• Brickhead92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 hours ago

      And both of these people telling me about fluoride in water are both experts in their field. One an expert toxicologist, and the other an expert liar. Now I don’t know what to believe.

  • affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 hours ago

    i know this guy has a fancy degree and everything, but is he really as reliable a source as rfk junior? you don’t need fluoride when you have an army of worms ready to eat any kinds of bacteria that may enter your system.

  • zephorah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Next headline will be how fluoride contributes to autism and it will have just as much evidence as the vaccine bit does. How is this even a thing? Is ground zero on this RFK?

    Meanwhile, all the people who can’t afford dentists will have even worse teeth going forward. Make America’s teeth British again.

    • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Well look at the statistics:

      Fluoride:

      • Water fluoridation in the United States began in the 1940s
      • By 1949, nearly 1 million Americans were receiving fluoridated tap water
      • In 1951, the number jumped dramatically to 4.85 million people
      • By 1952, the number nearly tripled again to 13.3 million Americans
      • In 1954, the number exceeded 20 million people
      • In 1965 an additional 13.5 million Americans gained access to fluoridated water.
      • By 1969, 43.7% of Americans had access to fluoridated tap water.
      • In 2000, approximately 162 million Americans (65.8% of the population served by public water systems) received optimally fluoridated water
      • 2006: 69.2% of people on public water systems (61.5% of total population)
      • 2012: 74.6% of people on public water systems (67.1% of total population)

      Autism:

      • First recognised in the 1940s
      • During the 1960s and 1970s, prevalence estimates were approximately 0.5 cases per 1,000 children.
      • Prevalence rates increased to about 1 case per 1,000 children in the 1980s.
      • 2000: 1 in 150 children
      • 2006: 1 in 110 children
      • 2014: 1 in 59 children
      • 2016: 1 in 54 children
      • 2020: 1 in 36 children

      Seems pretty clear cut to me.

      /s because people are stupid enough to think I posted this in seriousness.

      • webadict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 hour ago

        This is, and I don’t say this lightly, one of the dumbest conclusions I’ve ever seen someone jump to.

        Might as well say that fluoride in the water caused software developers, lmao.

      • Redex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        55 minutes ago

        Damn, I guess fluoridated water also then caused computers, world population growth and the eradication of polio.

        Idk if this is a troll post or this person never heard of the fact that correlation does not equal causation.

        Case and point.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        59 minutes ago

        Not sure if you’re being sarcastic but if not, then I’m about to blow your fucking mind

        STOP EATING RICE!

        NAME YOUR DAUGHTER SARAH, IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THE AMAZON! AND WHATEVER YOU DO…

        …DO NOT NAME THEM TRISTEN

        If we shut down flights to Antarctica, inflation would’ve been solved yesterday.

      • DevopsPalmer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Let’s ignore the better diagnosis processes and just take two trending upward statistics and make a broad correlation and call it fact.

  • RQG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    169
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Toxicologist here. I think that take is dishonest or dumb.

    Taking a lethal dose is almost never the concern with any substance in our drinking water.

    Hormones, heavy metals, persistent organic chemicals, ammonia are all in our drinking water. But for all of them we can’t drink enough water to die from a high dose.

    Some of them still have a large effect on our bodies.

    It’s about the longterm effects. Which longterm studies to learn about. That makes them harder to study.

    Still doesn’t mit flouride does anything bad longerm. But the argument is bad.

      • Hylactor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        63
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        You just made me mad by helping me realize that the Trump bros are going to break water by removing fluoride long before they fix water by removing lead.

        • ryannathans@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Are you sure fluoride doesn’t? It does accumulate in the soil, building up in crops. Considering fluoride exposure from all sources, many people are above upper safe limits, even from tea drinking alone

          I don’t think fluoride should be added to water as it just pollutes the environment, where 99.99% of water isn’t coming in contact with teeth

          • marcos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            5 hours ago

            It doesn’t. This is high-school chemistry.

            Fluoride only “accumulates” up to the peak concentration of the environment (no further) on places where it is removed from contact with that environment.

            You can only accumulate fluoride in the soil if you keep adding it and there is almost no rain to wash it away.

