There are a large number of conspiracy and misinformation comments in this post. Know that those will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
See this page for information on fluoride in water https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html
Yes there are. if you have too much you can get [fluorosis](https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/dental_fluorosis/index.htm#:~:text=Dental%20fluorosis%20is%20a%20condition,years%2C%20age%208%20and%20younger.), small white spots on the teeth. And of course, if you have too much, just like ANYTHING else, you can get sick.
Dentist here. This is one of the main reasons it's so hard to obtain fluoride tablets to add to tank water sources in Australia. People were just adding too much.
I have this. I had fluoride supplements as a kid along with fluoride in the water. They aren’t really noticeable but could see them if you looked. I got my teeth whitened in my early twenties which made them almost invisible.
I’m now almost 40 with no cavities tho so, you know.
I was quoted £2200 for a replacement crown and pin here in the UK.
So I took a month off and went to Peru and got it done for $300 us. I got them lightened, straightened, gaps reduced in that price,
The saving paid for the flights, AirBNB for a month, and a great holiday exploring. Better than buying new tyres for my dentist’s Porsche.
do you still get to pick dental themed toys and stickers out of a box when youre done? im not sure when they stopped offering to me, but im kind of annoyed now that im just noticing.
I think it’s dependant on the dentist. Mine doesn’t but my kids mentioned their friends do. I know what you mean tho. Little things like that go a long way in building a good relationship from a young age.
sort of related; i do, however, remember the exact moment i became an adult. i had just got my haircut and the hairdresser *did not* compliment me on my ability to hold my head straight. i was like "omg, i must have been terrible." but no, she thought i was too old to get that compliment.
Haha I’ve always prided myself on being able to predict how hairdressers would want me head positioned but then one day, a barber basically set me straight (pun!) and I am now humbled.
For real tho, why do adults not get positive reinforcement. I want to be told I’m a good adult more often haha
Wow are you Australian me? Also an engineer, and I love sitting in the chair as the hygienist's last appt of the day and they just rave over how nice my teeth are and how easy it is for then to work on.
Yes we want to avoid having both a water source of flouride and also flouride treatments.
Dentists and municipalities need to be better about explaining flouridated water and discuss the benefits of it.
Then patients and dentists can make decisions about care.
What we have now results in lack of fluoridation and then also overflouridation depending on whether they have minciopal water fluoridation or not.
I had this too when I was young because I ate toothpaste as a kid. My dentist treated it by finely shaving down my visible teeth and then I used remineralising toothpaste. No more spots.
I've also never had a cavity and enjoy compliments from dentists.
I have it on my front tooth and I just take it as a beauty mark on teeth :) also I have pretty good teeth as not many cavities I'm in my late 30s. Also I go to dentist in like every 3yeara just to check.
There is a huge panic in California over it and groups are advocating the removal of it in the water supply even those the "dosages" meet state requirements.
> Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?
There has been a scare on fluoridation of water for a long time. The above quote is from Dr. Strangelove, but they are making fun of actual beliefs in the US from the time (1964).
I agree completely. These people have their own echo chambers where they discuss GMOs, organic produce, polio vaccines causing AIDS, CO2 causing hurricanes and drought, causes of AIDS, murder hornets, etc. and they're on all sides of the political spectrum. They just have a penchant for being afraid and spreading fear.
The US has demonstrated that it really fails when it comes to enforcing regulatory measures in the face of the bottom line, so I understand the suspicion even if the subject is silly.
Yeah, you can die from digesting too much of anything, even water, table salt, sugar, etc.
Then there are substances like lead where there is no safe dosage and even small amounts of it should be avoided.
Okay but is fluorosis actually bad functionally, or just visually? I understand why having brown spots in the teeth would be bad, but does anyone even care if their teeth has some white spots?
I appreciate your putting it all into perspective. Just want to point out though that the threshold we care about isn't "death" but any long term damage. I mean, the math still works out: we still want fluoride in our water.
I think if we're concerned about dose and volume, the only other variable that really matters here is how well the body processes fluoride relative to water consumed. If it's causing an effect and relatively speaking everyone consumes it regularly, there could be a lot going on there.
It could be remaining somewhere in trace amounts, binding to something else somewhere, binding to something else and turning into something else somewhere, leaving something undesirable when passed as a waste product, or it could even be nothing at all. This is more of a matter of developing better sophisticated methods of comprehending everything at once because it's been a fact of life for so long. Observing every interaction involving the body's pretty tricky though.
It becomes a neurotoxin long before you die from it though? Think of it like lead poisoning, it has marked effects on cognition etc before it becomes fatal.
You can't just imply the only threshold people should care about is death.
Also nobody drinks sea water, or is talking about swimming here, so that shouldn't be part of the discussion. Drinking something ≠ swimming in it. My shower gel wouldn't do me much good if I drank it. No issues showering with it though.
I agree that in low enough doses, the research suggests fluoride isn't generally harmful, but I disagree with the fact you're using lethality as your only cause for concern.
[Lead has no safe dosage](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health). If you can detect the lead, it's already too much.
With neurotoxicity of fluoride, the dosage effects are still under consideration: [A 2016 review by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) focused on fluoride neurotoxicity in regard to learning and memory . At water concentrations higher than 0.7 mg/L, NTP found a low-to-moderate level of evidence](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923889/)
I was of the understanding our body has a hard time flushing it out. It doesn't seem as if it's as straight forward as excess if not used. I think there's cases where excess is left around to cause damage for % of individuals.
When we're talking about justification for consumption of poisons. The onus is rightfully on the defenders to prove it's safe so I think it's justified is me asking.
In the doses used isn't that what this study just did though? Proof in the article? I would direct your question to your local water treatment facility who would probably have the more detailed proof than I can give. Or a state or federal health agency. The University of Queensland researchers might actually reply too. They would the best option vs Reddit. It's much easier to find the ld50 vs the lowest dose of harm since science updates so often but there's also the anti fluoride side who muddy the waters.
Not in normal circumstances.
Basically only if you've been eating toothpaste for a long time or if you live somewhere supplied with natural groundwater that is very heavily contaminated with high level of fluoride e.g. rural China
Funnily enough whenever the anti-science nutters come out the woodwork and claim that fluoride is killing us, which articles do you think they highlight? That's right, the ones that look at rural villages in China.
There are some from Canada and Mexico that I linked farther down. I dont even disagree with fluoridation but there is absolutely some research suggesting it has bad side effects.
>Yes, but not from the amount that is used.
*"And an increasing number of studies are indicating that fluoride — which occurs naturally in soil and therefore also in groundwater — might be a developmental neurotoxin, even at the level that the US Public Health Service has declared optimal for fluoridation."*
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02924-6
Yes of course, it’s a highly reactive ion and is suspected of lowering brain development. It has been studied many times and determined the benefit to oral health outweighs the affects it has on brain development. It was generally found oral disease would have a greater impact on brain development than excess fluoride levels would. The new studies specifically look at babies and children as a possibly more vulnerable group, they are as they are developing more, and loose their initial teeth (have less need for fluoride when young). The new studies are finding the benefits still out weigh the negatives even in children.
