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

Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#341

Post by Quarrel »

MajimasEyepatch wrote: post #300
timewizard wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder how many people really brush their teeth on a regular basis. Whatever the number is it's not appropriate for the state to medically intervene on their behalf.

Why not?

Perhaps, sadly, because if the State doesn't have to pick up the costs in health care, as in large parts of the developed world, then they lose their incentive to be proactive in addressing health issues.

In countries with some form of universal health care, simple proactive health interventions can save the State large amounts of money.

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#342

Post by thaumasiotes »

ryao wrote: post #280
varenc wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the concentration that matters. Toothpaste has over 1000x the concentration of fluoride vs 0.7mg/L as tap water. Many well water sources have naturally occurring fluoride that exceeds the additive levels.

Very low concentrations of medicine are usually ineffective at its stated purpose outside of pseudo scientific theories, so even if it is safe to ingest, it is not clear it is able to do anything for people’s teeth. That is why I do not understand how the two can co-exist. Either the concentration is so low that drinking it for dental health is pointless, or it is not something people should be drinking. If there was…

> If there was a middle ground, we would have a 1 a day pill for this

We do; fluoride tablets are common.

> and not bother brushing our teeth

Brushing your teeth does a lot of things besides applying fluoride to the surface. It's mostly about getting stuff that's already there off the surface.

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#343

Post by logicchains »

epgui wrote: post #335
jdminhbg wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, it's a little bit like child Covid vaccinations. Not much evidence for either benefit or harm, recommended in the US but not most of Europe.

It’s not at all the same, that’s a terrible example. Child vaccinations help reduce the Rt, regardless of whether the benefit to the individual is significant. Statements to the contrary have just confused the public. (biochemist)

Not necessarily, because excessive boosting is associated with increased infection rate/RTlt: https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(25)000...

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#344

Post by Quarrel »

ourmandave wrote: post #125

Does filtering your water with a whole house filter take the fluoride out? Because I live in a small township that delivers well water to you tap. It tastes horrible, shortens the life of pipes and appliances, and smells like sulfur. Every year they mail a flyer that explains how the lead levels are dangerously above the national standard and you should run the tap before you drink from it. Like, sorry there's nothin…

I looked in to this recently.

Turns out that carbon filters do filter fluoride, but only on the first few X litres of water, where X is in the first 0.01% or so of their expected lifespan. So, they do, but not really usefully in any sense.

My filter that I wanted to know about (so that my kid is getting fluoride) is a 2-stage filter, with the other stage being a particle filter, but fluoride is very small and unaffected.

Your filter might be different of course.

FWIW, in my city, the water has essentially zero fluoride if it isn't added, and it has been a great intervention.

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#345

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

kstrauser wrote: post #12
dboreham wrote: post #3

You can provide your own flouride (live in a house with well water).

You can provide lots of stuff yourself if the state abandons the whole idea of public health. Of course, be prepared for your taxes and/or insurance going up to cover your neighbors who don't pay for the same preventative care.

Public health is a conspiracy to attempt to get our young men prepared for war!

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#346

Post by thowawatp302 »

nozzlegear wrote: post #185
ews wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US rarely looks into how other countries solve problems. (i.e. Universal Healthcare, High Speed Trains and so), this is the sad part of "American Exceptionalism"

A less cynical framing is that the US is a much different culture from European countries, and is massively larger in scale. Depending on the problem, some of their solutions simply can't or don't apply.

Why is it less cynical, what does the scale of the US have to do with it?

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#347

Post by hayst4ck »

Putting fluoride in water promotes freedom. That sounds crazy, but let me justify it.

If you are poor you can't go anywhere or buy anything. You're not free if you're poor. If you are sick, you may be confined to a hospital bed or not feel good enough to do anything. If you are sick you're not free.

Putting fluoride in water reduces dental costs and incidence of cavities and therefore tooth infections, particularly among societies poorest. Therefore, due to fluoridation in water some people are less sick and have more money and therefore are more free.

The contrasting view is that putting fluoride in water is literally medicating people without their affirmative consent. It is the government forcing you to take a medication. It is coercive and therefore an attack on your freedom to not take medication. It is the government interfering in your life.

The contrast between positive freedom, the freedom to do something, and negative freedom, the freedom from interference in your life, is the core political argument in America right now. Negative freedom, freedom from government interference, is being promoted by those seeking to weaken the government enough to supplant it. People who are poor and sick are likely unable to stand up for themselves or participate in solidarity against authority. This individual issue is relatively small, but you take 100's of issues like this, and the effect is to create a class of people who aren't able to do anything but be obedient workers.

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#348

Post by vasco »

epgui wrote: post #335
jdminhbg wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, it's a little bit like child Covid vaccinations. Not much evidence for either benefit or harm, recommended in the US but not most of Europe.

It’s not at all the same, that’s a terrible example. Child vaccinations help reduce the Rt, regardless of whether the benefit to the individual is significant. Statements to the contrary have just confused the public. (biochemist)

What Rt are you worried about in 2025?

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#349

Post by nokun7 »

So, Finland gave fluoride a shot in a few cities back in the '60s through the '90s, but they didn’t see much point to it and dropped it. Now, some spots there are even filtering it out of the water. You can still get it in toothpaste and mouthwash, though.

There’s this study I read that says the top five countries for dental health are Denmark, Germany, Finland, Sweden, and the UK. The US? It’s lagging at ninth. Funny thing is, out of those top five, only the UK messes with fluoride in their water, and even then, it’s just for like 5% of folks.

Honestly, it kinda feels like skipping the fluoride in water might be the smarter move.

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#350

Post by 827a »

jdminhbg wrote: post #234
freehorse wrote: post #123

This is one of these US-specific polarised debates I find really bizarre, around some kind of issue that the rest of the world has by large solved but without any acknowledgement of this fact. Maybe the US should look into how other countries have solved it? It is completely bizarre witnessing both sides getting so polarised around a basically non-issue.

What I love about this comment is that one person thought "of course every other country just does the right thing when the US doesn't" and posted it, and then a bunch of other people thought "of course every other country just does the right thing when the US doesn't" and upvoted it, and not a single one of them thought to check what the "right thing" is. Meanwhile, back here on Earth-1, there's no right thing, and…

Once you start trying to cross-reference a public health campaign with something related to peoples' diets, it becomes difficult to make super broad and conclusive statements.

Here's some interesting data (2003 I believe, so pretty old) [1]: It reports that most of Europe, Canada, Australia, and South America experiences cavities at rates higher than the United States. However: Many of these countries have public health care; the US does not. Is the US under-reporting? (I didn't dig much deeper into the underlying data; may not be a relevant concern).

Three things I think are likely to be true: (1) Fluoridated toothpaste is widely available and cheap. (2) Cavity rates are significant even in countries with high rates of fluoridation. (3) Fluoridating the water supply carries with it a non-zero monetary cost. I tend to believe that these three realities, at the very least, justify the conversation as being one we should have. It could be the case that water fluoridation made a ton of sense in a world where people didn't have as much access to fluoridated toothpaste, but nowadays the typical person has hit the limit on what it can do for them, and ingesting more is, at best, doing nothing.

Here's another way I like to think about it: Put the science aside for a second (I know, hard, not ideal, but bear with me). You've got two people who are low income. Person A believes, for their own health and in the expression of their own personal liberties, they want access to fluoride; but the Government is not fluoridating their water. They can spend $5 a month to buy fluoridated toothpaste; possibly not even more expensive than the toothpaste they were already buying. Person B is living in the opposite world: They believe that they do not want to ingest fluoride, but the government is fluoridating their water. They would have to spend many dozens to hundreds of dollars a month buying water bottled somewhere more natural. From a personal liberty and economics perspective: Its pretty clear-cut.

[1] https://smile-365.com/what-countries-have-the-lowest-prevale...

Post reply on HN