Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessaustin | Hacker News Reader

How would one determine that "fluoride alert" is any different than e.g. the anti-vaxxers?

I love that this is the state of public discourse even on hacker news. Just accuse something of being like anti-vax and the down votes follow. No critical thought required.

Actually, people aren't listening to your anti-fluoride woo because they're well aware of the situation.

Oh are they? Your edification would be most appreciated in that case.

Public water fluoridation has well-understood health benefits (a reduction in cavities that cannot be achieved through brushing alone). It also has well-understood drawbacks (tooth mottling in high concentrations, toxicity in high concentrations).

Someone participating in this discussion would either know this from general knowledge, or could look it up.

People aren't that ignorant.

Assume that I am. Sources, please.

Asking for sources in the same thread where you've been makig strong but unsupported claims is a bit rich.

I haven't really made any claims, but if you need me to source anything besides the one I already gave you, you're welcome to point it out.

It's trivial to find sources for the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing tooth decay (Google -> Wikipedia -> a citation leads you here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm). There are also studies on water fluoridation's impacts, though it's harder to test that, by nature.

Oh hey, published by the "Fluoride Recommendation Work Group"! Wonder what their agenda is?

You have only to look up the rates of tooth decay among non-fluoridated countries to find that there is no difference whatsoever.

> Oh hey, published by the "Fluoride Recommendation Work Group"! Wonder what their agenda is?

It doesn't matter what theirs is, the link I gave you isn't useful as a source, but as a list of sources.

Also, very classy of you to paint me as "anti-fluoride" like I would have to have some sort of agenda to question why things are being added to drinking water.

Your comments seem to do more than "question". You appear to be actively against it.

Therefore, "anti-fluoride" seems fitting.

Ah, I see. I shall call you "Big Fluoride" then, if that's the game we're playing.

Please abstain, all of you, from acerbic swipes at one another. Both sides are to blame here.

If you must dispute water fluoridation on Hacker News, do so by making careful, factual, respectful comments.

The site guidelines specifically ask you not to call names. That includes both calling each other names as well as calling each others' arguments names (e.g. "woo").

Just so I understand where you are coming from, you view peer-reviewed studies as "woo"?

The peer reviewed studies were not created by that website. That page just lists the links to studies that were published in peer reviewed journals.

I'm not sure how any of this relates to vaccines, since we are talking about fluoride. But anytime you want to know if something is true or not, the only way I know of is to dig deeper for more information.

Does the site list ALL studies regarding fluoride in water, or just hand select the ones that come to the 'right' conclusions?

No, you're going to have to do the legwork of going to one of the many other pro-fluoridation sites to read those studies. Then, depending on how interested you are in the truth, you'll have to weigh all of the findings, and even look into who produced the studies (follow the money). Welcome to the 21st century, where it usually takes some effort to find the truth in controversial issues.

One thing to keep in mind while digging in, we know there is a financial incentive behind pro-fluoridation studies (it is expensive for business to dispose of it). As far as I know, there isn't much financial incentive in being against fluoridation, save for some boutique toothpaste brands that would probably lack the resources to conduct peer reviewed studies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com