Attacks on scientific expertise have been increasing, especially in politics. Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is among the more prominent people who have done that.
No we do know. Fluoride isn’t harmful in the amounts we have in our water. It requires orders of magnitude more presence to be harmful. This is the exact anti science bullshit take that RFK is famous for so it’s no wonder you like him. And if you don’t like Fluoride, wait until you hear about iron, zinc, and magnesium. I mean magnesium is a straight up fire hazard, it’ll even burn underwater.
There’s a lot of assumptions there and you know it.
We are assuming that it is being administered and tested for appropriately and regularly, which may not be true in many cases. We’re assuming that the food we consume is made with low fluoride water which may not always be true, as they could be made in a place where there’s high levels of fluoride in the water. When you account for all things they may well be overconsumption of fluoride happening. Toothpaste with fluoride is the norm already why should it be in the water at this point anyways?
Anyways, read again: I never said that it is dangerous, I said there’s concern that it may be, which is the case because there are still studies coming out and being made. Including a meta study that indeed concluded that there is an inverse relation between fluoride and IQ. I’m not talking about RFK or some tiktoker, there are actual scientists that still question and research this. Science is not this static thing where we say “oh we know that already” and move on, otherwise we would still believe the earth is flat, that the earth is at the center of the galaxy and that bloodletting is actually a good cure for a cold. Science requires that the established be questioned over and over again for us to get closer to the full truth of every single thing. Doing the opposite of that is the real anti-science. In the case of fluoride we are still not fully sure, and that’s a fact. Or perhaps I should be more clear, we are not sure that the current levels may be the safe ones.
The final and most egregious thing is that you ignored my conclusion, that this should be decided at the local level. You act like this would cause the end of the world, but there are many countries in Europe that don’t put fluoride in their water, most of them the countries that I consider being the most concerned with their populations health and well being. Finland for example doesn’t do it because people don’t want to, but it’s allowed if they wanted to. That is the way to deal with this.
And whataboutisms are not arguments, especially bad faith ones. I’m not saying for example, that we should remove naturally occurring fluoride from the water. Holy hell I’ve never even stated that I’m against fluoridation of water, because I’m not. I’m just saying, we still don’t truly know if we have it right without reasonable doubt and therefore this should be decided at the local level.
No we do know. Fluoride isn’t harmful in the amounts we have in our water. It requires orders of magnitude more presence to be harmful. This is the exact anti science bullshit take that RFK is famous for so it’s no wonder you like him. And if you don’t like Fluoride, wait until you hear about iron, zinc, and magnesium. I mean magnesium is a straight up fire hazard, it’ll even burn underwater.
There’s a lot of assumptions there and you know it.
We are assuming that it is being administered and tested for appropriately and regularly, which may not be true in many cases. We’re assuming that the food we consume is made with low fluoride water which may not always be true, as they could be made in a place where there’s high levels of fluoride in the water. When you account for all things they may well be overconsumption of fluoride happening. Toothpaste with fluoride is the norm already why should it be in the water at this point anyways?
Anyways, read again: I never said that it is dangerous, I said there’s concern that it may be, which is the case because there are still studies coming out and being made. Including a meta study that indeed concluded that there is an inverse relation between fluoride and IQ. I’m not talking about RFK or some tiktoker, there are actual scientists that still question and research this. Science is not this static thing where we say “oh we know that already” and move on, otherwise we would still believe the earth is flat, that the earth is at the center of the galaxy and that bloodletting is actually a good cure for a cold. Science requires that the established be questioned over and over again for us to get closer to the full truth of every single thing. Doing the opposite of that is the real anti-science. In the case of fluoride we are still not fully sure, and that’s a fact. Or perhaps I should be more clear, we are not sure that the current levels may be the safe ones.
The final and most egregious thing is that you ignored my conclusion, that this should be decided at the local level. You act like this would cause the end of the world, but there are many countries in Europe that don’t put fluoride in their water, most of them the countries that I consider being the most concerned with their populations health and well being. Finland for example doesn’t do it because people don’t want to, but it’s allowed if they wanted to. That is the way to deal with this.
And whataboutisms are not arguments, especially bad faith ones. I’m not saying for example, that we should remove naturally occurring fluoride from the water. Holy hell I’ve never even stated that I’m against fluoridation of water, because I’m not. I’m just saying, we still don’t truly know if we have it right without reasonable doubt and therefore this should be decided at the local level.