# Water flouridation



## crash_cart (Oct 13, 2008)

My community beat back a local proposal to have flouride added to the water about six years ago.  Fast forward to the present day-a state legislator wanted it mandated at the state level and got the bill passed, though local communities can pass their own ordinaces to prevent such a thing from happening.:wacko: On November 4th, we will go to the polls to vote on a measure to prevent flouride from being added to the city water supply.  Every major argument against it is absolutely ludicrous according to my research?  Too expensive?, tell that to the CDC which has found that for every $1.00 spent on flouridation, the average savings on health costs is $33.00.  It is harmful?  On that account, we might as well ban nitro from certain pts. as it could kill some folks.  Not only that, but he CDC has backed water flouridation since the 1950s.  Scientists can make a living debunking one another, if this had credible legs in any way, it would have paved for more than one comfy career at an ivy tower somewher.  It's a communist plot?, well, I guess "collectivism" has it's benefits.  

So, what arguments have you heard against it and what do you think?  I can respectfully agree to disagree, I'm just rather miffed by the anti-flouride crowd's arguments.


----------



## mycrofft (Oct 13, 2008)

*Where's the John Birch society when you need em?*


You pretty well summed it up. This arguement is well over fifty years old.


----------



## daedalus (Oct 17, 2008)

crash_cart said:


> My community beat back a local proposal to have flouride added to the water about six years ago.  Fast forward to the present day-a state legislator wanted it mandated at the state level and got the bill passed, though local communities can pass their own ordinaces to prevent such a thing from happening.:wacko: On November 4th, we will go to the polls to vote on a measure to prevent flouride from being added to the city water supply.  Every major argument against it is absolutely ludicrous according to my research?  Too expensive?, tell that to the CDC which has found that for every $1.00 spent on flouridation, the average savings on health costs is $33.00.  It is harmful?  On that account, we might as well ban nitro from certain pts. as it could kill some folks.  Not only that, but he CDC has backed water flouridation since the 1950s.  Scientists can make a living debunking one another, if this had credible legs in any way, it would have paved for more than one comfy career at an ivy tower somewher.  It's a communist plot?, well, I guess "collectivism" has it's benefits.
> 
> So, what arguments have you heard against it and what do you think?  I can respectfully agree to disagree, I'm just rather miffed by the anti-flouride crowd's arguments.


Does your community have a abundance of conspiracy theorists? Maybe they are afraid of alien viruses being injected by the sinister federal government into their water supply?


----------



## Meursault (Oct 17, 2008)

crash_cart said:


> It's a communist plot?


To sap and impurify their precious bodily essence!



crash_cart said:


> So, what arguments have you heard against it and what do you think?  I can respectfully agree to disagree, I'm just rather miffed by the anti-flouride crowd's arguments.


I can't respectfully agree to disagree. They're idiots.


----------



## BossyCow (Oct 20, 2008)

My issue with floridation is the source of the flouride. The main emphasis is always towards the health of the teeth, but in reality the cities like it because it keeps the water pipes clean. 

I took my two kids to a new dentist who was totally behind the flouridation of our local water supply. He told me that he could tell my kids drank floridated water growing up because they have no cavities (they are both in their 20's now). Good preventative dentistry, a diet high in calcium and good dental hygiene is all my kids have ever had. No flouride at all, they were raised on well water.

The studies supporting the pro-flouride crowds statistics are not as impartial as they would have you believe. The problem with flouridating the civic water supply is that everyone gets it, regardless of their own personal preferences. While I can choose not to drink civic water, its' in the water used to make my tea/coffee at local restaurants, rinse the salad greens/veggies at the local grocery store.... almost impossible to avoid. 

So, if its simply a matter of recovering costs, why aren't motorcycle helmets mandatory? Look at those stats the next time you want to prove that the goverment is all about saving money on healthcare.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Oct 20, 2008)

I have several issues with this, the first of which is the government involvement but I'll get into that later.

If it is mandated by state law, what is the state going to do for those people that are allergic to flouride?  According to this link (http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/allergy/)  up to 1% of the population could have an allergy/hypersensitivity to flouride.  Nothing like making 1% of the population sick in an effort to improve oral health.

[scenario] We know you're sick, and are suffering dermatitis,                   urticaria, eczema; mouth lesions (canker sores); gastric distress;                  headache; joint pain; weakness; visual disturbances; and lethargy but your teeth look GREAT![/scenario]

I just think our priorities are going in the wrong direction.


----------

