A bill to ban the use of the mineral in public water passed the Florida House 88-27. It now awaits Gov. Ron DeSantis' signature.

A bill to ban the use of the mineral in public water passed the Florida House 88-27. It now awaits Gov. Ron DeSantis’ signature.

Lawmakers in Florida gave final passage to a bill to ban fluoride in public water systems Tuesday, with the state House voting 88-27.

SB 700, also known as the Florida Farm Bill, doesn’t mention the word “fluoride,” but it would effectively ban the chemical compound by preventing “the use of certain additives in a water system.” The bill awaits Gov. Ron DeSantis’ signature.

If DeSantis, a Republican, signs the bill, Florida will become the second state to ban fluoride from water supplies.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    12·
    20 hours ago

    Again, you’re talking about a dilution. Is a glass of water with trace amount of chlorine, chlorine?

    I’d gladly review any study, that you’re aware of, that states there are no longer term effects of drinking trace amounts of chlorine. That is, since it’s such a walk in the park to do.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      17 hours ago

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity

      Maybe reading it somewhere else will help you get it.

      A central concept of toxicology is that the effects of a toxicant are dose-dependent; even water can lead to water intoxication when taken in too high a dose, whereas for even a very toxic substance such as snake venom there is a dose below which there is no detectable toxic effect.

      Yes, lower concentrations of a poison make it not a poison.

      Do you think pure water is toxic because it can kill you if you drink too much?

      https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/dwchloramine.pdf

      The first phase of this study (Zierler et al., 1986) looked at the patterns of cancer mortality among 43 communities using either chlorine or chloramine since 1938. All resident Massachusetts deaths among those 45 years and older and occurring during 1969-1983 were eligible for the study. Deaths were selected for inclusion if the last residence listed on the death certificate was in a community using chlorine or chloramine for disinfection. Cancers of the bladder, colon, kidney, pancreas, rectum, stomach, lung and female breast were thought to be related to chlorinated by-products of disinfection and were therefore treated as cases for a mortality odds ratio (MOR) analysis. Deaths from cardiovascular and cerebravascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease and lymphatic cancer (N=214,988), considered to be unrelated to chlorinated by-products, were used for comparison. In general, cancer mortality was not associated with type of disinfectant in the MOR analysis. There was a slight association (MOR=1.05) for chlorine use noted only with bladder cancer that increased slightly (MOR=1.15, 95% confidence interval = 1.06-1.26) when lung cancer deaths were used for controls. Standardized mortality ratio analysis of the data set were generally unremarkable. There was a small increase in mortality (SMR=118, 95% confidence interval = 116-120) from influenza and pneumonia in the chloraminated communities. CLORAMIN.6 VI-5 03/08/94

      https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/related-research-chloramines-drinking-water

      That’s from just basic googling, so yeah, I’d say it’s pretty easy to find at least moderately compelling evidence.

      Don’t forget some studies on the benefits:

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15782893/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10176376/

      As well as on general chlorine safety: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK598756/

      • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
        11·
        15 hours ago

        From the first link:

        One epidemiologic study looked at a population exposed to chloramine in its drinking water and used the disease risk as a baseline for comparing the risk in a population exposed to chlorine in its drinking water. These findings will be addressed only briefly as they are not directly relevant to this document.

        Have you looked through the second link? It’s all about EPA methods. If I felt further discussion with you might be productive I might investigate some of the citations. I just think you’re accusing me of one thing and I’m saying something entirely different.

        Don’t forget some studies on the benefits

        Are you suggesting chlorine is actually good for you, not that it has antibacterial properties that makes the water safer for consumption?

        I’ll skip the chlorine safety stuff because I asked for a study.

        As far as the toxicity stuff I’m not concerned because you’re still talking about concentration (see. Dilution).

        If you had any tact you would understand that I’m not trying to say chlorine is unsafe for human consumption I’m saying that the goal of science isn’t to determine every possible outcome of consuming it.

        Anyway. You’ll just have disregard me because we aren’t communicating on the same level.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          10 hours ago

          If you had any tact

          Tact? I’ve been extremely tactful you twit. You’ve been obtuse the the point of incredulity.
          Yes, I sent a collection of EPA references. Who do you think oversaw most of the studies?

          My entire point has been the toxicity issue which you seem incapable of understanding. You’ll have to forgive me for invoking the chlorine issue so much, since you started this whole thing with implying I drink pool water and saying that “poison is poison” in contradiction to “dosage matters”.

          You still haven’t answered me. If a toxic substance is toxic no matter what, “poison is poison”, would you consider water to be a poison?

          You’ll just have disregard me because we aren’t communicating on the same level.

          Clearly.