To have your signature count toward the citizen reforendum you must physically sign a paper ballot.
Please visit CleanWaterPortland.org to download their petition to get a reforendum on the ballot so we can take it to the voters.
The City Council of the City of Portland has decided that they are going spend $5 million to fluoridate our drinking water in spite of overwhelming current and historic public opinion against fluoridation, and the obvious ethical concerns of forced medication. Please help send a clear message to City Council that we do not want Fluoride in our water.
I have felt well represented by Portland City Council throughout my life and I appreciate the hard work and dedication, but I am afraid that the City Council is considering making a morally questionable choice and that it is my duty to make my voice heard.
First of all, Portland Public Schools already provides free Fluoride rinses and has for years. It's topical (as Fluoride is intended to be used), not ingested, has a controlled dose, provides medical choice, and is much cheaper than a $5 million plant with a $575,000 per year operating cost.
I'm appalled that my city council would even consider adding Fluoride to my drinking water. We all know there is a lot of controversy over it's effectiveness and toxic health effects. 41% of American children age 12-15 have fluorosis due to Fluoride overexposure (Center for Disease Control). There are many studies that show that Fluoride causes brain damage, including a recent study from Harvard showing that Fluoride exposure reduces the IQ of children (National Institutes of Health).While controversy exists over whether Fluoride causes osteosarcoma, a bone cancer that primarily affects boys and young men (Bassin et al.), it is biologically plausible for fluoride to be the causative factor. (Harvard Medical School). (references below) (This is all laid out in a recent LA Times article also sited below)
Regardless of your perspective of the effectiveness vs the toxic effects, there is another major concern. That of forced medication, regardless of consent or medical need, without the ability to properly control the individual dose. Why add it to our drinking water? What gives you the right to decide for me and my family that we are going to be medicated by the city of Portland? I want a serious answer to this question. We drink a lot of water in our house, more than the average American, so we would have an even higher dose of a medication that carries serious risks. It is also incredibly difficult and costly to remove from water once added.
If we decide that we do even want to arbitrarily medicate everyone in Portland regardless of their consent or medical needs, drinking water is an incredibly inefficient way of doing so. Only 0.5% of tap water is consumed, leaving 99.5% of this toxic chemical to go into our environment. The Fluoride used in fluoridation schemes is a highly hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry, not food grade Fluoride.The EPA permitted level of Fluoride causes "lethal and adverse effects on salmon." (Fluoride Salmon Study see below)
This is not some wacko conspiracy theory. Portland is currently in good company. Austria, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland, to name a few, have all rejected Fluoridation.
I fear that if city council goes through with this it will be like the reservoir cover debacle, where the city spends lots of money on something the public doesn't want and it ends up being a waste.
Please consider my plea to respect our medical freedom. Don't do it just because other big American cities do it. They do lots of things that we don't do. We are Portland. We do what is right and equitable, not what is popular.
Thank you for your consideration.
Here are some quotes from officials in other countries regarding their choice to respect the medical freedom of their people, the environmental impact of Fluoride in our rivers, and the ineffectiveness of water as a medium for Fluoride.
“Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000).
“This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000).
The Chinese government now considers any water supply containing over 1 ppm fluoride a risk for skeletal fluorosis. (Bo Z, et al. (2003). Distribution and risk assessment of fluoride in drinking water in the West Plain region of Jilin Province, China. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 25: 421-431.)
“Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered:
· uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such)
· unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
· unethical (“forced medication”)
· toxicologically and physiologically debatable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of
supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health threatening intake in certain population groups...” (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999).
“We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.” (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999)
“We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000).
Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water.” (Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.)
“Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.” (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, France, August 25, 2000).
“Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.” (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999).
“Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.” (JeanMarie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 2000).
National Institutes of Health and Harvard School of Public Health: Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
23 additional studies that also show the correlation between Fluoride use and lowered IQ.
Fluroide Salmon Study
Harvard Medical School: Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States)
L.A. Times: Fluoride in drinking water
BBC News: Belgum bans Fluoride supplements