Move over fluoride, here comes Calgary's clean water!

[GGG]

Its not the cities place to be funding a general health initiative. This is clearly a provincial health care item and should be decided, funded and studied at that level.

I don't believe the city has the expertise to make this decision in either direction so it should fall on those running the health care system to make it.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by something

In your post, you were arguing for something implicit; your argument wasn't merely supportive of a majority rule: especially the bolded part. The reason I was able to deduce this implication is simply that you admit a criteria existing ulterior to majority rule, to which majority rule is subservient. Majority rule fails to be sovereign according to this understanding, and I would argue it's subservience be dictated by the concept of liberalism.

The tenets of liberalism are the superlative political determinant, of which majority rule is merely a single mechanism. However, majority rule, unchecked, has an stagnant effect on society. You introduced the notion of "rights", and within your context seems to be the underlying notion of dignity. This notion of dignity is essential for the inclusion of minorities, which we often consider to be a fundamental and demonstrable "good" in that it engages and propagates a dialectical process.

In our social conscience exists all of this, and more, reified as liberalism. It is to what we aim our social and political goals. Majority rule is nothing more than a mechanism (albeit an flawed one) that helps us attain our goals.

And kudos to you for writing your alderman! I can always appreciate civil engagement.

Sorry, I was busy most of the day, then went to the game, so I didn't get a chance to see this until now but it is certainly worthy of response...

I was not implicit in my statement, I was explicit that the concept of majority rules has to be tempered by a recognition that the majority can be tyrannical if unchecked. However, that is not the same thing as saying that majority rules is not the 'superlative political determinant' to once again use your terminology. The fact is that minority rights can only override majority rules in limited circumstances where there is no rational justification for limiting minority rights. It is not a matter of dignity or liberalism, it's a matter of utility and rationality. Numerous posters have pointed out that there is no significant rational evidence of the harm of fluoridation. Instead there is anecdote, hyperbole, and bad research used to imply that there is evidence of harm. Where there is no rationality behind a minority's claims of unjust treatment, there is no duty incumbent on the majority to respect those claims or alter public policy to address them.

If it was purely a matter of dignity or liberalism then how would one ever justify a limitation of a minority's rights to engage in acts that the majority find distasteful, but which do not necessarily create an actual harm. To be a little grotesque, why should there be a law against necrophilia? No one gets hurt, and there is a minority out there who enjoy it. The fact is that there is no rational reason to permit necrophilia, and it doesn't serve a rational purpose for society as a whole to permit it to go on in the face of the social harm associated with it, even though that social harm itself is based on feelings of distaste rather than something rational. In this case, the majority rules schema dominates the field and the liberalist ideal falls by the wayside, and justifiably so in my opinion. This is the part of my argument that you failed to address. The concept that majority rules has to be informed by rationality, but it is not necessarily subservient to all minority rights that might be claimed.

In my view, the anti-fluoridators and the anti-vaccinators lump nicely together as groups whose 'minority rights' not to have their bodies interfered with are trumped by the benefit to society of the mandatory application of fluoride in water and vaccines in our bodies. The reason they are trumped is because their wish not to be interfered with is based on irrational fears and beliefs that do not rationally support their concerns about interference with their bodies.

This is my belief system and I don't necessarily expect any one else to concur whole-heartedly, but it is my view that in a society where the knowledge to make informed decisions is so specialized and so limited in its availability, that this type of thinking must inform our policy-makers. That is why I was so mad when my alderman got on television last night and said that the bio-ethical research supports that there is a benefit to fluoridation and also suggests that there is probably no harm, but that is not a ringing endorsement from science. He then used this as justification to allow a vocal minority to dictate public policy for the rest of us. By his own statement there was no rational connection between the worries these people had and the evidence available to him regarding fluoridation. The mere fear of these people, whether supported by evidence or not, was enough for council to overturn the majority. That is what is wrong with this picture in my opinion.


By the way, from my post, you can probably guess what my opinion is about whether the law should protect a Jehovah's Witness' right not to allow their child to receive blood even when the child's life is in jeopardy, for example.

[Golden Jet]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Didnt we have a plebicite about this roughly 5 years ago?

We had two plebiscites in the past but city council didn't care. Amazing how these are mostly the same aldermen who don't want to spend the money to upgrade & pay for fluoride treatment but have no trouble wasting nearly $50 million of taxpayers money on two bridges. The same councillors who didn't mind wasting our money on those 2 bridges are now suddenly worried about spending money on something we need. Amazing.
The other thing that bothers me is that this was never an election issue. Did Druh Farrell ever mention she wanted to ban fluoride from our drinking water? Nope. Yet, she clearly had a private agenda on this.

