Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Fluoride may be doing more harm than good

gtyellowjacket said:
What evidence? Were you able to find the study where it said fluoride was safe and didn't affect IQ at .7 mg/L?

Science evolves. Things change. The EPA's limit for fluoride and water is currently 4 mg/L. I'm sure that the scientists that set that level did the work and did the studies and couldn't find any negative effects at that level but new evidence has come to light and they are flat wrong. But if you're just one of those science deniers, I think it's best that you eat your dinner and watch the game. Enjoy your evening.
Click to expand...
There are three such studies cited in the JAMA article you cite. See footnotes 122-124

122.
Kumar JV, Moss ME, Liu H, Fisher-Owens S. Association between low fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence: a meta-analysis relevant to community water fluoridation. Public Health. 2023;219:73-84. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2023.03.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
123.
Guth S, Hüser S, Roth A, et al. Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses. Arch Toxicol. 2020;94(5):1375-1415. doi:10.1007/s00204-020-02725-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
124.
Do LG, Spencer AJ, Sawyer A, et al. Early childhood exposures to fluorides and child behavioral development and executive function: a population-based longitudinal study. J Dent Res. 2023;102(1):28-36. doi:10.1177/00220345221119431PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
 
roostra said:
There are three such studies cited in the JAMA article you cite. See footnotes 122-124

122.
Kumar JV, Moss ME, Liu H, Fisher-Owens S. Association between low fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence: a meta-analysis relevant to community water fluoridation. Public Health. 2023;219:73-84. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2023.03.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
123.
Guth S, Hüser S, Roth A, et al. Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses. Arch Toxicol. 2020;94(5):1375-1415. doi:10.1007/s00204-020-02725-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
124.
Do LG, Spencer AJ, Sawyer A, et al. Early childhood exposures to fluorides and child behavioral development and executive function: a population-based longitudinal study. J Dent Res. 2023;102(1):28-36. doi:10.1177/00220345221119431PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Click to expand...

Good enough for me. Let's keep fluoridating that water till more data comes out. I'm yelling that very loudly into my voice to text. Number two was interesting because it's based in Europe where fluoridation levels are much lower then the US. But it notes that using other sources like fluoride toothpaste instead of fluoridating water also does not affect development. So if it does turn out that fluoridating water at current levels is an issue there are other methods.

Thank you for finding those.
 
Last edited:
finesse said:
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?
Click to expand...
Of course not, b/c it seems that there could be some evidence that suggests fluoride might possibly cause harm. Dude uses more bullshit qualifiers per post than a defense attorney...
 
hedge said:
Of course not, b/c it seems that there could be some evidence that suggests fluoride might possibly cause harm. Dude uses more bullshit qualifiers per post than a defense attorney...
Click to expand...
Can we discuss how confident we are that it does good?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
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"

Click to expand...
Fluoride is nature's cavity fighter and occurs naturally in varying amounts in water sources such as rivers, lakes and even the oceans. Fluoride is naturally present to some extent in certain foods and beverages but the levels vary widely.

The benefits of using dental fluoride include stronger enamel and better protection against tooth decay. But large amounts of fluoride can be toxic. It can also result in fluoride-induced tooth discoloration (fluorosis).
 
Last edited:
ColdBlueSteel said:
Can we discuss how confident we are that it does good?
Click to expand...
Confidence is subjective. How confident can anybody be about anything? If I jump out of a window, I'm confident that something we call gravity will cause me to hit the ground. Even the notion of causation is questionable, but I'm still confident to the point of certainty that what I call my ass will hit what I call the ground. Outside a few other things which mostly include the basic elements of air, water and fire, most things are subject to some degree of doubt and debate and reliance on the translation (by whom?) of words the vast majority of people don't understand into layman's terms. I'm pretty confident that I shouldn't rely on yellowjacket's qualified-laden marble-mouthed mewlings to form an opinion about anything...
 
gtyellowjacket said:
What evidence? Were you able to find the study where it said fluoride was safe and didn't affect IQ at .7 mg/L?

Science evolves. Things change. The EPA's limit for fluoride and water is currently 4 mg/L. I'm sure that the scientists that set that level did the work and did the studies and couldn't find any negative effects at that level but new evidence has come to light and they are flat wrong. But if you're just one of those science deniers, I think it's best that you eat your dinner and watch the game. Enjoy your evening.
Click to expand...
You're a scientist now? Probably more true to say some theories evolve or change in the face of new information/data

You know the old expression the exception that proofs (not proves) the rule. As in tests the rule.
 
It’s a weird state we live in now. We say science evolves as we learn more but we aren’t allowed to even question certain things anymore as new information becomes available. In fact, we aren’t even allowed to say we should look at it. The people questioning it aren’t the one saying there’s a microchip in the Covid vaccines or they control the weather. They are smart folks just questioning the norm and wondering if we now have more data.
 
HintonJamesHeel said:
It’s a weird state we live in now. We say science evolves as we learn more but we aren’t allowed to even question certain things anymore as new information becomes available. In fact, we aren’t even allowed to say we should look at it. The people questioning it aren’t the one saying there’s a microchip in the Covid vaccines or they control the weather. They are smart folks just questioning the norm and wondering if we now have more data.
Click to expand...
What are you not allowed to question?
 
ColdBlueSteel said:
Can we discuss how confident we are that it does good?
Click to expand...
I think there's pretty high confidence that fluoride in municipal water does help with tooth decay. This is based on comparing communities that did fluoridate versus those that didn't.

But that effect has been waning according to a relatively new study from last year. Basically the study noted that most of the data was from before 1975 when fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash was less common. So fluoride added to municipal water made a huge difference. The limited studies after 1975 show that there is a much smaller effect.

www.nbcnews.com

Benefits of adding fluoride to water may be waning

New research suggests the widespread use of fluoride in toothpaste may have minimized the benefits of water fluoridation.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

I think I read somewhere that researchers from UNC of all places are currently conducting a study in eastern North Carolina that may better quantify the benefits in a US population with a more current environment.
 
Last edited:
HintonJamesHeel said:
It’s a weird state we live in now. We say science evolves as we learn more but we aren’t allowed to even question certain things anymore as new information becomes available. In fact, we aren’t even allowed to say we should look at it. The people questioning it aren’t the one saying there’s a microchip in the Covid vaccines or they control the weather. They are smart folks just questioning the norm and wondering if we now have more data.
Click to expand...
I think it's quite the opposite. Now, more than ever, everyone can say whatever they want to everybody. And everyone, regardless of background, education, knowledge, etc., can pretend they're an expert in any given field. And when challenged, you can just accuse people of not "allowing" you to say what you want, or of "canceling" you or whatever. It is indeed a weird state we live in now.
 
hedge said:
Confidence is subjective. How confident can anybody be about anything? If I jump out of a window, I'm confident that something we call gravity will cause me to hit the ground. Even the notion of causation is questionable, but I'm still confident to the point of certainty that what I call my ass will hit what I call the ground. Outside a few other things which mostly include the basic elements of air, water and fire, most things are subject to some degree of doubt and debate and reliance on the translation (by whom?) of words the vast majority of people don't understand into layman's terms. I'm pretty confident that I shouldn't rely on yellowjacket's qualified-laden marble-mouthed mewlings to form an opinion about anything...
Click to expand...
So by that logic, if you can’t be confident there is a benefit, and there may b
evrheel said:
Masks for goalies
Click to expand...
Is the gentleman in the gif a goalie?
 
New study out from Australia indicating that fluoride does not cause IQ problems. Looks pretty good. ~350 participants. Basically took a population from a previous study who got fluoride as children plus a control group and gave them IQ tests at about 19 years old. No statistically significant difference in IQ. This moves the needle for me.

Biggest red flag that I saw was an average IQ of around 109 which is pretty high for a truly random group. Not a red flag but I didn't see any indication of fluoridation levels in Australia.

www.psypost.org

Fluoride exposure in early childhood does not harm intelligence, Australian study finds

A new study published in the Journal of Dental Research finds no link between early childhood fluoride exposure and lower intelligence in young adulthood, reinforcing the safety of fluoride in water and toothpaste for developing brains.
www.psypost.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top