> it's different because the risk analysis for individual decisions is completely disparate from the risk analysis of policy decisions. That's true, but when d

> it's different because the risk analysis for individual decisions is completely disparate from the risk analysis of policy decisions. That's true, but when doing the risk analysis for individual decisions, it helps to have actual data to make that analysis. The website says it's safe without justification to say why it's safe, how it's similar to known-safe mechanism, etc.. "Trust me bro it's safe" is not exactly confidence inducing. > Also I'd be interested in you're citation for the fluoride assertion, the last I remember that was a conspiracy theory and the actual published research was mixed and inconclusive? There's this recent report. This is for countries where children received fluoride exposure amounts higher than 1.5 mg fluoride/L of drinking water which is higher than what you'd get in the US. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/... Most of the studies that show lower IQ are in Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mexico where those levels can be reached. Example of studies: - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18695947/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18695947/ - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923889/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923889/ - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3409983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3409983/