Move over fluoride, here comes Calgary's clean water!

[theonlywhiteout]

while i agree with fluoride and dont like this decision, the assertion of a few members here that no one is forcing anyone to drink calgary tap water is insane. public tap water is an absolute essential resource provided to everyone. to suggest you can simply stop drinking it if you dont like the change or dont want fluoride i would say you're being very narrow minded.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by something

I understand the purpose to your sarcasm.

Nevertheless, think of it this way, do you consider yourself an expert on the consumption of fluoride? Have you formed an opinion?

If the answer is no and yes (as it almost certainly is), then you too, have probably succumbed to fallacious reasoning in this topic.

I suspect that we have arrived at presumably different conclusions based on our values and priorities - not on evidence alone.

Trust me to say that fluoride consumption is not my preference, and without being an expert (as I am wary to think anyone on this forum is a credible expert) I find my laicized conclusion to be adequate.

I understand your reasonable question. Sorry for being glib. I would not say I am an "expert", but water (and flouridation) is a pet interest of mine. No one is without bias, but I like to think my opinion is based on sound evidence. If the evidence came out the other way I would change my opinion.

If we are not expert, should we not trust the decision to people that are experts, rather than poorly-informed politicians?

I think for you the issue is about personal liberty (what should be allowed into your own body). As I understand it, flouridation is safe, beneficial and cost-effective.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by something

I never suggested anyone could be coerced into consuming a public resource.

Yes you did. You said exactly that:

Originally Posted by something

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.[/B]

The majority of citizens do indeed want their tap water fluoridated and thus by saying that if this condition is satisfied, you are suggesting exactly that, "I am being coerced to consume the same thing."

Originally Posted by something

But given it's ubiquity, ease of access, and low price, alternatives are not always feasible given individual circumstances.

Considering your willingness to make uninformed decisions, I fail to see how that is anyone's problem but your own. The decision is yours to make, just as it is your choice whether or how much to use other public services such as medical care or transit. The associated costs of the decisions you make is yours to bear.

Originally Posted by something

Public resources are designated for this purpose. I am not being coerced into consuming tap water, but should I wish to, I am being coerced by what may be understood as the majority decision to consume fluoride.

You are using two definitions of the same word here. Only one is right, and it is the one that is not qualified by the use of its antonym "decision." Surely I don't need to point this out.

[something]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

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).

So adding fluoride to water is largely justified on the basis of ease? It's a decent argument, but doesn't cogently withdraw the obligation to look for alternatives. You also need to keep in mind your entire argument is contingent upon the notion that fluoride is a necessity - though we are far from having established it as such.

Otherwise, I do appreciate the response.

To briefly respond to your second paragraph: I am a proponent of raw, whole and generally unadulterated foods. I don't agree with the addition of folic acid to flour either.

[robocop]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

while i agree with fluoride and dont like this decision, the assertion of a few members here that no one is forcing anyone to drink calgary tap water is insane. public tap water is an absolute essential resource provided to everyone. to suggest you can simply stop drinking it if you dont like the change or dont want fluoride i would say you're being very narrow minded.

I like how you think. I have found substantial evidence for both sides of the fluoride argument and my opinion stems largely from a different source. The government should never be able to force chemicals into the bodies of the general populace, not because they are evil or motivated by secret societies or any other conspiracy theory, but because it should be the right of every person to control their own body regardless of whether or not the rest of society wants it. If you want fluoride in your water feel free to add it, but I don't and it should not be up to someone else to decide for me. Imagine what it feels like when you have no alternative to tap water and you literally feel like you are poisoning yourself with each glass.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

while i agree with fluoride and dont like this decision, the assertion of a few members here that no one is forcing anyone to drink calgary tap water is insane. public tap water is an absolute essential resource provided to everyone. to suggest you can simply stop drinking it if you dont like the change or dont want fluoride i would say you're being very narrow minded.

How is it possible that for 2 years between 2007 and 2009, I never drank a single glass of tap water while I was at my house?

Bottled water is very cheap, like $3.50 for a big bottle, and a cheap water cooler can be had for less than 100 bucks. Don't act like it is something only rich people can afford, because I am a student with a family.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by robocop

I like how you think. I have found substantial evidence for both sides of the fluoride argument and my opinion stems largely from a different source. The government should never be able to force chemicals into the bodies of the general populace, not because they are evil or motivated by secret societies or any other conspiracy theory, but because it should be the right of every person to control their own body. If you want fluoride in your water feel free to add it, but I don't and it should not be up to someone else to decide for me.

Ok, so what about your stance on many of the other things that are forced into our bodies by the government? Do you even know of any? How many of them are you in an uproar about? How many have you stopped using?

[something]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Yes you did. You said exactly that:

The majority of citizens do indeed want their tap water fluoridated and thus by saying that if this condition is satisfied, you are suggesting exactly that, "I am being coerced to consume the same thing."


Considering your willingness to make uninformed decisions, I fail to see how that is anyone's problem but your own. The decision is yours to make, just as it is your choice whether or how much to use other public services such as medical care or transit. The associated costs of the decisions you make is yours to bear.

You are using two definitions of the same word here. Only one is right, and it is the one that is not qualified by the use of its antonym "decision." Surely I don't need to point this out.

There is sufficient information in my posts to respond thoughtfully. You are neglecting that, perhaps even knowingly.

At this point, I find you to be eristic. As such, I won't be explaining the nuances of my statement to you any further.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by robocop

so as someone who is in the city living on a students budget that can barely afford to eat food at this point in my life what are my alternatives to tap water? Don't tell me to not spend money on beer or whatever, all I ever buy is food. Unless everybody starts digging their own well it is forced because to some people it is drink tap water or die of dehydration.

If people would rather die of dehydration than drink fluoridated tap water, then maybe they should hurry up and do so and increase the average human intelligence.

Seriously, if you're thirsty, but refuse to drink fluoridated water in its plentiful supply, you deserve to die.

Imagine what it feels like when you have no alternative to tap water and you literally feel like you are poisoning yourself with each glass.

If this is truly how you feel when you think about or consider drinking fluoridated tap water, you need help.

[robocop]

Originally Posted by Rathji

How is it possible that for 2 years between 2007 and 2009, I never drank a single glass of tap water while I was at my house?

Bottled water is very cheap, like $3.50 for a big bottle, and a cheap water cooler can be had for less than 100 bucks.

tap water = free
3.50 for a bottle + 100$ cooler + gas money to go get the water (that is if you have a car) = less food

your argument holds zero ground and it is rather infuriating. Just because you had the means to buy your own water does not mean everyone else does.

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

If people would rather die of dehydration than drink fluoridated tap water, then maybe they should hurry up and do so and increase the average human intelligence.

Seriously, if you're thirsty, but refuse to drink fluoridated water in its plentiful supply, you deserve to die.

wow, absolutely astounding how self-righteous someone can be. Did I say I would choose to die of dehydration? no. I said there is a choice and obviously you choose to drink the fluoridated water, can you not understand a simple god damn concept without reverting to juvenile insults. This may have been one of the most stupid and asinine things I have ever read in my entire life.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by robocop

then put fluoride in your own water. I don't give a damn about the health benefits it should be my choice about what chemicals go in my body. I am astounded they actually voted to remove it.

Others choose what chemicals go in your body all the time. Every time a new industrial facility is approved the government is implicitly allowing the facility to expose people nearby to the chemicals it emits. When your neighbour drives his car down the street he is exposing you to its exhaust. The City adds chlorine to your drinking water without your permission. All of these are allowed based on various levels of government deciding it is a net benefit to society to force you to be exposed to the chemicals.

On top of that you'll still be getting fluoride in Calgary tap water - it's just that now the concentration will be in the 0.1-0.4 ppm range instead of 0.7 ppm, so it won't have the beneficial effects. By the way, there's also lead, mercury and arsenic in tap water.

[theonlywhiteout]

im glad you have the means to be wasteful and drink bottled water (the most wasteful and evil product that exists). some people cant afford to drink water bottled and throw their money away

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by something

To briefly respond to your second paragraph: I am a proponent of raw, whole and generally unadulterated foods. I don't agree with the addition of folic acid to flour either.

Surely you must be opposed to the addition of chlorine and other non-fluoride additives to publicly-provided tap water then?

[robocop]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

Others choose what chemicals go in your body all the time. Every time a new industrial facility is approved the government is implicitly allowing the facility to expose people nearby to the chemicals it emits. When your neighbour drives his car down the street he is exposing you to its exhaust. The City adds chlorine to your drinking water without your permission. All of these are allowed based on various levels of government deciding it is a net benefit to society to force you to be exposed to the chemicals.

On top of that you'll still be getting fluoride in Calgary tap water - it's just that now the concentration will be in the 0.1-0.4 ppm range instead of 0.7 ppm, so it won't have the beneficial effects. By the way, there's also lead, mercury and arsenic in tap water.

I am aware of these things, but how does it change anything that I said?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by something

At this point, I find you to be eristic. As such, I won't be explaining the nuances of my statement to you any further.

Good word. I look forward to more posts by you. Are you by chance a Philosophy Graduate?

[something]

Originally Posted by troutman

I understand your reasonable question. Sorry for being glib. I would not say I am an "expert", but water (and flouridation) is a pet interest of mine. No one is without bias, but I like to think my opinion is based on sound evidence. If the evidence came out the other way I would change my opinion.

If we are not expert, should we not trust the decision to people that are experts, rather than poorly-informed politicians?

I think for you the issue is about personal liberty (what should be allowed into your own body). As I understand it, flouridation is safe, beneficial and cost-effective.

I am wary of even the experts. It seems a paradox to label two people an expert when their evidence is contradictory. Therefore, I find an "informed" decision to be elusive.

You're right that it is an issue about personal liberty. For me, it is. However, I still find, that given my bias (admittedly, a predisposition to certain "evidence") I have still formed what I believe to be a reasonable conclusion. This conclusion is corroborated by the notion that I consider it reasonable not to be exposed to additives and chemicals, whose efficacy and safety are under scrutiny, while consuming a public resource.

That's just my take.

[robocop]

Originally Posted by something

I am wary of even the experts. It seems a paradox to label two people an expert when their evidence is contradictory. Therefore, I find an "informed" decision to be elusive.

You're right that it is an issue about personal liberty. For me, it is. However, I still find, that given my bias (admittedly, a predisposition to certain "evidence") I have still formed what I believe to be a reasonable conclusion. This conclusion is corroborated by the notion that I consider it reasonable not to be exposed to additives and chemicals, whose efficacy and safety are under scrutiny, while consuming a public resource.

That's just my take.

honestly I think this just may be too complicated for some people to understand. The revile at logic must be motivated by some fear of change because the majority of those who advocate fluoride have trouble forming a logical counterpoint that actually accounts for this central idea (that many detractors hold)

[photon]

The government isn't forcing chemicals into people, the government is putting something in the water at the request of the people.

Just like the government makes everyone wear seatbelts or limits how much you can drink before driving or puts warnings on cigarettes or a million other ways the government interferes with our lives.. or rather we all interfere with our own and others' lives through the government.

That's the kind of society we live in.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by robocop

wow, absolutely astounding how self-righteous someone can be. Did I say I would choose to die of dehydration? no. I said there is a choice and obviously you choose to drink the fluoridated water, can you not understand a simple god damn concept without reverting to juvenile insults. This may have been one of the most stupid and asinine things I have ever read in my entire life.

Tit for tat. The following was one of the most stupid and asinine things I have ever read in my entire life:

Originally Posted by robocop

so as someone who is in the city living on a students budget that can barely afford to eat food at this point in my life what are my alternatives to tap water? Don't tell me to not spend money on beer or whatever, all I ever buy is food. Unless everybody starts digging their own well it is forced because to some people it is drink tap water or die of dehydration.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by something

I am wary of even the experts. It seems a paradox to label two people an expert when their evidence is contradictory. Therefore, I find an "informed" decision to be elusive.

Yes, perhaps a better way to put it is to look at the quality and weight of the evidence, and not whether anyone is an expert (appeal to authority). If the overwhelming, science-based evidence points in one direction, I support that.