Indy Week | Comment Archives

Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

Thanks for the coverage on this. To me, it's all about the fact that we are being dosed with a dangerous compound against our will. It's as simple as that. I do not consent for OWASA to drug me.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by jackincarr on 10/06/2017 at 2:54 PM

Re: “Muslim Raleigh City Council Candidate Zainab Baloch Says Defacement of Her Sign Won't Stop Her Campaign

Show your rejection of this hate and VOTE for Zainab!

32 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Apache101 on 10/06/2017 at 2:14 PM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Spencer Spencer Spencer...

* ...a NIH/NIEHS/EPA sponsored study validated...

...In Mexico. Where intake of Fluoride is very different than in the US, and where the study was unable to control for the source or actual volume of intake.

* ...Ambassador Andrew Young wrote a letter opposing fluoridation ...

Andrew Young depends on FO sites for his reasoning and supporting documentation, and in turn FO sites use Andrew Young as evidence that "third parties" agree with them. It's a circular firing squad with neither side showing actual evidence.

* ...Lois Gibbs...

Same as Andrew Young, she and FO groups are using circular references as supporting evidence that their viewpoints are correct, with no evidence otherwise.

* ...2010, UNESCO wrote ...

That's a really broad and unsupported reading of what UNESCO wrote. Under that interpretation, things like NGO efforts to do mosquito killing for prevention of malaria would be disapproved of, too.

* ...OWASA is locked in an early to mid 20th century time warp...

Yeah, it's like the mid-20th century, arguing with all of these groups who think they know better than the informed consensus of all-but the entire scientific community that studies things like this. It's like talking to anti-vaxxers.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Mark Neill on 10/06/2017 at 12:46 PM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

In Sept 2017, a NIH/NIEHS/EPA sponsored study validated what dozens of other human studies have found, that prenatal exposure to fluoride in low doses consistent with 'optimal' fluoridation has a subtle dampening effect on IQ, i.e. lowers it by up to 6 points on a dose-response trend line - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

In Sept 2017, an international association of dentists (IAOMT) updated their position statement that among other things opposes fluoridation policy - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

In Oct 2016, Ambassador Andrew Young wrote a letter opposing fluoridation as a practice that disproportionately harms African American and Hispanic babies - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

In Sept 2015, Lois Gibbs, founder of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ), wrote that fluoridation is an environmental injustice that harms people and planet - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

In 2010, UNESCO wrote in their documents on Human Dignity, Bioethics, and Medical Consent that, "In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individuals informed consent" - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

OWASA is locked in an early to mid 20th century time warp. Like Sergeant Shultz - they see nothing, hear nothing and just follow orders regardless of the fact that no one, not the CDC or Dept of Health, has the authority to order fluoride into the water - but OWASA does not expect to revisit their decision to fluoridate water supplies.

2 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by K Spencer on 10/06/2017 at 12:24 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

K Spencer

In regard to your recommendation to read intormation from the IAOMT:

"The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo.[1] They were responsible for the "smoking tooth" video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson's and autism. They sell filling removal kits for "dentists" along with various other nature woo, mostly vitamin supplements. The organization also opposes water fluoridation, claims to put out peer-reviewed "research," and supports "health freedom."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Academy_of_Oral_Medicine_and_Toxicology

Rather than wasting time perusing nonsense posted on activist websites which answer to no one but themselves, readers would be far better served by obtaining accurate information on fluoridation from respected, reliable sources. The websites of the CDC, the EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of such information readily available to anyone.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Steven Slott on 10/06/2017 at 7:48 AM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

K Spencer

1. As usual, you cite studies you have not read, much less understood.

The study you reference is that of Bashash, et al., Utilizing data on urinary fluoride content in pregnant women living in non-fluoridated Mexico, researchers studied the effects on children from prenatal exposure to high levels of fluoride. At this point, this study has no applicability to optimally fluoridated water in the US.

The limitations clearly stated in the study include:

A. A lack of data on urinary fluoride content of pregnant women living in fluoridated areas of the United States. Fluoridation opponents seek to do what the authors, themselves, did not do....compare urinary fluoride content of one population with non-existent data of another.

