☝️🤓

Or as the saying goes in biotech: "everything works in mice".

There has been many more studies on fluoride, none of which have shown that that the low concentrations of fluoride added to drinking water has any negative health effect.

Again, there have not been any randomized control trials testing the efficacy of fluoride in drinking water compared to other delivery methods.

It depends on the area you're dealing with. In some countries, it's more cost effective to put fluoride in the water supply, while in others, fluoride toothpastes are more effective. In Germany, they put fluoride in iodized salt!

Did you just not read my comment? The reason isn’t cost, it’s not that expensive to add fluoride.

The reason is we wouldn’t be adding anything to drinking water if there were better alternatives. If we started again with today’s standards, no scientist would recommend fluoridated drinking water.

Yeah, it caused my third eye to totally crust up. To be fair I was barely using it anyway.

I did that on school sports day when my trainers fell off mid-run.

The reason isn’t cost, it’s not that expensive to add fluoride.

In many countries, particularly in developing nations, fluoridation of water is too expensive (since you need the infrastructure for it), and fluoride toothpastes are preferred instead. But in industrialised countries, where infrastructure for managing the water supply already exists, fluoridation of water is more effective. Places where tap water is more readily available (like the U.S., much of Western Europe, Canada, Ireland, etc.) will also be more likely to adopt the fluoridation of water.

The reason is we wouldn’t be adding anything to drinking water if there were better alternatives. If we started again with today’s standards, no scientist would recommend fluoridated drinking water.

Fluoridation of water still helps to prevent tooth decay, and in regions where it is cost-effective, it is a great benefit to public health! Of course, fluoride toothpastes are great, but it's not the best solution for everywhere.

much of Western Europe, etc.) will also be more likely to adopt the fluoridation of water.

Citation needed.

Of course, fluoride toothpastes are great, but it's not the best solution for everywhere.

Why not? Or more specifically, why is this insufficient in the US? Are there studies comparing the efficacies?

Decreasing number of cavities in children != increasing IQ

IQ only measures the ability to solve problems and pattern-match. And I would assume IQ tests are taken after cavities are dealt with.

To give an example, it's the same thing as if you tried to give an IQ test to someone who, in the past, has had a bacterial infection. Then, when the person is perfectly healthy, you give them an IQ test once, then some antibiotics, then another IQ test giving the same result as the first. You would not conclude that antibiotics are ineffective and should be banned!

The study suggests no change in IQ values, not no change when it comes to protecting your teeth. To copy an example from a previous comment:

IQ only measures the ability to solve problems and pattern-match. And I would assume IQ tests are taken after cavities are dealt with. It’s the same thing as if you tried to give an IQ test to someone who, in the past, has had a bacterial infection. Then, when the person is perfectly healthy, you give them an IQ test once, then some antibiotics, then another IQ test giving the same result as the first. You would not conclude that antibiotics are ineffective and should be banned!

much of Western Europe

Correction added to my comment, it looks like that for most of Western Europe, fluoridation in water is not common. That was a mistake and I acknowledge that, and I have edited my comment to reflect that.

However, Ireland and England both implement the fluoridation of water. In particular, 73% of Ireland's population drinks fluoridised water

https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2016/04/13/water-fluoridation-what-it-is-and-how-it-helps-dental-health/ (UK)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4081215/ (Ireland)

Additionally, so does Canada:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/healthy-living/fluoride-factsheet.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/community-water-fluoridation-across-canada.html

Why not? Or more specifically, why is this insufficient in the US?

Well, for one, tap water is readily available in the U.S., making fluoride super accessible to a large portion of the population! Also, fluoride toothpastes exist in the U.S. too, why can't we have both? Both are effective at preventing tooth decay, perhaps toothpaste moreso (and there are studies that show that, you can easily search for yourself I think), but both help to prevent cavities.

I saw a test that found Zero filters increased microplastics 10x or something like that.

For your information if you think fluoridation of water is bad:

Fluoride in the water is the opposite of bad, it’s good for your teeth. It’s in toothpaste for a reason! There is no reasonable evidence that fluoride causes any major health problems, in fact, the fluoridation of water is dubbed as one of the largest public health accomplishments in a while. In addition, the fluoride added to water is miniscule, tiny, far far too low in concentration to be toxic. 0.7-1.2 mg / L is the range that most countries that implement water fluoridation add to their water supply. For reference, the WHO recommends 1.5 mg / L as the upper limit. Additionally, in many places, the groundwater has fluoride levels a bit higher than that.It also occurs in plenty of foods naturally too (fruits, seafood, spinach, etc.)

