The question for the Sept. 26, issue of the Capital City Weekly is:
“How do you feel about fluoride being added to the city water supply?”
Leave your answers as a comment and see which opinions are chosen for print in the next issue of Capital City Weekly.
If you would like your photo posted with your comment, please e-mail your photo and name to editor@capweek.com with “sidewalk blog” in the subject line.
Disclaimer: Sidewalk Blog is a forum for Capital City Weekly readers to share their comments on the Sidewalk Poll. These comments do not represent the Capital City Weekly's views. By posting to this blog, participants are giving permission for comments to appear in print. For information or to send a photo for publication, send e-mail to editor@capweek.com with "sidewalk blog" in the subject line.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, September 13th, 2007 at 2:32 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I think that it is a very good idea. The success and safety of flouride programs across the country are unquestionable. For our childrens’ sake, we need it here.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Actually, the success and safety of flouride programs across the country are not unquestionable, but it’s that type of thinking that creates bias in the scientific community. “Oh look! The doctors and scientists did a study! It cannot be questioned!”
Flouride occurs naturally in ground water, though increasing it may not be such a good idea. Would you increase the natural chlorine content in your water because to do so would kill more bacteria?
There are many substantiated research studies that SUGGEST that increasing the flourine content in drinking water MAY result in healthier teeth.
Equally, there are many substantiated research studies that SUGGEST that doing so MAY also cause, amongst other problems, decreased IQ (esp. in infants) by inhibiting the natural development of the brain, and hypothyroidism.
It may be easier to prove that flouride improves dental health, as the results are more immediate. However, how do you know that your children WOULDN’T have a higher IQ if they hadn’t been exposed to higher doses of flouride than are necessary? Or that they won’t come down with hypothyroidism later in life as a result?
I think I prefer a regimen of regular flossing and brushing over knowing that my water contains extra flouride from an unnatural source in it. We as Americans are already exposed to more flouride than is necessary through our water, food, toothpaste, and mineral supplements.
More of a good thing is not always a good thing. It can, in fact, be a very bad thing.
Moderation in all things.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:50 am
If flouride toothpaste and mouthwash all say “Do Not Swallow” they where exactly is the intelligence in placing it in “drinking water” that is meant to swallow?
If the city must only put in such and such amount, you must only use such and such amount of mouthwash… in other words, it is a controled amount you are to use… where is the intelligence in placing it in an uncoltrolable substance… who will control how much water someone drinks in a day, how much water is consumed through absortion by noodles etc.? Where is the intelligence here?
This is once again about forcing what a group think is healthy on everyone even if we think it is not. It is about taking my right of choice. My family has done well without flouride, as have my dogs, grass car and do not see why I should soke my excrement in fouride either, that last is a waste of city money.
Those who want flouride can get fouride and control it’s use. Those who cannot afford flouride, supplying flouride to low income families is no doubt in my mind cheaper than fouridating everything… so take some of the savings of not flouridating and create a system for supplying flouride to those low income who wnat it. This is not rocket science… it is common sense. Flouride is not for internal consumption so do not put it in something meant for swallowing.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
no WAY. thats what we need right more CHEMICALS in our bodys from god knows from were because we all now that floride doesnt grow on TREES hahaha but really it is made by the FAT CATS IN WASHINGTON who will plackate us with there unnatural organic structures until we are just ploys for there whims and fancy. of course the TOOTHPASTE COMPANIES and GE and HALLIBURTON want us to have more of the floride bcause that is how they work they make us addicted it happens TIME AND TIME AGAIN we move here becasue we DONT WANT IT dont you get it people? this is true. organic solutions
September 18th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Who do you trust? That’s what the fluoride issue hangs upon. The authority society has entrusted to healers (Aesculapian Authority) seems to be largely dismissed when it comes to this issue. Individuals who claim fluoride causes cancer, thyroid problems, etc., simply should not be making choices in our public health policy (by voting). Such claims cannot be proven any more than octogenarians who state that drinking fluoridated water increased their longevity. The scientific method is the best we have for making health policy decisions. And medical scientists are the best individuals to be making public health policies. Cast your vote to keep fluoridation in Juneau and step out of the darkness of unprovable testimony, sketchy politics, and pseudoscience.
