Comment by jsbisviewtiful
20 days ago
There isn’t any. The very little research showing any effects on cognitive abilities are experiments using very high fluoride levels - nowhere near the levels in water. Like most conservative “stances”, it’s a farce.
Why did many European countries discontinue fluoridation? https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/11/23/trump-could-push-...
> However, in 1973, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that there was no legal basis for fluoridation…. The debate hasn’t been meaningfully revived since then, Hofman told Euronews Health. "People started to say, ‘Well, the government should not give us some medicine [when] we cannot choose where to buy our drinking water from," she said.
That’s the “little c” conservative viewpoint. You don’t need to prove it’s harmful. The default should be not putting chemicals in everyone’s drinking water.
but youre taking chemicals out right? and lots of water has natural flouride?
there is definitely an argument for an optimal amount of minerals in water being non zero (not only because having it that clean would be practically expensive) but also because we benefit from natural minerals. now if some natural water source isnt as good as another one, why not correct it? we have the technology.
especially at the community level. the little c stance should be to let communities decide, not ban it from the top down.
100% the treatment plant is adjusting for the natural amount of flouride to meet specific target PPM
4 replies →
Why does the “little c” conservative look to Europe when convenient, hmm?
> Why did many European countries discontinue fluoridation?
Could it have something to do with the increasing use of fluoridated toothpaste?
Probably. But why take fluoride out of the water?
1 reply →
Do not discount the tendency of Europeans to be wellness hippies.
Thanks for sharing the link. Learned something new today.
Nobody tell him what chemicals were put in his drinking water to produce it. This might be the dumbest sentence uttered yet.
How do you prove no effect on any bodily system long term? People don’t like to talk about it, or they pretend otherwise, but this is basically impossible.
If the benefit is great enough then the risk makes sense. That is the case in a lot of areas. Is it worth taking a risk of an unknown effect somewhere in the body in exchange for… a marked but not even drastic reduction in cavities…? Not sure…
Fluoride stays in your body, should be some way to measure it?
The bitch about scientific studies is you can’t find what you don’t know to look for. That has to be part of the trade off calculus when deciding what substances to introduce to our internal environment.
5 replies →
Fluoride rapidly forms a highly insoluble calcium fluoride salt. So you won't find a lot of it in blood or other easily accessible body fluids.
3 replies →
This stance is a bit confusing...
When it comes to things like radioactivity we assume a linear no threshhold model (e.g. that lower concentrations still have effects, just our measuring tools aren't good enough to detect it) and spend billions as a result. Why wouldn't we do the same for flouride?
Thanks. I guess then my next question is, why are they doing this? Whom is it benefiting? Big Water?
It doesn’t always have to monetarily benefit anyone. It’s just fringe leaders playing to fringe ideas in this case
Is there scope to believe they just think it may be better not to have it in the water?
By default, we should not add anything to the water.
The burden of proof should be on the people who want to add it. Because that is extra cost, extra chemical. If they can't prove it, then we don't do it.
> Is there scope to believe they just think it may be better not to have it in the water?
Are you asking if there's room to believe it's just a sincere "everything you eat or drink should stay untouched, like it's found in nature" belief? OK sure, let's go with that. So why aren't they working to dismantle water treatment plants altogether and e.g. fighting against modern industrial farming practices in that case?
6 replies →
Dentists are going to make a lot of money filling so many more cavities.
I'd like to point out that fluoride was previously very much a liberal stance until the rise in MAGA/Qanon conservatives.
I grew up in the PNW of the USA and lots of small hippie towns have been removing fluoride for decades. It comes up on city ballots every year in Oregon.