creates a good case for the need of fluoride in the drinking water.
Weaknesses of The Case for Fluoride
Young children can be hurt by fluoride
Children under 6 months old are very weak to fluoride, and its not under dispute. This may even effect children in the womb. This of course is hardest to avoid if you are under the poverty level, as it is harder to find alternative water and resources for your child.
Children under 2 still maintain a weakness to fluoride and having long term damage from it. What’s weird, is this is often just entirely disregarded and ignored in the public forum.
History of Over Fluoridating Water
The problem with introducing fluoride to the water, is sometimes they introduce too much. The recommended amount would be 1mg/l. They have found levels to be as high as 11.5mg/l, ten times higher then the recommended amount. That is an extreme, but the fluoride levels tend to actually reach as high as 4mg/l, which is still 4 times the recommended amount. The problem here Isn’t the fluoride, but the sloppy way it is routinely handled. That seems to be repeatedly, the problem with fluoride.
Introducing Fluoride with out allowing us to vote
We are a representative democracy, but with how torn people often are on this issue it should be put to a vote, not just introduce it. The Portland City Council voted 5-0 to add fluoride, and objecting activists got 20,000 signatures in 30 days to object to the action.
Where is this fluoride coming from
I have heard people say everything from its coming from Uranium Mines, to the aluminum industry, to a byproduct of fertilizer. Can someone just please tell us where it is actually coming from so I can stop hearing people tell me its a byproduct of time traveling Nazi Scientists already?
The FDA and EPA handle the issue badly
For some reason the EPA doesn’t deal with it. Except when it does in some things like mouthwash. The EPA handles it, and approves it with out much justification. The EPA Union however objects to it. Like, what is going on here? The government needs to handle this responsibly and in a way that makes sense- just like everything else. Honestly, I have yet to see a study the EPA would even accept.
Portland’s Case Against Fluoride
Strength of the Case Against Fluoride
People who gain a cursory level of knowledge about fluoride tend to be against it
Surface levels of information really do make it seem like fluoride is bad. The majority of studies show some negative effects in one way or another, and the undeniable proof that it hurts children under two year of age. It would appear there are more minor negatives then there are minor positives. When put side by side, its easy to discount the benefits of teeth with the very small piles of evidence for very serious problems.
The government needs to explain why we need it, not us justifying why we don’t
The studies on both sides are incredibly murky with so many different variables and correlation issues it makes it really hard to read. While there is possibly lower IQs caused by fluoride, these studies also show oddly high levels of malnutrition and other serious issues. They are all done retrospectively in different areas, with an odd selection of individuals to check. With that, it comes down to, in at the very least my opinion, the government need to provide better evidence.
Weaknesses of the Case Against Fluoride
Bogged down by fanatics and conspiracy theorists
At the meeting, the first 3 people I met were sane normal people. The next two were not. I want to avoid specifics to as to not offend anyone, but this older woman approached the need to remove fluoride from water like it was Armageddon. The truth is, fluoride is a less important issue then the war. To act like we need to tell everyone and stop the injustice of fluoride comes off a little crazy. A person I ran into while leaving the event and talking, immediately went to how the nazi’s tested and how big beer is blocking Portland local beer.
When you have a good reason to object to something, its contagious. People can’t help but to be compelled by your argument. When you have bad arguments, it compels people away from your stand point. This vocal minority effects people in ways that’s hard to explain or understand.
Murky wording and studies
Factual support that fluoridation chemicals are industrial byproducts. This statement doesn’t tell me why its bad. Leather, dog food, and manure is a byproduct of the beef industry, for example. Nothing really wrong with that. I need to know why it being a waste byproduct is bad.
Contains Arsenic and other toxins. So does bottled water- often times more then water that has fluoride added to it.
They all come off something like this:
I have 12 studies proving a correlation with lower IQs in children. Here is 3 of them. Why am I given only 3? Give me all twelve. I went and I found all twelve, and I start to understand why. Its because there are three that are convincing. One of the studies actually only focused on children who already had high levels of fluorosis. Numerous studies were done is China, and often found more shocking discovers of high levels of arsenic in their water. One of them only focused on fluorosis that was caused by the burning of coal. The language here is all wrong. One wasn’t even translated to english.
It should be worded “chronic fluorosis cause lower IQ”. And they should be saying 3 studies. Here is the strongest, in my opinion.
It goes back to the same issue, good arguments don’t need trickery. They are compelling on their own.