A U.S. government report expected to stir debate concluded that fluoride in drinking water at twice the recommended limit is linked with lower IQ in children.
The report, based on an analysis of previously published research, marks the first time a federal agency has determined — “with moderate confidence” — that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. While the report was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoride in drinking water alone, it is a striking acknowledgment of a potential neurological risk from high levels of fluoride.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
“I think this (report) is crucial in our understanding” of this risk, said Ashley Malin, a University of Florida researcher who has studied the affect of higher fluoride levels in pregnant women on their children. She called it the most rigorously conducted report of its kind.
Fluoride does strengthen teeth. However, this study shows that maybe dentists should be administering it (A dentist handed me a mouthwash with it, and literally I had a choice of a daily one or a weekly one, and since it’s mouth wash, you’re supposed to spit it out. So clearly it can be applied to the teeth without needed to be ingested at all)
that’s the point-- lots of things are beneficial–why force a chemical that can so easily be overconsumed on everyone without asking if they want it? people think their teeth are going to fall out if they don’t drink fluoride. fine–why not sell it as a product that people can choose to purchase if they want it, instead of dumping it in the water supply?
Because not everyone is like you. Not everyone has the eeucation you do. Not everyone has the same means to buy beneficial stuff. Not everyone takes the kind of care they should of their children.
Flouridated water, by most accounts, has had a really positivie impact on public health.
We should do our best to make sure our water supply is well funded and monitored. Unfortunately, more and more water systems are privatized and clean drinking water and corporate profits don’t seem compatible to me.
But we should be pragmatic and clear eyed. I worry to see phrases like “I don’t care what anyone says” in a scientific context.
it’s not even about science, it’s about principle. if tax dollars are already paying for the fluoride, then they can give it away as a supplement, instead of “welcome to the land of the free, except you’re drinking fluoride whether you want it or not. oh by the way here’s a study showing your kids’ brain damage from us dumping too much fluoride in the water. oops”
how many of these instances of “oops” is too many for you?
for me it’s >0
How do you feel about iodized salt?
there are plenty of no-iodide salts available
edit: as it turns out, i happen to have both
Like how you could choose to go buy distilled water or other fluoride free water if you really cared enough? So we agree it’s not actually a problem? Cool.
i already do that. i’m not agreeing with shit. read the post article again. it IS a problem
As is drinking distilled water exclusively. Google it.
The water in my community has poison added to it by my local government. It’s a poison so heinous its usage is banned in war. It affects the clarity and taste of the water. No matter how many letters I write they are totally unwilling to stop chlorinating the water. It’s outrageous!
Thank you for facing these idiots
The amount of fluoride in water is significantly below the safe limits. To get fluoride poisoning like the article describes you’d have to drink so much water that you’ll die of drinking too much water first.
An accident can happen with everything. It’s very, very rare in most developed countries for something to go wrong with the water fluoridisation.
Again, what is your threshold for acceptable levels of accidents in overfluoridation?
One happening every X years is not too terrible. Prolonged exposure is the issue. And the severity of the accident is also important.
If an accident means accidentally doubling the amount of fluoride, that’s not too bad. Bit wasteful perhaps but not really harmful either. So it’s not really possible to attach a number to it. In my country at least the number has been zero for years now.
That, and as long as it’s made publicly and widely known that there is an issue, it’s not that big of a deal.
We have water boiling alerts for a reason, this is no different. Water distribution will always be a risk no matter what. Public health will always be a risk no matter what. But the benefits outweigh the risk.
So your threshold is … X
How to say “I’ve never heard of public health” without saying “I’ve never heard of public health”
Also a case of “the accusation is the confession.” The literal next sentence is “but what about my FREEEEEEDOM!?!?”
The science behind this is literally highschool chemistry and highschool statistics.
Iodized salt was basically that. Soldiers turning up for WWI had lots of problems due to missing things in the diet.
Having a method of distribution that requires no effort and, perhaps more importantly, virtually no cost helps those who are often otherwise missed and forgotten by the systems in place. “Just have a dentist apply it” doesn’t work when you’re too poor for the dentist and/or have no way to get to one.