Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
jamming fluoride down Portland's throat [Update - we beat their corrupt asses!!!]
09-10-2012, 05:20 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-15-2012, 10:55 PM by h3rm35.)
#1
Thumbs Up  jamming fluoride down Portland's throat [Update - we beat their corrupt asses!!!]
Via NYT hit-piece board (left-leaning "paper of record"):

Doubts as Portland Weighs Fluoride and Its Civic Values


By KIRK JOHNSON

PORTLAND, Ore. — Who bears responsibility for an impoverished child with a mouth full of rotting teeth? Parents? Soda companies? The ingrained inequities of capitalism? Pick your villain, or champion. They are all on display here as the largest city in the nation with no commitment to fluoridating its water supply — and one of the most politically liberal cultures anywhere — has waded into a new debate about whether to change its ways and its water.

The debate flared on Thursday at a public hearing before the five-member City Council, whose vote on the issue is scheduled for this week. Some of the arguments have focused on health concerns, with opponents raising questions and citing studies about fluoride’s effects on brain development and I.Q.

Others said that times had changed since in the 1950s, when fluoridation first took off in the United States. People now get plenty of fluoride, critics say, in products from toothpaste to food that has been processed, grown or cleaned elsewhere. About three-fourths of the country’s population lives in areas where fluoride is added to the water.

“If there’s a problem with kids’ dental health, why don’t we put the money toward better nutrition?” said Angel Lambart, who testified on Thursday with her young daughter on her lap.

But befitting a city where socially conscious, environmentally fervent goals have become a kind of local brand, the more ferocious questions for both sides centered on personal choice and societal burden. Once consigned to the ranks of the gritty and damp, along with Seattle and other Pacific Northwest shipping towns, Portland has been reinvented by waves of highly educated newcomers working at places like Intel, a huge regional employer.

But beyond the bike-friendly, walk-friendly downtown of rose gardens and coffee bars, a kind of parallel Portland of perpetual poverty, concentrated in minority groups and often invisible to visitors, has festered.

Dental decay rates, numerous state and federal studies say, are linked to income, education and access to health insurance, but also to lifestyle, diet and parental choices in insisting on a toothbrush. Such conclusions give fuel to both sides, with supporters of fluoride seeing a social problem to be solved by government, while opponents focus on unhealthy habits and diets that they say will not be affected by chemicals.

Mayor Sam Adams, who backs the fluoridation plan and has one of five votes on the Council, comes firmly down on the side that says Portland must address dental care for everyone if its progressive goals and self-image are valid.

“It’s about health equity, it’s about social justice,” he said in an interview. “Fluoride is means to an end,” he added. “I hope that folks, whether they agree with me or not, understand that my intentions are to help those Portlanders that have no voice in this process.”

Some opponents of fluoridation have lobbed that kind of reasoning right back into the laps of the commissioners. “I don’t appreciate you trying to alleviate your white guilt by putting toxins in our water,” Frances Quaempts-Miller, who described herself as mixed black and Muscogee Indian, said in testifying at the public hearing before the all-white Council of four men and one woman.

Who is empowered to make the choice for Portland has become part of the debate as well. Fluoridation efforts have failed at the ballot box here, most recently in 1980. And two other members of the City Council, in addition to Mr. Adams, who is not seeking re-election in November, said even before public testimony was taken that they planned to vote for the plan — making a majority — when it goes before them. Some opponents call that an undemocratic end-run around the popular will.

But one of the commissioners, Nick Fish, in a defense of his pro-fluoride position at Thursday’s hearing, said that what some call closed-door deal-making, he calls leadership. “I think we were elected to make the tough calls,” said Mr. Fish, the public works commissioner. He said that gridlock in Congress was an example to be avoided. “In this community we have a chance to do something different,” he said.

Some critics say Portland’s sense of civic duty is misplaced when it comes to bad teeth, which they say is a much greater problem in what many residents call the “other Oregon,” beyond the Portland metro area. Portland has bounced back from recession, while much of the rest of the state, where residents also mostly drink unfluoridated water, continues to struggle.

But even before the recession, there was a dental divide. A study in 2007 by the Oregon Department of Human Services said that 1 out of 17 first, second and third graders outside the Portland metro area needed urgent dental care because of pain or infection, but in the metro area itself, only 1 in 100 students did. Adding fluoride to Portland’s water would affect about 900,000 residents in a state of 3.9 million people.

“Portland has better teeth,” said Kim Kaminski, director of Clean Water Portland, a group that is fighting fluoridation. She called fluoridation for Portland a Band-Aid on a larger problem.

