Quote:
Originally Posted by something
Through all the BSing and bickering in this thread, have any alternatives occurred to the proponents of flouridation?
I'll admit that I know little on the topic - nothing more than anecdotal evidence portrayed by interest groups on both sides - hardly fit to form a proper conclusion. Nevertheless, I am quite pleased with the councils decision to remove the fluoride from tap water.
It bothers me that even if the majority of citizens want their tap water to be flouridated, I am being coerced to consume the same thing. The tyranny of the majority stands tall in this case.
So my question is simple: are there no reasonable alternatives for the proponents of fluoridation to consume it without imposing their decision on others???
|
There are alternatives - it's just they end up costing a lot more. The reason water supplies are fluoridated is because it is much cheaper than more targeted approaches. It's also a lot easier to control the maximum dose - there's only so much water a person can drink in a day. If you have fluoridated salt, for example, there's a much wider range in how much salt people consume. If you're adding fluoride to your own water it's a lot harder to control the concentration.
Why don't I hear the same people complaining about, for example, folic acid added to flour? There have been studies linking high doses of folic acid supplementation to increased rates of some cancers; I saw one study a couple of years ago suggesting a possible link with increased rates of miscarriage. The amount of flour people consume is probably pretty variable so the dose isn't controlled. (I have no problem with adding folic acid to flour - I just wonder why people against "forced medication" by water fluoridation aren't speaking out against all the other similar things the government mandates).