7 ms·

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
        > No, I’m asking if it’s possible they might just rightly or wrongly believe water fluoridation is bad. I'm happy to believe it if I can understand what is leading them to that belief, which is exactly what I'm asking. Is it a general aversion to unnatural stuff (hence my previous comment) or based on some evidence (hence my initial question) or something else (what?)?
        piker 2y ago
        I believe they think water fluoridation is linked it lower IQs, again, rightly or wrongly. I could be mistaken but that’s always seemed pretty clear.
        dataflow 2y ago
        > I believe they think water fluoridation is linked it lower IQs, again, rightly or wrongly. I could be mistaken but that’s always seemed pretty clear. Again, we go back to my initial question [1]: what is the best evidence in favor of this? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43518377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43518377
        mrkeen 2y ago
        He's just doing whatever's politically expedient. [1:20] "I do believe that autism comes from vaccines" [https://www.foxnews.com/video/6330950198112 https://www.foxnews.com/video/6330950198112] Does it matter what he actually believes? If it's different from the Trump's policy he'll keep it to himself.
        ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
        Why should his beliefs be considered at all over scientific evidence?
    - ergocoder 2y ago
      By default, we should not add anything to the water. The burden of proof should be on the people who want to add it. Because that is extra cost, extra chemical. If they can't prove it, then we don't do it.
  - charintstr 2y ago
    It doesn’t always have to monetarily benefit anyone. It’s just fringe leaders playing to fringe ideas in this case
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    Dentists are going to make a lot of money filling so many more cavities.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Why did many European countries discontinue fluoridation? https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/11/23/trump-could-push-the-us-to-stop-adding-fluoride-to-water-where-does-europe-stand https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/11/23/trump-could-push-... > However, in 1973, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that there was no legal basis for fluoridation…. The debate hasn’t been meaningfully revived since then, Hofman told Euronews Health. "People started to say, ‘Well, the government should not give us some medicine [when] we cannot choose where to buy our drinking water from," she said. That’s the “little c” conservative viewpoint. You don’t need to prove it’s harmful. The default should be not putting chemicals in everyone’s drinking water.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    Thanks for sharing the link. Learned something new today.
  - basch 2y ago
    but youre taking chemicals out right? and lots of water has natural flouride? there is definitely an argument for an optimal amount of minerals in water being non zero (not only because having it that clean would be practically expensive) but also because we benefit from natural minerals. now if some natural water source isnt as good as another one, why not correct it? we have the technology. especially at the community level. the little c stance should be to let communities decide, not ban it from the top down.
    - CharlieDigital 2y ago
      > and lots of water has natural flouride? 100% the treatment plant is adjusting for the natural amount of flouride to meet specific target PPM
      - basch 2y ago
        im not saying they are putting too much in. im saying natural water is already fluorinated in many places and doesnt need supplementation. so to treat fluorinful water as unnatural is disingenuous.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  How do you prove no effect on any bodily system long term? People don’t like to talk about it, or they pretend otherwise, but this is basically impossible. If the benefit is great enough then the risk makes sense. That is the case in a lot of areas. Is it worth taking a risk of an unknown effect somewhere in the body in exchange for… a marked but not even drastic reduction in cavities…? Not sure…
  - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
    Fluoride stays in your body, should be some way to measure it?
    - cyberax 2y ago
      Fluoride rapidly forms a highly insoluble calcium fluoride salt. So you won't find a lot of it in blood or other easily accessible body fluids.
      - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
        > The fractional retention or balance of fluoride at any age depends on the quantitative features of absorption and excretion. For healthy, young, or middle-aged adults, approximately 50 percent of absorbed fluoride is retained by uptake in calcified tissues, and 50 percent is excreted in the urine. For young children, as much as 80 percent can be retained owing to increased uptake by the developing skeleton and teeth (Ekstrand et al., 1994a, b). Such data are not available for persons in the later years of life, but based on bone mineral dynamics, it is likely that the fraction excreted is greater than the fraction retained. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK109832/= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK109832/= > .9 Radiographic detection of teeth and skeletal changes and microscopic examination of affected bone are helpful adjunct procedures for diagnosis. > Histopathologic and radiographic examination of bones detects bone lesions and tentatively confirms osteofluorosis.14,26 Biopsy or rib or coccygeal vertebrae is used to obtain samples for skeletal fluoride analysis.23 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B032301125X50025X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B03230... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis > We have developed a localized noninvasive nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) method for determining the accumulated bone fluoride content in human index fingers https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2339643/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2339643/ --- It sounds like people who have time to pay attention to this have a better chance of discerning a methodology of assay.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- chneu 2y ago
  I'd like to point out that fluoride was previously very much a liberal stance until the rise in MAGA/Qanon conservatives. I grew up in the PNW of the USA and lots of small hippie towns have been removing fluoride for decades. It comes up on city ballots every year in Oregon.
- concordDance 2y ago
  This stance is a bit confusing... When it comes to things like radioactivity we assume a linear no threshhold model (e.g. that lower concentrations still have effects, just our measuring tools aren't good enough to detect it) and spend billions as a result. Why wouldn't we do the same for flouride?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Jimmc414 2y ago
Here’s a list of the most convincing studies or meta analyses. 2023 – NTP Monograph on Fluoride Neurotoxicity – National Toxicology Program (USA) 2020 – Till et al. – Infant Formula Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Till C, Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Martinez-Mier EA (Canada) 2019 – Green et al. – Maternal Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Flora D, Martinez-Mier EA, et al. (Canada) 2017 – Bashash et al. – Prenatal Fluoride Exposure & Offspring IQ – Bashash M, Thomas D, Hu H, et al. (Mexico/USA) 2012 – Choi et al. – Meta-analysis on Fluoride & Neurodevelopment – Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P (Harvard/China) 2006 – NRC Report – Fluoride in Drinking Water – National Research Council (USA) [1] https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/ongoing/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31743803/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31743803/ [3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... [4] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP655 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP655 [5] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912 [6] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
  How did you compile this list? Asking some LLM service? From the first link: > It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ It doesn't seem in favor of this?
  - dataflow 2y ago
    Regardless of where they got the list (edit: which I do think is a fair question)... > the first link [...] doesn't seem in favor of this? To me that falls under "the best evidence [available] in favor of this." It's not great, but it's not nothing; it's certainly something in favor. After all.. I guess I don't know about you, but I feel like if someone told me dose X of something is toxic, I would not feel comfortable feeding myself and the entire country 50% of that dose, on that basis alone.
culi 2y ago
Actual reseachers don't really talk about links to IQ. The main concern is actually around dental fluorosis. Too much flouride can replace minerals in your teeth causing them to become brittle over time There's a subset of researchers that argue that now that fluoride toothpaste is widespread, the benefit of fluoridating water is much much smaller than it first was and the (small) risk of fluorosis is now comparatively more significant
- stefan_ 2y ago
  Where "main concern" means not a practical concern at all. You are adopting the talking points of cranks when what is of actual concern is things like drinking sugar, negligent parents or basic access to dental healthcare or even just dental education. The CDC tracks some key indicators like mean decayed, missing or filled teeth (DMFT) and in critical age groups like 12-15 there has been no progress made in the past 20 years and the US continue lagging behind European countries: https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/media/pdfs/Oral-Health-Surveillance-Report-2019-h.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/media/pdfs/Oral-Health-Surve... And none of that has anything to do with fluoride in the water or not.
- kilimounjaro 2y ago
  “ Actual reseachers don't really talk about links to IQ.” Sorry but this reddit consensus is out of step with actual researchers. The #1 paediatric journal has published quite a bit on this recently. Basically the evidence isn’t of high quality but what we have doesn’t look great. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2828425 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
TeaBrain 2y ago
Another question is whether there's still evidence for continuing to fluoridate water with how common toothpaste use is now. If nothing else, if it isn't providing benefits over toothpaste use, then fluoridating water could just be a waste of public funds.
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 an 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.

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
        > No, I’m asking if it’s possible they might just rightly or wrongly believe water fluoridation is bad. I'm happy to believe it if I can understand what is leading them to that belief, which is exactly what I'm asking. Is it a general aversion to unnatural stuff (hence my previous comment) or based on some evidence (hence my initial question) or something else (what?)?
        piker 2y ago
        I believe they think water fluoridation is linked it lower IQs, again, rightly or wrongly. I could be mistaken but that’s always seemed pretty clear.
        dataflow 2y ago
        > I believe they think water fluoridation is linked it lower IQs, again, rightly or wrongly. I could be mistaken but that’s always seemed pretty clear. Again, we go back to my initial question [1]: what is the best evidence in favor of this? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43518377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43518377
      - mrkeen 2y ago
        He's just doing whatever's politically expedient. [1:20] "I do believe that autism comes from vaccines" [https://www.foxnews.com/video/6330950198112 https://www.foxnews.com/video/6330950198112] Does it matter what he actually believes? If it's different from the Trump's policy he'll keep it to himself.
        ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
        Why should his beliefs be considered at all over scientific evidence?
  - ergocoder 2y ago
    By default, we should not add anything to the water. The burden of proof should be on the people who want to add it. Because that is extra cost, extra chemical. If they can't prove it, then we don't do it.
- charintstr 2y ago
  It doesn’t always have to monetarily benefit anyone. It’s just fringe leaders playing to fringe ideas in this case
- UltraSane 2y ago
  Dentists are going to make a lot of money filling so many more cavities.
rayiner 2y ago
Why did many European countries discontinue fluoridation? https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/11/23/trump-could-push-the-us-to-stop-adding-fluoride-to-water-where-does-europe-stand https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/11/23/trump-could-push-... > However, in 1973, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that there was no legal basis for fluoridation…. The debate hasn’t been meaningfully revived since then, Hofman told Euronews Health. "People started to say, ‘Well, the government should not give us some medicine [when] we cannot choose where to buy our drinking water from," she said. That’s the “little c” conservative viewpoint. You don’t need to prove it’s harmful. The default should be not putting chemicals in everyone’s drinking water.
- dataflow 2y ago
  Thanks for sharing the link. Learned something new today.
- basch 2y ago
  but youre taking chemicals out right? and lots of water has natural flouride? there is definitely an argument for an optimal amount of minerals in water being non zero (not only because having it that clean would be practically expensive) but also because we benefit from natural minerals. now if some natural water source isnt as good as another one, why not correct it? we have the technology. especially at the community level. the little c stance should be to let communities decide, not ban it from the top down.
  - CharlieDigital 2y ago
    > and lots of water has natural flouride? 100% the treatment plant is adjusting for the natural amount of flouride to meet specific target PPM
    - basch 2y ago
      im not saying they are putting too much in. im saying natural water is already fluorinated in many places and doesnt need supplementation. so to treat fluorinful water as unnatural is disingenuous.
pfannkuchen 2y ago
How do you prove no effect on any bodily system long term? People don’t like to talk about it, or they pretend otherwise, but this is basically impossible. If the benefit is great enough then the risk makes sense. That is the case in a lot of areas. Is it worth taking a risk of an unknown effect somewhere in the body in exchange for… a marked but not even drastic reduction in cavities…? Not sure…
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
  Fluoride stays in your body, should be some way to measure it?
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Fluoride rapidly forms a highly insoluble calcium fluoride salt. So you won't find a lot of it in blood or other easily accessible body fluids.
    - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
      > The fractional retention or balance of fluoride at any age depends on the quantitative features of absorption and excretion. For healthy, young, or middle-aged adults, approximately 50 percent of absorbed fluoride is retained by uptake in calcified tissues, and 50 percent is excreted in the urine. For young children, as much as 80 percent can be retained owing to increased uptake by the developing skeleton and teeth (Ekstrand et al., 1994a, b). Such data are not available for persons in the later years of life, but based on bone mineral dynamics, it is likely that the fraction excreted is greater than the fraction retained. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK109832/= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK109832/= > .9 Radiographic detection of teeth and skeletal changes and microscopic examination of affected bone are helpful adjunct procedures for diagnosis. > Histopathologic and radiographic examination of bones detects bone lesions and tentatively confirms osteofluorosis.14,26 Biopsy or rib or coccygeal vertebrae is used to obtain samples for skeletal fluoride analysis.23 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B032301125X50025X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B03230... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis > We have developed a localized noninvasive nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) method for determining the accumulated bone fluoride content in human index fingers https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2339643/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2339643/ --- It sounds like people who have time to pay attention to this have a better chance of discerning a methodology of assay.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
chneu 2y ago
I'd like to point out that fluoride was previously very much a liberal stance until the rise in MAGA/Qanon conservatives. I grew up in the PNW of the USA and lots of small hippie towns have been removing fluoride for decades. It comes up on city ballots every year in Oregon.
concordDance 2y ago
This stance is a bit confusing... When it comes to things like radioactivity we assume a linear no threshhold model (e.g. that lower concentrations still have effects, just our measuring tools aren't good enough to detect it) and spend billions as a result. Why wouldn't we do the same for flouride?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Jimmc414 2y ago

