# What should be in the drinking water...
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-in-the-drinking-water/531484
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 6, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-in-the-drinking-water/531484 "2010-03-06T00:41:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [March 6, 2010, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-in-the-drinking-water/531484/21 "2010-03-06T02:46:32Z")
I didn’t know that about lithium and drinking water, that is pretty cool.
[http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/lithium-in-drinking-water-has.html](http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/lithium-in-drinking-water-has.html)
There have been attempts by some groups to put magnesium in the water. The claim is magnesium deficiency, which most people suffer from, increases the risk of various physical and psychological problems (type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression)
[http://www.mgwater.com/](http://www.mgwater.com/)
“According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (1977) there have been more than 50 studies, in nine countries, that have indicated an inverse relationship between water hardness and mortality from cardiovascular disease. That is, people who drink water that is deficient in magnesium and calcium generally appear more susceptible to this disease. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has estimated that a nation-wide initiative to add calcium and magnesium to soft water might reduce the annual cardiovascular death rate by 150,000 in the United States.” ( Dr. Harold D. Foster , " Groundwater and Human Health," Groundwater Resources of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks and Environment Canada, pp 6.1-6.3 (reprint), 1994.
[http://www.who.int/water\_sanitation\_health/publications/publication\_9789241563550/en/index.html](http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/publication_9789241563550/en/index.html)
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [March 6, 2010, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-in-the-drinking-water/531484/22 "2010-03-06T02:49:37Z")
[QUOTE=nilum]
But if they had enough fluoride in the water to discolor their teeth… obviously that’s not the same thing. There is a reason we don’t have THAT much in the water supply.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, they did. So, they did experiments and studies testing various levels to determine where the cut off was between discoloration and some statistically significant amount of protection against tooth decay.
> [@](#):
>
> I am talking about now. Modern dental hygiene vs fluoride in the water.
There are places in the US (today) that don’t fluoridate their water. From what I’ve read in the past, and despite the fact that they have access to things like tooth paste, modern dentistry and the like they have a statistically higher incidence of tooth decay than similar areas where fluoride is added to the water. There are places in Europe (today) that similarly don’t have fluoride added and can also be studied and compared. I’ve never seen any indication, despite numerous studies on this, showing that (baring natural fluoridation) the populations have similar incidence of tooth decay…which would be pretty strong evidence that adding it to the water has a measurable effect, no? If you have any evidence to the contrary feel free to provide it, but I’d say that on this subject (i.e. whether or not adding fluoride to water has a statistical effect on tooth decay) is a done deal at this point..and has been since, oh, the 50’s at least.
There are OTHER things that are debatable on this subject, but I don’t believe that this one is. YMMV of course.
> [@](#):
>
> A REAL study. Not a study based on over-fluoridated water supplies during a time of poor dental hygiene.
You keep saying this as if it’s meaningful. What is a ‘REAL study’, exactly, and why do you presuppose that the mountain of data on this subject doesn’t constitute ‘REAL’? Do YOU have a ‘REAL study’ demonstrating that the current levels of fluoride being put into public water has no statistical effect on tooth decay? If so then trot it out and let’s take a look.
> [@](#):
>
> Pretty much I am saying that any usefulness it might have had in the past is gone. If there even was any.
But, you know, you’d be wrong…and it’s easy enough to check. There are some places, even here in the US, where there isn’t a large amount of naturally occurring fluoride in the water, and where it’s not added to a municipal water supply. There are even more in Europe.
-XT
---
### Author:  [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)
#### Post date: [March 6, 2010, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-in-the-drinking-water/531484/23 "2010-03-06T05:22:47Z")
[CDC’s](http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Family/dental/article/shadows_text.pdf)take
> [@](#):
>
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognize community water fluoridation as one of the top ten great achievements in public health of the 20th century. Community water fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay and may be the most studied process in the world.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-in-the-drinking-water/531484.md?page=1)