Toxicologist here. I think that take is dishonest or dumb.
Taking a lethal dose is almost never the concern with any substance in our drinking water.
Hormones, heavy metals, persistent organic chemicals, ammonia are all in our drinking water. But for all of them we can't drink enough water to die from a high dose.
Some of them still have a large effect on our bodies.
It's about the longterm effects. Which we need longterm studies to learn about. That makes them harder to study.
Still doesn't mean flouride does anything bad longerm. But the argument is bad.
You just made me mad by helping me realize that the Trump bros are going to break water by removing fluoride long before they fix water by removing lead.
Are you sure fluoride doesn't? It does accumulate in the soil, building up in crops. Considering fluoride exposure from all sources, many people are above upper safe limits, even from tea drinking alone
I don't think fluoride should be added to water as it just pollutes the environment, where 99.99% of water isn't coming in contact with teeth
Fluoride only "accumulates" up to the peak concentration of the environment (no further) on places where it is removed from contact with that environment.
You can only accumulate fluoride in the soil if you keep adding it and there is almost no rain to wash it away.
Yes, irrigation with the minimum possible amount of water is known to destroy land for millennia at this point. But sodium will be a problem way before you notice any change in fluoride.
Yup, same with PFAS and forever chemicals. Maybe I'm ignorant because I'm not a doctor, but I don't know if this line of thinking holds water - pun not intended.
lead poisoning becomes evident pretty early though doesn't it? (With respect to kids)
I would think that the ratio of persistent exposure to unsafe level has got to be easily higher in cases like Flint than any fluoride-in-the-water usage. Just speculation on my part.
What measures are taken to avoid screwing up the dosage, anyone know? Maybe predilute so that an oops requires multiple buckets instead of vials?
It's so funny I was just having a similar conversation about neurotoxic venomous animals in another thread. Lethality is an obviously concerning threshold, but there are substances out there that can easily destroy your quality of life and livelihood that never reach the concern of being lethal.
I think for mostly rational people concerned about fluoride in their water is that it was a public health decision made with little to no actual science proving it's safety or efficacy when it was first decided that they were going to add it to the public water supply. The proposed benefits of it weren't even supported by scientific evidence, it was just supposed that exposure to sodium fluoride could potentially reduce tooth decay for some.
Personally, I've suffered from the cosmetic damage of dental fluorosis, and I'm not necessarily thrilled about fluoride. But I have way more issues with public mandates founded on pseudoscience than I am with sodium fluoride. Especially now that we can see evidence that for some people fluoride can be especially beneficial.
So what was wrong with giving people the option of using fluoride toothpaste or mouthwashes... Why did it have to go into the public water supply?
It's considered by the CDC as one of the greatest Public Health Achievements of the last Century. There have been dozens, if not hundreds of studies about fluoride affects in the water supply.
In 1945, Grand Rapids became the first city in the world to fluoridate its drinking water.The Grand Rapids water fluoridation study was originally sponsored by the U.S. Surgeon General, but was taken over by the NIDR shortly after the Institute's inception in 1948. During the 15-year project, researchers monitored the rate of tooth decay among Grand Rapids' almost 30,000 schoolchildren. After just 11 years, Dean- who was now director of the NIDR-announced an amazing finding. The caries rate among Grand Rapids children born after fluoride was added to the water supply dropped more than 60 percent. This finding, considering the thousands of participants in the study, amounted to a giant scientific breakthrough that promised to revolutionize dental care, making tooth decay for the first time in history a preventable disease for most people.
So the person above may think they're so clever, or whoever fed them that factoid may think that. Notice the claim is remineralization. Maybe that's true, it may be that a study first showed that in 1975 and that's not contradicted by your link but that is a non sequitur. It's not what we're talking about, it's not a good faith argument.
In our area, the only water supply WITH Fluoride serves an area with a median HOUSEHOLD income of less than $40k with more than 25% living below the poverty line. For communities like these the fluoride is critical because there will be a lot of children that don't have access to fluoride supplements, or regular care from a pediatric (or regular) dentist.
You can get even more granular than that. CDC maintains a list of water systems and whether or not they add fluoride. CDC My Water System. To give you an idea of how granular that is, there are 78 different water systems in my county alone. For most of my life I assumed we had fluoridated water but apparently only 1/78 of our water systems are. I only checked when we had kids and I needed to know whether or not I needed to give them Fluoride Drops.
That might well be the case. I'm not sure if it is helpful to use those half truths which are simpler to convince certain people. Or if it weakens the point because it is in the end not really correct.
This. How can we be completely certain that something isn't damaging over the long term. I'm not anti fluoride, but healthy debate and scepticism is a good thing, especially when we're all forced to consume a substance with the only alternative being dehydration and death. People need to be free to make their own choices.
Fluoride does have long term effects though once you consider fluoride exposure through all sources like diet, which is mostly due to fluoride from water ending up in farmland. Tradesmen alone regularly exceed the upper limits due to high water consumption in hotter seasons
Plants are vulnerable to fluoride accumulation in soil, and their growth and development can be negatively affected, even with low fluoride content in the soil.
Basic bath: only considering water intake, consuming 6-7 liters in a day (regular occurance working in Australia) puts you over the upper limit without considering major sources like diet, tea and dental products and treatments.
Pretty much anything you can think of is recommended by someone, because different people have conflicting views. The key is to choose whose recommendations are based on the best reasoning & evidence aligning with your goals.
And both of these people telling me about fluoride in water are both experts in their field. One an expert toxicologist, and the other an expert liar. Now I don't know what to believe.
The fluoride added to water gets it up to 0.7mg/liter.
That ends up to be 2 or 3 drops in a 55 gallon drums worth of water. Not much.
Fluoride is a natural substance and is found in many areas drinking water already. Many areas in much higher concentrations than 0.7mg/liter, so realistically people all over the world have drank fluoridated water for thousands of years.
You have to well over double the 0.7 before any health issues may appear and the first to appear is at about triple the concentration in kids under 8 years old who drink it for years getting spots on their teeth. The spots are only superficial.
Going into concentrations even higher than that CAN cause health issues when drank for longer periods of time. All of those cases being from naturally occurring fluoride, which actually effects somewhere north of 20% of the world's population.
Which makes the argument that fluoride in our water keeps us passive as being extra stupid, since water sourced around Columbia (the country) is far higher than .07mg/liter and Columbia seems to be caught in violence and turmoil and instability quite a bit over the decades.
Its presence in groundwater is how we discovered it's good for teeth.
In fact, there used to be so much in some areas,it actually stained the teeth. In Colorado Springs a dentist noticed that the children were developing brown stains on their teeth. In researching it, it was discovered that the "Colorado Brown Stain" was caused by excessive fluoride in the drinking water. But it also lead to the discovery that regions with natural fluoride present but in lower levels than Colorado Springs didn't have stained teeth, but did have lower levels of tooth decay.
Yep. In fact, 21% of the world's natural drinking water used falls within the recommended range for fluoride, while over another 20% is higher and in some countries actually does cause some non-superficial side effects and problems. Those don't pop up until in concentrations at least 3 times higher than recommended.
Just because a concentration is low doesn’t mean it’s safe. Water with 0.7 mg/L of Po-210 is lethal.
You can put an amount of it in a 55 gallon drum that is not visible
It’s a natural substance
Fluoride is in fact safe at the amounts that the FDA regulates but saying it’s a small concentration or that it’s natural are not the reasons it’s safe. It’s the hundreds of peer reviewed research articles that show that it’s safe
We can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.
The real Chads use raw organic free-range non-GMO pesticide-free lemon juice with baking soda. It'll leave your teeth as white as they'll be sensitive! Keep it crunchy. You're welcome.
It’s 10 million times more acidic than drain cleaner!!! And the government is trying to force you to drink it by forcing it to be used in municipal drinking fountains
Shawty had them blackened-out teeth (teeth)
Tooths with the fur (with the fur)
The whole clinic was looking at her
She hit the fluor (she hit the fluor)
Next thing you know
Shawty's teeth got glow, glow, glow, glow, glow, glow, glow
The people who need to hear this sadly would not believe that too much water can kill you even if you showed them someone die from it, I fear. I'd also be shocked if they read "water poisoning" and didn't think of poisoned water.
I didn’t know this was a thing when I was younger, but not young enough to not be classified as a moron.
Drank about 7-8 litres of water in 3 hours without going to the bathroom as a contest against a work colleague. Suffice to say I started feeling a little off on the way home, even after going to the bathroom. Years later I finally learned you can drown yourself from drinking too much and the symptoms were eerily close to what I experienced that night.
Oh don't get me wrong! I also only learned about water toxicity when I was very much an adult.
But the difference between us and the type of person I'm talking about, is that we (I'm presuming on your part) don't think fluoride in water is a bad thing.
The kind of person who hears "the government adds CHEMICAL_NAME to water" and assumes that's a bad thing is the kind of person who will not believe drinking too much water can kill you, even (or especially) if they are told by an expert.
I want someone who knows about these things to respond to this 2012 metastudy that ties naturally fluoridated groundwater to neurological problems. I have used this the past decade to say “well the science is unclear;” I found it back then (2013 at the latest) when I was trying to disprove a crank and really questioned my shit. There was a(n unrelated?) follow up later that questioned the benefits. Since this is very far from my area of expertise, I’m not championing these; I just want to understand why they’re wrong or at least don’t matter in the discourse.
(Edit: for the educated, there could be a million ways these are wrong. Authors are idiots, study isn’t reproducible, industry capture, conclusions not backed up by data, whatever. I just don’t have the requisite knowledge to say these are wrong and therefore fluoridated water is both safe and useful)
Update: great newer studies in responses! You can have a rational convo starting with these two that moves to newer stuff.
In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.
A study in Canada was published in 2019 looking at the differences between 2 neighboring cities where on stopped fluoridating water in 2011. They saw that saw a significant increase in cavities in children in the city that stopped fluoridating vs the other. This is despite the fact the the city without fluoridation actually has somewhat higher adherence to brushing, flossing, and going to the dentist. No difference was seen yet in permanent teeth, but that's because the study would need more time to see effects there.
