Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water | Hacker News Reader

Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

bbc.com

505 pointsJimmc4141,259 comments

I initially dismissed it as the same category of stupid as anti-vax beliefs, but it turns out that there are a decent amount of good studies showing a link between fluoride in water and (slightly) lower IQ when pregnant mothers ingest the fluoride. Note that there is no significant effect after birth.

The idea is to remove fluoride from water and advise pregnant women to use fluoride-free toothpaste.

Everyone else can get enough fluoride from modern toothpastes, or regular dentist treatments.

The logic is that fluoride in tap water made sense in the era before toothpaste had it, but now it is “overmedicating” a vulnerable fraction of the population.

The IQ link is very heavily lacking in evidence.

In the actual research the main "risk" posed by flouridated water is actually fluorosis. This causes minerals in your enamel to be replaced with flouride which can cause them to be brittle in the long term. It's pretty uncommon but the thought is that now that flouride toothpaste are commonplace, the benefit of flouridated water is also way less. Which changes the calculus.

A not insignificant number of researchers are advocating for the view that flouridating water just isn't worth it anymore and the (slight) risk of flourosis is more significant than the (slight) benefit of decreased dental caries.

Children are the main group that benefits from fluoride in water because the fluoride helps strengthen teeth as they form. Lack of fluoride increases childhood cavities, leading to decreased academic performance.

This was a real problem in the San Jose school district until recently. They started fluoridation of water in the last ten years, and were the biggest US city that didn’t fluoridate. The evidence of the above is clear according to SJ dentists I have talked to.

The National Toxicology Program recently completed a fairly substantial meta study and concluded that "for every 1 mg/L increase in urinary fluoride, there is a decrease of 1.63 IQ points in children.". [1] This is also relevant to OP since it's not just pregnant women at risk from excessive fluoridation but also children. For now it seems that adults are, somewhat oddly, unaffected.

[1] - https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...

In bold from your source:

> 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.

Here is a concise detailed analysis of the concerns with the metaanalysis provided by the NTP:

https://theunbiasedscipod.substack.com/p/the-well-runs-deep-...

The NTP report is flawed and likely biased.

Which changes the calculus

Was that intentional? (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dental_calculus for those who didn't get the reference.)

The canonical form is "I see what you did there".

Fluorosis is very common afaik. My dentist told me I have it: slightly whiter patches on my teeth. Then he showed me his own fluorosis. It actually is stronger than the old enamel.

> The IQ link is very heavily lacking in evidence.

Not really: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

your study has been heavily criticized where you already posted it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43523900

I can only assume once you see those very valid criticisms, you will update your references

> but now it is “overmedicating” a vulnerable fraction of the population.

Makes sense, but the intention also is that many people do not brush their teeth, or at least do not brush them as often as they should, and so fluoride is added to drinking water to compensate so people's teeth don't start to fall out at an alarming rate.

Sadly, an alarming percentage of Americans don't drink water. I’ve spoken to way too many people who think water tastes wrong because it’s not sweet enough.

I've heard this and it doesn't fit in my brain. They never drink water? Ever?

Particularly when traveling, I don't enjoy the taste of tap water. Filtered or (factory filtered then) bottled... and I'm not alone in that viewpoint.

Wisconsin tap water tastes fine. Waco, Texas tap water is really nasty.

I'm pretty sure that no amount of fluoridated water is going to save you if you do not brush your teeth.

Even if the fluoride somehow manages to overcome all that and prevent you from getting cavities, the gum disease will eventually cause all your teeth to fall out.

> many people do not brush their teeth

many? (!!!)

Googling it all I found was one dentist website that said 2%, but didn't seem that reliable

The levels of fluoridation in order to cause difference in IQ as I understand it, from the Chinese studies, suggest that basically the effect if true occurs at around 2x+ the concentration found in supplemented water supplies.

My understanding also is that if you’re a dentist wanting to get rich, move somewhere that has unfluoridated water.

2x is basically no safe margin for something like water. Of course you can question the quality of the study, but if it's actually 2x, fluoride in tap water should be treated like lead pipes.

So if your training and double your water intake your basically lowering you IQ? (according to the Chinese studies) I wonder the method this uses.. has anyone looked at dementia rates in high fluoride areas.. Particularly in people with high water intake?

There is also a host of things we use water for from cooking to preserving, distilling and cooling.. i wonder if any of these things could concentrate the fluoride.

Also since fluoride has a lower boiling point any studies tracked what breathing in fluoride gas over long periods cause?

2x is honestly pretty small. I would expect the amount required to drop IQ to be larger by an order of magnitude or more to conclude that fluoridating water is totally safe.

I think that link is only there when the fluoride levels are extremely high. See https://parentdata.org/fluoride-drinking-water/ for a good overview of the data

> I initially dismissed it as the same category of stupid as anti-vax beliefs

Dismissing things out of hand like this is a category of stupid in itself.

Look at the current research, listen to people who devoted their careers to studying this, make up your own mind. If you're on HN, then you're qualified enough to at least figure out who the genuine experts are and read what they recommend.

Putting any science-based debate into a "category" to dismiss is turning yourself into one of the stupid people.

This is bad advice that no one could possibly follow.

> Look at the current research, listen to people who devoted their careers to studying this, make up your own mind.

Do you honestly do this with every single belief you have? Even every single controversial belief? Have you looked, yourself, into whether the world is flat? Whether the 9/11 conspiracy theories are true? Whether crop circles were created by aliens? These are all absurd conspiracy theories, but I assume most people don't know the "up to date" research on any of them, or what people who have "devote their careers" to research them say.

And those are incredibly common and well known to be false theories.

You have to take some things on faith to at least some degree - though to be clear, by "on faith" I mean "on faith of people you trust", which should really start with professional scientists etc. Also, it's totally fine to just say "I have no actual idea" about most things, and just go with what your current understanding of the status-quo position is.

> Everyone else can get enough fluoride from modern toothpastes, or regular dentist treatments.

The advantage of putting it in water is that it ensures all children get it, not just the children whose parents can and do make sure they brush their teeth and go to the dentist.

So everyone else's kids have to have a lower IQ because of that?

Bad parents are gonna be bad parents.

Agree, my biggest issue is often where they source the fluoride and whether they test it. We found out in my (liberal) hometown that they were actually sourcing some derivative which has no human studies.

Given that everyone gets enough in toothpaste I just don’t see the reason to keep doing it, too much can go wrong. It’s kind of a strange mass medication that I’m not sure the government needs to be involved in.

What was the derivative?

> The idea is to remove fluoride from water and advise pregnant women to use fluoride-free toothpaste.

What most people don't understand here are the levels of fluoride being ingested. You can very easily remove all fluoride from your water with a relatively cheap RO system. But the recommendation to use "fluoride-free toothpaste" is just plain misinformation.

The reason is that you don't eat toothpaste. And even when adults ingest small amounts of toothpaste, again, the amount of fluoride is basically beyond negligible. Fluoride can both be applied to teeth as a varnish and/or consumed in drinking water. Using a flouride-free toothpaste can oftentimes do more damage than good because of SLS in those alternatives and because those alternatives often have abrasives that do far more harm than good. It's amazing people will recommend a product that may likely be worse because they have no domain expertise. So, yes, people should talk to their Dentist about these things and ask questions of them vs the Internet.

Really the downside to removing fluoride from city water is that low income families will be worse off with respect to dental related issues compared to more well off families that spend time instilling dental hygiene and preventative care for their kids. As you mentioned most people who have decent oral hygiene get enough flouride.

Where we live we have well water. Fluoride in the water isn't a concern, and if it was in our drinking water it generally wouldn't be consumed because of the water filtration anyway.

Source: spouse is a DDS.

My anecdotal experience says that using fluride-free biomine toothpaste makes my tooth highly sensitive than using a good ol' Colgate. Now, I use it only twice or thrice per month randomly.

Whether this is true or not, it's absolutely not why they banned it.

They banned it as part of the culture war. That's 100% of the reason. "The libs" want it, so it must be banned.

It is trivial today to get whatever level of fluoride is recommended for dental health, via toothpaste. So there is no compelling need to fluoridate as there exist viable alternatives to achieve the same that fluoridation is for any other purpose than dental health.

In the USA, dental care is not covered by public insurance, and is an optional add-on to insurance through one’s employer.

So without addressing at all whether fluoridation is effective or safe, there doesn’t seem to be any compelling need to fluoridate public water, and there’s no economic down side for the public if governments choose not to do so.

Given this, why not just leave people alone to make their own choices? If the citizens in a city or state want to fluoridate the public water supply, then do so; if they choose not to, then leave them alone. It’s a free country and voters are grownups; let them choose for themselves.

If you live in a place that chooses the choice you dislike but for some reason fluoridated public water supply is a critical issue for you, either campaign to change it or vote with your feet.

This issue just doesn’t seem important enough to me to spend any effort arguing either way.

> This issue just doesn’t seem important enough to me to spend any effort arguing either way.

Your comment is well-stated, and in the spirit of a free and liberal society. The problem—not with your argument, but with the world—is that today there seems to be literally no issue unimportant enough not to argue about, or use as the battlefield for an unending ideological proxy war. My guess is that few of the people arguing this issue on HN have strong feelings about flouride qua flouride, but have strong feelings about the kinds of people they believe oppose or support the use of flouride in water, and this notion is what they're really railing against.