Some more information of fluoride:

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/11195-fluoride

https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/prevention/about-fluoride.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000291652334718X

In many countries, particularly in developing nations, fluoridation of water is too expensive (since you need the infrastructure for it), and fluoride toothpastes are preferred instead. But in industrialised countries, where infrastructure for managing the water supply already exists, fluoridation of water is more effective.

Ireland and England both implement the fluoridation of water. In particular, 73% of Ireland’s population drinks fluoridised water

https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2016/04/13/water-fluoridation-what-it-is-and-how-it-helps-dental-health/ (UK) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4081215/ (Ireland)

Additionally, so does Canada:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/healthy-living/fluoride-factsheet.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/community-water-fluoridation-across-canada.html

Other solutions to provide fluoride have also been pursued, such as in toothpastes (already mentioned), iodized salts, and milk. They each have varying effectiveness depending on the country.

TLDR:

• Fluoride added to water is too low to pose any significant health problems
• There are no studies to suggest that the 0.5-1.5 mg / L range that the WHO promotes is dangerous
• It's not just the U.S., fluoridisation of water is present in Ireland, England, and Canada
• For the countries that do not pursue adding it to water, fluoridation is done through toothpastes, iodized salts, and milk
• Different strategies of fluoridation are pursued because some are more effective than others for that given region (e.g. toothpastes are more viable than treatment of water in developing nations)
• Fluoride is already present in many natural sources (fruits, veg, groundwater, etc.) and is safe in the recommended low concentrations (need to reiterate this!)

Arguing with internet people took many hours away from my life, so now I will redirect any silly discussion to this comment instead.

@CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
@fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world
@pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
@MrFappy@lemmy.world

Here you go

Quack

One of the highest quality shitposts I've ever seen. Bravo!

Again. I'm arguing for the benefits of fluoridation...

Many prior studies link reduced teeth rot to mental wellness, cognitive function, less cardiac issues, lower risk of stroke, less inflammation, less depression, and on and on.

There's cross species studies on this.

Feeding pigs sweets "taints the meat" and the hogs start acting weird, often violent, and antisocial.

And indeed, trans species obvious basic biology... Diabetes is real. Etc. Excessive sugar doesn't just rot teeth, it rots the whole body, including the brain.

Wtf?

frongt noted that the fluoride is beneficial (for preventing tooth decay), while you state that the study denies this. This is untrue, as it just shows that fluoride doesn't affect IQ (which primarily focuses on measuring logical thinking). It does not look at how it protects against cavities, there are plenty of studies on that already!

It’s the same thing as if you tried to give an IQ test to someone who, in the past, has had a bacterial infection. Then, when the person is perfectly healthy, you give them an IQ test once, then some antibiotics, then another IQ test giving the same result as the first. You would not conclude that antibiotics are ineffective and should be banned!

Your argument would replace bacterial infection with cavities and antibiotics with fluoridised water. Like the example with antibiotics, it is not a reasonable conclusion to state that no change to IQ = fluoridation in water is ineffective.

why can't we have both?

Because drinking water is a basic need and should not be medicated when it’s not even a great way to apply the medicine.

Note that while the risk of issues from proper dosing is low. Improper dosing can and does occur. Sandy City, Hooper Bay, Richmond to list a few. When you improperly dose community water you’re affecting everyone using the water.

If toothpaste or mouthwash was improperly dosed, it would be mostly spit out and the risk is minimized while also maximizing exposure to the enamel.

So, drinking a lot of fluorinated water will turn me into a duck. Got it.

Would I still weigh as much as a woman, then? Asking for science reasons.

No, they're making fun of the people who believe in astral projection and such. They believe that our pineal is calcified and that's why we don't have psychic abilities.

They're definitely doing a bit.

How can you tell?

It's just too on the nose to be serious.

Given their reaction, it feels like there's too much depth for it to be a joke.

People don't even know fluoride in municipal water supplies is a waste product of fertilizer production.

There has never been a reason to drink fluoride because it works topically. Ingesting it has no benefit and causes unsightly fluorosis.

It is a poison if diluted enough doesn't really cause any problems just like diluting any poison enough.

The entire case for adding to water supply relies on no brushing or dental care because if you brush and have dental care there is no measurable difference by also having it in the water.

It is unnecessary and dumb to do in a modern country.

I don't understand why this is such an issue. The water isn't fluoridated where I live and there is no resulting epidemic of dental caries. It's not a problem in developed nations.

What’s happened is that there have been tons of conspiracy theorist claims against water fluoridation. These claims are not based on any scientific evidence.

However, valid criticism has also been suppressed and in the process fewer studies have been conducted. The topic has been highly politicized, especially recently.

Arguing with internet people

Everyone would be better off if we remembered what the internet is really for