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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by efitz »

ModernMech wrote: post #864
efitz wrote: post #164

It is trivial today to get whatever level of fluoride is recommended for dental health, via toothpaste. So there is no compelling need to fluoridate as there exist viable alternatives to achieve the same that fluoridation is for any other purpose than dental health. In the USA, dental care is not covered by public insurance, and is an optional add-on to insurance through one’s employer. So without addressing at all w…

Trivial is what we have now. Taking fluoride from the water means people will have to spend extra time and money on fluoride and dental treatments. When I viewed it, your comment appeared directly after this one ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43524171 ), which talks about a town in Canada that voted to abandon fluoride , saw worse health outcomes, and then voted to reinstate it. This tells us that fluoride is…

So you’re saying that forcing a treatment on people that don’t want it, is a fair price to pay to reduce inconvenience for others?

I’m not sure what your anecdote proves because I’m wholly in support of a polity being able to make that decision.

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

#982

Post by pathartl »

thfuran wrote: post #694
verisimi wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's exactly what I was trying to convey with my hyperbolic statement. I remember when I first moved to the city after being on well water for the first 25 years of my life and being put off by the chlorinated smell of the water. Now when I go back to visit family I'm put off by the well water... Especially when taking a shower.

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

#983

Post by ModernMech »

efitz wrote: post #981
ModernMech wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trivial is what we have now. Taking fluoride from the water means people will have to spend extra time and money on fluoride and dental treatments. When I viewed it, your comment appeared directly after this one ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43524171 ), which talks about a town in Canada that voted to abandon fluoride , saw worse health outcomes, and then voted to reinstate it. This tells us that fluoride is…

So you’re saying that forcing a treatment on people that don’t want it, is a fair price to pay to reduce inconvenience for others? I’m not sure what your anecdote proves because I’m wholly in support of a polity being able to make that decision.

I was responding to this point:

  It is trivial today to get whatever level of fluoride is recommended for dental health, via toothpaste. So there is no compelling need to fluoridate as there exist viable alternatives to achieve the same that fluoridation is for any other purpose than dental health.
I also agree that people should be able to make decisions like this, but they should be aware that one of the results of these kinds of efforts could be that everyone gets less healthy, rather than everyone stays at the same level of health with less cost.

Presumably when they voted to get rid of fluoride in the water in Calgary, they didn't do so expecting the outcome would be that people in their town would be less healthy overall. Nonetheless, that was the outcome of their vote.

The anecdote shows that it's not trivial, because when the fluoride in the water went away, people were not able to trivially replace it, leading to worse health outcomes. Ultimately people found too high of a cost, seeing as that they reversed the decision.

Sadly it took a decade for them to realize their mistake. I worry people today are making the same mistake, and we will reverse it in a decade after health outcomes are shown to have worsened.

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

#984

Post by antod »

ourmandave wrote: post #125

Does filtering your water with a whole house filter take the fluoride out? Because I live in a small township that delivers well water to you tap. It tastes horrible, shortens the life of pipes and appliances, and smells like sulfur. Every year they mail a flyer that explains how the lead levels are dangerously above the national standard and you should run the tap before you drink from it. Like, sorry there's nothin…

If thats your water quality, worrying about flouride seems misplaced.

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

#985

Post by whycome »

loopdoend wrote: post #319
whycome wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that dental health is essential for the rest of the body? Yet, Canada doesn't include it in its famous 'universal free healthcare'... I'd actually just like to see more money put into public dental assistance. And education.

The Canadian Dental Care Plan (CDCP) was introduced to provide dental services to uninsured Canadians meeting specific criteria. Its rollout began in December 2023, starting with individuals aged 87 and above, and is set to expand to all eligible adults earning less than $90,000 annually by May 1, 2025.

This is actually a perfect example of how under-served dental needs have been. It was only passed via some interesting political wrangling and alliances. And it hasn’t been a smooth rollout with some dentists not getting on board. Starting with aged seniors is good from a compassion standpoint, but the emphasis should be on prevention at earlier ages.

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

#987

Post by _heimdall »

FireBeyond wrote: post #199
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.

This is exactly the framing. "What worked there can't work here", whether it's firearm control, socialized medicine or education, whatever. We're either bigger, or denser, or less dense, or ... essentially whatever suits the argument.

A lot of people are uncomfortable having an opinion without being able to rationalize it.

I have to assume many, maybe most, people that give reasons like you mention just flat out don't want the policy and reach for a reason to justify it.

I can say I don't want gun control laws. Not because it doesn't work elsewhere or couldn't work here. I just fundamentally disagree with it and don't want to live in a place where the only ones with guns are state officials.

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

#988

Post by jemmyw »

fao_ wrote: post #126
jemmyw wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised to learn this. "Worldwide, the Irish Republic, Singapore and New Zealand are the only countries which implement mandatory water fluoridation." I live in New Zealand and my town doesn't put fluoride in the water but it seems like they'll be made to do so fairly soon. I don't really care one way or the other from the point of view of ingesting the stuff, but I do consider it a bit of a waste of money. P…

> People who brush with toothpaste don't need this and people who don't are probably drinking too much soda I think every person in my social circles with any kind of illness or disability would be incredibly grateful for fluoridation, and it's not because of drinking too much soda

Yeah fair call. There's always some edge cases which is why I'm not the one making public policy. Although I don't think they sell the policy very well. There would be other ways to spend money for better dental health, NZ really doesn't subsidize dental care much compared to European countries.

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

#989

Post by tptacek »

somenameforme wrote: post #969
almog wrote: post #945

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 2nd study that shows correlation between fluoride and lower IQ in children, the water had twice as much fluoride as the recommended amount in the US (1.5 mg/L vs 0.7 mg/L).

The only reason for lack of concrete statements on the 0.7 level was a lack of data, owing largely to US political culture (1.5 is the World Health Organization 'safe' limit). Not long ago fluoride stuff was considered a 'conspiracy theory' which greatly deters meaningful scientific research on the topic. This is in part because of social reasons (most people don't want to be perceived as 'fringe') and in part becaus…

For that matter even IQ studies themselves are borderline given the US political culture.

This isn't remotely true; it's just something people say on message boards.

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

#990

Post by somenameforme »

tptacek wrote: post #989
somenameforme wrote: post #969

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason for lack of concrete statements on the 0.7 level was a lack of data, owing largely to US political culture (1.5 is the World Health Organization 'safe' limit). Not long ago fluoride stuff was considered a 'conspiracy theory' which greatly deters meaningful scientific research on the topic. This is in part because of social reasons (most people don't want to be perceived as 'fringe') and in part becaus…

For that matter even IQ studies themselves are borderline given the US political culture. This isn't remotely true; it's just something people say on message boards.

This might have been a viable argument a decade ago because these rules were implicit and not explicit. But as of 2022 they've become explicit. [1] IQ is distributed dramatically differently in different groups, which makes it difficult to meaningfully study in the US because, as Nature now puts it, "Although academic freedom is fundamental, it is not unbounded... Science has for too long been complicit in perpetuating structural inequalities and discrimination in society..."

This is why meaningful studies on IQ are basically dead in the US and similarly why we were one of last countries to confirm the absolutely critical reversal of the Flynn Effect. I think the political tide started to turn really hard after the decades long Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study ended up definitively proving the opposite of what it intended. [2]

[1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption...

Post reply on HN