Toxicologist here. I think that take is dishonest or dumb.
Taking a lethal dose is almost never the concern with any substance in our drinking water.
Hormones, heavy metals, persistent organic chemicals, ammonia are all in our drinking water. But for all of them we can't drink enough water to die from a high dose.
Some of them still have a large effect on our bodies.
It's about the longterm effects. Which we need longterm studies to learn about. That makes them harder to study.
Still doesn't mean flouride does anything bad longerm. But the argument is bad.
Yeah, by this argument lead in the water isn't a concern.
Yup, same with PFAS and forever chemicals. Maybe I'm ignorant because I'm not a doctor, but I don't know if this line of thinking holds water - pun not intended.
lead poisoning becomes evident pretty early though doesn't it? (With respect to kids)
I would think that the ratio of persistent exposure to unsafe level has got to be easily higher in cases like Flint than any fluoride-in-the-water usage. Just speculation on my part.
What measures are taken to avoid screwing up the dosage, anyone know? Maybe predilute so that an oops requires multiple buckets instead of vials?
It's so funny I was just having a similar conversation about neurotoxic venomous animals in another thread. Lethality is an obviously concerning threshold, but there are substances out there that can easily destroy your quality of life and livelihood that never reach the concern of being lethal.
I think for mostly rational people concerned about fluoride in their water is that it was a public health decision made with little to no actual science proving it's safety or efficacy when it was first decided that they were going to add it to the public water supply. The proposed benefits of it weren't even supported by scientific evidence, it was just supposed that exposure to sodium fluoride could potentially reduce tooth decay for some.
Personally, I've suffered from the cosmetic damage of dental fluorosis, and I'm not necessarily thrilled about fluoride. But I have way more issues with public mandates founded on pseudoscience than I am with sodium fluoride. Especially now that we can see evidence that for some people fluoride can be especially beneficial.
So what was wrong with giving people the option of using fluoride toothpaste or mouthwashes... Why did it have to go into the public water supply?
Mate, your entire second paragraph is completely false. Like, you need to just read this: https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/fluoride/the-story-of-fluoridation
It's considered by the CDC as one of the greatest Public Health Achievements of the last Century. There have been dozens, if not hundreds of studies about fluoride affects in the water supply.
In our area, the only water supply WITH Fluoride serves an area with a median HOUSEHOLD income of less than $40k with more than 25% living below the poverty line. For communities like these the fluoride is critical because there will be a lot of children that don't have access to fluoride supplements, or regular care from a pediatric (or regular) dentist.
never the concern
It is when you're responding to people who think 5G is turning the frogs gay and activating hidden vaccine microchips.
We probably have enough A/B data now to make some inferences yeah? Compare countries with fluoridated water to countries without.
You can get even more granular than that. CDC maintains a list of water systems and whether or not they add fluoride. CDC My Water System. To give you an idea of how granular that is, there are 78 different water systems in my county alone. For most of my life I assumed we had fluoridated water but apparently only 1/78 of our water systems are. I only checked when we had kids and I needed to know whether or not I needed to give them Fluoride Drops.
yes and some of that data is already in other comments here
Yeah, it seems to me like he got the right idea and wanted to convince people by making an extreme statement..
That might well be the case. I'm not sure if it is helpful to use those half truths which are simpler to convince certain people. Or if it weakens the point because it is in the end not really correct.
This. How can we be completely certain that something isn't damaging over the long term. I'm not anti fluoride, but healthy debate and scepticism is a good thing, especially when we're all forced to consume a substance with the only alternative being dehydration and death. People need to be free to make their own choices.
Also, isn't it recommended to not give infants fluorided water, hence why you can buy it in virtually every grocery store?
Pretty much anything you can think of is recommended by someone, because different people have conflicting views. The key is to choose whose recommendations are based on the best reasoning & evidence aligning with your goals.
Also "because I'm an expert and I say so" is a good way to convince someone to let you poison them.
