1570

submitted 2 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

211 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] RQG@lemmy.world 274 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Toxicologist here. I think that take is dishonest or dumb.

Taking a lethal dose is almost never the concern with any substance in our drinking water.

Hormones, heavy metals, persistent organic chemicals, ammonia are all in our drinking water. But for all of them we can't drink enough water to die from a high dose.

Some of them still have a large effect on our bodies.

It's about the longterm effects. Which we need longterm studies to learn about. That makes them harder to study.

Still doesn't mean flouride does anything bad longerm. But the argument is bad.

[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 116 points 2 months ago

Yeah, by this argument lead in the water isn't a concern.

[-] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 108 points 2 months ago

You just made me mad by helping me realize that the Trump bros are going to break water by removing fluoride long before they fix water by removing lead.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Removing fluoride won’t break the water. However, it may break our teeth.

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

They like the lead, though!

(Probably. I mean, they did in Flint, MI...)

[-] 5oap10116@lemmy.world 29 points 2 months ago

Yeah but lead bioaccumulates where as fluoride/ine doesn't

[-] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago

Yup, same with PFAS and forever chemicals. Maybe I'm ignorant because I'm not a doctor, but I don't know if this line of thinking holds water - pun not intended.

[-] reptar@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

lead poisoning becomes evident pretty early though doesn't it? (With respect to kids)

I would think that the ratio of persistent exposure to unsafe level has got to be easily higher in cases like Flint than any fluoride-in-the-water usage. Just speculation on my part.

What measures are taken to avoid screwing up the dosage, anyone know? Maybe predilute so that an oops requires multiple buckets instead of vials?

[-] NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world 22 points 2 months ago

It's so funny I was just having a similar conversation about neurotoxic venomous animals in another thread. Lethality is an obviously concerning threshold, but there are substances out there that can easily destroy your quality of life and livelihood that never reach the concern of being lethal.

I think for mostly rational people concerned about fluoride in their water is that it was a public health decision made with little to no actual science proving it's safety or efficacy when it was first decided that they were going to add it to the public water supply. The proposed benefits of it weren't even supported by scientific evidence, it was just supposed that exposure to sodium fluoride could potentially reduce tooth decay for some.

Personally, I've suffered from the cosmetic damage of dental fluorosis, and I'm not necessarily thrilled about fluoride. But I have way more issues with public mandates founded on pseudoscience than I am with sodium fluoride. Especially now that we can see evidence that for some people fluoride can be especially beneficial.

So what was wrong with giving people the option of using fluoride toothpaste or mouthwashes... Why did it have to go into the public water supply?

[-] jrubal1462@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

In our area, the only water supply WITH Fluoride serves an area with a median HOUSEHOLD income of less than $40k with more than 25% living below the poverty line. For communities like these the fluoride is critical because there will be a lot of children that don't have access to fluoride supplements, or regular care from a pediatric (or regular) dentist.

[-] refalo@programming.dev 6 points 2 months ago

never the concern

It is when you're responding to people who think 5G is turning the frogs gay and activating hidden vaccine microchips.

[-] FreshLight@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

Yeah, it seems to me like he got the right idea and wanted to convince people by making an extreme statement..

[-] RQG@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

That might well be the case. I'm not sure if it is helpful to use those half truths which are simpler to convince certain people. Or if it weakens the point because it is in the end not really correct.

[-] observes_depths@aussie.zone 4 points 2 months ago

This. How can we be completely certain that something isn't damaging over the long term. I'm not anti fluoride, but healthy debate and scepticism is a good thing, especially when we're all forced to consume a substance with the only alternative being dehydration and death. People need to be free to make their own choices.

[-] Pulptastic@midwest.social 4 points 2 months ago

We probably have enough A/B data now to make some inferences yeah? Compare countries with fluoridated water to countries without.

[-] jrubal1462@mander.xyz 3 points 2 months ago

You can get even more granular than that. CDC maintains a list of water systems and whether or not they add fluoride. CDC My Water System. To give you an idea of how granular that is, there are 78 different water systems in my county alone. For most of my life I assumed we had fluoridated water but apparently only 1/78 of our water systems are. I only checked when we had kids and I needed to know whether or not I needed to give them Fluoride Drops.

[-] refalo@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago

yes and some of that data is already in other comments here

[-] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Also, isn't it recommended to not give infants fluorided water, hence why you can buy it in virtually every grocery store?

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago

Pretty much anything you can think of is recommended by someone, because different people have conflicting views. The key is to choose whose recommendations are based on the best reasoning & evidence aligning with your goals.