9 ms·

This take has a few problems: Poor people in the US are capable of using fluoride toothpaste and flossing. At least at homeless shelters at outreach things I’v

This take has a few problems: Poor people in the US are capable of using fluoride toothpaste and flossing. At least at homeless shelters at outreach things I’ve been to, toothpaste and toothbrushes are freely available. Your argument hinges on them being incapable on the whole and needing a Benevolent But Superior Intelligence to provide an alternative for them. Second, it completely ignores any debate over effectiveness or side effects. It could well be that fluoride in water is great for teeth but bad for brains. The objections to fluoride in water I’ve seen are more along those lines. Im not clear the validity of those claims but for example anti fluoride advocates don’t typically object to chlorine in water to kill germs. That seems the core issue- without bias from stakeholders, is the benefit of fluoride proven and the risks disproven? It’s hard to answer because a study needs to span many years and exclude many variables. And in general I think that is what needs to happen with these type debates. Take them _out_ of the sphere of charged political opinion and focus on getting to the objective truth of risks and benefits, then be transparent. People can handle “here are the known pros and cons and what we think that means” over “there are only pros and no cons and if you disagree you hate poor people”

lee_ars 2y ago
> Second, it completely ignores any debate over effectiveness or side effects. It could well be that fluoride in water is great for teeth but bad for brains. Except it's not—fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains. > Im not clear the validity of those claims Thoroughly scientifically debunked. Repeatedly, over decades. > That seems the core issue- without bias from stakeholders, is the benefit of fluoride proven and the risks disproven? It’s hard to answer because a study needs to span many years and exclude many variables. No, it's not hard to answer, because all those studies have been done and the results were that fluoride is safe. > And in general I think that is what needs to happen with these type debates. What needs to stop happening is people ignoring objective reality just because the results happen to align with the other "team's" position on something.
- themgt 2y ago
  What needs to stop happening is people ignoring objective reality just because the results happen to align with the other "team's" position on something. "Out of a population of about three-quarters of a billion, under 14 million people (approximately 2%) in Europe receive artificially-fluoridated water." The problem I continually see in the USA is the ascription of differences of opinion on [any topic] to America's Great Divide between enlightenment and barbarism. I find it often helpful to just check, what do these policies look like outside of America? It doesn't mean Europe got it right on fluoride, it just suggests against adopting the framing that your POV is 100% objective reality proven beyond doubt by Science™ and no rational person not in the throes of "own the [other team]" bad faith might disagree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#...
  - __s 2y ago
    Fluorinated table salt. Naturally fluorinated water sources. Public healthcare that covers dental European policy isn't based on modern fluoridation being dangerous, it's based on having alternative systems in place (which vary by country) In Windsor Ontario, across from Detroit, they took fluoride out of water for nearly a decade before reversing that decision based on results: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/fluoride-water-system-windsor-essex-1.6309405 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/fluoride-water-system... Maybe Utah will be a place with alternative systems, based on another thread it sounds like they have an interesting Mormon safety net. But I would hope states do pilot tests first at least. If studies show that the historic gap in dental health between fluorinated & unfluorinated communities no longer apply, then that would be data driven policy But it seems like this policy is based on someone's common sense that you shouldn't put minerals in water
    - madeofpalk 2y ago
      Look - all for whatever science says is best, but wouldn’t countries with public healthcare also be incentivised to have fluoride in the water to reduce costs/public efficiency of public dental healthcare?
