In spite of that, it's still nice to not have had any dental fillings or major dental work by the time I turn 30. This will be different from both of my parents. I think I'm happy to trade a minor increase in some other risks for the ability to eat without pain.
Cute answer, but I, along with the entire non-toddler population, don't ingest toothpaste. HN's propensity for "don't like it? Just buy this gadget/start your own company/move to Somalia"-style rhetoric also makes an appearance.
I have no idea what you meant with the carbohydrate comment if you wouldn't mind explaining.
Oh and thanks for the down vote, but this isn't reddit.
> Cute answer, but I, along with the entire non-toddler population, don't ingest toothpaste.
You do ingest toothpaste, albeit only small amounts. Much like you ingest mouthwash, you just try to keep it to a minimum.
> HN's propensity for "don't like it? Just buy this gadget/start your own company/move to Somalia"-style rhetoric also makes an appearance.
What else can I suggest? In a democratic society that is your choice. You can fight to change the law, or you can work around it.
> I have no idea what you meant with the carbohydrate comment if you wouldn't mind explaining.
Since humans developed agriculture and started consuming large amounts of carbohydrates, they have experienced tooth decay. Fluoride is necessary to prevent it.
> Oh and thanks for the down vote, but this isn't reddit.
This discussion is completely off-topic and your comments are unhelpful. A downvote is justifiable.
> In a democratic society that is your choice. You can fight to change the law, or you can work around it.
Ridiculous. First, neither of us live in a democracy. There was no vote where the general populace elected to receive low doses of toxic minerals in our drinking water. Rather cabals of lobbyists persuaded municipal officials to add it under the guise of it being a good thing. Which has yet to be statistically demonstrated.
If you're interested to know how and why you've been conditioned to think that way, look up Edward Bernays and his involvement with getting fluoride into the water supply of a number of countries.
In short, he's known as the father of Public Relations. Fluoride can only legally be disposed of in expensive toxic waste dumps, and Mr. Bernays came up with a plan to dispose of it for free by passing it through the human body. His public relations skills were so amazing that he even succeeded in making people (like you) want to ingest it.
It's not science and just because you know a little bit about computer science doesn't make you qualified to speak about water fluoridation. Several countries have banned water fluoridation for the very reason that after decades and decades there is no causal link between water fluoridation and tooth decay.
I love that this is the state of public discourse even on hacker news. Just accuse something of being like anti-vax and the down votes follow. No critical thought required.
Also, very classy of you to paint me as "anti-fluoride" like I would have to have some sort of agenda to question why things are being added to drinking water.
Public water fluoridation has well-understood health benefits (a reduction in cavities that cannot be achieved through brushing alone). It also has well-understood drawbacks (tooth mottling in high concentrations, toxicity in high concentrations).
Someone participating in this discussion would either know this from general knowledge, or could look it up.
The peer reviewed studies were not created by that website. That page just lists the links to studies that were published in peer reviewed journals.
I'm not sure how any of this relates to vaccines, since we are talking about fluoride. But anytime you want to know if something is true or not, the only way I know of is to dig deeper for more information.
No, you're going to have to do the legwork of going to one of the many other pro-fluoridation sites to read those studies. Then, depending on how interested you are in the truth, you'll have to weigh all of the findings, and even look into who produced the studies (follow the money). Welcome to the 21st century, where it usually takes some effort to find the truth in controversial issues.
One thing to keep in mind while digging in, we know there is a financial incentive behind pro-fluoridation studies (it is expensive for business to dispose of it). As far as I know, there isn't much financial incentive in being against fluoridation, save for some boutique toothpaste brands that would probably lack the resources to conduct peer reviewed studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison
Water fluoridation is at safe levels. Other fluoridation is not. Completely agree.