From Evidence to Extremism: How Our City Council Failed Us

After years of bungling public housing policy in numerous ways, some of which involved lawsuits, all of which ignored the latest evidence-based research on housing policy, the City of Aberdeen is trying its hand at mucking about in public health policy with an upcoming vote on October 9th to remove the chemical fluoride from our municipal water.

This vote will go against the public will as expressed in a poll, with a slight majority for continuing the fluoridation of the water, released for the community by the City. The public comment period for this proposal was also filled with doctors and dentist of unparalleled caliber and credentials compassionately pleading with a galaxy-brained City Council to ignore their own “independent research” down the Internet rabbit holes they are stuck in, and to embrace the clear and obvious decades of science saying how beneficial municipal water fluoridation is to public dental health.

Over the past few years, Aberdeen has struggled with the issue of homelessness, consistently ignoring science, expertise, and best practices in dealing with the unhoused. The Temporary Alternative Shelter Location (TASL) behind City Hall, meant as a temporary solution, was marred by poor management and neglect, leading to significant health and safety issues. Political resistance, particularly from far-right figures like commissioners Jill Warne and Kevin Pine and council-members Kacey Ann Morrison and Debbi Pieracinni, further hindered efforts. Their opposition to harm reduction services like needle exchanges and low-barrier shelters, despite evidence supporting their effectiveness, exacerbated the problem. Community organizations like the Chehalis River Mutual Aid Network have stepped up, providing direct aid and advocating for the rights and needs of the unhoused, yet local government continues to resist, often spreading misinformation and fostering a hostile environment. Proposals for shelters have faced significant opposition, with $1.1 million in state funding returned due to inaction from the commissioners.

This political maneuvering, coupled with the rise of far-right groups like “Save Our Aberdeen Please” (SOAP), created a hostile environment for the homeless and a route to a seat on City Council for its members. Fires caused by unsafe heating methods during brutal winters highlight the desperate conditions faced by the unhoused, further aggravated by the city’s failure to provide adequate resources and infrastructure. Despite these challenges, grassroots efforts continue to provide crucial support, emphasizing the need for community solidarity and systemic change to address the root causes of homelessness in Aberdeen.

But these aren’t rational actors making good faith decisions based on evidence. Far from it. These people are red-pilled about as far right as you can imagine. Among documented bouts with QAnon conspiracies and other far right beliefs like anti-vaxx propaganda, they also have documented antisemitic stunts, Proud Boy associations, and child sexual assault. We can now add the widely debunked anti-fluoride conspiracy to the list of things Aberdeen politicians are willing to tangle with.

To begin with let us cover the facts and what the public here in Aberdeen said in this online poll. Adding fluoride to public water supplies has been shown to prevent tooth decay by strengthening the enamel, making teeth more resistant to decay. Communities with fluoridated water consistently report lower rates of tooth decay, showcasing its effectiveness. Water fluoridation is widely recognized as a significant public health achievement, endorsed by numerous health organizations.¹ This preventative measure is also cost-effective, reducing the need for dental treatments and saving money for families and healthcare systems.² Decades of research support the safety and efficacy of fluoridation at recommended levels, with endorsements from major health organizations such as the American Dental Association and the World Health Organization.³ ⁴

Furthermore, water fluoridation is an equitable health measure, benefiting everyone regardless of age, income, or education level. It plays a crucial role in reducing dental disparities, especially for children and individuals who may not have access to regular dental care. Despite the clear scientific consensus on its benefits, misinformation and conspiracy theories can obviously sway public opinion. It is vital to rely on credible sources and expert opinions when making public health decisions to ensure the well-being of the community. Even with this swaying of public opinion due to internet conspiracies, we can see that a majority of this City represented in this poll wanted to keep the fluoridation of our water going.

The city of Aberdeen offered an online survey between June 28 and July 31 that asked what residents thought about fluoride.

The survey focused on residents of Aberdeen, Cosmopolis (due to their shared water supply), and those living just outside Aberdeen’s city limits. Among the 298 responses received, opinions were mixed, with a majority favoring the continuation of water fluoridation. Notably, some respondents did not answer every question. Ruth Clemens, Aberdeen’s city administrator, presented the survey results to the council and the public.

