sartresue
Veteran
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 71
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
15 Nov 2010, 8:33 pm
visagrunt wrote:
I'm torn (as centrists are, so often).
From a public health perspective there is no question that an investment in fluoridation has significant impacts, not just on dental health, but also on public health generally. (For example, there is a strong link between oral health and cardiac health).
Water is an essential public service in densely populated municipalities. Modern cities simply cannot exist without water and sewage infrastructure. Fluoridation of water supplies provides a very cost-effective means of deliverying a universal public health benefit.
Disaggregating that benefit by requiring each individual to make that purchase is an enormously ineffecient practice. Fluoridation probably costs not much more than $2 per person per year. It is not possible to provide for one's own fluoridation at that price.
From a public health perspective there is no question that an investment in fluoridation has significant impacts, not just on dental health, but also on public health generally. (For example, there is a strong link between oral health and cardiac health).
Water is an essential public service in densely populated municipalities. Modern cities simply cannot exist without water and sewage infrastructure. Fluoridation of water supplies provides a very cost-effective means of deliverying a universal public health benefit.
Disaggregating that benefit by requiring each individual to make that purchase is an enormously ineffecient practice. Fluoridation probably costs not much more than $2 per person per year. It is not possible to provide for one's own fluoridation at that price.
Voting for Fluoride topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
I expect an increase in dental visits in that neck of the woods in a few years, unless the populace finds an alternative.
I hope stats are kept. This should prove an interesting experiment.
