4 ms·

The study [1] that's based on seems pretty typical, and is precisely what drives skepticism towards these policies. The differences for permanent teeth were not

The study [1] that's based on seems pretty typical, and is precisely what drives skepticism towards these policies. The differences for permanent teeth were not significant. The paper claimed this may be because "7-year-olds have not had the time to accumulate enough permanent dentition caries experience for differences to have become apparent." The differences in temporary teeth had a deft (decay, extracted, filled teeth) of 66.1% in Calgary (no fluoride) and 54.3% in Edmonton (fluoridated). So you're looking at a small positive improvements in dental outcomes, for what may be a permanent decline to IQ. That's obviously not a trade I think anybody would make, so the real issue is not whether or not it improves dental outcomes but whether it's having measurable effects on IQ as we have seen in other studies. [2] I don't understand why a study operating in good faith wouldn't also pursue this question in unison, or in fact as the primary question. I think relatively few people outright doubt the dental benefits of fluoride, but rather are concerned about the cost we may pay for such. [1] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12685 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12685 [2] - https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...

raincole 2y ago
The most ridiculous part is that we have an alternative way to apply fluoride without intaking it. It's called toothpaste. But for some reason people act like Utah is banning vaccine.
- SapporoChris 2y ago
  Using toothpaste with fluoride can be effective when used regularly as part of dental hygiene. What percentage of the population is going to do this? I've encountered grade school children who have never owned a toothbrush.
  - broken-kebab 2y ago
    Can you answer your own question?
almog 2y ago
In the 2nd study that shows correlation between fluoride and lower IQ in children, the water had twice as much fluoride as the recommended amount in the US (1.5 mg/L vs 0.7 mg/L).
- somenameforme 2y ago
  The only reason for lack of concrete statements on the 0.7 level was a lack of data, owing largely to US political culture (1.5 is the World Health Organization 'safe' limit). Not long ago fluoride stuff was considered a 'conspiracy theory' which greatly deters meaningful scientific research on the topic. This is in part because of social reasons (most people don't want to be perceived as 'fringe') and in part because it results in funding for such research drying up. For that matter even IQ studies themselves are borderline given the US political culture. So for instance of the 19 low risk-of-bias studies, exactly 0 came from the US. 10 were in China, 3 were in Mexico, 2 in Canada, 3 in India, and 1 in Iran. 18 of those 19 studies found a significant reduction in IQ that corresponds strongly with increases in fluoride (the outlier was in Mexico). With the current administration we'll certainly be seeing funding for such studies in the US and so there should be much more high quality data on the 0.7 level forthcoming. But in general this is a major problem that needs solving. Exploring the breadths of science, including the fringes, should not require an activist political administration.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    For that matter even IQ studies themselves are borderline given the US political culture. This isn't remotely true; it's just something people say on message boards.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      This might have been a viable argument a decade ago because these rules were implicit and not explicit. But as of 2022 they've become explicit. [1] IQ is distributed dramatically differently in different groups, which makes it difficult to meaningfully study in the US because, as Nature now puts it, "Although academic freedom is fundamental, it is not unbounded... Science has for too long been complicit in perpetuating structural inequalities and discrimination in society..." This is why meaningful studies on IQ are basically dead in the US and similarly why we were one of last countries to confirm the absolutely critical reversal of the Flynn Effect. I think the political tide started to turn really hard after the decades long Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study ended up definitively proving the opposite of what it intended. [2] [1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption...

raincole 2y ago

The most ridiculous part is that we have an alternative way to apply fluoride without intaking it. It's called toothpaste. But for some reason people act like Utah is banning vaccine.

SapporoChris 2y ago
Using toothpaste with fluoride can be effective when used regularly as part of dental hygiene. What percentage of the population is going to do this? I've encountered grade school children who have never owned a toothbrush.
- broken-kebab 2y ago
  Can you answer your own question?

almog 2y ago

In the 2nd study that shows correlation between fluoride and lower IQ in children, the water had twice as much fluoride as the recommended amount in the US (1.5 mg/L vs 0.7 mg/L).

somenameforme 2y ago
The only reason for lack of concrete statements on the 0.7 level was a lack of data, owing largely to US political culture (1.5 is the World Health Organization 'safe' limit). Not long ago fluoride stuff was considered a 'conspiracy theory' which greatly deters meaningful scientific research on the topic. This is in part because of social reasons (most people don't want to be perceived as 'fringe') and in part because it results in funding for such research drying up. For that matter even IQ studies themselves are borderline given the US political culture. So for instance of the 19 low risk-of-bias studies, exactly 0 came from the US. 10 were in China, 3 were in Mexico, 2 in Canada, 3 in India, and 1 in Iran. 18 of those 19 studies found a significant reduction in IQ that corresponds strongly with increases in fluoride (the outlier was in Mexico). With the current administration we'll certainly be seeing funding for such studies in the US and so there should be much more high quality data on the 0.7 level forthcoming. But in general this is a major problem that needs solving. Exploring the breadths of science, including the fringes, should not require an activist political administration.
- tptacek 2y ago
  For that matter even IQ studies themselves are borderline given the US political culture. This isn't remotely true; it's just something people say on message boards.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    This might have been a viable argument a decade ago because these rules were implicit and not explicit. But as of 2022 they've become explicit. [1] IQ is distributed dramatically differently in different groups, which makes it difficult to meaningfully study in the US because, as Nature now puts it, "Although academic freedom is fundamental, it is not unbounded... Science has for too long been complicit in perpetuating structural inequalities and discrimination in society..." This is why meaningful studies on IQ are basically dead in the US and similarly why we were one of last countries to confirm the absolutely critical reversal of the Flynn Effect. I think the political tide started to turn really hard after the decades long Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study ended up definitively proving the opposite of what it intended. [2] [1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption...