Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Yea. Why not?
It has been found, I believe, that in some instances that too much fluoride has a tendency to destroy tooth enamel. The problem seems to be that tooth paste companies put that into the tooth paste giving the consumer way too much fluoride.
OPBF![youtube OcHNYenN7OY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcHNYenN7OY youtube]
More seriously, this seems sort of like vaccines in that it captures some externality gains, but with less obvious public goods involved than vaccination (tooth decay and cavities effect mostly the person whose mouth is afflicted, whereas disease may spread and afflict others).
Considering toothpaste tends to be much more effective, what we're really doing here is subsidizing the poor dental habits of the few.
The people who would benefit form the fluoride don't drink water they drink soda pop. I personally don't want it added to my water. No idea if there are side effects, but I don't see the positives honestly.
Good point on the soda… I often wonder why it's cheaper than bottled water. Water subsidies I suppose.
I was not sure that the subsidy by itself was worthwhile anyway,even without taking into account drinking habits of the poor. Public goods should need to be a pretty large externality gain or capture free-riding behavior. This does neither.
It's mostly an excuse to post the Bircher rant from Dr Strangelove …
eh probably not…..thats another chemicle out of the probably hundreds that are already in the water we drink today.