I can see it fine at the regular font but thank you. "Not enough data to determine...". Sounds to me like we don't know if .7 mg/L is safe or not. We do know with moderate confidence that 1.5mg/L is unsafe.
Since right now the data shows no risks and real benefits, why are you still beating this drum?
Why are you asking me? I'm not the one arguing against the scientific consensus. You look it up.
Because the data shows risks at higher levels, and there is no study of the risks at lower levels.
What I'm saying is there doesn't seem to be a scientific consensus.
There are studies that show exactly that and if my doctor recommended Advil over Tylenol, since they are not as interchangeable as you suggest, then I would. If you want certainty, then you're going to die and there isn't shit you can do about it. Being stupid about risk assessment in general and particular is just a bad damned look. This is not important in itself and it damned sure isn't important as a general health issue even if there was even a shred of proof.
To me, the folks desperately hanging on to municipal fluoridation despite the proven risks at higher levels are making the incorrect risk assessment.
No, I don't think that. I know that. Oncologists make that call. Any time black label drugs are prescribed, doctors are making that call. Very damned few things don't have some risks.
Are there any studies that establish that the risk posed by flouride is linear (ie there is x amount of risk/damage from every y amount of flouride)? From my experience, most substances with toxicity levels have a threshold - ie there is no damage/risk below a certain level but it does manifest above a certain level).
Sure but ibuprofen was studied at the level of 2 a day. They didn't find any issues at the time just like no one had found safety issues with fluoride until recently.
So you don't have any studies that indicate that the harm/risk from flouride is linear?
Nope. In the same vein, I don't have any studies that indicate the harm/risk from fluoride is not linear.
You don't even have anything that proves the risk is even real at recommended levels. much less linear.
That's correct. I also don't have anything that says the risk isn't real at recommended levels. We only have 50 studies that say the risk is real at about double the recommended level.
Then since there is no real evidence after 70 or more years of harm and a good deal of evidence that it has done good if would be stupid to change what we're doing unless and until there is strong evidence to do so. Wouldn't you agree? You could overreact and alert pregnant women of the possibility I guess. People who are paranoid can drink bottled water. This all seems like a tempest in a toilet bowl.
No. I wouldn't agree. To me, it seems like there's enough new evidence that there could be harm to stop municipal fluoridation until the studies come in. And if the studies come in that it's safe at the current level, I'll be to yelling the loudest to put that fluoride in the water because I do appreciate the benefits.
