Adding fluoride to water has always seemed weird to me, since you can't control for how much water someone is drinking or account for different bodily factors like age and weight. I wonder why the European solution of adding it to salt isn't the default, especially given that iodized salt is already so popular and commonplace.
As a general rule of thumb, I think it's interesting to scrutinize dosage recommendations and compare regulations between countries. If someone claims that the science on some topic is well settled then health officials in multiple countries should arrive at roughly similar results. If there's a discrepancy between the suggestions made by health officials in the US and EU, it's worth asking why.
No, fluoride must not be added to any food or beverage, because it provides no benefits whatsoever when ingested.
Fluoride is beneficial only when applied externally on the dental enamel, so that the fluoride ions will passively substitute the hydroxide ions. There is no known biological process that uses actively fluoride in the human body and excessive ingested fluoride has bad effects, e.g. bone damage.
Therefore fluoride must be added only to tooth paste and mouth washes, which provides all the benefits and none of the risks.
Intentionally ingesting fluoride is incredibly stupid and it is beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated by law in USA and in some other countries which imitated USA irrationally.
I’ve been thinking about this recently - fluorapatite is stronger than hydroxyapatite when it bonds to enamel, and less soluble by acid. But fluoride doesn’t occur in any natural processes in the body - while hydroxyapatite is a perfect biomimetic - very safe, you can swallow it safely - and also works great in toothpaste to remineralise teeth.
Currently using BioMin F (fluorapatite - very little fluoride due to a novel delivery mechanism but still) but considering switching to BioMin C (nanohydroxyapatite)
Given that the health bureaucracies of many countries seem to disagree with you, you need to cite more evidence and sources to support this claim. You can't just do it by strong assertion.
> it is beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated by law in USA
It isn't mandated by law in the USA. All water contains some naturally occurring fluoride, some localities choose to add additional fluoride to their water in the USA but certainly not all. I'm pretty sure it is added in something like 60% of city water supplies.
>it is beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated by law in USA
Consider that fluoride ingestion has been linked with increased anxiety and depression[*]. Depending upon one's political objectives, this could be a desirable outcome. For instance, the "anti-terror" decades of invasion would be easier to accept for an anxious public. Or depression may lead to more consumer activity.
adrian_b vs. health scientists throughout the world and history, ca. 1:1e10
Who to believe here, who should we believe here, hm, very difficult problem, adrian_b's passionate statements or practically all the professionals of the world. I go and contemplate over this for a while now. : )
I think the obvious answer is, we can’t actually tell one way or the other if it is a net benefit. However, humans can’t handle uncertainty so must be told in confident tones that the decision is the correct one. If anyone questions the established decision, they must be discredited.
It's worse than that. We may know perfectly well which way is better on the net. But since masses can't handle uncertainty, you can't just say "doing this is more beneficial on the net" - you have to project certainty, or else people will interpret your lack of confidence as indicative of scheming, and do the opposite.
It's been a popular and wide spread conspiracy theory that the "shadow government" is either trying to lower the IQ or the total population numbers using fluoride in the water supply. And since politicians don't get chosen on a basis of competency, but rather popularity, you have the vast majority being relatively severely logically challenged and thus unable to read scientific papers and understand complicated topics like child dental care.
Or any topic that involves more than one interacting decision, a graph, or any numbers at all.
COVID made it pretty clear that neither the general population nor most politicians are remotely qualified to make decisions. Not just medical decisions, just… decisions.
No credible scientific evidence exists that ingesting fluoride is beneficial.
Whenever you point this out, people respond with studies that focused on topical application. This topic is weird. Otherwise intelligent people shut down and begin quoting movies from the 1960’s, and are somehow incapable of distinguishing between a topical mouthwash and oral consumption.
Might as well drink sunscreen and talk about the reduction in lip skin cancer.
We've been putting fluoride in water for a long time, and there are multiple studies that have looking in to it, I don't know why you think there aren't?
>No credible scientific evidence exists that ingesting fluoride is beneficial.
???
