4 ms·

Ugh. I hate to think of all of the "I told you so's" from the misguided people in Portland who continually vote against fluoridating the water with no actual s

Ugh. I hate to think of all of the "I told you so's" from the misguided people in Portland who continually vote against fluoridating the water with no actual scientific basis for doing so.

Alex3917 12y ago
So you're saying that science says we should treat all drugs as being safe unless proven to be harmful?
- HelloMcFly 12y ago
  Or think more broadly. Fluoridation of water carries a massive public health benefit, particularly to poorer families. Given the frequency of exposure across locations and generations, what negative effect it has appears to be extraordinarily very mild at best, while the benefit it provides is significant.
maxmcd 12y ago
Whoops. I guess I'm uninformed on this one, but I thought the whole "Flouridation is bad" thing had some basis in truth? There have been a few other articles about it on HN. Any chance I can get a more elaborate correction?
- NWDrew72 12y ago
  Here's some decent background: http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/the-sanest-arguments-against-fluoride/Content?oid=9212701 http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/the-sanest-arguments...
  - konstruktor 12y ago
    I don't think the article you are linking is a good source. The first paragraphs are full of ad hominem attacks.
NWDrew72 12y ago
Well, four votes within 60 years isn't exactly "continually", but I'll cede that point. Lots of Portlanders believe that fluoride is just fine, thank you (though the most recent vote was 60%-40%, sadly.)
DennisP 12y ago
Studies showing that fluoride causes hyperactivity in rats go back to the 90s, according to the article. Maybe the people in Portland should be given the benefit of the doubt. I understand the whole fluoride issue has been tainted by conspiracy theories, but honestly, it's not that unscientific to think that ingesting a known endocrine disruptor might have a biological effect.
- ejstronge 12y ago
  Out of curiosity, do you have references on fluoride and endocrine disruption? Further, I disagree regarding whether anyone should receive 'the benefit of the doubt'; we should defer to the many public health studies on the benefits of fluoride.
  - DennisP 12y ago
    It's in the Newsweek article, which discusses several possible biological mechanisms for problems from fluoridation, complete with sources, many of which are direct links to studies. Perhaps read it?
    - ejstronge 12y ago
      It's in the Newsweek article, which discusses several posible biological mechanisms for problems from fluoridation, complete with sources, many of which are direct links to studies. Perhaps read it? No need to be rude here. I was curious about what the mechanism would be - even the reference pointed out in the Newsweek article[1] doesn't propose a model for how fluoride might disrupt endocrine levels. [1] http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=265 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=265
vixen99 12y ago
I guess you have the results of a detailed poll which checked the Portland public's knowledge of the issues or are you being a tad patronizing in your assumptions?

Ugh. I hate to think of all of the "I told you so's" from the misguided people in Portland who continually vote against fluoridating the water with no actual scientific basis for doing so.

Alex3917 12y ago

So you're saying that science says we should treat all drugs as being safe unless proven to be harmful?

HelloMcFly 12y ago
Or think more broadly. Fluoridation of water carries a massive public health benefit, particularly to poorer families. Given the frequency of exposure across locations and generations, what negative effect it has appears to be extraordinarily very mild at best, while the benefit it provides is significant.

maxmcd 12y ago

Whoops. I guess I'm uninformed on this one, but I thought the whole "Flouridation is bad" thing had some basis in truth? There have been a few other articles about it on HN. Any chance I can get a more elaborate correction?

NWDrew72 12y ago
Here's some decent background: http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/the-sanest-arguments-against-fluoride/Content?oid=9212701 http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/the-sanest-arguments...
- konstruktor 12y ago
  I don't think the article you are linking is a good source. The first paragraphs are full of ad hominem attacks.

NWDrew72 12y ago

Well, four votes within 60 years isn't exactly "continually", but I'll cede that point. Lots of Portlanders believe that fluoride is just fine, thank you (though the most recent vote was 60%-40%, sadly.)

DennisP 12y ago

Studies showing that fluoride causes hyperactivity in rats go back to the 90s, according to the article. Maybe the people in Portland should be given the benefit of the doubt. I understand the whole fluoride issue has been tainted by conspiracy theories, but honestly, it's not that unscientific to think that ingesting a known endocrine disruptor might have a biological effect.

ejstronge 12y ago
Out of curiosity, do you have references on fluoride and endocrine disruption? Further, I disagree regarding whether anyone should receive 'the benefit of the doubt'; we should defer to the many public health studies on the benefits of fluoride.
- DennisP 12y ago
  It's in the Newsweek article, which discusses several possible biological mechanisms for problems from fluoridation, complete with sources, many of which are direct links to studies. Perhaps read it?
  - ejstronge 12y ago
    It's in the Newsweek article, which discusses several posible biological mechanisms for problems from fluoridation, complete with sources, many of which are direct links to studies. Perhaps read it? No need to be rude here. I was curious about what the mechanism would be - even the reference pointed out in the Newsweek article[1] doesn't propose a model for how fluoride might disrupt endocrine levels. [1] http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=265 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=265

vixen99 12y ago

I guess you have the results of a detailed poll which checked the Portland public's knowledge of the issues or are you being a tad patronizing in your assumptions?