Wednesday, February 06, 2008

No On Fluoride? YES!!!

I think I've mentioned before that I don't usually glue myself to the television to follow election results. There's just bad news to be heard, for the most part. I watched maybe ten minutes of election coverage last night and heard mostly bad news in the making.

When I finally got around to checking whatever results were in this morning it started with the bad news, as expected. Looks like the major parties chose two of their lamest candidates to carry their banner in the run for the presidency. No real big deal there since it looks like it might be between Hillary and McCain. Won't make a whole lot of difference which one wins given the two choices.

Then I found the developing results of the ballot initiatives. This might be a personal historical moment for me. Of the three ballot initiatives I voted No on, all three appear to be losing. That's kind of nice to win for a change. Seems I usually lose at least half of whatever ballot initiatives are on the ballot.

Then again, there's those indian gaming initiatives that I didn't vote on. I started leaning No on them after I'd voted some weeks ago. Looks like they might pass.

Still, no big deal with all of the initiatives. I wasn't all fired up about any of them and I suspect many others weren't either.

Then I became ecstatic. I'd forgotten about the fluoride measure in Manilla. Voters got to chose whether they wanted fluoride shoved down their throats. Looks like it was defeated pretty handily. YES... but why should I care? I live in Eureka and already have fluoridated water.

I've said before here that I don't have any particular fear of fluoridated water. My problem with fluoride is that some people don't want fluoride in their water and they would be forced to have it if this measure passed.

Fortunately for all, as far as I'm concerned, it was handily defeated. For some reason I think I felt that this was a great victory for libertarianism as the vote seemed to indicate a belief in personal choice by the residents of Manilla.


If the reasons people voted against the measure were known, though, I'm sure I'd likely be disappointed. While I'm sure some voted from the personal choice perspective most probably just felt it would an unsafe additive to their water. If it was some other chemical they deemed to be safe, they might well have been willing to force it down their neighbor's throats.

No way I'll ever know for sure so, for now, a win is a win. I'll just enjoy it.

11 Comments:

At 9:37 AM, Blogger Rose said...

The way I understand it, Manila just condemned all the other districts, like McKinleyville, with their vote because it was to be a joint project. YOu may be happy. Parents who have to use supplemental flouride for their kids as a result may be less so.

 
At 9:45 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Yep. I understand this was an all or none thing. Perhaps you can figure some way to just get the Mckinleyville water fluoridated. After all, it's supposed to be pretty inexpensive, according to proponents.

Of course, then you'll be forcing people in Mckinleyville who don't want fluoride in their water to accept it. That doesn't seem to concern you, though, so maybe you should get something started?

 
At 12:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How bout this?
Just teach yer kid to Brush their dang Teeth!

 
At 3:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most of the kids that need dental care are enrolled in the Healthy Humboldt insurance which furnishes dental care. Maybe they just need to stop filling the grocery basket with candy and doughnuts.

Lots of people can't drink fluoride treated water for various health conditions. Kidney disease and I recently read it makes osteperosis worse. I'm really gonna be in good shape if it gets in McKinleyville water. Osmosis filter to remove is pretty expensive - over $1,000.

Europe has pretty much given up on fluoride as well as some of the earlier U.S. cities that 40 or 50 years ago added it. Seems those areas have high percentage of a rare bone cancer that is not prevalent in cities without fluoride. Natural fluroride is a different substance than the three kinds of additive used. Maybe that is the difference.

 
At 7:39 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

There is a fluoride mouth wash recommended by dentists and sold at most drug stores called ACT. A $5.00 bottle lasts about 2 months and voilá your neighbors are not subjected to a substance they may oppose. An admitted libertarian solution that works.

 
At 11:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My teeth were fine until high school. Then I made the mistake of chewing Dentine gum. I thought I'd improve my breath and my chances for dates. Instead, I ended up with a mouthful of cavities and fillings.

 
At 6:02 AM, Blogger nyscof said...

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor required for healthy teeth. It's just another drug that should be prescribed individually and monitored for side effects.

Rotten diets make rotten teeth - fluoride can't change that

Take Action to End Fluoridation here:
http://www.fluorideaction.net/congress

 
At 7:10 AM, Blogger Carol said...

As a child, I had flouride treatments every six months during my teeth cleanings at the dentist. I had 1 small cavity filled when I was 18, otherwise perfect teeth. My kids have been raised with well-water, flouride drops as infants, and flouride treatments during their six month dental cleanings - no cavities, even with braces.

My dentist told me our good teeth was hereditary.

 
At 7:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, McKinleyville doesn't get to vote on fluoride, so I'm glad someone other than a politician got to decide.

Fluoride activists want a magic bullet to make themselves feel like they've accomplished something and politicians like low cost ways to fake solutions.

Fluroide won't help anything. Why? The root problem is lifestyle.

Parents buy juice boxes instead of fruits and vegetables because that's what food stamps promote. Then kids sit with sugar on their teeth all day in daycare (who are we kidding? They suck on juice boxes sitting at home) and by high school they've graduated to soda. Kids are indoctrinated, with the help of the government food program, to have a sweet tooth.

If 30% of kids don't see the dentist it's because 30% of parents are negligent. Healthy Families and Medi-Cal pay for kids' dental visits. It's the one area of the health insurance crisis that is not a crisis -- kids get covered if their parents get off their butts and act.

The solution is to effectively educate parents, promote healthy habits from birth and aggressively tackle the issue.

But no, politicians rally clueless activists and newspaper editors into simple solutions that we all know -- come on, open your eyes -- have not worked and will not work. Dental decay is bigger than ever across the country despite fluoride.

Meanwhile, new unimpeached research is raising new questions. You know something is wrong when zealots are frothing so much that they begin calling Scientific American scare mongers. Stop kidding yourself. Your misdirection of the problem is hurting our kids.

 
At 1:35 PM, Blogger Jeff said...

Anybody got any idea what the research on fluoridated water says? Or is looking at the science behind policy beyond the scope of us average folks?

 
At 6:24 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

Anyone been to the UK lately and noticed the "brit smiles"? The lack of dental care is causing brits to pull their own teeth as dental care under the NHS is almost non existent. This is what we can expect with "Hillary Care".

 

Post a Comment

<< Home