4 ms·

It’s not fear mongering if fluoride actually does have negative effects. Well AMA just published a meta-analysis this year linking high fluoride level in drinki

It’s not fear mongering if fluoride actually does have negative effects. Well AMA just published a meta-analysis this year linking high fluoride level in drinking water to neurotoxicity in children and lower IQ. While there’s insufficient data to say it’s neurotoxic at the recommended levels it doesn’t seem unlikely. Rather it should be required to be proven safe first. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/assessments/noncancer/com... > 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. 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. 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.

Retric 1y ago
> doesn’t seem unlikely. It seems unlikely we’d have such issues at concentrations so commonly found in natural springs. Much of the world doesn’t add it because it’s already at those levels naturally and has been throughout billions of years. The question is at what point you should spend money removing it as many communities are forced to, not just how much to add.
- Auracle 1y ago
  That’s just the naturalistic fallacy. I’m sure there are some places in the world with lead or cadmium or whatever in their water - does that mean we should be adding it to our water supplies if we found out it was good for our teeth at the detriment of our brains?
  - Retric 1y ago
    No, there’s a difference between something being rare and it being common. Fish species living in the ocean don’t have issues drinking salt water, because if they did their ancestors wouldn’t have reproduced. If half of the world’s water supplies had lead levels of X you’d expect evolution to make that specific level a non issue. Obviously lead levels above that can and are still problematic.
    - elcritch 1y ago
      > If half of the world’s water supplies had lead levels of X you’d expect evolution to make that specific level a non issue. Obviously lead levels above that can and are still problematic. Not necessarily true if the effect is relatively small compared to other evolutionary pressures. A few points drop in IQ might not be bad for ancient hunter-gatherer tribes but does have a much larger impact in our modern age. Every point increase of average IQ at the population level generally leads to better societal outcomes overall. To your earlier question, filtering flouride might be beneficial then. We can do flouride teeth treatments at dentists or switch more to nano-hydroxyapatite [1]. Though it'd seem nano-hydroxyapatite needs more safety studies as well. 1: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747619/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747619/
      - Retric 1y ago
        The underlying biochemical problem would show up long before hunter gatherers, the equivalent of a 2-3% drop in IQ across billions of years is massive pressure to find a solution. Brains are a major calorie sink that’s a big enough difference to matter. If it’s a 0.0001% drop then sure evolution would ignore that, but so should we.
ceejayoz 1y ago
> It’s not fear mongering if fluoride actually does have negative effects. Dihydrogen monoxide has significant negative effects, too. It kills thousands every year. It causes severe burns. It can corrode metal. We still, uh, don't ban it from the water supply. (We've come close, though. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4534017 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4534017) I don't doubt that high levels of a thing can be bad. Your own quote acknowledges this "the dose makes the poison" aspect of things.
- citizenpaul 1y ago
  I don't think we should be adding toxins to the water supply for any reason. I don't think exposing every living person to toxins because some people don't care to brush their teeth is very good logic. How do you know some poorly run, underfunded water department doesn't have a malfunctioning fluoride mixer until after you have brain damage from it? No I don't support RFK lunatic BS. I just don't like the idea of any potential toxin being blanked added to the population intentionally. Something like that should have lots of skepticism and require massive amounts of proof that it is worth the possible downsides. The government can barely be trusted to operate intelligently when human lives are not at stake.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > I don't think we should be adding toxins to the water supply for any reason. What, no chlorine to kill bacteria? Water is a toxin! https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/water-intoxication https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/water-intoxic... > How do you know some poorly run, underfunded water department doesn't have a malfunctioning fluoride mixer until after you have brain damage from it? Regular daily testing (and sometimes hourly), as mandated by law. https://www.cityofrochester.gov/2024-water-quality-report https://www.cityofrochester.gov/2024-water-quality-report "To ensure optimal dental protection, the State Department of Health requires that we monitor fluoride levels on a daily basis." Hell, we do daily testing of the beach water in my state, let alone the drinking supply. They close them if stuff like E. coli is too high.
    - 1y ago

Retric 1y ago

> doesn’t seem unlikely. It seems unlikely we’d have such issues at concentrations so commonly found in natural springs. Much of the world doesn’t add it because it’s already at those levels naturally and has been throughout billions of years. The question is at what point you should spend money removing it as many communities are forced to, not just how much to add.

Auracle 1y ago
That’s just the naturalistic fallacy. I’m sure there are some places in the world with lead or cadmium or whatever in their water - does that mean we should be adding it to our water supplies if we found out it was good for our teeth at the detriment of our brains?
- Retric 1y ago
  No, there’s a difference between something being rare and it being common. Fish species living in the ocean don’t have issues drinking salt water, because if they did their ancestors wouldn’t have reproduced. If half of the world’s water supplies had lead levels of X you’d expect evolution to make that specific level a non issue. Obviously lead levels above that can and are still problematic.
  - elcritch 1y ago
    > If half of the world’s water supplies had lead levels of X you’d expect evolution to make that specific level a non issue. Obviously lead levels above that can and are still problematic. Not necessarily true if the effect is relatively small compared to other evolutionary pressures. A few points drop in IQ might not be bad for ancient hunter-gatherer tribes but does have a much larger impact in our modern age. Every point increase of average IQ at the population level generally leads to better societal outcomes overall. To your earlier question, filtering flouride might be beneficial then. We can do flouride teeth treatments at dentists or switch more to nano-hydroxyapatite [1]. Though it'd seem nano-hydroxyapatite needs more safety studies as well. 1: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747619/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747619/
    - Retric 1y ago
      The underlying biochemical problem would show up long before hunter gatherers, the equivalent of a 2-3% drop in IQ across billions of years is massive pressure to find a solution. Brains are a major calorie sink that’s a big enough difference to matter. If it’s a 0.0001% drop then sure evolution would ignore that, but so should we.

ceejayoz 1y ago

> It’s not fear mongering if fluoride actually does have negative effects. Dihydrogen monoxide has significant negative effects, too. It kills thousands every year. It causes severe burns. It can corrode metal. We still, uh, don't ban it from the water supply. (We've come close, though. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4534017 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4534017) I don't doubt that high levels of a thing can be bad. Your own quote acknowledges this "the dose makes the poison" aspect of things.

citizenpaul 1y ago
I don't think we should be adding toxins to the water supply for any reason. I don't think exposing every living person to toxins because some people don't care to brush their teeth is very good logic. How do you know some poorly run, underfunded water department doesn't have a malfunctioning fluoride mixer until after you have brain damage from it? No I don't support RFK lunatic BS. I just don't like the idea of any potential toxin being blanked added to the population intentionally. Something like that should have lots of skepticism and require massive amounts of proof that it is worth the possible downsides. The government can barely be trusted to operate intelligently when human lives are not at stake.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > I don't think we should be adding toxins to the water supply for any reason. What, no chlorine to kill bacteria? Water is a toxin! https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/water-intoxication https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/water-intoxic... > How do you know some poorly run, underfunded water department doesn't have a malfunctioning fluoride mixer until after you have brain damage from it? Regular daily testing (and sometimes hourly), as mandated by law. https://www.cityofrochester.gov/2024-water-quality-report https://www.cityofrochester.gov/2024-water-quality-report "To ensure optimal dental protection, the State Department of Health requires that we monitor fluoride levels on a daily basis." Hell, we do daily testing of the beach water in my state, let alone the drinking supply. They close them if stuff like E. coli is too high.
  - 1y ago