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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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 "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.
I filter chlorine from all my home water. I just don't like it's smell taste.
Cholrine has a toxic PPM of something like 400
Floride has a toxic PPM of like 2.
Its not the same.
I've seen numerous reports over the years where poor area water departments have had malfunctioning equipment for many years before anyone noticed. Despite all these "required" tests. After all if the watchers don't care who watches them? How about if the watchers just phone it in?
I’d like to ask you to do a mental exercise, sincerely. Whenever you find yourself using the word “toxin”, define it for yourself. What is a toxin, in specific terms?
This is a nebulous term that is most frequently used by quacks and snake oil salesmen to make a claim of health that can never be proven or disproven.
I’m not asking you for a reply to me, you can keep it for yourself, but I think if you do this, you’ll find yourself questioning whether or not you are propagating pseudoscience and it will lead you to better rational thought.
I know some of the nuances of "toxin" for instance water has a toxicity limit. Its not an toxic/not toxic line.
I'm not saying floride is bad/good. Just that I don't trust the government and its often very low quality workers to properly dispense a chemical with tight toxicity tolerances. Especially when it's purpose is basically to benifit people whom don't have the desire to take care of themselves. Why do I have to be exposed to something unwillingly because other people are lazy?
> I don't trust the government and its often very low quality workers to properly dispense a chemical with tight toxicity tolerances.
I have never particularly heard anyone regard civil engineers as "low quality workers" - but you don't have to trust. Water fluoridation levels can be measured for about $20 with a mail in kit, or you could even get a specialized interferometer for a couple hundred. It should be noted that we already measure these levels in municipal water facilities though.
> Especially when it's purpose is basically to benifit people whom don't have the desire to take care of themselves. Why do I have to be exposed to something unwillingly because other people are lazy?
The primary benefit of water fluoridation is the dental health of developing children and the destitute poor.
I don't really want to get into an ideological argument on hacker news, suffice to say "you should care about other people because that is how a society functions." Case in point, fluoride in my water would make my medication stop working. I still support it in the water I can't even drink without filtering because it's a net benefit to society that ultimately impacts me positively in numerous ways.
>particularly heard anyone regard civil engineers as "low quality workers"
You still haven't. I never specified such a thing. Nice straw-man though.
On a side note I wasn't even thinking about this but I actually personally know two civil engineers(or did). One is a gambling addict. The other moved to a different state because he researched that they had more prostitutes there. I promise you the public welfare is low on their list of concerns.
I do care. However when the government is involved care is often manipulated(think of the children) into giving unquestioned authority against people's best interest because its for their own good after all....
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/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.