Major health groups support water fluoridation as a public health benefit and emphasize that the practice is safe.

Summary

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that a Trump administration would prioritize removing fluoride from public water systems, a position at odds with major health organizations like the CDC, the American Dental Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of which endorse water fluoridation as safe and beneficial for dental health.

Despite Kennedy’s controversial stance on health and environmental issues, which includes previously debunked claims linking vaccines to autism, Trump has praised his passion, stating that Kennedy would have significant freedom to influence health policy if Trump were elected.

    • Tarquinn2049
      65•2 months ago

      That paper specifically concludes that despite all that, there is no reason to even look into whether fluoridation in drinking water might be a problem because there has clearly been no corollary deleterious effect. So, knowing what it would look like if it was a problem, was enough to know that it isn’t even close enough to warrant checking how close it is. The highest reported extremes of exposure already didn’t cause issue, so there is certainly no cause for concern at normal levels.

      Basically, normal levels are so far below potential risky levels, that they aren’t even concerned of accidental overexposure due to mistakes or accidents. They concluded they had literally zero concern…

      So linking that paper isn’t really supporting your opinion.

        • @airglowEnglish
          34•2 months ago

          The paper does not recognize fluoride as a neurotoxin in its current application in Europe:

          Overall, despite the remaining uncertainties, and based on the totality of evidence the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be considered as a human developmental neurotoxicant at current exposure levels in European countries.

          • @eramsethEnglish
            3•2 months ago

            This is not true. To elaborate on what the other person who replied said… there is no safe level of lead in consumer products because lead accumulates in the body. Also, lots of consumer products still contain lead because there are loopholes. And the regulations any way aren’t that stringent.

    • @macarthur_park
      36•2 months ago

      Those concerns are for unrealistically high doses though. The last sentence of the abstract you linked:

      In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.

      Calling concerns about the safety of fluoridated water “founded” is a bit of a stretch.

    • @[email protected]
      31•2 months ago

      The issue is not whether fluoride is good or bad. Conservatives vilify medical experts as “woke” and it that as a reason to dismiss their advice.

      I too can cherry pick an article to support my position. The number of cavities in children born in Calgary, Canada within the decade after they removed fluoride from their water was higher than nearby Edmonton who kept fluoride.

      We can argue about who has more links to support their argument; or we can argue about whether politicians should govern based on the recommendations of experts, or trust that “they know best”.

        • @airglowEnglish
          31•2 months ago

          The article you linked explicitly concludes:

          Overall, despite the remaining uncertainties, and based on the totality of evidence the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be considered as a human developmental neurotoxicant at current exposure levels in European countries.

        • JayEnglish
          27•2 months ago

          … And it literally actually says it’s not a concern.

        • @[email protected]
          22•2 months ago

          When you dismiss other scientific evidence like this, it makes it seem less like you are mindfully sharing research for open discussion, and more like you have a link to use as “ammunition” to defend the conclusion you’ve already reached (and won’t be reasoned out of)

          • @[email protected]English
            16•2 months ago

            These people use research the same way a drunkard uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination.

            (Paraphrasing)

          • skulblaka
            9•2 months ago

            And didn’t even fucking read the article they are attempting to use as ammunition, to boot, the article specifically denies the point they’re trying to make

        • @[email protected]
          7•2 months ago

          Claims to not have cherry picked anything yet follows up with the claim that scientists are fake experts and he doesn’t listen to them.

          You’ve exposed your ruse here, bud.

            • @[email protected]
              7•2 months ago

              I’m not putting words in your mouth, you clearly don’t think they’re experts by your use if the snarky quotes around it and stated “you people worship” which obviously excludes yourself from that category.

              If you’re trying to challenge people, why aren’t you replying to the multitude of comments pointing out that the study you linked doesn’t say what you think it does?