[azinman2]

I’m not implying they’re in the same class, I’m saying that the level used is implicitly important in saying whether or not something is toxic. To me it’s not a good faith argument to assume otherwise.

You’re right I was wrong about enrichment [1] - I didn’t know that. It is wide spread, however.

The study you cited seemed to be from areas of naturally occurring high levels. So I guess I should further qualify my statement - I am to mean that it’s non-toxic at the levels used in municipal water and in toothpaste. I thought you were saying there were studies suggesting otherwise at the levels used, which the CDC disagrees with [2]. I’m now rereading your comment where you talk about the levels used so you did address that. Apologies for not better latching onto that. But it did make it sound like these levels in use were potentially toxic, which has been very widely studied across many countries over decades with increasing life expectancy and dental improvements, so it would be very unexpected if so.

It seems that there isn’t a federal requirement for fluoride in municipal water - perhaps there are areas that don’t.

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/94563/download

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/community-water-fluori...

[colordrops]

To claim that dose is the only factor involved is bad faith, or at least overly simplistic. For example, radiation and lead are cumulative. There is no minimum safe dose. Can you say definitively that there is no damage or cumulative effect from regular small dosages of fluoride?

Did you look at the study? The naturally occurring levels are below levels added to water in the US in many of the regions studied.

In any case you should be able to see that I'm not coming at this from some conspiracy nutjob angle but from sourced studies and reasonable thought processes.

My point is not that you are wrong. It's that, even if you are right, it's not some obvious open and shut case.