1564

submitted 4 days ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

267 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] RQG@lemmy.world 259 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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.

[-] NeverNudeNo13 12 points 4 days 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?

[-] Alteon@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] NeverNudeNo13 2 points 3 days 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.

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days 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.

[-] Alteon@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Yeah, I guess that somehow totes proves his point. Super easy to see the world wrong when they have the reading comprehension of a 6th grader.

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

So the person above may think they're so clever, or whoever fed them that factoid may think that. Notice the claim is remineralization. Maybe that's true, it may be that a study first showed that in 1975 and that's not contradicted by your link but that is a non sequitur. It's not what we're talking about, it's not a good faith argument.