Discord is OK for real-time chat or VC, but is awful for forum-like discussions. Comment-specific context is lost in the single-threaded noise and search is borderline useless. The true forum-designed format of Lemmy, Reddit, and predecessors is far and away better. In my opinion Twitter - the legacy, ubiquity and tech - would be a better forum than Discord. That was hard to type and I need to quickly bleach my fingers.
I don't use headphones often, but when I do its' via wired headphones. I had to buy a USB-C-to-3.5mm adapter, but the max volume is half of what my old phone with a 3.5mm jack could deliver.
Cheap wireless devices like headphones are way too finicky and prone to breakage, not to mention the battery lifespan is just a few years. I've had my nice wired headphones for 10 years.
You can't remove fluoride using standard water filters, or even high-end RO filter systems. A specialized fluoride-specific filtration system (multi-stage) is required due to fluoride's chemical bond.
BTW the adapter I use is Apple-branded but still has the same volume issue reported for generic variants - it must be a limitation of the USB-C spec. I will concede that wireless is nice for workouts, though... I use my wife's when I am in a rare music-while-exercising mood. She's gone through 4 pairs in the past 5 years, though, and the amount of E-waste is very problematic.
The delta between fluoride levels considered "theraputic" and "harmful" (per the WHO) is quite small. The most effective use of fluoride is topical (applying to teeth) rather than oral.
If they made nice wireless headphones where the battery lasted longer than 5 years, wasn't at risk in a hot car or backpack, and was also reasonably priced I'd concede they're better. Until then theyre not a better solution (unless during workouts) and contributes to e-waste. The adapter is apple-branded too... I guess something about the usb-c spec doesn't allow loud audio signals to pass through.
My parents aren't even old enough to be boomers. I'm just practical.
Do you consider water to be medicine, or a resource? Why don't we add caloric value to our tap water too, for the sake of malnutrition in impoverished communities?
Without chlorination people would get sick and possibly die. Amoebas & bacteria can enter our bodies when showering or even flushing a toilet - via aerosolization. Chlorination is also important for the water infrastructure itself, and to prevent buildup within home pipes and appliances.
Should we put multi-vitamin compounds in our drinking water too? It is strange that this one thing is added to water vs the host of other compounds which are shown to benefit human health.
"The authors conclude that available evidence suggests that fluoride has a potential to cause major adverse human health problems, while having only a modest dental caries prevention effect": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/
I’m against removing it completely is because it’s not clear that it isn’t helping prevent tooth decay
^ I think this logic needs to be reversed - the burden of proof must be abundantly clear with few to no risks before it should be considered. The paper above also highlights interesting aspects about the initial test which spurred water fluoridation in the US. This was also a time in which broad public awareness of dental hygiene was first entering mainstream - was the causality due to amended tap water, or more tooth-brushing?
There's a reason most of Europe (and most of the world) doesn't fluoridate their water, and their teeth are statistically healthier than the USA & Australia, where most tap water is fluoridated.
In my opinion the water fluoridation debate has become associated with nut-job conspiracy theorists and the "don't tread on me" crowd. There are legitimate concerns, and the debate has been ongoing prior to Roswell, etc. There are literal conspiracies diluted in public perception/sentiment by wacky theoretical conspiracies and the types who espouse them.
I was being facetious and think your argument is completely preposterous, but continuing for fun. Let's say you are dictator of your loyal subjects, and decide to medicate their water with... vitamins, including copper. What if someone is sensitive to added copper, either because of damage to their copper plumbing, copper cookware, or a metabolic issue? What if someone is working outdoors in the summer heat and consumes 2 gallons of water per day, but begins to experience symptoms of copper toxicity due to the volume of water intake? The water is excreted, but our bodies do not excrete most excess vitamins, such as copper. This copper intake then causes an imbalance/deficiency of zinc and subsequently magnesium.
Should we add prozac/SSRIs to our water to thwart depression and make the populous happier?
Most of the world doesn't medicate their water, and their citizens are surprisingly healthier than us in the US & Australia where we "medicate" our water. How about we give people access to clean, pure water and let them supplement as they & their doctors see fit?
You're ignoring the overarching debate, but fine I'll address your nit-picky distraction.
"Small" is a relative term, and to the amounts that would be harmless in all situations would have negligible health benefits, to the point of questioning "why bother". Also even small quantities add up, such as the example of 2-gallon consumption on a hot day. What isn't controversial or subjective, though, is pure water.
The simplest solution is usually best - instead of a one-size-fits-all "medicated" water approach, just take a multivitamin that works best for your individual biology and preferences... assuming you can't consume foods which contain the variety of compounds our bodies need, being the ideal solution. Even the USDA recommendations for vitamins & minerals are mere guesstimated guidelines which varies per individual & lifestyle.
Pharmacology implies drugs or synthetic compounds. The RDA stats are officially "guidelines" - Just ask your doctor or nutritionist to explain the fuzzy landscape to you, as well as the interactions & interplay between various compounds as they're processed & stored by your body. Perhaps get a CBC to determine what you specifically need; they're usually covered by insurance (assuming you're in the states).
This is the internet, friend. I could be a nobody, a deputy commissioner at the FDA, or a published researcher. Your mind will not change either way.
No offense, but you're not worth the compromise of my privacy. Good day, fellow time-waster.
The website in the article, had anyone read it without their personal bias scoffing at the title and going straight to comments, contains much of this info - I recommend giving it a gander.
98% of Europe doesn't fluoridate their water. IATP provides statistics and primary concerns: https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Facts_about_Fluoridation.htm
Per the NIH: "Children in endimic areas of fluorosis are at risk for impaired development or intelligence": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3409983/ Note: the “high” level in the report below is easily achievable by a standard diet and recommended water intake, assuming fluoridated water is both ingested and used in food processing and cooking. This excludes exposure via fluoride toothpaste.
Fluoride and cancer: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3283934/
Please do your own research, as this is a very controversial subject which has been fought since its inception, with entrenched opinions. Here's a primer:
Most of the research done on fluoridating tap water was done in the early 1940s & 50s, well in advance of modern dental hygiene and fluoridated toothpaste use. Studies do definitively show applying fluoride directly to teeth does strengthen tooth enamel, but modern studies are mixed, at best, regarding efficacy of fluoridated tap water between equivalent socioeconomic communities. No studies have been conducted regarding dermal absorption of fluoride , believed to further elevate intake.
I think the simplest solution is to let people choose for themselves, and add fluoride to their personal drinking water if that's what they choose.
We don't need to fluoridate water in our toilets, showers, or irrigation.
There's quite a list of well-documented risks, actually. The anti-fluoride website highlighted in the article goes into some of it, but the one I'm intrigued by is the established link between IQ and fluoride. The "high" level in the report below is easily achievable by a standard diet and recommended water intake, assuming fluoridated water is both ingested and used in food processing and cooking.
It's back up now. They apparently use Bing as the backend search and Microsoft fsck'd it for a few hours: https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/23/24163094/microsoft-bing-search-outage-copilot-duckduckgo-chatgpt