Of course, we still should do more studies on fluoride neurotoxicity. Most studies look at levels of fluoride at 1.5mg/L or higher, which is more than double the recommended level by the US (0.7 mg/L). There is a hard limit in the US of 4mg/L, but the EPA strongly recommends a limit of 2mg/L. This only really matters for locations with very high levels of fluoride in the groundwater, and is thus quite rare. The EU's limit is 1.5mg/L.
The Harvard geneticists little opinion piece she wrote completely ignores all the direct evidence that was gathered back then, about how cavities always decreased in fluoridated areas when compared to neighboring cities that hadn't yet done so.
Also, yeah, it's bad for you in large doses. Literally anything is bad for you in large enough doses.
It looks like someone else linked one of these studies in a different comment while I was writing my own. I don’t feel as crazy now. I don’t care one way or another; I just want to make sure I can respond correctly! I wonder if the emphasis on fluoridated water is itself linked to industry capture?
I managed to catch myself good old Periodontal Disease. This freaked me out. My anxiety and ADHD shook hands and many of you can imagine what happened.
A couple days and who knows how many hours later I emerged like a butterfly from my self-imposed isolation with new knowledge. In short, yes, the amount of fluoride in water processed in various districts across the U.S. is tiny. The amount used does vary. Some studies have concluded that excess fluoride can have an effect on brain activity. However, they have been inconclusive in drawing actual parallels between any form of neurological functioning - though I can't remember if I've read that particular study.
Anyway, remember who is yelling about this. As with many issues brought up like this it's more about standing on a hill and shouting rather than any real significant problem. A platform to be seen and heard.
Btw, I completely halted my Periodontal and even reversed some of the lesser effects it had. Sometimes that adhd rabbit hole comes in handy.
You want some fancy rebuttal to a single linked study that the article states was a bunch of partials thrown together, that came from a country famously known for half-assing and cutting corners to get ahead? The country that was caught mixing lead into ground Cinnamon to sell it for a higher weight? The one where buildings sit half done or the cement falls apart by the time it's together? The ones who lay sod over cement in order to pass the amount of vegetation present on new construction?
That's the article you could and and latch onto in order to believe? Are you even aware that fluoride occurs naturally in water and that about 40% of all the drinking water across the globe already has around the amount the US gets theirs up to, or a larger amount(some places so large they do actually cause health issues)? It's literally been drank for thousands of years.
But you trust an incomplete study from China more than anything else? Why?
I’m was just hoping for a solid rebuttal, not necessarily a fancy one! If you’re able to explain why the criticisms you mention mean that specific study is bad, that would be great! I’m assuming you’re not from China and mistakenly think wherever you’re from doesn’t suffer from similar issues, meaning we can only trust you as much as the article.
It would be great to have some citations for that so I can point to things when I get into these discussions! That was part of what I asked for. You seem really passionate about this so you must have that available to help me out. Thanks!
I’m not sure you read my post if you think I trust any of the studies I linked more than anything else. It might be good to reread it!
You stated you've used this one half ased article in order to claim "the science is unclear", which just announces that you're a troll or a simpleton. You're giving weight to a Chinese blip of an article and holding it up to an equal value against the loads of research and data that shows its safe.
If someone was holding a penny in one hand and 50 pennies in the other, would you say it was unclear which hand was holding more?
I don’t think you understand what “outside my realm of expertise” means. I’m not trolling, so I must be a simpleton. As a simpleton, my general perspective has always been that it should be safe to ask questions about things you don’t understand so you can better understand. In this case, it’s very simple to say “from my uneducated eye, this appears to be a strong source that contradicts; that doesn’t seem to jive with the narrative so can someone help me understand why it doesn’t?” You seem to feel simpletons aren’t allowed to ask questions or grow, so we’re done here. I will take my specialized, domain-specific knowledge (which I’ve forgotten more about than you will probably ever learn) and sit in my simpleton castle knowing that’s all I ever get to know because it’s not okay to ask questions on the internet in a community based on discourse.
Back when I was in college, people didn't like fluoride because it calcifies the pinneal gland. I assume that rhetoric has only been further exaggerated over the years
It does do this. However so does ageing, low sunlight exposure, low altitude, ethnicity, sex, nutrition, neuro-divergence, cell phone use, EM fields... you get the idea.
Does fluoride-enhanced water actually do this, though? Or just pure fluoride? Yes, pure fluoride has an effect, but I always thought the miniscule amount in our water is not enough to actually make a difference to the natural calcification of our pineal gland, anyways.
From what I have read studies do not show it, however it is believed it does happen because, when the data in those studies is extrapolated for 60+ years, it shows that it should contribute to it, at least
So, yeah, seems too, but it really isn't a factor worth worrying about
Does it though? Did they really do XCT on enough brains in areas with different F in their water to show this over time? And correct for the fact that it calcifies with age anyway? And probably does so variably across individuals and populations (2023 meta-analysis says old white men are the most likely to have calcified pineal glands).
Well, I have to defer to the conclusions of neuroscientists in the papers I have read, and what my neurologist has told me. You can go and peer review research, if you would like, though.
Another point that conspiracy bros will bring up is that fluoride is a toxic byproduct of aluminum manufacture and dumping it into the water supply is a cheap way for Alcoa to dispose of it benevolently.
Honestly it really is sad, we have so many more uses for it
Every atom of fluoride going into our water is another atom that can’t go into chlorine trifluoride production. Putting it into the water is a huge sacrifice we make for the health of society.
Weird. The only argument I heard, and successfully made it to policy in my area is that it costs tax money and takes away choice. All thus smart stuff is for those damn yankees.
His joke is that fluoride can be used to make extremely dangerous substances
From the wiki on the one he mentioned:
This oxidizing power, surpassing that of oxygen, causes ClF3 to react vigorously with many other materials often thought of as incombustible and refractory. It ignites sand, asbestos, glass, and even ashes of substances that have already burned in oxygen.
i know this guy has a fancy degree and everything, but is he really as reliable a source as rfk junior? you don’t need fluoride when you have an army of worms ready to eat any kinds of bacteria that may enter your system.
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Second time I got to post this today, unfortunately because it's almost ceased being satire.
edit: I didn't say that people drink ocean water, my point was about the ubiquitous nature of fluoride. The majority of life lives in the ocean, so if fluoride really was as toxic as some people say it is, there would be a lot less life on Earth. There are many lakes and other water sources that people have been drinking from for ages which naturally contain higher amounts of fluoride than what is in fluoridated tap water.
Talking about the ocean is odd, but there are towns in the UK (and most countries I'd assume?) where the natural level of fluoride is higher than the concentration they aim for when adding fluoride. I think that's a pretty good argument for it being safe - the people of Hartlepool have been drinking fluoride rich water for 13 centuries and don't have any noticeable issues compared to the rest OF County Durham.
Yeah. It's not an entirely salient point. It does, however, underline the ubiquitous nature of fluorine.
The biggest source of Flourine in the environment is just the normal weathering of rocks that contain it. The biggest of the anthropogenic sources include brick production, phosphate fertiliser application and coal burning.
The minor amount added to drinking water really wouldn't be the biggest issue if it was as toxic as it's made out to be.
From what I have read, fluoride’s action on teeth is purely topical. Which is why it is in toothpaste (which is not swallowed). The “minuscule” amount in drinking water is reported as not enough to be toxic, yet somehow enough to strengthen teeth through internal blood circulation. Any fluoride you ingest, even a few atoms, is considered a toxin by the body and removed. So while the minuscule amounts added to water may not harm you, they are still adding to the “workload” your body has in dealing with all the minuscule amounts of other toxins you acquire daily.
This is a better argument than the one in the post. No one is worried about acute toxicity of fluoride but rather long term. But it's not long term toxic, doesn't accumulate in the body, and is only present in very low amounts in water. However it should be enough to use fluoridated toothpaste to get the positive effects.
I believe the objection to fluoride is that it is a tranquilizer that keeps us from achieving glory through violent uprising... or sweet sweet dentist profits.
For what’s it worth, in my country (Netherlands), we don’t add fluoride to our tap water anymore since the early 70s. We just have it in our toothpaste (though you can also get fluoride free toothpaste for those who don’t want it).
Sure there’s still traces of fluoride in our water, as it appears in nature. But it’s not artificially added by our water companies.
Fluoridated water doesn't seem to make a difference on cavities. It does have neurological effects. It's simply not acutely fatal. It's already in our toothpaste. We don't need it in our municipal water supply and the majority of developed countries don't.
Thank you for the link. It's worth mentioning that there are response letters to the publication you linked from other experts, the majority of which are critical and point out misinterpretations and omissions by the author. It's always good to question, but in this instance it looks like the consensus amongst experts evaluating that publication is still that fluoridation is safe and improves dental health. The response letters can be read here.
Edit to add: The responses include a letter from the dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine stating that the publication is deeply flawed and requesting a retraction, and a similar condemnation from the students of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The article was given greater weight by being linked to Harvard, but in fact Harvard dental experts explicitly disagree.
This is a disingenuous take. This is a cherry-picked article that does not come to the conclusion you draw here. You also state "It does have neurological effects" but leave out the most important piece of information for that to be true: high doses.
Why should anyone trust what you say when you're twisting the information to suit your narrative?
Counterpoint: I live in an area without fluoridated water, and I'm told that dentists can reliably identify people who didn't grow up here by the state of their teeth.
It's actually exactly in line with what the link above says.
In June 2015, the Cochrane Collaboration—a global independent network of researchers and health care professionals known for rigorous scientific reviews of public health policies—published an analysis of 20 key studies on water fluoridation. They found that while water fluoridation is effective at reducing tooth decay among children, “no studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries [cavities] in adults met the review’s inclusion criteria.”
In other words, water fluoridation might not make much difference for adults, but it can for children.
The link above is not reputable and was directly refuted by, among others, the American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, the American Association for Dental Research, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Harvard School of Dental Medicine itself. From the response letter signed by the dean of the HSDM:
The magazine article states that CWF “does not appear to have any benefits in adults” based on the results of the Cochrane systematic review. However, the Cochrane review did not make this conclusion. Rather, the review specifically states “We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.” Due to the lack of studies that met the inclusion criteria, the Cochrane authors were not able to make any conclusion on the effect of CWF on adults. In fact, there are studies that were not included in the Cochrane review that demonstrate a caries preventive benefit of CWF in adults.
