And both of these people telling me about fluoride in water are both experts in their field. One an expert toxicologist, and the other an expert liar. Now I don't know what to believe.

The stuff also known as hydric acid. People just don't talk enough about how corrosive it is. Plus, it gets in the air and gets in your lungs!

Well look at the statistics:

Fluoride:

• Water fluoridation in the United States began in the 1940s
• By 1949, nearly 1 million Americans were receiving fluoridated tap water
• In 1951, the number jumped dramatically to 4.85 million people
• By 1952, the number nearly tripled again to 13.3 million Americans
• In 1954, the number exceeded 20 million people
• In 1965 an additional 13.5 million Americans gained access to fluoridated water.
• By 1969, 43.7% of Americans had access to fluoridated tap water.
• In 2000, approximately 162 million Americans (65.8% of the population served by public water systems) received optimally fluoridated water
• 2006: 69.2% of people on public water systems (61.5% of total population)
• 2012: 74.6% of people on public water systems (67.1% of total population)

Autism:

• First recognised in the 1940s
• During the 1960s and 1970s, prevalence estimates were approximately 0.5 cases per 1,000 children.
• Prevalence rates increased to about 1 case per 1,000 children in the 1980s.
• 2000: 1 in 150 children
• 2006: 1 in 110 children
• 2014: 1 in 59 children
• 2016: 1 in 54 children
• 2020: 1 in 36 children

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

/s because people are stupid enough to think I posted this in seriousness.

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

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?

Its presence in groundwater is how we discovered it's good for teeth.

In fact, there used to be so much in some areas,it actually stained the teeth. In Colorado Springs a dentist noticed that the children were developing brown stains on their teeth. In researching it, it was discovered that the "Colorado Brown Stain" was caused by excessive fluoride in the drinking water. But it also lead to the discovery that regions with natural fluoride present but in lower levels than Colorado Springs didn't have stained teeth, but did have lower levels of tooth decay.

Small note: the country name is spelled “Colombia,” and spelling it correctly means you don’t need to specify which one!

Eating seeds as a pastime activity