this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024

1043 points (96.7% liked)

Science Memes

11130 readers

3259 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1043

flouride (mander.xyz)

submitted 12 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

126 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 182 points 11 hours ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 81 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 73 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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

[+] [email protected] -12 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 57 minutes 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 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.