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

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by Aeolun »

jimt1234 wrote: post #215
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"

When I was a kid the schools taught us the metric system, telling us it was the world standard, and would become the standard is the US by the time I was an adult. That was over 40 years ago. And that pretty much sums it all up.

At least they were right about one thing. It definitely is the world standard.

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

#322

Post by andai »

Mistletoe wrote: post #301
jdminhbg wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What does the UK do? This will tell you what people should do because I’ve seen English teeth. > In England, approximately 10% of the population, or around 6 million people, receive fluoridated water, either naturally or through water fluoridation schemes, mainly in the West Midlands and the North East. Uh oh. I know it is better now but in 1978 a third of people in the UK didn’t have their natural teeth.

I was reading a while ago about populations that moved to England, and within 2 generations their teeth are messed up (the first gen of kids born is usually raised on the food of their original culture).

You saw it too in Canada when the Inuit went on food stamps and went from eating mostly meat to mostly plants: their teeth went all over the place and full of holes within a single generation.

We also saw that with the advent of agriculture in general, along with a massive decline in average height.

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

#323

Post by otterley »

kelipso wrote: post #40
jedberg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The link between fluoride ingestion by children and pregnant women to lower IQ in children has been known for years Not at the levels it is found in water in the USA. Those studies were done in countries with much higher levels of fluoride.

A low dose of this neurotoxin can still have smaller adverse effects on IQ, and in all likelihood do, especially for fetuses and small children. Lots of countries have banned fluoridation of the water supply. The US has one of the highest fluoride levels in the water supply. The default should be to not add neurotoxins into the water supply (I cannot believe I have to actually say this).

If that were true, nearly the entire state of California would have developmental issues.

Anyway, lots of things in this world that are bad for people in high doses are beneficial in smaller doses. Water is a great example, as are salt and sugar.

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

#324

Post by bsza »

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…

While I acknowledge it is not a "solved" issue, I find it bizarre nonetheless, simply because it is so disproportionately low-stakes compared to the amount of controversy around it. Increased risk of cavities versus tentative evidence of losing 1-2 IQ points at 1.5 mg/L? Sounds like a Monty Python sketch to me that people would get so worked up over this.

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

#325

Post by consp »

Mistletoe wrote: post #301
jdminhbg wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What does the UK do? This will tell you what people should do because I’ve seen English teeth. > In England, approximately 10% of the population, or around 6 million people, receive fluoridated water, either naturally or through water fluoridation schemes, mainly in the West Midlands and the North East. Uh oh. I know it is better now but in 1978 a third of people in the UK didn’t have their natural teeth.

This was not much different everywhere else. Public dental care campaigns helped a lot, the same with affordable dental care products. Looking at my parents generation there are lots of false teeth going around. (Not uk)

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

#326

Post by ars »

wokwokwok wrote: post #188
Jimmc414 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd really like to hear your take

Talk to your dentist. They are experts in this field, and, unlike “random person on the internet who spent 2 minutes on google”, have informed opinions on this topic. If you want a serious discussion on why fluoride is good or bad, that’s where you need to go. Random person on the internet is very easy to disagree with, because we’re all idiots right? It’s a very easy lazy way of self confirmation. …but if you are se…

> Talk to your dentist. They are experts in this field

No they are not. The are experts are filling cavities and treatment. They have no additional knowledge of fluoride in water vs any other interested person.

For that you need to talk to someone in research, which is not someone seeing patients.

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

#327

Post by tomp »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #307
rayiner wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are two odd examples. The Affordable Care Act is similar to the Netherlands health insurance system: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2011/lessons-abroad-du... (“These similarities are not entirely coincidental. American public officials, health industry leaders, and scholars made frequent visits to the Netherlands in the run-up to the debate over U.S. health care reform, borrowing ideas and, on occasion,…

I thought the ACA was based on the Swiss system of mandatory insurance? The heritage foundation copied the Swiss, Romney took that proposal to Mass, and Obama thought going with a Conservative initiated plan would make it more bipartisan (it didn’t, but mainly because republicans hated Obama).

Definitely not.

IMO the most distinct parts of the Swiss health insurance system is that (1) copay is obligatory but limited (i.e. healthcare isn’t free but it’s not expensive either), and (2) it’s individual, companies cannot pay for it, so there’s no US-like extreme benefit of having a good job.

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

#328

Post by otterley »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #71
jedberg wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are based on countries with much higher levels of fluoride than the USA adds. Follow up studies have found the levels in the USA to be perfectly safe and in fact beneficial since poor people don't get dental care like they do in other countries.

Please share study that shows it is safe in the US for children. The EPA allows up to 2mg/L in water and we have some evident that 1.5mg/L has negative effects on children. HN Comments were very credulous before the election. Shows how flexible belief in science is. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39235663

It doesn't take much to observe that we've been fluoridating municipal water for over half a century and children are doing mostly fine. It's the actions of children's parents that contribute the most to their IQ losses.

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

#329

Post by jpmoral »

jdminhbg wrote: post #309
frontfor wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is basically no one else has politicised this to the extent the US did. Pointing to how different countries solve it differently is missing the point completely.

"Well, whether it's better to fluoridate the water or not, ~half the world got the answer wrong. But the important thing is they didn't argue about it."

More like "there are pros and cons but there doesn't have to be a big political fight about it".

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

#330

Post by jdminhbg »

bsza wrote: post #324
jdminhbg wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While I acknowledge it is not a "solved" issue, I find it bizarre nonetheless, simply because it is so disproportionately low-stakes compared to the amount of controversy around it. Increased risk of cavities versus tentative evidence of losing 1-2 IQ points at 1.5 mg/L? Sounds like a Monty Python sketch to me that people would get so worked up over this.

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.
Post reply on HN