9 ms·

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 a

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.
    - like_any_other 2y ago
      Are teeth the only thing affected by water fluoridation? Why do almost no other countries fluoridate drinking water? Even if it does turn out to be unambiguously good, people have a basic right to make their own medical decisions. Recent systematic reviews suggest an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
      - wokwokwok 2y ago
        If you're not prepared to listen to an expert, and that's what your dentist is on this topic, then nothing I, or anyone else can say, makes any difference to you. At some point, you have to accept that your random wikipedia page and 5 minutes on google is not a convincing argument. This is right up there in the conspiracy theory territory. Rational discussion means listening to experts and admitting that you are not an expert. What do you want me to say? You aren't a qualified expert on this topic. If you want an expert opinion, talk to an expert, not some dubious fucking provenance wikipedia page.
- lolinder 2y ago
  What they're referring to is the fact that very few countries in the rest of the world even consider the possibility of adding fluoride to the water supply. It's basically just the US, Australia, and to a much lesser extent Canada. It's not a debate everywhere else because adding fluoride to the water is objectively an unusual thing to do that they just... don't. Presumably they get fluoride other ways.
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    How many countries actually drink their tap water as their main source of water?
    - int_19h 2y ago
      Pretty much the entire Europe, for starters.
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    AFAIK all (former) USSR does that.
plaqueattack 2y ago
These people have been around forever but the pivotal point in my opinion is when the Lancet retracted the article on the link between MMR and autism. Suddenly everything was up for debate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud
slibhb 2y ago
How has the debate been solved by the rest of the world? My understanding is that many countries in Europe don't fluoridate the water supply. I'm skeptical of results showing IQ loss but I also think fluoridation should be phased out as fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash are now widely available. Banning it seems like the wrong move to me...states should simply decide to continue adding it or not.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > Banning it seems like the wrong move to me...states should simply decide to continue adding it or not. Isn't that exactly what's happening here? A state deciding to not continue adding it?
  - foenix 2y ago
    Nope, the bill as written prevents local municipalities from making that decision.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Right. The state made the decision to stop it from being added, which is what OP proposed. Did OP mean that municipalities should simply decide to keep adding or not? If so, how do we decide (from our various armchairs in most cases far away from Utah) what the appropriate level of government for making this call is?
      - throwup238 2y ago
        The state’s Department of Health can issue a guidance explaining the states’ experts’ analysis of the available data and tradeoffs of the decision, and let the municipalities sort it out. I think the bigger complication though is going to be - depending on the state - how water districts are apportioned. I think even many counties (let alone municipalities) will share water infrastructure so it’s not really clear who has the jurisdiction to make that decision other than the state.
ews 2y ago
The US rarely looks into how other countries solve problems. (i.e. Universal Healthcare, High Speed Trains and so), this is the sad part of "American Exceptionalism"
- nozzlegear 2y ago
  A less cynical framing is that the US is a much different culture from European countries, and is massively larger in scale. Depending on the problem, some of their solutions simply can't or don't apply.
  - DeepYogurt 2y ago
    Scale is a scapegoat. Take the US region by region and you can find analogs around the world.
    - nozzlegear 2y ago
      The US isn't several countries put together, region by region. It's one big ass country. I really don't see how taking it region by region somehow eliminates scale issues when you still have to apply it to the entire country.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        It's a federal country of many states though. The original design of the US is fairly similar to the design of the EU today, US states used to be offered much more independence.
        nozzlegear 2y ago
        Sure, I don't disagree that in a vague sense the EU and US are kinda similar in terms of countries and states. > US states used to be offered much more independence. But even in your own example with the EU, the EU still mandates many health policies for its member countries: food safety; air and water quality; tobacco, sugar and alcohol regulations; and so on. That's not at all dissimilar to what the federal government does in the US, except our states don't implement those policies/directives themselves because the feds enforce it all.
lurk2 2y ago
> Maybe the US should look into how other countries have solved it? How have other countries solved it?
- raincole 2y ago
