/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12373163
>>12374717

I agree that it's good for toothpaste. But putting it in the water? When you drink fluoride it touches your teeth for maybe half a second, then it enters your body and stays there. It sticks to bones and calcifies your brain. I just don't think we should be adding it to drinking water.

Should we lower IQ in exchange for better looking teeth?

>>7609102
>No, you didn't. There is still a scientific consensus that fluoride reduces caries, despite your post.

There's a scientific consensus that the creator of the universe jizzed a titanic load of matter and antimatter into two different planes in the universe in one big bang per plane as well but that doesn't mean you can convince everyone with a semblance of sanity that such was the case.

>There is still a well known mechanism by which it does this, despite your post.

The only mechanism you've "described" is one that makes both bone and enamel brittle afaik. Caries form in dentin, not enamel for one and dentin doesn't just magically become full of holes because enamel is chipped. I'm sure there's other reasons that you're omitting which have absolutely nothing to do with Flouride.

>And the fact that fluoride is not an essential nutrient is still irrelevant.

It's probably the most relevent fact I've presented because this entire thread is about the toxicity of drinking water.

Pic related is the data that demolishes all of your quack originating claims.


Also:
>Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment which attempts to eliminate subjective, unrecognized biases carried by an experiment's subjects (usually human) and conductors. Double-blind studies were first used in 1907 by W. H. R. Rivers and H. N. Webber in the investigation of the effects of caffeine.[8]
>(usually human)
>and conductors

It's just a more professional way of eliminating biases when nobody knows what to expect and they just gather data objectively.