24 ms·

Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

• bananapub 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • croes 2y ago
    It gets worse https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484093
  • TMWNN 2y ago
    I don't know whether water fluoridation is worthwhile. But I do know that various European countries have discontinued it. <https://web.archive.org/web/20160303202219/http://www.appgaf.org.uk/data/433-water-fluoridation.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160303202219/http://www.appgaf...>
  • lolinder 2y ago
    Fluoridation of water isn't the best grounds for arguing the US is backwards, given that it has hitherto been an outlier in how much fluoridation is happening [0]. Most of the developed world doesn't come close to the reach that the US has. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_countr...
• dboreham 2y ago
  You can provide your own flouride (live in a house with well water).
  • jedberg 2y ago
    Assuming you're wealthy enough and well informed enough to know that you should.
  • kstrauser 2y ago
    You can provide lots of stuff yourself if the state abandons the whole idea of public health. Of course, be prepared for your taxes and/or insurance going up to cover your neighbors who don't pay for the same preventative care.
    • csdreamer7 2y ago
      Pretty much-was told by an insurance broker one of the biggest factors past history of weather and the obvious things (flooding possibility, dry trees) is my neighbors. Didn't get into specifics but I suspect drugs and gangs.
      • lurk2 2y ago
        >one of the biggest factors One of the biggest factors of what?
        • Vegenoid 2y ago
          Based on the context, I believe insurance prices
    • 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
      Public health is a conspiracy to attempt to get our young men prepared for war!
  • XorNot 2y ago
    Children can't, and a lifetime of dental issues they didn't have the knowledge or good fortune to have prevented is a serious issue.
    • Pigalowda 2y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_countr...
      • XorNot 2y ago
        What does this have to do with childhood dental outcomes? For example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6169031/pdf/10.1177_0022034518774331.pdf https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6169031/pdf/10.1177... Which finds that fluoridated water likely conservatively prevents about 30% of childhood dental caries.
• jedberg 2y ago
  And dentists rejoiced at their newfound source of income! /s This is so dumb, and based on psudoscience at best, and straight up falsities at worst. In 10 years we're going to hear about how cavities are so much higher in Utah than anywhere else.
  • WillPostForFood 2y ago
    I'm not following closely, but is this pseudoscience? https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/fluoride-childrens-health-gran... https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...
    • jedberg 2y ago
      Those are based on countries with much higher levels of fluoride than the USA adds. Follow up studies have found the levels in the USA to be perfectly safe and in fact beneficial since poor people don't get dental care like they do in other countries.
      • WillPostForFood 2y ago
        Please share study that shows it is safe in the US for children. The EPA allows up to 2mg/L in water and we have some evident that 1.5mg/L has negative effects on children. HN Comments were very credulous before the election. Shows how flexible belief in science is. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39235663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39235663
        • otterley 2y ago
          It doesn't take much to observe that we've been fluoridating municipal water for over half a century and children are doing mostly fine. It's the actions of children's parents that contribute the most to their IQ losses.
      • abletonlive 2y ago
• dataflow 2y ago
  What is the best evidence in favor of this?
  • jsbisviewtiful 2y ago
    There isn’t any. The very little research showing any effects on cognitive abilities are experiments using very high fluoride levels - nowhere near the levels in water. Like most conservative “stances”, it’s a farce.
    • dataflow 2y ago
      Thanks. I guess then my next question is, why are they doing this? Whom is it benefiting? Big Water?
      • piker 2y ago
        Is there scope to believe they just think it may be better not to have it in the water?
        • dataflow 2y ago
          > Is there scope to believe they just think it may be better not to have it in the water? Are you asking if there's room to believe it's just a sincere "everything you eat or drink should stay untouched, like it's found in nature" belief? OK sure, let's go with that. So why aren't they working to dismantle water treatment plants altogether and e.g. fighting against modern industrial farming practices in that case?
          • piker 2y ago
            No, I’m asking if it’s possible they might just rightly or wrongly believe water fluoridation is bad.
            • dataflow 2y ago
• kelipso 2y ago
  Way past time. The link between fluoride ingestion by children and pregnant women to lower IQ in children has been known for years. It's incredible how the scientific community in the US is so ignorant of this fact. Also, dentists have no neuroscience background! So let's take recommendations by dentists to ingest a neurotoxin with deep deep skepticism, shall we?
  • jcranmer 2y ago
    As the saying goes, it's the dose that makes the poison. Vitamin D is also quite toxic, would you celebrate banning that as well?
    • kelipso 2y ago
      Yes, there is no need to add vitamin D into the water supply.
      • saagarjha 2y ago
        Yeah, because it’s not water soluble.
  • jedberg 2y ago
    > The link between fluoride ingestion by children and pregnant women to lower IQ in children has been known for years Not at the levels it is found in water in the USA. Those studies were done in countries with much higher levels of fluoride.
    • stop50 2y ago
      Or where the people drink much more water
    • kelipso 2y ago
      A low dose of this neurotoxin can still have smaller adverse effects on IQ, and in all likelihood do, especially for fetuses and small children. Lots of countries have banned fluoridation of the water supply. The US has one of the highest fluoride levels in the water supply. The default should be to not add neurotoxins into the water supply (I cannot believe I have to actually say this).
• tayo42 2y ago
  > Republican state lawmaker Stephanie Gricius - who introduced the bill in the state legislature - has argued that there is research suggesting fluoride could have possible cognitive effects in children. It's kind of amazing to say something like that then be so inconsistent on things that will have real outcomes that make life better for kids. They're all for cutting school support and social services.
  • poisonarena 2y ago
    is Utah cutting school support and social services?
    • davidmurdoch 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • tayo42 2y ago
      Is there a reason to expect this republican to hold views that differ significantly from the rest of the party?
      • bennettnate5 2y ago
        Fun anecdote: Utah's Republicans actually rejected the MAGA candidates in the Republican primary for both Senator and Governer by a wide margin, despite the MAGA candidates having Trump's endorsement. If nothing else, Utah doesn't vote MAGA-or-bust like some other states have been.
        • tayo42 2y ago
          Interesting. Alright then maybe there is a possibility. Thanks for sharing!