Fluoride remains a debating point around the nation, with some communities questioning the cost or re-examining the science. In Florida, the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners voted last October to halt fluoridation, but the water district serving San Jose, Calif., voted in December to start.

Portland residents interviewed on a downtown public square on a morning last week were divided on whether voters or their elected representatives should have the final say.

“There are issues that are more complex than the general population sometimes can really assess appropriately,” said Carol Lindstrom, the marketing director for an energy efficiency company. Ms. Lindstrom said she grew up in a rural community in Washington State that did not have fluoride, “and I think I suffered for it,” she added.

Celia Wagner, a Web site developer, said the local fluoride debate, full of hyperbole and passion, had brought out the “rugged individuality and quirkiness” of Portland’s character, for better and worse. “It’s Portland doing its Portland thing, which I love; I’ve been here 35 years,” she said. “It’s charming, but occasionally not charming.”

Still, she said that it should be the voters who decide, and that she would vote for fluoride if she could. She grew up with it in the suburbs of Seattle. “People tell me I have nice teeth,” she said. “I don’t see the problem.”
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
09-10-2012, 07:55 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-10-2012, 08:19 PM by h3rm35.)
#2
RE: Doubts as Portland Weighs Fluoride and Its Civic Values
For fluoride, Portland Water Bureau says two years -- Randy Leonard says faster
Published: Wednesday, September 05, 2012, 5:03 PM Updated: Thursday, September 06, 2012, 5:09 PM

Brad Schmidt, The Oregonian By Brad Schmidt, The Oregonian

(right-leaning paper)
The Portland Water Bureau revised its timeline for a fluoride facility from at least five years to two years. But Randy Leonard wants it done faster.
When Portland Water Bureau officials estimated that it would take at least five years to begin fluoridating local drinking water, Commissioner Randy Leonard pressed them to speed up.

Four years? Not quickly enough, Leonard responded.

Three? Nope.

The Water Bureau went back to its engineers and asked them to squeeze as much as possible. "If all the stars line up correctly and everything goes without a hitch," the bureau's administrator wrote to a Leonard aide last week, fluoride could be added beginning Oct. 10, 2014.

That's the back story of how Leonard disregarded the Water Bureau's timeline and decided last week that the project could be completed in 18 months, by March 1, 2014 -- two months before residents may get a crack at voting to ban fluoride. The fluoride effort would affect more than 900,000 residents in Portland and wholesale customers in Gresham, Tigard, Tualatin and beyond.

Leonard's controversial $5 million proposal and fast-tracked schedule head to the Portland City Council Thursday for a 2 p.m. hearing, with a vote next Wednesday. Three of the council's five members have said they will vote in support, ensuring its passage and ending Portland's reign as the largest city in the country that hasn't approved fluoride.

Leonard, who oversees the Water Bureau, defended his schedule Wednesday. He said the bureau built in too much time for land-use review and permitting, which he thinks Multnomah County could expedite.

"It's way more process time than is needed," he said.

Opponents, meanwhile, have planned an initiative effort to ban fluoride. First they need to collect 29,786 valid signatures. Then city code prohibits initiatives from ballots in odd-numbered years, so the earliest a vote could happen is May 2014.

Kimberly Kaminski, who heads the opposition group, called Leonard's schedule "a total subversion of the democratic process." Fluoride has a long history in Portland, with residents voting in favor once but against it three times, first in 1956 and most recently in 1980.

"He's railroading this through so that the people don't have a say," said Kaminski, who is executive director of Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water. "And he's not going to be in office to have to deal with the ramifications of that."

Leonard's term expires in December. He denied, however, that he sought a faster timeline to complicate the initiative effort. Opponents could instead challenge the council decision through a referendum, he said, by gathering 19,868 valid signatures within 30 days and forcing a vote next year.

"Go out and get the signatures, and we'll vote on it," Leonard said.

In June, when the Water Bureau began estimating costs and schedules, officials wrote that "it would take at least 5 years to pilot, design, permit and construct a fluoride facility."

But on Aug. 27, bureau administrator David Shaff and chief engineer Michael Stuhr met with Leonard and fluoride proponents to review four-year and three-year timelines, according to documents and an email obtained under the state's public-records law.

Leonard pushed officials to rework the schedule. On Aug. 29, Shaff emailed one of Leonard's aides with the October 2014 date.

Shaff said Wednesday that he was surprised when Leonard proposed an even shorter schedule. Shaff said he doesn't know whether the time frame is doable but plans to provide updates to the City Council as the project advances.

"Whether or not we can chop another six months off it?" he said. "That'll be a challenge."

