NationStates

"Thank you, I have made many changes which I hope will address your concerns"

Scalizagasti wrote:Further recognizing that a 'one-size fits all' approach to water fluoridation is unwise, as the level of fluoridation required depends on unique local circumstances,

"I hope this better communicates the idea I attempted to express in the preamble. Basically, due to factors such as local geography, population biology, existing fluoride levels, etc. the water fluoridation levels would be different for every drinking water source."

Scalizagasti wrote:Defines "public drinking water sources" as a water supply system that provides water used for human consumption for at least 20% of the year, including treatment, storage, transportation, and distribution,

"This specifies which water sources need to be researched and fluoridated. The term 'public drinking water sources' was also added throughout the resolution to make the meaning more precise."

Scalizagasti wrote:analyzing the research conducted by member nations to issue recommendations on optimal water fluoridation practices based on the local circumstances, including recommendations on the optimal fluoride concentration and method of water fluoridation,

"I hope this better communicates the duty of the IBWS."

Scalizagasti wrote:consulting the relevant local scientific authorities when creating and issuing recommendations for specific public drinking water sources,

"This ensures that local scientific bodies who have insight on their water sources are consulted when the recommendations are created by the IBWS."

Scalizagasti wrote:assisting member nations with conducting this research if the IBWS determines they require help due to financial, technological, or logistical limitations, and those nations explicitly request assistance, and

aiding member nations with water fluoridation if the IBWS determines they require help due to financial, technological, or logistical limitations, and those nations explicitly request assistance,

"This gives the IBWS the ability to accept or deny these requests. If the IBWS believes that water fluoridation will be very difficult or impossible due to national limitations, they can step in. If they believe such assistance is not needed, then they will not intervene and spend resources that could be better used elsewhere."

Scalizagasti wrote:would suffer from demonstrable, widespread health concerns due to water fluoridation as a result of the biology of their citizens, or

would receive no demonstrable, widespread dental benefits as a result of the biology of their citizens.

"The term 'widespread' was added to deal with fringe cases such as someone having a fluoride allergy. Clause 6c was also changed to convey the main idea more clearly. For example, if a nation has a population which does not have teeth, then fluoridation would have no dental benefit and therefore should not be forced to fluoridate their water."

"Why does public drinking water sources only involve humans and not other sapients?"

Ardiveds wrote:"Why does public drinking water sources only involve humans and not other sapients?"

"That was an error I did not catch. It has been fixed."

Lmao just call them people.

“This has been much approved since when I last saw it, so that’s good. Why did you chose 20% in clause 2?”

Kenmoria wrote:“This has been much approved since when I last saw it, so that’s good. Why did you chose 20% in clause 2?”

"If the definition were something like 'all year,' that would not include locations that are not populated for parts of the year. For example, schools with water sources such as fountains may be unpopulated for part of the year due to a break, yet it is important for those sources to be fluoridated as well. I felt that 20% was a good compromise, as it prevents unnecessary fluoridation of a water source that perhaps a single person drinks once a year, while still accommodating water sources only used for part of the year."

Final bump before submission

It has been submitted.

At the present moment, I am inclined to be against this resolution. Our nation has been in a debate about water for quite some time specifically the notion of the "quality" of the water. Not all water is for drinking, but many old systems have only one proper water source and thus must meet those requirements they pay for water processed to a level that they normally do not need. In addition, few people are drinking water "from the tap" and those who do can often throw in filtration systems that ironically enough remove that fluorine making the whole exercise pointless.

While I agree this is not a "national sovereignty" issue I do not see this as rising to the level of either an "international" or a "let's all sing from the same songbook" issue. I mean, sure, if you have three water mains in everyone's homes, one for drinking, one for cooking and one for washing, I can see adding all sorts of stuff to the drinking one (let's make the water more alkaline while we are at it) but otherwise, unless there is good evidence that it is actually being consumed as drinking water, it's more pointless than anything else.

This proposal has a good idea. However, nations have already done that. There is some debate about whether fluoride is safe enough to be ingested, and if there are any side effects. Also, some nations may complain about the “forced” use of medicine. It can be compared to making vaccination mandatory.