  By not adding fluoride into the tap water and let people choose whether to buy toothpaste with fluoride themselves. a.k.a. the European way. Adding fluoride into tap water always sounds borderline insane to me. The only benefit is to protect your teeth, which, to me, strongly suggests that the correct approach is to put it into toothpaste or other oral hygiene products instead of water.
neRok 2y ago
Banning its addition is a step beyond — but in Queensland, Australia for example, the state government no longer mandates its inclusion, and thus the local councils are able to set their own policy. > While more than 90 per cent of Australians have access to fluoridated water, that figure is significantly lagging in the sunshine state, where local councils have ultimate authority over whether it is adopted. > A decade after the Newman government handed responsibility for fluoridated drinking water to local governments, 51 out of 77 have opted out. That means about 28 per cent of Queenslanders do not have fluoridated drinking water https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-24/fluoride-dental-care-dentistry-water-queensland-government/103128018 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-24/fluoride-dental-care-...
- declan_roberts 2y ago
  So how does their dental conditions and IQs compare? Sounds like a nice little AB test.
jaredklewis 2y ago
How has it been “solved?” There’s just tradeoffs. There’s evidence that despite widespread availability of fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash, fluoridated drinking water improves dental outcomes at the population level. There’s also evidence that at high levels (not the normal levels it is added at, but at higher levels which can happen on accident) fluoride may reduce IQ. I’m ok with either trade off but the “solved” phrasing makes it sound like there is an obviously superior choice.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jdminhbg 2y ago
What I love about this comment is that one person thought "of course every other country just does the right thing when the US doesn't" and posted it, and then a bunch of other people thought "of course every other country just does the right thing when the US doesn't" and upvoted it, and not a single one of them thought to check what the "right thing" is. Meanwhile, back here on Earth-1, there's no right thing, and countries all over the world have "by and large solved" the issue by doing completely different things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country > Water fluoridation is considered very common in the United States, Canada, Ireland, Chile and Australia where over 50% of the population drinks fluoridated water. > Most European countries including Italy, France, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Hungary and Switzerland do not fluoridate water.
- nostromo 2y ago
  Most developed countries have stopped using fluoride. I think that’s the commenter’s point. The US and Australia are outliers here for sure.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ruph123 2y ago
  The world map is hilarious. Germany sure does not look like this anymore (and this is not the GDR split but goes further back). Maybe they should update this. Draws into the question, the whole data.
  - ddulaney 2y ago
    The map is drawing Germany and Czechia both with the same white color as the border. Unfortunate that the color scheme is confusing, but not any weird borders. You can see the uncolored map here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World6-Equirectangular.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World6-Equirec...
  - decimalenough 2y ago
nostromo 2y ago
I’d agree that Europe has solved this issue by removing fluoride from drinking water. But beyond Europe there’s still no global consensus. I do agree that the US is an outlier with fluoride being nearly universal.
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  Which European countries _remove_ fluoride from water generally? UK adds it in naturally low fluoride areas. Some countries no longer add it (but their water still has naturally occurring fluoride that they don't remove).
cameldrv 2y ago
I remember the first time I went to a German dentist and he told me how amazing my teeth looked and that he could tell I must be American. Fluoride may have some downsides but it definitely has upsides.
- nichos 2y ago
  Is it good for teeth because it's "applied" when drinking it, or is it due to ingesting it? I think ingesting is the issue.
  - jandrewrogers 2y ago
    Food often has much higher levels of fluoride than water, but the fluoride isn’t as bioavailable to teeth when it is in food, hence putting it in water. Fluorine in food may become more bioavailable further down the digestive tract where it does much less good.
rdtsc 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? I mean Utah is trying, sorry it took a while. I know Germany and Sweden don't fluoridate its water, I assume you mean Western Europe by the "world" (sorry if I am interpreting too much here, but that's usually what's popular to compare US to and bash US on how bad it is), so US is getting "with the program", finally I suppose. States having individual laws here is a benefit, one state doesn't have to wait for the Federal Government to act. > This is one of these US-specific polarised debates I find really bizarre, I don't think it's that polarizing? Unless 1) you're listening to US media more and 2) you're not getting many non-polarizing issues in the news, because those are well are just boring and don't sell ads.
