A U.S. government report expected to stir debate concluded that fluoride in drinking water at twice the recommended limit is linked with lower IQ in children.
The report, based on an analysis of previously published research, marks the first time a federal agency has determined — “with moderate confidence” — that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. While the report was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoride in drinking water alone, it is a striking acknowledgment of a potential neurological risk from high levels of fluoride.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
“I think this (report) is crucial in our understanding” of this risk, said Ashley Malin, a University of Florida researcher who has studied the affect of higher fluoride levels in pregnant women on their children. She called it the most rigorously conducted report of its kind.
at twice the limit do bad things?
i call water fluoridation bullshit, i don’t care what anyone says. of all things, why force everyone to consume this toxic chemical, especially when there’s no way to know how much an individual is drinking, and also especially since the dose inevitably gets fucked up.
The Cochrane report also concluded that early scientific investigations on water fluoridation (most were conducted before 1975) were deeply flawed. “We had concerns about the methods used, or the reporting of the results, in … 97 percent of the studies,” the authors noted. One problem: The early studies didn’t take into account the subsequent widespread use of fluoride-containing toothpastes and other dental fluoride supplements, which also prevent cavities. This may explain why countries that do not fluoridate their water have also seen big drops in cavity rates (see chart).
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/
i find it MUCH more likely that fluoride, as a toxic waste industrial by product was just sold to the public as a “miracle” cure for cavities, so that corporations could sell it to the taxpayer, rather than pay to have it disposed of
it’s the same shit as the “recycling solution” to plastic waste that was sold to us by…plastics manufacturers. which also turned out to be complete bullshit
edit: since no one’s offering a substantial defense of mandatory fluoridation without consent, i’m going to bed. enjoy your drain bamage
people can’t stand the thought that maybe they’ve been misled their entire life
I learned all of that myself decades ago at Uni. I had a high level water class and we were supposed to do a one-hour presentation on a topic of our choice.
During my research to come up with a topic for the lecture I read an article about a small town in Canada that ran out of fluoride for their water supply. The article cited a downturn in fertilizer production as the culprit.
I was very confused at first. Going to the EPA website revealed that fluoride was a naturally occuring compound in water supplies. No mention of how you could run out of something naturally occuring in water.
I went on a trip with the class to a water plant. I asked the operator there about fluoride. He explained they added it to the water and it was not naturally occuring.
This lead me to discover that fertilizer plants sold their toxic waste product to municipalities instead of disposing of it properly. Mind blown. Furthermore the research proving fluoride in the water supplies prevented cavities was flawed at best.
My research indicated that fluoride causes a developmental delay which results in teeth eruption about two years later than normal. So fluoride poisoning makes it look like your teenage teeth have fewer cavities but they are just not as old.
Once you looked at these same teeth later on there was no real difference. So the benefit of having your teeth erupt later disappeared as you got older. Which makes a lot of sense.
There is no clinical reason to ingest pharmaceutical grade fluoride let alone the toxic shit that comes from the scrubbers of fertilizer plants. There is no mechanism to return fluoride to your teeth except maybe throwing up before it has been absorbed.
My presentation went great. Everyone was fascinated and I got a near perfect score. I am not a fluoride hater because fluoride works great topically.
The truth is astounding and the amount of pushback I have gotten explaining all this on the Internet has been ridiculous to say the least.
I mean, the best public health alternative to water fluoridation would be to impose limits to how much sugar is allowed in foods and force changes in marketing, since sugar consumption is one of the biggest causes of dental problems
i agree with this, and funny enough, i’ve heard people complain about soda machines being removed from schools because, of course, “they’re taking away my kid’s FREEDOM to drink cokes all day!!”
You can do a whole house RO system if you really care, but you need to be mindful that it can have serious downsides if the RO water sits in the pipes for too long while you are away from your house (Bad bacteria).
RO removes everything- the minerals that help your mouth healthy, the chlorine or chloramine inhibiting bacterial growth in your pipes, heavy metals and microplastics and PFAS that could be in the water (though this is null and void if your housepipes are plastic or lead or treated with PFAS)
…generally, unless you are living with extremely dangerous water, or you have massive aquariums that need more than a kiddie pool of water a week, you don’t need RO systems.
The same assholes made us take lead out of gasoline. Which also is a possible explanation for you.
Fluoride does strengthen teeth. However, this study shows that maybe dentists should be administering it (A dentist handed me a mouthwash with it, and literally I had a choice of a daily one or a weekly one, and since it’s mouth wash, you’re supposed to spit it out. So clearly it can be applied to the teeth without needed to be ingested at all)
without needed to be ingested at all
that’s the point-- lots of things are beneficial–why force a chemical that can so easily be overconsumed on everyone without asking if they want it? people think their teeth are going to fall out if they don’t drink fluoride. fine–why not sell it as a product that people can choose to purchase if they want it, instead of dumping it in the water supply?
Iodized salt was basically that. Soldiers turning up for WWI had lots of problems due to missing things in the diet.
Having a method of distribution that requires no effort and, perhaps more importantly, virtually no cost helps those who are often otherwise missed and forgotten by the systems in place. “Just have a dentist apply it” doesn’t work when you’re too poor for the dentist and/or have no way to get to one.
Because not everyone is like you. Not everyone has the eeucation you do. Not everyone has the same means to buy beneficial stuff. Not everyone takes the kind of care they should of their children.
Flouridated water, by most accounts, has had a really positivie impact on public health.
We should do our best to make sure our water supply is well funded and monitored. Unfortunately, more and more water systems are privatized and clean drinking water and corporate profits don’t seem compatible to me.
But we should be pragmatic and clear eyed. I worry to see phrases like “I don’t care what anyone says” in a scientific context.
