portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

health

Open letter to the Portland city council on water fluoridation

Open letter to Sam Adams, Randy Leonard, Nick Fish, Amanda Fritz and Dan Saltzman - Members of the Portland city council.
September 7th, 2012

Open letter to Sam Adams, Randy Leonard, Nick Fish, Amanda Fritz and Dan Saltzman - Members of the Portland city council.

Hello Sam, Randy, Nick, Amanda, and Dan,

I have directly handed to each of you (except Nick who left the meeting earlier than I expected) flyers for my new documentary film called "An Inconvenient Tooth". Thank you Sam and Amanda for telling me that you thought it had a great title.

I would like ask each of you one simple yes or no question. That question is whether or not you intend to watch this film in full before voting on water fluoridation on September 12th. I want to know whether or not you are going to take the time to watch this film before voting on something that will affect almost a million people, many or most of which do not want fluoride added to their water as they have expresed 3 times in public votes on the issue. I would like to know if you are going to honestly listen to the opposition before voting to fluoridate Portland area water for the first time in history.

Please answer "yes" or "no" as soon as you can. If you choose not to answer I will assume the answer is no.

You can view the film at www.AnInconvenientTooth.org

Thank You,
Guy Wagner
Portland, OR

homepage: homepage: http://AnInconvenientTooth.org


what needs to be asked 08.Sep.2012 07:38

disgusted

What really needs to be asked is who these people (Adams and the council members) are serving with this. Just where is the impetus come from? It doesn't seem like it's from the common voter. Are they invested in the water schemes people will use to avoid drinking the flouride or what?

Honestly, whoever coined the phrase 'follow the money' should be quite famous.

Besides, only idiots fix nonexistant problems. These people are hardly 'intellectual lights' regarding this subject, are they? And if they are that knowledgable, make them prove it. This is as bad as adding chemicals to already chemically compromised (and litigated to the advantage of the states because of that chemical compromise and lies regarding it by the manufacturers) tobacco just so it doesn't remain lit without effort. While it may sound good from the point of view of saving lives from the fires caused by cigarettes, it's hardly an excuse to introduce something that may impare (even more) everyone who uses it.