3 ms·

Thanks. I guess then my next question is, why are they doing this? Whom is it benefiting? Big Water?

by dataflow 2y ago

piker 2y ago
Is there scope to believe they just think it may be better not to have it in the water?
- dataflow 2y ago
  > Is there scope to believe they just think it may be better not to have it in the water? Are you asking if there's room to believe it's just a sincere "everything you eat or drink should stay untouched, like it's found in nature" belief? OK sure, let's go with that. So why aren't they working to dismantle water treatment plants altogether and e.g. fighting against modern industrial farming practices in that case?
  - piker 2y ago
    No, I’m asking if it’s possible they might just rightly or wrongly believe water fluoridation is bad.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      > No, I’m asking if it’s possible they might just rightly or wrongly believe water fluoridation is bad. I'm happy to believe it if I can understand what is leading them to that belief, which is exactly what I'm asking. Is it a general aversion to unnatural stuff (hence my previous comment) or based on some evidence (hence my initial question) or something else (what?)?
      - piker 2y ago
        I believe they think water fluoridation is linked it lower IQs, again, rightly or wrongly. I could be mistaken but that’s always seemed pretty clear.
        dataflow 2y ago
        > I believe they think water fluoridation is linked it lower IQs, again, rightly or wrongly. I could be mistaken but that’s always seemed pretty clear. Again, we go back to my initial question [1]: what is the best evidence in favor of this? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43518377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43518377
    - mrkeen 2y ago
      He's just doing whatever's politically expedient. [1:20] "I do believe that autism comes from vaccines" [https://www.foxnews.com/video/6330950198112 https://www.foxnews.com/video/6330950198112] Does it matter what he actually believes? If it's different from the Trump's policy he'll keep it to himself.
      - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
        Why should his beliefs be considered at all over scientific evidence?
- ergocoder 2y ago
  By default, we should not add anything to the water. The burden of proof should be on the people who want to add it. Because that is extra cost, extra chemical. If they can't prove it, then we don't do it.
charintstr 2y ago
It doesn’t always have to monetarily benefit anyone. It’s just fringe leaders playing to fringe ideas in this case
UltraSane 2y ago
Dentists are going to make a lot of money filling so many more cavities.

Thanks. I guess then my next question is, why are they doing this? Whom is it benefiting? Big Water?

piker 2y ago

Is there scope to believe they just think it may be better not to have it in the water?

dataflow 2y ago
> Is there scope to believe they just think it may be better not to have it in the water? Are you asking if there's room to believe it's just a sincere "everything you eat or drink should stay untouched, like it's found in nature" belief? OK sure, let's go with that. So why aren't they working to dismantle water treatment plants altogether and e.g. fighting against modern industrial farming practices in that case?
- piker 2y ago
  No, I’m asking if it’s possible they might just rightly or wrongly believe water fluoridation is bad.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > No, I’m asking if it’s possible they might just rightly or wrongly believe water fluoridation is bad. I'm happy to believe it if I can understand what is leading them to that belief, which is exactly what I'm asking. Is it a general aversion to unnatural stuff (hence my previous comment) or based on some evidence (hence my initial question) or something else (what?)?
    - piker 2y ago
      I believe they think water fluoridation is linked it lower IQs, again, rightly or wrongly. I could be mistaken but that’s always seemed pretty clear.
      - dataflow 2y ago
        > I believe they think water fluoridation is linked it lower IQs, again, rightly or wrongly. I could be mistaken but that’s always seemed pretty clear. Again, we go back to my initial question [1]: what is the best evidence in favor of this? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43518377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43518377
  - mrkeen 2y ago
    He's just doing whatever's politically expedient. [1:20] "I do believe that autism comes from vaccines" [https://www.foxnews.com/video/6330950198112 https://www.foxnews.com/video/6330950198112] Does it matter what he actually believes? If it's different from the Trump's policy he'll keep it to himself.
    - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
      Why should his beliefs be considered at all over scientific evidence?
ergocoder 2y ago
By default, we should not add anything to the water. The burden of proof should be on the people who want to add it. Because that is extra cost, extra chemical. If they can't prove it, then we don't do it.

charintstr 2y ago

It doesn’t always have to monetarily benefit anyone. It’s just fringe leaders playing to fringe ideas in this case

UltraSane 2y ago

Dentists are going to make a lot of money filling so many more cavities.