Hacker News Reader

Comment by mistercow | Hacker News Reader

Not just "once". Many conspiracy theorists still believe that it is some form of government plot or another. The theories range from it being a toxic waste disposal scheme that is poisoning people (and as far as I know, there is some basis for the claim that fluoridation came about as a way to cheaply get rid of a relatively toxic byproduct; that doesn't validate any other part of it though), to fluoride being used as a mind control chemical (usually pointing to drugs like Prozac that include fluoride as "evidence").

Of course, none of these "theories" manage to address the fact that there is fairly strong evidence that water fluoridation does in fact reduce tooth decay.

View on HN

Fluoride stays in the body and over time will calcify the pineal gland, which is a poorly understood part of the body.

Fluoride was used in the past to pacify populations, at least, that is the claim made by anti-F people (I haven't myself run down the sources).

There are books out concerning F and its effect on the body's metabolism, such as this one http://www.amazon.com/Fluoride-Aging-Factor-Recognize-Devast... .

Too much fluoride can lead to fluorosis - there is this case of fluorosis among horses drinking municipal water that was fluoridated http://www.fluorideresearch.org/391/files/3913-10.pdf .

I also recall reading about some lady who died of fluorosis from drinking gallons of tea a day.

edit: link found via google: http://www.livescience.com/28078-skeletal-fluorosis-tea-drin...

>Of course, none of these "theories" manage to address the fact that there is fairly strong evidence that water fluoridation does in fact reduce tooth decay.

Not agreeing with those theories, but this argument is flawed.

Even if it does "reduce tooth decay", so what, in the context of their argument? Who said a substance can't do two things at one time?

It isn't proof, it's supporting evidence.

It's only "supporting evidence" if they said that it doesn't also help with teeth.

The number of compounds that have significant and useful mind altering properties, are tasteless in water at their effective doses, don't cause severe adverse reactions in any large segment of the population, even at uncontrolled doses, and which also naturally occur in some water supplies to begin with is tiny.

If you narrow that search down further by adding the constraint of a simple and easily explained health benefit that has since been repeatedly validated by science, you should expect to find approximately zero compounds.

To look at it another way, suppose that studies had been done on fluoridation and found no benefit in terms of tooth decay. That would certainly be evidence in favor of the conspiracy theories. It is always the case that if E is evidence of H, then ¬E is evidence of ¬H, so the fact that fluoridation prevents tooth decay must be at least weak evidence that the conspiracy theories are false. The argument above gives one reason that it is not particularly weak evidence.

One of the more sensible theories I've heard is that the fluoridation push happened at about the same time as the need to ramp-up uranium hexafluoride use for enrichment processes ... and that the sudden demand for fluoride could be masked by a civilian "decay prevention" program.

See also: Donora death fog. http://www.fluoridation.com/donora.htm

Reply on news.ycombinator.com