this post was submitted on 08 May 2024

343 points (95.3% liked)

News

35749 readers

1954 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

343

Medical freedom vs. public health: Should fluoride be in our drinking water? (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

325 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Misinformation campaigns increasingly target the cavity-fighting mineral, prompting communities to reverse mandates. Dentists are enraged. Parents are caught in the middle.

The culture wars have a new target: your teeth.

Communities across the U.S. are ending public water fluoridation programs, often spurred by groups that insist that people should decide whether they want the mineral — long proven to fight cavities — added to their water supplies.

The push to flush it from water systems seems to be increasingly fueled by pandemic-related mistrust of government oversteps and misleading claims, experts say, that fluoride is harmful.

“The anti-fluoridation movement gained steam with Covid,” said Dr. Meg Lochary, a pediatric dentist in Union County, North Carolina. “We’ve seen an increase of people who either don’t want fluoride or are skeptical about it.”

There should be no question about the dental benefits of fluoride, Lochary and other experts say. Major public health groups, including the American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, support the use of fluoridated water. All cite studies that show it reduces tooth decay by 25%.

(page 6) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] insomniac_lemon@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

I am once again saying: Why not hydroxyapitite? A form of calcium, same as our teeth/bones. It even has water management uses because it adsorbs other stuff like fluoride and lead, which actually makes finding info about its addition to water for the purpose of teeth health difficult.

Though it seems like hydroxyapatite water would also make fluoride toothpaste even more effective.

The mineral ions introduced during remineralisation restore the structure of the hydroxyapatite crystals. If fluoride ions are present during the remineralisation, through water fluoridation or the use of fluoride-containing toothpaste, the stronger and more acid-resistant fluorapatite crystals are formed instead of the hydroxyapatite crystals.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] nixcamic@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Hey how come the government gets to put water in my pipes at all? There my pipes! True freedom is them being completely empty.

[–] Canis_76@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I'm sure this has already been asked. I'm too lazy to read all comments. Um, why would the dentists be mad? Are they not all in it for the money?

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I'm a sane libertarian (I promise some of us do exisit). People absolutely have a right to determine what goes in to their body, but fluoride is such a weird hill to die on. In particular when fortified grains are a mandate of the same ilk. All of this has a history, and shocker, it was always steeped in the same "but our culture" wrapping...

Edit: tl;Dr if you don't want to watch the video: and pellagra was proven to be one of those diseases that is zero problem... So long as your diet doesn't suck. The science had push back because it upset the economics. We're fighting the same battles now we were then.

Edit2: yes. I'm a libertarian, because as much as they're freaking nuts it still stems from a disagreement of a stated principle. A principle which had them back a ton of LGBTQ rights before anyone else. I'm voting Biden in 2024, strictly because I'd like to vote in 2028, but godamn this is how 2016 happened.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=reYKBgdrZsM&pp=ygUWUGVsbGFncmEgZXh0cmEgaGlzdG90eQ%3D%3D

[–] pb42184@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, it seems like complaining about government provided WiFi.

"What if I don't WANT my kids on the internet dangit!?"

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Lol, a bit late but a certain degree yes. Like as a libertarian Ill never be able to square taking money from someone's paycheck in NYC for subsidizing internet in Montana.

But... No one actually cares about that... Eve libertarians, because it's peanuts next to a shitty new f-30whatever that will ever fly.

It's by no mean perfect, and has been massively corrupted by whatever the hell we have going on right now in the US. But the principle of "if it doesn't affect anyone, stop talking to me" is a good one, and at least it's a stated one.

So yeah, I do kinda think people should have the right NOT to make cakes for gay weddings. Sure. Do I care when they're forced to? Ehhhhh. You were going to be out of business soon because you're a godamn asshole sooooo not really no I don't care lol.

So no, the gov should subsidize wifi, but they also already subsidize all sorts of shit, so youre damn right you have to service those folks. I guess that's the thing, libertarianism neccesaties egalitarianism, and nothing else does.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This comes up in Portland periodically as we are one of the few places that DOESN'T fluoridate water.

When you do the research on it, you find some fascinating things:

Applying fluoride topically through toothpaste or mouthwash unequivocably works wonders for tooth decay.

There is no evidence drinking it as part of the water supply does ANYTHING. Positive or negative.

You have to understand one big thing... The first municipality to add fluoride to water did so in 1945.

The first fluoridated toothpaste wouldn't hit the market until 1955, 10 years later (thanks Crest!)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/second-thoughts-on-fluoride/

So when you look at studies trying to determine if drinking water as a source is effective, you need to immediately ignore any study done before the introduction of fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] pb42184@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Ok so seems clear to me there's no real harm, but is there alleged benefit for adults? I've never had to rely on a municipal well so as a kid I had fluoride treatments and used fluoridated paste, but always thought it was just for kids. Is there benefit for me as a 40yo (with no cavities if it matters)?

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments