8 ms·

> 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. E

> 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?
    - shlant 2y ago
      this is a red herring. Who cares what other people are doing - we should look at the evidence and make decisions based on that.
      - airstrike 2y ago
        the evidence can clme from seeing the results of what other people are doing
        shlant 2y ago
        seeing the results of what other people doing is different from making decisions just because other people are doing it.
    - __s 2y ago
      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7546136 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7546136 over half the table salt in France has fluoride This Nevada health info has an in depth response on page 5 https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnvgov/content/Programs/OH/Fluoridation_and_Fluorides/Myths-Facts.pdf https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnvgov/content/Programs...
    - formerly_proven 2y ago
      themgt quoted the 2% figure to show that the europoors reject fluoride in water, but neglects to mention that tap water often naturally contains significant levels of fluoride already, nevermind other fluoride-fortified foodstuffs.
  - m-s-y 2y ago
    It’s iodine in table salt not fluoride. In the US. Never knew that France fluoridated their salt.
- VincentEvans 2y ago
  When you watch any British tv the first thing you notice is teeth indeed.
  - jodrellblank 2y ago
    in better condition than American teeth, studies find: https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20150602-do-the-british-have-bad-teeth https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20150602-do-the-british...
  - EliRivers 2y ago
    Indeed. While the UK and the USA have comparable levels of dental health, in US television actors typically require very good (or rather, cosmetically appealing according to local norms) teeth in order to succeed. In the UK, it's less important.
    - darreninthenet 2y ago
      Not just comparable, UK is actually a bit higher. The difference is the NHS doesn't cover anything cosmetic, so they are very healthy teeth but they look rubbish unless you're lucky.
naasking 2y ago
> Except it's not—fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains. You mean like this: Fluoride Exposure and Children’s IQ Scores A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2828425 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... "Findings: Despite differences in exposure and outcome measures and risk of bias across studies, and when using group-level and individual-level exposure estimates, this systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies found significant inverse associations between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores. [...]" Maybe you should reconsider that what you heard once was the definite truth.
- anyonecancode 2y ago
  Isn't this talking about naturally-occurring fluoridation, not added? The concentrations they describe as having an inverse affect are far higher than what gets added to water on purpose: What the study measured: "For fluoride measured in water, associations remained inverse when exposed groups were restricted to less than 4 mg/L or less than 2 mg/L but not when restricted to less than 1.5 mg/L" And what the US federal government recommends (or I guess soon, previously recommended): "Through this final recommendation, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) updates and replaces its 1962 Drinking Water Standards related to community water fluoridation—the controlled addition of a fluoride compound to a community water supply to achieve a concentration optimal for dental caries prevention.1 For these community water systems that add fluoride, PHS now recommends an optimal fluoride concentration of 0.7 milligrams/liter (mg/L)" [1] Note, too, the study's section on Study sample; "No studies were conducted in the United States." [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4547570/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4547570/
  - naasking 2y ago
    The source of fluoride is irrelevant, the effect of fluoride is cumulative. If you're getting half of the "harmful dosage" just from your water, you're much more likely to pass that threshold than if the water had no fluoride. In nations with easy access to fluoridated toothpaste and where dental hygiene is common, the cost-benefit is not at all clear.
jongjong 2y ago
> fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains. We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted. Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted. I err on the side of caution. You're welcome to put it in your own drinking water if you trust the studies. > 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. Nobody can perceive objective reality. Everyone is delusional concerning just about everything. The people who think they know what's going on, are most delusional of all. Dark times are ahead, I'm afraid, and people's trust-meters are going to be valuable again.
- drakonka 2y ago
  > We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted. Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted. I err on the side of caution. What does this mean for you in practice? Do you see just fluoride studies this way, or "studies" in general? If the former, what makes those different? If the latter, what is your stance on science-backed decision-making and policymaking in general?
  - Muromec 2y ago
    Just listen to the dear leader, they use common sense and need no science to see obvious
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted > Nobody can perceive objective reality. Everyone is delusional concerning just about everything This is just hyper-cynical fear mongering. An excuse to reject inconvenient things you see and substitute them with your own alternative reality. The people who sell fear and things like alternative medicine love to push this angle: They want you to distrust everything. Everything except what they tell you, of course.
- shlant 2y ago
  > We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted. Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted the growing prevalence of anti science thinking like this has been a disaster for humanity. There's so much time and good faith effort put into trying to better understand our reality then people like you come along and handwave it all away because "well can we really know anything"
mdorazio 2y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you made multiple strong claims without a single citation or study link. We could have a better conversation with data to look at. There's a decent (though somewhat biased) review of the debate in [1]. It's worth noting that if you read the linked studies there closely you'll find the truth is, as usual, nuanced. Specifically, that "fluoridation is a population-level caries preventive strategy" [which may or may not be effective at the individual or small community level due to other factors]. I.e., good at the national level for statistically significant reduction of tooth disease incidence, but at less-aggregated levels the confounding factors like diet and how often/well people brush their teeth are going to be bigger determinants of efficacy. It's also worth nothing that 1) over-fluoridation is pretty bad and can affect poor or malnourished communities (ex, [2]); and 2) there are alternatives to fluoride that may be equally effective with fewer risks at higher concentrations (ex. nano hydroxyapatite). [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2222595/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2222595/ [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10643380600678112 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1064338060067811...
- lee_ars 2y ago
  That's a whole lot of words for you acknowledging that I'm right. Fluoridated drinking water, at the appropriate levels, has no effect on IQ. Would you like to debate the reality of anthropogenic climate change next? This will be another area where any links you dig up will only point to a single conclusion.
