Medical freedom vs. public health: Should fluoride be in our drinking water?

Misinformation campaigns increasingly target the cavity-fighting mineral, prompting communities to reverse mandates. Dentists are enraged. Parents are caught in the middle.

The culture wars have a new target: your teeth.

Communities across the U.S. are ending public water fluoridation programs, often spurred by groups that insist that people should decide whether they want the mineral — long proven to fight cavities — added to their water supplies.

The push to flush it from water systems seems to be increasingly fueled by pandemic-related mistrust of government oversteps and misleading claims, experts say, that fluoride is harmful.

The anti-fluoridation movement gained steam with Covid,” said Dr. Meg Lochary, a pediatric dentist in Union County, North Carolina. “We’ve seen an increase of people who either don’t want fluoride or are skeptical about it.”

There should be no question about the dental benefits of fluoride, Lochary and other experts say. Major public health groups, including the American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, support the use of fluoridated water. All cite studies that show it reduces tooth decay by 25%.

jordanlund,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

This comes up in Portland periodically as we are one of the few places that DOESN’T fluoridate water.

When you do the research on it, you find some fascinating things:

Applying fluoride topically through toothpaste or mouthwash unequivocably works wonders for tooth decay.

There is no evidence drinking it as part of the water supply does ANYTHING. Positive or negative.

You have to understand one big thing… The first municipality to add fluoride to water did so in 1945.

The first fluoridated toothpaste wouldn’t hit the market until 1955, 10 years later (thanks Crest!)

scientificamerican.com/…/second-thoughts-on-fluor…

So when you look at studies trying to determine if drinking water as a source is effective, you need to immediately ignore any study done before the introduction of fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash.

turmacar,

…people didn’t just… stop researching fluoride after the 40s/50s. Newer studies have found less of a dramatic benefit, likely because brushing with fluoridated toothpaste is more common, but there is still a significant benefit. The countries that reduced water fluoridation and saw little to no change have universal free dental care for children.

A lot of the pushback relies on pointing out that there are diminishing returns. Multiple sources of fluoride don’t seem to have compounding benefits. But that completely ignores that the goal is to raise the baseline.

Not all kids are good at brushing their teeth, not all parents care or know to put it as a priority if they’re struggling. It’s not going to impact virtually anyone above the poverty line, but for the people who need it most it absolutely helps.

Fluoridating water is ridiculously cheap way to add a layer of safety. A ~15-25% reduction in cavities is absolutely worth pursuing.

solsangraal,

it SHOULD be up to the individual whether they want fluoride in the water they’re drinking. this is not like vaccines, where unvaccinated people are a risk to everyone around them.

edit: adding this hsph.harvard.edu/…/fluoridated-drinking-water/

and key takeaway: The Cochrane report also concluded that early scientific investigations on water fluoridation (most were conducted before 1975) were deeply flawed. “We had concerns about the methods used, or the reporting of the results, in … 97 percent of the studies,” the authors noted. One problem: The early studies didn’t take into account the subsequent widespread use of fluoride-containing toothpastes and other dental fluoride supplements, which also prevent cavities. This may explain why countries that do not fluoridate their water have also seen big drops in cavity rates (see chart).

CaptainSpaceman,

Best comment in the whole thread

dogslayeggs,

That’s an argument for why it might not be as useful as we thought. It is not an argument for why it is harmful or negative or shouldn’t be used. If it does no harm, then let the people who are afraid of it for no reason to filter it out.

Fedizen,

I think a criticism of not fluoridating the water and only buying supplements is its going to favor wealthy people on average and amounts to essentially class warfare.

Imo it makes more sense to fluoridate the water and let rich people buy expensive filters to satisfy their feelings about fluoride. (I’d argue water filter peddlers maybe oversell the dangers of fluoridated water)

IWantToFuckSpez,

I thought fluoride in water was a bad idea because it can cause dental fluorosis when the teeth are still growing. Dental fluorosis is a condition that causes permanent stains on teeth and even make the enamel weak.

catloaf,

There’s not enough fluorine in the water for that.

If you used fluoride mouth rinse regularly in addition to having fluoridated water and using fluoride toothpaste, then yes, you could end up with fluorosis because that’s too much, but that’s something you have to do intentionally.

HubertManne,
HubertManne avatar

I have heard that stanis flouride causes this but not sodium floride.

nixcamic,

Hey how come the government gets to put water in my pipes at all? There my pipes! True freedom is them being completely empty.

CyberDine,

I tried fluoride-free toothpaste for one year during college. Came home for the summer with 12 cavities.

Fluoride works people.

nednobbins,

General Ripper has entered the chat.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J67wKhddWu4

Emerald,

What is the big freakout about fluoride water lately? Haven’t we been doing that for decades?

Maggoty,

It’s the newest fad in medical conspiracy theory panic.

pyre,

it’s old as fuck as well. they hate the idea of recycling but love to recycle bullshit.

