3 ms·

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

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.
- nerdponx 2y ago
  It's a great demonstration of the granola-to-libertarian pipeline. Jumping the gap in the horseshoe, so to speak.
Maken 2y ago
Fluoridated water was already a plot point in Kubrick's Strangelove from 1964.
mjevans 2y ago
I'd be happier if that broken-but-correct-2x-a-day guy banned HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) instead. It is my personal hypothesis that it is the cause of 'sugar cancer' (general cases of bad sugars / imbalances of sugars in the body), including Diabetes.
- hattar 2y ago
  Interesting hypothesis, is it based on anything specific? I think refined/added sugars in general are probably something best avoided, but admittedly still eat plenty. The idea that one sugar is materially worse than another feels off, but I can't quite put my finger on why.
  - EmuAGR 2y ago
    Some sugars ingress faster than others to the bloodstream, causing higher insulin spikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index AFAIK, HFCS is one of the worst offenders.
    - llm_nerd 2y ago
      The GI of sugar (sucrose) and HFCS is largely the same. Indeed, the HFCS-55 used in colas actually has less glucose and more fructose, and fructose actually doesn't lead to a blood sugar spike (or, more correctly, a much lower impact), leading to HFCS-55 having a lower glycemic index. HFCS and sugar are both just combinations of glucose and fructose molecules. HFCS is not worse than sugar unless you're consuming such an outrageous amount that the fructose leads to a fatty liver (which does happen). But if you're consuming that much HFCS, it's only a small amount more of sucrose to yield the same outcome, as of course both have loads of fructose. The one viable argument to vilify HFCS is simply that it's so convenient and inexpensive (courtesy of massively subsidized corn production) that it led to many more products having added sugars. But people who carefully pour over ingredients looking for HFCS, but treat sugar as wholesome, are usually operating on ignorance.
- fashion-at-cost 2y ago

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.
nerdponx 2y ago
It's a great demonstration of the granola-to-libertarian pipeline. Jumping the gap in the horseshoe, so to speak.

Maken 2y ago

Fluoridated water was already a plot point in Kubrick's Strangelove from 1964.

mjevans 2y ago

I'd be happier if that broken-but-correct-2x-a-day guy banned HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) instead. It is my personal hypothesis that it is the cause of 'sugar cancer' (general cases of bad sugars / imbalances of sugars in the body), including Diabetes.

hattar 2y ago
Interesting hypothesis, is it based on anything specific? I think refined/added sugars in general are probably something best avoided, but admittedly still eat plenty. The idea that one sugar is materially worse than another feels off, but I can't quite put my finger on why.
- EmuAGR 2y ago
  Some sugars ingress faster than others to the bloodstream, causing higher insulin spikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index AFAIK, HFCS is one of the worst offenders.
  - llm_nerd 2y ago
    The GI of sugar (sucrose) and HFCS is largely the same. Indeed, the HFCS-55 used in colas actually has less glucose and more fructose, and fructose actually doesn't lead to a blood sugar spike (or, more correctly, a much lower impact), leading to HFCS-55 having a lower glycemic index. HFCS and sugar are both just combinations of glucose and fructose molecules. HFCS is not worse than sugar unless you're consuming such an outrageous amount that the fructose leads to a fatty liver (which does happen). But if you're consuming that much HFCS, it's only a small amount more of sucrose to yield the same outcome, as of course both have loads of fructose. The one viable argument to vilify HFCS is simply that it's so convenient and inexpensive (courtesy of massively subsidized corn production) that it led to many more products having added sugars. But people who carefully pour over ingredients looking for HFCS, but treat sugar as wholesome, are usually operating on ignorance.
fashion-at-cost 2y ago