[amazingamazing]

that is good to know. fundamentally we'll have to agree to disagree. I do not agree with experimentation with the populace's water supply as a matter of principal. fyi there's already plenty of evidence that supplements are useful for those that are sufficient. of course the main counter argument is that if you're eating a balanced diet supplements are unnecessary (which is true). though that's just about as helpful as saying water fluoridation is unnecessary because you can brush your teeth (which is also true).

[ndsipa_pomu]

Whilst I can see your point of view, I think that fluoride in water is an issue that provoked knee-jerk reactions.

Here in the UK, there's areas with and without fluoridisation - the reason being that naturally the water in different areas has different fluoride concentrations with some areas having no need for adding fluoride as it's already there. The benefits were very easy to determine as (presumably) cavities were more common in those areas with low fluoride content, so it's less about experimentation and more about ensuring that more people can gain the same benefit.

[kelipso]

There’s a left-right split on the issue in America, which leads to a lot of specious and lazy reasoning, breaking away from typical impulses to have clean unpolluted tap water, etc.

[jjeaff]

if the natural water supply has fluoride in it, wouldn't removing the fluoride be akin to "experimenting" with the populace?

[kelipso]

Natural water supply has feces, bacteria, etc too. Civilization has progressed because we have managed to remove them from the water and provide clean water to the masses.

[Tadpole9181]

So what you're saying is that, as educated humans with access to decades of scientific research, we can use that research to make decisions about treatment plans for water to keep our population healthy?

[areyourllySorry]

some people need fluoride. nobody needs e coli.

[Tadpole9181]

Despite consensus this benefits dental health (an important part of heart health) and has no side effects, and the reality that municipalities that already banned fluoride suffered a huge upturn dental issues - particular in children who don't brush as often.

I'm sure the state is ensuring that this little experiment doesn't harm anybody by guaranteeing access to dental care, right? Putting our money where our mouth is and making sure that if they're doing demonstrable harm that anyone affected is compensated?

Oh, no, the poors can just deal with it? Nice.

Makes sense in a bill about "freedom and liberty" that also bans transporting mushrooms that naturally grow in the state and flying drones above farms.

[areyourllySorry]

the consensus was that ddt was okay too, and the current consensus is that oil is not a big enough issue to bother with.

the state didn't feed small children radioactive oatmeal for fun oh wait

imo, water is one of those things we should keep simple. today they add fluoride, tomorrow what? maybe "brushing people's teeth for them" in the name of convenience is doing people a disservice. pick up healthy habits or get lost.

signed, fluoride free toothpaste user and boiled tap water drinker.

as for the mushrooms, i agree that it's a stupid law

[kelipso]

You don’t need fluoride if you brush your teeth. Just like you don’t need to soak yourself in bleach if you have a bath every so often.

[areyourllySorry]

"you don’t need fluoride if you brush your teeth". some people brush. some don't. therefore, those that don't, "some", do need it.