Fluoride in our drinking water may not be as useful as it used to be(gizmodo.com)
gizmodo.com
Fluoride in our drinking water may not be as useful as it used to be
https://gizmodo.com/fluoride-in-our-drinking-water-may-not-be-as-useful-as-it-used-to-be-2000507454
82 comments
Adding elements to stuff we assume UNIVERSALLY is universally wrong because we do not assume them at similar level. For instance here in EU most table salt is with added iodine, witch in general is good IF you do not live near the sea, but being universal this salt also goes to people living near the see adding potentially to much iodine (an thyroid problems are on the rise since decades).
For fluorine it's the same: some drink tap water, some drink only bottled water, so some get potentially too much some potentially nearly none.
That's why "universal" is essentially wrong.
For fluorine it's the same: some drink tap water, some drink only bottled water, so some get potentially too much some potentially nearly none.
That's why "universal" is essentially wrong.
Nobody is saying that universal fluoridation is good public health policy. It’s about local conditions, including existing dietary sources and groundwater levels. In much of the US, trends in both combined with persistent access problems around dental care warrant fluoridation in most municipalities.
Not nitpicking this particular reply, but more a general observation as this thread seems to have a few instances.
Any argument made that's trying to take a position on a scientific point, yet has grammatical mistakes, significantly detracts from the point being made. If there is a lack of attention to trivially simple "to" vs "too"...what's the chance of sufficient attention being made to the vastly more complex points of debate?!
Any argument made that's trying to take a position on a scientific point, yet has grammatical mistakes, significantly detracts from the point being made. If there is a lack of attention to trivially simple "to" vs "too"...what's the chance of sufficient attention being made to the vastly more complex points of debate?!
Sorry for my poor English, not my mother tongue...
Well, in debate terms: let's say you could decide to add element to tap water because locally you state "there are not enough of this element", how can you dose it? Some do not drink tap water, will get nearly none, some drink much, some came here for a bit of time coming from other places, ...
Teaching people a good diet it's a thing, "imposing" adding stuff to common goods is a dangerous choice, which could be well abused to do very nasty things.
Well, in debate terms: let's say you could decide to add element to tap water because locally you state "there are not enough of this element", how can you dose it? Some do not drink tap water, will get nearly none, some drink much, some came here for a bit of time coming from other places, ...
Teaching people a good diet it's a thing, "imposing" adding stuff to common goods is a dangerous choice, which could be well abused to do very nasty things.
> with recognized safe levels,
Funny because many countries choose to NOT add fluoride to their water sources. Despite all the "safety" data available.
Funny because many countries choose to NOT add fluoride to their water sources. Despite all the "safety" data available.
Every comment thread about fluoridation on HN goes like this. Most countries that don’t fluoridate their water don’t do so either because they fluoridate something else (table salt) or because their natural groundwater contains sufficient fluoride, or because dietary trends in those areas already provide dietary fluoride.
Western Europe and Latin America are examples of (1), Central Europe is an example of (2), and much of Asia is (2) or (3).
And this is the point: if you have naturally occurring fluoride at safe levels, you shouldn’t add it. If you have it at unsafe levels (which much of the world does!), you should defluoridate your water. But the body of evidence is overwhelming that 0.7mg/L for fluoridation is not a significant public health risk, especially in contrast with its tangible benefits.
Western Europe and Latin America are examples of (1), Central Europe is an example of (2), and much of Asia is (2) or (3).
And this is the point: if you have naturally occurring fluoride at safe levels, you shouldn’t add it. If you have it at unsafe levels (which much of the world does!), you should defluoridate your water. But the body of evidence is overwhelming that 0.7mg/L for fluoridation is not a significant public health risk, especially in contrast with its tangible benefits.
What does the body of evidence show is safe for your third eye? Because that's who you're having to disprove safe flouride levels to.
In many parts of the world, natural dietary fluoride exposure from food greatly exceeds the levels anyone adds to water. Some regions also have naturally high fluoride levels in water as well.
Did you know there are places that BAN chewing gum despite all the “safety” data available and history of use elsewhere?!?!!!
It’s not always for safety reasons. Singapore bans it for reasons of public cleanliness.
As I understand it, the EPA is required to reanalyze the current florudation recommendations.
> 121. Plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that water fluoridation at the level of 0.7 mg/L – the prescribed optimal level of fluoridation in the United States – presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation under the conditions of use.” 15 U.S.C. § 2620(b)(4)(B)(ii).
