Hacker News Reader

Comment by DantesKite | Hacker News Reader

I mean fluoride is one of the most interactive elements on the periodic table. It’s pretty clear it interacts with the body in pathogenic ways. That’s part of the reason why it bonds to the enamel of the teeth so well.

I don’t think we need to supplement tapwater with fluoride now that toothbrushes and toothpaste are so widely available.

You can’t control the dosage since people can drink as much tapwater as they want and still do not know how much they actually are receiving.

That being said I highly recommend everybody get a reverse osmosis water filter. Add in some electrolytes and you’re good to go.

Edit: Never mind, I was wrong. Fluoride isn't an element. It's somewhat reactive, but not nearly as much as Fluorine.

View on HN

Just note that Flouride and Flourine are very different things. Chlorine is also very highly reactive and dangerous but you think nothing of eating table salt.

You'll find fluorine atoms in a disproportionate number of poisons, while other halogens are much weaker. It really is an anomalous atom and the comparison to Chlorine is not accurate (which is less electronegative than oxygen).

I wondered why we don't use something that can also promote crystallization of hydroxyapatite (primary mineral in surface tooth enamel), and apparently it's because carbonate also promotes plaque crystallization. However, if you go to the dentist regularly, it seems an objectively better personal option.

The argument for water fluoridation is a macro-argument that looks good from 10,000 feet, but when you apply nuance, such a policy does not benefit (and probably subtly harms) the vast majority of readership on HN, and is more likely to affect the most impoverished who do not brush their teeth regularly and cannot afford or do not prioritize going to the dentist (which is a surprisingly high percentage of the general public).

That isn't to say it's a bad policy, but it certainly isn't black and white.

Sure fluorine is extremely reactive but once a F is bonded to a C, it's quite hard to dislodge. To remove that bounded F you need a really strong oxidant like ozone.

Chlorofluorocarbons were used as propellant in sprays and asthma pump because they didn't react with the active substances.

The presence of fluoride in a disproportionate number of poisons (FOOF excluded) is due to the fact that as far as biological binding site are concerned it's almost like a really heavy hydrogen but metabolically it protect that carbon from being the target of an enzyme¹. This enable a toxic molecule that would be quickly metabolized to stay active long enough to do some damage.

It's important to note that the presence of a C-F bond doesn't make a molecule inherently toxic, it just make it harder to metabolize when that bond is placed at the target of an enzyme.

1- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190305112830.h...

It's true that F isn't a good leaving group, but that's a double edged sword. By the same token, continuous exposure means that when it is occasionally substituted into organic molecules throughout the body, it will be not easily substituted out. I am curious now what the equilibrium retention point is for typical fluoridation levels.

> You'll find fluorine atoms in a disproportionate number of poisons

You'll also find carbon in a disproportionate number of poisons. The horror!

I know this is an attempt at humor, but this kind of low quality engagement has no place on HN.

Carbon is the backbone of almost all compounds used by life. Feel free to check the ratio of poisons/non-poisons containing Carbon and those containing Fluorine and report back.

Carbon is fundamentally different than halogens and really all other nonmetals due to its unique, strong affinity for 4 bonds, its small size, its relative non-electronegativity compared to other common elements in organic compounds (besides hydrogen), and the lack of d orbital complexity.

Source: I'm a computational chemist.

As with almost all controversial health discussions, everyone loves to talk about elemental chemistry and hates to talk about ionization.

Yeah, everyone is imagining F2 and CF4, but what we're dealing with is F-, totally different from the other two.

Just look at this video of sodium exploding in water! Now buy my all-natural alternative!

I just bought an RO system of Amazon and it is great. There is a relatively newer design that doesn't require the external pressurization tank and uses a single easily-replaceable filter.

The faucet even has a realtime TDS measurement (inlet water is over 400 and the filter brings it down to about 17-18). I put a higher flow filter (doesn't lower the TDS) in front of the RO system so that my regular faucet water is filtered and it extends the life of the RO filter. Takes like 30 minutes to get everything installed. Totally worth it!

