← Back to context

Comment by naasking

21 days ago

The source of fluoride is irrelevant, the effect of fluoride is cumulative. If you're getting half of the "harmful dosage" just from your water, you're much more likely to pass that threshold than if the water had no fluoride. In nations with easy access to fluoridated toothpaste and where dental hygiene is common, the cost-benefit is not at all clear.

7 comments

naasking

Reply
fzeroracer  21 days ago

If the source of fluoride is irrelevant, then shouldn't fluoridated toothpaste also be banned as a result of harmful dosages? Even assuming someone spits out said toothpaste, they are still increasing the fluoride levels in their body.

  • Thorrez  21 days ago

    The US government isn't forcing people to use fluoridated toothpaste. There's plenty of non-fluoridated toothpaste available if people want it.

    Also: fluoride works topically, not when ingested. That implies we should try to deliver fluoride to teeth in a way that is focused on topical application (toothpaste), not ingestion (water supply).

  • dcow  21 days ago

    Nobody is banning fluoride. They’re just deciding not to include it by default in the drinking water.

    • moate  20 days ago

      "The bill, signed by Cox on Thursday, prohibits communities from adding fluoride to their public water supplies.

      The law does not mention any public health concerns related to the mineral, but Republican state lawmaker Stephanie Gricius - who introduced the bill in the state legislature - has argued that there is research suggesting fluoride could have possible cognitive effects in children."

      You're lying through some linguistic convolution. What you said is wrong on a factual level. Communities cannot decide to include fluoride in their water, as that is banned, so fluoride is banned from Utah water. This is what words mean