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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by jongjong »

lee_ars wrote: post #661
shireboy wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This take has a few problems: Poor people in the US are capable of using fluoride toothpaste and flossing. At least at homeless shelters at outreach things I’ve been to, toothpaste and toothbrushes are freely available. Your argument hinges on them being incapable on the whole and needing a Benevolent But Superior Intelligence to provide an alternative for them. Second, it completely ignores any debate over effective…

> Second, it completely ignores any debate over effectiveness or side effects. It could well be that fluoride in water is great for teeth but bad for brains. Except it's not—fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains. > Im not clear the validity of those claims Thoroughly scientifically debunked. Repeatedly, over decades. > That seems the core issue- without bias from st…

> fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains.

We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted. Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted. I err on the side of caution.

You're welcome to put it in your own drinking water if you trust the studies.

> What needs to stop happening is people ignoring objective reality just because the results happen to align with the other "team's" position on something.

Nobody can perceive objective reality. Everyone is delusional concerning just about everything. The people who think they know what's going on, are most delusional of all.

Dark times are ahead, I'm afraid, and people's trust-meters are going to be valuable again.

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

#692

Post by naasking »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #690
naasking wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that missing context? I don't think anybody who is against fluoridated tap water rejects the benefits of fluoride, they just think the harms of adding it to tap water outweigh the benefits.

Might I introduce you to the US’ head of antivax and conspiracy theories: https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1852907832884285708

I don't see a statement of his opinion on fluoridated toothpaste, which is the real test.

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

#693

Post by rayiner »

Aeolun wrote: post #315
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,…

> The Affordable Care Act is similar to the Netherlands health insurance systemh > The average Obamacare plan costs $483 monthly for a 30-year-old, $544 for a 40-year-old and $760 for a 50-year-old. > The bronze plan covers 60% of the costs associated with care. I feel like they missed the most important parts of the Dutch health insurance system…

The Dutch system also requires payment of monthly premiums. The US premiums reflect the cost to insure the US’s significantly less healthy population.

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

#694

Post by thfuran »

verisimi wrote: post #506
pathartl wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we not treat water at all? Should we instead all like off ground water or rivers and lakes?

Do you think there's a difference between a/ treating water to make it clean and b/ adding minerals and vitamins for the benefit of others, whether they want it or not?

Not really. I'm sure some people want distilled water to come out of their tap. You can't provide any service to a large group of people without giving some of them something they don't want in some way or another.

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

#695

Post by guerrilla »

rocqua wrote: post #384
guerrilla wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Interesing take but I don't buy this part at all. The core political argument in the US is epistemological. What's real and what counts as true? There are some axiological differences but I think they are minor in comparison to not…

It seems to be that the battleground is epistemological, but not so much the argument. The difference being that Trump uses 'claims of truth' without any care of how true they are. I feel the majority of epistemological disagreement is the result of propaganda (not exclusively from MAGA). With only a small bit that is actually a disagreement on core values. Suchs true disagreement does exist, but it is no longer what…

That sounds like what I meant.

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

#696

Post by nxpnsv »

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…

Sure, but they are also not fighting about it, this seems crucial.

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

#697

Post by hilbert42 »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #650
hilbert42 wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then, you'd also be against adding folate/folic acid to bread for the same reason? For those who don't know many countries including the US mandate the inclusion of folic acid in bread and certain other foods to ensure pregnant women get enough. A deficiency of folic acid during pregnancy causes birth defects in infants. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folate

I am against adding anything to a whole population to treat a few, folate included. Here is why. Folate is a known stimulant of some cancers. https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/17/9/2220/169762/Folic... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13668-018-0237-y https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1463-1318.... (And you know that the first line cancer treatments, like methotrexate, are anti-folates.)…

Presumably, if you're in the US or any of those countries that mandate folate then you don't eat bread or anything containing flour—or you have to get special flour without it.

I'd imagine that must be very difficult for you.

BTW, that fluoride reference refers to excessive fluoride in water whether natural or added. I've not entered the fluoride debate here except to ask a question. I'd certainly object if fluoride levels were excessive in my water supply.

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

#698

Post by johntitorjr »

hayst4ck wrote: post #347

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 a…

[dead]

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

#699

Post by WrongAssumption »

aziaziazi wrote: post #643
hilbert42 wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then, you'd also be against adding folate/folic acid to bread for the same reason? For those who don't know many countries including the US mandate the inclusion of folic acid in bread and certain other foods to ensure pregnant women get enough. A deficiency of folic acid during pregnancy causes birth defects in infants. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folate

I never heard of that supplement (not a father) and was very surprised to find 80 countries mandate it. I checked the list (below) and it turns out the 80 countries are a bunch of poor nations plus USA, UAE, Qatar, Canada and Australia. I guess our medicare system supports the EU mothers fine enough so we don’t need to put that in the staple of food. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5809909/ (Table 1)

Or you have just been sweeping preventable birth defects under the rug. The UK determined that had been happening and are going to start doing it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c206d60xe7no

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

#700

Post by swasheck »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #562
karparov wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also restricting the freedom of communities if you ban them from adding fluoride to their water if they like to. This ban is anti-freedom. (Just like forcing them could be argued to be, even though that's what you argued against.) So, this ban is arguably reducing freedoms on multiple levels.

In the political philosophy of the US, the unit whose freedoms matter is the individual, not the community. Freedoms for individuals necessarily come from reducing the freedom of "the community."

yes, and i think that’s a pretty recent reading of the US comprehension of freedom. my sense is that the collective individualistic tendencies have ballooned.

even as recently as the early 90s, my civics classes emphasized the importance of other people’s rights and that of the expression of your individual rights infringed on the rights of others then it was an irresponsible and improper use of individual rights.

it seems like this has devolved into people whose perspective on individual rights loosely aligns enough to coalesce and shout the loudest to create policy. until someone in the in-group’s individual freedom is impacted and the group fractures into smaller coalitions. rinse. lather. repeat.

Post reply on HN