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.