Oddbean

It has an impact when applied topically to the teeth. Like what happens when one brushes their damn teeth. It does not need to be in drinking water and we should not take the "it may not be unsafe but who really knows" approach when dumping shit into water. Of course the same can be said of other chemicals too, but there's no reason to just pile unnecessary things in when people can just brush their fucking teeth.

Very few things in this world are necessary, and necessary/not necessary is not the benchmark by which we determine what is best for the population. It's an objective, demonstrable fact that water flouridation is effective in reducing tooth decay in the population to a statistically significant degree. We've been doing this for a long time, and so far the empirical evidence supports flouridation as a safe and effective method for reducing tooth decay, especially in children. Most of the negative consequences related to flouride are based on exponentially larger quantities than are present in flouridated water. And injury stemming from water flouridation in western nations is virtually unheard of, and certainly isn't happening in statistically significant numbers. I believe in evidence-based science, not conjecture, and ideologically driven opinion. As soon as we have an evidence-based, peer-reviewed basis for rejecting the current scientific consensus, I'll gladly adopt the new position. But until then, I'm sticking with the scientific consensus.

I'll just say this because a lot of the studies and things I've read on the topic are wildly conflicting and/or inconclusive: I will give you every one of your points and finish on one I think is conclusive: lack of informed consent. It is absolutely immoral and unethical to medicate people who have not been informed and consented to being medicated. The levels typically vary, and there are risks to consuming fluoride. There are risks to having it added, even if you think they are outweighed by benefits. That is not for you to decide for anyone else. It's wrong. End of story for me all else aside.

And I think the informed consent argument is probably the most honest and compelling of the arguments I've heard against flouridation. So, we at least agree on that! And I think as long as we have a point in common, and are committed to intellectual honesty, we have the basis for a reasoned debate on the topic. I appreciate you bringing up informed consent because it's not a point I regularly see in the context of this issue, and I think it should be brought up more often if for no other reason than to establish a point of commonality, and set the tone for a productive argument.