Posted on 05/06/2014 7:58:26 PM PDT by PaulCruz2016
There have been reports that when mixed with water, that it is not dissolving and wreaking havoc on the infrastructure at the plants.
Moreover, it's a benefit that people can't achieve on their own. To my knowledge, while you can buy fluoridated toothpastes and obtain topical treatment in the dentist's office, there is no practical way to fluoridate one's water.
Ergo, fluoridation is a legitimate public health benefit that can only be provided on a community-wide basis.
The benefits of lithium, however, are neither demonstrable nor universal...nor necessarily beneficial. Ergo, there is no legitimate public health benefit to be obtained.
Precisely. It’s a mass medical experiment done without the knowledge or consent of the subject.
The chemicals are mostly if not all imported from China. I’m sure they’d NEVER taint them with anything dangerous.
The greater Victoria water supply used to be treated with chlorine, which would evaporate if left in a pitcher overnight. However, “chloramine” (a mixture of chlorine and ammonia) is now being used. Chloramine has the advantage of being persistent — i.e. it does not evaporate away quickly. That means that it remains an effective disinfectant throughout the whole water distribution system. However, it also has the disadvantage of being persistent — meaning it will not evaporate if left in a pitcher, for several days even. This doesn’t bother me, because I use a filter with activated charcoal to take it out of the drinking water. Of course, I still absorb some while showering — but, I’m not overly concerned about that.
One thing that the greater Victoria area does very well, is manage the drinking water supply. We have a protected watershed, that’s about the size of the built-up metropolitan area, and collect water in reservoirs. These reservoirs are closed to the public. No one boats on, swims in, fishes from, or camps by our water reservoirs. Water enters the treatment plant with few contaminants, and therefore requires much less chlorine, or chloramine than many other areas. In addition, the entire distribution system is flushed out twice a year. Very early on, Victoria made the decision to protect its water supply, so that it would not need to rely on disinfectants for safety.
Many cities use a lot more chlorine — you can easily taste the difference. It usually comes down to the source of the water — e.g. if they get it from a slow-moving river, they have to use more disinfectant. Similarly, if the city’s water reservoir is used as a recreation area, more chlorine needs to be added. I prefer to start with pure water, and use as little powerful disinfectants as possible. The alternatives are filtering, and bottled water (i.e. someone else filtered it for you).
Here’s a link to a Health Canada publication on chlorination of drinking water. Note the part about the risks of chlorination by-products.
“To my knowledge, while you can buy fluoridated toothpastes and obtain topical treatment in the dentist’s office, there is no practical way to fluoridate one’s water. “
So what? Is the objective to fluoridate the water, or is the objective to help prevent dental caries? If the former — that’s just insane. If the latter, then fluoridated toothpastes and mouthwashes, and topical treatments work just fine.
You have your own calculus of public benefits vs. costs, wherein individual choice seems to count for little. You want to use the political system to impose that calculus on everyone. Apparently, you wouldn’t be too happy if your government decided to medicate you with Lithium, through your drinking water. You’re at least half-way toward understanding the problem.
Couldda sworn I'd previously pointed out that fluoridation, toothpaste and topicals were each responsible for a significant reduction and that virtual elimination of caries required all three.
In other words, toothpaste and topicals are supplemental to, not replacements for, fluoridation.
You keep assuming I'm in favor of unilateral government action. Would you have a problem with putting the issue to a vote? I wouldn't.
With respect, I keep inferring that, because it seems to be what you keep implying.
BTW, fluoride supplements (in the form of chewable tablets, lozenges, or drops) are also available, for those who chose to ingest more fluoride than they get from their toothpaste or mouthwash.
BTW, we're already agreed that governments should not add Lithium to drinking water. What's your position on adding statins -- which some advocates propose adding to drinking water to combat cholesterol?
Where? How? Because I make a distinction between political and public health issues?
What's your position on adding statins -- which some advocates propose adding to drinking water to combat cholesterol?
I don't know squat about statins. Nor do I consider chloresterol to necessarily be a public health menace. Should I?
Mental health (suicide prevention), and cholesterol control are certainly important issues, for many in the public. You haven't defined what "public health" means to you -- but, (again by inference) it seems to mean "health issues, which I believe warrant use of government regulatory powers to force medication on the public".
Gee, I thought I made that pretty clear:
In my estimation, a demonstrable and universal public health benefit is ample justification for fluoridation.
To me, that's a public health issue. If the local authorities already have the authority to apply it, I can support it.
On the other hand, if the community wants to put it to a vote, I'm OK with that. It's still a public health issue, though, but it's being decided politically. To me, the question itself isn't political -- whether the government should have the authority to improve the water supply. Instead, it's a public health question: Does this measure in fact improve the water supply?
You would cast the issue as a political question, I gather, and vote in the negative -- even though you agree that fluoridation is beneficial.
mass medicine is not good medicine. Medicines that can cure come can kill others. How many people actually drink tap waster?
“To me, the question itself isn’t political — whether the government should have the authority to improve the water supply.”
It is the very essence of a “political” question.
For some reason, we're not communicating. You're trying to make this solely a political issue, when it's not.
I am saying that it is a public health question. IF it is already within the charter of the local authorities to improve the water supply, then they have the authority to do fluoridate the water. And, based on acquired knowledge, I'd support their decision.
IF, however, they do NOT have the authority to do so and seek public approval for fluoridation, I'd have no objection to their seeking to do so. And, based on acquired knowledge, I'd support a "Yes" vote.
I gather that -- because you consider it a political question -- you would afford them no authority to do anything on their own and would resist their even calling for a referendum. In which case, how did chlorination get approved in the first place? Under what circumstances Do we get to stop boiling the water...???
Like I said...we're not communicating.
You are claiming that it dissipates before reaching your home.
Chemically; where does it go?
You just outlined some of the ways it’s a political issue.
To you, perhaps. To me, it's a public health issue that I'm willing to have decided on its merits: does it, or does it not, enhance public health? If it comes to a vote, I'd support it and, if the voting public decides "yea", I'm OK with it. That's a political process, but it's not "political".
Am I to gather that the issue is so politically-heated to you that you wouldn't even abide a vote on the matter? If your community voted for fluoridation, would you leave?
“In my estimation, a demonstrable and universal public health benefit is ample justification for fluoridation.”
Your “estimation” isn’t worth a rat fart to me.
Give me potable water and use only the amount of chemical disinfectants necessary to make it so. If I decide to add any other chemicals to my body I will do it myself.
Thanks.
Fluoridated drinking water promotes better dental health — I’ve stated that several times. It also has some risks — a fact that you seem reluctant to admit.
It’s a giant leap from recognizing the health benefits of fluoride (or any medication) to concluding that it must be put in drinking water. You’re advocating a technocratic approach to government — whereby the “experts” determine what is best for the unwashed masses, and impose their prescriptions on the masses.
The issue isn’t whether the treatment would be helpful — the issue is whether or not people have the final choice about what goes into their bodies.
Ideally, there would be no way that governments could decide to forcibly medicate the populace. Given that we don’t have an ideal world, then yes a vote would be called for. The second best solution (the best being free choice), would be a referendum, and third best would be a vote by elected officials. An absolutely unacceptable solution would be to turn the decision over to technocrats — no matter how much “expertise” they have.
If my community fluoridated the drinking water, I would buy bottled water. If I were prevented from doing that (a growing number of activists want to ban bottled water), I would rebel in some way.
BTW, how would you feel about mandatory flu vaccinations? It’s a very serious public health issue — far more serious than dental health. If you don’t have a vaccination, that affects other people — whereas, if you get tooth decay, that only affects you. Numerous medical technocrats are already advocating mandatory flu vaccinations. Would you support that? Would you remain in your community, if you were forced to take a vaccination that you believed carried too much personal risk?
I have done no such thing! You are willfully ignoring my support of a public referendum in every single post I have made to you.
To hell with it. You're not paying attention!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.