4 ms·

Most people benefit significantly. That has been proven in study after study. The toxicity has not been, or it wouldn’t be widespread world wide. I’m glad your

Most people benefit significantly. That has been proven in study after study. The toxicity has not been, or it wouldn’t be widespread world wide. I’m glad your genetic makeup, diet, microbiome, etc is working out for you. That may or may not change with time. The CDC says there’s a 25% reduction in cavities for children due to fluoride [1]. So it’s not like fluoride is only for cavity prevention, and perhaps your teeth would have been even worse without it. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html

colordrops 4y ago
I've gone through several studies and you are not representing the field fairly. There are many studies going both ways. It's far from a slam dunk consensus. Furthermore, there is absolutely no question that fluoride is toxic. It's just a question whether the amounts in water and toothpaste are enough to cause measurable negative effects. Considering this, why don't we add things like B12, magnesium, and vitamin D to the water? They are all deficient in a large percentage of the population and cause severe problems, far worse than dental caries. The reason they are not is because it's not the business of the water supply to act as medicine for the general populace. It should come from individual products. You see fortified foods and vitamins, as well as fluoride toothpaste and mouth washes.
- azinman2 4y ago
  Could you cite your sources? I’m genuinely curious. There’s a lot of quackery out there on this since the tin foils love to accuse fluoride of somehow being a gov brain control method. Of course fluoride is toxic at a certain level - so is water! The dose makes the poison. The question is if it’s a worthwhile trade off for society, and is it toxic at the levels used. It can’t be too toxic given the extremely large populations that have received it for decades without people dropping dead because of it. In fact life expectancy has only gone up since it’s introduction in 1945. Municipal water I believe is chlorinated as well, which in sufficient quantities is bad, but in small amounts is worth the trade off to kill the germs. The US requires flour to be enriched with thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, folic acid, and iron. So there are other mandated ways to achieve vitamins in public health. My guess is water just isn’t an appropriate vector for those things for a variety of reasons, but that’s pure speculation. It’s an interesting question. On the other hand, I don’t believe you’ll naturally get fluoride anywhere else but injected into your water (or naturally occurring), so that’s probably a good deal why.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    This is not a good faith argument to claim that fluoride and water are in the same class of substances when it comes to toxicity. Also you are wrong that all flour in the US must be enriched. I have some unenriched flour on my shelf right now. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-children...
    - defrost 4y ago
      The Harvard quoted study above looks at children in China in areas with high levels in groundwater .. high being of the order of 3-11 mg/litre. The correlated 'damage' cited was of less than half an IQ point observed difference at the upper end of the high levels. The fluoride doses used in water treatment (here in Australia) are at most 1 mg/litre.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        The amounts with measurable cognitive deficits were less that the amounts added to drinking water in the US in several of the Chinese regions. It's in the study's data.
        defrost 4y ago
        The study Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [1] (discussed in your link above) has data on drinking water in China. It includes quotes relavant to the USofA: Such circumstances are difficult to find in many industrialized countries, because fluoride concentrations in community water are usually no higher than 1 mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay. and In response to the recommendation of the NRC (2006), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the U.S. EPA recently announced that DHHS is proposing to change the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L from the currently recommended range of 0.7–1.2 mg/L, and the U.S. EPA is reviewing the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which currently is set at 4.0 mg/L Note that the U.S. EPA is reviewing the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water concerns levels naturally occuring and is not a recommendation to add fluoride to US drinking water in excess of 1 mg/litre. I am unable to find data in that report that supports your assertion. If you have data you wish to draw eyes to then please quote the numbers and link to the source. [1] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912

colordrops 4y ago

I've gone through several studies and you are not representing the field fairly. There are many studies going both ways. It's far from a slam dunk consensus. Furthermore, there is absolutely no question that fluoride is toxic. It's just a question whether the amounts in water and toothpaste are enough to cause measurable negative effects. Considering this, why don't we add things like B12, magnesium, and vitamin D to the water? They are all deficient in a large percentage of the population and cause severe problems, far worse than dental caries. The reason they are not is because it's not the business of the water supply to act as medicine for the general populace. It should come from individual products. You see fortified foods and vitamins, as well as fluoride toothpaste and mouth washes.

azinman2 4y ago
Could you cite your sources? I’m genuinely curious. There’s a lot of quackery out there on this since the tin foils love to accuse fluoride of somehow being a gov brain control method. Of course fluoride is toxic at a certain level - so is water! The dose makes the poison. The question is if it’s a worthwhile trade off for society, and is it toxic at the levels used. It can’t be too toxic given the extremely large populations that have received it for decades without people dropping dead because of it. In fact life expectancy has only gone up since it’s introduction in 1945. Municipal water I believe is chlorinated as well, which in sufficient quantities is bad, but in small amounts is worth the trade off to kill the germs. The US requires flour to be enriched with thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, folic acid, and iron. So there are other mandated ways to achieve vitamins in public health. My guess is water just isn’t an appropriate vector for those things for a variety of reasons, but that’s pure speculation. It’s an interesting question. On the other hand, I don’t believe you’ll naturally get fluoride anywhere else but injected into your water (or naturally occurring), so that’s probably a good deal why.
- colordrops 4y ago
  This is not a good faith argument to claim that fluoride and water are in the same class of substances when it comes to toxicity. Also you are wrong that all flour in the US must be enriched. I have some unenriched flour on my shelf right now. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-children...
  - defrost 4y ago
    The Harvard quoted study above looks at children in China in areas with high levels in groundwater .. high being of the order of 3-11 mg/litre. The correlated 'damage' cited was of less than half an IQ point observed difference at the upper end of the high levels. The fluoride doses used in water treatment (here in Australia) are at most 1 mg/litre.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      The amounts with measurable cognitive deficits were less that the amounts added to drinking water in the US in several of the Chinese regions. It's in the study's data.
      - defrost 4y ago
        The study Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [1] (discussed in your link above) has data on drinking water in China. It includes quotes relavant to the USofA: Such circumstances are difficult to find in many industrialized countries, because fluoride concentrations in community water are usually no higher than 1 mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay. and In response to the recommendation of the NRC (2006), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the U.S. EPA recently announced that DHHS is proposing to change the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L from the currently recommended range of 0.7–1.2 mg/L, and the U.S. EPA is reviewing the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which currently is set at 4.0 mg/L Note that the U.S. EPA is reviewing the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water concerns levels naturally occuring and is not a recommendation to add fluoride to US drinking water in excess of 1 mg/litre. I am unable to find data in that report that supports your assertion. If you have data you wish to draw eyes to then please quote the numbers and link to the source. [1] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912