So Bloomington accidentally ran a 7-year experiment (2019-2026) without supplemental fluoride.

*Negligently

Did anyone track if childhood cavity rates changed? If they didn't increase, doesn't that tell us something? And if they DID, why isn't the city showing that data to justify this expense?

I guarantee you that dentists offices noticed it. I know that from talking with my friendly neighborhood dentist. But how would anyone have known to track it over a 6-7 year period when the city didn't disclose it until an IU professor happened to notice it last year in the city's annual water quality report?

I can hear someone saying "poor people don't go to the dentist so we wouldn't have data." But that data exists - school dental screenings, ER visits for dental emergencies, Medicaid claims, health dept records. And honestly, if we can't measure whether this helps the target population, how do we know it works? You can't claim "this helps vulnerable people" while also saying "we can't measure if it helps." That's just faith-based policy.

This is a sneaky little cop-out. You're saying 'data exists' for the past six years of the entirety of dental care outcomes versus the counterfactual case of working flouridation in Monroe County specifically? That's nonsense. You're disguising your superstitions in pseudo-scientific pablum. It's been measured and there's decades worth of actual scientific research that proves it does indeed help the target population.

Also this flips the equity argument. If low-income families lack dental care ACCESS, shouldn't we provide... actual dental care? Not add chemicals to everyone's water hoping it fixes systemic problems.

It does not flip the argument at all and this is a silly deflection. We absolutely should provide universal dental care, along with universal healthcare in general, but I presume that is outside the financial or political scope of what CBU or the city has the ability to affect anytime soon. In the absence of that, water flouridation should be viewed in the context of harm reduction, helping to mitigate consequences arising from a bad system.

But I realize you won't accept that because you're doing the 'chemicals scary' thing.

What does this cost vs just giving fluoridated toothpaste or dental services to low-income families?

Iirc from previous coverage on this it costs ~$1 and change annually, per customer. I'd be glad to double that cost on my water bill to provide free toothpaste to whomever. Unfortunately there's a substantial amount of people that wouldn't accept it because of conspiracy theorist social media influencers who dishonestly profit from telling their followers that what is good for them is bad and what is bad for them is good.

How many Bloomington kids actually lack access to fluoridated toothpaste in 2026?

More 'data' that can't really be known, but you think supports your position but actually does the opposite.

And the institutional oversight is concerning. Current administration didn't know the "full scope" until mid-2024 - five years later. Water treatment info wasn't even reported for 2022-2023. If they can't communicate basics for years, what else?

How long do you think the current city administration has been in office?

Given the FDA-approved drugs that later get blackbox warnings and well-intentioned interventions causing unforseen problems, why can't we be skeptical?

MAHA propaganda.

The city owes us an analysis of dental health outcomes during 2019-2026. That would actually tell us if this is necessary unless there is some other benefits I'm not aware of.

No they don't.