I'm really fond of the Brondell H2O+ Circle RO filter. It's the best system I've ever used and the filters are so easy to replace it boggles my mind why every other filter isn't like it.

It comes with a reverse flush system that makes the RO filter last for years. Takes our water from 250ppm to 12ppm.

Used to be around 850ppm but luckily, the city improved its water filtration practices.

Could you share which one?

10UAW-UF and WD-D6-B

What kind of fluoride? Fluoride salts can be extremely stable even at very high temperatures. They were used in prototype molten salt nuclear reactors and uranium hexafluoride gas is used in uranium enrichment.

> pretty clear it interacts with the body in pathogenic ways

Shouldn't we have mountains of decisive evidence to support this point by now?

With such a small amount in tap water, it seems like it would be hard to conduct a controlled study.

Seems like that is also in favour for fluoride being completely safe, then. After all, if you can't measure it, then...

Why? A small amount of arsenic or fentanyl wouldn't be difficult to study. There is nothing intrinsic about any number that makes it difficult to perform science.

Yep.

Here's one, low-level example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis

Been on RO for a decade. Add a few drops of trace minerals (Concentrace) and it's the best tasting water out there.

I've worked with fluoride chemistry in the lab, which entails some specific safety protocols due to its effects on the human body if you make a mistake. Your characterization of the health risks to humans is misinformation, particularly at the exposure levels in water regardless of how much you drink.

Fluoride aggressively and preferentially binds to calcium in the human body. That's how it protects teeth, the chemicals that cause tooth decay have a weaker affinity for calcium than fluorine, and therefore can't displace it.

The mechanism of action for its lethality is the same. Calcium ions are used throughout the human body, notably in the heart for critical signaling functions. If you are exposed to sufficient quantities of fluoride, it will circulate until it finds some calcium in your body, including readily depleting your calcium ion channels which causes your heart to stop working.

Human bodies have significant excess calcium floating around. There is simply not enough fluoride in water, no matter how much you drink, to tax those calcium reserves. People have been drinking naturally fluoridated water, some at much higher concentrations than municipal water, for millennia.

We can argue about the relative safety of fluoride to the human body. Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere, but saying that it is hazardous to your health in excess amounts and that those excess amounts can be found in tap-water isn't controversial nor is it misinformation.

For example, as a very basic, low-level example, exposing children to fluoride early on when teeth are forming causes dental fluorosis. This is well-known, well-studied, and not at all controversial. And in fact, tap water is the most common source of dental fluorosis.[1]

Now there are clear benefits to fluoride: It can be used in a variety of circumstances and probably has done humanity a net good, especially in areas where dental hygiene (for whatever reason) isn't well understood or well-practiced.

But there's clearly a level where it's not safe to expose to human beings.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis

Given that NYC has been fluoridating since 1965, and how insane people are on the topic, I’m sure we would be aware of actual problems long ago.

70th human study links fluoride to neurological damage https://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2021/09/70th-human-stud...

Prominent scientists proclaim “It is time to protect kids’ developing brains from fluoride” https://www.ehn.org/fluoride-and-childrens-health-2648120286...

Fluoridation Fails New York City https://fluoridenews.blogspot.com/search?q=New+York+City

A 2012 book by Kozol regarding poor children in the South Bronix (fluoridated since 1965) reports ""Many of the children who attend these schools also suffer the emotional and physical attrition that results from chronic illnesses like asthma and anxiety, as well as the steady and low-level misery of rotting teeth, infected gums, and festering, untreated sores. " https://thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/AmazingGrace_K...

Based on NYS Department of health data researchers found " For every age/race group, there was a consistently significant association of SiF [silicofluoridated] treated community water and elevated blood lead" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11233755/

Politic$, not science, supports fluoridation

Well, I don't think that's a good heuristic for determining whether something is bad. There are plenty historical examples of doctors not washing their hands even when there was substantial evidence suggesting it decreased deaths.

Yes. We are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis

Reply on news.ycombinator.com