Fluoride may be doing more harm than good

G

gtyellowjacket

Esteemed Member
Messages
734
Like most on here, I thought RFK was nuts for his policy to end fluoride treatment in public water supplies. I based this opinion somewhat on assuming that public health officials had done this research but mostly based on the Dr Strangeglove movie.

This columnist and physician felt the same way, but presumably didn't base her opinion on a 60-Year-Old work of fiction. But then she started looking into it and there's a real case to be made to end fluoridation. At this point I'm leaning towards ending it.

Sorry this is behind a pay wall but here are some quotes.

"...studies demonstrating fluoride’s impacts are well-conducted, peer-reviewed and published in prestigious journals such as JAMA. Earlier this year, the National Toxicology Program, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, concluded with “moderate confidence” that fluoride in drinking water is linked with lower IQ in kids."

"In any case, the possible increase in dental problems has to be balanced against the possible harm to the developing brain. If given the choice of what is more important to their kids — preventing cavities or saving IQ points — many people would probably choose the latter. Cavities can be treated, but effects on the brain are often irreversible."

".. countries in western Europe, many of which have long decided to stop public water fluoridation"

 
You have to question their priorities. Why not deal with lead first? It does no good, definitely does harm, definitely affects IQ and behavior. I'm good with further researching fluoride to see what the issues are as to whether a ban or better regulation is needed but let's get the lead out.
 
finesse said:
You have to question their priorities. Why not deal with lead first? It does no good, definitely does harm, definitely affects IQ and behavior. I'm good with further researching fluoride to see what the issues are as to whether a ban or better regulation is needed but let's get the lead out.
Click to expand...
To me lead is a bigger issue but it's also much harder to deal with. To replace lead pipes you need to be ripping up streets and digging up people's yards. To stop using fluoride, you stop adding it at the municipal water supply.
 
finesse said:
You have to question their priorities. Why not deal with lead first? It does no good, definitely does harm, definitely affects IQ and behavior. I'm good with further researching fluoride to see what the issues are as to whether a ban or better regulation is needed but let's get the lead out.
Click to expand...
Because it is infinitely easier to stop adding fluoride to water than replace lead pipes? And getting fluoride out of the water supply has a pretty long historic right wing base of support for some crackpot reasons — it satisfies the conspiracy wing of the base with an action that can be fairly immediate and for which the resulting increase in tooth decay won’t be seen in years.

And even when it does inevitably occur, the tooth decay will disproportionately impact the poor, just like lead pipes, and can be tossed on the landfill of things that are easy to ignore because of who is being impacted.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
To me lead is a bigger issue but it's also much harder to deal with. To replace lead pipes you need to be ripping up streets and digging up people's yards. To stop using fluoride, you stop adding it at the municipal water supply.
Click to expand...
It's more than just water. It's old paint and residue from leaded gas as well. There is also considerable correlation between lead in the environment and crime rates.
 

Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition

ntp.niehs.nih.gov ntp.niehs.nih.gov

The determination about lower IQs in children was based primarily on epidemiology studies in non-U.S. countries such as Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mexico where some pregnant women, infants, and children received total fluoride exposure amounts higher than 1.5 mg fluoride/L of drinking water. The U.S. Public Health Service currently recommends 0.7 mg/L, and the World Health Organization has set a safe limit for fluoride in drinking water of 1.5 mg/L. The NTP found no evidence that fluoride exposure had adverse effects on adult cognition.

ETA: Since several Western European countries do not use fluoride in the water, an informative study might be to compare the impact on child cognitive development in those countries with the United States.
 
Last edited:
finesse said:
It's more than just water. It's old paint and residue from leaded gas as well. There is also considerable correlation between lead in the environment and crime rates.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Once again, that's a whole lot harder than stopping fluoridation which is why fluoride should be tackled first. Or tackle them both at the same time but if you do that, then one is going to make it to the finish line quite a bit faster than the other.
 
heelinhell said:

Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition

ntp.niehs.nih.gov ntp.niehs.nih.gov

The determination about lower IQs in children was based primarily on epidemiology studies in non-U.S. countries such as Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mexico where some pregnant women, infants, and children received total fluoride exposure amounts higher than 1.5 mg fluoride/L of drinking water. The U.S. Public Health Service currently recommends 0.7 mg/L, and the World Health Organization has set a safe limit for fluoride in drinking water of 1.5 mg/L. The NTP found no evidence that fluoride exposure had adverse effects on adult cognition.
Click to expand...
The 1.5g/L recommendation is mentioned in the column but she also notes that some municipalities covering 1.5 m Americans exceed that limit. As a first step, she is advocating that we reduce the maximum acceptable limit which is currently 4 mg/L.

And what the heck is this line? "The NTP found no evidence that fluoride exposure had adverse effects on adult cognition.". The whole issue is with cognition in kids. I'm glad my brain isn't getting any worse due to some fluoride treatments but I've got additional concerns.

ETA: The big study was the Canadian study. That seems pretty close. Maybe closer than countries in Western Europe. There was a small US study with about 200 subjects that showed some pretty striking results on prenatal fluoride exposure and neural behavioral issues.

" In this cohort study of 229 pregnant women and their children, a 0.68 mg/L (ie, 1 IQR) increase in specific gravity–adjusted maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy was associated with nearly double the odds of T scores for total child neurobehavioral problems being in the borderline clinical or clinical range"

jamanetwork.com

Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months

This cohort study analyzes associations of specific gravity–adjusted maternal urinary fluoride with child neurobehavioral development at 36 months among a cohort of individuals in Los Angeles, California.
jamanetwork.com jamanetwork.com
 
Last edited:
heelinhell said:
".. countries in western Europe, many of which have long decided to stop public water fluoridation"

This is a bit misleading because :

Click to expand...

I don't think it's that misleading. Even the fact sheet from the Spokane city council notes that 13 million Europeans get fluoride through adding it to municipal water and 70 million get fluoride through salt. There are 742 million Europeans.
 
Poor dental health is associated with chronic inflammation that is associated with worse public health outcomes for cardiovascular, immune, endocrine, and other types of diseases including cancer. Fluoride public health policy is very complicated.

Metals in well water, including arsenic in NC, are very likely a more urgent threat.
 
finesse said:
You have to question their priorities. Why not deal with lead first? It does no good, definitely does harm, definitely affects IQ and behavior. I'm good with further researching fluoride to see what the issues are as to whether a ban or better regulation is needed but let's get the lead out.
Click to expand...
They are dealing with lead through the EPA Lead and Copper Rule which requires lead pipes for drinking water be replaced by 2034. Its funded by the Infrastructure and Jobs Act Biden got passed.
 
Also, I've seen no evidence, in fact opposite, that the right wing wants higher IQs. And FWIW, I just looked up the variety of places that have banned fluoridated water; I've lived in or near several - they ain't wellsprings of cognitive ubermensches.

FTR, I'm mostly ambivalent about fluoridated water, personally. That said, I have the means and knowledge to modify my behavior to address tooth mineralization shortfalls - poor people don't.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
They are dealing with lead through the EPA Lead and Copper Rule which requires lead pipes for drinking water be replaced by 2034. Its funded by the Infrastructure and Jobs Act Biden got passed.
Click to expand...
Still not far enough but a good start. Old lead paint and leaded gas residue need to be tackled. Places with high traffic patterns in the 50s and 60s still have dangerous amounts. Those residues are less critical than paint and definitely less critical than water, though.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
At this point I'm leaning towards ending it.
Click to expand...
Jesus. This is why you should take opinion articles with a heavy dose of salt. If you want to start the "actually RFK makes some good points" line of thinking around here prepare for the ridicule to continue.

1. The JAMA study referenced by "well-conducted, peer-reviewed and published in prestigious journals such as JAMA" has been roundly challenged for having noisy data and suspect methods that doesn't prove anything. It actually found IQ increased for girls and decreased for boys, fyi.

2. The National Toxicology Program report is just a summary of the available literature and doesn't add anything new to the conversation. The studies included are all outside of the US and are limited to impacts from higher doses (more than 2X the normal US levels). The ADA has reviewed the report and reaffirms the benefit of water flouridation. “The bottom line is that the National Toxicology Program report and other recent systematic reviews indicate that the level of fluoride used in community water fluoridation is effective for preventing tooth decay and is not associated with any change in people’s IQ or neurological development,” said Dr. Tomar, who is a member of the National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, the ADA’s standing panel of experts that provide ongoing advice about the safety and effectiveness of fluoride.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
Jesus. This is why you should take opinion articles with a heavy dose of salt. If you want to start the "actually RFK makes some good points" line of thinking around here prepare for the ridicule to continue.

1. The JAMA study referenced by "well-conducted, peer-reviewed and published in prestigious journals such as JAMA" has been roundly challenged for having noisy data and suspect methods that doesn't prove anything. It actually found IQ increased for girls and decreased for boys, fyi.

2. The National Toxicology Program report is just a summary of the available literature and doesn't add anything new to the conversation. The studies included are all outside of the US and are limited to impacts from higher doses (more than 2X the normal US levels). The ADA has reviewed the report and reaffirms the benefit of water flouridation. “The bottom line is that the National Toxicology Program report and other recent systematic reviews indicate that the level of fluoride used in community water fluoridation is effective for preventing tooth decay and is not associated with any change in people’s IQ or neurological development,” said Dr. Tomar, who is a member of the National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, the ADA’s standing panel of experts that provide ongoing advice about the safety and effectiveness of fluoride.
Click to expand...
The opinion piece was from an MD who was all set to criticize RFK until she actually looked at the literature.

1. I can't speak to the criticism other than saying there's always going to be messy data in a field study. The authors did address the boy-girl discrepancy in the abstract and their conclusion was a little different. "A 1-mg/L increase in MUFSG was associated with a 4.49-point lower IQ score (95% CI, −8.38 to −0.60) in boys, but there was no statistically significant association with IQ scores in girls (B = 2.40; 95% CI, −2.53 to 7.33). A 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride among pregnant women was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score (95% CI, −7.16 to −0.14) in boys and girls.". Basically they are saying for relatively normal fluoride consumption in pregnant women there's no effect on girls but a fairly significant effect on boys. If you double the fluoride consumption in pregnant women, there is a negative effect on boys and girls. Even if it is just boys, that seems like an issue we need to address.

2. And yes, the American dental association did confirm the benefit to fluoride. No one is saying there aren't benefits. The question becomes do the benefits outweigh the costs and there's some pretty good evidence they don't. We also need to recognize that there are other ways to get fluoride such as toothpaste that don't have those same negative effects.
 
I'm not a doctor nor am I going to medical school to properly weigh in on this subject. All i KNOW is that fluoridation of the municipal water supply across this country has been a public health miracle. We remove this at our peril. Take a look at the people arguing to remove fluoride from the water supply. You can make your own deductions from there...and you don't even need a medical degree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top