Of course it depends on whether the target demographic has adequate access to fluoride via other means, such as toothpaste.
A similar case might be iodine in table salt. A lot of salt available in America is iodized on purpose. We don't do that where I live, where the usual diet is already rich in iodine. There is no single right answer, only a cost-benefit analysis for each location.
This better not result in another push by the Pacific Northwest about removing fluoride from drinking water. Don't rest on your laurels people, complacency leads down the path of rotting from within. It's not as useful because it's working, the things we are doing are working, keep them up. Fight tooth decay.
Comments like this are the clearest sign that this topic has become so politicized that rational judgement is out the window. If fluoride in the water is opposed by *those people*, or is supported by *those people*, then even if new clear evidence comes out one way or another, it will be undermined by not wanting to hand the other side a ‘W’.
In an era where conspiracy theories are rampant, yeah, I'm kind of averse to letting conspiracy theorists win anything.
I'm not going to put myself in danger to avoid it. But when the evidence is marginal, social factors are something I'll take into account.
Even if there is indeed a problem with fluoridated water, it only shows up in a small effect that requires a large sample to see. The conspiracy theorists were guessing, even if they guessed right. And they ignored the data that had been gathered.
Science changes its mind, but conspiracy theorists never do. They accumulate, and it looks to me as if we're about to drown in them.
You are only feeding the growth of conspiracy theories if, when confronted with one that is true, you continually deny it. If they see actual evidence being denied, they think there’s something there.
We literally just got a ruling against the EPA on fluoridation as being dangerously risky levels. As even The Guardian admits, it’s possible there actually is something to the claims of danger.
In fact, Flouride may be actually harmful in children. According to a peer-reviewed finding, "aggregate fluoride exposure from all sources in an amount equivalent to 1.5 mg/L in drinking water is consistently associated with lower IQ in children." See https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2024/10/04/fluorid....
Nobody fluoridates the water to 1.5 mg/L. If you're fluoridating the water, your target is 0.7 mg/L.
The people with 1.5 mg/L fluoride (or higher--the EPA limit is 2.0mg/L) are because the groundwater is percolating through rock that is high in fluorides, and people don't want to spend the money on defluoridating the water down to acceptable standards. Defluoridation is of course much harder than fluoridation because fluorides are highly soluble.
The same EPA also infamous for regulatory capture, corruption, and whistleblowers every other year?
The same EPA which has a 30 year campaign saying parents against fluoridation are idiots, which would blow up in their face if they admitted any degree of error?
No. The EPA has too many incentives to be dishonest.
Both tea leaves and California rice have fluoride also; absorbed by the plants as they grow.
Foreign sources of rice have to pass tests for fluoride while California rice is exempt, from my understanding.
Yes. We're going to need stronger pharmaceuticals to dumb down the population.
Of course it depends on whether the target demographic has adequate access to fluoride via other means, such as toothpaste.
A similar case might be iodine in table salt. A lot of salt available in America is iodized on purpose. We don't do that where I live, where the usual diet is already rich in iodine. There is no single right answer, only a cost-benefit analysis for each location.
There’s no reason to have fluoride in the drinking water.
Or people could just not eat carbs and there would be no need for this debate at all.
This better not result in another push by the Pacific Northwest about removing fluoride from drinking water. Don't rest on your laurels people, complacency leads down the path of rotting from within. It's not as useful because it's working, the things we are doing are working, keep them up. Fight tooth decay.
Comments like this are the clearest sign that this topic has become so politicized that rational judgement is out the window. If fluoride in the water is opposed by *those people*, or is supported by *those people*, then even if new clear evidence comes out one way or another, it will be undermined by not wanting to hand the other side a ‘W’.
In an era where conspiracy theories are rampant, yeah, I'm kind of averse to letting conspiracy theorists win anything.
I'm not going to put myself in danger to avoid it. But when the evidence is marginal, social factors are something I'll take into account.
Even if there is indeed a problem with fluoridated water, it only shows up in a small effect that requires a large sample to see. The conspiracy theorists were guessing, even if they guessed right. And they ignored the data that had been gathered.
Science changes its mind, but conspiracy theorists never do. They accumulate, and it looks to me as if we're about to drown in them.
You are only feeding the growth of conspiracy theories if, when confronted with one that is true, you continually deny it. If they see actual evidence being denied, they think there’s something there.
We literally just got a ruling against the EPA on fluoridation as being dangerously risky levels. As even The Guardian admits, it’s possible there actually is something to the claims of danger.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation...
Of course, the EPA would never live it down if the anti-fluoridation people actually had something to their claims.
How about brush your teeth with fluoride and spit it out instead?
Fluoride in the water impacts the development of teeth. Portland, where I live, is the last major city to not have fluoride in the water.
So kids have to take tablets if they want the impact. But this is far less effective.
Ask a dentist here. Locals have more tooth decay.
Other American cities without fluoride in their water include Tucson, Wichita, Fresno, Albuquerque and San Jose. I wonder how their teeth are doing.
In fact, Flouride may be actually harmful in children. According to a peer-reviewed finding, "aggregate fluoride exposure from all sources in an amount equivalent to 1.5 mg/L in drinking water is consistently associated with lower IQ in children." See https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2024/10/04/fluorid....
Nobody fluoridates the water to 1.5 mg/L. If you're fluoridating the water, your target is 0.7 mg/L.
The people with 1.5 mg/L fluoride (or higher--the EPA limit is 2.0mg/L) are because the groundwater is percolating through rock that is high in fluorides, and people don't want to spend the money on defluoridating the water down to acceptable standards. Defluoridation is of course much harder than fluoridation because fluorides are highly soluble.
Attention everyone: This is not just some kooky conspiracy theory anymore. We have federal rulings against the EPA on this matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation...
The US court system is not a good arbiter of scientific accuracy. I'd trust the EPA a lot more here.
The same EPA also infamous for regulatory capture, corruption, and whistleblowers every other year?
The same EPA which has a 30 year campaign saying parents against fluoridation are idiots, which would blow up in their face if they admitted any degree of error?
No. The EPA has too many incentives to be dishonest.