Utah Could Become America's First State To Ban Fluoride In Public Water (nbcnews.com) 220
NBC News reports that Utah could make history as America's first state to ban fluoride in public water systems — even though major medical associations supporting water fluoridation:
If signed into law [by the governor], HB0081 would prevent any individual or political subdivision from adding fluoride "to water in or intended for public water systems..." A report published recently in JAMA Pediatrics found a statistically significant association between higher fluoride exposure and lower children's IQ scores — but the researchers did not suggest that fluoride should be removed from drinking water. According to the report's authors, most of the 74 studies they reviewed were low-quality and done in countries other than the United States, such as China, where fluoride levels tend to be much higher, the researchers noted.
An Australian study published last year found no link between early childhood exposure to fluoride and negative cognitive neurodevelopment. Researchers actually found a slightly higher IQ in kids who consistently drank fluoridated water. The levels in Australia are consistent with U.S. recommendations.
Major public health groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association and the CDC — which says drinking fluoridated water keeps teeth strong and reduces cavities — support adding fluoride to water.
The article notes that since 2010 over 150 U.S. towns or counties have voted to keep fluoride out of public water systems or to stop adding it to their water (according to the anti-fluoride group "Fluoride Action Network"). But this week the American Dental Association (representing 159,000 members) urged Utah's governor not to become " the only state to end this preventive health practice that has been in place for over three quarters of a century."
Thanks to Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the news.
An Australian study published last year found no link between early childhood exposure to fluoride and negative cognitive neurodevelopment. Researchers actually found a slightly higher IQ in kids who consistently drank fluoridated water. The levels in Australia are consistent with U.S. recommendations.
Major public health groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association and the CDC — which says drinking fluoridated water keeps teeth strong and reduces cavities — support adding fluoride to water.
The article notes that since 2010 over 150 U.S. towns or counties have voted to keep fluoride out of public water systems or to stop adding it to their water (according to the anti-fluoride group "Fluoride Action Network"). But this week the American Dental Association (representing 159,000 members) urged Utah's governor not to become " the only state to end this preventive health practice that has been in place for over three quarters of a century."
Thanks to Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the news.
anti-public health (Score:5, Informative)
Next up (Score:5, Funny)
Lead water pipes, liberal panic or the taste of patriotism?
Asbestos, it’s just lung cancer. Walk it off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Asbestos is the bestest.
Re: (Score:3)
Make Asbestos Great Again! MAGA!
Re: Next up (Score:2)
Lead fluoride is a risk then.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to look up the pubchem summary for Lead(II) fluoride, but nih.gov is down. I'm going to guess it's a sign my government is collapsing in on itself due to acute Leon poisoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Asbestos works really well and it's cheap. It's difficult to find a substitute that its equal even at twice the price.
Lead is versatile and cheap, to a chemist Lead is an incredible element, with lots of really cool properties for reactions.
Too bad our weak human anatomy doesn't coexist with these wonderful materials. We've been betrayed by our own biology.
Re: (Score:2)
Legalise asbestos!
Nature is out to kill you (Score:2)
Nature wants to make you extinct. It created you, and it created other things whose task is to survive at your expense. Our ancestors understood this, that's why the world modernized. Only idiots started having it good and watching cute animals on wildlife shows they forgot that MOST OF NATURE EITHER WANTS TO EAT YOU OR DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU LIVE OR DIE. We need our brains and technology to help us survive. Up until the year 2004, not even one president had lived past age 91. Now we've had FOUR do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nature wants to make you extinct. It created you, and it created other things whose task is to survive at your expense. Our ancestors understood this, that's why the world modernized. Only idiots started having it good and watching cute animals on wildlife shows they forgot that MOST OF NATURE EITHER WANTS TO EAT YOU OR DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU LIVE OR DIE. We need our brains and technology to help us survive. Up until the year 2004, not even one president had lived past age 91. Now we've had FOUR do it. Until 2004 only two presidents (out of 40 something) had even reached age 90. In the 2000s FOUR ex-presidents surpassed that. Oh and they all lived with chronic shit (see their physician notes) that if you had it you'd be crying all day with pain and itching. The previous presidents all ate organic, all non-GMO food. How did they get sick, how did they die?
Presidents and ex-Presidents are not out there eating cheap food or living the life of a pauper. A good diet alone can be the factor when trying to live beyond 90. So can genetics and the health care you have access to and receive.