See the letter I linked for the studies it's referencing with a demonstrated benefit to adult teeth. The Cochrane review's inability to conclude whether there was a benefit or not was a limitation of the Cochrane review's inclusion criteria, and not an absence of studies indicating a benefit.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. The anecdote happens to parallel the scientific consensus, but "I'm told that dentists can tell" isn't an appropriate argument when discussing medical research.
Your link is more or less an opinion piece from a geneticist, so this isn't even her field of study.
All her health issues she points out are for fluoride concentrations over triple the amount that tap water is brought up to.
The reason it's usage spread across the country was because while the entire country had access to things such as fluoridated toothpaste, counties and cities that started fluoridation of their water supplies consistently had fewer cavities than areas that didn't fluoridate the water. This alone outlines the glaringly obvious flaw in her argument.
Further still, while the US adds fluoride to the tap water in a concentration to reach 0.5mg to 0.7mg per liter of water (a couple drops per 50 gallons), natural drinking water for over 20% of the world is in concentrations well over that (to be clear, being well over that can cause health issues. Too much of anything can cause health issues.)
In other words, there is no evidence that this low concentration of fluoride causes health issues. There is loads of direct evidence that it reduces cavities. Plus, this woman from your opinion piece is talking out of her field. Not to mention that 21% of the world's drinking water supply naturally already falls within the recommended range of what the US takes theirs up to. It's just that most of the US water supply naturally falls below that amount.
That's because it's just a bs opinion piece by some geneticist. There's loads of very conclusive evidence and testing proving that it reduces cavities. Also, this geneticist points out that it only causes problems in doses far higher than what fluoridated tap water gets brought up to.
It's an opinion piece by a geneticist (so not a chemist or biologist or a field that could be related) and she ignores all the direct evidence that every city and county that added fluoride started having fewer cavities than neighboring areas that hadn't yet added it.
She then further points out that it only causes health issues in much higher concentrations than what the US was getting our water supply up to. You know, like literally anything that you get too much of is bad for you. You can literally die from drinking too much plain water. Too much of anything will kill you.
Interesting. The article doesn’t actually say that fluoridation in water supplies is dangerous but that some researchers are questioning. Generally code for lack of scientific evidence. It also finds that early studies may have had a flawed basis (pretty much all early studies have been found wanting by later scientists) but doesn’t refute the results.The study mentioned in the article talks about high levels of fluoridation which I assume is in lab tests however these levels are not the case in water supplies.
The correct way forward is more actual science based studies.
The bad part about Rfk jr is he probably mixes in some science with quackery. I honestly assumed all his ideas are insane. That's what's so hard about being discerning right now, you have to be on one side or the other.
If they remove it from the water, then change the availability to be OTC for multivitamins with fluoride. I want to be able to get it with our having a copay and whatever else the Dr wants to charge .
Next headline will be how fluoride contributes to autism and it will have just as much evidence as the vaccine bit does. How is this even a thing? Is ground zero on this RFK?
Meanwhile, all the people who can’t afford dentists will have even worse teeth going forward. Make America’s teeth British again.
The question to me is - do we even have to fluoridate water and is this really the best approach?
For example, most European countries do not commonly use fluoride in their water supply, and everyone's just fine! No extra cavities, no special health risks. People commonly drink tap water and do not care about potential for any adverse effects, because it's just that - clean water. And for any teeth-related issues, you already have your toothpaste providing more than enough fluorine.
Water fluoridation reaches over 13 million Europeans through programs in England, Ireland, Poland, Serbia and Spain
Children in deprived areas benefit most from water fluoridation according to 2018 English health agency report
Over 70 million Europeans receive fluoridated salt through programs in Austria, France, Germany, Switzerland and other countries. Salt fluoridation is recommended when water fluoridation is not feasible
European Academy of Pediatric Dentistry endorses water fluoridation as "core component of oral health policy"
Fluoridated milk programs have operated in Bulgaria, England, Hungary, Russia and Scotland
Several European countries provide free or subsidized fluoride treatments through national healthcare:
Sweden: free dental care through age 23
Denmark: free dental care until age 18
Finland: public dental clinic access for all legal residents
Scandinavian schools offer fluoride varnish, tablets and rinse programs
Some regions in Europe have naturally fluoridated water, such as parts of Italy. Italian health officials support water fluoridation but don't implement additional programs due to naturally optimal fluoride levels in some areas
Evidence shows that water fluoridation prevents tooth decay by providing frequent and consistent contact with low levels of fluoride, ultimately reducing tooth decay by about 25% in children and adults.
evidence shows that schoolchildren living in communities where water is fluoridated have, on average, 2.25 fewer decayed teeth compared to similar children not living in fluoridated communities.
A study to compare costs associated with community water fluoridation with treatment savings achieved through reduced tooth decay, which included 172 public water systems, each serving populations of 1,000 individuals or more, found that 1 year of exposure to fluoridated water yielded an average savings of $60 per person when the lifetime costs of maintaining a restoration were included.
Analyses of Medicaid claims data in 3 other states (Louisiana, New York, and Texas), have also found that children living in fluoridated communities have lower caries related treatment costs than do similar children living in non-fluoridated communities; the difference in annual per child treatment costs ranged from $28 to $67.
community water fluoridation continues to decrease cavities by 25% at the population level.
Even with fluoridated products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, this public health practice can reduce an additional 25% of tooth decay in children and adults
In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first U.S. city to fluoridate its public water supply. Five years later, Grand Rapids schoolchildren were found to have significantly fewer cavities than children from the control community of Muskegon, and additional water districts, including Muskegon began fluoridating and seeing similar results
Studies have shown that populations from lower socioeconomic groups within fluoridated communities have less tooth decay when compared to peers in nonfluoridated communities
The cost of a lifetime of water fluoridation for one person is less than the cost of one filling
It depends if you believe in the apocryphal story behind fluoridation. This is a story that justifies the state and it's right of medical intervention into your life with the need of your informed consent.
These types of stories are designed to justify the right to act of an entity/egregor using the least objectionnable scenario possible. Once this precedent is established it can built upon to justify other actions in other scenarios. All the other unobjectionnable things done to you or in your name
The question is: does it make sense to buy toothpaste with fluoride then or can I buy one without? Just because my kids don't like the peppermint ones and other flavours are most of the times without fluoride
Non-fluoridated toothpaste is mainly for kids who are too young to be able to consistently spit it all out. The concentration of fluoride in toothpaste is high enough that you shouldn't be swallowing it, because doing that on the regular is harmful to your teeth. Gray discoloration is one of the first symptoms.
If your kids are capable of doing "rinse and spit," then they should be using fluoridated toothpaste.
And even then, there's a significant safety margin worked into the advice that you shouldn't swallow toothpaste. You'd need to eat several tubes of prescription strength toothpaste to get sick from fluoride.
Absolutely true - and I just remembered, even if your kids are little and using non-fluoridated toothpaste, you should still be using this time to teach them rinse and spit.
With you having to judge millions of children, that you need to get high just to stay sane; you get a pass.
But there is a general recommendation to not eat or drink for 15-30min after brushing to give enough time for the fluoride to bind to any exposed enamel surfaces. It's also better to use a fluoridated mouthrinse over water, if getting the grittyness is what you're after.
For other toothpaste that still strengthens enamel, there is toothpaste with hydroxyapatite (which can be ingested, at least that specific ingredient). Though it is probably more expensive.
I mean you can buy it here in a normal store. So I'm not sure if you mean a dentist can't use/provide it, or if you're thinking about the nano forms of it.
Edit, just saw this:
the FDA regulates dental products like toothpaste as cosmetics rather than therapeutic agents for cavity prevention
Interestingly, many ingredients used in dental care, including fluoride, are employed off-label. This means they are used in ways not officially approved by the FDA but are still considered effective based on scientific evidence and clinical practice
Fluoridated toothpaste is more effective than drinking water. The fluoride works by direct contact with the enamel. Another reason it doesn't make sense to put it in drinking water.
Fluoride in the water is beneficial in the pre-eruptive phase (when teeth are still growing). Fluoride ingestion increases tooth resistence to cavities if the ingestion happened while they were growing.
This does mean that fluoride in water isn't really useful after you have all your permanent teeth though.
Depending on where you live, there is already enough naturally occurring fluoride in the well water that adding more doesn't mean much. How else do you think they discovered fluoride helps your teeth?
Since I live in a rural area and need to have my own well, I know my water contains enough fluoride that it would be silly to add more. But some areas do not have enough naturally present. So it would be interesting to see the water test results for Florida cities to check the amount of naturally occurring fluoride present. YMMV
It could likely be replaced with hydroxyapatite instead (it also can be used to remove lead and other things from water, which makes searching about being added to municipal water difficult). Good for not only teeth, also bones.
I also wonder if adding other vitamins would make more sense (just enough to stop deficiencies) if we're talking about health outcomes, though the first idea I had with vitamin C came up with results of that messing with the chlorine in the water.
Hmmm. The author of the article has a PhD in environmental history, so a social science. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not actual hard science. Where people research and develop novel things.
I don't want to blow smoke anywhere near any asses. But does that article site one primary literature source? They're all articles or if it's an actual paper, it's an opinion piece. I'm not going through all of them because it reads like some crazy uncle on a conspiracy theory rant.
Are you a scientist? I know what I'm talking about, although I'm afraid you're not.
There's an actual journal article (I know it's only Nature scientific reports, but it's a valid reference). I know it doesn't explicitly state it's not toxic, but:
"Thus, based on the evidence available on the topic, it is not possible to state neither any association or the lack of an association between F exposure and any neurological disorder."
Taken straight from their conclusion.
Obviously there's many more sources, and again, I'm happy to provide you with some of you'd like to enhance your knowledge on the subject.
Fluoride is safe topically and ineffective when introduced to our water supply. It is not some giant conspiracy, just a practice that is no longer necessary and unsafe because the industrial waste fluoride that is used is contaminated. Please save me the appeal to authority nonsense.
No. It can't be said for fluoride. Lead is known to be extremely toxic. We've seen what it does. Fluoride in water is not toxic, which has been shown multiple times.
Well sorry, I suppose I didn't need to call your comment asinine.
But this is not an unknown issue. Multitudes of testing throughout decades have shown there is no toxicity for the levels that are in water. The county you're living in most likely has their own case study available for you to read.
