Toothpaste widely contaminated with lead and other metals, US research finds
Toothpaste widely contaminated with lead and other metals, US research finds
Dentistry in America is ludicrously broken, but Europe has had its own way for decades, and diverged in many important ways, while having a far smaller economic incentive.
I don't disagree with that at all. The amount of false dental procedures done in the US for monetary gain is quite high, making it a hassle to find an ethical dentist.
Providing free dental rinses to kids at school seems like it would solve this better
I think that would be a better solution in theory, but the cost of doing that en-masse across the country would be quite a bit higher than putting it in the drinking water (Single bulk purchase of fluoride with only a single person needed to be hired to add it to the water supply Vs. Millions of bottles of fluoride rinse being either being created by the government or contracted out to a company, which is then regularly distributed to schools, likely via truck, requiring hundreds to thousands of new employees to manage and run an operation of that size).
I can't imagine a bill for that program being passed in this political climate. I mean, we can't even get lead out of the water in many communities, and that's far, FAR more dangerous. Not to mention PFAS now being in the water supply. Also, while that solution would help children, what about adults who cannot afford to buy fluoride rinses?
We have pretty solid evidence that shows when a community stops fluoridating their water, the poorest in that community have a pretty steep increase in preventable dental and oral health outcomes.
There is also some tentative evidence that high levels of fluoride could have negative effects to pregnant women, babies, and small developing children (potential lowering of IQ), but it's pretty weak evidence that hasn't been verified, and there is no evidence that it is harmful to adults.
So we have to choose between a 100% known bad outcome for poor people and a potential bad effect for young people from a poorly done study. I don't think it's too crazy of a decision to go with the option that does a significant amount of known good to the most disenfranchised part of the population, personally.
The places that do fluoridate their water do so publicly, is regulated and tested (and can be personally verified at home with a test kit), and adds the least amount possible to achieve the positive outcome, which comes out to a very small dose (many communities have naturally occurring fluoride in their water at higher levels)
If the state can add compounds to water, why not other compounds that reduce aggression?
That part is going a bit too far into conspiratorial thinking, IMHO, coming from someone who used to be a full on religious conspiracy theorist prepper. If we begin to assume that the government is going to start manipulating the water supply secretly, you would then have to assume that any water that you didn't personally purify is suspect, and at that point water fluoridation is the least of your concerns.
The risk to a government doing that is absolutely immense, as the now modified water would be accessible and testable by the entire population that drinks it, and unless there are suddenly new chemicals that are undetectable by known scientific methods, the chances of a government being able to pull that off are below nill, and detection would result in a scandal beyond imagining.
Btw, asked gpt4o this question:
Fluoridation Coverage and Socioeconomic Status
Lower Access in Disadvantaged Areas: Studies have found that areas with greater socioeconomic disadvantage often have less access to fluoridated water. This disparity is attributed to factors such as limited infrastructure, political opposition, and logistical challenges in implementing fluoridation programs in these communities .
Variability Across Income Levels: In the United States, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) revealed that children from families with low income—but not those living in poverty—were less likely than other income groups to reside in predominantly fluoridated counties .
So your argument is somewhat flawed, poor people tend to be less flouridated, so the people who need it get it the least.
This is the wrong way to distribute this, please stop and find a better way, MOST IMPORTANTLY A CONTROLLED WAY, and work out a precise dosage schedule while you're at it, none of this ignorant yeehaw cowboy shit where each town rolls a dice.
Rural areas tend to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, while also not being connected to a municipal water (it's more economical to have your own well in rural areas).
Just because those people don't have access to fluoridated water does not mean the solution is to then take away fluoridated water from the poor who do live in areas with municipal water.
You’re right it’s more expensive and the logistics are worse, but at the same time you could inculcate better habits in your population, and even subsidize proper mouth rinses.
The minute that's successfully done across the country, I would be in favor of removing fluoride from water, but only after all economically disadvantaged have that better option in place, and they are adequately educated with better habits to utilize it. I think you'll find that it is much easier said than done.
Everyone on this argument seems to be posting a rather religious position and rationalizing backwards.
Europe has vastly better dental health in every possible way, without flouridation.
It's not working, cut the shit.
I would suggest trying to start a grass roots movement to lower dental healthcare costs in the US to be closer to EU levels, as well as push for those subsidized fluoride rinses you mentioned. It'll be a long road, but it has to start somewhere, and you seem passionate enough about the subject to lead the charge.
I mean, my solution is just to leave the US, which worked for me.
It's not just lowering dental costs btw, but you're right, taking money out of dentistry would probably give the most improvement to medical outcomes.
So we have to choose between a 100% known bad outcome for poor people and a potential bad effect for young people from a poorly done study. I don’t think it’s too crazy of a decision to go with the option that does a significant amount of known good to the most disenfranchised part of the population, personally.
I disagree with your risk calculus. We are talking about something so 100% fundamental to human life, water. This is something we should consider absolutely sacrosanct, and a human right to all. It should be unthinkable to alter or modify it in any way imho.
I'm not trying to "Precious bodily fluids" here.
, but this is one thing we all should have personal choice over.You're right it's more expensive and the logistics are worse, but at the same time you could inculcate better habits in your population, and even subsidize proper mouth rinses.
If we begin to assume that the government is going to start manipulating the water supply secretly, you would then have to assume that any water that you didn’t personally purify is suspect, and at that point water fluoridation is the least of your concerns.
I agree, which is why I don't want any tampering or adultering of water to begin with. I trust now that the levels are appropriate, but your whole argument boils down to "we're adding stuff to water because it's convenient", which is true, but a lot of things are convenient.
Let's have people take new referenda on adding them, flouride was added in the early 1900s without any political process.
I say this as someone who grew up in areas with truly horrible water quality from agricultural and industrial runoff, that was still declared "perfectly fine" by a dramatically corrupt local government. I also lived near the town where "A Civil Action" took place, and the water tasted funny there too (not terribly bad, but still weird).
If you don't add chlorine to your water supply, it has a tendency to harbour some much worse stuff. Like cholera. And the level to which water is artificially fluorinated is much lower that it is naturally in many places. Just 'pure' water would be a terrible idea
Chlorine absolutely makes sense.
Chlorine is our anion gap, we have so much more than you can imagine, it's literally in salt.
Flourine is less common, saying some places have a lot is like saying arsenic is fine because chile has high concentrations. The Pampas actually is known for their wines and they have massive arsenic.