4 ms·

The missing context here is that the science and established benefits of fluoride aren’t a culture war political football in those countries. These countries l

by quitit 2y ago

The missing context here is that the science and established benefits of fluoride aren’t a culture war political football in those countries. These countries largely publicly recognise the benefits of fluoride, but don’t add it because: - Some countries opt for intake via supplementation. - Some have a naturally sufficient supply in drinking water via natural processes. - Some even need to reduce the abundance of fluoride in their water due to over supply.

piuantiderp 2y ago
[flagged]
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
  You could help by providing something worth reading.
  - DonHopkins 2y ago
    Not possible. He just needs to write less.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  Everything they said was true; is there some additional information that should have been provided above and beyond?
adrian_b 2y ago
[flagged]
- koshergweilo 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    So same applies to the comment they were replying to and pretty much anything anyone said in this thread?
- Taters91 2y ago
  [flagged]
- nicce 2y ago
  > 1. The beneficial effect of fluoride occurs only when fluoride is applied externally, in contact with the tooth enamel I think you are kinda misusing science/not science arguments. This is indeed the scientific reason why there is flouride in the water. It is also scientific reason why some countries removed it. In some countries people take care of their teeth on average and in other countries not so much. So there is science for why fluoridation happens. You can read many articles about the fluoride benefits for teeth and what is the impact of teeth for overall health.
- quitit 2y ago
  >The problem is that fluoridation of the drinking water is not supported by any science. Yet it is supported by science. Indeed even the discovery of this property of fluoride came about from the observation of people who naturally consumed fluoride had fewer dental caries and tooth decay. Further studies cemented the benefits of the passive inclusion of fluoride in drinking water versus control groups. So no, the science you speak of is almost certainly politics dressed up as science.
- saberience 2y ago
  Just a note for future people reading this comment. This is completely and totally wrong, and arguably should be deleted from Hackernews for being so deluded. There have been countless studies that show that communities with flouride in the water have consistently lower rates of tooth decay than communities without fluoride in the water. In fact, community water fluoridation has been recognized as one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown repeatedly that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay in both children and adults by approximately 25-30%.
naasking 2y ago
Why is that missing context? I don't think anybody who is against fluoridated tap water rejects the benefits of fluoride, they just think the harms of adding it to tap water outweigh the benefits.
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  Might I introduce you to the US’ head of antivax and conspiracy theories: https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1852907832884285708 https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1852907832884285708
  - naasking 2y ago
    I don't see a statement of his opinion on fluoridated toothpaste, which is the real test.
    - _aavaa_ 2y ago
      > dangerous neurotoxin I think you can pretty easily infer his opinion about toothpaste containing a "dangerous neurotoxin".
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        The lethal dose of fluoride is in the 5-10g range for an adult [1] with immediate gastrointestinal effects at 15-20x lower. While those levels are quite obviously far above the recommended level of 0.7mg/l, it's very reasonable to call anything that's lethal at 5g, to a human adult, as dangerous. The latest report from the National Toxicology Program has found a causal reduction of ~1.63 IQ per additional mg/L concentration of fluoride in their urine [2], which would seem sufficient to also call it a neurotoxin, though the NTP under extensive pressure chose to avoid any particular label after having previously declared it a "presumed neurotoxin." Notably the study from NTP also mentioned something most people here seem to be missing: "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." Fluoride being seen as desirable at safe levels, may have drove excessive multi-domain inputs of it, which can combine to drive it to unsafe levels. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity [2] - https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...

by quitit 2y ago

piuantiderp 2y ago

[flagged]

MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
You could help by providing something worth reading.
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  Not possible. He just needs to write less.
margalabargala 2y ago
Everything they said was true; is there some additional information that should have been provided above and beyond?

adrian_b 2y ago

[flagged]

koshergweilo 2y ago
[flagged]
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  So same applies to the comment they were replying to and pretty much anything anyone said in this thread?
Taters91 2y ago
[flagged]
nicce 2y ago
> 1. The beneficial effect of fluoride occurs only when fluoride is applied externally, in contact with the tooth enamel I think you are kinda misusing science/not science arguments. This is indeed the scientific reason why there is flouride in the water. It is also scientific reason why some countries removed it. In some countries people take care of their teeth on average and in other countries not so much. So there is science for why fluoridation happens. You can read many articles about the fluoride benefits for teeth and what is the impact of teeth for overall health.
quitit 2y ago
>The problem is that fluoridation of the drinking water is not supported by any science. Yet it is supported by science. Indeed even the discovery of this property of fluoride came about from the observation of people who naturally consumed fluoride had fewer dental caries and tooth decay. Further studies cemented the benefits of the passive inclusion of fluoride in drinking water versus control groups. So no, the science you speak of is almost certainly politics dressed up as science.
saberience 2y ago
Just a note for future people reading this comment. This is completely and totally wrong, and arguably should be deleted from Hackernews for being so deluded. There have been countless studies that show that communities with flouride in the water have consistently lower rates of tooth decay than communities without fluoride in the water. In fact, community water fluoridation has been recognized as one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown repeatedly that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay in both children and adults by approximately 25-30%.

naasking 2y ago

Why is that missing context? I don't think anybody who is against fluoridated tap water rejects the benefits of fluoride, they just think the harms of adding it to tap water outweigh the benefits.

_aavaa_ 2y ago
Might I introduce you to the US’ head of antivax and conspiracy theories: https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1852907832884285708 https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1852907832884285708
- naasking 2y ago
  I don't see a statement of his opinion on fluoridated toothpaste, which is the real test.
  - _aavaa_ 2y ago
    > dangerous neurotoxin I think you can pretty easily infer his opinion about toothpaste containing a "dangerous neurotoxin".
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      The lethal dose of fluoride is in the 5-10g range for an adult [1] with immediate gastrointestinal effects at 15-20x lower. While those levels are quite obviously far above the recommended level of 0.7mg/l, it's very reasonable to call anything that's lethal at 5g, to a human adult, as dangerous. The latest report from the National Toxicology Program has found a causal reduction of ~1.63 IQ per additional mg/L concentration of fluoride in their urine [2], which would seem sufficient to also call it a neurotoxin, though the NTP under extensive pressure chose to avoid any particular label after having previously declared it a "presumed neurotoxin." Notably the study from NTP also mentioned something most people here seem to be missing: "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." Fluoride being seen as desirable at safe levels, may have drove excessive multi-domain inputs of it, which can combine to drive it to unsafe levels. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity [2] - https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...