Here are a few of the questions, with voter support for each side:

Aware that the city of Aberdeen adds fluoride to drinking water: 243 yes votes to 33 no votes

Concerns with fluoride being added to your water: 159 no votes to 118 yes votes

Would you like the city of Aberdeen to remove fluoride? 158 no votes to 119 yes votes

The wards were mostly evenly split on the topic.

In Ward 1, 22 voted to remove fluoride, and nine voted to keep it. In Ward 2, 13 voted to remove while 22 voted to keep it. In Ward 3, 18 voted to remove while 22 voted to keep it. In Ward 5, 16 voted to remove it while 13 voted to keep it. In Ward 6, 20 voted to remove it while 22 voted to keep it.

Ward 4 had the most support for keeping fluoride, with 18 voting to remove and 52 voting to keep it. Of the Aberdeen business owners who responded, all 10 voted to keep fluoride.

As for the level of fluoride in the water, this makes a big difference, as an increased level can have detrimental side effects, as is widely known. The city of Aberdeen’s 2023 consumer confidence report showed a “low of 0.49 and a high of 0.88,” according to Rick Sangder, the city’s public works department director. “I spoke with the water customer service team and they stated the average was 0.7, but 0.6 is definitely in the range.”⁵

Also 0.7 parts per million is the U.S. Public Health Service’s recommended level. “(It’s) the concentration that maximizes fluoride’s oral health benefits while minimizing potential harms, such as dental fluorosis,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states. The World Health Organization recommends fluoride levels in drinking water to be between 0.5 to 1.0 ppm.⁶

And although the numbers clearly show that a majority of Aberdeen wants to continue the practice of fluoridating our water, we can see that about 43% of this City is suffering under similar beliefs about the efficacy of fluoride in drinking water, pointing to a larger problem than simple politics. Some of this is due to Kacey Ann Morrison pushing the survey to her followers, and some is due to inherent bias. But let us see if we can uncover the roots of this pervasive problem, and see who is left clinging to these theories after so much evidence to the contrary.

The history of water fluoridation is quite fascinating and began with a curious observation in the early 20th century. In 1901, Dr. Frederick McKay, a dentist in Colorado Springs, noticed that many residents had brown-stained teeth, a condition later called “Colorado Brown Stain.” Despite the staining, these teeth were remarkably resistant to decay. In 1909, Dr. McKay collaborated with renowned dental researcher Dr. G.V. Black to investigate the cause of the staining. They discovered that the condition was linked to high levels of fluoride in the local water supply. Further studies in the 1920s and 1930s, including work by Dr. H. Trendley Dean, determined the optimal fluoride concentration to prevent tooth decay without causing dental fluorosis. They found that fluoride levels up to 1.0 ppm were effective and safe. In 1945, the first large-scale trial of water fluoridation began in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Over a 15-year period, dental exams confirmed that children who drank fluoridated water had significantly fewer cavities compared to those in a neighboring city without fluoridation. Following the success of the Grand Rapids trial, water fluoridation became more widely adopted across the United States and other countries.⁷ Today, it is considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, significantly reducing tooth decay and improving dental health.

From the moment water fluoridation was introduced, it faced a wave of opposition, often driven by conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. Detractors labeled fluoride as “rat poison” and accused governments of intentionally poisoning their citizens. Some even went so far as to claim that fluoridation was a Communist plot or a scheme by the sugar industry to divert attention from the harms of sugar consumption. While these claims lack credibility, they underscore a broader issue: mistrust in authority and the misinterpretation of science.⁸

Anti-fluoridation activists frequently highlight fluoride’s industrial origins, noting that hydrofluorosilicic acid—the chemical used in water fluoridation—is a byproduct of fertilizer production. However, context is crucial. Repurposing industrial byproducts into safe and beneficial uses is a common practice. For example, iodine, another success story in public health supplementation, was once a waste product of seaweed processing.⁹

These conspiracy theories and misconceptions can overshadow the substantial scientific evidence supporting fluoridation’s safety and efficacy. It is essential to rely on credible sources and expert opinions when making public health decisions, rather than being swayed by unfounded claims. By addressing these concerns and providing clear, factual information, we can foster a better understanding and trust in scientific practices and public health initiatives.

The roots of fluoride conspiracy theories can be traced back to the Cold War era, a time of heightened distrust and fear of governmental authority. During the 1940s and 1950s, opponents of water fluoridation began to spread the idea that it was a Communist plot aimed at weakening the American populace. This was a period when anti-Communist sentiment was at its peak, and any suggestion of subversion was taken very seriously.

One of the earliest and most notable conspiracy theories claimed that fluoridation was a form of mind control. Critics alleged that adding fluoride to public water supplies was a way for the government to suppress dissent and create a more docile population. This theory was popularized and parodied in the 1964 film “Dr. Strangelove,” where a character rants about fluoridation as a plot to “sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”

Another angle of the conspiracy was the claim that fluoride was being used as a cover-up by industries, particularly the aluminum and fertilizer industries, to dispose of toxic waste. Opponents suggested that fluoridation was a way for these industries to offload hazardous byproducts under the guise of a public health measure. This theory gained traction because hydrofluorosilicic acid, the chemical commonly used in water fluoridation, is indeed a byproduct of industrial processes. They often pointed out that hydrofluorosilicic acid’s industrial origins made it suspect, ignoring the fact that repurposing industrial byproducts for beneficial uses is common practice.

Anti-fluoridation conspiracy theories also have a dark history of antisemitism, often rooted in baseless and harmful claims. Some conspiracy theorists have falsely alleged that fluoridation is part of a International Jewish plot to control or harm non-Jewish populations. Yes, this is basically Illuminati stuff. These claims are not only unfounded but also perpetuate dangerous stereotypes and fuel antisemitic sentiments. These theories, though lacking scientific credibility, resonated with segments of the population who were already skeptical of government and industrial motives, or were already primed to be antisemitic.

From VICE’s A Deep Dive into the Conspiracy Theory That Governments Are Controlling Us with Fluoride:

The idea, in a nutshell, is that governments put fluoride in our water supply in order to negatively affect huge populations, for their own financial gains. That fluoride is actually a strong tranquilizer in disguise. That the US want their citizens to be zombies. That Kellogg’s, Nestle, Crest, and other food companies—known as “The Fluoride Mafia”—are all in on it. That fluoride dumping is secretly wrapped up in Illuminati interests.

Fluoride conspiracy theories often take an alarmist and bizarre turn, with comments on Reddit threads declaring, “Hitler used fluoride first!” or “This is straight from the Nazis! Illuminati scum.” A persistent claim among anti-fluoridation advocates is that Hitler used fluoridated water in concentration camps to subdue prisoners, rendering them compliant and incapable of resistance. Some even assert this practice was later adopted in Russian gulags. According to PolitiFact, there is no evidence to support the idea that the Nazis used fluoride in concentration camps to pacify prisoners. Holocaust historians and even well-known critics of water fluoridation have debunked this claim, emphasizing that it is an emotive argument without factual support.

For many in the New Age community, however, such historical claims take a backseat to their belief that fluoride is a tool of mind control, primarily through its alleged impact on the “third eye.” This “third eye,” often associated with the pineal gland at the brain’s center, is said to act as a spiritual bridge between body and soul. According to these theories, shadowy powers—whether the government, Illuminati, or other elites—aim to suppress spiritual awakening through fluoride, keeping people docile and disconnected. Advocates claim that a spiritually conscious populace would abandon mundane jobs, reject consumerism, and embrace collective living while resisting societal norms.

Self-proclaimed experts on YouTube offer advice on “decalcifying” the pineal gland. Recommendations include avoiding tap water, switching to fluoride-free toothpaste, installing shower filters, steering clear of meat (as animals consume fluoridated water), and asking dentists to skip fluoride treatments. To top it off, they advocate detox regimens to cleanse the body of fluoride’s lingering effects.

The left is not immune from these sorts of new age, natural living sort of thought patterns either. Portland, OR is famously left leaning and is the largest city in the country to not fluoridate their water. Portland has a long-standing tradition of rejecting fluoridation, with voters turning down proposals four times since 1956. Many people in Portland are heavily invested in the lifestyle that leads one to both question government and look for modes of living that are more in line with nature. This doesn’t jive with the idea of the government adding industrial byproducts to everyone’s drinking water. Yet, as an anarchist I can fully envision a future without government in which sound public policy is still decided upon and implemented for the good of the community. There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rejecting authority does not mean rejecting science.

The 2020 lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was initiated by Food & Water Watch and the Fluoride Action Network. The plaintiffs argued that fluoridation at levels present in public drinking water posed an unreasonable risk of injury to health under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The case went to trial in June 2020, and the court held the case in abeyance while awaiting further evidence and expert testimony.

The lawsuit highlighted nonsense concerns about potential health risks associated with fluoride exposure, including reduced IQ in children and other adverse health effects. IQ tests having been largely discredited by current understandings of intelligence. The court’s decision in 2024 ultimately ruled against the EPA, ordering the agency to take action based on the substantial and scientifically credible evidence presented during the trial.¹⁰

The relationship between fluoride and IQ has been a topic of considerable debate and research. Some studies suggest a potential link between high fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children, but the evidence is mixed and often controversial. It’s essential to consider the level of fluoride exposure when discussing these findings.

A meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics reviewed data from 74 studies and found a slight decrease in IQ scores associated with higher fluoride exposure. However, the authors noted that many of the studies had a high risk of bias and were conducted in countries with naturally high fluoride levels, often well above the recommended levels in the U.S. This makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of fluoride at the lower levels typically found in public water supplies.¹¹

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department recommends a fluoride concentration of 0.7 ppm in drinking water to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while minimizing the risk of dental fluorosis. At these recommended levels, the risk of adverse health effects, including impacts on IQ, is considered minimal.⁶

IQ tests are often criticized for being an inadequate measure of intelligence. They tend to focus on a narrow range of cognitive abilities, ignoring important aspects like creativity, emotional intelligence, and practical problem-solving skills. Additionally, these tests can be culturally biased, favoring individuals from certain backgrounds over others. This bias can lead to unfair assessments and perpetuate social inequalities. Moreover, intelligence is a complex and multifaceted trait that cannot be accurately captured by a single numerical score. The overemphasis on IQ scores can also lead to harmful labeling and self-fulfilling prophecies, where individuals are judged and limited based on their test results rather than their true potential. In short, IQ tests fail to provide a comprehensive and fair evaluation of a person’s intellectual capabilities.¹²

Critics of the fluoride-IQ link argue that the methodology and geographic bias in many studies limit the reliability of the findings. Major public health organizations, including the CDC, the American Dental Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, continue to support water fluoridation at recommended levels as a safe and effective measure to prevent tooth decay.

Despite the persistence of these theories in far right wing pockets and new age/healthy living advocates, they have largely been debunked by extensive scientific research and the endorsement of major health organizations. Studies consistently show that fluoridation at recommended levels is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay. Furthermore, regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and public health bodies such as the American Dental Association (ADA) have thoroughly reviewed and supported fluoridation. Of course these mainstream scientists and NGOs are likely in on the conspiracy somehow according to the proponents of this stuff. Scientific truths are finding it harder and harder to filter down to the American public these days.

The downfall of fluoride conspiracy theories has been gradual, fueled by increasing public understanding of the science behind fluoridation. As more people become aware of the substantial evidence supporting its safety and benefits, the influence of conspiracy theories diminishes. However, pockets of resistance remain, often driven by a broader mistrust in authority and a tendency to misinterpret or distrust scientific evidence. Aberdeen is literally taking a huge step back with this decision. Will you survive this City Council? We have lost many friends to the elements because of the cruel and agenda-driven policies the Aberdeen City Council has adopted towards the unhoused. It seems their callous disregard for science or evidence-based practices extends to all Aberdeen residents. Their actions have real world consequences for people living here.

If you think our City Council should listen to the people they represent, listen to scientific expertise, and make decisions that better the well-being of all residents, then check out the upcoming council seats available in the next election happening this year and run for one if you live in the appropriate ward. Below are the seats up for grabs this year, the corresponding incumbents, some of which are not planning on running again, and the filing fee to run for that seat.