this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
28 points (80.4% liked)
Legal News
231 readers
119 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This headline is wildly misleading.
From the study itself that was used to justify the ruling:
Interesting, I wonder why they didn't conduct these studies in the U.S, y'know, where this is supposedly a big issue for the EPA to take action on.
Great, if we find out the total consumption is too much, we can simply have people not need to buy things like mouthwash, or certain extra-flouride toothpastes as much. Doesn't seem like a water supply problem, seems like more of a "consumers buying too much of products they don't need" problem.
I can't find even a single source online that mentions any area with a flouride level above the maximum recommended amount by the CDC and EPA. That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the idea that this is something the EPA truly needs to take any action on.
It looks like organizations like the "Flouride Action Network," an anti-flouride organization, are celebrating this.
The studies I could find cite differences in IQ with a few points maximum, and this is seemingly primarily due to heavy levels of consumption of flouride by pregnant women, not by the children themselves.
To me at least, it seems like they should be recommending specifically pregnant women stop using mouthwash while they're pregnant, and that very young children don't use mouthwash. Not that they need to "take action" over drinking water flouride levels.
Not really. You are just viewing from the wrong perspective. From study perspective, you are right, but the article is talking about legal aspect. Ever since the Supreme Court overturned Chevrons doctrine, courts now decide not experts what and how regulators can create and enforce rules. So EPA was ordered to do so after the study came by the judge.