10 ms·

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 i

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?

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?