[Golden Jet]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Mikey: you should read up about dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO), another substance found in our water supply. I don't know why council hasn't considered banning this yet. Just look at the dangers:



http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

I dunno. Maybe city council should just ban drinking water period. Then they could turn to more important stuff like building more pedestrian bridges. People are dropping dead in the streets. Babies are being born with 2 heads. Zombies are coming out of the graves all because of fluoride in our drinking water.

[Golden Jet]

Originally Posted by billybob123

The day I read an epidemiological study that shows toxicity at the levels treated in Calgary's water is the day I will start believing any of these people. They may have credentials. I have a PhD. Does that make me able to refute evidence with no statistical backup?

I read some of your links. They provide little to no epidemiological evidence. Ashartus debunked (in a simple internet forum post) the anti-fluoride arguments.

Anti-fluoride people are very similar to the anti-vaccine types; they will spout anything as their "negative evidence' yet all the published, peer-reviewed literature, show a net public heatlh benefit to fluoridation of water. Where's the statistically-based refutation of the evidence?

The idiots on council who voted for removal are as dumb as you can get. Mayor Nenshi suggested perhaps this should be reviewed by a panel of experts who can objectively review the evidence, rather than a council who rely on internet garbage and crackpots to tell them their opinion. Why didn't the council let this panel present their findings before this decision? What are they so scared of? Perhaps that the epidemiological evidence doesn't provide the boogeyman they want?

Oh, and how about that horse's arse Jim Stevenson on why it shouldn't go to a plebiscite?

As opposed to your 12 kool-aid drinking colleagues deciding it instead? Genius. Jokes this good don't come along often.

And to whoever said it will get the pool smell out of the water - no it won't. That's the chlorination of the water that makes it smell that way. The chlorination which is a similar net public health benefit. Why don't we discuss removing that from the water supply too? It's probably bad for us!

So, why doesn't Jim Stevenson resign & say that the results of the election in his ward are invalid because not enough people voted? Talk about twisting around something to suit his point of view.

[Golden Jet]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Good, then we don't need to spend 6 million on new facilities and $750 000 a year because it's already naturally occurring! /debate

But we can spend $50 million on 2 pedestrian bridges. YAAAAAH BABY!!!

[Knut]

That is quite the "bridge" you made between topics.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by GGG

Its not the cities place to be funding a general health initiative. This is clearly a provincial health care item and should be decided, funded and studied at that level.

I don't believe the city has the expertise to make this decision in either direction so it should fall on those running the health care system to make it.

But the city pays for and run's the water system, but because an arbitrary decision over 100 years ago that the province is responsible for health care, the city and it's people shouldn't be allowed to decide what gets put in our water?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Rathji

But the city pays for and run's the water system, but because an arbitrary decision over 100 years ago that the province is responsible for health care, the city and it's people shouldn't be allowed to decide what gets put in our water?

The city and its people are incapable of deciding what to put in their drinking water. The city doesn't decide how much bacteria to leave in the drinking water when they treat it. They follow recognized international standards. The city does not have the resources to carefully study this issue and come to a scientific conclusion. And they shouldn't spend money to obtain these resources.

Should the city start funding hospitals because it doesn't like the way the province does it. How about start offering knee replacements to improve the quality of life of its citizens. The division of powers and the responsibilities of each government are important divisions to limit politicians powers.

So yes because of the decision 100 years ago that defines the structure of our government the city should defer to the province to decide what goes in our water. My health (with or without flouride whichever side of the debate you choose to be on) shouldn't be determined by what city I live in.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by GGG

So yes because of the decision 100 years ago that defines the structure of our government the city should defer to the province to decide what goes in our water. My health (with or without flouride whichever side of the debate you choose to be on) shouldn't be determined by what city I live in.

If the province should decide what goes into the entire provinces water, then they should be paying for it. If they are deciding how things need to happen and footing the bill for it, then they pretty much have control over it. Which counteracts your assertion that they way things were set up over 100 years ago is how things should stand. Your only other option is to have the province decide exactly what we are spending our money on, which wouldn't go over well.

You can't have it both ways.

