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

51–60 of 1001 posts

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

#51

Post by jedberg »

rayiner wrote: post #48
jedberg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of that is due to the Mormons. While they tend to vote Republican, they are some of the biggest socialists out there. They believe in giving 10% of their income to the church (and enforce it!). Then they redistribute to their poorest members in the form of free private education at all pre-college levels and highly subsidized college as well. And with food banks, free or subsidized medical services, and whole b…

That’s the steel-man version of (american) conservatism: civic institutions provide the safety net instead of the government. And in terms of aggregate outcomes, Utah’s results are impressive. The LDS apparently does a better job teaching kids to read than the government here in Maryland.

> Utah achieves great aggregate outcomes even compared to states that spend a lot more money

That's because you're not counting the money the church spends to replace government programs, which in Utah is significant.

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

#52

Post by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #45
dataflow wrote: post #6

What is the best evidence in favor of this?

Here’s a list of the most convincing studies or meta analyses. 2023 – NTP Monograph on Fluoride Neurotoxicity – National Toxicology Program (USA) 2020 – Till et al. – Infant Formula Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Till C, Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Martinez-Mier EA (Canada) 2019 – Green et al. – Maternal Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Flora D, Martinez-Mier EA, et al. (Canada) 2017 – Bashash e…

How did you compile this list? Asking some LLM service?

From the first link:

> It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ

It doesn't seem in favor of this?

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

#53

Post by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #38
jsbisviewtiful wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn’t any. The very little research showing any effects on cognitive abilities are experiments using very high fluoride levels - nowhere near the levels in water. Like most conservative “stances”, it’s a farce.

How do you prove no effect on any bodily system long term? People don’t like to talk about it, or they pretend otherwise, but this is basically impossible. If the benefit is great enough then the risk makes sense. That is the case in a lot of areas. Is it worth taking a risk of an unknown effect somewhere in the body in exchange for… a marked but not even drastic reduction in cavities…? Not sure…

Fluoride stays in your body, should be some way to measure it?

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

#54

Post by dataflow »

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote: post #52
Jimmc414 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s a list of the most convincing studies or meta analyses. 2023 – NTP Monograph on Fluoride Neurotoxicity – National Toxicology Program (USA) 2020 – Till et al. – Infant Formula Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Till C, Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Martinez-Mier EA (Canada) 2019 – Green et al. – Maternal Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Flora D, Martinez-Mier EA, et al. (Canada) 2017 – Bashash e…

How did you compile this list? Asking some LLM service? From the first link: > It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ It doesn't seem in favor of this?

Regardless of where they got the list (edit: which I do think is a fair question)...

> the first link [...] doesn't seem in favor of this?

To me that falls under "the best evidence [available] in favor of this." It's not great, but it's not nothing; it's certainly something in favor. After all.. I guess I don't know about you, but I feel like if someone told me dose X of something is toxic, I would not feel comfortable feeding myself and the entire country 50% of that dose, on that basis alone.

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

#55

Post by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 »

dataflow wrote: post #54
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you compile this list? Asking some LLM service? From the first link: > It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ It doesn't seem in favor of this?

Regardless of where they got the list (edit: which I do think is a fair question)... > the first link [...] doesn't seem in favor of this? To me that falls under "the best evidence [available] in favor of this." It's not great, but it's not nothing; it's certainly something in favor. After all.. I guess I don't know about you, but I feel like if someone told me dose X of something is toxic, I would not feel comfortab…

[flagged]

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

#56

Post by pfannkuchen »

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote: post #53
pfannkuchen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you prove no effect on any bodily system long term? People don’t like to talk about it, or they pretend otherwise, but this is basically impossible. If the benefit is great enough then the risk makes sense. That is the case in a lot of areas. Is it worth taking a risk of an unknown effect somewhere in the body in exchange for… a marked but not even drastic reduction in cavities…? Not sure…

Fluoride stays in your body, should be some way to measure it?

The bitch about scientific studies is you can’t find what you don’t know to look for. That has to be part of the trade off calculus when deciding what substances to introduce to our internal environment.

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

#57

Post by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #56
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fluoride stays in your body, should be some way to measure it?

The bitch about scientific studies is you can’t find what you don’t know to look for. That has to be part of the trade off calculus when deciding what substances to introduce to our internal environment.

Okay? You can still come up with a correlation between net fluoride mass of bones and teeth and negative health traits or outcomes. You can also compare occupational exposure against normal exposure, no drinking water exposure (lived life in country without this policy), etc. There are many different types of scientific studies.

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

#58

Post by Jimmc414 »

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote: post #52
Jimmc414 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s a list of the most convincing studies or meta analyses. 2023 – NTP Monograph on Fluoride Neurotoxicity – National Toxicology Program (USA) 2020 – Till et al. – Infant Formula Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Till C, Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Martinez-Mier EA (Canada) 2019 – Green et al. – Maternal Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Flora D, Martinez-Mier EA, et al. (Canada) 2017 – Bashash e…

How did you compile this list? Asking some LLM service? From the first link: > It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ It doesn't seem in favor of this?

Why does it matter how the list was compiled? Is the information accurate or not? The first link you referenced with the cherry picked sentence about uncertainty for levels below .7mg/l was a meta analysis of 74 different studies, 64 of which showed a negative correlation between child IQ and fluoridation. This isn’t even taking into account evidence of a positive correlation for early onset puberty, sleep disruption and bone cancer with fluoridation.

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

#59

Post by basch »

rayiner wrote: post #33
jsbisviewtiful wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn’t any. The very little research showing any effects on cognitive abilities are experiments using very high fluoride levels - nowhere near the levels in water. Like most conservative “stances”, it’s a farce.

Why did many European countries discontinue fluoridation? https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/11/23/trump-could-push-... > However, in 1973, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that there was no legal basis for fluoridation…. The debate hasn’t been meaningfully revived since then, Hofman told Euronews Health. "People started to say, ‘Well, the government should not give us some medicine [when] we cannot choose where to bu…

but youre taking chemicals out right? and lots of water has natural flouride?

there is definitely an argument for an optimal amount of minerals in water being non zero (not only because having it that clean would be practically expensive) but also because we benefit from natural minerals. now if some natural water source isnt as good as another one, why not correct it? we have the technology.

especially at the community level. the little c stance should be to let communities decide, not ban it from the top down.

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

#60

Post by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #58
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you compile this list? Asking some LLM service? From the first link: > It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ It doesn't seem in favor of this?

Why does it matter how the list was compiled? Is the information accurate or not? The first link you referenced with the cherry picked sentence about uncertainty for levels below .7mg/l was a meta analysis of 74 different studies, 64 of which showed a negative correlation between child IQ and fluoridation. This isn’t even taking into account evidence of a positive correlation for early onset puberty, sleep disruption…

It matters when you say it has the "most convincing" evidence as if you have read them all and are keeping up with the field and didn't just summarize them with some service like https://consensus.app/

I don't know if what you are repeating is slop, etc. I can't trust the source.

A single recent systematic review is more trustworthy than that.

Post reply on HN