Donald Trump said Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s proposal to remove fluoride from the U.S. water systems "sounds okay" to him, raising alarms for public health.
  • Former President Donald Trump said that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s proposal to remove fluoride from the U.S. water systems “sounds okay” to him.
  • Kennedy, who is poised to play a health policy role in a potential Trump administration, recently wrote, “The Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water.”
  • According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “the safety and benefits of fluoride are well documented and have been reviewed comprehensively by several scientific and public health organizations.”
  • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
    1351·
    3 days ago

    Two days from now timelines are going split. I don’t know what will happen in both, but I can tell you for sure I’d like to avoid the timeline where Trump wins. If for no other reason than all the bad breath this single choice will cause.

    • ddh@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      15·
      2 days ago

      It’s like Back to the Future’s alternative Biff-world versus the saner reality.

      • kinkles@sh.itjust.works
        77·
        3 days ago

        I’ll take the:

        According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “the safety and benefits of fluoride are well documented and have been reviewed comprehensively by several scientific and public health organizations.”

        …over your:

        fluoride only helps out when used topically (like in toothpaste). Drinking it may actually weaken your bones, supposedly.

        • Rutty@sh.itjust.works
          29·
          2 days ago

          This is a good take, I liken it to iodine in salt.

          However, I worry about the effects of fluoride in groundwater. I don’t know if I should be too concerned about that per se, but I hear some plants hate it and that and it says in the ground for like forever.

        • forrgott@lemm.ee
          563·
          3 days ago

          You have anything says that ingesting or actually helps? That’s the part I find kinda weird, and that quote doesn’t address that specific issue. Using it on the surface of your teeth is shown to be helpful, I get that; but drinking it is a whole different ballgame… Besides, I thought the fluoride in the toothpaste was the reason you’re not supposed to swallow?

          • shackled@lemm.ee
            42·
            3 days ago

            You can always use examine.com to start base level research on most substances. It tries to cover the most common questions and link the research papers most relevant to that question if available. Excerpt below, but I recommend scrolling through the whole page. It also discusses maximum safe daily levels, toxic levels, and symptoms when you exceed those levels.

            Fluoride (from drinking water, supplements, tea, or dental products) is absorbed by the small intestine, and about half is excreted via the kidneys. Absorbed fluoride in the blood can bind with apatite in bone and teeth, becoming fluorapatite. Blood and bone concentrations of fluoride are in equilibrium and are impacted by bone remodeling activity and age.

          • g0nz0li0@lemmy.world
            22·
            2 days ago

            Casually states without evidence that fluoride was only introduced to keep people docile, then demands citations on rebuttals. Looks like we got ourselves a full blown case of the MAGA.

              • g0nz0li0@lemmy.world
                121·
                2 days ago

                Are you so singularly interested in proving you are right that you don’t bother to read or try to genuinely comprehend what other people write when they are calling you out for your bad behaviour?

                The source you posted doesn’t mention anything to support your statement about fluoride originally being used to test if it could keep the working class docile. The fact remains that you are asking others to source themselves despite being unwilling, unable, or disinterested in doing so yourself.

                Still I am glad you’re voting for Harris 🙂

          • inkrifle@lemmy.world
            141·
            2 days ago

            Fluoride, when swallowed, can be distributed throughout the body, which includes being in the saliva that covers the teeth. Nevertheless, fluoridated water has been shown with more than enough evidence to improve the quality of teeth in humans compared to its risks (if any) and removing it in water will reduce those benefits.

            • forrgott@lemm.ee
              126·
              2 days ago

              I’ll go ahead and press x to doubt. First, no, it absolutely will not go everywhere in your body. Chemistry/biology doesn’t work like that. Second, the amount of fluoride you’d have to ingest to still have an effective amount in your saliva would be well past the safe limit (by the way, only poisons need to have a safe limit; aka fluoride is not good for you). Finally, it’s in our toothpaste, we don’t actually need any more than that.

              Putting it in our water has no benefits. Really. But you do you, man.

      • resin85@lemmy.caEnglish
        16·
        2 days ago

        https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9542152/

        In summary, we observed significant and consistent differences in dental caries experience in the primary dentition between Grade 2 children in Calgary (fluoridation cessation) and Edmonton (still fluoridated), Canada, 7‐8 years following cessation in Calgary. Our findings are consistent with an adverse impact of fluoridation cessation on children’s dental health in Calgary, and point to the need for universally, publicly funded prevention activities including, but not limited to fluoridation.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
        17·
        2 days ago

        The reason why you’re being downvoted is because you’ve provided some outlandish claims without any source.

        I honestly remember my parent’s talking about these exact things in the 80s. It’s absurd to claim that in the interceding decades no reputable science has supported these claims.

        Science is sometimes wrong, and from time to time we have to improve our understanding of things, but great claims require great evidence.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
            8·
            2 days ago

            I’m not suggesting that you care about down votes, but you seem to think the down votes imply people are angry or have “lost their minds” whatever that means.

              • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
                7·
                2 days ago

                … but I found a blog post saying the earth is flat, and it had very thorough citations.

                Bold claims require irrefutable evidence.

                The weight of evidence in support of fluoridation is overwhelming. It’s the greatest public health intervention in the history of human kind.

                If you want to say it makes people docile then you need large double blinded peer reviewed longitudinal studies supporting that claim. If you don’t have that then you’re going to get downvotes because you’re just parroting nonsense.

          • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
            61·
            2 days ago

            Well, you actually begin with a good example of another outlandish claim. They are right? I don’t suppose you can back that up? If not, that’s just an unbacked claim. Outlandish, of course, is subjective, but I’d say it sure is just that.

            The one you claim is outlandish, is, indeed, outlandish. I agree with your point that this is what the ruling class would do, if we remove this thought experiment from any context and real-life bounds. They 100% would. If they knew they’d get away with it.

            I don’t believe they would, in reality, though, get away with it.

            So while that point is logical in a detached sense, it still is as outlandish as everything else.

            Edit: What’s up with this .ee instance by the way? Has anyone else noticed that a lot of commenters and comments like this happen to be from there? Contrarians, completely weird takes, oddly common “I’m a leftist, BUT…” comments, and a lot of third party voters and enthusiasts. I’ve noted it earlier but this finally made it hit. Does anyone know some context that they’d have time and energy to share?

          • ABCDE@lemmy.world
            361·
            3 days ago

            Because you came out with baseless conjecture which was debunked decades ago which you could have educated yourself about at any time, hiding behind “may” and whatever other nonsense you thought would make you sound reasonable.

  • Deway@lemmy.world
    162·
    2 days ago

    What’s the big deal with Fluoride in drinking water in the US? Like most European, I don’t get fluoride enriched drinking water and it’s never been a big deal.

    Don’t you guys use toothpaste with Fluoride?

    • ghen@sh.itjust.works
      173·
      2 days ago

      It specifically helps kids who haven’t gotten in the habit of brushing properly yet. We have non-fluoride parts of the country that show higher cases of child dental work needed. We also eat a lot of high fructose corn syrup.

      Overall for the whole population it is a net gain.

    • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
      31·
      2 days ago

      Yeah it’s in the toothpaste, but is also in the city water. Problem is there are many cities with way more than the recommended limits. It’s one of those situations where the fringe weirdos may actually have had a point.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      65·
      2 days ago

      I’m from Germany and they usually put it in the salt.

      You can just use salt without Fluorid if you want to believe in conspiracies.

        • vxx@lemmy.world
          7·
          2 days ago

          That too

          Edit: But I think you’re right, it’s mainly iodine what I recalled. Fluorid is pretty rare I think. They put it in the toothpaste though.

      • Fosheze@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 day ago

        Flouride is better at preventing damage because it actually chemically alters your tooth enamel to a more stable form but it does nothing to repair existing damage. Nano-HAP can very very slowly reverse existing damage but it doesn’t do much to harden the teeth against future damage. They’re both better at their own thing. I’m pretty sure current studies don’t show one being overall better than the other.

      • Valthorn@feddit.nu
        231·
        3 days ago

        And that “a little but better” isn’t worth anything? At least it buys time.

      • Resonosity@lemmy.world
        52·
        2 days ago

        I mean, you’re right.

        The fact that one of the major tauted policies of Harris’ campaign was a border wall, something that Trump exclusively brought to the table in 2016, is just one example of our government racheting more and more conservative over time. Democrats used to at least advocate for America being a land of immigrants.

        Really hope Harris doesn’t run in 2028 if she wins 2024. We need a Democratic primary where Americans can choose those in the party who represent more progressive values than the establishment.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    601·
    3 days ago

    Oh, every day is going to be like this if Trump wins.

    Most of it probably won’t be followed through on, but it’s going to be some outrageous plan or statement like this every single day.

    Like, what other administation could make a scandal out of a NOAA weather prediction? It ultimately meant nothing, but still…

  • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
    281·
    2 days ago

    I think I remember reading that the prevalence of fluoride in drinking water is the single greatest medical breakthrough in “population health” of the 20th century or something.

    Like a fancy CT scan might help someone who needs a CT scan but fluoride helps everyone mitigate dental problems (and the many and varied related issues) all the time.

    I guess in fairness dental hygiene has probably improved a lot since fluoride was put in the water, so if it’s less important then any potential side effects might be more concerning.

  • _bcron_@lemmy.worldEnglish
    29·
    3 days ago

    The Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water.

    Municipalities will advise the Trump White House that they will not listen to a man who had his brain eaten by worms

    Ahh, the good old days when Trump said ‘let states decide’ and they decided to ignore his profoundly idiotic ass

  • acosmichippo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    151·
    3 days ago

    what does white house “advice” actually mean for this? sounds pretty toothless luckily.

  • dank@lemmy.today
    136·
    2 days ago

    The Obama-appointed US judge Edward Chen found fluoridation could cause developmental damage and lower IQ in children at levels to which the public is generally exposed in drinking water. Though the ruling did not state the level at which fluoridation would damage brains, the levels in US water present an unreasonable risk, the court found.

    The EPA now must perform a risk assessment that is among the first steps in setting new limits under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

    Armed with a growing body of scientific evidence pointing toward fluoride’s neurotoxicity, public health advocates say the legal win shows they are overcoming “institutional inertia” and the unwillingness of federal public health agencies to admit they may have been wrong.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation-water-epa-risk-assessement

    • teegus@sh.itjust.works
      8·
      2 days ago

      Though the ruling did not state the level at which fluoridation would damage brains

      This right here. The levels have to be many times that in drinking water for it to have any harmful effects.

  • JoYo@lemmy.mlEnglish
    217·
    2 days ago

    fluoride in water doesnt do much for teeth but we will notice if they replace it because the alternatives taste gross.