this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
1548 points (96.8% liked)

Science Memes

11189 readers
3508 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1548
flouride (mander.xyz)
submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
270 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BreadOven 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If that's actually your idea of a valid source, and you're not just trolling......I feel so sorry for you.

That article is just not correct. I can't even begin to point out all the flaws in it.

[–] Doomsider -4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Everything is accurate and sourced so don't bother blowing smoke up my ass anymore.

The only flaw here is someone who doesn't know what they are talking about about trying the defend a stupid practice.

[–] BreadOven 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hmmm. The author of the article has a PhD in environmental history, so a social science. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not actual hard science. Where people research and develop novel things.

I don't want to blow smoke anywhere near any asses. But does that article site one primary literature source? They're all articles or if it's an actual paper, it's an opinion piece. I'm not going through all of them because it reads like some crazy uncle on a conspiracy theory rant.

Are you a scientist? I know what I'm talking about, although I'm afraid you're not.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99688-w

There's an actual journal article (I know it's only Nature scientific reports, but it's a valid reference). I know it doesn't explicitly state it's not toxic, but:

"Thus, based on the evidence available on the topic, it is not possible to state neither any association or the lack of an association between F exposure and any neurological disorder."

Taken straight from their conclusion.

Obviously there's many more sources, and again, I'm happy to provide you with some of you'd like to enhance your knowledge on the subject.

[–] Doomsider -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Fluoride is safe topically and ineffective when introduced to our water supply. It is not some giant conspiracy, just a practice that is no longer necessary and unsafe because the industrial waste fluoride that is used is contaminated. Please save me the appeal to authority nonsense.

[–] BreadOven 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Contaminated with what exactly?

Edit: if it's As and Pb, both (among many other things) are closely monitored in any city water supply (and also occur naturally) to ensure there is little to none.

I can (and I'm sure you can as well) look up exactly the levels of contaminants allowed in your drinking water if it's coming from a plant.

If it's another element(s) or compound(s), I'm quite interested to know what they may be.

Also as per my last reply, are you a scientist of any kind?

[–] Doomsider 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Did you not read where the fluoride comes from? The smokestack scrubbers have heavy metals and other contaminates. There is no processing to purify it so it is contaminated.

Perhaps you could argue there is not enough contaminates to cause a problem, but that does not change the fact you are dumping pollutants into the water supply under the guise of public health.

Even if they dumped pharmeucutical grade fluoride into the water it would likely not be effective unless the population has no access to tooth paste or dental care. Not to mention people with kidney problems should not have any fluoride at all.

The implications of treating people with a medication without their approval is also problematic. Many nations throughout Europe do not use fluoride in their water supply. Their tooth decay is not higher because of it.

So like I was saying, this is not a conspiracy. It is proven fact. It is something that should be sunsetted and fertilizer plants should start treating their waste instead of dumping it in our water supply.

[–] BreadOven 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Well firstly, you did not provide any specific contaminants. You did mention heavy metals, which are inherently in normal ground water. They are also controlled, as I mentioned in my last post.

Can you provide a source that states there's no processing of "it"? Can you also state what exactly "it" is? NaF, HF, SiCl4, or something else?

Also, for the third time, are you some sort of scientist? Especially one who would have knowledge of actual chemistry?

If I don't get at least somewhat of a semblance of intelligence in your reply, this is over, and you should really try to accept people trying to educate you on topics you clearly don't know.

As I've said at least a couple times, I'd be happy to provide multiple sources proving F- in water is safe. I will even help walk you through these sources. I'm all for educating people.

So, please don't reply with some stupid shit stated in that shitpost of an article you linked.

I'm genuinely trying to help/educate. So please take me up on the offer if you would like to.

[–] Doomsider 0 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

So let me gets this straight. You do not refute anything I have said.

You are right, this is over.

I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fluoride that is added to municipal systems comes from the smoke stack scrubbers of fertilizer plants.

You had no fucking clue about this because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about about. Did you actually study this at the university level? Hell the fuck no! Have you talked with actual water operators who explained the fluoridation process? No fucking way! But you are going to lecture me. The fucking audacity of your shit is truly amazing.

I also provided a sourced peer reviewed article that explained that adding fluoride to water when there is the presence of toothpaste and dental care is not effective.

There is a mountain of evidence comparing dental health in communities that use of fluoride artificially added and those who do not. Guess what, none of it supports adding fluoride. Why? Because it does not work when you already have basic dental care. There is no statistical difference.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6309358/

Please read carefully because it supports everything I have said. Fluoride is effective topically but there is no benefit in ingesting it.

The real conspiracy theory is somehow drinking fluoride helps teeth pre-eruption. This is pure fantasy and what people who support adding fluoride to water believe.

Your elaborate straw man is that I am saying fluoride is dangerous. Instead I said it is effective topically but not when ingested. As in, there is no beneficial effect of swallowing it.

I provided an article you chose to dismiss because the guy who wrote it has a PHD in social sciences and therefore is full of shit. I won't even go into how fucked up that is.

Because yes a research scientists is going to know about public policy!? I mean you are literally so stupid about this it isn't funny.

I get you pretend to be smart but really have zero critical thinking skills.

[–] BreadOven 0 points 8 hours ago

Woah, no need to get so angry, I'm merely asking questions (which you're not providing answers to).

I'm refuting the one thing you've mentioned multiple times; the "contaminated" source of fluoride. You make it seem like it's dangerous because "it comes from the smoke stack scrubbers of fertilizer plants." Why do you keep bringing this up?

Since you brought it, up have you studied this at a university level? While I have not directly studied the fluoridation of water in university, I have studied chemistry. That is where all my questions are coming from. I'm not concerned about this from a dental perspective.

While that article is peer-reviewed and has sources, it's pertaining to a very specific region, and also is published in a fairly obscure journal with a trash impact factor.

This is also the first I've heard mention of pre-eruption benefits of fluoride. I've never stated I believe this, and have not heard anyone else mention this in favour of fluoridation.

Also as I mentioned in a previous comment, I am in no way saying the individual with a PhD in a social science is "full of shit". I'm just saying the article is an opinion piece, and reads like a conspiracy theorist wrote it. Think Charlie and Pepe Silvia from IASIP.

Many scientists (research-based) go into public policy as well. Mainly because they're capable of thinking critically and are able to contribute to policy in their area of expertise.

Also for the third time, are you a scientist, or have any scientific background?

Doesn't questioning all these things you're saying display critical thinking?