Any number of reasons can be why we’ve had a whopping FOUR live past 90, but most likely it was due to the artificial aide of modern science and machines afforded to that very specific group representing your entire sample size. Quite frankly, it more sounds like all four
BYU (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They could have dentists go out in pairs to knock on doors and share their expertise.
Re: BYU (Score:2)
"Have you heard the Good News?"
Is he worried about our bodily fluids? (Score:2)
Does his right arm have a mind of it's own?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not necessary now? (Score:2)
It's necessary in some capacity (Score:2)
There's no substitute for fluoride. It makes a child's enamel super tough.
With crunchy conservatives like RFKjr, they'll go after not just fluoride in your city water but in your toothpaste as well. Because sadly, there are lots of brands of toothpaste in the US that are "fluoride-free"
The social cost of having higher rates of dental caries and of tooth loss is significant. I'm sure someone has worked out a dollar amount. Given that it costs a few dollars per person per year to add the fluoride to all the
Re: (Score:2)
Because sadly, there are lots of brands of toothpaste in the US that are "fluoride-free"
There are? Seriously? If you want to get something like that here (Europe), you have to go to places that also sell stones to place on your body or other quackery.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like any drug store and most larger supermarkets?
https://www.rossmann.de/de/ges... [rossmann.de]
It's UTAH, if they go left, you go right... (Score:2)
It's Utah... what ever they want to do, you know the smart call is to go the opposite direction. This is just another case of them proving it.
There's no such thing as free (Score:2)
I'm all for preventing tooth decay, but looking back on my own youth we had fluoride in the toothpaste, I was taken to the dentist and had fluoride treatments there and had fluoride in the water everywhere. A family dentist at the time (and would go on to be a very famous dentist in that world) could/did not diagnose the etching on my teeth that was taking place because of the excessive fluoride I was exposed to. (Flurosis).
Something happened to my immune system in adulthood that doctors could not diagnose.
Re: (Score:3)
And in actual reality, comparative studies in Europe (where some areas do fluoridation and some do not) show no systematic negative effects. Your single example and speculative attribution is worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
You're forcefully medicating people and it's ethically wrong.
That's really the crux of the issue, but some people just can't see past "not my team" and are going to oppose change simply because it's Republicans doing it.
This entire thread is a moronic waste of time (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But at least it is not about AI.
Maybe we should ask AI why it’s a moronic waste of time. See if AI is smart enough to find root cause. Rather obvious we humans clearly aren’t capable of finding (or admitting) it.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. I thought Utah was a mormonic waste of time?
Morons (Score:2)
And Utah could become the first US state to subject kids to massive dental issues, while enriching dentists.
I predate fluoride in the water, and I'm sure my parents' bank account reflects it. Multiple teeth pulled thanks
to cavities regardless of how much I brushed or flossed.
If I were a dental student today, I'd move to Utah, because if this passes, it's going to be a fscking Gold Mine.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were a dental student today, I'd move to Utah, because if this passes, it's going to be a fscking Gold Mine.
Greed N. Corruption is the reason it’s a fucking Gold Mine. Otherwise every dental student would have moved to a country that doesn’t fluoridate their water supply to become multi-millionaires.
Greed N. Corruption is the reason you should question. Not the excuse to validate.
No porn, bad teeth, what is next? (Score:2)
Seems Utah really wants back to the dark ages. Probably a good idea to leave there while free movement between states is still allowed...
they are only trying to protect the purity (Score:2)
of their precious bodily fluids
Here's the chemistry (Score:2)
Peer-reviewed article explaining the chemistry behind the effects of fluoride on hydroxyapatite (tooth enamel): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... [nih.gov]
Drinking out loud (Score:2)
O P E (Score:2)
Some Actual Info (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe my memory is going, but I used to remember a time when people argued by comparing facts and seeing which side had the better outcome (or perhaps I was too young and naive). Here's some things I know about fluoride. Look them up online to find citations:
1. Fluoride only protects teeth by contact. Meaning it sticks to your enamel and is harder for bacteria to break it down. Any fluoride you swallow does nothing for your teeth.
2. Swallowed fluoride is toxic to humans in many ways.
2.1. In the USA, you have a 90% chance (Wikipedia says 40%, but that's from a decade old study. I heard the 90% stat more recently. Not sure which is more accurate) of having calcification of your penal gland by age 17. That calcification is likely from fluoride. That damage decreases the age of puberty and can mess up sleep and reproductive hormones.
2.2. Fluoride can weaken your bones.
2.3. We used to eat a lot more iodine than we used to. Fluoride and bromine (in fire retardants (furniture, cars, clothing) and in nearly all bread (replaced iodine) despite not listed in the ingredients) are close enough in structure that they compete with iodine and our body can use them instead of iodine. In modern humans, iodine is being out competed by those substances. That means your thyroid is making slightly malformed hormones which act slightly differently than they're supposed to. The negative effects of that are not well studied. Why force that unnecessary risk? (look up The Iodine Protocol to learn more)
2.4. In addition to that, fluoride collects in and damages your thyroid.
2.5. Dose makes a poison, but damage slowly accumulates. Especially if the body is overwhelmed in dealing with everything else toxic in our modern environment and diet. Stressed systems break sooner. Just because the amount of fluoride in water is small doesn't mean it isn't causing damage over time and that amount doesn't take into account your other intake of fluoride too. Fluoride isn't only in water.
2.6. Can cause intestinal distress.
2.7. Can cause Fluorosis.
3. There are far better alternatives to Fluoride.
3.1. Hydroxyapatite works far better than Fluoride in preventing cavities and has none of the negatives listed above. It's the same minerals that makeup our enamel so the restored areas have the exact same properties as the surrounding enamel. There's no reason for anyone to buy toothpaste or mouthwash with fluoride anymore. Hydroxyapatite is better in every way except you might have to order it online (don't get the nano, that can clog the 'pores' in your teeth).
3.2. Eat less of or none of highly acidic foods/candy/fruits/drinks.
3.3. Brush your teeth twice a day and not right after meals (your enamel is softer after eating). It takes 24 hours for the bacteria to start damaging your teeth, which is why we try to wipe them out every 12 hours.
3.4. The less carbs you eat the healthier your teeth. The bacteria from meat/fat doesn't damage your teeth. In theory if all you ate was meat, you wouldn't need to brush your teeth.
4. Nearly everyone gets fluoride from their toothpaste. When these water programs started, that wasn't the case. (FYI, It's perfectly fine to brush your teeth without toothpaste. If you don't want fluoride nor whitening, you don't need toothpaste. It's original purpose was to make brushing more fun and engaging for kids.)
The people arguing pro fluoride are making insincere arguments. IQ? That's not a factor, only a distraction. Cavities? Yes, but there's so much more to fluoride than that. Why am I forced to pay (tax/water bill used to pay for fluoridation) to have my health damaged because you're too lazy to say no to giving your kids Dr Pepper? Simply switching to carbonated water is a huge improvement.
Instead of mandating that everyone has to drink fluoride, why not mandate that sodas and other cavity causing foods/drinks add fluoride to their products? That'll at least limit the damage to the people who need it more and not poison the rest of us. Plus it's pro small government since it removes the requirement from water treatment plants. Fluoridnated water vs non-fluoridated isn't the only choice. Stop pretending it is.
Re: (Score:3)
2.5. Dose makes a poison, but damage slowly accumulates. Especially if the body is overwhelmed in dealing with everything else toxic in our modern environment and diet.
Dose does make a poison but the rest of your statement is completely false. We classify substances as bioaccumulating and non-bioaccumulating for a reason. No fluoride does not bioaccumulate and is safe to consume at any normal drinking levels in at the doses used commonly in drinking water.
Also your entire post fails on point number 1. The discovery of fluoride protecting teeth was the result of an analysis of drinking water in areas with different dental health. So by definition everything we know about t
Re:Meh... who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
My toothpaste has way more fluoride than my drinking water, anyway. How much tap water do people really drink anyway?
Single people and empty nesters might eat out often, but most families with kids save money by cooking at home. This means all soups, roasts, mac and cheese, mashed potatoes, gravies, powdered sports drinks, kool aid, spaghetti, rice, oatmeal, ice cubes, etc. will be made with tap water. I don't know too many families that crack open a bottle of Mountain Spring Water to add it to their Campbell's soup. Even our morning coffee is made with tap water, along with the water in people's through-the-door fridge taps.
