Tourists don't stay long enough for the presence or absence of fluoride in water to matter to them. Pathogen- and contaminant-free water are the only priority for them. Stories like Flint would probably do more to scare tourists about US tap water.

water additives are used to remove bad things in the water. so in effect the additives exist to actually move the water qualify closer to the "default", not "enhance" it. if tap water was literally h20 and nothing else the additives would be unnecessary, no?

as far as measles go, people have the right to not get vaccinated if they choose - it's dumb, though and others have the right to not let them participate in things since they're not vaccinated, too. it's not really analogous to the fluoride thing at all anyway.

> if tap water was literally h20 and nothing else the additives would be unnecessary, no?

Pure water is not particularly healthy to drink, and may be bad for your plumbing.

true

Default water, lol. What an incredibly, terribly, dumb argument. There is no such thing as "Default Water" - it neither exists in nature, nor in man-made systems. Good luck with that. We can - and should - modify our our systems in the interests of public health. Nothing comes without corner cases which impact people like you - them's the breaks. Life isn't fair, but we are engineering a society for the benefit of almost everyone in it.

People can choose not to drink flouridated tap water if they want - building a well isn't that expensive, although you will probably need a treatment system because of the naturally occurring stuff (minerals, hydrogen sulphide, possibly excess flouride and other stuff).

"Freedom isn't free", as they like to say. You may have to invest in your "freedom" to drink the water you want to drink. You will have to pay the price of your kids not getting vaccinated - they may not be able to go to public schools.

There are much bigger hills worth dying on (see: Flint, MI). Leave the wildly successful public health programs alone.

> People can choose not to drink flouridated tap water if they want - building a well isn't that expensive, although you will probably need a treatment system because of the naturally occurring stuff (minerals, hydrogen sulphide, possibly excess flouride and other stuff).

that's hilarious because brushing your teeth is more effective, and cheaper than adding fluoride to water. I'm sure people in Manhattan will really get on building those wells.

at the end of the day there's not a single paper that actually says ingesting fluoride is water. they all correlate incidental fluoride contact on the teeth, due to it being in the water.

fact is, brushing your teeth is more effective and has no downsides. ingesting fluoride is bad and is discouraged literally not only by all dentists, but this fact is present on all toothpaste in the usa.

Despite people knowing about the effectiveness of brushing teeth with fluoride toothpaste, there are benefits (less cavities in young people) to having a certain level of fluoride in the water. Presumably, not everyone is good at brushing their teeth, yet we can improve dental health by adding in some fluoride in those areas that have low or no fluoride naturally in their water supply.

>Presumably, not everyone is good at brushing their teeth

Is it fair that everyone is forced to ingest this chemical for the benefit of people who can't or won't engage in their own basic hygiene?

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.

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.

You seem more like you're performing for an audience then engaging in good faith. You're also making faulty assumptions - I generally support the addition of fluoride to pubic drinking water systems despite the fact that I can sympathize with those who object to it.

My comment about freedoms was not in reference to fluoride. It was in response to your blanket dismissal of anyone who doesn't "care about public health" whatever that's supposed to mean. "Public health" as you're using the term appears to translate to "it's for your own good". Then your earlier statement reads as a blanket justification to run roughshod over other's freedoms while mocking them for objecting.

Your logic can be summarized as X is often harmful to people who choose to do it therefore restricting voluntary participation in X does not infringe freedoms in an objectionable manner. Hopefully you can see the absurdity when it's laid out like that.

> there's very strong data that tobacco is carcinogenic and so it's hardly a dystopian nanny state for tobacco to be restricted

The argument isn't "specific thing makes this a dystopian nanny state" it's "particular philosophy rapidly leads to a dystopian nanny state". They're quite different claims.

Children aren't generally viewed as having full freedoms so the associated age restrictions don't seem particularly relevant to this conversation. That said "public health" is hardly the only possible justification for restricting tobacco sales to minors.

> Similarly, it hardly infringes freedom if there's minimum standards for food hygiene even though you may personally enjoy dysentry, food poisoning etc.

The imposition of food hygiene standards generally serves to bring stability and security to the market by regulating something that end consumers can't easily judge for themselves but which nonetheless can harm them. Notice that restaurants generally remain free to serve undercooked items to customers but they must go out of their way to make the customer aware of this fact. Despite your dismissive misrepresentation of my views I do in fact view the restrictions on raw milk as a fairly severe violation of freedoms despite the fact that I have no personal interest in consuming it.

> 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.

I hope you're having fun knocking down these strawmen. Investment and outreach isn't ignoring.

> 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.

You finally managed to point out something interesting. So a question. If non-potable water is treated and a byproduct is left behind is that a problem? Note that in this hypothetical there was no intent other than accomplishing the goal (ie making the water potable) at a reasonable price point. Are you entitled to water of a specific purity level, or merely potable water, or something else entirely?

Now what if the byproduct was left behind intentionally (ie the option to remove it existed and was trivial) but it was nonetheless a byproduct of a particular treatment program and treatment of some sort was genuinely necessary?

I think there is a fundamental difference between intentionally introducing something and failing to remove something, and the motivations matter because they can set precedent for future actions.

You seem a bit confused with your little rant there (there's so many wrong-minded ideas that I can't be bothered to explain why they're wrong) and you haven't answered my clear question:

> 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?

Good talk!