Oh yeah? And what if someone ignores that, simply lies and says it's toxic? I'm convinced!
And both of these people telling me about fluoride in water are both experts in their field. One an expert toxicologist, and the other an expert liar. Now I don't know what to believe.
The fluoride added to water gets it up to 0.7mg/liter.
That ends up to be 2 or 3 drops in a 55 gallon drums worth of water. Not much.
Fluoride is a natural substance and is found in many areas drinking water already. Many areas in much higher concentrations than 0.7mg/liter, so realistically people all over the world have drank fluoridated water for thousands of years.
You have to well over double the 0.7 before any health issues may appear and the first to appear is at about triple the concentration in kids under 8 years old who drink it for years getting spots on their teeth. The spots are only superficial.
Going into concentrations even higher than that CAN cause health issues when drank for longer periods of time. All of those cases being from naturally occurring fluoride, which actually effects somewhere north of 20% of the world's population.
Which makes the argument that fluoride in our water keeps us passive as being extra stupid, since water sourced around Columbia (the country) is far higher than .07mg/liter and Columbia seems to be caught in violence and turmoil and instability quite a bit over the decades.
*edit: Colombia
Its presence in groundwater is how we discovered it's good for teeth.
In fact, there used to be so much in some areas,it actually stained the teeth. In Colorado Springs a dentist noticed that the children were developing brown stains on their teeth. In researching it, it was discovered that the "Colorado Brown Stain" was caused by excessive fluoride in the drinking water. But it also lead to the discovery that regions with natural fluoride present but in lower levels than Colorado Springs didn't have stained teeth, but did have lower levels of tooth decay.
Yep. In fact, 21% of the world's natural drinking water used falls within the recommended range for fluoride, while over another 20% is higher and in some countries actually does cause some non-superficial side effects and problems. Those don't pop up until in concentrations at least 3 times higher than recommended.
Small note: the country name is spelled “Colombia,” and spelling it correctly means you don’t need to specify which one!
Fair enough!
Just because a concentration is low doesn’t mean it’s safe. Water with 0.7 mg/L of Po-210 is lethal.
You can put an amount of it in a 55 gallon drum that is not visible
It’s a natural substance
Fluoride is in fact safe at the amounts that the FDA regulates but saying it’s a small concentration or that it’s natural are not the reasons it’s safe. It’s the hundreds of peer reviewed research articles that show that it’s safe
It's not about toxicity, it's about mind control! Fluoride makes you passive. But you know this since you're a tool of the government pushing poison.
Just bleach your teeth like normal people! You know, with the bleach under the kitchen sink.
(Don't actually do this)
I mean, trump got reelected. I hope it's the flouride.
Like the ol' General said / s
We can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.
And that's why you should only drink grain alcohol and pure, natural rain water. To preserve the essence of your precious bodily fluids.
</s>
Eating seeds as a pastime activity
I've heard it works much better and actually reverses the mind control if you first mix the bleach with ammonia.
(Also, please, don't actually do this, some people still die every year from this)
The real Chads use raw organic free-range non-GMO pesticide-free lemon juice with baking soda. It'll leave your teeth as white as they'll be sensitive! Keep it crunchy. You're welcome.
Toxicologist, toxicity, minuscule, fluoridated -- your big doctor words are just trying to trick us!
So, once again, DHMO is the chemical we need to fear.
The stuff also known as hydric acid. People just don't talk enough about how corrosive it is. Plus, it gets in the air and gets in your lungs!
It’s so pervasive that they have found it in the bodies of every single child worldwide.
It’s 10 million times more acidic than drain cleaner!!! And the government is trying to force you to drink it by forcing it to be used in municipal drinking fountains
Any chemical that can exist as a solid, a liquid and a gas at the same time isn't safe to put into our bodies!
Fun fact. Literally everyone who has died, ever, has had DHMO in some form. You're even exposed in the womb!
Yeah but I read an article on a bullshit website. I think some no name website knows more than a toxicologist
Why is some dumb scientist expert trying to tell me, a person who pays for an internet connection, what the truth is?