This rings true for my gut reaction. The family and acquaintances in my life who have been up in arms against fluoride for years now are actual neo nzs (like “deport all non whites”, “you-know-who controls america”, “superiority of the white race” level).

So my instinct is to really be afraid of this anti-fluoride wave, even tho practically I don’t care one way or another.

I think one thing you're not considering (especially when you say we should vote with our feet) is poverty. It’s true that fluoride toothpaste is widely available, but for people in poverty, of which there are millions in our country, basic hygiene items like toothpaste and a toothbrush aren’t guaranteed. Neither is it guaranteed that everyone has a perfect daily brushing habit like the dentist tells us; there are people who don't brush every day, or even every week.

You talked about dental care not being covered by public insurance — is it not worth considering that some basic level of dental care is already being applied to the country via fluoridation? It's a minimal, cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay at scale. Fluoridated water is one of the few dental protections available to everyone regardless of their income.

If you're not brushing your teeth, periodontitis will get you; the resulting bone decay will cause your teeth will fall out. But sure, great, the water was fluoridated, so I guess it's nice that those now-missing teeth are free of caries?

there are people who own a toothbrush but do not purchase toothpaste. money is not something everyone has and when you start having to choose between certain things, tough choices get made.

I really don't feel like you're interpreting my comment in good faith. Do you really think I was arguing that poor people literally never brush their teeth, and every single poor person in the country will eventually suffer from periodontitis? If you read my comment again, I'm sure you could find a way to engage in better faith.

I don't believe there's a single person in the USA that's so poor they can't pay $3 for toothpaste every 3 months. I also believe that having such a low personal hygiene where you don't brush your teeth altogether, even if you drink water with fluoride, will have terrible results anyway for your teeth anyway.

I'm completely sure that any people that don't brush their teeth is just because they are too lazy to even bother.

This trope of justifying everything with "but there are millions of poor people in the USA" is really tiresome.

It's not that they can't afford a $3 toothpaste, it is the environment they are in that makes it hard to prioritize things like this. It is the education and the overall life quality (or the lack there of) that causes this problem.

Trivial is what we have now. Taking fluoride from the water means people will have to spend extra time and money on fluoride and dental treatments. When I viewed it, your comment appeared directly after this one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43524171), which talks about a town in Canada that voted to abandon fluoride , saw worse health outcomes, and then voted to reinstate it. This tells us that fluoride is not trivially available to people, and taking it away from them enriches corporations while making people less healthy.

So you’re saying that forcing a treatment on people that don’t want it, is a fair price to pay to reduce inconvenience for others?

I’m not sure what your anecdote proves because I’m wholly in support of a polity being able to make that decision.

I was responding to this point:

  It is trivial today to get whatever level of fluoride is recommended for dental health, via toothpaste. So there is no compelling need to fluoridate as there exist viable alternatives to achieve the same that fluoridation is for any other purpose than dental health.

I also agree that people should be able to make decisions like this, but they should be aware that one of the results of these kinds of efforts could be that everyone gets less healthy, rather than everyone stays at the same level of health with less cost.

Presumably when they voted to get rid of fluoride in the water in Calgary, they didn't do so expecting the outcome would be that people in their town would be less healthy overall. Nonetheless, that was the outcome of their vote.

The anecdote shows that it's not trivial, because when the fluoride in the water went away, people were not able to trivially replace it, leading to worse health outcomes. Ultimately people found too high of a cost, seeing as that they reversed the decision.

Sadly it took a decade for them to realize their mistake. I worry people today are making the same mistake, and we will reverse it in a decade after health outcomes are shown to have worsened.

> via toothpaste.

I wonder how many people really brush their teeth on a regular basis.

> either campaign to change it or vote with your feet.

I imagine that campaigning to change it requires notifying people there is a problem, and getting it into the news and spreading that news.

> I wonder how many people really brush their teeth on a regular basis.

Whatever the number is it's not appropriate for the state to medically intervene on their behalf.

Why not?

Sadly people that don’t brush are probably not drinking plain water either.

I was thinking the same thought- maybe we should fluoridate Brawndo :-)

Thats not really true. I had problems brushing during my childhood, because most toothpastes triggered my gag reflex, but I mostly drank tap water.

Your indifference is based on some core assumptions that are false. In reality, 1) Fluoride in water works in addition to fluoride in toothpaste to protect our teeth - rather than two highly concentrated events of reminieralization, fluoriated water reminieralizes the teeth throughout the day. 2) There is a strong economic downside to ceasing fluoridation: Fluoridation saves millions of dollars that otherwise would be spent on dental bills by the public - https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0... - shows cost savings ratio of twenty dollars for every. dollar invested in reduced treament costs. This remains apt: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7164347/ 3) The best way to preserve choice is to maintain fluoridation. People cannot choose to fluoridated their own water system - they can choose to live in unfluoridated areas, use filters that remove fluoride, or otherwise avoid the tap water. 4) Removing fluoridation means acces to fluoride becomes much more difficult and expensive. The reason fluoridation is so cost effective is that it is delivered through the public water system - a community resource. Bottled fluoridated water is more expensive than gasoline. It is also less regulated and less available in the U.S.A.

In general it's some weird relic of medieval view on dentists not being medical professionals but someone akin to barbers. It shouldn't exits but it persists.

That’s going to go poorly. A Canadian city removed fluoride from water in 2011 and reversed that decision 10 years later. There’s hard data on the effects and they’re not good [0].

[0] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed...

The study [1] that's based on seems pretty typical, and is precisely what drives skepticism towards these policies. The differences for permanent teeth were not significant. The paper claimed this may be because "7-year-olds have not had the time to accumulate enough permanent dentition caries experience for differences to have become apparent." The differences in temporary teeth had a deft (decay, extracted, filled teeth) of 66.1% in Calgary (no fluoride) and 54.3% in Edmonton (fluoridated).

So you're looking at a small positive improvements in dental outcomes, for what may be a permanent decline to IQ. That's obviously not a trade I think anybody would make, so the real issue is not whether or not it improves dental outcomes but whether it's having measurable effects on IQ as we have seen in other studies. [2] I don't understand why a study operating in good faith wouldn't also pursue this question in unison, or in fact as the primary question. I think relatively few people outright doubt the dental benefits of fluoride, but rather are concerned about the cost we may pay for such.

[1] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12685

[2] - https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...

In the 2nd study that shows correlation between fluoride and lower IQ in children, the water had twice as much fluoride as the recommended amount in the US (1.5 mg/L vs 0.7 mg/L).

The most ridiculous part is that we have an alternative way to apply fluoride without intaking it. It's called toothpaste. But for some reason people act like Utah is banning vaccine.

Unfortunately, hard data is not acceptable. This is how it works for the current administration:

All previous data is ignored because of political reasons.

Teeth to slowly rot in heads.

Sometime in the 2030s, local voters will notice they have very bad teeth.

Locals will debate if adding fluoride is going to make teeth great again.

I don't think it's about hard data and optimization of health, but rather bodily autonomy.

I'm sure there are plenty of chemicals that could be forcibly put in the drinking supply that, based on current scient, would be beneficial for the public. But I would still be skeptical. Sell me these substances in my food or toothpaste, but don't put it in my drinking water by default.

It's also worth noting about 3% of western Europe has fluorinated so let's not pretend like this is unprecedented

Many places in Europe have high levels of fluoride in their water naturally. In fact many of them are likely getting far too much fluoride.

Also realistically, if people cared about bodily autonomy cars would've been banned immediately thanks to the amount of particulates and local pollution produced causing far more adverse health effects.

Is one due the right to potable water at a tap at their home? Or is purified water a service offered by the government as one source of many available to the us population?

Are you not allowed to pay for bottled water instead of paying your local utility for drinking water?

The bodily autonomy argument seems bad to me because you are buying water from the government when you could buy water from any other source instead.

Is the argument that the government water is too convenient and so it should be unfiltered? Who is to say that filtering out poop is not infringing on my right to consume unfiltered water?

Fluoride was introduced late enough in Zimbabwe that many of my childhood adults easily remembered life before it. There were many horror stories about the general state of teeth prior.

That being said, your dentist can apply fluoride to your teeth (boggles the mind why insurance won't pay the $50), and flouride toothpaste is still much more common than not. It's probably not needed in the water supply for dental purposes.

That being said, what are the other fringe benefits: such as microbe control?

The city of Houston has stopped adding fluoride to water but allows natural fluoride levels to exist[0]. We are going on year 6 and the only thing we have noticed is harder water.

There is probably more nuance to both stories tho.

[0] https://houstonherald.com/2018/11/lindsey-and-long-win-count...

All the evidence in that article is based on what a politician thinks. "And I think another meta study came out also".

The actual high quality evidence shows that water fluorination has minimal impact on tooth health in 2025: https://www.cochrane.org/news/water-fluoridation-less-effect...

I was thinking of this study:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12215

Perhaps more could be done. The situation is complex because of several compounding factors for sure. There are European countries that have no water fluoridation and better oral health outcomes than in North America.

Regardless, there’s 10 years where a city in North America turned off water fluoridation and we have results of that decision to study.

Hawaii does not add fluoride to their water. Utah may be the first to out-right ban it, but there are quite a few local communities and cities that opt-out of adding it to their drinking water.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67e8572d-c5f4-8000-9393-c2e894c922...

