Kids' cavities would increase by millions if every state banned fluoride, study finds
Kids' cavities would increase by millions if every state banned fluoride, study finds
Florida and Utah have already removed fluoridation in public water systems. What if the rest of the country follows?
Florida and Utah have already removed fluoridation from public water systems. What if the rest of the country follows?
The long-term effects of banning fluoride from public drinking water across the country could cost families billions of dollars and result in millions of rotten teeth, a new analysis predicts.
The study, published Friday in JAMA Health Forum, shows that if all 50 states stopped community water fluoridation programs, kids in the U.S. could expect to develop 25.4 million more cavities within the next five years.
That’s the equivalent of a decayed tooth in 1 out of every 3 children.
The number of cavities would more than double in 10 years, to 53.8 million.
You're viewing a single thread.
I hate just how the fluoride conspiracy theory is still a thing when it's been proven time and time again that fluoride is needed to maintain healthy dental hygine.
They know it's bullshit, they're just using it to sell the idea to morons.
The point is actually the increase in cavities. They want to make it even more expensive to be poor, with the ultimate goal of starving out anyone who isn't profitable.
They know it's bullshit, they're just using it to sell the idea to morons.
I agree, although I would say the misinformed and decieved because this is all caused by the top 1%.
The point is actually the increase in cavities. They want to make it even more expensive to be poor, with the ultimate goal of starving out anyone who isn't profitable.
Exactly, this is why I find the current misinformation/data enshitification landscape to be quite insidious as actions like this only widens the wealth gap with poorer people suffering more for the benefit of the rich.
Same situation but in the tech field:
I hate just how the fluoride conspiracy theory is still a thing when it’s been proven time and time again that fluoride is needed to maintain healthy dental hygine.
People who believe in disprovable conspiracy theories, literally don't care about the truth.
They don't think it might be true, they think they know it's true. They've convinced themselves that since they have "seen through the lies" and learned "secret knowledge", that makes them smarter than everyone who dismisses their theory. And the majority are so far gone that they're extremely afraid of admitting they were wrong. Since they've spent years rolling their eyes and joking about how dumb other people are. And if they admit they were wrong, they have to admit to themselves that all that time they were actually the dumb one. So usually they double down even in the face of evidence they produced themselves.
TL;DR: Most conspriacy theorists are stupid and think their theory proves them a genius. That's why the weird ones persist.
But why put it in the water and drink it, better to have in in toothpaste and mouthwash if you can't brush
Poor people. To repeat myself:
Poor people often can’t afford toothbrushes and/or toothpaste, let alone the “recommended” (read: mandatory, or people will say you deserved to lose your teeth) floss, mouthwash, electric toothbrush, etc., all from “reputable brands”.
Fair point. Although I've used my 2$ toothbrush for two years now. I think even if you're poor you could get a toothbrush. Even if you don't afford toothpaste just brushing goes a long way.
My cousins never brush their teeth, but they drink tap water. Their teeth has outlasted their parents teeth by 10 years and counting
I think calling it a conspiracy theory is not entirely fair. It's a genuine scientific debate, hindered by the lack of proper evidence and studies that apply to the US.
Read https://www.statnews.com/2025/01/06/fluoride-iq-jama-pediatrics-critiques-meta-analysis/ for example, it highlights a recent meta-study that found a small, but non-negligible effect on neurodevelopment if people were ingesting fluoride. But a lot of studies it relies on have some asterisks attached. Those are properly accounted for in the meta-study, but ultimately the answer is "we don't really know".
Many western countries don't add fluoride to the drinking water; many used to do so in the past but stopped. There were the concerns about neurotoxicity (albeit minor) but also some ethical concerns regarding mass-medicating the population without any realistic opt-out. But the other major reason is that those countries have the population exercise good dental practices like brushing twice a day with fluoridated toothpaste, which is spat out instead of swallowed. This avoids concerns of neurotoxicity but maintains the dental benefits: a best of both worlds basically (also endorsed by most scientists).
The US has systemic poverty issues, and a large part of the population do not observe these good dental practices, not necessarily through ill-will but rather because they lack the money to buy toothpaste. Because of that, removing fluoride will likely increase cavities in the US, unlike in other western countries.
Ideally the US keeps the fluoride around until these systemic poverty issues are largely resolved. But knowing the current shitstains in government...
Is fluoride the only option? Is not hydroxyapatite in toothpaste as effective as fluoride in toothpaste and cannot it be used as replacement for fluoride in toothpaste?
Wikipedia: Hydroxyapatite#SafetyConcerns
The European Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) reissued an updated opinion in 2023, where it cleared rod-shaped nano hydroxyapatite of concerns regarding genotoxicity, allowing consumer products to contain concentrations of nano hydroxyapatite as high as 10% for toothpastes and 0.465% for mouthwashes. However, it warns of needle-shaped nano hydroxyapatite and of inhalation in spray products.
Based off the article and the cited Opinion document by the EU's safety committee (SCCS) it seems like rod-shaped nano hydroxyapatite is safe for use in only toothpaste provided that at least 95.8% (particle count) are comprised of rod-shaped instead of needle-shaped particles and in addition are not coated or surface modified.
composed of rod-shaped particles of which at least 95.8% (in particle number) have an aspect ratio of less than 3, and the remaining 4.2% have an aspect ratio not exceeding 4.9;
I'll be honest in that a bit of this sentence especially regarding the aspect ratio is somewhat incomprehensible to me as the sentence structure obscures what they're trying to communicate.
I believe by aspect ratio, they mean the ratio of diameter to length of the rod shaped structures. At an aspect ratio of less than 3, the structures are more cylinder shaped than rod shaped.
So the minerals must be mostly stubby cylinder shaped, and less than 4.2% can be needle shaped or long rod shaped. Same problem we had with asbestos actually, that the long thin needle shaped fibers were physically damaging to tissue.
People would find a way to demonize vitamin B if the government had a program to supply it to people for free.