[j0hngalt]

[flagged]

[woodruffw]

Much of Europe has sufficient natural fluoride levels in the groundwater, often exceeding the amounts put in North American water supplies. Where this isn’t true, fluoridated salt is common (in my experience).

[squidgyhead]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_countr...

It seems that one or two European countries ban fluoridation; however few practice it. But "Europe banned this" is simply false. Moreover, it seems that there is fluoridation of salt instead (eg in Switzerland).

[kalleboo]

According to the other Wikipedia article, fluoridated salt where it is used (Switzerland and Germany) has about a 70% market share, so there is a choice for those who don't want it. It's a lot harder to opt-out of tap water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Worldwide_p...

[Infinity315]

> Nobody should be subjected to mandatory fluoride in their tap water.

Why? Just for the sake of freedom?

I think this raises an interesting question.

Suppose we have empirical irrefutable proof a practice is beneficial and doing so would not hinder anyone's lives whatsoever (as in, you don't have to change your lifestyle at all). Can this practice then be justified?

For example, suppose that fluoridating tap water (at least in the quantities present in most municipalities) was shown through many longitudinal studies to not have any adverse effects but was shown to have positive effects such as improved dental health. Would you support fluoridating water then?

[j0hngalt]

Fluoride has been well proven to harm people in many ways. It's also one of the main causes of acne. It should not be forced upon people in their tap water.

[syndicatedjelly]

So as long as we have proof of something being good, and no proof of it being bad - we should mandate it for all citizens? (it, referring to whatever you want)