513
As bans spread, fluoride in drinking water divides communities across the US
(kffhealthnews.org)
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
513 points (98.7% liked)
News
23367 readers
3135 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
The raw milk thing is actually part of the reason the FDA was formed!
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
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.
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.
That was my badly worded point. Other are effected by a few people with extra time.
You can drill your own well to get your own water, just like you can have a cow for raw milk.
can we compromise on drinking raw milk with flouride added?
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Well, and TB.
Some of the herd nobly chose to sacrifice itself to improve the genetic resistance of the whole.
Just let them die then, rather than trying to make them age where they don't want to.
That is a completely different argument and has nothing to do with the topic.
Of course you can drink raw milk if you want to!
Wow! That escalated quickly.
Guess mods don't under sarcasm
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.
And all the things that kill you.
Probably a culture and laws difference. Here (swiss) getting raw milk from your local farmer is no problem.
I'm sure small doses of cyanide has benefits too.
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.
Do you have evidence?
Sure, here's a good article with lots of info.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/
That's not a peer reviewed study - its somebody's editorialized book report.
Go ahead and review it then - their sources are cited.
Evidence has been presented, whether or not you agree with what it says is irrelevant.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
Link to original article. Cheers to you for citing your sources, but the authors here are massively conflating the effects of industrial fluoride exposure with residential water fluoridation in an attempt to prove a position they began with.
thanks
Where does "no, people don't have the right to choose if [chemical] is added to their bloodstream, because they are stupid" stop? Who determines when it's "stupid" not to add a chemical to the water supply, and to whom do they answer? If the voting public decides to override public officials on a matter like this, you're basically saying they shouldn't have the "right" to vote the officials out on those grounds. You're basically saying this is some kind of extraordinary policy matter that obviously needs to be insulated from the kind of democratic review pretty much all other municipal policies are subject to. And we're talking about dumping a chemical in the water supply as a substitute for having good public health infrastructure in our country.
If you're a Republican, well, they're inconsistent, evil psychos, I don't expect much from them to make sense. But if you're a Democrat.... if you're a democrat.........
EDIT no really, explain it to me, don't just downvote me. Why should a highly technocratic public health policy that achieves only one public health goal, and isn't even the only way to do it, be beyond democratic review? This literally makes less than no fucking sense. Also, the rules on raw milk and lead in gasoline are also subject to democratic review. They don't get challenged because there are basically no downsides to those policies and literally the only people who are negatively impacted are people invested in the industries in question. People get iffy about fluoridation because there are corner cases that cause problems for individuals, so it's actually a public health tradeoff and you can avoid those tradeoffs with different policies (like universal public health care + fluoridation regimes) -- ie, you can achieve the benefits of fluoridation without negatively impacting anyone. The cost-benefit ratio of water fluoridation is literally different to those other policies, which is why nobody complains about unleaded gasoline but they do complain about fluoridation in water.
If nothing else, does anything strike you as half-cocked about comparing clean, potable, treated drinking water without fluoride to leaded gasoline? Do you refuse to drink un-fluoridated drinking water because of the permanent and irreversible health effects of being exposed to literally any quantity of unfluoridated potable water?
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.
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
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.