People are going nuts about fluoride

[Cuddlefish]

Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Show me any evidence that anyone's physiology involves fluoride being bad for them at the amount they receive from drinking tap water. Otherwise, that's a pretty meaningless argument that can be applied to literally anything.

There is a rare disorder in which the lungs can calcify if the person is exposed to any amount of fluoride. However, people who have this disorder have a lot of other issues to worry about and having to drink bottled water is the least of their concerns.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.

Wait...

... are you also protesting water treatment that removes excess fluoride in areas where it leaches into the water naturally?

Are you outraged about sanitizing drinking water?

Fluoride can be removed from tap water with filtration, or avoided by drinking bottled water.

Fluoridated water is a public health issue and can reduce unnecessary deaths due to infections from tooth decay.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.

It's called living in a community. We are all subjected to more or less uniform standards and regulations. Vehicle safety, air quality, and yes, water fluoridation.

[Kai]

Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.

How many examples will satisfy you? 1? 10? 100? Because I can spend the time digging up thousands of medical treatments that give the same treatment for the same condition, or an equal number of municipal codes relating to saftey, water treatment, etc. But I would rather watch this football game and drink my beer.

[Cuddlefish]

Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.

Wait...

... are you also protesting water treatment that removes excess fluoride in areas where it leaches into the water naturally?

Are you outraged about sanitizing drinking water?

Fluoride can be removed from tap water with filtration, or avoided by drinking bottled water.

Fluoridated water is a public health issue and can reduce unnecessary deaths due to infections from tooth decay.

I'm not sure how you got "outrage" from my post and I'm certainly not protesting anything.

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.

In hind-sight, I s'pose I could have done that differently.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.

Wait...

... are you also protesting water treatment that removes excess fluoride in areas where it leaches into the water naturally?

Are you outraged about sanitizing drinking water?

Fluoride can be removed from tap water with filtration, or avoided by drinking bottled water.

Fluoridated water is a public health issue and can reduce unnecessary deaths due to infections from tooth decay.

I'm not sure how you got "outrage" from my post and I'm certainly not protesting anything.

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.

In hind-sight, I s'pose I could have done that differently.

Fluoride is more accurately a nutritional supplement than a medical treatment.

Like I said, it's a public health issue. In my mind it is not significantly different from basic water sanitation, so I find it bemusing when people discuss it as if it is. One prevents dysentery and other waterborne bacterial illnesses, and one prevents dental caries.

(Of course, without looking too hard you can also find people who believe the government is poisoning us with their basic water sanitation, or with the vitamin d in milk.)

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm not exactly sure where you got the notion that my comparisons were "non-sequiturs", as they are directly relevant. The government tampers with the water supply in all numbers of ways, including the act of creating a municipal water system in the first place.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Is it right to administer medical treatment through the water supply?

Yes it is right. I believe the pros do outweigh the cons as far as I understand them.

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?

There are other ways but they cost at the minimum, twice as much as water fluoridation per year, and are not as effective.

The main thing that gave me pause were concerns of some experts on the topic about the effect of fluoride on river ecology, since fluoridated water inevitably ends up there. That may not be the consensus opinion, however.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.

Good point.  We should just ship filthy water to homes, and let the individual decide whether or not to treat it.

[Don Coyote]

Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.

Good point.  We should just ship filthy water to homes, and let the individual decide whether or not to treat it.

God Bless The Free Market
       \

[Suu]

Dude.

In addition to fluoridated water in Florida, they also had mandatory fluoride treatments administered by a dental hygienist on a weekly basis IN PUBLIC SCHOOL. I remember having it all through 3rd grade on Tuesdays. God that stuff tasted horrid. Just like that gel crap they make you use when actually AT the dentist. It's supposed to be berry...but totally not. Not at all.

My parents never once pitched a fit. They never once got all fucking hippie on me, and I can't remember anyone back in the late 80s blowing a cork or not allowing their kids to partake in the treatment. Granted, I hated the shit, but my teeth are in damn good condition, and I'm pretty sure I have to thank those fluoride treatments for that.


...Ugh, now I'm remembering the taste!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Is it right to administer medical treatment through the water supply?

Yes it is right. I believe the pros do outweigh the cons as far as I understand them.

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?

There are other ways but they cost at the minimum, twice as much as water fluoridation per year, and are not as effective.

The main thing that gave me pause were concerns of some experts on the topic about the effect of fluoride on river ecology, since fluoridated water inevitably ends up there. That may not be the consensus opinion, however.

That's worth looking into, although of course in the many areas where the groundwater leaches naturally-occurring fluoride, river water already contains it so it seems like those ecologies would be the first place to look for detrimental effects.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Interesting, brief read:

http://www.bfsweb.org/facts/tech_aspects/chemsmanufac.htm

[Our Common Enemy]

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.