If you are familiar with the risk/benefits of water fluoridation, what is your opinion on WHO (2011) suggested range of 0.5-1.5 mg/L?

Answer Explanations

• Other

  user-464698
  I am not expert in the area hence I have no clear idea about it.
• The benefits outweigh the risks, this range is acceptable

  user-152268
  acceptable
• Other

  user-678105
  Data for suggested range are for a single compound--not when combined with other exposures.
• Other

  user-345912
  I'm not familiar
• Other

  user-831795
  We have to see the fluoride-affected area and the possible availability of water. A large amount of scientific data is needed to give a clear indication. I know many companies do business based on these data while, facts differ. 
• Other

  user-615004
  TWHO’s suggested fluoride range of 0.5-1.5 mg/L in drinking water is beneficial for dental health but requires careful, ongoing monitoring. Seasonal fluctuations can lead to excessive fluoride intake, especially in areas with high natural fluoride levels or added sources, like dental products. For populations exposed to multiple fluoride sources, concentrations at the upper end of this range could pose health risks over time. Thus, while WHO’s guideline is generally sound, it must be adjusted based on local conditions/realities and include continuous fluoride monitoring to avoid potential toxicity.
  
  Conclusion: The risk can sometimes outweigh the benefits depending on the location.

  
  
• Other

  user-304796
   There are other considerations to take into account. Given that less than 1% of drinking water is actually consumed, what is the impact of fluoridated water on the environment, animals, grass, plants, etc.? Do they also require fluoride? This issue should be considered from a One Health perspective. 
• Other

  user-673903
  I don't know
• This risks outweigh the benefits, this range should be lowered

  user-449730
  Since tooth decay is decreasing both in countries with and without water fluoridation, by adding lower amounts of fluoride in our water, we can protect our dental care and reduce the potential risks of fluoridation. I think the dose should be reduced. In particular, we can learn about the lowest dose at which fluoride can be toxic to the developing brain by conducting research on animal experiments 
• Other

  user-803256
  A randomized control community trial can be done to understand the risk/benefit in the current living conditions of the citizens.
• user-641932
  The upper threshold is 1.5 and the lower threshold is 0.5, I find the gap between the upper and lower thresholds too large, this gap needs to be narrowed or there needs to be comprehensive research to come up with a new recommendation.
• This risks outweigh the benefits, this range should be lowered

  user-943691
  The range should be even lower as the accumulation of fluoride leads to several negative health impacts. 
• Other

  user-299197
   I have no appropriate knowledge to have a valid opinion. 
• Other

  user-774962
  I am not familiar with the current range and how/why it was selected.
• Other

  user-561710
  i think the less big centralized organizations get involved in people's lives, the better. i'm also not convinced that there are clear benefits - there are correlational studies but they all have major flaws in establishing causal inferences
• This risks outweigh the benefits, this range should be lowered Other

  user-295973
  The recommended range of 0.5-1.5 mg/l for fluoride may cause no harm to adults but for children and in particular at the ages lower than 5 years may cause some risk. Therefore, it is essential to perform human risk assessment (both in vitro and in vivo) at biologically relevant doses and in particular in children.  
• Other

  user-658333
  My understanding is that a concentration of 0.7 mg/L or so is sufficient to achieve the dental benefits. As far as I know, additional benefits do not accrue at higher concentrations, so it is my opinion that 1.5 mg/L is too high and increases the risk of neurodevelopmental toxicity in fetuses. 
• The benefits outweigh the risks, this range is acceptable

  user-74194
  I did look up the papers on childrens' IQ and fluoride. Most are from China that has fostered misincentivization of that nation's scientists. Others are from authors that I consider to be alarmist in the same way are members of Collegium Ramazzini.
• This risks outweigh the benefits, this range should be lowered

  user-109201
  I s increased level also have other side effects.
• Other

  user-380980
  Am not sure about that.
• This risks outweigh the benefits, this range should be lowered

  user-350867
  In the US, almost all toothpastes contain fluoride as do almost all mouthwashes.  Dentists commonly give fluoride treatments to patients.  We are exposed to fluoride in more ways than when these first rules were set up.  So fluoridating water may be redundant and result in over exposure to fluoride
• The benefits outweigh the risks, this range is acceptable

  user-919082
  Perhaps the more important counter-vailing question is what would be costs of re-directing of increasingly limited community resources to achieving compliance with a potentially lowering (treating) of even background water fluoride concentrations to levels sufficient to meet a concentration predicted as needed to reduce a (as of yet controversial) concern of developmental neurotoxicity.
• This risks outweigh the benefits, this range should be lowered

  user-850429
  Since the World Health Organization (WHO) indicated that drinking water fluoride levels of 0.5-1.5 mg/L have been a common guideline for preventing tooth decay but, inter alia, recent studies investigated maternal fluoride intake and the association with lower IQ scores in children with fluoride intakes at these levels raise important concerns for associated potential neurodevelopmental risks
  Given evidence that fluoride levels at the end of this range may also be associated with adverse psychological outcomes, particularly in vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and young children, it is prudent to reassess the safety of recommendation variety to the topic, suggests that current levels may not adequately protect public health.
  I therefore believe that the risks outweigh the benefits of maintaining fluoride levels at this level and that they should be reduced to prevent potential harm with the goal of protecting dental health.
• The benefits outweigh the risks, this range is acceptable

  user-652158
  I dont care if they fluoridate, but I wish it was easier to purchase fluoride pills.  
• Other

  user-759308
  Public drinking water should NOT be fluoridated at all. 
• Other

  user-640387
  I do not know about it.
• The benefits outweigh the risks, this range is acceptable

  user-293029
  Science based 
• The benefits outweigh the risks, this range is acceptable

  user-762331
  Creo que ese rango es el adecuado valorando riesgos y beneficios
• This risks outweigh the benefits, this range should be lowered

  user-868575
  Given the recent NTP analysis, up to 1.5mg/L is definitely too high and fluoride should probably be capped at 0.7 mg/L (if not lower but not necessarily banned). The WHO opinion is outdated and should be revisited. 
• This risks outweigh the benefits, this range should be lowered

  user-123942
  Fluoride is harmful even in trace amount 
• The benefits outweigh the risks, this range is acceptable

  user-683654
  For now, I think the benefits outweigh the risks unless proven otherwise. 
• This risks outweigh the benefits, this range should be lowered

  user-914553
  Toothpaste has already fluoride on it, so no need to also have it in drinking water.
• This risks outweigh the benefits, this range should be lowered

  user-876062
   By lowering the range, officials can reduce the risk of side effects while continuing to promote the dental benefits of fluoride. This approach would be based on new scientific knowledge and aim to ensure a safe fluoride level for all age groups. 
• The benefits outweigh the risks, this range is acceptable

  user-613901
  There is a large body of evidence
• The benefits outweigh the risks, this range is acceptable

  user-193689
  Clearly the benefits far outweigh the risks
• Other

  user-449711
  Probably time for WHO to review their guidance.