Interesting quote from above article "Fluoride is one of the best returns on investment as far as the small amount of money spent on fluoridating water relative to the tremendous reduction in the cost of having cavities,"

I 'beat my drum' on the 'other' topic......
so I'll spare y'all here......

gimpy

Pure fresh (potable [safe to drink]) water is a necessity of life, something that we human beings must have daily in order to survive; and therefore we have an inalienable right to it. Our tap water is our source of pure fresh (potable [safe to drink]) water in our homes. Government provides us with this water. Although, it is the task of government to ensure that our lives remain as ungoverned as possible, only interfering when absolutely necessary, such as to ensure the survival of our inalienable rights and individual freedoms including our individual right to choose; and because this is true, concerning our tap water, government has erred.

Regardless of any positive or negative effects on health, the addition of fluoride (and/or other unnecessary adulterant(s)) to our pure fresh (potable [safe to drink]) water source has forced us (and continues to force us) to ingest something unnecessary to our survival that we did not (and are not) knowingly and willfully consent(ing) to. This is unreasonable since the issue is controversial and while it remains so its imposition upon us is also therefore unjust. It is outside of the task scope of government to adulterate or to allow the adulteration of a necessity of life, even if by way of a majority vote. It is in fact within the task scope of government, rather, to ensure that our source of pure fresh (potable [safe to drink]) water be unadulterated, thus ensuring our inalienable rights and freedoms including our individual right to choose. Justice, by way of reason must govern our society, because here in the USA, individual freedoms are given highest priority so long as they do not interfere with the individual freedoms of another. For example, anything an individual decides to adulterate his or her tap water with can be done after it comes out of the tap, as per individual choice; and as such, that individual's decision does not interfere with the individual choice of another to drink unadulterated tap water.

To say again, we as individuals alone must have the inalienable right to choose what we ingest into our bodies, not our neighbors and not our government; and our right to unadulterated, pure fresh (potable [safe to drink]) water shall not be infringed. Demand that our tap water be delivered to us in our homes unadulterated by added fluoride and/or any other unnecessary foreign amount(s), substance(s), and/or element(s). http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-our-tap-water-pure/

For me, this issue is not only about my physical well-being, it is about my rights and freedoms. We must never forget we have them.



Teach your kids how to brush their teeth instead of MAKING EVERYBODY DRINK FLUORIDE.

The practice of making government an "other" is an example of the illogical fallacy known as "strawman" thinking: inaccurately defining something or someone as bad and then arguing we should be against bad things. Lately the practice has also been known as "demonizing." We need to foster clear and accurate thinking, instead.

There are many other faults in anti-flouride argument presented, some of which are:

We, our brothers and sisters, are the government, directly and indirectly. Government is not the enemy except in the sense presented by cartoonist Walt Kelly through the character Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" We have "voted" for flouridation and, while asking to vote again is fine, to promote the idea this is anything new is to ignore history.

Science in the interest of public health, including reducing costs to society, was, is, and will be the reason for things like flouridation of water. As science learns new things, public health can be expected to adjust its practices, especially if cost-reduction is included. To use new discoveries provided by public health science to argue public health science is wrong everytime, is too illogical to spend much time on.

Many want to pick and choose the benefits of society, including government and science, while decrying the rest. Except for the most fanatic libertarians living off-grid for generations in a biosphere bubble unconnected with the rest of the world, this is a logically undefensible position.

My conclusion: We live in an interconnected system and each live with the bad and with the good, until we persuade the majority to make adjustments for us all. Such persuasion is better if it is logical, economical, and based on sound history and science. I would like to think parents can see this is the best way to educate their children.

It is perfectly fine, however, until someone succeeds in such persuasion to take steps within your means to reduce what you consider the effects of the "bad" - like putting in filter systems or relying on non-grid sources of supply.