Fluoridated water

[abskebabs]

This is a subject that has recently concerned me. From my perspective, I do not believe governments have any right to force people to take medication from a service they have a monopoly on. This is regardless of the possible danges and benefits associated with the use of this.

 

The purpose of this thread is to help get a few answers to the following questions from forum members:

1. In your assessment are there any medical benefits from fluoridation of water?

2. Are there dangers involved with fluoridating the water supply?

3. Do the dangers outweigh the benefits or vice versa?

4. In your own point of view, should the fluoridation by enforced mandate of our political authorities be allowed?

 

Thanks in advance.

[John Cuthber]

1 Yes, reduced rates of tooth decay

2 Not as long as it's done carefully. The same applies to chlorination of water or other forms of water treatment and most people are happy with that.

3 I think the benefits outweigh the dangers.

4 I live in a democracy (of sorts) and I accept the majority opinion which (where I am) is generally in favour of fluoridation.

[iNow]

GjL9g3s6Fro

Sdd9_nXVL38

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
1. In your assessment are there any medical benefits from fluoridation of water? - Yes, without question.

2. Are there dangers involved with fluoridating the water supply? - There is danger in just about anything, but in this case, it is extremely minimal.

3. Do the dangers outweigh the benefits or vice versa? - No, the benefits outweigh the risks.

4. In your own point of view, should the fluoridation by enforced mandate of our political authorities be allowed? - Yes, since the action is grounded in clear research. In much the same way, I have no problem with the political authorities working to keep tainted meat out of my supermarket and poisons out of my medications. Edited July 1, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[insane_alien]

the anti fluoride proponents often remind me of this:

 

http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2008/08/04

[abskebabs]

4 I live in a democracy (of sorts) and I accept the majority opinion which (where I am) is generally in favour of fluoridation.

So you accept limiting the choice and violating the property rights(in case they try to set up an alternative to the government water service) of the minority who disagree? How very democratic!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

4. In your own point of view, should the fluoridation by enforced mandate of our political authorities be allowed? - Yes, since the action is grounded in clear research. In much the same way, I have no problem with the political authorities working to keep tainted meat out of my supermarket and poisons out of my medications.

 

Would you mind providing links to papers supporting your conclusions?

[GDG]

So you accept limiting the choice and violating the property rights(in case they try to set up an alternative to the government water service) of the minority who disagree? How very democratic!

 

Yes, indeed, very democratic. Why should a few hold-outs degrade service that everyone else wants? As for property rights, water supply is a service, not a property right. I doubt that there is any law preventing you from obtaining water from other sources, be they bottled water or rain water collected in barrels.

 

Mere ownership of property does not include the unlimited right to do as you will. For example, if you tried to replace your suburban house with a convenience store or a small factory, you would quickly find yourself in court, defending yourself from charges of nuisance (in the legal sense) by your neighbors, and zoning violations by your local government. You are not a soverign.

[insane_alien]

you could always dig a well in your garden if you don't want fluorinated water.

[abskebabs]

Yes, indeed, very democratic. Why should a few hold-outs degrade service that everyone else wants? As for property rights, water supply is a service, not a property right. I doubt that there is any law preventing you from obtaining water from other sources, be they bottled water or rain water collected in barrels.

 

Mere ownership of property does not include the unlimited right to do as you will. For example, if you tried to replace your suburban house with a convenience store or a small factory, you would quickly find yourself in court, defending yourself from charges of nuisance (in the legal sense) by your neighbors, and zoning violations by your local government. You are not a soverign.

 

You are correct, monopoly power over one commodity is not absoloute, even the commoditiy must ultimately compete with others, hence if people are not satisfied with the water service provided by the political authorities they may opt to purchase bottled water from a private source. Yet the fact that the state owns a large part of the areas and the infrastructure from which water could be accessed has no doubt impeded the formation of a private sector in drinking water. I would advocate privatisation here.

 

Indeed, I never claimed ownership would allow me to violate the property rights of others.

