this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
44 points (97.8% liked)
Australia
4511 readers
19 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Imo you were too vague in your conditions.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.5542
This systemic review and meta-analysis includes this (weak!!) negative health result even at <=1.5mg/L fluoride/water (1.5mg/L being the upper limit for drinking water that the WHO recommends according to many papers including this paper, but which annoyingly doesn't seem to have an up-to-date page on the WHO website to confirm with).
I would personally consider this to qualify, though I will understand if you want to be more strict. I'm also not the person you were replying to lol.
edit: This one is a bit less ambiguous, though it's not open access https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.05.645 (the language they use also makes it sound like they have an agenda, but I know nothing about the authors)
Which I think qualifies as "suggests it is suspected to be unsafe at recommended levels" if you allow the recommend level to be "some nebulous amount up to 1.5mg/L" and for "unsafe" to be "causes or is associated with negative health effects".
Dammit, I did a quick literature search first too.
If I wanted I could say I meant Australian recommended levels which have never been more than 1mg/L but I didn't specify. WHO recommendations are <=1.5mg/L.
Also I will stand by my point as
The study is inconclusive and suggestive at those lower dose ranges and not relevant to Australia as our standards recommend even lower levels, but it does "suggest" which was my criteria. Possibly the WHO ought to adopt something closer to the western world standard of around 0.7mg/L
Probably this is what @Tenderizer is referencing and we all owe them an apology.
Name your charity @MHLoppy2
I nominate the unregistered charity of @Joshi@slrpnk.net who makes efforts to promote health education and foster civil discussion in online spaces.
Tenderizer may have a different view, but for me personally don't worry about losing the money due to a random internet discussion. If you would like to use your money to do some good in the world, I don't want that to be conditional on who spent more time researching a random topic.
I would, however, like to re-iterate this quote:
And remind everyone that at any given time we know approximately nothing about anything so be cautious about being overconfident in what you think you know!
omg you madlad
Hats off to you!!! 👏