Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm(salon.com)
salon.com
Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm
https://www.salon.com/2023/03/16/health-officials-delayed-report-linking-fluoride-to-brain-harm_partner/
467 comments
No, fluoride must not be added to any food or beverage, because it provides no benefits whatsoever when ingested.
Fluoride is beneficial only when applied externally on the dental enamel, so that the fluoride ions will passively substitute the hydroxide ions. There is no known biological process that uses actively fluoride in the human body and excessive ingested fluoride has bad effects, e.g. bone damage.
Therefore fluoride must be added only to tooth paste and mouth washes, which provides all the benefits and none of the risks.
Intentionally ingesting fluoride is incredibly stupid and it is beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated by law in USA and in some other countries which imitated USA irrationally.
Fluoride is beneficial only when applied externally on the dental enamel, so that the fluoride ions will passively substitute the hydroxide ions. There is no known biological process that uses actively fluoride in the human body and excessive ingested fluoride has bad effects, e.g. bone damage.
Therefore fluoride must be added only to tooth paste and mouth washes, which provides all the benefits and none of the risks.
Intentionally ingesting fluoride is incredibly stupid and it is beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated by law in USA and in some other countries which imitated USA irrationally.
Well it halved childhood cavities in the 50s. It did its job and I don’t think it’s hard to understand why it was done.
Same reason why they stared iodine to salt… because people were having mental development issues.
Now is it still necessary? That’s a different question but let’s not pretend that we don’t know why it was done.
Same reason why they stared iodine to salt… because people were having mental development issues.
Now is it still necessary? That’s a different question but let’s not pretend that we don’t know why it was done.
> Now is it still necessary?
An experiment in Windsor, Ontario (across the border from Detroit, MI):
> Yemmi Calito's children are patients of Dr. Meriano. The two oldest kids were raised on fluoridated water in Windsor and both have healthy teeth. Her two youngest weren't, and they've had to be treated for serious tooth decay. Calito said their oral hygiene habits are the same.
> "The younger two I feel they have more cavities," Calito said. "My little one, my three-year-old, actually had to go have general anesthesia … [about] four weeks ago to get his teeth fixed. They were in pretty bad shape."
* https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/fluoride-tap-water-1.4990257
Calgary, AB, stopped and has recently decided to restart:
* https://calgary.citynews.ca/2022/11/17/calgary-fluoride-wate...
The public voted in 2021 to stop:
> What’s happened since 2012? A study found that within a couple of years of ending fluoridation, decay in children’s baby teeth had risen by 65 per cent compared to 2005, while the increase was only 14 per cent in Edmonton, which continues to fluoridate its water. “We weren’t looking at little tiny cavities that needed to be fixed. They were large cavities, they were destroyed teeth,” says dental hygienist Denise Kokaram, who led a dental program for vulnerable Calgary youth in the wake of fluoridation’s discontinuation.
> In 2019, the University of Calgary’s public health institute summarized for council’s benefit the body of science on fluoridation—the abundant evidence that it curbs tooth decay in both children and adults, and the lack of conclusive evidence of the myriad harms that anti-fluoride activists allege, from bone deterioration to brain disease. (Authorities have lowered recommended fluoride levels in water to limit the risk of fluorosis, a condition that mainly causes mild tooth discoloration.)
* https://macleans.ca/news/after-a-decade-of-cavities-will-cal...
An experiment in Windsor, Ontario (across the border from Detroit, MI):
> Yemmi Calito's children are patients of Dr. Meriano. The two oldest kids were raised on fluoridated water in Windsor and both have healthy teeth. Her two youngest weren't, and they've had to be treated for serious tooth decay. Calito said their oral hygiene habits are the same.
> "The younger two I feel they have more cavities," Calito said. "My little one, my three-year-old, actually had to go have general anesthesia … [about] four weeks ago to get his teeth fixed. They were in pretty bad shape."
* https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/fluoride-tap-water-1.4990257
Calgary, AB, stopped and has recently decided to restart:
* https://calgary.citynews.ca/2022/11/17/calgary-fluoride-wate...
The public voted in 2021 to stop:
> What’s happened since 2012? A study found that within a couple of years of ending fluoridation, decay in children’s baby teeth had risen by 65 per cent compared to 2005, while the increase was only 14 per cent in Edmonton, which continues to fluoridate its water. “We weren’t looking at little tiny cavities that needed to be fixed. They were large cavities, they were destroyed teeth,” says dental hygienist Denise Kokaram, who led a dental program for vulnerable Calgary youth in the wake of fluoridation’s discontinuation.
> In 2019, the University of Calgary’s public health institute summarized for council’s benefit the body of science on fluoridation—the abundant evidence that it curbs tooth decay in both children and adults, and the lack of conclusive evidence of the myriad harms that anti-fluoride activists allege, from bone deterioration to brain disease. (Authorities have lowered recommended fluoride levels in water to limit the risk of fluorosis, a condition that mainly causes mild tooth discoloration.)
* https://macleans.ca/news/after-a-decade-of-cavities-will-cal...
Hot take: why don’t we stop the root cause of the problem, instead of the insestuous habit of layering on symptom management on top of symptom management.
Stop giving kids these insanely high levels of sugar. No soda is a great start.
Same thorn in my side is this completely crazy trend that this new life-long injection Ozempic/Wegovy is being suggested for kids 12 and up. Like what? It also atrophies muscle, tendons, and bones.
I hope with the next generation of leaders, we stop this madness of blindly trusting big pharma and corporations and ask where the money trail goes, and what may actually be best for our kids and loved ones.
Stop giving kids these insanely high levels of sugar. No soda is a great start.
Same thorn in my side is this completely crazy trend that this new life-long injection Ozempic/Wegovy is being suggested for kids 12 and up. Like what? It also atrophies muscle, tendons, and bones.
I hope with the next generation of leaders, we stop this madness of blindly trusting big pharma and corporations and ask where the money trail goes, and what may actually be best for our kids and loved ones.
Liquid sugar is bad for teeth, but nowhere near as bad as something like potato chips. Food remnants that are high in carbs that get stuck in your teeth and then break down into simple sugars cause way more problems.
If you want to go to root cause how about teaching kids that simple carbs and sugar are exactly the same as far as the body is concerned. Let alone the fact that most simple carbs come with added sugar on top of that.
Personally I didn't really understand that properly until either my late twenties or early thirties.
Personally I didn't really understand that properly until either my late twenties or early thirties.
Nobody is getting so much food stuck on their teeth that it's having a significant impact on their overall diet and metabolism.
> why don’t we stop the root cause of the problem, instead of the insestuous habit of layering on symptom management on top of symptom management.
Super simple answer: one requires everyone change their individual habits. Difficulty - very hard. The other requires no change at all on the individual level. Difficulty - very easy.
Be careful with falling into the "public health initiatives are just a bandaid" trap. I was going to say you probably wouldn't approach a pandemic by telling everyone to eat more healthfully but considering your last sentence, maybe you would have argued for that approach.
Super simple answer: one requires everyone change their individual habits. Difficulty - very hard. The other requires no change at all on the individual level. Difficulty - very easy.
Be careful with falling into the "public health initiatives are just a bandaid" trap. I was going to say you probably wouldn't approach a pandemic by telling everyone to eat more healthfully but considering your last sentence, maybe you would have argued for that approach.
So why don’t we just put fluoride in the excessively sugary stuff.
Coca Cola, more fluoride, same classic taste!
Coca Cola, more fluoride, same classic taste!
Banning all unhealthy factory-produced corn syrup food also doesn’t require people to change their habits. Just a legal ban, maybe a gradual one.
A sugar tax would have the same effect, it's a single change that's very easy to implement. 10,000% should do.
Cheap sugar substitutes will be used. Long term health effects are not clear.
What you want is a calorie tax. Possibly a liquid calorie tax.
Or just every calorie?
Or just every calorie?
The problem is sugar tastes good. Taxing processed sugary foods will certainly help, but are you also going to tax, say, sugar in a bag? If so, you have effectively banned Grandma's cookies. Do you want to be known as the politician who effectively banned home-cooked baked goods?
It’s probably worth noting that genetics is probably a significantly big factor than affects cavities, similar to lots of other stuff. Some folks can eat sugar foods and not brush twice a day and have no issues, while others who even floss daily end up with bad teeth.
Not saying you shouldn’t reduce sugar intake, that’s not my point - but - factors like genetics are very important too, and fluoride might help for such people.
Not saying you shouldn’t reduce sugar intake, that’s not my point - but - factors like genetics are very important too, and fluoride might help for such people.
So this may be useful to someone - I lost that genetic lottery and had lots of issues / most teeth patched up / painful cleans. Until recently, when I moved to a new dentist who said "oh, you've got lots of calcium buildup, you should be taking vit D+K2". This sorted out most of my issues almost immediately. I wish someone told me that 30 years ago...
So apparently there's a few things that trivially impact your dental health besides usual cleaning and few people seem to know about them.
So apparently there's a few things that trivially impact your dental health besides usual cleaning and few people seem to know about them.
Novamin is another “dental secret”. US toothpaste doesn’t have it, but studies consistently show it’s more effective than just fluoridated toothpaste and protecting teeth from decay.
You would think that in a “capitalist, free-market” such as the United States, an innovation with a clear and pronounced benefit over the status quo would take the marketplace by storm and quickly become the new status quo.
Last I checked, you can get Sensodyne with Novamin toothpaste on Amazon, but it does come from Canada.
You would think that in a “capitalist, free-market” such as the United States, an innovation with a clear and pronounced benefit over the status quo would take the marketplace by storm and quickly become the new status quo.
Last I checked, you can get Sensodyne with Novamin toothpaste on Amazon, but it does come from Canada.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068624/
"Review shows that Novamin has significantly less clinical evidence to prove its effectiveness as a remineralization agent in treating both carious and non-carious lesion. Hence, better designed clinical trials should be carried out in the future before definitive recommendations can be made."
"Review shows that Novamin has significantly less clinical evidence to prove its effectiveness as a remineralization agent in treating both carious and non-carious lesion. Hence, better designed clinical trials should be carried out in the future before definitive recommendations can be made."
I've read a few research papers that say essentially the opposite. I think you can find a study that supports your side most of the time.
The linked article is a meta analysis.
I think we should be skeptical of such articles especially when they go against what probably most articles say about a topic/hypothesis.
I don’t know enough about chemistry or dentistry to really say beyond that which side is the correct side
I don’t know enough about chemistry or dentistry to really say beyond that which side is the correct side
[deleted]
I’ve always found this guy’s work interesting.
https://www.lotusdental.com.au/post/effect-of-western-diet-o...
Previously, I’ve found the anti-fluoride argument to be a little shaky but I’m a scientist and some of the data in the report might make me reconsider that stance. That’s what science is. I must say that personally I haven’t drunk fluoride in my tap for decades really, since I use a reverse osmosis filter for my tap. So if you don’t want to drink fluoride you don’t have to.
I haven’t noticed more cavities in periods when I don’t drink fluoride vs when I do. But I brush my teeth twice a day (teeth bathed in fluoride toothpaste residue) and go to the dentist every six months. I don’t really have cavities.
I found this paper an interesting history on water fluoridation-
Debating Water Fluoridation Before Dr. Strangelove
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504307
https://www.lotusdental.com.au/post/effect-of-western-diet-o...
Previously, I’ve found the anti-fluoride argument to be a little shaky but I’m a scientist and some of the data in the report might make me reconsider that stance. That’s what science is. I must say that personally I haven’t drunk fluoride in my tap for decades really, since I use a reverse osmosis filter for my tap. So if you don’t want to drink fluoride you don’t have to.
I haven’t noticed more cavities in periods when I don’t drink fluoride vs when I do. But I brush my teeth twice a day (teeth bathed in fluoride toothpaste residue) and go to the dentist every six months. I don’t really have cavities.
I found this paper an interesting history on water fluoridation-
Debating Water Fluoridation Before Dr. Strangelove
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504307
People love treating symptoms because humans are notoriously shortsighted
Not to mention there's a lot of money behind the real causes
there's money on every side of every issue. The people that lean hard on the "follow the money" angle are almost always those that only acknowledge it happening on the side they disagree with.
Sugar is everywhere in everything. Reducing kids intake of sugar requires a level of vigilance bordering on isolation from society, especially since human children seem genetically programmed to crave sugar and simple carbohydrates. If it’s around most kids will eat little else.
I kind of remember this from being a kid. Until I was a teen anything with complex or savory tastes was absolutely disgusting. Only carbs, sugars, and very simple flavors and textures seemed edible. It changed when I got to around 12-14 when suddenly a salad was okay and some vegetables started to taste good. Another few years and I’d eat all kinds of things. Became a bit of a foodie by college.
It’s got to be some relic of early hominid evolution. My speculation is that in nature there are a lot of savory things that are toxic. So kids have a natural aversion to them until they are old enough to have learned the tribal knowledge about what is okay to eat. Sweet and carby things are usually safe to eat. If a kid eats random berries or grains thats probably okay. Random mushrooms or plants might kill them. Random sources of protein can also contain parasites or nasty infections.
I kind of remember this from being a kid. Until I was a teen anything with complex or savory tastes was absolutely disgusting. Only carbs, sugars, and very simple flavors and textures seemed edible. It changed when I got to around 12-14 when suddenly a salad was okay and some vegetables started to taste good. Another few years and I’d eat all kinds of things. Became a bit of a foodie by college.
It’s got to be some relic of early hominid evolution. My speculation is that in nature there are a lot of savory things that are toxic. So kids have a natural aversion to them until they are old enough to have learned the tribal knowledge about what is okay to eat. Sweet and carby things are usually safe to eat. If a kid eats random berries or grains thats probably okay. Random mushrooms or plants might kill them. Random sources of protein can also contain parasites or nasty infections.
> Reducing kids intake of sugar requires a level of vigilance bordering on isolation from society
No, it requires… parenting and education? And stopping children from being exposed to ads for sugary crap 12 hours a day.
Habits are a huge part of it. Kids who “would only eat sugar if they could” are already used to consuming lots of sugar. They will definitely not starve themselves to death if no sugar/carbs are easily available in the house.
Here in the Netherlands a lot of (but not all) kids choose to snack on cucumbers etc and are quite reserved in how much candy they eat. School doesn’t allow high-carb foods. Parties will have fries, lemonade and cake, no soda or infinite amounts of candy. Mine is approaching the early teens and hasn’t ever drank soda, without suffering any peer pressure (yet).
No, it requires… parenting and education? And stopping children from being exposed to ads for sugary crap 12 hours a day.
Habits are a huge part of it. Kids who “would only eat sugar if they could” are already used to consuming lots of sugar. They will definitely not starve themselves to death if no sugar/carbs are easily available in the house.
Here in the Netherlands a lot of (but not all) kids choose to snack on cucumbers etc and are quite reserved in how much candy they eat. School doesn’t allow high-carb foods. Parties will have fries, lemonade and cake, no soda or infinite amounts of candy. Mine is approaching the early teens and hasn’t ever drank soda, without suffering any peer pressure (yet).
Is this a worse is better argument? I'm having a hard time understanding how it makes this a better solution than fluoridated water. It sounds like a moral argument against sugar rather than a practical solution to fight tooth decay.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “worse is better”. Fluoridation came about as a stop gap for bad dental hygiene and eating habits. We have all the resources to make this a non-issue in most of the world. I don’t consider this a moral argument, it’s a public health issue.
I see this like mandating using a helmet and HANS device when driving drunk. Surely it might help reduce casualties, but is not addressing the problem that people are inflicting unto themselves.
I see this like mandating using a helmet and HANS device when driving drunk. Surely it might help reduce casualties, but is not addressing the problem that people are inflicting unto themselves.
Some dutch people peer-pressured me into trying Rivella ;)
Dutch children love their bottles of apple juice and dutch teens love a can of chocolate milk, but I have to agree that the portion sizes of these are less than half of what you would get in the US.
Dutch children love their bottles of apple juice and dutch teens love a can of chocolate milk, but I have to agree that the portion sizes of these are less than half of what you would get in the US.
> Reducing kids intake of sugar requires a level of vigilance bordering on isolation from society,
This is why I praise my child and treat him (not with sweets) every time that he turns down candy at friends' houses or parties. When the parent stands between the child and sweets, he is considered neurotic by other parents. When the child stands his ground, he is praised. I've been fortunate that all three of my children have stood with me on this stance.
From another study done in Canada:
> In this study, maternal exposure to higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years. These findings indicate the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy.
"Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada"
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
> In this study, maternal exposure to higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years. These findings indicate the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy.
"Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada"
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
I think there might be some confounders at play here.
Consider this excerpt from Wikipedia's article on 'Tooth brushing':
> In the United States, although toothbrushes were available at the end of the 19th century, the practice did not become widespread until after the Second World War, when US soldiers continued the tooth brushing that had been required during their military service.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_brushing
Consider this excerpt from Wikipedia's article on 'Tooth brushing':
> In the United States, although toothbrushes were available at the end of the 19th century, the practice did not become widespread until after the Second World War, when US soldiers continued the tooth brushing that had been required during their military service.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_brushing
Different communities added fluoride at different times, it’s not hard to adjust for other factors when you’re drowning in such data.
It actually seems like it is hard:
>Water fluoridation reduces cavities in children, while efficacy in adults is less clear.[9][10] A Cochrane review estimates a reduction in cavities when water fluoridation was used by children who had no access to other sources of fluoride to be 35% in baby teeth and 26% in permanent teeth.[9] However, this was based on older studies which failed to control for numerous variables, such as increasing sugar consumption as well as other dental strategies.[9] Most European countries have experienced substantial declines in tooth decay, though milk and salt fluoridation is widespread in lieu of water fluoridation.[11] Recent studies suggest that water fluoridation, particularly in industrialized nations, may be unnecessary because topical fluorides (such as in toothpaste) are widely used, and caries rates have become low.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
>Water fluoridation reduces cavities in children, while efficacy in adults is less clear.[9][10] A Cochrane review estimates a reduction in cavities when water fluoridation was used by children who had no access to other sources of fluoride to be 35% in baby teeth and 26% in permanent teeth.[9] However, this was based on older studies which failed to control for numerous variables, such as increasing sugar consumption as well as other dental strategies.[9] Most European countries have experienced substantial declines in tooth decay, though milk and salt fluoridation is widespread in lieu of water fluoridation.[11] Recent studies suggest that water fluoridation, particularly in industrialized nations, may be unnecessary because topical fluorides (such as in toothpaste) are widely used, and caries rates have become low.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
Outsife the US, fluoride is added to tooth paste. Sounds like a better idea to me.
Outside the US, it's added to water too
Africa: 400,000 people out of 1.1 billion get fluorides in there water.
Asia: close to none in China (didn't find any hard numbers), none in India, less than 1% in Japan. Only Malaysia is doing it at any resonable scale.
Europe: 2% of the population get it, roughly 14 million people with 10.5 million of those being in the UK and Ireland.
So that leaves North America, with the exception of Mexico which jas high natural fluoride levels and fluorides salt, Australia and Latin America.
Going by these numbers, the majority of people get fluoride through different means from drinking water. Afroca of cpurse has a lot of other issues regarding drinking water, starting with the exostince of clean drinking water itself.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_countr...
So techinicalls you are correct, overall much less so.
Asia: close to none in China (didn't find any hard numbers), none in India, less than 1% in Japan. Only Malaysia is doing it at any resonable scale.
Europe: 2% of the population get it, roughly 14 million people with 10.5 million of those being in the UK and Ireland.
So that leaves North America, with the exception of Mexico which jas high natural fluoride levels and fluorides salt, Australia and Latin America.
Going by these numbers, the majority of people get fluoride through different means from drinking water. Afroca of cpurse has a lot of other issues regarding drinking water, starting with the exostince of clean drinking water itself.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_countr...
So techinicalls you are correct, overall much less so.
You left out Australia 70%, New Zealand 60%, Brazil 41%, Chile 70% etc.
Japan, China, India, and much of Europe have many areas with natural levels of fluoride in the water near or even above the recommended level. Which seriously distort their numbers as proponents of adding fluoride to water supplies don’t want to increase it arbitrarily only to safe and effective levels.
China has some really interesting data as in one location removing fluoride quickly resulted in “the incidence of dental caries among 4-year-old children had increased by 62%.”
Japan, China, India, and much of Europe have many areas with natural levels of fluoride in the water near or even above the recommended level. Which seriously distort their numbers as proponents of adding fluoride to water supplies don’t want to increase it arbitrarily only to safe and effective levels.
China has some really interesting data as in one location removing fluoride quickly resulted in “the incidence of dental caries among 4-year-old children had increased by 62%.”
> Same reason why they stared iodine to salt… because people were having mental development issues.
This is not directly related to the topic of Fluoride, but Iodine was actually initially introduced to reduce goiters. The mental benefits were a wonderful, unexpected side-effect. Studies have put the effects anywhere between 8-15 IQ bump for populations that were Iodine deficient. Pretty jaw dropping when you think about it.
This is not directly related to the topic of Fluoride, but Iodine was actually initially introduced to reduce goiters. The mental benefits were a wonderful, unexpected side-effect. Studies have put the effects anywhere between 8-15 IQ bump for populations that were Iodine deficient. Pretty jaw dropping when you think about it.
About 2.5% of the population has an intellectual impairment (if mean IQ is 100, and SD 15, 2.5% have IQ less than 70 the WHO cut off). Of this 2.5% some will have social/adaptive impaitment similarly 2SD below the mean and have an "intellectual/learning disability".
Move that mean down one SD (15 IQ points). And now OVER 15% of the people meet the intellectual impairment criteria.
Put it another way, due to the shape of the normal distribition moving IQ down 10-15 points amounts to 2-3X increase in the number with abnormally low IQ.
Cut to the modern era, where fewer and fewer jobs are available for those with intellectual impairments, and the world requires more and more technical prowess and the situation is far worse than the figures appear.
Move that mean down one SD (15 IQ points). And now OVER 15% of the people meet the intellectual impairment criteria.
Put it another way, due to the shape of the normal distribition moving IQ down 10-15 points amounts to 2-3X increase in the number with abnormally low IQ.
Cut to the modern era, where fewer and fewer jobs are available for those with intellectual impairments, and the world requires more and more technical prowess and the situation is far worse than the figures appear.
Correlation doesn't yield causation!
The whole fluoride in drinking water only came up based on a study from abroad. There, they noticed an improvement of dental health over time after they introduced fluoride in their water. However, this study and the same for the 50th ignore the fact that dental hygiene and awareness dramatically improved during this time. Thus, the better dental health is more likely from better topical application of fluoride and more regular brushing/flossing. I'm concerned that we have all the scientific facts and keep ignoring them.
Fun fact: Dentists recommend flossing before brushing.
Edit: "For example, in Finland and Germany, tooth decay rates remained stable or continued to decline after water fluoridation stopped in communities with widespread fluoride exposure from other sources." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
Fun fact: Dentists recommend flossing before brushing.
Edit: "For example, in Finland and Germany, tooth decay rates remained stable or continued to decline after water fluoridation stopped in communities with widespread fluoride exposure from other sources." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
1. We know that topic fluoride usage increased resistance to caries.
2. It is kind of difficult to consume fluorinated water without exposing your teeth topically to the fluoride.
3. Ingesting fluorine is definitely not good for you and recent studies seem to confirm this.
So, it seems to me that while fluorinating drinking water would incidentally topically expose teeth to its beneficial effects, we don't really need to fluorinate our drinking water as there are other ways to expose teeth topically to fluorine that don't involve drinking fluorinated water.
And no, fluorinating water was not a good decision because of the cautionary principle. Even from the beginning, they knew that the effects came from topical exposure, adding it to drinking water was reckless.
But hell, this was the time where we added lead to gasoline.
2. It is kind of difficult to consume fluorinated water without exposing your teeth topically to the fluoride.
3. Ingesting fluorine is definitely not good for you and recent studies seem to confirm this.
So, it seems to me that while fluorinating drinking water would incidentally topically expose teeth to its beneficial effects, we don't really need to fluorinate our drinking water as there are other ways to expose teeth topically to fluorine that don't involve drinking fluorinated water.
And no, fluorinating water was not a good decision because of the cautionary principle. Even from the beginning, they knew that the effects came from topical exposure, adding it to drinking water was reckless.
But hell, this was the time where we added lead to gasoline.
>Well it halved childhood cavities in the 50s. It did its job and I don’t think it’s hard to understand why it was done.
What I heard (but did not verify) was that cavities reduced similarly in countries that did not have fluoride in the water around the same time.
What I heard (but did not verify) was that cavities reduced similarly in countries that did not have fluoride in the water around the same time.
The first meta-analysis of water fluoridation studies – The York Review – was conducted in 2002 and found that the data on efficacy was limited and of low quality. [1]
A point to be considered here is that the institutionalised belief in water fluoridation for the half-century which preceded the York Review was apparently not grounded in much solid scientific enquiry, if any.
This review was conducted 3 years after the CDC published "Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century", which included water fluoridation as one of these great achievements.
Another curiosity of this public health belief was the guideline that water fluoridation levels need to vary in a region based on temperature. This was because it is apparently a predictor of water consumption amounts by small children.
Colder climates were meant to have higher levels of fluoride (up to 1.2 ppm) because people apparently drink less water, and warmer climates were meant to have lower levels (0.7 ppm), because they drink more water.
It indicates that consumption is a very important factor in considering additive levels, and that all other factors are less important than climate.
This was codified in a 1957 paper "Determining optimum fluoride concentrations" (Galagan and Vermillion) [2] which includes their scientific formula:
parts per million of fluoride = 0.34 / E
"Where E is the estimated average daily water intake for children through 10 years of age in ounces per pound of body weight. It may be calculated from the estimation equation E=-0.038+0.0062 temperature, where temperature is the mean maximum temperature in degrees Fahrenheit."
This seems to reflect the kind of scientific rigour behind this belief, and perhaps the absurdity of the formula is why the US DHHS updated their guidelines in 2015 to settle on a flat 0.7 ppm regardless of climate [3].
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/4801410
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031310/?page=1
[3] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/01/2015-10...
A point to be considered here is that the institutionalised belief in water fluoridation for the half-century which preceded the York Review was apparently not grounded in much solid scientific enquiry, if any.
This review was conducted 3 years after the CDC published "Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century", which included water fluoridation as one of these great achievements.
Another curiosity of this public health belief was the guideline that water fluoridation levels need to vary in a region based on temperature. This was because it is apparently a predictor of water consumption amounts by small children.
Colder climates were meant to have higher levels of fluoride (up to 1.2 ppm) because people apparently drink less water, and warmer climates were meant to have lower levels (0.7 ppm), because they drink more water.
It indicates that consumption is a very important factor in considering additive levels, and that all other factors are less important than climate.
This was codified in a 1957 paper "Determining optimum fluoride concentrations" (Galagan and Vermillion) [2] which includes their scientific formula:
parts per million of fluoride = 0.34 / E
"Where E is the estimated average daily water intake for children through 10 years of age in ounces per pound of body weight. It may be calculated from the estimation equation E=-0.038+0.0062 temperature, where temperature is the mean maximum temperature in degrees Fahrenheit."
This seems to reflect the kind of scientific rigour behind this belief, and perhaps the absurdity of the formula is why the US DHHS updated their guidelines in 2015 to settle on a flat 0.7 ppm regardless of climate [3].
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/4801410
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031310/?page=1
[3] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/01/2015-10...
[deleted]
I’ve been thinking about this recently - fluorapatite is stronger than hydroxyapatite when it bonds to enamel, and less soluble by acid. But fluoride doesn’t occur in any natural processes in the body - while hydroxyapatite is a perfect biomimetic - very safe, you can swallow it safely - and also works great in toothpaste to remineralise teeth.
Currently using BioMin F (fluorapatite - very little fluoride due to a novel delivery mechanism but still) but considering switching to BioMin C (nanohydroxyapatite)
Currently using BioMin F (fluorapatite - very little fluoride due to a novel delivery mechanism but still) but considering switching to BioMin C (nanohydroxyapatite)
I've used both apagard and boka toothpastes with nanohydroxyapatite and I've enjoyed them, though my tooth sensitivity is not totally cured. I still get a jolt of pain from sweet things on certain teeth occasionally.
These n-Ha toothpastes seem at least equal to if not greater than high-fluoride options (in effectiveness) I tried previously like sensodyne and prevident (prescription-strength). I would say the boka mint toothpaste tastes better also, and as a bonus their electric toothbrush is much nicer than the old one I'd used a few years ago.
I still drink water with fluoride in it as well, mostly because it's the best tasting water I've come across. (From a city I grew up in, and I still fill jugs full to drink at home) I have well water at my house, which is safe as far as I know, but I still feel hesitant to swallow it.
These n-Ha toothpastes seem at least equal to if not greater than high-fluoride options (in effectiveness) I tried previously like sensodyne and prevident (prescription-strength). I would say the boka mint toothpaste tastes better also, and as a bonus their electric toothbrush is much nicer than the old one I'd used a few years ago.
I still drink water with fluoride in it as well, mostly because it's the best tasting water I've come across. (From a city I grew up in, and I still fill jugs full to drink at home) I have well water at my house, which is safe as far as I know, but I still feel hesitant to swallow it.
Boka only has 2% nHAP, compared to the 7% of apagard premio or 10% of apagard royal.
Another option is just hydroxyapatite without the nano (sometimes nano particles end up having their own safety issues). A higher hydroxyapatite concentration might work almost as well. Kinder Karex is such a toothpaste. https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/finding-the-best-toothpa...
Given that the health bureaucracies of many countries seem to disagree with you, you need to cite more evidence and sources to support this claim. You can't just do it by strong assertion.
>>You can't just do it by strong assertion.
Sir, this is the internet. Sources are for the weak. Just type your response so it’s passionate and angry and people will believe you!
Sir, this is the internet. Sources are for the weak. Just type your response so it’s passionate and angry and people will believe you!
Having the health bureaucracies in many countries all agreeing on something would have been convincing enough for me three years ago. Now, it means nothing.
> it is beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated by law in USA
It isn't mandated by law in the USA. All water contains some naturally occurring fluoride, some localities choose to add additional fluoride to their water in the USA but certainly not all. I'm pretty sure it is added in something like 60% of city water supplies.
It isn't mandated by law in the USA. All water contains some naturally occurring fluoride, some localities choose to add additional fluoride to their water in the USA but certainly not all. I'm pretty sure it is added in something like 60% of city water supplies.
Wouldn't some part of toothpaste end up ingested? With strong fluoride pastes (like those 5000 ppm specialized ones) could there also be a risk?
Obviously a little fluoride will be ingested. However it is doubtful that this would increase much the total amount of fluoride that is ingested daily, mainly from the plants that you eat and from the natural water that you drink.
When you brush your teeth with fluoridated paste or you wash your mouth with a fluoride solution and you spit it, most of the fluoride acts against the tooth enamel to harden it and only a little is ingested.
On the other hand, when you drink fluoridated water, only very little of the fluoride acts against the tooth enamel to harden it and most of it is ingested, which will provide no further benefits, but which might have bad effects.
How there is even a discussion about which choice is better, beats me.
When you brush your teeth with fluoridated paste or you wash your mouth with a fluoride solution and you spit it, most of the fluoride acts against the tooth enamel to harden it and only a little is ingested.
On the other hand, when you drink fluoridated water, only very little of the fluoride acts against the tooth enamel to harden it and most of it is ingested, which will provide no further benefits, but which might have bad effects.
How there is even a discussion about which choice is better, beats me.
When you assume the reality that many people don't brush, the benefits of brushing have no impact.
That's before even considering topical application through the gums
> (like those 5000 ppm specialized ones)
Those also come with a warning to only use it once a week, and to limit contact to 2-5 minutes. At least, all I’ve seen in Germany.
edit: Okay, apparently those I’m talking about have 12,500 ppm, I don’t know about 5000 ppm as I have not seen those.
Those also come with a warning to only use it once a week, and to limit contact to 2-5 minutes. At least, all I’ve seen in Germany.
edit: Okay, apparently those I’m talking about have 12,500 ppm, I don’t know about 5000 ppm as I have not seen those.
Yes - in the UK at least that's one of the reasons why the ultra high fluoride toothpastes are effectively only available when prescribed by a dentist.
It is on the digestive system, but the benefits are much greater.
They give that to babies in France...
I have swallowed my fair share of fluoride pills.
Are you to tell me that I should have been a galaxy brain but am now a smooth brain? Fvck!
I have swallowed my fair share of fluoride pills.
Are you to tell me that I should have been a galaxy brain but am now a smooth brain? Fvck!
Wow WTF I've found french baby products to be quite nice but somehow child birth it's a weird industry there. I remember there was heavy lobbying to increase people's wishes for c sections there.
C sections are more profitable!
>it is beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated by law in USA
Consider that fluoride ingestion has been linked with increased anxiety and depression[*]. Depending upon one's political objectives, this could be a desirable outcome. For instance, the "anti-terror" decades of invasion would be easier to accept for an anxious public. Or depression may lead to more consumer activity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258252498_Fluoride_...
Consider that fluoride ingestion has been linked with increased anxiety and depression[*]. Depending upon one's political objectives, this could be a desirable outcome. For instance, the "anti-terror" decades of invasion would be easier to accept for an anxious public. Or depression may lead to more consumer activity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258252498_Fluoride_...
Or, hear me out, watching terrorists kamikaze a few commercial airliners into a couple of buildings in downtown Manhattan and the Pentagon live on TV was actually kind of a nerve racking on its own irrespective of what the dissolved minerals in our tap water might have told us.
Yet we didn't question the non-involvement of the 7 nations we invaded, nor question the lack of invasion of the responsible nation.
Society comforted themselves with the official narrative while branding whistleblowers conspiracy theorists.
Society comforted themselves with the official narrative while branding whistleblowers conspiracy theorists.
At the time Republicans reported much better mental health than Democrats [1]. iirc, this study was reproduced with children as well (in terms of kids raised under a political ideology).
Moreover, as someone else pointed out, watching commercial airliners fly into skyscrapers and having our world upended with military guards at airports and new governmental snooping powers that we just had to accept is all pretty much enough for the things you mentioned.
1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/102943/republicans-report-much-...
Moreover, as someone else pointed out, watching commercial airliners fly into skyscrapers and having our world upended with military guards at airports and new governmental snooping powers that we just had to accept is all pretty much enough for the things you mentioned.
1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/102943/republicans-report-much-...
adrian_b vs. health scientists throughout the world and history, ca. 1:1e10
Who to believe here, who should we believe here, hm, very difficult problem, adrian_b's passionate statements or practically all the professionals of the world. I go and contemplate over this for a while now. : )
Who to believe here, who should we believe here, hm, very difficult problem, adrian_b's passionate statements or practically all the professionals of the world. I go and contemplate over this for a while now. : )
If you judge the truth of the information you receive based on the claimed authority of those who provide it, instead of using your own mind to discern whether that information is logically consistent or inconsistent, that is sad and I believe that this should be a cause of concern for you.
Consider the following facts, which can be easily be verified in countless sources, e.g. in books written by real chemists or "health scientists":
The mineral component of the teeth and bones grown by a human body is made of hydroxylapatite.
When a hydroxylapatite crystal is immersed in a water solution of fluoride ions, in the superficial layer of the crystal, which is in contact with the fluoride solution, some of the hydroxide anions from the crystal are dissolved in the water and they are substituted by fluoride anions, thus converting the superficial layer of the hydroxylapatite into fluorapatite.
The fluoride ions bond more strongly to apatite than the hydroxide ions, so once formed the fluorapatite layer is more resistant to dissolution than the parent hydroxylapatite.
In the conversion of hydroxylapatite into fluorapatite, like in any other chemical reaction, the converted amount increases with the concentration of the reactant, i.e. of fluoride and with the time of contact between hydroxylapatite and solution.
All of the above explain how the contact between the tooth enamel and a fluoride solution creates a superficial tooth layer that is more resistant to dissolution, which decreases the likelihood of tooth cavities.
The dependences of the conversion efficacy on fluoride concentration and on contact time explain why tooth brushing or mouth washing are far more effective in enamel hardening than drinking fluoridated water, when the fluoride concentration is low and the contact time is very short and most of the fluoride never enters in contact with the tooth enamel to have a chance to harden it.
After the fluoride is ingested, it never comes again in contact with the tooth enamel, so there is no way for it to harden the enamel.
Please tell us how your "1E10 health scientists throughout the world and history" have told you that ingested fluoride from inside your body can harden the tooth enamel from outside your body.
Perhaps the fluoride ions use The Force to harden the enamel from a distance?
The fluoride ions are carried by blood in most parts of the body, but the tooth enamel does not contain blood vessels. Even if it had blood vessels, they would have been buried in it and they would not have reached the external surface of the teeth, which is where the fluoride is needed for protection against dissolution.
Moreover, the fluoride ions spread uniformly in the entire blood volume. Only a small part of the ions pass close to the teeth, most of them pass through the bigger organs, including through the bigger bones, which, unlike the tooth enamel, contain numerous blood vessels.
Because the fluoride ions have high affinity for apatite, many of those passing through the bones stop there and remain incorporated in the mineral part of the bones.
While at the surface of the teeth fluoride is desirable, in bones it is harmful because it makes the bones more fragile, increasing the likelihood of fractures.
In conclusion, when drinking fluoridated water, only very little fluoride is retained in the tooth enamel, but most ends in the bones, so this method is much more effective in making the bones fragile than in hardening the tooth enamel.
There are only 3 ways in which the ingested fluoride could protect against tooth cavities: eating one's own excrement, washing the mouth with one's own urine or biting one's own body and drinking one's own blood or washing the mouth with it.
Whoever does not have such habits will not receive dental health benefits from ingested fluoride.
I look forward to see how "all the professionals of the world" can explain the magical ingested fluoride effect claimed to exist by the proponents of drinking water fluoridation.
Consider the following facts, which can be easily be verified in countless sources, e.g. in books written by real chemists or "health scientists":
The mineral component of the teeth and bones grown by a human body is made of hydroxylapatite.
When a hydroxylapatite crystal is immersed in a water solution of fluoride ions, in the superficial layer of the crystal, which is in contact with the fluoride solution, some of the hydroxide anions from the crystal are dissolved in the water and they are substituted by fluoride anions, thus converting the superficial layer of the hydroxylapatite into fluorapatite.
The fluoride ions bond more strongly to apatite than the hydroxide ions, so once formed the fluorapatite layer is more resistant to dissolution than the parent hydroxylapatite.
In the conversion of hydroxylapatite into fluorapatite, like in any other chemical reaction, the converted amount increases with the concentration of the reactant, i.e. of fluoride and with the time of contact between hydroxylapatite and solution.
All of the above explain how the contact between the tooth enamel and a fluoride solution creates a superficial tooth layer that is more resistant to dissolution, which decreases the likelihood of tooth cavities.
The dependences of the conversion efficacy on fluoride concentration and on contact time explain why tooth brushing or mouth washing are far more effective in enamel hardening than drinking fluoridated water, when the fluoride concentration is low and the contact time is very short and most of the fluoride never enters in contact with the tooth enamel to have a chance to harden it.
After the fluoride is ingested, it never comes again in contact with the tooth enamel, so there is no way for it to harden the enamel.
Please tell us how your "1E10 health scientists throughout the world and history" have told you that ingested fluoride from inside your body can harden the tooth enamel from outside your body.
Perhaps the fluoride ions use The Force to harden the enamel from a distance?
The fluoride ions are carried by blood in most parts of the body, but the tooth enamel does not contain blood vessels. Even if it had blood vessels, they would have been buried in it and they would not have reached the external surface of the teeth, which is where the fluoride is needed for protection against dissolution.
Moreover, the fluoride ions spread uniformly in the entire blood volume. Only a small part of the ions pass close to the teeth, most of them pass through the bigger organs, including through the bigger bones, which, unlike the tooth enamel, contain numerous blood vessels.
Because the fluoride ions have high affinity for apatite, many of those passing through the bones stop there and remain incorporated in the mineral part of the bones.
While at the surface of the teeth fluoride is desirable, in bones it is harmful because it makes the bones more fragile, increasing the likelihood of fractures.
In conclusion, when drinking fluoridated water, only very little fluoride is retained in the tooth enamel, but most ends in the bones, so this method is much more effective in making the bones fragile than in hardening the tooth enamel.
There are only 3 ways in which the ingested fluoride could protect against tooth cavities: eating one's own excrement, washing the mouth with one's own urine or biting one's own body and drinking one's own blood or washing the mouth with it.
Whoever does not have such habits will not receive dental health benefits from ingested fluoride.
I look forward to see how "all the professionals of the world" can explain the magical ingested fluoride effect claimed to exist by the proponents of drinking water fluoridation.
I am so very sorry stepping on something so sensitive.
It is not something sensitive, but I dislike the fact that the camp who has introduced water fluoridation does not have any rational or experimental argument in its favor, yet there are many who believe that water fluoridation is supported by "health scientists", so I believe that it is necessary to speak against such disinformation.
Hardening the tooth enamel by fluoride is exactly like an anti-corrosive treatment of a steel surface.
If someone would propose that instead of applying the anti-rust layer on the external steel surface, a hole should be made in the steel, then the anti-corrosive coating should be put inside, then the hole should be plugged, enclosing inside the anti-corrosive material, and after all this they would expect that the external untreated steel surface will not rust, they would be laughed at. But this is equivalent with the theory that one should drink fluoridated water to harden the tooth enamel.
Hardening the tooth enamel by fluoride is exactly like an anti-corrosive treatment of a steel surface.
If someone would propose that instead of applying the anti-rust layer on the external steel surface, a hole should be made in the steel, then the anti-corrosive coating should be put inside, then the hole should be plugged, enclosing inside the anti-corrosive material, and after all this they would expect that the external untreated steel surface will not rust, they would be laughed at. But this is equivalent with the theory that one should drink fluoridated water to harden the tooth enamel.
Since there are examples of locations having a more accelerated rise over time in tooth decay when water fluoridation is discontinued [1], I think one can extract from that, that possibly the explanation is that enough water is being drank/used in ways where it contacts teeth, that a difference is clearly seen in the dental statistics of a population monitored over time when fluoridation changes are made.
[1] Article/study discussing Calgary vs Edmonton in Canada, linked elsewhere in the comments here that has this snippet:
What’s happened since 2012? A study found that within a couple of years of ending fluoridation, decay in children’s baby teeth had risen by 65 per cent compared to 2005, while the increase was only 14 per cent in Edmonton, which continues to fluoridate its water.
--
I won't argue the fact that there may indeed be problems with ingestion, and additionally that contact to the teeth is the only way for the fluoridated water to help, but I'm not convinced that existing water fluoridation isn't having a positive effect on tooth decay. Whether it's worth other potential health trade-offs is certainly a valid concern.
[1] Article/study discussing Calgary vs Edmonton in Canada, linked elsewhere in the comments here that has this snippet:
What’s happened since 2012? A study found that within a couple of years of ending fluoridation, decay in children’s baby teeth had risen by 65 per cent compared to 2005, while the increase was only 14 per cent in Edmonton, which continues to fluoridate its water.
--
I won't argue the fact that there may indeed be problems with ingestion, and additionally that contact to the teeth is the only way for the fluoridated water to help, but I'm not convinced that existing water fluoridation isn't having a positive effect on tooth decay. Whether it's worth other potential health trade-offs is certainly a valid concern.
[deleted]
> beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated
There is of course the "that was the plan all along" hypothesis, that mild cognitive decay on a large scale is a useful outcome for control purposes.
There is of course the "that was the plan all along" hypothesis, that mild cognitive decay on a large scale is a useful outcome for control purposes.
It really isn't.
Lower cognition is strongly associated with dissatisfaction and violence, not to mention much lower economic productivity (less taxes!).
Lower cognition is strongly associated with dissatisfaction and violence, not to mention much lower economic productivity (less taxes!).
Who cares about taxes when you can print money?
Money has value because of what it buys.
If a society is making 400 widgets it doesn't matter whether each is priced at $2 or $999, the government will only be able to get 400 widgets.
A stupider population makes much less widgets.
If a society is making 400 widgets it doesn't matter whether each is priced at $2 or $999, the government will only be able to get 400 widgets.
A stupider population makes much less widgets.
> strongly associated with dissatisfaction and violence,
dissatisfaction and violence are the easiest problems for a state to deal with.
dissatisfaction and violence are the easiest problems for a state to deal with.
Some people lack the self control to use toothpaste regularly. For those people it's beneficial adding flouride to water.
> Some people lack the self control to use toothpaste regularly. For those people it's beneficial adding flouride to water.
At some point, we can't just replace individual personal responsibility with the State as a solution. This attitude just reeks of infantilization of the total populace just because a certain percentage of them lack such self control.
If you still want to provide support to them, make it targeted towards those individuals in need of such help. Do not drag down the rest of the populace in order to make the lives of a few easier.
At some point, we can't just replace individual personal responsibility with the State as a solution. This attitude just reeks of infantilization of the total populace just because a certain percentage of them lack such self control.
If you still want to provide support to them, make it targeted towards those individuals in need of such help. Do not drag down the rest of the populace in order to make the lives of a few easier.
> At some point, we can't just replace individual personal responsibility with the State as a solution.
Have we reached that point? If so, why?
Have we reached that point? If so, why?
I don't think I was expressing much of an attitude in my comment. Just a factual statement that seeks to explain why the intervention is successful even though better alternatives clearly exist.
I don't think water should be flouridated and I don't think we should provide support for people lacking self control.
I don't think water should be flouridated and I don't think we should provide support for people lacking self control.
This has to be satire. What sort of incredible self control does something like this require? Where does it end?
It's not satire. It takes enough self-control/willpower that, for example, a lot of people suffering from ADHD have problems with it. There are a lot of people out there who just aren't capable of habituating the tasks of brushing their teeth to the point of being done on autopilot - they have to consciously make themselves do it every time.
And that's after more than half a century of brushing teeth being a cultural expectation and something kids are taught in schools.
And that's not counting people in dire economic conditions, where frequency of brushing teeth with fluoride toothpaste is something to trade off against e.g. eating.
It's the 21st century. If we know anything about people, we know that self control and "free will" are overrated, and you can't rely on them at scale. On the contrary, you can rely on people having very predictable reactions to right nudges and incentives. It's the basis of modern economy and policymaking. It's the entire reason marketing and advertising are as big and well-paying jobs as they are. Etc.
And that's after more than half a century of brushing teeth being a cultural expectation and something kids are taught in schools.
And that's not counting people in dire economic conditions, where frequency of brushing teeth with fluoride toothpaste is something to trade off against e.g. eating.
It's the 21st century. If we know anything about people, we know that self control and "free will" are overrated, and you can't rely on them at scale. On the contrary, you can rely on people having very predictable reactions to right nudges and incentives. It's the basis of modern economy and policymaking. It's the entire reason marketing and advertising are as big and well-paying jobs as they are. Etc.
I can imagine that there might exist people who cannot brush their teeth.
However, for such people the solution is not to drink fluoridated water, but to use fluoridated water to wash their mouth and then spit it.
If they cannot take water in mouth and spit it, then they certainly cannot feed themselves and they need permanent care. Whoever does that should also take care of their teeth.
Regarding money, I cannot believe that to be an obstacle. I eat relatively cheap food, because I buy only raw ingredients that I cook myself. Therefore in most days food costs me at most $5. I doubt that anyone who is really poor succeeds to spend much less for food. I wash my teeth after each meal with rather expensive tooth pastes from Colgate or Sensodyne. Even so, the daily cost for the tooth paste is at least 30 or 50 times less than the cost of food, so unless there is some remote place where the price of tooth paste is much more than 10 times more expensive than in Europe or North America, I cannot believe that being poor would prevent someone to brush their teeth. They would die of hunger much sooner than that.
However, for such people the solution is not to drink fluoridated water, but to use fluoridated water to wash their mouth and then spit it.
If they cannot take water in mouth and spit it, then they certainly cannot feed themselves and they need permanent care. Whoever does that should also take care of their teeth.
Regarding money, I cannot believe that to be an obstacle. I eat relatively cheap food, because I buy only raw ingredients that I cook myself. Therefore in most days food costs me at most $5. I doubt that anyone who is really poor succeeds to spend much less for food. I wash my teeth after each meal with rather expensive tooth pastes from Colgate or Sensodyne. Even so, the daily cost for the tooth paste is at least 30 or 50 times less than the cost of food, so unless there is some remote place where the price of tooth paste is much more than 10 times more expensive than in Europe or North America, I cannot believe that being poor would prevent someone to brush their teeth. They would die of hunger much sooner than that.
[deleted]
You think it's satire that there are people that don't brush their teeth but do drink water?
You could give targeted help to the ones that needs it, it would be more efficient to help them brush their teeth than just adding fluoride to the water that everyone drinks.
How would you target them, and what would make it more efficient?
We do it by noticing who needs help on the free dental checkups during the first years of life usually. If they have some sort of handicap, they can get help physically brushing or support to do it themselves every day. Helps a lot more than adding something that might work a little in everyones water.
On what basis have you evaluated that it "helps a lot more"? What if your method doesn't lead to more people actively brushing their teeth, thus reducing the amount of people with properly protected teeth (since they are also missing fluoride now), increasing amount of dental healthcare required?
You have to consider that these people have lost some cognitive faculty by ingested fluoride so they may not be capable of rational self interested decision-making.
The parent stated clearly it doesn't work by ingestion.
[deleted]
I think the obvious answer is, we can’t actually tell one way or the other if it is a net benefit. However, humans can’t handle uncertainty so must be told in confident tones that the decision is the correct one. If anyone questions the established decision, they must be discredited.
It's worse than that. We may know perfectly well which way is better on the net. But since masses can't handle uncertainty, you can't just say "doing this is more beneficial on the net" - you have to project certainty, or else people will interpret your lack of confidence as indicative of scheming, and do the opposite.
What related problem domains are understood “perfectly well”?
I think until we can accurately simulate the human body, there is essentially no hope for these areas. Unless it is possible to run highly controlled multi-generational studies with large numbers of people, statistical significance cannot be attained. Various meta analysis are funded and completed, but these do not count as strict definition science requires actual experiments to be independently replicated.
I think until we can accurately simulate the human body, there is essentially no hope for these areas. Unless it is possible to run highly controlled multi-generational studies with large numbers of people, statistical significance cannot be attained. Various meta analysis are funded and completed, but these do not count as strict definition science requires actual experiments to be independently replicated.
EU citizen here, they're not putting it in salt here, but in toothpaste.
Salt is definitely commonly supplemented with fluoride, say least in Germany.
He's probably confusing it with iodide.
My german salt has both iodide and fluoride.
'german salt' sounds funny to me.
Let's say you're buying the most popular and common brand, Bad Reichenhall. This is your selection:
https://www.bad-reichenhaller.de/en/products.html
In most supermarkets you get almost all of these options. Disclaimer is I have never seen the one with Selenium added.
Let's say you're buying the most popular and common brand, Bad Reichenhall. This is your selection:
https://www.bad-reichenhaller.de/en/products.html
In most supermarkets you get almost all of these options. Disclaimer is I have never seen the one with Selenium added.
I wonder what's the mineral composition of the 'pure salt' (it certainly contains some trace minerals) and/or the famed pink salt
Wouldn't be surprising if it naturally had some fluoride
Wouldn't be surprising if it naturally had some fluoride
[deleted]
Don't you have the same problem with the salt that you have with the water, no way to tell what dose everyone is receiving?
My guess it easier to buy different salt but hard to get second water pipe.
>A Reverse Osmosis (RO) system can remove 85-92%* of fluoride in your water.
https://www.paragonwater.com/does-reverse-osmosis-remove-flu...
https://www.paragonwater.com/does-reverse-osmosis-remove-flu...
RO water is demineralized and the pH is impacted. It is not a healthy drinking water outside of occasional use. It is also not appetizing and thus it's easy to become dehydrated.
After years of RO water I switched to spring water due to health issues and I will never look back.
Of course, it is insanely expensive to drink 3L of spring water and so frustrating to not have unpoisoned water from the tap.
After years of RO water I switched to spring water due to health issues and I will never look back.
Of course, it is insanely expensive to drink 3L of spring water and so frustrating to not have unpoisoned water from the tap.
There are certain models which have a sixth stage to remineralize the water and balance the pH.
Also relying on municipal water for mineralization is a bad argument. The minerals in water supplies is highly localized, or drinking tap water could leave you deficient in one or more minerals depending just depending on where you live.
Also relying on municipal water for mineralization is a bad argument. The minerals in water supplies is highly localized, or drinking tap water could leave you deficient in one or more minerals depending just depending on where you live.
Huh, I drank RO water for most of my liquid intake growing up and loved the taste. I like it a lot more than tap water.
RO systems waste something like three gallons for every usable gallon they produce.
It won't be used for showering, bathing, flushing toilets, washing clothes, washing dishes, watering plants, washing cars, filling pools, or other outdoor water usage. How much does it increase a household's water usage?
I think that's improved, at least according to product literature (I haven't tested it myself), however:
The latest generation of small under-sink reverse osmosis filters claim to waste only 1 gallon for every 2 gallons of usable water. Still bad but much better than before.
The latest generation of small under-sink reverse osmosis filters claim to waste only 1 gallon for every 2 gallons of usable water. Still bad but much better than before.
>it's worth asking why
It's been a popular and wide spread conspiracy theory that the "shadow government" is either trying to lower the IQ or the total population numbers using fluoride in the water supply. And since politicians don't get chosen on a basis of competency, but rather popularity, you have the vast majority being relatively severely logically challenged and thus unable to read scientific papers and understand complicated topics like child dental care.
It's been a popular and wide spread conspiracy theory that the "shadow government" is either trying to lower the IQ or the total population numbers using fluoride in the water supply. And since politicians don't get chosen on a basis of competency, but rather popularity, you have the vast majority being relatively severely logically challenged and thus unable to read scientific papers and understand complicated topics like child dental care.
Or any topic that involves more than one interacting decision, a graph, or any numbers at all.
COVID made it pretty clear that neither the general population nor most politicians are remotely qualified to make decisions. Not just medical decisions, just… decisions.
COVID made it pretty clear that neither the general population nor most politicians are remotely qualified to make decisions. Not just medical decisions, just… decisions.
I have a lot of very smart friends, like significantly higher than average in terms of degrees and technical jobs and standardized testing scores at least.
One of them purchased a game that is like Apples to Apples but the point is to provide labels or name the axis of a graph.
It was enlightening just how many of my friends that had a passing notion of calculus could not intuitively interpret what a graph actually means. For example, they would often misunderstand the relation between the dependent and independent variable, or not even understand what it meant for a variable to depend on another variable. Too bad too, because it was a really fun game for me.
One of them purchased a game that is like Apples to Apples but the point is to provide labels or name the axis of a graph.
It was enlightening just how many of my friends that had a passing notion of calculus could not intuitively interpret what a graph actually means. For example, they would often misunderstand the relation between the dependent and independent variable, or not even understand what it meant for a variable to depend on another variable. Too bad too, because it was a really fun game for me.
Something I saw a smart IT manager do is produce graphs for the monthly board report without a legend, labels, or any numbers at all. Just lines, but not even grid lines.
His explanation was that nobody understood the numbers anyway, the graph is just there to be a pretty colourful picture while he talks.
His explanation was that nobody understood the numbers anyway, the graph is just there to be a pretty colourful picture while he talks.
No credible scientific evidence exists that ingesting fluoride is beneficial.
Whenever you point this out, people respond with studies that focused on topical application. This topic is weird. Otherwise intelligent people shut down and begin quoting movies from the 1960’s, and are somehow incapable of distinguishing between a topical mouthwash and oral consumption.
Might as well drink sunscreen and talk about the reduction in lip skin cancer.
Whenever you point this out, people respond with studies that focused on topical application. This topic is weird. Otherwise intelligent people shut down and begin quoting movies from the 1960’s, and are somehow incapable of distinguishing between a topical mouthwash and oral consumption.
Might as well drink sunscreen and talk about the reduction in lip skin cancer.
Here you go: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/003335491012500507
We've been putting fluoride in water for a long time, and there are multiple studies that have looking in to it, I don't know why you think there aren't?
We've been putting fluoride in water for a long time, and there are multiple studies that have looking in to it, I don't know why you think there aren't?
This study looked solely at impact on dental health. Other studies tell us it is associated with stomach cancer and infertility.
Is dental health not beneficial?
I guess it's arguable whether better dental health, plus cancer, could be considered a benefit. Would heavily depend on the rates of cancer or other harms vs. the rates of improved dental health. Certainly without thinking too deeply about it, childhood cavities would seem vastly preferable to nearly any sort of cancer unless the risk is minuscule.
Assuming you are not being disingenuous: there is a trade off with a lot of uncertainty - other things are also implicated in stomach cancer, and at the same time untreated dental disease causes other health problems too.
But I prefer to rely on brushing my own teeth and avoiding certain foods to maintain my own health, rather than have a medication added to my water supply because the guy next door does not take care of his health.
But I prefer to rely on brushing my own teeth and avoiding certain foods to maintain my own health, rather than have a medication added to my water supply because the guy next door does not take care of his health.
There are studies for children, but from what I’ve seen there’s no advantage for adults/permanent teeth. I don’t really think it’s worth potential harm for baby teeth.
It's harder to do studies that seperate out adults who didn't have fluoridated water as children, but for example from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23456704/ "In this nationally representative sample of Australian adults, caries-preventive effects of water fluoridation were at least as great in adults born before widespread implementation of fluoridation as after widespread implementation of fluoridation."
So if you didn't have fluoridated water as a kid, having it as an adult still provides a benefit. This particular study doesn't say anything about having it as a kid and then stopping, but again, it's hard to find significant populations that have experienced that.
So if you didn't have fluoridated water as a kid, having it as an adult still provides a benefit. This particular study doesn't say anything about having it as a kid and then stopping, but again, it's hard to find significant populations that have experienced that.
>No credible scientific evidence exists that ingesting fluoride is beneficial.
???
>Regular toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste is the principal non‐professional intervention to prevent caries, but the caries‐preventive effect varies according to different concentrations of fluoride in toothpaste, with higher concentrations associated with increased caries control.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398117/
Higher concentrations lead to better caries control (unless you go too high), what other evidence do you want?
???
>Regular toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste is the principal non‐professional intervention to prevent caries, but the caries‐preventive effect varies according to different concentrations of fluoride in toothpaste, with higher concentrations associated with increased caries control.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398117/
Higher concentrations lead to better caries control (unless you go too high), what other evidence do you want?
Caveat that I have no issue whatsoever with fluoride.
The parent poster said "ingestion" of fluoride, but brushing is strictly not ingestion but rather topical application - you are directed to spit it back out. I'm curious if there were studies that covered drinking it.
The parent poster said "ingestion" of fluoride, but brushing is strictly not ingestion but rather topical application - you are directed to spit it back out. I'm curious if there were studies that covered drinking it.
I am unsure if this - I grew up in rural australia and we took fluoride tablets as kids.
N=3 but no fillings till post 25
N=3 but no fillings till post 25
The amount is calibrated for the small part that you ingest despite spittingit out. Kids toothpaste have much less because most of the paste is assumed to be ingested.
How is that not proving their point?
Putting fluoride in water to topically apply it to teeth (and get a higher risk of brain damage and stomach cancer among other things due to completely unnecessary ingestion).
The study you linked is indeed like proving that drinking sunscreen is great at preventing lip cancer. Or better yet: maybe we can start putting sunscreen in drinking water to prevent lip cancer?
Putting fluoride in water to topically apply it to teeth (and get a higher risk of brain damage and stomach cancer among other things due to completely unnecessary ingestion).
The study you linked is indeed like proving that drinking sunscreen is great at preventing lip cancer. Or better yet: maybe we can start putting sunscreen in drinking water to prevent lip cancer?
You're proving their point.
Brushing teeth is a topical application of flouride, unless you swallow it, of course....
Brushing teeth is a topical application of flouride, unless you swallow it, of course....
Case in point.
rofl
Im interested in your take about how humans get water into their bodies without coating their teeth in it
I have sensitive teeth, when I drink water or any liquid really, it doesn’t touch my teeth.
I’m more confused by how you would coat your teeth while drinking, do you swish it around in your mouth every sip?
I’m more confused by how you would coat your teeth while drinking, do you swish it around in your mouth every sip?
>I’m more confused by how you would coat your teeth while drinking, do you swish it around in your mouth every sip?
I mean we are really going down a rabbit hole, but the water goes in my mouth, I swallow, my mouth remains wet with some residual water.
Unless you're opening your throat and pouring directly in, I guarantee water is touching your teeth, even with a straw.
I mean we are really going down a rabbit hole, but the water goes in my mouth, I swallow, my mouth remains wet with some residual water.
Unless you're opening your throat and pouring directly in, I guarantee water is touching your teeth, even with a straw.
that sounds like a terribly inefficient way to get fluoride on teeth compared to toothpaste
I always found it bizarre that health care is so expensive, and yet here we are given unlimited, free medicine, on tap!
Omg, no wonder my teeth are getting worse after moving to Amsterdam. I drink a ton of water and use Maldon salt. I didn’t realize there wasn’t fluoride in the water. (All the Nutella isn’t helping either, but… ooh, maybe that’s a reasonable vector for Europeans)
Everyone in the Netherlands is using fluorided toothpaste and brushes twice a day, cavities are really low.
> Everyone
Defined as a completely made up percentage of people that is in fact < 100%.
Defined as a completely made up percentage of people that is in fact < 100%.
Good thing I left NL or I would have invalidated your statement! Actually, I don't know anyone who brushes twice daily.
Why don't you, isn't that a recommendation where you come from? I also don't know anyone who doesn't brush twice daily (I'm from Nordics).
Authorities making recommendations about minutiae does not really dictate much of the way I live my life. If they want to make it a law, fine, I'll brush my teeth in between the cups of coffee I serially drink from the moment I rise until roughly dinnertime when I then switch to alcohol (something strongly discommended by other authorities). My teeth are fine, 40 years and counting. Perhaps it's all a conspiracy by Big Toothpaste to sell more toothpaste.
I don't know anyone that doesn't brush twice daily. Am quite a sociable person and have lived in multiple European countries
[deleted]
so salt would not only be bad for my heart but also for my brain?
change our kids over to frack fluid! better still ... give em dioxin the way capitalist Jesus intended!
FYI:
The CDC recommends breastfeeding infants, as breastmilk contains significantly less fluoride than fluoridated drinking water. If breastfeeding is not possible, the CDC also endorses using fluoridated water in infant formula, though it suggests mixing the formula with low-fluoride bottled water to lessen the risk of dental fluorosis.
Infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated tap water can have three to four times higher fluoride exposure than adults, warned Lanphear. He added that before an infant's teeth erupt, there's no benefit to fluoride exposure. "There are vulnerable groups we have to be worried about," he said, "and that's not being brought out adequately by these agencies."
The CDC recommends breastfeeding infants, as breastmilk contains significantly less fluoride than fluoridated drinking water. If breastfeeding is not possible, the CDC also endorses using fluoridated water in infant formula, though it suggests mixing the formula with low-fluoride bottled water to lessen the risk of dental fluorosis.
Infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated tap water can have three to four times higher fluoride exposure than adults, warned Lanphear. He added that before an infant's teeth erupt, there's no benefit to fluoride exposure. "There are vulnerable groups we have to be worried about," he said, "and that's not being brought out adequately by these agencies."
Hmm, its been a while since I worked in the area of dental fluoride (was part of my PhD) but my understanding was systemic exposure pre-eruption was still beneficial. This (possibly biased source) agrees:
https://www.dentalcare.com/en-us/ce-courses/ce334/pre-erupti...
Excess exposure can cause fluorosis but nothing to do with the brain.
https://www.dentalcare.com/en-us/ce-courses/ce334/pre-erupti...
Excess exposure can cause fluorosis but nothing to do with the brain.
None of the studies I have seen properly account for the lifetime effect, and instead only deduce lack of harm from flawed isolated studies.
It’s in the entire water supply.
You were gestated in a womb of a woman consuming highly fluoridated water.
You were fed formula made with fluoridated water tuned to dose a 200lb man when you were 8lbs.
The water you drank as your bones were growing was similarly overdosed
The food you eat is washed in fluoridated water. The coffee and beer you drink is brewed with fluoridated water. The bread you eat is made with fluoridated water.
Basically, the dose is insanely wrong from the get go and then it’s applied to everything so there’s no way to accurately measure exposure. Then factor in the bell distribution and you are massively overexposing huge numbers of people a few standard deviations out.
It’s in the entire water supply.
You were gestated in a womb of a woman consuming highly fluoridated water.
You were fed formula made with fluoridated water tuned to dose a 200lb man when you were 8lbs.
The water you drank as your bones were growing was similarly overdosed
The food you eat is washed in fluoridated water. The coffee and beer you drink is brewed with fluoridated water. The bread you eat is made with fluoridated water.
Basically, the dose is insanely wrong from the get go and then it’s applied to everything so there’s no way to accurately measure exposure. Then factor in the bell distribution and you are massively overexposing huge numbers of people a few standard deviations out.
> You were fed formula made with fluoridated water tuned to dose a 200lb man when you were 8lbs.
Er, no. A baby only consumes 4-8oz of water per day while an adult is consuming 125oz. The concentration is the same in both cases so the adult is getting 30X more.
> Then factor in the bell distribution and you are massively overexposing huge numbers of people a few standard deviations out.
How are you defining 'overexposed' and 'highly' in these statements. Do you have any studies or evidence? How are you deciding this consumption isn't factored into how much is put in water?
Er, no. A baby only consumes 4-8oz of water per day while an adult is consuming 125oz. The concentration is the same in both cases so the adult is getting 30X more.
> Then factor in the bell distribution and you are massively overexposing huge numbers of people a few standard deviations out.
How are you defining 'overexposed' and 'highly' in these statements. Do you have any studies or evidence? How are you deciding this consumption isn't factored into how much is put in water?
> The concentration is the same in both cases so the adult is getting 30X more.
That should read 15-30 times more, according to your own figures. And then, the baby's mass is about 15-30 times less than the adult, so at the end you are in the same ballpark again, percentagewise.
That should read 15-30 times more, according to your own figures. And then, the baby's mass is about 15-30 times less than the adult, so at the end you are in the same ballpark again, percentagewise.
Yep, but the implication was that the child was getting a megadose. They're not. They would be if they were drinking 15-30X as much water per unit mass. That's not a child, that's a water balloon.
Its kind of hilarious to picture what a new born baby taking in the amount of water a 200 lb man would in a day.
And of course "overexposed" is exactly the dose that fits their narrative.
I'm suspect they'd also have an opinion about not showering as much to not absorb the flouride through their skin.
And of course "overexposed" is exactly the dose that fits their narrative.
I'm suspect they'd also have an opinion about not showering as much to not absorb the flouride through their skin.
> It’s in the entire water supply
Not quite. In the US about 15% of the population get their drinking water from private wells. I wonder if anyone has compared groups that are similar except for whether they are on a well or municipal?
It shouldn’t be hard to find such groups by looking at the boundaries of municipal water systems. For example on my street everyone east of me is on city water and everyone else is on wells. Both groups are demographically very similar.
Not quite. In the US about 15% of the population get their drinking water from private wells. I wonder if anyone has compared groups that are similar except for whether they are on a well or municipal?
It shouldn’t be hard to find such groups by looking at the boundaries of municipal water systems. For example on my street everyone east of me is on city water and everyone else is on wells. Both groups are demographically very similar.