 

As for zoning violations, I don't believe economically or morally there are any grounds for central planning whether it comes to setting interest rates, "planning" development or running the "commanding heights" of the economy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

you could always dig a well in your garden if you don't want fluorinated water.

 

I live in Yorkshire during the holidays so it's not a worry for now, as the supply here is not fluoridated to my knowledge.

 

Indeed I need to do some more reading on the health aspects of this. I know it can be a cause of Fluorosis. I also know water often naturally contains fluoride in it anyway, but I'm not sure if the WHO recommend concentration is safe. In any case I'll check it out, and as I pointed out earlier I'd be grateful for literature on the subject.

Edited July 1, 2009 by abskebabs
Consecutive posts merged.

[CharonY]

Most has been said already. However it is of course important to have risk-benefit assessments (of which there are numerous around, mostly with regards to possible fluorosis) before introducing a policy like this. And there is always the question whether there are certain groups in the population that may react more adversely to any additions to something as basic as drinking water than others.

For instance, addition of iodine may sound like a good idea due to the often prevalent iodine deficiency. However, those with Grave's disease, or susceptible to it may have a hard time to avoid a too high concentration of iodine (as IIRC significant amounts can also be absorbed during e.g. bathing, if it is in the water).

Again, it boils down to a risk-benefit assessment.

[abskebabs]

Most has been said already. However it is of course important to have risk-benefit assessments (of which there are numerous around, mostly with regards to possible fluorosis) before introducing a policy like this. And there is always the question whether there are certain groups in the population that may react more adversely to any additions to something as basic as drinking water than others.

For instance, addition of iodine may sound like a good idea due to the often prevalent iodine deficiency. However, those with Grave's disease, or susceptible to it may have a hard time to avoid a too high concentration of iodine (as IIRC significant amounts can also be absorbed during e.g. bathing, if it is in the water).

Again, it boils down to a risk-benefit assessment.

I can't agree with you more on an individual basis. Yet as you've mentioned at best the interests of one group are damaged for another.This kind of problem would not arise in a system of private proerty rights and an unhampered market economy, as people's choice on the matter would not be limited to a single vote for a political candidate every 4 years.

[GDG]

According to Yorkshire Water, your water supply has natural fluoridation ranging from 0.1 mg/L to something under 1.0 mg/L.

[iNow]

4. In your own point of view, should the fluoridation by enforced mandate of our political authorities be allowed? - Yes, since the action is grounded in clear research. In much the same way, I have no problem with the political authorities working to keep tainted meat out of my supermarket and poisons out of my medications.

 

Would you mind providing links to papers supporting your conclusions?

You surely could have found it easily with google if you'd tried.

 

http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v202/n1/full/bdj.2007.8.html

http://www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/benefits.htm

http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/

 

Or, you could review one of the 89 references at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Evidence_basis

 

 

Perhaps you were instead asking me to prove that there are governmental regulations to prevent tainted meat from being sold at the supermarket or poisons knowingly being put into our medications at levels beyond efficacy?

[abskebabs]

According to Yorkshire Water, your water supply has natural fluoridation ranging from 0.1 mg/L to something under 1.0 mg/L.

Yes, thanks for providing the report, they do add that 99.9% of it has less than 0.2mg/L, and they never add fluoride to the water. Interesting the WHO is recommending a raised level from 0.5mg-1mg/L.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You surely could have found it easily with google if you'd tried.

Thanks for the sources, and I appreciate the biting irony of your above comment considering our exchanges on another thread.

[John Cuthber]

So you accept limiting the choice and violating the property rights(in case they try to set up an alternative to the government water service) of the minority who disagree? How very democratic!

 

Yes.

In the same way that I favour violating the rights of that minority who think that killing people should be legal.

 

Democracies do that.

 

Incidentally the risk assesment for adding fluoride to the water is pretty simple. If it's already high enough you don't add it. If it's high enough to cause fluoridosis then you can't supply it as potable water anyway.

