Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Fluoride may be doing more harm than good

Dying at 33 prevented a lot of them as well.
This is not correct. The high infant mortality rate skewed the average age downwards but if you got through the childhood diseases, you had a pretty good chance of making it to 50 or 60 as long as you didn't live during one of the black plague epidemics. If you were rich, you had a pretty good chance of making it to 60 or 70.
 
This is not correct. The high infant mortality rate skewed the average age downwards but if you got through the childhood diseases, you had a pretty good chance of making it to 50 or 60 as long as you didn't live during one of the black plague epidemics. If you were rich, you had a pretty good chance of making it to 60 or 70.
It's correct for some of the time period under discussion. The problem is that the "Middle Ages" encompasses almost a millennium.
 
This is not correct. The high infant mortality rate skewed the average age downwards but if you got through the childhood diseases, you had a pretty good chance of making it to 50 or 60 as long as you didn't live during one of the black plague epidemics. If you were rich, you had a pretty good chance of making it to 60 or 70.
For a guy who has been all about average this and average that, you're balking at average life expectancies. Oh, and you might check the murder and execution rates as well.

I wonder how high those infant mortality rates were in comparison to any other time? The rates ,iirc, rose greatly as more women gave birth in urban hospitals. Rural, midwife and private births were much safer and probably improved. Things didn't really improve greatly until the late 19th century.
 
I grew up with well water. The tap water in Raleigh is a luxury. Consistently rated some of the best tasting tap water in the country. Bottled water so expensive and wasteful.
Had no idea the tap water in Raleigh was so highly thought of. Thanks for sharing.
 
Europeans may not consume water with fluoride added, but they do consume fluoridated salt AND FLUORIDATED MILK, instead. Also, some countries have high enough fluoride occurring NATURALLY in their water so no need to add. Italy for example.

At the end of the day, fluoride in very small, daily amounts is a good thing. Make sure you brush your teeth with it. Perhaps the US can reduce the suggested amounts added to our drinking water… but to do away with it altogether without doing something similar to Europe (fluoride in the salt and milk) wouldn’t be the intelligent thing.

As far as listening to RFK on every little conspiracy theory of his? I’d rather listen to the Canadian Fruit Loop.

As a matter of fact, I’m going to start referring to RFK Junior, as just that - the Canadian Fruit loop
 
Man this is just the quintessential GT contrarian thread lol. I only wish I could feel the type of rush he probably got when he posted this.
He's not entirely wrong. It does seem to be something of an an open question among researchers.

But that's where it should stay for now -- among researchers, i.e. the people who can understand it.
 
Europeans may not consume water with fluoride added, but they do consume fluoridated salt AND FLUORIDATED MILK, instead. Also, some countries have high enough fluoride occurring NATURALLY in their water so no need to add. Italy for example.

At the end of the day, fluoride in very small, daily amounts is a good thing. Make sure you brush your teeth with it. Perhaps the US can reduce the suggested amounts added to our drinking water… but to do away with it altogether without doing something similar to Europe (fluoride in the salt and milk) wouldn’t be the intelligent thing.

As far as listening to RFK on every little conspiracy theory of his? I’d rather listen to the Canadian Fruit Loop.

As a matter of fact, I’m going to start referring to RFK Junior, as just that - the Canadian Fruit loop
I hate referring to Robert Kennedy, Jr. as “RFK.”

Canadian Fruit Loop is a much better name……just don’t use CFL.
 
Also hard to learn with a lower IQ.
The stats from that IQ study amount to a rounding error in an N 1000 dataset.
We should start telling Republicans that dihydrogen monoxide turns you gay or trans- but only if you are Republican.
Maybe better if we let them in on the secret - it’s not babies’ blood we all drink, it’s actually mercury tonics and arsenic enemas.
 
I hate referring to Robert Kennedy, Jr. as “RFK.”

Canadian Fruit Loop is a much better name……just don’t use CFL.
Yeah, I actually admired his dad in many ways. He was a flawed person in some ways but I did admire a lot of his positions, especially when he became a Senator after his brother was killed. He's probably rolling in his grave at Arlington given what his son has become, and is about to do to our nation's healthcare system.
 
General Jack Ripper approves of what RFKJr wants to do re fluoridation. His precious bodily fluids are now safe from Communist conspiracy,
Next up: Trump and RFK Jr. take down the polio vaccine
 
New report out. It's basically the analysis of the report that the NIH put out last year. Basically says there is some pretty good evidence that higher levels of fluoridation can lower IQ.

They note that the studies at the recommended levels of fluoridation are inconclusive and that double the levels are pretty confidently a problem. They also worry that water at the recommended fluoridation levels added to other sources such as toothpaste, mouthwash and certain foods could put vulnerable people like pregnant women at risk. If I had to guess, the EPA will recommend not fluoridating municipal water before the end of Trump's term.

 
New report out. It's basically the analysis of the report that the NIH put out last year. Basically says there is some pretty good evidence that higher levels of fluoridation can lower IQ.

They note that the studies at the recommended levels of fluoridation are inconclusive and that double the levels are pretty confidently a problem. They also worry that water at the recommended fluoridation levels added to other sources such as toothpaste, mouthwash and certain foods could put vulnerable people like pregnant women at risk. If I had to guess, the EPA will recommend not fluoridating municipal water before the end of Trump's term.

“… Monday's analysis digs deeper into the data behind these conclusions. It looks at a few dozen foreign studies that other researchers have conducted, mostly in China and India, and finds an association between high levels of fluoride and a small decrease in children's IQ.

… The analysis is controversial. The paper was published alongside two editorials in JAMA Pediatrics. One, by Steven Levy, a public health dentist at the University of Iowa, questioned the analysis's methods and disagreed with its conclusions. The other, by a trio of children's health researchers, supported its findings.

Using this analysis — which is inconclusive at levels of fluoridation below 1.5 mg/L — to inform the debate over low levels of fluoride in drinking water feels like a stretch to fluoridation supporters like Levy.

"The major problem is that the science is not as strong as it's presented by these authors," he says. For instance, the study authors write in the paper's abstract that fluoride exposure seems linked (in certain studies) with lower IQ at levels even below 1.5 mg/L, but Levy notes that the data they provide aren't conclusive.

… He points out that some of the more recent fluoride studies, which he thinks are better designed, found no negative effect on IQ, and he thinks they should have been given more weight in the recent analysis.

To others, the analysis published this week makes a strong enough case out of imperfect evidence for action. "What the study does, or should do, is shift the burden of proof," says Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a children's health researcher at Simon Fraser University, who co-authored the other editorial, which supported the paper's findings. "The people who are proposing fluoridation need to now prove it's safe. …”

——

From the cited NPR story. I have no objections to this data being used to prod further dedicated, high quality US research on the matter, but given the known value of fluoridation of water, no recommendations should be based on such a review of existing Indian and Chinese studies.
 
“… Monday's analysis digs deeper into the data behind these conclusions. It looks at a few dozen foreign studies that other researchers have conducted, mostly in China and India, and finds an association between high levels of fluoride and a small decrease in children's IQ.

… The analysis is controversial. The paper was published alongside two editorials in JAMA Pediatrics. One, by Steven Levy, a public health dentist at the University of Iowa, questioned the analysis's methods and disagreed with its conclusions. The other, by a trio of children's health researchers, supported its findings.

Using this analysis — which is inconclusive at levels of fluoridation below 1.5 mg/L — to inform the debate over low levels of fluoride in drinking water feels like a stretch to fluoridation supporters like Levy.

"The major problem is that the science is not as strong as it's presented by these authors," he says. For instance, the study authors write in the paper's abstract that fluoride exposure seems linked (in certain studies) with lower IQ at levels even below 1.5 mg/L, but Levy notes that the data they provide aren't conclusive.

… He points out that some of the more recent fluoride studies, which he thinks are better designed, found no negative effect on IQ, and he thinks they should have been given more weight in the recent analysis.

To others, the analysis published this week makes a strong enough case out of imperfect evidence for action. "What the study does, or should do, is shift the burden of proof," says Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a children's health researcher at Simon Fraser University, who co-authored the other editorial, which supported the paper's findings. "The people who are proposing fluoridation need to now prove it's safe. …”

——

From the cited NPR story. I have no objections to this data being used to prod further dedicated, high quality US research on the matter, but given the known value of fluoridation of water, no recommendations should be based on such a review of existing Indian and Chinese studies.
There was a Canadian study in there as well. And the India and China studies were all peer-reviewed most led by US scientists. One was published in Nature, one was an NIH study led by some Harvard guys. I wouldn't dismiss it just based on the location of the subjects. The science is good and high levels of fluoride are very probably an issue.

I think the real questions are:

-is there a safe level in municipal water and what is it?

-if there isn't a safe level, does the good outweigh the bad?

- if there isn't a safe level, are there safer ways to get fluoride into the population.

But I think folks that are rejecting the science because RFK JR is bringing it up or because we've ridiculed these fluoride folks for a while, is not a great way to set policy.
 
Back
Top