Oiran wrote:This proposal has a good idea. However, nations have already done that. There is some debate about whether fluoride is safe enough to be ingested, and if there are any side effects. Also, some nations may complain about the “forced” use of medicine. It can be compared to making vaccination mandatory.

"Part of the mandate of the IBWS will be to determine what levels of fluoride are safe for water. Obviously dumping huge amounts of fluoride into water would have negative health consequences, which is why their recommendations will specify the optimal concentration. Also, nations voluntarily give up some of their sovereignty when they join the World Assembly, which means it is not being 'forced' upon them; if they do not want to follow WA resolutions they do not have to be a member state."

Thank you for clearing that up.
Another issue is how poorer nations who would not be able to afford this wouldn’t have to install fluoride. However, they would be the ones to benefit. Perhaps some type of foreign aid would be helpful?

Oiran wrote:Thank you for clearing that up.
Another issue is how poorer nations who would not be able to afford this wouldn’t have to install fluoride. However, they would be the ones to benefit. Perhaps some type of foreign aid would be helpful?

OOC: doesn't clause 4d already do thar?

Ardiveds wrote:

Oiran wrote:Thank you for clearing that up.
Another issue is how poorer nations who would not be able to afford this wouldn’t have to install fluoride. However, they would be the ones to benefit. Perhaps some type of foreign aid would be helpful?

OOC: doesn't clause 4d already do thar?

Yes

I cannot believe I missed that. My sincere apologies.

Oiran wrote:I cannot believe I missed that. My sincere apologies.

"Not a problem at all, it happens to all of us"

Write better spending controls than 'the committee wants to and they get consent'. A specific test for requestors should be implemented, per recommendations in https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... ?start=523.

I for one as a son of a dentist IRL will be disappointed if this does not go through as it has been proven IRL that fluoride dosed water does have an effect on tooth decay.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practic ... oth-decay/

Calva wrote:I for one as a son of a dentist IRL will be disappointed if this does not go through as it has been proven IRL that fluoride dosed water does have an effect on tooth decay.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practic ... oth-decay/

OOC: That does not make this an international issue.

And the counter argument

https://time.com/5656476/is-fluoride-in-water-safe/

The research, which focused on mother-child pairs from six Canadian cities, found that high fluoride exposure during pregnancy was correlated with lower IQ scores among young children, especially boys.

That's the problem with "one size fits all" solutions. They never do.

This is probably a better solution ...

https://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/ ... key=200618

The Arawi Broadcasting Company can predict the following on the first day of voting on the Water Fluoridation Act:

The ABC can predict that the World Assembly will vote Against on the Water Fluoridation Act.

Thank you.

I think it's too close right now to say any outcome, with the vote being so close on just day one.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Calva wrote:I for one as a son of a dentist IRL will be disappointed if this does not go through as it has been proven IRL that fluoride dosed water does have an effect on tooth decay.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practic ... oth-decay/

OOC: That does not make this an international issue.

I wasn't aware that public health needs were dictated by national boundaries. Please, by all means, elaborate.

Rust votes FOR this resolution, and strongly encourages any nations legitimately concerned for their people's health and safety to do the same.

Retired WerePenguins wrote:And the counter argument

https://time.com/5656476/is-fluoride-in-water-safe/

The American Dental Association, in response to this research paper, said the following:

“I still stand by the weight of the best available evidence, from 70 years of study, that community water fluoridation is safe and effective,” said Brittany Seymour, a dentist and spokeswoman for the American Dental Association. “If we’re able to replicate findings and continue to see outcomes, that would compel us to revisit our recommendation. We’re just not there yet.”

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/ ... ldrens-iq/

Also, a study from 2000 reviewing fluoridation literature found that "there was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects [aside from dental fluorosis]" in an analysis of 214 other papers.

From https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/855

Ultimately, one single scientific research paper does not automatically invalidate hundreds of other papers and decades of research. If that were the case, then I could point you to a New Zealand study which found that IQ was not impacted by artificial fluoridation of water sources.

From https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24832151/

Does anyone have any information on whether this may be harmful to animals and plants, getting fluorine-laced water?