Democracy, you make fools of us all. Did you throw back your ringleted hair in laughter when Athens cast itself for all-consuming war with Sparta? Did it cross your changeable mind to intercede in the trial of Socrates? Were you sunk stone-drunk into a bed of silk cushions when Rubicon-crossing Caesar cast you into centuries’ abeyance?
Embrace the chemical super-future
Democracy, you make fools of us all.
Did you throw back your ringleted hair in laughter when Athens cast itself for all-consuming war with Sparta? Did it cross your changeable mind to intercede in the trial of Socrates? Were you sunk stone-drunk into a bed of silk cushions when Rubicon-crossing Caesar cast you into centuries’ abeyance?
It was your idea of a good joke to call every black individual three-fifths of a white man when our powder-faced forefathers composed the Constitution. And to toss pitiful Wyoming as many senators as California—a riot! Or making nine geriatric Harvard Law graduates the final word of the law—the corporate personhood travesty is your sniggering gift.
Adding insult to injury is the ballot initiative. Why not throw the greatest questions of public policy to those who are least informed? Mutual pursuit of self-interest’s path can’t end at a cliff.
Lower my taxes! Defund the schools! Shutter the asylums and lock up the loonies!
Let the poor kids’ teeth rot!
I’ll just shuttle my progeny to the orthodontist in the backseat of my Prius for elective cosmetic surgery.
Portland, you could have done the right thing and swallowed a mildly bitter pill in pursuit of the greater good. It’s not so much an effort to spike the public water supply with several parts per million of fluoridated industrial byproduct—the benefits are well established. Our newly mineral-laden saliva would ward off incipient cavities; families would save money on their kids’ dental bills; spending on tooth care would broadly decline.
It would have been a good thing.
Instead, you let yourselves be led by the gut-thumping timbre of swell-sounding pseudoscience that was totally unobjectionable in everything except for its facts.
Or, one should say, lack thereof.
The positive correlation between the presence of fluoridated water and a reduced incidence of cavities and tooth decay in a given population is strongly supported by current evidence.
The poor, who may not have reliable access to quality dental care and are less likely to use fluoridated toothpaste, especially stand to benefit from fluoridation. And the practice’s only demonstrable negative side effect is a relatively innocuous condition called dental fluorosis.
Better a little extra sparkle in your smile than a gummy red gap.
Let’s not even mention the creepy cryptofascist Cold Warrior foundations of the anti-fluoride movement: The anti-fluoride folks simply had no ground to stand on. Rather, they chose to gloss over fluoride’s proven benefits and attack it on the specious premise that “chemicals are bad.”
We may concede that there are a host of dangerous chemicals that are better left out of our tap water: DDT nearly wiped out the bald eagle and hydrofluorocarbons poked an Antarctica-sized hole in the ozone layer.
But not all chemicals are such life-threatening downers. In fact, there are many compounds without which we could scarcely imagine life on this planet.
Hear me: Portlanders are uniquely in the grip of chemical dependence.
When you push down the plunger on your hot French-pressed brew in the morning and pour forth the sweet coffea arabica manna into the pit of your gut, you can thank caffeine for that hot rush of gladness.
Or take the knock-back giggly giddiness of tetrahydrocannabinol—smoking sinsemilla is the Portlander’s favorite after-school activity. And how many prescriptions of Celexa do Portland psychiatrists dump annually on their drizzle-stricken charges?
Need I even mention alcohol? The soused state of Oregon has made brewer’s yeast its official microbe.
Let us face it: Portlanders are the nation’s foremost exponents of the late-capitalist credo of better living through chemistry.
If history is any guide, in another 10 years’ time this city will again face the divisive decision of whether to inoculate itself against the life-sapping specter of tooth decay by adding to its water a manifestly innocuous chemical. And when this time comes, I implore you to vote yea. It’s no secret that chemicals are indeed our best of friends.
But let’s not leave it at fluoride! I envision a sun-soaked future in which not only fluoride, but also other such patently beneficial compounds as human growth hormone, testosterone, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, neurotropic cognitive enhancers, Adderall and Viagra come flowing out of our taps in a potent cocktail of positive energy.
