7 ms·
Experts clash over report suggesting fluoride can affect brain development
- fluorosisteeth 3y ago[flagged]
- fluorosisteeth 3y ago[flagged]
- Obscurity4340 3y agoSlightly off-topic but wasn't there work on eliminating the bacteria that colonizes the mouth and causes tooth decay? I vaguely remember reading there was putative work that had reached trials or something and it just kind of fell of the map. Obviously thats when things are found to have efficacy and be safe etc but the tenor was slightly conspiratorial in the way of "ICE manyfacturer buys and shelves first electric car"... Are the mouth bacteria actually valuable or impossible to erradicate?
- apapapa 3y agoI don't think fluoride affected my brain or helped my teeth. What's the purpose of it?
- hindsightbias 3y agoThis is a good sign for anyone considering dental school. Only a matter of time.
- akira2501 3y agoThey started fluoridating the water in 1946. They started making fluoridated toothpaste in 1956. The issue isn't getting fluorine into Americans, the issue is doing it in a medically and ethically appropriate way. There should be zero impacts on average dental health of Americans.
- BadHumans 3y agoLooking up north to Canada, there are cities that removed fluoridated water and found an increase in severe cavities in children[1]. This would assuredly happen in America as well because like we found during the pandemic and people not knowing how to wash their hands, most people do not brush their teeth properly either. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/tooth-decay-calgary-fluoride-water-1.3450616 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/tooth-decay-calgary-f...
- akira2501 3y agoI can imagine several ways to manage that outcome that don't involve engaging in an unrequested medical intervention on their behalf using the public water supply. They also didn't "find" that. They have a very limited study with exceptionally poor controls that they openly acknowledge and thus they're only capable of suggesting an "indication" that this "may be true." For such an important question, I would want a lot more work than that particular study, which only examined 2nd graders, has done before arriving at a conclusion that we should medicate an entire population without consent. Finally, I'd suggest a better study, between the cities that had fluoride removed, were the citizens even informed that a change was made to their water supply? 2 to 3 years later, instead of looking at kids teeth, how many adults understood the ramifications of the change? How many of them even consciously _knew_ the change had been made? Which highlights the point here, it's fundamentally unethical for a government to wholesale dose their entire population, even if they think they're doing them a favor.
- BadHumans 3y ago> Which highlights the point here, it's fundamentally unethical for a government to wholesale dose their entire population, even if they think they're doing them a favor. Do you hold the same belief when the government requires kids to get certain vaccines before entering school?
- akira2501 3y ago> Do you hold the same belief when the government requires kids to get certain vaccines before entering school? What an odd inference to attempt to draw. There's no comparison. Can parents decide to NOT send their children to school because they don't want to comply with entry requirements? If the answer is yes, then your question is obviously a complete non-sequitur.
- runj__ 3y agoUnless we finally get that tooth growing paste that has been talked about for the past two decades. Or actually, offering to shave those teeth down might still make a good business proposition,
- jeffbee 3y agoRecapping American jurisprudence in 2024: anyone can file a suit in order to get a jurist to draw a conclusion of chemistry. Nobody has standing to get a jurist to draw a conclusion about matters of law, such as whether their rights to vote have been violated.
- _yb2s 3y agoThis is an area where the rampant scientism really bugs me... and everyone is polarized politically without looking at the actual evidence. I looked into the peer reviewed evidence myself when deciding if I should give my kid fluoridated water, and it is pretty clear that high doses of fluoride do cause intellectual impairment, among other problems. The approximate dose where this effect likely just begins to occur is right around where municipal water systems that add fluoride target, but the data is unclear. Dismissing this possibility as crazy (as it usually is) seems really ignorant. The most plausible explanation is that current levels likely do cause some small level of intellectual impairment in at least some portion people.
- newzisforsukas 3y agoWhat about fluoridated toothpaste? Mouth rinses? If there is clear indication that it causes neurological harm, why is it in so many things?
- tokai 3y agoIts usually written on the packaging of such products that ingesting them is not healthy.
- cjbgkagh 3y agoYou don’t drink toothpaste, you’re supposed to spit it out
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- goda90 3y agoTypically you're not supposed to swallow toothpaste or mouth rinses, so relatively little actually stays in your body. Tap water is generally considered fine to swallow in large amounts though.
- pzh 3y ago
- tempsy 3y agoSurprised more people don't install reverse osmosis filters in their homes. Fairly easy to buy and install.
- turtlebits 3y agoRO systems filter out beneficial minerals, are $$, and waste a lot of water. I wouldn't suggest them for most people.
- mynameisnoone 3y agoSorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. > filter out beneficial minerals Take a supplement if you feel you are deficient in any specific mineral because it doesn't justify whole body fluoridation or ingesting sketchy tap water. Flint, MI isn't an isolated incident.[0,1,2] Anecdotally, my mom's cousin's family died from silent uranium contamination of the tap water in the Four Corners region. > are $$ I bought a 100 GPD RO system for $180 that uses generic parts. Running cost is $70/year including cleaning and membranes. Yes, it's work. > waste a lot of water FUD. Using less water on landscaping, hygiene, and laundry are far more important. Brine only leaves the system during generation. If there's no demand, e.g., you're not taking any water out of the tank, then there's zero waste. Permeate pumps ($50 option) reduces brine waste considerably by saving the backpressure leaving the system and boosting the intake pressure at the membrane. The brine waste stream is roughly 2x with a permeate pump vs 8x without. RO water at our house is only used for drinking and ice, which is ~2 GPD, so the total water usage is trivial. 0. https://mytapwater.org https://mytapwater.org 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/cities-worst-tap-water-us-2019-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/cities-worst-tap-water-us-20... 2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/31/americas-tap-water-samples-forever-chemicals https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/31/americas-tap...
- leonroy 3y agoHaving had one for years they are fairly expensive, require some not insignificant maintenance and cleaning to keep them running optimally and are made almost entirely of plastic and are not recyclable. A better option would be a carbon + sediment filter but again these are usually plastic fiber or at the least some sort of synthetic fiber and carbon in a plastic shell - a slight step up in recyclability than RO filters though. I'd wager it's far more efficient for the municipality to get their water quality right at the source than every home fit a filter.
- twisteriffic 3y agoA couple of reminders for facts that the last thread on this proved weren't as obvious as you'd think: 1. Studies undertaken as part of a lawsuit should be considered radioactive. See the whole Wakefield thing. 2. Infants don't drink the same amount of water as an adult.
- akaru 3y agoThey drink more if they are formula fed and use that as a water source.
- twisteriffic 3y agoAgain, it is physically impossible for an infant to drink as much water as an adult.
- ipaddr 3y agoThey drink more as a percentage of ingested materials. They are small and suffer increased effects.
- mynameisnoone 3y agoTrue. I wouldn't give a baby anything that doesn't have a safe chain of custody and history of purity and reliability. Even in the 1970's from whence I came, my parents didn't trust tap water for anything more than brushing teeth and showering because the water had floating crap (scale) in it and high hardness. Personal water intake history: 70's - 1993: Name brand bottled water from grocery stores 1993 - 1997: Self-service distilled or reverse osmosis water store, and remote pump at home 1997 - 2001: Carbon block, multi-stage, under sink filtration 2001 - 2018: Add reverse osmosis 2018 - present: Add UV stage PSA1: Alkaline water is a scam PSA2: Buy a water softener, whole house filter system, under-counter RO system, and maybe an indoor tankless water heater together on a wink-wink commercial purchase order (taxable) and have it freighted to your driveway (liftgate charge). It saves thousands on plumber markup and allows buying a TCO cheaper and better system.
- woodruffw 3y agoThis stood out to me: > The American Dental Association has strongly urged NTP to add a disclaimer to the report highlighting its scientific limitations. A recurring theme in alternative health circles is that dentists, doctors, etc. fundamentally can’t be trusted due to profit motives: that “real” medicine is suppressed because there’s no profit in it. I think this quote is worth highlighting because it’s the exact opposite: water fluoridation is virtually free, and has a lopsided positive impact on dental health. In other words: it’s hard to square with the normal claims of profit seeking.
- texuf 3y agoSomebody is getting paid for that fluoride.
- woodruffw 3y agoSomeone is always getting paid for something. That doesn’t mean dentists have a financial interest your municipality’s water supply.
- mynameisnoone 3y agoThey don't except for "eye wash" procedures like fluoride trays and polishes. The ADA has a vested interest in fluoridation because of reputation, and chemical suppliers do to a minimal degree. A long time ago, it was decided US fluoridation "improved public health" with the quick win of moving the needle of tooth decay while failing to consider the long-term, detrimental health effects of systemic fluoride ingestion. The rest of the world doesn't do it because of the evidence against it and widespread availability of modern dental care products containing fluoride. The trivialization of anti-fluoridation is primarily due to mass media indoctrination, i.e., Dr. Strangelove, and association with conspiracy wingnuts.
- woodruffw 3y agoA reputational interest is impossible to falsify. But I also disagree: I don’t think the ADA would lose any face over a change in this position to most people (and to the anti-fluoride people, nothing will change). > The rest of the world doesn't do it because of the evidence against it and widespread availability of modern dental care products containing fluoride. Much of continental Europe does fluoridation through dietary additions (e.g. salt). Just because it isn’t in the water doesn’t mean it isn’t added. There are some countries that notably don’t fluoridate at all, and many fall into two camps: they either don’t have safe municipal water supplies, or already have naturally high fluoride levels (sometimes higher than the US’s introduced levels). You’ve flipped the causality, by the way: it’s in Dr. Strangelove because it is a conspiracy wingnut thing to obsess over.
- poulsbohemian 3y agoAt minimum it’s a communist plot to steal our precious bodily fluids
- diego_moita 3y agoSource: https://youtu.be/Qr2bSL5VQgM?si=iSJ0Z5r7LoPSMcEp&t=97 https://youtu.be/Qr2bSL5VQgM?si=iSJ0Z5r7LoPSMcEp&t=97
- poulsbohemian 3y agoTough crowd here on HN, apparently not a lot of classic movie lovers.
- dekhn 3y agoI'd upvote but they weren't trying to steal the fluids, they were trying to impurify them.
- Civitello 3y agoI'm more worried about possible impacts of an increase in atmospheric CO2 on cognitive function. It probably isn't an easily measurable amount on individuals, but across the worlds population it may have a notable effect.
- Jun8 3y agoThe article says "unpublished assessment" but the reason it's unpublished is because it was put on hold, as explained here: https://fluoridealert.org/articles/ntp-will-make-blocked-neurotoxicity-report-public-after-fan-legal-action/#:~:text=NTP%20Will%20Make%20Blocked%20Neurotoxicity%20Report%20Public%20After%20FAN%20Legal%20Action,-February%2023rd%2C%202023&text=The%20Fluoride%20Action%20Network%20has,the%20neurotoxicity%20of%20fluoridation%20chemicals https://fluoridealert.org/articles/ntp-will-make-blocked-neu.... Here's a link to an earlier draft of the report: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2023/fluoride/documents_provided_bsc_wg_031523.pdf https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/... (caution, large PDF file). Look at the summary in 82, with some comments by reviewers. The summary text says: "Existing animal studies provide little insight into the question of whether fluoride exposure affects IQ. Human mechanistic studies were too heterogenous and limited in number to make any determination on biological plausibility. The body of evidence from studies on adults is also limited and provides low confidence that fluoride exposure is associated with adverse effects on adult cognition. There is, however, a large body of evidence on IQ effects in children. There is also some evidence that higher fluoride exposure is associated with other neurodevelopmental and cognitive effects; although, because of the heterogeneity of the outcomes, there is low confidence in the literature for these other effects. This review finds, with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure [e.g., represented by populations whose total fluoride exposure approximates or exceeds the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride (WHO 2017)] is consistently associated with lower IQ in children. More studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ." The commenters raise some objections about the way confidence of the results were expressed. I think the consequences are so dire (IQ impairment in children) that any doubt has to be rigorously examined.
- scotty79 3y agoShouldn't the effect be visible on epidemiological level? Like the one from leaded gasoline?
- _yb2s 3y agoIt is, that is the whole point of this discussion…
- diego_moita 3y agoGive it up, don't use reason against conspiracy theories because they're exactly a refusal to think. Evidence? Just look at the anti-vax paranoia after the Covid vaccine came along. Billions have been vaccinated, deaths decreased and idiots proudly say they won't take vaccines.
- tzs 3y agoThere should be a lot of natural experiments that can test this. Just find the boundaries of municipal water systems that fluoridate and take a look at the populations near the boundary but on opposite sides. Often those boundaries will cut through a neighborhood and so you end up with a population of demographically similar households but some are on city water and some have wells. Many of those neighborhoods will have fluoride levels in their well water that are quite different from the levels in their city water, making them good subjects for a study.