6 ms·

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

• 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]
      • jiggawatts 2y ago
        That's just not true. Most of the studies simply compared areas with different amounts of natural fluoride in their local water supply, and applied some basic statistics comparing dental health. There have also been some A/B studies possible in areas that stopped or started using fluoride in their water. Multiple such studies have been done, globally, over many decades.
        • Brybry 2y ago
          I think it depends on how strict your criteria and evidence requirements are. There are two Cochrane reviews that I saw on community water fluoridation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26092033/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26092033/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39362658/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39362658/ There is limited modern evidence (ie. in a world where everyone is brushing their teeth with fluoride toothpaste) of some reduction in tooth decay in children. There were no studies on adults that met the review criteria. Overall it seems like we just don't really know how much impact CWF currently has.
      • shlant 2y ago
        you're just lying https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/data-research/facts-stats/fast-facts-community-water-fluoridation.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/data-research/facts-stats/fa...
    • amazingamazing 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • plaqueattack 2y ago
        You can’t be serious right now. Your teeth aren’t in your digestive tract.
        • dcassett 2y ago
          > Your teeth aren’t in your digestive tract. However: Once ingested, the fluoride has a systemic affect on teeth before they erupt, incorporating into the matrix of developing teeth to increase the mineralization content and decrease the solubility of enamel. [1] [1] https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/current-fluoride-recommendations-for-the-pediatric-patient https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/current-fluoride-recomm...
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • dcrazy 2y ago
        Fluoridated toothpaste says not to swallow because it contains much higher concentrations of fluoride than drinking water. If you ingest too much toothpaste, it can cause your teeth to get blotchy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis
        • amazingamazing 2y ago
          Yup, but even for fluoride gels it says explicitly not to swallow. One because fluoride is toxic when concentrated, two because it needs to be on your teeth, not inside your belly.
      • freehorse 2y ago
        It increases fluoride content in the saliva
    • Jimmc414 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • mmsc 2y ago
        If your water was sourced """naturally""" from a spring with a high fluoride levels, I wonder if you'd call that an additive.
    • Spooky23 2y ago
      You can’t win. Freedom, IQ, precious bodily fluids. There’s no end to the nonsense. My city started fluoridating a few years ago. The crazy was off the chart, they’re still active. NYC has fluoridated for 60 years, you’d think someone would have figured out that the entire city is dumber.
      • like_any_other 2y ago
        Bodily autonomy is "nonsense"?
        • scheeseman486 2y ago
          How do you feel about the fossil fuel industry, because they're responsible for far more carcinogens entering your body than Big Flouride.
          • grues-dinner 2y ago
            Not just regular toxic chemicals, either, through the is plenty of that. Quite a bit of radiation too. And companies that adulterate, misrepresent and obfuscate what they put in food as well. No-one is putting corn syrup or brominated vegetable oil in food with any intention other than money money money. In fact, if I were an evil subgenius and really actively wanted to damage the IQs of the nation for some nefarious purpose, and it has to be substance-based, I'd avoid things with annoying oversight like public drinking water and vaccines and focus on food and pollution as a vector. If challenged, I just say "why do you hate my freedom to make a profit and provide jobs". Sure, the FDA and EPA exist, but even then you can get away with far, far more in those areas. Food wise, HFCS, BVO, etc, pollution wise, almost everything to with plastics or polymers, oil, coal, gas the list goes on and on.
        • TheBicPen 2y ago
          Do you think bodily autonomy is absolute? Your comments seem to imply that bodily autonomy is the only relevant thing to consider when discussing patient care. The world doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, a doctor won't amputate a limb when you show up with a runny nose even if you insist that that's the procedure you want. Search up the 4 principles of biomedical ethics if you want to learn more about the factors that influence doctors' ethical decisions. Or do you mean that your opinion should trump that of any doctor or expert in any field when the issue pertains to your person? If that's the case, I wonder why you choose to participate in society at all, given that you're uncomfortable with the idea that other people might know more than you.
    • oaktrout 2y ago
      Fluorinated water minimally reduces cavities: https://www.cochrane.org/news/water-fluoridation-less-effective-now-past https://www.cochrane.org/news/water-fluoridation-less-effect... It was probably much more effective 50 years ago when fluoride was not in everyone's toothpaste.
