@ryanmarino.bsky.social If 1.5 mg/L is the LOAEL then wouldn’t .7 mg/L be rather high to assume as the NOAEL? I definitely agree that the risks of tooth decay are often not fully explained or appreciated.
LOAEL and NOAEL are kind of imaginary values (people literally just make them up) but the LOAEL is weight based rather than water concentration based and is set to dental fluorosis, which is hard to really call toxicity IMO
The courts can rule any way they want, but it doesn’t change the science. It would be like me giving legal advice: I can do that but nobody should care about it
ha, fair analogy. thanks and i will continue watching the space. thankfully our local water (hetch hetchy) is 0.4 anyway. i do agree with all your points, i just thought it was worth mentioning the outcome of the suit v the EPA in the essay. but you're right, that's a court ruling, not science.
"unreasonable risk" is a term of art in federal administrative law and not the same standard a scientist would use, it just ruled that based on the evidence presented there was enough to order the EPA to engage in rulemaking (but doesn't say what type of action the EPA must take beyond that).
I am curious as to your take on the recent court case in California. I live in the Bay Area and trying to figure out if I should be concerned or not with the fluoride situation in our water. Would appreciate your thoughts.
Comments
*Checks calendar and news*
Fuck.
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024.09.24-Opinion.pdf
am i misreading something? this is not my area of expertise.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-fluoride-drinking-water-federal-court-ruling/