            • ryannathans@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              Like how crops are irrigated with town water, and in many areas with lowering rainfall? Accumulates in fruit, vegetables, leaves too

              • marcos@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Yes, irrigation with the minimum possible amount of water is known to destroy land for millennia at this point. But sodium will be a problem way before you notice any change in fluoride.

      • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Yup, same with PFAS and forever chemicals. Maybe I’m ignorant because I’m not a doctor, but I don’t know if this line of thinking holds water - pun not intended.

    • NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It’s so funny I was just having a similar conversation about neurotoxic venomous animals in another thread. Lethality is an obviously concerning threshold, but there are substances out there that can easily destroy your quality of life and livelihood that never reach the concern of being lethal.

      I think for mostly rational people concerned about fluoride in their water is that it was a public health decision made with little to no actual science proving it’s safety or efficacy when it was first decided that they were going to add it to the public water supply. The proposed benefits of it weren’t even supported by scientific evidence, it was just supposed that exposure to sodium fluoride could potentially reduce tooth decay for some.

      Personally, I’ve suffered from the cosmetic damage of dental fluorosis, and I’m not necessarily thrilled about fluoride. But I have way more issues with public mandates founded on pseudoscience than I am with sodium fluoride. Especially now that we can see evidence that for some people fluoride can be especially beneficial.

      So what was wrong with giving people the option of using fluoride toothpaste or mouthwashes… Why did it have to go into the public water supply?

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Fluoride does have long term effects though once you consider fluoride exposure through all sources like diet, which is mostly due to fluoride from water ending up in farmland. Tradesmen alone regularly exceed the upper limits due to high water consumption in hotter seasons

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Also, isn’t it recommended to not give infants fluorided water, hence why you can buy it in virtually every grocery store?

      • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Pretty much anything you can think of is recommended by someone, because different people have conflicting views. The key is to choose whose recommendations are based on the best reasoning & evidence aligning with your goals.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Also “because I’m an expert and I say so” is a good way to convince someone to let you poison them.

  • MidnightPocket [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I had the misfortune of eavesdropping on a conversation recently where some guy who was working in a bourgeoisie brewing facility recently switched jobs to work at a waste water treatment center and he was advocating for removing fluoride from water with a level of rationale that I have to assume he picked up from co-workers parroting information they heard on the Joe Rogan podcast.

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    The fluoride added to water gets it up to 0.7mg/liter.

    That ends up to be 2 or 3 drops in a 55 gallon drums worth of water. Not much.

    Fluoride is a natural substance and is found in many areas drinking water already. Many areas in much higher concentrations than 0.7mg/liter, so realistically people all over the world have drank fluoridated water for thousands of years.

    You have to well over double the 0.7 before any health issues may appear and the first to appear is at about triple the concentration in kids under 8 years old who drink it for years getting spots on their teeth. The spots are only superficial.

    Going into concentrations even higher than that CAN cause health issues when drank for longer periods of time. All of those cases being from naturally occurring fluoride, which actually effects somewhere north of 20% of the world’s population.

    Which makes the argument that fluoride in our water keeps us passive as being extra stupid, since water sourced around Columbia (the country) is far higher than .07mg/liter and Columbia seems to be caught in violence and turmoil and instability quite a bit over the decades.

    *edit: Colombia

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Its presence in groundwater is how we discovered it’s good for teeth.

      In fact, there used to be so much in some areas,it actually stained the teeth. In Colorado Springs a dentist noticed that the children were developing brown stains on their teeth. In researching it, it was discovered that the “Colorado Brown Stain” was caused by excessive fluoride in the drinking water. But it also lead to the discovery that regions with natural fluoride present but in lower levels than Colorado Springs didn’t have stained teeth, but did have lower levels of tooth decay.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Yep. In fact, 21% of the world’s natural drinking water used falls within the recommended range for fluoride, while over another 20% is higher and in some countries actually does cause some non-superficial side effects and problems. Those don’t pop up until in concentrations at least 3 times higher than recommended.

    • Reyali@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Small note: the country name is spelled “Colombia,” and spelling it correctly means you don’t need to specify which one!

  • Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Toxicology isn’t a real profession. These people are run by big toxicity. For real water advice you want a homeopath.

  • solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    It’s not about toxicity, it’s about mind control! Fluoride makes you passive. But you know this since you’re a tool of the government pushing poison.

    Just bleach your teeth like normal people! You know, with the bleach under the kitchen sink.

    (Don’t actually do this)

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The real Chads use raw organic free-range non-GMO pesticide-free lemon juice with baking soda. It’ll leave your teeth as white as they’ll be sensitive! Keep it crunchy. You’re welcome.

    • Raymond Shannon@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Like the ol’ General said / s

      We can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

      Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      And that’s why you should only drink grain alcohol and pure, natural rain water. To preserve the essence of your precious bodily fluids.

      </s>

  • thesmokingman@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I want someone who knows about these things to respond to this 2012 metastudy that ties naturally fluoridated groundwater to neurological problems. I have used this the past decade to say “well the science is unclear;” I found it back then (2013 at the latest) when I was trying to disprove a crank and really questioned my shit. There was a(n unrelated?) follow up later that questioned the benefits. Since this is very far from my area of expertise, I’m not championing these; I just want to understand why they’re wrong or at least don’t matter in the discourse.

    (Edit: for the educated, there could be a million ways these are wrong. Authors are idiots, study isn’t reproducible, industry capture, conclusions not backed up by data, whatever. I just don’t have the requisite knowledge to say these are wrong and therefore fluoridated water is both safe and useful)

    Update: great newer studies in responses! You can have a rational convo starting with these two that moves to newer stuff.

    • macarthur_park@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 hours ago

      There’s a follow up meta study from 2020.:

      In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.

    • SuperIce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 hours ago

      A study in Canada was published in 2019 looking at the differences between 2 neighboring cities where on stopped fluoridating water in 2011. They saw that saw a significant increase in cavities in children in the city that stopped fluoridating vs the other. This is despite the fact the the city without fluoridation actually has somewhat higher adherence to brushing, flossing, and going to the dentist. No difference was seen yet in permanent teeth, but that’s because the study would need more time to see effects there.

      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12685

      Of course, we still should do more studies on fluoride neurotoxicity. Most studies look at levels of fluoride at 1.5mg/L or higher, which is more than double the recommended level by the US (0.7 mg/L). There is a hard limit in the US of 4mg/L, but the EPA strongly recommends a limit of 2mg/L. This only really matters for locations with very high levels of fluoride in the groundwater, and is thus quite rare. The EU’s limit is 1.5mg/L.

    • tehmics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I also came across the same study while looking to disprove a conspiracy nut. We should really do more research on the effects of fluoride.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The Harvard geneticists little opinion piece she wrote completely ignores all the direct evidence that was gathered back then, about how cavities always decreased in fluoridated areas when compared to neighboring cities that hadn’t yet done so.

        Also, yeah, it’s bad for you in large doses. Literally anything is bad for you in large enough doses.

      • thesmokingman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It looks like someone else linked one of these studies in a different comment while I was writing my own. I don’t feel as crazy now. I don’t care one way or another; I just want to make sure I can respond correctly! I wonder if the emphasis on fluoridated water is itself linked to industry capture?

        • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I managed to catch myself good old Periodontal Disease. This freaked me out. My anxiety and ADHD shook hands and many of you can imagine what happened.

          A couple days and who knows how many hours later I emerged like a butterfly from my self-imposed isolation with new knowledge. In short, yes, the amount of fluoride in water processed in various districts across the U.S. is tiny. The amount used does vary. Some studies have concluded that excess fluoride can have an effect on brain activity. However, they have been inconclusive in drawing actual parallels between any form of neurological functioning - though I can’t remember if I’ve read that particular study.

          Anyway, remember who is yelling about this. As with many issues brought up like this it’s more about standing on a hill and shouting rather than any real significant problem. A platform to be seen and heard.

          Btw, I completely halted my Periodontal and even reversed some of the lesser effects it had. Sometimes that adhd rabbit hole comes in handy.

    • Chuymatt@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The Takeaway I’m getting from both of these studies being talked about Is that things are very unclear. The Cochrane group is very well regarded for conducting Meta studies and finding flaws in previously held understandings. The term high fluoridation is mentioned many times, and it’s unclear what that is meaning.

      Vitamin A is an incredibly important molecule to many biological processes in the human body, but we do not want to supplement it, aggressively, as it can become toxic. Fluoride is noted to be beneficial for enamel hardening. No one is recommending taking large amounts of it. The second link you have points out the important questions, what is the actual danger, and who is in danger the most?