5 ms·

While I acknowledge it is not a "solved" issue, I find it bizarre nonetheless, simply because it is so disproportionately low-stakes compared to the amount of c

by bsza 2y ago

While I acknowledge it is not a "solved" issue, I find it bizarre nonetheless, simply because it is so disproportionately low-stakes compared to the amount of controversy around it. Increased risk of cavities versus tentative evidence of losing 1-2 IQ points at 1.5 mg/L? Sounds like a Monty Python sketch to me that people would get so worked up over this.

jdminhbg 2y ago
Agree, it's a little bit like child Covid vaccinations. Not much evidence for either benefit or harm, recommended in the US but not most of Europe.
- epgui 2y ago
  It’s not at all the same, that’s a terrible example. Child vaccinations help reduce the Rt, regardless of whether the benefit to the individual is significant. Statements to the contrary have just confused the public. (biochemist)
  - jdminhbg 2y ago
    Tell that to the European health agencies, I guess, they seem to be confused too.
    - llbbdd 2y ago
      Nothing new there.
  - logicchains 2y ago
    Not necessarily, because excessive boosting is associated with increased infection rate/RTlt: https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(25)00067-2/fulltext https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(25)000...
  - vasco 2y ago
    What Rt are you worried about in 2025?
    - epgui 2y ago
      Rt is just basic science, and basic science doesn’t change depending on the year.
Auracle 2y ago
Im sorry, but I think it’s ridiculous that thinking something that knows off an IQ point or two isn’t a big deal. For one, we’re literally making everyone slightly less intelligent. While it’s a very small factor, I sure as hell wouldn’t want that for my daughters. For two, IQ is easy to measure. Through that, we know it’s affecting the brain during development. How else is it affecting it? We don’t know. Weighed against potentially higher risk of cavities pretty much only during childhood and the math seems incredibly clear to me. I feel like the only reason we haven’t banned adding it to water supplies is because people have a knee jerk reaction to anything that sounds even vaguely anti-vax nowadays. The fact that until 10 years ago the US allowed significantly higher levels should be a really big deal to people. I’m on reverse osmosis well water so it doesn’t matter to me personally, for what it’s worth.
adrian_b 2y ago
The risk of cavities is reduced by using toothpaste or mouth washes with fluoride, not by drinking fluoridated water. Almost all fluoride from the drinking water does not have any effect on tooth enamel, because it has contact with it only for a few seconds, except for an infinitesimal fraction that may exit again the body in saliva. On the other hand, the harmful effects of fluoride in drinking water are certain and it cannot be predicted exactly how much water will be ingested by someone, i.e. which will be the harmful dose of ingested fluoride. The only argument of those who support water fluoridation is that most people must be morons who cannot be taught to wash their teeth. I do not believe that this theory can be right.
- shlant 2y ago
  > The risk of cavities is reduced by using toothpaste or mouth washes with fluoride, not by drinking fluoridated water. it always surprises me how willing people are to just make something up and be confident in doing so. We've know for almost 75 years that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay[1] and yet here you are straight up denying that. Do you just not care if you are correct? or do you know you aren't but are driven by the beliefs you already hold? [1] 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...
- scintill76 2y ago
  > Almost all fluoride from the drinking water does not have any effect on tooth enamel, because it has contact with it only for a few seconds The contact via toothpaste or mouth wash isn’t all that much longer, so why would they be effective if fluoridated water isn’t? People intentionally wash out toothpaste and mouthwash after this short contact.
danielscrubs 2y ago
To straw man, you could argue that 1-2 IQ extra might have a large affect on the salary as everything is relative. If you are on the lower IQ scale, a ten point reduction would double your likelihood of doing crime. I put in a spelling error in the above paragraph of 215 characters, you still understand it but what was your perception of me from this very small error?
wqaatwt 2y ago
IQ points is just an indicator that could be measured consistently. Who knows what else is going on.. and statistically (especially depending on the distribution) 2 IQ points is quite a lot. After all 50% of the population fall into the 20 point range in the middle.. Of course it comes down to whether the relationship actually exists. But picking a slightly higher risk of cavities when the other option is potential mental impairment (however mild) seems like a no-brainer..
- Xelynega 2y ago
  Has this link been found to not exist in fluoride supplements or fluoride toothpastes? I don't think it's such a no brainer if every health org is recommending fluoride, and some people think it's scary.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    Nobody did any studies or experiments? Also you are not supposed to eat toothpaste… > don't think it's such a no brainer Well obviously only if the relationship actually exists and there is enough evidence for it. How else could you interpret my comment? > brainer if every health org is recommending fluoride Is that true? e.g. throughout entire Europe for instance?
permo-w 2y ago
you're really genuinely shocked that people would get worked up over chemicals being added to their drinking water without their consent? chemicals which have not been conclusively proven to be non-toxic? chemicals which are already in toothpaste giving people the choice to use them anyway?
- kllrnohj 2y ago
  flouride naturally occurs in water all over the world, and if you don't want any chemicals in your water you should be drinking distilled water. Almost nobody does, because "chemicals in the water reeeeeee!!!" is just a mindless idiotic shreak, not anything insightful or debatable
  - permo-w 2y ago
    >"chemicals in the water reeeeeee!!!" having to resort to childish attempts like this essentially invalidates anything "insightful" you might want to say. if you can't see that manually adding safety-unproven chemicals to water without people's consent is a weird and unethical thing to do, then that's fine, but don't embarrass yourself and everyone else like this
    - kllrnohj 2y ago
      > if you can't see that manually adding safety-unproven Nobody is doing that, so maybe don't embarrass yourself like that? > without people's consent Also not happening. Consent was established when it was voted on, and if people want to change their local policies they are always free to do so. People that object against majority are also free to drink alternative water from the free market instead of relying on socialist handouts If you want to have an actual, good faith debate about the pros/cons of a specific additive that's wonderful. But you didn't, you reduced the entire thing to "chemicals bad because chemicals". But, more significantly, so too has the US's administration which Utah is following suit on. The US is full on "feels not reals" government mode.
      - 2y ago
fuckyah 2y ago
[dead]
danielmarkbruce 2y ago
The specifics of fluoride are low stakes. The general idea of the government medicating the people writ large isn't low stakes. In the US there are a lot of people who are of the opinion the government should just let people be.
- Xelynega 2y ago
  Are those the people voting for the "have the government put restrictions on trans people" party? I have a feeling it's not about "letting people be". It's about "let me be and screw over those I don't like"
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    If you live in the US, you'll meet a lot of genuinely good people on both sides of the more/less government debate. Anyone who thinks this is a straightforward issue is dumb, frankly.
    - Xelynega 2y ago
      I'm just confused how parties that advocate for small government(in the US and Canada) seem to simultaneously target the rights of minorities. How can the issue people are concerned with be government overreach if they don't care about the government overreaching into others backyards?
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        What rights of minorities have been targeted? If the only example is trans rights, it's dumb to think it's a simple issue of trampled rights. There are two competing sets of rights, you grant one set you take away from the other. There isn't a good solution. If you think all the people advocating for small government must be fools or hypocrites, you don't understand the issues an any depth.
        Xelynega 2y ago

by bsza 2y ago

jdminhbg 2y ago

Agree, it's a little bit like child Covid vaccinations. Not much evidence for either benefit or harm, recommended in the US but not most of Europe.

epgui 2y ago
It’s not at all the same, that’s a terrible example. Child vaccinations help reduce the Rt, regardless of whether the benefit to the individual is significant. Statements to the contrary have just confused the public. (biochemist)
- jdminhbg 2y ago
  Tell that to the European health agencies, I guess, they seem to be confused too.
  - llbbdd 2y ago
    Nothing new there.
- logicchains 2y ago
  Not necessarily, because excessive boosting is associated with increased infection rate/RTlt: https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(25)00067-2/fulltext https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(25)000...
- vasco 2y ago
  What Rt are you worried about in 2025?
  - epgui 2y ago
    Rt is just basic science, and basic science doesn’t change depending on the year.

Auracle 2y ago

Im sorry, but I think it’s ridiculous that thinking something that knows off an IQ point or two isn’t a big deal. For one, we’re literally making everyone slightly less intelligent. While it’s a very small factor, I sure as hell wouldn’t want that for my daughters. For two, IQ is easy to measure. Through that, we know it’s affecting the brain during development. How else is it affecting it? We don’t know. Weighed against potentially higher risk of cavities pretty much only during childhood and the math seems incredibly clear to me. I feel like the only reason we haven’t banned adding it to water supplies is because people have a knee jerk reaction to anything that sounds even vaguely anti-vax nowadays. The fact that until 10 years ago the US allowed significantly higher levels should be a really big deal to people. I’m on reverse osmosis well water so it doesn’t matter to me personally, for what it’s worth.

adrian_b 2y ago

The risk of cavities is reduced by using toothpaste or mouth washes with fluoride, not by drinking fluoridated water. Almost all fluoride from the drinking water does not have any effect on tooth enamel, because it has contact with it only for a few seconds, except for an infinitesimal fraction that may exit again the body in saliva. On the other hand, the harmful effects of fluoride in drinking water are certain and it cannot be predicted exactly how much water will be ingested by someone, i.e. which will be the harmful dose of ingested fluoride. The only argument of those who support water fluoridation is that most people must be morons who cannot be taught to wash their teeth. I do not believe that this theory can be right.