Because something something shill money.
The people who need to hear this sadly would not believe that too much water can kill you even if you showed them someone die from it, I fear. I'd also be shocked if they read "water poisoning" and didn't think of poisoned water.
I didn’t know this was a thing when I was younger, but not young enough to not be classified as a moron.
Drank about 7-8 litres of water in 3 hours without going to the bathroom as a contest against a work colleague. Suffice to say I started feeling a little off on the way home, even after going to the bathroom. Years later I finally learned you can drown yourself from drinking too much and the symptoms were eerily close to what I experienced that night.
Oh don't get me wrong! I also only learned about water toxicity when I was very much an adult.
But the difference between us and the type of person I'm talking about, is that we (I'm presuming on your part) don't think fluoride in water is a bad thing.
The kind of person who hears "the government adds CHEMICAL_NAME to water" and assumes that's a bad thing is the kind of person who will not believe drinking too much water can kill you, even (or especially) if they are told by an expert.
dihydrogen monoxide is also dangerous, we must ban it as well
Agreed. That's why I only drink DMSO.
(Don't actually drink DMSO please.)
I love how it has an ad for Acme Klein Bottles
I want someone who knows about these things to respond to this 2012 metastudy that ties naturally fluoridated groundwater to neurological problems. I have used this the past decade to say “well the science is unclear;” I found it back then (2013 at the latest) when I was trying to disprove a crank and really questioned my shit. There was a(n unrelated?) follow up later that questioned the benefits. Since this is very far from my area of expertise, I’m not championing these; I just want to understand why they’re wrong or at least don’t matter in the discourse.
(Edit: for the educated, there could be a million ways these are wrong. Authors are idiots, study isn’t reproducible, industry capture, conclusions not backed up by data, whatever. I just don’t have the requisite knowledge to say these are wrong and therefore fluoridated water is both safe and useful)
Update: great newer studies in responses! You can have a rational convo starting with these two that moves to newer stuff.
There’s a follow up meta study from 2020.:
In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.
A study in Canada was published in 2019 looking at the differences between 2 neighboring cities where on stopped fluoridating water in 2011. They saw that saw a significant increase in cavities in children in the city that stopped fluoridating vs the other. This is despite the fact the the city without fluoridation actually has somewhat higher adherence to brushing, flossing, and going to the dentist. No difference was seen yet in permanent teeth, but that's because the study would need more time to see effects there.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12685
Of course, we still should do more studies on fluoride neurotoxicity. Most studies look at levels of fluoride at 1.5mg/L or higher, which is more than double the recommended level by the US (0.7 mg/L). There is a hard limit in the US of 4mg/L, but the EPA strongly recommends a limit of 2mg/L. This only really matters for locations with very high levels of fluoride in the groundwater, and is thus quite rare. The EU's limit is 1.5mg/L.
I also came across the same study while looking to disprove a conspiracy nut. We should really do more research on the effects of fluoride.
The Harvard geneticists little opinion piece she wrote completely ignores all the direct evidence that was gathered back then, about how cavities always decreased in fluoridated areas when compared to neighboring cities that hadn't yet done so.
Also, yeah, it's bad for you in large doses. Literally anything is bad for you in large enough doses.
You want some fancy rebuttal to a single linked study that the article states was a bunch of partials thrown together, that came from a country famously known for half-assing and cutting corners to get ahead? The country that was caught mixing lead into ground Cinnamon to sell it for a higher weight? The one where buildings sit half done or the cement falls apart by the time it's together? The ones who lay sod over cement in order to pass the amount of vegetation present on new construction?
That's the article you could and and latch onto in order to believe? Are you even aware that fluoride occurs naturally in water and that about 40% of all the drinking water across the globe already has around the amount the US gets theirs up to, or a larger amount(some places so large they do actually cause health issues)? It's literally been drank for thousands of years.
But you trust an incomplete study from China more than anything else? Why?