Finally, our ability to extrapolate our results to how exposures may impact on the general population is limited given the lack of data on fluoride pharmacokinetics during pregnancy. There are no reference values for urinary fluoride in pregnant women in the United States

B. Insufficient information to rule out significant confounders.

Nevertheless, it is not possible to entirely rule out residual confounding or in the population as a whole (that might have been detected had we had full data on larger sample sizes) or bias (should the subpopulations that had the data for analysis have a different fluoridecognition relationship than those participants who were excluded from the analyses).

C. There was no significant effect noted by fluoride exposure on children after birth.

Finally, in models that focused on the cross-sectional relationship between childrens exposure to fluoride (reflected by their specific gravityadjusted urinary fluoride levels) and IQ score and that contained the main covariates of interest, there was not a clear, statistically significant association between contemporaneous childrens urinary fluoride (CUFsg) and IQ either unadjusted or adjusting for MUFcr.

D. Evidence suggested that IQ effects were noted only with prenatal urinary content above 0.8 mg/L.

The associations with GCI appeared to be linear across the range of prenatal exposures, but there was some evidence that associations with IQ may have been limited to exposures above 0.8 mg/L.

E. Results would need to be replicated by independent researchers.

Our findings must be confirmed in other study populations, and additional research is needed to determine how the urine fluoride concentrations measured in our study population are related to fluoride exposures resulting from both intentional supplementation and environmental contamination.

F. Other limitations include the lack of information about iodine in salt, which could modify associations between fluoride and cognition; the lack of data on fluoride content in water given that determination of fluoride content is not reported as part of the water quality monitoring programs in Mexico; and the lack of information on other environmental neurotoxicants such as arsenic.

G. Bashash, et al., utilized the spot collection method of urine collection, rater than the more
accurate 24 hour method.

As noted by Deena Thomas, second author of Bashash, et al:

The spot urine samples we measured cannot account for diurnal variations in urinary fluoride. Previous studies report fluctuations in concentration by time-of-day. 42 which means that the fluoride levels in our samples could be influenced by the time-of-collection or by diet.

Additionally, in her doctoral thesis, Deena Thomas, using the exact data as did Bashash, reported on the effects of prenatal fluoride on children aged 1, 2, and 3. She found no significant effect on these children. Bashash, chose to omit these findings, and instead began their IQ assessment in children 4 years of age.

Obviously, Bashash, et al. had the same data as did Thomas, so why did they omit any reference to children below the age of 4? Too, that Bashash, et al. oddly reported on children 4 years of age and those 6-12 years, begs the question as to why they omitted data from age 5 from their report. Was there insufficient data on that age group, or did that group show no, or positive, impact om neurodevelopment, which would have knocked a hole in their linear progression ?

From Thomas dissertation:

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that maternal intake of fluoride during pregnancy does not have a strong impact on offspring cognitive development in the first three years of life.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Steven Slott on 10/06/2017 at 7:36 AM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

James Reeves - You posted this same comment to an article about the renewal of fluoridation in yesterday's Indy Week. It is still as inaccurate today as it was yesterday.

K Spencer - The OWASA board actually read, understood and acted on legitimate scientific evidence instead of the fear-laced, unsupportable propaganda submitted by fluoridation opponents.

Have you actually read the Hu, et al. IQ study you claim to cite? Like all other such studies used by fluoridation opponents in their attempt to prove drinking optimally fluoridated water causes serious health problems, this one came up with a possible correlation which is nowhere near proof of anything. Like all other such studies, if you had actually read or understood the paper, you would have seen the lack of adjustment for the perhaps dozens of other possible risk factors which might influence IQ like lead, mercury or arsenic levels which were not available for most participants.

Did you read the five paragraphs that described the rather significant limitations of their study? The authors conclusion was that their study might have demonstrated excessive levels of fluoride exposure were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 612 y old That is not even remotely close to demonstrating a cause and effect relationship.

Already criticisms of this most recent study and examples of the anti-F misuse of the actual conclusions have been published.
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/fluoride-pregnancy-and-the-iq-of-offspring/ - Ken Perrott seems to have done an excellent preliminary analysis of the study.
http://nationalpost.com/health/researchers-urge-caution-over-study-linking-fluoride-exposure-in-pregnancy-to-lower-iqs-in-children

Nys Cof brought up the IAOM position paper in a comment to the fluoridation article. The IAOM is a fringe group of dentists that has increased their bottom line by advocating the removal of durable, long-lasting amalgam fillings by employing the same types of scare tactics used in the campaign against fluoridation frighten the public into bypassing critical thinking so they will believe your scam. Unfortunately irrational, unjustifiable fear sells a product or idea far more effectively than a careful consideration of all the facts and evidence.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Randy Johnson on 10/06/2017 at 1:13 AM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Micah I understand your passion for being a clean water advocate. I am actually a strong advocate of safe water that protects the health of the citizens who drink it, since clean water, by any reasonable definition of clean (Free from foreign matter or pollution; unadulterated) is impossible for municipal water which will always contain a number of contaminants which are within EPA guidelines of safety. The definition of clean water adopted by fluoridation opponents (FOs), however, apparently only means the absence of a specific chemical (fluorine) thatactually has decades of evidence that demonstrates it reduces the risk of dental decay which can cause health problems. Maintaining a low level of fluoride ions along with residual disinfectants (and other chemicals added to adjust pH, reduce corrosion and flocculate contaminants) makes the water safe and protects the health of those who drink it. Are you an advocate of dental decay?

Your accusation that the OWASA board either chose to ignore all of [the anti-F] information, not read it or disregarded altogether conveniently leaves out an important fourth option the one that they actually chose. They actually listened to the anti-F propaganda, reviewed it and understood that it does not provide any legitimate proof that fluoridation is either harmful or ineffective at reducing dental decay. The board accepted the scientific consensus of relevant experts because there was insufficient evidence to do otherwise that scientific evidence is why over 100 national and international health and science organizations (and their thousands of members) continue to publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation and none to my knowledge accept the anti-F opinions.

The anti-F examples mentioned in Ms. Willets article, as well as the anti-F arguments in this comment section, demonstrate the way FOs disingenuously present their evidence in a manner designed to spread fear and distrust of fluoridation and the supporters. It also illustrates precisely why FOs have been unable to change the scientific consensus their evidence is fabricated. Examples:
1) Daria Barazandeh using the dont fluoridate water because you shouldnt swallow toothpaste argument a regular tube of fluoridated toothpaste has over 1,000 times the level of fluoride ions as a liter of water. While you can get sick from swallowing toothpaste, you cant from drinking water (not from the fluoride ions anyway). Her other claim that support for fluoride use is being perpetuated by "endorsements" from the CDC and entrenched financial interests is a common anti-F accusation, but there is never any evidence provided to demonstrate and prove how those organizations have been able to convince all mainstream science, dental and health organizations and their members to support an (according to the FOs beliefs) obviously dangerous and ineffective practice.
2) Sharon Reese accusing all of the dentists, doctors, other health professionals and scientists who recognize the benefits of fluoridation as apparently not only accepting, but supporting and promoting, a public health practice they know to be extremely harmful because They might be in their fifties or sixties and have believed this their whole lives, and it's really very difficult to change your mind." Really? I think its far more probable that a few outliers who have a severe, irrational, unsupportable self-inflicted fear of fluoride ions have refused to accept the majority of scientific evidence from 70 years of studies and chosen to believe only that which agrees with their paranoia.
3) The informed consent argument is for medical treatments (as illustrated by alderman Slades resolution). And yet there is no proof, law or court decision that has classified community water fluoridation as a medication. In fact, the FDA classifies bottled water which can contain fluoride ions at the same level as in optimally fluoridated water. No prescription required and no warnings to call poison control if you drink a bottle or two or ten.
4) When one actually examines the evidence provided by FOs in support of their misdirected crusade it is evident why it has not changed the scientific consensus. The deceptive tactics include using:
A) partially true statements used in an inappropriate and deceptive context like, fluoride is a poison, fluoride is hazardous to your health, etc. As discussed, fluoride, along with all other substances are poisonous and hazardous at excessive exposure levels.
B) studies where the conclusions are used out of context like the 2006 NRC Fluoride Review and the 2015 Cochrane Review
C) studies where exposure to excessive levels of fluoride ions (tens to hundreds of times higher than found in fluoridated water) are used to prove fluoridation is harmful
D) studies that show a possible correlation or association between fluoride exposure and some health effect are used to try and prove fluoridation causes the harm. Correlation does not prove correlation, and the dozens of possible alternative causes are never sufficiently identified or analyzed. Recent examples include the 2012 Harvard IQ study by Choi et al., the 2014 Grandjean,Landrigan - Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity paper, the 2015 Peckham, et al. hypothyroidism study, the 2015 Malin, Till ADHD study, and the just released Hu, et al. IQ study.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Randy Johnson on 10/06/2017 at 1:00 AM

Re: “Heading to Biff Rose Tonight? You Might Want to Check His Website.

