Fluoride: Yea or Nay?

I wasn't planning to do a post on this done-to-death subject, but the comments at the end of the PDN article are pretty interesting [see below].  It was nice of the Port Angeles City Council to deign to place an Advisory measure on the local ballot this November.  Who knows, it might be a first step toward someday placing an actual non-advisory, binding fluoride measure on the ballot.

Anyway, enjoy the comments.  They'll probably vanish from the PDN website the first time the article gets "updated."

I don't drink the water in PA....I read the German Studies and the British Studies on fluoride many years ago.....and the Europeans are light years ahead of us on this subject, but our City Councils have not paid attention. The People spoke a number of years ago and said NO when there was a vote, but the next council when money became available jumped at taking the money. Well I for one am tired of all the chemicals that we ingest and swallow in the name of better living. Cancer rates are sky high...........and warning labels are making a bundle on our products shipped in.............Time to reevaluate what is healthy and what is about just taking someone's money who might profit. Fluoride is still a by product of aluminum waste and an easy way to get rid of by products...........just convince society that it is good for you. Its best to look at the studies and trust science.


I want the vote. I do not want the fluoride in my drinking water and agree with Danetta on it's risks. If dentist want there patients to have Flouride then they should give a RX to those that want it. They used to give it out free at some pharmacy's years ago. Why not give people a CHOICE ? Get the Fluoride out of our public water.


What they need to do is some research on health conditions that fluoride effects...... We have a lot of people in town that are Hypothyroid and Fluoride is very toxic to those people it makes the condition worse and harder to keep stabilized..... Information for thought.....


This is a positive step forward and changes nothing in citizen's rights to use a powerful drug in ways they may consider works best for them. Let''s hope it ends with this stuff out of drinking water where amounts ingested from all sources cannot be measured.

Professionals who spoke last night ignored the fact that all drugs have side effects and any drug ingested affects the entire system and not just the targeted teeth. I found it interesting that Dentists spoke of troublesome 3 year olds with a raging cavity and how fluoride in the water would help - yet if we've had it now for 9 years and that kid is a City kid, hasn't he had it all his life already? Another thing they totally ignored is the difference between Sodium Fluoride, Calcium Fluoride and their use of fluorosilicic acid, a toxic waste byproduct containing other heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and mercury. On the one hand, I don't think there was anyone in the room last night who wants to see kids (or anyone) suffer, but I think the answer lies more in accessibility to good dental care for all ages at all stages of their life, affordability and diet - American diet is notoriously bad. Putting that nasty stuff in our water without asking us and doing it for money just looks suspicious. If we can afford wars all over the world, we can afford to better care for our citizens - and they deserve it.


10 years ago I was one of the few, who walked door to door Port Angeles in the cold winter months gathering signatures to get this issue to get a vote. We were denied then. I was once called an activist? Really? I just wanted the right to vote.

I know that the research can show both positive and negative effects of fluoride in the water, and still today research is old and it comes down to opinion of an individual and the medical community and their experience with or without it in the water.

I didn't like that the city I lived in was forcing me to drink it, without my consent. Water filters and Reverse osmosis does not remove it. Also after seeing a note on a water bill from the tri cities area saying "If you are on cancer fighting medication do not drink the city fluoridated water - purchase bottled water"

My guess is hat 10 years ago there was a grant to build it, support it financially and now that the contract is coming due. The city is probably going to have to foot more of the bill, or you the citizens. What better way to get out of paying for something then by having people of the community say they don't want it anymore.

Lets look at the real issue of dental care in the communities. We should support making sure the children in all cities have access to good dental care. I know 10 years ago families were having to travel out of town to Bremerton and Seattle because they could not find a dentist who would accept the state coverage. I understand it all comes down to economics and a dentist can not keep his office open on State dental plans alone. But to force people already financially challeged to go to areas outside of their hometown is just another reason for them not to take their kid in for regular visits.

Pediatricians should be educating the mothers to begin proper care of their babies mouths as soon as they are born. Too many are put to bed with a bottle, given drinks containing sugar and many other issues.

Education not Fluoridation. Good luck PA , sorry you didn't step up 10 years ago...


-comment - "I didn't like that the city I lived in was forcing me to drink it, without my consent. Water filters and Reverse osmosis does not remove it. Also after seeing a note on a water bill from the tri cities area saying "If you are on cancer fighting medication do not drink the city fluoridated water - purchase bottled water" - Thank you.   I did try checking out if any filtration would remove the Flouride they added w/o my consent, but none of them can filter it out sadly they are poisoning us. Even if you are drinking bottled water, you shower in it.