Following the Money on the Portland Fluoride debate

Yet again, the city of Portland will vote on May 21 whether or not to fluoridate the water in a special election.  This has been hotly contended in almost every part of the country (and around the world for that matter) it has been introduced to, but most recently, it is back in the Portland area - having been previously rejected 3 times, most recently in 1980.  Kind of like a bad rash.  Portland is the largest US city to not have fluoridated water.

I've heard various reporters claiming to be unbiased and just give 'both sides' of the argument, but I also know that a lobbying campaign of this magnitude is incredibly expensive, which makes me wonder who would be interested in footing that bill.  Kind of like compiling a list of suspects by looking at possible motives in a murder mystery.  I have a hard time believing that all these groups endorsing it just came together out of the blue.  Things don't work that way.  If you are hearing about something everywhere, over and over, and over again, somebody with money and power is behind it - you can be sure. I like to explore the possible players and motives.  Swaying public opinion has been one of the most important tools of getting controversial laws passed since our country's inception.  They call it The News.

One thing that has me confused is that this is being portrayed as a public service that has definite liberal, socialistic overtones and will no doubt be funded by the taxpayers, but nowadays there seem to be more liberals fighting it.  Why aren't the conservatives having a fit about this since it is a clear example of government mandating health care at the taxpayers expense?  If you take a hard 'fiscally conservative' approach to the cost/benefit, and if you look deep into the numbers, it is hard to make a case for it, considering the cost.  "53.7% of the kids in the non-fluoridated areas had one or more cavities 52.03% of kids in fluoridated areas had one or more cavities 47.81% of kids in the Portland water district (which is currently fluoride-free) had one or more cavities Looking at these results, it is hard to argue a case for fluoridation. Cascadia Times asked OHA to reconcile the numbers."  Also, it has been shown multiple times that it is mainly lower income families that will benefit from the service; again, something that is usually championed by liberals.

It would seem that these campaigns will not end until the number is at 100%



So then I began to wonder what would happen if we put that money into education and at least try to keep the kids from drinking high fructose corn syrup by the gallon (I'm not advocating what Bloomberg did - I think it's ridiculous)...  It would seem that I digress...  But not really, as I dig, it turns out that those who make  the money from selling the fluoride to the municipalities, also manufacture the phosphate fertilizers (fluoride is a toxic by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture) they use to grow the GMO corn for the diabetes-causing, tooth-rotting high fructose corn syrup!  Imagine that!  Wish I could say I was surprised.  Salem has had fluoridated water for years and they buy it from one of the largest privately owned agribusiness corporations in the country - Simplot, who also manufactures phosphate fertilizers.  Turns out many municipalities in the west buy their fluoride from Simplot.  That's a heck of a lot of money to the agribusiness giant for a toxic product they are being monitored to be sure they dispose of properly.

Not surprisingly, I have spotted discrepancies when it comes to the estimated cost; this official report estimates the cost at $500,000 per year based on 25 cents per household per month, plus it will supposedly cost the city $5 million for the special plant it needs to monitor and add the chemical (I figure more like $10 million based on the past tract record of estimates).  But when I use census numbers at 25 cents per household, I come up with an estimated $671,000 a year (we all know how government estimations go) - AND if you take in the entire metro area which they are trying to include, the price tag goes up to $2,603,382/year based on 867,794 households!  Give me a break!  This makes me distrust the initial estimate of 25 cents per household - what is the real number there?  Portland, who is supposedly financially strapped and simultaneously shedding all sorts of other programs and expenses, just has to cough up the money for this incredibly controversial program, while many municipalities are giving it up to save money.  Gee whiz.  Brilliant not-so-new way to fleece taxpayers yet again - if you ask me; after all my Independent research this is what it boils down to.  More crony capitalism at work - this could explain why Neocons are quiet on the subject.

Here is a look from OPB's Christian Foden-Vencil:  "On average, the study found that children with higher fluoride exposure showed poorer performance on IQ tests. The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points." (from a study in China cited in the editor's notes at the end of the article).  He also cited a number of studies that are pro-fluoridation.

I've been hearing a pro-fluoridation commercial on the radio that claims that dental problems are the number one reason for children's visits to the emergency room.  What????  That doesn't seem right and my trusty BS meter was going off full tilt - so I did some digging.  Turns out my instinct was right and that accidental falls are the number one reason for emergency room visits for all ages; all I could find to even give ANY credence to this frequently touted claim, is one study conducted in Maine in 2006 that claims it was the number one reason for ages 15-44 in lower income families, and it appears that it was only for that year.  This is getting creepy.  Mind you, this is included in a pro-fluoridation report compiled by the Maine DHHS.  I would like to take a closer look at that study later.

Personally, I hope this measure is defeated on the 21st after following the money and looking at both sides carefully.

