Fluoride may be doing more harm than good

gtyellowjacket said:
Well there's not consensus within the NIH based on the most recent report.

And the EPA currently says that levels below 4 mg per liter are safe when these studies show that it's not. The EPA is currently reconsidering their recommendations because of court order. They haven't appealed which seems to me that there's not exactly consensus within the EPA.
Click to expand...
There's enough consensus at the NIH that 0.7mg/L is still the HHS's official position.

Go get the research and we can have this conversation again then. You don't have the research now. You just don't. That NIH report ain't it. And saying things like 1.5mg/L is "not much higher" than 0.7mg/L in this context is not helping your argument. Wait until actual relevant research is available and peer reviewed before you start recommending changes to public health policy.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
There's enough consensus at the NIH that 0.7mg/L is still the HHS's official position.

Go get the research and we can have this conversation again then. You don't have the research now. You just don't. That NIH report ain't it. And saying things like 1.5mg/L is "not much higher" than 0.7mg/L in this context is not helping your argument. Wait until actual relevant research is available and peer reviewed before you start recommending changes to public health policy.
Click to expand...
Look I realize it's not a thought report for a Fortune 100 company but an NIH report is actually pretty credible here.

The links are on this thread and within the reports if you care to look at them. If you just don't believe the science, I don't think me finding those reports, again, is really going to do much for you.
 
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...
This post is logically indistinguishable from RFK's anti-measles vaccine advocacy in Samoa, which led directly to the deaths of 83 people, most of whom were young children.
 
lawtig02 said:
This post is logically indistinguishable from RFK's anti-measles vaccine advocacy in Samoa, which led directly to the deaths of 83 people, most of whom were young children.
Click to expand...
I don't think we have too many NIH reports talking about the dangers of the measles vaccine but perhaps you can provide a link.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I don't think we have too many NIH reports talking about the dangers of the measles vaccine but perhaps you can provide a link.
Click to expand...
There's a scientific consensus that measles vaccines are safe. There's also a scientific consensus that fluoridation at the approved levels does not impact IQ. This is not hard. One outlier study does not disturb the scientific consensus any more than Jim Inhofe's snowball disturbs the consensus on climate change.
 
lawtig02 said:
There's a scientific consensus that measles vaccines are safe. There's also a scientific consensus that flouridation at the approved levels does not impact IQ. This is not hard. One outlier study does not disturb the scientific consensus any more than Jim Inhofe's snowball disturbs the consensus on climate change.
Click to expand...
Is there really scientific consensus that fluoride at the approved level does not impact IQ? I know people on this thread have blithely asserted it but there appears to be a fair amount of questions within the scientific community. At this point its 50 outliers.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Is there really scientific consensus that fluoride at the approved level does not impact IQ? I know people on this thread have blithely asserted it but there appears to be a fair amount of questions within the scientific community. At this point its 50 outliers.
Click to expand...
Sure. And 3% of global climate scientists dispute climate change. That has zero impact on the consensus.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Look I realize it's not a thought report for a Fortune 100 company but an NIH report is actually pretty credible here.

The links are on this thread and within the reports if you care to look at them. If you just don't believe the science, I don't think me finding those reports, again, is really going to do much for you.
Click to expand...
Maybe bigger font will help?

"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:
Maybe bigger font will help?

"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...
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.

Now that there is a legitimate question of safety, perhaps we should stop putting fluoride in the water until we know for sure if its safe. Or at least have the discussion of the trade-offs without dismissing the science.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
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.

Now that there is a legitimate question of safety, perhaps we should stop putting fluoride in the water until we know for sure if its safe. Or at least have the discussion of the trade-offs without dismissing the science.
Click to expand...
Since right now the data shows no risks and real benefits, why are you still beating this drum?
 
finesse said:
Since right now the data shows no risks and real benefits, why are you still beating this drum?
Click to expand...
Because the data shows risks at higher levels, and there is no study of the risks at lower levels.

I hate to bring up the same point twice but if there was a study tomorrow that Advil was proven to be dangerous at twice the recommended level but there is no data at the recommended level, would you consume Advil at the recommended level or would you take a Tylenol and wait for more studies to come in?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Because the data shows risks at higher levels, and there is no study of the risks at lower levels.

I hate to bring up the same point twice but if there was a study tomorrow that Advil was proven to be dangerous at twice the recommended level but there is no data at the current level, would you unquestionably consume Advil at the recommended level or would you take a Tylenol and wait for more studies to come in?
Click to expand...
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.
 
finesse said:
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.
Click to expand...
To me, the folks desperately hanging on to municipal fluoridation despite the proven risks at higher levels are making the incorrect risk assessment.

Do you really think your doctor would recommend a medication that was proven to have some dangerous side effects at twice the dosage if there was no data on those side effects at the current dose, if there was an alternative treatment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top