1170

submitted 19 hours ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

144 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] RQG@lemmy.world 210 points 18 hours ago

Toxicologist here. I think that take is dishonest or dumb.

Taking a lethal dose is almost never the concern with any substance in our drinking water.

Hormones, heavy metals, persistent organic chemicals, ammonia are all in our drinking water. But for all of them we can't drink enough water to die from a high dose.

Some of them still have a large effect on our bodies.

It's about the longterm effects. Which longterm studies to learn about. That makes them harder to study.

Still doesn't mit flouride does anything bad longerm. But the argument is bad.

[-] FreshLight@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, it seems to me like he got the right idea and wanted to convince people by making an extreme statement..

[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 93 points 18 hours ago

Yeah, by this argument lead in the water isn't a concern.

[-] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 88 points 17 hours ago

You just made me mad by helping me realize that the Trump bros are going to break water by removing fluoride long before they fix water by removing lead.

[-] 5oap10116@lemmy.world 25 points 17 hours ago

Yeah but lead bioaccumulates where as fluoride/ine doesn't

[+] ryannathans@aussie.zone -16 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Are you sure fluoride doesn't? It does accumulate in the soil, building up in crops. Considering fluoride exposure from all sources, many people are above upper safe limits, even from tea drinking alone

I don't think fluoride should be added to water as it just pollutes the environment, where 99.99% of water isn't coming in contact with teeth

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 27 points 16 hours ago

It doesn't. This is high-school chemistry.

Fluoride only "accumulates" up to the peak concentration of the environment (no further) on places where it is removed from contact with that environment.

You can only accumulate fluoride in the soil if you keep adding it and there is almost no rain to wash it away.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone -2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Like how crops are irrigated with town water, and in many areas with lowering rainfall? Accumulates in fruit, vegetables, leaves too

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours ago

Yes, irrigation with the minimum possible amount of water is known to destroy land for millennia at this point. But sodium will be a problem way before you notice any change in fluoride.

[-] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 6 points 16 hours ago

Yup, same with PFAS and forever chemicals. Maybe I'm ignorant because I'm not a doctor, but I don't know if this line of thinking holds water - pun not intended.

[-] NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world 16 points 16 hours ago

It's so funny I was just having a similar conversation about neurotoxic venomous animals in another thread. Lethality is an obviously concerning threshold, but there are substances out there that can easily destroy your quality of life and livelihood that never reach the concern of being lethal.

I think for mostly rational people concerned about fluoride in their water is that it was a public health decision made with little to no actual science proving it's safety or efficacy when it was first decided that they were going to add it to the public water supply. The proposed benefits of it weren't even supported by scientific evidence, it was just supposed that exposure to sodium fluoride could potentially reduce tooth decay for some.

Personally, I've suffered from the cosmetic damage of dental fluorosis, and I'm not necessarily thrilled about fluoride. But I have way more issues with public mandates founded on pseudoscience than I am with sodium fluoride. Especially now that we can see evidence that for some people fluoride can be especially beneficial.

So what was wrong with giving people the option of using fluoride toothpaste or mouthwashes... Why did it have to go into the public water supply?

[-] Alteon@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

Mate, your entire second paragraph is completely false. Like, you need to just read this: https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/fluoride/the-story-of-fluoridation

It's considered by the CDC as one of the greatest Public Health Achievements of the last Century. There have been dozens, if not hundreds of studies about fluoride affects in the water supply.

[-] NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world 5 points 6 hours ago

Yeah that proves my point entirely.

In 1945 they fluoridated the first public water supply.

In 1979 the first published research began to appear to show how fluoride might be able to remineralize dental enamel.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Fluoride does have long term effects though once you consider fluoride exposure through all sources like diet, which is mostly due to fluoride from water ending up in farmland. Tradesmen alone regularly exceed the upper limits due to high water consumption in hotter seasons

[-] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works -2 points 15 hours ago

Also, isn't it recommended to not give infants fluorided water, hence why you can buy it in virtually every grocery store?

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 5 points 13 hours ago

Pretty much anything you can think of is recommended by someone, because different people have conflicting views. The key is to choose whose recommendations are based on the best reasoning & evidence aligning with your goals.