I’m was just hoping for a solid rebuttal, not necessarily a fancy one! If you’re able to explain why the criticisms you mention mean that specific study is bad, that would be great! I’m assuming you’re not from China and mistakenly think wherever you’re from doesn’t suffer from similar issues, meaning we can only trust you as much as the article.
It would be great to have some citations for that so I can point to things when I get into these discussions! That was part of what I asked for. You seem really passionate about this so you must have that available to help me out. Thanks!
I’m not sure you read my post if you think I trust any of the studies I linked more than anything else. It might be good to reread it!
Back when I was in college, people didn't like fluoride because it calcifies the pinneal gland. I assume that rhetoric has only been further exaggerated over the years
It does do this. However so does ageing, low sunlight exposure, low altitude, ethnicity, sex, nutrition, neuro-divergence, cell phone use, EM fields... you get the idea.
Another point that conspiracy bros will bring up is that fluoride is a toxic byproduct of aluminum manufacture and dumping it into the water supply is a cheap way for Alcoa to dispose of it benevolently.
i know this guy has a fancy degree and everything, but is he really as reliable a source as rfk junior? you don’t need fluoride when you have an army of worms ready to eat any kinds of bacteria that may enter your system.
"I can't wait for RFK Jr to stop this, he knows all the chemicals!"
Overheard while at the polls on election day.
he may not know all the chemicals, but i bet all the chemicals know him
I feel like I woke up in the movie Dr. Strangelove
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Second time I got to post this today, unfortunately because it's almost ceased being satire.
edit: I didn't say that people drink ocean water, my point was about the ubiquitous nature of fluoride. The majority of life lives in the ocean, so if fluoride really was as toxic as some people say it is, there would be a lot less life on Earth. There are many lakes and other water sources that people have been drinking from for ages which naturally contain higher amounts of fluoride than what is in fluoridated tap water.
I don't understand your point.
Nobody drinks the ocean. Fluoride is barely active topically. Most humans rarely if at all swim in the ocean.
Talking about the ocean is odd, but there are towns in the UK (and most countries I'd assume?) where the natural level of fluoride is higher than the concentration they aim for when adding fluoride. I think that's a pretty good argument for it being safe - the people of Hartlepool have been drinking fluoride rich water for 13 centuries and don't have any noticeable issues compared to the rest OF County Durham.
Yeah. It's not an entirely salient point. It does, however, underline the ubiquitous nature of fluorine.
The biggest source of Flourine in the environment is just the normal weathering of rocks that contain it. The biggest of the anthropogenic sources include brick production, phosphate fertiliser application and coal burning.
The minor amount added to drinking water really wouldn't be the biggest issue if it was as toxic as it's made out to be.
From what I have read, fluoride’s action on teeth is purely topical. Which is why it is in toothpaste (which is not swallowed). The “minuscule” amount in drinking water is reported as not enough to be toxic, yet somehow enough to strengthen teeth through internal blood circulation. Any fluoride you ingest, even a few atoms, is considered a toxin by the body and removed. So while the minuscule amounts added to water may not harm you, they are still adding to the “workload” your body has in dealing with all the minuscule amounts of other toxins you acquire daily.
This is a better argument than the one in the post. No one is worried about acute toxicity of fluoride but rather long term. But it's not long term toxic, doesn't accumulate in the body, and is only present in very low amounts in water. However it should be enough to use fluoridated toothpaste to get the positive effects.
I believe the objection to fluoride is that it is a tranquilizer that keeps us from achieving glory through violent uprising... or sweet sweet dentist profits.
Agreed but can we turn down the chloramine valve? It tastes awful.
Why not just get a water filter?
For what’s it worth, in my country (Netherlands), we don’t add fluoride to our tap water anymore since the early 70s. We just have it in our toothpaste (though you can also get fluoride free toothpaste for those who don’t want it).
Sure there’s still traces of fluoride in our water, as it appears in nature. But it’s not artificially added by our water companies.
