It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It's a water treatment, not a medical treatment. It's not dissimilar to the use of chlorination as a water treatment. Chlorination helps to prevent parasitic and bacterial disease, fluoridation helps to prevent dental disease.
Treatment standards take variables like you mention into account.
But it seems to me that those in fitness training drink bottled water (or "enhanced" water) rather than tap water anyway. That is an assumption on my part though.
But by putting it to a vote it would tend to encourage discussion and thus knowledge about the issue. And, along with the vote, would come implied consent.
That "utmost diligence" concerns substances that are dangerous at low dosages, where a slight descrepancy can have strong deleterious effects. But "no good reason?"
With water fluoridation we are abandoning practices we normally take with utmost diligence, and for no good reason.
The study confirmed previous findings of an inverse relation between fluoride concentration in the drinking water and dental caries in children. This correlation was found in spite of the extensive use of fluoridated toothpaste and caries-preventive programs implemented by the municipal dental services in Denmark. Linking Danish health registers with environmental and administrative registers offers an opportunity for obtaining sample sizes large enough to identify health effect, which otherwise could not be identified.
Due dilligence. If you are concerned about fluoridation it would be something you would consider before moving there. You might want to check on the natural fluoridation level as well. Just because water is not artificially fluoridated does not mean it is fluoride free. Natural levels are often higher than artificial. Sometimes to the point of being unallowable. While you're at it the crime rate would be of interest as well. Oh, I'll be sure to inform my newborn that our water is fluoridated so that she can decide if she wants to drink tap water.
That is now dependent on timing. Now take into account those that were never aware of the issue or aware of that vote because they moved to the area later. How about those born there later.
See above. Maybe because they don't (or didn't) care.
As I mentioned, and maybe this isn't your experience, I have found it quite common for people to be completely unaware their water is fluoridated to begin with.
No. I would assume it would be a majority of the community. That's what a true democracy is. In this case I would rather see the issue decided by the people rather than politicians because it is not just an individual health issue, it is a community health issue.
Unless you're saying a minority of consent from the community [voters] will extend consent to the rest of the community [future community included].