  • rayiner 2y ago
    Utah has among the best schools in the nation: https://www.reddit.com/r/Utah/comments/1idrt6j/utah_spends_the_least_per_k12_pupil_in_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/Utah/comments/1idrt6j/utah_spends_t... It also has among the happiest citizens: https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/09/09/utah-mental-health-happiness-report/ https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/09/09/utah-mental-health-h... It has the highest economic mobility in the country: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2023/12/22/utah-tops-new-social-mobility-ranking-louisiana-comes-in-last/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2023/12/22/utah-top... Despite being filled with guns, it’s got a homicide rate only a little higher than Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... And it’s ranked in the top 10 states for life expectancy: https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2022/08/24/utah-top-ten-highest-life-expectancy-united-states https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2022/08/24/utah-t... Utah and Massachusetts are basically the steel-man versions of their respective ideologies. But Utah doesn’t have the benefit of Harvard and MIT, major Pharma companies, etc. It’s surrounded by desert and has no natural resources to speak of.
• BJones12 2y ago
  Note that while this may be first state to ban fluoride, it's not the first state to not have fluoride in the water. That would be Hawaii (effectively).
  • culi 2y ago
    all states were "the first to not have flouride". In 1945 Grand Rapids, MI became the first city in the world to flouridate its water
• codybontecou 2y ago
  Hawaii does not add fluoride to their water. Utah may be the first to out-right ban it, but there are quite a few local communities and cities that opt-out of adding it to their drinking water. https://chatgpt.com/share/67e8572d-c5f4-8000-9393-c2e894c922a4 https://chatgpt.com/share/67e8572d-c5f4-8000-9393-c2e894c922...
  • TMWNN 2y ago
    The US is, according to Wikipedia, among a small minority of countries in which a majority of people drink fluoridated water. Various European countries have discontinued doing so. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation>
    • lolinder 2y ago
      Yeah, this is one of those places where because RFK Jr took the anti- stand there's an understandable assumption that it's more nutty anti-science stuff, but it's much less clear cut when it comes to fluoridation. Europe has much lower rates than the US, which is an outlier on these stats only approached by Australia, and before Utah the major high profile anti-fluoride stance was made by Portland: https://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-30229-portland-voters-soundly-reject-fluoride.html https://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-30229-portland-voters-so... To the extent this is a polarized left-right issue, it's only recently and only because everything is polarized right now.
      • ics 2y ago
        Using certain family members as a personal rubric, fluoridated water has been a right-left issue for at least 2.5 decades. I think it’s been pretty polarized for longer, though it may have taken a long time to gain steam in mainstream “discourse”.
        • lolinder 2y ago
          I'm not sure you can use personal anecdotes to come to any conclusions about broad trends. To look at some actual data, I took the 2008 and 2024 election results and compared them with fluoridation rates. The split is pretty even: The top 10 most fluoridated states went 5/5 Rep/Dem in 2008 and 6/4 Rep/Dem in 2024. These were Kentucky, Minnesota, Illinois, North Dakota, Virginia, Georgia, South Dakota, Maryland, Ohio, and South Carolina. Hardly a blue wall. The bottom 10 least fluoridated states with 6/4 Rep/Dem in 2008 and 6/4 Rep/Dem in 2024. These were Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Louisiana, Alaska, Utah, New Hampshire, and Mississippi. Hardly a red wall. The bottom three least fluoridated states are all hardcore blue: Hawaii, New Jersey, and Oregon. I just don't see any evidence here that this has been a left-right polarized issue until this year. The distribution of fluoride by political leanings is just too random.
• jiggawatts 2y ago
  I initially dismissed it as the same category of stupid as anti-vax beliefs, but it turns out that there are a decent amount of good studies showing a link between fluoride in water and (slightly) lower IQ when pregnant mothers ingest the fluoride. Note that there is no significant effect after birth. The idea is to remove fluoride from water and advise pregnant women to use fluoride-free toothpaste. Everyone else can get enough fluoride from modern toothpastes, or regular dentist treatments. The logic is that fluoride in tap water made sense in the era before toothpaste had it, but now it is “overmedicating” a vulnerable fraction of the population.
  • culi 2y ago
    The IQ link is very heavily lacking in evidence. In the actual research the main "risk" posed by flouridated water is actually fluorosis. This causes minerals in your enamel to be replaced with flouride which can cause them to be brittle in the long term. It's pretty uncommon but the thought is that now that flouride toothpaste are commonplace, the benefit of flouridated water is also way less. Which changes the calculus. A not insignificant number of researchers are advocating for the view that flouridating water just isn't worth it anymore and the (slight) risk of flourosis is more significant than the (slight) benefit of decreased dental caries.
    • Jimmc414 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • crazygringo 2y ago
        What do you mean? There's literally tons of evidence. Do you think fluoride doesn't actually reduce cavities?
        • newZWhoDis 2y ago
          [flagged]
• habosa 2y ago
  I’m disappointed in the news media fails to mention the cascading effects of dental health. Yes, the primary and direct benefit of fluoride is to have a healthier mouth. But having a healthy mouth is far from the end goal, imo. If your mouth is full of cavities you’re more likely to build up bacteria that cause downstream effects as serious as heart disease. Also if your mouth is routinely uncomfortable you may gravitate towards soft processed foods and away from healthy whole foods like fresh fruits and vegetables. I know water is not the only way to get fluoride into people. But these politicians who are trying to take it out of the water are just saying basically “it’s fine, let’s do nothing”. They’re not going to fluoridate the salt. They’re not going to run public health campaigns stressing the importance of regular brushing. They’re just willing to let people’s teeth rot to score points. It’s disgusting, and no matter how you feel about the water you should be able to see that these people are not on your side. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/dental/art-20047475 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in...
  • whycome 2y ago
    So you're saying that dental health is essential for the rest of the body? Yet, Canada doesn't include it in its famous 'universal free healthcare'... I'd actually just like to see more money put into public dental assistance. And education.
    • davorak 2y ago
      > I'd actually just like to see more money put into public dental assistance. And education. I would want to see that in anti fluoride campaigns and laws as well, but have not see that happen in the laws and campaigns I have followed. Or in the HN comments I have responded to on the subject, most focus on banning and provide no follow, or no structured follow up like - free toothpaste, required educations, and follow up studies, reassess in X years.
    • loopdoend 2y ago
      The Canadian Dental Care Plan (CDCP) was introduced to provide dental services to uninsured Canadians meeting specific criteria. Its rollout began in December 2023, starting with individuals aged 87 and above, and is set to expand to all eligible adults earning less than $90,000 annually by May 1, 2025.
• freehorse 2y ago
  This is one of these US-specific polarised debates I find really bizarre, around some kind of issue that the rest of the world has by large solved but without any acknowledgement of this fact. Maybe the US should look into how other countries have solved it? It is completely bizarre witnessing both sides getting so polarised around a basically non-issue.
  • roland35 2y ago
    There are a few studies out which say fluoride is bad. But as is often the case with these health idiots, the studies actually refer to places where fluoride is naturally way too high in the water. The entire debate is dumb.
