Comments like this are the clearest sign that this topic has become so politicized that rational judgement is out the window. If fluoride in the water is opposed by *those people*, or is supported by *those people*, then even if new clear evidence comes out one way or another, it will be undermined by not wanting to hand the other side a ‘W’.

In an era where conspiracy theories are rampant, yeah, I'm kind of averse to letting conspiracy theorists win anything.

I'm not going to put myself in danger to avoid it. But when the evidence is marginal, social factors are something I'll take into account.

Even if there is indeed a problem with fluoridated water, it only shows up in a small effect that requires a large sample to see. The conspiracy theorists were guessing, even if they guessed right. And they ignored the data that had been gathered.

Science changes its mind, but conspiracy theorists never do. They accumulate, and it looks to me as if we're about to drown in them.

We literally just got a ruling against the EPA on fluoridation as being dangerously risky levels. As even The Guardian admits, it’s possible there actually is something to the claims of danger.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation...

Of course, the EPA would never live it down if the anti-fluoridation people actually had something to their claims.

"The EPA now must perform a risk assessment that is among the first steps in setting new limits under the Toxic Substances Control Act."

What's stopping them from coming back with the same or higher acceptable levels of that's where the evidence leads?

That’s not an accurate summary of the ruling. The ruling orders the EPA to re-evaluate the safety of fluoridation, but does so because the statutory evidentiary standard here is preponderance, not overwhelming evidence.

(It’s also not a ruling “against” the EPA. It’s entirely consistent with the statute, and the EPA will presumably act in accordance with it and produce yet another study demonstrating marginal-to-zero harm associated with fluoridation below 1.5mg/L.)

You are only feeding the growth of conspiracy theories if, when confronted with one that is true, you continually deny it. If they see actual evidence being denied, they think there’s something there.

I'm not planning to deny evidence. But I don't think the conspiracy theorists need my help to think there's something there. If I don't give them something they will just make something up. That is the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Lol wow, this is such a non-rational mindset that I can't even imagine being that way for even a few minutes.

You have a set of experiences where the scientific method didn't allow for changing of results or conclusions?

Maybe you have a set of experiences where you've successfully debunked conspiracy theories and converted previous believers?

Otherwise I'm not sure how you can make such a wild claim.

I'm getting the feeling that you are constantly fighting against a set of made up conspiracy theorists that exist in your head. I will refuse to live like that lol.

Mate, you've just outlined what I'd describe as a conspiracy theory:

You've decided to weigh social factors over evidence because you believe the other side isn't behaving rationally.

How about brush your teeth with fluoride and spit it out instead?

Fluoride in the water impacts the development of teeth. Portland, where I live, is the last major city to not have fluoride in the water.

So kids have to take tablets if they want the impact. But this is far less effective.

Ask a dentist here. Locals have more tooth decay.

Other American cities without fluoride in their water include Tucson, Wichita, Fresno, Albuquerque and San Jose. I wonder how their teeth are doing.

Check again.

San Jose’s added it. Albuquerque added it. Fresno removed it after having it. Tucson and Wichita does not - but Tucson’s level is about 50% of the recommended level.

By comparison Portland’s is 3%. Probably why dentists see high level of tooth decay here.

Looks like San Jose got it in the late 2010s (2017/2019 timeframe). There are lots of people on HN from that area - hopefully someone can comment on the general state of children / people's teeth prior to then.

Since we're doing anecdotes, my kids grew up on well water and have never had cavities or tooth problems. They (most of the time) brush their teeth daily, eat sugary crap, and get fluoride treatments applied yearly from the dentist (they "paint" a gel on the kids teeth, I believe this is standard in the US for all children regardless of water fluoridation).

I’ll note that this anecdote can cut both ways: well water is just as likely to have more fluoride than fluoridated municipal water, since fluoride is naturally occurring, soluble, and commonly found in rock formations that also hold water.

What are the measured natural flouride levels of the well water you referenced and how did they compare to the municipal water supply?

What about genetic predisposition to cavities?

Dietary fluoride has a minimal impact, you need fluoride on the surface of the tooth. A fluoride rinse is much more effective that tablets or in the water.

Not for tooth development - ie permanent teeth in children.

Tablets that the kids ingest?? After so much evidence of the neurotoxic effects of ingested fluoride, it's worse than criminal if these dentists are giving fluoride for kids to eat.

> Portland, where I live, is the last major city to not have fluoride in the water.

Kind of depends how you track things I'd think. New Jersey, the state with the highest population density in the US, largely doesn't put fluoride in the water outside of a few municipalities.

There's no fluoride in the water in almost the entirety of Hudson, Essex, and Bergen counties, which are located near NYC and include the cities of Newark and Jersey City. Combined population of those three counties is over 2.5 million people.