3
23

[–] frankenham 3 points 23 points (+26|-3) ago 

Maybe we should stop bathing in it and drinking it and cleaning our teeth with it and handing it out as tablets to school children telling them it'll make their teeth stronger despite the well known effect of dental fluorosis.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
13

[–] frankenham 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

My parents refused for me to take those tablets in elementary school, I also grew up drinking strictly well water from an underground aquifer so never consumed city fluoridated water. At the time I was too young to understand it but I'm happy my parents were aware of it's dangers at the time.

0
6

[–] EarthGleaner 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

The special "fluoridated water for babies" makes me cringe every time I pass by it in the grocery store.

0
2

[–] twentyfive 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

i was seriously thinking on trying to get my city (10k pop) to stop fluoridation. I may try again, i was going on the fact the city could save money and time by not having to. passing out fliers in mail boxes a couple times a month listing the facts against it.

now would be the perfect timing given flints water problem, its in peoples minds

0
13

[–] Ex-Redditor 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

1
8

[–] Craxic 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

For what its worth, this isn't new. It's just been recently reported at this website. It was published in 14 February 2014.

I guess one of the things that is most worrying is:

A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.[44]

Following the [44] link leads to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/. The average difference that it reports is -0.45 standard deviations, which is indeed 6.75 IQ points. See this image for the results of each study used: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/figure/f2/. Here's some more interesting things it says:

Opportunities for epidemiological studies depend on the existence of comparable population groups exposed to different levels of fluoride from drinking water. Such circumstances are difficult to find in many industrialized countries, because fluoride concentrations in community water are usually no higher than 1 mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay. Multiple epidemiological studies of developmental fluoride neurotoxicity were conducted in China because of the high fluoride concentrations that are substantially above 1 mg/L in well water in many rural communities

...

In response to the recommendation of the NRC (2006), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the U.S. EPA recently announced that DHHS is proposing to change the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L from the currently recommended range of 0.7–1.2 mg/L, and the U.S. EPA is reviewing the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which currently is set at 4.0 mg/L (U.S. EPA 2011).

...

The exposed groups had access to drinking water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang SX et al. 2007)

...

The estimated decrease in average IQ associated with fluoride exposure based on our analysis may seem small and may be within the measurement error of IQ testing.

FWIW, In Western Australia:

The optimal level across WA ranges from 0.6 to 0.9 milligram per litre, with a maximum of 1.0 milligram per litre established in law (the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1966). [source]

Natural levels:

Fluoride levels in surface waters depend on geographical location and proximity to emission sources but are generally low, ranging from 0.01 to 0.3 mg/L in freshwater and from 1.2 to 1.5 mg/L in seawater. [source]

More research should be done, but I don't believe the government is "dumbing down the populous" with fluoride. We have far more important and pressing issues to worry about.

0
2

[–] Drenki 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Good analysis, I came here to post something similar. The elevated amount 11.5 mg/L is a lot more than the current amounts found presently in most of US water supplies (07-1.2 mg/L). This was also only looked at in China which has a rampant pollution problem which may not be accounted for by the researchers.

For those non-careful readers out there, I am in no way advocating for a by-product of industrial, war-time manufacturing being dumped into the water supply.

0
1

[–] foltaisaprovenshill 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I get what conclusion you're making here, but it's highly misleading.

Yes, the amount of flouride added to water in the US is not enough on its own, in isolation to cause a decent IQ drop like was observed in the China study.

But what you're presupposing is that the water is the only source of flouride exposure, which is incorrect.

It's sprayed on fresh produce. It's used in much higher concentrations in canned goods, pre-mixed juices and sodas etc.

The number of sources of flouride exposure other than municipal water sources is freakin huge, so the 11/mg/L number is not even remotely far fetched as an average exposure.

1
0

[–] Craxic 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

So, there is 11mg/L or above in fruit juice that I buy from the supermarket. As a result, I may be receiving far more fluoride than what you would expect if you only counted the water I drank. That's what you mean?

I didn't touch on any of that. What I provided was a very incomplete analysis of the article, that's all. Regardless, its quite clear that I dont believe that fluoride is a big health problem, and that you do. So (no disrespect) could you please point me to some sources for your claims so I can read up?

0
6

[–] PraiseIPU 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44 Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies. Further characterisation of the dose–response association would be desirable.

0
12

[–] FriedFood100 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

It seems like they literally are dumbing down the populace.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

1
3

[–] the_narrator 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

The most successful propaganda meme of all time. All the scientific studies in the world will not convince an idiot that fluoride is neurotoxic when they are simply shown a comedic scene from a 50 year old movie.

The argument of the elite is that we deserve what we get because we are stupid sheep that can be told what to think and if they didn't control us there'd be chaos. People like you who trust 50 year old comedic movie clips over science unfortunately help prove their point.

0
0

[–] klobos 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You don't understand humor do you?

0
0

[–] antiplebbitor 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

"We don't want to go starting a nuclear war unless we absolutely have to, now do we, Jack?!"

0
1

[–] Yohbro 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Of course you'll want to find out how to remove fluoride from your water now, so the article links you to AltHealthWorks.com which sells you a simple filter with the claim that it will remove 90% of the fluoride in your tap water, which not even reverse osmosis can achieve.

0
1

[–] Haaco 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If we look at everything we know about fluoride and drop the one "positive" they give us, being that it's good for your teeth, it's just absolutely ridiculous that's it's put in our water.

0
1

[–] ViceRoy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

this is great news

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)