[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?

[const_cast]

Because "forcing it" makes sure it actually gets done and people get the benefit.

The thing about safety nets is they actually have to be, you know, safety nets. If you can just avoid them then they don't provide any safety. Look at SS. If we just get rid of SS, then we're fucked. It's true other investments exist and are better. But that's not the whole story. People won't invest, so we have to force them. Otherwise, they suffer, and we suffer, too, because ultimately we don't want dead geriatric bodies piling up on the streets.

The idea of fluoridated water is it's a safety net. So even the poorest, most mentally-ill among us have a baseline guarantee of dental health. And, for that purpose, it's extremely effective.

[roxolotl]

What about things which are only beneficial, or extra beneficial, at a population level? I don’t know if that’s true about fluoride but other comments talk about vaccines and it’s true there. Both disease eradication and herd immunity require that most everyone do something. Is there any case to you where it becomes worth it to mandate anything?