Most places that do add it to the water supply match the levels of places where flouride occurs naturally
How much oatmeal would I have to eat to die of fluoride poisoning?
0.08mg per half cup serving, but may vary depending on water used. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Fluoride-HealthProfessional/
10mg is the accepted daily upper limit for an adult. So 62.5 cups of oatmeal to reach that max safe limit. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Fluoride-Consumer/
Acute poisoning symptoms may appear as low as 10-15 mg/kg, lethal dose might be 32-64 mg/kg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity
So 200 to 400 cups of oatmeal per kg you weigh for a lethal dose. (32/0.08/2=200, 64/0.08/2=400)
That's a lot of oatmeal.
Fluoridated water doesn't seem to make a difference on cavities. It does have neurological effects. It's simply not acutely fatal. It's already in our toothpaste. We don't need it in our municipal water supply and the majority of developed countries don't.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/
Thank you for the link. It's worth mentioning that there are response letters to the publication you linked from other experts, the majority of which are critical and point out misinterpretations and omissions by the author. It's always good to question, but in this instance it looks like the consensus amongst experts evaluating that publication is still that fluoridation is safe and improves dental health. The response letters can be read here.
Edit to add: The responses include a letter from the dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine stating that the publication is deeply flawed and requesting a retraction, and a similar condemnation from the students of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The article was given greater weight by being linked to Harvard, but in fact Harvard dental experts explicitly disagree.
This is a disingenuous take. This is a cherry-picked article that does not come to the conclusion you draw here. You also state "It does have neurological effects" but leave out the most important piece of information for that to be true: high doses.
Why should anyone trust what you say when you're twisting the information to suit your narrative?
Your link is more or less an opinion piece from a geneticist, so this isn't even her field of study.
All her health issues she points out are for fluoride concentrations over triple the amount that tap water is brought up to.
The reason it's usage spread across the country was because while the entire country had access to things such as fluoridated toothpaste, counties and cities that started fluoridation of their water supplies consistently had fewer cavities than areas that didn't fluoridate the water. This alone outlines the glaringly obvious flaw in her argument.
Further still, while the US adds fluoride to the tap water in a concentration to reach 0.5mg to 0.7mg per liter of water (a couple drops per 50 gallons), natural drinking water for over 20% of the world is in concentrations well over that (to be clear, being well over that can cause health issues. Too much of anything can cause health issues.)
In other words, there is no evidence that this low concentration of fluoride causes health issues. There is loads of direct evidence that it reduces cavities. Plus, this woman from your opinion piece is talking out of her field. Not to mention that 21% of the world's drinking water supply naturally already falls within the recommended range of what the US takes theirs up to. It's just that most of the US water supply naturally falls below that amount.
I appreciate that you put some reputable sources, rather than relying on a random tweet/post.
The source is not as reputable as it appears. The article in question is not from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, and in fact was condemned by the HSDM. The actual dental experts at Harvard requested a formal retraction of the article: "Based on the significant flaws in the magazine article, we respectfully request that the article be rescinded, and a correction be published to clarify any misleading information that was provided."
Keep in mind that they listed Canada as having non-flouride water, presumably based on the sole criteria that it's not a national requirement. The split between communities with and without flouride in their water varies wildly by province.
It's an opinion piece by a geneticist (so not a chemist or biologist or a field that could be related) and she ignores all the direct evidence that every city and county that added fluoride started having fewer cavities than neighboring areas that hadn't yet added it.
She then further points out that it only causes health issues in much higher concentrations than what the US was getting our water supply up to. You know, like literally anything that you get too much of is bad for you. You can literally die from drinking too much plain water. Too much of anything will kill you.
Interesting. The article doesn’t actually say that fluoridation in water supplies is dangerous but that some researchers are questioning. Generally code for lack of scientific evidence. It also finds that early studies may have had a flawed basis (pretty much all early studies have been found wanting by later scientists) but doesn’t refute the results.The study mentioned in the article talks about high levels of fluoridation which I assume is in lab tests however these levels are not the case in water supplies.