[troutman]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...082/story.html

Did we hear right? Aldermen are quoted as worried a fluoridation plebiscite would mean "a small number (of voters) would determine the issue for all Calgarians." As well, a plebiscite would be "absolutely unacceptable," and would be a "tyranny of the majority."

Are they fearful of the same process that gave them a job? As for ethics, how ethical is it for Ald. Druh Farrell to pursue a seemingly personal agenda while shunning expert advice and the public's right to decide?

This is what we would call a tyranny of ignorance. Kudos to those aldermen who resisted this debacle.

Darcy Isted, DDS, and Glen Cowitz, DDS, Calgary

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by Golden Jet

I dunno. Maybe city council should just ban drinking water period. Then they could turn to more important stuff like building more pedestrian bridges. People are dropping dead in the streets. Babies are being born with 2 heads. Zombies are coming out of the graves all because of fluoride in our drinking water.

You need to grow up. If you actually have an argument, make it. Otherwise don't resort to these silly analogies with Zombies, two headed children and people dropping dead. Not everyone is arguing that fluoride makes mutants out of people.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by zamler

LOL. You are alive, therefore what you consume daily is safe. HAHA. Logic and reason seems to have eluded you.

I'm not saying I think flouridated water is dangerous, although I prefer that it is not added to city water. I think it should be up to the individual if they want to supplement their intake with fluoride.

Logic and reason tell me that if the water I was drinking was NOT safe, I'd be dead by now. As I am not dead, nor am I ill, it must be safe.

I love how anti-fluoride advocates spew the argument, 'you can just add it yourself.' While inherently true, I can never do as good a job as the city was doing, assuming they kept the level of fluoride in our water to 1.0 PPM.

First off, self fluoridation is going to cost me a LOT more, and second, in order to get 1.0 PPM concentration out of a mL of pure fluoride, I would need a kilolitre of water. I have a 2 litre jug. Even a single drop of fluoride would bring the concentration to 50 PPM. Still safe, but more likely to cause fluorosis and staining.

It's been over 20 years, I have no idea how diluted fluoride solutions are.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If the province should decide what goes into the entire provinces water, then they should be paying for it. If they are deciding how things need to happen and footing the bill for it, then they pretty much have control over it. Which counteracts your assertion that they way things were set up over 100 years ago is how things should stand. Your only other option is to have the province decide exactly what we are spending our money on, which wouldn't go over well.

You can't have it both ways.

The province should determine standards for water quality if they go beyond what the CSA standards provide. Municipalities should have limited input into health care issue and certainly not unilateral decision making power. And yes if the Province mandates standards in addition to accepted National Standards than the province should be footing the bill for it.

Our city council has proven that they did not consider the scientific body of work out there by refusing Nenshi's suggestion to have experts look at the issue. So why should the city be empowered to make this decision.?

[Stillman16]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Logic and reason tell me that if the water I was drinking was NOT safe, I'd be dead by now. As I am not dead, nor am I ill, it must be safe.

I love how anti-fluoride advocates spew the argument, 'you can just add it yourself.' While inherently true, I can never do as good a job as the city was doing, assuming they kept the level of fluoride in our water to 1.0 PPM.

First off, self fluoridation is going to cost me a LOT more, and second, in order to get 1.0 PPM concentration out of a mL of pure fluoride, I would need a kilolitre of water. I have a 2 litre jug. Even a single drop of fluoride would bring the concentration to 50 PPM. Still safe, but more likely to cause fluorosis and staining.

It's been over 20 years, I have no idea how diluted fluoride solutions are.

This whole reply shows ignorance! Just because you are alive and don't "feel sick", doesn't actually mean the opposite isn't true either.

There are what are called chronic toxins, which accumulate in the body, and because science is forever evolving, deaths/illnesses previously attributed to other causes (convienient diagnosis/didn't know better) were misdiagnosed.

Just beacuse you don't feel sick, doesn't mean your body/bones aren't accumulating minute (safe level for a single dose) toxins. The fact is that science hasn't studied enough to know if Fluoride is one of these chronic toxins, and can only tell if they test the ashes after you're dead!!! (has been done in Europe).

Many carcinogens are these chronic toxins, so I hope you don't live your life by testing things, and deciding if it doesn't kill you right away it's safe????!!!!!!

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

This whole reply shows ignorance! Just because you are alive and don't "feel sick", doesn't actually mean the opposite isn't true either.

There are what are called chronic toxins, which accumulate in the body, and because science is forever evolving, deaths/illnesses previously attributed to other causes (convienient diagnosis/didn't know better) were misdiagnosed.

