- cross-posted to:
- health@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- health@lemmy.world
The new research is the first to measure community water fluoridation exposure during childhood and any potential impact on cognition up to age 80.
The paper is here
You must log in or # to comment.
Why would you put it in water if you can also put it in toothpaste?
it does result in more caries in people who went on flouride free toothpaste fad, people seem to think it actually cleans thier teeth better, from what ive seen on various "FLOURIDE free, its mainly due to abrasive and whitening agents in those toothpaste which they load it even more than the normal toothpaste, that causes the whitening, people are just scouring thier enamel for whiteness. many of the review to mention people had same or cavaties after going on it. they are quite aggressive on the gums, and skin(since they can irritate both).
AND THE claim between intelligence an flouride is by a person that believes in pseudoscience.
I’m all for replacing fluoride in water with ethanol. It lowers IQ, damages teeth, and fosters violence, but it’d be a lot more fun than fluoride.
This study was funded by people that don’t wear tinfoil hats outside. They’re compromised.
Fluoride has a special property that causes people’s low IQ levels to be confirmed.
good fucking god is that where we’re at.
We always knew excess flouride fucked up your bones and teeth. That was the potential danger. We’ve known that since Colorado Springs. Why are we testing cognition.
A recent analysis (1) finding a negative relationship between fluoride exposure and adolescent IQ was prominently cited in decisions to end community water fluoridation (CWF) in parts of the United States. However, the quality and salience of that evidence have been questioned (2, 3). Most notably, the bulk of the evidence presented by Taylor et al. (1) concerned extremely high dosages of fluoride—far exceeding levels relevant to CWF policy discussions. None of their evidence came from population-representative samples; most failed to account for selection into treatment. None of the research was conducted using data collected in the United States.
this research was done to figure out the unknown
That’s good, I love tap water where I live. Always drank it, mostly sharp but years are adding up. Drank it more as I aged, don’t need extra calories and all.
Grew up where tap water tasted like ass, to the point even hung over it tasted like shit. Love BC tapwater, though gets better closer to the coast in my opinion.
deleted by creator
I love how brainwashed right wingers pretend to be an authority on gender and sex, then believe shit like this.
Ah yes, right wingers like… The university of California Berkley.
What?
What what? What part of that didn’t you understand?
While it’s trendy on the right to be against Fluoridation because of ‘big government’ or ‘fauci’ or whatever drivel happens to appear out of the American education system; the original fight against fluoridation was left wing, and still is in countries outside the Amerisraeli empire, which is really the only handful of countries that fluoridate their water; they were the only ones stupid enough to give literally trillions at this point to the global aluminium mining industry.
I don’t understand your point. I’m making fun of the right wing for believing in dumb pseudoscience. I’m well aware of the crunchy moms on the left, but that’s not who I’m making fun of right now.
You’re… Bringing in UC Berkeley and the aluminum industry for some reason? It really just seems like you wanted to rant and chose my comment at random to do that.
…Why? Because Berkeley has non-fluoridated water, after mass encouragement from professors at UC Berkeley.
As to why the aluminum industry… THAT’S THE EXCLUSIVE, AND I DO MEAN THE EXCLUSIVE REASON THE US STARTED FLUORIDATING WATER. There was no other reason. Sodium Fluoride is toxic waste that is a by product from refining aluminum. It cost the industry millions (in 1920s month) actively cleaning up and properly disposing of that waste according to the few ecological protections present in the day.
Then hey, Fluoride is useful in dentistry in high amounts, why don’t they sell to that industry? So they did. And then someone had the clever idea of paying off dentists to help lobby for water fluoridation, as was SO INCREDIBLY COMMON AT THE TIME (sugar, milk, leaded gasoline, cigarettes, lead paint, lead pipes). And so they got a way to get PAID to dump their toxic waste. They just had to make sure it was under a certain concentration; which just meant they aggressively pushed fluoridation across the US and Canada so their margins would be higher. Eventually fluorine became the easiest way to dump that particular chemical, and despite the extra cost for that step of refining (which resulted in sodium metal as a bonus sellable item) it is still more profitable than having to pay to properly dispose of the material.
Yeah, you’re really not fighting the allegation that you just wanted to rant. Literally no one brought up Berkeley.
Supposing your unhinged rant is at all accurate, why does any of that matter in the context of the article?
Why does the incredibly shady history of Fluoridation, the long-standing left-wing fight against it, matter in the context of an absolute ninnyhammer saying it’s a right-wing conspiracy?
I don’t know, let’s use our critical thinking skills here for a minute little buddy.
literally trillions
This guy knows his numbers!
How about you first watch a few Count Dracula videos and once you have done thosez you can play with the big numbers again
80 years across 75000 or so individual water systems, once a month at about 10k (pops under 800) to 1 million (for larger cities) per dose.
But it does have an effect on dental health! A positive one!
HEALTHY TEETH AND GUMS ARE THE FIRST STEP OF THE TRANS IDEOLOGY.
Man, I’m trans as fucking hell.
I became trans by choice.
No measurable effect, no.
I’m sorry, what were you just lying?
Yes it has measurable effect, lots of research has established that with a very high degree of certainty. But maybe the causality isn’t proven?
The claim is that it strengthen teeth, but I’m not sure that is proven, for all I know it could also be it prevents bacteria from flourishing in the mouth to a degree that is significant enough to prevent tooth decay.
But that may just be lack of access to the data. This issue is very heavily researched for many decades, so professionals should have a pretty good grasp on the facts by now. It just irks me that I’ve never seen anything documenting the causality, there is clear proof of correlation, but AFAIK not the causality.If it did prevent bacterial growth it would prevent plaque formation because bacteria doesn’t grow directly on teeth surprisingly and before anybody says anything please go search up some dentistry science
No, it has no measurable effect. We see the exact same dental effects in modern countries without any fluoridation, natural or artificial. That’s why causation hasn’t been proven.
Yes, in the US, specifically the US, as areas got wealthy enough to contribute enough property tax to pay for fluoridation… their dental hygiene went up.
…The same thing has happened in China without fluoridation… and mexico… and wealthier parts of central and eastern europe (which has low to no levels of natural fluoridation).
And we see in Western europe, where there is significant natural fluoridation… the exact same increase in dental hygiene over time… That wouldn’t happen IF THE FLUORIDATION WAS THE CAUSE. They already had it. Why would dental hygiene increase, without adding fluorine? Across all these cultures. At the same time wealth and education increases…
I fucking wonder.
Got a source for those claims, buttercup?
The only research paper I have been able to find was from my own country Denmark more than a decade ago, and was about natural flour in the water, because it’s illegal to add to the water here.
That paper was very clear that people in the area that had flour had better teeth health.Random guy on the internet claiming to debunk the WHO, various national health authorities, and every dentist I’ve ever talked to ever. Ok buddy.
Just to cover all the bases here: what’s your take on the mRNA COVID vaccines?
…because they brush their teeth? With toothpaste that has fluoride in it?
You hear that, people? You have no excuse
Alternative headline: Science disproves well known conspiracy theory again; conspiracy theorists deny evidence.
I’ve added so many “Conspiracy Theorist” tags to users thanks to these posts…
yeah I felt that way with the tynlenol one the other day. Its like we are using resources for this. ugh.
Honestly, I don’t mind spending resources on this. Yes it turned out that the expected results were the ones we got, but until you do the study, you can’t be sure you won’t get unexpected results. Plus, once you’ve collected the data, it sometimes shows unrelated patterns that you wouldn’t otherwise have been able to see.
people don’t understand science at all.
It’s not a ‘do it once and it’s the truth forever’ type of thing. It’s a perpetual process. You are SUPPOSED TO REPEAT STUDIES. Result replication is the point. You also re-do studies to create new datasets, see if baselines have shifted etc.
The notion science is some system of eternal truths is not science. That’s Scientism… where science has been elevated to a extra-empirical authority.
It’s also why you do experiments in science class… and you compare results.
anyway, a couple of times I tried to explain this to people, even as a teacher, and they basically told me that means science is stupid and worthless if that is how you are suppose to do it. people generally, do not think science is an empirical process, they think it should be revelatory, like the ten commandments.
they think it should be revelatory, like the ten commandments…
Since you brought it up, it’s worthwhile that most Abrahamic churches include common folk arguing about the nitty gritty of what scripture means, what are the consequences of those meanings, and how to account for those consequences in their daily life.
Which is kinda exactly how we should treat scientific studies.
Yup, a little skepticism is healthy. But that doesn’t mean you should actually assume that everyone is a liar and you should only listen to “alternative” sources.
People crave certainty. Like are obsessed with it. They will do anything to obtain it including believing all kinds of wildly untrue things. Intuition is usually associated with these hard fictions.
Science starts from the premise that the universe is uncertain. Uncertainty is baked into all scientific measurements. This mindset leads to true knowledge but it is fundamentally not how people are naturally wired to think. It takes repeated practice to stay scientifically minded even if you are trained in the practice and you exercise it regularly. It’s uncomfortable to stay in the uncertain place for long periods of time for most people. Regression to certainty is the norm, science is the exception.
I give people a lot of empathy for the certainty mindset, even if it is wrong it helps people cope with the gaping abyss of uncertainty. It’s not an easy thing to grapple with.
People crave certainty.
I think its slightly different I’d say its closer to: People crave simplicity.
That can frequently mean certain answers, but even if the answers aren’t certain, but simple, they accept it. This is the root of most conspiracy theories. It is much simpler to accept that a global cabal is specifically trying to convince people the Earth is flat rather than accept that we live on the surface of a very large round planet, that “down” doesn’t always mean down, and that gravity exists to prevent people on the “bottom” of Earth don’t simply fall off into space.
Oh I have met plenty of scientists who are scientific only about their own research field. And complete dumbasses about anything else, like they do biology all day but can’t drive for shit because they have zero understanding of the laws of physics, including gravity, and they get hyper defensive if you tease them about this.
It’s mind-boggling, but that’s just how human beings are. And if you aren’t wired like that… it’s pretty hard to socialize successfully because social group identity is so often solely generated on shared beliefs many of which are ‘hard fictions’.
Yes! That’s my point on it being very difficult to live in uncertainty all the time. You can live with it in a field of study but boy is it hard to live with in everything. You should live with it, but its psychologically challenging.
you can’t be sure you won’t get unexpected results
Yeah you can say that about anything and there was data before this indicating it did not have a negative effect. Its like have we studied water enough for its negative effects.
I wondered that when I started reading: is this actual science, or being forced to disprove the idiots yet again? But right at the beginning it talked about bringing first of its kind, actual data, yadda yadda … reads like actual science, like something that adds value to our knowledgebase
I think in this case it’s valuable to do the study. A lot of these conspiracy theories are based on the idea that common thing could be harmful in some way, but assumes that it really is and that they know the effects. Some are more plausible than others because chemistry is complex and biology is a lot of chemistry, so it can be hard to say that something is harmless without doing a lot of scientific research.
But IQ DOES have a long term effect on fluoridation!
Utah is proof of this.
But a MAGA coworker told me Fluoride is bad according to new studies. When asked for specifics the answer was read the studies.
I always assume if MAGA says something is bad, then it’s good.
Blind squirrels eventually find nuts.
Like knowing that there are pedophiles in the Epstein files.
In fact, nearly half of all blind squirrels don’t even have to look far at all to find a couple. ☝🏼
The trouble is, MAGAts don’t know the difference between a couple acorns and the absolute bollocks they’re tweaking about.
🌰🌰🐿️ ‼️🐂💩
🏆
Well, they already have low IQ and poor brain function. They don’t need fluoride.
What MAGA doesn’t need personally, they don’t want anyone else to have. So it makes sense.
I grew up in Moscow in the 80s, I think they tried fluoride in the water, but it wasn’t nearly enough to make a difference.
As a child, my teeth were atrocious. Constant cavities despite brushing and not eating a ton of sweets and never even trying soda.
After I moved here at 18, my teeth got significantly better. I’m glad there is fluoride in the water!
I think there are town where the fluoride occurs naturally and the inhabitants teeth turned brown, but their teeth were healthy as hell
Russian dentistry during that time period, from what I recall reading, was horrific.
Yeah, it wasn’t fun, even though I was able to get “the good stuff” cause my dad started working for the government in an important position. The good stuff was… marginal.