hayst4ck 2y ago
Truth and even the idea that there is objective truth is a fundamentally political concept. Authoritarians are opposed to the idea of objective truth because objective truth gives a person a foundation on which to criticize and dissent from those in power. Truth is threatening to authoritarians. Truth is an alternative source of legitimacy. We are experiencing an assault on objective truth in the US in order to get scientific institutions to submit to political authority rather than the authority of reason. So I agree with you, it is policy that should not be handled by politicians but by experts, which none of us are. Unfortunately science is being politicized. The problem is science challenges those who derive power from means other than reason. Defending scientific consensus is seen as an equally political act as denying it.
- p3rls 2y ago
  [flagged]
- mlinhares 2y ago
  Tolerating this slippery slope that “theres always the other side” is how we got to a place where I have to vaccinate again for measles at 40 because there are people out there saying the measles vaccine isn’t safe.
- dcow 2y ago
  I don’t agree with the framing of “we are experiencing an assault on objective truth…”. We are experiencing a challenge to some existing status quo practices, some of which have come out of science in the past. But nowhere in any conversation has the dialog been “we must question status quo institutional knowledge, and objective truth, to dismantle the institution”. (That’s left speak, actually, and I am acutely aware of leftist circles where that is the conversation.) Look at RFK Jr. This guy doesn't need power and control. He’s a whacko with some different beliefs about health—who fundamentally believes he’s making humans safer because of his negative lived experience with health policy in the US. Occam's razor points to there being a credible benign reason for him to be motivated to challenge existing policy. (And if there is one area of science ripe for iteration, it’s nutritional health.) We don’t need to grab for more extreme alarmist narratives to explain what’s happening. It simply doesn't take some autocratic utopian agenda to question whether fluoride is worth it and advocate for political change. It’s honestly really disingenuous and disheartening to hear people towing this “the right is trying to dismantle the fabric of western liberal democracy and install fascism” line.
travisgriggs 2y ago
I think equating poor people to homeless people is non sequitur. What about the vast population of “barely making it” people? But have it your way. I’ve given up on American people (I exist as a 54 year old one amongst them). Decades of wealth have created a society so “me” centric it makes me nauseous sick. Never have I respected those older than me so little. It makes me so sad what we’ve done for those younger.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  It’s even worse than that. People aren’t even voting for their own self interest. The people in the poorest states and in poor counties in richer states in the United States are consistently voting against universal healthcare, affordable post high school education and are cheering the government taking away services that they depend on the most. There are two basic categories of causes. The first is being pure anti science - anti vaccine, anti fluoride, etc The second is they are more concerned about “God and guns”, immigrants, and the demographic shifts in the US than their own interest. Oh and the third is the cult of MAGA. I’m 50, Native born American and on a meta level it concerns me. On a micro level, me and mine will be okay. While I am not one of these shrill people saying I’m leaving the US tomorrow, my wife and I are definitely putting plans in place to have a dual residency (not citizenship) in Costa Rica closer to when I get ready to retire.
iab 2y ago
“Objective truth” - I’d love to know how one goes about this, feels like a Nietzsche reading here would be helpful
- mind-blight 2y ago
  You're getting downvoted because you're retreating into philosophical nihilism rather than actually addressing the points. If you disagree with how people interpret the studies, the studies themselves, or how science measures reality - just say that. I also love SMBC's explanation of this: https://smbc-wiki.com/index.php/2010-09-23 https://smbc-wiki.com/index.php/2010-09-23
