6 ms·
Adding fluoride to water was revolutionary in the 1940s, but its benefits have significantly declined since fluoride toothpaste became common in the 1970s. Whil
by artvandelai 2y ago
Adding fluoride to water was revolutionary in the 1940s, but its benefits have significantly declined since fluoride toothpaste became common in the 1970s. While fluoridation made sense when products containing fluoride weren't widely available, it is much less effective and necessary now. Sure, some countries and communities may still see benefits from it, but widespread fluoridation doesn't seem necessary in many parts of the world.
- estebank 2y agoThere's a huge difference between "no longer as necessary" and "let's ban it".
- theteapot 2y agoThere is difference between banning and just deciding putting fluoride in public drinking water too. Who are they banning? Themselves?
- nerdponx 2y agoWater treatment is usually done at the municipal or regional level. The state government is declaring that towns and cities may not do this. The alternative would be each and every municipal water authority deciding on its own.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- idiotsecant 2y agoThe horror.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- emmelaich 2y agoYeah but anyone can buy fluoride toothpaste so not really banned.
- arghwhat 2y agoNot really when it comes to government initiatives. They'd like the water plants to stop adding fluoride, so they make a policy that the plants should not add fluoride.
- Retric 2y agoThat wouldn’t require a ban. The state banned it because some towns wanted to add it to their water supply. It’s literally big government stopping the will of the people.
- arghwhat 2y agoOf course it does. Their goal was to stop it from being added, including in said towns. Policy makers make things happen by passing laws that make it a requirement or provide financial incentives to do it, and make things stop by outlawing it or taxing it. It is what they are elected to do. This is not "big government" - democracy does not mean that small groups that disagree should be allowed to do whatever they want, and water additives is a quite signficant thing to mess with.
- Retric 2y agoDemocracy and big government aren’t in opposition. Social Security for example is extremely popular. Letting small groups that disagree do what they want is the definition of small government. Outlawing water additives is a significant thing to mess with, it’s a meaningful intrusion on people’s heath and general welfare. What makes this entire thing silly is many areas of the US ~11% naturally have fluoride levels high enough not to need supplementation, but nobody seems to want to drop that to some ultra low level when they argue for outlawing adding fluoride. It’s not an argument that these levels are unhealthy, just the naturalist fallacy in action. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/fluoride-occurrence-united-states-groundwater https://www.usgs.gov/publications/fluoride-occurrence-united...
- ekianjo 2y agoYou can add fluoride in your own water if you want to. Nobody is preventing your own freedom to drink fluoride.
- ath3nd 2y agoNobody's preventing you from going and finding your own water source either. The government is too much of a nanny state for putting flouride in water for public health, but it's just fine for providing water to you in the first place?
- amazingamazing 2y agoIn the USA it’s generally illegal to collect rain.
- ericmay 2y agoThat’s definitely true for some places but how are you measuring that? By population or perhaps state and territory? Where I live the city subsidizes rain collection barrels.
- amazingamazing 2y agoWhere do you live where you can collect rain at a quantity that would allow you to forgo central water? I’m not talking about having a barrel. Most states don’t care about that quantity. I’m talking about storing on the order of 10k gallons. A rain barrel is nothing. An average family in the USA uses hundreds of gallons a day. It doesn’t rain daily so you’d need thousands of gallons. Most states do not allow this, nor is it actually feasible for everyone to do this due to space constraints, which is why it’s generally not allowed.
- batch12 2y agoMy state provides rainwater collection guidance in the plumbing code. We also have wells. I use a well.
- Avshalom 2y agohttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12685 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12685
- Perenti 2y agoNot true. Every time I see a dentist here in Queensland (non-fluoridated water) he asks me where else I lived as my teeth are so much better than what he usually sees, and if drilling my teeth are much harder than most Queenslanders. My early years were spent in Melbourne, where fluoridation was introduced around 1970. That's the only time I lived with fluoridated water, for about 3 years. yet dentists can see the effects 50+ years later. I don't use a toothbrush or toothpaste, and haven't ever really, as my ASD makes it unbearable.
- j_maffe 2y agoYou're refuting a statment based on studies and statistics by anecdotal evedince. Also, GP never denied that flouridation is still helpful for non-brushing residents.
- Perenti 2y agoPoster claimed fluoridation was unnessecary in many parts of the world. This is true of places with natural fluoridation. But not everyone has access to fluoridated toothpaste, or even toothpaste. To assume otherwise is assuming everyone is neurotypical in a developed country.
- mkoubaa 2y agoA dentist sees thousands of patients -a big sample size! Calling it anecdotal evidence is reductive.
- hedora 2y agoIt’s still necessary. It is crucial when kids teeth are forming, and brushing does not achieve the same effect. I find the lack of science in this thread disturbing.
- rcpt 2y agoKids really suck at brushing their teeth