shlant 2y ago
> The risk of cavities is reduced by using toothpaste or mouth washes with fluoride, not by drinking fluoridated water. it always surprises me how willing people are to just make something up and be confident in doing so. We've know for almost 75 years that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay[1] and yet here you are straight up denying that. Do you just not care if you are correct? or do you know you aren't but are driven by the beliefs you already hold? [1] 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...
scintill76 2y ago
> Almost all fluoride from the drinking water does not have any effect on tooth enamel, because it has contact with it only for a few seconds The contact via toothpaste or mouth wash isn’t all that much longer, so why would they be effective if fluoridated water isn’t? People intentionally wash out toothpaste and mouthwash after this short contact.

danielscrubs 2y ago

To straw man, you could argue that 1-2 IQ extra might have a large affect on the salary as everything is relative. If you are on the lower IQ scale, a ten point reduction would double your likelihood of doing crime. I put in a spelling error in the above paragraph of 215 characters, you still understand it but what was your perception of me from this very small error?

wqaatwt 2y ago

IQ points is just an indicator that could be measured consistently. Who knows what else is going on.. and statistically (especially depending on the distribution) 2 IQ points is quite a lot. After all 50% of the population fall into the 20 point range in the middle.. Of course it comes down to whether the relationship actually exists. But picking a slightly higher risk of cavities when the other option is potential mental impairment (however mild) seems like a no-brainer..

Xelynega 2y ago
Has this link been found to not exist in fluoride supplements or fluoride toothpastes? I don't think it's such a no brainer if every health org is recommending fluoride, and some people think it's scary.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  Nobody did any studies or experiments? Also you are not supposed to eat toothpaste… > don't think it's such a no brainer Well obviously only if the relationship actually exists and there is enough evidence for it. How else could you interpret my comment? > brainer if every health org is recommending fluoride Is that true? e.g. throughout entire Europe for instance?

permo-w 2y ago

you're really genuinely shocked that people would get worked up over chemicals being added to their drinking water without their consent? chemicals which have not been conclusively proven to be non-toxic? chemicals which are already in toothpaste giving people the choice to use them anyway?

kllrnohj 2y ago
flouride naturally occurs in water all over the world, and if you don't want any chemicals in your water you should be drinking distilled water. Almost nobody does, because "chemicals in the water reeeeeee!!!" is just a mindless idiotic shreak, not anything insightful or debatable
- permo-w 2y ago
  >"chemicals in the water reeeeeee!!!" having to resort to childish attempts like this essentially invalidates anything "insightful" you might want to say. if you can't see that manually adding safety-unproven chemicals to water without people's consent is a weird and unethical thing to do, then that's fine, but don't embarrass yourself and everyone else like this
  - kllrnohj 2y ago
    > if you can't see that manually adding safety-unproven Nobody is doing that, so maybe don't embarrass yourself like that? > without people's consent Also not happening. Consent was established when it was voted on, and if people want to change their local policies they are always free to do so. People that object against majority are also free to drink alternative water from the free market instead of relying on socialist handouts If you want to have an actual, good faith debate about the pros/cons of a specific additive that's wonderful. But you didn't, you reduced the entire thing to "chemicals bad because chemicals". But, more significantly, so too has the US's administration which Utah is following suit on. The US is full on "feels not reals" government mode.
    - 2y ago

fuckyah 2y ago

[dead]

danielmarkbruce 2y ago

The specifics of fluoride are low stakes. The general idea of the government medicating the people writ large isn't low stakes. In the US there are a lot of people who are of the opinion the government should just let people be.

Xelynega 2y ago
Are those the people voting for the "have the government put restrictions on trans people" party? I have a feeling it's not about "letting people be". It's about "let me be and screw over those I don't like"
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  If you live in the US, you'll meet a lot of genuinely good people on both sides of the more/less government debate. Anyone who thinks this is a straightforward issue is dumb, frankly.
  - Xelynega 2y ago
    I'm just confused how parties that advocate for small government(in the US and Canada) seem to simultaneously target the rights of minorities. How can the issue people are concerned with be government overreach if they don't care about the government overreaching into others backyards?
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      What rights of minorities have been targeted? If the only example is trans rights, it's dumb to think it's a simple issue of trampled rights. There are two competing sets of rights, you grant one set you take away from the other. There isn't a good solution. If you think all the people advocating for small government must be fools or hypocrites, you don't understand the issues an any depth.
      - Xelynega 2y ago