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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

abxyz wrote: post #382
AndrewSwift wrote: post #368

People who want to remove fluoride from the water should visit countries where fluoride is not added and look at people's teeth. I live in France and it's just so obvious that people grew up without fluoride — even celebrities try to talk without showing their teeth when they're on TV! I'm all for getting consent in most cases, but sometimes you'd have to be an idiot not to take the obvious win. It's like we were del…

You're misattributing: the U.S. has a perfect white teeth culture that doesn't exist elsewhere. Many people outside of the U.S. have healthier but uglier teeth. Fluoride isn't the reason for good/bad teeth inside/outside of the U.S, it's cultural. Many places outside of the U.S. do put fluoride in their water (nationally or regionally) and have "bad" teeth (e.g: England).

While tooth whiteness in the US is often divorced from tooth health, fluoride does add a yellowish tint to your teeth, so the healthiest teeth — those imbued with fluoride — are slightly yellow. (In fact when they first decided to add fluoride to water, one of the questions was just how much they could add before your teeth would turn completely yellow. Health-wise the yellowing was fine, but it was obviously visually unappealing.) Ugly teeth may be due to poor/lack of orthodontia, but it's probably not due to better dental care.

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

#852

Post by Xelynega »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #835
bsza wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The specifics of fluoride are low stakes. The general idea of the government medicating the people writ large isn't low stakes. In the US there are a lot of people who are of the opinion the government should just let people be.

Are those the people voting for the "have the government put restrictions on trans people" party?

I have a feeling it's not about "letting people be". It's about "let me be and screw over those I don't like"

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

#853

Post by oaktrout »

lee_ars wrote: post #740
mdorazio wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you made multiple strong claims without a single citation or study link. We could have a better conversation with data to look at. There's a decent (though somewhat biased) review of the debate in [1]. It's worth noting that if you read the linked studies there closely you'll find the truth is, as usual, nuanced. Specifically, that "fluoridation is a population-level caries preventive…

That's a whole lot of words for you acknowledging that I'm right. Fluoridated drinking water, at the appropriate levels, has no effect on IQ. Would you like to debate the reality of anthropogenic climate change next? This will be another area where any links you dig up will only point to a single conclusion.

Please define appropriate levels and then cite some evidence that proves with high certainty that level is safe.

For the sake of argument, assume that only 1% of the US has levels that harm IQ. Would it not be worth it to remove fluoride from the water to improve the intelligence of 1% of the population? Especially when you consider we can get fluoride from toothpaste?

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

#854

Post by Xelynega »

wqaatwt wrote: post #427
bsza wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IQ points is just an indicator that could be measured consistently. Who knows what else is going on.. and statistically (especially depending on the distribution) 2 IQ points is quite a lot. After all 50% of the population fall into the 20 point range in the middle.. Of course it comes down to whether the relationship actually exists. But picking a slightly higher risk of cavities when the other option is potential m…

Has this link been found to not exist in fluoride supplements or fluoride toothpastes?

I don't think it's such a no brainer if every health org is recommending fluoride, and some people think it's scary.

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

#855

Post by jakelazaroff »

oaktrout wrote: post #845
lee_ars wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The conclusion from the largest and strongest studyies is that there is a certain level of fluoride that harms IQ: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/... . "The NTP monograph concluded, with moderate confidence, that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children" They found fluorid…

Why did you omit the sentence immediately after the one you quoted?

> The NTP review was designed to evaluate total fluoride exposure from all sources and was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoridated drinking water alone.

…or the following sentence, which they bolded to ensure the reader wouldn't miss it?

> 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.

So no, they very explicitly did not find that fluoride in drinking water concentrations was associated with lower IQ.

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

#856

Post by stevebmark »

sothatsit wrote: post #367

Fluoride in toothpaste already covers most people today. So, if there are legitimate concerns about adding it to the water supply due to fluorosis, even if those concerns are small, removing it seems reasonable to me. Are the number of people who don't brush their teeth really high enough to justify it?

Decades of science show it’s beneficial, and we keep seeing the outcomes validated in practice. Calgary removed fluoride from drinking water, saw a significant increase in dental carries in children, and is adding it back. [1]

Hawaii does not fluoridate and has high rates of children’s tooth decay [2]

[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed...

[2] https://www.civilbeat.org/2016/10/hawaii-children-have-highe...

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

#857

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#858

Post by marhee »

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…

According to that logic, why not distribute fluoride water freely for those who want it? That would serve boths camps, not?

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

#859

Post by maleldil »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #838
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.

Think slightly more broadly about the issue. For context... some people think statins should be put in the water. Maybe they should. But were does mass medication of the people stop?

It stops when we run out of easy things that can be done to improve the lives of people. It's not that hard.

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

#860

Post by tolidano »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #855
oaktrout wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conclusion from the largest and strongest studyies is that there is a certain level of fluoride that harms IQ: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/... . "The NTP monograph concluded, with moderate confidence, that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children" They found fluorid…

Why did you omit the sentence immediately after the one you quoted? > The NTP review was designed to evaluate total fluoride exposure from all sources and was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoridated drinking water alone. …or the following sentence, which they bolded to ensure the reader wouldn't miss it? > It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride le…

I know why! I know why! Pick me!

It's because it doesn't help prove their incorrect point.

Post reply on HN