Why do you prefer government to make those decisions for you? suggests that this is a political issue. It's not. It's a public health issue.
My original question of you -- your attitude toward chlorination of public water supplies -- was an attempt toward determining your recognition of the matter as a public health issue. You responded affirming that it was.
Here's the point about fluoridation. If you accept that chlorination is in the public interest, so too is fluoridation. It's a matter of public health. <
I have the benefit of having worked on marketing Crest brand toothpaste back in the early sixties. I'm familiar with all the clinical tests that were performed by the University of Indiana Dental School (who owns the patent on Crest's original formula, by the way) and the American Dental Association. Among them were tests involving every combination of the use of Crest and topical fluorides in areas with and without fluoridated water supplies. Plus, areas with natural fluoridation.
The fact is that the most effective reduction of caries occurred in the instance of fluoridated water supplies, plus topical treatments, plus the usage of Crest -- with each of the elements having about equal impact on the final results. We also found that natural fluoridation -- with its usually higher levels of fluoride ppm -- was an even larger factor in good dental health. Problem was, at this level, the accumulated fluoride ingestion involved began to discolor the teeth (cosmetics were the only negative, there were no other health consequences).
In sum, fluoridation of water supplies resulted in a significantly reduced incidence of caries within the community on its own. The topical treatments and regular usage of Crest further enhanced the result -- altogether coming close to eliminating it (over 70% reduction). The effect was most pronounced in children under 18. That's a benefit that simply can't be obtained without fluoridation.
Accordingly, fluoridation of the water supply has a broad and significant public health benefit of its own -- which can be further enhanced by individual treatment. As a consequence of fluoridation and better dental hygiene, involving the use of fluoridated toothpastes, childhood caries has been virtually eliminated in the USA.
Chlorine is added to disinfect the water, while fluoride is added to treat the drinker of the water. This is a distinction without a difference. Both chlorine and fluoride is added to the water supply as a prophylaxis -- a disease preventative.
I don't think lithium would qualify under this heading...
Fluoride is a Halogen, in the same column on the periodic table as iodine, chlorine and bromine. Now, we all need good iodine for proper functioning of the thyroid.
Since they are all halogens in the periodic table, the fluoride and chlorine are absorbed by the thyroid, which is NOT a good thing. I spoke to a dentist with a degree in bio chemistry and she confirmed the fluoride will bond quickly to the thyroid tissue decreasing it’s functioning.
I began taking non-Pacific Ocean kelp when Fukushima popped off, started riding my mountain bike again, lost 40 pounds and averaged 28 miles a ride. Coupled with drinking nothing but filtered water without fluoride, my body responded to the iodine.
There’s no reason to debate the merits of fluoride for dental health. I’m not disputing that. Pat yourself on the back, your marketing campaign worked. The issue was, and remains: should governments be allowed to adulterate drinking water, even if it’s “for our own good”? For many years, I thought so — and (like the article author) I thought that opponents were uneducated paranoids. Then, I listened to one of those opponents, and came to realize that the issue is forced medication.
As for question about lithium, you must be aware that there’s a bit of a movement for adding it to drinking water — mainly to reduce the suicide rate. Surely, preventing suicide is at least as much a public health issue as preventing dental caries. The question is: do you want government adding mental-health medication to your drinking water? DesertRhino mentioned (in jest, I hope!) adding Quaaludes in some places. Perhaps inner cities would be a lot safer, if everyone was dozing on Quaaludes — but, do you really want government to add that to your drinking water? Where do you draw the line.
By the way, Victoria B.C. is, in many ways Canada’s answer to Portland Oregon, and other granola cities (fruits, nuts, and a lot of flakes). It’s very “green”, and mostly votes in socialists at every level of government (the right-wing provincial government is “Liberal”). When I moved here from the far north, I was struck by the comparative lack of freedom. It seems that every week something is being regulated or banned. Imagine my disbelief, when I discovered that the regional water district does not fluoridate the water.