…
It is a scenario playing out nationwide. From Oregon to Pennsylvania, hundreds of communities have in recent years either stopped adding fluoride to their water supplies or voted to prevent its addition. Supporters of such bans argue that people should be given the freedom of choice. The broad availability of over-the-counter dental products containing the mineral makes it no longer necessary to add to public water supplies, they say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that while store-bought products reduce tooth decay, the greatest protection comes when they are used in combination with water fluoridation.
The outcome of an ongoing federal case in California could force the Environmental Protection Agency to create a rule regulating or banning the use of fluoride in drinking water nationwide. In the meantime, the trend is raising alarm bells for public health researchers who worry that, much like vaccines, fluoride may have become a victim of its own success.
The CDC maintains that community water fluoridation is not only safe and effective but also yields significant cost savings in dental treatment. Public health officials say removing fluoride could be particularly harmful to low-income families — for whom drinking water may be the only source of preventive dental care.
“If you have to go out and get care on your own, it’s a whole different ballgame,” said Myron Allukian Jr., a dentist and past president of the American Public Health Association. Millions of people have lived with fluoridated water for years, “and we’ve had no major health problems,” he said. “It’s much easier to prevent a disease than to treat it.”
According to the anti-fluoride group Fluoride Action Network, since 2010, over 240 communities around the world have removed fluoride from their drinking water or decided not to add it.
No, people shouldn’t have the right to choose if fluoride is added to their water. People are stupid. You vote to remove something that will greatly help children that can’t vote. The government’s job, sometimes, is to stop stupid people from hurting others and their selves. That’s the reason you can’t drink raw milk or use lead gas.
The raw milk thing is actually part of the reason the FDA was formed!
You can get raw milk if your state allows it. The federal government bans it, but only has regulatory authority over interstate commerce, so it can’t be moved across state boundaries, but you can get it if it’s made in-state.
I mean, I think that you’re mostly aiming to expose yourself to listeria, but if that’s what someone wants…
My guess is that dairy farmers have an interest in promoting it in that if they can sell it, it gives them a market without much competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_raw_milk_debate
Drinking milk was a bad example. I should have said sell unpasteurized milk. The point I think we both agree is that stupid for people make stupid decisions. Just like I don’t think people can decide about vaccines that have very low risk rates. It effects everyone, not just the idiots.
If stupid people want to make stupid decisions, that’s fine. The problem is when they try to take the rest of society down with them via damage or converting others to that stupidity.
That was my badly worded point. Other are effected by a few people with extra time.
You can drill your own well to get your own water, just like you can have a cow for raw milk.
can we compromise on drinking raw milk with flouride added?
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Well, and TB.
Some of the herd nobly chose to sacrifice itself to improve the genetic resistance of the whole.
Of course you can drink raw milk if you want to!
Removed by mod
Wow! That escalated quickly.
Guess mods don’t under sarcasm
Btw, cooking milk destroys some of the good stuff in it.
Edit: Raw milk has proteins which boost immune system and growth (because it’s for baby cows), which break down while cooking.
And yeah, probably don’t drink raw milk in US.
And all the things that kill you.
Probably a culture and laws difference. Here (swiss) getting raw milk from your local farmer is no problem.
I’m sure small doses of cyanide has benefits too.
Yes they should. Ingesting fluoride is bad for you, and it doesn’t help your teeth to drink it. That’s why small children’s toothpaste doesn’t have it, because you can’t trust them not to eat it. It’s only good when applied directly to the teeth, which can be accomplished on a daily basis by using toothpaste with fluoride and/or a mouthwash containing it, both of which you don’t drink.
Fluoride is removed from my drinking water by my reverse-osmosis filtration system, along with all the other contaminants like PFAS and lead. I’ve been drinking fluoride-free water for 10 years, and my teeth are beautiful and healthy. Anyone who drinks bottled water is also probably drinking fluoride-free water since those companies mostly use the same filtration method to produce their bottled water.
Do you have evidence?
Sure, here’s a good article with lots of info.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/
That’s not a peer reviewed study - its somebody’s editorialized book report.
Go ahead and review it then - their sources are cited.
Evidence has been presented, whether or not you agree with what it says is irrelevant.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
Link to original article. Cheers to you for citing your sources, but the authors here are massively conflating the effects of industrial fluoride exposure with residential water fluoridation in an attempt to prove a position they began with.
thanks
Where does “no, people don’t have the right to choose if [chemical] is added to their bloodstream, because they are stupid” stop? Who determines when it’s “stupid” not to add a chemical to the water supply, and to whom do they answer? If the voting public decides to override public officials on a matter like this, you’re basically saying they shouldn’t have the “right” to vote the officials out on those grounds. You’re basically saying this is some kind of extraordinary policy matter that obviously needs to be insulated from the kind of democratic review pretty much all other municipal policies are subject to. And we’re talking about dumping a chemical in the water supply as a substitute for having good public health infrastructure in our country.
If you’re a Republican, well, they’re inconsistent, evil psychos, I don’t expect much from them to make sense. But if you’re a Democrat… if you’re a democrat…
EDIT no really, explain it to me, don’t just downvote me. Why should a highly technocratic public health policy that achieves only one public health goal, and isn’t even the only way to do it, be beyond democratic review? This literally makes less than no fucking sense. Also, the rules on raw milk and lead in gasoline are also subject to democratic review. They don’t get challenged because there are basically no downsides to those policies and literally the only people who are negatively impacted are people invested in the industries in question. People get iffy about fluoridation because there are corner cases that cause problems for individuals, so it’s actually a public health tradeoff and you can avoid those tradeoffs with different policies (like universal public health care + fluoridation regimes) – ie, you can achieve the benefits of fluoridation without negatively impacting anyone. The cost-benefit ratio of water fluoridation is literally different to those other policies, which is why nobody complains about unleaded gasoline but they do complain about fluoridation in water.
If nothing else, does anything strike you as half-cocked about comparing clean, potable, treated drinking water without fluoride to leaded gasoline? Do you refuse to drink un-fluoridated drinking water because of the permanent and irreversible health effects of being exposed to literally any quantity of unfluoridated potable water?
Unfortunately your point is a false agreement. The chemical in question has been studied for decades and has little to no negative impact on general public. A few people don’t warrant a total ban. Everything will effect someone at some point. It’s science not magic. A better education system and removing pointless arguments ( religion, anti sponsored studies ) would help inform people. I sure most people don’t know fluoride is poisonous but so is vitamin D, C, and E. The dose is so high that you would have to eat it like cady straight.
I’m not antidemocratic, though the “let states decide” movement is making me reevaluate that. I’m more of a “let educated and qualified” people have a high stance then “it’s turn the frogs gay” crowd. It is a difficult conversation but we have to advance as a society. This is not advancing. Also I agree universal healthcare would be a wonderful, but that shouldn’t excuse something that is universal beneficial.
To add to your reply,
If universal health care is the answer to not putting fluoride in the water, you make the universal health care a reality before you get rid of the thing that it replaces. You didn’t get rid of something until you have it covered elsewhere, and even then you need to make sure by giving the new thing time to prove it is as effective as you believe it is going to be before you pull the plug on the thing that is proven to have been effective
Not sure why someone down voted that but I agree. You never remove something until you have a more effective solution in place. That was one of the issues I had with Republicans when it can to the ACA. They destroyed it with nothing to fill the holes. Fucking hate that but I don’t expect anything from them.