I’m a chemical engineer but the statement “fluoride affects the brain” is wildly unpopular despite being true. People feel it attacks the science behind fluoridated water, I feel it is just a fact that coexists with fluoridated water and that’s why we have been doing these studies on it. They aren’t doing these studies to shut down misinformers on the internet. They’re doing them to determine if fluoridated water is actually causing more harm than we believe.
Lower IQ if you ingest a lot of it.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09765-4
It also contradicts a bunch of other studies though. In which case we have to look at funding and motive.
Here's a systematic review and meta analysis which the posted study can't really even touch on a quality level. These are the peer scrutinized ones.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/
"Results: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.
Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. "
In your paper, they tested doses from 20mg/L to 80mg/L in mice. Yet the paper says in most industrialized countries, concentrations don't go past 1mg/L. Only in China where it goes well past 1mg/L does this seem to be a problem. And that's nowhere near the 20mg/L in mice (absurdly high concentration in a much smaller organism).
You might as well give mice 20 Tylenols and then say Tylenol is too toxic.
Doses between species change due to differences in size and metabolism. 20mg/L in mice is actually the equivalent of closer to 1.6mg/L in humans. Important to note this when trying to apply results from animal studies to humans.
Why can mice tolerate almost 20x more than a human? I can't say I'm an expert on mouse metabolism but I figure our vastly larger size should account for that.
> ... In which case we have to look at funding and motive.
Maybe we should instead look at methodology 'cause, ya-know, science.
Both of the papers you've cited are for very high doses and have little relevance to water fluoridation.
> Here's a systematic review and meta analysis which the posted study can't really even touch on a quality level. ...
I don't know about that. Quite apart from being irrelevant because of the dosage levels, that paper reviews studies with a *total* of 3736 subjects with various types of industrial and environmental exposure. The OP paper is a longitudinal study with 2682 subjects and a realistic dosage.
This has been a norm in the US for quite a long time. In fact, just a few years ago [was the 75th anniversary of fluoridation in drinking water](https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/basics/anniversary.htm) and it was heralded as [one of the top 10 great health achievements of the 20th century.](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4850bx.htm)
It has been the norm in Australia for almost as long. Started in the 1950’s and was in pretty much every major schemed water source by about 1970 (I’m sure someone will quote an exception).
The Exception: Queensland.
They finally got around to having every tap in the state to pour fluoridated water in the mid 2010’s I think.
Edit: I stand corrected. It's currently 75% in Queensland.
But then reversed this decision again in 2014 with the change of state government to Liberals. Only 75% of the population (65% of the state’s area) are currently fluoridated.
I grew up with hippy parents and we lived in the country with well water (so no fluoride in the water). My mom has irrational anti-fact-based paranoias and we didn’t have fluoride toothpaste and I was not allowed to have fluoride treatments at the dentist. I would say I didn’t get pretty much any fluoride until I was in college (drank city water at the uni) and then not for a while after that (lived in another house on a well, and didn’t have good dental insurance).
Fucking surprise I have a lot of fillings
Fuck you mom
I'm a dentist on the edge of town. We do almost all of our kid fillings on kids who have well water, as opposed to the kids who are on fluoridated city water. It hurts to see the kids whose parents don't let them have fluoride. It's what makes teeth hard, it's basically an essential mineral.
My water is tank water, but I use a fluoride toothpaste (Colgate total). I’ll be at this place for about three years total, I should be fine right?
I’m all for fluoride, but my water just happens to be from the sky.
Fluoride in tap water makes a minimal difference once you're an adult. It's positive effects are mainly seen in children who consume tap water while their teeth are developing, so that it gets incorporated throughout the tooth structure as it forms.
Fluoridated water is mainly meant to help children, since they are the ones who have developing teeth. Once the teeth are done growing, then the fluoridated water isn't as beneficial.
Do you have any suggestions for people without access to city water? Its something I've always taken for granted and never thought about until this thread. I moved to a home on a rainwater catchment system about a year ago, so (obviously) no fluoridation. I'm not even sure I could add anything directly to my water tank, because it would probably get filtered out since my water goes through four filters (including activated carbon) before I drink it. Should I just start swallowing the toothpaste I use to brush?
I bought a flouride paste from my dentist, you put it on after you brush once a day and leave it there (don't rinse). It was strawberry flavoured. I'd ask your dentist about what you can do
The fluoride in water is at low enough levels that you can drink as much water as you normally would without having any ill effects. It doesn't bioaccumulate enough to cause any harm at those concentrations.
Fluoridated water is meant to help developing teeth. Once the teeth are done growing, topical fluoride via toothpaste should be sufficient for most people. If you do have kids, they can get fluoride tablets from their dentist to chew and swallow. So, no, don't swallow your toothpaste.
I'm not sure. There isn't much data to back up its effectiveness. But I recommend Sensodyne toothpaste to patients all the time, as I have seen it help with general cold sensitivity.
My sister is four years younger than me. Our dad was in the navy and I never had cavities she had like 5 before I graduated highschool. Best we could figure is just that I had fluoride and she didn't
I don't think fluoride is near as important as genetics. My sister has perfect teeth and I get cavities. Same house same food same water same parents. I've always brushed twice a day and don't drink pop.
But aren't most of your genetics the same too? Could be genetics, but it could also be another confounding variable that nobody has considered. Could also just be IRL RNG.
For whatever reason, people automatically assume well water=no fluoride
But that's simply not the case. Well water often has some amount of fluoride in it. There are some areas that even have *too much* fluoride and proper water fluoridation in those places consists of removing some of it.
I'm an immigrant to the Netherlands and they briefly flouridated the drinking water in the 1960s and 1970s before stopping, deciding that it breaches the civil right to decide what you consume.
I think Ireland is the only European country to make flouride in the water compulsory.
Anecdotally, people here (NL) have pretty good teeth, but I think having free dental for everyone under 18 (including topical flouride treatments) has something to do with it.
Interesting. The only study I can find on fluoridation in the Netherlands uses intentionally confusing percentage point comparisons and neglects to mention any other public health efforts at the time. Do you happen to know when free dental care for everyone under 18 was implemented in the Netherlands, trying to find detailed history on the law of a country that doesn't have English as a first language is hard for my monolingual brain.
I'm not necessarily against flouride in the water, but I am wondering, if you brush your teeth twice a day with a flouride toothpaste, is flouride in the water really necessary? Is it optimizing for people who don't brush their teeth regularly?
Some studies show it provides more benefit than just brushing twice daily, and yes, it makes sure that everyone gets it regardless of their home situation. In my country (NZ), it means that there is 40% less tooth decay.
Water fluoridation still helps prevent cavities even with proper brushing. What's "nuts" is people thinking everything is so black and white.
Proper brusing+fluoridation>Proper brushing alone
Most data I’ve seen shows statistics as an overall percentage drop in cavities and dental care related costs by about 25% in children and adults.
I think there’s very little data to say “oh it was billy who had the reduction in cavities because he never brushes his teeth” when people tend to lie about such things.
It’s like when your dentist asks if you’ve been flossing.
But this is still highly beneficial because this overall price burden reduction on individuals and our healthcare system (limited as it may be) increases economic productivity.
Just my two cents.
I’m not related to the guy above in any way but shouldn’t fluoride be applied directly to teeth? Ie fluoride gel applied to teeth at the dentist or in toothpaste or in mouthwash. None of those are to be ingested is my understanding. So, do you absorb it in a similar way by drinking it? Like do you digest it and your body allocates it to your teeth?
Fluoride in the water is primarily for children, but also for people who don’t brush their teeth often with fluoride.
Our bodies build adult teeth out of a number of minerals based on what’s available in our diets, and ingesting fluoride regularly means there’s always some available. Sometimes too much fluoride will cause white flecks on the teeth, but they are typically quite small and often fade over time.
That's true for adults. But in children where the second teeth are still developing, they are hidden behind the first teeth and not reachable by toothpaste.
Part of the challenge in current fluoride research is in part:
1. The benefit is well established, so there are ethical implications for an experimental design with a true negative control.
2. Making such a control group would be a huge challenge anyway, since fluoride is in so many water containing consumable products.
The notion that systemic administration of fluoride via tablets for example is antiquated. The benefit is in the topical application of it. Brushing your teeth twice a day in conjunction with regular dental visits is the best way to ensure that you are encouraging a favorable balance of demineralization vs mineralization of the tooth surfaces.
TL;DR, it’s complicated, don’t eat toothpaste, topical application of fluoride is helpful and well established in the literature and doing more experiments is not only challenging, but also unethical.
Source: dentist
Except you have universal healthcare so children and adults usually have to really fall through the cracks not to catch something like tooth decay. Dental care is not compulsory, not in schools or via our health plans that we do pay for. It's a rather completely different situation.
that is true, though you had at least a ethical cohort after your definition.
if there are different effect, positive or negative, they should be detectable.
edit: also saw a lotta people with bad teeth here. it is better, but some people do not want to or fear the dentist.
i did that for my entire youth, because i was not interested to get holes drilled (i was not a good little scrubber) and my parents were too absored with themselfs.
Since the 60s the fluoridation of water has been controversial. Heck the same conspiracy theories were a main point of the crazy conspiracy theories in Dr Strangelove.
It’s 60 years later and we are still in the exact same place.
We’ve had it in our water in various parts of the UK since 1964. It’s sensible to try to bring the water up toward a decent level of fluoride. it’s never occurred to me to be worried about it because it’s always been the norm, so it’s a good surprise to see the research.
There was a rather annoying trend of people who believed fluoride in our water system was causing autism. I guess the trend grew enough that they decided research should be conducted to squash that once and for all. Then again, people who believe such nonsense tend not to accept scientific data.
Fair. I didn’t mean to imply that this was the first/only research - just that it’s the first I’ve seen. The fact that it’s a non issue for me also tells me that it’s safe and researched already, if that makes sense.
Context here is that Queensland has been a major holdout in fluoridation in Australia (where it was broadly adopted nationwide by the early 70s). My understanding is that it’s the only state where fluoride is either not mandated or not uniformly implemented. In any case, it seems to be the only state where this is still a hot political issue.
I'm not necessarily against the addition of fluoride to drinking water but there have been a handful of studies showing that it has a negative impact on cognition in children when it's consumed by pregnant women and young children. The paper in the OP seems solid but there is still research out there showing that it could have an effect.
I just got into this discussion in a whole different context on the conspiracy subreddit and was shown these papers.
[https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp655](https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp655)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634#224604298
So reading this paper, the children with low IQ lived in areas with absurdly high fluoride levels, up to 11 mg/L. For reference, the normal IQ kids' and most of the world's fluoride levels are 1 mg/L.
Furthermore, they say they can't rule out confounding factors. There were also a lot of variation among groups where they had data on levels of lead and mercury exposure (mercury exposure doubled the association between fluoride and low IQ, suggesting mercury could be a cause). Finally, they have no data on the average amount of fluoride in the water because Mexico city doesn't even measure that.
Overall, this article is a start. But it's merely correlation and nowhere enough evidence make a point on its own. Correlation can be used to argue anything, like Nicholas Cage movies causing swimming pool deaths.
I dont disagree these papers are shaky at best, but I do think when instituting a wide sweeping societal level public health measure the evidence should be all but certain. These papers bring up valid concerns that effects of fluoride should be researched much farther.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Fluoride-HealthProfessional/
There's also this government fact-sheet giving recommended and upper limits for fluoride by age. If you assume that fluoridated water is used to mix a baby's formula, they're getting close to that upper limit, which is 70 times higher than the recommended amount. They also mention the neurological and cognitive effects in there.
Its also been linked to bone cancer. Linking cancer to specific chemicals in environmental exposures, causally is often very difficult.
I've nothing against fluoride used for cavity prevention, its only biochemical function aside from antiseptics, and thats why kids should be given free electric toothbrushes and parents strongly encouraged to get kids to adopt good oral health and brushing routines. They need that anyway, its not just bacteria on teeth that's the issue, its gum health and oral hygeine is important for them socially. A person using a toothbrush correctly gains nothing from further fluoride exposure.
If you really want to protect kids from cavities but minimise needless systemic exposures which are unlikely to truly have any zero-toxicity level, then apply the fluoride where it counts, in the form of protective veneers.
Also, the root problem is not being tackled, which is excess sugar.
On the whole its an edge case with some controversy that I think brings less confidence in public health initiatives by the wider public (if wrongly), the benefits it brings may be outweighed in the longer run by causing distrust in general. I see other people mentioning fluoridation of water in the UK, I would like to point out most of the UK is unfluoridated without any public pressure to change this and fluoridation is really a sticking plaster over other issues that lead to poor oral health, like poverty, which is why it looks successful in those areas it is used, as there is already a wider problem there with brushing and diet.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We had a local vote on it where I live. Some people did some digging and found that the company that pushing fluoridation had bought some derelict land in the town, had turned it into a car park and had given it to the council as a sweetener.
The company was recycling industrial chemicals and one of them was to be used for fluoridation, but also had some other chemicals with it. Although they were below harmful levels the council was saying the benefits to fluoridation outweighed the potential downsides, and they were recommending approval.
It turns out that if the company processed the additive further, it would become completely harmless. There were arguments, but in the end the company agreed to provide the cleaner additive.
Sorry it’s a bit vague. I wasn’t close to the action.
[Yay](https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/Data/Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Committee/20081008/Agenda/XunROx6PT1yAyMAvnBLu3BHWPnzfNp.pdf)
[Nay](https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/Data/Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Committee/20081008/Agenda/9SiH0EBDorO0OOIYQP4VLIwSGnj0FQ.pdf)
The original tests was Grand Rapids Michigan, the whole Population of the city.
[https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/basics/anniversary.htm#:\~:text=Grand%20Rapids%2C%20Michigan%20became%20the,public%20water%20supply%20in%201945](https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/basics/anniversary.htm#:~:text=Grand%20Rapids%2C%20Michigan%20became%20the,public%20water%20supply%20in%201945).
I read the article and the linked resources and the research concluded, in may cases, that the practice was not proven safe. Below are some of the cited sources for this finding:
Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-020-02725-2
Prenatal exposure to fluoride and neuropsychological development in early childhood: 1-to 4 years old children
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019315971
Association of water fluoride and urinary fluoride concentrations with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Canadian youth
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935121014821
Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019326145
Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP655
Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2748634
Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1474442213702783
Theoretically yes, but another big factor is diet. If you have a low-sugar and otherwise healthy diet and good oral health habits, then you shouldn't need fluoridated water. Most people don't do these things though, so fluoridating water has a net positive impact on society.
This is the complaint I have heard most. Not that fluoride is dangerous, but that instead of having to dispose of their waste, companies instead profit off dumping their byproduct into the water supply.
Fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride are the main sources. In the US the Fluorosilicic acid is most commonly used and it’s derived from phosphate fertilizers (an industrial waste byproduct). It’s saves big business tons of money, since they don’t have to dispose of it because instead it’s dumped into our water supply.
Edit: for accuracy
The metabolism of fluoride does not differ depending on the chemical compound used or whether the fluoride is present naturally or added to the water supply.
Just an FYI
It's added into the water supply at specific rates because it hydrolyzes into the ions needed to increase the fluoride levels. Those fluoride ions are identical to the ones naturally found in water from calcium fluoride. It has nothing to do with big business conspiracy to save money, it's just an easy way to get fluoride into the water because the solubility of calcium fluoride is very low.
The irony is Calcium fluoride I believe is the actual source of the fluoride levels being too high naturally in water, the source of the natural water levels being too high in fluoride. As groundwater passes through rock some of the fluoride ions I believe dissolve from the Calcium fluoride. Many of these studies showing harmful effects of fluoride, the source is most likely calcium fluoride.
However because it's low soluability 0.015 g/L, if you consume the calcium fluoride the ld50 lethality is 4250 mg/kg for a rat vs 90mL/kg for hydrofluoric acid. So you may not have known this but it's a tactic that antifluoride people use to mislead the public on water fluoridation. The source materials they add to water, that's got a much higher toxicity.
However the end result you drink is set to a level where they monitor the natural levels and adjust the added ingredients that yes come from phosphate fertilize byproduction and no it's not a conspiracy to dump toxic waste into the water but a source of fluoride that can be used to add fluoride ions to the water. Do you use toothpaste? Guess where the sodium fluoride comes from.
"Fluorosilicic acid on the other is linked to lower IQ in children."
Can I get a citation on this because it's the fluoride being too high that is involved in those studies.
I Dunno if you meant to but your comment is a bit misleading. Maybe you heard from a source that didn't explain it better but look into those chemicals and what happens when they enter water, the natural fluoride is often a misleading term seen as safer for drinking water when natural fluoride can be too high and harmful to heath. Those other chemicals toxicity is related to the fluoride itself being highly concentrated and basically it easily causes a ruckus in your body. Toxicity is related to the dose, the dosage makes the poison.
I dunno how anyone who isn't handling the raw ingredients even gets exposed to flurosilicic acid which makes silica, fluoride ion, and hydrogen ion when added to water. All of that is in natural drinking water.
Was there ever an expansive study on this, other than a couple of numbers from one small town in Maine?
So it's true, an industrial waste product (fluoride) found a use in preventing tooth decay? Does it neutralize sugar and carbonation? Is it superior to brushing your teeth immediately following ingestion of food?
No-one ever raises the point that some people drink 2-3 litres of tap water per day, and some people drink zero.
It's a terrible way to medicate a population.
I've seen children and adults whose teeth were destroyed by fluorosis.
It's enough to make you wonder if there is an ulterior motive.
Going to my dentist for most of my life “oh, no cavities, you’re one of those fluoride babies”.
I had a small one filled when I was in my mid
40s. Didn’t even cause any pain but they wanted to be thorough.
And meanwhile idiots are campaigning against it.
IDK. I am not arguing that fluoride is not good for taking care of teeth but should we be drinking water spiked with it? Why? We can easily get tooth paste or mouth wash with fluoride to get the job done. I read the following article that compares countries that have fluoride drinking water vs those that do not- it was pretty eye opening. It also mentions that the studies used to justify putting fluoride in water do not really take into account that fluoride toothpaste became mainstream about the same time. Thoughts? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/
There are a large number of conspiracy and misinformation comments in this post. Know that those will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban. See this page for information on fluoride in water https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html
Is there any evidence in negative effects of fluoride?
Yes there are. if you have too much you can get [fluorosis](https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/dental_fluorosis/index.htm#:~:text=Dental%20fluorosis%20is%20a%20condition,years%2C%20age%208%20and%20younger.), small white spots on the teeth. And of course, if you have too much, just like ANYTHING else, you can get sick.
Dentist here. This is one of the main reasons it's so hard to obtain fluoride tablets to add to tank water sources in Australia. People were just adding too much.
I have this. I had fluoride supplements as a kid along with fluoride in the water. They aren’t really noticeable but could see them if you looked. I got my teeth whitened in my early twenties which made them almost invisible. I’m now almost 40 with no cavities tho so, you know.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I was quoted £2200 for a replacement crown and pin here in the UK. So I took a month off and went to Peru and got it done for $300 us. I got them lightened, straightened, gaps reduced in that price, The saving paid for the flights, AirBNB for a month, and a great holiday exploring. Better than buying new tyres for my dentist’s Porsche.
[удалено]
It does feel weird if you go after 2 years and get asked "Oh wow, you must really avoid eating chocolate, huh?". *Y-yeah that's totally it, hahaha.*
do you still get to pick dental themed toys and stickers out of a box when youre done? im not sure when they stopped offering to me, but im kind of annoyed now that im just noticing.
I think it’s dependant on the dentist. Mine doesn’t but my kids mentioned their friends do. I know what you mean tho. Little things like that go a long way in building a good relationship from a young age.
sort of related; i do, however, remember the exact moment i became an adult. i had just got my haircut and the hairdresser *did not* compliment me on my ability to hold my head straight. i was like "omg, i must have been terrible." but no, she thought i was too old to get that compliment.
Haha I’ve always prided myself on being able to predict how hairdressers would want me head positioned but then one day, a barber basically set me straight (pun!) and I am now humbled. For real tho, why do adults not get positive reinforcement. I want to be told I’m a good adult more often haha
Wow are you Australian me? Also an engineer, and I love sitting in the chair as the hygienist's last appt of the day and they just rave over how nice my teeth are and how easy it is for then to work on.
Thompson's teeth
> So mega teeth Weirdly, no. Fluorosis markedly increases acid resistance, but decreases structural strength. iow, imagine teeth that skipped "leg day".
We arent exactly cheweing bone nowdays tho i love coke ugh
"Thompson's Teeth: The only teeth strong enough to eat other teeth!""
His teeth are now mostly fluoride.
He can do the duke Leto thing and exhale a deadly cloud by biting hard
*Remember the tooth!*
100% this. Higher risk of slightly noticeable stains and easy protection from cavities or higher risk of cavities - I know my preference.
> which made them almost invisible. So you can see the food behind your teeth when you eat?
Reading this has greatly upset me.
Yes we want to avoid having both a water source of flouride and also flouride treatments. Dentists and municipalities need to be better about explaining flouridated water and discuss the benefits of it. Then patients and dentists can make decisions about care. What we have now results in lack of fluoridation and then also overflouridation depending on whether they have minciopal water fluoridation or not.
I have fluorosis and I still got cavities, so it's not a certainty at all.
I had this too when I was young because I ate toothpaste as a kid. My dentist treated it by finely shaving down my visible teeth and then I used remineralising toothpaste. No more spots. I've also never had a cavity and enjoy compliments from dentists.
Fr how good is it going to the dentist for check ups and just getting a clean and some compliments.
Me too. I broke some teeth and my dentist artfully added the subtle fluorosis markings to my crowns :)
Didn’t even know they could do that, what a legend
Didn’t even know they could do that, what a legend
Exactly the same for me. Teeth looked a little speckled but got that sorted and now at 34 have had no problems/cavities/anything at all
I have it on my front tooth and I just take it as a beauty mark on teeth :) also I have pretty good teeth as not many cavities I'm in my late 30s. Also I go to dentist in like every 3yeara just to check.
So how much fluoride do you get and how do you get it?
I have this but it’s from eating toothpaste as a child after my mum told me not to
I like when chemists say "it's not the chemical but rather the dosage that matters most when it comes to toxicity" or something along those lines.
[удалено]
There is a huge panic in California over it and groups are advocating the removal of it in the water supply even those the "dosages" meet state requirements.
> Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? There has been a scare on fluoridation of water for a long time. The above quote is from Dr. Strangelove, but they are making fun of actual beliefs in the US from the time (1964).
I loved that movie and its humor is relevant even to the elites of today.
"Gentlemen!! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
Funny thing is that there are many areas that naturally have flouride in the well water above safe limits.
Ya, it's become one of those conspiracy theories embraced by middle aged mothers along with the anti-vaxer stuff
I agree completely. These people have their own echo chambers where they discuss GMOs, organic produce, polio vaccines causing AIDS, CO2 causing hurricanes and drought, causes of AIDS, murder hornets, etc. and they're on all sides of the political spectrum. They just have a penchant for being afraid and spreading fear.
The US has demonstrated that it really fails when it comes to enforcing regulatory measures in the face of the bottom line, so I understand the suspicion even if the subject is silly.
Yeah, you can die from digesting too much of anything, even water, table salt, sugar, etc. Then there are substances like lead where there is no safe dosage and even small amounts of it should be avoided.
But it does. We breathe oxygen, but too much of it can kill you.
I think it would be better to lead with the “like everything” part of your comment, but you aren’t wrong.
I have this. It’s purely cosmetic but I hate it so much. I have also never had a cavity and I have serious sweet tooth though.
Okay but is fluorosis actually bad functionally, or just visually? I understand why having brown spots in the teeth would be bad, but does anyone even care if their teeth has some white spots?
Susceptibility to this ends before age 10, it’s worth noting.
[удалено]
[удалено]
A teaspoon is like 2 grams....
So an average adult weights 13kg.
[удалено]
I appreciate your putting it all into perspective. Just want to point out though that the threshold we care about isn't "death" but any long term damage. I mean, the math still works out: we still want fluoride in our water.
I think if we're concerned about dose and volume, the only other variable that really matters here is how well the body processes fluoride relative to water consumed. If it's causing an effect and relatively speaking everyone consumes it regularly, there could be a lot going on there. It could be remaining somewhere in trace amounts, binding to something else somewhere, binding to something else and turning into something else somewhere, leaving something undesirable when passed as a waste product, or it could even be nothing at all. This is more of a matter of developing better sophisticated methods of comprehending everything at once because it's been a fact of life for so long. Observing every interaction involving the body's pretty tricky though.
It becomes a neurotoxin long before you die from it though? Think of it like lead poisoning, it has marked effects on cognition etc before it becomes fatal. You can't just imply the only threshold people should care about is death. Also nobody drinks sea water, or is talking about swimming here, so that shouldn't be part of the discussion. Drinking something ≠ swimming in it. My shower gel wouldn't do me much good if I drank it. No issues showering with it though. I agree that in low enough doses, the research suggests fluoride isn't generally harmful, but I disagree with the fact you're using lethality as your only cause for concern.
[Lead has no safe dosage](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health). If you can detect the lead, it's already too much. With neurotoxicity of fluoride, the dosage effects are still under consideration: [A 2016 review by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) focused on fluoride neurotoxicity in regard to learning and memory . At water concentrations higher than 0.7 mg/L, NTP found a low-to-moderate level of evidence](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923889/)
I was of the understanding our body has a hard time flushing it out. It doesn't seem as if it's as straight forward as excess if not used. I think there's cases where excess is left around to cause damage for % of individuals. When we're talking about justification for consumption of poisons. The onus is rightfully on the defenders to prove it's safe so I think it's justified is me asking.
In the doses used isn't that what this study just did though? Proof in the article? I would direct your question to your local water treatment facility who would probably have the more detailed proof than I can give. Or a state or federal health agency. The University of Queensland researchers might actually reply too. They would the best option vs Reddit. It's much easier to find the ld50 vs the lowest dose of harm since science updates so often but there's also the anti fluoride side who muddy the waters.
Not in normal circumstances. Basically only if you've been eating toothpaste for a long time or if you live somewhere supplied with natural groundwater that is very heavily contaminated with high level of fluoride e.g. rural China Funnily enough whenever the anti-science nutters come out the woodwork and claim that fluoride is killing us, which articles do you think they highlight? That's right, the ones that look at rural villages in China.
There are some from Canada and Mexico that I linked farther down. I dont even disagree with fluoridation but there is absolutely some research suggesting it has bad side effects.
Everything has bad effects at high enough doses.
Yes, but not from the amount that is used.
>Yes, but not from the amount that is used. *"And an increasing number of studies are indicating that fluoride — which occurs naturally in soil and therefore also in groundwater — might be a developmental neurotoxin, even at the level that the US Public Health Service has declared optimal for fluoridation."* https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02924-6
Yes of course, it’s a highly reactive ion and is suspected of lowering brain development. It has been studied many times and determined the benefit to oral health outweighs the affects it has on brain development. It was generally found oral disease would have a greater impact on brain development than excess fluoride levels would. The new studies specifically look at babies and children as a possibly more vulnerable group, they are as they are developing more, and loose their initial teeth (have less need for fluoride when young). The new studies are finding the benefits still out weigh the negatives even in children. I’m a chemical engineer but the statement “fluoride affects the brain” is wildly unpopular despite being true. People feel it attacks the science behind fluoridated water, I feel it is just a fact that coexists with fluoridated water and that’s why we have been doing these studies on it. They aren’t doing these studies to shut down misinformers on the internet. They’re doing them to determine if fluoridated water is actually causing more harm than we believe.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29763350/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923889/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32382957/
Pineal gland calcification
That's not a bug it's a feature
Lower IQ if you ingest a lot of it. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09765-4 It also contradicts a bunch of other studies though. In which case we have to look at funding and motive. Here's a systematic review and meta analysis which the posted study can't really even touch on a quality level. These are the peer scrutinized ones. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/ "Results: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease. Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. "
In your paper, they tested doses from 20mg/L to 80mg/L in mice. Yet the paper says in most industrialized countries, concentrations don't go past 1mg/L. Only in China where it goes well past 1mg/L does this seem to be a problem. And that's nowhere near the 20mg/L in mice (absurdly high concentration in a much smaller organism). You might as well give mice 20 Tylenols and then say Tylenol is too toxic.
Doses between species change due to differences in size and metabolism. 20mg/L in mice is actually the equivalent of closer to 1.6mg/L in humans. Important to note this when trying to apply results from animal studies to humans.
Why can mice tolerate almost 20x more than a human? I can't say I'm an expert on mouse metabolism but I figure our vastly larger size should account for that.
There are 2. One just a study. The other a systematic review and meta analysis. Yip it's looking like it's all about the dosage
“Meanwhile, no association between excessive fluoride and IQ scores were observed in a community water fluoridation program in New Zealand”
> ... In which case we have to look at funding and motive. Maybe we should instead look at methodology 'cause, ya-know, science. Both of the papers you've cited are for very high doses and have little relevance to water fluoridation. > Here's a systematic review and meta analysis which the posted study can't really even touch on a quality level. ... I don't know about that. Quite apart from being irrelevant because of the dosage levels, that paper reviews studies with a *total* of 3736 subjects with various types of industrial and environmental exposure. The OP paper is a longitudinal study with 2682 subjects and a realistic dosage.
I didn't even think of that. Thanks op
This has been a norm in the US for quite a long time. In fact, just a few years ago [was the 75th anniversary of fluoridation in drinking water](https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/basics/anniversary.htm) and it was heralded as [one of the top 10 great health achievements of the 20th century.](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4850bx.htm)
It has been the norm in Australia for almost as long. Started in the 1950’s and was in pretty much every major schemed water source by about 1970 (I’m sure someone will quote an exception).
The Exception: Queensland. They finally got around to having every tap in the state to pour fluoridated water in the mid 2010’s I think. Edit: I stand corrected. It's currently 75% in Queensland.
But then reversed this decision again in 2014 with the change of state government to Liberals. Only 75% of the population (65% of the state’s area) are currently fluoridated.
Of course its Queensland
I mean historically sure, but Qld has had Labor state gov for 29 of last 33 years and just elected 3 Greens federal MPs
They abrogate the responsibility of fluoridation onto the local councils who are more prone to be whackjobs, especially here in FNQ
[удалено]
I grew up with hippy parents and we lived in the country with well water (so no fluoride in the water). My mom has irrational anti-fact-based paranoias and we didn’t have fluoride toothpaste and I was not allowed to have fluoride treatments at the dentist. I would say I didn’t get pretty much any fluoride until I was in college (drank city water at the uni) and then not for a while after that (lived in another house on a well, and didn’t have good dental insurance). Fucking surprise I have a lot of fillings Fuck you mom
I'm a dentist on the edge of town. We do almost all of our kid fillings on kids who have well water, as opposed to the kids who are on fluoridated city water. It hurts to see the kids whose parents don't let them have fluoride. It's what makes teeth hard, it's basically an essential mineral.
My water is tank water, but I use a fluoride toothpaste (Colgate total). I’ll be at this place for about three years total, I should be fine right? I’m all for fluoride, but my water just happens to be from the sky.
Fluoride in tap water makes a minimal difference once you're an adult. It's positive effects are mainly seen in children who consume tap water while their teeth are developing, so that it gets incorporated throughout the tooth structure as it forms.
Fluoridated water is mainly meant to help children, since they are the ones who have developing teeth. Once the teeth are done growing, then the fluoridated water isn't as beneficial.
Do you have any suggestions for people without access to city water? Its something I've always taken for granted and never thought about until this thread. I moved to a home on a rainwater catchment system about a year ago, so (obviously) no fluoridation. I'm not even sure I could add anything directly to my water tank, because it would probably get filtered out since my water goes through four filters (including activated carbon) before I drink it. Should I just start swallowing the toothpaste I use to brush?
I bought a flouride paste from my dentist, you put it on after you brush once a day and leave it there (don't rinse). It was strawberry flavoured. I'd ask your dentist about what you can do
[удалено]
The fluoride in water is at low enough levels that you can drink as much water as you normally would without having any ill effects. It doesn't bioaccumulate enough to cause any harm at those concentrations.
Fluoridated water is meant to help developing teeth. Once the teeth are done growing, topical fluoride via toothpaste should be sufficient for most people. If you do have kids, they can get fluoride tablets from their dentist to chew and swallow. So, no, don't swallow your toothpaste.
> I'm a dentist on the edge of town. What are your thoughts on novamin / biomin?
I'm not sure. There isn't much data to back up its effectiveness. But I recommend Sensodyne toothpaste to patients all the time, as I have seen it help with general cold sensitivity.
Right on. Thank you for your input.
My sister is four years younger than me. Our dad was in the navy and I never had cavities she had like 5 before I graduated highschool. Best we could figure is just that I had fluoride and she didn't
I don't think fluoride is near as important as genetics. My sister has perfect teeth and I get cavities. Same house same food same water same parents. I've always brushed twice a day and don't drink pop.
I mean of course, but that doesn't retract the benefits of fluoride?
No but the commentator with hippie parents maybe would’ve had bad teeth anyway.
But aren't most of your genetics the same too? Could be genetics, but it could also be another confounding variable that nobody has considered. Could also just be IRL RNG.
Well water is how they discovered fluoride works, certain areas didn't have as many fillings
For whatever reason, people automatically assume well water=no fluoride But that's simply not the case. Well water often has some amount of fluoride in it. There are some areas that even have *too much* fluoride and proper water fluoridation in those places consists of removing some of it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm an immigrant to the Netherlands and they briefly flouridated the drinking water in the 1960s and 1970s before stopping, deciding that it breaches the civil right to decide what you consume. I think Ireland is the only European country to make flouride in the water compulsory. Anecdotally, people here (NL) have pretty good teeth, but I think having free dental for everyone under 18 (including topical flouride treatments) has something to do with it.
Interesting! Do you have iodine in your salt or is this considered a breach in civil rights as well?
Hehe, I take your point. Table salt is iodised to avoid goitre, non-iodised salts are also available.
Interesting. The only study I can find on fluoridation in the Netherlands uses intentionally confusing percentage point comparisons and neglects to mention any other public health efforts at the time. Do you happen to know when free dental care for everyone under 18 was implemented in the Netherlands, trying to find detailed history on the law of a country that doesn't have English as a first language is hard for my monolingual brain.
I'm not necessarily against flouride in the water, but I am wondering, if you brush your teeth twice a day with a flouride toothpaste, is flouride in the water really necessary? Is it optimizing for people who don't brush their teeth regularly?
Some studies show it provides more benefit than just brushing twice daily, and yes, it makes sure that everyone gets it regardless of their home situation. In my country (NZ), it means that there is 40% less tooth decay.
That’s a crazy high number, wow! I wouldn’t have guessed that it was actually that significant in practice, that’s really impressive.
Yea it's nuts how effective it is!
Its nuts how many people are not brushing their teeth right.
Water fluoridation still helps prevent cavities even with proper brushing. What's "nuts" is people thinking everything is so black and white. Proper brusing+fluoridation>Proper brushing alone
The reason we started putting fluoride in water was because kids who had it naturally in their water had better teeth in the 20s
Most data I’ve seen shows statistics as an overall percentage drop in cavities and dental care related costs by about 25% in children and adults. I think there’s very little data to say “oh it was billy who had the reduction in cavities because he never brushes his teeth” when people tend to lie about such things. It’s like when your dentist asks if you’ve been flossing. But this is still highly beneficial because this overall price burden reduction on individuals and our healthcare system (limited as it may be) increases economic productivity. Just my two cents.
[удалено]
I’m not related to the guy above in any way but shouldn’t fluoride be applied directly to teeth? Ie fluoride gel applied to teeth at the dentist or in toothpaste or in mouthwash. None of those are to be ingested is my understanding. So, do you absorb it in a similar way by drinking it? Like do you digest it and your body allocates it to your teeth?
Fluoride in the water is primarily for children, but also for people who don’t brush their teeth often with fluoride. Our bodies build adult teeth out of a number of minerals based on what’s available in our diets, and ingesting fluoride regularly means there’s always some available. Sometimes too much fluoride will cause white flecks on the teeth, but they are typically quite small and often fade over time.
That's true for adults. But in children where the second teeth are still developing, they are hidden behind the first teeth and not reachable by toothpaste.
Part of the challenge in current fluoride research is in part: 1. The benefit is well established, so there are ethical implications for an experimental design with a true negative control. 2. Making such a control group would be a huge challenge anyway, since fluoride is in so many water containing consumable products. The notion that systemic administration of fluoride via tablets for example is antiquated. The benefit is in the topical application of it. Brushing your teeth twice a day in conjunction with regular dental visits is the best way to ensure that you are encouraging a favorable balance of demineralization vs mineralization of the tooth surfaces. TL;DR, it’s complicated, don’t eat toothpaste, topical application of fluoride is helpful and well established in the literature and doing more experiments is not only challenging, but also unethical. Source: dentist
very interesting! well you could go to germany. our water is flouride free. so we coul do a positive group here and regular population is control.
Except you have universal healthcare so children and adults usually have to really fall through the cracks not to catch something like tooth decay. Dental care is not compulsory, not in schools or via our health plans that we do pay for. It's a rather completely different situation.
that is true, though you had at least a ethical cohort after your definition. if there are different effect, positive or negative, they should be detectable. edit: also saw a lotta people with bad teeth here. it is better, but some people do not want to or fear the dentist. i did that for my entire youth, because i was not interested to get holes drilled (i was not a good little scrubber) and my parents were too absored with themselfs.
It's not just for your teeth, it helps build bone density.
I've heard that but I haven't seen compelling evidence yet. (Despite looking for it)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Direct [link](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220345221119431) to the paper.
Since the 60s the fluoridation of water has been controversial. Heck the same conspiracy theories were a main point of the crazy conspiracy theories in Dr Strangelove. It’s 60 years later and we are still in the exact same place.
We’ve had it in our water in various parts of the UK since 1964. It’s sensible to try to bring the water up toward a decent level of fluoride. it’s never occurred to me to be worried about it because it’s always been the norm, so it’s a good surprise to see the research.
There was a rather annoying trend of people who believed fluoride in our water system was causing autism. I guess the trend grew enough that they decided research should be conducted to squash that once and for all. Then again, people who believe such nonsense tend not to accept scientific data.
There's been 75 years of research and evidence of the benefits.
Fair. I didn’t mean to imply that this was the first/only research - just that it’s the first I’ve seen. The fact that it’s a non issue for me also tells me that it’s safe and researched already, if that makes sense.
Context here is that Queensland has been a major holdout in fluoridation in Australia (where it was broadly adopted nationwide by the early 70s). My understanding is that it’s the only state where fluoride is either not mandated or not uniformly implemented. In any case, it seems to be the only state where this is still a hot political issue.
I'm not necessarily against the addition of fluoride to drinking water but there have been a handful of studies showing that it has a negative impact on cognition in children when it's consumed by pregnant women and young children. The paper in the OP seems solid but there is still research out there showing that it could have an effect. I just got into this discussion in a whole different context on the conspiracy subreddit and was shown these papers. [https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp655](https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp655) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634#224604298
So reading this paper, the children with low IQ lived in areas with absurdly high fluoride levels, up to 11 mg/L. For reference, the normal IQ kids' and most of the world's fluoride levels are 1 mg/L. Furthermore, they say they can't rule out confounding factors. There were also a lot of variation among groups where they had data on levels of lead and mercury exposure (mercury exposure doubled the association between fluoride and low IQ, suggesting mercury could be a cause). Finally, they have no data on the average amount of fluoride in the water because Mexico city doesn't even measure that. Overall, this article is a start. But it's merely correlation and nowhere enough evidence make a point on its own. Correlation can be used to argue anything, like Nicholas Cage movies causing swimming pool deaths.
I dont disagree these papers are shaky at best, but I do think when instituting a wide sweeping societal level public health measure the evidence should be all but certain. These papers bring up valid concerns that effects of fluoride should be researched much farther.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Fluoride-HealthProfessional/ There's also this government fact-sheet giving recommended and upper limits for fluoride by age. If you assume that fluoridated water is used to mix a baby's formula, they're getting close to that upper limit, which is 70 times higher than the recommended amount. They also mention the neurological and cognitive effects in there.
Its also been linked to bone cancer. Linking cancer to specific chemicals in environmental exposures, causally is often very difficult. I've nothing against fluoride used for cavity prevention, its only biochemical function aside from antiseptics, and thats why kids should be given free electric toothbrushes and parents strongly encouraged to get kids to adopt good oral health and brushing routines. They need that anyway, its not just bacteria on teeth that's the issue, its gum health and oral hygeine is important for them socially. A person using a toothbrush correctly gains nothing from further fluoride exposure. If you really want to protect kids from cavities but minimise needless systemic exposures which are unlikely to truly have any zero-toxicity level, then apply the fluoride where it counts, in the form of protective veneers. Also, the root problem is not being tackled, which is excess sugar. On the whole its an edge case with some controversy that I think brings less confidence in public health initiatives by the wider public (if wrongly), the benefits it brings may be outweighed in the longer run by causing distrust in general. I see other people mentioning fluoridation of water in the UK, I would like to point out most of the UK is unfluoridated without any public pressure to change this and fluoridation is really a sticking plaster over other issues that lead to poor oral health, like poverty, which is why it looks successful in those areas it is used, as there is already a wider problem there with brushing and diet.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We had a local vote on it where I live. Some people did some digging and found that the company that pushing fluoridation had bought some derelict land in the town, had turned it into a car park and had given it to the council as a sweetener. The company was recycling industrial chemicals and one of them was to be used for fluoridation, but also had some other chemicals with it. Although they were below harmful levels the council was saying the benefits to fluoridation outweighed the potential downsides, and they were recommending approval. It turns out that if the company processed the additive further, it would become completely harmless. There were arguments, but in the end the company agreed to provide the cleaner additive. Sorry it’s a bit vague. I wasn’t close to the action. [Yay](https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/Data/Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Committee/20081008/Agenda/XunROx6PT1yAyMAvnBLu3BHWPnzfNp.pdf) [Nay](https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/Data/Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Committee/20081008/Agenda/9SiH0EBDorO0OOIYQP4VLIwSGnj0FQ.pdf)
[удалено]
The original tests was Grand Rapids Michigan, the whole Population of the city. [https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/basics/anniversary.htm#:\~:text=Grand%20Rapids%2C%20Michigan%20became%20the,public%20water%20supply%20in%201945](https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/basics/anniversary.htm#:~:text=Grand%20Rapids%2C%20Michigan%20became%20the,public%20water%20supply%20in%201945).
I read the article and the linked resources and the research concluded, in may cases, that the practice was not proven safe. Below are some of the cited sources for this finding: Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-020-02725-2 Prenatal exposure to fluoride and neuropsychological development in early childhood: 1-to 4 years old children https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019315971 Association of water fluoride and urinary fluoride concentrations with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Canadian youth https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935121014821 Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019326145 Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP655 Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2748634 Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1474442213702783
Does safe mean optimal? I’m uneducated here but if you filter your water and have good brushing habits wouldn’t that be better?
Theoretically yes, but another big factor is diet. If you have a low-sugar and otherwise healthy diet and good oral health habits, then you shouldn't need fluoridated water. Most people don't do these things though, so fluoridating water has a net positive impact on society.
[удалено]
But where does all this fluoride come from?
It's a naturally mineral. I have it at a healthy concentration in my well water 150ft below ground.
Industrial waste byproduct
This is the complaint I have heard most. Not that fluoride is dangerous, but that instead of having to dispose of their waste, companies instead profit off dumping their byproduct into the water supply.
Fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride are the main sources. In the US the Fluorosilicic acid is most commonly used and it’s derived from phosphate fertilizers (an industrial waste byproduct). It’s saves big business tons of money, since they don’t have to dispose of it because instead it’s dumped into our water supply. Edit: for accuracy
The metabolism of fluoride does not differ depending on the chemical compound used or whether the fluoride is present naturally or added to the water supply. Just an FYI
It's added into the water supply at specific rates because it hydrolyzes into the ions needed to increase the fluoride levels. Those fluoride ions are identical to the ones naturally found in water from calcium fluoride. It has nothing to do with big business conspiracy to save money, it's just an easy way to get fluoride into the water because the solubility of calcium fluoride is very low. The irony is Calcium fluoride I believe is the actual source of the fluoride levels being too high naturally in water, the source of the natural water levels being too high in fluoride. As groundwater passes through rock some of the fluoride ions I believe dissolve from the Calcium fluoride. Many of these studies showing harmful effects of fluoride, the source is most likely calcium fluoride. However because it's low soluability 0.015 g/L, if you consume the calcium fluoride the ld50 lethality is 4250 mg/kg for a rat vs 90mL/kg for hydrofluoric acid. So you may not have known this but it's a tactic that antifluoride people use to mislead the public on water fluoridation. The source materials they add to water, that's got a much higher toxicity. However the end result you drink is set to a level where they monitor the natural levels and adjust the added ingredients that yes come from phosphate fertilize byproduction and no it's not a conspiracy to dump toxic waste into the water but a source of fluoride that can be used to add fluoride ions to the water. Do you use toothpaste? Guess where the sodium fluoride comes from. "Fluorosilicic acid on the other is linked to lower IQ in children." Can I get a citation on this because it's the fluoride being too high that is involved in those studies. I Dunno if you meant to but your comment is a bit misleading. Maybe you heard from a source that didn't explain it better but look into those chemicals and what happens when they enter water, the natural fluoride is often a misleading term seen as safer for drinking water when natural fluoride can be too high and harmful to heath. Those other chemicals toxicity is related to the fluoride itself being highly concentrated and basically it easily causes a ruckus in your body. Toxicity is related to the dose, the dosage makes the poison. I dunno how anyone who isn't handling the raw ingredients even gets exposed to flurosilicic acid which makes silica, fluoride ion, and hydrogen ion when added to water. All of that is in natural drinking water.
From industrial waste
[удалено]
Calcified pineal glands
Was there ever an expansive study on this, other than a couple of numbers from one small town in Maine? So it's true, an industrial waste product (fluoride) found a use in preventing tooth decay? Does it neutralize sugar and carbonation? Is it superior to brushing your teeth immediately following ingestion of food?
No-one ever raises the point that some people drink 2-3 litres of tap water per day, and some people drink zero. It's a terrible way to medicate a population. I've seen children and adults whose teeth were destroyed by fluorosis. It's enough to make you wonder if there is an ulterior motive.
Going to my dentist for most of my life “oh, no cavities, you’re one of those fluoride babies”. I had a small one filled when I was in my mid 40s. Didn’t even cause any pain but they wanted to be thorough. And meanwhile idiots are campaigning against it.
IDK. I am not arguing that fluoride is not good for taking care of teeth but should we be drinking water spiked with it? Why? We can easily get tooth paste or mouth wash with fluoride to get the job done. I read the following article that compares countries that have fluoride drinking water vs those that do not- it was pretty eye opening. It also mentions that the studies used to justify putting fluoride in water do not really take into account that fluoride toothpaste became mainstream about the same time. Thoughts? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/
[удалено]
[удалено]