513
As bans spread, fluoride in drinking water divides communities across the US
(kffhealthnews.org)
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
513 points (98.7% liked)
News
23287 readers
3581 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Please do your own research, as this is a very controversial subject which has been fought since its inception, with entrenched opinions. Here's a primer:
Most of the research done on fluoridating tap water was done in the early 1940s & 50s, well in advance of modern dental hygiene and fluoridated toothpaste use. Studies do definitively show applying fluoride directly to teeth does strengthen tooth enamel, but modern studies are mixed, at best, regarding efficacy of fluoridated tap water between equivalent socioeconomic communities. No studies have been conducted regarding dermal absorption of fluoride , believed to further elevate intake.
I think the simplest solution is to let people choose for themselves, and add fluoride to their personal drinking water if that's what they choose.
We don't need to fluoridate water in our toilets, showers, or irrigation.
I just want to point out that too much of anything is bad, because that's what "too much" means. Saying "but too much of x is bad" is such a dumb argument, that I always bring this up.
The delta between fluoride levels considered "theraputic" and "harmful" (per the WHO) is quite small. The most effective use of fluoride is topical (applying to teeth) rather than oral.
can you provide sources for these claims?
i have not been able to find any conclusive evidence on fluoride being a carcinogen. in fact, im finding many reputable sources saying that’s still an open question.
i also can’t find a reliable source on the IQ claims.
the other claims are also fairly dubious as well.
Of course not, what do you think independent research is?? Find your own sources!
/S just in case
The website in the article, had anyone read it without their personal bias scoffing at the title and going straight to comments, contains much of this info - I recommend giving it a gander.
98% of Europe doesn't fluoridate their water. IATP provides statistics and primary concerns: https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Facts_about_Fluoridation.htm
Per the NIH: "Children in endimic areas of fluorosis are at risk for impaired development or intelligence": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3409983/ Note: the “high” level in the report below is easily achievable by a standard diet and recommended water intake, assuming fluoridated water is both ingested and used in food processing and cooking. This excludes exposure via fluoride toothpaste.
Fluoride and cancer: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3283934/
I'm all for continued study on fluoride's effects, but I'm not totally convinced on all these points.
It seems like most studies showing negative IQ effects are attributed to naturally high concentrations of fluoride in drinking water, or elevated levels due to nearby coal burning. It's certainly significant to know that there are toxic levels of fluoride, but recommended levels have been adjusted to be about half of that (though the exact threshold of toxicity is fuzzy).
So yes, we need to be careful about the amount of fluoride in our water, but removing it completely (excepting natural presence) may be throwing the baby out with the fluoridated bath water, as it were.
The main reason I'm against removing it completely is because it's not clear that it isn't helping prevent tooth decay, especially for those who don't have the means to get directly applied fluoride (i.e. Toothpaste and dentist applied coatings) and wouldn't have the means to add fluoride to their water on an individual basis.
The best available scientific information is that it does help, and it’s the most cost effective way of doing so
"The authors conclude that available evidence suggests that fluoride has a potential to cause major adverse human health problems, while having only a modest dental caries prevention effect": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/
^ I think this logic needs to be reversed - the burden of proof must be abundantly clear with few to no risks before it should be considered. The paper above also highlights interesting aspects about the initial test which spurred water fluoridation in the US. This was also a time in which broad public awareness of dental hygiene was first entering mainstream - was the causality due to amended tap water, or more tooth-brushing?
There's a reason most of Europe (and most of the world) doesn't fluoridate their water, and their teeth are statistically healthier than the USA & Australia, where most tap water is fluoridated.
In my opinion the water fluoridation debate has become associated with nut-job conspiracy theorists and the "don't tread on me" crowd. There are legitimate concerns, and the debate has been ongoing prior to Roswell, etc. There are literal conspiracies diluted in public perception/sentiment by wacky theoretical conspiracies and the types who espouse them.
That's the thing, the proof has been that fluoridated water helps teeth. The data is old, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect. As for European countries, at least according to Wikipedia, not many of them artificially fluoridate their water, but some of them have naturally high levels of fluoride in their water and some others provide fluoride via salt or milk.
Here's a study that compares oral health and cognitive decline across varying levels of water fluoridation (natural or artificial) in Sweden. The data finds positive oral health outcomes and no significant impairment associated with higher fluoride levels. Obviously this directly contradicts your linked study, so what are we to believe? I think the only conclusion we can really come to is that more research needs to be done.
It's also not surprising that tooth health has generally improved with the rising availability of toothpaste and other dental care, but I think what remains to be seen is, are we at the point where we no longer need fluoridated water, or would our tooth health overall decline without it, particularly among vulnerable populations? Particularly in countries like the US where oral healthcare is often prohibitively expensive and not usually covered by general health insurance, is it wise to cut off the small amount of freely available dental help we have before finding a suitable alternative?
That seems like a pretty significant qualifier.
Very little of our tap water actually touches human stomachs too, but we still make sure it isn't filled with amoebas.
Without chlorination people would get sick and possibly die. Amoebas & bacteria can enter our bodies when showering or even flushing a toilet - via aerosolization. Chlorination is also important for the water infrastructure itself, and to prevent buildup within home pipes and appliances.
Should we put multi-vitamin compounds in our drinking water too? It is strange that this one thing is added to water vs the host of other compounds which are shown to benefit human health.
Sure, why not? If they can be absorbed by the body that way and do some good, what's the problem?
Do you consider water to be medicine, or a resource? Why don't we add caloric value to our tap water too, for the sake of malnutrition in impoverished communities?
Because not everyone benefits from extra calories, but as long as you don't include vitamins that you can't take too much of as long as it is in small quantities, what's the harm?
I was being facetious and think your argument is completely preposterous, but continuing for fun. Let's say you are dictator of your loyal subjects, and decide to medicate their water with... vitamins, including copper. What if someone is sensitive to added copper, either because of damage to their copper plumbing, copper cookware, or a metabolic issue? What if someone is working outdoors in the summer heat and consumes 2 gallons of water per day, but begins to experience symptoms of copper toxicity due to the volume of water intake? The water is excreted, but our bodies do not excrete most excess vitamins, such as copper. This copper intake then causes an imbalance/deficiency of zinc and subsequently magnesium.
Should we add prozac/SSRIs to our water to thwart depression and make the populous happier?
Most of the world doesn't medicate their water, and their citizens are surprisingly healthier than us in the US & Australia where we "medicate" our water. How about we give people access to clean, pure water and let them supplement as they & their doctors see fit?
I like how you ignored the "as long as you don’t include vitamins that you can’t take too much of as long as it is in small quantities" and moved on to "what if someone takes too much?"
You're ignoring the overarching debate, but fine I'll address your nit-picky distraction.
"Small" is a relative term, and to the amounts that would be harmless in all situations would have negligible health benefits, to the point of questioning "why bother". Also even small quantities add up, such as the example of 2-gallon consumption on a hot day. What isn't controversial or subjective, though, is pure water.
The simplest solution is usually best - instead of a one-size-fits-all "medicated" water approach, just take a multivitamin that works best for your individual biology and preferences... assuming you can't consume foods which contain the variety of compounds our bodies need, being the ideal solution. Even the USDA recommendations for vitamins & minerals are mere guesstimated guidelines which varies per individual & lifestyle.
How do you know all of this? From where did you get your pharmacology degree?
Pharmacology implies drugs or synthetic compounds. The RDA stats are officially "guidelines" - Just ask your doctor or nutritionist to explain the fuzzy landscape to you, as well as the interactions & interplay between various compounds as they're processed & stored by your body. Perhaps get a CBC to determine what you specifically need; they're usually covered by insurance (assuming you're in the states).
In other words, you have no actual academic expertise in this area and are playing armchair doctor.
This is the internet, friend. I could be a nobody, a deputy commissioner at the FDA, or a published researcher. Your mind will not change either way.
You could be, but given the chance to say if you had any medical expertise in this area, you declined. That's not my fault.
No offense, but you're not worth the compromise of my privacy. Good day, fellow time-waster.
Yes, that's the issue. Believable. Because anyone could figure out who you are if you said something like "I have a biology doctorate."
But you clearly don't have any expertise in this area and you can't even admit it.
Does being this stupid hurt?