The correct way forward is more actual science based studies.
Only 3% of Quebec's population has access to fluoridated water and we have way more dental issues than any other province in Canada.
The bad part about Rfk jr is he probably mixes in some science with quackery. I honestly assumed all his ideas are insane. That's what's so hard about being discerning right now, you have to be on one side or the other.
the people that need to hear this will never believe you.
Lemminologist here:
the fluoride levels vary because that’s how numbers do in reality
If they remove it from the water, then change the availability to be OTC for multivitamins with fluoride. I want to be able to get it with our having a copay and whatever else the Dr wants to charge .
many toothpastes have it, no need to use multivitamins
Next headline will be how fluoride contributes to autism and it will have just as much evidence as the vaccine bit does. How is this even a thing? Is ground zero on this RFK?
Meanwhile, all the people who can’t afford dentists will have even worse teeth going forward. Make America’s teeth British again.
Well look at the statistics:
Fluoride:
- Water fluoridation in the United States began in the 1940s
- By 1949, nearly 1 million Americans were receiving fluoridated tap water
- In 1951, the number jumped dramatically to 4.85 million people
- By 1952, the number nearly tripled again to 13.3 million Americans
- In 1954, the number exceeded 20 million people
- In 1965 an additional 13.5 million Americans gained access to fluoridated water.
- By 1969, 43.7% of Americans had access to fluoridated tap water.
- In 2000, approximately 162 million Americans (65.8% of the population served by public water systems) received optimally fluoridated water
- 2006: 69.2% of people on public water systems (61.5% of total population)
- 2012: 74.6% of people on public water systems (67.1% of total population)
Autism:
- First recognised in the 1940s
- During the 1960s and 1970s, prevalence estimates were approximately 0.5 cases per 1,000 children.
- Prevalence rates increased to about 1 case per 1,000 children in the 1980s.
- 2000: 1 in 150 children
- 2006: 1 in 110 children
- 2014: 1 in 59 children
- 2016: 1 in 54 children
- 2020: 1 in 36 children
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
/s because people think I posted this in seriousness.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic but if not, then I'm about to blow your fucking mind
STOP EATING RICE!
NAME YOUR DAUGHTER SARAH, IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THE AMAZON! AND WHATEVER YOU DO...
...DO NOT NAME THEM TRISTEN
If we shut down flights to Antarctica, inflation would've been solved yesterday.
Let's ignore the better diagnosis processes and just take two trending upward statistics and make a broad correlation and call it fact.
Damn, I guess fluoridated water also then caused computers, world population growth and the eradication of polio.
Idk if this is a troll post or this person never heard of the fact that correlation does not equal causation.
They need to do stuff like this often in HS to show students how you can bullshit truths and make its facade of truth feel legit.
but what about my precious bodily fluids?!?
"Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?"
I don't avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.
The question to me is - do we even have to fluoridate water and is this really the best approach?
For example, most European countries do not commonly use fluoride in their water supply, and everyone's just fine! No extra cavities, no special health risks. People commonly drink tap water and do not care about potential for any adverse effects, because it's just that - clean water. And for any teeth-related issues, you already have your toothpaste providing more than enough fluorine.
-
Water fluoridation reaches over 13 million Europeans through programs in England, Ireland, Poland, Serbia and Spain
-
Children in deprived areas benefit most from water fluoridation according to 2018 English health agency report
-
Over 70 million Europeans receive fluoridated salt through programs in Austria, France, Germany, Switzerland and other countries. Salt fluoridation is recommended when water fluoridation is not feasible
-
European Academy of Pediatric Dentistry endorses water fluoridation as "core component of oral health policy"
-
Fluoridated milk programs have operated in Bulgaria, England, Hungary, Russia and Scotland
-
Several European countries provide free or subsidized fluoride treatments through national healthcare:
- Sweden: free dental care through age 23
- Denmark: free dental care until age 18
- Finland: public dental clinic access for all legal residents
-
Scandinavian schools offer fluoride varnish, tablets and rinse programs
-
Some regions in Europe have naturally fluoridated water, such as parts of Italy. Italian health officials support water fluoridation but don't implement additional programs due to naturally optimal fluoride levels in some areas
-
Evidence shows that water fluoridation prevents tooth decay by providing frequent and consistent contact with low levels of fluoride, ultimately reducing tooth decay by about 25% in children and adults.
-
evidence shows that schoolchildren living in communities where water is fluoridated have, on average, 2.25 fewer decayed teeth compared to similar children not living in fluoridated communities.
-
A study to compare costs associated with community water fluoridation with treatment savings achieved through reduced tooth decay, which included 172 public water systems, each serving populations of 1,000 individuals or more, found that 1 year of exposure to fluoridated water yielded an average savings of $60 per person when the lifetime costs of maintaining a restoration were included.
-
Analyses of Medicaid claims data in 3 other states (Louisiana, New York, and Texas), have also found that children living in fluoridated communities have lower caries related treatment costs than do similar children living in non-fluoridated communities; the difference in annual per child treatment costs ranged from $28 to $67.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9544072/
-
community water fluoridation continues to decrease cavities by 25% at the population level.
-
Even with fluoridated products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, this public health practice can reduce an additional 25% of tooth decay in children and adults
-
In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first U.S. city to fluoridate its public water supply. Five years later, Grand Rapids schoolchildren were found to have significantly fewer cavities than children from the control community of Muskegon, and additional water districts, including Muskegon began fluoridating and seeing similar results
-
Studies have shown that populations from lower socioeconomic groups within fluoridated communities have less tooth decay when compared to peers in nonfluoridated communities
-
The cost of a lifetime of water fluoridation for one person is less than the cost of one filling
More info: https://www.ada.org/resources/community-initiatives/fluoride-in-water
Thanks for provided context!
I'll look into the data.
-
It depends if you believe in the apocryphal story behind fluoridation. This is a story that justifies the state and it's right of medical intervention into your life with the need of your informed consent.
These types of stories are designed to justify the right to act of an entity/egregor using the least objectionnable scenario possible. Once this precedent is established it can built upon to justify other actions in other scenarios. All the other unobjectionnable things done to you or in your name
The question is: does it make sense to buy toothpaste with fluoride then or can I buy one without? Just because my kids don't like the peppermint ones and other flavours are most of the times without fluoride
Non-fluoridated toothpaste is mainly for kids who are too young to be able to consistently spit it all out. The concentration of fluoride in toothpaste is high enough that you shouldn't be swallowing it, because doing that on the regular is harmful to your teeth. Gray discoloration is one of the first symptoms.
If your kids are capable of doing "rinse and spit," then they should be using fluoridated toothpaste.
Always buy flouride toothpaste.
Fluoridated toothpaste is more effective than drinking water. The fluoride works by direct contact with the enamel. Another reason it doesn't make sense to put it in drinking water.
Fluoride in the water is beneficial in the pre-eruptive phase (when teeth are still growing). Fluoride ingestion increases tooth resistence to cavities if the ingestion happened while they were growing.
This does mean that fluoride in water isn't really useful after you have all your permanent teeth though.
But what about our precious bodily fluids?
I don't avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.
throws Coors light
"That's just what they want you to think!"
Come up with a rebuttal to this that an ignorant right-winger would believe.
My thing is this...
- Adding it requires effort
- Removing it, if possible, requires effort
- It's not a requirement
- There are other alternative methods to get it, like toothpaste, or sumpliments, that don't force your neighbors to have your fluoride.
Depending on where you live, there is already enough naturally occurring fluoride in the well water that adding more doesn't mean much. How else do you think they discovered fluoride helps your teeth?
