3 ms·
It's one of my favorite movies lol. I don't have super strong feelings on fluoridation one way or the other. Mostly because I'm not a doctor, dentist, or scien
by BWStearns 2y ago
It's one of my favorite movies lol.
I don't have super strong feelings on fluoridation one way or the other. Mostly because I'm not a doctor, dentist, or scientist, so my opinion on the matter shouldn't carry much weight. My main issue is that I suspect the judge and plaintiff's reasoning about this issue are roughly on par with that of Gen Ripper.
Fluoridation or not is almost certainly not a huge impact (given that there's no obvious large scale harm and we've run a very large natural experiment). I'm worried that this is a preview for more meaningful health and science issues where unserious concerns might draw a sympathetic judge and harm public policy.
- cryptonector 2y ago> so my opinion on the matter shouldn't carry much weight If you ask N doctors you'll get N answers about all sorts of things. The received wisdom can be wrong. You have to at least demand that the science to back up <fill in the blank invasive public policy> is solid, and you should at least do a cursory check that it is.
- BWStearns 2y agoI did do a cursory check. There is a broad consensus that fluoridation is at least not harmful, and that it has good dental outcomes. It is extremely well studied and we have decades of solid natural experiments because advanced nations are not in lockstep on this policy and so we have control cases. The conversation does not need my opinion derived from surveying various Youtube channels for dissenting opinions. It, and most conversations surrounding complex technical scientific matters, does need our default position to be humble about what we actually bring to the table.
- cryptonector 2y agoWho said anything about youtube? Humility about what you put in other people's bodies who didn't consent??