You only need to consider adding it if levels are very low.

 

BTW, the UK water companies are not government owned; one of the big ones (EDF) is French.

Edited July 2, 2009 by John Cuthber

[abskebabs]

Yes.

In the same way that I favour violating the rights of that minority who think that killing people should be legal.

 

Democracies do that.

 

No, that's a false comparison, as murderers violate the individual and property rights of other individuals(unless you're assuming the state somewhow owns people's bodies).

[John Cuthber]

The water companies are commercial organisations. The government tells them what to do on behalf of the people. Requiring them to consider adding fluoride is no different from requiring them to ensure the water is fit to drink. If the people don't like it they vote them out.

I grant it would have been a better example to cite any of a number of consumer protection laws rather than murder.

The point remains that this is all perfectly normal behaviour for a democracy.

[abskebabs]

The water companies are commercial organisations. The government tells them what to do on behalf of the people. Requiring them to consider adding fluoride is no different from requiring them to ensure the water is fit to drink. If the people don't like it they vote them out.

I grant it would have been a better example to cite any of a number of consumer protection laws rather than murder.

The point remains that this is all perfectly normal behaviour for a democracy.

 

I guess I ought to make my position clearer. I did think about placing this thread in politics, though decided not as I was more interested in learning about the medical risks.

 

I used to have a higher opinion of democracy, yet nowadays I feel it is a highly overrated panacea, that can and has violated the very rights, freedoms and liberties we hold dear(at least some of us). So I would rather opt for any system in which these can be upheld. A democratic republic where the powers of government would be severely limted constitutionally would be far better, much like the US originally was. On the other hand I have much sympathy with anarchocapitalism.

 

At the moment the system is far more akin to 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

 

I understand these are commercial organisations that work on behalf of governments on behalf of the people, though I see this intermediary role as redundant and dangerous in the sense it can be hijacked by powerful special interests at the expense of the little guy, the consumer.

 

I think the only thing "consumer protection" regulations do is protect established businesses from competition by raising the entry barrier for new competitors in terms of establishment costs and red tape. Protecting and establishing monopolies assigned by poloitical individuals is contrary to consumer interests, it does not serve them.

 

If water companies did a bad job directly serving the consumer, they would be boycotted, simple as that.

[John Cuthber]

"If water companies did a bad job directly serving the consumer, they would be boycotted, simple as that."

 

My God! You are right.

I will stop using water until the water company does exactly as I tell them and fixes all the leaks. (or until I get thirsty)

[bascule]

I can understand areas with high rates of tooth decay fluoridating their water but I'm not sure why any city I ever lived in fluoridated theirs.

 

My teeth are marred by dental fluorosis.

[nanoNED]

Everyone needs to take the time to read this article because it explains WHERE they are getting the fluoride to use in the water source. In short: fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is a chemical waste product from phosphate fertilizer manufacturing- the majority of it coming from Florida(ironic in name). The "fluoride" is only a small part of a highly toxic soup of carcinogens including "mercury, lead, sulfates, iron and phosphorous, not to mention radionuclides". EPA supports this and you have to ask why

 

It can cause Fluorosis and bone deterioration in some cases of prolonged exposure.

 

http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluorideandphosphate.htm

 

Fluoride is good in very small amounts and helped the earlier generations before we had mass production of fluoride toothpaste and even back then it did not come in the form of a second hand byproduct! There is no need to fluoridate our water as a consideration for large corporations who cannot cost effectively dispose of their WASTE.

 

All they have done is packaged their unwanted garbage as a health benefit and they did a good job because it fooled even the "geniuses'" of this website.

 

THis from previous posters link to CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/faqs.htm#20

 

[ Is fluorosilicic acid the residue of the production of pesticides, rodenticides, or the nuclear industry?

 

No. It is a valuable coproduct derived from the production of fertilizer. It is not derived from pesticide, rodenticide, or nuclear power production.]

Edited July 4, 2009 by nanoNED
addition

[abskebabs]

"If water companies did a bad job directly serving the consumer, they would be boycotted, simple as that."

 

My God! You are right.

I will stop using water until the water company does exactly as I tell them and fixes all the leaks. (or until I get thirsty)

 

As you said yourself, they are given contracts by your government, not by you, hence you have little say in the matter. So you are correct that in the current situation your "power" as a consumer is lessened.

 

A non-intervened market economy is not perfect, but at least there is consumer sovereignty and choice, creating a strong incentive for providers to be sensitive to the concerns and wants of the consumers. It's not "perfect"(I think perfect competition models are pure bull), and you do not have an infinite number of choices of providers.

 

However, it is much better than the indirect contractual system through the political apparatus that you are defending. An understanding of incentives should help you realise why politicians often display rent seeking behaviour, with alterior motives, and hence are a poor means for providing the end for individuals to receive the best product

 

I'm sure you would not argue the case against this for any other industry that is not government run, like cars(apart from the US:-p), or Internet service providers. So it's puzzling to me why you seem to fail to understand how greater consumer sovereignty would help in this case.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Fluoride is good in very small amounts and helped the earlier generations before we had mass production of fluoride toothpaste and even back then it did not come in the form of a second hand byproduct! There is no need to fluoridate our water as a consideration for large corporations who cannot cost effectively dispose of their WASTE.

 

Indeed, this is a typical tragedy of the commons scenario. Waste is treated as a "public good", with municipal governments taking over waste management; albeit with the added caveat they are often so inept that they'll need to hire a company to do the collection.

 

If water and waste were not public goods, then polution would be a violation of property rights issue. Hence, companies would have to negotiated with private landowners to take the waste they produce, and would likely have to pay a high price for this service to compensate for the opportunity costs and disutillity for the landowner. This would provide a disincentive for prolific waste production, and an incentive for an improvement of positive technological and capital accumulation in this area; all communicated clearly through the structure of the price system. It would simply not be profitable to pollute.

 

However, under our current scenario, these companies do not have to pay a contractor or take care of this waste for themselves. In fact, doing what they do costs them nothing! If waste and water are publically managed then they cannot be sued for violating property. Hence we have a tragedy of the commons where our current system ACTUALLY ENCOURAGES prolific waste production.

 

No amount of crying senselessly about evil capitalists will ever solve this problem, we need to get to its root.

[John Cuthber]

I can understand areas with high rates of tooth decay fluoridating their water but I'm not sure why any city I ever lived in fluoridated theirs.

 

My teeth are marred by dental fluorosis.

 

Did any city you lived in fluoridate the water? If your teeth show evidence of high levels of fluoride and you got that from city water then there's no way it would have been added.

 

The fact that what is actually added to the water is fluorosilicate (as the free acid or as the Na salt) is true, but a red herring. The stuff is derived from fertiliser manufacture and it might well contain traces of other materials. However the overall content of potentially toxic materials in water is strictly regulated.

If you add a ppm or so of H2SF6 to the water and it contains a fraction of a percent of, for example, mercury, then you are adding something like a few part per billion of mercury to the water. So what? It's still got to meet the standards for mercury and so there's not going to be enough mercury to cause a problem.

 

It's also a lovely bit of "spin" to label it as a toxic waste product. Na2SF6 isn't very toxic it would take something like 10 grams to kill you. It's not a waste product- it's a by product. Do you think platinum is a waste product?

There are no platinum mines; all of it is recovered as a "waste" product from the extraction of other metals.

 

There's a couple of serious differences between water and cars.

I don't need (or own) a car; without water I would be dead fairly soon.

 

I can buy a car from any number of suppliers and from a fairly large number of manufacturers.

There is precisely 1 water pipe feeding my house.

 

All that stuff about the free market doesn't work when there's a monopoly.

Water is a monopoly. That's why it needs government intervention to stop them ripping off the consumers.

I'm slightly worried that you don't sem to have thought of that disparity.

[abskebabs]

There's a couple of serious differences between water and cars.

I don't need (or own) a car; without water I would be dead fairly soon.

 

I can buy a car from any number of suppliers and from a fairly large number of manufacturers.

There is precisely 1 water pipe feeding my house.

 

All that stuff about the free market doesn't work when there's a monopoly.

Water is a monopoly. That's why it needs government intervention to stop them ripping off the consumers.

I'm slightly worried that you don't sem to have thought of that disparity.

 

Despite your attempt to apply a kind of emotional argument to this, I don't think you can, and you clearly have not justified how you classify water or any other good as an a priori monopoly good.

 

Water is a monopoly because it is a good whose provision is controlled by governments who set impossible entrance barriers for competition. This situation would break down and cease to exist without their intervention.

 

I don't deny you could have a private "monopoly", in the sense of one company owning a large market share of the provision of goods for a certain industry. This would only occur with them satisfying the wants of the consumers most staisfactorily and efficiently. If they departed from this they would have to be prepared to pay the price of losing market share.

 

I have only 1 gas pipe supplying my house. I have only 1 powerline supplying my house. Neither of the services supplied by these are provisioned by government controlled monopolies.

 

Indeed in terms of essential goods, you could advocate the same for food. The Soviet Union had a burea for food. It no doubt contributed to the poor service and lags suffered by consumers of that nation. It was also exteremely unresponsive to the wants and needs of consumers, something that I don't think is much improved by a system of political privelige "regulated" by democracy.

 

The government is the kind of entity that will break your leg, give you a crutch and say: "Look you can't live without me!"

[John Cuthber]

Pointing out that car makerss are different from water companies isn't particularly emotional. It's simply true.

 

"you clearly have not justified how you classify water or any other good as an a priori monopoly good."

No, but I have pointed out that it is a de facto monopoly supply.

 

"Water is a monopoly because it is a good whose provision is controlled by governments who set impossible entrance barriers for competition. "

The government isn't what stops me, for example, laying a very long pipeline to anouther area and buying water from someone else. The fact that it's ridiculously impractical does that.

 

Water supply is one area where economies of scale make it essentially impossible to break into the market.

 

"If they departed from this they would have to be prepared to pay the price of losing market share."

To whom?

There isn't another supplier with a pipe running to my house.

 

"

I have only 1 gas pipe supplying my house. I have only 1 powerline supplying my house. Neither of the services supplied by these are provisioned by government controlled monopolies. "

Are they, by any chance run by private monopolies regulated by government?

[abskebabs]

Pointing out that car makerss are different from water companies isn't particularly emotional. It's simply true.

 

"you clearly have not justified how you classify water or any other good as an a priori monopoly good."

No, but I have pointed out that it is a de facto monopoly supply.

 

"Water is a monopoly because it is a good whose provision is controlled by governments who set impossible entrance barriers for competition. "

The government isn't what stops me, for example, laying a very long pipeline to anouther area and buying water from someone else. The fact that it's ridiculously impractical does that.

 

Water supply is one area where economies of scale make it essentially impossible to break into the market.

 

"If they departed from this they would have to be prepared to pay the price of losing market share."

To whom?

There isn't another supplier with a pipe running to my house.

 

"

I have only 1 gas pipe supplying my house. I have only 1 powerline supplying my house. Neither of the services supplied by these are provisioned by government controlled monopolies. "

Are they, by any chance run by private monopolies regulated by government?

I'm not arguing there are not entry barriers ultimately due to scarcity of land and factors of production, I'm saying that government involvement produces artificial barriers that do not serve the interests of the consumer.

 

Also, in the UK electricity and gas has been privatised for a long time.

http://www.hkdf.org/newsarticles.asp?show=newsarticles&newsarticle=86

http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/newbery/files/iaee.pdf

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteName=WDS&entityID=000009265_3980513111839

 

Now I'm not saying these are not regulated, unfortunately this intereference plagues almost every sector of the economy; just the government does not directly control the provision of these services.