[amazingamazing]

salt and milk don't come out of your tap, though. would you agree with governments building giant towers everywhere resulting in humidifying the air with chemically infused mists (which are said to be beneficial)?

after all, if you prefer the current air, you can wear a breathing mask attached to a tank with your air of choice.

it's crazy to me that people can see what harm the government can do in 2025 and still think the government knows best.

[roxolotl]

It's not about thinking the government knows best it's about thinking the research knows best. Fluoride in water is widely considered one of the largest public health victories and study after study finds it largely safe and worth the potential trade offs.

The thing that's so wild about being anti fluoride is it's been going on for so long, it's possible your grandparents have never drank unfluoridated water at least in their adult lives, and at such scale that even if everything was a coordinated lie there would be very clear numbers showing problems.

[amazingamazing]

> if everything was a coordinated lie there would be very clear numbers showing problems

that's not how science works though. people in the western hemisphere are becoming more unhealthy, and there is definitely not a consensus that fluoridated water is good. there are plenty of papers showing both conclusions.

at the end of the day though, there's actually no benefit to fluoride ingestion. no paper has shown this. what they do show though, is that when you add it to the water people have better tooth health, because the fluoride touches your teeth. however brushing your teeth is even more effective.

so can I assume that if there was research that breathing some chemically infused mist is good for you, you'd support the government in creating towers to spray this mist across the country? after all in this premise the research says it's good.

[roxolotl]

Sure why wouldn’t I? We do it already with things that aren’t healthy all the time. If we could, let’s say alleviate all allergies, with only very minor impacts to the environment or human health why wouldn’t we.

That being said it’s a false equalavincy. You can’t avoid the air you can avoid the public water supply.

[amazingamazing]

> You can’t avoid the air you can avoid the public water supply.

You can't though in practice. If you live in urban area for example. It's functionally equivalent. If you say well, I could say gas mask with tank. If you say bottled water, I could say respirator, etc.

[roxolotl]

Ok fair. Let’s turn it around then. Why wouldn’t you want something which drastically reduces allergies and is provably safe to humans and the environment? Is there any level of proof you’d be willing to accept? Do you just fundamentally believe that societal benefits aren’t worth it if they are impossible to opt out of? Or maybe you don’t see the societal benefits?

[amazingamazing]

if it's beneficial then I'd do it myself. why should I be forcing it on others?

[joshstrange]

> salt and milk don't come out of your tap

I do not see how this matters at all. The government regulates it, how it gets to your house makes little difference. Also, I don’t pay “the government” for my water/electric/etc, I pay companies which makes your argument even more confusing, it all comes down to regulations.

[amazingamazing]

the default water people consume comes from the tap. you don't see how it's different? it's not like people buy water of their choice and hook it up to their plumbing.

[UncleMeat]

Okay. But that's not at all present in the post I responded to.

This is government action we are discussing right now. The government can't know best when it puts fluoride in the water but it can know best when it bans municipalities from doing so?

[amazingamazing]

> This is government action we are discussing right now. The government can't know best when it puts fluoride in the water but it can know best when it bans municipalities from doing so?

I don't agree with the ban. people should be about to vote on this.