anigbrowl 2y ago
completely bizarre witnessing both sides getting so polarised around a basically non-issue This isn't a sensible way to think about it. Every contentious conversation I've ever had has gone this way: Me: why do people want to ban fluoride Them: [anti government paranoia] Me: um...but how about tooth decay Them: pineal gland calcification Me: idk sounds pretty far-fetched Them: THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK It's irrational to complain about 'both sides' when only one side is insisting on making it into an issue. I generally just try to disegnage from people as soon as they start freaking out about fluoride/ chemtrails/ vaccinations etc, but people like this frequently treat skepticism as a personal attack. Increasingly they occupy positions of political power (see eg RFK) having acquired them by public displays of conviction rather than any objective criteria.
protocolture 2y ago
1. Its a fringe issue in Australia 2. The US doesnt believe in other countries so why check.
77pt77 2y ago
Even in Europe Fluoridation is not uniform. Some place do it. Others partially, many not at all.
arp242 2y ago
The same discussion happened in Netherlands in the 70s, and water in NL is no longer fluoridated since the 70s for that reason. So it's not that "US-specific". I don't know about other countries from the top of my head.
- consp 2y ago
  Funny thing you mention that. Since it is now monitored and maintained by natural source. There is fluoride, just not added anymore. (It is at lower levels than when added obviously)
  - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
    >(It is at lower levels than when added obviously) This is not obvious. Some water has high levels of fluoride, which can cause harm (fluoride added for public health reasons is not the highest level of fluoride you will find [in the UK]). Fluoridation could be done by mixing of naturally high fluoride water sources into other water.
bcssimulationz 2y ago
If you look at the US as a simulation that branched of the mother tree of Europe in the 15th century, you won't find it odd that it is rediscovering what Europe has already figured out. Just in it's own way and time. (No chemicals/colors in foods and adequate drinking water) Wait till they figure out mass transit, that will be a shocker.
- briandear 2y ago
  Has Europe figured out mass transit? In Barcelona, a trip that takes me 1.5 hours of total time using “transit” takes me 28 minutes on my motor scooter. I think there is still some figuring out that needs to happen before I’ll add 2 hours to my daily commute.
kelnos 2y ago
No no, in the US we figure out the worst way to do something, and then do that, and invent reasons why the US is unique such that the reasonable solutions that other countries employ just couldn't possibly work here. (To be fair, though, many [most?] Western countries do not fluoridate their water. The US is actually not doing the common thing here.) It's honestly not clear if water fluoridation in the US is necessary or all that useful here anymore, as we started doing it when fluoride toothpaste wasn't really a thing. Now pretty much all(?) toothpaste in the US has fluoride in it. If someone can't afford toothpaste, then they probably can't afford regular dental care either, and fluoridated water isn't going to make much of an impact anyway.
fuckyah 2y ago
[dead]
ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
Here in England, there's some areas that put fluoride into the water and other areas already have sufficient fluoride levels. People complaining about the side effects of fluoridation often forget that water can naturally contain high levels of fluoride - it's really not an issue. https://www.uk-water-filters.co.uk/pages/areas-with-fluoride-added-to-drinking-and-tap-water https://www.uk-water-filters.co.uk/pages/areas-with-fluoride...
danielmarkbruce 2y ago
Think slightly more broadly about the issue. For context... some people think statins should be put in the water. Maybe they should. But were does mass medication of the people stop?
- maleldil 2y ago
  It stops when we run out of easy things that can be done to improve the lives of people. It's not that hard.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    And when you get a tyrant at the top? Every capability you give the government needs to be viewed through the lens of "what happens when we get a really really bad leader?". If you haven't been paying attention, the majority of countries have had at least one really really bad leader over the past few hundred years. Many have one right now.
    - maleldil 2y ago
      If you're always looking at things through that lens, the government can never do anything at all, and you'll be left with "complete freedom" to just die from easily preventable issues. There's absolutely no need to resort to a slippery slope here. We have plenty of examples around the world for things that work without anyone invoking a boogeyman.
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        They can, you just have to look at each issue and it's costs and benefits and risks over time. You desperately want to world to be simple. It isn't. There is a slippery slope, you can stand on it but you want to have some concept of what happens when you slip. There are examples of the boogeyman existing in real life - just 80 years ago we had one of the worst. Right now we have some boogeymen although not Hitler level. Get a little historical perspective.

