Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Calcium-fluoro-phosphate

A recent edit by an IP address added (without comment) the following material to the lead:

"It is important to note that calcium-fluoro-phosphate - a bone and teeth strengthening organic chemical - is NOT soluble in water[1]. Sodium flouride and hydrofluosilicic acid are used to fluoridate water and are not organic."

The first sentence relies on an unreliable source "Fluoride – The Lunatic Drug". The second sentence is unsourced. This insertion is therefore weak.

This material is already covered in the lead (which talks about "a fluoridated compound" and "Fluoridated water operates on tooth surfaces: in the mouth it creates low levels of fluoride in saliva, which reduces the rate at which tooth enamel demineralizes and increases the rate at which it remineralizes in the early stages of cavities.") and the material is discussed in great detail in the body, which makes it clear that sodium flouride and hydrofluosilicic acid are not the only two compounds used for fluoridation.

The change also added this paragraph to the lead:

"See Opposition to water fluoridation."

That sort of "See" is not appropriate in the lead; the Manual of Style says that it should be in a See also section, but if it's already referred to in the body (which it is, as a hatnote for the Ethics and politics section) then there's no need for it in a See also section.

For now I reverted the change, and suggest that further discussion about it be placed here. Eubulides (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the Merck Index (Rahway, N.J.) is a very good source, not a 'weak' one, by listing the solubilities and lethal doses for calcium fluoride (8 ppm fluoride maximum solubility; 5,000 ppm lethal acute dose) verses fluosilicic acid (massive solubility; 125 ppm acute lethal dose). Water fluoridation as the article points out was based on natural fluoride water (containing by the way calcium as high as 500 ppm or more), preventing any possible acute lethality, and yet the artificial procedure injects mostly fluosilicic acid. The calcium to fluoride ratio is always lowered by this injection, even though the OHD at CDC prefers to claim it 'is natural' anyway. Oly soft water cities can have acute lethal poisonings (as during an overfeed)(Gessner, New Eng. J. Med., 1994). 1 ppm artificial fluoride in soft water cities leads to higher blood fluoride levels (0.21 ppm fluoride, NRC, 2006) and incorporates into bone (at thousands of times that in the water in only 1-2 years) in a linear, non-saturable, irreversible manner (NR, 2006) proving it is a pathologic, not a physiologic, process. Old recommendations by the WHO, or OHD at CDC, that do not consider the intrinsic water calcium level (in view of the hard Merck data) requires this inclusion to avoid pro-fluoride bias. And note that the FDA, Dept. of Agriculture, EPA and NRC oppose or do not support artificial fluoridation and are as significant as the WHO, ADA and others listed above. --Rsauerheber (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous comment is not responsive. The proposed addition to the article does not cite the Merck Index; it cites a fringe web site. The other arguments in the previous comment are either based on unreliable sources, or discuss topics (such as overfeed) that are already well-covered in Water fluoridation. I am sure that the U.S. Department of Transportation also does not take an official position supporting water fluoridation but this is not relevant to the article. Eubulides (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The NRC in the 1950's presumed fluoride was a mineral nutrient, but now that we have reliable data disproving that, the NRC now recognizes officially it is not a mineral nutrient. The FDA was never fooled and still labels all artificial fluorides as unregulated drugs with no nutritive value. The Dept. of Agriculture opposes artificial fluoride inejections because of known effects on fish. The NRC 2006 reference is not 'unreliable' in that it does contain some facts. The most unreliable references in the article is that to the work of McKay (and Dean and Heard) who first misunderstood that the whitened teeth with decreased cavities in natural water in the Southwest was due to calcium levels being higher in the water, not due to the fluoride. Labeling the NRC reference as 'unreliable' while the other as 'reliable' fails to indicate to the reader that Dr. Heard and

Dr. Dean both later retracted their original mistaken opinions. --Rsauerheber (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Water fluoridation article already discusses claims that fluoride is a nutrient, citing recent reliable sources, and the article says that it's not been proven that fluoride is an essential nutrient, so it would appear that the article agrees with that part of your comment. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture does not oppose water fluoridation, and claims to the contrary are sheer misinformation (similarly for FDA, EPA and NRC). No reliable source supports the claim that studies were mistaken in attributing reduction of cavities to fluoride rather than to calcium. This talk page is supposed to be about improving the article; it is not a forum for disseminating fringe theories. Eubulides (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The DOT has not to my knowledge investigated water fluoridaiton in detail, as have the FDA, NRC and Dept. of Agriculture, who because of that will not agree to promote it.