Biff Rose is a sad old bore.

Thank you for protecting people from him.

Just kidding, he is a sad old bore but I prefer him to your dumb fucking internet shaming and manufactured outrage.

Please remove the word "Indy" from your name.

You obviously specialize in Orwellian groupthink and newspeak.

You suck more than Biff Rose.

5 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Merkley on 10/05/2017 at 11:34 PM

Re: “Durham City Council Votes to Provide Grants to Some Southside Residents Struggling with Property Tax Bills

Loan Offer Alert For Everyone! Are you financially down and you need an urgent credit/financial assistance? Or are you in need of a loan to start-up/increase your business or buy your dream house. We offer all kind of funding at a very low interest rate of 3% with reliable terms and condition. For more info Contact Email: rogerwalkerloans@gmail.com with the amount you need as a loan and the loan amount duration.

Contact Email: rogerwalkerloans@gmail.com

Posted by Roger Walker on 10/05/2017 at 8:35 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

I suggest OWASA should read something other than marketing copy.

I recommend the NIH sponsored study published on Sept 19th that verified dozens of previous human studies that found prenatal exposure to fluoride reduces IQ in offspring on a dose-response trend line by six points. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319500.php

They may also find the updated position paper by an international association of dentists opposing fluoridation educational. Also published in Sept. IAOMT resource page: https://iaomt.org/for-patients/fluoride-facts/

1 like, 4 dislikes
Posted by K Spencer on 10/05/2017 at 7:02 PM

Re: “Heading to Biff Rose Tonight? You Might Want to Check His Website.

I know that the owners of Neptune's embrace diversity and abhor bigotry. A mistake made? I am sure they think so. They should be applauded for canceling this show.

4 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Lisa Lewis on 10/05/2017 at 6:20 PM

Re: “Cry of Love vocalist Kelly Holland died depressed, but not alone

I met Kelly and Audley once at a small venue in Portland Oregon at a Cheap Trick Concert in 1993 or 1994. I cannot remember. They were the opening band and totally captivated the crowd. They both came to the bar area of the venue after playing. We shared some beers together and I knew that there was something terribly wrong with Kelly, but god damn could he make you smile, laugh, and you knew that if you were buddies with him it would be a wild ride. He was that Charismatic! Audley was the opposite. Calm cool and very humble. We watched Cheap Trick and they both watched with me as fans of the band. It was a good night. I'll never forget Kelly! RIP

Posted by Brian Johnson 1 on 10/05/2017 at 6:15 PM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Thank you Sarah for writing this fair article about our efforts locally here. And Alex wonderful photograph.
One stipulation I had with the article was in paragraph six. Where you said that Owasa has not seen any compelling evidence to overturn this practice.
We actually have provided them so much legitimate information, resources and studies from legitimate schools, and large organizations such as the NIH. But unfortunately they either chose to ignore all of our information, not read it or disregarded altogether.
Anyway it's great to have this press especially for the community. This is the type of journalism I always regarded the Indy for covering in the past. Thank you. Micah Intrator - clean water advocate.

1 like, 4 dislikes
Posted by Micah Intrator on 10/05/2017 at 4:49 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

Some say fluoride helps CHILDRENS teeth as they form. That is certainly questionable, but:
It is important to ask --- exactly why should an ADULT be sentenced to take this toxic chemical, fluoride, in every glass of water every day of life?

Fluoridation results in slow poisoning over a lifetime which causes premature ageing, thyroid damage, dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, ADHD, brittle bones (broken hips & arthritis), kidney damage, cancer and other health dangers.
Read this excellent book, "The Case Against Fluoride" authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.