I can look at issues without prejudice, but valid issues. This is not one of those.
Also, if you're talking about toxicity due to dose, you'll die from water consumption before you'd get anywhere near toxic levels of fluoride. Don't even think about any sort of medication you're taking, it's also probably more toxic than the levels of fluoride in water.
Again, sorry. I don't want to be mean, but there's so much information out there opposing your comment. I'd happily point you in the right direction if you'd like to read up on the plethora of resources stating it's not toxic, and at least somewhat beneficial.
I am still concerned about fluoride, but for different reasons. The federal government says there is too much natural fluoride in our water so we must import water to dilute it. The federal government doesn't trust us with police officers, or politicians, but surely the public water company isn't corrupt or incompetent....surely.
But hey, our teeth are really white and no ones died from flouride, far more likely to die from sudden lead.
Having worked for a municipal water system, no, they are not incompetent when engineers are at the helm. Corruption I saw was related to giving small incidental work to friends, some weird politics sometimes, but that was about it.
More importantly: everyone understood our job wasn't to make money, we were foundational to our city's livelihood & health, that of our neighbors, our mother's and brothers. Quality was job 1, and I really do mean that. Could we have moved faster and for less money? Maybe. But I'm glad we picked doing the job right over doing it fast.
I then looked to experts who make a career of studying theses things and are held to standards and peer review.
There is a Cochrane review on this topic just updated last month. The answer is that yes it does help reduce childhood caries at least a little bit.
My barometer is when it's something that pretty much only the U.S. is obsessed with doing, then it's probably a dumb thing caused by lobbyists or something. Fluoridation of water falls under this.
fluoridation has nothing to with any teeth-related issues, it was all about the US industry having a way to dispose of fluoride, a byproduct of many industrial activities. You can't just dump fluoride on a river as it has several adverse side-effects, but it you can convince everyone it is good for their health then it's okay to dump it on the water supply.
lmao. rofl even. Fluoride is incredibly expensive AND useful, if you run an industry you wanna make sure you absolutely recover it from byproducts and reuse it, not to mention that with how low the levels in tap water are, it wouldn't be even a good way of disposing a lot of it
So miniscule it won't poison you but just enough to prevent tooth decay. You really can't have it both ways. Pretending there is any real control over measurement is also ridiculous. Not to mention there is no need to drink fluoride.
You know what does work? Using fluoride topically and getting good dental care.
I don't know. I do know fluoride works topically. I also know there is no mechanism in the body to return fluoride to the teeth topically after it is swallowed.
So you don't know, but all the data scientists and dentists, who DO know and are subject matter experts, who say it's a good idea are to be ignored, because of your sheer ignorance?
I said fluoride works topically. Do you deny this? Please provide evidence to the contrary.
I said there is no way for the body to return fluoride where it is needed. Swallowing fluoride is pointless and unnecessary at best. At worst it is probably not a good idea to have fluoride in your water if you have kidney disease.
Don't bother actually, we already no you know literally nothing about this topic.
You are spouting assertions about what sounds right while ignoring bodies of scientific evidence contradicting your viewpoint. Just because Lemmy users are unwilling to spend 20-30 minutes digging through arixv to refute you doesn't make you right.
You don't want to go and look up and analyze evidence that floride in the water supply is beneficial, you want to just assert the hypothesis you've formed as likely truth without evidence and research into related work, and I can confidently say this because experts who spend their lives reading papers and writing them on this very topic are qualified to make these assertions.
...This "sounds right" line of thinking has been the bane of civilization for eons. You aren't breaking up some scientific fallacy like the church believing the Earth is the center of the universe, you are perpetuating one.
So then you admit there is no point in drinking fluoride then? Miniscule amount does not make a difference and the normal topical amount you use while brushing is not safe to swallow.
Toxicologist here. I think that take is dishonest or dumb.
Taking a lethal dose is almost never the concern with any substance in our drinking water.
Hormones, heavy metals, persistent organic chemicals, ammonia are all in our drinking water. But for all of them we can't drink enough water to die from a high dose.
Some of them still have a large effect on our bodies.
It's about the longterm effects. Which we need longterm studies to learn about. That makes them harder to study.
Still doesn't mean flouride does anything bad longerm. But the argument is bad.
Yeah, by this argument lead in the water isn't a concern.
You just made me mad by helping me realize that the Trump bros are going to break water by removing fluoride long before they fix water by removing lead.
They like the lead, though!
(Probably. I mean, they did in Flint, MI...)
Removing fluoride won’t break the water. However, it may break our teeth.
Yeah but lead bioaccumulates where as fluoride/ine doesn't
Are you sure fluoride doesn't? It does accumulate in the soil, building up in crops. Considering fluoride exposure from all sources, many people are above upper safe limits, even from tea drinking alone
I don't think fluoride should be added to water as it just pollutes the environment, where 99.99% of water isn't coming in contact with teeth
It doesn't. This is high-school chemistry.
Fluoride only "accumulates" up to the peak concentration of the environment (no further) on places where it is removed from contact with that environment.
You can only accumulate fluoride in the soil if you keep adding it and there is almost no rain to wash it away.
Like how crops are irrigated with town water, and in many areas with lowering rainfall? Accumulates in fruit, vegetables, leaves too
Yes, irrigation with the minimum possible amount of water is known to destroy land for millennia at this point. But sodium will be a problem way before you notice any change in fluoride.
Yup, same with PFAS and forever chemicals. Maybe I'm ignorant because I'm not a doctor, but I don't know if this line of thinking holds water - pun not intended.
lead poisoning becomes evident pretty early though doesn't it? (With respect to kids)
I would think that the ratio of persistent exposure to unsafe level has got to be easily higher in cases like Flint than any fluoride-in-the-water usage. Just speculation on my part.
What measures are taken to avoid screwing up the dosage, anyone know? Maybe predilute so that an oops requires multiple buckets instead of vials?
It's so funny I was just having a similar conversation about neurotoxic venomous animals in another thread. Lethality is an obviously concerning threshold, but there are substances out there that can easily destroy your quality of life and livelihood that never reach the concern of being lethal.
I think for mostly rational people concerned about fluoride in their water is that it was a public health decision made with little to no actual science proving it's safety or efficacy when it was first decided that they were going to add it to the public water supply. The proposed benefits of it weren't even supported by scientific evidence, it was just supposed that exposure to sodium fluoride could potentially reduce tooth decay for some.
Personally, I've suffered from the cosmetic damage of dental fluorosis, and I'm not necessarily thrilled about fluoride. But I have way more issues with public mandates founded on pseudoscience than I am with sodium fluoride. Especially now that we can see evidence that for some people fluoride can be especially beneficial.
So what was wrong with giving people the option of using fluoride toothpaste or mouthwashes... Why did it have to go into the public water supply?
Mate, your entire second paragraph is completely false. Like, you need to just read this: https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/fluoride/the-story-of-fluoridation
It's considered by the CDC as one of the greatest Public Health Achievements of the last Century. There have been dozens, if not hundreds of studies about fluoride affects in the water supply.
Yeah that proves my point entirely.
In 1945 they fluoridated the first public water supply.
In 1979 the first published research began to appear to show how fluoride might be able to remineralize dental enamel.
Yeah, I guess that somehow totes proves his point. Super easy to see the world wrong when they have the reading comprehension of a 6th grader.
So the person above may think they're so clever, or whoever fed them that factoid may think that. Notice the claim is remineralization. Maybe that's true, it may be that a study first showed that in 1975 and that's not contradicted by your link but that is a non sequitur. It's not what we're talking about, it's not a good faith argument.
In our area, the only water supply WITH Fluoride serves an area with a median HOUSEHOLD income of less than $40k with more than 25% living below the poverty line. For communities like these the fluoride is critical because there will be a lot of children that don't have access to fluoride supplements, or regular care from a pediatric (or regular) dentist.
It is when you're responding to people who think 5G is turning the frogs gay and activating hidden vaccine microchips.
We probably have enough A/B data now to make some inferences yeah? Compare countries with fluoridated water to countries without.
You can get even more granular than that. CDC maintains a list of water systems and whether or not they add fluoride. CDC My Water System. To give you an idea of how granular that is, there are 78 different water systems in my county alone. For most of my life I assumed we had fluoridated water but apparently only 1/78 of our water systems are. I only checked when we had kids and I needed to know whether or not I needed to give them Fluoride Drops.
yes and some of that data is already in other comments here
Yeah, it seems to me like he got the right idea and wanted to convince people by making an extreme statement..
That might well be the case. I'm not sure if it is helpful to use those half truths which are simpler to convince certain people. Or if it weakens the point because it is in the end not really correct.
This. How can we be completely certain that something isn't damaging over the long term. I'm not anti fluoride, but healthy debate and scepticism is a good thing, especially when we're all forced to consume a substance with the only alternative being dehydration and death. People need to be free to make their own choices.
Fluoride does have long term effects though once you consider fluoride exposure through all sources like diet, which is mostly due to fluoride from water ending up in farmland. Tradesmen alone regularly exceed the upper limits due to high water consumption in hotter seasons
Citation needed
To which? These are all pulled from research, just need to know which so I don't waste my time pulling up something you're not questioning
Ideally both.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356603384_Bioaccumulation_of_Fluoride_in_Plants_and_Its_Microbially_Assisted_Remediation_A_Review_of_Biological_Processes_and_Technological_Performance
WHO guidelines for 1.5mg/L fluoride
https://web.archive.org/web/20110707103002/http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2011/dwq_guidelines/en/#%3A%7E%3Atext=This+fourth+edition+of+the+World+Health+Organization%E2%80%99s%2Cfor+water+safety+in+support+of+public+health.
Upper limit of 10mg/day (considered to be high by some bodies)
https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/nutrient-reference-values/nutrients/fluoride-updated-2017
Basic bath: only considering water intake, consuming 6-7 liters in a day (regular occurance working in Australia) puts you over the upper limit without considering major sources like diet, tea and dental products and treatments.
Also, isn't it recommended to not give infants fluorided water, hence why you can buy it in virtually every grocery store?
Pretty much anything you can think of is recommended by someone, because different people have conflicting views. The key is to choose whose recommendations are based on the best reasoning & evidence aligning with your goals.
Also "because I'm an expert and I say so" is a good way to convince someone to let you poison them.
Oh yeah? And what if someone ignores that, simply lies and says it's toxic? I'm convinced!
And both of these people telling me about fluoride in water are both experts in their field. One an expert toxicologist, and the other an expert liar. Now I don't know what to believe.
The fluoride added to water gets it up to 0.7mg/liter.
That ends up to be 2 or 3 drops in a 55 gallon drums worth of water. Not much.
Fluoride is a natural substance and is found in many areas drinking water already. Many areas in much higher concentrations than 0.7mg/liter, so realistically people all over the world have drank fluoridated water for thousands of years.
You have to well over double the 0.7 before any health issues may appear and the first to appear is at about triple the concentration in kids under 8 years old who drink it for years getting spots on their teeth. The spots are only superficial.
Going into concentrations even higher than that CAN cause health issues when drank for longer periods of time. All of those cases being from naturally occurring fluoride, which actually effects somewhere north of 20% of the world's population.
Which makes the argument that fluoride in our water keeps us passive as being extra stupid, since water sourced around Columbia (the country) is far higher than .07mg/liter and Columbia seems to be caught in violence and turmoil and instability quite a bit over the decades.
*edit: Colombia
Its presence in groundwater is how we discovered it's good for teeth.
In fact, there used to be so much in some areas,it actually stained the teeth. In Colorado Springs a dentist noticed that the children were developing brown stains on their teeth. In researching it, it was discovered that the "Colorado Brown Stain" was caused by excessive fluoride in the drinking water. But it also lead to the discovery that regions with natural fluoride present but in lower levels than Colorado Springs didn't have stained teeth, but did have lower levels of tooth decay.
Yep. In fact, 21% of the world's natural drinking water used falls within the recommended range for fluoride, while over another 20% is higher and in some countries actually does cause some non-superficial side effects and problems. Those don't pop up until in concentrations at least 3 times higher than recommended.
Small note: the country name is spelled “Colombia,” and spelling it correctly means you don’t need to specify which one!
Fair enough!
Just because a concentration is low doesn’t mean it’s safe. Water with 0.7 mg/L of Po-210 is lethal.
You can put an amount of it in a 55 gallon drum that is not visible
It’s a natural substance
Fluoride is in fact safe at the amounts that the FDA regulates but saying it’s a small concentration or that it’s natural are not the reasons it’s safe. It’s the hundreds of peer reviewed research articles that show that it’s safe
It's not about toxicity, it's about mind control! Fluoride makes you passive. But you know this since you're a tool of the government pushing poison.
Just bleach your teeth like normal people! You know, with the bleach under the kitchen sink.
(Don't actually do this)
I mean, trump got reelected. I hope it's the flouride.
Like the ol' General said / s
Yikes 😬
This is the correct response from any line from Dr. Strangelove taken out of context.
In context, it takes some 15 to 30 minutes for you to understand that you are supposed to laugh.
Its from Dr. Strangeglove
And that's why you should only drink grain alcohol and pure, natural rain water. To preserve the essence of your precious bodily fluids.
Eating seeds as a pastime activity
I've heard it works much better and actually reverses the mind control if you first mix the bleach with ammonia.
(Also, please, don't actually do this, some people still die every year from this)
The real Chads use raw organic free-range non-GMO pesticide-free lemon juice with baking soda. It'll leave your teeth as white as they'll be sensitive! Keep it crunchy. You're welcome.
Toxicologist, toxicity, minuscule, fluoridated -- your big doctor words are just trying to trick us!
So, once again, DHMO is the chemical we need to fear.
The stuff also known as hydric acid. People just don't talk enough about how corrosive it is. Plus, it gets in the air and gets in your lungs!
There was an incident involving it on April 14th 1912 that took over 1500 lives.
I heard that anyone who's ever come into contact with it has later died
Its a common component of all cancer cells, and trace amounts have been found in the blood of dead lab rats.
terrorists will drink vast amounts of it every day before an attack
It’s so pervasive that they have found it in the bodies of every single child worldwide.
It’s 10 million times more acidic than drain cleaner!!! And the government is trying to force you to drink it by forcing it to be used in municipal drinking fountains
Any chemical that can exist as a solid, a liquid and a gas at the same time isn't safe to put into our bodies!
Fun fact. Literally everyone who has died, ever, has had DHMO in some form. You're even exposed in the womb!
Why is some dumb scientist expert trying to tell me, a person who pays for an internet connection, what the truth is?
Because something something shill money.
This is a conspiracy by fluoridians.
Thats what the fluoridiots say.
thanks Ron DeSantooth
fluorida man strikes again
Shawty had them blackened-out teeth (teeth)
Tooths with the fur (with the fur)
The whole clinic was looking at her
She hit the fluor (she hit the fluor)
Next thing you know
Shawty's teeth got glow, glow, glow, glow, glow, glow, glow
Artist: Fluo Rida
Song: Glow
Edit: formatting
Them crooked molars and the braces with the gaps (With the gaps)
She turned around and showed her grill all full of plaque (yikes!)
She hit the floss (She hit the floss), next thing you know
Shawty's blood flow, flow, flow, flow, flow, flow, flow, flow
This is too much
Drink your water, or get the FOOF.
The people who need to hear this sadly would not believe that too much water can kill you even if you showed them someone die from it, I fear. I'd also be shocked if they read "water poisoning" and didn't think of poisoned water.
I didn’t know this was a thing when I was younger, but not young enough to not be classified as a moron.
Drank about 7-8 litres of water in 3 hours without going to the bathroom as a contest against a work colleague. Suffice to say I started feeling a little off on the way home, even after going to the bathroom. Years later I finally learned you can drown yourself from drinking too much and the symptoms were eerily close to what I experienced that night.
Oh don't get me wrong! I also only learned about water toxicity when I was very much an adult.
But the difference between us and the type of person I'm talking about, is that we (I'm presuming on your part) don't think fluoride in water is a bad thing.
The kind of person who hears "the government adds CHEMICAL_NAME to water" and assumes that's a bad thing is the kind of person who will not believe drinking too much water can kill you, even (or especially) if they are told by an expert.
dihydrogen monoxide is also dangerous, we must ban it as well
https://www.dhmo.org/
Agreed. That's why I only drink DMSO.
(Don't actually drink DMSO please.)
I love how it has an ad for Acme Klein Bottles
I want someone who knows about these things to respond to this 2012 metastudy that ties naturally fluoridated groundwater to neurological problems. I have used this the past decade to say “well the science is unclear;” I found it back then (2013 at the latest) when I was trying to disprove a crank and really questioned my shit. There was a(n unrelated?) follow up later that questioned the benefits. Since this is very far from my area of expertise, I’m not championing these; I just want to understand why they’re wrong or at least don’t matter in the discourse.
(Edit: for the educated, there could be a million ways these are wrong. Authors are idiots, study isn’t reproducible, industry capture, conclusions not backed up by data, whatever. I just don’t have the requisite knowledge to say these are wrong and therefore fluoridated water is both safe and useful)
Update: great newer studies in responses! You can have a rational convo starting with these two that moves to newer stuff.
There’s a follow up meta study from 2020.:
A study in Canada was published in 2019 looking at the differences between 2 neighboring cities where on stopped fluoridating water in 2011. They saw that saw a significant increase in cavities in children in the city that stopped fluoridating vs the other. This is despite the fact the the city without fluoridation actually has somewhat higher adherence to brushing, flossing, and going to the dentist. No difference was seen yet in permanent teeth, but that's because the study would need more time to see effects there.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12685
Of course, we still should do more studies on fluoride neurotoxicity. Most studies look at levels of fluoride at 1.5mg/L or higher, which is more than double the recommended level by the US (0.7 mg/L). There is a hard limit in the US of 4mg/L, but the EPA strongly recommends a limit of 2mg/L. This only really matters for locations with very high levels of fluoride in the groundwater, and is thus quite rare. The EU's limit is 1.5mg/L.
I also came across the same study while looking to disprove a conspiracy nut. We should really do more research on the effects of fluoride.
The Harvard geneticists little opinion piece she wrote completely ignores all the direct evidence that was gathered back then, about how cavities always decreased in fluoridated areas when compared to neighboring cities that hadn't yet done so.
Also, yeah, it's bad for you in large doses. Literally anything is bad for you in large enough doses.
It looks like someone else linked one of these studies in a different comment while I was writing my own. I don’t feel as crazy now. I don’t care one way or another; I just want to make sure I can respond correctly! I wonder if the emphasis on fluoridated water is itself linked to industry capture?
I managed to catch myself good old Periodontal Disease. This freaked me out. My anxiety and ADHD shook hands and many of you can imagine what happened.
A couple days and who knows how many hours later I emerged like a butterfly from my self-imposed isolation with new knowledge. In short, yes, the amount of fluoride in water processed in various districts across the U.S. is tiny. The amount used does vary. Some studies have concluded that excess fluoride can have an effect on brain activity. However, they have been inconclusive in drawing actual parallels between any form of neurological functioning - though I can't remember if I've read that particular study.
Anyway, remember who is yelling about this. As with many issues brought up like this it's more about standing on a hill and shouting rather than any real significant problem. A platform to be seen and heard.
Btw, I completely halted my Periodontal and even reversed some of the lesser effects it had. Sometimes that adhd rabbit hole comes in handy.
You want some fancy rebuttal to a single linked study that the article states was a bunch of partials thrown together, that came from a country famously known for half-assing and cutting corners to get ahead? The country that was caught mixing lead into ground Cinnamon to sell it for a higher weight? The one where buildings sit half done or the cement falls apart by the time it's together? The ones who lay sod over cement in order to pass the amount of vegetation present on new construction?
That's the article you could and and latch onto in order to believe? Are you even aware that fluoride occurs naturally in water and that about 40% of all the drinking water across the globe already has around the amount the US gets theirs up to, or a larger amount(some places so large they do actually cause health issues)? It's literally been drank for thousands of years.
But you trust an incomplete study from China more than anything else? Why?
I’m was just hoping for a solid rebuttal, not necessarily a fancy one! If you’re able to explain why the criticisms you mention mean that specific study is bad, that would be great! I’m assuming you’re not from China and mistakenly think wherever you’re from doesn’t suffer from similar issues, meaning we can only trust you as much as the article.
It would be great to have some citations for that so I can point to things when I get into these discussions! That was part of what I asked for. You seem really passionate about this so you must have that available to help me out. Thanks!
I’m not sure you read my post if you think I trust any of the studies I linked more than anything else. It might be good to reread it!
You stated you've used this one half ased article in order to claim "the science is unclear", which just announces that you're a troll or a simpleton. You're giving weight to a Chinese blip of an article and holding it up to an equal value against the loads of research and data that shows its safe.
If someone was holding a penny in one hand and 50 pennies in the other, would you say it was unclear which hand was holding more?
I don’t think you understand what “outside my realm of expertise” means. I’m not trolling, so I must be a simpleton. As a simpleton, my general perspective has always been that it should be safe to ask questions about things you don’t understand so you can better understand. In this case, it’s very simple to say “from my uneducated eye, this appears to be a strong source that contradicts; that doesn’t seem to jive with the narrative so can someone help me understand why it doesn’t?” You seem to feel simpletons aren’t allowed to ask questions or grow, so we’re done here. I will take my specialized, domain-specific knowledge (which I’ve forgotten more about than you will probably ever learn) and sit in my simpleton castle knowing that’s all I ever get to know because it’s not okay to ask questions on the internet in a community based on discourse.
Back when I was in college, people didn't like fluoride because it calcifies the pinneal gland. I assume that rhetoric has only been further exaggerated over the years
It does do this. However so does ageing, low sunlight exposure, low altitude, ethnicity, sex, nutrition, neuro-divergence, cell phone use, EM fields... you get the idea.
Don't forget the gravitational pull of Betelgeuse. In a very, very small way, that also effects calcification of the pineal gland.
(Don't give them ideas...)
Does fluoride-enhanced water actually do this, though? Or just pure fluoride? Yes, pure fluoride has an effect, but I always thought the miniscule amount in our water is not enough to actually make a difference to the natural calcification of our pineal gland, anyways.
From what I have read studies do not show it, however it is believed it does happen because, when the data in those studies is extrapolated for 60+ years, it shows that it should contribute to it, at least
So, yeah, seems too, but it really isn't a factor worth worrying about
Does it though? Did they really do XCT on enough brains in areas with different F in their water to show this over time? And correct for the fact that it calcifies with age anyway? And probably does so variably across individuals and populations (2023 meta-analysis says old white men are the most likely to have calcified pineal glands).
Well, I have to defer to the conclusions of neuroscientists in the papers I have read, and what my neurologist has told me. You can go and peer review research, if you would like, though.
Another point that conspiracy bros will bring up is that fluoride is a toxic byproduct of aluminum manufacture and dumping it into the water supply is a cheap way for Alcoa to dispose of it benevolently.
Honestly it really is sad, we have so many more uses for it
Every atom of fluoride going into our water is another atom that can’t go into chlorine trifluoride production. Putting it into the water is a huge sacrifice we make for the health of society.
Real men make chlorine pentafluoride anyway. We have no use for pathetic hypergolic oxidisers with only three fluorine atoms.
Weird. The only argument I heard, and successfully made it to policy in my area is that it costs tax money and takes away choice. All thus smart stuff is for those damn yankees.
They have a choice, they can drink bottled water or well water.
His joke is that fluoride can be used to make extremely dangerous substances
From the wiki on the one he mentioned:
The majority of fluoride that is released into our water supply is a by-product of fertilizer production.
Even better!
i know this guy has a fancy degree and everything, but is he really as reliable a source as rfk junior? you don’t need fluoride when you have an army of worms ready to eat any kinds of bacteria that may enter your system.
"I can't wait for RFK Jr to stop this, he knows all the chemicals!"
Overheard while at the polls on election day.
he may not know all the chemicals, but i bet all the chemicals know him
I feel like I woke up in the movie Dr. Strangelove
Second time I got to post this today, unfortunately because it's almost ceased being satire.
Not to mention there are many natural sources of fluoride which can contain greater concentrations of it than what is in tap water. The ocean has a concentration of fluoride that is in the range of 1.2 to 1.4 ppm, compared to the standard rate of fluoride of drinking water, which is 0.5–1 ppm
edit: I didn't say that people drink ocean water, my point was about the ubiquitous nature of fluoride. The majority of life lives in the ocean, so if fluoride really was as toxic as some people say it is, there would be a lot less life on Earth. There are many lakes and other water sources that people have been drinking from for ages which naturally contain higher amounts of fluoride than what is in fluoridated tap water.
I don't understand your point.
Nobody drinks the ocean. Fluoride is barely active topically. Most humans rarely if at all swim in the ocean.
Talking about the ocean is odd, but there are towns in the UK (and most countries I'd assume?) where the natural level of fluoride is higher than the concentration they aim for when adding fluoride. I think that's a pretty good argument for it being safe - the people of Hartlepool have been drinking fluoride rich water for 13 centuries and don't have any noticeable issues compared to the rest OF County Durham.
Yeah. It's not an entirely salient point. It does, however, underline the ubiquitous nature of fluorine.
The biggest source of Flourine in the environment is just the normal weathering of rocks that contain it. The biggest of the anthropogenic sources include brick production, phosphate fertiliser application and coal burning.
The minor amount added to drinking water really wouldn't be the biggest issue if it was as toxic as it's made out to be.
From what I have read, fluoride’s action on teeth is purely topical. Which is why it is in toothpaste (which is not swallowed). The “minuscule” amount in drinking water is reported as not enough to be toxic, yet somehow enough to strengthen teeth through internal blood circulation. Any fluoride you ingest, even a few atoms, is considered a toxin by the body and removed. So while the minuscule amounts added to water may not harm you, they are still adding to the “workload” your body has in dealing with all the minuscule amounts of other toxins you acquire daily.
This is a better argument than the one in the post. No one is worried about acute toxicity of fluoride but rather long term. But it's not long term toxic, doesn't accumulate in the body, and is only present in very low amounts in water. However it should be enough to use fluoridated toothpaste to get the positive effects.
I believe the objection to fluoride is that it is a tranquilizer that keeps us from achieving glory through violent uprising... or sweet sweet dentist profits.
Agreed but can we turn down the chloramine valve? It tastes awful.
Why not just get a water filter?
For what’s it worth, in my country (Netherlands), we don’t add fluoride to our tap water anymore since the early 70s. We just have it in our toothpaste (though you can also get fluoride free toothpaste for those who don’t want it).
Sure there’s still traces of fluoride in our water, as it appears in nature. But it’s not artificially added by our water companies.
Most places that do add it to the water supply match the levels of places where flouride occurs naturally
Welcome to Science Memes, where the science isn't memes and the memes aren't about science.
Without Fluoride all the humour in the world dies.
The meme is now this is not US policy.
Its like stating the world is not flat... when in fact NASA's official stance is that the world is, indeed, flat.
How much oatmeal would I have to eat to die of fluoride poisoning?
0.08mg per half cup serving, but may vary depending on water used. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Fluoride-HealthProfessional/
10mg is the accepted daily upper limit for an adult. So 62.5 cups of oatmeal to reach that max safe limit. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Fluoride-Consumer/
Acute poisoning symptoms may appear as low as 10-15 mg/kg, lethal dose might be 32-64 mg/kg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity
So 200 to 400 cups of oatmeal per kg you weigh for a lethal dose. (32/0.08/2=200, 64/0.08/2=400)
That's a lot of oatmeal.
Fluoridated water doesn't seem to make a difference on cavities. It does have neurological effects. It's simply not acutely fatal. It's already in our toothpaste. We don't need it in our municipal water supply and the majority of developed countries don't.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/
Thank you for the link. It's worth mentioning that there are response letters to the publication you linked from other experts, the majority of which are critical and point out misinterpretations and omissions by the author. It's always good to question, but in this instance it looks like the consensus amongst experts evaluating that publication is still that fluoridation is safe and improves dental health. The response letters can be read here.
Edit to add: The responses include a letter from the dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine stating that the publication is deeply flawed and requesting a retraction, and a similar condemnation from the students of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The article was given greater weight by being linked to Harvard, but in fact Harvard dental experts explicitly disagree.
This is a disingenuous take. This is a cherry-picked article that does not come to the conclusion you draw here. You also state "It does have neurological effects" but leave out the most important piece of information for that to be true: high doses.
Why should anyone trust what you say when you're twisting the information to suit your narrative?
Counterpoint: I live in an area without fluoridated water, and I'm told that dentists can reliably identify people who didn't grow up here by the state of their teeth.
Anecdote in scientific debate? Wild
It's actually exactly in line with what the link above says.
In other words, water fluoridation might not make much difference for adults, but it can for children.
The link above is not reputable and was directly refuted by, among others, the American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, the American Association for Dental Research, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Harvard School of Dental Medicine itself. From the response letter signed by the dean of the HSDM:
The magazine article states that CWF “does not appear to have any benefits in adults” based on the results of the Cochrane systematic review. However, the Cochrane review did not make this conclusion. Rather, the review specifically states “We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.” Due to the lack of studies that met the inclusion criteria, the Cochrane authors were not able to make any conclusion on the effect of CWF on adults. In fact, there are studies that were not included in the Cochrane review that demonstrate a caries preventive benefit of CWF in adults.
See the letter I linked for the studies it's referencing with a demonstrated benefit to adult teeth. The Cochrane review's inability to conclude whether there was a benefit or not was a limitation of the Cochrane review's inclusion criteria, and not an absence of studies indicating a benefit.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. The anecdote happens to parallel the scientific consensus, but "I'm told that dentists can tell" isn't an appropriate argument when discussing medical research.
The internet do be like that sometimes, egos and the uninformed run free
Your link is more or less an opinion piece from a geneticist, so this isn't even her field of study.
All her health issues she points out are for fluoride concentrations over triple the amount that tap water is brought up to.
The reason it's usage spread across the country was because while the entire country had access to things such as fluoridated toothpaste, counties and cities that started fluoridation of their water supplies consistently had fewer cavities than areas that didn't fluoridate the water. This alone outlines the glaringly obvious flaw in her argument.
Further still, while the US adds fluoride to the tap water in a concentration to reach 0.5mg to 0.7mg per liter of water (a couple drops per 50 gallons), natural drinking water for over 20% of the world is in concentrations well over that (to be clear, being well over that can cause health issues. Too much of anything can cause health issues.)
In other words, there is no evidence that this low concentration of fluoride causes health issues. There is loads of direct evidence that it reduces cavities. Plus, this woman from your opinion piece is talking out of her field. Not to mention that 21% of the world's drinking water supply naturally already falls within the recommended range of what the US takes theirs up to. It's just that most of the US water supply naturally falls below that amount.
The source is not as reputable as it appears. The article in question is not from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, and in fact was condemned by the HSDM. The actual dental experts at Harvard requested a formal retraction of the article: "Based on the significant flaws in the magazine article, we respectfully request that the article be rescinded, and a correction be published to clarify any misleading information that was provided."
That's because it's just a bs opinion piece by some geneticist. There's loads of very conclusive evidence and testing proving that it reduces cavities. Also, this geneticist points out that it only causes problems in doses far higher than what fluoridated tap water gets brought up to.
Keep in mind that they listed Canada as having non-flouride water, presumably based on the sole criteria that it's not a national requirement. The split between communities with and without flouride in their water varies wildly by province.
It's an opinion piece by a geneticist (so not a chemist or biologist or a field that could be related) and she ignores all the direct evidence that every city and county that added fluoride started having fewer cavities than neighboring areas that hadn't yet added it.
She then further points out that it only causes health issues in much higher concentrations than what the US was getting our water supply up to. You know, like literally anything that you get too much of is bad for you. You can literally die from drinking too much plain water. Too much of anything will kill you.
Only 3% of Quebec's population has access to fluoridated water and we have way more dental issues than any other province in Canada.
Interesting. The article doesn’t actually say that fluoridation in water supplies is dangerous but that some researchers are questioning. Generally code for lack of scientific evidence. It also finds that early studies may have had a flawed basis (pretty much all early studies have been found wanting by later scientists) but doesn’t refute the results.The study mentioned in the article talks about high levels of fluoridation which I assume is in lab tests however these levels are not the case in water supplies.
The correct way forward is more actual science based studies.
The bad part about Rfk jr is he probably mixes in some science with quackery. I honestly assumed all his ideas are insane. That's what's so hard about being discerning right now, you have to be on one side or the other.
If they remove it from the water, then change the availability to be OTC for multivitamins with fluoride. I want to be able to get it with our having a copay and whatever else the Dr wants to charge .
many toothpastes have it, no need to use multivitamins
Lemminologist here:
the fluoride levels vary because that’s how numbers do in reality
Next headline will be how fluoride contributes to autism and it will have just as much evidence as the vaccine bit does. How is this even a thing? Is ground zero on this RFK?
Meanwhile, all the people who can’t afford dentists will have even worse teeth going forward. Make America’s teeth British again.
Well look at the statistics:
Fluoride:
Autism:
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
/s because people think I posted this in seriousness.
This is, and I don't say this lightly, one of the dumbest conclusions I've ever seen someone jump to.
Might as well say that fluoride in the water caused software developers, lmao.
Actually, software developers cause autism
Satire, I think.
Classic ice cream sales and violent crimes in summer correlation.
It's too much like the real anti-fluoride arguments, man. I can't recognize it, man.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic but if not, then I'm about to blow your fucking mind
STOP EATING RICE!
NAME YOUR DAUGHTER SARAH, IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THE AMAZON! AND WHATEVER YOU DO...
...DO NOT NAME THEM TRISTEN
If we shut down flights to Antarctica, inflation would've been solved yesterday.
Let's ignore the better diagnosis processes and just take two trending upward statistics and make a broad correlation and call it fact.
Damn, I guess fluoridated water also then caused computers, world population growth and the eradication of polio.
Idk if this is a troll post or this person never heard of the fact that correlation does not equal causation.
Case and point.
They need to do stuff like this often in HS to show students how you can bullshit truths and make its facade of truth feel legit.
Sadly, flouridation conspiracy theories predate RFK Jr. by a long, long time.
but what about my precious bodily fluids?!?
"Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?"
I don't avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.
The question to me is - do we even have to fluoridate water and is this really the best approach?
For example, most European countries do not commonly use fluoride in their water supply, and everyone's just fine! No extra cavities, no special health risks. People commonly drink tap water and do not care about potential for any adverse effects, because it's just that - clean water. And for any teeth-related issues, you already have your toothpaste providing more than enough fluorine.
https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/citycouncil/interest-items/2020/09/city-council-information-on-fluoride-2020-09-08.pdf
Water fluoridation reaches over 13 million Europeans through programs in England, Ireland, Poland, Serbia and Spain
Children in deprived areas benefit most from water fluoridation according to 2018 English health agency report
Over 70 million Europeans receive fluoridated salt through programs in Austria, France, Germany, Switzerland and other countries. Salt fluoridation is recommended when water fluoridation is not feasible
European Academy of Pediatric Dentistry endorses water fluoridation as "core component of oral health policy"
Fluoridated milk programs have operated in Bulgaria, England, Hungary, Russia and Scotland
Several European countries provide free or subsidized fluoride treatments through national healthcare:
Scandinavian schools offer fluoride varnish, tablets and rinse programs
Some regions in Europe have naturally fluoridated water, such as parts of Italy. Italian health officials support water fluoridation but don't implement additional programs due to naturally optimal fluoride levels in some areas
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/about/statement-on-the-evidence-supporting-the-safety-and-effectiveness-of-community-water-fluoridation.html
Evidence shows that water fluoridation prevents tooth decay by providing frequent and consistent contact with low levels of fluoride, ultimately reducing tooth decay by about 25% in children and adults.
evidence shows that schoolchildren living in communities where water is fluoridated have, on average, 2.25 fewer decayed teeth compared to similar children not living in fluoridated communities.
A study to compare costs associated with community water fluoridation with treatment savings achieved through reduced tooth decay, which included 172 public water systems, each serving populations of 1,000 individuals or more, found that 1 year of exposure to fluoridated water yielded an average savings of $60 per person when the lifetime costs of maintaining a restoration were included.
Analyses of Medicaid claims data in 3 other states (Louisiana, New York, and Texas), have also found that children living in fluoridated communities have lower caries related treatment costs than do similar children living in non-fluoridated communities; the difference in annual per child treatment costs ranged from $28 to $67.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9544072/
community water fluoridation continues to decrease cavities by 25% at the population level.
Even with fluoridated products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, this public health practice can reduce an additional 25% of tooth decay in children and adults
In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first U.S. city to fluoridate its public water supply. Five years later, Grand Rapids schoolchildren were found to have significantly fewer cavities than children from the control community of Muskegon, and additional water districts, including Muskegon began fluoridating and seeing similar results
Studies have shown that populations from lower socioeconomic groups within fluoridated communities have less tooth decay when compared to peers in nonfluoridated communities
The cost of a lifetime of water fluoridation for one person is less than the cost of one filling
More info: https://www.ada.org/resources/community-initiatives/fluoride-in-water
Thanks for provided context!
I'll look into the data.
It depends if you believe in the apocryphal story behind fluoridation. This is a story that justifies the state and it's right of medical intervention into your life with the need of your informed consent.
These types of stories are designed to justify the right to act of an entity/egregor using the least objectionnable scenario possible. Once this precedent is established it can built upon to justify other actions in other scenarios. All the other unobjectionnable things done to you or in your name
The question is: does it make sense to buy toothpaste with fluoride then or can I buy one without? Just because my kids don't like the peppermint ones and other flavours are most of the times without fluoride
Non-fluoridated toothpaste is mainly for kids who are too young to be able to consistently spit it all out. The concentration of fluoride in toothpaste is high enough that you shouldn't be swallowing it, because doing that on the regular is harmful to your teeth. Gray discoloration is one of the first symptoms.
If your kids are capable of doing "rinse and spit," then they should be using fluoridated toothpaste.
And even then, there's a significant safety margin worked into the advice that you shouldn't swallow toothpaste. You'd need to eat several tubes of prescription strength toothpaste to get sick from fluoride.
Still rinse and spit though
Absolutely true - and I just remembered, even if your kids are little and using non-fluoridated toothpaste, you should still be using this time to teach them rinse and spit.
What is this rinse? You are supposed to leave the toothpaste on your teeth iirc. No water rinse.
Edit sorry realized this comes off harsh but not sure how to fix it. Lmao
With you having to judge millions of children, that you need to get high just to stay sane; you get a pass.
But there is a general recommendation to not eat or drink for 15-30min after brushing to give enough time for the fluoride to bind to any exposed enamel surfaces. It's also better to use a fluoridated mouthrinse over water, if getting the grittyness is what you're after.
Always buy flouride toothpaste.
For other toothpaste that still strengthens enamel, there is toothpaste with hydroxyapatite (which can be ingested, at least that specific ingredient). Though it is probably more expensive.
Unfortunately hydroxyapatite is not approved for dental use in the United States of America.
I mean you can buy it here in a normal store. So I'm not sure if you mean a dentist can't use/provide it, or if you're thinking about the nano forms of it.
Edit, just saw this:
Fluoridated toothpaste is more effective than drinking water. The fluoride works by direct contact with the enamel. Another reason it doesn't make sense to put it in drinking water.
Fluoride in the water is beneficial in the pre-eruptive phase (when teeth are still growing). Fluoride ingestion increases tooth resistence to cavities if the ingestion happened while they were growing.
This does mean that fluoride in water isn't really useful after you have all your permanent teeth though.
But what about our precious bodily fluids?
I don't avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.
throws Coors light
"That's just what they want you to think!"
Come up with a rebuttal to this that an ignorant right-winger would believe.
Okay fluoride gang (of which I may be a member)…
A study about the affects of fluoride in municipal water on plants: MSU study
Depending on where you live, there is already enough naturally occurring fluoride in the well water that adding more doesn't mean much. How else do you think they discovered fluoride helps your teeth?
Since I live in a rural area and need to have my own well, I know my water contains enough fluoride that it would be silly to add more. But some areas do not have enough naturally present. So it would be interesting to see the water test results for Florida cities to check the amount of naturally occurring fluoride present. YMMV
Used to be a thing about it turning your teeth green
It could likely be replaced with hydroxyapatite instead (it also can be used to remove lead and other things from water, which makes searching about being added to municipal water difficult). Good for not only teeth, also bones.
