Clean Water Portland Conducting Push Polling

 

An internet buddy of mine (who I know personally but wished to remain anonymous for fear of internet backlash) recorded this robotic phone poll last night. DOWNLOAD THE AUDIO HERE. Here is a transcript of the message:

[If you would vote] no or undecided. If you would vote yes press one.

Did you know the fluoridation chemical the water bureau would add to our water is called fluorosilicic acid and is not a naturally occurring fluoride mineral or even the pharmaceutical grade fluoride in toothpaste? Instead, fluorosilicic acid is an industrial by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Press one if you are aware of this. Press two if you were not aware of this.

Did you know that following a major National Academy of Sciences report in 2006 the federal government called for a reduction of fluoridation concentrations by over 40% because of concerns people were getting too much fluoride?

Press one if you knew this. Press two if you did not know this.

Did you know that according to recent studies by the National Academy of Sciences and other leading researchers that even low fluoride levels can damage the brain, thyroid, and bones?

Press one if you were aware of these risks. Press two if you were not aware of these risks.

In light of these facts, has your opinion changed on the measure to add fluoridation chemicals and increase water rates? If the election were held today, how would you describe your position on the measure to add fluoridation chemicals and increase water rates? Voting yes, meaning to vote yes, voting no, meaning to vote no, or undecided. 

If you would vote yes press one.

Thank you for your participation. This poll was paid for by Clean Water Portland PAC.

This is a very obvious case of push polling. It is an underhanded telemarketing technique where a political campaign, under the guise of conducting a poll, conveys innuendo and negative information about a particular stance. Very often there is no attempt at analyzing or interpreting the polling data and their sole purpose is to convey the negative information. Push polling is a form of negative campaigning (in the same category with smear tactics, fear mongering, and voter suppression) and is condemned by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) [1].

As for the information contained in the push poll, its loaded with scientific falsehoods and manipulating innuendo. They continually repeat "fluoride CHEMICAL" in an attempt to play on people's misguided and unscientific fear of the word "chemical". Chemicals are all around us, sugar is one and water is another, therefore it is irrational to fear them or to believe that the word "chemical" has any sort of negative connotation. Some continued internet reading on the subject here, here, and here.

The fact that fluorosilicic acid is a by-product of an industrial process does not make it inherently unsafe. A by-product is a secondary product derived from a manufacturing process or chemical reaction. It is not the primary product or service being produced. Hexafluorosilicic acid, once put into water, converts completely into fluoride ions (F^-), hydrogen ions (H⁺), and sand [2]. It is scientifically impossible to separate naturally occurring fluoride ions from fluoride ions added artificially in this manner.

The National Academy of Sciences report (Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards) has many enlightening statements including:

• Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge. (p. 2)
• The committee only considered adverse effects that might result from exposure to fluoride; it did not evaluate health risk from lack of exposure to fluoride or fluoride’s efficacy in preventing dental caries. (p. 2)
• The report makes no concrete claims to any negative effects of fluoride at the normal accepted levels of fluoridation other than dental fluorosis.  It continually calls for more studies to be conducted.
• It calls for more studies and concern over possible negative human effects based off of animal studies in which rats were given extremely large (10 mg for 30 days in one) dosages of fluoride.  The average rat weighs 550 grams while the average human in North America weighs 80.7 kg.  Toxicity is weight dependent.  That's 10 times the recommended human dosage to an animal that weighs 146 times less.
• It references the Chinese and Iranian studies linking lower IQ scores to fluoride that can be discounted because of their poor quality.  It even states: Without detailed information about the testing conditions and the tests themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the studies. (p. 208)
• Strong evidence exists that the prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is nearly zero at water fluoride concentrations to below 2 mg/L. (p. 346)

This study says nothing about the safety or efficacy of community water fluoridation (at .7 ppm), it is a study measuring the toxicology of high doses of fluoride. It cannot be used to back negative arguments regarding the safety or efficacy of community water fluoridation because, I reiterate, there is no evidence within the study that fluoride at the recommended .7 ppm level has any negative health effects whatsoever and the study explicitly states that it was not evaluating fluoride's efficacy in preventing dental caries.

Clean Water Portland is leading a campaign of false facts, negative campaigning, and fear mongering. While you may or may not be for water fluoridation, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact is the science is overwhelmingly in favor of water fluoridation, it is safe and effective. Clean Water Portland knows this and is resorting to improper campaign tactics in order to counter this damning fact. Vote yes on Measure 26-151, vote no on pseudoscience and fear.