[RajT88]

No. Unless you want the US added to the list of countries where the advice to tourists is "Don't drink the water".

Water additives are proven to improve the health of the populace. There are corner cases, and we can debate appropriate levels, but an outright ban of all additives is regressive.

There seems to be a lot of regressive attitudes going around these days. See: Measles outbreak.

[triceratops]

Tourists don't stay long enough for the presence or absence of fluoride in water to matter to them. Pathogen- and contaminant-free water are the only priority for them. Stories like Flint would probably do more to scare tourists about US tap water.

[amazingamazing]

water additives are used to remove bad things in the water. so in effect the additives exist to actually move the water qualify closer to the "default", not "enhance" it. if tap water was literally h20 and nothing else the additives would be unnecessary, no?

as far as measles go, people have the right to not get vaccinated if they choose - it's dumb, though and others have the right to not let them participate in things since they're not vaccinated, too. it's not really analogous to the fluoride thing at all anyway.

[yakz]

> if tap water was literally h20 and nothing else the additives would be unnecessary, no?

Pure water is not particularly healthy to drink, and may be bad for your plumbing.

[amazingamazing]

true

[RajT88]

Default water, lol. What an incredibly, terribly, dumb argument. There is no such thing as "Default Water" - it neither exists in nature, nor in man-made systems. Good luck with that. We can - and should - modify our our systems in the interests of public health. Nothing comes without corner cases which impact people like you - them's the breaks. Life isn't fair, but we are engineering a society for the benefit of almost everyone in it.

People can choose not to drink flouridated tap water if they want - building a well isn't that expensive, although you will probably need a treatment system because of the naturally occurring stuff (minerals, hydrogen sulphide, possibly excess flouride and other stuff).

"Freedom isn't free", as they like to say. You may have to invest in your "freedom" to drink the water you want to drink. You will have to pay the price of your kids not getting vaccinated - they may not be able to go to public schools.

There are much bigger hills worth dying on (see: Flint, MI). Leave the wildly successful public health programs alone.

[amazingamazing]

> People can choose not to drink flouridated tap water if they want - building a well isn't that expensive, although you will probably need a treatment system because of the naturally occurring stuff (minerals, hydrogen sulphide, possibly excess flouride and other stuff).

that's hilarious because brushing your teeth is more effective, and cheaper than adding fluoride to water. I'm sure people in Manhattan will really get on building those wells.

at the end of the day there's not a single paper that actually says ingesting fluoride is water. they all correlate incidental fluoride contact on the teeth, due to it being in the water.

fact is, brushing your teeth is more effective and has no downsides. ingesting fluoride is bad and is discouraged literally not only by all dentists, but this fact is present on all toothpaste in the usa.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Despite people knowing about the effectiveness of brushing teeth with fluoride toothpaste, there are benefits (less cavities in young people) to having a certain level of fluoride in the water. Presumably, not everyone is good at brushing their teeth, yet we can improve dental health by adding in some fluoride in those areas that have low or no fluoride naturally in their water supply.

[gazebo64]

>Presumably, not everyone is good at brushing their teeth

Is it fair that everyone is forced to ingest this chemical for the benefit of people who can't or won't engage in their own basic hygiene?

[ndsipa_pomu]

That sounds like a child's argument - "it's not fair!".

It's basic public health logic - is it a net benefit to the population to add fluoride to the water supply and at a suitable price point or is there a more effective method to achieve the desired outcome?

Meanwhile, we have toxic tyre pollution being released into the very air that we breathe which has no known benefit to the population's health and has been shown to lead to heart/lung problems and early deaths. Is that fair?

[RajT88]

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand how public health programs work.