    • nostrebored 2y ago
      This was my perspective for awhile — recommend you look into more recent studies if you haven’t in the past 2y or so. I don’t think it’s the worst thing in our water but do think it’s objectively a bad idea.
    • Auracle 2y ago
      It’s far more than a few, and the level does not need to be that high: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2828425 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
  • UltraSane 2y ago
    There is not real debate, just some people who don't understand how chemistry works.
    • Jimmc414 2y ago
      I'd really like to hear your take
      • wokwokwok 2y ago
        Talk to your dentist. They are experts in this field, and, unlike “random person on the internet who spent 2 minutes on google”, have informed opinions on this topic. If you want a serious discussion on why fluoride is good or bad, that’s where you need to go. Random person on the internet is very easy to disagree with, because we’re all idiots right? It’s a very easy lazy way of self confirmation. …but if you are serious about critically considering the issue and facing your own biases, talk to an actual topic expert. My dentist told me he had carefully reviewed the literature and determined to his satisfaction that public fluoridated water was in the best interests of public health, currently. He offered to share some reading that he was convinced by. You can’t really ask for more that that. Discussing this here is a bit like protesting by posting on social media; yes, I suppose it’s better than doing nothing and not engaging with the topic at all… but only barely, and not in any meaningful way.
• ourmandave 2y ago
  Does filtering your water with a whole house filter take the fluoride out? Because I live in a small township that delivers well water to you tap. It tastes horrible, shortens the life of pipes and appliances, and smells like sulfur. Every year they mail a flyer that explains how the lead levels are dangerously above the national standard and you should run the tap before you drink from it. Like, sorry there's nothing we can do about it. =(
  • ein0p 2y ago
    If it's reverse osmosis based, yes. If it's some other kind of filter, likely no, and you should buy a TDS meter and use it, because in all likelihood it's not really filtering anything. I did exactly this. It turned out that my carbon based filter had more TDS than completely unfiltered water from a tap in the garden. RO water, even re-mineralized, had 1/15th the TDS IIRC.
    • mortos 2y ago
      TDS is just Total Dissolved Solids. What solids though you don't know and you could be adding carbon while removing others which is likely the case. Also those dinky little TDS meters don't even measure TDS. They measure electrical conductivity and with a little math they use the EC as a proxy for TDS. It's typically only calibrated to one specific ion, others will be off by some factor. Also keep in mind TDS is expressed in PPM as CaCO3.
      • ein0p 2y ago
        Yes, but be that as it may, at least it shows whether _any_ filtering is occurring at all. Which in the case of even a somewhat spent carbon filter is not a thing. RO does the job so well, you have to remineralize afterwards or the water doesn't taste like anything. You could literally pee into a jar and get fresh water on the other end. That's sort of what happens on sailing vessels that are equipped with water makers - they simply run sea water through RO.
  • alabastervlog 2y ago
    > Because I live in a small township that delivers well water to you tap. It tastes horrible, shortens the life of pipes and appliances, and smells like sulfur. Oh man, I used to live in a place like this. You could smell if a restaurant served filtered water (lots filter for the soda machine, to keep mineralization in it down I assume, and use the same water to serve) or straight from the tap, without taking a drink. Like with your nose six inches above the cup, you could smell it. Luckily, almost all served filtered.
• ein0p 2y ago
  [flagged]
• adrr 2y ago
  Utah has naturally occurring fluoride in their water and some water systems its more than double(2.0mg/l) what they add to prevent dental issues. Why were they fluorinating their water? https://cascadefamily.com/images/WaterFluoridationLevelsUtah.pdf https://cascadefamily.com/images/WaterFluoridationLevelsUtah...
  • 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
    Ok, but then you just say, we have enough naturally occurring fluoride. Adding more is just a waste of money. Or, toothpaste has enough extra fluoride, adding it to water is just a waste of money. This is not that. This is the US health system being lead by a bunch of woo-woo people who don’t understand how research works.
    • lurk2 2y ago
      > This is the US health system being lead by a bunch of woo-woo people who don’t understand how research works. The majority of the developed world does not fluoridate their water supply. The US has one of the highest rates of fluoridation in the developed world. Within America, fluoridation rates are highest on the East Coast and in the South, and lowest on the Left Coast.
      • adrr 2y ago
        There’s also fluoride salt added to table salt that is widely used to accomplish the same thing as fluoridating water. https://www.acffglobal.org/salt-fluoridation/ https://www.acffglobal.org/salt-fluoridation/
    • adrr 2y ago
      I am saying it’s weird to fluoridate water in areas with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride. Also to point out that there is naturally occurring fluoride. If Utah believed fluoride was a health risk, why aren’t they spending tens of millions to filter it out. Or is it just virtue signaling.
    • starfezzy 2y ago
• efitz 2y ago
  It is trivial today to get whatever level of fluoride is recommended for dental health, via toothpaste. So there is no compelling need to fluoridate as there exist viable alternatives to achieve the same that fluoridation is for any other purpose than dental health. In the USA, dental care is not covered by public insurance, and is an optional add-on to insurance through one’s employer. So without addressing at all whether fluoridation is effective or safe, there doesn’t seem to be any compelling need to fluoridate public water, and there’s no economic down side for the public if governments choose not to do so. Given this, why not just leave people alone to make their own choices? If the citizens in a city or state want to fluoridate the public water supply, then do so; if they choose not to, then leave them alone. It’s a free country and voters are grownups; let them choose for themselves. If you live in a place that chooses the choice you dislike but for some reason fluoridated public water supply is a critical issue for you, either campaign to change it or vote with your feet. This issue just doesn’t seem important enough to me to spend any effort arguing either way.
  • gazook89 2y ago
    > via toothpaste. I wonder how many people really brush their teeth on a regular basis. > either campaign to change it or vote with your feet. I imagine that campaigning to change it requires notifying people there is a problem, and getting it into the news and spreading that news.
    • timewizard 2y ago
      > I wonder how many people really brush their teeth on a regular basis. Whatever the number is it's not appropriate for the state to medically intervene on their behalf.
      • MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
        Why not?
        • Quarrel 2y ago
• ryao 2y ago
  Fluoride in Toothpaste: Do not ingest. Flouride in Water: Ingest away. I do not understand how these two can co-exist.
  • malcolmgreaves 2y ago
    Concentrations.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • christianqchung 2y ago
    Radioactive isotopes in nuclear fuel: do not ingest. Radioactive isotopes in banana: consume away. Understand now? I'm not even defending anything other than how two things that vaguely appear contradictory, are in fact, not.
    • zmgsabst 2y ago
      I don’t. Because your banana example doesn’t have additives meant to be reactive — so is unlike adding fluoride to water at levels which impact dental health.
      • varenc 2y ago
        It's the concentration that matters. Toothpaste has over 1000x the concentration of fluoride vs 0.7mg/L as tap water. Many well water sources have naturally occurring fluoride that exceeds the additive levels.
        • ryao 2y ago
          Very low concentrations of medicine are usually ineffective at its stated purpose outside of pseudo scientific theories, so even if it is safe to ingest, it is not clear it is able to do anything for people’s teeth. That is why I do not understand how the two can co-exist. Either the concentration is so low that drinking it for dental health is pointless, or it is not something people should be drinking. If there was a middle ground, we would have a 1 a day pill for this and not bother brushing our teeth or putting fluoride in water.
• JKCalhoun 2y ago
  Pretty sure I read that fluoridation is a communist plot to undermine American public health [1]. Sorry, that was the John Birch Society from the 1960's. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridati... (I'm having some fun, but it is in fact the first thing that comes to mind when I hear objections to fluoridated water. Since we're talking about RFK and Utah, I kind of assume it more or less stems from the same fears.)
  • thakoppno 2y ago
    > Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.
    • cratermoon 2y ago
      Ice cream, Mandrake. Children's ice cream.
      • thakoppno 2y ago
        It’s just sublime to me the cadence and intonation Sterling Hayden uses pronouncing Mandrake.
• lunarboy 2y ago
  According to these "it lowers kids IQ" people, is the average IQ of Hawaiian kids higher than other states?
  • bigmadshoe 2y ago
    There are latent variables there. You can't just compare the IQ of two areas and only isolate a single variable out of thousands.
• russellbeattie 2y ago
  Fluoridation is literally one of the most successful efforts at improving public health in history. Dental health is keystone to general health. The idea that the conspiracy theorists are winning the public policy debate enrages me. There's rock solid proof of the benefits of fluoridation extending decades, and there is little to no proof of any adverse side effects. Oh well, good luck Utah. I'm glad I don't live there, but if I were a young dentist, I know where I'd set up my new practice.
  • jongjong 2y ago
    Well you can buy as much fluoride paste as you like and add it to your own water.
• beezle 2y ago
  Funny, I watched Dr. Strangelove two weeks ago. POE!
• fungiblecog 2y ago
  Fluoride in water wouldn't be necessary is sugary drinks were taxed heavily (or just banned altogether) and dental care was affordable. But obviously that's considered communism if you're a typical american.
  • Clubber 2y ago
    Or you could just put fluoride in the sugary drinks.
• shortrounddev2 2y ago
  I truly don't care one way or the other on the dental advantage that fluoride offers in drinking water, or the alleged risks it poses to the IQ of unborn children. I simply hate the fact that public policy is now being driven by what are essentially New World Order conspiracy theorists
• donnachangstein 2y ago
  Before someone tries to pin this as a decisively left-right political issue, Portland, Oregon has been virulently anti-fluoride for over 70 years (which is probably the last time Portland and Utah agreed on anything): https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2013/05/portland_fluoride_for_the_four.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2013/05/portland_fluorid... Portland is a bit odd when it comes to water; they drained an entire (uncovered, open to the elements) city reservoir because a guy peed in it. True story. I assume they have signs for the birds flying aloft to not defecate over the reservoir. Edit: It appears many posts all over this thread are being brigaded with downvotes. Why? Is Big Fluoride in trouble? Grow up. You people are brain damaged (possibly from fluoride).
• piuantiderp 2y ago
  Book by Christopher Bryson. Needed context
• 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
  I think it's worth reminding people of Occam's Razor, and the point of it is: a simple explanation is often better than a complicated one. The US has had water fluoridation for 65 years, affecting 346 million people. That's a pretty big god damn sample size and long amount of time in which to observe effects. If we still have no proof of significant negative health effects, it's probably not bad for you. That said: you can always lower the amount of fluoride if it turns out the local area already gets a lot of fluoride from other sources. You don't need to ban it, you can just lower the levels. So please don't defend this decision by Utah. They're being children.
  • Auracle 2y ago
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2828425 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
  • ckw 2y ago
    Using a prospective Canadian birth cohort, we found that estimated maternal exposure to higher fluoride levels during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children. This association was supported by converging findings from 2 measures of fluoride exposure during pregnancy. A difference in MUFSG spanning the interquartile range for the entire sample (ie, 0.33 mg/L), which is roughly the difference in MUFSG concentration for pregnant women living in a fluoridated vs a nonfluoridated community, was associated with a 1.5-point IQ decrement among boys. An increment of 0.70 mg/L in MUFSG concentration was associated with a 3-point IQ decrement in boys; about half of the women living in a fluoridated community have a MUFSG equal to or greater than 0.70 mg/L. These results did not change appreciably after controlling for other key exposures such as lead, arsenic, and mercury. To our knowledge, this study is the first to estimate fluoride exposure in a large birth cohort receiving optimally fluoridated water. These findings are consistent with that of a Mexican birth cohort study that reported a 6.3 decrement in IQ in preschool-aged children compared with a 4.5 decrement for boys in our study for every 1 mg/L of MUF.10 The findings of the current study are also concordant with ecologic studies that have shown an association between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower intellectual abilities in children.7,8,26 Collectively, these findings support that fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be associated with neurocognitive deficits. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
• hayst4ck 2y ago
  Putting fluoride in water promotes freedom. That sounds crazy, but let me justify it. If you are poor you can't go anywhere or buy anything. You're not free if you're poor. If you are sick, you may be confined to a hospital bed or not feel good enough to do anything. If you are sick you're not free. Putting fluoride in water reduces dental costs and incidence of cavities and therefore tooth infections, particularly among societies poorest. Therefore, due to fluoridation in water some people are less sick and have more money and therefore are more free. The contrasting view is that putting fluoride in water is literally medicating people without their affirmative consent. It is the government forcing you to take a medication. It is coercive and therefore an attack on your freedom to not take medication. It is the government interfering in your life. The contrast between positive freedom, the freedom to do something, and negative freedom, the freedom from interference in your life, is the core political argument in America right now. Negative freedom, freedom from government interference, is being promoted by those seeking to weaken the government enough to supplant it. People who are poor and sick are likely unable to stand up for themselves or participate in solidarity against authority. This individual issue is relatively small, but you take 100's of issues like this, and the effect is to create a class of people who aren't able to do anything but be obedient workers.
  • guerrilla 2y ago
    > The contrast between positive freedom, the freedom to do something, and negative freedom, the freedom from interference in your life, is the core political argument in America right now. Interesing take but I don't buy this part at all. The core political argument in the US is epistemological. What's real and what counts as true? There are some axiological differences but I think they are minor in comparison to not being able to agree on how the world is in the first place.
    • rocqua 2y ago
      It seems to be that the battleground is epistemological, but not so much the argument. The difference being that Trump uses 'claims of truth' without any care of how true they are. I feel the majority of epistemological disagreement is the result of propaganda (not exclusively from MAGA). With only a small bit that is actually a disagreement on core values. Suchs true disagreement does exist, but it is no longer what the political discourse is about.
• nokun7 2y ago
  So, Finland gave fluoride a shot in a few cities back in the '60s through the '90s, but they didn’t see much point to it and dropped it. Now, some spots there are even filtering it out of the water. You can still get it in toothpaste and mouthwash, though. There’s this study I read that says the top five countries for dental health are Denmark, Germany, Finland, Sweden, and the UK. The US? It’s lagging at ninth. Funny thing is, out of those top five, only the UK messes with fluoride in their water, and even then, it’s just for like 5% of folks. Honestly, it kinda feels like skipping the fluoride in water might be the smarter move.
• knowknow 2y ago
  I feel like we are so privileged in the US that there’s little to no personal consequences for being so wrong about a topic. Eventually there’s needs to be a correction, whether it’s because we regain our senses or we stray so far that the majority of people start to be majorly affected. I’m fearing it’s the latter.
  • kubb 2y ago
    There’s a tendency to backwards rationalize anything that is established in the US, that comes from a place of identity. The current shape of the US is already the best and people consider it a part of who they are, so suggesting a course correction may be seen as both wrong think and a personal attack and wanting radical change would be outright treason. There’s an array of standard stencils for defense against change: this is the only thing that can work here, this is the only thing that guarantees freedom, this is actually not that bad, I actually prefer it like this, anything else would be expensive/impossible/unamerican. It’s not even unique to the US, but who cares about other places.
  • bell-cot 2y ago
    That's because drinking non-fluoridated water is very cheap (a minimal disadvantage). Vs. opposing fluoridated water can be very valuable (give the current culture wars). Notice that nobody is arguing about keeping water-born pathogens out of the drinking water.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• sothatsit 2y ago
  Fluoride in toothpaste already covers most people today. So, if there are legitimate concerns about adding it to the water supply due to fluorosis, even if those concerns are small, removing it seems reasonable to me. Are the number of people who don't brush their teeth really high enough to justify it?
  • stevebmark 2y ago
    Decades of science show it’s beneficial, and we keep seeing the outcomes validated in practice. Calgary removed fluoride from drinking water, saw a significant increase in dental carries in children, and is adding it back. [1] Hawaii does not fluoridate and has high rates of children’s tooth decay [2] [1] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed-fluoride-from-its-water-supply-a-decade-later-its-adding-it-back https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed... [2] https://www.civilbeat.org/2016/10/hawaii-children-have-highest-prevalence-of-tooth-decay-in-us/ https://www.civilbeat.org/2016/10/hawaii-children-have-highe...
    • sothatsit 2y ago
      Thanks, that changes my view on this :)
• AndrewSwift 2y ago
  People who want to remove fluoride from the water should visit countries where fluoride is not added and look at people's teeth. I live in France and it's just so obvious that people grew up without fluoride — even celebrities try to talk without showing their teeth when they're on TV! I'm all for getting consent in most cases, but sometimes you'd have to be an idiot not to take the obvious win. It's like we were delivering flakes of gold with the mail and people complained — that's not what mailboxes are for!
  • abxyz 2y ago
    You're misattributing: the U.S. has a perfect white teeth culture that doesn't exist elsewhere. Many people outside of the U.S. have healthier but uglier teeth. Fluoride isn't the reason for good/bad teeth inside/outside of the U.S, it's cultural. Many places outside of the U.S. do put fluoride in their water (nationally or regionally) and have "bad" teeth (e.g: England).
    • AndrewSwift 2y ago
      What does a white-tooth culture look like specifically? People brush their teeth in France, they have modern dentristy etc.
      • wqaatwt 2y ago
        Way more people having their teeth whitened? Braces being more popular.
      • cenamus 2y ago
        People don't bleach their teeth much outside the US as far as I know. You can see it especially well with US actors, their teeth looking like the someone photoshopped them to #FFFFFF
        • Clubber 2y ago
          Those are actually veneers. They grind down their real teeth into basically fence posts to use as a structure to glue fake teeth on them. https://davidfisherdds.com/how-long-does-it-take-for-porcelain-veneers-to-recover/ https://davidfisherdds.com/how-long-does-it-take-for-porcela...
• lerp-io 2y ago
  maybe if we consumed less processed sugars and had normal diets, putting fluoride in the water would serve no purpose.
• mook 2y ago
  I think I'm more interested to know if the fluoride also helps keeps bacteria down in the water. That is, if it's doing anything useful other than dealing with teeth. A quick search didn't seem to turn up anything related, so maybe not (the concentrations might be too low to be relevant)?
• akg_67 2y ago
  A list of references for both sides of arguments. Calgary removed fluoride from its water supply. A decade later, it's adding it back https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed-fluoride-from-its-water-supply-a-decade-later-its-adding-it-back https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed... Toxic Treatment: Fluoride's Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-transformation-industrial-waste-public-health-miracle https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-tr... Portland has a divisive relationship with water fluoridation https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-water-fluoridation-history-explained/ https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-water-fluor... Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/... Effect of fluoridated water on intelligence in 10-12-year-old school children https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5285601/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5285601/ A tale of two cities finds that community water fluoridation prevents caries https://adanews.ada.org/ada-news/2021/august/community-water-fluoridation-prevents-caries/ https://adanews.ada.org/ada-news/2021/august/community-water... Children exposed to higher fluoride levels have lower IQs, a government study finds https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/06/health/children-higher-fluoride-levels-lower-iqs-government-study/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/06/health/children-higher-fl... DRAFT NTP Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects: A Systematic Review 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/... The finding’s of the NTP’s 6-year fluoride neurotoxicity evaluation https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2023/may/presentations/04_neurath_bsc_508.pdf https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/... Fluoridation cessation and children's dental caries: A 7-year follow-up evaluation of Grade 2 schoolchildren in Calgary and Edmonton, Canada https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34309045/#:%7E:text=Results:%20The%20prevalence%20of%20caries,%2C%20n%20=%202600%20in%20Edmonton https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34309045/#:%7E:text=Results:.... Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7261729/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7261729/ Low-to-moderate fluoride exposure in relation to overweight and obesity among school-age children in China https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31509932/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31509932/ What happens when you remove fluoride from tap water? https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324086 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324086 Buffalo poised to resume fluoridation of city’s water supply https://adanews.ada.org/ada-news/2024/january/buffalo-poised-to-resume-fluoridation-of-city-s-water-supply/ https://adanews.ada.org/ada-news/2024/january/buffalo-poised...
