--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Smith" <msilver1...@...> wrote: > > Anyone have any opinions on fluoride in the drinking water, it's > benefits and health problems.Does Vedic City fluoridate it's water as > well as MUM? >
It's funny because back in the '50s and '60s the flouride debate was kinda the quintessential collective versus individualsim debate in the United States. Those for flouridation cited studies that allegedly showed that municipalities that flouridated their water had children with significantly lower rates of cavities, etc. So the reasoning was: why not do it and help out those kids whose parents wouldn't teach them to brush, etc. Those against decried government interfering with what should be a personal choice. I'm with the latter. I grew up in a community that did NOT flouridate yet my mother wanted us to have the benefit of it. So what did she do? She purchased flouride from the pharmacy and put the prescribed dose in our orange juice every morning when we were kids. This to me is the answer to the debate: those that are against it don't have it forced on them; those that do can do what my mother did. Another thing: I don't know if there are any studies on this but if you flouridate the entire water supply I cannot imagine that the benefits of flouridation could be as good as if you have controlled dosages, such as what my mother did. And wouldn't flouridation threaten the full benefits of people who want to give their children controlled dosages...kinda whitewashing any possibility that controlled dosages could get the results they want? Flouridation policy reminds me of the debate over statins (cholesteral reducing drugs): we may know what they do in the short term but no one has ANY idea what the long-term effects are.