The resulting boost to productivity would pump up the city’s economy, attract much-needed outside investment and further enhance Portland’s reputation as an international cultural destination. And it would give a much-needed kick in the ass to the sluggish yoga mom cyclist towing her particolored toddler-trailer over the Hawthorne Bridge.
People, don’t leave me hanging in her dust: Give us all a shot of tap water stimulation.
It all starts with fluoride.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.
Aside from being unethical and ineffective, water fluoridation is risky for our bodies and environment. There are better alternatives.
Good job Portland for rejecting this risky and outdated measure.
For a college student this diatribe reads like a 4th grade report. No citations. No evidence. Just rambling. Remind me again, which fluoridated Oregon city has improved its dental health in the last 10 years significantly more than the unfluoridated cities? Do some research and get back to us, please. We’re waiting. Grade F.
Amidst your witty ramblings are an absence of facts. Your clever language does not mask the fact that there is no evidence of Fluoride’s efficacy. “Cryptofascists” eh? Oh you must be referring to the City Council and the Fluoride Lobby who covered up actual data and tried to push Fluoride without a democratic process…the same people who continually lie and deceive the public about the truth…you mean THOSE cryptofascists?
Is*
What a waste of time reading this. Stupid.
I think Ryan blew his wad on dictionary words.
Ryan, your snide condescension and pseudo-intellectualism does not change the fact that you are no expert in toxicology. And it sounds like you’ve never even heard the public statements from panel members of the Congressionally mandated National Research Council’s 2006 report:
Dr. Robert L. Isaacson: “I had no fixed opinion on whether or not fluoride should be added to drinking water… Slowly, I came to the conclusion that there were strong experimental and clinical indications that fluorides present health hazards to people in many ways. The more I learned, the more I became convinced that the addition of fluorides to drinking water was, and is, a mistake.”
Dr. Hardy Limeback: “The evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming.”
Dr. Kathleen Thiessen: “Elimination of community water fluoridation at the earliest possible date would be in the best interest of public health.”
REVIEW OF THE 2006 UNITED STATES NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT:
FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER by Robert J Carton
Robert J Carton, PhD, is an environmental scientist who has worked for over 30 years in the US federal government writing regulations, managing risk assessments on high priority toxic chemicals, and providing environmental oversight of medical research conducted by the government. From 1972-1992 he worked at the headquarters of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, DC, and wrote the first regulations for controlling asbestos discharges from manufacturing plants. From 1992-2002, he was Chief of Environmental Compliance for the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Fort Detrick, MD.
SUMMARY: The recent report by a 12-member committee of the US National Research Council (NRC) examined the scientific basis for the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of fluoride in drinking water promulgated in 1985 by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Due to misdirection by EPA management, who requested the report, the NRC committee identified only health effects known with total certainty. This is contrary to the intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which requires the EPA to determine “whether any adverse effects can be reasonably anticipated, even though not proved to exist.” Further misdirection by EPA consisted of instructing the committee not to identify a new MCLG — in other words, not to determine a safe level of fluoride in drinking water, and not to discuss silicofluorides, phosphate fertilizer manufacturing by-products used in most cities to fluoridate their water. Despite these restrictions, the committee broke new ground declaring severe dental fluorosis and moderate (stage II) skeletal fluorosis adverse health effects, and by noting that the current standard of 4 mg F/L in drinking water does not protect against bone fractures or severe dental fluorosis. Silicofluorides were said to need health effects testing. The NRC review includes extensive information on other possible health effects of fluoride, such as endocrine effects and effects on the brain. On the basis of this information and the proper interpretation of the SDWA, the following are all adverse health effects: moderate dental fluorosis, stage I skeletal fluorosis (arthritis with joint pain and stiffness), decreased thyroid function, and detrimental effects on the brain, especially in conjunction with aluminum. The amount of fluoride necessary to cause these effects to susceptible members of the population is at or below the dose received from current levels of fluoride recommended for water fluoridation. The recommended Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water should be zero.