Fluoride may be doing more harm than good

gtyellowjacket said:
Yep, and higher dental bills, but higher IQ too. What would you rather have for your kids?
Click to expand...
Every damned one of them AND their kids are too smart for their own good. Fluorine worked for us. I'd rather spend the effort on a clear danger. What you're presenting isn't very convincing as far as doing away with it. I could see doing a serious study on dosages and the risk/gain factors of keeping it but what you have is entirely too sketchy to ban something that has the upside it does.
 
finesse said:
Every damned one of them AND their kids are too smart for their own good. Fluorine worked for us. I'd rather spend the effort on a clear danger. What you're presenting isn't very convincing as far as doing away with it. I could see doing a serious study on dosages and the risk/gain factors of keeping it but what you have is entirely too sketchy to ban something that has the upside it does.
Click to expand...
I think I'm moving away from ban to a federally mandated lower max concentration and more studies on the issues with fluoride if any. I do think its worth looking at seriously though and not some crackpot theory like I thought before today.
 
Paine said:
There are much bigger issues facing intellectual development among kids than fluoride in the water. Hard to learn at school when your teeth are rotting out.
Click to expand...
Also hard to learn with a lower IQ. I think its worth considering do we want a small percentage of kids having some serious dental issues or all kids have a lower average IQ. What is worse?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Also hard to learn with a lower IQ. I think its worth considering do we want a small percentage of kids having some serious dental issues or all kids have a lower average IQ. What is worse?
Click to expand...
I’d like to see more literature about the connections between fluoride and IQ. It’s worth looking into, sure. To focus on it when there are a plethora of other much more pressing public health issues is silly. Seems like a way to distract from actual issues.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
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.
Click to expand...
The opinion piece was written by someone being paid to write opinion pieces -- not make national health decisions.

The point is that the Jama study had poor data collection methods and inconclusive results. You shouldn't base ANY decisions off of it.

"We also need to recognize that there are other ways to get fluoride such as toothpaste that don't have those same negative effects."
You haven't shown that there are any "negative effects" at the dosages administered in the water supply. Your entire dialogue is one big begging the question fallacy so far.

Is it something we can learn more about sure. We are. There are countless more studies in the last 10 years than ever before. Should we be directing any additional government focus away from more realized and pressing concerns when it comes to health? Absolutely not.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Yep, and higher dental bills, but higher IQ too. What would you rather have for your kids?
Click to expand...
Regarding that article you cited, did you also bother to do the research on the other side of the argument from the countless medical professionals that believe fluoride in our water in the right amounts is perfectly safe? Or did you just change your mind based on one medical professional agreeing with a guy whose brain has been half-eaten by a worm?
 
WaynetheDrain said:
Regarding that article you cited, did you also bother to do the research on the other side of the argument from the countless medical professionals that believe fluoride in our water in the right amounts is perfectly safe? Or did you just change your mind based on one medical professional agreeing with a guy whose brain has been half-eaten by a worm?
Click to expand...
No. I relied on a medical professional who did look at the studies And the publication that she writes for. I also thought it was compelling that a large number of our peer nations had also decided to stop fluorinating their water.
 
How much tap water actually gets drank?
It seems wasteful to put fluoride in the water we use to wash out clothes and cars and flush our toilets.
Most people seem to drink bottled or filtered water or some other beverage.
 
When I was about six years old, I attended, with my father, a town meeting where a public health official recommended that our town add fluoride to our drinking water. I don't remember the details of his explanation of why to do so would be good, other than it would help reduce cavities. As I was the last of seven kids, with the previous six still in either high school or elementary school, needless to say my father was very interested in something that would reduce his children's dental bills. Fluoride was subsequently added to our town's drinking water.

This public health official also advocated for frequent brushing of teeth. The only specific thing from this part of the meeting I remembered was a member of the audience asked the speaker what brand of toothpaste he recommended. The speaker, without hesitation, recommended "elbow grease." This suggestion was met with laughter and at least one request for where that brand of toothpaste could be purchased. The main reason I remember this exchange was that on the way back home, my father had to explain to me what "elbow grease" was and why it would aid in dental hygiene.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
The opinion piece was written by someone being paid to write opinion pieces -- not make national health decisions.

The point is that the Jama study had poor data collection methods and inconclusive results. You shouldn't base ANY decisions off of it.

"We also need to recognize that there are other ways to get fluoride such as toothpaste that don't have those same negative effects."
You haven't shown that there are any "negative effects" at the dosages administered in the water supply. Your entire dialogue is one big begging the question fallacy so far.

Is it something we can learn more about sure. We are. There are countless more studies in the last 10 years than ever before. Should we be directing any additional government focus away from more realized and pressing concerns when it comes to health? Absolutely not.
Click to expand...
The Canadian study has been somewhat confirmed by over a dozen similar studies including one study from the US performed by scientists at the University of Southern California medical school. They're all showing pretty similar results. To me that's starting to look like a whole lot stronger evidence then one study.
 
Last edited:
This issue is of particular interest for me. We have a 14-month old who does not like milk (cow, almond, soy, you name it), and as a result, drinks a ton of water. I believe the recommended fluid intake for her age is 24-30 oz per day, and she is likely getting that, and 95% is water.

We live in an older house and bought a very expensive filter that is supposed to filter lead, so I'm not terribly concerned with lead exposure. However, at her first dentist appointment, her dentist recommended using very, very little toothpaste because of the fluoride. I checked with her pediatrician who concurred. So what about the water?

Fluoride benefits her essentially nil at her age, because she has only baby teeth.
 
BubbaOtis said:
How much tap water actually gets drank?
It seems wasteful to put fluoride in the water we use to wash out clothes and cars and flush our toilets.
Most people seem to drink bottled or filtered water or some other beverage.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a cost issue. I think I remember seeing something a newspaper article from a community I lived in when they were talking about what they should do and it was something like 2 or 3 cents per household per month to add fluoride to the water.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
The Canadian study has been somewhat confirmed by over a dozen similar studies including one study from the US performed by scientists at the University of Southern California medical school. They're all showing pretty similar results To me that's starting to look like a whole lot stronger evidence then one study.
Click to expand...
Post the best of those other studies because the consensus among experts is that the Canadian study is not conclusive on anything.
 
Fun fact - the Canadian study measured an average IQ among the flouridated sample of 108.21 and among the non-flouridated sample of 108.07.

But that's it, I'm not talking about that flawed and/or misinterpreted study anymore. Its a classic example of confirmation bias by bad or misled actors trying to make it seem like something it isnt.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
Post the best of those other studies because the consensus among experts is that the Canadian study is not conclusive on anything.
Click to expand...
Here is the US study published in jama.

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

Here is the DHH's review of the data. That should include links to the dozen or so studies.

"After evaluating studies published through October 2023, the NTP Monograph concluded there is moderate confidence in the scientific evidence that showed an association between higher levels of fluoride and lower IQ in children."

Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition

ntp.niehs.nih.gov ntp.niehs.nih.gov
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top