The US is, according to Wikipedia, among a small minority of countries in which a majority of people drink fluoridated water. Various European countries have discontinued doing so. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation>

Fluoridation, imperial measurement, 20% tips, taxes added at the register, and circumcision are the weirdest things Americans think everyone does.

They're doing both tipping and untipping.

> 20% tips

Is this real?

Yeah, this is one of those places where because RFK Jr took the anti- stand there's an understandable assumption that it's more nutty anti-science stuff, but it's much less clear cut when it comes to fluoridation. Europe has much lower rates than the US, which is an outlier on these stats only approached by Australia, and before Utah the major high profile anti-fluoride stance was made by Portland:

https://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-30229-portland-voters-so...

To the extent this is a polarized left-right issue, it's only recently and only because everything is polarized right now.

I'd be happier if that broken-but-correct-2x-a-day guy banned HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) instead. It is my personal hypothesis that it is the cause of 'sugar cancer' (general cases of bad sugars / imbalances of sugars in the body), including Diabetes.

Fluoridated water was already a plot point in Kubrick's Strangelove from 1964.

Using certain family members as a personal rubric, fluoridated water has been a right-left issue for at least 2.5 decades. I think it’s been pretty polarized for longer, though it may have taken a long time to gain steam in mainstream “discourse”.

I was surprised to learn this. "Worldwide, the Irish Republic, Singapore and New Zealand are the only countries which implement mandatory water fluoridation."

I live in New Zealand and my town doesn't put fluoride in the water but it seems like they'll be made to do so fairly soon. I don't really care one way or the other from the point of view of ingesting the stuff, but I do consider it a bit of a waste of money. People who brush with toothpaste don't need this and people who don't are probably drinking too much soda. A more useful thing to do might be to subsidize toothpaste for people who can't / won't buy it for their kids.

> People who brush with toothpaste don't need this and people who don't are probably drinking too much soda

I think every person in my social circles with any kind of illness or disability would be incredibly grateful for fluoridation, and it's not because of drinking too much soda

Many other places fluoridate salt. There’s many ways to get flourish (toothpaste being the best if you can get people to use it correctly) but the evidence that mass fluoridation of some kind is good for dental health is enormous.

It seems like they could compare states/countries/cities while controlling for other factors (age, income level, etc) to see how well fluoridation works. I'm pretty sure you'll find that fluoridation helps lower the number of cavities, but it's not going to be a slam dunk.

People who want to remove fluoride from the water should visit countries where fluoride is not added and look at people's teeth.

I live in France and it's just so obvious that people grew up without fluoride — even celebrities try to talk without showing their teeth when they're on TV!

I'm all for getting consent in most cases, but sometimes you'd have to be an idiot not to take the obvious win.

It's like we were delivering flakes of gold with the mail and people complained — that's not what mailboxes are for!

You're misattributing: the U.S. has a perfect white teeth culture that doesn't exist elsewhere. Many people outside of the U.S. have healthier but uglier teeth. Fluoride isn't the reason for good/bad teeth inside/outside of the U.S, it's cultural. Many places outside of the U.S. do put fluoride in their water (nationally or regionally) and have "bad" teeth (e.g: England).

People in the U.S. don't have perfect white teeth, they have are cosmetic procedures on their teeth equivalent to liposuction, silicone, botox, hair plugs and/or laminated face.

I think that's exactly what the GP meant when they said "perfect white teeth culture".

Perfect white teeth doesn't mean they're healthy.

What does a white-tooth culture look like specifically? People brush their teeth in France, they have modern dentristy etc.

People don't bleach their teeth much outside the US as far as I know. You can see it especially well with US actors, their teeth looking like the someone photoshopped them to #FFFFFF

Others note the bleaching, which is relatively low cost, but the (purely cosmetic) straightening is probably the more interesting example.

People in the US pay a lot of money to have very straight teeth. You can see this clearly with American celebrities and actors (versus European counterparts), but the culture of cosmetically modifying teeth is very strong all across "middle class" and up America as well.

Way more people having their teeth whitened? Braces being more popular.

Bleaching your teeth, specifically.

US people wear facades to hide their teeth.

While tooth whiteness in the US is often divorced from tooth health, fluoride does add a yellowish tint to your teeth, so the healthiest teeth — those imbued with fluoride — are slightly yellow. (In fact when they first decided to add fluoride to water, one of the questions was just how much they could add before your teeth would turn completely yellow. Health-wise the yellowing was fine, but it was obviously visually unappealing.) Ugly teeth may be due to poor/lack of orthodontia, but it's probably not due to better dental care.

But flakes of gold are not associated with a lower IQ in children.

"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."

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...

So it is also not clear, if the lower concentration typically found also has this effect.

"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."

But the solution of just using (cheap) Fluor in toothpaste to apply the Flour where it should go - to the teeth and not the stomach, sounds smarter to me.

So in other words, 0.7mg/L fluoridated water is also not associated with lower IQ in children. That study did not prove it safe, but it did prove it unsafe, either.

That study did prove, that too much flouride is not good for intelligence.

And there are other sources besides water from the tap, so I don't think it is intelligent to raise the base level, when the option of local applying exists. What is wrong with toothpaste?

Where I live, dental health is good and we don’t have fluorides in the water (we have free, mandatory dental care for children). We recently banned the use of fluorides to make our skis go fast because of the environmental impact.

> even celebrities try to talk without showing their teeth

So fluoride would somehow magically replace braces or teeth whiteners?

Interesting how France does add fluoride to the water (according to Wikipedia) while many other countries aren't.

US is an outlier there, so there is that.

> I live in France and it's just so obvious that people grew up without fluoride

And yet France does not have a dental health crisis so it's just for cosmetic reasons we don't need fluoride

Good thing we have fluoride toothpaste then

Utah has naturally occurring fluoride in their water and some water systems its more than double(2.0mg/l) what they add to prevent dental issues. Why were they fluorinating their water?

https://cascadefamily.com/images/WaterFluoridationLevelsUtah...

Most places in Utah already don't add flouride to water. So why pass a law to ban it?

Virtue signaling.

this is it exactly. See west virginia recently banning artificial coloring. Because MAGA said so, is basically the reason, they were completely unworried about it before it became important to MAGA world by way of RFK

Ok, but then you just say, we have enough naturally occurring fluoride. Adding more is just a waste of money.

Or, toothpaste has enough extra fluoride, adding it to water is just a waste of money.

This is not that. This is the US health system being lead by a bunch of woo-woo people who don’t understand how research works.

I am saying it’s weird to fluoridate water in areas with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride. Also to point out that there is naturally occurring fluoride. If Utah believed fluoride was a health risk, why aren’t they spending tens of millions to filter it out. Or is it just virtue signaling.

> This is the US health system being lead by a bunch of woo-woo people who don’t understand how research works.

The majority of the developed world does not fluoridate their water supply. The US has one of the highest rates of fluoridation in the developed world. Within America, fluoridation rates are highest on the East Coast and in the South, and lowest on the Left Coast.

The people leading the health system are highly credentialed. Moreover, highly credentialed people, in medicine as in all fields, frequently disagree on what studies show, how valid a study is, what it's flaws and limits are, how conclusive it is, and so forth. And the consensus has a long, time honored tradition of being wrong from time to time.

Ultimately, the woo woo people are the ones who rely on someone in a labcoat to tell them whether ingesting government approved (there's your first red flag) synthetic fluoride from industrial byproducts is "necessary".

If it's useful, brushing it onto your teeth and into your gums 56,000 times in your life is probably sufficient, particularly given that we don't know with absolute certainty beyond any shadow of a doubt that the industrial waste options are totally without health consequences. I'll literally just take care of my teeth and cross my fingers over listening to modern medical consensus on a range of topics where I simply trust intuition and common sense more.

That's not how it works. There is an ideal amount of fluoride. If the natural amount is lower more is added. If it's higher the extra is removed.

For me as a European, adding fluoride to water for your teeth is as ridiculous as cutting the foreskin of babies' penis in name of (dubious) "hygienic reasons".

But people get used to it. Specially when they don't get to experience the alternative. Most people rationalise it is a good thing. Stockholm syndrome.

Which part of Europe are you in? Countries in Europe add fluoride to water, salt, milk, and Italy has naturally fluoridated water.

> The European Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (EAPD) recently called water fluoridation "a core component of oral health policy" and adds that salt fluoridation "is suggested when water fluoridation cannot be implemented" due to technical, logistical or political reasons.

https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/citycouncil/interes...

I was thinking exactly the same thing, down to the circumcision thing. This whole discourse gives me the vibe of something the American society has randomly walked on and now is an "it has always been like this".

They also keep passing laws to specifically support burning coal, which is (slightly more credibly) shown to reduce IQ in children exposed to its pollution.

Note that while this may be first state to ban fluoride, it's not the first state to not have fluoride in the water. That would be Hawaii (effectively).

all states were "the first to not have flouride". In 1945 Grand Rapids, MI became the first city in the world to flouridate its water

Tremendous boon for the dental industry. Congratulations for everyone involved in getting this through.

The fluoride toothpaste they recommend is far more effective in fighting cavities, but ok

Strangely, I never see the people demanding we ban fluoride also demand we ban cars, considering the amount of particulates and rubber wheels we inhale as a result of policy, road design and car design. And I can almost guarantee you that's resulting in an actual meaningful drop in IQ and health outcomes as opposed to fluoridating water.

But I guess freedom to pollute matters more than bodily autonomy in terms of mental priority.

>I never see the people demanding we ban fluoride also demand we ban cars,

Perhaps you could take a dive into the youtubes, and find "crash detectives" (Welsh-based, so you may have to put captions on), but none of those professionals check for mouthwash.

Haha, some [police forces] do.

Preventing cavities is far more effective with topical application of fluoride on the teeth, rather than ingestion.

I personally don’t buy the passive health benefit. Even if it’s true, there’s no proof that fluoridated water is superior to topical application.

Not to mention that if we’re going to just roll over and accept stuff in the water for public health reasons, what really should be added are more vitamins, not fluoride. In particular vitamin D

For children developing their “adult teeth” fluoride ingestion strengthens those teeth before they pop out. Topical has no effect obviously since they haven’t surfaced yet.

And for that there is fluoride mouthwash, which again isn’t ingested and would be more effective.

> Regular use of fluoride mouthrinse under supervision results in a large reduction in tooth decay in children's permanent teeth.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6457869/#:~:text=Be...

That doesn’t work because it’s topical. You give kids vitamins to get fluoride into their system to strengthen their developing adult teeth.

These American experts who are “disheartened” — do they not pay attention to Europe? Or do they only get upset when Republicans do something?

Europe (and many parts of Asia,) is objectively healthier than most of the residents of the USA; so maybe rather than knee-jerking against anything RFK Jr., perhaps the so-called experts should start doing their jobs and looking at what healthier places in the rest of the world are doing. The status quo in the USA is default fat and unhealthy. Why aren’t the fluoride cheerleaders not using their “expert” status to shout against high fructose corn syrup, artificial coloring, or the fact that most American food tastes like sugar?

Do you seriously think that dental and health experts don’t rail against those things? They do, and they consider those things far more important than fluoridated water. Their opinions on fluoride are being shared because there is notable news about fluoridated water.

Americans do not want to hear about how they should eat healthier.

Putting fluoride in water promotes freedom. That sounds crazy, but let me justify it.

If you are poor you can't go anywhere or buy anything. You're not free if you're poor. If you are sick, you may be confined to a hospital bed or not feel good enough to do anything. If you are sick you're not free.

Putting fluoride in water reduces dental costs and incidence of cavities and therefore tooth infections, particularly among societies poorest. Therefore, due to fluoridation in water some people are less sick and have more money and therefore are more free.

The contrasting view is that putting fluoride in water is literally medicating people without their affirmative consent. It is the government forcing you to take a medication. It is coercive and therefore an attack on your freedom to not take medication. It is the government interfering in your life.

The contrast between positive freedom, the freedom to do something, and negative freedom, the freedom from interference in your life, is the core political argument in America right now. Negative freedom, freedom from government interference, is being promoted by those seeking to weaken the government enough to supplant it. People who are poor and sick are likely unable to stand up for themselves or participate in solidarity against authority. This individual issue is relatively small, but you take 100's of issues like this, and the effect is to create a class of people who aren't able to do anything but be obedient workers.

This take has a few problems: Poor people in the US are capable of using fluoride toothpaste and flossing. At least at homeless shelters at outreach things I’ve been to, toothpaste and toothbrushes are freely available. Your argument hinges on them being incapable on the whole and needing a Benevolent But Superior Intelligence to provide an alternative for them.

Second, it completely ignores any debate over effectiveness or side effects. It could well be that fluoride in water is great for teeth but bad for brains. The objections to fluoride in water I’ve seen are more along those lines. Im not clear the validity of those claims but for example anti fluoride advocates don’t typically object to chlorine in water to kill germs. That seems the core issue- without bias from stakeholders, is the benefit of fluoride proven and the risks disproven? It’s hard to answer because a study needs to span many years and exclude many variables.

And in general I think that is what needs to happen with these type debates. Take them _out_ of the sphere of charged political opinion and focus on getting to the objective truth of risks and benefits, then be transparent. People can handle “here are the known pros and cons and what we think that means” over “there are only pros and no cons and if you disagree you hate poor people”

Adding fluoride to water was revolutionary in the 1940s, but its benefits have significantly declined since fluoride toothpaste became common in the 1970s. While fluoridation made sense when products containing fluoride weren't widely available, it is much less effective and necessary now. Sure, some countries and communities may still see benefits from it, but widespread fluoridation doesn't seem necessary in many parts of the world.

But you will brush your teeth anyway, and then you apply fluoride topically. It works.

Here in Sweden we decided against fluoride for this reason and the fact that it is in fact toxic. It isn't sensible to use systemic exposure when we can use topical exposure and can improve mouth health by education, so that people do what they're supposed to.

The fluoride approach achieves a basic level of health, but you can do so much better.

Freedom from is the American way.

Freedom to is the Canadian way.

That's why Canada becoming an American anything is ridiculous and pisses off Canada so much that, for example, we've reduced our flights to America by +70% over the coming months.

It's also restricting the freedom of communities if you ban them from adding fluoride to their water if they like to.

This ban is anti-freedom. (Just like forcing them could be argued to be, even though that's what you argued against.)

So, this ban is arguably reducing freedoms on multiple levels.

So then, you'd also be against adding folate/folic acid to bread for the same reason?

For those who don't know many countries including the US mandate the inclusion of folic acid in bread and certain other foods to ensure pregnant women get enough. A deficiency of folic acid during pregnancy causes birth defects in infants. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folate

How is fluoridating water better than giving out free toothpaste and toothbrushes? Has the latter been tried?

"Not keeping people trapped in poverty" would be nice too but for some reason that one seems off the table.

Rather than taking choice away, we should be educating people on what the best choice is and letting them make it themselves.

Brush your teeth in the morning and in the evening. Standard dental hygiene - If a person can be an obedient worker they can probably brush their teeth twice a day. If they cant, they have bigger problems to sort out.

I lived in Germany for a while. There, the water that comes out of your tab doesn't get fluorized. Instead, they add fluoride to tooth paste.

So, is Germany less free or more free?

That is not a very good reason. An absurd version of that would be putting antibiotics into the water because a lot of people don't have health insurance and can get infections.

Perhaps, vitamins, micro doses of aspirin, and other low level medical treatments should also be added to water, for the benefit of the silent poor and sick.

> The contrast between positive freedom, the freedom to do something, and negative freedom, the freedom from interference in your life, is the core political argument in America right now.

True.

> Negative freedom, freedom from government interference, is being promoted by those seeking to weaken the government enough to supplant it.

Tenuous. Then again, like you, all of my political opponents are either stupid or evil or both.

> People who are poor and sick are likely unable to stand up for themselves or participate in solidarity against authority.

Contentious. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it is not - giving negative liberty rights (e.g. first amendment speech protections) to individuals has proven an incredibly effective tool to protect the individual against the state. Not perfect, but incredibly effective all the same.

> This individual issue is relatively small, but you take 100's of issues like this, and the effect is to create a class of people who aren't able to do anything but be obedient workers.

Any supporter of negative liberty (i.e. someone who is for small government) would tell you, that is what government does, which is a big reason why they want small government.

What in the Berkeley kind of logic is this? You have a pretty solid core logical structure. But, the conclusion is weak. The argument’s weakness lies in its simplifications and the final political assertion, which, although plausible within certain ideological frameworks, isn't logically proven by the earlier premise.

The American view of "freedom" is all messed up. You're "free" if the government doesn't tell you to do stuff. Even if corporations make you do stuff, even if they make you do more stuff the government did, that's somehow "free". And "stuff" somehow only includes trivial things like water fluoridation. No freedom-loving American patriot ever said America isn't free because cops can just murder you if they don't like you.

> the government forcing you to take a medication.

You're free to drink water that's not from the tap. Companies sell this legally. The government doesn't force anything

>> fluoridation in water some people are less sick and have more money and therefore are more free

This is the real problem. That dental care, or any medical care, is costly.

> The contrasting view is that putting fluoride in water is literally medicating people without their affirmative consent.

Is that the contrasting view, or the contrasting view that is preferred, because it is more easily demolished?

The stronger contrasting view isn't that the government is medicating people without their affirmative consent. It's that it's poisoning people, and no amount of consent by laymen to be poisoned would be acceptable.

> If you are poor you can't go anywhere or buy anything. You're not free if you're poor.

The solution is lifting people out of poverty not papering over the cracks with fluoride.

There is no fluoride in the water here in Norway yet dental health is good because of good education, free dental care for children, students pregnant women, and little absolute poverty.

Well said. Being poor charges interest.

I think it's a reductionist word game to reduce everything to a single dimension ("freedom") and then say "I think my policy is better, and since everything can reduce to a single variable it means there is more freedom".

If a right-wing voter thinks banning gay marriage is good for society, it is also positive freedom? If your counter-argument is "no, because while it would be positive freedom if it was good for society, it's not" then maybe I'm just disareeing on your terminology, but I suspect you would say "heck no, telling people what they can't do is not freedom, that's an abuse of the English language as well as being bad for society".

Governments exist to take away some freedoms, it's the whole point of them. People vote for governmets to take away freedoms (with laws and taxes) and get things like public services, justice systems and infrastructure in return. Ideally, they lean towards things that give you a lot of bang for your buck (like flourine), because taking away freedom is not good for creating a dynamic society, and they should be accountable to voters.

Just say that anyone who objects is an anarchist if you want to take the moral high ground from the right in terms they understand.

The issue is not the fluoride in the water, it's all the sugar that poor people eat and drink (especially sodas). And we actively fund the corn syrup industry at both ends via the farm bill (production and consumption via SNAP).

Always question whenever a highly educated and thoughtful (and likely wealthy) person like this commenter is telling you poor people are too stupid for their own good and can’t make decisions for themselves.

This is the definition of the principal-agent problem.

Also, “positive freedom” is a hilarious rebranding of dictatorial decision making.

Why not grant more “positive freedom” to the people by deciding exactly what these poor people should do for a living, how they should live, and how they should spend their money. The experts know best, after all.

I’m not even particularly against fluoride in water, but this kind of reasoning is insidious. If the people have voted for representatives that are against it, we should follow the will of the people. This is the definition of democracy.

Fluoridated water, enriched flour, iodized salt, vaccines, etc. are why we don't see diseases and conditions that plagued us in the past and continue to plague people in places without these measures.

Fluoridated water is the reason I've never had a cavity despite growing up poor with a terrible diet, dental hygiene and care.

> The contrast between positive freedom, the freedom to do something, and negative freedom, the freedom from interference in your life, is the core political argument in America right now.

Interesing take but I don't buy this part at all. The core political argument in the US is epistemological. What's real and what counts as true? There are some axiological differences but I think they are minor in comparison to not being able to agree on how the world is in the first place.

According to that logic, why not distribute fluoride water freely for those who want it? That would serve boths camps, not?

How many Americans consume enough tap water for this to be beneficial?

"freedom from government interference, is being promoted by those seeking to weaken the government enough to supplant it"

That is a very big generalisation. There are many legitimate reasons for reducing government interference and reducing the size of government.

Fluoride has to be applied to the surface at a high concentration for brief contact time to be effective. What is the freedom to sell industrial waste to the government to pointlessly add to the water supply for profit called?

> Putting fluoride in water promotes freedom. That sounds crazy, but let me justify it.

> If you are poor you can't go anywhere or buy anything. You're not free if you're poor. If you are sick, you may be confined to a hospital bed or not feel good enough to do anything. If you are sick you're not free.

or, you know, you could avoid the problem in the first place and allow "even poors" to go somewhere or buy something... at least base items, and medicines...

this way they could afford dental costs, and you could spare the need to add fluoride in the water

This is the same reasonning with vaccine (only worse because you can die faster from not being vaccinated than from cavities -- although in some cases they can be lethal too).

People who want to be free from government interference should be prevented from using public roads, or public infrastructure of any kind. Want to mail something? Hire a courrier to deliver it for you. Etc.

That’s a very American perspective (which is fine, given that we are talking about America). Most countries would view this as a non-partisan public health policy issue which has nothing to do with the abstract philosophical debates about freedom beloved of 90s internet libertarians.

> Putting fluoride in water promotes freedom.

I rather define freedom by the government not deciding what's good for me

The UK government is really big on doing things for our own good, but they don't seem to do much water flouridation. Which I think is some evidence that it's not a clearcut health benefit.

Excessive fluoride exposure is associated with reduced childhood IQ: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... . Giving poor people (the ones who can't afford to drink bottles water or buy a fancy filter) means to moderate their fluoride intake this risk is creating lower-iq, more obedient workers.

This started out as an interesting and fair take until “…enough to supplant it”. Freedom from the government is the original vision and one of the core principles of America assuming that anybody that wants smaller government just wants to supplant it is a massive misunderstanding of most Americans today and certainly the founding principles.

The government can give out toothpaste in school, it doesn't need to add things to water.

The inviolability or integrity of one's own body to me is more important than any of this. You have the right to decide what medication to be given to you with informed consent always, or you have no freedom. Otherwise the freedom argument collapses and you stop having reasons to allow abortions, or a bunch of other informed consent situations.

And "knowing better" than poor people "for their own good" usually doesn't go well (for the people).

Fluorinating all of the water just to deliver some milligrams to the teeth is incredibly inefficient. Especially when less and less of the stuff people people drink comes out of the tap.

We have toothpastes and fluorinated mouthwash that both get the job done.

Probably there are some people that are unable to afford those and unaware how to use them, but probably are tiny percentage of the state population, especially with the cult of teeth care that the US has.

I also see the fortified flours as example (or iodine in salt) - but the US is different now than in the 30s. The US diet is more varied. Very few people get 80% of their calories from a single starchy staple so developing a severe deficiency of something requires some serious effort from the persons affected.

So who is this policy of fluorination for - the people that are too poor to afford toothpaste, but still have access to municipality treated water and don't drink copious amounts of soda or bottled drinks.

the debate in this thread is a reflection of the politico-scientific standing of the united states. it seems as though fluoridated water has come to be treated as a synechdoche for the role of science (and public health) in society. both sides are trying in earnest to defend their meta-position (“freedom” vs “society”) but slip into logic errors (usually cherry picking and straw man). i think this is because of the context switching between the part (fluoridation) and the whole (freedom/society).

Fluoride in toothpaste already covers most people today. So, if there are legitimate concerns about adding it to the water supply due to fluorosis, even if those concerns are small, removing it seems reasonable to me. Are the number of people who don't brush their teeth really high enough to justify it?

Decades of science show it’s beneficial, and we keep seeing the outcomes validated in practice. Calgary removed fluoride from drinking water, saw a significant increase in dental carries in children, and is adding it back. [1]

Hawaii does not fluoridate and has high rates of children’s tooth decay [2]

[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed...

[2] https://www.civilbeat.org/2016/10/hawaii-children-have-highe...

So, Finland gave fluoride a shot in a few cities back in the '60s through the '90s, but they didn’t see much point to it and dropped it. Now, some spots there are even filtering it out of the water. You can still get it in toothpaste and mouthwash, though.

There’s this study I read that says the top five countries for dental health are Denmark, Germany, Finland, Sweden, and the UK. The US? It’s lagging at ninth. Funny thing is, out of those top five, only the UK messes with fluoride in their water, and even then, it’s just for like 5% of folks.

Honestly, it kinda feels like skipping the fluoride in water might be the smarter move.

Anyone else gets reminded of General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove?

First thing I thought too.

The solution to ALL of this is a very simple randomised controlled trial. Identify 1000 pregnant women in a fluorinated area, give half of them free unfluorinated bottled water for their pregnancy and first 2 years of babies life, and let the other half drink tap water, then measure all of the kids’ iqs at 5 years.

Sadly noone has done this because the topic is too radioactive for most researchers or science funders to touch.

All i know is my parents generation grew up without it and saw they dentists for fillings, every year, for years. Seemed like their childhoods played a part here because half their life they had toothpaste at the same rates as me.

I on the other then havnt seen a dentist in 25yrs, have no fillings after 40, and wouldnt say i brush my teeth twice a day, everyday, as recommended. I do however consume water tainted with fluoride.

So maybe there are more factors at play here then simply washing our teeth. I cant fathom how dirty our parents generations teeth must have been before toothpaste to result in the amount of fillings they have compared to people my age (unless your a meth head).

Does filtering your water with a whole house filter take the fluoride out?

Because I live in a small township that delivers well water to you tap. It tastes horrible, shortens the life of pipes and appliances, and smells like sulfur.

Every year they mail a flyer that explains how the lead levels are dangerously above the national standard and you should run the tap before you drink from it.

Like, sorry there's nothing we can do about it. =(

> Because I live in a small township that delivers well water to you tap. It tastes horrible, shortens the life of pipes and appliances, and smells like sulfur.

Oh man, I used to live in a place like this. You could smell if a restaurant served filtered water (lots filter for the soda machine, to keep mineralization in it down I assume, and use the same water to serve) or straight from the tap, without taking a drink. Like with your nose six inches above the cup, you could smell it. Luckily, almost all served filtered.

I looked in to this recently.

Turns out that carbon filters do filter fluoride, but only on the first few X litres of water, where X is in the first 0.01% or so of their expected lifespan. So, they do, but not really usefully in any sense.

My filter that I wanted to know about (so that my kid is getting fluoride) is a 2-stage filter, with the other stage being a particle filter, but fluoride is very small and unaffected.

Your filter might be different of course.

FWIW, in my city, the water has essentially zero fluoride if it isn't added, and it has been a great intervention.

If it's reverse osmosis based, yes. If it's some other kind of filter, likely no, and you should buy a TDS meter and use it, because in all likelihood it's not really filtering anything. I did exactly this. It turned out that my carbon based filter had more TDS than completely unfiltered water from a tap in the garden. RO water, even re-mineralized, had 1/15th the TDS IIRC.

If thats your water quality, worrying about flouride seems misplaced.

I feel like we are so privileged in the US that there’s little to no personal consequences for being so wrong about a topic. Eventually there’s needs to be a correction, whether it’s because we regain our senses or we stray so far that the majority of people start to be majorly affected. I’m fearing it’s the latter.

There’s a tendency to backwards rationalize anything that is established in the US, that comes from a place of identity.

The current shape of the US is already the best and people consider it a part of who they are, so suggesting a course correction may be seen as both wrong think and a personal attack and wanting radical change would be outright treason.

There’s an array of standard stencils for defense against change: this is the only thing that can work here, this is the only thing that guarantees freedom, this is actually not that bad, I actually prefer it like this, anything else would be expensive/impossible/unamerican.

It’s not even unique to the US, but who cares about other places.

That's because drinking non-fluoridated water is very cheap (a minimal disadvantage). Vs. opposing fluoridated water can be very valuable (give the current culture wars).

Notice that nobody is arguing about keeping water-born pathogens out of the drinking water.

Taking compounds of the most electronegative element, and treating people with them systemically—drink it, bathe in it, cook with it—when local administration directly to the teeth is cheap, easy, & effective makes no sense at all.

Meanwhile, mining industries produce—and must dispose of—a steady stream of fluoride compounds that would otherwise have to be dealt with as toxic waste (i.e. very expensive) if they ever lost the green light to dump them into the water supply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hodge

or per Google:

Three chemicals are used to fluoridate drinking water in the U.S: sodium fluoride (NaF); sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6); and fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6). Fluorosilicic acid is a byproduct of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer.

What is the best evidence in favor of this?

Actual reseachers don't really talk about links to IQ. The main concern is actually around dental fluorosis. Too much flouride can replace minerals in your teeth causing them to become brittle over time

There's a subset of researchers that argue that now that fluoride toothpaste is widespread, the benefit of fluoridating water is much much smaller than it first was and the (small) risk of fluorosis is now comparatively more significant

Here’s a list of the most convincing studies or meta analyses.

2023 – NTP Monograph on Fluoride Neurotoxicity – National Toxicology Program (USA)

2020 – Till et al. – Infant Formula Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Till C, Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Martinez-Mier EA (Canada)

2019 – Green et al. – Maternal Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Flora D, Martinez-Mier EA, et al. (Canada)

2017 – Bashash et al. – Prenatal Fluoride Exposure & Offspring IQ – Bashash M, Thomas D, Hu H, et al. (Mexico/USA)

2012 – Choi et al. – Meta-analysis on Fluoride & Neurodevelopment – Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P (Harvard/China)

2006 – NRC Report – Fluoride in Drinking Water – National Research Council (USA)

[1] https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31743803/

[3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

[4] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP655

[5] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912

[6] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water...

Another question is whether there's still evidence for continuing to fluoridate water with how common toothpaste use is now. If nothing else, if it isn't providing benefits over toothpaste use, then fluoridating water could just be a waste of public funds.

There isn’t any. The very little research showing any effects on cognitive abilities are experiments using very high fluoride levels - nowhere near the levels in water. Like most conservative “stances”, it’s a farce.

2012: https://fluoridealert.org/content/50-reasons/

Highly recommend visiting the link for details about each point an references (it is not that long), here is a summary, don't comment if you haven't visited the link:

1) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. 2) Fluoridation is unethical. 3) The dose cannot be controlled. 4) The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability. 5) People now receive fluoride from many other sources besides water. 6) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. 7) The level in mothers’ milk is very low. 9) No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects. 10) There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. 11) Benefit is topical not systemic. 12) Fluoridation is not necessary. 13) Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. 14) NIH-funded study on individual fluoride ingestion and tooth decay found no significant correlation. 15) Tooth decay is high in low-income communities that have been fluoridated for years. 16) Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped. 17) Tooth decay was coming down before fluoridation started. 18) The studies that launched fluoridation were methodologically flawed. 19) Children are being over-exposed to fluoride. 20) The highest doses of fluoride are going to bottle-fed babies. 21) Dental fluorosis may be an indicator of wider systemic damage. 22) Fluoride may damage the brain. 23) Fluoride may lower IQ. 24) Fluoride may cause non-IQ neurotoxic effects. 25) Fluoride affects the pineal gland. 26) Fluoride affects thyroid function. 27) Fluoride causes arthritic symptoms. 28) Fluoride damages bone. 29) Fluoride may increase hip fractures in the elderly. 30) People with impaired kidney function are particularly vulnerable to bone damage. 31) Fluoride may cause bone cancer (osteosarcoma). 32) Proponents have failed to refute the Bassin-Osteosarcoma study. 33) Fluoride may cause reproductive problems. 34) Some individuals are highly sensitive to low levels of fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies. 35) Other subsets of population are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. 36) There is no margin of safety for several health effects. 37) Low-income families penalized by fluoridation. 38) Black and Hispanic children are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. 39) Minorities are not being warned about their vulnerabilities to fluoride. 40) Tooth decay reflects low-income not low-fluoride intake. 41) The chemicals used to fluoridate water are not pharmaceutical grade. 42) The silicon fluorides have not been tested comprehensively. 43) The silicon fluorides may increase lead uptake into children’s blood. 44) Fluoride may leach lead from pipes, brass fittings and soldered joints. 45) Key health studies have not been done. 46) Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. 47) Review panels hand-picked to deliver a pro-fluoridation result. 48) Many scientists oppose fluoridation. 49) Proponents usually refuse to defend fluoridation in open debate. 50) Proponents use very dubious tactics to promote fluoridation.

Pretty sure I read that fluoridation is a communist plot to undermine American public health [1].

Sorry, that was the John Birch Society from the 1960's.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridati...

(I'm having some fun, but it is in fact the first thing that comes to mind when I hear objections to fluoridated water. Since we're talking about RFK and Utah, I kind of assume it more or less stems from the same fears.)

> Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

Question: is there something I can do in the office to improve tooth health? E.g. after drinking a cup of coffee, maybe neutralize the pH with some antacid? Or, I don't know, chew some gum? Are there products that are relatively convenient and don't require a brush and water?

You can buy a bottle of it, swish it around your mouth and spit it out.

https://www.actoralcare.com/en-us/products/mouthwash/anticav...

A dentist once recommended Xylitol gum to me for this purpose. It's been too long to remember the details, but you can do some research on it.

I think I'm more interested to know if the fluoride also helps keeps bacteria down in the water. That is, if it's doing anything useful other than dealing with teeth.

A quick search didn't seem to turn up anything related, so maybe not (the concentrations might be too low to be relevant)?

Water fluoridation conspiracy theories were a thing old enough to be a plot point in 1964 Dr. Strangelove. When there's an entire grift or political career to be a "Fluoride truther", it's really hard to take seriously any of these claims. Given it's naturally occurring and often in higher doses and there'd been so much time to control for any side effects, I'd need extraordinary evidence to be swayed on this.

  GENERAL JACK D. RIPPER: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

  GROUP CAPT. LIONEL MANDRAKE: Lord, Jack.

  GENERAL JACK D. RIPPER: You know when fluoridation first began?

  GROUP CAPT. LIONEL MANDRAKE: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.

  GENERAL JACK D. RIPPER: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Fluoride in Toothpaste: Do not ingest.

Flouride in Water: Ingest away.

I do not understand how these two can co-exist.

Radioactive isotopes in nuclear fuel: do not ingest.

Radioactive isotopes in banana: consume away.

Understand now? I'm not even defending anything other than how two things that vaguely appear contradictory, are in fact, not.

Fluorine is a dietary mineral.

At higher dosages, every dietary mineral becomes harmful, then (generally) lethal.

Without iron, humans die. Yet accidental (over-)ingestion of iron supplements is a leading cause of poisoning in small children.

Concentrations.

The studies in 20-30 years of the consequences of this will be fun.

I hope they will ban it everywhere. If my pineal gland gets any more calcified, I'll probably end up getting a full-chest tattoo and dye my hair pink.

maybe if we consumed less processed sugars and had normal diets, putting fluoride in the water would serve no purpose.

This is one of these US-specific polarised debates I find really bizarre, around some kind of issue that the rest of the world has by large solved but without any acknowledgement of this fact. Maybe the US should look into how other countries have solved it? It is completely bizarre witnessing both sides getting so polarised around a basically non-issue.

What I love about this comment is that one person thought "of course every other country just does the right thing when the US doesn't" and posted it, and then a bunch of other people thought "of course every other country just does the right thing when the US doesn't" and upvoted it, and not a single one of them thought to check what the "right thing" is.

Meanwhile, back here on Earth-1, there's no right thing, and countries all over the world have "by and large solved" the issue by doing completely different things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country

> Water fluoridation is considered very common in the United States, Canada, Ireland, Chile and Australia where over 50% of the population drinks fluoridated water.

> Most European countries including Italy, France, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Hungary and Switzerland do not fluoridate water.

The US rarely looks into how other countries solve problems. (i.e. Universal Healthcare, High Speed Trains and so), this is the sad part of "American Exceptionalism"

How has the debate been solved by the rest of the world? My understanding is that many countries in Europe don't fluoridate the water supply.

I'm skeptical of results showing IQ loss but I also think fluoridation should be phased out as fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash are now widely available. Banning it seems like the wrong move to me...states should simply decide to continue adding it or not.

Banning its addition is a step beyond — but in Queensland, Australia for example, the state government no longer mandates its inclusion, and thus the local councils are able to set their own policy.

> While more than 90 per cent of Australians have access to fluoridated water, that figure is significantly lagging in the sunshine state, where local councils have ultimate authority over whether it is adopted.

> A decade after the Newman government handed responsibility for fluoridated drinking water to local governments, 51 out of 77 have opted out. That means about 28 per cent of Queenslanders do not have fluoridated drinking water

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-24/fluoride-dental-care-...

The same discussion happened in Netherlands in the 70s, and water in NL is no longer fluoridated since the 70s for that reason. So it's not that "US-specific". I don't know about other countries from the top of my head.

How has it been “solved?” There’s just tradeoffs.

There’s evidence that despite widespread availability of fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash, fluoridated drinking water improves dental outcomes at the population level.

There’s also evidence that at high levels (not the normal levels it is added at, but at higher levels which can happen on accident) fluoride may reduce IQ.

I’m ok with either trade off but the “solved” phrasing makes it sound like there is an obviously superior choice.

I’d agree that Europe has solved this issue by removing fluoride from drinking water.

But beyond Europe there’s still no global consensus.

I do agree that the US is an outlier with fluoride being nearly universal.

No no, in the US we figure out the worst way to do something, and then do that, and invent reasons why the US is unique such that the reasonable solutions that other countries employ just couldn't possibly work here.

(To be fair, though, many [most?] Western countries do not fluoridate their water. The US is actually not doing the common thing here.)

It's honestly not clear if water fluoridation in the US is necessary or all that useful here anymore, as we started doing it when fluoride toothpaste wasn't really a thing. Now pretty much all(?) toothpaste in the US has fluoride in it. If someone can't afford toothpaste, then they probably can't afford regular dental care either, and fluoridated water isn't going to make much of an impact anyway.

> Maybe the US should look into how other countries have solved it?

How have other countries solved it?

I remember the first time I went to a German dentist and he told me how amazing my teeth looked and that he could tell I must be American. Fluoride may have some downsides but it definitely has upsides.

Here in England, there's some areas that put fluoride into the water and other areas already have sufficient fluoride levels. People complaining about the side effects of fluoridation often forget that water can naturally contain high levels of fluoride - it's really not an issue.

https://www.uk-water-filters.co.uk/pages/areas-with-fluoride...

> This is one of these US-specific polarised debates I find really bizarre, around some kind of issue that the rest of the world has by large solved but without any acknowledgement of this fact.

> Maybe the US should look into how other countries have solved it?

I mean Utah is trying, sorry it took a while. I know Germany and Sweden don't fluoridate its water, I assume you mean Western Europe by the "world" (sorry if I am interpreting too much here, but that's usually what's popular to compare US to and bash US on how bad it is), so US is getting "with the program", finally I suppose. States having individual laws here is a benefit, one state doesn't have to wait for the Federal Government to act.

> This is one of these US-specific polarised debates I find really bizarre,

I don't think it's that polarizing? Unless 1) you're listening to US media more and 2) you're not getting many non-polarizing issues in the news, because those are well are just boring and don't sell ads.

If you look at the US as a simulation that branched of the mother tree of Europe in the 15th century, you won't find it odd that it is rediscovering what Europe has already figured out. Just in it's own way and time. (No chemicals/colors in foods and adequate drinking water) Wait till they figure out mass transit, that will be a shocker.

These people have been around forever but the pivotal point in my opinion is when the Lancet retracted the article on the link between MMR and autism.

Suddenly everything was up for debate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud

1. Its a fringe issue in Australia 2. The US doesnt believe in other countries so why check.

Even in Europe Fluoridation is not uniform.

Some place do it. Others partially, many not at all.

Think slightly more broadly about the issue.

For context... some people think statins should be put in the water. Maybe they should. But were does mass medication of the people stop?

There are a few studies out which say fluoride is bad. But as is often the case with these health idiots, the studies actually refer to places where fluoride is naturally way too high in the water. The entire debate is dumb.

completely bizarre witnessing both sides getting so polarised around a basically non-issue

This isn't a sensible way to think about it. Every contentious conversation I've ever had has gone this way:

  Me:   why do people want to ban fluoride
  Them: [anti government paranoia]
  Me:   um...but how about tooth decay
  Them: pineal gland calcification
  Me:   idk sounds pretty far-fetched
  Them: THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK

It's irrational to complain about 'both sides' when only one side is insisting on making it into an issue. I generally just try to disegnage from people as soon as they start freaking out about fluoride/ chemtrails/ vaccinations etc, but people like this frequently treat skepticism as a personal attack. Increasingly they occupy positions of political power (see eg RFK) having acquired them by public displays of conviction rather than any objective criteria.

There is not real debate, just some people who don't understand how chemistry works.

"Chemicals, man. They'll fuck you up." -Heroin Bob

A list of references for both sides of arguments.

Calgary removed fluoride from its water supply. A decade later, it's adding it back https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed...

Toxic Treatment: Fluoride's Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-tr...

Portland has a divisive relationship with water fluoridation https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-water-fluor...

Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...

Effect of fluoridated water on intelligence in 10-12-year-old school children https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5285601/

A tale of two cities finds that community water fluoridation prevents caries https://adanews.ada.org/ada-news/2021/august/community-water...

Children exposed to higher fluoride levels have lower IQs, a government study finds https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/06/health/children-higher-fl...

DRAFT NTP Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects: A Systematic Review https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/...

The finding’s of the NTP’s 6-year fluoride neurotoxicity evaluation https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/...

Fluoridation cessation and children's dental caries: A 7-year follow-up evaluation of Grade 2 schoolchildren in Calgary and Edmonton, Canada https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34309045/#:%7E:text=Results:....

Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7261729/

Low-to-moderate fluoride exposure in relation to overweight and obesity among school-age children in China https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31509932/

What happens when you remove fluoride from tap water? https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324086

Buffalo poised to resume fluoridation of city’s water supply https://adanews.ada.org/ada-news/2024/january/buffalo-poised...

I’m disappointed in the news media fails to mention the cascading effects of dental health. Yes, the primary and direct benefit of fluoride is to have a healthier mouth.

But having a healthy mouth is far from the end goal, imo. If your mouth is full of cavities you’re more likely to build up bacteria that cause downstream effects as serious as heart disease. Also if your mouth is routinely uncomfortable you may gravitate towards soft processed foods and away from healthy whole foods like fresh fruits and vegetables.

I know water is not the only way to get fluoride into people. But these politicians who are trying to take it out of the water are just saying basically “it’s fine, let’s do nothing”. They’re not going to fluoridate the salt. They’re not going to run public health campaigns stressing the importance of regular brushing. They’re just willing to let people’s teeth rot to score points.

It’s disgusting, and no matter how you feel about the water you should be able to see that these people are not on your side.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in...

If I went to the store to grab a bottle of water, and they were selling fluoridated water and fluoridated water, I would choose the non-fluoridated water.

I drink tap water now with fluoride so its not like I care strongly, but its a bit weird that many people buy only non-fluoridated water themselves and are confused when other people show a preference for non-fluoridated water in their own taps.

> If your mouth is full of cavities you’re more likely to build up bacteria that cause downstream effects as serious as heart disease.

I don't know that you have the causality here correct.

> They’re not going to run public health campaigns stressing the importance of regular brushing. They’re just willing to let people’s teeth rot to score points.

Do you really think there are sizable native born populations that are not aware of tooth brushing?

There’s plenty of people that don’t bother with it, but I don’t see a PR campaign being particularly effective at changing that.

So you're saying that dental health is essential for the rest of the body? Yet, Canada doesn't include it in its famous 'universal free healthcare'...

I'd actually just like to see more money put into public dental assistance. And education.

They should ban crash barriers. I've never crashed into one.

You can provide your own flouride (live in a house with well water).

You can provide lots of stuff yourself if the state abandons the whole idea of public health. Of course, be prepared for your taxes and/or insurance going up to cover your neighbors who don't pay for the same preventative care.

Assuming you're wealthy enough and well informed enough to know that you should.

Children can't, and a lifetime of dental issues they didn't have the knowledge or good fortune to have prevented is a serious issue.

Fluoride in water wouldn't be necessary is sugary drinks were taxed heavily (or just banned altogether) and dental care was affordable. But obviously that's considered communism if you're a typical american.

Or you could just put fluoride in the sugary drinks.

Book by Christopher Bryson. Needed context

Cynical take: Now that studies have shown that bottled water is loaded with nanoplastics, upper class people want to start drinking tap water again. Now suddenly states don't want fluoride in the tap water...

According to these "it lowers kids IQ" people, is the average IQ of Hawaiian kids higher than other states?

There are latent variables there. You can't just compare the IQ of two areas and only isolate a single variable out of thousands.

Fluoridation is literally one of the most successful efforts at improving public health in history. Dental health is keystone to general health.

The idea that the conspiracy theorists are winning the public policy debate enrages me. There's rock solid proof of the benefits of fluoridation extending decades, and there is little to no proof of any adverse side effects.

Oh well, good luck Utah. I'm glad I don't live there, but if I were a young dentist, I know where I'd set up my new practice.

Well you can buy as much fluoride paste as you like and add it to your own water.

2012: https://fluoridealert.org/content/50-reasons/

Highly recommend visiting the link for details about each point and references (it is not that long), here is a summary, don't comment if you haven't visited the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridati...

I draw your attention to the first sentence.

Also this is interesting:

Fluoridation may be useful in the U.S. because unlike most European countries, the U.S. does not have school-based dental care, many children do not visit a dentist regularly, and for many U.S. children water fluoridation is the prime source of exposure to fluoride.

“Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children’s ice cream!...You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works. I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I-I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.”

Middle-aged human LLM here.

This debate is about evidence vs policy:

* Evidence: fluoride displaces iodine and other halogens, which disrupts thyroid function and possibly negatively impacts other organs and bones.

* Policy: wealth inequality in the US has created a situation where the poor struggle to such an extent that they don't have access to basic health services like fluoride treatments at the dentist every 6 months, while the rich have grown so greedy that they don't want to pay a fraction of a percent of their taxes for preventative care for children and the impoverished so they instead tolerate slightly more expensive fluoridated tap water at the expense of everyone's health.

This comment is about my subjective experience with a sample size of 1, meaning that it doesn't apply to you or the public:

* My father is a dentist and gave me fluoride treatments every 6 months while I was growing up in Idaho. I was raised mostly on well water which isn't fluoridated. I have never had a cavity, despite not going to the dentist for the decade of my 20s while he lived away from me. My thyroid function is not as high as I would like after a lifetime of acute stress from struggle, multiple insults to the body, drinking fluoridated water after the age of 18, and being exposed to radioactive iodine at 80 times the US drinking water standard for perhaps 1 year after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (which potentially either gave me a lifetime dose or was insignificant).

This solution is as evidence-based and equitable as I can come up with:

* We should remove fluoride from drinking water and reimburse all dentists for free 6 month fluoride treatments of the general public, which represents some nominal fee of perhaps $15-$20 per person annually (probably less) which is not materially significant to the federal budget of roughly $15-20,000 per person annually.

This take is my personal subjective opinion followed by objective evidence supporting my claims:

* I don't think highly of Robert Kennedy Jr's health initiatives, because they don't ethically weigh evidence and policy, and we don't have enough epidemiological studies to predict outcomes. So they will certainly cause unintended consequences. That said, I believe there is merit to his concerns. So a way forward is not to be anti-vax for example, but to recognize that there are dozens of types of vaccines and to prioritize vaccines for illnesses like polio that have a high risk of negatively impacting quality of life. Health experts should continue advising elected officials on policy decisions. Public health is not a domain that can be left in the trust of individuals acting unilaterally. So removing fluoride from water without providing state or federal funding for fluoride treatments every 6 months will most likely negatively impact public health.

https://www.thyroid.org/patient-thyroid-information/ct-for-p...

https://thyroidpharmacist.com/articles/fluoride-and-your-thy...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11003687/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30316182/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38029816/

https://theworld.org/stories/2016/08/02/fukushima-radiation-...

It's interesting how the MAGA crowd keep looking for reasons why they dumb.

One time it was the covid vaccine, now it's the drinking water.

You just dumb, guys.

Sigh, another libtard completely divorced from reality, suckered by the fake news. Those are reasons why everyone except MAGA is dumb, duh. /s

I love the cognitive dissonance in people who say both: "Don't medicate me without permission.", "Masks are oppression.", and "We have to stop those people from dressing and calling themselves what they want."

Please don't be snarky in HN comments, and please don't take threads on generic flamewar tangents. Those are two of the worst things for the curious conversation we're trying to have here.

Both of these points are in the site guidelines.

And dentists rejoiced at their newfound source of income! /s

This is so dumb, and based on psudoscience at best, and straight up falsities at worst.

In 10 years we're going to hear about how cavities are so much higher in Utah than anywhere else.

Don't they sell toothpaste with flourid in Utah?

>This is so dumb, and based on psudoscience at best, and straight up falsities at worst.

I don't know whether water fluoridation is worthwhile. But I do know that various European countries have discontinued it. <https://web.archive.org/web/20160303202219/http://www.appgaf...> Are they also working off of pseudoscience and falsities?

I'm not following closely, but is this pseudoscience?

https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/fluoride-childrens-health-gran...

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...

> Republican state lawmaker Stephanie Gricius - who introduced the bill in the state legislature - has argued that there is research suggesting fluoride could have possible cognitive effects in children.

It's kind of amazing to say something like that then be so inconsistent on things that will have real outcomes that make life better for kids. They're all for cutting school support and social services.

Utah has among the best schools in the nation: https://www.reddit.com/r/Utah/comments/1idrt6j/utah_spends_t...

It also has among the happiest citizens: https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/09/09/utah-mental-health-h...

It has the highest economic mobility in the country: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2023/12/22/utah-top...

Despite being filled with guns, it’s got a homicide rate only a little higher than Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

And it’s ranked in the top 10 states for life expectancy: https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2022/08/24/utah-t...

Utah and Massachusetts are basically the steel-man versions of their respective ideologies. But Utah doesn’t have the benefit of Harvard and MIT, major Pharma companies, etc. It’s surrounded by desert and has no natural resources to speak of.

is Utah cutting school support and social services?

Pretty much everyone I personally know, this in part to coming from a family of relative affluence in highly liberal areas, has religiously filtered their water to keep additives (such as fluoride) from going into their bodies. This same crowd has savvy towards dental hygiene, they're all into oil pulling, and brushing with Fennel oil and all that. Eliminating yeast (which is fungus, not bacteria) from the mouth prevents the biofilm that creates the necessary conditions for dental cavities.

Even the poorest Americans can afford coconut oil and Fennel oil.

There's no reason to drink that shit (fluoride), there's no reason to brush with it either.

I truly don't care one way or the other on the dental advantage that fluoride offers in drinking water, or the alleged risks it poses to the IQ of unborn children. I simply hate the fact that public policy is now being driven by what are essentially New World Order conspiracy theorists

Before someone tries to pin this as a decisively left-right political issue, Portland, Oregon has been virulently anti-fluoride for over 70 years (which is probably the last time Portland and Utah agreed on anything):

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2013/05/portland_fluorid...

Portland is a bit odd when it comes to water; they drained an entire (uncovered, open to the elements) city reservoir because a guy peed in it. True story. I assume they have signs for the birds flying aloft to not defecate over the reservoir.

Edit: It appears many posts all over this thread are being brigaded with downvotes. Why? Is Big Fluoride in trouble? Grow up. You people are brain damaged (possibly from fluoride).

Funny, I watched Dr. Strangelove two weeks ago. POE!

I hear they're going to start adding electrolytes to the plant water though.

Why wouldn't they, it's what plants crave.

What I find fascinating about this debate is that only municipalities/cities add fluoride to water. If you are on well water, no fluoride. So any studies comparing the incidence of tooth decay between populations that are on well water and those that are on fluoridated city water?

I get that this was a great public health benefit before fluoride in toothpaste became widely available but is this still the case? Couldn't it be argued that most of the benefit comes from brushing your teeth?

Flouride incorporates into the tooth structure in developing teeth before they emerge, I'm not sure how effective that is but it is different than the more topical protection.

Tea has enormous amounts of flouride depending on where it is grown and they aren't banning that yet.

Way past time. The link between fluoride ingestion by children and pregnant women to lower IQ in children has been known for years. It's incredible how the scientific community in the US is so ignorant of this fact.

Also, dentists have no neuroscience background! So let's take recommendations by dentists to ingest a neurotoxin with deep deep skepticism, shall we?

> The link between fluoride ingestion by children and pregnant women to lower IQ in children has been known for years

Not at the levels it is found in water in the USA. Those studies were done in countries with much higher levels of fluoride.

As the saying goes, it's the dose that makes the poison.

Vitamin D is also quite toxic, would you celebrate banning that as well?

I think it's worth reminding people of Occam's Razor, and the point of it is: a simple explanation is often better than a complicated one.

The US has had water fluoridation for 65 years, affecting 346 million people. That's a pretty big god damn sample size and long amount of time in which to observe effects. If we still have no proof of significant negative health effects, it's probably not bad for you.

That said: you can always lower the amount of fluoride if it turns out the local area already gets a lot of fluoride from other sources. You don't need to ban it, you can just lower the levels.

So please don't defend this decision by Utah. They're being children.

  Using a prospective Canadian birth cohort, we found that estimated maternal exposure to higher fluoride levels during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children. This association was supported by converging findings from 2 measures of fluoride exposure during pregnancy. A difference in MUFSG spanning the interquartile range for the entire sample (ie, 0.33 mg/L), which is roughly the difference in MUFSG concentration for pregnant women living in a fluoridated vs a nonfluoridated community, was associated with a 1.5-point IQ decrement among boys. An increment of 0.70 mg/L in MUFSG concentration was associated with a 3-point IQ decrement in boys; about half of the women living in a fluoridated community have a MUFSG equal to or greater than 0.70 mg/L. These results did not change appreciably after controlling for other key exposures such as lead, arsenic, and mercury.

  To our knowledge, this study is the first to estimate fluoride exposure in a large birth cohort receiving optimally fluoridated water. These findings are consistent with that of a Mexican birth cohort study that reported a 6.3 decrement in IQ in preschool-aged children compared with a 4.5 decrement for boys in our study for every 1 mg/L of MUF.10 The findings of the current study are also concordant with ecologic studies that have shown an association between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower intellectual abilities in children.7,8,26 Collectively, these findings support that fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be associated with neurocognitive deficits.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

> The US has had water fluoridation for 65 years, affecting 346 million people. That's a pretty big god damn sample size and long amount of time in which to observe effects. If we still have no proof of significant negative health effects, it's probably not bad for you.

The problem is there will have been a lot of confounders.

E.g. despite huge sample sizes, isolating the cause of the obesity crisis is too hard because so many different things changed at once.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com