Adding fluoride to water has always seemed weird to me, since you can't control for how much water someone is drinking or account for different bodily factors like age and weight. I wonder why the European solution of adding it to salt isn't the default, especially given that iodized salt is already so popular and commonplace.
As a general rule of thumb, I think it's interesting to scrutinize dosage recommendations and compare regulations between countries. If someone claims that the science on some topic is well settled then health officials in multiple countries should arrive at roughly similar results. If there's a discrepancy between the suggestions made by health officials in the US and EU, it's worth asking why.
No, fluoride must not be added to any food or beverage, because it provides no benefits whatsoever when ingested.
Fluoride is beneficial only when applied externally on the dental enamel, so that the fluoride ions will passively substitute the hydroxide ions. There is no known biological process that uses actively fluoride in the human body and excessive ingested fluoride has bad effects, e.g. bone damage.
Therefore fluoride must be added only to tooth paste and mouth washes, which provides all the benefits and none of the risks.
Intentionally ingesting fluoride is incredibly stupid and it is beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated by law in USA and in some other countries which imitated USA irrationally.
I think the obvious answer is, we can’t actually tell one way or the other if it is a net benefit. However, humans can’t handle uncertainty so must be told in confident tones that the decision is the correct one. If anyone questions the established decision, they must be discredited.
It's been a popular and wide spread conspiracy theory that the "shadow government" is either trying to lower the IQ or the total population numbers using fluoride in the water supply. And since politicians don't get chosen on a basis of competency, but rather popularity, you have the vast majority being relatively severely logically challenged and thus unable to read scientific papers and understand complicated topics like child dental care.
No credible scientific evidence exists that ingesting fluoride is beneficial.
Whenever you point this out, people respond with studies that focused on topical application. This topic is weird. Otherwise intelligent people shut down and begin quoting movies from the 1960’s, and are somehow incapable of distinguishing between a topical mouthwash and oral consumption.
Might as well drink sunscreen and talk about the reduction in lip skin cancer.
Omg, no wonder my teeth are getting worse after moving to Amsterdam. I drink a ton of water and use Maldon salt. I didn’t realize there wasn’t fluoride in the water. (All the Nutella isn’t helping either, but… ooh, maybe that’s a reasonable vector for Europeans)
The CDC recommends breastfeeding infants, as breastmilk contains significantly less fluoride than fluoridated drinking water. If breastfeeding is not possible, the CDC also endorses using fluoridated water in infant formula, though it suggests mixing the formula with low-fluoride bottled water to lessen the risk of dental fluorosis.
Infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated tap water can have three to four times higher fluoride exposure than adults, warned Lanphear. He added that before an infant's teeth erupt, there's no benefit to fluoride exposure. "There are vulnerable groups we have to be worried about," he said, "and that's not being brought out adequately by these agencies."
Hmm, its been a while since I worked in the area of dental fluoride (was part of my PhD) but my understanding was systemic exposure pre-eruption was still beneficial. This (possibly biased source) agrees:
As a biochemist, this seems to be a very complex issue that has been unnecessarily politicized. What happened with this report is interesting in and of itself, but I would not draw any conclusions (or make any inferences) from this, frankly.
As someone who comes from an area with clean fresh water, that does not contain added fluoride, this is not a complex issue. It's simply not a question that comes up. People have good dental hygiene here.
To my mind, yes sure you can over complicate the entire debate, but all of that is irrelevant in the face of these basic points:
- Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health?
- Can tooth decay be prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste?
Presumed safety of chemicals (at the behest of organizations) to human/environment until proven otherwise is shocking to me.
They irony of all this is that if you want to buy good quality toothpaste you are forced to import it from overseas, due to the FDA limiting ingredients in toothpaste.
Besides being politicized, views on this issue will also be affected by personal experience. I've lived much of my life in Oregon, where there is no fluoridation. It seems to be widely believed by dentists here that people growing up in Oregon have poorer teeth and that it's largely because of the lack of fluoridation. I'm not arguing the merits, just pointing out the cultural belief.