Here’s a list of the most convincing studies or meta analyses. 2023 – NTP Monograph on Fluoride Neurotoxicity – National Toxicology Program (USA) 2020 – Till et al. – Infant Formula Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Till C, Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Martinez-Mier EA (Canada) 2019 – Green et al. – Maternal Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Flora D, Martinez-Mier EA, et al. (Canada) 2017 – Bashash et al. – Prenatal Fluoride Exposure & Offspring IQ – Bashash M, Thomas D, Hu H, et al. (Mexico/USA) 2012 – Choi et al. – Meta-analysis on Fluoride & Neurodevelopment – Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P (Harvard/China) 2006 – NRC Report – Fluoride in Drinking Water – National Research Council (USA) [1] https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/ongoing/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31743803/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31743803/ [3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... [4] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP655 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP655 [5] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912 [6] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
How did you compile this list? Asking some LLM service? From the first link: > It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ It doesn't seem in favor of this?
- dataflow 2y ago
  Regardless of where they got the list (edit: which I do think is a fair question)... > the first link [...] doesn't seem in favor of this? To me that falls under "the best evidence [available] in favor of this." It's not great, but it's not nothing; it's certainly something in favor. After all.. I guess I don't know about you, but I feel like if someone told me dose X of something is toxic, I would not feel comfortable feeding myself and the entire country 50% of that dose, on that basis alone.

culi 2y ago

Actual reseachers don't really talk about links to IQ. The main concern is actually around dental fluorosis. Too much flouride can replace minerals in your teeth causing them to become brittle over time There's a subset of researchers that argue that now that fluoride toothpaste is widespread, the benefit of fluoridating water is much much smaller than it first was and the (small) risk of fluorosis is now comparatively more significant

stefan_ 2y ago
Where "main concern" means not a practical concern at all. You are adopting the talking points of cranks when what is of actual concern is things like drinking sugar, negligent parents or basic access to dental healthcare or even just dental education. The CDC tracks some key indicators like mean decayed, missing or filled teeth (DMFT) and in critical age groups like 12-15 there has been no progress made in the past 20 years and the US continue lagging behind European countries: https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/media/pdfs/Oral-Health-Surveillance-Report-2019-h.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/media/pdfs/Oral-Health-Surve... And none of that has anything to do with fluoride in the water or not.
kilimounjaro 2y ago
“ Actual reseachers don't really talk about links to IQ.” Sorry but this reddit consensus is out of step with actual researchers. The #1 paediatric journal has published quite a bit on this recently. Basically the evidence isn’t of high quality but what we have doesn’t look great. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2828425 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

TeaBrain 2y ago

Another question is whether there's still evidence for continuing to fluoridate water with how common toothpaste use is now. If nothing else, if it isn't providing benefits over toothpaste use, then fluoridating water could just be a waste of public funds.

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 an 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.