Fluoridate Portland's water
Published: Tuesday, August 14, 2012, 5:13 PM Updated: Tuesday, August 14, 2012, 5:37 PM
By The Oregonian Editorial Board

Drinking-water fluoridation, which doesn't happen in Portland, deserves to be about as controversial as water chlorination, which does. Like chlorination, fluoridation prevents illness through the use of a substance you wouldn't want to chug, and it occurs safely throughout the country. About 74 percent of Americans on community systems get fluoridated water. And even in Oregon, which has a comparatively low rate of fluoridation, more than 830,000 people drink treated water.

Of the 50 biggest cities in the United States, only a handful do not fluoridate their water, and the list could soon be smaller. Fluoride supporters in Wichita recently collected enough signatures to force the issue onto the City Council agenda.

Oddly, it doesn't seem to matter that fluoridation is both safe and widespread, even in Oregon. The debate makes people nervous. The most recent push to fluoridate Portland's water supply has been a quiet affair, and it's not clear that even three of Portland's commissioners will lend their support. That's a shame, though there is reason for optimism. Members of the fluoridation coalition have meet with each of the commissioners or their chiefs of staff and "heard a lot of support," says Mel Rader, co-director of Upstream Public Health, which belongs to the coalition pushing for fluoridation.

Elected officials are often less willing to express publicly what they say privately for fear of creating controversy. And a serious move to fluoridate drinking water here will receive fevered opposition, just as it has over the years in many places. City residents will be told that proponents want to lace their drinking water with toxic industrial waste. They'll be directed to Internet sites claiming, among other things, that fluoridation could hurt kids' brains, lower their IQs and compromise various other organs and glands.

To believe such crackpottery is implicitly to believe the following: That state and federal health agencies are, for some mysterious reason, hiding the truth and helping to poison more than 200 million citizens, aided by the American Dental Association and, we guess, credulous editorial boards like The Oregonian's. While we don't consider any of these groups infallible, or even close, it's far more likely that fluoridation receives so much mainstream support because it does exactly what it's supposed to. It reduces the incidence of cavities.

Opponents are right about one thing. Adding fluoride to water -- as opposed to chlorine -- isn't necessary to make the water safe and is, rather, a way of administering passive medical treatment to people who may object. We understand that such an affront to personal choice is potentially infuriating, regardless of how beneficial the water additive might be.

But requiring people to receive medical treatment is nothing new, as any parent of a vaccinated child could tell you. And, depending upon the circumstances, it can be good public policy. That's certainly the case for fluoridation, which protects vulnerable children from parental indifference and ignorance. It also protects taxpayers, who foot the bill when those same children visit the emergency room in dental agony. People who don't think such things happen regularly should talk to some doctors and dentists.

In any case, the "F" word is in circulation, and Commissioner Randy Leonard has said he's willing to back the effort as long as supporters line up two of his colleagues. That places the onus on Sam Adams, Nick Fish, Amanda Fritz and Dan Saltzman. Are they going to save kids' teeth and taxpayers' money? Or are they going to hide beneath their chairs, stick their fingers in their ears and hope that the issue goes away?

From OPB, Oregon's PBS (left-leaning)

To Fluoridate Or Not To Fluoridate? Portland Considers The Idea

OPB | Sept. 05, 2012 5:25 p.m. | Updated: Sept. 06, 2012 1:23 p.m.

Three of five city commissioners have said they're in favor of adding fluoride to Portland city water. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says fluoride is a safe and healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay. But opposition is vocal and intense.

There are two fluoride studies that opponents often raise at public hearings, like the one scheduled for Portland City Council Thursday afternoon.

The list of organizations that endorse fluoridation is long and authoratative. Think: the American Medical Association, Kaiser Permanente, the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society.
But there are a number of scientific, medical and environmental professionals who raise questions about possible risks.

Kim Kaminiski of Clean Water Portland says that fluoridation is a conspiracy.

"These are byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry. We're talking about sodium fluoride, we're talking about sodium fluorosilicate … And they are put into our drinking water. We cannot dump them in the ocean, we cannot dump them in the river. We cannot put them into a landfill. The phosphate fertilizer industry would have to pay very high costs to dispose of them in a toxic waste facility," says Kaminiski.

But fluoride occurs naturally. And as with any compound, it's the dose that's important.

For example, one ibuprofen pill can relieve pain, a massive overdose can cause cardiac arrest.

As far as being a byproduct of the fertilizer industry, Kylie Menagh-Johson of the Everyone Deserves Healthy Teeth Coalition says a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, no matter where it comes from.