• Heyso 2y ago
  2012: https://fluoridealert.org/content/50-reasons/ https://fluoridealert.org/content/50-reasons/ Highly recommend visiting the link for details about each point and references (it is not that long), here is a summary, don't comment if you haven't visited the link: 1) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. 2) Fluoridation is unethical. 3) The dose cannot be controlled. 4) The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability. 5) People now receive fluoride from many other sources besides water. 6) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. 7) The level in mothers’ milk is very low. 9) No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects. 10) There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. 11) Benefit is topical not systemic. 12) Fluoridation is not necessary. 13) Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. 14) NIH-funded study on individual fluoride ingestion and tooth decay found no significant correlation. 15) Tooth decay is high in low-income communities that have been fluoridated for years. 16) Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped. 17) Tooth decay was coming down before fluoridation started. 18) The studies that launched fluoridation were methodologically flawed. 19) Children are being over-exposed to fluoride. 20) The highest doses of fluoride are going to bottle-fed babies. 21) Dental fluorosis may be an indicator of wider systemic damage. 22) Fluoride may damage the brain. 23) Fluoride may lower IQ. 24) Fluoride may cause non-IQ neurotoxic effects. 25) Fluoride affects the pineal gland. 26) Fluoride affects thyroid function. 27) Fluoride causes arthritic symptoms. 28) Fluoride damages bone. 29) Fluoride may increase hip fractures in the elderly. 30) People with impaired kidney function are particularly vulnerable to bone damage. 31) Fluoride may cause bone cancer (osteosarcoma). 32) Proponents have failed to refute the Bassin-Osteosarcoma study. 33) Fluoride may cause reproductive problems. 34) Some individuals are highly sensitive to low levels of fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies. 35) Other subsets of population are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. 36) There is no margin of safety for several health effects. 37) Low-income families penalized by fluoridation. 38) Black and Hispanic children are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. 39) Minorities are not being warned about their vulnerabilities to fluoride. 40) Tooth decay reflects low-income not low-fluoride intake. 41) The chemicals used to fluoridate water are not pharmaceutical grade. 42) The silicon fluorides have not been tested comprehensively. 43) The silicon fluorides may increase lead uptake into children’s blood. 44) Fluoride may leach lead from pipes, brass fittings and soldered joints. 45) Key health studies have not been done. 46) Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. 47) Review panels hand-picked to deliver a pro-fluoridation result. 48) Many scientists oppose fluoridation. 49) Proponents usually refuse to defend fluoridation in open debate. 50) Proponents use very dubious tactics to promote fluoridation.
• barotalomey 2y ago
  It's interesting how the MAGA crowd keep looking for reasons why they dumb. One time it was the covid vaccine, now it's the drinking water. You just dumb, guys.
  • willy_k 2y ago
    Sigh, another libtard completely divorced from reality, suckered by the fake news. Those are reasons why everyone except MAGA is dumb, duh. /s
• ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  They also keep passing laws to specifically support burning coal, which is (slightly more credibly) shown to reduce IQ in children exposed to its pollution.
• briandear 2y ago
  These American experts who are “disheartened” — do they not pay attention to Europe? Or do they only get upset when Republicans do something? Europe (and many parts of Asia,) is objectively healthier than most of the residents of the USA; so maybe rather than knee-jerking against anything RFK Jr., perhaps the so-called experts should start doing their jobs and looking at what healthier places in the rest of the world are doing. The status quo in the USA is default fat and unhealthy. Why aren’t the fluoride cheerleaders not using their “expert” status to shout against high fructose corn syrup, artificial coloring, or the fact that most American food tastes like sugar?
  • russellbeattie 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • Vegenoid 2y ago
    Do you seriously think that dental and health experts don’t rail against those things? They do, and they consider those things far more important than fluoridated water. Their opinions on fluoride are being shared because there is notable news about fluoridated water. Americans do not want to hear about how they should eat healthier.
• wolfi1 2y ago
  Anyone else gets reminded of General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove?
  • danny_codes 2y ago
    First thing I thought too.
• cladopa 2y ago
  For me as a European, adding fluoride to water for your teeth is as ridiculous as cutting the foreskin of babies' penis in name of (dubious) "hygienic reasons". But people get used to it. Specially when they don't get to experience the alternative. Most people rationalise it is a good thing. Stockholm syndrome.
  • jimbohn 2y ago
    I was thinking exactly the same thing, down to the circumcision thing. This whole discourse gives me the vibe of something the American society has randomly walked on and now is an "it has always been like this".
  • stevebmark 2y ago
    Which part of Europe are you in? Countries in Europe add fluoride to water, salt, milk, and Italy has naturally fluoridated water. > The European Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (EAPD) recently called water fluoridation "a core component of oral health policy" and adds that salt fluoridation "is suggested when water fluoridation cannot be implemented" due to technical, logistical or political reasons. https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/citycouncil/interest-items/2020/09/city-council-information-on-fluoride-2020-09-08.pdf https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/citycouncil/interes...
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• amazingamazing 2y ago
  Preventing cavities is far more effective with topical application of fluoride on the teeth, rather than ingestion. I personally don’t buy the passive health benefit. Even if it’s true, there’s no proof that fluoridated water is superior to topical application. Not to mention that if we’re going to just roll over and accept stuff in the water for public health reasons, what really should be added are more vitamins, not fluoride. In particular vitamin D
  • nemo44x 2y ago
    For children developing their “adult teeth” fluoride ingestion strengthens those teeth before they pop out. Topical has no effect obviously since they haven’t surfaced yet.
    • amazingamazing 2y ago
      And for that there is fluoride mouthwash, which again isn’t ingested and would be more effective. > Regular use of fluoride mouthrinse under supervision results in a large reduction in tooth decay in children's permanent teeth. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6457869/#:~:text=Because%20of%20the%20risk%20of,than%20six%20years%20of%20age. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6457869/#:~:text=Be...
      • nemo44x 2y ago
        That doesn’t work because it’s topical. You give kids vitamins to get fluoride into their system to strengthen their developing adult teeth.
