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
3670 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
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?