Twenty years ago, I moved from Michigan (a state that uses fluoride) to Mississippi (a state that doesn't use fluoride). My dentist at the time told me that I was going to end up with tooth decay if I stayed down there for more than a few years. Sure enough, five years later I moved back to Michigan and ended up with a cavity in an unusual place. My (new) dentist in Michigan was completely unsurprised.
He said there are two problems with tooth decay in Mississippi:
1. They don't use fluoride in their water.
2. No decent dentist would ever work in Mississippi.
Fifteen years later, with no changes in dental hygiene in my entire life, and I've had no other problems with my teeth. Anecdotal evidence, maybe. But that is my experience.
It's in other products instead. I think it depends on the country, but usually salt and toothpaste. I don't think there are any developed countries that have stopped fluoridation entirely.
And I am happy to live in a country that doesn't fluoridate its water. That way I can just wait out the whole scientific and political discussion and start drinking fluoridated water when it has finally and conclusively has been proven that it's beneficial. I suspect it wont be though, because it seems like the real scientists are saying no and the political scientists are saying yes.
> In vitro and in situ studies are demonstrating promising results of HAP toothpastes on the remineralization of enamel lesions and preventing/reducing demineralization. Specifically, research appears to demonstrate either its superiority or equivalency to fluoride toothpaste as anti-caries agents.
I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
Regardless of whether I'm on or off base in that regard, I see little reason to continue to use something that - at best - will only react with pre-existing enamel, when hydroxyapatite toothpastes can actually fix damage (albeit to a limited degree).
> I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
"CITIZEN, please check yourself into a fema retraining facility! The government is there to serve us all for the greater good."
Nevermind the double speak, where the term 'the greater good' means the good of those people who consider themselves to be greater than you.
So we know that there is definitely little benefit from ingesting fluoride, and also that we can not rule out negative effects from ingesting fluoride. This seems like... a bit of a big deal?
There are lots of "big deals" in the environment that we silently tolerate -- things which studies conclusively and repeatedly show are substantially detrimental:
* Roadside air pollution
* Lead pipes
* Indoor CO2 buildup
Studies relating to flouride are nowhere near as conclusive and show nowhere near the same magnitude of effect. If flouride is contributing negatively in a similar way, it's doing so to such a small extent that it very nearly falls within the margin of error. Anyone genuinely worried about flouride should consider double-checking that they've already taken more meaningful action regarding their health, such as going on a walk, getting a full night's rest, or opening a window.
Not from ingestion, but exposing the enamel periodically during the day to fluoride and having trace amounts of it on your saliva supports remineralisation.
This seems like it is ultimately a result of the politicization of the issue: it becomes difficult to have an honest conversation of the merits and demerits of something if you know there’s a political faction ready to seize on everything you say and take it out of context. Not saying that makes it right, but it’s an outcome we could anticipate, I think.
This extensive review has been available since 2006:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-...
Neurotoxicity, especially in the presence of iodine deficiency, which is common, has been clearly documented. Toothpaste level exposure is enough to lower IQ in iodine deficiency.
>> This January, Birnbaum issued a scathing legal declaration as part of the lawsuit, writing, "The decision to set aside the results of an external peer review process based on concerns expressed by agencies with strong policy interests on fluoride suggests the presence of political interference in what should be a strictly scientific endeavor."
with
>> Despite this unusually rigorous review process, a network of health officials and influential dental groups argued that the NTP had failed to address several issues raised by the NASEM review committee.
Health officials and dental groups have interest on fluoridation for political reasons? I don't buy it!
I would imagine a self interst focused dental and profeccional helthcare group would argue for the decrease of fluoridation so more income comes from the work on decayed teeth. If it is meant of interest of their patients then that is just desirable! Also health officials and dentists are not the typical polititian group I picture in my mind. I'd sooner call them scientists than politicians. (if meant about scientific politics then should say so - including themselves and that why they push despite widespread scientific critics).
I am telling this with having only topical use of fluoride - with good results -, and with no desire for water fluoridation but also knowing that topical may not be sufficient enough for children and the broad population.
Somehow the feeling is that the NTP and Birnbaum is the manipulative and polititian here. Just a felling though, based on this limited and filtered report, but based on quotes.
I once found myself stuck in a biker bar west of Dallas. I had to listen to this old timer Hell’s Angel go on and on about fluoride conspiracies. Some of them are pretty wild - “fluoride is created by nuclear weapons construction as waste and the government has to get rid of it somehow, so in the water it goes” for example. The rest of the evening is a little hazy but I remember that.
Incidentally, I used to think Hell’s Angels were just retired dentists.
I wonder why it's been so difficult to stop blanket water fluoridation. Maybe something to do with corpos having a cheap way to dump toxic waste from fertilizer production that would otherwise be expensive to dispose of:
>The three fluoride additives used for water fluoridation are derived principally from phosphate fertilizer production.
Plus we don't just drink fluoridated water- we bathe in it, we cook with it, our pets drink it, we water our lawns with it, its everywhere. I recall trying to find studies on the effects of these non-drinking uses years ago and not finding much. Again, I wonder why.
It's fascinating. Having gone through 301 comments and there really hasn't been any deep discussion at whether or not fluoride has been linked to brain harm.... There are little debates about drinking water. I'm disappointed..I'm gonna to have to do some digging.
>But the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times the current recommended water fluoridation level, records show.
This is more a report about consuming excess fluoride from other sources that water.
>Because many common foods and drinks contain fluoride, consuming them along with fluoridated water could amount to harmful exposure levels, these experts say.
I do wonder what the other common food and drinks could be
This guy posted a video a few weeks ago, claiming to be sick from being over exposed to chlorine in drinking water in Mexico. He believes the combination of highly chlorinated drinking water and swimming daily in a chlorinated pool caused his symptoms.
My friend is convinced her autistic child was over exposed to aluminium or other metals...but maybe it was fluoride. These things need to be investigated.
We know that Lead exposure is widely known to cause harm to the brain, so other metals could have similar effects. Babies having a much smaller mass, would be much greater risk of ingesting toxic amounts or slow dose environmental exposure through things like aluminum cookware.
A substance might not be toxic on its own, but in combination with another substance in the environment could be highly toxic, but affect only some small percentage of people that come in in contact with both.
Like we know many prescribed drugs, can't be mixed with alcohol, because they become toxic if you do.
Fluoride increases precipitation of calcium onto tissues. It's very straightforward. Some parts of the brain are directly exposed to the blood and get easily calcified. In particular, parts of the brain associated with regulation of circadian rhythm are known to get calcified in the presence of higher fluoride. This has been known and understood for a long time.
I'd like to take this as an opportunity to voice frustration with "rationalist skeptics", who for the longest time have ridiculed critics of mass water fluoridation. Maybe it's because they're really into the comforts of orthodoxy moreso than skepticism?
Using bullying and ridicule to reinforce unfounded scientific/medical orthodoxy in the name of "skepticism", or even in the name of "evidence" that you don't have... It isn't scientific no matter how much you'd like to believe it is.
Health officials, believe it or not, are like any other human beings - in that they also have their own agendas and sometimes those agendas may be in direct opposition to the well being of others. I am surprised that anyone is surprised when news like this comes out.
Looks like the future neuralink test subjects have come into force against fluoride.
But of course people forgot the history of water fluoridation and the risks of dental cavities
(of course, for modern countries I guess it makes more sense to have it in dental products than just in tap water, but I don't buy the moral panic)
> The report found that a link between typical levels of fluoride added to water and possible harm to brain development is unclear... the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times
Well good think we are at the current level and not at two times it then
[+] [-] TheAceOfHearts|2 years ago|reply
As a general rule of thumb, I think it's interesting to scrutinize dosage recommendations and compare regulations between countries. If someone claims that the science on some topic is well settled then health officials in multiple countries should arrive at roughly similar results. If there's a discrepancy between the suggestions made by health officials in the US and EU, it's worth asking why.
[+] [-] adrian_b|2 years ago|reply
Fluoride is beneficial only when applied externally on the dental enamel, so that the fluoride ions will passively substitute the hydroxide ions. There is no known biological process that uses actively fluoride in the human body and excessive ingested fluoride has bad effects, e.g. bone damage.
Therefore fluoride must be added only to tooth paste and mouth washes, which provides all the benefits and none of the risks.
Intentionally ingesting fluoride is incredibly stupid and it is beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated by law in USA and in some other countries which imitated USA irrationally.
[+] [-] osigurdson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shrx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathanwh|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Garvi|2 years ago|reply
It's been a popular and wide spread conspiracy theory that the "shadow government" is either trying to lower the IQ or the total population numbers using fluoride in the water supply. And since politicians don't get chosen on a basis of competency, but rather popularity, you have the vast majority being relatively severely logically challenged and thus unable to read scientific papers and understand complicated topics like child dental care.
[+] [-] newZWhoDis|2 years ago|reply
Whenever you point this out, people respond with studies that focused on topical application. This topic is weird. Otherwise intelligent people shut down and begin quoting movies from the 1960’s, and are somehow incapable of distinguishing between a topical mouthwash and oral consumption.
Might as well drink sunscreen and talk about the reduction in lip skin cancer.
[+] [-] irthomasthomas|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dr_dshiv|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taskforcegemini|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeezfrk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|2 years ago|reply
The CDC recommends breastfeeding infants, as breastmilk contains significantly less fluoride than fluoridated drinking water. If breastfeeding is not possible, the CDC also endorses using fluoridated water in infant formula, though it suggests mixing the formula with low-fluoride bottled water to lessen the risk of dental fluorosis.
Infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated tap water can have three to four times higher fluoride exposure than adults, warned Lanphear. He added that before an infant's teeth erupt, there's no benefit to fluoride exposure. "There are vulnerable groups we have to be worried about," he said, "and that's not being brought out adequately by these agencies."
[+] [-] s0rce|2 years ago|reply
https://www.dentalcare.com/en-us/ce-courses/ce334/pre-erupti...
Excess exposure can cause fluorosis but nothing to do with the brain.
[+] [-] CrampusDestrus|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epgui|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yeeeloit|2 years ago|reply
To my mind, yes sure you can over complicate the entire debate, but all of that is irrelevant in the face of these basic points:
- Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health? - Can tooth decay be prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste?
Presumed safety of chemicals (at the behest of organizations) to human/environment until proven otherwise is shocking to me.
They irony of all this is that if you want to buy good quality toothpaste you are forced to import it from overseas, due to the FDA limiting ingredients in toothpaste.
[+] [-] wrp|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zackees|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mkoubaa|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vallismortis|2 years ago|reply
He said there are two problems with tooth decay in Mississippi:
1. They don't use fluoride in their water. 2. No decent dentist would ever work in Mississippi.
Fifteen years later, with no changes in dental hygiene in my entire life, and I've had no other problems with my teeth. Anecdotal evidence, maybe. But that is my experience.
[+] [-] snovymgodym|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esperent|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BurnGpuBurn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Blackthorn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metadat|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yarg|2 years ago|reply
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/ - Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8930857/ - The use of hydroxyapatite toothpaste to prevent dental caries
> In vitro and in situ studies are demonstrating promising results of HAP toothpastes on the remineralization of enamel lesions and preventing/reducing demineralization. Specifically, research appears to demonstrate either its superiority or equivalency to fluoride toothpaste as anti-caries agents.
I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
Regardless of whether I'm on or off base in that regard, I see little reason to continue to use something that - at best - will only react with pre-existing enamel, when hydroxyapatite toothpastes can actually fix damage (albeit to a limited degree).
[+] [-] verisimi|2 years ago|reply
"CITIZEN, please check yourself into a fema retraining facility! The government is there to serve us all for the greater good."
Nevermind the double speak, where the term 'the greater good' means the good of those people who consider themselves to be greater than you.
