Oddbean

That's not really the same thing. Children especially are subject to higher levels of decay, regardless of how on point their brush game is. Flouride is a proven method of raising the level of oral health across the board, resulting in a reduced need for dental visits, and significantly less money needed for oral treatment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country Maybe the root of the problem is that children in America are eating so much sugary crap. Along with this regulation they should put a spear to Kelloggs.

Maybe. High sugar and carbohydrates definitely contribute to tooth decay. But flouride isn't a substitute for brushing and it never has been. It's a longterm treatment that empirically reduces tooth decay in the receiving population. And as far as I know, it's safe, and has not produced unwanted side effects of a statistically significant nature. If there was a clear and present danger posed by water treatment, I'd understand the desire to get rid of it. But objectively weighing the pros and cons does not, to my knowledge, justify ending the longterm water treatment programs. The real benefits seem to outweigh the hypothetical risks.

There is no set standard for fluoride dosing in water, so it isn't possible for you to even know whether it causes harm or not. This is one of the reasons many of the studies have been inconclusive. We should first explore alternatives before just dumping shit into water.

Ok, assuming you are correct in what you claim, excuses for why we don't have evidence supporting your position is not evidence for your position. That's just faulty reasoning, and making epistemological leaps for the sake of arriving at a conclusion you prefer.

That's a fair argument, but that's not the argument that was being made at the time I wrote this. I think informed consent is the strongest and most valid argument against the flouridation of tap water, and it's a point that certainly should be debated.

The problem is that the concept of informed co sent and fluoridation of tapwater are mutually exclusive. If you go to the slippery slope of this or that outways informed consent, then you open up a whole can of worms were government get's to decide what's good for you.

In general, I agree. But water flouridation has been official US policy since 1951, and it hasn't led to any slippery slope. I don't think it's reasonable to believe the government is all of a sudden going to start adding random shit to the water premised on the addition of flouride.

The bit about people being able to purchase flouride rinse is troubling territory because not everyone, and not every family has the funds to commit to a longterm, purchased régimen of flouride rinse. That gets into the issue of the benefits of flouride only being attainable by those with means. And the absence of flouride is associated with an elevated need for dental care. And who is least able to afford extra dental care? The very people who may be unable to afford flouride rinse. So it creates a class division in which the people who need flouride the most due to limited resources are the people who will be subject to dental care they cannot afford due to the lack of flouridation in the water. So, I think there's this socioeconomic angle that shouldn't be waved away when considering the issue in its totality.

Its a pain in the arse to remove if you don't want it (RO or expensive filters that don't completely get it all out) and it's in mouthwash toothpaste already if you do want it. It also has effects for people using municipal water for other things where they also don't want it for example perhaps for animals and brewing. Also if you read Weston A Price "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects" it becomes pretty clear modern dietary habits are the cause of modern dental woes. Mass fluoridation might help the teeth in some cases but doesn't fix the key problem and causes issues elsewhere so the idea of applying it to everyone's water is just bonkers..

It's not intended to fix all dental issues. Its purpose is to decrease the amount of tooth decay in the general population, particularly in children. And in that goal, it has been wildly successful. Also, the miniscule amount of flouride used in the water supply has no adverse impact on animals, nor does it interfere with beer brewing. So, I don't think those arguments are particularly compelling. The one argument I consider valid and worthy of debate is the matter of flouridation conflicting with notions of informed consent, and the imposition of flouridation on persons who specifically don't want it. Given that the scientific consensus is firmly on the side of flouridation, and that its safety and efficacy has been roundly established in the nearly 75 years its use has been official US policy, I think the matter of informed consent would be the most productive, and intellectually sound argument to focus on.

I'm a practicing dentist and disagree with your statement that 0.7-1.2ppm water fluoridation doesn't have adverse effects. Made a series of videos to address that https://primal.net/e/note1j902e59qtrv28sajrs9vv2k687twa255x3cn9757yr80vdz67h4shuf8ja

Being a dentist doesn't make you an expert in the effects of water flouridation on the human body. And your singular opinion on the matter doesn't negate the decades of empirical evidence, and comprehensive research that the scientific consensus is based on. You're making an argument from authority—an established logical fallacy. Science is based on a body of peer-reviewed research and data, not the opinions or beliefs of someone with claimed expertise. And you know that.

jackass didn't even watch the vid, and can't cite his own sources. goes ad hominem instead. 8 years of training in chemistry, biology, and oral physiology makes one pretty much a damn expert in everything mouth related including fluoride. Hell, that's the definition of expert.

You need to take a moment to go learn what an ad hominen is, because nothing I've said meets the definition. You, on the other hand, have engaged in nothing but ad hominens and personal attacks since sliding into the discussion. Go ahead, resume your petty name-calling. I'm sure it will get you far.

Thanks for the honest discussion but I disagree. For me that's like saying we should carry on plastering the wall while the underlying wooden structure is rotten, makes no sense at all to me, but you and others are welcome to persist in the folly. It does both the things I mentioned. In some ways its quite similar to Chorine at a small level it does not interfere greatly with the macro process but will inhibit it. Things will eventually ferment still and horses wont get fluorosis at the right levels but what happens when they accidently add too much (those things do happen) and what are the cumulative effects over a lifetime? Unlike Chlorine (typically linked to bladder cancer) which is easily filtered out by low cost Carbon, Fluoride doesn't and Calcium Fluoride is not the same molecule as the Sodium Fluoride they add to the supply. As you keep reminding us its only been 75 years in the US.. .that's not even a full human lifetime to evaluate it. You also have to take into account with the yeast and microbes these things also live in us. So while some of these yeast may only be inhibited in large vat for producing alcohol, what's that doing inside us where levels would never be as high? I would prefer the precautionary principle in this case. Out of curiosity would you also defend adding Lithium to the water supply? Because believe it or not people have suggested that to stop people killing themselves! Surely that more important than teeth right?!

Actually, I think society would be better off if more people were consuming regular doses of lithium! Although you are right that I wouldn't support treating our water with it. However, if the evidence and scientific consensus supported the use of lithium in the water, I would have to seriously reevaluate my position on it. Because I'm not an expert, and I'm not qualified to contradict the science. I have to rely on the empirical evidence, and relevant subject-matter expert consensus to base my beliefs on. If the the weight of the evidence, and scientific consensus shows that flouridation is actually more harmful than helpful, and that its use is no longer justifiable, I would defer to the consensus and support ending flouridation. Again, because I'm not an expert, or in a position to declare that the scientific consensus is wrong, I have to go with the current scientific position. But I also understand and accept that not everyone views it the way I do, and I respect anyone who presents their views respectfully, and with reason.

this pendantic asshole. a user of chatgpt obviously. fluoride has not been "wildly" successful, liar. cite your fucking sources so that we can all see the insane amount of conflict of interest and shit science (i.e. math errors) that props this all up.

Yeah I have one but anyway luckily where I live in the U.K we don't do a lot of it. Its pretty much just Birmingham and a couple of other cities where its added. Though even and now and then there are suggestions to expand it, so I like to keep up to date on things.