Hacker News Reader

Comment by anextio | Hacker News Reader

Comments like this are the clearest sign that this topic has become so politicized that rational judgement is out the window. If fluoride in the water is opposed by *those people*, or is supported by *those people*, then even if new clear evidence comes out one way or another, it will be undermined by not wanting to hand the other side a ‘W’.

View on HN

In an era where conspiracy theories are rampant, yeah, I'm kind of averse to letting conspiracy theorists win anything.

I'm not going to put myself in danger to avoid it. But when the evidence is marginal, social factors are something I'll take into account.

Even if there is indeed a problem with fluoridated water, it only shows up in a small effect that requires a large sample to see. The conspiracy theorists were guessing, even if they guessed right. And they ignored the data that had been gathered.

Science changes its mind, but conspiracy theorists never do. They accumulate, and it looks to me as if we're about to drown in them.

We literally just got a ruling against the EPA on fluoridation as being dangerously risky levels. As even The Guardian admits, it’s possible there actually is something to the claims of danger.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation...

Of course, the EPA would never live it down if the anti-fluoridation people actually had something to their claims. However, I’m not the EPA. If they were wrong, screw them.

That’s not an accurate summary of the ruling. The ruling orders the EPA to re-evaluate the safety of fluoridation, but does so because the statutory evidentiary standard here is preponderance, not overwhelming evidence.

(It’s also not a ruling “against” the EPA. It’s entirely consistent with the statute, and the EPA will presumably act in accordance with it and produce yet another study demonstrating marginal-to-zero harm associated with fluoridation below 1.5mg/L.)

"The EPA now must perform a risk assessment that is among the first steps in setting new limits under the Toxic Substances Control Act."

What's stopping them from coming back with the same or higher acceptable levels of that's where the evidence leads?

You are only feeding the growth of conspiracy theories if, when confronted with one that is true, you continually deny it. If they see actual evidence being denied, they think there’s something there.

I'm not planning to deny evidence. But I don't think the conspiracy theorists need my help to think there's something there. If I don't give them something they will just make something up. That is the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Mate, you've just outlined what I'd describe as a conspiracy theory:

You've decided to weigh social factors over evidence because you believe the other side isn't behaving rationally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com