Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 468 posts

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#251

Post by dash2 »

adrian_b wrote: post #206
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #119

Adding fluoride to water has always seemed weird to me, since you can't control for how much water someone is drinking or account for different bodily factors like age and weight. I wonder why the European solution of adding it to salt isn't the default, especially given that iodized salt is already so popular and commonplace. As a general rule of thumb, I think it's interesting to scrutinize dosage recommendations a…

No, fluoride must not be added to any food or beverage, because it provides no benefits whatsoever when ingested. Fluoride is beneficial only when applied externally on the dental enamel, so that the fluoride ions will passively substitute the hydroxide ions. There is no known biological process that uses actively fluoride in the human body and excessive ingested fluoride has bad effects, e.g. bone damage. Therefore…

Given that the health bureaucracies of many countries seem to disagree with you, you need to cite more evidence and sources to support this claim. You can't just do it by strong assertion.

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#252

Post by dash2 »

throwaway8689 wrote: post #214
markmark wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/003335491012500507 We've been putting fluoride in water for a long time, and there are multiple studies that have looking in to it, I don't know why you think there aren't?

This study looked solely at impact on dental health. Other studies tell us it is associated with stomach cancer and infertility.

Is dental health not beneficial?

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#253

Post by desiarnezjr »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #72
celdon25 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been known for awhile, but you'd get labelled as a conspiracy theorist for any mention of it.

It goes all the way back to Dr. Strangelove at least. There's a whole bit in there about it.

This organisation was big on that conspiracy (??) theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#254

Post by raverbashing »

Looks like the future neuralink test subjects have come into force against fluoride.

But of course people forgot the history of water fluoridation and the risks of dental cavities

(of course, for modern countries I guess it makes more sense to have it in dental products than just in tap water, but I don't buy the moral panic)

> The report found that a link between typical levels of fluoride added to water and possible harm to brain development is unclear... the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times

Well good think we are at the current level and not at two times it then

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#255

Post by seszett »

sunk1st wrote: post #82
jcfrei wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you are trolling but are you alluding that the US population has healthier teeth? The "difference you see" is most likely just the much more widespread usage of bleaching in the US (which actually worsens the health of your teeth).

Preventative dental care in the US is a thing. Have you lived in Europe? It’s not really a thing in the EU.

I don't really know what this means for the US, but in Belgium you are required to go to the dentist at least once a year if you want to keep being reimbursed by social security.

When I lived in Canada (which I assume isn't too different from the US) with poor social security due to my legal status, I never went to a dentist because it was far, far too expensive.

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#256

Post by markmark »

Auracle wrote: post #211
markmark wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/003335491012500507 We've been putting fluoride in water for a long time, and there are multiple studies that have looking in to it, I don't know why you think there aren't?

There are studies for children, but from what I’ve seen there’s no advantage for adults/permanent teeth. I don’t really think it’s worth potential harm for baby teeth.

It's harder to do studies that seperate out adults who didn't have fluoridated water as children, but for example from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23456704/ "In this nationally representative sample of Australian adults, caries-preventive effects of water fluoridation were at least as great in adults born before widespread implementation of fluoridation as after widespread implementation of fluoridation."

So if you didn't have fluoridated water as a kid, having it as an adult still provides a benefit. This particular study doesn't say anything about having it as a kid and then stopping, but again, it's hard to find significant populations that have experienced that.

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#257

Post by Moru »

nwiswell wrote: post #233
oblak wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has to be satire. What sort of incredible self control does something like this require? Where does it end?

You think it's satire that there are people that don't brush their teeth but do drink water?

You could give targeted help to the ones that needs it, it would be more efficient to help them brush their teeth than just adding fluoride to the water that everyone drinks.

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#259

Post by 20after4 »

sp0rk wrote: post #230
Thorrez wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A Reverse Osmosis (RO) system can remove 85-92%* of fluoride in your water. https://www.paragonwater.com/does-reverse-osmosis-remove-flu...

RO systems waste something like three gallons for every usable gallon they produce.

I think that's improved, at least according to product literature (I haven't tested it myself), however:

The latest generation of small under-sink reverse osmosis filters claim to waste only 1 gallon for every 2 gallons of usable water. Still bad but much better than before.

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#260

Post by ifdefdebug »

arcticbull wrote: post #190
newZWhoDis wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the studies I have seen properly account for the lifetime effect, and instead only deduce lack of harm from flawed isolated studies. It’s in the entire water supply. You were gestated in a womb of a woman consuming highly fluoridated water. You were fed formula made with fluoridated water tuned to dose a 200lb man when you were 8lbs. The water you drank as your bones were growing was similarly overdosed The f…

> You were fed formula made with fluoridated water tuned to dose a 200lb man when you were 8lbs. Er, no. A baby only consumes 4-8oz of water per day while an adult is consuming 125oz. The concentration is the same in both cases so the adult is getting 30X more. > Then factor in the bell distribution and you are massively overexposing huge numbers of people a few standard deviations out. How are you defining 'overexpo…

> The concentration is the same in both cases so the adult is getting 30X more.

That should read 15-30 times more, according to your own figures. And then, the baby's mass is about 15-30 times less than the adult, so at the end you are in the same ballpark again, percentagewise.

Post reply on HN