As Bans Spread, Fluoride in Drinking Water Divides Communities Across the US - KFF Health News
kffhealthnews.org
The broad availability of over-the-counter dental products containing fluoride has some community leaders arguing that its addition to public drinking water is no longer necessary. But public health experts worry that, much like vaccines, fluoridation may be a victim of its own success.

…

It is a scenario playing out nationwide. From Oregon to Pennsylvania, hundreds of communities have in recent years either stopped adding fluoride to their water supplies or voted to prevent its addition. Supporters of such bans argue that people should be given the freedom of choice. The broad availability of over-the-counter dental products containing the mineral makes it no longer necessary to add to public water supplies, they say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that while store-bought products reduce tooth decay, the greatest protection comes when they are used in combination with water fluoridation.

The outcome of an ongoing federal case in California could force the Environmental Protection Agency to create a rule regulating or banning the use of fluoride in drinking water nationwide. In the meantime, the trend is raising alarm bells for public health researchers who worry that, much like vaccines, fluoride may have become a victim of its own success.

The CDC maintains that community water fluoridation is not only safe and effective but also yields significant cost savings in dental treatment. Public health officials say removing fluoride could be particularly harmful to low-income families — for whom drinking water may be the only source of preventive dental care.

“If you have to go out and get care on your own, it’s a whole different ballgame,” said Myron Allukian Jr., a dentist and past president of the American Public Health Association. Millions of people have lived with fluoridated water for years, “and we’ve had no major health problems,” he said. “It’s much easier to prevent a disease than to treat it.”

According to the anti-fluoride group Fluoride Action Network, since 2010, over 240 communities around the world have removed fluoride from their drinking water or decided not to add it.

  • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
    18215·
    7 months ago

    No, people shouldn’t have the right to choose if fluoride is added to their water. People are stupid. You vote to remove something that will greatly help children that can’t vote. The government’s job, sometimes, is to stop stupid people from hurting others and their selves. That’s the reason you can’t drink raw milk or use lead gas.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      352·
      7 months ago

      That’s the reason you can’t drink raw milk or use lead gas.

      You can get raw milk if your state allows it. The federal government bans it, but only has regulatory authority over interstate commerce, so it can’t be moved across state boundaries, but you can get it if it’s made in-state.

      I mean, I think that you’re mostly aiming to expose yourself to listeria, but if that’s what someone wants…

      My guess is that dairy farmers have an interest in promoting it in that if they can sell it, it gives them a market without much competition.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_raw_milk_debate

      • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
        332·
        7 months ago

        Drinking milk was a bad example. I should have said sell unpasteurized milk. The point I think we both agree is that stupid for people make stupid decisions. Just like I don’t think people can decide about vaccines that have very low risk rates. It effects everyone, not just the idiots.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          272·
          7 months ago

          If stupid people want to make stupid decisions, that’s fine. The problem is when they try to take the rest of society down with them via damage or converting others to that stupidity.

        • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
          31·
          7 months ago

          Some of the herd nobly chose to sacrifice itself to improve the genetic resistance of the whole.

    • bastion@feddit.nl
      12·
      7 months ago

      Just let them die then, rather than trying to make them age where they don’t want to.

    • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
      324·
      7 months ago

      Btw, cooking milk destroys some of the good stuff in it.

      Edit: Raw milk has proteins which boost immune system and growth (because it’s for baby cows), which break down while cooking.

      And yeah, probably don’t drink raw milk in US.

      • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
        172·
        7 months ago

        Unfortunately your point is a false agreement. The chemical in question has been studied for decades and has little to no negative impact on general public. A few people don’t warrant a total ban. Everything will effect someone at some point. It’s science not magic. A better education system and removing pointless arguments ( religion, anti sponsored studies ) would help inform people. I sure most people don’t know fluoride is poisonous but so is vitamin D, C, and E. The dose is so high that you would have to eat it like cady straight.

        I’m not antidemocratic, though the “let states decide” movement is making me reevaluate that. I’m more of a “let educated and qualified” people have a high stance then “it’s turn the frogs gay” crowd. It is a difficult conversation but we have to advance as a society. This is not advancing. Also I agree universal healthcare would be a wonderful, but that shouldn’t excuse something that is universal beneficial.

        • Jarix@lemmy.world
          91·
          7 months ago

          To add to your reply,

          If universal health care is the answer to not putting fluoride in the water, you make the universal health care a reality before you get rid of the thing that it replaces. You didn’t get rid of something until you have it covered elsewhere, and even then you need to make sure by giving the new thing time to prove it is as effective as you believe it is going to be before you pull the plug on the thing that is proven to have been effective

          • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
            8·
            7 months ago

            Not sure why someone down voted that but I agree. You never remove something until you have a more effective solution in place. That was one of the issues I had with Republicans when it can to the ACA. They destroyed it with nothing to fill the holes. Fucking hate that but I don’t expect anything from them.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.worldEnglish
      936·
      7 months ago

      Yes they should. Ingesting fluoride is bad for you, and it doesn’t help your teeth to drink it. That’s why small children’s toothpaste doesn’t have it, because you can’t trust them not to eat it. It’s only good when applied directly to the teeth, which can be accomplished on a daily basis by using toothpaste with fluoride and/or a mouthwash containing it, both of which you don’t drink.

      Fluoride is removed from my drinking water by my reverse-osmosis filtration system, along with all the other contaminants like PFAS and lead. I’ve been drinking fluoride-free water for 10 years, and my teeth are beautiful and healthy. Anyone who drinks bottled water is also probably drinking fluoride-free water since those companies mostly use the same filtration method to produce their bottled water.