3 ms·

There's this seemingly unspoken assumption that fluoridated drinking water has dental properties worthy of whatever other risks it could have. I don't know eit

There's this seemingly unspoken assumption that fluoridated drinking water has dental properties worthy of whatever other risks it could have. I don't know either way, in fact I'm very curious for a trustworthy source, not of water but of evidence. Anecdotally, I always drank bottled water growing up in the US. I also never had a cavity. Is it genetic? Both of my parents have terrifying teeth issues. Is it diet? Partly - thanks to my mom, I was never obsessed about sweets. Anecdotes aside, why does fluoride belong in drinking water?

pnathan 10y ago
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluo... In summary: The beneficial and the detrimental effects of fluoride naturally present in water were well established by the early 1940s. High levels of fluoride present in concentrations up to 10 mg l–1 were associated with dental fluorosis (yellowish or brownish striations or mottling of the enamel) while low levels of fluoride, less than 0.1 mg l–1, were associated with high levels of dental decay (Edmunds and Smedley, 1996), although poor nutritional status is also an important contributory factor. Concentrations in drinking-water of about 1 mg l–1 are associated with a lower incidence of dental caries, particularly in children, whereas excess intake of fluoride can result in dental fluorosis. In severe cases this can result in erosion of enamel. The margin between the beneficial effects of fluoride and the occurrence of dental fluorosis is small and public health programmes seek to retain a suitable balance between the two (IPCS, 2002). The various in Basically: appropriate amounts of fluoride help your teeth to not decay.
xapata 10y ago
Read the literature. It's not just anecdotes.
mindviews 10y ago
I see a couple of other responses here, but let me address why fluoride belongs in _drinking water_ Fluoride belongs in drinking water in much the same way iodine belongs in salt---it's an extremely cheap, low-risk, and effective way to improve public health. Read some of the references for more details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Effectivene... but the short version is that fluoride is safe and effective and because it's so widespread in use, even if you only drink bottled water you're probably getting secondary exposure from other food/drink sources. And if you brush your teeth regularly with a fluoride toothpaste, then you've got that delivery mechanism covering you as well. In the end, the public health benefits are there because fluoridation is pervasive and hard to avoid. By similar argument, you probably also don't have an iodine deficiency because of all the iodized salt in use. This is interesting because people relying on anecdotal evidence is pretty much the same failure mode for why so many people don't recognize the importance of vaccination. Because it's so pervasive in the US (and other places) it's easy to find stories of "I wasn't vaccinated and I didn't get sick" or similar "I didn't X and Y didn't happen" but it's not just the primary exposure, but all the secondary exposure and effects that also play an important role in public health efforts.
- mancerayder 10y ago
  fluoride is safe and effective and because it's so widespread in use, even if you only drink bottled water you're probably getting secondary exposure from other food/drink sources. And if you brush your teeth regularly with a fluoride toothpaste, then you've got that delivery mechanism covering you as well. In the end, the public health benefits are there because fluoridation is pervasive and hard to avoid. By similar argument, you probably also don't have an iodine deficiency because of all the iodized salt in use. So, I don't think you're factually wrong in most of what you said. But I have to say, you're saying that it's pervasive in other sources besides tap water (since you raise other food/drink sources), but still in your first sentence asserting that it belongs in drinking water. So I ask you, if these other sources of beneficial fluoride exist (like our toothpaste, or even food/drinks), why would it need to be added to the drinking water? And why, of all things, would they choose fluoride to add to the drinking water, and not the myriad other minerals/vitamins we're deficient of. I know that's proposterous to imagine - but fluoride somehow made it.
  - extra88 10y ago
    The secondary food/drink sources contain fluoridation because they're prepared using tap water. If you don't drink tap water, you'll still get some exposure but if you take the fluoride out of the tap water, you won't. If literally everybody brushed their teeth with fluoride toothpaste, I don't know if adding it to the water would still be worthwhile; it might be good for very small children before they have enough teeth to start brushing. As already stated, fluoride is cheap and safe in the water. Other substances aren't cheap, have risk of overdosing (possibly only for people with sensitivities), or are readily supplied through diet. Some substances may also not be transportable through a water system because they too readily bind with others or don't remain in suspension long enough to reach your faucet.
- mancerayder 10y ago
  fluoride is safe and effective and because it's so widespread in use, even if you only drink bottled water you're probably getting secondary exposure from other food/drink sources. And if you brush your teeth regularly with a fluoride toothpaste, then you've got that delivery mechanism covering you as well. In the end, the public health benefits are there because fluoridation is pervasive and hard to avoid. By similar argument, you probably also don't have an iodine deficiency because of all the iodized salt in use. So, I don't think you're factually wrong in most of what you said. But I have to say, you're saying that it's pervasive in other sources besides tap water (since you raise other food/drink sources), but still in your first sentence asserting that it belongs in drinking water. So I ask you, if these other sources of beneficial fluoride exist (like our toothpaste, or even food/drinks), why would it need to be added to the drinking water? And why, of all things, would they choose fluoride to add to the drinking water, and not the myriad other minerals/vitamins we're deficient of. I know that's proposterous to imagine - but fluoride somehow made it.
Spooky23 10y ago
It belongs there because it effectively prevents needless human suffering. Fluoridated water is one of the public health triumphs of the last hundred years. It reduces cavities by 40%. The people who harp on about this are equivalent to anti-vaxxers. NYC has been fluoridating since 1965, as have other cities. If there were evidence of health problems, surely there would be credible evidence by now.

pnathan 10y ago

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluo... In summary: The beneficial and the detrimental effects of fluoride naturally present in water were well established by the early 1940s. High levels of fluoride present in concentrations up to 10 mg l–1 were associated with dental fluorosis (yellowish or brownish striations or mottling of the enamel) while low levels of fluoride, less than 0.1 mg l–1, were associated with high levels of dental decay (Edmunds and Smedley, 1996), although poor nutritional status is also an important contributory factor. Concentrations in drinking-water of about 1 mg l–1 are associated with a lower incidence of dental caries, particularly in children, whereas excess intake of fluoride can result in dental fluorosis. In severe cases this can result in erosion of enamel. The margin between the beneficial effects of fluoride and the occurrence of dental fluorosis is small and public health programmes seek to retain a suitable balance between the two (IPCS, 2002). The various in Basically: appropriate amounts of fluoride help your teeth to not decay.

xapata 10y ago

Read the literature. It's not just anecdotes.

mindviews 10y ago

I see a couple of other responses here, but let me address why fluoride belongs in _drinking water_ Fluoride belongs in drinking water in much the same way iodine belongs in salt---it's an extremely cheap, low-risk, and effective way to improve public health. Read some of the references for more details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Effectivene... but the short version is that fluoride is safe and effective and because it's so widespread in use, even if you only drink bottled water you're probably getting secondary exposure from other food/drink sources. And if you brush your teeth regularly with a fluoride toothpaste, then you've got that delivery mechanism covering you as well. In the end, the public health benefits are there because fluoridation is pervasive and hard to avoid. By similar argument, you probably also don't have an iodine deficiency because of all the iodized salt in use. This is interesting because people relying on anecdotal evidence is pretty much the same failure mode for why so many people don't recognize the importance of vaccination. Because it's so pervasive in the US (and other places) it's easy to find stories of "I wasn't vaccinated and I didn't get sick" or similar "I didn't X and Y didn't happen" but it's not just the primary exposure, but all the secondary exposure and effects that also play an important role in public health efforts.

mancerayder 10y ago
fluoride is safe and effective and because it's so widespread in use, even if you only drink bottled water you're probably getting secondary exposure from other food/drink sources. And if you brush your teeth regularly with a fluoride toothpaste, then you've got that delivery mechanism covering you as well. In the end, the public health benefits are there because fluoridation is pervasive and hard to avoid. By similar argument, you probably also don't have an iodine deficiency because of all the iodized salt in use. So, I don't think you're factually wrong in most of what you said. But I have to say, you're saying that it's pervasive in other sources besides tap water (since you raise other food/drink sources), but still in your first sentence asserting that it belongs in drinking water. So I ask you, if these other sources of beneficial fluoride exist (like our toothpaste, or even food/drinks), why would it need to be added to the drinking water? And why, of all things, would they choose fluoride to add to the drinking water, and not the myriad other minerals/vitamins we're deficient of. I know that's proposterous to imagine - but fluoride somehow made it.
- extra88 10y ago
  The secondary food/drink sources contain fluoridation because they're prepared using tap water. If you don't drink tap water, you'll still get some exposure but if you take the fluoride out of the tap water, you won't. If literally everybody brushed their teeth with fluoride toothpaste, I don't know if adding it to the water would still be worthwhile; it might be good for very small children before they have enough teeth to start brushing. As already stated, fluoride is cheap and safe in the water. Other substances aren't cheap, have risk of overdosing (possibly only for people with sensitivities), or are readily supplied through diet. Some substances may also not be transportable through a water system because they too readily bind with others or don't remain in suspension long enough to reach your faucet.
mancerayder 10y ago
fluoride is safe and effective and because it's so widespread in use, even if you only drink bottled water you're probably getting secondary exposure from other food/drink sources. And if you brush your teeth regularly with a fluoride toothpaste, then you've got that delivery mechanism covering you as well. In the end, the public health benefits are there because fluoridation is pervasive and hard to avoid. By similar argument, you probably also don't have an iodine deficiency because of all the iodized salt in use. So, I don't think you're factually wrong in most of what you said. But I have to say, you're saying that it's pervasive in other sources besides tap water (since you raise other food/drink sources), but still in your first sentence asserting that it belongs in drinking water. So I ask you, if these other sources of beneficial fluoride exist (like our toothpaste, or even food/drinks), why would it need to be added to the drinking water? And why, of all things, would they choose fluoride to add to the drinking water, and not the myriad other minerals/vitamins we're deficient of. I know that's proposterous to imagine - but fluoride somehow made it.

Spooky23 10y ago

It belongs there because it effectively prevents needless human suffering. Fluoridated water is one of the public health triumphs of the last hundred years. It reduces cavities by 40%. The people who harp on about this are equivalent to anti-vaxxers. NYC has been fluoridating since 1965, as have other cities. If there were evidence of health problems, surely there would be credible evidence by now.