Comment by gazebo64
8 months ago
> 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.
I can't see how anybody's freedom is infringed by adding fluoride to public water in those areas where it is lacking. What specific freedom are you talking about?
I can see the argument about freedom vs public health in things like tobacco usage, but there's very strong data that tobacco is carcinogenic and so it's hardly a dystopian nanny state for tobacco to be restricted (e.g. minimum age). Similarly, it hardly infringes freedom if there's minimum standards for food hygiene even though you may personally enjoy dysentry, food poisoning etc.
There's a world of difference between a dystopian nanny state and just ignoring public health issues that would typically affect the poorer segments of society.
To be honest, it seems like a disingenuous argument that anti-fluoride people make about it infringing their freedom when they don't seem concerned about removing fluoride from those supplies that naturally have higher levels.
3 replies →
Good talk!