[+] [-] paddw|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nuzzerino|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koheripbal|2 years ago|reply
Dose makes the poison. Literally any chemical in sufficient dose is poisonous
[+] [-] chaorace|2 years ago|reply
* Roadside air pollution
* Lead pipes
* Indoor CO2 buildup
Studies relating to flouride are nowhere near as conclusive and show nowhere near the same magnitude of effect. If flouride is contributing negatively in a similar way, it's doing so to such a small extent that it very nearly falls within the margin of error. Anyone genuinely worried about flouride should consider double-checking that they've already taken more meaningful action regarding their health, such as going on a walk, getting a full night's rest, or opening a window.
[+] [-] xk_id|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] valianteffort|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] emodendroket|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dm808|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ycombinete|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mihaaly|2 years ago|reply
with
>> Despite this unusually rigorous review process, a network of health officials and influential dental groups argued that the NTP had failed to address several issues raised by the NASEM review committee.
Health officials and dental groups have interest on fluoridation for political reasons? I don't buy it!
I would imagine a self interst focused dental and profeccional helthcare group would argue for the decrease of fluoridation so more income comes from the work on decayed teeth. If it is meant of interest of their patients then that is just desirable! Also health officials and dentists are not the typical polititian group I picture in my mind. I'd sooner call them scientists than politicians. (if meant about scientific politics then should say so - including themselves and that why they push despite widespread scientific critics).
I am telling this with having only topical use of fluoride - with good results -, and with no desire for water fluoridation but also knowing that topical may not be sufficient enough for children and the broad population.
Somehow the feeling is that the NTP and Birnbaum is the manipulative and polititian here. Just a felling though, based on this limited and filtered report, but based on quotes.
[+] [-] hammock|2 years ago|reply
Edit: why am I being downvoted for this?
[+] [-] LispSporks22|2 years ago|reply
Incidentally, I used to think Hell’s Angels were just retired dentists.
[+] [-] cheeseomlit|2 years ago|reply
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/engineering-sho...
>The three fluoride additives used for water fluoridation are derived principally from phosphate fertilizer production.
Plus we don't just drink fluoridated water- we bathe in it, we cook with it, our pets drink it, we water our lawns with it, its everywhere. I recall trying to find studies on the effects of these non-drinking uses years ago and not finding much. Again, I wonder why.
[+] [-] bob_theslob646|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kukkeliskuu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yownie|2 years ago|reply
This is more a report about consuming excess fluoride from other sources that water.
>Because many common foods and drinks contain fluoride, consuming them along with fluoridated water could amount to harmful exposure levels, these experts say.
I do wonder what the other common food and drinks could be
[+] [-] dukeofdoom|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeWdEr1XyTw
My friend is convinced her autistic child was over exposed to aluminium or other metals...but maybe it was fluoride. These things need to be investigated.
We know that Lead exposure is widely known to cause harm to the brain, so other metals could have similar effects. Babies having a much smaller mass, would be much greater risk of ingesting toxic amounts or slow dose environmental exposure through things like aluminum cookware.
A substance might not be toxic on its own, but in combination with another substance in the environment could be highly toxic, but affect only some small percentage of people that come in in contact with both.
Like we know many prescribed drugs, can't be mixed with alcohol, because they become toxic if you do.
[+] [-] blurbleblurble|2 years ago|reply
I'd like to take this as an opportunity to voice frustration with "rationalist skeptics", who for the longest time have ridiculed critics of mass water fluoridation. Maybe it's because they're really into the comforts of orthodoxy moreso than skepticism?
Using bullying and ridicule to reinforce unfounded scientific/medical orthodoxy in the name of "skepticism", or even in the name of "evidence" that you don't have... It isn't scientific no matter how much you'd like to believe it is.
[+] [-] pkphilip|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|2 years ago|reply
But of course people forgot the history of water fluoridation and the risks of dental cavities
(of course, for modern countries I guess it makes more sense to have it in dental products than just in tap water, but I don't buy the moral panic)
> The report found that a link between typical levels of fluoride added to water and possible harm to brain development is unclear... the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times
Well good think we are at the current level and not at two times it then