6 ms·

As a Swede I always found it interesting we were one of the few countries which do not flouridate tap water. Our country took a principled stance against mass-

As a Swede I always found it interesting we were one of the few countries which do not flouridate tap water. Our country took a principled stance against mass-medicating the population with fluoride many decades ago, after a lot of push-back from some prominent scientists (including Arvid Carlsson, Nobel-prize recipient for his work on SSRIs).

_Microft 2y ago
> As a Swede I always found it interesting we were one of the few countries which do not flouridate tap water. Wikipedia doesn't support this claim. Here are two quotes from different articles: (1) "As of November 2012, a total of about 378 million people worldwide received artificially fluoridated water. The majority of those were in the United States. About 40 million worldwide received water that was naturally fluoridated to recommended levels.", from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Worldwide_prevalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Worldwide_p... (2) "Out of a population of about three-quarters of a billion, under 14 million people (approximately 2%) in Europe receive artificially-fluoridated water. Those people are in the UK (5,797,000), Republic of Ireland (4,780,000), Spain (4,250,000), and Serbia (300,000). The first water fluoridation in Europe was in West Germany and Sweden in 1952, bringing fluoridated water to about 42,000 people. By mid-1962, about 1 million Europeans in 18 communities in 11 countries were receiving fluoridated water.", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#...
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago
  It seems that Sweden no longer adds fluoride, but it's really besides the point since it says, > 57.4 million people receive naturally occurring fluoridated water at or above optimal levels in countries such as Sweden, China, Sri Lanka, Finland, Zimbabwe and Gabon.[1]
pierrebeaucamp 2y ago
I hate to cite Wikipedia as a source [1], but it looks like the majority of countries do not add fluoride to tap water (only 24 countries in total do). But Sweden seems to have an interesting history with it indeed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  I bet that is roughly related to the countries that have potable tap water at all.
chomp 2y ago
I’m struggling with the exaggeration of calling mineralization as “mass medication”. Would you refer to remineralization of anything out of e.g. a desalination plant “mass medication”?
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  What is "mass medication"? Here, if fluoride is added to water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay, then that is rather plainly a medical intervention, as the purpose is to prevent tooth decay. Whether it is harmful or not (I have seen a Harvard study that claims to find negative effects on intelligence scores), it is a rather odd and arbitrary medical intervention. Tooth decay? Even if we accept that tooth decay deserves this degree of attention, we no longer live under conditions that motivated the original fluoridation of water when dentistry and brushing of teeth with fluoride toothpaste was not as common. I simply fail to see justification for such a broad and heavy-handed intervention, or the cost of such an intervention.
  - l72 2y ago
    Would you consider iodized salt "mass medication"?
    - crote 2y ago
      Non-iodized salt is easily available at large quantities for a price very similar to iodized salt. A person who doesn't want to consume iodine via their salt can just choose not to buy it. It is not mass medication, because it is a choice. Drinking water is a completely different story. You can't survive more than a few days without it, and it is being pumped straight into our homes. Bottled water is literally orders of magnitude more expensive, so it cannot be used as a suitable alternative for drinking - let alone for activities like showering and washing dishes. If the water contains fluoride, a significant portion of the population cannot make the choice to consume unadulterated water instead. They are forced to drink it.
      - hombre_fatal 2y ago
fzeroracer 2y ago
I recommend testing your tap water for fluoride. You might be surprised.
outworlder 2y ago
> As a Swede I always found it interesting we were one of the few countries which do not flouridate tap water. How much fluoride is naturally present in your water? Maybe that's why. Or maybe you have good dental care so people get their enamel fluoridated at the office to the point that it doesn't pay to add it to the water.
- ErikBjare 2y ago
  Where I live it's 0.5mg/L from natural sources. Lower range of the recommended span given by WHO (0.5-1.5mg/L).
UltraSane 2y ago
Adding 0.7ppm of fluoride to drinking water is hardly "mass medication". Do you also refuse to iodize salt out of principle?
- ErikBjare 2y ago
  I wasn't the one arguing it all the way back in the 70s, feel free to read up on the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#...

_Microft 2y ago

> As a Swede I always found it interesting we were one of the few countries which do not flouridate tap water. Wikipedia doesn't support this claim. Here are two quotes from different articles: (1) "As of November 2012, a total of about 378 million people worldwide received artificially fluoridated water. The majority of those were in the United States. About 40 million worldwide received water that was naturally fluoridated to recommended levels.", from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Worldwide_prevalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Worldwide_p... (2) "Out of a population of about three-quarters of a billion, under 14 million people (approximately 2%) in Europe receive artificially-fluoridated water. Those people are in the UK (5,797,000), Republic of Ireland (4,780,000), Spain (4,250,000), and Serbia (300,000). The first water fluoridation in Europe was in West Germany and Sweden in 1952, bringing fluoridated water to about 42,000 people. By mid-1962, about 1 million Europeans in 18 communities in 11 countries were receiving fluoridated water.", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#...

bitshiftfaced 2y ago
It seems that Sweden no longer adds fluoride, but it's really besides the point since it says, > 57.4 million people receive naturally occurring fluoridated water at or above optimal levels in countries such as Sweden, China, Sri Lanka, Finland, Zimbabwe and Gabon.[1]

pierrebeaucamp 2y ago

I hate to cite Wikipedia as a source [1], but it looks like the majority of countries do not add fluoride to tap water (only 24 countries in total do). But Sweden seems to have an interesting history with it indeed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
I bet that is roughly related to the countries that have potable tap water at all.

chomp 2y ago

I’m struggling with the exaggeration of calling mineralization as “mass medication”. Would you refer to remineralization of anything out of e.g. a desalination plant “mass medication”?

lo_zamoyski 2y ago
What is "mass medication"? Here, if fluoride is added to water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay, then that is rather plainly a medical intervention, as the purpose is to prevent tooth decay. Whether it is harmful or not (I have seen a Harvard study that claims to find negative effects on intelligence scores), it is a rather odd and arbitrary medical intervention. Tooth decay? Even if we accept that tooth decay deserves this degree of attention, we no longer live under conditions that motivated the original fluoridation of water when dentistry and brushing of teeth with fluoride toothpaste was not as common. I simply fail to see justification for such a broad and heavy-handed intervention, or the cost of such an intervention.
- l72 2y ago
  Would you consider iodized salt "mass medication"?
  - crote 2y ago
    Non-iodized salt is easily available at large quantities for a price very similar to iodized salt. A person who doesn't want to consume iodine via their salt can just choose not to buy it. It is not mass medication, because it is a choice. Drinking water is a completely different story. You can't survive more than a few days without it, and it is being pumped straight into our homes. Bottled water is literally orders of magnitude more expensive, so it cannot be used as a suitable alternative for drinking - let alone for activities like showering and washing dishes. If the water contains fluoride, a significant portion of the population cannot make the choice to consume unadulterated water instead. They are forced to drink it.
    - hombre_fatal 2y ago

fzeroracer 2y ago

I recommend testing your tap water for fluoride. You might be surprised.

outworlder 2y ago

> As a Swede I always found it interesting we were one of the few countries which do not flouridate tap water. How much fluoride is naturally present in your water? Maybe that's why. Or maybe you have good dental care so people get their enamel fluoridated at the office to the point that it doesn't pay to add it to the water.

ErikBjare 2y ago
Where I live it's 0.5mg/L from natural sources. Lower range of the recommended span given by WHO (0.5-1.5mg/L).

UltraSane 2y ago

Adding 0.7ppm of fluoride to drinking water is hardly "mass medication". Do you also refuse to iodize salt out of principle?

ErikBjare 2y ago
I wasn't the one arguing it all the way back in the 70s, feel free to read up on the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#...