Comment by Tadpole9181
8 months ago
Despite consensus this benefits dental health (an important part of heart health) and has no side effects, and the reality that municipalities that already banned fluoride suffered a huge upturn dental issues - particular in children who don't brush as often.
I'm sure the state is ensuring that this little experiment doesn't harm anybody by guaranteeing access to dental care, right? Putting our money where our mouth is and making sure that if they're doing demonstrable harm that anyone affected is compensated?
Oh, no, the poors can just deal with it? Nice.
Makes sense in a bill about "freedom and liberty" that also bans transporting mushrooms that naturally grow in the state and flying drones above farms.
the consensus was that ddt was okay too, and the current consensus is that oil is not a big enough issue to bother with.
the state didn't feed small children radioactive oatmeal for fun oh wait
imo, water is one of those things we should keep simple. today they add fluoride, tomorrow what? maybe "brushing people's teeth for them" in the name of convenience is doing people a disservice. pick up healthy habits or get lost.
signed, fluoride free toothpaste user and boiled tap water drinker.
as for the mushrooms, i agree that it's a stupid law