All this still ignores the fact that no mention in the article is made to identify fluosilicic acid fluoridation as an unnatural procedure because of its extreme high solubility, lower lethal dose than natural calcium fluoride, and it increases the ratio of fluoride to endogenous calcium level in the water which affects relative assimilation of the ion. Yes, the fluoride ion in hard water is identical to the ion in soft water, but its activity and biologic effectiveness are completely different in the two cases. Since this fact is omitted, the article cannot be considered of a quality to recommend being read.

One statement actually claims that fluoridated water (that is known to accumulate fluoride in bone irreversibly to thousands of times that in the water over lifetime drinking) does not increase bone fracture rates. This is challenged by the NRC Report 2006, an American review of water fluoride which indeed made this correct claim. The NRC also states that current allowed levels of fluoride in drinking water are not protective of health for the American consumer. The claim in the article that the NRC is 'unreliable', while the English York review article is top-notch and without bias, reflects bias in the writer of the article. Indeed, the article is not peer reviewed, is obviously not written by a practicing toxicological scientist and is itself of very low quality.

There are no prospective clinical trials on the biological side effects of artificial fluoridated water consumption in humans, and because of this the FDA cannot approve its use as a drug, and as well, the claims of safety in the article are unjustified. Anecdotal articles and reviews of such articles do not constitute proof of safety, no matter how cleverly written are such articles that have no controlled clinical data to back up such claims. The best we have unfortunately are animal studies that are prospective to use as a guide, and human studies after-the-fact that are not well-controlled. Rationality dictates that since only fluoride consumption can lead to fluoride incorporation into bone, that even without controlled trials it is clear fluoride consumption in the U.S. is routinely out of control, based on levels now being found in deceased individuals reported in the NRC study, that the author continues to claim without proof is 'unreliable'.--Rsauerheber (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• The FDA, NRC and Dept. of Agriculture have not "investigated water fluoridation in detail", and they have not come out in opposition of it. It is not their job to oversee water fluoridation, so one would not expect them to have an official position on it, any more than one would expect the CDC to have an official position on how to grow corn. It is completely incorrect to imply, as your comments have, that these organizations oppose water fluoridation: they do not.
• Claims about "unnatural procedures", calcium, and suchlike are supported only by WP:FRINGE sources.
• It is completely incorrect to claim that the NRC 2006 report said that water fluoridation increases bone fracture rates. The NRC 2006 report made no such claim. It is not about water fluoridation at all: it explicitly excludes water fluoridation from its subject matter. The NRC 2006 report is about water that is naturally fluoridated to levels well above those recommended for water fluoridation.
• "The claim in the article that the NRC is 'unreliable'" There is no such claim in Water fluoridation.
• "English York review article is ... is not peer reviewed, is obviously not written by a practicing toxicological scientist and is itself of very low quality." The York review is by consensus the highest-quality review of its time. It was not itself published in a peer-reviewed journal, but the report itself was extensively peer reviewed, and its summary (McDonagh et al. 2000, PMID 11021861) and commentary (Treasure et al. 2002, PMID 12047121) were published in peer-reviewed journals. Later reliable reviews, such as the NHMRC review summarized in Yeung 2008 (PMID 18584000), give considerable weight to the York review. The claim that the York review is of low quality is completely implausible.
• Again, please remember that this talk page is not intended to be a soapbox; see WP:SOAPBOX.

Eubulides (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis on adverse effects

A recent edit introduced several changes at once, introducing some clear POV.

I'm sorry you thought it was POV, but the changes were to attempt to address the existing POV in the article. In future I'll try to introduce small changes at a time. Deeperthinker (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Small changes would be good, thanks. Also, it might help to review the Wikipedia POV policy. In Wikipedia, "NPOV" does not mean "no point of view": it means "neutral point of view", that is, an article should fairly represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The edit introduced the following changes to the lead:

  "There is no clear evidence of other adverse effects. Moderate-quality research exists as to water fluoridation's effectiveness and its potential association with cancer; research into other potential adverse effects has been almost all of low quality. Little high-quality research has been performed. Some evidence suggests that fluoride at the levels used in water fluoridation could impair thyroid function or cause osteosarcoma. However, there is not enough high-quality research to form a definite conclusion.

  This rephrasing substantially departs from what the cited sources themselves choose to emphasize, by playing up evidence of osteocarcoma etc. even when the reliable sources say that there is no clear evidence. We should be summarizing the reviews in ways that the reviews themselves do, rather than reaching down into them and emphasizing negative aspects that the reviews themselves do not emphasize. (The reviews in question are the 2000 York review and the 2007 NHMRC review.)

The intention was not to play up the evidence for osteosarcoma more than the preceding version. The preceding wording was a bit odd, since it was mentioning effectiveness in the section on safety (and saying that there is only moderate-quality research). Also, the question of thyroid function should be at least mentioned here, since it is the other main question. Deeperthinker (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There must be some confusion here, as my previous comment is talking about a change to the lead, not to the Safety section. The lead summarizes all the sections, and it's reasonable for the lead (in interest of brevity, and putting most-important-stuff first) to talk about effectiveness, then about safety, and then about quality of effectiveness and safety studies. According to the cited sources, the main question about safety is dental fluorosis, not thyroid or osteosarcoma. Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant the changes in the lead. It just seemed strange to mention effectiveness, then safety, then mention effectiveness and cancer in the same sentence. The main idea there was to try to improve the flow of the paragraph. Osteosarcoma is just the cancer mentioned in the summary of the NHMRC report. I have no objection to leaving this part as it is. Deeperthinker (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• The edit removed the following from Effectiveness:

  "Water fluoridation is the most effective means of achieving community-wide exposure to fluoride's effects in preventing tooth decay."

  This statement is well-supported by the cited source (the 2007 NHMRC review) and is a good summary of the effectiveness section; there's no good reason to remove it.

This is the most POV sentence in the article, and is the wording used in promoting fluoridation. It should be substantially reworded or deleted. Deeperthinker (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is well-supported by the cited source. Perhaps you could suggest a wording that would fix the problem that you perceive in its POV (in the Wikipedia sense of POV)? Can you cite reliable sources that disagree with it? Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this wording is very similar to that used in promoting fluoridation. Also, I would not say that it is accurate, because fluoride toothpaste seems to be more effective. One of the references in this article mentioned other means that are as effective or more effective than fluoridation, but it will take a while to find it again. It would be far less controversial to lead the subsection with something about the magnitude of the reduction in decay attributed to water fluoridation. Would you object to that? Deeperthinker (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• "fluoride toothpaste seems to be more effective" No reliable source claims that fluoride toothpaste is more effective than water fluoridation. Even Pizzo et al. 2007 (PMID 17333303), which is highly critical of water fluoridation and which promotes fluoride toothpaste, does not claim that fluoride toothpaste is more effective. Furthermore, the wording in question does not say that water fluoridation is the most effective full stop. It says that water fluoridation "is the most effective means of achieving community-wide exposure to fluoride's effects in preventing tooth decay". The "community-wide" is a key part of this wording. As Water fluoridation #Alternatives points out, fluoride toothpaste relies on individual behavior and is less likely to be used by the poor, so fluoride toothpaste is not as effective at achieving community-wide exposure. Perhaps the point could be worded more clearly, but the point itself is not controversial among reliable sources.
• "It would be far less controversial to lead the subsection with something about the magnitude of the reduction in decay attributed to water fluoridation. Would you object to that?" Yes, for two reasons. First, the point in question is not controversial among reliable sources. Second, the proposal to lead with a magnitude-reduction sentence is essentially a proposal to remove the lead sentence (as the 2nd sentence is already about magnitude reduction). But the lead sentence summarizes the Effectiveness section much better than a dry recitation of some statistics.
• "The problem is that this wording is very similar to that used in promoting fluoridation." The exact wording doesn't matter that much; it's the substance that matters, not the wording. Can you propose a different wording that would remove the promotional aspect that you perceive, without removing the substance?

Eubulides (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim here seems to be that water fluoridation is more effective than any other alternative, whereas this section seems to be about the effectiveness of water fluoridation itself. The comparison with alternatives is in another section entirely. It would summarise the section better if it were just to say that water fluoridation is an effective means, rather than the most effective means. Then this sentence would not be making a stronger claim than is made in the rest of the section. Would you agree? Deeperthinker (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion, and I changed the lead sentence of Effectiveness to say merely "Water fluoridation is effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults", moving the comparison of fluoridation to alternatives into the Alternatives section. Eubulides (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That is an improvement, thanks. Deeperthinker (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• The edit made this change:

  "Fluoridation may be more justified effective in the U.S. because unlike most European countries, the U.S. does not have school-based dental care, many children do not visit a dentist regularly, and for many U.S. children water fluoridation is the prime source of exposure to fluoride."