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.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    Are teeth the only thing affected by water fluoridation? Why do almost no other countries fluoridate drinking water? Even if it does turn out to be unambiguously good, people have a basic right to make their own medical decisions. Recent systematic reviews suggest an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
    - wokwokwok 2y ago
      If you're not prepared to listen to an expert, and that's what your dentist is on this topic, then nothing I, or anyone else can say, makes any difference to you. At some point, you have to accept that your random wikipedia page and 5 minutes on google is not a convincing argument. This is right up there in the conspiracy theory territory. Rational discussion means listening to experts and admitting that you are not an expert. What do you want me to say? You aren't a qualified expert on this topic. If you want an expert opinion, talk to an expert, not some dubious fucking provenance wikipedia page.
lolinder 2y ago
What they're referring to is the fact that very few countries in the rest of the world even consider the possibility of adding fluoride to the water supply. It's basically just the US, Australia, and to a much lesser extent Canada. It's not a debate everywhere else because adding fluoride to the water is objectively an unusual thing to do that they just... don't. Presumably they get fluoride other ways.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  How many countries actually drink their tap water as their main source of water?
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Pretty much the entire Europe, for starters.
- lostmsu 2y ago
  AFAIK all (former) USSR does that.

plaqueattack 2y ago

These people have been around forever but the pivotal point in my opinion is when the Lancet retracted the article on the link between MMR and autism. Suddenly everything was up for debate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud

slibhb 2y ago

How has the debate been solved by the rest of the world? My understanding is that many countries in Europe don't fluoridate the water supply. I'm skeptical of results showing IQ loss but I also think fluoridation should be phased out as fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash are now widely available. Banning it seems like the wrong move to me...states should simply decide to continue adding it or not.

lolinder 2y ago
> Banning it seems like the wrong move to me...states should simply decide to continue adding it or not. Isn't that exactly what's happening here? A state deciding to not continue adding it?
- foenix 2y ago
  Nope, the bill as written prevents local municipalities from making that decision.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Right. The state made the decision to stop it from being added, which is what OP proposed. Did OP mean that municipalities should simply decide to keep adding or not? If so, how do we decide (from our various armchairs in most cases far away from Utah) what the appropriate level of government for making this call is?
    - throwup238 2y ago
      The state’s Department of Health can issue a guidance explaining the states’ experts’ analysis of the available data and tradeoffs of the decision, and let the municipalities sort it out. I think the bigger complication though is going to be - depending on the state - how water districts are apportioned. I think even many counties (let alone municipalities) will share water infrastructure so it’s not really clear who has the jurisdiction to make that decision other than the state.

ews 2y ago

The US rarely looks into how other countries solve problems. (i.e. Universal Healthcare, High Speed Trains and so), this is the sad part of "American Exceptionalism"

nozzlegear 2y ago
A less cynical framing is that the US is a much different culture from European countries, and is massively larger in scale. Depending on the problem, some of their solutions simply can't or don't apply.
- DeepYogurt 2y ago
  Scale is a scapegoat. Take the US region by region and you can find analogs around the world.
  - nozzlegear 2y ago
    The US isn't several countries put together, region by region. It's one big ass country. I really don't see how taking it region by region somehow eliminates scale issues when you still have to apply it to the entire country.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      It's a federal country of many states though. The original design of the US is fairly similar to the design of the EU today, US states used to be offered much more independence.
      - nozzlegear 2y ago
        Sure, I don't disagree that in a vague sense the EU and US are kinda similar in terms of countries and states. > US states used to be offered much more independence. But even in your own example with the EU, the EU still mandates many health policies for its member countries: food safety; air and water quality; tobacco, sugar and alcohol regulations; and so on. That's not at all dissimilar to what the federal government does in the US, except our states don't implement those policies/directives themselves because the feds enforce it all.

lurk2 2y ago

> Maybe the US should look into how other countries have solved it? How have other countries solved it?

raincole 2y ago
By not adding fluoride into the tap water and let people choose whether to buy toothpaste with fluoride themselves. a.k.a. the European way. Adding fluoride into tap water always sounds borderline insane to me. The only benefit is to protect your teeth, which, to me, strongly suggests that the correct approach is to put it into toothpaste or other oral hygiene products instead of water.

neRok 2y ago

Banning its addition is a step beyond — but in Queensland, Australia for example, the state government no longer mandates its inclusion, and thus the local councils are able to set their own policy. > While more than 90 per cent of Australians have access to fluoridated water, that figure is significantly lagging in the sunshine state, where local councils have ultimate authority over whether it is adopted. > A decade after the Newman government handed responsibility for fluoridated drinking water to local governments, 51 out of 77 have opted out. That means about 28 per cent of Queenslanders do not have fluoridated drinking water https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-24/fluoride-dental-care-dentistry-water-queensland-government/103128018 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-24/fluoride-dental-care-...

declan_roberts 2y ago
So how does their dental conditions and IQs compare? Sounds like a nice little AB test.

jaredklewis 2y ago

How has it been “solved?” There’s just tradeoffs. There’s evidence that despite widespread availability of fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash, fluoridated drinking water improves dental outcomes at the population level. There’s also evidence that at high levels (not the normal levels it is added at, but at higher levels which can happen on accident) fluoride may reduce IQ. I’m ok with either trade off but the “solved” phrasing makes it sound like there is an obviously superior choice.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jdminhbg 2y ago

What I love about this comment is that one person thought "of course every other country just does the right thing when the US doesn't" and posted it, and then a bunch of other people thought "of course every other country just does the right thing when the US doesn't" and upvoted it, and not a single one of them thought to check what the "right thing" is. Meanwhile, back here on Earth-1, there's no right thing, and countries all over the world have "by and large solved" the issue by doing completely different things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country > Water fluoridation is considered very common in the United States, Canada, Ireland, Chile and Australia where over 50% of the population drinks fluoridated water. > Most European countries including Italy, France, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Hungary and Switzerland do not fluoridate water.

nostromo 2y ago
Most developed countries have stopped using fluoride. I think that’s the commenter’s point. The US and Australia are outliers here for sure.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ruph123 2y ago
The world map is hilarious. Germany sure does not look like this anymore (and this is not the GDR split but goes further back). Maybe they should update this. Draws into the question, the whole data.
- ddulaney 2y ago
  The map is drawing Germany and Czechia both with the same white color as the border. Unfortunate that the color scheme is confusing, but not any weird borders. You can see the uncolored map here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World6-Equirectangular.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World6-Equirec...
- decimalenough 2y ago

nostromo 2y ago

I’d agree that Europe has solved this issue by removing fluoride from drinking water. But beyond Europe there’s still no global consensus. I do agree that the US is an outlier with fluoride being nearly universal.

pbhjpbhj 2y ago
Which European countries _remove_ fluoride from water generally? UK adds it in naturally low fluoride areas. Some countries no longer add it (but their water still has naturally occurring fluoride that they don't remove).

cameldrv 2y ago

I remember the first time I went to a German dentist and he told me how amazing my teeth looked and that he could tell I must be American. Fluoride may have some downsides but it definitely has upsides.

nichos 2y ago
Is it good for teeth because it's "applied" when drinking it, or is it due to ingesting it? I think ingesting is the issue.
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  Food often has much higher levels of fluoride than water, but the fluoride isn’t as bioavailable to teeth when it is in food, hence putting it in water. Fluorine in food may become more bioavailable further down the digestive tract where it does much less good.

rdtsc 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? I mean Utah is trying, sorry it took a while. I know Germany and Sweden don't fluoridate its water, I assume you mean Western Europe by the "world" (sorry if I am interpreting too much here, but that's usually what's popular to compare US to and bash US on how bad it is), so US is getting "with the program", finally I suppose. States having individual laws here is a benefit, one state doesn't have to wait for the Federal Government to act. > This is one of these US-specific polarised debates I find really bizarre, I don't think it's that polarizing? Unless 1) you're listening to US media more and 2) you're not getting many non-polarizing issues in the news, because those are well are just boring and don't sell ads.

