Comment by ndsipa_pomu
8 months ago
That sounds like a child's argument - "it's not fair!".
It's basic public health logic - is it a net benefit to the population to add fluoride to the water supply and at a suitable price point or is there a more effective method to achieve the desired outcome?
Meanwhile, we have toxic tyre pollution being released into the very air that we breathe which has no known benefit to the population's health and has been shown to lead to heart/lung problems and early deaths. Is that fair?
> is it a net benefit to the population to add fluoride to the water supply and at a suitable price point or is there a more effective method to achieve the desired outcome
What if I don't care about that outcome if it means my water supply is tainted with a chemical I have no desire to ingest? Is it incomprehensible to you that somebody may not be particularly concerned with a statistical decrease in cavities for people that can't be bothered to brush their teeth if it means being force-fed a potential neurotoxin?
It's a public health matter. If you don't care about public health then I personally don't care what you think.
I could as easily respond that if you don't care about my fundamental freedoms then I don't care what you think. That said, I personally find the concern about fluoride overblown.
"Public health" isn't an excuse to ignore individual rights. It's a justification for investment and outreach, nothing more. The alternative rapidly gives way to a dystopian nanny state.
4 replies →
Good talk!