Full ruling: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-R...
The law mentioned: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2620
> 121. Plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that water fluoridation at the level of 0.7 mg/L – the prescribed optimal level of fluoridation in the United States – presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation under the conditions of use.” 15 U.S.C. § 2620(b)(4)(B)(ii).
Full ruling: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-R...
The law mentioned: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2620
In fact, Flouride may be actually harmful in children. According to a peer-reviewed finding, "aggregate fluoride exposure from all sources in an amount equivalent to 1.5 mg/L in drinking water is consistently associated with lower IQ in children." See https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2024/10/04/fluorid....
Nobody fluoridates the water to 1.5 mg/L. If you're fluoridating the water, your target is 0.7 mg/L.
The people with 1.5 mg/L fluoride (or higher--the EPA limit is 2.0mg/L) are because the groundwater is percolating through rock that is high in fluorides, and people don't want to spend the money on defluoridating the water down to acceptable standards. Defluoridation is of course much harder than fluoridation because fluorides are highly soluble.
The people with 1.5 mg/L fluoride (or higher--the EPA limit is 2.0mg/L) are because the groundwater is percolating through rock that is high in fluorides, and people don't want to spend the money on defluoridating the water down to acceptable standards. Defluoridation is of course much harder than fluoridation because fluorides are highly soluble.
Yes, because people only drink a certain amount of tap water so you know they're getting the recommended dosage of fluoride.
Fairly bad faith argument on your part.
The limits are set such that if you _only_ drank tap water you won't consume more than the safe limit. If you then reduce how much tap water you consume because you get hydration from other sources, your well under the limit.
Not accounting for someone eating tubes of fluorinated toothpaste, which is out of specified usage.
The limits are set such that if you _only_ drank tap water you won't consume more than the safe limit. If you then reduce how much tap water you consume because you get hydration from other sources, your well under the limit.
Not accounting for someone eating tubes of fluorinated toothpaste, which is out of specified usage.
OK, that makes sense. What is the recommended dosage of fluoride?
The current upper limit consider safe to consume with regularity, is "4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water"
The CDC sets the recommend fluorination levels are 0.7 mg/L, more than 4x lower than the amount considered safe to consume.
So you would need to consume over 20L of water (think 10 2L soda bottle worth).
I couldn't personally physically do that.
The CDC sets the recommend fluorination levels are 0.7 mg/L, more than 4x lower than the amount considered safe to consume.
So you would need to consume over 20L of water (think 10 2L soda bottle worth).
I couldn't personally physically do that.
Absolute nonsense.
The coffee, soda, beer, or kombucha you drink was made with fluoridated water. Your salad was grown with fluoridated fruit was washed in fluoridated water.
Fluoride permeates modern supply chains because it’s literally in the water which is an input to countless things.
Fluoride proponents have utterly failed to control dosage and harmed public health in doing so.
The coffee, soda, beer, or kombucha you drink was made with fluoridated water. Your salad was grown with fluoridated fruit was washed in fluoridated water.
Fluoride permeates modern supply chains because it’s literally in the water which is an input to countless things.
Fluoride proponents have utterly failed to control dosage and harmed public health in doing so.
> Absolute nonsense.
>
Hardly but let's have fun!
> The coffee, soda, beer, or kombucha you drink was made with fluoridated water. Your salad was grown with fluoridated fruit was washed in fluoridated water. >
How much flouride? And from what sources?
Typically farms need wells because of how much water infrastructure they need can't generally be supported by municipal water. There are exceptions particularly in dense areas with vertical farms or urban farms but this doesn't align with your claim, that effectively everything we consume has some detectable level of flouride.
I bet you've already read this though
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Fluoride-HealthProfessiona....
The only thing studied that contained more flouride than municipal water but still 3x less than the safe limit, is tea. And that was measured with distilled water to eliminate the water source as a variable.
Most tea isn't grown in the USA.
So your claims fall flat on their face here, but I'm not done.
> Fluoride permeates modern supply chains because it’s literally in the water which is an input to countless things. >
How much? Making such a claim is fine if we want hand waved values. But when you want to be an Internet advocate for a specific policy, show up with receipts or don't show up at all.
See previous link for current source of information on food supply.
> Fluoride proponents have utterly failed to control dosage and harmed public health in doing so.
Based on what evidence?
You have utterly failed to show you have a solid grasp on the scientific method, public policy, and critical thinking.
> The coffee, soda, beer, or kombucha you drink was made with fluoridated water. Your salad was grown with fluoridated fruit was washed in fluoridated water. >
How much flouride? And from what sources?
Typically farms need wells because of how much water infrastructure they need can't generally be supported by municipal water. There are exceptions particularly in dense areas with vertical farms or urban farms but this doesn't align with your claim, that effectively everything we consume has some detectable level of flouride.
I bet you've already read this though
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Fluoride-HealthProfessiona....
The only thing studied that contained more flouride than municipal water but still 3x less than the safe limit, is tea. And that was measured with distilled water to eliminate the water source as a variable.
Most tea isn't grown in the USA.
So your claims fall flat on their face here, but I'm not done.
> Fluoride permeates modern supply chains because it’s literally in the water which is an input to countless things. >
How much? Making such a claim is fine if we want hand waved values. But when you want to be an Internet advocate for a specific policy, show up with receipts or don't show up at all.
See previous link for current source of information on food supply.
> Fluoride proponents have utterly failed to control dosage and harmed public health in doing so.
Based on what evidence?
You have utterly failed to show you have a solid grasp on the scientific method, public policy, and critical thinking.
1. Most tea consumed worldwide is of Asian origin. Camellia sinensis is native to East Asia.
"On any given day, more than one half of the American population drinks tea. On a regional basis, the South and Northeast have the greatest concentration of tea drinkers."
Source: https://www.teausa.com/teausa/images/Tea_Fact_2021.pdf
Tea may easily contain 5 to 10 times as much fluoride as fluoridated water.
2. TOTAL intake is what determines fluoride toxicity. This has been established since the 1930s when fluoride was discovered to be the source of "mottled enamel" - dental fluorosis.
In 1991, total intake among adults in fluoridated areas in the US was estimated to be up to 6.6 mg/day. (US PHS, 1991)
"The daily intake of most adults is about equally divided among food, drinking water, beverages, and mouthrinses." (U.S. Dept. Health & Human Services, Report on fluoride benefits and risks. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1991 Jun 14;40(RR-7):1-8. PMID: 2051975.)
"On any given day, more than one half of the American population drinks tea. On a regional basis, the South and Northeast have the greatest concentration of tea drinkers."
Source: https://www.teausa.com/teausa/images/Tea_Fact_2021.pdf
Tea may easily contain 5 to 10 times as much fluoride as fluoridated water.
2. TOTAL intake is what determines fluoride toxicity. This has been established since the 1930s when fluoride was discovered to be the source of "mottled enamel" - dental fluorosis.
In 1991, total intake among adults in fluoridated areas in the US was estimated to be up to 6.6 mg/day. (US PHS, 1991)
"The daily intake of most adults is about equally divided among food, drinking water, beverages, and mouthrinses." (U.S. Dept. Health & Human Services, Report on fluoride benefits and risks. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1991 Jun 14;40(RR-7):1-8. PMID: 2051975.)
While you are right that it is very rare that a water system will fluoridate their water to levels of 1.5 mg/L, I don't think it's true that all systems fluoridating their water have targets or achieve a level of 0.7mg/L. You can see in the EPA's analysis of their fourth Sixth Year Review (SYR4) (https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/syr4_fluo...) that there is a large variation in the fluoride concentrations of fluoridated entry points (from 0.6mg/L to 1.2mg/L, with the 0.6mg/L cut-off being artificial).
The NTP monograph doesn't conclude that fluoridation at levels of 0.7mg/L are safe or unsafe, but it is better to be safe than sorry. With some populations receiving fluoridated water at concentrations of 1.2mg/L and an estimated 2% to 7% of the population receiving water fluoridated above this concentration, I think it's reasonable to be concerned in light of the NTP's monograph on fluoride (even if this just means to increase focus on de-fluoridation of water).
As per the NTP: > The moderate confidence conclusions may also be relevant to people living in optimally fluoridated areas of the United States depending on the extent of their additional exposures to fluoride from sources other than drinking water.
Also just to note, the EPA's secondary maximum contaminant limit (SMCL) is 2.0mg/L. This isn't the federal limit as set forth by the MCL of 4.0mg/L, but notice is still required by the EPA here.