        • amazingamazing 2y ago
          Great - so why do we need it in the water then? Not to mention that caries in kids teeth isn't really that relevant anyway since they fall out. Fact is, adult teeth is what matters and topical fluoridation is the most effective way, in addition to brushing and flossing to maintain dental health. Would love to see evidence to the contrary (ingestion is superior to topical application w.r.t. fluoride).
• ReptileMan 2y ago
  Fluorinating all of the water just to deliver some milligrams to the teeth is incredibly inefficient. Especially when less and less of the stuff people people drink comes out of the tap. We have toothpastes and fluorinated mouthwash that both get the job done. Probably there are some people that are unable to afford those and unaware how to use them, but probably are tiny percentage of the state population, especially with the cult of teeth care that the US has. I also see the fortified flours as example (or iodine in salt) - but the US is different now than in the 30s. The US diet is more varied. Very few people get 80% of their calories from a single starchy staple so developing a severe deficiency of something requires some serious effort from the persons affected. So who is this policy of fluorination for - the people that are too poor to afford toothpaste, but still have access to municipality treated water and don't drink copious amounts of soda or bottled drinks.
• amelius 2y ago
  Question: is there something I can do in the office to improve tooth health? E.g. after drinking a cup of coffee, maybe neutralize the pH with some antacid? Or, I don't know, chew some gum? Are there products that are relatively convenient and don't require a brush and water?
  • Clubber 2y ago
    You can buy a bottle of it, swish it around your mouth and spit it out. https://www.actoralcare.com/en-us/products/mouthwash/anticavity https://www.actoralcare.com/en-us/products/mouthwash/anticav...
    • amelius 2y ago
      Yes, I considered that, and I appreciate the suggestion, but I think it's not very office-friendly to spit out liquids.
      • Ylpertnodi 2y ago
        Spit in the bathroom, not the office?
        • amelius 2y ago
          Well, then it's not an office solution anymore. Might as well brush my teeth ... Anyway, an llm suggested that eating some almonds can help neutralize pH. This is the type of solution I can work with.
  • buttercraft 2y ago
    A dentist once recommended Xylitol gum to me for this purpose. It's been too long to remember the details, but you can do some research on it.
• pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  They should ban crash barriers. I've never crashed into one.
• jongjong 2y ago
  Cynical take: Now that studies have shown that bottled water is loaded with nanoplastics, upper class people want to start drinking tap water again. Now suddenly states don't want fluoride in the tap water...
• hello_computer 2y ago
  Taking compounds of the most electronegative element, and treating people with them systemically—drink it, bathe in it, cook with it—when local administration directly to the teeth is cheap, easy, & effective makes no sense at all. Meanwhile, mining industries produce—and must dispose of—a steady stream of fluoride compounds that would otherwise have to be dealt with as toxic waste (i.e. very expensive) if they ever lost the green light to dump them into the water supply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hodge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hodge or per Google: Three chemicals are used to fluoridate drinking water in the U.S: sodium fluoride (NaF); sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6); and fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6). Fluorosilicic acid is a byproduct of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer.
• jongjong 2y ago
  I hope they will ban it everywhere. If my pineal gland gets any more calcified, I'll probably end up getting a full-chest tattoo and dye my hair pink.
• adonovan 2y ago
  “Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children’s ice cream!...You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works. I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I-I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.”
• swasheck 2y ago
  the debate in this thread is a reflection of the politico-scientific standing of the united states. it seems as though fluoridated water has come to be treated as a synechdoche for the role of science (and public health) in society. both sides are trying in earnest to defend their meta-position (“freedom” vs “society”) but slip into logic errors (usually cherry picking and straw man). i think this is because of the context switching between the part (fluoridation) and the whole (freedom/society).
• kylecordes 2y ago
  Tremendous boon for the dental industry. Congratulations for everyone involved in getting this through.
  • horns4lyfe 2y ago
    The fluoride toothpaste they recommend is far more effective in fighting cavities, but ok
• agentultra 2y ago
  That’s going to go poorly. A Canadian city removed fluoride from water in 2011 and reversed that decision 10 years later. There’s hard data on the effects and they’re not good [0]. [0] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed-fluoride-from-its-water-supply-a-decade-later-its-adding-it-back https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed...
  • 1970-01-01 2y ago
    Unfortunately, hard data is not acceptable. This is how it works for the current administration: All previous data is ignored because of political reasons. Teeth to slowly rot in heads. Sometime in the 2030s, local voters will notice they have very bad teeth. Locals will debate if adding fluoride is going to make teeth great again.
    • Der_Einzige 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • sieabahlpark 2y ago
      [dead]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • oaktrout 2y ago
    All the evidence in that article is based on what a politician thinks. "And I think another meta study came out also". The actual high quality evidence shows that water fluorination has minimal impact on tooth health in 2025: https://www.cochrane.org/news/water-fluoridation-less-effective-now-past https://www.cochrane.org/news/water-fluoridation-less-effect...
    • agentultra 2y ago
      I was thinking of this study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12215 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12215 Perhaps more could be done. The situation is complex because of several compounding factors for sure. There are European countries that have no water fluoridation and better oral health outcomes than in North America. Regardless, there’s 10 years where a city in North America turned off water fluoridation and we have results of that decision to study.
• gcanyon 2y ago
  The studies in 20-30 years of the consequences of this will be fun.
• KingLancelot 2y ago
  [dead]
• noefingway 2y ago
  What I find fascinating about this debate is that only municipalities/cities add fluoride to water. If you are on well water, no fluoride. So any studies comparing the incidence of tooth decay between populations that are on well water and those that are on fluoridated city water? I get that this was a great public health benefit before fluoride in toothpaste became widely available but is this still the case? Couldn't it be argued that most of the benefit comes from brushing your teeth?
  • cma 2y ago
    Flouride incorporates into the tooth structure in developing teeth before they emerge, I'm not sure how effective that is but it is different than the more topical protection. Tea has enormous amounts of flouride depending on where it is grown and they aren't banning that yet.
    • iterance 2y ago
      For what it's worth, very few locations and processing styles result in significant doses of fluoride in tea. Within the United States, these types of tea are not typically consumed. For example, Tibetan brick tea is consistently high in fluoride, to the extent that fluorosis is actually somewhat common in certain regions. But it's a bit tricky to even buy a brick (meant for consumption) within the US. Bagged tea, more commonly available, has to be drunk regularly in very significant volumes to have a deleterious effect. Put another way, for issues to rise to the level of public policy, they have to affect a meaningful number of people in a region. In the US, tea-induced fluorisis is extremely rare.
