[oaktrout]

The conclusion from the largest and strongest studyies is that there is a certain level of fluoride that harms IQ: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/....

"The NTP monograph concluded, with moderate confidence, that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children"

They found fluoride in drinking water concentrations was associated with lower IQ, the opposite of your claim of "proven safe".

Show us some evidence that is proven safe, so far as I can tell all evidence points to unsafe or "we're not sure".

> What needs to stop happening is people ignoring objective reality just because the results happen to align with the other "team's" position on something.

I couldn't agree more. The study that is cited above started when Obama was president by the way.

[jakelazaroff]

Why did you omit the sentence immediately after the one you quoted?

> The NTP review was designed to evaluate total fluoride exposure from all sources and was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoridated drinking water alone.

…or the following sentence, which they bolded to ensure the reader wouldn't miss it?

> It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ.

So no, they very explicitly did not find that fluoride in drinking water concentrations was associated with lower IQ.

[oaktrout]

The study and my quote literally say " drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter".

It did not find it lowered IQ in all drinking water concentrations, but it definitely found it in some drinking water concentrations.

So yes, they did explicitly find fluoride in drinking water at certain concentrations was associated with lower IQ.

Are you defining "drinking water concentrations" as "concentrations that have not been shown to be associated with lower IQ."?

[jakelazaroff]

I see the goalposts are moving from "fluoride in drinking water concentrations" (implication: concentrations commonly found in municipal drinking water) to "fluoride in drinking water at certain concentrations" (i.e. any arbitrary number that could support your position).

Anyway, there's a pretty obvious definition of "drinking water concentrations": the recommended amount for US drinking water. Again, the authors of the study bolded this sentence to ensure you wouldn't miss it:

> It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ.

[oaktrout]

My first sentence in my original post was " The conclusion from the largest and strongest studies is that there is a certain level of fluoride that harms IQ." I did not move the goal posts from there.

I was replying to a comment that said "fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe" (there is actually no proof of this).

I never claimed that all fluoride levels harm IQ.

It's great that the US recommends that fluoride doesn't exceed levels that are proven to harm children's IQ, instead they only recommend levels for which there is "insufficient data".

I suppose we will ignore the people who are still drinking water with levels above what is known to be harmful.

[jakelazaroff]

To be clear, about whom exactly are we talking here? Who are the actual people drinking water with known harmful levels of fluoride that we’re ignoring?

[newtonsmethod]

If we take the known harmful level of fluoride as being >1.5mg/L then the NTP monograph itself has some information ():

> areas including central Australia, eastern Brazil, sub-Saharan Africa, the southern Arabian Peninsula, south and east Asia, and western North America (Podgorski and Berg 2022). Regions of the United States where CWS and private wells contain natural fluoride concentrations of more than 1.5 mg/L serve over 2.9 million U.S. residents (Hefferon et al. 2024). The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 172,000 U.S. residents are served by domestic wells that exceed EPA’s enforceable standard of 4.0 mg/L fluoride in drinking water, and 522,000 are served by domestic wells that exceed EPA’s non-enforceable standard of 2.0 mg/L fluoride in drinking water (USGS 2020). [https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/fluori... Page 2 or Page 22 of the PDF]

Note in the US this is almost all people drinking well water. So if we take the known harmful level at 1.5mg/L, then there are lots of people known to be drinking water above these concentrations. I'm not sure I would say we're necessarily ignoring them, but could argue regulations aren't up to date: the current EPA MCL is 4.0mg/L and secondary MCL is 2.0mg/L.

For more in depth data, we can take the EPA's Review of Fluoride Occurrence for the Fourth Six-Year Review (2024) [https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/syr4_fluo...]. Page 15 of the PDF shows artificially fluoridated water nowadays has fluoride concentrations between 0.6mg/L and 1.2mg/L. Page 18 shows that ~4.7 million are being served with concentrations of fluoride >1.5mg/L. This is higher than the Hefferon et al figure but it seems this figure is based on data from 2006-2011 (where the population was lower, but also the recommended fluoride concentration was higher, with the max at 1.2mg/L pre-2015). I also am not convinced Hefferon et al has any figures on private wells (although maybe I misread the paper).

[don_neufeld]

Anyone who talks about who was President when a study was done is immediately clarifying for you that they have a political agenda.

If there’s a problem with a study, or a study is particularly strong, that should be due to something about the study itself (methodology, significance of results, etc), not its political environment.

[tolidano]

I know why! I know why! Pick me!

It's because it doesn't help prove their incorrect point.