Personally, I think I’ve been banned for supporting a politician that the mods don’t like, and their policies. What does Ye Power Trippin’ Bastards think? My Mod logs: https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=10495266.
Personally, I think I’ve been banned for supporting a politician that the mods don’t like, and their policies. What does Ye Power Trippin’ Bastards think? My Mod logs: https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=10495266.
Ok, I see the comment now. Yes, you seem to provide a source, but you claim that the source shows that humans are affected by prolonged exposure. Obviously that’s true, but comes with the obvious caveat that our exposure is nowhere near dangerous levels. I’m no expert, but I have some experiencing in parsing papers and trying to determine legitimacy so I’ll take a stab at what it’s saying.
In this review, it mentions that all the animals studied, problems arose when calculating the amount of fluoride measured against the body weight of the animal. Developmental toxicity occurs at ~13.2 mg/kg of body weight. A litre of water is advised to have .7 mg of flouride in the US. While some states have more or less, they’re all around there. Now, you tell how many litres of water you’d have to drink to actually reach that level of concentration in your body. I’ll give you a hint, it’s at least several times your body weight.
This review also mentions that most flouride is excreted through urine or feces, and 99% of what is preserved is found in the teeth. I didn’t read the studies on what the percentages that are excreted are, but since this review concludes that flouridated water is a non-issue, I’m gonna assume that it’s substantial enough to not be an issue when it comes to flouride buildup.
Here’s the thing though, this study is a review of other studies, why that’s relevant is because of some of the epidemiological data that’s brought up could still show that flouride is bad. However, All studies comparing populations that this review looks at have significant flaws, flaws that the review goes into. The review essentially concludes that all the epidemiological data from other studies are garbage. And rightly so, since a study trying to determine IQ between very different populations is next to impossible to make accurate.
Anyway, the short of it is that this review does not help your case. I’d say if anything, it makes it pretty clear that flouride is not an issue, and that if you’re looking for data to say otherwise, this study recommends much more substantial epidemiological research to be carried out, unlike the epidemiological data they reference in the review.
To get more on topic, I don’t believe most people would have looked more in depth at the article so perhaps they moved the goalposts when they were talking to you. That’s fair to criticize them, but then again, what you’re saying is also not entirely honest. Perhaps you didn’t mean to be dishonest, but still, that just falls under the category of “speak within your limitations”. Acknowledge that you don’t understand or can’t interpret the data. Maybe just ask for help clarifying points. Because what you had said was much too broad for the discussion you were having, and wasn’t remotely helpful, and was, for a lack of a better term, misinformation.
Honestly, the best tactic for catching yourself doing this is to assess others’ goals before attempting to comment on them. For example, don’t start with assuming that governments across the world are proactively poisoning their population. Assume the obvious and go from there. Like considering that governments want healthy populations that are good workforces and produce high quality goods in order for them to compete at the world stage for power, clout, and money. This means producing educated adults, not mindless labour drones. Thus, if there existed credible studies (because not all studies are credible, as this review and many others point out) to increase intellectual output and reduce costs of infrastructure by removing flouride from water (as you wouldn’t bother putting flouride in the water), you can bet that the government would be recommending or even forcing the elemination of flouridated water. There’s just nothing substantial to gain otherwise. Clean teeth or only so much of a positive, and governments, again, do not want a mindless population. We’re in the information age, manual labour is worth a fraction of the GDP output as high quality, educated work is.
Great analysis. I agree with all of this, as I had already read the study. Yes, I already know that fluoride in high concentration is the core issue, but I’m still not onboard with the idea of putting it in the water supply. I have trust issues with the US government. You don’t need fluoride in your water supply to have healthy teeth. You can still have good dental hygiene without having to drink fluoride-laced water for your entire life.
I know people who’ve spent most of their lives drinking bottled water without fluoride and using fluoride free toothpaste who would probably disagree with you on that, as it has been both scientifically and anecdotally in their cases been proven to be beneficial to dental health. The affects of not having it may not be detrimental but it does result in weaker teeth more prone to damage and decay.
That doesn’t mean your teeth will rot out of your head if you don’t get enough of it, but it does mean that early stages of decay which might be reversed by re-mineralization provided in part by healthy levels of fluoride will likely not be reversed, and may instead progress. Which isn’t ideal.
I don’t think they’d disagree with anything you said there. Their problem, I realize, has nothing to do with flouride. It has to do with the duty of government. They clearly realize that flouride is good for teeth. Maybe they don’t quite understand the sheer amount of flouride required for it to be dangerous, but w/e. The problem is, for them, is that they’re not entirely convinced that governments should be trying to protect their citizens. There’s a belief at work here that an individual shouldn’t need assistance with their wellbeing. Or at least not from a large body that doesn’t have any personal relation to the individual. So the paternalism that is assumed to be good for most people because it has a very high likelihood of doing good, a good that vastly outweighs any potential likely con, is assumed to be bad. This is because that’s a liberty and a responsibility that the government has over the public that could be exploited or neglected, and they believe that a vast body like the government suffers so little influence from the public that should something go wrong, the people would be powerless to stop it.
I think their biggest problem, the reason they don’t understand, is that they believe a conspiracy theory about the government trying to hurt people with fluoride. Despite the evidence that shows how high the unsafe levels for fluoride are, and that they are nowhere near that, as well as the fact that its proven to be safe and beneficial at lower levels. They believe that it is being forced upon them by having it in tap water, which it absolutely is not, as highlighted by the fact that I know people who haven’t gotten enough either from drinking bottled or distilled water.
I really don’t see the logic of pushing back against something like this when it doesn’t hurt you and the small benefits will benefit you greatly years later, as well as the fact that it’s done for you at no extra cost, which you can’t say for any of the alternatives. Really they’re complaining about getting something beneficial essentially for free without having to pay extra or do work for it.