You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
268 points
*

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 we need longterm studies to learn about. That makes them harder to study.

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

permalink
report
reply
115 points

Yeah, by this argument lead in the water isn’t a concern.

permalink
report
parent
reply
110 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They like the lead, though!

(Probably. I mean, they did in Flint, MI…)

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Removing fluoride won’t break the water. However, it may break our teeth.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

Yeah but lead bioaccumulates where as fluoride/ine doesn’t

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

lead poisoning becomes evident pretty early though doesn’t it? (With respect to kids)

I would think that the ratio of persistent exposure to unsafe level has got to be easily higher in cases like Flint than any fluoride-in-the-water usage. Just speculation on my part.

What measures are taken to avoid screwing up the dosage, anyone know? Maybe predilute so that an oops requires multiple buckets instead of vials?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Citation needed

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

To which? These are all pulled from research, just need to know which so I don’t waste my time pulling up something you’re not questioning

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Mate, your entire second paragraph is completely false. Like, you need to just read this: https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/fluoride/the-story-of-fluoridation

It’s considered by the CDC as one of the greatest Public Health Achievements of the last Century. There have been dozens, if not hundreds of studies about fluoride affects in the water supply.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah that proves my point entirely.

In 1945 they fluoridated the first public water supply.

In 1979 the first published research began to appear to show how fluoride might be able to remineralize dental enamel.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

In our area, the only water supply WITH Fluoride serves an area with a median HOUSEHOLD income of less than $40k with more than 25% living below the poverty line. For communities like these the fluoride is critical because there will be a lot of children that don’t have access to fluoride supplements, or regular care from a pediatric (or regular) dentist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah, it seems to me like he got the right idea and wanted to convince people by making an extreme statement…

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

That might well be the case. I’m not sure if it is helpful to use those half truths which are simpler to convince certain people. Or if it weakens the point because it is in the end not really correct.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

We probably have enough A/B data now to make some inferences yeah? Compare countries with fluoridated water to countries without.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

yes and some of that data is already in other comments here

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You can get even more granular than that. CDC maintains a list of water systems and whether or not they add fluoride. CDC My Water System. To give you an idea of how granular that is, there are 78 different water systems in my county alone. For most of my life I assumed we had fluoridated water but apparently only 1/78 of our water systems are. I only checked when we had kids and I needed to know whether or not I needed to give them Fluoride Drops.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This. How can we be completely certain that something isn’t damaging over the long term. I’m not anti fluoride, but healthy debate and scepticism is a good thing, especially when we’re all forced to consume a substance with the only alternative being dehydration and death. People need to be free to make their own choices.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

never the concern

It is when you’re responding to people who think 5G is turning the frogs gay and activating hidden vaccine microchips.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Science Memes

!science_memes@mander.xyz

Create post

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don’t throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.2K

    Posts

  • 51K

    Comments