And furthermore, if you don’t want fluoridation at least be honest with yourself that there’s a phenomenal chance that you, like me, are simply regurgitating spoonfed data without any real scientific comprehension of the subject. That’s why I ultimately trust the US Public Health Service, the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association and the Center for Disease Control, when it comes to these matters. If you don’t trust these agencies on fluoridation, why would trust them on any other health policy issue? Then again, maybe you don’t. *sigh*
September 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Mike,
Ok, you’re right. I’ll just go ahead and trust them unequivocally.. Then, when I get botulism, hypothyroidism, or cancer, I’ll have no one to blame but myself! Yay! Woohoo!
People need to use a little of their own judgment when it comes to their family’s health, as well as their own. Trusting the government in all matters is not the brightest idea.
If you had done any studying at all, you would have found that humans consume fluoride from a number of sources. An extra dose is not particularly necessary, nor is it desired by most people in Juneau. We all get our recommended daily allowance, and then some, every day, from a number of different sources, as well as the food we eat.
And your comments about those who shouldn’t be making choices in our society by voting? Well, for one, this is a democratic republic last time I checked (do I really need to point that out?), so, ideally, everyone has a say, even if they are catholics from Mexico who have had their minds “changed” on whom to vote for by being allowed in the country (truly, most of them vote for whatever political party most strongly supports immigration into the country). I guess you grew up in a dictatorship or something.
For another, famous last words, my friend. Remember red m & m’s? Or the science of the egg, and how the white was good for you and the yolk was bad. Then the opposite? Give science some time before making decisions on what’s best for your health, it’s still vacillating on products and chemicals that have been on the market for 50 years or more.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Fluoridation violates my right to bodily integrity. What permission does the State or Borough have to put a chemical in my drinking water? I haven’t read the Alaska Constitution lately, but it’s harf to believe the drafters contemplated allowing this sort of State action in Alaska.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Just curious, what do you eat? Anything in a package has all kinds of chemicals that, in large quantities, may be harmful. Do you drink soda, milk, orange juice, beer? Hmmmm…I wonder what kind of chemicals are in those.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Who do I trust was asked… I trust my own common sence. I trust logic. One medical group claims it is good, others claim it is bad… all are opinions.
What none of these seem to disagree on is the simple fact that flouride is dangerous, it is a hazardes waste, it must be handled carefully and in a specified manner. This is not a harmless product and they all agree that there are people that should not have it.
So how is it to be controled in my water. How many glasses of what size may I drink? A day ago a monther with children listed all the ways she must protect her children from flouride, due to a desease, in the Empire: My Turn: Fluoridated water will hurt my children, Sept 19. 2007. That may be a worse case senerio, but it makes the point. You can choose to add flouride to your diet, this woman cannot choose not to if it is added globally. I believe that my right to flouride should not override this families right to be healthy, not when I can add flouride in other ways. We must support the “Weakest Link” (no offense meant) and not just ignore them for our own supposed good. we can choose to add, she cannot choose to avoid.
Proposition 4, the one for the new pool, it will be filled with flouridated water. How is someone with a flouride problem to avoid flouride? Just so you can have a mirofraction touch your teeth? Go drink a glass of water and honestly ask yourself how much is going straight to your stomache with no contact to your teeth. So for that mililieter of water we have to add fouride to everything and force women like this to keep their families in a bubble? You can more easily get the flouride your want/need in another manner easier than she can avoid it.
Nor is she the only case. I did not have skin problems in Germany drinking/showering in non flouridated water 25 years. I did not have skin problems drining/showering in non flouridate water in Michigan 7 months. However less than a month after moving to Juneau and drinking/showering in flouridated water I developed rash spots all over. Recently my wife remarked that I no longer have them… and Juneau does not flouridate it’s water anymore and the system is well flushed out now. Is this scientific proof? No of course not, it may be coincidence, little else has changed between MI and AK, still same detergent etc.