StaySquared,

Isn’t fluoride in drinking water illegal in quite a few countries?

Anyway, I intentionally bought a home with a well and will be outfitting the home with a reverse osmosis system that also re-mineralizes the filtered water.

Fluoride is the least of my worries… all the byproducts that are in the water drinking supply (from city controlled water) is wild. Endocrine disruptors? No thanks, brah. Also don’t forget plastic bottled water is also a big no no. But that’s my opinion for my health.

lud,

Fun fact: In Sweden it’s (and I think it has always been) illegal to put fluoride in drinking water. Presumably because it’s illegal to manipulate drinking water in any way. I don’t think there is a ban specifically on fluoride, but maybe.

expr,

That doesn’t sound right. Is everyone in Sweden drinking untreated water? That sounds incredibly unsanitary.

lud,

No, of course not. Our drinking water is some of the best drinking water in the world. It’s very clean and good.

We don’t add chlorine though. We just have really good filtration and processes and likely fairly good water to begin with.

I believe our sewage treatment is also excellent.

watersnipje,

What do you mean by untreated? Unchlorinated? In Europe, many countries also chlorinate their water, like the US. But not all do, because some have naturally clean water. Like the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Iceland.

expr,

I just mean the usual water treatment practices to ensure safe drinking water. At minimum I would expect filtration to be happening since you don’t want particulates floating around in it.

watersnipje,

Ah. Yeah that still happens. Also in the Netherlands. But no chlorination or any other kind of additions.

Red_October,

They have their freedom, they are free to do whatever they want to filter their own drinking water. They’re free to buy or produce distilled water for all their consumption. They’re free to only ever drink beer. But the drinking water provided as a public good should be maintained for the good of the public, and when the studies are pretty clear that fluoridated water fights tooth decay, then fluoridated water it is.

AA5B,

Hear hear! Or is it: here here! Or may I’ll stick with: preach, brother!

bushparty,

Even prominent evidence based nutrition doctors have changed their tune on fluoride. WFPB promoting non-profit NutritionFacts.org put out a couple videos detailing the history of use, current and past medical literature on the topic, as well as the recent change in support by some doctors. The issue here shouldn’t be the crazies, as they will always be crazy. The issue here should be the changing science which has recently changed some minds.

Fluoride does in fact reduce tooth decay and cavities. It can also have effects on young children which has been a recent development. Some doctors have even recommended that children under 2 not use fluoride.

I always think the crazies need to be dismissed, as they will always be crazy, but the media will try to paint all who are sceptical with the same brush for ease and to preemptively insinuate if anyone questions fluoride, you’re joining their company.

Vid1 - Is Water Fluoridation Safe?

Vid2 - Why I Changed My Mind on Water Fluoridation

Vid3 - Medicines Response to the Changing Science on Fluoride Safety

Hacksaw,

LMAO all your sources are YouTube videos but you’re trying to act like you’re making a serious science backed argument!!

“I’m not one of the crazies guys, sure I’m arguing for the same stuff, but I watched the REAL research videos, you have to believe me”

Emma_Gold_Man,

If you had bothered to watch the videos, you’d have noticed that they cite and link the primary source research studies they refer to. The position they take is also rather nuanced - not “fluoride bad” but “There is not insignificant but not overwhelming evidence that fluoride intake should be reduced during pregnancy”

SoleInvictus,

Hi! I’m a scientist. A microbiologist, even. If I watched the video evidence every Internet person threw at me, I’d likely still be catching up to a backlog from my twenties. It’s time consuming and, more often than not, completely full of insane conspiracy theories.

If there’s even any primary research referenced, then you have to vet that to determine if the video makers even interpreted it correctly. If they haven’t, that’s an entire extra step where you argue with the person providing the video about how the research was misrepresented or misunderstood.

So GTFO of here with “if you had bothered to watch the videos”. It’s “if the OP had bothered to link the actual research”.

We’re not going to do the work of substantiating someone’s point for them.

bushparty,

“…WFPB promoting non-profit NutritionFacts.org”

Are you a full-time idiot or just when people are around?

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar
Emma_Gold_Man,

As your linked site points out, they rated that way based on a bias toward veganism. Since fluoride is not animal based, that doesn’t have any bearing on this particular topic.

SoleInvictus,

No, they rated it that way because the author makes claims relating to veganism that either cherry picked or aren’t supported by science. It’s not a stretch to posit that someone who makes spurious claims about nutrition would make spurious claims relating to anything else.

And I quote:

…Science-Based Medicine debunks one by one, many of Dr. Gregers claims. They also claim that NutritionFacts cherry-picks information that will always favor veganism.

HelixDab2,
SoleInvictus, (edited )

Big ooof. You’re awfully cocky for someone who doesn’t know how to vet their sources. You know anyone can get a .org domain, right? And that anyone can start a non-profit? I could start the non-profit Cat Food for Health (catfoodfacts.org) that promotes a CFBD (cat food based diet) for humans in no time.

If you’re going to throw around “changing science” claims, come back when you have peer reviewed journal articles. Internet videos have long been the gold standard evidence stating “I’m completely insane” so it’s not a good look, even if they might contain any valid information.

Edit: I have purchased catfoodfacts.org, CFBD website forthcoming.

problematicPanther,
@problematicPanther@lemmy.world avatar

I’m awaiting cat food based diet recommendations.

SoleInvictus,

It’ll take a bit, work gets in the way of everything. It may be mostly MS Paint based which I know boosts credibility to at least 10x that of a YouTube video.

bushparty,

lol. This is exactly what is discussed in the videos I posted. Do you just like to argue or do you just not have any friends to talk to in real life? You sound like a really stable person!

StupidBrotherInLaw,

When you’re so fragile that the slightest constructive criticism makes you throw a little tantrum, maybe arguing on social media isn’t the best fit for you.

SoleInvictus,

Your response is primarily surprisingly boring, childish insults… and you’re asking if I’m the stable person? I get that you need to deflect from the fact you don’t have any response beyond “nuh uh!” but maybe put a little effort into it next time. At least make it interesting.

StupidBrotherInLaw,

Lololol you actually linked YouTube videos

Halcyon,
@Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

It’s not freedom if it contradicts science and goes against healthcare for the public.

remer,

By that logic there should be mandated exercise

Red_October,

Me not exercising doesn’t make you fat.

meowMix2525,

I disagree with them as well for different reasons but me not taking care of my teeth also doesn’t make yours fall out

Red_October,

You can do whatever you want to your teeth and you’re correct that it doesn’t effect me, but this isn’t a discussion about individual action or inaction. This is about what happens with the public water supply, which effects the entire public. That’s why his comment about “mandated exercise” is wrong. You not brushing your teeth doesn’t effect me, but removing the fluoridation from my water does.

meowMix2525,

I agree with you that its not about individual action, I was just saying your argument was kind of a non-sequitur. It was a hypothetical, so it’s more like if exercise was already mandated and the argument was to take it away. In this metaphor you would be arguing in favor of the mandated exercise, just like you’re arguing for fluoride, because you wouldn’t get enough exercise without it.

Whatever, it’s early, maybe I’m not making much sense. I wasn’t trying to start anything. I’m more or less undecided on the whole fluoride thing.

Halcyon,
@Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

We have mandated exercise in schools. It’s good for people.

HelixDab2,

…That’s a dangerous position to take.

How many times do you think there have been positions that were generally accepted as being correct that were later found to be wrong? Things that we had evidence at the time that demonstrated they were a net positive, that later ended up being deeply flawed or outright incorrect?

Your version of ‘freedom’ would also say that no person has freedom of religion, both because it contradicts science, and because religion can cause real harms to both physical and mental health.

PopcornTin,

As we’ve seen in the last few years, you can find experts to say whatever you need. That’ll have a longer lasting effect on the public’s psyche than anything.

Halcyon,
@Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I have not made any statement about a general definition of freedom. My position was solely focused on the uneducated instrumentalization of the concept of freedom with regard to the scientifically recognized use of fluoride to improve the dental health of the population.

HelixDab2,

It’s not freedom if it contradicts science

Are these not your words?

Halcyon,
@Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Yes they undoubtedly are.

Maggoty,

You do not have the freedom to make my life worse. Period.

HelixDab2,

“Worse” is a value judgement rather than anything objective. People that like tinfoil headwear accessories would say that putting fluoride in the drinking water makes their lives “worse”. So where does that leave you?

Maggoty,

Conflating well proven science with conspiracy theories is ridiculous at best.

cantw8togo,

Yes

corsicanguppy, (edited )
  1. Ask the experts. You’ll find their names have “D.D.S” after them.
  2. Do what they say.
iknowitwheniseeit,

Dentists are not scientists though. They suffer from a limited data set and all the other cognitive problems that we invented science to counteract.

Having said that, scientists should not make policy, but inform public health experts, who understand that science does not tell you what to do, but just the best current view of reality. These experts have to take into account cost/benefit ratios as well as science from a wide set of fields.

Luckily for fluoride in the water, they all agree!

gerbler,

Dentists are not scientists though.

Ok fine ask the nice lady in the lab coat on those Colgate commercials instead.

problematicPanther,
@problematicPanther@lemmy.world avatar

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

waterSticksToMyBalls,

Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about satire?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • news@lemmy.world
  • DreamBathrooms
  • Durango
  • mdbf
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • rosin
  • modclub
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • thenastyranch
  • cubers
  • kavyap
  • everett
  • khanakhh
  • megavids
  • GTA5RPClips
  • osvaldo12
  • ngwrru68w68
  • normalnudes
  • cisconetworking
  • Leos
  • ethstaker
  • tester
  • tacticalgear
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines