Put another way, Florida supports the right of informed consent with regard to fluoride treatment. As a thyroid cancer survivor I decline that treatment due to fluoride competing with iodine for receptors and causing goiters and tumors as a result. The only reason I can decline is that I'm using well water rather than a public system. Now people in Florida can all choose. I'm pro choice on abortion too for the same reason: Your body your choice.
Without comment on the question of health benefits or harms, I'm curious whether you've had the well water you use tested. Fluoride concentrations in bore-well water varies quite widely, and concentrations higher than fluoridated tap water not uncommon. There are several areas here (in Aus) where fluoride is removed to reach the recommended concentration of 0.5-1.1 ppm. This obviously varies based on location.
why would you want this? brush your teeth or swish with high concentration fluoride mouthwash. there's actually no benefit of ingesting fluoridated water. any benefit is simply incidental since it must touch your teeth down the hatch. don't take my word for it - go read the papers yourself, they all say as much. Or to put it another way, would pumping fluoride to your stomach help your teeth? I hope you know the answer.
literally every toothpaste in the united states explicitly says to spit, not swallow. there's a reason for that.
Not everyone has impeccable brushing habits and reducing cavities is a net benefit to public health like sanitation departments. I would be more interested to see a source as to why you think there's no benefit to fluorinated water when there are studies that are a quick search away for fluorinated water.
> reducing cavities is a net benefit to public health like sanitation departments
what is the connection between reducing cavities and sanitation departments? cavities are not communicable.
Also, the paper you linked is my point. there's no actual benefit of ingestion. the effect is purely incidental. it's more effective to apply fluoride to the teeth. nowhere does it actually explain that drinking it is what is beneficial. the difference in the incidence of caries is because by fluoridating the water it obviously will touch teeth, which has well known positive effects.
the main conclusion of the paper is what everyone should hopefully know already - brush your teeth regularly with fluoride toothpaste.
out of curiosity, would you be OK with vitamins being added to the water? most people are deficient in many.
> would you be OK with vitamins being added to the water?
Provided there's reasonable scientific evidence that this is fine and effective and not expensive, I don't see why not. I don't think I've ever seen it proposed.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
“It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids, without the knowledge of the individual, certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.”
it probably don't make a big difference even in your case.
in the water system quantities and peer reviewed studies dosages, the psychological impacts are more real than iodine absorption.
flouride is not added today for teeth health (distributing mouth wash would do a better job) but it helps keep the water good for drinking, together with stuff like chlorine, which change by region.
... the real reason here is: it's as divisive and harder to reach an informed conclusion either way, just like abortion. oh American politics.
Adding fluoride to water is a strange topic people get very worked up about. The levels of added fluoride are very low, it's been well studied at this point. Some places in the world need to filter out naturally occurring fluoride, which is one of the reasons that not everywhere adds it.
In NZ we appear to be moving in the opposite direction where central govt is now going to mandate the addition of fluoride where it was previously a local decision.
The levels of added fluoride are very low, it's been well studied at this point.
If you want to steel man the argument you should point out that the maximum allowed fluoride levels in US are quite a bit higher than in, for example the EU (on the order of 3 times higher), and that some recent studies have indicated some potential health risks for young children who consume a lot of water around the very top end of what the US allows.
Of course the correct response to this is to overhaul the recommendations and lower the maximum allowed levels, not to issue state wide bans.
Bans are more effective. There’s always some local hero in the water supply org who thinks he knows what’s best for everyone and modifies the fluoride amount to his liking. For example there was someone in Virginia a few years ago who lowered the fluoride to sensible levels and was fired for it.
Sure, my point being if there is no mechanism for adding fluoride to the water system, then it will be more much unlikely that someone will add illegal amount of the toxin to the water system.
> Adding fluoride to water is a strange topic people get very worked up about
Yes. It's weird, it seems to be given a special level of paranoia. And it's a longstanding one, the paranoid general in Dr Strangelove was obsessed with fluoridation.
Lots of substances have arguments over safe legal levels, with varying levels of scientific evidence. This seems to have a crusade, and I wonder who started it.
The recent NIH meta-study indicated there may be neurotoxic effects at concentrations within an order of magnitude of the recommended drinking water level (perhaps even at just 2x the recommendation), I wouldn't call that "very low".
The best research I've seen on this, from NZ, suggests the neurocognitive effect in typical fluoridation programs is about as close to zero as you can get.
I admit I think people were stigmatized for raising concerns about it before, and find it sort of weird it was added without more safety data, but by the same token I think the most rigorous evidence suggests its pretty safe at the typical concentrations of most fluoridation programs.
I actually consider myself "on the left," but find their turn to a sort of scientistic blind trust of anything remotely billed as "public health" during COVID to have been disastrous.
I thought I was on the left but there’s no way I want to be associated with people who have such blind trust in institutions and have such pride in their lack of critical thinking.
If some areas had sufficient levels of that multivitamin in the water naturally and it produced a benefit, then it would make sense to add similar levels of that multivitamin to the water supplies that lacked it.
While we're at it, I think my city could benefit from a subtle strawberry flavoring. Perhaps strawberry-banana would suit us best. The only question would be, aspartame or HFCS?
Before you jump to reactions, remember that there isn't consensus worldwide on what the best approach to this is. For example most countries in the EU also don't fluorinate water, but it's instead in toothpaste or table salt or etc.
This bill is likely based on the same sort of scientific knowledge that leads people to recommend drinking raw milk. The litmus test to use is if it is banning fluoridation, or if it is reducing the maximum allowable amount of fluoride in the water to something below 0.75 mg/L (the current EPA limit is 4 mg/L).
I haven't been able to find the bill text here, but I am virtually certain that it's the former case, which tells me that they're not actually motivated by the supposed harms of fluoride in the >0.75 mg/L range.
It (circumcision) also pretty clearly unconstitutional and otherwise unlawful.
Yahweh and Allah sadly didn't mandate fluoridation when revealing their will for mankind through their prophets. But somehow genital mutilation survives in the US in no small part because of religion.
Circumcision in the U.S. is largely unrelated to religion, the Jewish and Muslim populations are pretty small. It is a remnant of a fad from the 1880s and Victorian-era nonsense. It’s now culturally engrained, with dads frequently citing aesthetics.
To play devil’s advocate, salt and milk aren’t pumped into your house by the government. You can also buy iodine-free salt and vitamin d-free milk if you choose.
Just pointing out something I recently learned that others may not be aware of -- most bottled water also has fluoride added. iirc water labeled as "distilled" cannot contain additives (or at least fluoride), but most of the "spring water" and other variants you'll find at the store do have those additives.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
> 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?
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.
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.
You seem more like you're performing for an audience then engaging in good faith. You're also making faulty assumptions - I generally support the addition of fluoride to pubic drinking water systems despite the fact that I can sympathize with those who object to it.
My comment about freedoms was not in reference to fluoride. It was in response to your blanket dismissal of anyone who doesn't "care about public health" whatever that's supposed to mean. "Public health" as you're using the term appears to translate to "it's for your own good". Then your earlier statement reads as a blanket justification to run roughshod over other's freedoms while mocking them for objecting.
Your logic can be summarized as X is often harmful to people who choose to do it therefore restricting voluntary participation in X does not infringe freedoms in an objectionable manner. Hopefully you can see the absurdity when it's laid out like that.
> there's very strong data that tobacco is carcinogenic and so it's hardly a dystopian nanny state for tobacco to be restricted
The argument isn't "specific thing makes this a dystopian nanny state" it's "particular philosophy rapidly leads to a dystopian nanny state". They're quite different claims.
Children aren't generally viewed as having full freedoms so the associated age restrictions don't seem particularly relevant to this conversation. That said "public health" is hardly the only possible justification for restricting tobacco sales to minors.
> Similarly, it hardly infringes freedom if there's minimum standards for food hygiene even though you may personally enjoy dysentry, food poisoning etc.
The imposition of food hygiene standards generally serves to bring stability and security to the market by regulating something that end consumers can't easily judge for themselves but which nonetheless can harm them. Notice that restaurants generally remain free to serve undercooked items to customers but they must go out of their way to make the customer aware of this fact. Despite your dismissive misrepresentation of my views I do in fact view the restrictions on raw milk as a fairly severe violation of freedoms despite the fact that I have no personal interest in consuming it.
> 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.
I hope you're having fun knocking down these strawmen. Investment and outreach isn't ignoring.
> 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.
You finally managed to point out something interesting. So a question. If non-potable water is treated and a byproduct is left behind is that a problem? Note that in this hypothetical there was no intent other than accomplishing the goal (ie making the water potable) at a reasonable price point. Are you entitled to water of a specific purity level, or merely potable water, or something else entirely?
Now what if the byproduct was left behind intentionally (ie the option to remove it existed and was trivial) but it was nonetheless a byproduct of a particular treatment program and treatment of some sort was genuinely necessary?
I think there is a fundamental difference between intentionally introducing something and failing to remove something, and the motivations matter because they can set precedent for future actions.
You seem a bit confused with your little rant there (there's so many wrong-minded ideas that I can't be bothered to explain why they're wrong) and you haven't answered my clear question:
> 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?
More bad faith talking points - which have been addressed by other commenters in other sub-threads responding to you. (I am able to read those, you know)
This is a dead horse. You're in the wrong. Please do not engage with me any more.
they haven't though. feel free to post a paper showing that fluoride ingestion is good for you. there's no dispute that fluoride contact on the teeth is good.
there are plenty of papers showing that *ingestion* may be bad for you and results in lower IQ. feel free to research.
If Biden had made these policies I would have been pro-Biden policy guy then.
> I see you're taking a play from the right-wing playbook
Do you actually believe this is a thing?
I figured the other commenter voiced my point of view well enough. I was just curious if you were aware of how you come off. I always wonder if people who are abrasive on the internet are like that in real life.
If we had universal health care and guaranteed basic income, then I might be inclined to agree with you.
Fluoride in drinking water is supposed to be a cost-effective way to prevent a lot of suffering from those who cannot afford to take care of their teeth, for example, children in poor families.
I grew up in an area with fluoride in the water and most of my peers had no cavities until we had moved away and were in our late twenties.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
The reflexive, shallow negativity in these comment sections surprises me.
There are legitimately bad things happening.
Your complaints about those things become diluted when you complain about things like this (or looking for environmental causes of autism, or shutting down demonstrably wasteful programs).
Sometimes the liberal side of these discussions can be so conservative.
I don't think this is, among the recent posts about US, the one for which you should have such a reaction... but maybe I'm missing something important here.
Do European countries use fluoride in their water?
Varies a lot from country to country, but over all it is done to a much lower degree than in the US.
However the big difference is that there isn't a ban on it. There are scientific guidelines published by the EU and then it is up to each country/state to decide if they want to add it or not based on local considerations.
The chief chemical added to tap water is chlorine, to kill off all of the organisms that live in the water. Clostridium difficile isn't exactly something you want to get with your drinking water, unless you really, really love your diarrhea.
After a few years on a well, it becomes clear how much chlorine. Opening a tap on tap water smells like a swimming pool. You can smell it clear across the room.
Poor people don't drink tap water, due to lack of trust in the media among others.[1] The comments here that insinuate otherwise is also an effect of that same media,[2] on the same spectrum that led them to support school closures.
This whole topic is just a symptom of a more general disease. Defund CPB (and hence PBS and NPR) before we lose any more to this idiocy.
Put another way, Florida supports the right of informed consent with regard to fluoride treatment. As a thyroid cancer survivor I decline that treatment due to fluoride competing with iodine for receptors and causing goiters and tumors as a result. The only reason I can decline is that I'm using well water rather than a public system. Now people in Florida can all choose. I'm pro choice on abortion too for the same reason: Your body your choice.
Without comment on the question of health benefits or harms, I'm curious whether you've had the well water you use tested. Fluoride concentrations in bore-well water varies quite widely, and concentrations higher than fluoridated tap water not uncommon. There are several areas here (in Aus) where fluoride is removed to reach the recommended concentration of 0.5-1.1 ppm. This obviously varies based on location.
What are the options for adding fluoride back to water for a home?
why would you want this? brush your teeth or swish with high concentration fluoride mouthwash. there's actually no benefit of ingesting fluoridated water. any benefit is simply incidental since it must touch your teeth down the hatch. don't take my word for it - go read the papers yourself, they all say as much. Or to put it another way, would pumping fluoride to your stomach help your teeth? I hope you know the answer.
literally every toothpaste in the united states explicitly says to spit, not swallow. there's a reason for that.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2925001/
Not everyone has impeccable brushing habits and reducing cavities is a net benefit to public health like sanitation departments. I would be more interested to see a source as to why you think there's no benefit to fluorinated water when there are studies that are a quick search away for fluorinated water.
> reducing cavities is a net benefit to public health like sanitation departments
what is the connection between reducing cavities and sanitation departments? cavities are not communicable.
Also, the paper you linked is my point. there's no actual benefit of ingestion. the effect is purely incidental. it's more effective to apply fluoride to the teeth. nowhere does it actually explain that drinking it is what is beneficial. the difference in the incidence of caries is because by fluoridating the water it obviously will touch teeth, which has well known positive effects.
the main conclusion of the paper is what everyone should hopefully know already - brush your teeth regularly with fluoride toothpaste.
out of curiosity, would you be OK with vitamins being added to the water? most people are deficient in many.
> would you be OK with vitamins being added to the water?
Provided there's reasonable scientific evidence that this is fine and effective and not expensive, I don't see why not. I don't think I've ever seen it proposed.
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).
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.
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.
if the natural water supply has fluoride in it, wouldn't removing the fluoride be akin to "experimenting" with the populace?
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.
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?
some people need fluoride. nobody needs e coli.
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.
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
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.
"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.
They're already added to many staple foods, at least in the US. Pretty similar in my view.
[dead]
Narrarator: "There wasn't a choice after all"
“It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids, without the knowledge of the individual, certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.”
it probably don't make a big difference even in your case.
in the water system quantities and peer reviewed studies dosages, the psychological impacts are more real than iodine absorption.
flouride is not added today for teeth health (distributing mouth wash would do a better job) but it helps keep the water good for drinking, together with stuff like chlorine, which change by region.
... the real reason here is: it's as divisive and harder to reach an informed conclusion either way, just like abortion. oh American politics.
there is not a consensus on fluoride in drinking water. see the intro here (this particular paper concludes fluoride is overall good):
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/711915
[dead]
Adding fluoride to water is a strange topic people get very worked up about. The levels of added fluoride are very low, it's been well studied at this point. Some places in the world need to filter out naturally occurring fluoride, which is one of the reasons that not everywhere adds it.
In NZ we appear to be moving in the opposite direction where central govt is now going to mandate the addition of fluoride where it was previously a local decision.
The levels of added fluoride are very low, it's been well studied at this point.
If you want to steel man the argument you should point out that the maximum allowed fluoride levels in US are quite a bit higher than in, for example the EU (on the order of 3 times higher), and that some recent studies have indicated some potential health risks for young children who consume a lot of water around the very top end of what the US allows.
Of course the correct response to this is to overhaul the recommendations and lower the maximum allowed levels, not to issue state wide bans.
Bans are more effective. There’s always some local hero in the water supply org who thinks he knows what’s best for everyone and modifies the fluoride amount to his liking. For example there was someone in Virginia a few years ago who lowered the fluoride to sensible levels and was fired for it.
set a maximum limit. make it a crime (probably is already) to purposely exceed those limits.
Sure, my point being if there is no mechanism for adding fluoride to the water system, then it will be more much unlikely that someone will add illegal amount of the toxin to the water system.
> Adding fluoride to water is a strange topic people get very worked up about
Yes. It's weird, it seems to be given a special level of paranoia. And it's a longstanding one, the paranoid general in Dr Strangelove was obsessed with fluoridation.
Lots of substances have arguments over safe legal levels, with varying levels of scientific evidence. This seems to have a crusade, and I wonder who started it.
The recent NIH meta-study indicated there may be neurotoxic effects at concentrations within an order of magnitude of the recommended drinking water level (perhaps even at just 2x the recommendation), I wouldn't call that "very low".
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6923889/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003335062...
The best research I've seen on this, from NZ, suggests the neurocognitive effect in typical fluoridation programs is about as close to zero as you can get.
I admit I think people were stigmatized for raising concerns about it before, and find it sort of weird it was added without more safety data, but by the same token I think the most rigorous evidence suggests its pretty safe at the typical concentrations of most fluoridation programs.
I love the responses of people on the left on this issue. Can’t wait for the eventual group amnesia when the scientific consensus changes.
I actually consider myself "on the left," but find their turn to a sort of scientistic blind trust of anything remotely billed as "public health" during COVID to have been disastrous.
I thought I was on the left but there’s no way I want to be associated with people who have such blind trust in institutions and have such pride in their lack of critical thinking.
would you agree with a multivitamin being dissolved and added to the water? why or why not?
If some areas had sufficient levels of that multivitamin in the water naturally and it produced a benefit, then it would make sense to add similar levels of that multivitamin to the water supplies that lacked it.
that would be great. maybe some electrolytes too.
While we're at it, I think my city could benefit from a subtle strawberry flavoring. Perhaps strawberry-banana would suit us best. The only question would be, aspartame or HFCS?
it would be nice if i could add it myself to my kitchen tap water, without wasting it when i shower
If I was a dentist, I'd be moving to Florida...
Before you jump to reactions, remember that there isn't consensus worldwide on what the best approach to this is. For example most countries in the EU also don't fluorinate water, but it's instead in toothpaste or table salt or etc.
[flagged]
That last sentence doesn't say anything about America, you might want to consider what makes you so touchy on this subject.
> There isn't a worldwide consensus on genital mutilation and slavery
Oh come the fuck on. There's a pretty fucking large gap between water fluoridation and both of those.
Yes but one of them is still performed at large scale in the US despite all common sense and scientific knowledge.
This bill is likely based on the same sort of scientific knowledge that leads people to recommend drinking raw milk. The litmus test to use is if it is banning fluoridation, or if it is reducing the maximum allowable amount of fluoride in the water to something below 0.75 mg/L (the current EPA limit is 4 mg/L).
I haven't been able to find the bill text here, but I am virtually certain that it's the former case, which tells me that they're not actually motivated by the supposed harms of fluoride in the >0.75 mg/L range.
It (circumcision) also pretty clearly unconstitutional and otherwise unlawful.
Yahweh and Allah sadly didn't mandate fluoridation when revealing their will for mankind through their prophets. But somehow genital mutilation survives in the US in no small part because of religion.
Circumcision in the U.S. is largely unrelated to religion, the Jewish and Muslim populations are pretty small. It is a remnant of a fad from the 1880s and Victorian-era nonsense. It’s now culturally engrained, with dads frequently citing aesthetics.
"Forced medication" I assure you that they'll be banning iodine in salt and vitamin d in milk next.
To play devil’s advocate, salt and milk aren’t pumped into your house by the government. You can also buy iodine-free salt and vitamin d-free milk if you choose.
You can buy bottled water, or a filter and many people have wells.
Just pointing out something I recently learned that others may not be aware of -- most bottled water also has fluoride added. iirc water labeled as "distilled" cannot contain additives (or at least fluoride), but most of the "spring water" and other variants you'll find at the store do have those additives.
the default should be no additions, no?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
true
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.
> 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.
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.
>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?
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?
> 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?
It's a public health matter. If you don't care about public health then I personally don't care what you think.
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.
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.
You seem more like you're performing for an audience then engaging in good faith. You're also making faulty assumptions - I generally support the addition of fluoride to pubic drinking water systems despite the fact that I can sympathize with those who object to it.
My comment about freedoms was not in reference to fluoride. It was in response to your blanket dismissal of anyone who doesn't "care about public health" whatever that's supposed to mean. "Public health" as you're using the term appears to translate to "it's for your own good". Then your earlier statement reads as a blanket justification to run roughshod over other's freedoms while mocking them for objecting.
Your logic can be summarized as X is often harmful to people who choose to do it therefore restricting voluntary participation in X does not infringe freedoms in an objectionable manner. Hopefully you can see the absurdity when it's laid out like that.
> there's very strong data that tobacco is carcinogenic and so it's hardly a dystopian nanny state for tobacco to be restricted
The argument isn't "specific thing makes this a dystopian nanny state" it's "particular philosophy rapidly leads to a dystopian nanny state". They're quite different claims.
Children aren't generally viewed as having full freedoms so the associated age restrictions don't seem particularly relevant to this conversation. That said "public health" is hardly the only possible justification for restricting tobacco sales to minors.
> Similarly, it hardly infringes freedom if there's minimum standards for food hygiene even though you may personally enjoy dysentry, food poisoning etc.
The imposition of food hygiene standards generally serves to bring stability and security to the market by regulating something that end consumers can't easily judge for themselves but which nonetheless can harm them. Notice that restaurants generally remain free to serve undercooked items to customers but they must go out of their way to make the customer aware of this fact. Despite your dismissive misrepresentation of my views I do in fact view the restrictions on raw milk as a fairly severe violation of freedoms despite the fact that I have no personal interest in consuming it.
> 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.
I hope you're having fun knocking down these strawmen. Investment and outreach isn't ignoring.
> 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.
You finally managed to point out something interesting. So a question. If non-potable water is treated and a byproduct is left behind is that a problem? Note that in this hypothetical there was no intent other than accomplishing the goal (ie making the water potable) at a reasonable price point. Are you entitled to water of a specific purity level, or merely potable water, or something else entirely?
Now what if the byproduct was left behind intentionally (ie the option to remove it existed and was trivial) but it was nonetheless a byproduct of a particular treatment program and treatment of some sort was genuinely necessary?
I think there is a fundamental difference between intentionally introducing something and failing to remove something, and the motivations matter because they can set precedent for future actions.
You seem a bit confused with your little rant there (there's so many wrong-minded ideas that I can't be bothered to explain why they're wrong) and you haven't answered my clear question:
> 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?
[flagged]
Good talk!
Thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand how public health programs work.
[flagged]
More bad faith talking points - which have been addressed by other commenters in other sub-threads responding to you. (I am able to read those, you know)
This is a dead horse. You're in the wrong. Please do not engage with me any more.
they haven't though. feel free to post a paper showing that fluoride ingestion is good for you. there's no dispute that fluoride contact on the teeth is good.
there are plenty of papers showing that *ingestion* may be bad for you and results in lower IQ. feel free to research.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/assessments/noncancer/com...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
> Default water, lol. What an incredibly, terribly, dumb argument.
> More bad faith talking points
Do you talk to people like this in person? If not, why not? (If so, how's that working out for you?)
Hello, Pro-RFK policy guy!
I see you're taking a play from the right-wing playbook: If you can't refute a thing you want to refute, complain about decorum instead.
If Biden had made these policies I would have been pro-Biden policy guy then.
> I see you're taking a play from the right-wing playbook
Do you actually believe this is a thing?
I figured the other commenter voiced my point of view well enough. I was just curious if you were aware of how you come off. I always wonder if people who are abrasive on the internet are like that in real life.
I read through your comment history and pegged you based on what you wrote, you can read through mine and similarly decide for yourself.
[flagged]
If we had universal health care and guaranteed basic income, then I might be inclined to agree with you.
Fluoride in drinking water is supposed to be a cost-effective way to prevent a lot of suffering from those who cannot afford to take care of their teeth, for example, children in poor families.
I grew up in an area with fluoride in the water and most of my peers had no cavities until we had moved away and were in our late twenties.
This. It's incredibly beneficial for public health. See also: enriched wheat flour.
The default for salt and milk isn't no additions.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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?
if it's beneficial then I'd do it myself. why should I be forcing it on others?
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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?
> 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.
The reflexive, shallow negativity in these comment sections surprises me.
There are legitimately bad things happening.
Your complaints about those things become diluted when you complain about things like this (or looking for environmental causes of autism, or shutting down demonstrably wasteful programs).
Sometimes the liberal side of these discussions can be so conservative.
repeat after me:
topical fluoride application on the teeth is better than drinking fluoridated water.
we're in a post truth era where literal fact is downvoted lol.
[flagged]
I don't think this is, among the recent posts about US, the one for which you should have such a reaction... but maybe I'm missing something important here.
[dead]
Do European countries use fluoride in their water?
While I agree that it's a shit show right now in the US, this article maybe isn't the leading edge of that.
Do European countries use fluoride in their water?
Varies a lot from country to country, but over all it is done to a much lower degree than in the US.
However the big difference is that there isn't a ban on it. There are scientific guidelines published by the EU and then it is up to each country/state to decide if they want to add it or not based on local considerations.
In Germany: no The toothpaste has already enough fluoride and the healthcare system isn't completly broken.
[flagged]
[flagged]
The chief chemical added to tap water is chlorine, to kill off all of the organisms that live in the water. Clostridium difficile isn't exactly something you want to get with your drinking water, unless you really, really love your diarrhea.
After a few years on a well, it becomes clear how much chlorine. Opening a tap on tap water smells like a swimming pool. You can smell it clear across the room.
Not that it means it's unsafe to drink
Not unsafe, but still, if your water smell chlorine, you should let it rest a bit before drinking it.
Drinking tap water without chemicals added to them sounds a lot more scary.
That’s right.
My grandma won’t get on a plane because being strapped into a metal tube going 500mph at 35,000 feet in the sky sounds scary.
Everything is chemicals.
It’s a good thing that water isn’t a chemical.
Poor people don't drink tap water, due to lack of trust in the media among others.[1] The comments here that insinuate otherwise is also an effect of that same media,[2] on the same spectrum that led them to support school closures.
This whole topic is just a symptom of a more general disease. Defund CPB (and hence PBS and NPR) before we lose any more to this idiocy.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7474465/
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/26/us/epidemic-of-oral-disea...