conspiracy theories...

[Scouts Honor]

i never had one about flouride or chlorine... i heard many...

but wow

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride

[BobDole]

Are we back to trusting scientists or just the ones that say things we like?

[mspart]

For our vaunted dead guy, Did you bother to read the website?  It says

Quote:

The NTP uses 4 confidence levels - high, moderate, low, or very low - to characterize the strength of scientific evidence that associates a particular health outcome with an exposure. After evaluating studies published through October 2023, the NTP Monograph concluded there is moderate confidence in the scientific evidence that showed an association between higher levels of fluoride and lower IQ in children.

Unquote:

It does not mention how many points lower the IQ goes, but it does show an association of higher flouride levels and lower IQ in kids.  

mspart

[Offthemat]

When Eisenhower was asked about his nice smile showing near perfect teeth, he attributed it to the fluorine in the water where he grew up.  My dad said it might have helped his teeth, but it didn’t do anything for his hair. 

[ionel]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

For our vaunted dead guy, Did you bother to read the website?  It says

Quote:

The NTP uses 4 confidence levels - high, moderate, low, or very low - to characterize the strength of scientific evidence that associates a particular health outcome with an exposure. After evaluating studies published through October 2023, the NTP Monograph concluded there is moderate confidence in the scientific evidence that showed an association between higher levels of fluoride and lower IQ in children.

Unquote:

It does not mention how many points lower the IQ goes, but it does show an association of higher flouride levels and lower IQ in kids.  

mspart

In Bob's defense, fluoride no longer affects IQ once you are dead.   ⚰ 

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, BobDole said:

Are we back to trusting scientists or just the ones that say things we like?

i just find it interesting that the whack jobs were right

and now the GOVT admits it

[BobDole]

22 hours ago, mspart said:

For our vaunted dead guy, Did you bother to read the website?  It says

Quote:

The NTP uses 4 confidence levels - high, moderate, low, or very low - to characterize the strength of scientific evidence that associates a particular health outcome with an exposure. After evaluating studies published through October 2023, the NTP Monograph concluded there is moderate confidence in the scientific evidence that showed an association between higher levels of fluoride and lower IQ in children.

Unquote:

It does not mention how many points lower the IQ goes, but it does show an association of higher flouride levels and lower IQ in kids.  

mspart

So how do we find which scientists are the ones to support? 

[BobDole]

20 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

i just find it interesting that the whack jobs were right

and now the GOVT admits it

So which scientists do we support and listen to? I thought they all were bad and uncle Larry's cousin who knew someone that was a nurse was the one to trust.

[Scouts Honor]

 

[Danny Deck]

This reminds me of two things.

In an Ask Reddit post asking, "Older people what would you do different?" The top answer was take better care of their teeth. 

A few years ago after a story about the world's longest lived dog dying, I was talking to my vet about it, and he said animals are the same as humans, keep them at a healthy weight and take care of their teeth. 

It seems like here we have a clear example of policy trade offs, improving the oral health of billions of people (the study was in non-US countries including China and India) at a possible reduction in IQ. It seems to me that especially in the countries studied it's a worthwhile tradeoff. 

I'm not sure about its application to the US. This was based on exposure to double the recommended amount in US water. I don't know that people in the US are actually taking that much in, or what level below that there is cause for concern. Definitely doubling the recommended amount of most anything can be bad.

[mspart]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2246629/

The recommended dose of selenium is 40 μg per day, whereas extrapolations from mammalian studies suggest that humans might need between 12.5 μg and 25 μg of arsenic. This is, to some extent, academic; a normal diet will contain 12–50 μg of arsenic in most parts of the world, but it shows that arsenic—the famous poison—and selenium—one of the most widely studied elements in the dietary context—could well have almost identical levels of nutritional necessity and toxicity.

Yeah, a little bit is good, but more is not so good.  Same goes for most things. 

mspart