Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hughes 3433 days ago
Nevertheless, this study will be added to the arsenal of those seeking to end municipal fluoridation.
3 comments

Mouthwash seems like a better option than drinking fluoride to improve teeth.
Very true. I've been to some of the anti-fluoride talks and read a lot on both sides.

From what I gather, there simply isn't enough fluoride added to water to really make a difference. Add enough and you start getting dental floursis.

The people against municipal fluoride use a lot of the same bad maths to link fluoride to a plethora of ailments. Their evidence doesn't really add up either. Overall it looks like it's a wash.

I err on the side of it not being in water. It doesn't really help teeth unless applied topically in high concentrations, so we're better off spending money to give kids free toothpaste/brushes/education.

There's the question as to whether or not it can lead to things like osteoporosis, and honestly that question can't be answered easily. Long term toxicity buildup over 30~40+ years in humans is very difficult to test and control for. You can't put humans in a cage and have one group only drink water with fluoride and the other not. Our primate counterparts simply don't live long enough. People move around too much and drink too many different types of drinks to accurately survey exposure.

Of course this article is not about fluoride in water, so this is kinda a rabbit trail comment anyway.

It would be even better to decrease the consumption of sugar I think.
Floride in water is really meant for the people who aren't going to use mouthwash, or floss, or brush their teeth as much as they should anyway. It brings up the dental health of the group with the worst dental health.
You said 'seems', which seems to leave the topic open to discussion in your mind. (:

What's the downside to adding appropriate amounts of fluoride to municipal water sources?

EDIT: after I posted this, I did some quick Googling, and man this is an all over the map topic. There APPEARS to be reasonable evidence on both sides of the debate, but honestly, I'm not personally vested in this enough to dig any more.

Yea; that's pretty much where I lie too. I'm not skilled at picking apart this kind of evidence.
Who cares? The same people are arguing the government should stop geo-engineering with HAARP and chemtrails. They're detached from reality.

They'll use a study on sock production volumes in Honduras causing earthquakes in India.

> Who cares?

They vote, so I care.

And they vote in shockingly large numbers, for example enough to get anti-vaxxers (who I think of as having a lot of overlap with fluoride conspiracy people) seriously considered for cabinet-level positions in the US.
Indeed. The time for apathy is over. When people have bad arguments and bad evidence, you need to say something.
There's nothing you can do on a logical level. Your only hope is an emotional appeal that resonates.
I care because those people succeed at defeating fluoridation efforts; for example, the 2013 effort in Portland, OR[1]

[1] http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/05/portlan...

They'll succeed at banning WiFi and other things if we don't obstruct this nonsense. Hell, they'll succeed at banning refrigeration if they have their way.
no... no....... say it ain't so.