Since I live in a rural area and need to have my own well, I know my water contains enough fluoride that it would be silly to add more. But some areas do not have enough naturally present. So it would be interesting to see the water test results for Florida cities to check the amount of naturally occurring fluoride present. YMMV
Okay fluoride gang (of which I may be a member)…
A study about the affects of fluoride in municipal water on plants: MSU study
Used to be a thing about it turning your teeth green
It could likely be replaced with hydroxyapatite instead (it also can be used to remove lead and other things from water, which makes searching about being added to municipal water difficult). Good for not only teeth, also bones.
I also wonder if adding other vitamins would make more sense (just enough to stop deficiencies) if we're talking about health outcomes, though the first idea I had with vitamin C came up with results of that messing with the chlorine in the water.
Toxicology isn't a real profession. These people are run by big toxicity. For real water advice you want a homeopath.
Nah trust me bro.
The question about this is that the same can be said about lead. Do we want to consume that?
No. It can't be said for fluoride. Lead is known to be extremely toxic. We've seen what it does. Fluoride in water is not toxic, which has been shown multiple times.
Your argument is asinine.
Toxicity is a big word. What about small long term effects?
Lithium is prohibited in eu outside of psychiatric therapy, too. But it might be an essential nutrient (small doses).
My trust into the official
narrativescience is limited.Edit: as the tobacco interest group has proven studies and scientific evidence can be bought. Don’t know why y’all are reacting so allergic
You don't need to place any trust in any narrative, there are scientific studies on the topic.
Who's profiting off of putting flouride in the water? What is this flouride industry making money hand over first?
“Essential” is a bigger word than “toxicity”.
I am still concerned about fluoride, but for different reasons. The federal government says there is too much natural fluoride in our water so we must import water to dilute it. The federal government doesn't trust us with police officers, or politicians, but surely the public water company isn't corrupt or incompetent....surely.
But hey, our teeth are really white and no ones died from flouride, far more likely to die from sudden lead.
Having worked for a municipal water system, no, they are not incompetent when engineers are at the helm. Corruption I saw was related to giving small incidental work to friends, some weird politics sometimes, but that was about it.
More importantly: everyone understood our job wasn't to make money, we were foundational to our city's livelihood & health, that of our neighbors, our mother's and brothers. Quality was job 1, and I really do mean that. Could we have moved faster and for less money? Maybe. But I'm glad we picked doing the job right over doing it fast.
If democrats proposed this idea everyone would love it. Fuck trump but removing fluoride from the water is a good idea .
The fluoride is intentionally added to the water to improve tooth health.
Democrats would love it. Republicans would suddenly discover that flouride is the only thing standing between our children and the gay agenda.
Hahahaha exactly
My barometer is when it's something that pretty much only the U.S. is obsessed with doing, then it's probably a dumb thing caused by lobbyists or something. Fluoridation of water falls under this.
Before even wondering about the health effects, we should ask ourselves whether it actually achieves the desired goal. I doubt that.
If it doesn't, we don't even need to wonder about safety; we'll just stop burning money.
I asked myself and I had no idea.
I then looked to experts who make a career of studying theses things and are held to standards and peer review. There is a Cochrane review on this topic just updated last month. The answer is that yes it does help reduce childhood caries at least a little bit.
fluoridation has nothing to with any teeth-related issues, it was all about the US industry having a way to dispose of fluoride, a byproduct of many industrial activities. You can't just dump fluoride on a river as it has several adverse side-effects, but it you can convince everyone it is good for their health then it's okay to dump it on the water supply.
Is this what you do? Just spread as many lies a possible on the internet?
lmao. rofl even. Fluoride is incredibly expensive AND useful, if you run an industry you wanna make sure you absolutely recover it from byproducts and reuse it, not to mention that with how low the levels in tap water are, it wouldn't be even a good way of disposing a lot of it
No.. just no
If that was true there are a lot of other things they could dump in the water
So miniscule it won't poison you but just enough to prevent tooth decay. You really can't have it both ways. Pretending there is any real control over measurement is also ridiculous. Not to mention there is no need to drink fluoride.
You know what does work? Using fluoride topically and getting good dental care.