  - dcow 2y ago
    You missed the point. It’s not objectively true in all situations that if you don’t believe fluorinating water is necessary that you’re an a-scientific bad faith actor. One can argue the opposite position in good faith, reasonably. Your statements very strongly supposed that this is a solved case closed topic and any challenges are not supported by evidence. The response was that there is nuance and a better conversation would acknowledge it.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
tashar 2y ago
> Thoroughly scientifically debunked. Repeatedly, over decades. "The NTP monograph concluded, with moderate confidence, that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children" This is from an NIH meta-analysis. Its a pretty rigorous study. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/... "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" This is why there's such a fierce debate. Based on the most recent scientific literature there seems to be evidence of a dose-dependent effect of fluorine levels in water and lowered IQ in children, meaning it has some kind of neurotoxic effect. But we don't have robust evidence to say 0.7 mg/L has a similar effect. That doesn't mean it is DEFINITELY safe, it just means more research needs to be done and the current research that does cover the 0.7 mg/L range may not reach statistical significance. The fact though the NIH suggests 1.5mg/L is likely unsafe, which is only 2x what America's tap water contains, I would not blame people for being uneasy about. It is often the case the that the FDA regulates food additives that have potential negative side effects to be limited to concentrations 10x lower than what is seen as unsafe. I am not suggesting it's a straightforward choice to defluorinate water, but I see people often repeating claims like you have that dangers of fluoride are "thoroughly debunked" and that's simply not true. I don't blame people for having that sentiment either, because 0.7mg/L is seemingly still considered safe, and some of the loudest advocates of defluorination have no shortage of thoroughly debunked crazy views on things (possibly due to brains half eaten by worms). It makes it very easy to brush off the skepticism. But it's also important to keep in mind science is built on the premise that one must be ready to re-evaluate past assumptions when new data arises, and generally speaking the new data around fluoride I hate to say seems to show there is indeed smoke. It's also the case that when the US initially fluorinated water supplies it was a massive public health success, but these days it seems to make a much lower impact now that fluoride toothpaste use is ubiquitous (plus the levels were lowered from 1.0mg/L in the 70s, likely reducing its overall effectiveness). It is IMO both very reasonable to fund more research into this to know conclusively if 0.7mg/L is indeed safe, and also consider public health policy that focuses on promoting dental hygiene through other means in places that do defluorinate. I do not agree with Utah's decision here mostly because it seems to neglect that defluorination will create a void that requires other public health policy efforts to fill it, poorer and less educated communities will suffer unless government led efforts to promote and make dental hygine affordable are not also undertaken.
jeffbee 2y ago
> Except it's not—fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains. What's amazing is these anti-science wackos are rejecting the largest-scale experiment of all time, with the best evidence that anyone is ever going to have on the subject. We have both temporal and spatial boundary conditions with and without community water fluoridation, where a large population has it and another large population doesn't have it. There is no evidence that the without-fluoridation population has higher intelligence! There is a huge body of evidence that the people without fluoridation have more decayed teeth.
- oaktrout 2y ago
  Before calling them "anti science wackos", why not review the evidence or cite some of your own. Ironic that the "wackos" seem to be the only ones providing any evidence for their claims. There is high quality evidence that fluoride at levels contained in some US water supplies is associated with lower childhood intelligence. For lower levels, the conclusion is "we don't know", not that there is no harm. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/... There is also high quality evidence that in the age of fluorinated toothpaste, fluorinated water "may slightly" improve dental health. “The evidence suggests that water fluoridation may slightly reduce tooth decay in children,” says co-author Dr Lucy O’Malley, Senior Lecturer in Health Services Research at the University of Manchester. “Given that the benefit has reduced over time, before introducing a new fluoridation scheme, careful thought needs to be given to costs, acceptability, feasibility and ongoing monitoring." https://www.cochrane.org/news/water-fluoridation-less-effective-now-past https://www.cochrane.org/news/water-fluoridation-less-effect...
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    The literally bold-faced conclusion of your article is that no evidence exists that community water fluoridation affects childhood IQ. We have a natural experiment running for 80 years where each arm of the experiment has N > 100e6. If there was going to be evidence of community water fluoridation lowering IQ, it would have emerged by now.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
While I would like to think that I have gotten a lot smarter in the last 20 years it seems more likely that other people have on average gotten a lot dumber. While I’m sure there are many causes I’m of the opinion that no stone should remain unturned when looking for answers. Fluorine in water has a viable alternative (toothpaste that is spit out) so out of an abundance of caution my preference is for unflurinated water. In my past life as an applied researcher I have learned to be rather distrustful of academia and the ‘science’ that is produced, ‘fruit from a poisonous tree’.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
oaktrout 2y ago
The conclusion from the largest and strongest studyies is that there is a certain level of fluoride that harms IQ: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/.... "The NTP monograph concluded, with moderate confidence, that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children" They found fluoride in drinking water concentrations was associated with lower IQ, the opposite of your claim of "proven safe". Show us some evidence that is proven safe, so far as I can tell all evidence points to unsafe or "we're not sure". > 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. I couldn't agree more. The study that is cited above started when Obama was president by the way.
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  Why did you omit the sentence immediately after the one you quoted? > The NTP review was designed to evaluate total fluoride exposure from all sources and was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoridated drinking water alone. …or the following sentence, which they bolded to ensure the reader wouldn't miss it? > 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. So no, they very explicitly did not find that fluoride in drinking water concentrations was associated with lower IQ.
  - tolidano 2y ago
    I know why! I know why! Pick me! It's because it doesn't help prove their incorrect point.
  - don_neufeld 2y ago
    Anyone who talks about who was President when a study was done is immediately clarifying for you that they have a political agenda. If there’s a problem with a study, or a study is particularly strong, that should be due to something about the study itself (methodology, significance of results, etc), not its political environment.

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?
  - shlant 2y ago
    this is a red herring. Who cares what other people are doing - we should look at the evidence and make decisions based on that.
    - airstrike 2y ago
      the evidence can clme from seeing the results of what other people are doing
      - shlant 2y ago
        seeing the results of what other people doing is different from making decisions just because other people are doing it.
  - __s 2y ago
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7546136 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7546136 over half the table salt in France has fluoride This Nevada health info has an in depth response on page 5 https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnvgov/content/Programs/OH/Fluoridation_and_Fluorides/Myths-Facts.pdf https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnvgov/content/Programs...
  - formerly_proven 2y ago
    themgt quoted the 2% figure to show that the europoors reject fluoride in water, but neglects to mention that tap water often naturally contains significant levels of fluoride already, nevermind other fluoride-fortified foodstuffs.
- m-s-y 2y ago
  It’s iodine in table salt not fluoride. In the US. Never knew that France fluoridated their salt.
VincentEvans 2y ago
When you watch any British tv the first thing you notice is teeth indeed.
- jodrellblank 2y ago
  in better condition than American teeth, studies find: https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20150602-do-the-british-have-bad-teeth https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20150602-do-the-british...
- EliRivers 2y ago
  Indeed. While the UK and the USA have comparable levels of dental health, in US television actors typically require very good (or rather, cosmetically appealing according to local norms) teeth in order to succeed. In the UK, it's less important.
  - darreninthenet 2y ago
    Not just comparable, UK is actually a bit higher. The difference is the NHS doesn't cover anything cosmetic, so they are very healthy teeth but they look rubbish unless you're lucky.

naasking 2y ago

> Except it's not—fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains. You mean like this: Fluoride Exposure and Children’s IQ Scores A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2828425 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... "Findings: Despite differences in exposure and outcome measures and risk of bias across studies, and when using group-level and individual-level exposure estimates, this systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies found significant inverse associations between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores. [...]" Maybe you should reconsider that what you heard once was the definite truth.

anyonecancode 2y ago
Isn't this talking about naturally-occurring fluoridation, not added? The concentrations they describe as having an inverse affect are far higher than what gets added to water on purpose: What the study measured: "For fluoride measured in water, associations remained inverse when exposed groups were restricted to less than 4 mg/L or less than 2 mg/L but not when restricted to less than 1.5 mg/L" And what the US federal government recommends (or I guess soon, previously recommended): "Through this final recommendation, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) updates and replaces its 1962 Drinking Water Standards related to community water fluoridation—the controlled addition of a fluoride compound to a community water supply to achieve a concentration optimal for dental caries prevention.1 For these community water systems that add fluoride, PHS now recommends an optimal fluoride concentration of 0.7 milligrams/liter (mg/L)" [1] Note, too, the study's section on Study sample; "No studies were conducted in the United States." [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4547570/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4547570/
- naasking 2y ago
  The source of fluoride is irrelevant, the effect of fluoride is cumulative. If you're getting half of the "harmful dosage" just from your water, you're much more likely to pass that threshold than if the water had no fluoride. In nations with easy access to fluoridated toothpaste and where dental hygiene is common, the cost-benefit is not at all clear.

jongjong 2y ago

> fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains. We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted. Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted. I err on the side of caution. You're welcome to put it in your own drinking water if you trust the studies. > 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. Nobody can perceive objective reality. Everyone is delusional concerning just about everything. The people who think they know what's going on, are most delusional of all. Dark times are ahead, I'm afraid, and people's trust-meters are going to be valuable again.

drakonka 2y ago
> We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted. Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted. I err on the side of caution. What does this mean for you in practice? Do you see just fluoride studies this way, or "studies" in general? If the former, what makes those different? If the latter, what is your stance on science-backed decision-making and policymaking in general?
- Muromec 2y ago
  Just listen to the dear leader, they use common sense and need no science to see obvious
Aurornis 2y ago
> We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted > Nobody can perceive objective reality. Everyone is delusional concerning just about everything This is just hyper-cynical fear mongering. An excuse to reject inconvenient things you see and substitute them with your own alternative reality. The people who sell fear and things like alternative medicine love to push this angle: They want you to distrust everything. Everything except what they tell you, of course.
shlant 2y ago
> We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted. Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted the growing prevalence of anti science thinking like this has been a disaster for humanity. There's so much time and good faith effort put into trying to better understand our reality then people like you come along and handwave it all away because "well can we really know anything"

mdorazio 2y ago

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you made multiple strong claims without a single citation or study link. We could have a better conversation with data to look at. There's a decent (though somewhat biased) review of the debate in [1]. It's worth noting that if you read the linked studies there closely you'll find the truth is, as usual, nuanced. Specifically, that "fluoridation is a population-level caries preventive strategy" [which may or may not be effective at the individual or small community level due to other factors]. I.e., good at the national level for statistically significant reduction of tooth disease incidence, but at less-aggregated levels the confounding factors like diet and how often/well people brush their teeth are going to be bigger determinants of efficacy. It's also worth nothing that 1) over-fluoridation is pretty bad and can affect poor or malnourished communities (ex, [2]); and 2) there are alternatives to fluoride that may be equally effective with fewer risks at higher concentrations (ex. nano hydroxyapatite). [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2222595/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2222595/ [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10643380600678112 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1064338060067811...

lee_ars 2y ago
That's a whole lot of words for you acknowledging that I'm right. Fluoridated drinking water, at the appropriate levels, has no effect on IQ. Would you like to debate the reality of anthropogenic climate change next? This will be another area where any links you dig up will only point to a single conclusion.
- dcow 2y ago
  You missed the point. It’s not objectively true in all situations that if you don’t believe fluorinating water is necessary that you’re an a-scientific bad faith actor. One can argue the opposite position in good faith, reasonably. Your statements very strongly supposed that this is a solved case closed topic and any challenges are not supported by evidence. The response was that there is nuance and a better conversation would acknowledge it.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago

tashar 2y ago

> Thoroughly scientifically debunked. Repeatedly, over decades. "The NTP monograph concluded, with moderate confidence, that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children" This is from an NIH meta-analysis. Its a pretty rigorous study. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/... "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" This is why there's such a fierce debate. Based on the most recent scientific literature there seems to be evidence of a dose-dependent effect of fluorine levels in water and lowered IQ in children, meaning it has some kind of neurotoxic effect. But we don't have robust evidence to say 0.7 mg/L has a similar effect. That doesn't mean it is DEFINITELY safe, it just means more research needs to be done and the current research that does cover the 0.7 mg/L range may not reach statistical significance. The fact though the NIH suggests 1.5mg/L is likely unsafe, which is only 2x what America's tap water contains, I would not blame people for being uneasy about. It is often the case the that the FDA regulates food additives that have potential negative side effects to be limited to concentrations 10x lower than what is seen as unsafe. I am not suggesting it's a straightforward choice to defluorinate water, but I see people often repeating claims like you have that dangers of fluoride are "thoroughly debunked" and that's simply not true. I don't blame people for having that sentiment either, because 0.7mg/L is seemingly still considered safe, and some of the loudest advocates of defluorination have no shortage of thoroughly debunked crazy views on things (possibly due to brains half eaten by worms). It makes it very easy to brush off the skepticism. But it's also important to keep in mind science is built on the premise that one must be ready to re-evaluate past assumptions when new data arises, and generally speaking the new data around fluoride I hate to say seems to show there is indeed smoke. It's also the case that when the US initially fluorinated water supplies it was a massive public health success, but these days it seems to make a much lower impact now that fluoride toothpaste use is ubiquitous (plus the levels were lowered from 1.0mg/L in the 70s, likely reducing its overall effectiveness). It is IMO both very reasonable to fund more research into this to know conclusively if 0.7mg/L is indeed safe, and also consider public health policy that focuses on promoting dental hygiene through other means in places that do defluorinate. I do not agree with Utah's decision here mostly because it seems to neglect that defluorination will create a void that requires other public health policy efforts to fill it, poorer and less educated communities will suffer unless government led efforts to promote and make dental hygine affordable are not also undertaken.

jeffbee 2y ago

> Except it's not—fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains. What's amazing is these anti-science wackos are rejecting the largest-scale experiment of all time, with the best evidence that anyone is ever going to have on the subject. We have both temporal and spatial boundary conditions with and without community water fluoridation, where a large population has it and another large population doesn't have it. There is no evidence that the without-fluoridation population has higher intelligence! There is a huge body of evidence that the people without fluoridation have more decayed teeth.

oaktrout 2y ago
Before calling them "anti science wackos", why not review the evidence or cite some of your own. Ironic that the "wackos" seem to be the only ones providing any evidence for their claims. There is high quality evidence that fluoride at levels contained in some US water supplies is associated with lower childhood intelligence. For lower levels, the conclusion is "we don't know", not that there is no harm. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/... There is also high quality evidence that in the age of fluorinated toothpaste, fluorinated water "may slightly" improve dental health. “The evidence suggests that water fluoridation may slightly reduce tooth decay in children,” says co-author Dr Lucy O’Malley, Senior Lecturer in Health Services Research at the University of Manchester. “Given that the benefit has reduced over time, before introducing a new fluoridation scheme, careful thought needs to be given to costs, acceptability, feasibility and ongoing monitoring." https://www.cochrane.org/news/water-fluoridation-less-effective-now-past https://www.cochrane.org/news/water-fluoridation-less-effect...
- jeffbee 2y ago
  The literally bold-faced conclusion of your article is that no evidence exists that community water fluoridation affects childhood IQ. We have a natural experiment running for 80 years where each arm of the experiment has N > 100e6. If there was going to be evidence of community water fluoridation lowering IQ, it would have emerged by now.

cjbgkagh 2y ago

While I would like to think that I have gotten a lot smarter in the last 20 years it seems more likely that other people have on average gotten a lot dumber. While I’m sure there are many causes I’m of the opinion that no stone should remain unturned when looking for answers. Fluorine in water has a viable alternative (toothpaste that is spit out) so out of an abundance of caution my preference is for unflurinated water. In my past life as an applied researcher I have learned to be rather distrustful of academia and the ‘science’ that is produced, ‘fruit from a poisonous tree’.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

oaktrout 2y ago

The conclusion from the largest and strongest studyies is that there is a certain level of fluoride that harms IQ: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/.... "The NTP monograph concluded, with moderate confidence, that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children" They found fluoride in drinking water concentrations was associated with lower IQ, the opposite of your claim of "proven safe". Show us some evidence that is proven safe, so far as I can tell all evidence points to unsafe or "we're not sure". > 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. I couldn't agree more. The study that is cited above started when Obama was president by the way.

jakelazaroff 2y ago
Why did you omit the sentence immediately after the one you quoted? > The NTP review was designed to evaluate total fluoride exposure from all sources and was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoridated drinking water alone. …or the following sentence, which they bolded to ensure the reader wouldn't miss it? > 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. So no, they very explicitly did not find that fluoride in drinking water concentrations was associated with lower IQ.
- tolidano 2y ago
  I know why! I know why! Pick me! It's because it doesn't help prove their incorrect point.
- don_neufeld 2y ago
  Anyone who talks about who was President when a study was done is immediately clarifying for you that they have a political agenda. If there’s a problem with a study, or a study is particularly strong, that should be due to something about the study itself (methodology, significance of results, etc), not its political environment.