"The standards that are used in this country to monitor the drinking water are very high and ensure that there are no contaminants," says Menagh-Johson.

But perhaps dueling spokeswomen aren't going to make this debate much clearer.

Instead, let's consider the science.

In the middle of the 20th century, researchers learned that high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in towns like Colorado Springs were causing children's teeth to grow in brown and mottled. They also noticed that these kids' teeth were surprisingly resistant to decay.

So in 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan, agreed to an experiment by adding small amounts of fluoride to its water. An 11-year study by the U.S. Surgeon General found the rate of cavities among children there dropped 60 percent.
The controversy has lasted ever since.

The latest study to raise hackles just came out of Harvard. It went through information from 27 previous studies and concluded that there is "…the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment."

Kim Kaminiski of Clean Water Portland says she believes fluoride affects children's IQ levels.

"We're seeing negative health effects at very low levels of fluoride. I mean we can talk all day about parts per million, but the bottom line is, when we start putting it in our drinking water, that's the major exposure that most people have," says Kaminiski.

Repeated calls and emails to the study's U.S. author, Anna Choi of the Harvard School of Public Health, were not returned. But the study did conclude that more research was needed.

Doctor Myron Allukian of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine says the study had other problems too.

"What they did was they looked at 27 Chinese studies, they said they're poorly done studies, and they say but when we put them all together in high fluoride areas, as much as 10 times what it is here in the United States, we get a half point difference in IQ," says Allukian. "Well, a half point difference in IQ is meaningless. That's like saying, we measured all the people in New York and Chicago and in New York they were a half millimeter taller."

Mayor Sam Adams, who supports fluoridation, points out in a letter to residents that Portland would fluoridate water at 0.7 parts per million, while the studies done in China looked at fluoride exposure up to 11.5 parts per million.

Allukian says he's planning to ask the authors to distribute a letter saying the study should not be linked with fluoridation levels in this country.

Perhaps the most controversial fluoride study to hit the news also came out of Harvard, but in 2006. The study found that "For males less than 20 years old fluoride levels in drinking water during growth is associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma."Osteosarcoma is a bone cancer.

Kaminiski of Clean Water Portland says that's what prompted her to start looking into fluoride."This was peer-reviewed and published. It was a very solid study. And at the time, being a mom it was very concerning to me," says Kaminiski.

Dr. Catherine Hayes of Health Resources in Action was an advisor for the 2006 study. She was an associate professor at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine at the time. She says that while it was peer reviewed, it was exploratory.

"And it was done using a data set that was not as... involved in terms of the questions and they didn't have any bone samples from cases or controls."

But that study did raise enough eyebrows to warrant a follow-up.

Hayes was a co-author on that follow-up. She's now a professor at Tufts University's School of Dental Medicine. She says that instead of just gathering information about previous cases of osteosarcoma, they looked at actual samples of bone from people who had the cancer.

"In that study, the bone was carefully examined amongst individuals who had the osteosarcoma and those that did not. And there was no difference in the amount of fluoride in the bone …. And that's really significant, because now we're not estimating fluoride intake, we're really measuring it," says Hayes.

So as far as Hayes is concerned, it means there's no link between osteocarsoma and fluoride.

But anti-fluoride activists like Kaminiski remain unconvinced. They say the study's co-author, Chester Douglass, received payments from the toothpaste company Colgate.

Hayes says that shouldn't make any difference.

"He was thoroughly investigated by Harvard University, a very extensive investigation and found completely innocent of any wrong doing. His involvement with Colgate is as someone who provides educational information to them ... And there is absolutely no relationship between his consulting work with Colgate and his research," says Hayes.

Suffice it to say, whether you're talking to scientists, activists or health policy experts, it's easy to get bogged down in the details.

In his letter explaining why he supports fluoridation, Mayor Adams says there have been more than 3,000 studies on fluoridation, and the majority found it to be safe and effective.

Barbara Gooch of the CDC says there's a good reason the federal agency is pushing fluoridation: "Because it reduces tooth decay by about 25 percent in children and adults."

About one third of Oregonians' drinking water is fluoridated, compared to about two thirds in Washington. The Oregon Health Authority says the rate of untreated tooth decay among Oregon's children is double that of Washington.
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
09-10-2012, 10:47 PM,
#3
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
crossposted from here:
Fluoride and Aspartame
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=30061&pid=248359#pid248359

So, since the city I currently live in is almost positively going to flouridate our water supply in the face of staunch opposition by the public, (including its history of getting voted down at the polls,) I decided to do a little digging into who the beneficiaries are (as we're all pretty sure that it's not children with forming teeth.) We already have massive amounts of lead, and I'm thinking the issue has something to do with the two molecules tendency to bind to each other making it hard to get accurate levels of either, but I could be wrong...