Taking the recent Cochrane report in mind, which shows a small reduction of 0.24 decayed tooth per child in places practicing fluoridation, and fails to find high quality studies on the effects of fluoridation for adults, it is reasonable to question the EPA's limits and the US's policy of fluoridation.
I can't find any strong evidence for the benefits of systemic ingestion of fluoride which makes me ultimately conclude that the policy is an ineffective one of forced medication (in the name of those who can't brush their teeth).
With no evidence of it being a safe policy, I don't know why the CDC and EPA still advocate nowadays for water fluoridation. Although perhaps costly to change, neither do I know why the EPA sets their limits to levels above where known harms (such as dental fluorosis and neurodevelopmental effects) occur. As Judge Edward Chen says:
> In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States.
The NTP monograph doesn't conclude that fluoridation at levels of 0.7mg/L are safe or unsafe, but it is better to be safe than sorry. With some populations receiving fluoridated water at concentrations of 1.2mg/L and an estimated 2% to 7% of the population receiving water fluoridated above this concentration, I think it's reasonable to be concerned in light of the NTP's monograph on fluoride (even if this just means to increase focus on de-fluoridation of water).
As per the NTP: > The moderate confidence conclusions may also be relevant to people living in optimally fluoridated areas of the United States depending on the extent of their additional exposures to fluoride from sources other than drinking water.
Also just to note, the EPA's secondary maximum contaminant limit (SMCL) is 2.0mg/L. This isn't the federal limit as set forth by the MCL of 4.0mg/L, but notice is still required by the EPA here.
Taking the recent Cochrane report in mind, which shows a small reduction of 0.24 decayed tooth per child in places practicing fluoridation, and fails to find high quality studies on the effects of fluoridation for adults, it is reasonable to question the EPA's limits and the US's policy of fluoridation.
I can't find any strong evidence for the benefits of systemic ingestion of fluoride which makes me ultimately conclude that the policy is an ineffective one of forced medication (in the name of those who can't brush their teeth).
With no evidence of it being a safe policy, I don't know why the CDC and EPA still advocate nowadays for water fluoridation. Although perhaps costly to change, neither do I know why the EPA sets their limits to levels above where known harms (such as dental fluorosis and neurodevelopmental effects) occur. As Judge Edward Chen says:
> In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States.
The underlying study makes a much weaker claim than the people who are using it to campaign against fluoridation.
A big issue in this discourse is that for the strong claims to be true, it would essentially require existing science around fluoride toxicity and the related mechanisms of action to be materially incorrect, contrary to all historical evidence. Fluoride poisoning is a thing that happens and has straightforward interventions. Are we supposed to pretend this science doesn't exist? I actually worked in fluoride chemistry, it is difficult to square this circle.
In addition to the "plausible mechanism of action" question, there is the inconvenient observation that exposure to fluoride from natural dietary sources is far higher today than from municipal water. Why the obsession with municipal water augmentation in historically low-fluoride environs? Most people eat far more fluoride than what their water exposes them to.
I find this particular social contagion deeply weird. You see the same persistent misrepresentation on social media as climate science, but in the case of climate science the effects on people is obviously consequential so the motivated reasoning is more understandable. The fluoride thing is trying to invent an issue around a topic that is inconsequential by all evidence and science.
Who benefits by encouraging people to tilt at this windmill?
A big issue in this discourse is that for the strong claims to be true, it would essentially require existing science around fluoride toxicity and the related mechanisms of action to be materially incorrect, contrary to all historical evidence. Fluoride poisoning is a thing that happens and has straightforward interventions. Are we supposed to pretend this science doesn't exist? I actually worked in fluoride chemistry, it is difficult to square this circle.
In addition to the "plausible mechanism of action" question, there is the inconvenient observation that exposure to fluoride from natural dietary sources is far higher today than from municipal water. Why the obsession with municipal water augmentation in historically low-fluoride environs? Most people eat far more fluoride than what their water exposes them to.
I find this particular social contagion deeply weird. You see the same persistent misrepresentation on social media as climate science, but in the case of climate science the effects on people is obviously consequential so the motivated reasoning is more understandable. The fluoride thing is trying to invent an issue around a topic that is inconsequential by all evidence and science.
Who benefits by encouraging people to tilt at this windmill?
Do you have a reference for the claim that exposure to fluoride from natural dietary sources is far higher than what occurs from fluoridated water?
