Rural children, who it stands to reason would be more likely to not be drinking fluoridated water, have higher odds of being overweight or obese than urban.
I am an academic scientist and generally a careful and skeptical person, but having read the peer reviewed literature myself, I think there is enough evidence to be concerned that water fluoridation at the levels currently used could possibly be causing brain damage or developmental issues. The evidence isn't that strong, but it is strong enough that it would be unethical to continue the practice, or to claim that there is nothing to worry about. The dose/response curves seem to show measurable levels of cognitive defects occurring right around, or just above typical target levels for fluoridation.
Personally, I give my kid water with the flouride filtered out via RO, but will still use topical flouride, e.g. toothpaste and treatments applied by a dentist.
I hate how issues like this are politicized... if I raise this issue anywhere, including on here I expect to be attacked for being a "conspiracy theorist" and "like an anti-vaxxer" etc. There is something really wrong when you aren't allowed to even talk about both sides of an issue- especially if, like in my case, I have a doctorate in the life sciences and am qualified to have my own informed scientific opinion based on the evidence.
It is not in any way related to my own area of research, I looked into it as a parent wondering what would be best for my own kid. However, there is not really that much research out there on this- so I was able to review much of the primary research, as well as various review articles that try to consider all of it together.
How would you define "domain of expertise"? Reviewing literature from other fields I don't research myself and forming an opinion on how it applies to my research is part of my job and something I do almost every day. I am even also called upon to peer review articles and grant proposals that are not within my direct field of research, as is general practice to get "outside opinions."
In cases like this, I am able to be familiar with basically everything published on the issue. However an actual researcher in a specific field will have additional knowledge and opinions from firsthand experience, that cannot be found in literature.
In general, I think it is okay to have your own opinion on something even if you aren't e.g. a professional whose whole life is focused exactly on that one issue. No formal training, credentials, or firsthand experience are necessarily required to have an informed opinion. However, you still have the burden of making sure you really understand the issue deeply - which is probably something like 100x the effort most people think it would be. Anyone can do that if they take the time to do so. I wish more people would.
In any case, this was a few years back when I looked into it, and it seems like these concerns have become more mainstream and less controversial in the last few years, e.g. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/monographs/mgraph08
It’s totally reasonable to make this as a simple risk balancing decision: “unknown but probably small risk, vs. known and definitely small benefit” is not the kind of fact pattern that we should persecute people for differing on.
The implication to be thwarted was of "mineral" vs "hormone"; the distinction was moot, as there is no such real thing as a "drug" - all things are chemicals, and can be psychoactive to humans in either their presence or absence.
Most notably (in the context of un-intuitiveness), is Xenon - it is't even a chemical, but an element - a noble one, which is almost nonsensical given most's flawed intuition.
> fluorine is not a noble gas
Correct, although ironically it wasn't much use in direct chemical-warfare, it was used more as a pre-cursor to enrich Uranium.
> Most notably (in the context of un-intuitiveness), is Xenon - it is't even a chemical, but an element - a noble one, which is almost nonsensical given most's flawed intuition.
…what?
I haven’t the faintest clue what you’re talking about. I don’t think you know what the word “psychoactive” means, either. By your definition, water is psychoactive too. Is that what you’re suggesting?
