Comment on flouride

RQG@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• RobotToaster@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

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

  source

  • Hylactor@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

    source

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      They like the lead, though!

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

      source
  • 5oap10116@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

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

    source

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone ⁨22⁩ ⁨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’n coming in contact with teeth

      source

      • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨22⁩ ⁨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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Ferrous@lemmy.ml ⁨22⁩ ⁨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.

    source
• NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world ⁨22⁩ ⁨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?

  source

  • Alteon@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Mate, your entire second paragraph is completely false. Like, you need to just read this: www.nidcr.nih.gov/…/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.

    source

    • NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • winterayars@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        In 1945, Grand Rapids became the first city in the world to fluoridate its drinking water.The Grand Rapids water fluoridation study was originally sponsored by the U.S. Surgeon General, but was taken over by the NIDR shortly after the Institute’s inception in 1948. During the 15-year project, researchers monitored the rate of tooth decay among Grand Rapids’ almost 30,000 schoolchildren. After just 11 years, Dean- who was now director of the NIDR-announced an amazing finding. The caries rate among Grand Rapids children born after fluoride was added to the water supply dropped more than 60 percent. This finding, considering the thousands of participants in the study, amounted to a giant scientific breakthrough that promised to revolutionize dental care, making tooth decay for the first time in history a preventable disease for most people.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• FreshLight@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

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

  source

  • RQG@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    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.

    source
• ryannathans@aussie.zone ⁨22⁩ ⁨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

  source

  • we_avoid_temptation@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Citation needed

    source
• mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

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

  source

  • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee ⁨19⁩ ⁨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.

    source
• Mango@lemmy.world ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

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

  source