I'm not opposed to validating safety of anything we're doing at a significant amount like this, but I remain heavily skeptical of this case and it's conclusions. And I have concerns about the knee-jerk reactions being seen already in some communities. I know some (if not a lot) of the confusion is the media headlines, but the ruling does seem to lend itself to being reported with significant bias and misrepresentations.
> Chen, in his ruling, leans heavily on the NTP report. Even though the report points to evidence of harm only at levels more than double the 0.7 mg/L found in U.S. tap water
> Some critics have said that the research behind these conclusions is riddled with problems. ...
> “The bottom line,” said Tomar, “is that the overwhelming majority of those studies had either significant flaws or were, frankly, just not looked at through a critical eye.”
Contradicting studies:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36214232/
> Exposure to fluoridated water during the first 5 y of life was not associated with altered measures of child emotional and behavioral development and executive functioning.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...
> In boys, positive associations were observed between MUFcr and scores in cognitive domains at the age of 4. These findings are inconsistent with those from some previous studies and indicate the need for other population-based studies to confirm or overturn these results at low levels of F in CDW.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7261729/
> In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.
> ... the experimental evidence suggests that current exposure to fluoride, even for individuals with relatively high fluoride intake, is clearly below levels that lead to adverse effects in vitro or in animals.
> ... The discrepancy between experimental and epidemiological evidence may be reconciled with deficiencies inherent in most epidemiological studies