Our so-called "Violent Culture"

Watching and listening to the media, especially as of late, one would think that we Americans have the most blood-thirsty violent culture in the world; so I decided to do a little digging to see exactly where we rank.  I know that statistics can be tricky, so I always have a keen ear to them when they are being cited by the media, whether it be conservative or progressive, and then I go do my own research to see where the figures are coming from.  I began to notice that the stats on gun deaths that were being spewed by many in the main stream media weren't broken down to per 100,000 people, which is very necessary to take into account if one is to have an accurate idea of scope.  For example, I heard one report that compared US gun deaths to Switzerland (who also has a gun culture).  How can you compare a country roughly the size of Maryland to the entire US without breaking it down to per 100,000 people and keep a straight face?  

What you NEVER hear them talking about is where we rank with the world as a nation in overall violent crime. To me that is important, especially when comparing to other countries with very strict gun ownership laws.  And due to the media spin, I see many Europeans who are now afraid to vacation here because of our supposedly violent society.  Why do you suppose that is?  Let's have a look...

Let's start with exactly how many guns we own compared to the rest of the world.  These maps were compiled by The Guardian Reporter Simon Rogers.

World gun ownership - This map shows how many guns per 100 people are owned world wide:

Yes indeed.  We have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, no doubt about it.

Now lets look at world gun death rate per 100,000 people:

The fact is, we rank toward the bottom.  If number of deaths were directly related to our recklessly liberal gun control laws, as they would have us think, we would be dark purple on this map (and Chicago would be the safest city in the country).  But we're not (and it isn't).

Next, I wanted to see where we rank in the world with regards to overall violent crime considering how many more guns we have compared to the rest of the world.  I was shocked.

I couldn't find a graphic comparing the US in the rankings in overall crime, but to have a comparison, here is how Europe lines out with overall violent crime:

According to the FBI official report last year, there were 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the US in 2011.  Compare that with any of the numbers in the right hand column in the graphic above, and we rank well below ANY of the countries in Europe for violent crime.

As a matter of fact, violent crime in this country has been steadily decreasing over the last ten years.  Here is a graph from the same FBI report reflecting the last five reported years:

These figures speak for themselves.  I'm really tired of hearing about how this and that fuels our violent, blood thirsty culture.  We really aren't. and I'm tired of feeling beat up having been raised in a self reliant culture that includes hunting and guns and responsible ownership.  And I'm sorry, but I don't want to give up my right to have guns, nor do I want the government to have a comprehensive list of law abiding gun owners to make it that much easier to take them away, should the day come.  Period.  I'm also tired of politicians using isolated incidents as a means to further an agenda - whether the agenda is to sell more guns for Walmart or compile a list of gun owners for heaven knows what or who.  We all know damn well, the criminals in possession of firearms won't be on that list, so why have it?  It has nothing to do with me fancying a standoff with a drone or a tank, as some of the sillier memes I have seen floating around would suggest - for me personally, it has more to do with having the ability to protect what we have worked so hard to have, should society indeed break down.  Once liberties are lost, they are so incredibly difficult to regain.

According to the Center for Disease Control, I have a better chance of dying from a misdiagnosis in the hospital than I do from a gun-related death in this country; and I hold to the theory that there would be a LOT more violent crime in this country if the criminals were assured that the law abiding citizens they meant to assault weren't armed.  Look at the stats from other countries.

I want to take it one step further and break down some statistics on gun-related deaths and why they occur. Something else you don't hear the media talking a whole lot about.  Why not?  You have to ask yourself.

For example, over half of gun related deaths are suicides with an incredibly disproportionate number of them being veterans - a fact I find overwhelmingly appalling.  Veterans are attempting suicide at the rate of 48 per day with 18 of those attempts succeeding.  Where's the media driven outrage over that?  Why aren't we mobilizing to do something to help our service people who are being re-upped as never before in history to fight in wars we know less and less why we are fighting, and give so much of themselves already - we CAN do better by them; but where's the push for that?  Now it appears that the rhetoric around mental health and screening has the potential of keeping vets from seeking help they may need to avoid being categorized and ending up on some list as potentially dangerous.  As overall violent crime and gun deaths have declined over the last two decades, suicides among all age groups and races have continually increased since 2006.

This chart by FactCheck.org reminds us that not one single statistic tells the whole story.

With that in mind, if we are really worried about gun-related deaths, why aren't we spending our precious resources to focus on suicide prevention?  What would it really take as a culture to improve upon that statistic?  It would take having a good hard look at causation, and I have a feeling those at the top aren't all that interested in digging that deep.  I haven't heard one feasible proposal on gun control that would have prevented any of the recent horrific tragedies that monopolize the current conversations, but I've heard plenty of proposals that will lead to a comprehensive list of law-abiding citizens that own guns.  You have to ask yourself why they are so hell-bent on compiling that list knowing full well that the dangerous criminals won't be on it.  Seems fishy to me - especially after doing some digging of my own and seeing where we really stand as a nation and supposedly "violent culture".