What I came to realize in doing so is that drinking water, like phosphate fertilizer and aluminum, is an intensely traded product in the commodities market. However, unlike fertilzer and aluminum, It's often kind of isolated from the most well-known commodities, (mostly because of it public/private convoluted ownership fiasco.) Its demand never lowers, and it's also exceedingly rare (with only 1% of the global water supply available,) these factors cobine to assure that it rarely has much downward activity in the markets. It's kind of like a blue chip stock - you buy it to make your portfolio less prone to volatility - in essence, its a better hedge than something like bolstering value of currency(ies) with gold. In the latter instance one tends to rise while the other falls, where as in the former, water tends to continue its gradual climb regardless of what the other products do.

the manufacture and processing of aluminum and phosphate fertilizers are, of course, the main methods through which drinking-water flouridation agents are created. Selling flouride to municipal water treatment facilities, therefore, not only makes money for commodities that are more prone to fluctuation, but it also stablizes the commodities market surrounding them. It also raises the price of drinking and bottled water products, which allows companies to raise the price of municipal water, which makes them money as well. Beyond that, as raw materials, water, phosphate fertilizers, and in a less direct sense, aluminum (since it tends to be used in manufacturing things that are then sold,) are swallowed up the resource black-hole that is big Agribusiness - the real winners standing head and shoulders with metals and petroleum products in the commodities markets (of course there are ties between those products as well, but that's a subject for a different time.) Most of the rest is absorbed by beverage companies that then do their best to wrap it in BPA plastic or poison it by adding HFCS (an agribusiess product and one of the most likely causes of tooth decay), sugar (another cause of tooth decay and massive consumer of water and in its own right is a huge agribusiness sector,) and aspertame (as well as its good buddies sucralose and Saccharin - an apt name.)

some info on companies to keep an eye out for from an an investment advice website:
Quote:Agricultural Chemicals

When it comes to agricultural chemicals, there are a number of big names, but PotashCorp (POT) takes the cake. The company is sporting a market cap of $50.2 billion with a healthy average daily volume well above eight million. Potash is based in Saskatchewan and is the world’s largest potash producer, along with the third largest producer of nitrogen and phosphate (which are three key elements in fertilizers). Overall, PotashCorp is the world’s largest fertilizer producer and supplies roughly 20% of the globe’s potash [see also Invest Like Jim Rogers With These Three Agriculture Stocks].

Looking into POT as a stock, it seems relatively healthy, with great quarterly growth and a reasonable P/E of 21.36. The company has a current ratio of 0.94 and a debt/equity ratio of 0.61. One thing that may be of concern to investors is the total debt compared to cash on hand; POT currently holds $4.8 billion in debt with just $408 million in cash.

Aluminum

Aluminum is an extremely popular metal with a wide range of industrial uses, also making it one of the most practical commodity investments. Alcoa (AA) is not only famous for kicking off earnings season every quarter, but also for being among the largest aluminum producers in the world. Stationed in Pittsburgh, Alcoa leads the globe in the production of primary aluminum and fabricated aluminum, as its products are used in everything from aircraft to automobiles. AA operates in 31 countries and has a strong market cap of $13 billion, ranking them as one of the biggest aluminum producing firms in existence [see also Commodity ETFs: It Takes Two To Contango].

AA is an extremely popular stock, changing hands over 24 million times each day while paying out a decent dividend of 1%. Investors should note that this fund comes with an extremely high beta of 2.09 and also that about 60% of Alcoa’s shares are held by institutions rather than individuals.

Also, watch GE, the parent company of NBC Universal, (a Soros op,) propaganda partner with Bill Gates and Microsoft, and massive US military contractor as they're one of the largest holders of drinking water commodities.

I don't really have a choice but to keep looking into this topic, seeing as my city goverment has decided to slowly poison me. If I run into anything else I'll let y'all know.
edit:
I just thought about a mirrored strategy tied to Monsanto/GMO/Agribusiness - drought resistant crops that are handed out in impoverished nations...
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
09-15-2012, 05:25 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-15-2012, 05:59 PM by h3rm35.)
#4
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
As suspected:
Portland City Council approves adding fluoride to drinking water
Published: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 10:53 AM Updated: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 11:07 AM

The Portland City Council voted 5-0 during a raucous public meeting on Wednesday to add fluoride to Portland's drinking water.