  The cited source (Burt & Tomar 2007, p. 315) says that water fluoridation is "needed" in the U.S., not that it is "effective". "Justified" is close in meaning to "needed" ("effective" is not); "necessary" is even closer, so let's use that.

The problem was that the word "justified" is POV because it implies that fluoridation is justified. The wording "necessary" is also questionable, because it is again an opinion. The word "effective" is the least POV word I can think of. It may be further in meaning from the wording used in the cited source, but the source itself has strong POV in its wording. Deeperthinker (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The containing sentence already has a "may" ("Fluoridation may be more necessary in the U.S....") in it, which sufficiently qualifies it as a possibility and not a definite fact. We cannot take a point that is well-supported by the source, and then change its words to make it say something significantly different from what the source says, simply because we disagree with the source. We have to stick closely to what the sources say. In this case the source is written by two published experts in the field and no reliable source disputes it, so there's no justification for altering its conclusions. I tried another edit, this time using "needed" since that's the exact word of the source. Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues there, whether fluoridation is more effective in the US than in Europe, and whether if it is effective it is needed. The question of whether it is effective is a scientific question, so it is appropriate to preface the sentence with "may" to indicate that this is a scientific possibility. The question of whether it is necessary is a political and ethical question, and is therefore far more controversial. The word "may" is not really an appropriate qualifying word for an opinion on this subject. For example, if you were citing a source that said that Democrats are better than the Republicans, it would not be appropriate to say that Democrats may be better than the Republicans. Would you object to rewording this sentence to simply say that it is an opinion? Deeperthinker (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This reads too much into the word "needed". The word "needed" doesn't mean "required" or "mandatory" or "obligated" (those would be political or ethical terms); it's simply a statement that water fluoridation is more useful in environments where dental care is of lower quality. Hmm, now that I've written the previous sentence, how about saying "useful" instead of "needed"? Would that do? Articles should avoid Simon-says style prose (in-text attribution) when the material is not controversial among reliable sources, which is the case here. Eubulides (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, certainly "useful" would make a lot of sense. Deeperthinker (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, done. Eubulides (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• The edit introduced the following material at the start of Safety:

  "Water fluoridation can cause side effects, though these are normally minor. The most significant adverse health effects are in the case of accidents. In rare cases malfunctions of water fluoridation equipment can result in overfluoridation that causes acute fluoride poisoning, with symptoms that include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Seventeen such incidents were reported in the U.S. between 1972 and 2002, with fluoride concentrations as high as 220 mg/L. For example, in a 1992 accident in Alaska, 262 people became ill and one person died."

  First, the cited source (Balbus & Lang 2001, PMID 11579665) does not support this material: it nowhere talks about "Seventeen such incidents", and it nowhere says that accidents are "the most significant" adverse effects. Second, placing this material here introduces editorial POV by emphasizing accidents, even though reliable reviews on water fluoridation invariably focus on dental fluorosis as the most important adverse effect.

The wording "the most significant" was only intended to mean that it is only in the case of accidents that there are severe adverse effects. There are seventeen cases of accidents, so only mentioning three greatly underestimates the number of accidents. I do not know of a published source that lists all seventeen, but can find sources for those individually. Reviews on water fluoridation are only concerned with the possible health effects when water fluoridation equipment is functioning correctly, not with the case of accidents, so they do not mention accidents at all. It needs to be mentioned in a complete section on safety, but it is a separate issue to that of safety when the equipment is functioning correctly. It should at least be placed in a separate paragraph. Deeperthinker (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is substituting our opinion and evidence for that of the high-quality sources that form the basis for this article. We cannot go through the literature and find individual cases ourselves: that's original research, which should be published elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. If the "17 events" list is widely promoted among fringe sites, it might be good to summarize it in the controversy page, but it doesn't belong here without reliable sources to back it up. Reliable reviews of the broader aspects of fluoridation do not put overfeeds first: on the contrary, they also put dental fluorosis first (since it's well documented and is the most important safety effect) and use words like "infrequent" to talk about overfeeds (Mazur A (2001). "Looking back at fluoridation". Risk Health Saf Environ. 12 (1–2): 59–65.).

Perhaps you are reading more into what I said than what I meant. The linking sentence was only intended to mean that there are not severe problems unless there is an accident. I would have thought that was a fairly uncontroversial statement that is well supported by the source. The figure of 17 accidents was listed on Wikipedia until about a year ago, but it only seems to appear on anti-fluoridation sites otherwise. After checking this more carefully there don't seem to be reliable sources for all 17 accidents. Actually, the rate of accidents in the reference currently cited is about the same as the rate in the claim of 17 accidents (since that is over a period of 30 years). Therefore the material as it currently stands would seem to represent the rate reasonably accurately, even if the claim of 17 accidents is correct.

