> Water fluoridation is beneficial for reducing and controlling tooth decay and promoting oral health across the lifespan. Evidence shows that water fluoridation prevents tooth decay by providing frequent and consistent contact with low levels of fluoride, ultimately reducing tooth decay by 25% in children and adults.
To the best of my knowledge, very few doubt what flouride does for tooth decay / oral health. What's in question is:
1) the unintended side effects
2) given the side effects does flouride warrant the risk?
3) all things considered, couldn't / shouldn't flouride be a choice?
I'm not taking sides - pro or con - I simply want to point out the broader context; at least as I understand it.
The CDC is telling us that international “expert panels…have not found convincing scientific evidence linking community water fluoridation with any potential adverse health effect or systemic disorder such as …low intelligence…Documented risks of community water fluoridation are limited to dental fluorosis”
Unless you propose cloning municipal water systems, fluoride choice isn't really practical. Check whether a proper activated charcoal filter, possibly with additions, is capable of filtering out the small amount of F- that's present. There might also be Cl- in there to keep diseases down, acting as a disinfectant (check with your water treatment plant/website).
I think the argument for things like this is that there's a fair number of people who would not act to preserve their teeth which is a quality of life issue for them. And possibly for others if it consumes resources doing larger-scale dental work after damage occurs.
It really shouldn’t be a choice. Not having fluoridated water causes all sorts of public health issues, especially in kids.
For example, San Jose has spotty fluoridation thanks to its idiotic privatized water supply, and, despite being extremely wealthy and well-educated, many kids end up with dental issues severe enough to cause academic issues, etc.
Just to clarify a bit, well educated !== well informed. Along the same lines, could a lack of flouride be taking (at least some of) the blame for a high sugar diet?
At the very least, there should be provisions for those who want to opt out. For example, discounted filtration systems.
To the best of my knowledge, very few doubt what flouride does for tooth decay / oral health. What's in question is:
1) the unintended side effects
2) given the side effects does flouride warrant the risk?
3) all things considered, couldn't / shouldn't flouride be a choice?
I'm not taking sides - pro or con - I simply want to point out the broader context; at least as I understand it.