I also wonder if adding other vitamins would make more sense (just enough to stop deficiencies) if we're talking about health outcomes, though the first idea I had with vitamin C came up with results of that messing with the chlorine in the water.
Toxicology isn't a real profession. These people are run by big toxicity. For real water advice you want a homeopath.
This post written by Big Fluoride.
That toxic byproduct of fertilizer production is not going to dump itself in our water supply am I riiight?
Cmon, at least get the byproducts main source correct in your propaganda comment!
It is a fact, look it up.
https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-transformation-industrial-waste-public-health-miracle
You were joking right?
If that's actually your idea of a valid source, and you're not just trolling......I feel so sorry for you.
That article is just not correct. I can't even begin to point out all the flaws in it.
Everything is accurate and sourced so don't bother blowing smoke up my ass anymore.
The only flaw here is someone who doesn't know what they are talking about about trying the defend a stupid practice.
Hmmm. The author of the article has a PhD in environmental history, so a social science. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not actual hard science. Where people research and develop novel things.
I don't want to blow smoke anywhere near any asses. But does that article site one primary literature source? They're all articles or if it's an actual paper, it's an opinion piece. I'm not going through all of them because it reads like some crazy uncle on a conspiracy theory rant.
Are you a scientist? I know what I'm talking about, although I'm afraid you're not.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99688-w
There's an actual journal article (I know it's only Nature scientific reports, but it's a valid reference). I know it doesn't explicitly state it's not toxic, but:
"Thus, based on the evidence available on the topic, it is not possible to state neither any association or the lack of an association between F exposure and any neurological disorder."
Taken straight from their conclusion.
Obviously there's many more sources, and again, I'm happy to provide you with some of you'd like to enhance your knowledge on the subject.
Fluoride is safe topically and ineffective when introduced to our water supply. It is not some giant conspiracy, just a practice that is no longer necessary and unsafe because the industrial waste fluoride that is used is contaminated. Please save me the appeal to authority nonsense.
Nah trust me bro.
Toxicity is a big word. What about small long term effects?
Lithium is prohibited in eu outside of psychiatric therapy, too. But it might be an essential nutrient (small doses).
My trust into the official
narrativescience is limited.Edit: as the tobacco interest group has proven studies and scientific evidence can be bought. Don’t know why y’all are reacting so allergic
You don't need to place any trust in any narrative, there are scientific studies on the topic.
You're replacing the word science with "narrative" because that's what your far right deep state overlords have told you to do. Wake up sheeple!
However you described toxicity as a big word, so I doubt you are....a thinker.
That’s a bit much extrapolation from the few things I’ve written
Yep
However to give you the benefit of the doubt I went through your comment history just now
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/14936739
Yep, you're a red-state-pilled alt righter or something in that vein. First impressions ✅
Who's profiting off of putting flouride in the water? What is this flouride industry making money hand over first?
“Essential” is a bigger word than “toxicity”.
The question about this is that the same can be said about lead. Do we want to consume that?
No. It can't be said for fluoride. Lead is known to be extremely toxic. We've seen what it does. Fluoride in water is not toxic, which has been shown multiple times.
Your argument is asinine.
I don’t know why people can’t keep an open mind and look at issues without prejudice. What did I do to you for the name calling?
Anyway fluoride in water can be toxic. It’s all about the dose
Well sorry, I suppose I didn't need to call your comment asinine.
But this is not an unknown issue. Multitudes of testing throughout decades have shown there is no toxicity for the levels that are in water. The county you're living in most likely has their own case study available for you to read.
I can look at issues without prejudice, but valid issues. This is not one of those.
Also, if you're talking about toxicity due to dose, you'll die from water consumption before you'd get anywhere near toxic levels of fluoride. Don't even think about any sort of medication you're taking, it's also probably more toxic than the levels of fluoride in water.
Again, sorry. I don't want to be mean, but there's so much information out there opposing your comment. I'd happily point you in the right direction if you'd like to read up on the plethora of resources stating it's not toxic, and at least somewhat beneficial.
I never met the fellow. I never did the science either.
You all are easily impressed.
Have you done any science?
Case in point
I did say "any" science.
Same. I haven't met any of the authors of books I read either.
That's rather beside my point. As you well know.
Why play these games?
I am still concerned about fluoride, but for different reasons. The federal government says there is too much natural fluoride in our water so we must import water to dilute it. The federal government doesn't trust us with police officers, or politicians, but surely the public water company isn't corrupt or incompetent....surely.
But hey, our teeth are really white and no ones died from flouride, far more likely to die from sudden lead.
Having worked for a municipal water system, no, they are not incompetent when engineers are at the helm. Corruption I saw was related to giving small incidental work to friends, some weird politics sometimes, but that was about it.
More importantly: everyone understood our job wasn't to make money, we were foundational to our city's livelihood & health, that of our neighbors, our mother's and brothers. Quality was job 1, and I really do mean that. Could we have moved faster and for less money? Maybe. But I'm glad we picked doing the job right over doing it fast.
Before even wondering about the health effects, we should ask ourselves whether it actually achieves the desired goal. I doubt that.
If it doesn't, we don't even need to wonder about safety; we'll just stop burning money.
I asked myself and I had no idea.
I then looked to experts who make a career of studying theses things and are held to standards and peer review. There is a Cochrane review on this topic just updated last month. The answer is that yes it does help reduce childhood caries at least a little bit.
If democrats proposed this idea everyone would love it. Fuck trump but removing fluoride from the water is a good idea .
The fluoride is intentionally added to the water to improve tooth health.
Democrats would love it. Republicans would suddenly discover that flouride is the only thing standing between our children and the gay agenda.
Hahahaha exactly
My barometer is when it's something that pretty much only the U.S. is obsessed with doing, then it's probably a dumb thing caused by lobbyists or something. Fluoridation of water falls under this.
fluoridation has nothing to with any teeth-related issues, it was all about the US industry having a way to dispose of fluoride, a byproduct of many industrial activities. You can't just dump fluoride on a river as it has several adverse side-effects, but it you can convince everyone it is good for their health then it's okay to dump it on the water supply.
Is this what you do? Just spread as many lies a possible on the internet?
lmao. rofl even. Fluoride is incredibly expensive AND useful, if you run an industry you wanna make sure you absolutely recover it from byproducts and reuse it, not to mention that with how low the levels in tap water are, it wouldn't be even a good way of disposing a lot of it
No.. just no
If that was true there are a lot of other things they could dump in the water
So miniscule it won't poison you but just enough to prevent tooth decay. You really can't have it both ways. Pretending there is any real control over measurement is also ridiculous. Not to mention there is no need to drink fluoride.
You know what does work? Using fluoride topically and getting good dental care.
Those are different mechanisms, why can’t they have different concentrations?
I don't know. I do know fluoride works topically. I also know there is no mechanism in the body to return fluoride to the teeth topically after it is swallowed.
So drinking fluoride is pointless.
You don't need to know. Statistically dental health increases when municipal water is fluoridated.
Having read many studies on this the consensus is it probably does not help much if the population has adequate dental care.
https://www.cochrane.org/news/water-fluoridation-less-effective-now-past
We know what works, dental care and brushing have a huge benefit that is proven.
The idea of giving everyone fluoride in the water supply is pretty retarded really for several reasons.
If it naturally occurs fine, but adding it is ridiculous.
Ok, so for the poor people without care in those populations we say fuck them?
The mentally ill that don't do self care?
Fluoridation is providing a baseline. "Does not help much" is a useless statement if that includes everyone with the means for higher levels of care.
There are a bunch of policy decisions that are like this. Yes, it won't help you. Get over it, you aren't the whole city.
yes! someone finally arrived at the entire platform of the republican party: fuck everyone who's not a rich cunt.
You don't even know where the fluoride comes from that is added to our water supply. Open your fucking eyes and realize it is okay to be wrong
https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-transformation-industrial-waste-public-health-miracle
Pharmeucutical grade fluoride works great topically. Dumping a toxic chemical in our water supply is borderline insane.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/community-water-fluoridation-across-canada.html
I don't care if the fluoride source is toxic waste. It's not injected in any quantity to do anything but provide positive effects.
Are you going to criticize chemo therapy for being gasp RAdiOaCtiVE???? This is the same thing.
Atoms are atoms...
you said it yourself.
So you don't know, but all the data scientists and dentists, who DO know and are subject matter experts, who say it's a good idea are to be ignored, because of your sheer ignorance?
Nobody refutes anything I am saying. I think you are confused.
We've refuted it, scientific testing has refuted it, you're just plugging your ears and refusing to listen because you don't like the answers.
And because random social media people spout conspiracies about it and clearly they're more educated on the topic than actual trained professionals.
/S
I said fluoride works topically. Do you deny this? Please provide evidence to the contrary.
I said there is no way for the body to return fluoride where it is needed. Swallowing fluoride is pointless and unnecessary at best. At worst it is probably not a good idea to have fluoride in your water if you have kidney disease.
Don't bother actually, we already no you know literally nothing about this topic.
You are spouting assertions about what sounds right while ignoring bodies of scientific evidence contradicting your viewpoint. Just because Lemmy users are unwilling to spend 20-30 minutes digging through arixv to refute you doesn't make you right.
You don't want to go and look up and analyze evidence that floride in the water supply is beneficial, you want to just assert the hypothesis you've formed as likely truth without evidence and research into related work, and I can confidently say this because experts who spend their lives reading papers and writing them on this very topic are qualified to make these assertions.
...This "sounds right" line of thinking has been the bane of civilization for eons. You aren't breaking up some scientific fallacy like the church believing the Earth is the center of the universe, you are perpetuating one.
<.< And before it’s swallowed?
If it is so good to swallow them why not swallow after brushing. Why are you so obsessed with swallowing something that does not help.
Plenty of things we ingest are toxic in high doses, but valuable in smaller amounts.
Like everything, including water?
Mm like beer
Different concentrations. If water is so good for you, why don’t you drink 10 gallons a day?
So then you admit there is no point in drinking fluoride then? Miniscule amount does not make a difference and the normal topical amount you use while brushing is not safe to swallow.
This isn't rocket science.
So then you admit there’s no point in drinking water then?