As someone who dislikes traditional low flow heads that tend to icepick you with little streams, I highly recommend high sierra showerheads. I don't know how they pull it off, but it absolutely blasts you with water while still being low flow. Like I prefer it to any other shower head I've tried, low flow or not.
They make one with an adjustable valve that let's you dial in the perfect amount of flow too.
I would suggest trying to start a grass roots movement to lower dental healthcare costs in the US to be closer to EU levels, as well as push for those subsidized fluoride rinses you mentioned. It'll be a long road, but it has to start somewhere, and you seem passionate enough about the subject to lead the charge.
Rural areas tend to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, while also not being connected to a municipal water (it's more economical to have your own well in rural areas).
Just because those people don't have access to fluoridated water does not mean the solution is to then take away fluoridated water from the poor who do live in areas with municipal water.
You’re right it’s more expensive and the logistics are worse, but at the same time you could inculcate better habits in your population, and even subsidize proper mouth rinses.
The minute that's successfully done across the country, I would be in favor of removing fluoride from water, but only after all economically disadvantaged have that better option in place, and they are adequately educated with better habits to utilize it. I think you'll find that it is much easier said than done.
Dentistry in America is ludicrously broken, but Europe has had its own way for decades, and diverged in many important ways, while having a far smaller economic incentive.
I don't disagree with that at all. The amount of false dental procedures done in the US for monetary gain is quite high, making it a hassle to find an ethical dentist.
Providing free dental rinses to kids at school seems like it would solve this better
I think that would be a better solution in theory, but the cost of doing that en-masse across the country would be quite a bit higher than putting it in the drinking water (Single bulk purchase of fluoride with only a single person needed to be hired to add it to the water supply Vs. Millions of bottles of fluoride rinse being either being created by the government or contracted out to a company, which is then regularly distributed to schools, likely via truck, requiring hundreds to thousands of new employees to manage and run an operation of that size).
I can't imagine a bill for that program being passed in this political climate. I mean, we can't even get lead out of the water in many communities, and that's far, FAR more dangerous. Not to mention PFAS now being in the water supply. Also, while that solution would help children, what about adults who cannot afford to buy fluoride rinses?
We have pretty solid evidence that shows when a community stops fluoridating their water, the poorest in that community have a pretty steep increase in preventable dental and oral health outcomes.
There is also some tentative evidence that high levels of fluoride could have negative effects to pregnant women, babies, and small developing children (potential lowering of IQ), but it's pretty weak evidence that hasn't been verified, and there is no evidence that it is harmful to adults.
So we have to choose between a 100% known bad outcome for poor people and a potential bad effect for young people from a poorly done study. I don't think it's too crazy of a decision to go with the option that does a significant amount of known good to the most disenfranchised part of the population, personally.
The places that do fluoridate their water do so publicly, is regulated and tested (and can be personally verified at home with a test kit), and adds the least amount possible to achieve the positive outcome, which comes out to a very small dose (many communities have naturally occurring fluoride in their water at higher levels)
If the state can add compounds to water, why not other compounds that reduce aggression?
That part is going a bit too far into conspiratorial thinking, IMHO, coming from someone who used to be a full on religious conspiracy theorist prepper. If we begin to assume that the government is going to start manipulating the water supply secretly, you would then have to assume that any water that you didn't personally purify is suspect, and at that point water fluoridation is the least of your concerns.
The risk to a government doing that is absolutely immense, as the now modified water would be accessible and testable by the entire population that drinks it, and unless there are suddenly new chemicals that are undetectable by known scientific methods, the chances of a government being able to pull that off are below nill, and detection would result in a scandal beyond imagining.
There are many recent studies on the efficacy of flouride, both mouth rinse and paste from the last two decades, as well as studies on the efficacy of essential oil rinses (Listerine) and stabilized chlorine (Closys).
There have been developments in flouride compositions as well, such as Stannus flouride, which has been fully stabilized and no longer stains the teeth like it once did. It brings with it advantages over the older Sodium Flouride, such as better resilience against low pH, reduction of temperature sensitivity from its ability to fill in the microtubules of the teeth, and an antibacterial effect from being stabilized to zinc, which remains on the teeth and kills caries causing bacteria for many hours after use.
I highly disagree that science is not advancing regarding dental solutions, we are very much not playing with voodoo. I would suggest instead that advancements in dental technology and science is not pushed harder due to financial interests, as wide adoption would drastically reduce the income of dentists. It's capitalism, basically.
To give a highly encapsulated version of an ideal dental regimen based on modern science, it would be thus:
This last step is is important for a few reasons.
If this protocol is followed diligently twice a day, you will effectively entirely prevent caries causing bacteria from being able to proliferate enough to actually cause plaque buildup whatsoever, and you will likely never get another cavity for the rest of your life. Especially if combined with xylitol mints after meals, which caries causing bacteria uptake thinking it's a sugar they can digest and use as fuel, but in fact cannot be, causing them to die. It also promotes saliva production, which increases pH and flushes the teeth with minerals.
Lastly, the reason we treat water with flouride is for the sake of those unable to afford access to, or proper knowledge of, flouride containing dental products as described above. If everyone did the above protocol, there would be no need to fluoridate water, but as that is unlikely, water fluoridation is a compromise.
I'm not suggesting hydroxyapetite is without merit for dental purposes, it absolutely is useful, and I agree combining it with flouride would likely be optimal (I recall reading a study that seemed to suggest HA can actually remineralize deeper into the tooth than flouride can).
I was just pointing out that the woman in the article didn't seem to know what hydroxyapetite is actually used for, despite trying to seem like a source of knowledge.
I've had a similar experience with other alternatives like Soy curls, which I got to taste good a couple times but strangely could never replicate, and ended up just tasting like adding cereal to me. And Beyond beef, which has an off flavor from the pea protein base.
Quorn seemed to have no off flavor to me or my family, it seemed totally neutral, and they couldn't tell the difference in tacos, chili, stuffed peppers, etc. I was surprised it wasn't more popular based on how long its been around.
Maybe there's a genetic component that's influencing our flavor perception of it? like how saccharine can taste terrible to people due to genetic differences, limiting its use in soda or candy.
I don't dispute her lead findings, but her statement about Hydroxyapatite shows she's willing to give comment on things she knows nothing about.
Hydroxyapatite is extracted from cow bone and added because it allegedly helps teeth absorb calcium, though Rubin said she doubts it does.
Hydroxyapatite is used as an alternative to flouride, as it's able to attach to the enamal and act as a barrier similar to how flouride does.
Research has shown it's less effective than flouride overall (it can't withstand as low a pH/acidity before dissolving), but it's not added to increase calcium absorption, like she claims.
Collective action on a wide scale far outpaces what Elon could do, and it's not as though he would increase his personal consumption to counteract what thousands of others do.
We need to keep in mind the overall picture, and not let other people continuing harmful practices to stop us from trying to reduce ours. Otherwise nothing would ever get better.
"I'm not going to drive less or use a bicycle because the rich use jets."
"I'm not going to install balcony solar because the rich waste energy with factories and mansions."
"I'm not going to consume less because the rich consume more than me."
These mindsets stifle positive change that can genuinely make a difference, especially when we are so short on time.
Also, there are now extremely good plant based red meat alternatives like Quorn, Impossible, or on a budget, Seitan. All of which allow us to continue to use our favorite meat based recipes without contributing to climate change (and lower bowel cancer risks :D), letting us give elon the finger without sacrificing anything.
And Microsoft.
The biggest advantage of private email is that it stops the email provider itself from data mining some of your most sensitive info, as Gmail and other free emails most certainly do. Basically it's protection from surveillance capitalism, but you rightfully can't consider it a secure way to send messages or info to other, non-encrypted users.
I'll grant you that language is potentially a dogwhistle, but on their blog, they post about Earth day and Sustainability, which is currently vilified by MAGA.
If I had to guess, their marketing team is trying to play both sides.
Without more clear evidence of their politics, I'll probably continue to recommend them if they get people to stick with saving water, as ultimately that's the opposite of what Trump's policies are trying to do.