Comment by mdorazio
21 days ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you made multiple strong claims without a single citation or study link. We could have a better conversation with data to look at. There's a decent (though somewhat biased) review of the debate in [1]. It's worth noting that if you read the linked studies there closely you'll find the truth is, as usual, nuanced. Specifically, that "fluoridation is a population-level caries preventive strategy" [which may or may not be effective at the individual or small community level due to other factors]. I.e., good at the national level for statistically significant reduction of tooth disease incidence, but at less-aggregated levels the confounding factors like diet and how often/well people brush their teeth are going to be bigger determinants of efficacy.
It's also worth nothing that 1) over-fluoridation is pretty bad and can affect poor or malnourished communities (ex, [2]); and 2) there are alternatives to fluoride that may be equally effective with fewer risks at higher concentrations (ex. nano hydroxyapatite).
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2222595/
[2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1064338060067811...
That's a whole lot of words for you acknowledging that I'm right. Fluoridated drinking water, at the appropriate levels, has no effect on IQ.
Would you like to debate the reality of anthropogenic climate change next? This will be another area where any links you dig up will only point to a single conclusion.
> Fluoridated drinking water, at the appropriate levels
Going to hijack this comment to ask about something I've always wondered: how robust are "appropriate" drinking levels to the different things you can reasonably expect people to do with the water? Not all water is simply drunk as is.
For example, I like to make beans in my slow cooker. This involves simmering them for 9 or 10 hours, periodically adding more water. In theory, this will increase the concentration of fluoride because the fluoride doesn't boil off while the water does. I assume, based on how much water I need to keep adding, this could double the fluoride concentration. Is that still appropriate levels? What about a cup that has been left out such that a lot of the water evaporates? That won't increase the amount of fluoride, but will increase its concentration.
I have to assume the "wiggle room" they build into the fluoridation rate handles these cases, but it's been hard to find any details on it since most of the results are about stuff like boiling water removing fluoride or turning it into poison fluorine gas and stuff.
Nevertheless, every time I see discussion where people talk about safe levels, I wonder how that works with all the things people do with water other than just drinking it as is.
And how does the fluoride get in the water? Our water tastes strongly of chlorine because we are near the treatment plant and they put in enough so that it’s still effective at the edges of the system. I don’t know if fluoride works the same way, but what makes people think it’s always added at exactly the right levels?
1 reply →
If there were issues, they’d appear at population level studies. Lots of people boil coffee, tea, potatoes, rice, etc. and, as far as I know, are not suffering brain damage as a result.
You missed the point. It’s not objectively true in all situations that if you don’t believe fluorinating water is necessary that you’re an a-scientific bad faith actor. One can argue the opposite position in good faith, reasonably. Your statements very strongly supposed that this is a solved case closed topic and any challenges are not supported by evidence. The response was that there is nuance and a better conversation would acknowledge it.
> You missed the point. It’s not objectively true in all situations that if you don’t believe fluorinating water is necessary that you’re an a-scientific bad faith actor.
That's not what was being debated. What was asserted was that fluoride in water lowers IQ, a position that has been so thoroughly debunked at this point, that if, much like being anti-vax or thinking climate change doesn't exist, any continued movement reinforcing it is almost by definition bad faith. The information exists and short of purposely going out and looking for contrarian nonsense relative to the established position of science on the subject, you and everyone else can find it.
As frustrating as it is that "do your own research" has been basically ruined as a phrase by the professional internet bullshitter industrial complex, you really should, with a nod to the need for critical analysis of sources, an important part of that that frequently gets left to the side.
> Your statements very strongly supposed that this is a solved case closed topic
Because it is, and we need more of that and less endless citation. Not because citation is impossible or bad, but because we don't need to keep arguing every last point. If you think certain things, like fluoride lowers IQ, or that climate change doesn't exist, you are not needing an intellectual rebuke, you're needing enough people making fun of you that you stop spouting horseshit and go learn about things. All of humanity's knowledge is at your fingertips. It is not the responsibility of reasonable people to educate you against your will.
5 replies →
The "let's have a nuanced debate and use reason and intellect" bias is useful in most contexts. Bold claims, hot takes, that's the future. Citations can be ai'd now.
Please define appropriate levels and then cite some evidence that proves with high certainty that level is safe.
For the sake of argument, assume that only 1% of the US has levels that harm IQ. Would it not be worth it to remove fluoride from the water to improve the intelligence of 1% of the population? Especially when you consider we can get fluoride from toothpaste?
[flagged]