We look lke a bunch of uneducated fools even putting this item to referendum.

There are no ‘sides’ to this debate — only decades of peer reviewed science by the majority of the world’s scientific bodies vs. personal ideologies based on selected misinformation found on anti-fluoride websites.

It’s sad that there are uneducated people attacking the very health care measure designed to protect them.

There is no credible information that says fluoridation at approved levels causes any harm. None. However, there is a mountain of scientific evidence showing the benefits.

Vote it out if you want, only the people who can’t afford top notch dental care will suffer.

Vote to keep it.
Just to keep the tinfoil wearing crowd busy with something besides jihad.

Isn’t it funny that the ‘no’ side can’t find one local health care or dental professional to speak out against the practice.

The question shouldn’t be why to fluoridate or not. It should be why are municipal taxes paying for a healthcare issue? Should this not be coming from Prov or Fed funds?

It’s the party line, which party are you with? Medical professionals will never speak out against something that the rest of the party believes in. But when you have a glass of water think about how you’re drinking it, does it come in contact with your teeth and if so how long? Why does the dentist insist you don’t swallow fluoride during your treatment?

Logic needs to sink in somewhere. Most food products are packed or contain water which most definitely contains fluoride. So why have so many other communities in the Province dropped adding fluoride to the water? When does something become too much?

JohnnyBelt: Isn’t it funny that the ‘no’ side can’t find one local health care or dental professional to speak out against the practice.

Simple Answer: Who in there right mind is going to buck there professional party line.

It’s simply an un-needed waste of money at the municipal level, you want fluoride, buy tooth paste.

This is a simple no. Easy as that. Take the 150k per year and put it into……infrastructure. GASP.

lildigger you call people “sheeple” who chose to have the flu shot. Then criticize those people that appose being forced to consume a medication in their water that we all are told not to swallow at your local dentist office or at home brushing ones teeth. Sounds hypocritical to me.

Professional, dentists tell you not to swallow their fluoride because it is in a high enough dose to be over the allowed intake limit

This is absurd. What’s next, childhood vaccinations?

Professional: “Simple Answer: Who in there (sic) right mind is going to buck there (sic) professional party line.”

There could be an orchestrated conspiracy between the worlds health and dental professionals, or they might subscribe to the decades of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Your choice.

“Dr Paul Connett is an expert on fluoridation” – I appreciate this is what he sells himself as, but some journalistic skepticism is in order here.

A quick google of his name brings up QuackWatch… 3 guesses why?

Another scientific issue where we are expected to take the crazies seriously and listen to their tabloid conspiracies rather than listen to scientific researchers and medical organizations. Seriously bringing in a chemistry professor for a health issue. Scraping the bottom of the barrel I guess.

Of course when JohnnyBelt rightly points out the conspiracy nutters can’t find anyone qualified locally to speak out, Professional deepens the conspiracy saying who will buck the party line.

Answer: no one who knows the peer reviewed research as it is pretty much unconditionally supportive of limited water fluoridation.

To the anti fluoridation activists it’s proof of a conspiracy. To the rest it’s proof of a fringe, unsupported viewpoint.

Vaccines and fluoride are two different issues last time I checked??
American expert = oxymoron

Pretty ignorant to call Nobel Laureates, respected researchers, dentists and scientists fringe element conspiracy theorists just for urging the UN and the WHO to halt water fluoridation globally as it does more harm than good!

But, as long as it is just done by trolls it can’t be taken seriously, eh?

JohnnyBelt: “there are no sides to this debate, only decades of peer reviewed science by the majority of the world’s scientific bodies vs. personal ideologies based on selective information found on anti-fluoride websites.”

Does the US-EPA count as one of the world’s scientific and non-selective bodies or are they considered an anti-fluoride website? How about the Lancet? Or Maybe the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health? The pro-fluoride people had better call the US-EPA and the Lancet and tell them they have it all wrong. The EPA and Lancet seem to think scientific research on fluoride, lead and arsenic exists with substantial evidence confirming toxicity of these and other chemicals. Their report: “Building a Database of Developmental Neurotoxicants: Evidence from Human and Animal Studies suggests caution when exposed to those chemicals. The Lancet suggests; “Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity”, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, dyslexia and other cognitive impairments affect millions of children worldwide. According to them and others like them, fluoride, lead and arsenic are some of the industrial chemicals contributing to children’s health issues. Each of the world’s scientific bodies seems to disagree with some who believe fluoridation, containing all the above chemicals and more, is a healthy drink. What do they know that you don’t?

The Lancet? The publication that said that fluoride at high levels is bad for you? No kidding! Many substances are toxic at high levels, which water fluoridation is not. The EPA says the same.

This is a common tactic. Nothing to see here.

The EPA sets safe levels for fluoridation for communities that fluoridate their water, and all the information is on their website.

Typical anti-fluoride conspiracy tactic already showed up here.

1) find studies stating fluoride can harm you
2) claim they support your position
3) ignore things like dosage and concentration.

The fact is all our medical research says the fluoride at the levels we use is safe and beneficial.

This fluoride “expert” is going to do the same thing. Watch he’ll bring up a Harvard study that showed fluoride could he harmful. He’ll omit the then levels of fluoride studied were 20x what we consider safe.

Typical conspiracy wingnuts.

Challenge for the conspiracy nuts. Find one national medical association that thinks fluoride is harmful to you at the concentrations we put in water.

I’ll wait.

My question would be, how many people actually benefit from fluoridation? By that, I mean, should there not have been a study done ahead of time regarding how many people actually drink tap water on a regular basis in Prince George?

With so many water companies providing fluoride free water to homes & businesses, along with reverse-osmosis units, water from refrigerators and those with filters on their taps, who exactly is getting fluoride? You can’t get it from showering. Your skin says nay-nay. Maybe they’re hoping you get fluoridated from boiling water and eating Kraft Dinner & weenies.

It seems to me, there’s a lot of money being spent for the benefit of very few. This practice started when everybody drank tap water.

Would that be the same EPA website that records fluoridation levels have been dropping, because their assumed safe levels that no one regulates are not really safe? Fluoride levels are actually recommend not regulated because high fluoride levels are showing harmful results as are low fluoride consumption levels according to some researchers who identify exposure, at any level causes harms to some. No one is forcing you to fluoridate (unless you live in PG according the the City and Hansard documents). An old truth some people want to go forget or don’t know about. Are you aware there are no safe consumption levels for lead? Also included in the City’s fluoridation chemicals, that they don’t care to ask about (according to FOI requests to them). And arsenic… often included in “Who Dunit” mystery novels, because it works, at any level! Do you know how much fluoride, lead and arsenic you are consuming over the years? I hear PWB has their own fluoride free well! If fluoridation was so great, why are they not using it too? Why would the hospital renal area need a reverse osmosis water filter, if City water was so good and was not harmful to their patients? just asking the question from those who think they know!

Let’s ignore the health pros and cons and focus on the issue of delivery. For all of you “PG should get back to basics folks”, since when was it in the mandate of the city to deliver health care?

Shouldn’t they stop doing it on that basis alone? If it’s that important, let the Province administer and fund it.

Vote no to fluoride. If it was not there in the first place why should it be there now? It is not natural. Keep Flouride out of our water. I choose what goes in my body not Prince George. Vote no based on freedom of choice if you don’t know which side to take. Vote no, side on the error of caution.

As I’ve said many times before, don’t take my word for it. Do your own research on accredited health organization websites. The benefits are well documented.

NMG is correct that the city has no mandate to mass medicate the citizens of the city.Plus I would guess that 99% of the money spent to add this to the water is wasted as only a tiny percentage of the water delivered to a house even gets near the teeth. Having a 1% effeciency rate is low even for city hall.

This would be like painting your house by pouring paint out of a cessna as it flies over the house at 2500 feet, sure some might get where intended but most is wasted.

There is a good reason that most of the province has wisely chosen to go fluoride free. Time to leave the 1950’s and add nothing to water other than what is required to make it safe to drink.

Regardless of whether you believe it’s healthy or harmful, the bottom line is we are paying for this. Paying to fluoridate the water we shower with, flush toilets with, water the lawn with, wash our cars with.

I agree with Professional. How much of this water is really coming into contact with my teeth?

I’ve heard the argument that it will hurt lower income families who can’t afford toothpaste. I realize this comment will bring out the pitchforks calling for my head, but… They can afford to buy soft drinks.. cutting back on that will go a lot farther than fluoride in the water. I realize not everyone falls into this stereotype, but some of you agree whether you admit it or not…

Myth:
Removing fluoride from a community’s water system saves money.

Fact: Research shows community water fluoridation offers perhaps the greatest return-on-investment of any public health strategy. The reduction alone in the cost of filling and extracting diseased teeth and time lost from work to get care more than makes up for the cost of fluoridation.

A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found it costs 50 cents per person per year to fluoride water in larger communities with more than 20,000 residents. For most cities, every $1 invested in this preventive measure yields approximately $38 in dental treatment costs.

Source: ilikemyteeth.com and CDC

I’ll be voting yes, even though I personal don’t really need the benefit.

personally*

For the record, I do not support fluoridation because I do not feel it is ethical to medicate a population through its water supply. I feel medical treatment requires consent.

JB-I am surprised that you are in favor of fluoridation, after all who is going to pay for this. You know after all it is our tax dollars and if they want fluoride in the water they should pay for it themselves.

Yes, there is reason that most of the province has chosen to go fluoride free and probably because they don’t chose to put junk into their bodies!

oldman1, taxpayers pick up the tab either way, either through water fluoridation or subsidizing low income families to get their teeth fixed. The former is much more cost effective, as per my last post.

I will be voting no. I don’t need someone else making that decision for me. If I want Fluoride, I will buy toothpaste with Fluoride in it. Or, I will put fluoride tablets in my drinking water.

Whenever my rights begin to override the rights of others, I need to be considerate of their opinion. It doesn’t really matter why they think the way they do, or why?

It’s not my responsibility to convince proponents of Fluoride to change their thinking. And, visa versa.

If you want fluoride in your water, add it. Don’t force your preference on everyone else by administering fluoride to the masses because you want it in your water. That’s not the right solution.

Fluoridation ?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/04/30/water-fluoridation-facts.aspx

ilikemyteeth…..a long trusted source,since at least last Monday, of well researched scientific data whose work is funded by??? as opposed to that upstart The Lancet who has only been around since 1823-not even 200 years!! Makes one wonder how the Lancet earned its reputation as ” one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world”

The anti fluoride supporters are the biggest nuts on this site.
End of story.
Popcorn please.

Those who ridicule the sterling reputation of The Lancet for having classified fluoride and manganese as developmental neurotoxins are being intentionally foolish, as if all that fluoride has damaged too many of their neurons already!

Nobody is ridiculing the lancet for classifying fluoride. The dose makes a poison. Take enough Tylenol and you’ll see if that’s medicine or a “toxin”.

Also, yes fluoride in water is natural. How do you think we discovered this. We noticed some people in some regions have waaaaaaaay better teeth. Less cavities, less rotten teeth. They had fluoride naturally in their water. Us topping it up to the minimum level helps those communities out that aren’t so fortunate naturally.

Also people here love to crow on about their own choice. You already have that. Buy some bottled water.

Dental caries most affects the economically low and marginalized in our communities. This is one easy and cost effective way to help those who can’t afford a dentist.

I say let’s remove the fluoride, but those who vote to remove the fluoride now get to pay for the increase in dental caries the poorest in our town will face. Deal?

Or maybe it’s about your choice and screw the poor and disadvantaged.

All the fluoride in the world is not going to save your teeth if you you do not floss between your teeth anb brush them regular. My choice -take it out of the water system.

Oldman1, WHO data collected by the WHO over a twenty year period shows that the decline in cavities is virtually the same when countries which never added this chemical to tap water or stopped 40 years ago (most of western Europe) are compared to those who still hang on to this antiquated practice (Canada, the USA, Australia, Ireland…) because of the availability of fluoridated toothpaste, treatments in the dentist office, better education by parents and in schools about daily proper brushing and flossing! You hit the nail on the head! There is no longer any need to add an unnatural chemical waste fluoride (a wood preservative) to our otherwise pure tap water!

It is ridiculous to suggest to people in Prince George to buy bottled water when the tap water – without the fluoride!!! – is already of excellent bottled water quality! How does one shower with bottled water? You do know that the skin (the largest organ in the human body) absorbs fluoride from the water! That is how patches work, like the stop smoking ones!

Just don’t put the garbage in the water any more and let’s join the 97% of the population of B.C. which either never had it or stopped in the last twenty years!

These stupid antifluoride guys. They are just like those darn anti-cigarettes people and we all know how that turn out. The scientists were completely right, cigarrettes were…….for you!

I believe in free choice, no one in pg really has a choice on this on. Last time I checked fluoride is not a nutrient, nore is it good for you. It might be good for your teeth. Time will tell. There is no risk in not taking it. Why can’t you swollow toothpaste? How much water do you drink in a day? Coffee and tea have water in them, just sayin. How much water = toothpaste?

I do a lot of sports and drink lots of water. People on dialysis shouldn’t drink water with fluoride in it. Why?

But then again I thought the cigarette scientists were nuts when I was a kid. Got me sent into the hallway more than once. I never did smoke not because I was smart but because of my dad’s cough.

LLHT: “I do a lot of sports and drink lots of water. People on dialysis shouldn’t drink water with fluoride in it. ”

Site your source please. I have heard this repeated in the past, but the only sites that back up this statement are the dedicated anti-fluoride websites, and we all know how unreliable the information is on those.

xha44a: “Nobody is ridiculing the lancet for classifying fluoride. The dose makes a poison.”

It is incredible how many anti-fluoridationists don’t understand this. Either that, or they don’t want to understand it because it undermines their ideology.

xha44a: “Nobody is ridiculing the lancet for classifying fluoride. The dose makes a poison.”

JB “It is incredible how many anti-fluoridationists don’t understand this. Either that, or they don’t want to understand it because it undermines their ideology.”

JB That’s the problem with artificially fluoridating the water because the dose that each person gets can’t be controlled. The daily dose of fluoride that each person gets includes ALL sources of fluoride – fluoridated tap water, toothpaste, processed foods and drinks.

It’s funny how you like to marginalize people as anti-fluoridationists. I can only say that I’m not anti anything…I’m pro choice.

JB, since I have never succeeded in getting you to respond to the subjects of freedom of choice, individual rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights, the problem of mass medication without individual informed consent, morals, ethics…basic pillars of our democracy and protection of the rights of an individual…I assume that these subjects are either not important to you or that you know them very well and actually support them, but for the sake of stirring the pot in the debate about non medicated water vs. adulterated water you are pretending that they do not exist.

Kind of sad to put it politely!