An EPA review on fluoride exposure that I found (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-03/documents/fl...) puts most estimates of the "natural" dietary fluoride intake at 0.9mg per day. This is in contrast to the estimated 0.7 * 2 = 1.4mg of fluoride a person will ingest from consuming fluoridated water (with a fair number of water systems fluoridated at levels greater than 0.7mg/L).
Another study I found from the EFSA estimates fluoride intake from non-supplemented food at 0.120mg per day for adults compared to 0.500mg per day from water fluoridated at (1.0mg/L) (https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa...). Admittedly, in countries where salt is fluoridated, this will constitute the majority of fluoride ingested (especially given most of them don't fluoridate their water :P). But I don't think anti-fluoride advocates would support this either.
I also don't understand what you mean by the "strong claim" and "weak claim" of the NTP monograph. You seem to have doubts that the claims of the NTP monograph are true, based off of the known mechanisms of fluoride toxicity?
My best guess for why the rational anti-fluoride advocates are so stirred up over water fluoridation is that it is a policy proposed without currently a rigorous scientific backing. Per the recent Cochrane review, there is evidence that fluoridation mildly benefits children's teeth, and a lack of high-quality evidence that fluoridation presently benefits adults teeth. There also isn't good evidence that fluoride consumption isn't harmful at present levels (fluorosis is known to occur, and studies evaluated by the NTP point to neurodevelopmental harms, albeit with the conclusion for higher concentrations of fluoride); nor is there strong evidence that systemic fluoride ingestion has any benefits. They might therefore be angry at a somewhat political policy of forced medication that isn't well backed.
An EPA review on fluoride exposure that I found (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-03/documents/fl...) puts most estimates of the "natural" dietary fluoride intake at 0.9mg per day. This is in contrast to the estimated 0.7 * 2 = 1.4mg of fluoride a person will ingest from consuming fluoridated water (with a fair number of water systems fluoridated at levels greater than 0.7mg/L).
Another study I found from the EFSA estimates fluoride intake from non-supplemented food at 0.120mg per day for adults compared to 0.500mg per day from water fluoridated at (1.0mg/L) (https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa...). Admittedly, in countries where salt is fluoridated, this will constitute the majority of fluoride ingested (especially given most of them don't fluoridate their water :P). But I don't think anti-fluoride advocates would support this either.
I also don't understand what you mean by the "strong claim" and "weak claim" of the NTP monograph. You seem to have doubts that the claims of the NTP monograph are true, based off of the known mechanisms of fluoride toxicity?
My best guess for why the rational anti-fluoride advocates are so stirred up over water fluoridation is that it is a policy proposed without currently a rigorous scientific backing. Per the recent Cochrane review, there is evidence that fluoridation mildly benefits children's teeth, and a lack of high-quality evidence that fluoridation presently benefits adults teeth. There also isn't good evidence that fluoride consumption isn't harmful at present levels (fluorosis is known to occur, and studies evaluated by the NTP point to neurodevelopmental harms, albeit with the conclusion for higher concentrations of fluoride); nor is there strong evidence that systemic fluoride ingestion has any benefits. They might therefore be angry at a somewhat political policy of forced medication that isn't well backed.
Both, the EPA and the EFSA estimates, are incorrect. One standard cup of Asian organic green tea (6 oz - 177 ml) may contain 1.20 mg of fluoride.
https://poisonfluoride.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5677
The NTP monograph is a very flawed document, as the review failed to consider a crucial confounder/modifier - iodine/thyroid status. Fluoride toxicity is directly dependent on the individual's thyroid/iodine status. If iodine-deficient, even miniscule amounts of fluoride may affect you. If iodine intake is excessive, then iodine toxicity may be pre-dominant - this has been known since the 1930s.
See https://pfpc.substack.com/p/pfpc-letter-to-richard-woychik-d...
https://poisonfluoride.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5677
The NTP monograph is a very flawed document, as the review failed to consider a crucial confounder/modifier - iodine/thyroid status. Fluoride toxicity is directly dependent on the individual's thyroid/iodine status. If iodine-deficient, even miniscule amounts of fluoride may affect you. If iodine intake is excessive, then iodine toxicity may be pre-dominant - this has been known since the 1930s.
See https://pfpc.substack.com/p/pfpc-letter-to-richard-woychik-d...
Are you sure the estimates of the fluoride intake and fluoride consumed respectively are wildly incorrect in light of this? This isn't the best source of information but using data from here (https://www.teausa.com/teausa/images/Tea_Fact_2021.pdf) you can put the estimate at the number of cups of green tea consumed by the average US citizen at 0.1 per day. This is definitely concerning for someone drinking lots of green tea but I don't think it invalidates the statistics. The EPA study also does account for tea consumption, stating in some contexts it forms the highest component of fluoride intake from beverages.
For the second article, this is interesting information and I can see causes for concern in the study (there were multiple hick-ups in the peer review process), and ideally high-quality randomised control trials would form the basis for a conclusion. But what is your opinion on policies of water fluoridation in light of this (I know you are a different commenter than who I was replying to, and don't expect your opinion to be the same)? Is it that people should be focussing on studying its (potentially harmful) effects in light of iodine exposure within regions? The link you posted, written by members of Parents of Fluoride-Poisoned Children, states that:
> As fluoride toxicity is directly related to iodine status - and iodine toxicity to fluoride status -, both mass-supplementation programs require urgent reassessment on a global scale.
and also asks:
> Furthermore, we call for the proper evaluation of the toxicity of fluoride on neurodevelopment based on the extensive body of evidence that addresses the impact on iodine and thyroid hormone metabolism.
They (Andreas Schuld) also state in a later article (https://substack.com/home/post/p-139843513) that: > We also learned that most of the research linking fluoride to thyroid dysfunction had been actively suppressed by public health agencies worldwide, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), as well as the U.S. CDC, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the NTP, and the EPA.
For the second article, this is interesting information and I can see causes for concern in the study (there were multiple hick-ups in the peer review process), and ideally high-quality randomised control trials would form the basis for a conclusion. But what is your opinion on policies of water fluoridation in light of this (I know you are a different commenter than who I was replying to, and don't expect your opinion to be the same)? Is it that people should be focussing on studying its (potentially harmful) effects in light of iodine exposure within regions? The link you posted, written by members of Parents of Fluoride-Poisoned Children, states that:
> As fluoride toxicity is directly related to iodine status - and iodine toxicity to fluoride status -, both mass-supplementation programs require urgent reassessment on a global scale.
and also asks:
> Furthermore, we call for the proper evaluation of the toxicity of fluoride on neurodevelopment based on the extensive body of evidence that addresses the impact on iodine and thyroid hormone metabolism.
They (Andreas Schuld) also state in a later article (https://substack.com/home/post/p-139843513) that: > We also learned that most of the research linking fluoride to thyroid dysfunction had been actively suppressed by public health agencies worldwide, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), as well as the U.S. CDC, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the NTP, and the EPA.
Attention everyone: This is not just some kooky conspiracy theory anymore. We have federal rulings against the EPA on this matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation...
The US court system is not a good arbiter of scientific accuracy. I'd trust the EPA a lot more here.
paulnpace(1)
It’s very simple - when it suits your argument, Trust the Science and go with the government position.
When it doesn’t, say they courts and the regulators are captured and crooked.
When it doesn’t, say they courts and the regulators are captured and crooked.
The NSA can’t regulate itself - it needs court oversight. Courts are allowed to decide what matters to national security and what doesn’t, despite not being agents.
The Police can’t regulate themselves - they need court oversight. Courts are allowed to define what is acceptable policing and what is not, despite not being police.
The EPA can regulate itself and understands science. Courts aren’t allowed to weigh in because they aren’t scientists. The EPA is a morally upright actor, all other government agencies aren’t.
A perfectly rational position. (I say that with extreme sarcasm - it’s malarkey.)
The Police can’t regulate themselves - they need court oversight. Courts are allowed to define what is acceptable policing and what is not, despite not being police.
The EPA can regulate itself and understands science. Courts aren’t allowed to weigh in because they aren’t scientists. The EPA is a morally upright actor, all other government agencies aren’t.
A perfectly rational position. (I say that with extreme sarcasm - it’s malarkey.)
The EPA was already significantly more subject to judicial review than the NSA, even prior to Chevron deference falling.
The cops are theoretically subject to it, but in practice... nah, mostly not. They receive at least Chevron-levels of deference for things like "I feared for my life!" or "he was coming right at me!" or "I thought it was a gun!" or "based on my experience and training the suspect was acting suspiciously" sort of expert claims.
The cops are theoretically subject to it, but in practice... nah, mostly not. They receive at least Chevron-levels of deference for things like "I feared for my life!" or "he was coming right at me!" or "I thought it was a gun!" or "based on my experience and training the suspect was acting suspiciously" sort of expert claims.
The conspiracy theory component isn't that there is some downside to fluoride in water, it's that the government did it for nefarious purposes.
Of course it depends on whether the target demographic has adequate access to fluoride by other means, such as toothpaste.
A similar case might be iodine in table salt. A lot of salt available in America is iodized on purpose. We don't do that where I live, where the usual diet is already rich in iodine. There is no single right answer, only a cost-benefit analysis for each location.
A similar case might be iodine in table salt. A lot of salt available in America is iodized on purpose. We don't do that where I live, where the usual diet is already rich in iodine. There is no single right answer, only a cost-benefit analysis for each location.
Both tea leaves and California rice have fluoride also; absorbed by the plants as they grow.
Foreign sources of rice have to pass tests for fluoride while California rice is exempt, from my understanding.
Foreign sources of rice have to pass tests for fluoride while California rice is exempt, from my understanding.
People drink a cup or two of tea a day while they drink more than 2 liters of water a day. It's a magnitude difference.
Plus, drinking tea or eating California rice are completely optional. While you have to go through a filtering process to get ride of fluoride.
Plus, drinking tea or eating California rice are completely optional. While you have to go through a filtering process to get ride of fluoride.
There are definitely people who drink a lot of tea or eat a lot of rice in California.
Sure, if only there were studies measuring their IQ.
Plus, the strongest effects of fluoride are on kids and kids might drink 0 to half a cup of tea a day.
Plus, the strongest effects of fluoride are on kids and kids might drink 0 to half a cup of tea a day.
This isn't really something new - it's been known for a long time that fluoride needs to be on the surface of the teeth to work. In jested fluoride doesn't do anywhere near as much.
So fluoride toothpaste, or even better fluoride rinse's are much more effective.
So fluoride toothpaste, or even better fluoride rinse's are much more effective.
axpy906(2)
This better not result in another push by the Pacific Northwest about removing fluoride from drinking water. Don't rest on your laurels people, complacency leads down the path of rotting from within. It's not as useful because it's working, the things we are doing are working, keep them up. Fight tooth decay.
Comments like this are the clearest sign that this topic has become so politicized that rational judgement is out the window. If fluoride in the water is opposed by *those people*, or is supported by *those people*, then even if new clear evidence comes out one way or another, it will be undermined by not wanting to hand the other side a ‘W’.
In an era where conspiracy theories are rampant, yeah, I'm kind of averse to letting conspiracy theorists win anything.
I'm not going to put myself in danger to avoid it. But when the evidence is marginal, social factors are something I'll take into account.
Even if there is indeed a problem with fluoridated water, it only shows up in a small effect that requires a large sample to see. The conspiracy theorists were guessing, even if they guessed right. And they ignored the data that had been gathered.
Science changes its mind, but conspiracy theorists never do. They accumulate, and it looks to me as if we're about to drown in them.
I'm not going to put myself in danger to avoid it. But when the evidence is marginal, social factors are something I'll take into account.
Even if there is indeed a problem with fluoridated water, it only shows up in a small effect that requires a large sample to see. The conspiracy theorists were guessing, even if they guessed right. And they ignored the data that had been gathered.
Science changes its mind, but conspiracy theorists never do. They accumulate, and it looks to me as if we're about to drown in them.
We literally just got a ruling against the EPA on fluoridation as being dangerously risky levels. As even The Guardian admits, it’s possible there actually is something to the claims of danger.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation...
Of course, the EPA would never live it down if the anti-fluoridation people actually had something to their claims. However, I’m not the EPA. If they were wrong, screw them.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation...
Of course, the EPA would never live it down if the anti-fluoridation people actually had something to their claims. However, I’m not the EPA. If they were wrong, screw them.
That’s not an accurate summary of the ruling. The ruling orders the EPA to re-evaluate the safety of fluoridation, but does so because the statutory evidentiary standard here is preponderance, not overwhelming evidence.
(It’s also not a ruling “against” the EPA. It’s entirely consistent with the statute, and the EPA will presumably act in accordance with it and produce yet another study demonstrating marginal-to-zero harm associated with fluoridation below 1.5mg/L.)
(It’s also not a ruling “against” the EPA. It’s entirely consistent with the statute, and the EPA will presumably act in accordance with it and produce yet another study demonstrating marginal-to-zero harm associated with fluoridation below 1.5mg/L.)
"The EPA now must perform a risk assessment that is among the first steps in setting new limits under the Toxic Substances Control Act."
What's stopping them from coming back with the same or higher acceptable levels of that's where the evidence leads?
What's stopping them from coming back with the same or higher acceptable levels of that's where the evidence leads?
You are only feeding the growth of conspiracy theories if, when confronted with one that is true, you continually deny it. If they see actual evidence being denied, they think there’s something there.
I'm not planning to deny evidence. But I don't think the conspiracy theorists need my help to think there's something there. If I don't give them something they will just make something up. That is the definition of a conspiracy theory.
Mate, you've just outlined what I'd describe as a conspiracy theory:
You've decided to weigh social factors over evidence because you believe the other side isn't behaving rationally.
You've decided to weigh social factors over evidence because you believe the other side isn't behaving rationally.
kelipso(1)
How about brush your teeth with fluoride and spit it out instead?
Fluoride in the water impacts the development of teeth. Portland, where I live, is the last major city to not have fluoride in the water.
So kids have to take tablets if they want the impact. But this is far less effective.
Ask a dentist here. Locals have more tooth decay.
So kids have to take tablets if they want the impact. But this is far less effective.
Ask a dentist here. Locals have more tooth decay.
Since we're doing anecdotes, my kids grew up on well water and have never had cavities or tooth problems. They (most of the time) brush their teeth daily, eat sugary crap, and get fluoride treatments applied yearly from the dentist (they "paint" a gel on the kids teeth, I believe this is standard in the US for all children regardless of water fluoridation).
I’ll note that this anecdote can cut both ways: well water is just as likely to have more fluoride than fluoridated municipal water, since fluoride is naturally occurring, soluble, and commonly found in rock formations that also hold water.
What are the measured natural flouride levels of the well water you referenced and how did they compare to the municipal water supply?
What about genetic predisposition to cavities?
What about genetic predisposition to cavities?
> Portland, where I live, is the last major city to not have fluoride in the water.
Kind of depends how you track things I'd think. New Jersey, the state with the highest population density in the US, largely doesn't put fluoride in the water outside of a few municipalities.
There's no fluoride in the water in almost the entirety of Hudson, Essex, and Bergen counties, which are located near NYC and include the cities of Newark and Jersey City. Combined population of those three counties is over 2.5 million people.
Kind of depends how you track things I'd think. New Jersey, the state with the highest population density in the US, largely doesn't put fluoride in the water outside of a few municipalities.
There's no fluoride in the water in almost the entirety of Hudson, Essex, and Bergen counties, which are located near NYC and include the cities of Newark and Jersey City. Combined population of those three counties is over 2.5 million people.
Tablets that the kids ingest?? After so much evidence of the neurotoxic effects of ingested fluoride, it's worse than criminal if these dentists are giving fluoride for kids to eat.
Other American cities without fluoride in their water include Tucson, Wichita, Fresno, Albuquerque and San Jose. I wonder how their teeth are doing.
Check again.
San Jose’s added it.
Albuquerque added it.
Fresno removed it after having it.
Tucson and Wichita does not - but Tucson’s level is about 50% of the recommended level.
By comparison Portland’s is 3%. Probably why dentists see high level of tooth decay here.
By comparison Portland’s is 3%. Probably why dentists see high level of tooth decay here.
Looks like San Jose got it in the late 2010s (2017/2019 timeframe).
There are lots of people on HN from that area - hopefully someone can comment on the general state of children / people's teeth prior to then.
Or people could just not eat carbs and there would be no need for this debate at all.
Carbs are the base of civilizations. With the exception of herders or raiders every large population of humans was/is sustained by plant starches.
That actually does not refute GP, rather, it changes the conversation to "do we want to preserve civilization". The cynic would note that many have demonstrated in the past year that they are willing to sacrifice civilization.
With that said, the author commits the two cardinal sins of public health journalism: they allow dangerous levels of a substance to be conflated with recognized safe levels, and they confuse value for a sub-sample of the population (those who can/do use fluoride toothpaste and go to the dentist regularly) with value for the entire population.
The latter in particular is why water fluoridation in areas with low natural fluoride levels is sound public health policy: it helps the population as a whole, even when not all segments can or will obtain appropriate dental care.