Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jimmc414 | Hacker News Reader

You sound concerned about the kids. We are on the same side. There is evidence that fluoridation level is correlated (dose dependent) with sleep problems, lower IQ scores, early onset puberty and bone cancer in children. There are specific areas outside blood brain barrier that it accumulates to the degree of fluoridation (100x to 200x levels of other tissues), all postmortem tests verify this.

It is true that many studies were at higher doses(2x to 4x), but that should not mean that it is acceptable to intentionally raise fluoride levels to half of harmful levels, because we want to protect teeth.

If you don't want cavities decrease sucrose, brush and floss. Can I brush my teeth with use baking soda, use whatever? Arent they are OUR teeth? What if we find some additive might help some other health issue? Should we add that to everyone's drinking water?

View on HN

Afaik these findings primarily involve populations exposed to fluoride levels above 1.5 mg/L, which is higher than the 0.7 mg/L recommended for U.S. water supplies. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that fluoride at recommended levels negatively impacts IQ.

At safe levels fluoridation is a public health measure akin to fortifying foods with vitamins (e.g., iodine in salt or folic acid in flour something we do all the time).

Honestly 1.5mg is not that different than 0.7mg..is there some reason to believe a 2X factor makes a big deal? I was expecting to hear of 10x differences or something, but 2x is not much of a factor in these kind of gradient effects.

1.5mg is literally twice the recommended limit. I don't really understand the logic in saying 2x overdosed is negligible. If you consistently eat 2x your daily calories you'll see the results fast. If you drink twice what you can handle, it would be bad. Etc

the question is regardless of the stated benefit, dont I still have the right to opt out of this all or nothing additive?

You have the right not to drink tap water of course

> insufficient evidence

That's a very high standard of evidence.

Toxicity testing is often carried out on mice, up to the dosage required for any observable effect. From that safe levels for humans are derived, e.g. the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level).

To say that a study done in humans, got observable effects at only twice the intended dose (who knows what the s.d. of the dose is, but anyway) and we conclude there's simply not enough evidence?

Many chemicals have been banned on the basis of far less evidence.

> Should we add that to everyone's drinking water?

Consider the following: Many water sources have a ton of salts and such in them naturally. Fluoride being one of them. The reason why water fluoridation became a thing in the first place is because it was noticed that higher natural levels of fluoridation resulted in fewer caries.

Water treatment in order to make it safe to drink often involves processes that remove and filter out these minerals and chemicals. Which means said things need to be added back in, as part of the treatment process.

Yes, we should.

What additives am I missing? I want to stay healthy.

Well, we don’t have that many things that can be added to water and have health benefits with basically no downside. Fluoride is one of the few things where it makes sense to do this. (If you are willing to broaden your horizons, you can buy things like iodized salt or golden rice to get the benefits of those. But food, alas, is not a government service.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com