One report I read suggested to reduce the amount of fluoride added to the municipal water supply rather than eliminate it completely.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
My toothpaste has way more fluoride than my drinking water, anyway.
Usually you get shit because of your nick, but you're right. There's full-size tubes of fluoride toothpaste at the dollar store in the ghetto for a buck twenty-five. If someone thinks that's not enough for their pearly whites, Walmart's got a whole damn aisle of various fluoride rinses.
Let people decide for themselves, and amazingly, now with the proper route of administering the drug to boot. It's fucking idiotic that we have a drug intended for topical application to the teeth just added to the drinkin
Re: Meh... who cares? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We also get Fluoride from toothpaste and food like fish and tee.
But the amount of fluoride found in groundwater, measured in mg/L, is the most significant source and varies geographically.
Fluoride has positive effects against caries, but high concentrations can give you enamel stains and even higher concentrations have negative effects for bones. Se https://en.wikipedia.org/wik [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The point of fluoridation is that regardless of a person's dental hygiene they gain some measure of protection against tooth decay. That includes children. I'm sure people who brush their teeth are ingesting small amounts each time too but they're not the targets of these measures.
Given America's propensity for eating and drinking sugary garbage I expect the consequences of withdrawing fluoride in water would be observable within a decade. I'm sure we'd get the usual appeals to "personal responsibility" (ak
Re:Meh... who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only time you don't want to add fluoride to water is when the local supply already has more than enough. Which any freaking water engineer is going to keep track of methodically.
Re: (Score:2)
You know fluoride is naturally occurring in water right?
And in some places, the natural quantity is too high.
Re: (Score:3)
Careful with this science talk! We don't want them to burn us at the stake for our witchcraft.
Re:Meh... who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Do these organizations make this recommendation based on the expectation that most people won't brush their teeth well, or often enough?
My guess is "probably," and probably they are right.
Re: (Score:2)
To an extent, yes, yes they do. It's the same with fortification and supplementation of food, it's done "generously" in the assumption that people won't eat a balanced diet. The first generation of airbags were mandated to be strong enough to help those unbuckled, despite that causing more injuries than airbags properly tuned for those belted, but which wouldn't significantly help those unbuckled.
Same with building codes and more.
Re: (Score:2)
Do these organizations make this recommendation based on the expectation that most people won't brush their teeth well, or often enough?
I wish the government would assume that dealing with stupid people gives me a headache and spike the water with ibuprofen. That would save me a lot of money.
Re: (Score:3)
Not probably. Definitely. They make recommendations based on available data. Now there's two solutions to the problem: a) you can address it in bulk without any effort on anyone's behalf, or you can attempt to change human nature (something we've been failing to do since we were clearly not-very-intelligently designed.
Re: (Score:3)
You're going against the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association and the CDC recommendations here.
It's a lot like the vaccine dilemma, "Why should I have my children use fluoride? No one gets cavities any more!"
And then they stop. And just like with the vaccine deniers, a new crop of cavities or old diseases once under control re-emerges.
After herd immunity went away, I managed to catch whooping cough. When you watch the world go brown and wonder if you're going to die, you can end up thinking that a parent who purposely allows something like that should not be a parent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're going against the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association and the CDC recommendations here.
The article was not exactly comprehensive as there have been numerous studies and we have known for the last 30 years that there is a statistically significant decrease in IQ when fluoride levels go up. At least this is what the majority of the studies have found. And there have been more than the article claims that there have been. There is clearly SOMETHING to it. Trust the science.
Re:Meh... who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Meh... who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your post sounds like this: "I don't need scientific evidence, I have freedom!" Ok buddy, glad you could replace your outlet.
The science also says you'd live longer on a calorie-restricted diet. So let's make it mandatory, right? Or will you now come around to the idea there's some merit to giving people the autonomy to decide what to put in their bodies, even if that means some people might make bad choices?
Re: (Score:2)
Or will you now come around to the idea there's some merit to giving people the autonomy to decide what to put in their bodies, even if that means some people might make bad choices?
Yeah, we should have the freedom to buy radium water again!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we should have the freedom to buy radium water again!
We still sell cigarettes. Basically the same outcome, only the cancer takes longer to develop.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we should have the freedom to buy radium water again!
We still sell cigarettes. Basically the same outcome, only the cancer takes longer to develop.
Fair point. At least cigarettes have an unambiguous warning on the label saying that they are dangerous. I don't think radium water ever came with warning labels. It took decades and many expensive lawsuits to force the tobacco companies to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The science also says you'd live longer on a calorie-restricted diet. So let's make it mandatory, right? Or will you now come around to the idea there's some merit to giving people the autonomy to decide what to put in their bodies, even if that means some people might make bad choices?
There is also merit in considering the negative impact to society caused by people's bad choices and putting in place measures to deter them. It's obviously a fine line, but living in society automatically means having some personal freedoms restricted as many choices do impact society too.
Said that, fluoride in water is IMHO not the best solution as that fluoride is not meant to be ingested, only applied on teeth. Quality toothpaste and fostering proper dental hygiene are a better solution but require effo
So the science says false dichotomies (Score:4, Interesting)
What pisses me off is how Russian propaganda has completely destroyed belief in science or the ability to think in anything but the most simplistic terms that would appeal to a 12-year-old.
You can't have any adult level nuance anymore. Everything has to be as simple as watching Saturday morning cartoons hopped up on sugar cereal.
I mean yeah I can sit here and play your fucking game and explain to you the difference but again I would just be playing your game. At the end of the day I would be helping you undermine our entire civilization. I'm kind of done with that. Grow up. Anyone who reads the post I'm replying to grow the fuck up. You're not 12 anymore. You need to turn your brain on and stop and think about things. You're a adult and you don't get to view the world in absolutes anymore
Like the saying goes for every sufficiently complex problem there's an answer that is simple, elegant and wrong.
Re:So the science says false dichotomies (Score:4, Insightful)
What pisses me off is how Russian propaganda has completely destroyed belief in science or the ability to think in anything but the most simplistic terms that would appeal to a 12-year-old.
I don't think Republicans disbelieve or even distrust science. I think they blindly follow Trump and other leaders. It's not a matter of belief or understanding. Rather it's a matter of cultural belonging, like wearing the school colors. If Trump suddenly said fluoride in city water was a good thing, the masses would immediately flip their thinking.
Keep in mind a huge part of republicanism (Score:3)
And of course you've got the anti-vaxxers. Polls indicate the overwhelming number of anti-vaxxers are Republican or righ
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, I get your point. I have something to offer up for your consideration.
Since you don't like fluoride in your drinking water, you could consider distilling it. And if you are one who erroneously believes that distilled water is unhealthy, you can easily buy trace mineral drops to add to it after you have distilled it. Then, it is just like tap water, without the fluoride (and, without other pollutants that can creep into our tapwater these days, including and especially estrogen).
It's a bit of fuss of
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just GFCI outlets that do this, and some lower quality outlets are too tight when they're brand new. It should only take a few insertions to wear them down enough that any old plug should insert easy enough. Also, I dunno about you but I prefer GFCI breakers instead of having the GFCI on the outlet itself.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just GFCI outlets that do this, and some lower quality outlets are too tight when they're brand new. It should only take a few insertions to wear them down enough that any old plug should insert easy enough. Also, I dunno about you but I prefer GFCI breakers instead of having the GFCI on the outlet itself.
In some cases, GFCI outlets are a more attractive option. For example, in older houses that don't have grounded wiring. I own and live in such a house.
Sure, I could have the house (re-)wired with grounding, but that would be prohibitively expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
In my case it's literally the only outlet on the circuit, so price was the factor (GFCI breakers are substantially more expensive than a $10 GFCI outlet). I know the big box hardware stores still sell $0.78 regular outlets without GFCI or tamper-resistance. Thing is, since I do use the outlet with kitchen appliances (sometimes while standing on a wet floor because hey, things spill when you're cooking), I'm not "yee haw motherfuckin' freedom!" to the point that I'd have skipped the GFCI protection.
Also, I
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I watched some YouTube videos demonstrating the plug jiggle and researched on Reddit where I found some other people bitching about the same issue. Even saw a person making a suggestion to replace the plugs on problematic appliances.
At the end of the day though, despite what whoever modded me "troll" would like to believe, I really am a middle aged gay man and there's never going to be any children in our household. So, electrical code be damned, I grabbed my security bit set and turned that outlet
Re: (Score:3)
Lol, a grown ass adult who couldn't plug something into a tamper resistant outlet. Also, your experience had fuck all to do with GFCI. Your post makes you sound like the exact sort of person who should be protected against themselves. Not for you, but for the people who might either care about you, or take offense to being immolated.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, a grown ass adult who couldn't plug something into a tamper resistant outlet.
It will happen to anyone who owns an appliance with a plug where the prongs aren't exactly the same length. The outlets are designed not to allow anything to be inserted if only one shutter is being pressed against.
Also, your experience had fuck all to do with GFCI.
The hardware stores still sell plenty of the el cheapo outlets without tamper resistance, but all of the GFCI models are tamper-resistant. As much as you've attempted to berate me for my supposed lack of skill, someone without my technical expertise (and a security bit set) probably would've ju
Re:Meh... who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
And?! It’s called Profit Motive. America was a country hell-bent on abusing family doctors to sell cigarettes as a benefit
The CDC doesn't need profit. If you want to allege that they are doing something improprietous, it could be true but you need a thing called evidence.
"A chorus of natural beings who live ineradicably, as it were, behind all civilization and remain eternally the same, despite the changes of generations and of the history of nations." --Nietzsche. Ever do people make allegations without evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to claim that milk is bad for the health, bring the evidence. Everything else is a distraction.
Re: Meh... who cares? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the fluoride you drink (goes right through for the most part). It's about the ions that bond to the outer enamel of your teeth. Toothpaste is a more effective way to treat your teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
>"How much toothpaste do you eat?"
Probably not what you meant, outside of joking. But one don't need to "eat" toothpaste to apply way more than enough fluoride needed to help with tooth care.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot isn't militantly pro-fluoridation, but fluoridation is an ideological battleground.
Trans women are women, it's science. mRNA vaccines are perfectly safe, it's science. Covid was not a lab leak, it's science. Water fluoridation is good for you, it's science.
Liberals feel they can not afford to give up even one of those battles because it weakens the argument for all the others. The fact that consensus is often build by bullying, office politics and media can not be acknowledged ... normies can't han
Re: (Score:3)
Really wouldn't have thought the demographic here would be all into forced medication.
I'm happy you woke from your 6 year coma, there's a few things you missed we should catch you up on, but the most relevant thing you missed is we had a global pandemic. Yeah really. We were quick with a vaccine but you should have seen the discourse on the rollout and requirement of that vaccine. For once Slashdot was overwhelmingly in support of mandated vaccination (forced medication), just like it always has been. I'm glad you missed COVID, it was a crazy time with a lot of idiots about. People really ma
Re: (Score:2)
Virtually every molecule can fuck your body up if consumed in the wrong way or wrong concentration. Drinking water is essential to your survival, don't get enough hydration and you can die. That said drinking a lot of water over a long term can destroy your kidneys. Drinking a lot in bulk can cause hyponatremia which can be fatal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think fluoride will fuck you up, you should try cholera, typhoid, or cryptosporidium instead. (And you probably will.)
Fluoride isn't added to tap water as a sanitizer, it's added ostensibly because it helps people who can't afford toothpaste (but how? [dollartree.com]) rot their teeth slightly slower.
The real reason for water flouridation? It's a legal and profitable way to dispose of what is essentially an industrial waste product. Seriously, Google it.
Re: (Score:2)
The real reason for water flouridation? It's a legal and profitable way to dispose of what is essentially an industrial waste product. Seriously, Google it.
It's still not a bad idea to add it if the region is naturally deficient in it. Conversely, it's a good idea to reduce it if the region naturally has too much fluoride.
Re: (Score:3)
It's still not a bad idea to add it if the region is naturally deficient in it. Conversely, it's a good idea to reduce it if the region naturally has too much fluoride.
When it comes to the government dumping things into the water, they should stick to what can be cheaply filtered out. A basic carbon core filter will do a magnificent job cleaning up the chlorine and various other crap that results from chlorine reactions, but it's not so great at removing fluoride.
Someone else in the thread suggested a RO system, and those are usually on the spendy side. It's stuff like this that really makes me empathize with conservatives, because here you have an issue that the govern
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Stop spreading lies. Everything you just said is false. Fluoride is added to water because it works [scientificamerican.com]. Full stop. The "industrial waste product" BS is a conspiracy being spread by RFK Jr. You should be ashamed of repeating it,
Re: (Score:3)
The "industrial waste product" BS is a conspiracy being spread by RFK Jr. You should be ashamed of repeating it,
No, it's actually a fact. Fluoride is a by-product of fertilizer production and it would have to be properly disposed of if there was no other marketable use for it. I'll go ahead and cite my source [osu.edu], again. That has nothing to do whatsoever with RFK Jr.
The fact that there's moneyed interests in keeping the status quo is why fluoridation still has substantial support even though it is of dubious public benefit due to the ubiquity of extremely inexpensive fluoride toothpaste.
Re: (Score:2)
The "industrial waste product" BS is a conspiracy being spread by RFK Jr. You should be ashamed of repeating it,
It's not actually bullshit, what it is is completely fucking irrelevant. It's an "industrial waste product" in that it is a by product from fertiliser manufacturer. But the only reason it is done is because of economics. There are plenty of countries out there that add fluoride to drinking water and don't have a massive fertiliser manufacturing base so instead synthesize it directly for the purposes of adding it to water.
Also your road is an industrial waste product from the oil industry, as are your sports
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of bullshit.
Fluoridation happened because statistics (you know, those actual records, not lies) showed that adding fluoride to water helped much more than it hurd.
Fluoride is not a common industrial waste product. Fluorine is relatively rate (compared to the other halogens). Water fluoridation is not cheap, compared to just flushing the dross down the drain or piling it up as slag. Pretending that it's a scam is a scam.
Re: (Score:2)
rate -> rare
Re: Cholera (Score:2)
It did happen because of Statistics. However since then statistics also show that if people use toothpaste with fluor and regularly visits dentists preventively, this measure does not add much in terms of cavity protection. It does add an increased risk of having those white spots in your teeth from fluorosis. These statistics appear to be the reason most of the EU does not need it.
Whether those other measures are in place for all groups in the population is of course a different question. Access to healthc
Re:Cholera (Score:4, Insightful)
Fluoridation happened because statistics (you know, those actual records, not lies) showed that adding fluoride to water helped much more than it hurt.
It is possible for both to be true. Fluoridation began because it did have a measurable public health benefit, but that has since been rendered superfluous by inexpensive, widely available fluoride toothpastes. This raises the question: since fluoridation is no longer necessary, why does the process continue? If there is no longer a public health need to do it, some other factor has to be in play.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a legal and profitable way to dispose of what is essentially an industrial waste product. Seriously, Google it.
One man's industrial waste product is another's critical component. Americans en-mass put an industrial waste product on their roofs in the form of bitumen tiles. Seriously, Google it. Your entire supermarket cleaning isle is stocked with what is predominantly industrial waste from oil refining. Seriously, Google that too. I build things from sheet metal dependent on the waste product of oil refineries too.
The only difference between an industrial waste product and freshly synthesized product is economics.
Re: (Score:2)
It's industrial waste in the same sense as was gasoline, until the gasoline internal combustion engine created a market for it (ironically, EVs could potentially make gasoline a waste product once again, funny how that works). There'd be little use for the stuff if we stopped adding it to municipal water (fluoride, not gasoline - let's not mix analogies) and the fertilizer companies would actually have to pay to dispose of it.
Keeping water fluoridation around after it's no longer necessary would be a bit l
Re: (Score:3)
Doctors are dumb asses when they are in a position of authority where nobody can question them. And let us not forget, a GP is not the same as a research scientist.
In those doctor's defense, it wasn't until 1954 that research with convincing results was first presented in the Journal of the AMA. While the famous Camel ad was in 1952. And even so, it was just one study, and not every doctor was on board immediately. No some doctors didn't read the paper and weren't aware of it. Some liked the tobacco industr
Re:Cholera (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing is unhealthy about raw milk. However, raw milk is very easily contaminated with E.coli, salmonella and other things - the udders aren't exactly sterile and you can only wash them so well.
That's why we have pasteurization - it kills all the microbes before they can multiply and make you sick.
It's why raw milk distribution is purposefully limited - otherwise you can easily have a whole pile of people get really, really sick because one drop of contaminated milk will make the entire batch go bad. That's why they pasteurize all the milk.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we have pasteurization - it kills all the microbes before they can multiply and make you sick.
Not to mention shelf life. Raw milk will spoil in a few days to a week, whereas pasteurized milk in an unopened container can last for months.
Re:Cholera (Score:4, Informative)
Not only is raw milk not sold everywhere in sane countries, it's not even sold everywhere in *your* country. It's not sold in a supermarket, only in specialist bioshops, and there's only a small number of farmers in the country who are licensed to produce and package it.
Germany agrees with America on this process, and you seem to not only not have a clue how other countries work, but are totally ignorant of the one you live in yourself.
Re:Cholera (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice logic. "At some point, science has been imperfect. Therefore, we should always ignore science."
Except that that's not what's going on, since you only ignore certain science. Instead, its:
"I'm incredibly gullible and have been convinced by con men to believe crazy unscientific shit. I could follow logic and science to find my way, but that might involve changing my mind and/or confronting my crippling gullibility. So instead, when I want to ignore science, I'll make some obviously stupid remark about science being imperfect to justify to myself and to other gullible idiots that THIS is a good part of science to ignore. And when it's scientific results which I want to be true, I'll behave completely differently."
Re: (Score:3)
fluoride in drinking water at twice the recommended limit is associated with lower IQ in children.
Re:Cholera (Score:4, Informative)
A little over 100 years ago doctors refused to wear masks for exactly the same reasons people refused to wear masks during COVID. Surgeons too.
In fact, doctors would often go from teaching students and showing guts tot he students then head into the operating room without changing a thing - still bloody from their teaching session.
It took a rather unconventional hospital administrator to force doctors to change into clean clothes, wash their hands and exposed body parts before doing surgery to bring the death rate due to infections way down. Sadly, the next hospital administrator removed those rules and deaths post-surgery rose again.
Now you take it for granted that doctors and surgeons would get into clean scrubs, wash themselves and wear masks and other things prior to doing surgery, but there was a time when they all resisted it because of various reasons.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>"If you think fluoride will fuck you up, you should try cholera, typhoid, or cryptosporidium instead. (And you probably will.)"
Except fluoride doesn't do ANYTHING for those diseases. It is only for tooth decay. It was beneficial way before I was born. But now every toothpaste has PLENTY of fluoride in it (unless you specifically search for one without). And there are dozens of different rinses available as well. There is no need a modern, first-world country to add an unnecessary and *possibly* dan
Re: (Score:3)
Utah is the Republican state. Make your own conclusions.
Sometimes Republicans get things right for the wrong reasons. Here in Florida, Disney absolutely had way more autonomy to govern its municipality than what should've been legal. The governor only started having a problem with that after Disney spoke out against the so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill. Right move, wrong reason.
Similarly, I'm sure Utah's actual motivation is some anti-science nuttery about precious bodily fluids or however the conspiracy goes. But the concept of letting people have the right t
Re: (Score:2)
Antivaxxers are not welcome on this site, go away.
The issue with vaccines is that they don't provide 100% protection. Herd immunity is required for maximum effectiveness at halting the spread of a pathogen. If vaccines were 100% protective against getting sick and some people chose not to take them, it wouldn't be a problem.
The logic generally works like this: Does this choice only affect the individual? If so, then it's fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with antivaxers is that their decision to not get the vaccine is not affecting only them. If it was, nobody would care.
Also: it is not the purpose of the vaccine to 100% protect the individual from getting sick. Where did you get that from?
Jeez. This should not need explaining in 21st century.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with antivaxers is that their decision to not get the vaccine is not affecting only them. If it was, nobody would care.
That is literally what I just wrote. I was gonna assume you were replying to the OP, but then you said this:
Also: it is not the purpose of the vaccine to 100% protect the individual from getting sick. Where did you get that from?
Okay, let me try and make this clearer by using a common sci-fi trope: In an alternate dimension where vaccines are 100% effective at preventing illness, anti-vaxxers in that dimension aren't harming anyone but themselves when they refuse a vaccine.
Vaccines don't work like that here in our dimension, and I never said that they did. I said here they require herd immunity for maximum effectiveness at
Re: (Score:2)
That study has been discredited [scientificamerican.com]. It contained major flaws. From the linked article:
But fluoride levels in a pregnant person's urine do not indicate how much of the mineral that individual or their embryo or fetus actually takes in, explains Loc Do, an oral epidemiologist at University of Queensland in Australia, who wasn't involved in the paper. The researchers also neglected to administer IQ tests in a standardized way, potentially skewing their results, and did not examine other factors correlated with a child's IQ, such as maternal breastfeeding.