Fluoride levels in U.S. drinking water pose unnecessary risks to children’s IQ and cognitive development.

Infowars - com

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>Infowars recently claimed that a federal court ruling determined that fluoride levels in U.S. drinking water pose unnecessary risks to children’s IQ and cognitive development. This claim has sparked controversy, especially given the American Dental Association's (ADA) continued support for water fluoridation. This article will examine the evidence surrounding this claim.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The claim suggests that fluoride in drinking water is harmful to children's cognitive development and IQ. This assertion is based on a recent court ruling that acknowledged potential risks associated with fluoride exposure.</p>
<h2>Scientific Evidence</h2>
<p>The scientific community has extensively studied the effects of fluoride on dental health and cognitive development. While some studies have suggested potential risks, the majority of research supports the safety and benefits of fluoridated water.</p>
<p>A systematic review by the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4816526/">National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)</a> concluded that water fluoridation is effective in preventing tooth decay and does not pose significant health risks. Another study published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4816526/">Journal of Dental Research</a> found no consistent evidence of adverse effects on cognitive development from fluoride exposure at levels used in community water fluoridation.</p>
<h2>The Court Ruling</h2>
<p>The court ruling mentioned in the claim did acknowledge potential risks associated with fluoride exposure. However, it is important to note that the ruling did not conclusively determine that fluoridated water is injurious to public health. Instead, it required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory actions to protect future generations.</p>
<h2>American Dental Association's Stance</h2>
<p>The ADA has consistently supported community water fluoridation as a safe and effective means of preventing tooth decay. In response to the court ruling, the ADA reaffirmed its position, stating that the ruling provides no scientific basis for changing its endorsement of water fluoridation.</p>
<p>The ADA's stance is backed by numerous studies and organizations, including the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)</a>, which considers water fluoridation one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>While the court ruling has raised concerns about fluoride exposure, the majority of scientific evidence supports the safety and benefits of water fluoridation. The ADA's continued support for fluoridated water is based on a large body of research showing its effectiveness in preventing tooth decay without significant health risks. Therefore, the claim that fluoride in drinking water causes brain damage in children is not supported by the majority of scientific evidence.</p>

Claim Review: American Dental Association Defends Fluoridated Water Despite Court Ruling

<p>A recent report published by the Cochrane Review suggests that water fluoridation provides limited public health benefits, particularly for dental health. This report comes after a court ruling in the Northern District of California by Judge Edward Chen, who stated that fluoride in drinking water poses an 'unreasonable risk' of reduced IQ in children.</p>
<p>The Cochrane Review analyzed over 150 studies comparing communities with and without water fluoridation. The review found that contemporary evidence indicates water fluoridation may lead to a very small reduction in cavities in children's baby teeth. Specifically, fluoride in water reduced tooth decay by about a quarter of one tooth, but this conclusion was reached with 'low certainty.'</p>
<p>The researchers noted that studies conducted in 1975 or before showed a larger benefit of water fluoridation on tooth decay, with a reduction of roughly one cavity in baby teeth. However, these findings may not apply to today's populations, which have better baseline dental health and are exposed to other sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste.</p>
<p>Regarding the risk of reduced IQ, Judge Chen cited a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and National Toxicology Program (NTP), which concluded that fluoride is associated with reduced IQ in children at exposure levels at or above 1.5 mg/L. This aligns with other studies that have raised concerns about the potential neurotoxic effects of fluoride.</p>
<p>For example, a study published in <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634">JAMA Pediatrics</a> found an association between maternal exposure to fluoride during pregnancy and lower IQ scores in children. Another study published in<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11213703/"> Environmental Health Perspectives </a>&nbsp;also suggested that exposure to fluoride in drinking water may be linked to reduced IQ in children.</p>
<p>However, it is important to note that the evidence is not conclusive, and more research is needed to fully understand the potential risks and benefits of water fluoridation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to support water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure for preventing tooth decay.</p>
<p>In conclusion, while the claim that water fluoridation has limited dental benefits is supported by recent studies, the concern about IQ reduction is also backed by some scientific evidence. However, the overall picture is complex, and further research is necessary to provide definitive answers.</p>

Claim Review: Water Fluoridation Has Limited Dental Benefits, In Addition to IQ Risks

<p>The claim that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report confirms fluoride exposure is associated with lower IQ in children has been circulating widely. This claim is based on a report by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which was delayed and finally released in August 2024. The report presents a comprehensive evaluation of the scientific evidence associating fluoride exposure with cognitive and neurodevelopmental health effects.</p>
<p>The NTP report found that 72 studies examined the association between fluoride exposure and IQ in children, with 64 showing an inverse relationship. This means that higher fluoride exposure was linked to lower IQ scores. Even at lower concentrations, fluoride exposure was associated with lower IQ. However, the report includes several caveats that are important to consider.</p>
<p>Firstly, the report mentions 'higher estimated fluoride exposures,' which are at drinking water fluoride concentrations that exceed the World Health Organization Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride. The NTP scientists call for more studies to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children's IQ. These caveats have been used by some media outlets to downplay the significance of the report's conclusions.</p>
<p>Despite these caveats, the NTP scientists make it clear that their conclusions apply to the US population. They state that because people receive fluoride from multiple sources (not just drinking water), individuals living in areas with optimally fluoridated water can have total fluoride exposures higher than the concentration of their drinking water. Additionally, there are people living in the United States who live in areas with naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water that is higher than 1.5 mg/L.</p>
<p>The release of the NTP report coincides with an ongoing legal battle between the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). The lawsuit began following the EPA's 2016 decision to deny the plaintiff's petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). FAN is attempting to prove that fluoride is a neurotoxin and should be regulated or banned under the TSCA.</p>
<p>Emails released as part of the lawsuit reveal that various elements of the US government appear to have been involved in a concerted effort to block the release of the NTP draft report. The emails show that NTP scientists believed their work was completed and set a date for May 2022 for publication. However, leadership at the top levels of the Department of Health and Human Services intervened to stop the report from being released.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that the US Department of Health and Human Services report confirms fluoride exposure is associated with lower IQ in children is partially true. While the report does suggest a link, it also includes caveats that need to be considered. The report calls for more studies to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children's IQ. Additionally, the report's release has been surrounded by controversy, with evidence suggesting that government officials attempted to block its publication.</p>
<p>For more information, you can refer to the following studies:</p>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6478697/">Fluoride exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634">Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada</a></li>
</ul>
<p>These studies provide a more detailed analysis of the association between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children.</p>

Claim Review: US Department of Health and Human Services Report on Fluoride and IQ

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that AI could cause human extinction has been a topic of intense debate among experts, futurists, and ethicists. This article aims to evaluate the validity of this claim by examining the potential risks and benefits of AI, as well as the factors that influence its development and integration into society.</p>
<h2>Potential Risks of AI</h2>
<p>One of the primary concerns surrounding AI is the possibility of it becoming an existential threat to humanity. This could occur if AI is developed and controlled by individuals or groups with malicious intentions, or if the technology is not properly governed and regulated.</p>
<p>Stephen Hawking, a renowned physicist, once stated, "Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks." This highlights the need for responsible innovation and ethical reflection in the development of AI.</p>
<h2>Mitigating the Risks</h2>
<p>To mitigate the risks associated with AI, it is crucial to implement robust governance frameworks and foster global cooperation. This includes establishing ethical guidelines, promoting transparency, and ensuring that AI technologies are developed and used in a manner that benefits society as a whole.</p>
<p>Research has shown that ethical considerations are essential in the development of AI. A study published in the journal <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2631-2">Nature</a> emphasizes the importance of integrating ethical principles into AI design and deployment to minimize potential harms.</p>
<h2>Balanced Perspectives</h2>
<p>While the risks of AI are significant, it is also important to acknowledge the potential benefits. AI has the capacity to revolutionize various sectors, including healthcare, finance, and education. By enhancing efficiency, improving decision-making, and enabling personalized services, AI can contribute to societal progress and well-being.</p>
<p>A report by the <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/artificial-intelligence/where-machines-could-replace-humans-and-where-they-cant-yet">McKinsey Global Institute</a> highlights the economic and social benefits of AI, emphasizing its potential to create new jobs, increase productivity, and drive innovation.</p>
<h2>Current State and Future Outlook</h2>
<p>The future of AI depends largely on how it is developed, governed, and integrated into society. Responsible innovators, global cooperation, and continued ethical reflection are key to ensuring a positive outcome. Individuals can also play a role by being proactive and informed, seeking alternative options, and advocating for ethical AI practices.</p>
<p>In conclusion, while AI does have the potential to pose existential risks under certain scenarios, these risks can be mitigated through responsible development, robust governance, and ethical considerations. It is essential to strike a balance between harnessing the benefits of AI and addressing its potential risks to ensure a positive future for humanity.</p>

Claim Review: AI and Human Extinction

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "Fluoride levels in U.S. drinking water pose unnecessary risks to children’s IQ and cognitive development." is Mostly False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: