People are going nuts about fluoride

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think maybe I'm having a different conversation than everyone else, accidentally. I don't take issue with fluoride treatments.

Regardless of the substance or it's relative degree of safety, there is a separate issue. Is it right to administer medical treatment through the water supply? Are there other methods of administering this treatment that don't require automatic inclusion without having been previously diagnosed with a condition by a doctor that would require this treatment?

I was hoping to spin the conversation into a direction where issues of the above nature could be discussed, instead of the tired old "fluoride is teh BADZ!" vs "flouride is NOMS!" route, which, I think, has been well explored.

Also, your non-sequitors about water treatment don't make the distinction between treating and purifying water for human consumption, and administering medical treatment through that water. Obviously I believe that water should be treated. Don't insult me.

I'm not making any claims, I'm just not trying to read the same FLUORIDE!!!!!! thread.

So your preference is for an argument on medical ethics?
And you're taking a Kantian standpoint?
I suppose that's legit. 

So, let's move the argument forward.
Adding fluoride is okay, so how about adding alkali metals/earthmetals to prevent behavioral abnormalities and criminal behavior? 
It should be effective and beneficial for a healthy society.  People who have poor nutritional habits are more likely to be poor and have access only to tap water, so why not just solid up the water a bit to help compensate? 

As evidence that it does show benefit, I would offer the fact that such mineral supplements are used in prison food.

So why not?  I suppose tending to the mental health of the underclass is not really a priority like reducing medical expenses. Besides, criminal/abnormal behavior has its uses within the greater society, while the prevalence of such behaviors in prison is only problematic.

I am going to pretend for a moment that you're not an idiot, and patiently explain that it's because behavior-altering alkali affect different people very, very differently and must be carefully administered under the constant monitoring of a medical professional, and can't be shown to have an overall public health benefit. In addition, UNDISCLOSED water treatments violate every ethical standard in place.

Those prohibitively significant issues aside, water treatments designed to alter public behavior do not fall under the public health umbrella.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think maybe I'm having a different conversation than everyone else, accidentally. I don't take issue with fluoride treatments.

Regardless of the substance or it's relative degree of safety, there is a separate issue. Is it right to administer medical treatment through the water supply? Are there other methods of administering this treatment that don't require automatic inclusion without having been previously diagnosed with a condition by a doctor that would require this treatment?

I was hoping to spin the conversation into a direction where issues of the above nature could be discussed, instead of the tired old "fluoride is teh BADZ!" vs "flouride is NOMS!" route, which, I think, has been well explored.

Also, your non-sequitors about water treatment don't make the distinction between treating and purifying water for human consumption, and administering medical treatment through that water. Obviously I believe that water should be treated. Don't insult me.

I'm not making any claims, I'm just not trying to read the same FLUORIDE!!!!!! thread.

So your preference is for an argument on medical ethics?
And you're taking a Kantian standpoint?
I suppose that's legit. 

So, let's move the argument forward.
Adding fluoride is okay, so how about adding alkali metals/earthmetals to prevent behavioral abnormalities and criminal behavior? 
It should be effective and beneficial for a healthy society.  People who have poor nutritional habits are more likely to be poor and have access only to tap water, so why not just solid up the water a bit to help compensate? 

As evidence that it does show benefit, I would offer the fact that such mineral supplements are used in prison food.

So why not?  I suppose tending to the mental health of the underclass is not really a priority like reducing medical expenses. Besides, criminal/abnormal behavior has its uses within the greater society, while the prevalence of such behaviors in prison is only problematic.

So, you're equating "healthy teeth" with "behavior control"?

REALLY?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, unethical treatment of convicts somehow equals ethical treatment of the population at large?

[Our Common Enemy]

So, you're equating "healthy teeth" with "behavior control"?

REALLY?

Well, if you're going to use the argument that promoting clean teeth is in society's best interests since it is a preventative measure, why not explore other preventative measures?

As to Hairy jumping on the HUGE DOSES conclusion like a child in a mud puddle, that's hardly what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about supplementary doses, as would be found in a healthy diet.  You know, eating your greens.  Introducing minerals in water isn't the same as taking care of the nutrition desert effect of low-income neighborhoods, but it would provide benefit to those who could use it.  In this regard it is not substantially different from inclusions of low-level doses of fluoride. 

So, I take your aversion to the idea to indicate that physical health is a matter of public good, but mental health is a personal concern.
WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, you're equating "healthy teeth" with "behavior control"?

REALLY?

Well, if you're going to use the argument that promoting clean teeth is in society's best interests since it is a preventative measure, why not explore other preventative measures?

As to Hairy jumping on the HUGE DOSES conclusion like a child in a mud puddle, that's hardly what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about supplementary doses, as would be found in a healthy diet.  You know, eating your greens.  Introducing minerals in water isn't the same as taking care of the nutrition desert effect of low-income neighborhoods, but it would provide benefit to those who could use it.  In this regard it is not substantially different from inclusions of low-level doses of fluoride. 

So, I take your aversion to the idea to indicate that physical health is a matter of public good, but mental health is a personal concern.
WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED?

Are you seriously suggesting that trace minerals work the same on everyone, regardless of the individual's brain chemistry?

Please say yes.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I gotta say, though, that this thread had the predictable result.  One person arguing for the sake of arguing, at least one guy who swallows the whole CT but won't admit it, and me feeling pretty damn smug.

7/10.  Would read again.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just had a little fun looking up what happens when people are exposed to certain trace metals.

Lithium, for example, can cause horrible birth defects when consumed by pregnant women, even with a very low dosage (below that required for behavior modification).  Obviously, this should be added to our water supply.  UNNNNG.

OCE, you are a fucking genius.  They should make you the Goddamn surgeon general.

EDIT TO ADD LINK:  http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410736_2

[Our Common Enemy]

Are you seriously suggesting that trace minerals work the same on everyone, regardless of the individual's brain chemistry?

Please say yes.

I'm suggesting that deficiency of trace minerals due to improper diet has a predictable effect on an individual's brain chemistry.  Spinach hasn't killed any babies to my knowledge.

Your scarecrow doesn't speak.
Perhaps tedious antagonism will help?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So, you're equating "healthy teeth" with "behavior control"?

REALLY?

Well, if you're going to use the argument that promoting clean teeth is in society's best interests since it is a preventative measure, why not explore other preventative measures?

As to Hairy jumping on the HUGE DOSES conclusion like a child in a mud puddle, that's hardly what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about supplementary doses, as would be found in a healthy diet.  You know, eating your greens.  Introducing minerals in water isn't the same as taking care of the nutrition desert effect of low-income neighborhoods, but it would provide benefit to those who could use it.  In this regard it is not substantially different from inclusions of low-level doses of fluoride. 

So, I take your aversion to the idea to indicate that physical health is a matter of public good, but mental health is a personal concern.
WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED?

Can you name some of the minerals you're thinking of? And maybe do a little research into their current presence in municipal tap water, and the effect they have on the water delivery system?

And then, maybe you should try having a clue before you post about a topic? It makes the conversation more pleasant for everyone involved.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

IF THEY'RE GONNA FLUORIDAT THEY OUGHTTA PUT OTHER MINTERLS IN TAP WATER TOO!
              /

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"Spinach"



Yeah, PUT MORE IRON in the tap water! That won't precipitate out any more than it already does! How about we add calcium as well?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Funny thing that Mister Public Health Genius Guru doesn't seem to know for some reason (I am guessing that reason is because he isn't paying any attention in high school health class), we the public are already supplemented to the gills, through delivery methods that actually make sense. Like vitamin D in milk (want to look up what epidemic that alleviated?) and niacin, iron, thiamin, riboflavin, and folic acid in flour.

ZOMG POISON! IT'S A CONSPIRACY! GET BIG GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY NUTRITION! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE BABIES WITH EXPOSED SPINAL CORDS!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm sorry, making fun of you is WAY too fun and easy. It's too early to be cackling like a ninny. I'll compose myself now.

[AFK]

I wouldn't worry too much about fluoride in the water, what's more likely to fuck people up are the trace, or not so trace, pharmaceuticals in the water supplies.  There is no conclusive science out there right now that tells us what the long term consequences of prolonged exposure to even trace amounts of pharmaceuticals.  The best they can come with at this point is "fuck if we know?"


Don't worry about the fluoride.

[East Coast Hustle]

I wouldn't worry too much about fluoride in the water, what's more likely to fuck people up are the trace, or not so trace, pharmaceuticals in the water supplies.  There is no conclusive science out there right now that tells us what the long term consequences of prolonged exposure to even trace amounts of pharmaceuticals.  The best they can come with at this point is "fuck if we know?"


Don't worry about the fluoride.

Yeah, pretty much this.