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


Anonymous said...

damn you dannon

Anonymous said...

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