Just beacuse you don't feel sick, doesn't mean your body/bones aren't accumulating minute (safe level for a single dose) toxins. The fact is that science hasn't studied enough to know if Fluoride is one of these chronic toxins, and can only tell if they test the ashes after you're dead!!! (has been done in Europe).

Many carcinogens are these chronic toxins, so I hope you don't live your life by testing things, and deciding if it doesn't kill you right away it's safe????!!!!!!

http://www.skepdic.com/detox.html

"Toxin" is classic pseudoscience terminology. --Ben Goldacre, M.D.


Thus, while detoxification therapies abound, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason the average person should consider using any of them. They are not based on solid scientific evidence. They are sold to the general public mainly by appealing to fear (of being poisoned by our foods, water, air, and general modern environment) and hope (of good health, feeling better or less tired, and the like). Worst of all, the word 'detoxification' when used by the sellers of foods, drinks, herbs, and machines, is almost always so vague, ambiguous, or obscure as to be meaningless. The purveyors of these products fancy themselves to be offering a progressive response to the modern world with its many sources of pollutants that find their way into our bodies. In reality, these snake oil hucksters are akin to the pre-scientific physicians and barbers who used bloodletting to remove 'bad humors' and poisons in an effort to cleanse their patients.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...ics/detox.html

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=452

Recently “detox” is all the rage. The basic concept is nothing new – potential customers are scared with the notion that their bodies are being harmed by invading toxins. This triggers our disgust emotion – an evolved defense against eating spoiled, contaminated or dangerous food. There is something deeply satisfying about the idea of getting bad things out of our bodies. It also is an appealing notion that symptoms we may be having are not a problem with our body itself, but is the result of something foreign that can be purged.

The word “detox” tries to capture all that. It’s an effective marketing slogan. It is also (as used in such marketing) utterly meaningless.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

There are what are called chronic toxins, which accumulate in the body, and because science is forever evolving, deaths/illnesses previously attributed to other causes (convienient diagnosis/didn't know better) were misdiagnosed.

Just beacuse you don't feel sick, doesn't mean your body/bones aren't accumulating minute (safe level for a single dose) toxins. The fact is that science hasn't studied enough to know if Fluoride is one of these chronic toxins, and can only tell if they test the ashes after you're dead!!! (has been done in Europe).

Many carcinogens are these chronic toxins, so I hope you don't live your life by testing things, and deciding if it doesn't kill you right away it's safe????!!!!!!

Surely there must be some sort of organic colon hydrotherapy from the homeopathic chiropractor to detox these darn chronic toxins!?!!?!

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

...

The fact is that science hasn't studied enough to know if Fluoride is one of these chronic toxins

...

So we don't know it is a "chronic toxin", but we should ban it anyway because all the scientific work done so far that has allowed it to be in our water must be wrong? Maybe I am mis reading what you are saying but isn't that kind of a backwards way of thinking?

Your kid is a smart kid and happy as can be, but I think he might be a serial killer. Oh, we know we can't prove he is a serial killer now, and no one has found a supported reason to that he actually is, but I was thinking we should just put him in jail just to be safe. Ok?

Oh wait, that would be ridiculous...

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

This whole reply shows ignorance! Just because you are alive and don't "feel sick", doesn't actually mean the opposite isn't true either.

There are what are called chronic toxins, which accumulate in the body, and because science is forever evolving, deaths/illnesses previously attributed to other causes (convienient diagnosis/didn't know better) were misdiagnosed.

Just beacuse you don't feel sick, doesn't mean your body/bones aren't accumulating minute (safe level for a single dose) toxins. The fact is that science hasn't studied enough to know if Fluoride is one of these chronic toxins, and can only tell if they test the ashes after you're dead!!! (has been done in Europe).

Many carcinogens are these chronic toxins, so I hope you don't live your life by testing things, and deciding if it doesn't kill you right away it's safe????!!!!!!

Newsflash: You're gonna die. Whether you drink fluoridated water or not. I give you my personal guarantee.

On that note, I too will die.

The difference: I won't be spending my life living in irrational fear of substances that COULD kill me sooner rather than later.

Just wanted to rub that in. The previous few posters pretty much took you to town on your argument already, I just want to rub a little salt in that wound.

[Golden Jet]

Originally Posted by Hesla

That is quite the "bridge" you made between topics.

I have a real problem with politicians who just waste money in one hand & then claim to be financially responsible with the other.