>Regular toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste is the principal non‐professional intervention to prevent caries, but the caries‐preventive effect varies according to different concentrations of fluoride in toothpaste, with higher concentrations associated with increased caries control.
Omg, no wonder my teeth are getting worse after moving to Amsterdam. I drink a ton of water and use Maldon salt. I didn’t realize there wasn’t fluoride in the water. (All the Nutella isn’t helping either, but… ooh, maybe that’s a reasonable vector for Europeans)
The CDC recommends breastfeeding infants, as breastmilk contains significantly less fluoride than fluoridated drinking water. If breastfeeding is not possible, the CDC also endorses using fluoridated water in infant formula, though it suggests mixing the formula with low-fluoride bottled water to lessen the risk of dental fluorosis.
Infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated tap water can have three to four times higher fluoride exposure than adults, warned Lanphear. He added that before an infant's teeth erupt, there's no benefit to fluoride exposure. "There are vulnerable groups we have to be worried about," he said, "and that's not being brought out adequately by these agencies."
Hmm, its been a while since I worked in the area of dental fluoride (was part of my PhD) but my understanding was systemic exposure pre-eruption was still beneficial. This (possibly biased source) agrees:
None of the studies I have seen properly account for the lifetime effect, and instead only deduce lack of harm from flawed isolated studies.
It’s in the entire water supply.
You were gestated in a womb of a woman consuming highly fluoridated water.
You were fed formula made with fluoridated water tuned to dose a 200lb man when you were 8lbs.
The water you drank as your bones were growing was similarly overdosed
The food you eat is washed in fluoridated water. The coffee and beer you drink is brewed with fluoridated water. The bread you eat is made with fluoridated water.
Basically, the dose is insanely wrong from the get go and then it’s applied to everything so there’s no way to accurately measure exposure. Then factor in the bell distribution and you are massively overexposing huge numbers of people a few standard deviations out.
First kid was born and lived for a year or so when we had city water, which was flouridated. 2nd and 3rd kid were born where we were on well water, with no flouride.
First kid had no baby tooth cavities. Second and Third wound up with cavities on the front teeth, and we used topical flouridation for re-mineralization.
As a biochemist, this seems to be a very complex issue that has been unnecessarily politicized. What happened with this report is interesting in and of itself, but I would not draw any conclusions (or make any inferences) from this, frankly.
As someone who comes from an area with clean fresh water, that does not contain added fluoride, this is not a complex issue. It's simply not a question that comes up. People have good dental hygiene here.
To my mind, yes sure you can over complicate the entire debate, but all of that is irrelevant in the face of these basic points:
- Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health?
- Can tooth decay be prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste?
Presumed safety of chemicals (at the behest of organizations) to human/environment until proven otherwise is shocking to me.
They irony of all this is that if you want to buy good quality toothpaste you are forced to import it from overseas, due to the FDA limiting ingredients in toothpaste.
> but all of that is irrelevant in the face of these basic points:
> - Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health? - Can tooth decay be prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste?
When evaluating those points, be sure to assess what actually happens, in real life, to real people, and not what could happen in theory.
For example, even if tooth decay could be effectively "prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste" in theory, the effect might be smaller (possibly much smaller) in practice, as people in general suck at lifestyle changes, dieting being a prime example, and then a noticeable subset of the population has problems with regularly brushing their teeth (for some reason, this is surprising to many). Unless you have a way for fixing that (so far no one has), this may well make fluoridated water come out ahead in comparison.
--
EDIT: The above is similar to the argument for, e.g., opt-out health insurance and social retirement savings plans - you're still free to choose an alternative or decide to stay with the default, but if for some reason you can't understand the choice or can't be arsed to make one, you and everyone else are better off with you having some insurance and savings by default. The similarity is that we know for certain that the "incapable of making a choice" bucket will contain a substantial segment of the population, so at policy level, making health insurance/retirement savings opt-in with nothing as default, is just deciding to screw all those people over.
My understanding is that some water sources naturally contain fluoride anyhow so this isn’t a great comparison. From the sources I read awhile ago they started fluoride additives because it was known that certain areas like Texas had bad teeth.
They irony of all this is that if you want to buy good quality toothpaste you are forced to import it from overseas, due to the FDA limiting ingredients in toothpaste.
I never heard such a thing. Can you be more specific? Plus you can buy Darlie toothpaste in most Chinatown's around the world, even if unapproved by local dental orgs.
I always thought anti fluoridation sentiment in Utah was related to them having the highest dentist count per capita. It’s the only state that I know of where fluoridation isn’t common.
It seems pretty simple. Stop putting toxic waste in the water. If you’re worried about dental health, cut the sugar and use those little interdental brushes in addition to flossing and brushing well.
My wife comes from a country that did not add fluoride to the water. She has very good dental hygiene but here teeth are not in good shape for her age. That's one data point that I have observed.
"Children and adults of the low socio-economic strata tend to have substantially more untreated caries than higher strata. Salt fluoridation is by far the cheapest method for improving oral health."
Sure, good for you that you're in one of the higher socioeconomic strata who can take care of their teeth. Not everyone else is.
Besides being politicized, views on this issue will also be affected by personal experience. I've lived much of my life in Oregon, where there is no fluoridation. It seems to be widely believed by dentists here that people growing up in Oregon have poorer teeth and that it's largely because of the lack of fluoridation. I'm not arguing the merits, just pointing out the cultural belief.
What you’re pointing at is a scientific question of fact though, not a cultural belief. It’s the (or a) conclusion you’d likely reach after completing dental school.
There is a cultural/political side of the question, however: given that we know water fluoridation is safe and relatively efficacious at preventing caries, are we willing to pay for it and actually do it, and how much do we want to listen to people’s arbitrary feelings on the matter? That is a valid political question.
Twenty years ago, I moved from Michigan (a state that uses fluoride) to Mississippi (a state that doesn't use fluoride). My dentist at the time told me that I was going to end up with tooth decay if I stayed down there for more than a few years. Sure enough, five years later I moved back to Michigan and ended up with a cavity in an unusual place. My (new) dentist in Michigan was completely unsurprised.
He said there are two problems with tooth decay in Mississippi:
1. They don't use fluoride in their water.
2. No decent dentist would ever work in Mississippi.
Fifteen years later, with no changes in dental hygiene in my entire life, and I've had no other problems with my teeth. Anecdotal evidence, maybe. But that is my experience.
Fluoride is beneficial only when applied externally on the dental enamel, where it converts the hydroxyapatite synthesized by the human cells into fluorapatite, which is less soluble in the acids contained in food or excreted by bacteria.
On the other hand, ingested fluoride has no benefits, because it cannot reach the tooth enamel and when in too large quantities it has bad effects, e.g. it may cause bone damage.
Brushing the teeth or washing the mouth with something containing fluoride is very good, drinking water with fluoride is very stupid.
That is funny. However Ill postulate this: Why wouldn't someone go to where the most interesting work is to be found though? You don't become a military doctor if you don't find it interesting stitching up bullet holes. And vice versa, you don't become a military doctor if you're not interested in working on the same.
> Why wouldn't someone go to where the most interesting work is to be found though?
Well, Mississippi is ranked 34th in crime, 41st in education, 49th in healthcare, 49th in economy, 40th in fiscal stability, 47th in infrastructure and 36th in opportunity. Assuming a medical professional cares about anything other than "natural environment" in which they rank 16th, I suspect there's a long list of places they'd rather end up.
Not to refute your n=1, but reviews are a safer way of establishing whether something actually works. Eg here, from 2015:
> There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.
> No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.
> Over 97% of the studies were at high risk of bias and there was substantial between‐study variation
Genetics plays a huge roll. As does your daily dental hygiene routine. Based on you posting here means you probably have access to tooth brush, floss, tooth paste and somewhere to use them daily and effectively, this reduces the impact of water fluoridation variables.
Is brushing twice a day with fluoridated toothpaste and floss or similar not a thing in the US? In Europe most countries don't fluoride tap water and there's not a massive tooth decay problem.
And since oral hygiene seems to be linked to eg. Alzheimers (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/264164) and flouride seems to be indispensable oral hygiene thing the issue is not so straightforward...
The link you mention is from the mouth bacteria/plaques and their leakage into the blood stream near the brain.
Fluoride is not an antibiotic, so there is no plausible mechanism for it’s known topical benefits to prevent bacterial growth that might lead to Alzheimer’s (itself a theory, but an interesting one)
It's in other products instead. I think it depends on the country, but usually salt and toothpaste. I don't think there are any developed countries that have stopped fluoridation entirely.
And I am happy to live in a country that doesn't fluoridate its water. That way I can just wait out the whole scientific and political discussion and start drinking fluoridated water when it has finally and conclusively has been proven that it's beneficial. I suspect it wont be though, because it seems like the real scientists are saying no and the political scientists are saying yes.
Not sure if you are trolling but are you alluding that the US population has healthier teeth? The "difference you see" is most likely just the much more widespread usage of bleaching in the US (which actually worsens the health of your teeth).
> In vitro and in situ studies are demonstrating promising results of HAP toothpastes on the remineralization of enamel lesions and preventing/reducing demineralization. Specifically, research appears to demonstrate either its superiority or equivalency to fluoride toothpaste as anti-caries agents.
I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
Regardless of whether I'm on or off base in that regard, I see little reason to continue to use something that - at best - will only react with pre-existing enamel, when hydroxyapatite toothpastes can actually fix damage (albeit to a limited degree).
> I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
"CITIZEN, please check yourself into a fema retraining facility! The government is there to serve us all for the greater good."
Nevermind the double speak, where the term 'the greater good' means the good of those people who consider themselves to be greater than you.
So we know that there is definitely little benefit from ingesting fluoride, and also that we can not rule out negative effects from ingesting fluoride. This seems like... a bit of a big deal?
There are lots of "big deals" in the environment that we silently tolerate -- things which studies conclusively and repeatedly show are substantially detrimental:
* Roadside air pollution
* Lead pipes
* Indoor CO2 buildup
Studies relating to flouride are nowhere near as conclusive and show nowhere near the same magnitude of effect. If flouride is contributing negatively in a similar way, it's doing so to such a small extent that it very nearly falls within the margin of error. Anyone genuinely worried about flouride should consider double-checking that they've already taken more meaningful action regarding their health, such as going on a walk, getting a full night's rest, or opening a window.
Not from ingestion, but exposing the enamel periodically during the day to fluoride and having trace amounts of it on your saliva supports remineralisation.
This seems like it is ultimately a result of the politicization of the issue: it becomes difficult to have an honest conversation of the merits and demerits of something if you know there’s a political faction ready to seize on everything you say and take it out of context. Not saying that makes it right, but it’s an outcome we could anticipate, I think.
Readit News
As a general rule of thumb, I think it's interesting to scrutinize dosage recommendations and compare regulations between countries. If someone claims that the science on some topic is well settled then health officials in multiple countries should arrive at roughly similar results. If there's a discrepancy between the suggestions made by health officials in the US and EU, it's worth asking why.
Fluoride is beneficial only when applied externally on the dental enamel, so that the fluoride ions will passively substitute the hydroxide ions. There is no known biological process that uses actively fluoride in the human body and excessive ingested fluoride has bad effects, e.g. bone damage.
Therefore fluoride must be added only to tooth paste and mouth washes, which provides all the benefits and none of the risks.
Intentionally ingesting fluoride is incredibly stupid and it is beyond my power of understanding how this could be mandated by law in USA and in some other countries which imitated USA irrationally.
Same reason why they stared iodine to salt… because people were having mental development issues.
Now is it still necessary? That’s a different question but let’s not pretend that we don’t know why it was done.
Currently using BioMin F (fluorapatite - very little fluoride due to a novel delivery mechanism but still) but considering switching to BioMin C (nanohydroxyapatite)
It isn't mandated by law in the USA. All water contains some naturally occurring fluoride, some localities choose to add additional fluoride to their water in the USA but certainly not all. I'm pretty sure it is added in something like 60% of city water supplies.
I have swallowed my fair share of fluoride pills.
Are you to tell me that I should have been a galaxy brain but am now a smooth brain? Fvck!
Consider that fluoride ingestion has been linked with increased anxiety and depression[*]. Depending upon one's political objectives, this could be a desirable outcome. For instance, the "anti-terror" decades of invasion would be easier to accept for an anxious public. Or depression may lead to more consumer activity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258252498_Fluoride_...
Who to believe here, who should we believe here, hm, very difficult problem, adrian_b's passionate statements or practically all the professionals of the world. I go and contemplate over this for a while now. : )
Deleted Comment
There is of course the "that was the plan all along" hypothesis, that mild cognitive decay on a large scale is a useful outcome for control purposes.
Deleted Comment
It's been a popular and wide spread conspiracy theory that the "shadow government" is either trying to lower the IQ or the total population numbers using fluoride in the water supply. And since politicians don't get chosen on a basis of competency, but rather popularity, you have the vast majority being relatively severely logically challenged and thus unable to read scientific papers and understand complicated topics like child dental care.
COVID made it pretty clear that neither the general population nor most politicians are remotely qualified to make decisions. Not just medical decisions, just… decisions.
Whenever you point this out, people respond with studies that focused on topical application. This topic is weird. Otherwise intelligent people shut down and begin quoting movies from the 1960’s, and are somehow incapable of distinguishing between a topical mouthwash and oral consumption.
Might as well drink sunscreen and talk about the reduction in lip skin cancer.
We've been putting fluoride in water for a long time, and there are multiple studies that have looking in to it, I don't know why you think there aren't?
???
>Regular toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste is the principal non‐professional intervention to prevent caries, but the caries‐preventive effect varies according to different concentrations of fluoride in toothpaste, with higher concentrations associated with increased caries control.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398117/
Higher concentrations lead to better caries control (unless you go too high), what other evidence do you want?
The CDC recommends breastfeeding infants, as breastmilk contains significantly less fluoride than fluoridated drinking water. If breastfeeding is not possible, the CDC also endorses using fluoridated water in infant formula, though it suggests mixing the formula with low-fluoride bottled water to lessen the risk of dental fluorosis.
Infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated tap water can have three to four times higher fluoride exposure than adults, warned Lanphear. He added that before an infant's teeth erupt, there's no benefit to fluoride exposure. "There are vulnerable groups we have to be worried about," he said, "and that's not being brought out adequately by these agencies."
https://www.dentalcare.com/en-us/ce-courses/ce334/pre-erupti...
Excess exposure can cause fluorosis but nothing to do with the brain.
It’s in the entire water supply.
You were gestated in a womb of a woman consuming highly fluoridated water.
You were fed formula made with fluoridated water tuned to dose a 200lb man when you were 8lbs.
The water you drank as your bones were growing was similarly overdosed
The food you eat is washed in fluoridated water. The coffee and beer you drink is brewed with fluoridated water. The bread you eat is made with fluoridated water.
Basically, the dose is insanely wrong from the get go and then it’s applied to everything so there’s no way to accurately measure exposure. Then factor in the bell distribution and you are massively overexposing huge numbers of people a few standard deviations out.
It's two clicks away from an online shop for (fluoride) toothpaste.
First kid was born and lived for a year or so when we had city water, which was flouridated. 2nd and 3rd kid were born where we were on well water, with no flouride.
First kid had no baby tooth cavities. Second and Third wound up with cavities on the front teeth, and we used topical flouridation for re-mineralization.
To my mind, yes sure you can over complicate the entire debate, but all of that is irrelevant in the face of these basic points:
- Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health? - Can tooth decay be prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste?
Presumed safety of chemicals (at the behest of organizations) to human/environment until proven otherwise is shocking to me.
They irony of all this is that if you want to buy good quality toothpaste you are forced to import it from overseas, due to the FDA limiting ingredients in toothpaste.
> - Is there a chance that fluoride ingestion could be detrimental to human health? - Can tooth decay be prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste?
When evaluating those points, be sure to assess what actually happens, in real life, to real people, and not what could happen in theory.
For example, even if tooth decay could be effectively "prevented by diet and brush/floss with good quality toothpaste" in theory, the effect might be smaller (possibly much smaller) in practice, as people in general suck at lifestyle changes, dieting being a prime example, and then a noticeable subset of the population has problems with regularly brushing their teeth (for some reason, this is surprising to many). Unless you have a way for fixing that (so far no one has), this may well make fluoridated water come out ahead in comparison.
--
EDIT: The above is similar to the argument for, e.g., opt-out health insurance and social retirement savings plans - you're still free to choose an alternative or decide to stay with the default, but if for some reason you can't understand the choice or can't be arsed to make one, you and everyone else are better off with you having some insurance and savings by default. The similarity is that we know for certain that the "incapable of making a choice" bucket will contain a substantial segment of the population, so at policy level, making health insurance/retirement savings opt-in with nothing as default, is just deciding to screw all those people over.
Dead Comment
"Children and adults of the low socio-economic strata tend to have substantially more untreated caries than higher strata. Salt fluoridation is by far the cheapest method for improving oral health."
Sure, good for you that you're in one of the higher socioeconomic strata who can take care of their teeth. Not everyone else is.
There is a cultural/political side of the question, however: given that we know water fluoridation is safe and relatively efficacious at preventing caries, are we willing to pay for it and actually do it, and how much do we want to listen to people’s arbitrary feelings on the matter? That is a valid political question.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
He said there are two problems with tooth decay in Mississippi:
1. They don't use fluoride in their water. 2. No decent dentist would ever work in Mississippi.
Fifteen years later, with no changes in dental hygiene in my entire life, and I've had no other problems with my teeth. Anecdotal evidence, maybe. But that is my experience.
On the other hand, ingested fluoride has no benefits, because it cannot reach the tooth enamel and when in too large quantities it has bad effects, e.g. it may cause bone damage.
Brushing the teeth or washing the mouth with something containing fluoride is very good, drinking water with fluoride is very stupid.
Well, Mississippi is ranked 34th in crime, 41st in education, 49th in healthcare, 49th in economy, 40th in fiscal stability, 47th in infrastructure and 36th in opportunity. Assuming a medical professional cares about anything other than "natural environment" in which they rank 16th, I suspect there's a long list of places they'd rather end up.
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
Deleted Comment
> There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.
> No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.
> Over 97% of the studies were at high risk of bias and there was substantial between‐study variation
From here: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
TLDR: The existing research is low quality.
Dead Comment
This sounds like some elitist BS.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Fluoride is not an antibiotic, so there is no plausible mechanism for it’s known topical benefits to prevent bacterial growth that might lead to Alzheimer’s (itself a theory, but an interesting one)
Dead Comment
Yes, but… no.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/ - Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8930857/ - The use of hydroxyapatite toothpaste to prevent dental caries
> In vitro and in situ studies are demonstrating promising results of HAP toothpastes on the remineralization of enamel lesions and preventing/reducing demineralization. Specifically, research appears to demonstrate either its superiority or equivalency to fluoride toothpaste as anti-caries agents.
I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
Regardless of whether I'm on or off base in that regard, I see little reason to continue to use something that - at best - will only react with pre-existing enamel, when hydroxyapatite toothpastes can actually fix damage (albeit to a limited degree).
"CITIZEN, please check yourself into a fema retraining facility! The government is there to serve us all for the greater good."
Nevermind the double speak, where the term 'the greater good' means the good of those people who consider themselves to be greater than you.
Dose makes the poison. Literally any chemical in sufficient dose is poisonous
It's too bad we can't displace the bacteria themselves instead of working downstream from that.
* Roadside air pollution
* Lead pipes
* Indoor CO2 buildup
Studies relating to flouride are nowhere near as conclusive and show nowhere near the same magnitude of effect. If flouride is contributing negatively in a similar way, it's doing so to such a small extent that it very nearly falls within the margin of error. Anyone genuinely worried about flouride should consider double-checking that they've already taken more meaningful action regarding their health, such as going on a walk, getting a full night's rest, or opening a window.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment