The popular opinion is that we already get enough fluoride in our water.
The environment???
Fluoride, like many minerals, is naturally occurring in many water sources, just not (all) of the ones that are used for drinking water. Additionally, the concentration of fluoride for this purpose is minuscule (0.7 mg/L according to Health Canada).
Up here in Maine we have a pretty bad fluoride issue in some areas, and a lot of people are not testing their well water, and ending up with fluoride poisoning.
Until recently I couldn't avoid government insurance here in America, and the IRS penalizes me monthly for it at a rate higher than the cost of subsidized insurance.
And flouride in your water doesn't replace toothpaste. Are you seriously trying to tell me if I don't brush but drink enough water a day, without changing my sugar consumption and after-meal rinsing habits, that my gums will stay healthy? I don't think you really know what you're talking about.
- Dental cavities can be prevented by maintaining a constant low level of fluoride in the oral cavity.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs318/en/
It doesn't seem like it's an issue to you, personally, because we have flourinated water.
As a child, I used to get nauseated after brushing my teeth and formed a physical aversion I had to overcome daily. After discovering flouride-free toothpaste a few years ago, I stopped feeling sick after brushing. It's possible I have an underactive thyroid but I haven't sought a real diagnoses.
Putting flouride in our tap doesn't solve sugar over-consumption or bad dental care. And it possibly aggravates hyperthyroidism in some people, though I don't know of any conclusive studies.
I though you just said that tooth decay isn't still a public health concern, now it is?
Are you saying the WHO is wrong? Based on what evidence?
Don't hijack my argument into something else.
I said it wasn't the government's responsibility to flouridate my drinking water. That isn't what I pay taxes for.
^ Is what you really said, which didn't make sense even in context.
You pay taxes for what your democratically elected representatives determine it's for, not what you personally think - and like the WHO, they think some of it should be marginally spent on solving major public health concerns.
The idea that democratic elections are functioning in a representative way in America is a joke. I have no control over many policies that govern me. But I still reserve the right to decide what I think are worthwhile tax expenditures. Your same logic would invalidate the gross overspending of taxes towards my government's defense budget.
At least you understand saying, "That's not what I pay taxes for" is a moot argument then.
Note that they didn't /remove/ the recommendation for fluoride in water. They just reduced the recommended amount.
1: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/04/27/40257994...
What I do works for me, and works well - I look for fluoride-free products - you can stick with using agricultural waste in your water supply, but I stay off it!
Nowadays we consume processed water which is clear of many impurities and tends to come just one source. The quality is extremely consistent, so we don't die of poisonings and contaminations. But then, the selection of where our drinking water comes from, and the purification processes may have the impact that the fluoride level is consistently lower than is good. Hence the possible need to add fluoride to water.