woodruffw
9 hours ago
The core of this article is uncontroversial: water fluoridation is effective, but less effective than it was half a century ago because fluoridated toothpaste is now nearly universal.
With that said, the author commits the two cardinal sins of public health journalism: they allow dangerous levels of a substance to be conflated with recognized safe levels, and they confuse value for a sub-sample of the population (those who can/do use fluoride toothpaste and go to the dentist regularly) with value for the entire population.
The latter in particular is why water fluoridation in areas with low natural fluoride levels is sound public health policy: it helps the population as a whole, even when not all segments can or will obtain appropriate dental care.
kkfx
8 hours ago
Adding elements to stuff we assume UNIVERSALLY is universally wrong because we do not assume them at similar level. For instance here in EU most table salt is with added iodine, witch in general is good IF you do not live near the sea, but being universal this salt also goes to people living near the see adding potentially to much iodine (an thyroid problems are on the rise since decades).
For fluorine it's the same: some drink tap water, some drink only bottled water, so some get potentially too much some potentially nearly none.
That's why "universal" is essentially wrong.
woodruffw
8 hours ago
Nobody is saying that universal fluoridation is good public health policy. It’s about local conditions, including existing dietary sources and groundwater levels. In much of the US, trends in both combined with persistent access problems around dental care warrant fluoridation in most municipalities.
ekianjo
9 hours ago
> with recognized safe levels,
Funny because many countries choose to NOT add fluoride to their water sources. Despite all the "safety" data available.
woodruffw
9 hours ago
Every comment thread about fluoridation on HN goes like this. Most countries that don’t fluoridate their water don’t do so either because they fluoridate something else (table salt) or because their natural groundwater contains sufficient fluoride, or because dietary trends in those areas already provide dietary fluoride.
Western Europe and Latin America are examples of (1), Central Europe is an example of (2), and much of Asia is (2) or (3).
And this is the point: if you have naturally occurring fluoride at safe levels, you shouldn’t add it. If you have it at unsafe levels (which much of the world does!), you should defluoridate your water. But the body of evidence is overwhelming that 0.7mg/L for fluoridation is not a significant public health risk, especially in contrast with its tangible benefits.
fragmede
8 hours ago
What does the body of evidence show is safe for your third eye? Because that's who you're having to disprove safe flouride levels to.
jandrewrogers
9 hours ago
In many parts of the world, natural dietary fluoride exposure from food greatly exceeds the levels anyone adds to water. Some regions also have naturally high fluoride levels in water as well.
nucleardog
9 hours ago
Did you know there are places that BAN chewing gum despite all the “safety” data available and history of use elsewhere?!?!!!