Published on JUL 15 2025 by James Smith

The Benefits of Fluoridation

Fluoridation of drinking water has long been a topic of debate, with proponents emphasizing its benefits for dental health and detractors raising concerns about potential risks and government overreach. While fluoride has been widely recognized as an effective tool for preventing tooth decay, its implementation has sparked political and social controversies in various regions.

The Politics of Fluoridation

The decision to fluoridate water often involves balancing public health benefits against individual autonomy and concerns about safety. Advocates, including organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), argue that fluoridation is a cost-effective measure to improve dental health, particularly in communities with limited access to dental care. However, opponents question the ethics of mass medication and cite studies suggesting potential health risks, such as skeletal fluorosis or thyroid issues, when fluoride levels are not carefully regulated.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., noted conspiracy aficionado, brain worm victim, rotting whale head fetishist, and current United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, has been vocal in opposing fluoridation, citing concerns about its potential health risks and environmental impact. Kennedy has erroneously argued that fluoridation represents government overreach, but is conspicously silent on overreach when it comes to reproductive rights. His stance has resonated with those who are bringing measles back with a vengeance.

Places That Have Banned Fluoridation

Several cities and countries have chosen to ban or discontinue fluoridation due to public opposition or political pressure. For example:

• Calgary, Canada: Calgary removed fluoride from its water supply in 2011 following a contentious city council vote. Critics argued that fluoridation was unnecessary and posed risks, while supporters highlighted its dental health benefits. However, after years of debate and rising rates of tooth decay among children, Calgary voted to reintroduce fluoride in 2021, marking a significant reversal in policy.
• Portland, Oregon, USA: Portland remains one of the largest cities in the United States without fluoridated water, as voters have repeatedly rejected proposals to implement it.
• Germany and Switzerland: These countries rely on alternative methods, such as fluoridated salt, rather than adding fluoride directly to water supplies.

Calgary’s Reintroduction of Fluoride

Calgary’s decision to reintroduce fluoride reflects the evolving nature of public health policy. Studies conducted after the removal of fluoride revealed a noticeable increase in dental decay among children, prompting renewed calls for fluoridation. The city council ultimately voted to restore fluoride to the water supply, citing overwhelming evidence of its benefits and support from health experts.

Dr. Sarah Thompson, a public health researcher, explains: “Calgary’s experience highlights the importance of evidence-based decision-making in public health. While concerns about fluoride are valid, the data consistently show that fluoridation is a safe and effective way to reduce dental decay, particularly in vulnerable populations.”

The politics of fluoridation underscore the challenges of implementing public health measures in the face of diverse opinions and values. While some communities have chosen to ban fluoride, others, like Calgary, have revisited their decisions and embraced fluoridation as a critical tool for improving dental health. As debates continue, it is essential to rely on scientific evidence and prioritize the well-being of communities when shaping water treatment policies.

Written by James Smith