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

311–320 of 468 posts

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#311

Post by TeMPOraL »

yeeeloit wrote: post #30
epgui wrote: post #24

As a biochemist, this seems to be a very complex issue that has been unnecessarily politicized. What happened with this report is interesting in and of itself, but I would not draw any conclusions (or make any inferences) from this, frankly.

As someone who comes from an area with clean fresh water, that does not contain added fluoride, this is not a complex issue. It's simply not a question that comes up. People have good dental hygiene here. To my mind, yes sure you can over complicate the entire debate, but all of that is irrelevant in the face of these basic points: - Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health? - Ca…

> but all of that is irrelevant in the face of these basic points:

> - Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health? - Can tooth decay be prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste?

When evaluating those points, be sure to assess what actually happens, in real life, to real people, and not what could happen in theory.

For example, even if tooth decay could be effectively "prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste" in theory, the effect might be smaller (possibly much smaller) in practice, as people in general suck at lifestyle changes, dieting being a prime example, and then a noticeable subset of the population has problems with regularly brushing their teeth (for some reason, this is surprising to many). Unless you have a way for fixing that (so far no one has), this may well make fluoridated water come out ahead in comparison.

--

EDIT: The above is similar to the argument for, e.g., opt-out health insurance and social retirement savings plans - you're still free to choose an alternative or decide to stay with the default, but if for some reason you can't understand the choice or can't be arsed to make one, you and everyone else are better off with you having some insurance and savings by default. The similarity is that we know for certain that the "incapable of making a choice" bucket will contain a substantial segment of the population, so at policy level, making health insurance/retirement savings opt-in with nothing as default, is just deciding to screw all those people over.

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#312

Post by Alexqw85 »

thrashh wrote: post #239
adrian_b wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well it halved childhood cavities in the 50s. It did its job and I don’t think it’s hard to understand why it was done. Same reason why they stared iodine to salt… because people were having mental development issues. Now is it still necessary? That’s a different question but let’s not pretend that we don’t know why it was done.

> Same reason why they stared iodine to salt… because people were having mental development issues.

This is not directly related to the topic of Fluoride, but Iodine was actually initially introduced to reduce goiters. The mental benefits were a wonderful, unexpected side-effect. Studies have put the effects anywhere between 8-15 IQ bump for populations that were Iodine deficient. Pretty jaw dropping when you think about it.

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#313

Post by xk_id »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #112
xk_id wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not OP or american, but i can comment. >1,500ppm concentration of fluoride is prescription only (so you either pay for a pointless dentist visit or get it on the grey market), despite being safe and much more effective at remineralisation. There are also experimental ingredients such as nanohydroxyapatite and Novamin which are difficult to find on the american market due to the FDA

Warning: Excessive fluoride is known to stain teeth with white steaks. You see it a lot in people who drink certain types of Chinese tea, high in fluoride.

This is called fluorosis and it only affects children. Ingestion of excess fluoride in early life changes the development of permanent teeth and causes white speckles.

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#314

Post by neuronic »

tpush wrote: post #276
shrx wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU citizen here, they're not putting it in salt here, but in toothpaste.

Salt is definitely commonly supplemented with fluoride, say least in Germany.

It's on the label and you can decide to just buy the non-fluoride version. Not sure how salt in processed food or restaurants is used though - this is the 'out-of-control' factor here.

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#315

Post by neuronic »

Timon3 wrote: post #282
cinntaile wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's probably confusing it with iodide.

My german salt has both iodide and fluoride.

'german salt' sounds funny to me.

Let's say you're buying the most popular and common brand, Bad Reichenhall. This is your selection:

https://www.bad-reichenhaller.de/en/products.html

In most supermarkets you get almost all of these options. Disclaimer is I have never seen the one with Selenium added.

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#316

Post by drekipus »

concordDance wrote: post #288
elif wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated There is of course the "that was the plan all along" hypothesis, that mild cognitive decay on a large scale is a useful outcome for control purposes.

It really isn't. Lower cognition is strongly associated with dissatisfaction and violence, not to mention much lower economic productivity (less taxes!).

> strongly associated with dissatisfaction and violence,

dissatisfaction and violence are the easiest problems for a state to deal with.

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#317

Post by CogitoCogito »

x-complexity wrote: post #240
levzettelin wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people lack the self control to use toothpaste regularly. For those people it's beneficial adding flouride to water.

> Some people lack the self control to use toothpaste regularly. For those people it's beneficial adding flouride to water. At some point, we can't just replace individual personal responsibility with the State as a solution. This attitude just reeks of infantilization of the total populace just because a certain percentage of them lack such self control. If you still want to provide support to them, make it targeted…

> At some point, we can't just replace individual personal responsibility with the State as a solution.

Have we reached that point? If so, why?

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#318

Post by ycombinete »

dm808 wrote: post #310

This extensive review has been available since 2006: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-... Neurotoxicity, especially in the presence of iodine deficiency, which is common, has been clearly documented. Toothpaste level exposure is enough to lower IQ in iodine deficiency.

So does that mean that it’s fine if we’re not iodine deficient?

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#319

Post by cubefox »

yownie wrote: post #144

>But the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times the current recommended water fluoridation level, records show. This is more a report about consuming excess fluoride from other sources that water. >Because many common foods and drinks contain fluoride, consuming them along with fluoridated water could amount to harmful exposure levels, these experts say. I do wonder what the othe…

> I do wonder what the other common food and drinks could be

They are listed in the article

Re: Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm

#320

Post by drewcon »

elif wrote: post #300
adrian_b wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>it is beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated by law in USA Consider that fluoride ingestion has been linked with increased anxiety and depression[*]. Depending upon one's political objectives, this could be a desirable outcome. For instance, the "anti-terror" decades of invasion would be easier to accept for an anxious public. Or depression may lead to more consumer activity. https://www.researc…

Or, hear me out, watching terrorists kamikaze a few commercial airliners into a couple of buildings in downtown Manhattan and the Pentagon live on TV was actually kind of a nerve racking on its own irrespective of what the dissolved minerals in our tap water might have told us.
Post reply on HN