      • cma 2y ago
        I'm not comparing it to tea that causes fluoridosis. Just normal tea sold in the US can have significantly more fluoride than is put into water supplies. I don't think it's a significant danger, like the amounts in the water supply aren't either.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• jebarker 2y ago
  I hear they're going to start adding electrolytes to the plant water though.
  • mmanfrin 2y ago
    Why wouldn't they, it's what plants crave.
• TehCorwiz 2y ago
  I love the cognitive dissonance in people who say both: "Don't medicate me without permission.", "Masks are oppression.", and "We have to stop those people from dressing and calling themselves what they want."
  • dang 2y ago
    Please don't be snarky in HN comments, and please don't take threads on generic flamewar tangents. Those are two of the worst things for the curious conversation we're trying to have here. Both of these points are in the site guidelines.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• zackmorris 2y ago
  Middle-aged human LLM here. This debate is about evidence vs policy: * Evidence: fluoride displaces iodine and other halogens, which disrupts thyroid function and possibly negatively impacts other organs and bones. * Policy: wealth inequality in the US has created a situation where the poor struggle to such an extent that they don't have access to basic health services like fluoride treatments at the dentist every 6 months, while the rich have grown so greedy that they don't want to pay a fraction of a percent of their taxes for preventative care for children and the impoverished so they instead tolerate slightly more expensive fluoridated tap water at the expense of everyone's health. This comment is about my subjective experience with a sample size of 1, meaning that it doesn't apply to you or the public: * My father is a dentist and gave me fluoride treatments every 6 months while I was growing up in Idaho. I was raised mostly on well water which isn't fluoridated. I have never had a cavity, despite not going to the dentist for the decade of my 20s while he lived away from me. My thyroid function is not as high as I would like after a lifetime of acute stress from struggle, multiple insults to the body, drinking fluoridated water after the age of 18, and being exposed to radioactive iodine at 80 times the US drinking water standard for perhaps 1 year after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (which potentially either gave me a lifetime dose or was insignificant). This solution is as evidence-based and equitable as I can come up with: * We should remove fluoride from drinking water and reimburse all dentists for free 6 month fluoride treatments of the general public, which represents some nominal fee of perhaps $15-$20 per person annually (probably less) which is not materially significant to the federal budget of roughly $15-20,000 per person annually. This take is my personal subjective opinion followed by objective evidence supporting my claims: * I don't think highly of Robert Kennedy Jr's health initiatives, because they don't ethically weigh evidence and policy, and we don't have enough epidemiological studies to predict outcomes. So they will certainly cause unintended consequences. That said, I believe there is merit to his concerns. So a way forward is not to be anti-vax for example, but to recognize that there are dozens of types of vaccines and to prioritize vaccines for illnesses like polio that have a high risk of negatively impacting quality of life. Health experts should continue advising elected officials on policy decisions. Public health is not a domain that can be left in the trust of individuals acting unilaterally. So removing fluoride from water without providing state or federal funding for fluoride treatments every 6 months will most likely negatively impact public health. https://www.thyroid.org/patient-thyroid-information/ct-for-patients/volume-8-issue-6/vol-8-issue-6-p-3/ https://www.thyroid.org/patient-thyroid-information/ct-for-p... https://thyroidpharmacist.com/articles/fluoride-and-your-thyroid/ https://thyroidpharmacist.com/articles/fluoride-and-your-thy... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11003687/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11003687/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30316182/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30316182/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38029816/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38029816/ https://theworld.org/stories/2016/08/02/fukushima-radiation-us-rainwater-and-milk-updated https://theworld.org/stories/2016/08/02/fukushima-radiation-...
• fzeroracer 2y ago
  Strangely, I never see the people demanding we ban fluoride also demand we ban cars, considering the amount of particulates and rubber wheels we inhale as a result of policy, road design and car design. And I can almost guarantee you that's resulting in an actual meaningful drop in IQ and health outcomes as opposed to fluoridating water. But I guess freedom to pollute matters more than bodily autonomy in terms of mental priority.
  • Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    >I never see the people demanding we ban fluoride also demand we ban cars, Perhaps you could take a dive into the youtubes, and find "crash detectives" (Welsh-based, so you may have to put captions on), but none of those professionals check for mouthwash. Haha, some [police forces] do.
• kilimounjaro 2y ago
  The solution to ALL of this is a very simple randomised controlled trial. Identify 1000 pregnant women in a fluorinated area, give half of them free unfluorinated bottled water for their pregnancy and first 2 years of babies life, and let the other half drink tap water, then measure all of the kids’ iqs at 5 years. Sadly noone has done this because the topic is too radioactive for most researchers or science funders to touch.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• pona-a 2y ago
  Water fluoridation conspiracy theories were a thing old enough to be a plot point in 1964 Dr. Strangelove. When there's an entire grift or political career to be a "Fluoride truther", it's really hard to take seriously any of these claims. Given it's naturally occurring and often in higher doses and there'd been so much time to control for any side effects, I'd need extraordinary evidence to be swayed on this. GENERAL JACK D. RIPPER: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream. GROUP CAPT. LIONEL MANDRAKE: Lord, Jack. GENERAL JACK D. RIPPER: You know when fluoridation first began? GROUP CAPT. LIONEL MANDRAKE: I... no, no. I don't, Jack. GENERAL JACK D. RIPPER: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
• Integrape 2y ago
  "Chemicals, man. They'll fuck you up." -Heroin Bob
• acidmath 2y ago
  Pretty much everyone I personally know, this in part to coming from a family of relative affluence in highly liberal areas, has religiously filtered their water to keep additives (such as fluoride) from going into their bodies. This same crowd has savvy towards dental hygiene, they're all into oil pulling, and brushing with Fennel oil and all that. Eliminating yeast (which is fungus, not bacteria) from the mouth prevents the biofilm that creates the necessary conditions for dental cavities. Even the poorest Americans can afford coconut oil and Fennel oil. There's no reason to drink that shit (fluoride), there's no reason to brush with it either.
• weq 2y ago
  All i know is my parents generation grew up without it and saw they dentists for fillings, every year, for years. Seemed like their childhoods played a part here because half their life they had toothpaste at the same rates as me. I on the other then havnt seen a dentist in 25yrs, have no fillings after 40, and wouldnt say i brush my teeth twice a day, everyday, as recommended. I do however consume water tainted with fluoride. So maybe there are more factors at play here then simply washing our teeth. I cant fathom how dirty our parents generations teeth must have been before toothpaste to result in the amount of fillings they have compared to people my age (unless your a meth head).