Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water • Hacker News Board

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

#931

Post by raincole » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 7:38 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #920

agentultra wrote: post #709

That’s going to go poorly. A Canadian city removed fluoride from water in 2011 and reversed that decision 10 years later. There’s hard data on the effects and they’re not good [0]. [0] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed...

The study [1] that's based on seems pretty typical, and is precisely what drives skepticism towards these policies. The differences for permanent teeth were not significant. The paper claimed this may be because "7-year-olds have not had the time to accumulate enough permanent dentition caries experience for differences to have become apparent." The differences in temporary teeth had a deft (decay, extracted, filled…

The most ridiculous part is that we have an alternative way to apply fluoride without intaking it. It's called toothpaste. But for some reason people act like Utah is banning vaccine.

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

#932

Post by nozzlegear » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 7:43 PM UTC

thowawatp302 wrote: post #346

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.

Why is it less cynical, what does the scale of the US have to do with it?

Maybe it's just me, but I find the argument that "Americans won't do X cool thing that Europeans/the rest of the world do because they [are dumb/are corrupt/love money/hate each other/believe in American exceptionalism]" to be a very cynical and lazy argument. Note that the person I was replying to was talking about policies and goals like UHC and High Speed Rail, not specifically about fluoridated water – that was the context in which I was replying.

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

#933

Post by raincole » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 7:48 PM UTC

robbiep wrote: post #238

jiggawatts wrote: post #44

I initially dismissed it as the same category of stupid as anti-vax beliefs, but it turns out that there are a decent amount of good studies showing a link between fluoride in water and (slightly) lower IQ when pregnant mothers ingest the fluoride. Note that there is no significant effect after birth. The idea is to remove fluoride from water and advise pregnant women to use fluoride-free toothpaste. Everyone else ca…

The levels of fluoridation in order to cause difference in IQ as I understand it, from the Chinese studies, suggest that basically the effect if true occurs at around 2x+ the concentration found in supplemented water supplies. My understanding also is that if you’re a dentist wanting to get rich, move somewhere that has unfluoridated water.

2x is basically no safe margin for something like water. Of course you can question the quality of the study, but if it's actually 2x, fluoride in tap water should be treated like lead pipes.

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

#934

Post by caseyy » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 7:54 PM UTC

mptest wrote: post #591

starspangled wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "without cost-gating"? Public healthcare systems in other countries have procedures they don't cover, and significant wait periods (i.e., shortages) to see doctors and specialists and have procedures done. Because of the cost. I'm not saying they aren't better than America's, but the idea you can just let people have it and not worry about costs isn't true. Health is like around quarter of entire…

>what do you mean by that I mean, raise taxes on businesses (wanna guess how many walmart employees are on government aid, i.e how much we tax payers are directly subsidizing their exorbitant profits while they pay their employees below a living wage?)Tax the rich, (3 individuals hoard more wealth than 50% of the country combined) + Cut some large percentage of insurance jobs, military spending, and use that money to…

Being kind and civil with your words would strengthen your message.

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

#935

Post by zamalek » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 8:20 PM UTC

agentultra wrote: post #709

That’s going to go poorly. A Canadian city removed fluoride from water in 2011 and reversed that decision 10 years later. There’s hard data on the effects and they’re not good [0]. [0] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed...

Fluoride was introduced late enough in Zimbabwe that many of my childhood adults easily remembered life before it. There were many horror stories about the general state of teeth prior.

That being said, your dentist can apply fluoride to your teeth (boggles the mind why insurance won't pay the $50), and flouride toothpaste is still much more common than not. It's probably not needed in the water supply for dental purposes.

That being said, what are the other fringe benefits: such as microbe control?

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

#936

Post by grepfru_it » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 8:35 PM UTC

agentultra wrote: post #709

That’s going to go poorly. A Canadian city removed fluoride from water in 2011 and reversed that decision 10 years later. There’s hard data on the effects and they’re not good [0]. [0] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed...

The city of Houston has stopped adding fluoride to water but allows natural fluoride levels to exist[0]. We are going on year 6 and the only thing we have noticed is harder water.

There is probably more nuance to both stories tho.

[0] https://houstonherald.com/2018/11/lindsey-and-long-win-count...

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

#937

Post by SapporoChris » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 8:47 PM UTC

raincole wrote: post #931

somenameforme wrote: post #920

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study [1] that's based on seems pretty typical, and is precisely what drives skepticism towards these policies. The differences for permanent teeth were not significant. The paper claimed this may be because "7-year-olds have not had the time to accumulate enough permanent dentition caries experience for differences to have become apparent." The differences in temporary teeth had a deft (decay, extracted, filled…

The most ridiculous part is that we have an alternative way to apply fluoride without intaking it. It's called toothpaste. But for some reason people act like Utah is banning vaccine.

Using toothpaste with fluoride can be effective when used regularly as part of dental hygiene. What percentage of the population is going to do this? I've encountered grade school children who have never owned a toothbrush.

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

#938

Post by scintill76 » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 8:50 PM UTC

adrian_b wrote: post #399

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 risk of cavities is reduced by using toothpaste or mouth washes with fluoride, not by drinking fluoridated water. Almost all fluoride from the drinking water does not have any effect on tooth enamel, because it has contact with it only for a few seconds, except for an infinitesimal fraction that may exit again the body in saliva. On the other hand, the harmful effects of fluoride in drinking water are certain and…

> Almost all fluoride from the drinking water does not have any effect on tooth enamel, because it has contact with it only for a few seconds

The contact via toothpaste or mouth wash isn’t all that much longer, so why would they be effective if fluoridated water isn’t? People intentionally wash out toothpaste and mouthwash after this short contact.

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

#939

Post by 0xbadcafebee » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 9:14 PM UTC

ckw wrote: post #371

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #337

I think it's worth reminding people of Occam's Razor, and the point of it is: a simple explanation is often better than a complicated one. The US has had water fluoridation for 65 years, affecting 346 million people. That's a pretty big god damn sample size and long amount of time in which to observe effects. If we still have no proof of significant negative health effects, it's probably not bad for you . That said:…

Using a prospective Canadian birth cohort, we found that estimated maternal exposure to higher fluoride levels during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children. This association was supported by converging findings from 2 measures of fluoride exposure during pregnancy. A difference in MUFSG spanning the interquartile range for the entire sample (ie, 0.33 mg/L), which is roughly the difference in MUFSG…

1. IQ is not an objective measurement, it is inherently flawed

2. A 1.5-3 IQ level difference is not noticeable in any practical way. Things like birth order have a more significant impact on IQ.

3. Comparing Canadian children to Mexican is pretty dramatic, like comparing rich kids to poor kids; you will always see a marked difference between the two, in intelligence, in health, in crime, in all sorts of things. Mexican communities often over-fluoridate their water (I know because I grew up in Mexico and my teeth are stained because of it). Again, this is no reason to ban it, just lower it.

This finding is a suggestion of a link, it's not empirical proof. The methods and findings have many questionable aspects. You can always find some paper that suggests something random like vegetables are bad for you or something. One paper does not a water-tight case make.

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

#940

Post by 0xbadcafebee » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 9:21 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #461

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #337

I think it's worth reminding people of Occam's Razor, and the point of it is: a simple explanation is often better than a complicated one. The US has had water fluoridation for 65 years, affecting 346 million people. That's a pretty big god damn sample size and long amount of time in which to observe effects. If we still have no proof of significant negative health effects, it's probably not bad for you . That said:…

> The US has had water fluoridation for 65 years, affecting 346 million people. That's a pretty big god damn sample size and long amount of time in which to observe effects. If we still have no proof of significant negative health effects, it's probably not bad for you. The problem is there will have been a lot of confounders. E.g. despite huge sample sizes, isolating the cause of the obesity crisis is too hard becau…

Sure, it's not easy to find a smoking gun. That doesn't mean we go all in on whatever we think might be the issue (if there even is an issue).

The answer to the obesity crisis wasn't to ban Pizza. We don't we ban sodas and junk food at schools, which we know would have a positive impact on health. But we do ban fluoride, without proof that it will help? With actually the only scientific proof being that it would be detrimental to remove?

If people's concern is really that it might slightly lower IQ, consider that 1) IQ has been steadily increasing since the 40's, and 2) you can get better IQ by investing in education, something that we do an embarrassing job of already and need to improve on.

The other concern touted is that it might cause cancer. As we well know by now, nearly everything causes cancer.

Banning fluoride is just a move by politicians to take advantage of ignorant scared people to drum up more votes/support. It's like every other action they take to vilify something scary or unknown and then claim victory over the evil thing they purged. This isn't new, either - this clearly partisan stance was being pointed out in the 1950's when it was first being considered for nationwide use.

"After more than 70 years of investigation, there are still questions about how effective water fluoridation is at preventing dental decay and whether the possible risks are worth the benefits. Although water fluoridation undoubtedly did improve the dental health of many children in the 1960s and 1970s, fluoride proponents were perhaps too hasty in declaring that community water fluoridation was the best (or only) solution for dental decay. A less fractious debate might have encouraged a more open discussion in which the possible harms could have been more fully discussed and other options, such as providing fluoridated toothpaste, more fully considered." - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4504307/