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

271–280 of 1001 posts

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

#271

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

completely bizarre witnessing both sides getting so polarised around a basically non-issue

This isn't a sensible way to think about it. Every contentious conversation I've ever had has gone this way:

  Me:   why do people want to ban fluoride
  Them: [anti government paranoia]
  Me:   um...but how about tooth decay
  Them: pineal gland calcification
  Me:   idk sounds pretty far-fetched
  Them: THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK
It's irrational to complain about 'both sides' when only one side is insisting on making it into an issue. I generally just try to disegnage from people as soon as they start freaking out about fluoride/ chemtrails/ vaccinations etc, but people like this frequently treat skepticism as a personal attack. Increasingly they occupy positions of political power (see eg RFK) having acquired them by public displays of conviction rather than any objective criteria.

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

#272

Post by protocolture »

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.

1. Its a fringe issue in Australia 2. The US doesnt believe in other countries so why check.

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

#273

Post by nozzlegear »

freehorse wrote: post #211
nozzlegear wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which part here exactly cannot work in the US? I am talking about brushing one's teeth with toothpaste containing fluoride, which sounds as plain simple as possible to me. Is it regular brushing teeth that fails in the US for cultural reasons? Fluoride in the toothpaste? Supervising kids while brushing their teeth to make sure they do not swallow? It is an honest question.

In a word: poverty. People do not have free dental care, and poor people aren't guaranteed to have a toothbrush, toothpaste or sometimes even a sink to brush their teeth in. Fluoridated water is one of the few dental protections available to everyone regardless of their income. It's cheap, minimal and cost-effective cavity protection at scale for the entire country.

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

#274

Post by quitit »

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…

The missing context here is that the science and established benefits of fluoride aren’t a culture war political football in those countries.

These countries largely publicly recognise the benefits of fluoride, but don’t add it because:

- Some countries opt for intake via supplementation.

- Some have a naturally sufficient supply in drinking water via natural processes.

- Some even need to reduce the abundance of fluoride in their water due to over supply.

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

#275

Post by brianbest101 »

zmgsabst wrote: post #235
christianqchung wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radioactive isotopes in nuclear fuel: do not ingest. Radioactive isotopes in banana: consume away. Understand now? I'm not even defending anything other than how two things that vaguely appear contradictory, are in fact, not.

I don’t. Because your banana example doesn’t have additives meant to be reactive — so is unlike adding fluoride to water at levels which impact dental health.

[dead]

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

#276

Post by nichos »

cameldrv wrote: post #239
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.

I remember the first time I went to a German dentist and he told me how amazing my teeth looked and that he could tell I must be American. Fluoride may have some downsides but it definitely has upsides.

Is it good for teeth because it's "applied" when drinking it, or is it due to ingesting it? I think ingesting is the issue.

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

#278

Post by brianbest101 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #7
jedberg wrote: post #4

And dentists rejoiced at their newfound source of income! /s This is so dumb, and based on psudoscience at best, and straight up falsities at worst. In 10 years we're going to hear about how cavities are so much higher in Utah than anywhere else.

I'm not following closely, but is this pseudoscience? https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/fluoride-childrens-health-gran... https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...

[dead]

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

#279

Post by fasthands9 »

habosa wrote: post #85

I’m disappointed in the news media fails to mention the cascading effects of dental health. Yes, the primary and direct benefit of fluoride is to have a healthier mouth. But having a healthy mouth is far from the end goal, imo. If your mouth is full of cavities you’re more likely to build up bacteria that cause downstream effects as serious as heart disease. Also if your mouth is routinely uncomfortable you may gravi…

If I went to the store to grab a bottle of water, and they were selling fluoridated water and fluoridated water, I would choose the non-fluoridated water.

I drink tap water now with fluoride so its not like I care strongly, but its a bit weird that many people buy only non-fluoridated water themselves and are confused when other people show a preference for non-fluoridated water in their own taps.

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

#280

Post by ryao »

varenc wrote: post #267
zmgsabst wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t. Because your banana example doesn’t have additives meant to be reactive — so is unlike adding fluoride to water at levels which impact dental health.

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 a middle ground, we would have a 1 a day pill for this and not bother brushing our teeth or putting fluoride in water.

Post reply on HN