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  Objective truth isn't something you can know, but it's a destination that must exist for pursuit of knowledge/curiosity to have any meaning. With contradictions you know what is not true, and through knowing what is not true, you can approach what is true. Truth is expressed in consistency, not completeness. That's why anyone should be extremely suspicious of anyone who is not, or doesn't care about, being internally consistent.
hedora 2y ago
> Poor people in the US are capable of using fluoride toothpaste and flossing This is absolutely not a substitute for fluoride in drinking water, which is most important for kids. When your teeth are forming below the gumline, the fluoride you ingest strengthens them. Brushing gums with fluoride doesn’t help.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
verall 2y ago
> Poor people in the US are capable of using fluoride toothpaste and flossing. At least at homeless shelters at outreach things I’ve been to, toothpaste and toothbrushes are freely available. Your argument hinges on them being incapable on the whole and needing a Benevolent But Superior Intelligence to provide an alternative for them. This is so incurious. Obviously most people, poor or not, have access to fluoridated toothpaste and toothbrushes, and can brush. Yet OP cites data (not explicitly, but you can start here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6974062/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6974062/, there are many like it). Fluoridated water makes the most impact on poor and undeserved communities: Why? Is it because poor people are less capable of brushing or have less access to fluoridated toothpaste? Is it because poor people are poor because they have poor self control, which prevents them from regular brushing? Does it matter? Nothing hinges on them being incapable at all - your conjecture can be as uncharitable - poor people are dirty and incapable - or charitable - poor people have less money and time to seek dental care, have higher rates of untreated mental and physical illness i.e. ADHD, disabilities that interrupt daily tooth-brushing routine - as you want. But the result is still that if we want children from poor families to have less cavities by the time they reach adulthood - we should fluoridate the water! If you trust the western medical establishment, it's broadly safe. If you don't, then none of the evidence above matters to you anyways.
- uppost 2y ago
  You're close but still a bit strawmanny. If we want poor kids to have better dental outcomes we should do more than just flouridate. We should find out why the poor have worse dental outcomes and address the root problem(s), which I would imagine in the US is something like soda consumption or lack of dentists in poor areas.
  - verall 2y ago
    What is strawman in my comment? I'm genuinely interested. > We should find out why the poor have worse dental outcomes and address the root problem The root problem is that parents that are absent, either for noble reasons (working multiple low-wage jobs) or less noble reasons (addiction, abandonment) will not have the presence to enforce good dental hygiene. There will always be some subset of parents that are more or less absent, and the main solution that exists for that in the US currently i.e. the foster care system has measurably terrible outcomes, and so it is only applied in the most egregious cases. Why should we let perfect be the enemy of good here? I'm all for removing fluoride from the water, once it has no benefit on the population. But currently, it has a huge benefit, just on people who are least likely to advocate for it. "You're just pushing your "Benevolent But Superior Intelligence" onto people" is an appeal to emotion, not a solution to real problems that real children face. More emotionally: it's fucking embarrassing we let bullshit arguments like this hurt people in real life.
yalogin 2y ago
See this is the problem today. Just because some one doesn’t know doesn’t make it non existent. We have decades of studies and evidence that fluoride is good and has no side effects, but the detractors ignore all of it and keep nullifying all that knowledge. Now they are successful too. In a society where everyone wants the whole boat to rise up, we need a certain amount of honesty and integrity and sadly these arguments don’t have it

