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.
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.
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@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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.
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@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.