[o_1]

i think the dissent in this thread is unqualified. Society is completely over "net-benefit" solutions. Stop perscribing 20th century one size fits all solutions. How about free flouride tablets instead of dosing everyone. Then saying "we need public policy to govern insurance rates". If this arugment saw its maxima, it would be manditory euthansia after 65. Certainly would really drop insurance rates. Btw genetics are a massive factor in oral hygine requirements, probably something your not considering. Should everyone wear the same brand/make of shoes?

[roguecoder]

Having to do work is different than getting adequate vitamins and minerals (which is all fluoride is) passively. It's no different than iodine in salt or vitamins B12, C and folic acid in cereal or vitamin D in milk.

We no longer go out and find the magic rock that we lick to ensure a good harvest or drink from the special stream that cures illnesses: we know what the human body needs to be able to do things like "grow teeth" and "not develop scurvy". Why would we go back to making people have to do a bunch of work to get access to basic nutrition? Because some weirdos want to take us back to a time when the average life expectancy in the United States was 40 years old?

[gshulegaard]

The only point I put forth is that public fluoridation of water supplies doesn't infringe absolutely on an individual's right to informed consent to treatment since there is at least 1 method (moving) available that an individual can utilize to opt out. Others have pointed out that there may even be additional options available such as de-fluoridating yourself.

Did you have something on topic to contribute?

Or did you just want a soap box to voice your own opinions and I just happen to be collateral damage because you thought casting oblique aspersions about my qualifications would make you sound intelligent?