Possibly biased?
It's two clicks away from an online shop for (fluoride) toothpaste.
It's two clicks away from an online shop for (fluoride) toothpaste.
Didn't check conflicts of interest closely but here are more sources:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21701194/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0528....
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002203459207100...
My n=3 test would tend to confirm this.
First kid was born and lived for a year or so when we had city water, which was flouridated. 2nd and 3rd kid were born where we were on well water, with no flouride.
First kid had no baby tooth cavities. Second and Third wound up with cavities on the front teeth, and we used topical flouridation for re-mineralization.
First kid was born and lived for a year or so when we had city water, which was flouridated. 2nd and 3rd kid were born where we were on well water, with no flouride.
First kid had no baby tooth cavities. Second and Third wound up with cavities on the front teeth, and we used topical flouridation for re-mineralization.
Every chemical imbalance in infants is going to have much greater effects than on adults. They are literally a fraction of our body mass
As a biochemist, this seems to be a very complex issue that has been unnecessarily politicized. What happened with this report is interesting in and of itself, but I would not draw any conclusions (or make any inferences) from this, frankly.
As someone who comes from an area with clean fresh water, that does not contain added fluoride, this is not a complex issue. It's simply not a question that comes up. People have good dental hygiene here.
To my mind, yes sure you can over complicate the entire debate, but all of that is irrelevant in the face of these basic points:
- Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health? - Can tooth decay be prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste?
Presumed safety of chemicals (at the behest of organizations) to human/environment until proven otherwise is shocking to me.
They irony of all this is that if you want to buy good quality toothpaste you are forced to import it from overseas, due to the FDA limiting ingredients in toothpaste.
To my mind, yes sure you can over complicate the entire debate, but all of that is irrelevant in the face of these basic points:
- Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health? - Can tooth decay be prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste?
Presumed safety of chemicals (at the behest of organizations) to human/environment until proven otherwise is shocking to me.
They irony of all this is that if you want to buy good quality toothpaste you are forced to import it from overseas, due to the FDA limiting ingredients in toothpaste.
> but all of that is irrelevant in the face of these basic points:
> - Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health? - Can tooth decay be prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste?
When evaluating those points, be sure to assess what actually happens, in real life, to real people, and not what could happen in theory.
For example, even if tooth decay could be effectively "prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste" in theory, the effect might be smaller (possibly much smaller) in practice, as people in general suck at lifestyle changes, dieting being a prime example, and then a noticeable subset of the population has problems with regularly brushing their teeth (for some reason, this is surprising to many). Unless you have a way for fixing that (so far no one has), this may well make fluoridated water come out ahead in comparison.
--
EDIT: The above is similar to the argument for, e.g., opt-out health insurance and social retirement savings plans - you're still free to choose an alternative or decide to stay with the default, but if for some reason you can't understand the choice or can't be arsed to make one, you and everyone else are better off with you having some insurance and savings by default. The similarity is that we know for certain that the "incapable of making a choice" bucket will contain a substantial segment of the population, so at policy level, making health insurance/retirement savings opt-in with nothing as default, is just deciding to screw all those people over.
> - Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health? - Can tooth decay be prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste?
When evaluating those points, be sure to assess what actually happens, in real life, to real people, and not what could happen in theory.
For example, even if tooth decay could be effectively "prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste" in theory, the effect might be smaller (possibly much smaller) in practice, as people in general suck at lifestyle changes, dieting being a prime example, and then a noticeable subset of the population has problems with regularly brushing their teeth (for some reason, this is surprising to many). Unless you have a way for fixing that (so far no one has), this may well make fluoridated water come out ahead in comparison.
--
EDIT: The above is similar to the argument for, e.g., opt-out health insurance and social retirement savings plans - you're still free to choose an alternative or decide to stay with the default, but if for some reason you can't understand the choice or can't be arsed to make one, you and everyone else are better off with you having some insurance and savings by default. The similarity is that we know for certain that the "incapable of making a choice" bucket will contain a substantial segment of the population, so at policy level, making health insurance/retirement savings opt-in with nothing as default, is just deciding to screw all those people over.
Nobody is screwing anybody over when the water supply is not poisoned (which is the case for nearly every European country). The basis of "contract over status" that let us advance beyond feudalism is mutual assent (or do no harm to the counterparty). What you're describing is essentially centralized tyranny and comes in many forms ("think of the children!")
And no, your health insurance / social retirement example doesn't fit. Sticking to the default in these cases does not amount to willingly poisoning oneself.
And no, your health insurance / social retirement example doesn't fit. Sticking to the default in these cases does not amount to willingly poisoning oneself.
My understanding is that some water sources naturally contain fluoride anyhow so this isn’t a great comparison. From the sources I read awhile ago they started fluoride additives because it was known that certain areas like Texas had bad teeth.
It’s a circle that all people talk about in regards to caries is fluoride.
And literally, no one will talk about molybdenum. Maybe Texas has low levels of molybdenum?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/222941122016020...
And literally, no one will talk about molybdenum. Maybe Texas has low levels of molybdenum?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/222941122016020...
They irony of all this is that if you want to buy good quality toothpaste you are forced to import it from overseas, due to the FDA limiting ingredients in toothpaste.
International versions of Sensodyne contain Novamin, which is a teeth-material-like compound that layers over your teeth to protect it.
It has been proven in many clinical trials to not only reduce sensitivity, but also protect against tooth decay and cavities.
It has been proven in many clinical trials to not only reduce sensitivity, but also protect against tooth decay and cavities.
Ever since I started brushing with Novamin my dentist has started being really positive about the condition of my teeth in a way I’ve never experienced - even though I haven’t had a cavity in at least 20 years. I didn’t tell him what I’ve been doing.
Interesting. I use Sensodyne for a completely unrelated reason: it does not contain Sodium Laurel Sulfate. I have not had a cavity in my entire life, and I'm over 45.
What's the connection between the first and second claims you make? does SLS cause cavities?
Toothpaste with SLS causes ulceration (canker sores) in some individuals (myself included). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphthous_stomatitis
SLS does not cause cavities.
I mention that I like this toothpaste due to the lack of SLS - not for the cavities prevention. But I've not had any cavities, so that is another datum on top of the others who mention using this toothpaste and not having dental problems.
I mention that I like this toothpaste due to the lack of SLS - not for the cavities prevention. But I've not had any cavities, so that is another datum on top of the others who mention using this toothpaste and not having dental problems.
Not sure for them but SLS can irritate sensitive skin.
I guess you need to pay more attention when you read:
> I use Sensodyne for a completely unrelated reason
> I use Sensodyne for a completely unrelated reason
Why isn’t it in the US?
See here: https://medium.com/@ravenstine/the-curious-history-of-novami...
Basically FDA won't let them label it without studies. Other countries consider toothpaste a cosmetic and don't requite studies.
Basically FDA won't let them label it without studies. Other countries consider toothpaste a cosmetic and don't requite studies.
You can get it on Amazon, since they don't do a ton of vetting or enforcement. You can also get toothpaste with Biomin, a substantially similar deal (its manufacturer claims it's better).
For me, novamin/biomin didn't seem to make a difference with tooth sensitivity.
For me, novamin/biomin didn't seem to make a difference with tooth sensitivity.
I always thought anti fluoridation sentiment in Utah was related to them having the highest dentist count per capita. It’s the only state that I know of where fluoridation isn’t common.
Dentists are the ones who are pro-fluoridation … at least it was a dental trade group that fought the release of this report (maybe they are funded behind the scenes by a different interest group)
The cynical position would be that dentists in areas without fluoridation have more work.
Maybe. At least the Dental academy and association of LDS Dentists thinks so:
https://www.deseret.com/2000/9/29/19531458/fluoride-brochure...
It was a weird position against back then similar to the anti-vax position today.
https://www.deseret.com/2000/9/29/19531458/fluoride-brochure...
It was a weird position against back then similar to the anti-vax position today.
It seems pretty simple. Stop putting toxic waste in the water. If you’re worried about dental health, cut the sugar and use those little interdental brushes in addition to flossing and brushing well.
CodexArcana(1)
In theory, obesity can be solved with diet. In practice, it is a complex issue.
What do you consider necessary for “good quality toothpaste?”
I’m not OP or american, but i can comment. >1,500ppm concentration of fluoride is prescription only (so you either pay for a pointless dentist visit or get it on the grey market), despite being safe and much more effective at remineralisation. There are also experimental ingredients such as nanohydroxyapatite and Novamin which are difficult to find on the american market due to the FDA
Novamin works wonders. It took me the last 30% of the way to not being sensitive to heat/cold/acid.i got about 20% there with just normal sensodyne toothpaste and another big chunk with vitamin k complex and vitamin d supplementation (this took about six months to be really noticeable). The order was dictated by me figuring out what i wanted to try and general availability in the case of novamin. So i cant really say if the relative help from each intervention would be different if tried in a different order unfortunately.
For the record, the only clinical evidence about Novamin is very vague.
For the record, the rest of the stuff I mentioned has middling evidence for effectiveness as well, it's just the things that worked out of the myriad of things I tried that didn't. The vitamin k complex and d thing especially has limited evidence (and recently a paper came out that showed k2 increasing artery calcification, which is concerning but maybe not as bad as one thinks since the really dangerous part of arterial calcification is when it is in process. it also didn't control for vitamin d status and the hypothesis of k2 causing bone/teeth remineralization and not soft tissue mineralization usually hinges on d status being adequate).
Reminds me a lot of my struggle with migraines before the recent, good treatments came out. I was facing a certainty of at least one migraine per day everyday of my life. Led me to trying all sorts of stuff. Not exactly the best experience but better than migraines.
I just tinker as a hobby. If i live long enough even the minor annoyances in my life will eventually get iterated on and improved. The teeth thing was a medium to major annoyance so got attention first.
Just try it for a week. The glassiness feeling it imparts to your teeth is real.
Warning: Excessive fluoride is known to stain teeth with white steaks. You see it a lot in people who drink certain types of Chinese tea, high in fluoride.
This is called fluorosis and it only affects children. Ingestion of excess fluoride in early life changes the development of permanent teeth and causes white speckles.
Novamin used to be available via Sensodyne Pronamel in Canada. I was surprised to see that at some point it disappeared from our market - no longer able to buy at any grocery store or pharmacy or on Amazon, whereas it used to be available in all of these places.
It's still available, look for "Sensodyne Repair and Protect" (no other name). Shoppers Drug Mart has it, Superstore, Walmart, etc. Most everywhere. We also have other options here with nanohydroxyapatite that are easy to get too, from X-Pur to Davids Toothpaste. Those products tend to be more expensive though due to higher %, whereas Sensodyne tops out at 5% Novamin.
Also as a Canadian you should avoid Amazon for groceries and most hygiene goods, they're overpriced even compared to Shoppers Drug Mart most of the time, half of the time the goods aren't even offered by the company but instead by a random middleman charging absurd markup.
Also as a Canadian you should avoid Amazon for groceries and most hygiene goods, they're overpriced even compared to Shoppers Drug Mart most of the time, half of the time the goods aren't even offered by the company but instead by a random middleman charging absurd markup.
It's now in Sensodyne repair and protect and I usually buy it from walmart.ca 6-10 tubes at a time. There was about 2 years there where I had to buy it on ebay shipped from India though. I did try Biomin and I think that even if the material performs better than novamin, the rest of the toothpaste is so inferior to sensodyne that as a whole it works worse, for me at least.
IME high fluoride can agitate the digestive system, so perhaps the limit is for good reason?
> >1,500ppm concentration of fluoride is prescription only
Man that's silly. Where I am (Australia), 5000ppm is chemist-only, but doesn't need a prescription
Man that's silly. Where I am (Australia), 5000ppm is chemist-only, but doesn't need a prescription
Carifree sells (expensive) hydroxyapatite toothpaste in the US.
My wife comes from a country that did not add fluoride to the water. She has very good dental hygiene but here teeth are not in good shape for her age. That's one data point that I have observed.
>That's one data point that I have observed.
As with many things genetics plays a big part.
I neglected going to the dentist for 15 years and take just ok care of my teeth (brush at least once per day, don't floss).
I was expecting bad news, lots of cavities, but my teeth are perfect. After some plaque removal, not a single cavity.
Asked the dentist about this, he shrugged and just said "genetics".
As with many things genetics plays a big part.
I neglected going to the dentist for 15 years and take just ok care of my teeth (brush at least once per day, don't floss).
I was expecting bad news, lots of cavities, but my teeth are perfect. After some plaque removal, not a single cavity.
Asked the dentist about this, he shrugged and just said "genetics".
I'm sure they do, but the dentists here have told her that lack of fluoride is her problem. She is using a night time fluoride paste to help.
It might not be a fluoride, it might also be a lack of molybdenum.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/222941122016020...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/222941122016020...
Interesting, I didn't know about molybdenum.
Her home city of Hanoi doesn't have tap water that the locals like to drink. Even after boiling I think it can taste bad. So she grew up with heavily filtered water or bottled water. I would guess her diet was lacking in many trace minerals from this.
Her home city of Hanoi doesn't have tap water that the locals like to drink. Even after boiling I think it can taste bad. So she grew up with heavily filtered water or bottled water. I would guess her diet was lacking in many trace minerals from this.
Dentists don’t do genome sequencing, so they have no way of ruling out genetics.
Sometimes you don't need to rule everything else out to be confident in a diagnosis.
In this case it’s more “when all you have is a hammer (fluoride)…”
The therapy appears to be improving her teeth. Is there something I am missing?
Just because a treatment works doesn't mean it's the best treatment, or is treating the "cause." To say that a lack of fluoride is the cause of their bad teeth is silly. Not eating sugar/acidic foods, Novamin, or a different set of bacteria in her mouth would also improve her teeth.
We used a toothpaste with novamin in it. That didn't help her. She doesn't eat much sugar. She's 40 something kg and eats very healthy.
[deleted]
I’ve noticed the same thing living in Taiwan. They don’t fluoride the water, and in general people have pretty bad teeth with caries and decay that I never see in Americans in their 20s and 30s. The highly sugary diet probably doesn’t help either.
andrewmutz(1)
Citing: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24308394/ which recommends flouridating salt.
"Children and adults of the low socio-economic strata tend to have substantially more untreated caries than higher strata. Salt fluoridation is by far the cheapest method for improving oral health."
Sure, good for you that you're in one of the higher socioeconomic strata who can take care of their teeth. Not everyone else is.
"Children and adults of the low socio-economic strata tend to have substantially more untreated caries than higher strata. Salt fluoridation is by far the cheapest method for improving oral health."
Sure, good for you that you're in one of the higher socioeconomic strata who can take care of their teeth. Not everyone else is.
>recommends flouridating salt
That is a scary recommendation. Would be very hard to avoid fluoride if restaurants, packaged food etc all used fluoridated salt
That is a scary recommendation. Would be very hard to avoid fluoride if restaurants, packaged food etc all used fluoridated salt
It’s not particularly scary. In fact almost all salt has added iodine for public health reasons.
Iodine and fluoride aren’t really the same thing.
Iodine is essential, you cannot survive without it, and it is added to supplement a deficiency.
Fluoride is not essential, you can survive without it, and its addition is purely therapeutic, not due to some deficiency
Iodine is essential, you cannot survive without it, and it is added to supplement a deficiency.
Fluoride is not essential, you can survive without it, and its addition is purely therapeutic, not due to some deficiency
As a biochemist, I know this perfectly well. But the motivation behind your “this is terrifying” was left as an exercise to the reader, so there was no way of distinguishing it from “omg the chemicals”.
It already is that way. Your steak came from a cow that drank fluoridated water, the salad was watered constantly with fluoride. Your bread was baked with fluoride water, same with your coffee/beer/tea. Your Mayonnaise even.
Doubtful on the steak and salad. That water typically gets pulled from different kinds of wells, not municipal drinking water supply
Besides being politicized, views on this issue will also be affected by personal experience. I've lived much of my life in Oregon, where there is no fluoridation. It seems to be widely believed by dentists here that people growing up in Oregon have poorer teeth and that it's largely because of the lack of fluoridation. I'm not arguing the merits, just pointing out the cultural belief.
What you’re pointing at is a scientific question of fact though, not a cultural belief. It’s the (or a) conclusion you’d likely reach after completing dental school.
There is a cultural/political side of the question, however: given that we know water fluoridation is safe and relatively efficacious at preventing caries, are we willing to pay for it and actually do it, and how much do we want to listen to people’s arbitrary feelings on the matter? That is a valid political question.
There is a cultural/political side of the question, however: given that we know water fluoridation is safe and relatively efficacious at preventing caries, are we willing to pay for it and actually do it, and how much do we want to listen to people’s arbitrary feelings on the matter? That is a valid political question.
mkoubaa(1)
Twenty years ago, I moved from Michigan (a state that uses fluoride) to Mississippi (a state that doesn't use fluoride). My dentist at the time told me that I was going to end up with tooth decay if I stayed down there for more than a few years. Sure enough, five years later I moved back to Michigan and ended up with a cavity in an unusual place. My (new) dentist in Michigan was completely unsurprised.
He said there are two problems with tooth decay in Mississippi:
1. They don't use fluoride in their water. 2. No decent dentist would ever work in Mississippi.
Fifteen years later, with no changes in dental hygiene in my entire life, and I've had no other problems with my teeth. Anecdotal evidence, maybe. But that is my experience.
He said there are two problems with tooth decay in Mississippi:
1. They don't use fluoride in their water. 2. No decent dentist would ever work in Mississippi.
Fifteen years later, with no changes in dental hygiene in my entire life, and I've had no other problems with my teeth. Anecdotal evidence, maybe. But that is my experience.
I think the fact that fluoride is beneficial to your teeth is a settled fact. However, the issue being discussed is fluorides impact on brain health.
Fluoride is beneficial only when applied externally on the dental enamel, where it converts the hydroxyapatite synthesized by the human cells into fluorapatite, which is less soluble in the acids contained in food or excreted by bacteria.
On the other hand, ingested fluoride has no benefits, because it cannot reach the tooth enamel and when in too large quantities it has bad effects, e.g. it may cause bone damage.
Brushing the teeth or washing the mouth with something containing fluoride is very good, drinking water with fluoride is very stupid.
On the other hand, ingested fluoride has no benefits, because it cannot reach the tooth enamel and when in too large quantities it has bad effects, e.g. it may cause bone damage.
Brushing the teeth or washing the mouth with something containing fluoride is very good, drinking water with fluoride is very stupid.
Can you point to one single data point which has found any negative effect on human bones from excess consumption of fluoridated water at town water concentrations?
This should be easy since it's been done at enormous scale for decades so a huge quorum of people have spent their their lives drinking fluoridated water.
This should be easy since it's been done at enormous scale for decades so a huge quorum of people have spent their their lives drinking fluoridated water.
Skeletal fluorosis is well known to occur in regions where the natural drinking water has high fluoride content, e.g. in some regions from India and China.
You need search no further than Wikipedia.
I am not aware of any study about the incidence of fluorosis in places where the drinking water is fluoridated artificially, but it would be very difficult to do such studies, due to the lack of comprehensive past statistics, to the many confounding factors and because only few of the existing cases are detected. When someone heals a bone fracture they almost never do additional complex tests to determine if it was normal for the fracture to happen or its likelihood was increased by a condition like fluorosis.
In any case no such studies are really needed, because when you have an activity like ingesting fluoride, for which there is absolutely no evidence of benefits and no known mechanism by which it could provide benefits, but there is weak evidence that it might be harmful and there are known mechanisms by which it may be harmful, then there is no rational doubt whether that activity should be done or not.
You need search no further than Wikipedia.
I am not aware of any study about the incidence of fluorosis in places where the drinking water is fluoridated artificially, but it would be very difficult to do such studies, due to the lack of comprehensive past statistics, to the many confounding factors and because only few of the existing cases are detected. When someone heals a bone fracture they almost never do additional complex tests to determine if it was normal for the fracture to happen or its likelihood was increased by a condition like fluorosis.
In any case no such studies are really needed, because when you have an activity like ingesting fluoride, for which there is absolutely no evidence of benefits and no known mechanism by which it could provide benefits, but there is weak evidence that it might be harmful and there are known mechanisms by which it may be harmful, then there is no rational doubt whether that activity should be done or not.
My dude people have died from ingesting too much water.
So you don't get to say "well obviously it's dangerous just cuz".
The dose makes the poison, and you are making a very specific claim about the dose.
So you don't get to say "well obviously it's dangerous just cuz".
The dose makes the poison, and you are making a very specific claim about the dose.
That is funny. However Ill postulate this: Why wouldn't someone go to where the most interesting work is to be found though? You don't become a military doctor if you don't find it interesting stitching up bullet holes. And vice versa, you don't become a military doctor if you're not interested in working on the same.
> Why wouldn't someone go to where the most interesting work is to be found though?
Well, Mississippi is ranked 34th in crime, 41st in education, 49th in healthcare, 49th in economy, 40th in fiscal stability, 47th in infrastructure and 36th in opportunity. Assuming a medical professional cares about anything other than "natural environment" in which they rank 16th, I suspect there's a long list of places they'd rather end up.
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
Well, Mississippi is ranked 34th in crime, 41st in education, 49th in healthcare, 49th in economy, 40th in fiscal stability, 47th in infrastructure and 36th in opportunity. Assuming a medical professional cares about anything other than "natural environment" in which they rank 16th, I suspect there's a long list of places they'd rather end up.
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
Because if you're educated, you generally don't want to move to Mississippi. I grew up there!
Thats a very HN opinion. Sometimes people pick careers for factors other than how interesting they are.
And sometimes they pick locations based on something other than "statistics" and "rankings."
Maybe because people prefer earning money over interesting work?
[deleted]
because you're gay, or black, or not Christian, or don't want to be shot?
Or black? Are you aware that there are quite a lot of black people in Mississippi?
What’s your point? Mississippi hasn’t exactly been receptive to the civil rights movement.
How did that come to be?
Not to refute your n=1, but reviews are a safer way of establishing whether something actually works. Eg here, from 2015:
> There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.
> No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.
> Over 97% of the studies were at high risk of bias and there was substantial between‐study variation
From here: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
TLDR: The existing research is low quality.
> There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.
> No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.
> Over 97% of the studies were at high risk of bias and there was substantial between‐study variation
From here: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
TLDR: The existing research is low quality.
Genetics plays a huge roll. As does your daily dental hygiene routine. Based on you posting here means you probably have access to tooth brush, floss, tooth paste and somewhere to use them daily and effectively, this reduces the impact of water fluoridation variables.
For other people moving to Mississippi now, they make fluoride mouthwash that you can use daily to help counteract a lack of fluorinated water.
Is brushing twice a day with fluoridated toothpaste and floss or similar not a thing in the US? In Europe most countries don't fluoride tap water and there's not a massive tooth decay problem.
> No decent dentist would ever work in Mississippi.
This sounds like some elitist BS.
This sounds like some elitist BS.
[deleted](1)
And since oral hygiene seems to be linked to eg. Alzheimers (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/264164) and flouride seems to be indispensable oral hygiene thing the issue is not so straightforward...
The link you mention is from the mouth bacteria/plaques and their leakage into the blood stream near the brain.
Fluoride is not an antibiotic, so there is no plausible mechanism for it’s known topical benefits to prevent bacterial growth that might lead to Alzheimer’s (itself a theory, but an interesting one)
Fluoride is not an antibiotic, so there is no plausible mechanism for it’s known topical benefits to prevent bacterial growth that might lead to Alzheimer’s (itself a theory, but an interesting one)
Municipal water fluoridation is problematic for a range of reasons but as a toothpaste and mouthwash it has merit and it actually does demonstrate direct bacterial growth arrest effects in addition to indirect substrate permissiveness inhibition via mineralisation.
“Fluoride acts to enhance membrane permeabilities to protons and compromises the functioning of F-ATPases in exporting protons, thereby inducing cytoplasmic acidification and acid inhibition of glycolytic enzymes.Basically, fluoride acts to reduce the acid tolerance of the bacteria. It is most effective at acid pH values. In the acidic conditions of cariogenic plaque, fluoride at levels as low as 0.1 mM can cause complete arrest of glycolysis by intact cells ofStreptococcus mutans.Overall, the anticaries actions of fluoride appear to be complex, involving effects both on bacteria and on mineral phases. The antibacterial actions of fluoride appear themselves to be complex but to be dominated by weak-acid effects.” https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/m95-133#:~:text=Basica....
“Fluoride acts to enhance membrane permeabilities to protons and compromises the functioning of F-ATPases in exporting protons, thereby inducing cytoplasmic acidification and acid inhibition of glycolytic enzymes.Basically, fluoride acts to reduce the acid tolerance of the bacteria. It is most effective at acid pH values. In the acidic conditions of cariogenic plaque, fluoride at levels as low as 0.1 mM can cause complete arrest of glycolysis by intact cells ofStreptococcus mutans.Overall, the anticaries actions of fluoride appear to be complex, involving effects both on bacteria and on mineral phases. The antibacterial actions of fluoride appear themselves to be complex but to be dominated by weak-acid effects.” https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/m95-133#:~:text=Basica....
Fluoride reduces disease by reducing acid that bacteria poop out. Diseased gums and decaying teeth is great for things to leak into blood.
Once again, this is akin to drinking sunscreen having a positive effect on lip skin cancer.
Yes, but… no.
Yes, but… no.
It's worth thinking about the fact that virtually the entire EU gets by with non fluoridated water.
It's in other products instead. I think it depends on the country, but usually salt and toothpaste. I don't think there are any developed countries that have stopped fluoridation entirely.
It’s in toothpaste but you don’t eat that.
I have never heard of it being in salt. Maybe you think of iodine?
Several countries have flouridized table salt.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24308394/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24308394/
Only two countries, Germany and Switzerland, have fluoridated salt.
Salt fluoridation schemes are reaching more than 100 million people in Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Cuba as well as
85% of Switzerland and 67% of Germany.
That was in the context of “the entire EU”.
France has some too, but it always was an option for those who care and not a default. As such it's clearly labelled and marketed (same for iode and other additives)
Israel has completely stopped fluoridation.
And I am happy to live in a country that doesn't fluoridate its water. That way I can just wait out the whole scientific and political discussion and start drinking fluoridated water when it has finally and conclusively has been proven that it's beneficial. I suspect it wont be though, because it seems like the real scientists are saying no and the political scientists are saying yes.
[deleted]
I'm sorry but the difference you can literally just see between the teeth of US vs EU should disabuse you of the notion that they "get by".
Not sure if you are trolling but are you alluding that the US population has healthier teeth? The "difference you see" is most likely just the much more widespread usage of bleaching in the US (which actually worsens the health of your teeth).
Bleaching, braces, veneers, and genetics.
I have no idea if there is a genetic difference in the US, but according to Wikipedia, it seems modern toothpaste first took hold in America.
Colgate, a US company, introduced modern toothpaste in 1873. Later, toothpaste that had been developed by researchers in the UK and US, did not find commercial success in the UK, and they focused on the US where it took off.
This suggests that the US were more interested in the appearance of their teeth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothpaste#:~:text=Pre%2Dmixed....
I have no idea if there is a genetic difference in the US, but according to Wikipedia, it seems modern toothpaste first took hold in America.
Colgate, a US company, introduced modern toothpaste in 1873. Later, toothpaste that had been developed by researchers in the UK and US, did not find commercial success in the UK, and they focused on the US where it took off.
This suggests that the US were more interested in the appearance of their teeth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothpaste#:~:text=Pre%2Dmixed....
Preventative dental care in the US is a thing. Have you lived in Europe? It’s not really a thing in the EU.
Do you have a reference for that? I'm from Sweden and I can definitely say preventive dental care is a huge thing here. I felt your statement sounded weird so I googled around. DMFT seems to be one index used to rank countries oral health, which is produced by WHO. In that ranking several European countries beat or sit at US levels. Do you only mean eastern Europe?
This links to OECDs compilation of WHOs data, was easier to get the overview from imo: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/health_glance-2009-1...
This links to OECDs compilation of WHOs data, was easier to get the overview from imo: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/health_glance-2009-1...
That study is for children. Oral health problems take years to surface and looking at adults would be a better way to measure these things.
Having lived in both the US and France, I can say that it’s been my experience that Americans have “nicer” looking teeth. Whether that translates into anything medically relevant is apparently really difficult to prove.
Having lived in both the US and France, I can say that it’s been my experience that Americans have “nicer” looking teeth. Whether that translates into anything medically relevant is apparently really difficult to prove.
WHO produced the exact same data but for adults. I did see similar results there (several EU countries above US). You gave no references as response, instead giving another personal experience.
My original response were specifically about references. But sorry if it sounded more aggressive than it was. I mistook you for the original person I replied to, which made me answer more direct than maybe was necessary. Also, it was my bad for not linking the actual reference for WHOs adult data. I'll link it here instead [1]. That said, on second look it is from 2000, so it is much older than the one on children. Maybe not as reliable. I remain am quite sceptical to the claim that there is an actual difference between in oral health between EU and US though. And my original response were to someone saying preventive care is completely non-existent in EU, which is simply demonstrably wrong.
[1]: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/66521
[1]: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/66521
Sorry that it took me so long to respond. I was wrong to over generalize to the EU. My personal experience is with countries around the Mediterranean and I maintain that while it may be available it’s not taken advantage of the way it is in the US.
And? I was very clear that this was anecdotal and responding in a thread about the aesthetic aspect of teeth.
I’m sorry I didn’t dig any deeper than the link that was presented but it was about adolescent kids. And no one is saying that these differences show up in young people.
I’m sorry I didn’t dig any deeper than the link that was presented but it was about adolescent kids. And no one is saying that these differences show up in young people.
Could it be difference in diet and or smoking?
I don't really know what this means for the US, but in Belgium you are required to go to the dentist at least once a year if you want to keep being reimbursed by social security.
When I lived in Canada (which I assume isn't too different from the US) with poor social security due to my legal status, I never went to a dentist because it was far, far too expensive.
When I lived in Canada (which I assume isn't too different from the US) with poor social security due to my legal status, I never went to a dentist because it was far, far too expensive.
metadat(5)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923889/ - Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: an updated review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/ - Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8930857/ - The use of hydroxyapatite toothpaste to prevent dental caries
> In vitro and in situ studies are demonstrating promising results of HAP toothpastes on the remineralization of enamel lesions and preventing/reducing demineralization. Specifically, research appears to demonstrate either its superiority or equivalency to fluoride toothpaste as anti-caries agents.
I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
Regardless of whether I'm on or off base in that regard, I see little reason to continue to use something that - at best - will only react with pre-existing enamel, when hydroxyapatite toothpastes can actually fix damage (albeit to a limited degree).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/ - Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8930857/ - The use of hydroxyapatite toothpaste to prevent dental caries
> In vitro and in situ studies are demonstrating promising results of HAP toothpastes on the remineralization of enamel lesions and preventing/reducing demineralization. Specifically, research appears to demonstrate either its superiority or equivalency to fluoride toothpaste as anti-caries agents.
I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
Regardless of whether I'm on or off base in that regard, I see little reason to continue to use something that - at best - will only react with pre-existing enamel, when hydroxyapatite toothpastes can actually fix damage (albeit to a limited degree).
> I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
"CITIZEN, please check yourself into a fema retraining facility! The government is there to serve us all for the greater good."
Nevermind the double speak, where the term 'the greater good' means the good of those people who consider themselves to be greater than you.
"CITIZEN, please check yourself into a fema retraining facility! The government is there to serve us all for the greater good."
Nevermind the double speak, where the term 'the greater good' means the good of those people who consider themselves to be greater than you.
So we know that there is definitely little benefit from ingesting fluoride, and also that we can not rule out negative effects from ingesting fluoride. This seems like... a bit of a big deal?
It's been known for awhile, but you'd get labelled as a conspiracy theorist for any mention of it.
It goes all the way back to Dr. Strangelove at least. There's a whole bit in there about it.
This organisation was big on that conspiracy (??) theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
An article about their role in the original referendum on fluoridation in Wichita:
https://www.kansas.com/news/article1101667.html
And a Fresh Air interview with a historian who recently wrote a book about the John Birch Society:
https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2023/05/17/1176658584...
https://www.kansas.com/news/article1101667.html
And a Fresh Air interview with a historian who recently wrote a book about the John Birch Society:
https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2023/05/17/1176658584...
The harmful dose is many orders of magnitude higher than the concentration in tap water.
Dose makes the poison. Literally any chemical in sufficient dose is poisonous
Dose makes the poison. Literally any chemical in sufficient dose is poisonous
Actually, the article says the report says harm happens at 2x the current recommended fluoridation level.
> But the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times the current
Keyword possible.
Keyword possible.
Also a long history of spurious statistical correlations where you find "possible" links.
e.g. for a while there was a scare for RF from overhead powerlines causing brain cancer.
Turns out, the issue is the statistics used to try and isolate an effect from a general population sample have bias: plug in any effect, and any grouping factor, and you'll probably observe a doubling of the risk.
This effect was the cause of a whole spate of "X may cause cancer" reports in the 2000s.
e.g. for a while there was a scare for RF from overhead powerlines causing brain cancer.
Turns out, the issue is the statistics used to try and isolate an effect from a general population sample have bias: plug in any effect, and any grouping factor, and you'll probably observe a doubling of the risk.
This effect was the cause of a whole spate of "X may cause cancer" reports in the 2000s.
[deleted]
Tooth decay is caused by acid produced by bacteria.
It's too bad we can't displace the bacteria themselves instead of working downstream from that.
It's too bad we can't displace the bacteria themselves instead of working downstream from that.
Except that we can! The oral microbiome can be modulated to get exactly what you’re asking: remove pathogens that are good at creating acid and replacing them with ones that are good at remineralizing.
Shameless plug for my company (Bristle Health) that is trying to do exactly that via oral microbiome testing and personalized recommendations and products to improve.
Shameless plug for my company (Bristle Health) that is trying to do exactly that via oral microbiome testing and personalized recommendations and products to improve.
Interesting, can you tell more? I’ve tried oral probiotics without much effect.
Did notice a difference for a couple of days after taking antibiotics for a week for something else, but it quickly subsided (my regular micro biome probably quickly recolonised the mouth).
Did notice a difference for a couple of days after taking antibiotics for a week for something else, but it quickly subsided (my regular micro biome probably quickly recolonised the mouth).
I searched for the name and found it, seems like they ship you a test kit, then ID the microbes in your mouth and make recommendations based on that.
I noticed L. ruteri in some screenshots which I already know from other probiotic uses.
I noticed L. ruteri in some screenshots which I already know from other probiotic uses.
You guys have anything on the market yet?
Indeed we do! We have an oral microbiome test you can find here:
https://www.bristlehealth.com/pages/products
and our first probiotic here: https://www.bristlehealth.com/pages/probiotic
All the species in the probiotic have been clinically studied with evidence that supports improvement in the oral microbiome and reduction of oral disease. Although, for transparency, the mechanism of action of some of the probiotics is still unclear, and we're working on figuring that out to improve oral probiotics and products in the future.
and our first probiotic here: https://www.bristlehealth.com/pages/probiotic
All the species in the probiotic have been clinically studied with evidence that supports improvement in the oral microbiome and reduction of oral disease. Although, for transparency, the mechanism of action of some of the probiotics is still unclear, and we're working on figuring that out to improve oral probiotics and products in the future.
There are oral probiotics available, which aim to do just this. I'm not sure if any clinical trials have investigated their efficacy, however.
Is there a reason we don't just rinse with a base?
There are lots of "big deals" in the environment that we silently tolerate -- things which studies conclusively and repeatedly show are substantially detrimental:
* Roadside air pollution
* Lead pipes
* Indoor CO2 buildup
Studies relating to flouride are nowhere near as conclusive and show nowhere near the same magnitude of effect. If flouride is contributing negatively in a similar way, it's doing so to such a small extent that it very nearly falls within the margin of error. Anyone genuinely worried about flouride should consider double-checking that they've already taken more meaningful action regarding their health, such as going on a walk, getting a full night's rest, or opening a window.
* Roadside air pollution
* Lead pipes
* Indoor CO2 buildup
Studies relating to flouride are nowhere near as conclusive and show nowhere near the same magnitude of effect. If flouride is contributing negatively in a similar way, it's doing so to such a small extent that it very nearly falls within the margin of error. Anyone genuinely worried about flouride should consider double-checking that they've already taken more meaningful action regarding their health, such as going on a walk, getting a full night's rest, or opening a window.
Not from ingestion, but exposing the enamel periodically during the day to fluoride and having trace amounts of it on your saliva supports remineralisation.
I would think it's pretty much impossible to have it in your mouth and not ingest any of it.
Sure, but to achieve equal remineralization, you'll likely end up ingesting orders of magnitude more fluoride when delivered via drinking water vs toothpaste.
I think The Netherlands took it out of their potable/tap water some while ago (like in the '70s).
Because they added it to salt and toothpaste instead.
I can tell you that salt is not fluoridated in the Netherlands (most people who care about cooking use pure sea salt anyway). As for toothpaste, almost every toothpaste anywhere in the world has it.
There is evidence both ways, the original reports were that children's dental health improved after they stopped fluoridation in the 70s.
There is evidence both ways, the original reports were that children's dental health improved after they stopped fluoridation in the 70s.
We don’t fluoridate our water but from 12-18 we do “fluor happen” (loosely translated: “fluor biting”), where we are given an upper and a lower bit which are both filled with heavily fluoridated gel, you bite into it and after a couple of minutes you take the bits out, rinse your mouth and then spit out any left-overs.
I grew up in the US and remember this too, an absolute gag inducing gel that they put in a little mouthguard shaped thing and jammed in your mouth.
There have been various iterations of dentist office flouride treatments I remember.
As an adult the dentists I went to switched to a 2x 30 second rinse (60 second?) with a mouthwash at the end of the appoinment.
The last 10 years they eliminated that and I do a nightly flouride rinse.
I lived various places as a kid, from 10-18 I lived somewhere with no flouride in the water (rural with well water) and we did pills and dentist treatments instead.
Too much in this thread assumes everything is the same everywhere in a given country.
I have also probably never brushed my teeth with a non fluoride toothpaste living in the US. So it's not like that's different from the EU.
I have very little tooth decay in my mid 40s.
There have been various iterations of dentist office flouride treatments I remember.
As an adult the dentists I went to switched to a 2x 30 second rinse (60 second?) with a mouthwash at the end of the appoinment.
The last 10 years they eliminated that and I do a nightly flouride rinse.
I lived various places as a kid, from 10-18 I lived somewhere with no flouride in the water (rural with well water) and we did pills and dentist treatments instead.
Too much in this thread assumes everything is the same everywhere in a given country.
I have also probably never brushed my teeth with a non fluoride toothpaste living in the US. So it's not like that's different from the EU.
I have very little tooth decay in my mid 40s.
I forgot about this. This was a total nightmare for me as a kid. The gel made me want to throw up badly. I think they offered two "flavours" you could pick from, both equally nightmarish.
That’s interesting. Hadn’t heard of that. How common is this practice?
In Italy, many years ago, when I was a kid, this fluoride bite was something that was given to us at (elementary) school, cannot remember if once or twice a year, they made a sort of quick medical checkup and while the doctor was visiting you, you had this bite.
But the practice was later abandoned, as it seems that the 6-8 age is the worst one to supplement (too much) fluoride, that could later develop in dental fluorosis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis
But the practice was later abandoned, as it seems that the 6-8 age is the worst one to supplement (too much) fluoride, that could later develop in dental fluorosis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis
It’s very common in the US as well. It’s called fluoride treatment and is usually reserved for children.
> There is evidence both ways, the original reports were that children's dental health improved after they stopped fluoridation in the 70s.
Has that effect been persistent? I would think the news of flouride being removed from the water would cause an increase in dental health diligence, but I would also be surprised if that effect didn’t wane over time.
Has that effect been persistent? I would think the news of flouride being removed from the water would cause an increase in dental health diligence, but I would also be surprised if that effect didn’t wane over time.
I don't know what they do in the Netherlands, but in rural parts of the United States where people are on well water, fluoride treatments are common. Florida is directly applied to the teeth during a dental visit, then washed out.
Anecdotally, this is what I had and I have great Dental Health despite for brushing hygiene. I often skip brushing my teeth and almost never floss and haven't had a cavity in 40 years
Anecdotally, this is what I had and I have great Dental Health despite for brushing hygiene. I often skip brushing my teeth and almost never floss and haven't had a cavity in 40 years
Fwiw, I’ve pretty much always lived with access to municipal water with added flouride and have also always been given flouride treatment at the dentist. I think the latter is pretty universal in the US.
I remember growing up in the 80s in the Netherlands I used to get daily fluoride tablets, from a small pink bottle. Did not persist long I believe, but was definitely common back then.
Toothpaste, for the most part, isn't swallowed. Salt, you can get any kind you want. I think this gives consumers more discretion/control over what they want to or do not want to ingest.
Yes, I agree. I was just pushing back against the common false narrative that no fluoride in tap water equals no fluoride at all. It's brought up as a fact in every online discussion about fluoride.
Usually it's alongside that one study that shows naturally occurring fluoride in water is harmful to children's mental development. Which is true, but neglects to mention that the areas studied (in rural China) had levels of fluoride twenty times higher then public water fluoridation programs and that the same study also included a control group at "normal" added fluoride level and found no negative effect.
Heres the study. You'll start to recognize it if you get involved in a few of these discussions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852689/
Usually it's alongside that one study that shows naturally occurring fluoride in water is harmful to children's mental development. Which is true, but neglects to mention that the areas studied (in rural China) had levels of fluoride twenty times higher then public water fluoridation programs and that the same study also included a control group at "normal" added fluoride level and found no negative effect.
Heres the study. You'll start to recognize it if you get involved in a few of these discussions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852689/
As an aside, your gums and tongue will absorb a lot - think about chewing tobacco, people putting cocaine on their gums, pills you leave under your tongue. This is also why resorts will tell you to brush your teeth with bottled water.
While it obviously absorbs less than eating any compound, it still absorbs quite a bit!
While it obviously absorbs less than eating any compound, it still absorbs quite a bit!
Fluoride in salt? I know they put iodine in table salt, but not fluoride.
In Germany you can definitely buy table salt with Fluoride in a supermarket.
It's available online, and stores in many countries carry it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fluoridated+salt&tbm=shop
https://www.google.com/search?q=fluoridated+salt&tbm=shop
[deleted]
This seems like it is ultimately a result of the politicization of the issue: it becomes difficult to have an honest conversation of the merits and demerits of something if you know there’s a political faction ready to seize on everything you say and take it out of context. Not saying that makes it right, but it’s an outcome we could anticipate, I think.
This extensive review has been available since 2006:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-...
Neurotoxicity, especially in the presence of iodine deficiency, which is common, has been clearly documented. Toothpaste level exposure is enough to lower IQ in iodine deficiency.
So does that mean that it’s fine if we’re not iodine deficient?
>> This January, Birnbaum issued a scathing legal declaration as part of the lawsuit, writing, "The decision to set aside the results of an external peer review process based on concerns expressed by agencies with strong policy interests on fluoride suggests the presence of political interference in what should be a strictly scientific endeavor."
with
>> Despite this unusually rigorous review process, a network of health officials and influential dental groups argued that the NTP had failed to address several issues raised by the NASEM review committee.
Health officials and dental groups have interest on fluoridation for political reasons? I don't buy it!
I would imagine a self interst focused dental and profeccional helthcare group would argue for the decrease of fluoridation so more income comes from the work on decayed teeth. If it is meant of interest of their patients then that is just desirable! Also health officials and dentists are not the typical polititian group I picture in my mind. I'd sooner call them scientists than politicians. (if meant about scientific politics then should say so - including themselves and that why they push despite widespread scientific critics).
I am telling this with having only topical use of fluoride - with good results -, and with no desire for water fluoridation but also knowing that topical may not be sufficient enough for children and the broad population.
Somehow the feeling is that the NTP and Birnbaum is the manipulative and polititian here. Just a felling though, based on this limited and filtered report, but based on quotes.
with
>> Despite this unusually rigorous review process, a network of health officials and influential dental groups argued that the NTP had failed to address several issues raised by the NASEM review committee.
Health officials and dental groups have interest on fluoridation for political reasons? I don't buy it!
I would imagine a self interst focused dental and profeccional helthcare group would argue for the decrease of fluoridation so more income comes from the work on decayed teeth. If it is meant of interest of their patients then that is just desirable! Also health officials and dentists are not the typical polititian group I picture in my mind. I'd sooner call them scientists than politicians. (if meant about scientific politics then should say so - including themselves and that why they push despite widespread scientific critics).
I am telling this with having only topical use of fluoride - with good results -, and with no desire for water fluoridation but also knowing that topical may not be sufficient enough for children and the broad population.
Somehow the feeling is that the NTP and Birnbaum is the manipulative and polititian here. Just a felling though, based on this limited and filtered report, but based on quotes.
What is it about this report that no one is calling it a conspiracy theory anymore?
Edit: why am I being downvoted for this?
Edit: why am I being downvoted for this?
> Edit: why am I being downvoted for this?
I think because you presumed that everybody was calling it a conspiracy before, which is patently untrue? (Correct would be: some people were, and some people still are)
I think because you presumed that everybody was calling it a conspiracy before, which is patently untrue? (Correct would be: some people were, and some people still are)
Science.
I once found myself stuck in a biker bar west of Dallas. I had to listen to this old timer Hell’s Angel go on and on about fluoride conspiracies. Some of them are pretty wild - “fluoride is created by nuclear weapons construction as waste and the government has to get rid of it somehow, so in the water it goes” for example. The rest of the evening is a little hazy but I remember that.
Incidentally, I used to think Hell’s Angels were just retired dentists.
Incidentally, I used to think Hell’s Angels were just retired dentists.
> fluoride is created by nuclear weapons construction as waste and the government has to get rid of it somehow, so in the water it goes
Like some wild conspiracy theories, there is a kernel of truth to this one. Namely, the fluoride used in water fluoridation is indeed an industrial byproduct -- except not from nuclear weapon manufacture, but from the production of phosphate fertilizer.
From the CDC (which is definitely on the pro-fluoridation side of things) website https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/engineering-sho...
> The three fluoride additives used for water fluoridation are derived principally from phosphate fertilizer production.
Like some wild conspiracy theories, there is a kernel of truth to this one. Namely, the fluoride used in water fluoridation is indeed an industrial byproduct -- except not from nuclear weapon manufacture, but from the production of phosphate fertilizer.
From the CDC (which is definitely on the pro-fluoridation side of things) website https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/engineering-sho...
> The three fluoride additives used for water fluoridation are derived principally from phosphate fertilizer production.
They (ADA) were sort of Mafia-ish in South Park
I wonder why it's been so difficult to stop blanket water fluoridation. Maybe something to do with corpos having a cheap way to dump toxic waste from fertilizer production that would otherwise be expensive to dispose of:
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/engineering-sho...
>The three fluoride additives used for water fluoridation are derived principally from phosphate fertilizer production.
Plus we don't just drink fluoridated water- we bathe in it, we cook with it, our pets drink it, we water our lawns with it, its everywhere. I recall trying to find studies on the effects of these non-drinking uses years ago and not finding much. Again, I wonder why.
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/engineering-sho...
>The three fluoride additives used for water fluoridation are derived principally from phosphate fertilizer production.
Plus we don't just drink fluoridated water- we bathe in it, we cook with it, our pets drink it, we water our lawns with it, its everywhere. I recall trying to find studies on the effects of these non-drinking uses years ago and not finding much. Again, I wonder why.
It's fascinating. Having gone through 301 comments and there really hasn't been any deep discussion at whether or not fluoride has been linked to brain harm.... There are little debates about drinking water. I'm disappointed..I'm gonna to have to do some digging.
This is unfortunately not the place for deep, thoughtful conversation on topics not directly pertaining to tech
Discussion on fluoride is interesting, but isn't the real news the censorship of the research results?
>But the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times the current recommended water fluoridation level, records show.
This is more a report about consuming excess fluoride from other sources that water.
>Because many common foods and drinks contain fluoride, consuming them along with fluoridated water could amount to harmful exposure levels, these experts say.
I do wonder what the other common food and drinks could be
This is more a report about consuming excess fluoride from other sources that water.
>Because many common foods and drinks contain fluoride, consuming them along with fluoridated water could amount to harmful exposure levels, these experts say.
I do wonder what the other common food and drinks could be
> I do wonder what the other common food and drinks could be
They are listed in the article
They are listed in the article
Black Tea.
This guy posted a video a few weeks ago, claiming to be sick from being over exposed to chlorine in drinking water in Mexico. He believes the combination of highly chlorinated drinking water and swimming daily in a chlorinated pool caused his symptoms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeWdEr1XyTw
My friend is convinced her autistic child was over exposed to aluminium or other metals...but maybe it was fluoride. These things need to be investigated.
We know that Lead exposure is widely known to cause harm to the brain, so other metals could have similar effects. Babies having a much smaller mass, would be much greater risk of ingesting toxic amounts or slow dose environmental exposure through things like aluminum cookware.
A substance might not be toxic on its own, but in combination with another substance in the environment could be highly toxic, but affect only some small percentage of people that come in in contact with both.
Like we know many prescribed drugs, can't be mixed with alcohol, because they become toxic if you do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeWdEr1XyTw
My friend is convinced her autistic child was over exposed to aluminium or other metals...but maybe it was fluoride. These things need to be investigated.
We know that Lead exposure is widely known to cause harm to the brain, so other metals could have similar effects. Babies having a much smaller mass, would be much greater risk of ingesting toxic amounts or slow dose environmental exposure through things like aluminum cookware.
A substance might not be toxic on its own, but in combination with another substance in the environment could be highly toxic, but affect only some small percentage of people that come in in contact with both.
Like we know many prescribed drugs, can't be mixed with alcohol, because they become toxic if you do.
> These things need to be investigated
are you assuming they haven't been? that people just bunged in chlorine into swimming pools without a second thought? that nobody has thought to look into heavy metal exposure in babies?
If anything, the issue is the opposite. All of these tests have been repeated so many times, often by honest scientists, but also often by biased companies, that people struggle to find the truth and instead find whatever they want to believe (and its usually something about how all the professionals are stupid and dumb but they personally are special and right)
How do you think those labels about mixing drugs with alcohol/grapefruits/whatever else came about? if it goes into your body, it needs to be tested.
are you assuming they haven't been? that people just bunged in chlorine into swimming pools without a second thought? that nobody has thought to look into heavy metal exposure in babies?
If anything, the issue is the opposite. All of these tests have been repeated so many times, often by honest scientists, but also often by biased companies, that people struggle to find the truth and instead find whatever they want to believe (and its usually something about how all the professionals are stupid and dumb but they personally are special and right)
How do you think those labels about mixing drugs with alcohol/grapefruits/whatever else came about? if it goes into your body, it needs to be tested.
Fluoride increases precipitation of calcium onto tissues. It's very straightforward. Some parts of the brain are directly exposed to the blood and get easily calcified. In particular, parts of the brain associated with regulation of circadian rhythm are known to get calcified in the presence of higher fluoride. This has been known and understood for a long time.
I'd like to take this as an opportunity to voice frustration with "rationalist skeptics", who for the longest time have ridiculed critics of mass water fluoridation. Maybe it's because they're really into the comforts of orthodoxy moreso than skepticism?
Using bullying and ridicule to reinforce unfounded scientific/medical orthodoxy in the name of "skepticism", or even in the name of "evidence" that you don't have... It isn't scientific no matter how much you'd like to believe it is.
I'd like to take this as an opportunity to voice frustration with "rationalist skeptics", who for the longest time have ridiculed critics of mass water fluoridation. Maybe it's because they're really into the comforts of orthodoxy moreso than skepticism?
Using bullying and ridicule to reinforce unfounded scientific/medical orthodoxy in the name of "skepticism", or even in the name of "evidence" that you don't have... It isn't scientific no matter how much you'd like to believe it is.
Health officials, believe it or not, are like any other human beings - in that they also have their own agendas and sometimes those agendas may be in direct opposition to the well being of others. I am surprised that anyone is surprised when news like this comes out.
[deleted]
Looks like the future neuralink test subjects have come into force against fluoride.
But of course people forgot the history of water fluoridation and the risks of dental cavities
(of course, for modern countries I guess it makes more sense to have it in dental products than just in tap water, but I don't buy the moral panic)
> The report found that a link between typical levels of fluoride added to water and possible harm to brain development is unclear... the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times
Well good think we are at the current level and not at two times it then
But of course people forgot the history of water fluoridation and the risks of dental cavities
(of course, for modern countries I guess it makes more sense to have it in dental products than just in tap water, but I don't buy the moral panic)
> The report found that a link between typical levels of fluoride added to water and possible harm to brain development is unclear... the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times
Well good think we are at the current level and not at two times it then
All foods are full of sugar, government does nothing, children get teeth issues,
government solves it, by adding fluorine to our drinking water, adding more to our toxic overload.
I learned this too late: after brushing, don't rinse your mouth clean with water, leave the toothpaste residue on your teeth all night to improve effectiveness.
TIL black tea concentrates fluoride since the plant absorbs it.
Also this is kinda scary if true... https://assureasmile.com/fluoride-in-your-water/fluoride-in-...
Also this is kinda scary if true... https://assureasmile.com/fluoride-in-your-water/fluoride-in-...
Are places generally adding more than the recommended level of fluoride in their water? How much water do you have to ingest to reach the maximum recommended exposure? Given how bad people are at drinking the recommended level of water, I'm curious how they accurately assessed outcomes based on what I assume are relatively few data points
A reverse osmosis filtration system will remove the majority of ions from water, including fluoride. This enters into another scientific debate though, as some suggest that you are also removing beneficial minerals from the water at the same time.
My filter has a cartridge that adds beneficial minerals back in
I’ve heard from someone who worked in a water district that they didn’t add fluoride to water for dental health, that was a spin they put on it. Not sure how true it is though.
After the city treated and purified the water, they needed something to add in to keep it from reacting with the city’s pipes. Otherwise the water will eat the pipe and you get dirty water full of pipe delivered to the tap.
They needed something that was cheap, relatively safe to drink, and available in large quantities- fluoride checked those boxes. Supposedly they came up with the dental spin to sell the solution to the public.
After the city treated and purified the water, they needed something to add in to keep it from reacting with the city’s pipes. Otherwise the water will eat the pipe and you get dirty water full of pipe delivered to the tap.
They needed something that was cheap, relatively safe to drink, and available in large quantities- fluoride checked those boxes. Supposedly they came up with the dental spin to sell the solution to the public.
What does "possible link" mean? p<0.05?
maybe just brush your teeth
maybe do some basic thinking about public health policy
There are significant lobbies now trying to put both statins and lithium into the tap water.
> These are just a few of the images we've recorded. And you can see, it wasn't what we thought. There's been no war here and no terraforming event. The environment is stable. It's the Pax. The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the air processors. It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression. Well, it works. The people here stopped fighting. And then they stopped everything else. They stopped going to work, they stopped breeding, talking, eating. There's 30 million people here, and they all just let themselves die.
Wouldn't statins lower cholesterol in large populations of people who need it to, e.g., produce hormones? I can't imagine anyone wanting to inhibit the production of sex hormones (testosterone, estradiol, etc.) in children.
[deleted]
Lithium based on studies that show that areas with higher lithium levels in the water tend to have less crime?
Sources?
My vote is for LSD.
sakras(1)
Statins on a wide scale could make for the single greatest life expectancy increase we could get anywhere...that would be awesome.
The effect of statins is incredibly modest at best: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl... . Anyone telling you otherwise is doing so because of financial incentive, not from following the actual science.
I hear that every few years from press releases written by people who sell statins.
Statins are dangerous... they block cholesterol, which incidentally, is fundamental, crucial, even, to the formation of both cell membranes and innumerable important hormones.
They are no solution at all. Just a fad.
They are no solution at all. Just a fad.
This reminded me of an old CAQ/CAIB article I read in the '90s on the impact of fluoride as an industrial pollutant. I found a copy[1] hosted at a site operated by the "Fluoride Action Network", which is also hosting other alarming claims such as:
> • As of July 18, 2022, a total of 85 human studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence.
> • Of these investigations, 76 studies have reported that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans.
- https://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
There's a historical link between fluoride alarmism and the far right, famously parodied in Kubrick's Dr Strangelove in the person of Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper[2,3] who instigates a nuclear response to the communist conspiracy to impurify America's bodily fluids via fluoride.
The CAQ article at [1] explains this:
> Oscar Ewing, as Federal Security Agency administrator, was a Truman “fair dealer” who pushed many progressive programs such as nationalized medicine. Fluoridation was lumped with his proposals. Inevitably, it was attacked by conservatives as a manifestation of “creeping socialism,” while the left rallied to its support. Later during the McCarthy era, the left was further alienated from the opposition when extreme right-wing groups, including the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan, raved that fluoridation was a plot by the Soviet Union and/or communists in the government to poison America’s brain cells.
> It was a simple task for promoters, under the guidance of the “original spin-doctor,” to paint all opponents as deranged–and they played this angle to the hilt. For example, one widely distributed dossier on opponents “listed in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan.”
I should note that CAQ has itself been attacked as communist propaganda, (and for that matter, some of the studies linked on the fluoridealert site are Chinese in origin.) Nonetheless the article[1] has some interesting and (to me) surprising information on the politically entangled history of fluoride. An excerpt:
> One thing is certain, the name of the company with the biggest stake in fluoride’s safety was ALCOA–whose name is stamped all over the early history of water fluoridation.
> Throughout industry’s “roaring 20s,” the U.S. Public Health Service was under the jurisdiction of Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of ALCOA. In 1931, the year Mellon stepped down, a Public Health Service dentist named H. Trendley Dean was dispatched to certain remote towns in the West where drinking-water wells contained high concentrations of natural fluoride from deep in the earth’s crust. Dean’s mission was to determine how much fluoride people could tolerate without obvious damage to their teeth–a matter of considerable concern to ALCOA. Dean found that teeth in these high-fluoride towns were often discolored and eroded, but he also reported that they appeared to have fewer cavities than average. He cautiously recommended further studies to determine whether a lower level of fluoride in drinking water might reduce cavities without simultaneously damaging bones and teeth, where fluoride settles in humans and other animals.
> Back at the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s Pittsburgh industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. ALCOA-sponsored biochemist Gerald J. Cox27 immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that: “The case should be regarded as proved.”28 In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims.29 Cox began touring the country, stumping for fluoridation.
1: https://fluoridealert.org/content/fluoride-commie-plot-or-ca...
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XhhTF7vRM
3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKR32ImWYzw
> • As of July 18, 2022, a total of 85 human studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence.
> • Of these investigations, 76 studies have reported that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans.
- https://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
There's a historical link between fluoride alarmism and the far right, famously parodied in Kubrick's Dr Strangelove in the person of Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper[2,3] who instigates a nuclear response to the communist conspiracy to impurify America's bodily fluids via fluoride.
The CAQ article at [1] explains this:
> Oscar Ewing, as Federal Security Agency administrator, was a Truman “fair dealer” who pushed many progressive programs such as nationalized medicine. Fluoridation was lumped with his proposals. Inevitably, it was attacked by conservatives as a manifestation of “creeping socialism,” while the left rallied to its support. Later during the McCarthy era, the left was further alienated from the opposition when extreme right-wing groups, including the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan, raved that fluoridation was a plot by the Soviet Union and/or communists in the government to poison America’s brain cells.
> It was a simple task for promoters, under the guidance of the “original spin-doctor,” to paint all opponents as deranged–and they played this angle to the hilt. For example, one widely distributed dossier on opponents “listed in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan.”
I should note that CAQ has itself been attacked as communist propaganda, (and for that matter, some of the studies linked on the fluoridealert site are Chinese in origin.) Nonetheless the article[1] has some interesting and (to me) surprising information on the politically entangled history of fluoride. An excerpt:
> One thing is certain, the name of the company with the biggest stake in fluoride’s safety was ALCOA–whose name is stamped all over the early history of water fluoridation.
> Throughout industry’s “roaring 20s,” the U.S. Public Health Service was under the jurisdiction of Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of ALCOA. In 1931, the year Mellon stepped down, a Public Health Service dentist named H. Trendley Dean was dispatched to certain remote towns in the West where drinking-water wells contained high concentrations of natural fluoride from deep in the earth’s crust. Dean’s mission was to determine how much fluoride people could tolerate without obvious damage to their teeth–a matter of considerable concern to ALCOA. Dean found that teeth in these high-fluoride towns were often discolored and eroded, but he also reported that they appeared to have fewer cavities than average. He cautiously recommended further studies to determine whether a lower level of fluoride in drinking water might reduce cavities without simultaneously damaging bones and teeth, where fluoride settles in humans and other animals.
> Back at the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s Pittsburgh industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. ALCOA-sponsored biochemist Gerald J. Cox27 immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that: “The case should be regarded as proved.”28 In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims.29 Cox began touring the country, stumping for fluoridation.
1: https://fluoridealert.org/content/fluoride-commie-plot-or-ca...
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XhhTF7vRM
3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKR32ImWYzw
Wow, I'd previously scoffed at anti-fluoridation stuff, thinking that everyone who made these claims sounded like General Ripper. But this was an interesting historical perspective.
But ... what then keeps us in the status quo of fluoridated water supplies? Aluminum companies, still? seems unlikely that their influence would hold sway for a century. A century during which we have found other environmental pollutants and enacted/enforced regulation to reduce or eliminate their influence.
But ... what then keeps us in the status quo of fluoridated water supplies? Aluminum companies, still? seems unlikely that their influence would hold sway for a century. A century during which we have found other environmental pollutants and enacted/enforced regulation to reduce or eliminate their influence.
> But ... what then keeps us in the status quo of fluoridated water supplies?
> ...thinking that everyone who made these claims sounded like General Ripper.
> ...thinking that everyone who made these claims sounded like General Ripper.
So ... it's all Kubrick's fault?
The film didn't come out until half way into that century. And now we have generations who've never heard of it.
The film didn't come out until half way into that century. And now we have generations who've never heard of it.
No, it's the fault of people who scoff at concern about fluoride in tap water without having researched it.
Just about every minerals business is going to have loads of fluoride to discard--aluminum, uranium, gypsum, NPK, etc. A few years back I watched a documentary about a fertilizer plant in Morocco, dumping the fluoride they discarded from their NPK mix into the water supply. All of the children near the plant had spindly, twisted arms and legs from skeletal fluorosis.
It is also peculiar that a toxicologist becomes a dentist, and ends up at the atomic energy commission[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hodge
It is also peculiar that a toxicologist becomes a dentist, and ends up at the atomic energy commission[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hodge
"Mandrake, have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bSL5VQgM&ab_channel=Jacob
Once again the conspiracy theory has become a conspiracy. If you get your news and information from Alex Jones you would know about this since at least 2008 making you a well-informed citizen, but if you only get your news from places like Salon you have been misinformed.
I don’t brush my teeth because I don’t want the residual fluoride there.
It’s healthier to just slosh some vodka around to kill the germs (this wouldn’t work with kids, but hey they’ll lose their first teeth so who cares).
It’s healthier to just slosh some vodka around to kill the germs (this wouldn’t work with kids, but hey they’ll lose their first teeth so who cares).
I hope this is poorly conveyed satire. If not… good God.
Apart from the hygienic value in brushing, whether you agree with it or not, halitosis is an offensive smell to most of the public. Some of the worst breath I’ve ever had to smell came from alcoholics whose spirit of choice is vodka.
Apart from the hygienic value in brushing, whether you agree with it or not, halitosis is an offensive smell to most of the public. Some of the worst breath I’ve ever had to smell came from alcoholics whose spirit of choice is vodka.
I’m very much anti fluoride in drinking water. And did not buy fluoride tooth paste for my kids until they learned to spit.
But 1) kids brush teeth to form a healthy habit, and protect their gums. Kids who do not brush teeth often develop gum disease which can cause tooth loss in the future as adults.
2) residual fluoride isn’t anything to worry about. Just spit the toothpaste out. If you’re super worried about fluoride then look for calcium fluoride toothpaste which is not poisonous.
3) sloshing vodka or whiskey around doesn’t remove plague from your teeth and you will suffer tooth decay regardless.
But 1) kids brush teeth to form a healthy habit, and protect their gums. Kids who do not brush teeth often develop gum disease which can cause tooth loss in the future as adults.
2) residual fluoride isn’t anything to worry about. Just spit the toothpaste out. If you’re super worried about fluoride then look for calcium fluoride toothpaste which is not poisonous.
3) sloshing vodka or whiskey around doesn’t remove plague from your teeth and you will suffer tooth decay regardless.
Whats the point of calcium fluoride in your toothpaste, the water solubility is very low I would suspect it to do almost nothing, could be wrong, never heard of this. Generally soluble salts like sodium or tin fluoride are used.
Sodium fluoride is a by product of aluminium production and is poisonous in high dosage. That’s why people are so anti fluoride.
Calcium fluoride is naturally occurring and was what was discovered to be so good. Well the water it was first discovered was contaminated with sodium fluoride from aluminium but the water that promoted the research was calcium fluoride.
But while sodium fluoride is poisonous in high levels. You could drink super high levels of calcium fluoride and be totally fine.
So if you’re super worried about sodium fluoride (which you shouldn’t be in tooth paste since you should spit it out and anything you swallowed is harmless as the dosage is so low) then the alternative is to source tooth paste with calcium fluoride. Which is harder to get but it does exist.
Calcium fluoride is naturally occurring and was what was discovered to be so good. Well the water it was first discovered was contaminated with sodium fluoride from aluminium but the water that promoted the research was calcium fluoride.
But while sodium fluoride is poisonous in high levels. You could drink super high levels of calcium fluoride and be totally fine.
So if you’re super worried about sodium fluoride (which you shouldn’t be in tooth paste since you should spit it out and anything you swallowed is harmless as the dosage is so low) then the alternative is to source tooth paste with calcium fluoride. Which is harder to get but it does exist.
The fact that its produced from aluminum refining is irrelevant. Also everything is poisonous in high enough doses.
I understand that calcium fluoride isn't going to harm you because its not soluble, its just like eating some inert rocks but its basically pointless to add to toothpaste.
I'm not worried about fluoride, its very helpful for dental health, I did a bunch of my PhD on this.
I understand that calcium fluoride isn't going to harm you because its not soluble, its just like eating some inert rocks but its basically pointless to add to toothpaste.
I'm not worried about fluoride, its very helpful for dental health, I did a bunch of my PhD on this.
> I'm not worried about fluoride, its very helpful for dental health
The parent comment I originally replied to is.
The parent comment I originally replied to is.
That will just dehydrate your mouth and kill all the bacteria which is supposed to be there. I joke about it with my neighbors when we have a boil water advisory, do not actually do it in real life.
> but hey they’ll lose their first teeth so who cares
Just like learning best practices in computer language-- fire up that REPL and don't do shit because it's not a real application.
Just like learning best practices in computer language-- fire up that REPL and don't do shit because it's not a real application.
This can also double as a sleep aid if you don’t spit it out.
I could smell this comment
As a general rule of thumb, I think it's interesting to scrutinize dosage recommendations and compare regulations between countries. If someone claims that the science on some topic is well settled then health officials in multiple countries should arrive at roughly similar results. If there's a discrepancy between the suggestions made by health officials in the US and EU, it's worth asking why.