lee_ars 2y ago

> Second, it completely ignores any debate over effectiveness or side effects. It could well be that fluoride in water is great for teeth but bad for brains. Except it's not—fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains. > Im not clear the validity of those claims Thoroughly scientifically debunked. Repeatedly, over decades. > That seems the core issue- without bias from stakeholders, is the benefit of fluoride proven and the risks disproven? It’s hard to answer because a study needs to span many years and exclude many variables. No, it's not hard to answer, because all those studies have been done and the results were that fluoride is safe. > And in general I think that is what needs to happen with these type debates. What needs to stop happening is people ignoring objective reality just because the results happen to align with the other "team's" position on something.

themgt 2y ago
What needs to stop happening is people ignoring objective reality just because the results happen to align with the other "team's" position on something. "Out of a population of about three-quarters of a billion, under 14 million people (approximately 2%) in Europe receive artificially-fluoridated water." The problem I continually see in the USA is the ascription of differences of opinion on [any topic] to America's Great Divide between enlightenment and barbarism. I find it often helpful to just check, what do these policies look like outside of America? It doesn't mean Europe got it right on fluoride, it just suggests against adopting the framing that your POV is 100% objective reality proven beyond doubt by Science™ and no rational person not in the throes of "own the [other team]" bad faith might disagree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#...
- __s 2y ago
  Fluorinated table salt. Naturally fluorinated water sources. Public healthcare that covers dental European policy isn't based on modern fluoridation being dangerous, it's based on having alternative systems in place (which vary by country) In Windsor Ontario, across from Detroit, they took fluoride out of water for nearly a decade before reversing that decision based on results: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/fluoride-water-system-windsor-essex-1.6309405 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/fluoride-water-system... Maybe Utah will be a place with alternative systems, based on another thread it sounds like they have an interesting Mormon safety net. But I would hope states do pilot tests first at least. If studies show that the historic gap in dental health between fluorinated & unfluorinated communities no longer apply, then that would be data driven policy But it seems like this policy is based on someone's common sense that you shouldn't put minerals in water
  - madeofpalk 2y ago
    Look - all for whatever science says is best, but wouldn’t countries with public healthcare also be incentivised to have fluoride in the water to reduce costs/public efficiency of public dental healthcare?

hayst4ck 2y ago

Truth and even the idea that there is objective truth is a fundamentally political concept. Authoritarians are opposed to the idea of objective truth because objective truth gives a person a foundation on which to criticize and dissent from those in power. Truth is threatening to authoritarians. Truth is an alternative source of legitimacy. We are experiencing an assault on objective truth in the US in order to get scientific institutions to submit to political authority rather than the authority of reason. So I agree with you, it is policy that should not be handled by politicians but by experts, which none of us are. Unfortunately science is being politicized. The problem is science challenges those who derive power from means other than reason. Defending scientific consensus is seen as an equally political act as denying it.

p3rls 2y ago
[flagged]
mlinhares 2y ago
Tolerating this slippery slope that “theres always the other side” is how we got to a place where I have to vaccinate again for measles at 40 because there are people out there saying the measles vaccine isn’t safe.
dcow 2y ago
I don’t agree with the framing of “we are experiencing an assault on objective truth…”. We are experiencing a challenge to some existing status quo practices, some of which have come out of science in the past. But nowhere in any conversation has the dialog been “we must question status quo institutional knowledge, and objective truth, to dismantle the institution”. (That’s left speak, actually, and I am acutely aware of leftist circles where that is the conversation.) Look at RFK Jr. This guy doesn't need power and control. He’s a whacko with some different beliefs about health—who fundamentally believes he’s making humans safer because of his negative lived experience with health policy in the US. Occam's razor points to there being a credible benign reason for him to be motivated to challenge existing policy. (And if there is one area of science ripe for iteration, it’s nutritional health.) We don’t need to grab for more extreme alarmist narratives to explain what’s happening. It simply doesn't take some autocratic utopian agenda to question whether fluoride is worth it and advocate for political change. It’s honestly really disingenuous and disheartening to hear people towing this “the right is trying to dismantle the fabric of western liberal democracy and install fascism” line.

travisgriggs 2y ago

I think equating poor people to homeless people is non sequitur. What about the vast population of “barely making it” people? But have it your way. I’ve given up on American people (I exist as a 54 year old one amongst them). Decades of wealth have created a society so “me” centric it makes me nauseous sick. Never have I respected those older than me so little. It makes me so sad what we’ve done for those younger.

scarface_74 2y ago
It’s even worse than that. People aren’t even voting for their own self interest. The people in the poorest states and in poor counties in richer states in the United States are consistently voting against universal healthcare, affordable post high school education and are cheering the government taking away services that they depend on the most. There are two basic categories of causes. The first is being pure anti science - anti vaccine, anti fluoride, etc The second is they are more concerned about “God and guns”, immigrants, and the demographic shifts in the US than their own interest. Oh and the third is the cult of MAGA. I’m 50, Native born American and on a meta level it concerns me. On a micro level, me and mine will be okay. While I am not one of these shrill people saying I’m leaving the US tomorrow, my wife and I are definitely putting plans in place to have a dual residency (not citizenship) in Costa Rica closer to when I get ready to retire.

iab 2y ago

“Objective truth” - I’d love to know how one goes about this, feels like a Nietzsche reading here would be helpful

mind-blight 2y ago
You're getting downvoted because you're retreating into philosophical nihilism rather than actually addressing the points. If you disagree with how people interpret the studies, the studies themselves, or how science measures reality - just say that. I also love SMBC's explanation of this: https://smbc-wiki.com/index.php/2010-09-23 https://smbc-wiki.com/index.php/2010-09-23
hayst4ck 2y ago
Objective truth isn't something you can know, but it's a destination that must exist for pursuit of knowledge/curiosity to have any meaning. With contradictions you know what is not true, and through knowing what is not true, you can approach what is true. Truth is expressed in consistency, not completeness. That's why anyone should be extremely suspicious of anyone who is not, or doesn't care about, being internally consistent.

hedora 2y ago

> Poor people in the US are capable of using fluoride toothpaste and flossing This is absolutely not a substitute for fluoride in drinking water, which is most important for kids. When your teeth are forming below the gumline, the fluoride you ingest strengthens them. Brushing gums with fluoride doesn’t help.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

verall 2y ago

> Poor people in the US are capable of using fluoride toothpaste and flossing. At least at homeless shelters at outreach things I’ve been to, toothpaste and toothbrushes are freely available. Your argument hinges on them being incapable on the whole and needing a Benevolent But Superior Intelligence to provide an alternative for them. This is so incurious. Obviously most people, poor or not, have access to fluoridated toothpaste and toothbrushes, and can brush. Yet OP cites data (not explicitly, but you can start here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6974062/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6974062/, there are many like it). Fluoridated water makes the most impact on poor and undeserved communities: Why? Is it because poor people are less capable of brushing or have less access to fluoridated toothpaste? Is it because poor people are poor because they have poor self control, which prevents them from regular brushing? Does it matter? Nothing hinges on them being incapable at all - your conjecture can be as uncharitable - poor people are dirty and incapable - or charitable - poor people have less money and time to seek dental care, have higher rates of untreated mental and physical illness i.e. ADHD, disabilities that interrupt daily tooth-brushing routine - as you want. But the result is still that if we want children from poor families to have less cavities by the time they reach adulthood - we should fluoridate the water! If you trust the western medical establishment, it's broadly safe. If you don't, then none of the evidence above matters to you anyways.

uppost 2y ago
You're close but still a bit strawmanny. If we want poor kids to have better dental outcomes we should do more than just flouridate. We should find out why the poor have worse dental outcomes and address the root problem(s), which I would imagine in the US is something like soda consumption or lack of dentists in poor areas.
- verall 2y ago
  What is strawman in my comment? I'm genuinely interested. > We should find out why the poor have worse dental outcomes and address the root problem The root problem is that parents that are absent, either for noble reasons (working multiple low-wage jobs) or less noble reasons (addiction, abandonment) will not have the presence to enforce good dental hygiene. There will always be some subset of parents that are more or less absent, and the main solution that exists for that in the US currently i.e. the foster care system has measurably terrible outcomes, and so it is only applied in the most egregious cases. Why should we let perfect be the enemy of good here? I'm all for removing fluoride from the water, once it has no benefit on the population. But currently, it has a huge benefit, just on people who are least likely to advocate for it. "You're just pushing your "Benevolent But Superior Intelligence" onto people" is an appeal to emotion, not a solution to real problems that real children face. More emotionally: it's fucking embarrassing we let bullshit arguments like this hurt people in real life.

yalogin 2y ago

See this is the problem today. Just because some one doesn’t know doesn’t make it non existent. We have decades of studies and evidence that fluoride is good and has no side effects, but the detractors ignore all of it and keep nullifying all that knowledge. Now they are successful too. In a society where everyone wants the whole boat to rise up, we need a certain amount of honesty and integrity and sadly these arguments don’t have it