[PLUG-TALK] topic of the day ... discuss!

[Keith Lofstrom]

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:45:13AM -0700, Russell Johnson wrote:
> 
> On May 5, 2013, at 1:02 AM, Keith Lofstrom <keithl at gate.kl-ic.com> wrote:
> 
> > Let's say that the turnout is 80% of 360K registered Portland
> > voters, and fluoridation passes by 55%.  About 40% of the million
> > people affected by this decision are in districts purchasing
> > contract water from Portland, and have no say in the treatment
> > of the water they receive from Portland.  So that means that 16%
> > of the affected population may allowed to rule everyone else.
> 
> And that happens to be the system we have for making decisions
> in this country.

On that glorious day when you learn to read and pay attention,
you will notice that 40% don't get to vote.  The United States
resulted from a revolution over that, even though we were not
a majority of the British empire's subjects.

By the system you claim exists ...

Imagine the citizens of Gresham (or perhaps just their city
council) voting to eliminate the right-of-way for the water
pipes coming down from Bull Run, through Gresham, and into
Portland, because Gresham citizens don't want to get
fluoridated water sent back from Portland.

So instead Gresham keeps the Bull Run water, treats it themselves
(without fluoridation), and tells Portlanders "go F yourselves."
Portland subsists on the water from the Columbia South Shore Well
Field.  Relatively nasty stuff, but hey, "the system we have"
lets some people impose water composition choices on other
people, so its gotta be OK.

NO, it is NOT OK, and it is insane to change the rules to make
it so.

The ACTUAL system we have now, in a mostly free society, says
that each one of us can choose what to consume out of the 
choices available.  You can add as much sodium fluorosilicate
to your own water as you want, I can leave it out of mine.  
Win-win - unless your real agenda is to dominate others.

It is /easy/ to add fluorosilicate to your drinking water, if
for some odd reason you want fluoride hardening your bones as
well as your teeth.  It is /easier/ and dentally far more
effective to use fluoride toothpaste. 

It is even easy for me to filter the other additives out of
the water.  Indeed, I do that with an undersink filter,
because those additives have done their job suppressing
corrosion and killing bacteria (though UV treatment is
better).  Wouldn't have it any other way.

Our sink drinking water filter even kept us running when
we had the west side water contamination scare last year.
The announcement came long after the questionable water was
in the pipes and leaving the taps.  Filters are a good idea.

It is NOT easy to filter out fluoride - the most tenacious
electronegative element on the periodic chart.  Fluoride
removal is sorta-kinda possible, but it takes a lot of
expensive equipment and wastes 2/3 of the incoming water. 

A huge asymmetry, and for what?

Because, before the advent of fluoride toothpaste in the 70's,
and fluoride dental office treatments today, there was no
easy way to get fluoride where it could do some good, the
enamel surfaces of teeth.  I can see why they fluoridated.  

News flash - it isn't 1950 any more.  Municipal fluoridation
is depreciated, replaced by F2.0 (fluoride toothpaste) F3.0,
(topical clinic treatments) and dental health 4.0: flossing,
rinsing, healthy food, and whole-body health, which affects
teeth, and vice versa.  Municipal fluoridation is like Cobol.
Some people still run it on legacy hardware, but it is 
depreciated for new installs.

And for the hypothetical hapless idiots who can't operate
a toothbrush without killing themselves, we can FLUORIDATE
THEIR TV.   Follow the toothpaste ads with the truth: 
"This crap contains sugar!  You only need a pea-sized dab,
not a quarter of a tube on your brush!  Be sure to brush
your whole mouth and gums, here's how!"

I suspect the impetus for delivering "health by water" is
that delivering "health by TV" would ruin business models.

Here's a clue - poor does not equal stupid.  Poor means not
enough money for too many needs.  Toothpaste is cheap (about
a penny per person per day if you don't waste it) and covered
by food stamps.  Used right, toothpaste is far more effective
controlling cavities than municipal fluoride, mostly because
each individual can optimize the dose.  There is such a thing
as too much fluoride, it varies by individual and circumstance.
Toothpaste selection and clinical advice are the best ways to
regulate exposure while getting a healthy amount of tap water.  

If the pro-fluoride argument is, "people are too stupid to
take care of themselves", do they all of a sudden become wise
biochemists when handed a ballot?   Or do they just become
conduits for the companies paying for the media?

Who owns YOUR brain?

Keith

-- 
Keith Lofstrom          keithl at keithl.com         Voice (503)-520-1993