6 ms·

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

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.

roxolotl 1y ago
You can buy bottled water, or a filter and many people have wells.
- amazingamazing 1y ago
  the default should be no additions, no?
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    The default for salt and milk isn't no additions.
    - amazingamazing 1y ago
      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.
      - roxolotl 1y ago
        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.
        amazingamazing 1y ago
        > 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.
        roxolotl 1y ago
        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.
        amazingamazing 1y ago
        > 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.
        roxolotl 1y ago
        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?
      - UncleMeat 1y ago
        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?
        amazingamazing 1y ago
        > 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.
      - joshstrange 1y ago
        > 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.
        amazingamazing 1y ago
        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.
  - RajT88 1y ago
    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.
    - amazingamazing 1y ago
      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.
      - RajT88 1y ago
        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.
        amazingamazing 1y ago
  - supportengineer 1y ago
    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.
    - salynchnew 1y ago
      This. It's incredibly beneficial for public health. See also: enriched wheat flour.
- gazebo64 1y ago
  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.

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.

roxolotl 1y ago

You can buy bottled water, or a filter and many people have wells.

amazingamazing 1y ago
the default should be no additions, no?
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  The default for salt and milk isn't no additions.
  - amazingamazing 1y ago
    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.
    - roxolotl 1y ago
      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.
      - amazingamazing 1y ago
        > 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.
        roxolotl 1y ago
        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.
        amazingamazing 1y ago
        > 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.
        roxolotl 1y ago
        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?
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      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?
      - amazingamazing 1y ago
        > 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.
    - joshstrange 1y ago
      > 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.
      - amazingamazing 1y ago
        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.
- RajT88 1y ago
  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.
  - amazingamazing 1y ago
    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.
    - RajT88 1y ago
      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.
      - amazingamazing 1y ago
- supportengineer 1y ago
  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.
  - salynchnew 1y ago
    This. It's incredibly beneficial for public health. See also: enriched wheat flour.
gazebo64 1y ago
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.