Toxicologist, toxicity, minuscule, fluoridated – your big doctor words are just trying to trick us!
The question is: does it make sense to buy toothpaste with fluoride then or can I buy one without? Just because my kids don’t like the peppermint ones and other flavours are most of the times without fluoride
Non-fluoridated toothpaste is mainly for kids who are too young to be able to consistently spit it all out. The concentration of fluoride in toothpaste is high enough that you shouldn’t be swallowing it, because doing that on the regular is harmful to your teeth. Gray discoloration is one of the first symptoms.
If your kids are capable of doing “rinse and spit,” then they should be using fluoridated toothpaste.
And even then, there’s a significant safety margin worked into the advice that you shouldn’t swallow toothpaste. You’d need to eat several tubes of prescription strength toothpaste to get sick from fluoride.
Still rinse and spit though
Absolutely true - and I just remembered, even if your kids are little and using non-fluoridated toothpaste, you should still be using this time to teach them rinse and spit.
What is this rinse? You are supposed to leave the toothpaste on your teeth iirc. No water rinse.
Edit sorry realized this comes off harsh but not sure how to fix it. Lmao
With you having to judge millions of children, that you need to get high just to stay sane; you get a pass.
But there is a general recommendation to not eat or drink for 15-30min after brushing to give enough time for the fluoride to bind to any exposed enamel surfaces. It’s also better to use a fluoridated mouthrinse over water, if getting the grittyness is what you’re after.
Fluoridated toothpaste is more effective than drinking water. The fluoride works by direct contact with the enamel. Another reason it doesn’t make sense to put it in drinking water.
Fluoride in the water is beneficial in the pre-eruptive phase (when teeth are still growing). Fluoride ingestion increases tooth resistence to cavities if the ingestion happened while they were growing.
This does mean that fluoride in water isn’t really useful after you have all your permanent teeth though.
Always buy flouride toothpaste.
For other toothpaste that still strengthens enamel, there is toothpaste with hydroxyapatite (which can be ingested, at least that specific ingredient). Though it is probably more expensive.
Unfortunately hydroxyapatite is not approved for dental use in the United States of America.
I mean you can buy it here in a normal store. So I’m not sure if you mean a dentist can’t use/provide it, or if you’re thinking about the nano forms of it.
Edit, just saw this:
the FDA regulates dental products like toothpaste as cosmetics rather than therapeutic agents for cavity prevention
Interestingly, many ingredients used in dental care, including fluoride, are employed off-label. This means they are used in ways not officially approved by the FDA but are still considered effective based on scientific evidence and clinical practice
Agreed but can we turn down the chloramine valve? It tastes awful.
The question about this is that the same can be said about lead. Do we want to consume that?
Next headline will be how fluoride contributes to autism and it will have just as much evidence as the vaccine bit does. How is this even a thing? Is ground zero on this RFK?
Meanwhile, all the people who can’t afford dentists will have even worse teeth going forward. Make America’s teeth British again.
Well look at the statistics:
Fluoride:
- Water fluoridation in the United States began in the 1940s
- By 1949, nearly 1 million Americans were receiving fluoridated tap water
- In 1951, the number jumped dramatically to 4.85 million people
- By 1952, the number nearly tripled again to 13.3 million Americans
- In 1954, the number exceeded 20 million people
- In 1965 an additional 13.5 million Americans gained access to fluoridated water.
- By 1969, 43.7% of Americans had access to fluoridated tap water.
- In 2000, approximately 162 million Americans (65.8% of the population served by public water systems) received optimally fluoridated water
- 2006: 69.2% of people on public water systems (61.5% of total population)
- 2012: 74.6% of people on public water systems (67.1% of total population)
Autism:
- First recognised in the 1940s
- During the 1960s and 1970s, prevalence estimates were approximately 0.5 cases per 1,000 children.
- Prevalence rates increased to about 1 case per 1,000 children in the 1980s.
- 2000: 1 in 150 children
- 2006: 1 in 110 children
- 2014: 1 in 59 children
- 2016: 1 in 54 children
- 2020: 1 in 36 children
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
/s because people think I posted this in seriousness.
Damn, I guess fluoridated water also then caused computers, world population growth and the eradication of polio.
Idk if this is a troll post or this person never heard of the fact that correlation does not equal causation.
This is, and I don’t say this lightly, one of the dumbest conclusions I’ve ever seen someone jump to.
Might as well say that fluoride in the water caused software developers, lmao.
Actually, software developers cause autism
Satire, I think.
Classic ice cream sales and violent crimes in summer correlation.
It’s too much like the real anti-fluoride arguments, man. I can’t recognize it, man.
Let’s ignore the better diagnosis processes and just take two trending upward statistics and make a broad correlation and call it fact.
They need to do stuff like this often in HS to show students how you can bullshit truths and make its facade of truth feel legit.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic but if not, then I’m about to blow your fucking mind
STOP EATING RICE!
NAME YOUR DAUGHTER SARAH, IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THE AMAZON! AND WHATEVER YOU DO…
…DO NOT NAME THEM TRISTEN
If we shut down flights to Antarctica, inflation would’ve been solved yesterday.
deleted by creator
Democrats would love it. Republicans would suddenly discover that flouride is the only thing standing between our children and the gay agenda.
deleted by creator
The fluoride is intentionally added to the water to improve tooth health.
My barometer is when it’s something that pretty much only the U.S. is obsessed with doing, then it’s probably a dumb thing caused by lobbyists or something. Fluoridation of water falls under this.
I don’t understand your point.
Nobody drinks the ocean. Fluoride is barely active topically. Most humans rarely if at all swim in the ocean.
Talking about the ocean is odd, but there are towns in the UK (and most countries I’d assume?) where the natural level of fluoride is higher than the concentration they aim for when adding fluoride. I think that’s a pretty good argument for it being safe - the people of Hartlepool have been drinking fluoride rich water for 13 centuries and don’t have any noticeable issues compared to the rest OF County Durham.
Yeah. It’s not an entirely salient point. It does, however, underline the ubiquitous nature of fluorine.
The biggest source of Flourine in the environment is just the normal weathering of rocks that contain it. The biggest of the anthropogenic sources include brick production, phosphate fertiliser application and coal burning.
The minor amount added to drinking water really wouldn’t be the biggest issue if it was as toxic as it’s made out to be.
This is a better argument than the one in the post. No one is worried about acute toxicity of fluoride but rather long term. But it’s not long term toxic, doesn’t accumulate in the body, and is only present in very low amounts in water. However it should be enough to use fluoridated toothpaste to get the positive effects.
I feel like I woke up in the movie Dr. Strangelove
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Second time I got to post this today, unfortunately because it’s almost ceased being satire.
the people that need to hear this will never believe you.
How much oatmeal would I have to eat to die of fluoride poisoning?
Oh yeah? And what if someone ignores that, simply lies and says it’s toxic? I’m convinced!
And both of these people telling me about fluoride in water are both experts in their field. One an expert toxicologist, and the other an expert liar. Now I don’t know what to believe.
Back when I was in college, people didn’t like fluoride because it calcifies the pinneal gland. I assume that rhetoric has only been further exaggerated over the years
It does do this. However so does ageing, low sunlight exposure, low altitude, ethnicity, sex, nutrition, neuro-divergence, cell phone use, EM fields… you get the idea.
So, once again, DHMO is the chemical we need to fear.
Any chemical that can exist as a solid, a liquid and a gas at the same time isn’t safe to put into our bodies!
The stuff also known as hydric acid. People just don’t talk enough about how corrosive it is. Plus, it gets in the air and gets in your lungs!
There was an incident involving it on April 14th 1912 that took over 1500 lives.
I heard that anyone who’s ever come into contact with it has later died
terrorists will drink vast amounts of it every day before an attack
Its a common component of all cancer cells, and trace amounts have been found in the blood of dead lab rats.
It’s 10 million times more acidic than drain cleaner!!! And the government is trying to force you to drink it by forcing it to be used in municipal drinking fountains
It’s so pervasive that they have found it in the bodies of every single child worldwide.
But what about our precious bodily fluids?
I don’t avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.
Fluoridated water doesn’t seem to make a difference on cavities. It does have neurological effects. It’s simply not acutely fatal. It’s already in our toothpaste. We don’t need it in our municipal water supply and the majority of developed countries don’t.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/
Thank you for the link. It’s worth mentioning that there are response letters to the publication you linked from other experts, the majority of which are critical and point out misinterpretations and omissions by the author. It’s always good to question, but in this instance it looks like the consensus amongst experts evaluating that publication is still that fluoridation is safe and improves dental health. The response letters can be read here.
Edit to add: The responses include a letter from the dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine stating that the publication is deeply flawed and requesting a retraction, and a similar condemnation from the students of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The article was given greater weight by being linked to Harvard, but in fact Harvard dental experts explicitly disagree.
Your link is more or less an opinion piece from a geneticist, so this isn’t even her field of study.
All her health issues she points out are for fluoride concentrations over triple the amount that tap water is brought up to.
The reason it’s usage spread across the country was because while the entire country had access to things such as fluoridated toothpaste, counties and cities that started fluoridation of their water supplies consistently had fewer cavities than areas that didn’t fluoridate the water. This alone outlines the glaringly obvious flaw in her argument.
Further still, while the US adds fluoride to the tap water in a concentration to reach 0.5mg to 0.7mg per liter of water (a couple drops per 50 gallons), natural drinking water for over 20% of the world is in concentrations well over that (to be clear, being well over that can cause health issues. Too much of anything can cause health issues.)
In other words, there is no evidence that this low concentration of fluoride causes health issues. There is loads of direct evidence that it reduces cavities. Plus, this woman from your opinion piece is talking out of her field. Not to mention that 21% of the world’s drinking water supply naturally already falls within the recommended range of what the US takes theirs up to. It’s just that most of the US water supply naturally falls below that amount.
No, the reason fluoridation in water is widespread is because fluoride is produced far more than there is market to sell it otherwise.
By that reasoning, we should start putting all of our waste products in our water supply - since we weren’t able to sell them otherwise.
… Or perhaps there are other reasons to consider?
You seem to have confused me with someone that is for putting industrial waste, i.e. fluoride, in drinking water, I’m against it personally.
Sounds to me like municipalities are able and willing to use it because it’s cheap.
It’s cheap because it’s industrial waste that has significant cleanup and disposal costs. It was sold to municipalities after there was “research” that it helped tooth health, which it can in much higher concentrations than is in any water supply. But the reason it’s added to water is because the companies that otherwise would have to pay for clean up now make money off the waste product and can afford kickback funds.
I appreciate that you put some reputable sources, rather than relying on a random tweet/post.
Keep in mind that they listed Canada as having non-flouride water, presumably based on the sole criteria that it’s not a national requirement. The split between communities with and without flouride in their water varies wildly by province.
The source is not as reputable as it appears. The article in question is not from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, and in fact was condemned by the HSDM. The actual dental experts at Harvard requested a formal retraction of the article: “Based on the significant flaws in the magazine article, we respectfully request that the article be rescinded, and a correction be published to clarify any misleading information that was provided.”
That’s because it’s just a bs opinion piece by some geneticist. There’s loads of very conclusive evidence and testing proving that it reduces cavities. Also, this geneticist points out that it only causes problems in doses far higher than what fluoridated tap water gets brought up to.
It’s an opinion piece by a geneticist (so not a chemist or biologist or a field that could be related) and she ignores all the direct evidence that every city and county that added fluoride started having fewer cavities than neighboring areas that hadn’t yet added it.
She then further points out that it only causes health issues in much higher concentrations than what the US was getting our water supply up to. You know, like literally anything that you get too much of is bad for you. You can literally die from drinking too much plain water. Too much of anything will kill you.
Counterpoint: I live in an area without fluoridated water, and I’m told that dentists can reliably identify people who didn’t grow up here by the state of their teeth.
deleted by creator
Anecdote in scientific debate? Wild
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. The anecdote happens to parallel the scientific consensus, but “I’m told that dentists can tell” isn’t an appropriate argument when discussing medical research.
The internet do be like that sometimes, egos and the uninformed run free
It’s actually exactly in line with what the link above says.
In June 2015, the Cochrane Collaboration—a global independent network of researchers and health care professionals known for rigorous scientific reviews of public health policies—published an analysis of 20 key studies on water fluoridation. They found that while water fluoridation is effective at reducing tooth decay among children, “no studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries [cavities] in adults met the review’s inclusion criteria.”
In other words, water fluoridation might not make much difference for adults, but it can for children.
The link above is not reputable and was directly refuted by, among others, the American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, the American Association for Dental Research, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Harvard School of Dental Medicine itself. From the response letter signed by the dean of the HSDM:
The magazine article states that CWF “does not appear to have any benefits in adults” based on the results of the Cochrane systematic review. However, the Cochrane review did not make this conclusion. Rather, the review specifically states “We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.” Due to the lack of studies that met the inclusion criteria, the Cochrane authors were not able to make any conclusion on the effect of CWF on adults. In fact, there are studies that were not included in the Cochrane review that demonstrate a caries preventive benefit of CWF in adults.
See the letter I linked for the studies it’s referencing with a demonstrated benefit to adult teeth. The Cochrane review’s inability to conclude whether there was a benefit or not was a limitation of the Cochrane review’s inclusion criteria, and not an absence of studies indicating a benefit.
This is a disingenuous take. This is a cherry-picked article that does not come to the conclusion you draw here. You also state “It does have neurological effects” but leave out the most important piece of information for that to be true: high doses.
Why should anyone trust what you say when you’re twisting the information to suit your narrative?
The bad part about Rfk jr is he probably mixes in some science with quackery. I honestly assumed all his ideas are insane. That’s what’s so hard about being discerning right now, you have to be on one side or the other.
Interesting. The article doesn’t actually say that fluoridation in water supplies is dangerous but that some researchers are questioning. Generally code for lack of scientific evidence. It also finds that early studies may have had a flawed basis (pretty much all early studies have been found wanting by later scientists) but doesn’t refute the results.The study mentioned in the article talks about high levels of fluoridation which I assume is in lab tests however these levels are not the case in water supplies.
The correct way forward is more actual science based studies.
Only 3% of Quebec’s population has access to fluoridated water and we have way more dental issues than any other province in Canada.
