Medical freedom vs. public health: Should fluoride be in our drinking water? - eviltoast

Misinformation campaigns increasingly target the cavity-fighting mineral, prompting communities to reverse mandates. Dentists are enraged. Parents are caught in the middle.

The culture wars have a new target: your teeth.

Communities across the U.S. are ending public water fluoridation programs, often spurred by groups that insist that people should decide whether they want the mineral — long proven to fight cavities — added to their water supplies.

The push to flush it from water systems seems to be increasingly fueled by pandemic-related mistrust of government oversteps and misleading claims, experts say, that fluoride is harmful.

The anti-fluoridation movement gained steam with Covid,” said Dr. Meg Lochary, a pediatric dentist in Union County, North Carolina. “We’ve seen an increase of people who either don’t want fluoride or are skeptical about it.”

There should be no question about the dental benefits of fluoride, Lochary and other experts say. Major public health groups, including the American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, support the use of fluoridated water. All cite studies that show it reduces tooth decay by 25%.

  • john89@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    56
    ·
    6 months ago

    Fluoride is not a contaminant

    Says who?

    https://gizmodo.com/hey-remember-when-people-used-to-eat-arsenic-as-a-heal-1676316276

    It’s not a study, but there was a time when people believed arsenic wasn’t poisonous. There were most likely scientists back in the day advocating for its usage. You can find their work if you’re really interested.

    A more recent and easier to research example would be all the “studies” saying lead is safe. Do I have to specifically point to those, or can you understand my point without it?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s not a study

      Okay, so note what you claimed.

      There were most likely scientists back in the day advocating for its usage. You can find their work if you’re really interested.

      It’s not my job to prove you aren’t lying.

      • john89@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        53
        ·
        6 months ago

        I mean, if you don’t want to understand then you won’t understand.

        I’ve done my part. If you want to replace arsenic with lead, then will it make sense?

        Probably not because you don’t want to understand.

        Also,

        Fluoride is not a contaminant

        Says who?

        You conveniently ignored this part.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          If you want to replace arsenic with lead, then will it make sense?

          Sure, if you can show me a scientific study that claims that lead is not a contaminant.

          You conveniently ignored this part.

          Correct. I will continue to until you show me the scientific studies you claim exists or admit you made them up.

          • OrgunDonor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Ohhh can I partake in this.

            Fluoride contamination, consequences and removal techniques in water - https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2022/va/d1va00039j

            See look at the scary headline, and the first sentence - “Fluoride contamination has created a drinking water crisis globally.”

            Only downside to this paper… it kinda mentions how great it is for humans to consume low levels of flouride.