Iodized salt, sanitary sewers, and shoes are the showcase achievements of public health, aside from vaccines and whatnot that people associate with progress in medicine.
I think that's a bold statement. I'd say the jury is still out on that (especially for pregnant women and babies).
Though I will agree with fluoridated toothpaste. I would rather the govt gives out fluoride toothpaste to people, then force everyone to drink it, which research is still ongoing.
Or offer discounted fluoride toothpaste / mouthwash.
From my understanding, fluoride works best when put directly on teeth (e.g. toothpaste / mouthwash), and doesn't work so well if you drink it.
I can get non-iodized salt, use a septic tank, not wear shoes, and skip vaccines (and home school) if I so choose to. I can't choose to get unfloridated water from the public system. It's a little odd that a public health intervention has been prescribed to everyone en masse.
You linked a study saying that under 1.5mg/L, fluoride is safe. EPA maximum is 4.0, but secondary standard is 2.0. Current recommendations from the Dept. of Health and Human Services are at 0.7mg/L.
There's no point, why risk it, for what benefit? Just brush your teeth and apply topical fluoride periodically. It's not hard. Is it for you?
Even a tiny negative impact on IQ is a dumb thing to accept in service to some nonsense rationale for your teeth. Accepting this tradeoff is an IQ test itself. I'm with Europe on this one.
I believe that you've selected a single study based on your existing biases and are basing your entire opinion off of it, rather than having done an honest amount of research into the nuances of the issue
Back when I looked into fluoride in water, my take away was that for adults it has little impact on IQ, but may have more on younger people. Research was still ongoing.
From my understanding, fluoride in water was more a thing done for poorer communities (or people with bad oral heath routines, aka not brushing your teeth), and the cheapest, most effective way to help these people is to put it in everyones water.
But from personal standpoint, the best way to look after your teeth is to brush with fluoride toothpaste, twice a day (ideally w/ electric brush), and floss once a day.
Fluoride mouthwash is also a good idea (but look up what a good mouthwash is, you don't want one with alcohol in it). Though using mouthwash isn't as important as brushing/flossing.
Personally, I'd rather not have fluoride in water until we have more conclusive reliable research on it. But having said that, I understand why it's often put in in a cost–benefit view point.
It's a recent meta analysis and isn't the only one shaping my view, but this issue has been raised for a long time. I'm asking you directly: why would you make this tradeoff? Makes no sense. Do you just accept it because that's the way things are, you're told it's good? I don't get it.
Why would you preference a dubious need for your teeth easily mitigated by just taking care of them, over potential harm to your kids (plus societies kids) brains?
> Why would you preference a dubious need for your teeth easily mitigated by just taking care of them, over potential harm to your kids (plus societies kids) brains?