Am I anti flouride? No. But I am anti force flouride on everyone. If someone can convice me my child needs flouride, I am fine with buying it as well as the idea of using the savings from not flouridating to finance low income support for flouride treatment. If I want to add flouride I will, I see no honest logic in forcing flouride on everyone and the 99.9% of things involving water that have no reason to be flouridated. I think this whole proposal lacks a simple element… common sense. It is like dropping a nuke to remove a tree stump. We do not have to flouridate everything under the sun just to protect our teeth, we can use localized flouride that will flouridate our teeth and not everything else. We have to allow others to choose for themselves and not force our choices on them. The city made the choice to allow choice… this should not even be on a ballot. It is not our right to force something like this on a family like that.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Until you provide me with double-blind clinical trials on all the problems supposedly caused by fluoridation, it means nothing to me. Testimony without proof isn’t worth much, if anything. And there is no proof. Many arguments against fluoridation are straw man fallacies.
I can respect the opinion about not wanting fluoride “forced” on everyone. At least that is an argument not necessarily against the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation but simply a personal stance about disagreeing with mandatory fluoridation by Big Brother, I presume.
I am amazed, really, after reading all of these postings how deadly fluoridation apparently is. It supposedly causes cancer, thyroid problems, skin problems and who knows what else. I don’t doubt that people really believe this stuff; it’s a sensational story and the average citizen actually can do something about it-vote. Sadly, there are plenty of groups with their own quackery agenda that are more than happy to bring new quacklings into the nest with slick propaganda. It’s just a new version of the Big Lie. Say something often enough and enough people will jump on the bandwagon. The very idea of debating this in the papers gives it legitimacy for some. That’s why you will notice that most scientific professionals are promoting the benefits of safe fluoridation behind the scenes, one on one, not in the paper where it’s impossible to prove a negative.
Personally, I don’t care if our water is fluoridated or not. I only care about how the decision is made. I stand by my belief that public health policies should be made by experts in medical science only. And all other reasons for keeping fluoridation banned should be made on their own personal merits, because they certainly aren’t scientific merits.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“It’s just a new version of the Big Lie. Say something often enough and enough people will jump on the bandwagon.”
What? You mean Elvis is not alive and living in Kalamazoo MI? *snicker*
Cheers
September 21st, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I am uncertain. On one hand, flouride is a prescribed drug. Thus I am of the understanding only a doctor/dentist can provide it to you. On the other hand, does it have benefits to the teeth? I grew up having it applied to my teeth every time I went to the dentist. Does it mean it’s right? I don’t know. I am not a doctor.
Does it have poisonous side-effects? I guess It’s time to do some research.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:12 pm
I’ll have to agree with Shannara on this topic. I don’t claim to know enough about fluoridation to be able to come to a conclusion, so in the meantime, while I do some homework on the issue in my meager spare time, I will just bask in the glory of having healthy teeth without fluoridation. That is to say, I’ll trust my intuition, and the behavior of science in general in the past.
I also have had first hand experience with our so-called-medical experts. Did I mention there are none in Juneau? Yeah.
There aren’t. Had I stayed here and trusted them, I might not be typing this right now.
And I think that quantity is a good concern. If someone only drinks 4 glasses of water per day, compared to 14 per day, along with fluoride toothpaste, mouth rinse, the content in processed foods, and the amount already occurring naturally in the water, how can consumption be regulated? Is excess fluoride flushed from the body naturally, such as, say, magnesium?
And, pardon me for saying so if I’m mistaken, but wasn’t this already put before the public and voted down?
But I do have to stand on the vacillation of science. If science says it’s bad, give it a month, a year, a decade, and it will come back around and say *oops!* it’s good. Likewise that “it can’t be done”. Once again, month, year, decade, it’ll be done.
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
don’t blame science for the fluoride debacle – blame your legislators and government bureaucrats who believe the word of people who never bothered to consult the scientific literature.
Science has never supported fluoridation regardless of what you have been told. To make it simple:
Fluoride is not a nutrient and it is not required for healthy teeth
That makes fluoride a drug
Do you know any drug that every person in the USA should take that’s regulated by thirst and not on body weight, health or need.
Even if you beleve that fluoride reduces tooth decay, is it American to force it into every human in the country.
Does that really make sense to you?
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
fluoride ineffective and unnecessary,
Not really. You make some very good points.
I myself have never found a site about any studies done concerning fluoride that I felt was genuinely scientific and not full of propaganda.
I believe in preventative medicine and natural healing and such, however, there are so many quacks that practice it that I have been hard pressed to find one that didn’t cloud all issues with their belief systems. I don’t want a belief system, I want something that works. I’m not interested in how much water this or that naturopath believes I should drink, or if I should do this or that. Believe it or not, there are scientific naturopathic doctors out there that actually know what their doing and have something going for them. I just have not found one in Juneau, and it’s to expensive to come to Sedona every time I need treatment.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want fluoride in my water at this point. But some of the people who preach against it might find that they get through to more people if they don’t present such extreme views on other topics, mix them in with the issue at hand, and inundate people with their own form of propaganda. It’s like most of them are trying to convert people to their religion, which is distasteful, and I immediately shut them off.
Once a site is found that is truly scientific, how do we know that the scientists aren’t in the pockets (on some level or another) of the drug companies pushing fluoridation?
These are questions people should ask of every scientist or scientific experiment. It takes a truly objective scientist to conduct a study with unbiased results. How do we know that the scientist, as a child, didn’t hate his parents for making him brush his teeth (naturopathic or otherwise) and that even the thought of fluoride doesn’t evoke some unconscious bias for or against it?
If anyone has some site links I could check out regarding the studies conducted on fluoridation, that would be great.
Thanks all.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Well flouride is out… and the pro-flouride leaders have stated that we just voted no due to fear. Wht can’t these people simply accept that allot of people think flouridating everything under the sun is not a logical answer?
Gues this means it will be on every ballot the next 20 years…
What is interesting is that although flouride was resoundly slammed down… voter turn out was only something like 37%. That is sad and shows how may people do not care either way about any of the issues.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:45 am
it seems that flouridating such a huge supply, such as the US water, would be a great way to turn a liability into a profit…
Where does the government get all that flouride anyways?
The public health policy makers and medical experts have made mistakes before. Mercury used to preserve vaccinations….
January 31st, 2008 at 2:53 am
Fluoride was originally used in the Nazi concentration camps. The Nazi scientists found that fluoride is a central nervous system toxin, which would lower the IQs and weaken the will of the prisoners. This, of course, made the prisoners much easier to deal with. After WW2, the US intelligence community started bringing in Nazi scientists to work in secret. It was called Project Paperclip and it’s all declassified now. It’s well documented so I’d suggest looking into it at the source. I’m, of course, talking about the Library of Congress. Anyway, long story short: the US, city by city started fluoridating the water supply. Any chemist will tell you that fluoride is more toxic than lead and we’re ingesting it every time we drink a bottle of juice from concentrate, order a pizza, eat a slice of bread, eat some pasta, drink a beer, drink a soda pop, you get the idea, almost everything you eat has had tap water added to it at some stage of production. Not only does it shave a good solid 20 points off of your IQ between age 2 and age 20, but it also destroys bones. Guess what holds your teeth in place, folks? Bones! Fluoride eventually makes your teeth fall out. Time and time again, fluoride has been linked to ADD and ADHD, oh and guess what, it’s the active ingredient in Prozac. Pretty funny, eh? We’re being medicated against our will in an entirely uncontrolled fashion, with a toxic chemical. By the way, it would do some of you some good to look into who’s funding these studies that miraculously state that fluoride is good for you. What do I think of fluoride? Um…it’s OK, I guess.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Real Free Home Online Jobs
Real Free Home Online Jobs
January 1st, 2009 at 7:20 am
Fluoridation is based on 1950′s junk science. In 1946, the governmnet studied blood and tissue samples from subjects in the Newburgh experiment (Program F); and the results/conclusions are still missing from the archives. The government won’t come clean on Fluoridation because of the potential lawsuits that would come forth.
January 10th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Did you know that thyroid health is a concern for nearly 11 million Americans? And, a healthy thyroid supports healthy weight and cholesterol?
March 4th, 2009 at 3:59 am
Wow I know more about botullisim than I ever wanted to know.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I’m old enough to see clearly the growing level of stupidity in the masses. Media hints at it constantly; Married with Children episode with Sam Kinison (Sam is one of my role models) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxFafbXgNrc
skip to 1:30.
some movie matthew broderick was in with a couple morons he said that there must be something in the water….
this link in particular http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk&feature=related
8oz = pea sized amount 6yr old…
old belief christ was born between Sept 11th & 13th doesn’t seem like common knowledge, and it certainly wasn’t taught in school; how well do you trust your system?