Fluoride may be doing more harm than good

it's not so much about Junior as it is that the anti-fluoridation movement has been pushed by a right wing fringe since the 1950s. There's a hell of a lot more to it than one person.

Not saying to deny the science but more verify the science. There are some long time things connected to this and probably more money and influence among the antis than we know.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
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.
Click to expand...
Having one Canadian survey in a review of over 50 studies isn't all that reassuring (and would be curious to see what that study found on a stand-alone basis based on the critique by the dental heath guy). In any event, I don't think we are at "rejecting the science" here -- we're at the science about possible harms in uncertain amounts is far from conclusive and the data on the benefits is pretty compelling.

I do think the fact that absolute kooks have opposed fluoridation for patently absurd reasons for decades (like it will turn you Communist) makes it harder to take seriously politicians who have seized on the topic of late. And I have a hard time taking RFK Jr. seriously on anything because he is a heroin addict who has demonstrated repeatedly that he promotes junk science and conspiracy theories.
 
nycfan said:
Having one Canadian survey in a review of over 50 studies isn't all that reassuring (and would be curious to see what that study found on a stand-alone basis based on the critique by the dental heath guy). In any event, I don't think we are at "rejecting the science" here -- we're at the science about possible harms in uncertain amounts is far from conclusive and the data on the benefits is pretty compelling.

I do think the fact that absolute kooks have opposed fluoridation for patently absurd reasons for decades (like it will turn you Communist) makes it harder to take seriously politicians who have seized on the topic of late. And I have a hard time taking RFK Jr. seriously on anything because he is a heroin addict who has demonstrated repeatedly that he promotes junk science and conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
The dentist is pointing out that removing fluoride could harm children's mental health. That's absolutely correct, especially if we don't look at other sources of fluoride that might be safer.

But the dentist isn't making any comment on the studies that point to a lower IQ. To me that very well might be more of a problem than cavities.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
That's very much incorrect. 50 studies?
Click to expand...
Quote from the comms director of the organization that created the original 300-page report that the article you linked is analyzing:

"There were not enough data to determine if 0.7 mg/L of fluoride exposure in drinking water affected children's IQ," Christine Flowers, director of the Office of Communication at the National Institutes of Health, wrote in an email.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
Quote from the comms director of the organization that created the original 300-page report that the article you linked is analyzing:

"There were not enough data to determine if 0.7 mg/L of fluoride exposure in drinking water affected children's IQ," Christine Flowers, director of the Office of Communication at the National Institutes of Health, wrote in an email.
Click to expand...
Yes. That is correct. There are continuing studies now And it's possible that we will have something conclusive by the end of Trump's term.

But I don't think anyone is going to say we we have studies from two pack a day smokers that show a marked increase in cancer, but don't have enough studies from one pack a day smokers to determine if that causes cancer. Smoke'em if you got 'em.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Yes. That is correct. There are continuing studies now And it's possible that we will have something conclusive by the end of Trump's term.

But I don't think anyone is going to say we we have studies from two pack a day smokers that show a marked increase in cancer, but don't have enough studies from one pack a day smokers to determine if that causes cancer. Smoke'em if you got 'em.
Click to expand...
Holy bad analogy batman. Fluoride in water is carcinogenic now? Please show me the science that fluoride impacts the body like tobacco smoke.

Just take your L and move on. I was correct in stating nothing in that report supports the EPA recommending we remove fluoride from drinking water.
 
Last edited:
gtyellowjacket said:
Yes. That is correct. There are continuing studies now And it's possible that we will have something conclusive by the end of Trump's term.

But I don't think anyone is going to say we we have studies from two pack a day smokers that show a marked increase in cancer, but don't have enough studies from one pack a day smokers to determine if that causes cancer. Smoke'em if you got 'em.
Click to expand...
That's wretched comparison even before a cost/benefit analysis of the two.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
Holy bad analogy batman. Flouride in water is carcinogenic now? Please show me the science that flouride impacts the body like tobacco smoke.

Just take your L and move on. I was correct in stating nothing in that report supports the EPA recommending we remove flouride from drinking water.
Click to expand...
Who said fluoride is carcinogenic? The studies show fluoride at high levels affects IQ. That's it. Cancer from cigarettes and lower IQ from fluoride are both health concerns.

If you want, you can change it to over 50 studies showed that lead in gasoline that is twice what some American refiners put in our gasoline causes lowers IQ but we don't have data on lead at current levels. I don't think anyone is going to say let's keep the lead in the gasoline at our current levels until we know for sure.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Who said fluoride is carcinogenic? The studies show fluoride at high levels affects IQ. That's it. Cancer from cigarettes and lower IQ from fluoride are both health concerns.

If you want, you can change it to over 50 studies showed that lead in gasoline that is twice what some American refiners put in our gasoline causes lowers IQ but we don't have data on lead at current levels. I don't think anyone is going to say let's keep the lead in the gasoline at our current levels until we know for sure.
Click to expand...
You're making an unsupported inference over and over. No matter how hard you want to believe or how many times you repeat it research that suggests with "moderate confidence" that 1.5+mg/L of fluoride in water may impact IQ in children DOES NOT SUPPORT the notion that 0.7mg/L of fluoride in water is harmful.

Did you know water ingested at sufficiently high levels is toxic to humans. Does that mean water at half those levels is also toxic? No.

You have to demonstrate that low levels of fluoride in water are harmful - not just point to research that shows its harmful at much high levels. Do you understand that? That's how medical science works. You don't make public health recommendations based on unsupported inferences. You have to demonstrate your claim especially when you're dealing with something that has decades of proven positive benefits to public health.
 
Last edited:
I used to lead a team at a Fortune 100 company that created thought leadership reports for our clients. So that required me to provide oversight and input to the research and analytics teams who would design, conduct and analyze primary research in the field that would inform our reports. Evaluating raw data is a very precise exercise that requires incredible levels of rigor. Every tom dick and harry thinks they can come in, look at a data table and start spouting off so-whats. That is not how effective data analysis works. Even after years of working with that data I knew that every conclusion we drew needed to be triple checked with the data engineers to make sure we were not misconstruing the conclusions. It gave me a lot of respect for the people who do that work. And it gave me a healthy dose of caution for leaping to presumed conclusions on flimsy data. I see a lot of that in this topic when those same 50 international studies with conflicting standards, scope, subjects, objectives are regurgitated again and again into some frankenstein conclusion that our water standards are unsafe. Its really bad science.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
You're making an unsupported inference over and over. No matter how hard you want to believe or how many times you repeat it research that suggests with "moderate confidence" that 1.5+mg/L of flouride in water may impact IQ in children DOES NOT SUPPORT the notion that 0.7mg/L of flouride in water is harmful.

Did you know water ingested at sufficiently high levels is toxic to humans. Does that mean water at half those levels is also toxic? No.

You have to demonstrate that low levels of flouride in water are harmful - not just point to research that shows its harmful at much high levels. Do you understand that? That's how medical science works. You don't make public health recommendations based on unsupported inferences. You have to demonstrate your claim especially when you're dealing with something that has decades of proven positive benefits to public health.
Click to expand...
It's not that much higher. There are some municipalities in the United States that do fluorinate at that level, and when you add other sources, there are kids getting that known unsafe level.

I would turn it around. With the evidence that we have today, there is at least some chance that fluoridating water at our levels currently might cause a drop in IQ. Let's stop the possible harmful chemical , and let's do the studies to determine the safe level, and the most effective ways to get fluoride in the population at that level.

This isn't some crazy thing. Most of Europe, Japan, Israel has stopped fluoridating their water or never did it in the first place. I'm not sure why Americans are so attached to it when the science is there that it's a risk and there are other ways to get it.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
I used to lead a team at a Fortune 100 company that created thought leadership reports for our clients. So that required me to provide oversight and input to the research and analytics teams who would design, conduct and analyze primary research in the field that would inform our reports. Evaluating raw data is a very precise exercise that requires incredible levels of rigor. Every tom dick and harry thinks they can come in, look at a data table and start spouting off so-whats. That is not how effective data analysis works. Even after years of working with that data I knew that every conclusion we drew needed to be triple checked with the data engineers to make sure we were not misconstruing the conclusions. It gave me a lot of respect for the people who do that work. And it gave me a healthy dose of caution for leaping to presumed conclusions on flimsy data. I see a lot of that in this topic when those same 50 international studies with conflicting standards, scope, subjects, objectives are regurgitated again and again into some frankenstein conclusion that our water standards are unsafe. Its really bad science.
Click to expand...
So now your Fortune 100 experience trumps jama, NIH, Harvard School of public health? I think I'll trust them on this one before I start listening to the guy that made thought leadership reports at general motors.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
So now your Fortune 100 experience trumps jama, NIH, Harvard School of public health? I think I'll trust them on this one before I start listening to the guy that made thought leadership reports at general motors.
Click to expand...
Do you have a hard time reading? Where did I say my experience trumps anyone? I said it gave me respect for treating data with care. Which is what I'm suggesting you do as well.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
Its literally over 100% higher

You're getting all spun up. Let's back up.

Show me the scientific consensus that supports a recommendation by the EPA to eliminate flouride from our drinking water.

I'll hang up and listen.
Click to expand...
Show me a scientific consensus that fluoridating water is safe. Its not there because the studies are still being done. The question is if we should keep doing it when there is a fair chance that its dangerous or we should stop until the studies are completed.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Show me a scientific consensus that fluoridating water is safe. Its not there because the studies are still being done. The question is if we should keep doing it when there is a fair chance that its dangerous or we should stop until the studies are completed.
Click to expand...

CDC
US Public Health Service
Department of Health and Human Services (which includes the NIH)
EPA

Literally all relevant federal scientific bodies maintain a recommended standard of at least 0.7mg/L. That is the current consensus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top