Florida tea party fights for tooth decay

No you didn't, what I was saying is if your teeth are so bad that you need fluoride, fluoride is the least of your problems.

 

Which is why we should fluoridate the water, to allow children to grow healthier teeth.

 

so you want the government now putting chemicals in water. great.

 

TOPQUARK SAYS: The anti-fluoridation people may be good for a laugh but they're also dead serious!

In the meanwhile, the AMA urges state health departments to, "consider the value of requiring statewide fluoridation (preferably a comprehensive program of fluoridation of all public water supplies, where these are fluoride deficient), and to initiate such action as deemed appropriate". The AMA position on fluoridation raises an interesting question for the anti-fluoridation movement: How do you get fluoride out of public water supplies in those areas where nature alone provides an adequate level of fluoride for purposes of dental health? The characterization of fluoride as a "poison" doesn't seem to allow for natural fluoridation. Is it possible the anti-fluoridation people plan to "mess with Mother Nature"???

 

Isn't adding fluoride (from industrial waste) to the water supply "mess(ing) with Mother Nature"?

 

HomerJay Asks: "Isn't adding fluoride (from industrial waste) to the water supply "mess(ing) with Mother Nature"?

Yes, this would likely be considered "pollution" as well as "messing with Mother Nature. This should be (and is) prohibited in most places. However, the extent to which any substance represents "pollution" depends on intent as well as the extent to which it adversely disturbs ambient natural conditions. Some nutrients associated with agricultural runoff (in certain locations) are know to actually restore "natural ambient conditions".

Suppose a local water supply (prior to the introduction of industrial waste) is know to contain fluoride at 1 part per million; but after the introduction of industrial waste, fluoride concentration continues to remain at 1 part per million (or less). Is this fluoride "pollution"? Of course, this example is hypothetical but it serves to make a point: The mere introduction of a substance to the environment does not always constitute "pollution".

Likewise, a process that is intended to "disturb ambient natural conditions", such as the introduction of chemicals to control disease (or tooth decay) does not constitute "pollution". If a swimming pool manager adds chlorine to a public pool, is that "pollution"? Persons opposed to "socialized medicine" should not use "pollution" as an argument; that argument does not hold water (no pun intended)!

 

There we have it then.

No flying rotten teeth.

All that's needed is the confidence to flourish them with a ring of confidence.