4 ms·

I'm not in any way advocating for toxins in the water supply, but do you worry that news like this will embolden anti-flouride people?

by lawpoop 10y ago

bykovich 10y ago
Heaven forbid accurate reporting embolden undesirable elements.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  Looking at you, anti-vaxxers
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
If I understand correctly, I'd rather have cavities than cancer. That is: Flouride is supposed to help prevent tooth decay. This stuff, on the other hand, "has been linked to" cancer (how strongly, I'm not sure). But if warning about a cancer-causer kills flouridation as collateral damage, well, I prefer that to the other way around (not doing anything about the cancer-causer to protect people's teeth).
- loblollyboy 10y ago
  This is extremely non-scientific, but I am an american living outside of the us - and I often wonder 'what's wrong with us' when I meet Americans. Maybe we just have it too easy, maybe we don't have to open up our minds to other cultures (we are the dominant one). But I've met enough people that just make me think c'mon man! That said, we're the dominant culture for a reason - we have some super talented people. At the end of the day, 'flouride' probably isn't the root-cause of our 'unique'-ness.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  There's more evidence of tooth decay leading to heart disease and other chronic illness than there is linking flouride to cancer.
elihu 10y ago
We had a big debate in Portland about whether we should add fluoride to our water (we voted it down). As far as I can tell, fluoride in the water is beneficial to people who don't brush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste, but for the majority of us who do, it's not particularly helpful. I think people should generally have a right not to ingest substances that they don't want to, especially when said substances aren't doing anything useful and might be marginally harmful to some. There's also an argument that all that fluoride eventually ends up accumulating in the environment, and there may be long term negative effects from that. There's no benefit from watering our lawns or flushing our toilets with fluoridated water. So, I don't really think this is so much of a science versus anti-science debate as a question of how you should weight the costs and benefits of a policy that people can't realistically opt out of if they don't approve of it.
herbps10 10y ago
The best way to prevent this, in my opinion, is to be clear that the research has nothing to do with fluoridated water. From my colleague: "The highly fluorinated chemicals that we discussed are organic compounds, meaning that they contain carbon atoms. They are called highly fluorinated or per- and polyfluoro alkyl substances because they have many fluorine atoms, and the carbon atoms are entirely or often bound to fluorine (There may be highly fluorinated chemicals that aren't strictly PFASs, but that's a minor point). These highly fluorinated chemicals have unique chemical properties that give them their characteristic grease and water resistance (typically one end of the molecule is more soluble in oil, and the other end is more soluble in water, similar to other surfactants). The concerns about PFAS toxicity stem from the properties of the whole molecule and not just because they contain fluorine."
- lawpoop 10y ago
  Yeah, but people just hear "flouride" and think "OMG That's what they're putting in the water!" Just like they hear about mercury in vaccines and assume they cause nerve damage. The masses understand at the soundbite level only. I don't know what to do about this.
jobenjo 10y ago
As an "anti-fluoride person", I just want to go on the record to state that it's ridiculous to be more concerned with riling up a particular group than having safe drinking water. In fact, counter to common opinion, we have a solidly science-based view on this issue--I'm not sure how we got grouped in with anti-vaxxers and others. There simply isn't good evidence that adding fluoride to drinking water is a justifiable public health method to reduce cavities, which is why 97% of Western Europe doesn't do it[0]. And because there's no opt-out, it may be dangerous for bottle-fed babies [1]. I'm not saying it's the world's biggest problem right now (by a long shot), but dispensing medicine in water is not good policy. [0] - http://fluoridealert.org/content/water_europe/ http://fluoridealert.org/content/water_europe/ [1] - http://fluoridealert.org/issues/infant-exposure/ http://fluoridealert.org/issues/infant-exposure/

I'm not in any way advocating for toxins in the water supply, but do you worry that news like this will embolden anti-flouride people?

by lawpoop 10y ago

I'm not in any way advocating for toxins in the water supply, but do you worry that news like this will embolden anti-flouride people?

bykovich 10y ago

Heaven forbid accurate reporting embolden undesirable elements.

lawpoop 10y ago
Looking at you, anti-vaxxers

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

If I understand correctly, I'd rather have cavities than cancer. That is: Flouride is supposed to help prevent tooth decay. This stuff, on the other hand, "has been linked to" cancer (how strongly, I'm not sure). But if warning about a cancer-causer kills flouridation as collateral damage, well, I prefer that to the other way around (not doing anything about the cancer-causer to protect people's teeth).

loblollyboy 10y ago
This is extremely non-scientific, but I am an american living outside of the us - and I often wonder 'what's wrong with us' when I meet Americans. Maybe we just have it too easy, maybe we don't have to open up our minds to other cultures (we are the dominant one). But I've met enough people that just make me think c'mon man! That said, we're the dominant culture for a reason - we have some super talented people. At the end of the day, 'flouride' probably isn't the root-cause of our 'unique'-ness.
lawpoop 10y ago
There's more evidence of tooth decay leading to heart disease and other chronic illness than there is linking flouride to cancer.

elihu 10y ago

We had a big debate in Portland about whether we should add fluoride to our water (we voted it down). As far as I can tell, fluoride in the water is beneficial to people who don't brush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste, but for the majority of us who do, it's not particularly helpful. I think people should generally have a right not to ingest substances that they don't want to, especially when said substances aren't doing anything useful and might be marginally harmful to some. There's also an argument that all that fluoride eventually ends up accumulating in the environment, and there may be long term negative effects from that. There's no benefit from watering our lawns or flushing our toilets with fluoridated water. So, I don't really think this is so much of a science versus anti-science debate as a question of how you should weight the costs and benefits of a policy that people can't realistically opt out of if they don't approve of it.

herbps10 10y ago

The best way to prevent this, in my opinion, is to be clear that the research has nothing to do with fluoridated water. From my colleague: "The highly fluorinated chemicals that we discussed are organic compounds, meaning that they contain carbon atoms. They are called highly fluorinated or per- and polyfluoro alkyl substances because they have many fluorine atoms, and the carbon atoms are entirely or often bound to fluorine (There may be highly fluorinated chemicals that aren't strictly PFASs, but that's a minor point). These highly fluorinated chemicals have unique chemical properties that give them their characteristic grease and water resistance (typically one end of the molecule is more soluble in oil, and the other end is more soluble in water, similar to other surfactants). The concerns about PFAS toxicity stem from the properties of the whole molecule and not just because they contain fluorine."

lawpoop 10y ago
Yeah, but people just hear "flouride" and think "OMG That's what they're putting in the water!" Just like they hear about mercury in vaccines and assume they cause nerve damage. The masses understand at the soundbite level only. I don't know what to do about this.

jobenjo 10y ago

As an "anti-fluoride person", I just want to go on the record to state that it's ridiculous to be more concerned with riling up a particular group than having safe drinking water. In fact, counter to common opinion, we have a solidly science-based view on this issue--I'm not sure how we got grouped in with anti-vaxxers and others. There simply isn't good evidence that adding fluoride to drinking water is a justifiable public health method to reduce cavities, which is why 97% of Western Europe doesn't do it[0]. And because there's no opt-out, it may be dangerous for bottle-fed babies [1]. I'm not saying it's the world's biggest problem right now (by a long shot), but dispensing medicine in water is not good policy. [0] - http://fluoridealert.org/content/water_europe/ http://fluoridealert.org/content/water_europe/ [1] - http://fluoridealert.org/issues/infant-exposure/ http://fluoridealert.org/issues/infant-exposure/