404
Kids' cavities would increase by millions if every state banned fluoride, study finds
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 30 May 2025
404 points (97.4% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
3047 readers
169 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I hate just how the fluoride conspiracy theory is still a thing when it's been proven time and time again that fluoride is needed to maintain healthy dental hygine.
They know it's bullshit, they're just using it to sell the idea to morons.
The point is actually the increase in cavities. They want to make it even more expensive to be poor, with the ultimate goal of starving out anyone who isn't profitable.
I agree, although I would say the misinformed and decieved because this is all caused by the top 1%.
Exactly, this is why I find the current misinformation/data enshitification landscape to be quite insidious as actions like this only widens the wealth gap with poorer people suffering more for the benefit of the rich.
Same situation but in the tech field:
People who believe in disprovable conspiracy theories, literally don't care about the truth.
They don't think it might be true, they think they know it's true. They've convinced themselves that since they have "seen through the lies" and learned "secret knowledge", that makes them smarter than everyone who dismisses their theory. And the majority are so far gone that they're extremely afraid of admitting they were wrong. Since they've spent years rolling their eyes and joking about how dumb other people are. And if they admit they were wrong, they have to admit to themselves that all that time they were actually the dumb one. So usually they double down even in the face of evidence they produced themselves.
TL;DR: Most conspriacy theorists are stupid and think their theory proves them a genius. That's why the weird ones persist.
I think calling it a conspiracy theory is not entirely fair. It's a genuine scientific debate, hindered by the lack of proper evidence and studies that apply to the US.
Read https://www.statnews.com/2025/01/06/fluoride-iq-jama-pediatrics-critiques-meta-analysis/ for example, it highlights a recent meta-study that found a small, but non-negligible effect on neurodevelopment if people were ingesting fluoride. But a lot of studies it relies on have some asterisks attached. Those are properly accounted for in the meta-study, but ultimately the answer is "we don't really know".
Many western countries don't add fluoride to the drinking water; many used to do so in the past but stopped. There were the concerns about neurotoxicity (albeit minor) but also some ethical concerns regarding mass-medicating the population without any realistic opt-out. But the other major reason is that those countries have the population exercise good dental practices like brushing twice a day with fluoridated toothpaste, which is spat out instead of swallowed. This avoids concerns of neurotoxicity but maintains the dental benefits: a best of both worlds basically (also endorsed by most scientists).
The US has systemic poverty issues, and a large part of the population do not observe these good dental practices, not necessarily through ill-will but rather because they lack the money to buy toothpaste. Because of that, removing fluoride will likely increase cavities in the US, unlike in other western countries.
Ideally the US keeps the fluoride around until these systemic poverty issues are largely resolved. But knowing the current shitstains in government...
People would find a way to demonize vitamin B if the government had a program to supply it to people for free.
But why put it in the water and drink it, better to have in in toothpaste and mouthwash if you can't brush
Because it's shown that adding it to the drinking water is safe for human consumption and at the same time causes significantly lower dental issues. It's a jet positive, always has been
It actually works much better in salt: your teeth are exposed to higher concentrations of fluoride for longer periods of time, yet you consume less total fluoride. Plenty of countries fluoridate salt much like we iodize it.
Poor people. To repeat myself:
Fair point. Although I've used my 2$ toothbrush for two years now. I think even if you're poor you could get a toothbrush. Even if you don't afford toothpaste just brushing goes a long way.
My cousins never brush their teeth, but they drink tap water. Their teeth has outlasted their parents teeth by 10 years and counting
Is fluoride the only option? Is not hydroxyapatite in toothpaste as effective as fluoride in toothpaste and cannot it be used as replacement for fluoride in toothpaste?
Wikipedia: Hydroxyapatite#SafetyConcerns
Based off the article and the cited Opinion document by the EU's safety committee (SCCS) it seems like rod-shaped nano hydroxyapatite is safe for use in only toothpaste provided that at least 95.8% (particle count) are comprised of rod-shaped instead of needle-shaped particles and in addition are not coated or surface modified.
I'll be honest in that a bit of this sentence especially regarding the aspect ratio is somewhat incomprehensible to me as the sentence structure obscures what they're trying to communicate.
I believe by aspect ratio, they mean the ratio of diameter to length of the rod shaped structures. At an aspect ratio of less than 3, the structures are more cylinder shaped than rod shaped.
So the minerals must be mostly stubby cylinder shaped, and less than 4.2% can be needle shaped or long rod shaped. Same problem we had with asbestos actually, that the long thin needle shaped fibers were physically damaging to tissue.
Fluoride is certainly needed for cavity protection. But. Fluoride was added to water before its mechanism of action was understood.
It was known that people who had naturally-present fluoride in their wells had fewer cavities, so they started emulating the fluoride concentration in city water. Which worked.
But.
We have since learned that fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash provide more than sufficient quantities of fluoride, such that there is no longer a significant difference between people with fluoridated public water supplies and people with private wells lacking fluoride.
Fluoridated water isn't harmful. But it's not actually beneficial anymore.
You underestimate poverty and child neglect a lot
You mean State neglect. Toothpaste should be free if you're poor
Extend that out.
All basic health care products should be free for everyone regardless of income.
If they're so neglected they're not brushing their teeth, fluoride in the water is not going to help much.
Demonstrably false
Obviously floride in water is not a substitute for toothpaste, but it has been shown to have the greatest effects amongst the poorest children. Spreading lies just leads to poor kids with cavities
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6439886/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300571200000051
Maybe I'm not spreading lies, maybe I'm merely misinformed. Fuck off. Great way to get me listening to you.
Fluoride is beneficial. Putting fluoride in something that we use is beneficial. But, once you put reasonable concentrations in toothpaste, the trace amounts in water provide no additional benefit.
I'm not saying we should get rid of fluoridation. I'm not saying we should keep it. I'm saying that there is no good reason for outrage one way or another.
Fluoridated water is not an adequate replacement for proper dental hygiene. Getting toothpaste and toothbrushes to poor people is infinitely more important than fluoridated water, and I'll save my own outrage for universal healthcare, including dental.
This particular hill ain't worth dying on.
You're saying lies. Modern studies have shown fluoride in water benefits the poorest children. These are the most vulnerable populations with limited access to dental care (at home and professional).
Stop spreading lies. No it doesn't fully replace toothpaste, but there is a demonstrable benefit
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6439886/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300571200000051
With or without fluoridated water, the poorest kids have the worst dental health. Fluoridated water significantly - but only partially - improves dental health for the poorest kids.
Rural kids on private, non-fluoridated wells have sufficient dental health despite no access to fluoridated water. They get the majority of their fluoride the same place you get the bulk of your fluoride: toothpaste.
If we are going to rely on passive fluoridation instead of toothpaste, salt is a superior delivery method. Fluoridated salt is used to reach nearly 100% of the populace in many countries, At most, fluoridated water is only available to about 80% of the US. Fluoridated salt allows higher concentrations of fluoride in saliva with lower total consumption.
We only use fluoridated water to duplicate the original discovery. It's actually a piss-poor delivery method.
This "limited access" should be pissing you off infinitely more. Anything less than the "access" you are talking about should be considered neglect. Fluoridated water is only beneficial if we are actively neglecting out kids. When we stop neglecting them, fluoridated water serves no purpose.
You're dying on the "poor kids should have cavities hill" whether or not you realize it. It is shown to work and provide better dental health to the most vulnerable populations. I'm sorry you don't like the facts or the science behind it.
I'm sorry it's not a perfect system, but removing it does nothing but harm. Of course we should be providing everyone access to dental and Healthcare. We can have that conversation AND prevent what we have now that's helping kids from being taken away. You don't take away what you have before providing the improvement.
Now quit advocating/defending the stances of Trump/Republicans and advocate instead for those that will be suffering.
Fluoridated Salt. Toothpaste. Universal healthcare. I keep throwing out vastly superior options, and you keep coming back to the status quo.
Pivot toward progress. They want to kill off a program. What would you need them to agree to before yoy would be willing to let it go?
Fluoridated water only benefits neglected kids. If we didn't have neglected kids, we wouldn't need fluoridated water. What can we do to ensure kids aren't neglected? Let's pivot to that. Let's demand that.
They can get their "win" on something that doesn't matter, and we can get our win on something that actually does.
Progress. To hell with the status quo.
You are still missing the point.
One the government will not be bringing those things into effect now. And before you say it neither of us will be starting an armed revolution so save that rhetoric, but you are welcome to prove me wrong.
Two, you do not end the safety net before you implement the solution. That will only cause harm.
Three, I can fight to maintain access to something that helps poor children today AND pursue a better solution.
All you're doing is supporting the rhetoric of the Republicans and advocating to harm children.
We should strive to be better, but we shouldn't pull away access to our basic social safety nets before we replace them. We should do that only after the better system is in place
You're still advocating the status quo. You are not advocating the "solution".
Instead of actively advocating for improvement, you're actively advocating dragging our feet against Republicans advancing their agenda. You're advocating slowing their regression. You're not advocating progress yourself. You're only trying to slow them down.
You accuse me of missing the point; I assure you, I haven't. I am very well aware that harm will arise if no alternative is enacted. I am trying to redirect your attention toward superior alternatives, but you seem hell bent on buttressing the status quo rather than seeking improvement. You're playing a weak defense. You need to go on the offensive.
I don't know what fantasy land you live in, but there is no way this government will be implementing any progressive reform. Cool dream, but it's not happening. And they certainly won't be preemptively enacting it.
Once again I'm all for your progressive solutions. They sound great, but this government will not enact them. Even if they would they will remove the existing system before hand causing harm and suffering.
Harm and suffering you keep supporting for some reason.
What government are you talking about?
This isn't a federal issue. This is state and local. There are 48 state governments and thousands of county and municipal governments involved in decisions on fluoridated water and public health.
Your heel-dragging approach does not call for improvement, just slowing the regression. You have been exposed to several options in this thread for improvement, by me and several others. You have yet to promote any of them. You are continuing to try to drag your feet rather than promote improvement.
Fluoridated salt is a massive improvement over fluoridated water. Promote fluoridation of salt. Fluoridated toothpaste is a massive improvement over fluoridated water. Promote toothpaste.
For preventing caries, fluoridated water is actually the second worst option, in that it is only marginally better than doing absolutely nothing.
Stop promoting mediocrity. Demand better.
Be glad you live a privileged life and don't have to live with the suffering and harm of your rhetoric.
I will advocate for the better and protect what we have now too because I actually care about people.
I won't hold my breath.
I mean you wouldn't have to hold it long, so go ahead if you'd like. You seem to think I'm anti-progress just because unlike you I don't want children to suffer.
I think the conservative approach you are displaying here is emblematic of the last federal election cycle: pissed off at the direction of travel, but unwilling to actually move forward.
I will notice that you have you to make any public statement toward any of the superior options presented to you, nor have you presented your own. To date, your only comments on alternatives to the second-worst option that you do support has been to denounce the intentions of such proponents as trying to make children suffer.
This is the hill I have been talking about the entire time. This is a particularly stupid hill. The only path off of this hill is back the way you came.
Well so you're wrong there. I've agreed with you quite a few times. I've even stated that we need to expand Healthcare access to everyone.
Also don't bother bringing up the election, that's over and we have a new reality that we need to survive.
So let's actually go through your ideas.
Fluorinated salt great idea, but unfortunately due to interstate commerce laws is unlikely one state could require it. The federal government will not be doing that.
Ending poverty and child neglect. I mean obviously yes, but that's something we've been working on for a while. States actually do tend to try that. Unfortunately due to cuts to federal grants and programs many state services are struggling to help. States alone don't have the budget to make up the deficit. They could raise taxes but Americans are dumb.
Expanding access to dental and medical care. Absolutely, we needed universal Healthcare 30 years ago. However this regime will not be voting for that, and unfortunately many states could now see their Medicaid benefits cut. Meaning less people get benefits. Notably that is the only way I myself was able to have access to dental care.
I agree all of these things would be good, but they are being obstructed at every level. I vote, I protest, but that's not been effective yet. Like I said neither of us are starting the revolution, but feel free to prove me wrong.
The only pragmatic approach left is to fight for what we have and try to force this regime to a standstill (doubt the Senate will do this). My goal is to survive and reduce harm. With any luck we see a reversal during mid-terms but I doubt it.
We're kinda fucked, but by allowing them to remove what safety nets we have will only cause suffering. They will not put better alternatives in their place.
All you have done is offer solutions that are fantasy. This regime will not implement them, and with the cuts many states are facing they can't afford to. Instead of only supporting your idea of a perfect solution, fight to keep our current safety nets in place. Fight to reduce suffering, and then fight for something better.
I want a better world, but in the short term I want to reduce suffering. Thankfully I won't fall for your fallacies, you can have both. And I will do both
Yet you only promote the second-worse world available. Curious.
Conservatism is a disease.
That's honestly a hilarious response. Backed into a corner much?
Enjoy the child suffering you're so fond of, and keep denying the science. ✌️
This was my understanding as well. Also, high fluoride concentrations can be deleterious, but those concentrations aren't found in our water supplies.