If it was a plot, it was spectacularly unsuccessful. As the CDC has noted, "The weight of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence does not support an association between water fluoridation and any adverse health effect or systemic disorder".
So it can be very instructive to look at the fluoride debate less as an issue about science and more of a Rorschach test for how much you trust the government. In the 50's and 60's the danger of fluoridation was a right wing cause. In the 80's and 90's, when Republicans were in the ascendancy, fluoridation became an issue for left wing environmentalists.
Now that many people on the right feel increasingly disenfranchised as the nation marches demographically away, the paranoia has shifted back again to the right. Fluoridation has become an issue in some Tea Party circles.
Why have both the left and right's anti-fluoride opposition waxed and waned at different times? It seems that one of the major determining factors is each group's level of comfort and trust with the government at the time.
So it follows that we should recognize that a dynamic created by a perceived lack of power (and conversely, a dynamic created by NOT being excluded) could be a major influence in political positions. And that means that power, rather than reason, can drive many of our political responses.
We spend a lot of time arguing about the perceived rational merits of political positions, without examining the underlying power dynamics that influence the positions we select.
.jpg)
In any case, if you've never seen it, check out Dr. Strangelove. Peter Sellers is brilliant.
