3 ms·

Discussed indirectly about a week ago[1]. Two notes: 1. The statue that enables these kinds of reviews has a weak evidentiary standard (specifically, preponde

Discussed indirectly about a week ago[1]. Two notes: 1. The statue that enables these kinds of reviews has a weak evidentiary standard (specifically, preponderance). In other words: it would have been unusual for a judge to deny the request unless it was completely specious. 2. There's no particular indication, either in terms of policy or new research, that the EPA's recognized safe levels for water fluoridation are actually unsafe. From a strategic perspective, it's simpler for the courts to accept a (de facto) weaker than preponderant standard and kick the relitigation of water fluoridation to the EPA, rather than deal with an inevitable avalanche of lawsuits claiming that the truth is being suppressed. It's better (and cheaper) to just do the research again (for the Nth time). [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41757346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41757346

stuaxo 2y ago
The thing that makes me wonder is one thing about how it works: it changes how teeth grow, so there are less ridges, that seems like quite a big effect, and makes me wonder about effects on the rest of the body.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  Do you have a citation for that? Fluoride’s effects at normal municipal levels are exceedingly well studied. (These threads seem to need this said perpetually: nobody is claiming that you can drink a glass of fluoride and be perfectly fine. It’s all about dosage and uptake.)
  - Steven420 2y ago
    The problem I think is that the dosage is unknown. Many foods contain high levels of fluoride that can combine with the fluoride in your water to bring you over the supposed safe level.
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      There are two key points here: 1. The main dietary source of extra fluoride for most people is tea. 2. There’s strong evidence that adults don’t experience detrimental effects from much higher proportions of dietary fluoride — even the most recent skeptic fodder (the NTP manuscript) finds no effect on adults at concentrations an order of magnitude greater than municipal fluoridation can provide. Put together, it’s unlikely that the demographics most susceptible to higher doses of dietary fluoride (meaning children) are receiving those doses. But if you’re worried about your dietary fluoride intake as an adult, you should consider not drinking tea.

stuaxo 2y ago

The thing that makes me wonder is one thing about how it works: it changes how teeth grow, so there are less ridges, that seems like quite a big effect, and makes me wonder about effects on the rest of the body.

woodruffw 2y ago
Do you have a citation for that? Fluoride’s effects at normal municipal levels are exceedingly well studied. (These threads seem to need this said perpetually: nobody is claiming that you can drink a glass of fluoride and be perfectly fine. It’s all about dosage and uptake.)
- Steven420 2y ago
  The problem I think is that the dosage is unknown. Many foods contain high levels of fluoride that can combine with the fluoride in your water to bring you over the supposed safe level.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    There are two key points here: 1. The main dietary source of extra fluoride for most people is tea. 2. There’s strong evidence that adults don’t experience detrimental effects from much higher proportions of dietary fluoride — even the most recent skeptic fodder (the NTP manuscript) finds no effect on adults at concentrations an order of magnitude greater than municipal fluoridation can provide. Put together, it’s unlikely that the demographics most susceptible to higher doses of dietary fluoride (meaning children) are receiving those doses. But if you’re worried about your dietary fluoride intake as an adult, you should consider not drinking tea.