[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?

[gazebo64]

> 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

What if I don't care about that outcome if it means my water supply is tainted with a chemical I have no desire to ingest? Is it incomprehensible to you that somebody may not be particularly concerned with a statistical decrease in cavities for people that can't be bothered to brush their teeth if it means being force-fed a potential neurotoxin?

[ndsipa_pomu]

It's a public health matter. If you don't care about public health then I personally don't care what you think.

[fc417fc802]

I could as easily respond that if you don't care about my fundamental freedoms then I don't care what you think. That said, I personally find the concern about fluoride overblown.

"Public health" isn't an excuse to ignore individual rights. It's a justification for investment and outreach, nothing more. The alternative rapidly gives way to a dystopian nanny state.

[ndsipa_pomu]

I can't see how anybody's freedom is infringed by adding fluoride to public water in those areas where it is lacking. What specific freedom are you talking about?

I can see the argument about freedom vs public health in things like tobacco usage, but there's very strong data that tobacco is carcinogenic and so it's hardly a dystopian nanny state for tobacco to be restricted (e.g. minimum age). Similarly, it hardly infringes freedom if there's minimum standards for food hygiene even though you may personally enjoy dysentry, food poisoning etc.

There's a world of difference between a dystopian nanny state and just ignoring public health issues that would typically affect the poorer segments of society.

To be honest, it seems like a disingenuous argument that anti-fluoride people make about it infringing their freedom when they don't seem concerned about removing fluoride from those supplies that naturally have higher levels.

[gazebo64]

Good talk!