Tuesday, February 19, 2008

To Flouride or Not to Flouride?

British sink their teeth into debate over flouride

So my friend Vicki sent me this article last week, and I thought it was hilarious. Probably cause most of the US actively practice water flouridation (67% of American communities, to be exact) that we don't think twice about it, but some people in the UK are genuinely upset about the possibility of introducing flouride into their water. I see both sides of the argument, as nationalizing flouidation will cost the UK roughly $80 million over the next 3 years. But uh, as for it being a "fundamental human rights question," as John Graham, an opponent and a member of the National Pure Water Association, thinks it is, I think that's taking it a little bit to the extreme. I don't know, who am I to say that he's being ridiculous (but just a bit, no??), but this whole debate is very interesting.

Here are some more facts about water flouridation, courtesy of Wiki:
- 42 of the 50 largest US states have flouridated water
- in US cities with a population over 50,000 people, it costs $0.31/person, per year to have water flouridation
- 10% of the population of the UK and Spain receive flouridated water
- 70.5% of the population of Chile receive flouridated water
- high levels of flouride intake has been associated with bone weakening and even bone cancer (though evidence is considered weak)
- the growing use of bottled water over tap/drinking water has caused some bottlers such as Dannon to add flouride to their water

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

damn you dannon

Anonymous said...

if anyone needs flouride in their water, it's the british.