anigbrowl 2y ago

completely bizarre witnessing both sides getting so polarised around a basically non-issue This isn't a sensible way to think about it. Every contentious conversation I've ever had has gone this way: Me: why do people want to ban fluoride Them: [anti government paranoia] Me: um...but how about tooth decay Them: pineal gland calcification Me: idk sounds pretty far-fetched Them: THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK It's irrational to complain about 'both sides' when only one side is insisting on making it into an issue. I generally just try to disegnage from people as soon as they start freaking out about fluoride/ chemtrails/ vaccinations etc, but people like this frequently treat skepticism as a personal attack. Increasingly they occupy positions of political power (see eg RFK) having acquired them by public displays of conviction rather than any objective criteria.

protocolture 2y ago

1. Its a fringe issue in Australia 2. The US doesnt believe in other countries so why check.

77pt77 2y ago

Even in Europe Fluoridation is not uniform. Some place do it. Others partially, many not at all.

arp242 2y ago

The same discussion happened in Netherlands in the 70s, and water in NL is no longer fluoridated since the 70s for that reason. So it's not that "US-specific". I don't know about other countries from the top of my head.

consp 2y ago
Funny thing you mention that. Since it is now monitored and maintained by natural source. There is fluoride, just not added anymore. (It is at lower levels than when added obviously)
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  >(It is at lower levels than when added obviously) This is not obvious. Some water has high levels of fluoride, which can cause harm (fluoride added for public health reasons is not the highest level of fluoride you will find [in the UK]). Fluoridation could be done by mixing of naturally high fluoride water sources into other water.

bcssimulationz 2y ago

If you look at the US as a simulation that branched of the mother tree of Europe in the 15th century, you won't find it odd that it is rediscovering what Europe has already figured out. Just in it's own way and time. (No chemicals/colors in foods and adequate drinking water) Wait till they figure out mass transit, that will be a shocker.

briandear 2y ago
Has Europe figured out mass transit? In Barcelona, a trip that takes me 1.5 hours of total time using “transit” takes me 28 minutes on my motor scooter. I think there is still some figuring out that needs to happen before I’ll add 2 hours to my daily commute.

kelnos 2y ago

No no, in the US we figure out the worst way to do something, and then do that, and invent reasons why the US is unique such that the reasonable solutions that other countries employ just couldn't possibly work here. (To be fair, though, many [most?] Western countries do not fluoridate their water. The US is actually not doing the common thing here.) It's honestly not clear if water fluoridation in the US is necessary or all that useful here anymore, as we started doing it when fluoride toothpaste wasn't really a thing. Now pretty much all(?) toothpaste in the US has fluoride in it. If someone can't afford toothpaste, then they probably can't afford regular dental care either, and fluoridated water isn't going to make much of an impact anyway.

fuckyah 2y ago

[dead]

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago

Here in England, there's some areas that put fluoride into the water and other areas already have sufficient fluoride levels. People complaining about the side effects of fluoridation often forget that water can naturally contain high levels of fluoride - it's really not an issue. https://www.uk-water-filters.co.uk/pages/areas-with-fluoride-added-to-drinking-and-tap-water https://www.uk-water-filters.co.uk/pages/areas-with-fluoride...

danielmarkbruce 2y ago

Think slightly more broadly about the issue. For context... some people think statins should be put in the water. Maybe they should. But were does mass medication of the people stop?

maleldil 2y ago
It stops when we run out of easy things that can be done to improve the lives of people. It's not that hard.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  And when you get a tyrant at the top? Every capability you give the government needs to be viewed through the lens of "what happens when we get a really really bad leader?". If you haven't been paying attention, the majority of countries have had at least one really really bad leader over the past few hundred years. Many have one right now.
  - maleldil 2y ago
    If you're always looking at things through that lens, the government can never do anything at all, and you'll be left with "complete freedom" to just die from easily preventable issues. There's absolutely no need to resort to a slippery slope here. We have plenty of examples around the world for things that work without anyone invoking a boogeyman.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      They can, you just have to look at each issue and it's costs and benefits and risks over time. You desperately want to world to be simple. It isn't. There is a slippery slope, you can stand on it but you want to have some concept of what happens when you slip. There are examples of the boogeyman existing in real life - just 80 years ago we had one of the worst. Right now we have some boogeymen although not Hitler level. Get a little historical perspective.