Medical freedom vs. public health: Should fluoride be in our drinking water?
Medical freedom vs. public health: Should fluoride be in our drinking water?
Misinformation campaigns increasingly target the cavity-fighting mineral, prompting communities to reverse mandates. Dentists are enraged. Parents are caught in the middle.
Misinformation campaigns increasingly target the cavity-fighting mineral, prompting communities to reverse mandates. Dentists are enraged. Parents are caught in the middle.
The culture wars have a new target: your teeth.
Communities across the U.S. are ending public water fluoridation programs, often spurred by groups that insist that people should decide whether they want the mineral — long proven to fight cavities — added to their water supplies.
The push to flush it from water systems seems to be increasingly fueled by pandemic-related mistrust of government oversteps and misleading claims, experts say, that fluoride is harmful.
“The anti-fluoridation movement gained steam with Covid,” said Dr. Meg Lochary, a pediatric dentist in Union County, North Carolina. “We’ve seen an increase of people who either don’t want fluoride or are skeptical about it.”
There should be no question about the dental benefits of fluoride, Lochary and other experts say. Major public health groups, including the American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, support the use of fluoridated water. All cite studies that show it reduces tooth decay by 25%.
You're viewing a single thread.
"Medical freedom", the rallying cry for all kinds of grifters spreading disinformation and wanting to roll back the progress made in public health.
And they don't seem to like the fact that they have the freedom to filter the fluoride back out of the water.
...what?
AND THEY DON'T SEEM TO LIKE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE THE FREEDOM TO FILTER THE FLUORIDE BACK OUT OF THE WATER.
fluoride is not easy to filter - its smaller than water molecules.
Right.
Let's put any amount of contaminates in our drinking water just so people can "filter them out."
I swear, some of you people are just too far gone.
Again, there are places where fluoride occurs naturally in drinking water at higher concentrations than it is added artificially and there don't seem to be significant health problems.
Hmmmmm no ! I'm not against fluoride in water, I don't care since I don't live in north america but spreading disinformation does not help.
There is regions, especially in India, where fluoride occurs by naturally in water in high concentration which is causing multiple serious health issues.
"There are higher concentrations of fluoride in water than we usually put in it that is still healthy to drink" != "Any concentration of fluoride in water is safe"
Any substance becomes toxic if you ingest too much of it. If you exceed by a factor of 20 the amount of plenty of things people usually consume, it isn't difficult to find things that are dangerous or even lethal. Say, coffee, beer, anti-inflammatories, chocolate, Coke.
Cool. I said higher concentrations that are added artificially, not extremely high concentration.
there are places where fluoride occurs naturally in drinking water at higher concentrations than it is added artificially and there don't seem to be significant health problems.
I'm simply replying that there is places where fluoride occurs naturally in drinking water at higher concentration that it is added artificially and there is significant health problems in these places.
Does it means that fluoride in low concentration like in the US water system is dangerous ? No, it just means that very high concentration can be dangerous.
I was talking about concentrations in the U.S. I think that should have been obvious.
sadfsdfasfasf
The fluoride in your tap water is not a contaminant.
Says who?
Yes, the World Heath Organization (WHO) does say it is not a contaminent and that appropriate levels are needed.
WHO is never wrong.
sadfsdfasfasf
Literally every person who understands science and water treatment
"Contaminants" 🙄
medical freedom for me, but not for thee who want no more penis.
🥱
Or, give people the option to choose for themselves.
Scientific consensus has been wrong many times before, and it will be wrong many times again.
You do have the option to choose for yourself.
You can not only choose to filter it out, you can choose which filter you want to purchase from a selection. Here you go. https://apexwaterfilters.com/blogs/top-5-water-filters-to-remove-fluoride-from-water/
Right.
Let’s put any amount of contaminates in our drinking water just so people can “filter them out.”
Someone mentioned arsenic earlier in this thread, and I think I can find some study that says arsenic is good for you. Let's add it to our water and anyone who thinks it's harmful can just filter it out.
Also, I'm adding my fecal matter to the water supply to improve people's microbiomes. They can just filter it out if they don't like it.
Fluoride is not a contaminant, but please do find a study that says arsenic is good for you. This should be interesting.
Fluoride is not a contaminant
Says who?
https://gizmodo.com/hey-remember-when-people-used-to-eat-arsenic-as-a-heal-1676316276
It's not a study, but there was a time when people believed arsenic wasn't poisonous. There were most likely scientists back in the day advocating for its usage. You can find their work if you're really interested.
A more recent and easier to research example would be all the "studies" saying lead is safe. Do I have to specifically point to those, or can you understand my point without it?
It’s not a study
Okay, so note what you claimed.
There were most likely scientists back in the day advocating for its usage. You can find their work if you’re really interested.
It's not my job to prove you aren't lying.
I mean, if you don't want to understand then you won't understand.
I've done my part. If you want to replace arsenic with lead, then will it make sense?
Probably not because you don't want to understand.
Also,
Fluoride is not a contaminant
Says who?
You conveniently ignored this part.
If you want to replace arsenic with lead, then will it make sense?
Sure, if you can show me a scientific study that claims that lead is not a contaminant.
You conveniently ignored this part.
Correct. I will continue to until you show me the scientific studies you claim exists or admit you made them up.
Ohhh can I partake in this.
Fluoride contamination, consequences and removal techniques in water - https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2022/va/d1va00039j
See look at the scary headline, and the first sentence - "Fluoride contamination has created a drinking water crisis globally."
Only downside to this paper... it kinda mentions how great it is for humans to consume low levels of flouride.
sadfsdfasfasf
I'm struggling with this.
You're saying that because science was wrong about something else, it must be wrong about fluoride?
I think that if you really dig into it, you'll find that arsenic use wasn't supported by science, but rather snake oil salesmen.
it must be wrong about fluoride?
This is where your confusion comes from. I never said it's wrong about fluoride.
My point is that unless you understand the science yourself, you have faith in other people who do. Scientific consensus has been wrong in the past, and it will be wrong again in the future.
Everyone saying with such certainty that fluoride is good or bad without understanding the science themselves just highlights how most people treat science like a religion.
most people treat science like a religion.
That's just not true. By it's very nature, what we describe as "science" is reproducible. That means faith is not required.
If you understand the science yourself, then you're correct.
The problem is that most people don't understand the science and just have faith in other people who might.
No, my point is that because "science" is reproducible, you do not need faith in the people producing said science, nor do you need to understand it.
You merely need to confirm that it has been reviewed and accepted by other people who do understand it.
Have faith.
Semantics.
To me, faith is belief without evidence.
The science is the antithesis of faith, because it's a system of evidence and confirmation.
If you want to water "faith" down to mean the acceptance of evidence which you have not personally tested then it becomes meaningless. That's flat earth stuff. "I personally have not seen the curvature of the Earth therefore it is flat".
because it’s a system of evidence and confirmation.
It's a system that has been routinely wrong before.
Do you think it's never going to be wrong again? That's having faith.