It is a scenario playing out nationwide. From Oregon to Pennsylvania, hundreds of communities have in recent years either stopped adding fluoride to their water supplies or voted to prevent its addition. Supporters of such bans argue that people should be given the freedom of choice. The broad availability of over-the-counter dental products containing the mineral makes it no longer necessary to add to public water supplies, they say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that while store-bought products reduce tooth decay, the greatest protection comes when they are used in combination with water fluoridation.

The outcome of an ongoing federal case in California could force the Environmental Protection Agency to create a rule regulating or banning the use of fluoride in drinking water nationwide. In the meantime, the trend is raising alarm bells for public health researchers who worry that, much like vaccines, fluoride may have become a victim of its own success.

The CDC maintains that community water fluoridation is not only safe and effective but also yields significant cost savings in dental treatment. Public health officials say removing fluoride could be particularly harmful to low-income families — for whom drinking water may be the only source of preventive dental care.

“If you have to go out and get care on your own, it’s a whole different ballgame,” said Myron Allukian Jr., a dentist and past president of the American Public Health Association. Millions of people have lived with fluoridated water for years, “and we’ve had no major health problems,” he said. “It’s much easier to prevent a disease than to treat it.”

According to the anti-fluoride group Fluoride Action Network, since 2010, over 240 communities around the world have removed fluoride from their drinking water or decided not to add it.

  • 4am@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Free Healthcare” is free as in libre, not free as in beer.

    Everyone is free to get it. We all pay for it. We would pay far less than what we pay now in premiums. It works on other countries, and there is no reason it wouldn’t work here in the USA.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      “Free at the point of service”.
      “Inclusive as a part of citizenship”.

      Of course it costs money, of course everyone pays for it. That’s what taxes are

      • Delta_V@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        state and local taxes work that way - state and local governments spend tax dollars to buy goods and services

        federal taxes just delete money from targeted people, choosing who to make poorer in order to regulate inflation - the federal government creates new dollars when it needs to buy something

    • moody@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It is free as in beer, in the sense that you as a patient never have to spend out of pocket for medical care.

      There’s always someone arguing “It’s not free cause your taxes pay for it,” but you’re paying those taxes anyway regardless of where the money goes. You as an individual would never notice the difference in your taxes.

      • Kedly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        And the idiots dont realise that EVERYONE pays less in those taxes than they currently pay for their private healthcare. Private healthcare COSTS MORE than public healthcare because the drug makers, hospitals, etc have more power to gouge insurance companies and the average Joe than they do a large government