Skip to main content

View Diary: Who wants fluoride in their beer? (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's not how science works: (5+ / 0-)

    I can provide you individual links to studies that do show this (see Roadbed Guy's link to PubMed above), and I'm sure you can post a few competing studies for all the reasons I laid out above, but the issue we're disagreeing about is how consensus science works, and how that informs public policy.  

    But if you want individual studies, they're all over the place.  Newcastle and Manchester. Australia. Ireland. Brazil. Hong Kong. (Note that these studies were all published in the last six months.)   Individually these are just discussions of likely evidence that fluoridation of the water supply resulted in a decrease of tooth decay in the population, some are stronger than others (some are just surveys of old data), and each of the studies individually caveats their finding in appropriate ways.  Together, with the mountains of studies confirming similar results, we approach something like a likely consensus that fluoridation does indeed lower the incidence of tooth decay and, at appropriately low levels, has few side effects outside of occasion and mild tooth discoloration.

    This is light years ahead of the kind of evidence that you're providing, e.g. linking fluoride to IQ, which amounts to a couple of methodologically shaky studies in China.

    Yet - and this is the complaint I started this thread with - groups like Clean Water Portland will tell you the IQ stuff is solid research, and the benefits of fluoridation are overstated.  That's the opposite of what the available research says.  And that's a real problem.

    I'll reiterate one last time that I think there is a more defensible argument to be made related to the current state of dental hygiene in this country (the availability of fluoride and access to good dentists, etc.).  But you're not going to win by asserting the science so broadly.  It's just not on your side.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Sat May 18, 2013 at 05:41:34 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So it has not been validated either way (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos

      Using your logic.

      Reinforcing my point we are guinea pigs.

      •  Again, that's not how science works. (5+ / 0-)

        There is no such thing as "validated" by the standard you want.  Plain water can't be "validated" by science.  Did you know drinking too much water puts you at risk of hyponatremia, even death?  That's not even counting the number of people who drown every year.  What exactly is the health/safety threshold you need?

        I refer you back to the very first comment I made in this post: the opposition to fluoridation is primarily ideological, not scientific.  That's fine, and you can make a case that way.  But when you start invoking science - as you did in the diary, and continue to do in the comments - your arguments don't hold much water.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Sat May 18, 2013 at 07:39:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site