685
Fluoride in drinking water has no effect on IQ or brain function, long-term study shows
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
685 points (99.3% liked)
News
37418 readers
2166 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why would I want an adjunct in my water? I have no need for it, I don't want the government wasting money on it.
It does very little for adult teeth, and is barely a blip compared to the effects of dental care and fluoride toothpaste for children.
If you feel differently, feel free to add it to your water.
97% of Europe does not fluoridate their water. Of the seven countries with the lowest tooth decay rates in children in the world, six have no water fluoridation programs.
Finally in the US there have been four fairly serious fluoride accidents. Also, phosphate rock mining and processing is very hazardous so if you are going to use Flouride use it purposefully, in a toothpaste or rinse, not just distributing it into water. Which, by the way, kids don't drink a whole lot of.
To protect the teeth of your neighbour's kids.
Is it a waste of money? It seems quite plausibly cheaper than your suggestion. In Canada we have implemented a national dental care program for people earning under a certain threshold. I think anything we can do to improve the sustainability of that program is a good idea.
So why is it that 6 of the 7 countries with the lowest amount of caivities do not flouridate their water? Throwing floride around into a substance you use for everything is a poor approach to a problem.
Probably because of diet or availability of dental care. But if only 4/44 countries in Europe fluoridate, then fluoridating countries are over represented in that example's 7 ( ie if fluoride didn't help we would expect it to be 10/11).
Why did you pick top 7 by the way? Is it 6/8? 6/9? 6/10? It's an extremely weird threshold and makes me think you're cherry picking data to suit your narrative.
Because you don't understand the alleged statistics you're citing, you don't understand that flouride is naturally present in most freshwater, that Europe has a different history of how they consume water, and water fluoridation is actually a brilliant approach.
I do understand the statistics, but I also acknowledge that many cities in Europe have varying levels of flouride in the water and saying "country" does not take into account variations within countries.
At the same time many places in the world are contaminated with flouride. There is a sweet spot for efficacy of course.
I am not saying fluoride isn't helpful. But adding it to water? No thanks. Both places I live do not do this, and neither have higher instances of cavities than anywhere else (given relative incomes, lifestyle, and health care).
Besides I will say it again, since when do kids drink water?
The fact that you're still making these ludicrous claims show tbat you don't understand the statistics, kiddo.
Adding it to water is cheap and effective, no matter how much you shriek otherwise.
Do you have any evidence that kids don't drink water, spud?
Ludicrous claims? Kiddo?
Blah blah. You have nothing to say then.
Given that you can even question that there hasn't been a shift away from tap water tells me you don't know what you are talking about.
But keep saying kiddo, you sound very smart.
With our screenings and health care programs, without floridated water, we beat every floridated community BY FAR.
We are talking 4 to 10 times (depending on who you compare us to) better for our children.
So, you want to flouridate water, or do you want a program with effective results?
I don't understand why you would even argue this.
Look: the point is simple. Education and outreach. Deliver flouride deliberately and with specific doses. Monitor outcomes. This is how you have good results and long term health care.
Just pumping it into water is not as effective. We know that.
I have more to say than your mindless blathering, buttercup.
I argue this because unlike you, I actually understand the underlying science, which clearly demonstrates that you're wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/preventing-tooth-decay-in-kids-fluoride-and-the-role-of-non-dentist-health-care-providers/
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/fluoridation/page/2/
Do you? I am not arguing flouride is ineffective. I am arguing that you get much better results from a concerted effort rather than, just throw it in the water and hope for the best. The science is behind me.
Even in YOUR citation:
We have gone way beyond the average by our methods.
Also, just for fun the article you posted suggests that cavities are up to 50 percent genetic. That is interesting. Even more reason to treat the individual instead of just dumping flouride in the water.
Also: do look up the research in the us about tap water avoidance particularly among minorities and poor people. There are peer reviewed papers. Let me tell you, the most needed demographic for floridated water is actively avoiding tap water.
Specifically, you're making a claim and working backwards from there, buttercup. The science is completely unkown to you. You're no different than the antivaxxers. You cherry pick what you thinks supports your preconceived notions and ignore the context of what you're looking at.
You're ignoring that we're not Europe. We don't do dental care the way they do. If you want that, that's fine, but you don't get to ignore the reality of how it currently works here.
And let's see you provide that alleged research about tapwater avoidance, champ.
Nope. Specifically you are making a claim and I can cite your sources defending mine. Which is simply: I do not want flouride in my water, and a flouridation program is more effective.
I am not cherry picking, in fact you did, but it also supports my claim.
Where I live we have 4 to 10x better results than floridated water.
I am not ignoring anything, I am using data that proves we are doing well without floridated water.
You said "we are not Europe", well we are all over the world on this forum. I don't know where "here" is but it sounds like you ignore science and ignore helping your citizens for a cost effective high outcome situation.
I am not going to do your work shithead. All of your responses have been ignorant, it's time you put in the effort. Go look it up yourself.
I don't get why this is hard for you to ubderstand. I keep telling you I am ok with flouride, just be smart about it for the best outcome. Which I cited in the page YOU sent to me.
You have it backwards again, ssunshine. I'm sorry our education systems failed you so badly.
None of this is hard for me because I actually understand the science. You don't, and you've demonstrated that repeatedly.
You actually do have a need for it. Water flouridation is a safe, simple, and cost effective way to ensure everyone has at least a basic level of oral health.
Both places I live in dont do it and I am happy with that.