The vote follows a nearly seven-hour public meeting last week in which proponents and opponents traded statistics and made their best arguments for why Portland should or should not use fluoride to combat tooth decay.

"This is the right thing to do, and I'm pleased to vote aye," Commissioner Dan Saltzman said first, drawing boos from the crowd.

Commissioner Amanda Fritz, a former nurse, parted ways with colleagues and declined to say before Wednesday's vote how she would come down. Before voting yes, she gave a lengthy speech noting that fluoride was not a silver bullet. "We cannot simply add fluoride and expect all children and adults to have cavity-free teeth," Fritz said. "Clearly, more education is needed."

Commissioner Randy Leonard, who pushed the effort, said "this is not an issue for the faint of heart." He, too, voted yes, of course.

Commissioner Nick Fish, who missed much of the public testimony at last week's meeting, said he was "proud" to vote aye.

Mayor Sam Adams was the final yes vote.

Adams ejected several members of the audience who heckled members of the City Council during Wednesday's vote.


one of those people was me.

the issue'smetastasizing now, spreading like cancer to other locales:

Phoenix AZ has determined it would continue to flouridate it's (already unnatural) water supply, as did Milwuakee, WI recently. Santa Fe NM is parsing through the issue, while Witchita KA has recently opened a debate supported by the dental interests and has left it to a popular vote. South Bend IA, DuBois PA, Spokane WA, Cadillac, MI, although much smaller, are all now considering the same.

That's in the US. In the UK, health officials are trying to figure out how to skirt judicial review of their decisions.
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
09-16-2012, 01:57 AM,
#5
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
Crazy. Portland, with the type of people there. did not seem like the sort of city to fall to fluoride. I wonder if there was any push from the feds to do this. It baffles me how the only reason they can claim for adding fluoride is to prevent tooth decay, despite the fact over 90% of water is not consumed. Think of dishwashers, clothe washers, water hoses, showers, et cetera. Money that could be saved by buying fluoride pills or fluoride toothpaste and giving it out for free, and those who really want fluoride can actually have it. But, after all, they desire to shove it into our bodies, and not allow us consent.

The fluoride being forcibly jammed into people's bodies makes me think of chemtrails. We cannot stop breathing. To what end is this madness, and how far must it go before people realise even part of the extent of the madness?
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - Henry L. Mencken

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant. - Henry L. Mencken
Reply
09-16-2012, 03:55 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-16-2012, 04:28 PM by h3rm35.)
#6
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
The people of portland didn't "give in." There was a broad cross section of the public at the meeting a couple weeks ago and at the vote. we were not quiet. we presented petitions to put it to the ballot, and they were ignored. The only reason myself and others were ejected for spewing venom at the council was because we already knew this was going to be forced through, no matter what was said. The propaganda machine was only fired up after the council was in the bag, and then it was full-bore so that anybody on the outside looking in would think it was a bunch of freaks in the minority making noise... that's the reason I selected the articles that I did - to show that there wasn't a single mainstream outlet that took us seriously or examined the issue with any objectivity. In the time between the meeting and the vote, we picked up 7000 signatures in a city of roughly 600k. If we had time, we'd have had tens of thousands. The fight isn't over though.There are movements in the works to be timed to get an injunction as a last resort, and others to force a ballot measure. You're not going to hear much about it in the news, though.

The only people allowed to record the proceedings were MSM, so this is the most you'll probably get to see:




this footage starts a good 20 minutes after they started ejecting people.

Unlike most lefty states in this country, Oregon doesn't hand out medicaid to those at a certain poverty level. They say they don't have enough money to do so, (which is total bullshit. Even though there's no sales tax here, they gouge the fuck out of us in payroll tax.) They place people into "lotteries," and the "winners" are then studied to see "how effective, regular medical care raises their quality of life." It seems their "studies" are too important to refocus their funding to give children adequate dental care (if that's their actual intention with this maneuver,) - they'd rather poison us all and place a percentage of the impoverished under the microscope.

Youy said this remind you of chemtrails, and I get that and concurr... but what gets me is the timing with this nation-wide push to get the public to believe that GMO's pose no significant risk and are just as healthy as organics. Its a full court press against perople taking their health into their own hands. I'm expecting another barrage of scare-mongering around vaccinations any second now... 10...9...8...7...6...
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
09-17-2012, 01:42 AM,
#7
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
As far as GMO's go and that faked Stanford study, it is sickening. Ever see this fun little book? We are all stupid sheep who just hate good things for no reason, I suppose. Fluoride really does help the teeth, chemtrails are just there to save polar bears, and GMO's will end world hunger? It seems as if their entire goal is to poison us in every manner possible. All this makes for a wonderful science fiction novel, but the enthusiasm to find out what the next plot is diminishes when you realise it directly effects you. I am waiting for the day, hoping it will happen, when we see politicians hanging by their neck ties from the nearest tree. Until that day comes, our voices will be heard only by the wind.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - Henry L. Mencken

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant. - Henry L. Mencken
Reply
09-17-2012, 10:42 PM,
#8
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
(09-17-2012, 01:42 AM)Anarchist Wrote: As far as GMO's go and that faked Stanford study, it is sickening. Ever see this fun little book?

Fuckin' A! No I hadn't. Has that been upped to the tracker yet?
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
09-17-2012, 11:14 PM,
#9
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
I did not see it on the tracker, so I fixed that.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - Henry L. Mencken

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant. - Henry L. Mencken
Reply
09-21-2012, 08:23 AM,
#10
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
http://www.naturalnews.com/037270_Portland_water_fluoridation_citizens.html

Natural News Wrote:The Portland, Ore., City Council may be adamant about becoming one of the last major cities in the U.S. to add fluoride to the local water system, but citizens opposed to the move are equally adamant about stopping them.

A group that calls itself "Clean Water Portland" announced immediately after the council voted 5-0 to add the chemical to the region's drinking water it would challenge the decision through a citizen-initiated referendum, OregonLive.com, a local media source, reported.

The referendum differs from an initiative, which opponents previously called for, in that it has the potential to suspend the city's pending ordinance that takes effect in about 30 days, even though city officials have said they weren't planning to add fluoride to drinking water until 2014.

"If the petition qualifies for the ballot, the effective date of the ordinance is suspended until a public vote," Andrew Bryans of the city auditor's office said.

Clean Water Portland needs to collect nearly 20,000 valid signatures to put the measure to a vote.

...
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - Henry L. Mencken

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant. - Henry L. Mencken
Reply
09-21-2012, 06:23 PM,
#11
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
I'll let you know how the petition thing shakes out. It'd be beautiful to shut this shit down. If it can happen anywhere, it can happen here. It's a good thing the fall/winter weather the northwest is famous for hasn't kicked in yet.
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
09-22-2012, 07:47 AM,
#12
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
A municipality south of my city in my home province have successfully banned fluoride; among other places.

Calgary fluoride decision final
Posted: Apr 15, 2011 6:05 PM MT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/04/15/calgary-flouride-environment-drinking-water.html

Reposted from http://concen.org/forum/thread-44897-post-238841.html#pid238841
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
09-24-2012, 05:35 AM,
#13
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
Safe or not. We should not be forced to consume a substance physically added to our water supply. If the commissioners are so set on preventing tooth decay, let them make fluoride tablets free to the consumers that they are targeting. They can include a pamphlet with instructions for a parent on the proper procedures in brushing and flossing the teeth of their toddlers and young children who need their assistance in order to stop tooth decay. Leaving the rest of us out of being forced to ingest into our bodies additives which have been strategically placed in our water supply that we have to consume to stay alive.Devil14
Reply
09-24-2012, 06:09 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-24-2012, 06:20 PM by h3rm35.)
#14
RE: Literally jamming flouride down Portland's collective throat
Just1Voice, are you in PDX? You don't have to answert here, PM me if you want. I would have PMed you, but I can't.

(09-22-2012, 07:47 AM)FastTadpole Wrote: A municipality south of my city in my home province have successfully banned fluoride; among other places.

Calgary fluoride decision final
Posted: Apr 15, 2011 6:05 PM MT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/04/15/calgary-flouride-environment-drinking-water.html

Reposted from http://concen.org/forum/thread-44897-post-238841.html#pid238841

awesome. I really think we can beat this here. we need ~20k sigs by Oct. 12th to override the council and put it to a vote, but I'm pretty sure we can pull it off.

via email:



A just released KATU/Survey poll of 588 voters found Portland voters overwhelmingly against the decision by Mayor Sam Adams, Randy Leonard and the rest of the Portland City Council to add fluoridation chemicals to Portland's water without a public vote. Also a majority of voters said they were against water fluoridation! (45% opposed, 43% in favor). Help us give the Portland City Council the democracy lesson they deserve and gather some signatures and make an on-line donation for our professional signature gathering effort today!
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
10-15-2012, 10:32 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-15-2012, 10:50 PM by h3rm35.)
#15
Thumbs Up  RE: jamming fluoride down Portland's throat [Update - we beat there corrupt asses!!!]
Clean water Portland cleaned up, gathering more than double the amount of petition singnatures necessary to keep the city council from railroading their corrupt sell-out!!! It looked like an uphill battle in the early days, short on time (one month exactly,) but the community came together and took the descision out of their hands and put it in ours:

Quote:Anti-fluoride group collects 43,236 signatures in fight for Portland vote
Published: Thursday, October 11, 2012, 3:58 PM Updated: Thursday, October 11, 2012, 4:20 PM

Fluoride opponents celebrated Thursday outside Portland City Hall after submitting more than twice as many signatures needed to force a public vote on the city’s controversial plan.

Leaders of Clean Water Portland said 43,236 voters signed a petition to block -- and refer to the ballot -- the city's Sept. 12 decision approving fluoride.

City and county election officials will have 30 days to certify the referendum effort, which requires at least 19,858 valid signatures. Opponents turned in their paperwork one day ahead of their deadline.

"This is a miraculous day," said opponent Roger Burt, who watched in the city Auditor's office as Clean Water Portland leaders turned over seven boxes filled with hundreds of pages of signatures. Burt in 1980 helped drive the ballot measure that overturned a voter-approved 1978 decision to add fluoride.

"This rarely happens," he said of the presumed-to-be successful referendum.

At 2:55 p.m., organizers headed outside and received cheers from about 50 onlookers who came to celebrate.

Kim Kaminski, who led the petition effort, said the group could make a recommendation to the City Council as soon as next week about election options. As a default, the city would schedule a vote in May 2014. But the council could choose a 2013 date if it decides the issue is in the "public interest."

Kaminski said she thinks citizens will shoot down fluoride, whenever they get a chance to vote.

"Judging from the response we've gotten from them now, and judging from the fact Portlanders tend to think for themselves, I'm very confident," she said.

and via email:

Quote:Congratulations! Thank you! And Next Steps!

We did what they said couldn't be done! Because of your efforts and generous donations we are confident that the referendum will qualify and voters will have a chance to reject the City Council's misguided plan to pollute some of the best drinking water in the world.

What's more, your 43,236 signatures sent a message to the fluoridation lobbyists, Randy Leonard, Mayor Sam Adams and the rest of the City Council that Portland will not tolerate their undemocratic sneak attack in the rush add fluoridation chemicals into Portland's waters.

So give yourself a good pat on the back for all your hard work in defense of our water and our democracy - we now have a powerful start to the campaign ahead. A month ago we were strangers united only by a common respect for our water, democracy, good science and individual choice. Today, we are a movement!

What's next? Today is a day to celebrate, but it's also the first day of the campaign for clean water! The City Council could opt to hold a vote on the referendum as early as March of 2013, a short 5 1/2 months away.

What can you do to help? We have a great opportunity to build on the momentum of the last month. We need people to help with an unprecedented campaign to educate Portland about the risks of water fluoridation and the need for better ways to protect children's health than dumping industrial byproducts into their drinking water.

Please email us at info@cleanwaterportland.org and put the words "I want to help" in the subject line and we'll let you know when we have our first organizing meeting in the next few weeks.

Thank you again for everything- I look forward to continuing to work with you!

Kim Kaminski, Chief Petitioner
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Skepdic on Russel Blaylock, vaccinations, fluoride, aluminium, aspartame.. bristopen 0 342 03-21-2014, 11:18 AM
Last Post: bristopen
  Are There Ways to Remove Fluoride? partdays 24 8,453 04-08-2013, 09:14 AM
Last Post: Defendfreedom
  Fluoride and Aspartame wokensheep 45 16,617 11-30-2012, 11:32 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  An Inconvenient Tooth - Fluoride Documentary capnchronic 3 1,690 09-29-2012, 04:15 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Exclamation Portland, Oregon to spend $5 million to poison its residents with toxic fluoride h3rm35 1 847 09-17-2012, 10:48 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Fukushima Update: Arnie Gunderson @ fairewinds.com 2011.09.26 yeti 1 764 09-28-2011, 12:37 PM
Last Post: IanPotter
Video Fluoride: The Hard to Swallow Truth Documentary Dunamis 2 900 07-15-2011, 02:00 PM
Last Post: Dunamis
  Fears over fluoride plans TriWooOx 4 972 06-01-2011, 07:34 AM
Last Post: yeti
  Fluoride will be added to Southampton's water, despite protests TriWooOx 1 651 05-04-2011, 11:51 PM
Last Post: jao
  Go-ahead for fluoride in tap water TriWooOx 0 460 02-11-2011, 07:07 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)