  • afthonos 2y ago
    There isn’t any! GP doesn’t have that authority! Well done! On the other hand, the society you live in probably has some sort of document establishing who does have the authority, and how it devolves to the actual policy-makers. Google “$YOUR_LOCATION government” and you’ll have some good starting points. If you’re lucky, you might even get to participate in the process; “$YOUR_LOCATION elections” will give you good pointers in that case.
  • loktarogar 2y ago
    The people of Flint, MI were (and some still are!) forced to drink bottled water for years when their water was contaminated with lead. When you drink from publicly supplied water, you accept risks that can be much worse than fluoride in your water. If you want to avoid that, you need to procure your own drinking water.
  • cratermoon 2y ago
    7mg/L? Where the heck did you get that figure? The correct value is a tenth of that: 0.7 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) The limit is 2mg/L, and that's only found in places with naturally occurring high levels of flouride.
  • don_neufeld 2y ago
    You can solve your “problem” for a very small price: it costs under $0.50 per day to distill your own drinking water per person. So for $15/mo, “problem” solved. Are you doing that?
    • syspec 2y ago
      How does one go about doing that? For that price? I'd love to give it a go for my family
  • Sparkle-san 2y ago
    It's not your water, it's municipal water you purchase with the fluoride in it.
• userbinator 2y ago
  Which changes the calculus Was that intentional? (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dental_calculus https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dental_calculus for those who didn't get the reference.)
  • kazinator 2y ago
    The canonical form is "I see what you did there".
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Fluorosis is very common afaik. My dentist told me I have it: slightly whiter patches on my teeth. Then he showed me his own fluorosis. It actually is stronger than the old enamel.
• naasking 2y ago
  > The IQ link is very heavily lacking in evidence. Not really: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2828425 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
  • shlant 2y ago
    your study has been heavily criticized where you already posted it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43523900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43523900 I can only assume once you see those very valid criticisms, you will update your references
    • naasking 2y ago
      Does the study not literally refute the claim that fluoride's negative impact on IQ is lacking in evidence, contrary to the original claim? What exactly do you think needs to be updated?
      • shlant 2y ago
        the original refutation was "fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains". Your study does not show that IQ is effected at concentrations that are being added to water supplies. Just because X can result from Y levels of some substance does't mean X results from Y-n concentrations.
        • naasking 2y ago
          > the original refutation was "fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains". No, this is the original claim: > 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. Then the parent replied that this IQ link is lacking evidence, which it's not, per the meta-analysis I cited.
          • 2y ago
• hedora 2y ago
  Children are the main group that benefits from fluoride in water because the fluoride helps strengthen teeth as they form. Lack of fluoride increases childhood cavities, leading to decreased academic performance. This was a real problem in the San Jose school district until recently. They started fluoridation of water in the last ten years, and were the biggest US city that didn’t fluoridate. The evidence of the above is clear according to SJ dentists I have talked to.
• somenameforme 2y ago
  The National Toxicology Program recently completed a fairly substantial meta study and concluded that "for every 1 mg/L increase in urinary fluoride, there is a decrease of 1.63 IQ points in children.". [1] This is also relevant to OP since it's not just pregnant women at risk from excessive fluoridation but also children. For now it seems that adults are, somewhat oddly, unaffected. [1] - https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...
  • Aloisius 2y ago
    In bold from your source: > 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.
    • somenameforme 2y ago
      Yeah, note the measurement is in urine. So there are two separate issues. Determining whether fluoride is damaging to IQ, and then whether the levels in water can drive this. The former is way easier to evaluate than the latter. The reason comes from that study's intro pargraphs: --- "Since 1945, the use of fluoride has been a successful public health initiative for reducing dental cavities and improving general oral health of adults and children. There is a concern, however, that some pregnant women and children may be getting more fluoride than they need because they now get fluoride from many sources including treated public water, water-added foods and beverages, teas, toothpaste, floss, and mouthwash, and the combined total intake of fluoride may exceed safe amounts." --- So the issue is trying to isolate the exact amount and source of fluoride people are getting. And that probably has no answer because it's going to vary dependent on how much fluoridated water somebody drinks, the rest of their diet, their other dental hygiene composition, and more. So levels that would be safe for one percent of the population, will be dangerous for another percent of it.
  • efirman 2y ago
    Here is a concise detailed analysis of the concerns with the metaanalysis provided by the NTP: https://theunbiasedscipod.substack.com/p/the-well-runs-deep-examining-the https://theunbiasedscipod.substack.com/p/the-well-runs-deep-... The NTP report is flawed and likely biased.