So, while 74% of the U.S. is forced to drink fluoridate water, only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their water. China and Japan have rejected it many years ago.

4 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by James Reeves on 10/05/2017 at 2:21 PM

Re: “Nancy McFarlane Presides Over a Thriving City. Charles Francis Says She Doesn’t Deserve the Credit.

We have had enough boosterism with McFarlane as Raleigh mayor and Baldwin on the council these past several years...I like that Francis appears more focused on real (but chronically neglected) problems and real solutions, rather than the band-aids McFarlane prefers, with almost reverent deference to the city manager and city staff.

Bottom line: McFarlane thinks tearing down our affordable housing stock is good. At least Francis isn't so sure about it and willing to talk serious solutions.

11 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by citizenshame on 10/05/2017 at 12:26 PM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Nys Cof and other fluoridation opponents (FOs) are notorious for employing various scare-mongering techniques like making a general claim completely out of context for the singular purpose of inducing fear instead of encouraging a thoughtful, accurate evaluation of evidence.

Water is Hazardous to Your Health! This is as accurate a statement as the one used by Nys Cof about fluoride. Of course, like Nys Cof's claim, it completely ignores the fact that absolutely any substance can be hazardous to ones health at high enough exposure levels even those that are beneficial or essential to health at lower exposure levels like oxygen, sodium, chlorine, iodine, potassium, vitamins, caffeine, etc., etc.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill/

Fact the scientific consensus of relevant experts is what continues to support the conclusion of over 70 years that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing dental decay. The so-called evidence put forth by FOs has not been of sufficient quality or reproducibility to change that consensus, and most of what is presented as evidence (including the recent US study) is simply a disingenuous misrepresentation of actual study results which have never proved that drinking optimally fluoridated water has caused any harm unless someone suffered the harm from exposure to excessive H2O molecules.

The IAOM is a fringe group of dentists that has increased their bottom line by advocating the removal of durable, long-lasting amalgam fillings by employing the same types of scare tactics used in the campaign against fluoridation frighten the public into bypassing critical thinking so they will believe your scam. Unfortunately irrational, unjustifiable fear sells a product or idea far more effectively than a careful consideration of all the facts and evidence.

http://thebloggingdentist.com/?p=238
When Dr. Oz uses the term mercury filling hes pointing out the scary, toxic ingredient of the filling. Thats used to frame the discussion, so right away someone who isnt thinking critically is thinking, whoa, I didnt know they placed mercury fillings!
http://www.ada.org/en/about-the-ada/ada-positions-policies-and-statements/statement-on-dental-amalgam
Dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans.

4 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Randy Johnson on 10/05/2017 at 11:47 AM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

How can you people be running around with dictionaries and chemical representations and all, and not understand the difference between free anions of fluorine, and the chemical compounds sodium fluoride or sodium monofluorophosphate, which are the predominant ones used for fluoride in water systems?

OMG SUGAR HAS HYDROGEN IN IT WHY ARE WE EATING HIGHLY FLAMMABLE CHEMICALS?!?!?!??!

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Mark Neill on 10/05/2017 at 10:59 AM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Fluoride is Hazardous to Your Health - Modern science proves that ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, harmful to health and a waste of money. Politic$ not science keeps fluoridation afloat. A recent US study links pregnant women's fluoride levels to their offspring's low IQ. This study adds to 300+ studies linking fluoride to neurotoxic effects - even at low levels allowed in public water supplies - the same water that is used to make many of the foods and beverages you purchase in restaurants and supermarkets. http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride…

Yesterday, an International Dentists' group, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology issued a news release urging the end of fluoridation
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fl…

3 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Nys Cof on 10/05/2017 at 9:19 AM

Re: “Raleigh City Council Members Agree to Meet October 30 on New Community Engagement Board

As a long-time Raleigh resident, I'd not leave "community engagement" to the city staff because they are pro-development (knowing who helps pay their salaries) by nature. City staff's incompetence, arrogance and biases have been personally observed in their longstanding disrespect and institutional neglect of the neighborhood-based Citizens Advisory Councils. And besides, aren't our elected council members supposed to be engaging the community?

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by citizenshame on 10/05/2017 at 8:02 AM

Our Guides

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation