The clues about flouride’s long-term action, and role as medication are usually avoided, because the medical curiosities that demonstrated flouride’s interaction with bone and tooth chemistry, and pointed the way to it’s discovery are possibly unsettling, and hinder the sales pitch of flouride in general.
And of course there’s the politicized paranoia of contaminating the public water supply, and who should get to decide such things, and why they might choose to do it.
But, those stories usually focus on intrigue, and don’t explain much about the chemistry of the element flourine, ionic compounds, or much of anything else, and dissolve into hand-wavey boogie men.
You basically get two incomplete pictures of the same story. What both sides leave out is that flouride has medical utility, but while toxicity is a potential risk, it’s not some mysterious subversive threat, and the benefits weigh favorably against the side effects.
Also, no one ever tells you that a little bit won’t hurt. Opponents offer hysterics of zero tolerance for poisonous toxic waste and brain damage. See also, Dr. Strangelove, and the idea of precious bodily fluids.
Meanwhile, advocates never tell you that you might be okay with flouride toothpaste just once a week, and no flouride at all the rest of the week, brushing with just pure, ordinary water (Mandrake). Instead, advocates advise twice a day, ...no more, but certainly no less.
And proponents of public flouridated water usually sidestep the premise of prescriptive public health as offering a leg up to people who might not have disposable income for toothpaste. Charity chafes all sides. Some might be too proud to accept the premise of assistance. Others bristling at the undertones of that idea amounting to other people’s needs conflicting with the autonomy of those with the capacity for choice between such options.
Nicely balanced! However what's this about disposable income for toothpaste? A tube can last a long time; most people use far more than the pea-sized amount recommended by dentists. And what's the balance between using toothpaste (even bicarbonate + salt works well, if pushed) and the cost of visiting a dentist? Of course you can skip the latter and unless you're very lucky, enjoy a shorter lifespan. Recently we've become much more aware of the definitive link between rotten oral health and vascular (heart) disease.
"The cumulative evidence for this systematic review demonstrates that there is moderate certainty that toothbrushing with a dentifrice does not provide an added effect for the mechanical removal of dental plaque."
If you had to choose between food and toothpaste, you’d choose food. At that level, visiting a dentist isn’t even an option, and no income is disposable. Do people not face such choices?
Also consider that only a small amount of treated water is consumed by people, but all of the fluoride added to our water supply ends up in our waterways.
And of course there’s the politicized paranoia of contaminating the public water supply, and who should get to decide such things, and why they might choose to do it.
But, those stories usually focus on intrigue, and don’t explain much about the chemistry of the element flourine, ionic compounds, or much of anything else, and dissolve into hand-wavey boogie men.
You basically get two incomplete pictures of the same story. What both sides leave out is that flouride has medical utility, but while toxicity is a potential risk, it’s not some mysterious subversive threat, and the benefits weigh favorably against the side effects.
Also, no one ever tells you that a little bit won’t hurt. Opponents offer hysterics of zero tolerance for poisonous toxic waste and brain damage. See also, Dr. Strangelove, and the idea of precious bodily fluids.
Meanwhile, advocates never tell you that you might be okay with flouride toothpaste just once a week, and no flouride at all the rest of the week, brushing with just pure, ordinary water (Mandrake). Instead, advocates advise twice a day, ...no more, but certainly no less.
And proponents of public flouridated water usually sidestep the premise of prescriptive public health as offering a leg up to people who might not have disposable income for toothpaste. Charity chafes all sides. Some might be too proud to accept the premise of assistance. Others bristling at the undertones of that idea amounting to other people’s needs conflicting with the autonomy of those with the capacity for choice between such options.