Regarding the issue of where the material on accidents should be placed, in my response above I said that it should be placed in a separate paragraph, not that it should be placed at the beginning. My concern is that the information about accidents is placed at the end of a paragraph of material that is otherwise only loosely related. This overly obscures the information, and would be the equivalent of a longer review putting material about accidents at the end of a section where the section title doesn't mention accidents. (I am unable to find the reference you cite, though. It doesn't list it in the journal index.) Do you object to putting this material in a separate paragraph? Deeperthinker (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection to that. I took a stab at it by reparagraphing the material to put the overfeed material in a separate paragraph. This edit altered content only by inserting a paragraph boundary. Mazur 2001 is not cited in the article; I suppose it could be, but it's not as strong a source as the reviews we're currently citing. (Among other things, it's just one author.) Eubulides (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Deeperthinker (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• The edit introduced a large section of material that cited sources that are not about water fluoridation, but are about fluoride in general, or are about fluoride in concentrations well in excess of recommended levels. This material might be suitable for articles such as Fluorosis but they are not that relevant here. For example, the newly-introduced material placed heavy emphasis on the 2006 NRC report, even though that report explicitly says that it is not about water fluoridation: this is clear abuse of the source.

The 2006 NRC report is highly relevant, because it is the most comprehensive review on the health effects of fluoride, and includes much information that is omitted from the York and NHMRC reports. It is not a report specifically to evaluate the safety of water fluoridation, but it contains much material that is relevant to water fluoridation, so it is highly relevant to this article.

In the case of thyroid effects the relevant dosage is at the concentrations used in water fluoridation. It is not accurate to say that this is just about "fluoride in general" and is not relevant to water fluoridation.

In addition, the cancer test on rats mentioned is also highly relevant. It was the biggest experiment intended to determine if fluoride is carcinogenic. The fact that it used fluoride "in concentrations well in excess of recommended levels" is not relevant, because this is standard procedure in cancer testing. This is because carcinogens do not cease to become carcinogenic at lower doses, they just cause a lower rate of cancers. The NRC report discusses this experiment, but the York and NHMRC reports do not, because they do not include animal testing.

The current discussion of cancer: "There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma." is entirely inadequate. The reference cited does not make that conclusion. It states that the York review made that conclusion, then additionally mentions the Bassin study (see pages 11 and 12). The article should also mention this study for completeness. Deeperthinker (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see #Discussion of cancer etc. below. Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To try to address the above issues, I edited the article to revert most of the edits, keeping the edits that did not cause POV problems. Further discussion is welcome. Eubulides (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of cancer etc.

• "The current discussion of cancer: "There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma." is entirely inadequate. The reference cited does not make that conclusion." Yes, the NHMRC review does largely defer to the York review on this issue: the NMHRC review does discuss later studies, which don't change this conclusion. In the light of this, we should cite both reviews: the York review for the main conclusion, and the NHMRC review for the followup. I have tried out an edit to do that. The York review's conclusions (p. 58) supports the current article's wording; the York review says (p. 58) "There is no clear picture of association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence and mortality", which directly supports the first half of the sentence quoted in the previous comment, and it also says "While a broad number of cancers were represented in the included studies, osteosarcoma, bone/joint and thyroid cancers were of particular concern due to fluoride uptake by bone and thyroid. Again, no clear association between water fluoridation and increased incidence or mortality was apparent.", which directly supports the second half of the sentence.
• "The 2006 NRC report is highly relevant, because it is the most comprehensive review on the health effects of fluoride" The 2006 NRC report may well be the most comprehensive review on the health effects of fluoride at concentrations well above recommended levels. However, it explicitly does not review health effects of fluoride at the concentrations used for water fluoridation. Using its conclusions to support arguments against water fluoridation is original research, which Wikipedia articles cannot do.
• "In the case of thyroid effects the relevant dosage is at the concentrations used in water fluoridation.... the cancer test on rats ..." The thyroid and cancer issues have been reviewed thoroughly in our sources, and we should not be substituting our own opinions for those of the sources. We should certainly not be disputing the opinions of reviews by reaching down into the primary literature. We have high-quality reviews that have reviewed material about whether fluoride causes cancer, or causes thyroid effects, and Water fluoridation should be respecting these reviews rather than diving into primary sources in order to undermine the reviews. Please see Wikipedia:No original research #Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) #Respect secondary sources.
• "the York and NHMRC reports do not, because they do not include animal testing" And they do so for good reason. For example, page 1 of the York review states:

"The history of health technology development shows that there have been numerous new interventions that were promising (or harmful) in animal and laboratory studies that turned out to be ineffective (or safe) when tested in humans. One example would be the drug omeprazole (Losec®) which caused gastric tumours in pre-clinical animal studies. However, such tumours have not been documented in humans, even in patients with conditions that require continuous treatment for many years. In general, when human data are available, animal or laboratory data provide far less reliable estimates of effect and, as such, do not bear significant weight on decisions about interventions. Such data will not be considered in this review."

We should not be substituting our opinion for that of expert reviewers who have explicitly considered and rejected animal-based evidence as being far less reliable.

Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the most contentious issue. First of all I should emphasise that I am not trying to say that these issues should be presented as having convincing evidence. It is just that these are issues where there is some scientific debate. The issues I was bringing up are just those that are discussed in the Scientific American (January 2008) article. Perhaps a better approach would be to mention that there is some controversy, and cite the Scientific American article (which isn't otherwise cited).

Regarding animal testing, I would agree that animal tests should not be relied on entirely, but it seems very odd to omit them entirely (especially when they were commissioned by Congress to test fluoride safety). This is a minor point, though, which I don't wish to argue.

With the NRC report, it should still be cited somewhere, because it is a very significant report regarding the health effects of fluoride. Currently it is not cited anywhere in the article.

I still believe a brief mention of the osteosarcoma study should be made, because it has been so high-profile and controversial. The current text singles out osteosarcoma for specific mention, but without that context it does not make sense.

Here is my effort at writing some text incorporating these ideas:

"There are medium-quality studies into cancer, and no clear association with water fluoridation has been found[York,NHMRC]. There has been controversy over a 2006 study into osteosarcoma[Bassin,SA], though there is not clear evidence in that case either [NHMRC,NRC]. For other health effects there are only low-quality studies, and the interpretation of the evidence is contentious [SA]."

Is this a reasonable compromise? Deeperthinker (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• "I still believe a brief mention of the osteosarcoma study should be made, because it has been so high-profile and controversial." It hasn't been that high profile, except among unreliable sources. I'll discuss it further below.
• "The current text singles out osteosarcoma for specific mention, but without that context it does not make sense." The Bassin study is only a small part of the osteosarcoma context, and merely mentioning the study doesn't really say anything about the context. It's not clear why further context would be helpful here, anyway, as the hypothesized mechanism for why fluoride might cause osteosarcoma is not all that relevant to water fluoridation per se. From a water fluoridation viewpoint, surely all that matters is that osteosarcoma has been investigated and there's no clear association. Similarly for other bone cancer, for other cancer, and for fractures; the article simply doesn't have space to discuss all the hypotheses and all the contexts, not without violating WP:WEIGHT constraints.
• It's not clear from the previous comment where the proposed text is intended to go. For now, I'll assume this would be added to the Safety section.
• "There are medium-quality studies into cancer ..." This duplicates the existing "Moderate-quality research exists as to water fluoridation's effectiveness and its potential association with cancer".
• "... and no clear association with water fluoridation has been found" This duplicates the existing "There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer".
• "There has been controversy over a 2006 study into osteosarcoma[Bassin,SA]" The Scientific American piece (Fagin 2008, PMID 18225698) is a poor source for the technical or scientific aspects of water fluoridation; as the Wikipedia guideline on medical sources says, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles." Among other things, Fagin's misuse of the 2006 NRC report was rightly criticized in a followup letter from American Dental Association president published in Scientific American; see Feldman M. Fluoride findings. Sci Am. 2008;298(5):12. The Water fluoridation article should not use Fagin's dubious precedent as an excuse to cite the NRC report as having anything to do with water fluoridation, because the NRC report itself says that it has nothing to do with water fluoridation. The Bassin study was criticized by its own research group, is contradicted by other data generated by that group, has not been replicated, and (most importantly as far as Wikipedia goes) is not given this much prominence by reliable reviews of water fluoridation; emphasizing the Bassin report in Safety would be contrary to the Wikipedia policy on primary sources and the Wikipedia guideline on medical sources.
• "For other health effects there are only low-quality studies... " This duplicates the existing "research into other potential adverse effects has been almost all of low quality".
• '"... and the interpretation of the evidence is contentious" There is certainly a lot of contention about the evidence! See the Ethics and politics section for more. However, reliable secondary sources agree that there is no clear evidence of harm, other than dental fluorosis, and the article should not imply otherwise.
• "Perhaps a better approach would be to mention that there is some controversy, and cite the Scientific American article (which isn't otherwise cited)." "With the NRC report, it should still be cited somewhere," OK, how about the following proposal instead? Let's append the following to the third paragraph of the Ethics and politics section:

"U.S. opponents of fluoridation were heartened by a 2006 National Research Council report about hazards of water naturally fluoridated to high levels;[citing Fagin 2008, PMID 18225698] the report recommended lowering the U.S. maximum limit of 4 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water.[citing National Research Council. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006. ISBN 0-309-10128-X.].

Eubulides (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was suggesting the material to go in the safety section, in which case the sentence about cancer would just replace the previous sentence about cancer. It is probably more appropriate to mention the controversy in the "Ethics and politics" section, though. I agree that the article should not say that there is clear evidence of harm other than dental fluorosis.

I was not saying that the Scientific American article should be used as a source for the technical or scientific aspects of fluoridation, only for the controversy.

I see your point about the Bassin study. There certainly isn't room to discuss all the hypotheses and all the contexts, but the current text singles out bone cancer and osteosarcoma for specific mention, without an explanation why. Perhaps it would be better to split the sentence in two, and say something like:

"There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer[11][12]. Bone cancer and osteosarcoma in particular have been examined, as fluoride accumulates in bone, but no clear association has been found.[11][12]"

That lengthens it only slightly, so I don't think it violates WP:WEIGHT constraints.

I think the material you suggested for the controversy section should be fine. I am not convinced that the NRC report should be entirely ignored in the safety section, though. The fact that it is not specifically about water fluoridation means that it should be given less weight, but not ignored entirely. In my previous response I was suggesting citing it for there not being a clear association between fluoride and cancer. (That is, to support the conclusions of the other reviews, not dispute them.) Do you object to that? Deeperthinker (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• "I was suggesting the material to go in the safety section, in which case the sentence about cancer would just replace the previous sentence about cancer." I'm still not quite clear about what the proposed change to Safety is. Is it this?

"There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma. Bone cancer and osteosarcoma in particular have been examined, as fluoride accumulates in bone, but no clear association has been found." (citing NHMRC 2007 and the 2000 York review)

If so, this change still has some problems. First, it muddies the previously-clear information that there is no clear association between fluoridation and deaths due to bone cancer in general or due to osteosarcoma in particular. Second, there is too much repetition between the proposed text and the existing "Moderate-quality research exists as to water fluoridation's effectiveness and its potential association with cancer; research into other potential adverse effects has been almost all of low quality. Little high-quality research has been performed." in Evidence basis. Third, the phrase "no clear association" is unnecessarily repeated. Fourth Third, and most important, neither of the cited sources directly supports the claim "as fluoride accumulates in bone", and there is a weight problem for the text to discuss mechanism here (where it is discussing an unsupported claim of an adverse effect) when it does not discuss mechanism anywhere else in the section. The fact that fluoride accumulates in bone is discussed in Mechanism, and surely there is little need to repeat and emphasize it here.

• "In my previous response I was suggesting citing it [the NRC report] for there not being a clear association between fluoride and cancer." I don't see how that's appropriate. The NRC report is explicitly about fluoride at concentrations well above recommended levels rather than being about water fluoridation, so when it says that there's not a clear association between cancer and fluoride it is talking about something other than water fluoridation, and it would take some original research for us to apply its conclusion here, research that may be obvious to an expert but which we cannot do. We have multiple high-quality reviews that are directly on point, so why cite a source that is explicitly not about water fluoridation?

Eubulides (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. I just now realized that part of my previous comment was wrong: it was about an earlier proposal, not the latest one. I struck that part. Eubulides (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

POV problems with article

This article has severe POV problems. Some years ago it was biased against fluoridation, which was since corrected, but in the past year or so it has swung too far in the opposite direction. I previously spent an entire day trying to correct the most egregious problems, but my changes were reverted in about an hour, and has led to the lengthy discussion above. I therefore propose putting a disputed neutrality flag on this article. I will put give responses to the above discussion shortly. Deeperthinker (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOVD, you need to list "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". Remember that WP:NPOV requires neutral coverage of the positions held by our best reliable sources, not the position that any one editor personally believes to be neutral or fair to all sides, or a position halfway between mainstream and fringe. Similarly, the WP:WEIGHT given to issues such as adverse effects, risk of serious illness or industrial accidents should be in proportion to the weight given by reliable sources to the issues. Colin°^Talk 12:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see above for the list of the specific issues. Most of them are resolved now. Deeperthinker (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just removed the POV tag because the main issues have been resolved. There is still some ongoing discussion, though. Deeperthinker (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits introduced non-neutral POV

A recent series of edits introduced a strong point of view against water fluoridation that is not supported the sources cited. It inserted the following into the lead:

"There has been considerable opposition to the practice within the medical community, due to the adverse effects of dental fluorosis, and links to cancer" (citing [2])

But the article does not support this claim: it does not talk about "considerable" opposition, and the lead already covers the adverse effects and cites much more reliable sources than a newspaper article about fluoride opponents. The edits also modified Evidence basis, completely rewriting the sense of the lead in a way that undermined and contradicted the sources, and promoting a single primary study to overturn reliable reviews, in contradiction of Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) #Respect secondary sources. I reverted almost all the edits. Eubulides (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The account in question has now been blocked as it is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Hereherer. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Page loading efficiency and style

This page takes a long time to load, and part of this is due to the use of the standard Wikipedia citation templates such as {{cite journal}}. Recently developed faster & smaller Vancouver system templates such as {{vcite journal}} would make the page much faster to generate (roughly by a factor of two in my tests) as well as significantly smaller in terms of the HTML generated (a savings of 34% in my tests). Let's use them here; they're already in use in several other articles, and have resulted in major savings both for time and for the size of the generated HTML. Eubulides (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Image text

This edit changed the lead image text from "Fluoridation does not affect the appearance, taste or smell of drinking water." to "Fluoridation can not be seen, tasted or smelled in drinking water." with the comment "changing slightly POV image text". I don't see what was POV (in either direction) with the previous wording but the new wording sounds like the description of an undetectable poison so I'd argue it was POV. In addition, it is gramatically wrong -- it would need to lead with "Fluoride can not..". The problem with just mentioning one substance in water that is invisible, tasteless and odourless is that the same is true for most of the minerals and other chemicals in water that are tiny in amount. It might be a different story if there were grams of a substance dissolved in a glass of water and it still remained undetectable. The key point is that "Fluoridation" (the controlled act of adding a tiny amount of fluoride) ensures it is not noticed. I suggest the edit is reverted. Colin°^Talk 08:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the grammar, as well as about the POV. Furthermore, it's not true that "fluoride can not be seen, tasted, or smelled": fluoride can be tasted, if there's enough of it. The point is that water fluoridation (which uses low concentrations) doesn't affect the taste. I reverted the change. Eubulides (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Poisonous to the stomach

A recent edit deleted some well-sourced text from the Goal section, and added the following text:

"The problem is the evidence that it is effective at such low amounts is contentious within the scientific community, and indeed that it is not poisonous to the stomach, bones, teeth and harmful to mental development. The history of water fluoridation remains mired in controversy."

First, this material is not appropriate for Goal: it's relevant to Effectiveness, Safety, and History, but not to Goal. Second, this claim is unsourced and is unlikely to be supported by reliable sources. I've reverted it for now; further comments are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

someone needs to dispute the neutrality of this article, sounds like it written by someone in the flouride selling business.

Has anyone investigated the references? All the information I've read lately about flouride indicates that it is much more dangerous and toxic than has been let on previously. Some would argue it has no benefits and is just a toxin that has been given psuedo crudentials to justify poisioning our water supplies, and making us pay for that poision, as opposed to the manufacturs having to pay to dispose of it as toxic waste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.81.2 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This article reads like marketing material. The fluoridation of water is a highly controversial subject and this article doesn't represent that in any way. The fluoridation of water is banned is several countries, including China, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Hungary, and Japan, for various reasons. Also, the history section of this article is a complete whitewash. In the "implementation" section, it claims, and contains references, that a "by-product" (which, in this case, is a euphemism for "pollution") from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers produces a fluoride that is used in water fluoridation, but the history section doesn't cover this, and this FACT is paradoxically labeled as a "conspiracy theory" later in the article. This article contains far too much propaganda and far too little objective research. There isn't a single mention of the Fluorine Lawyers Committee, Kettering Laboratory, or any of the industries and organizations that produced fluoride pollution or represented those that did or lobbied to allow fluoride into the drinking water. This article is absolutely shameful. 71.168.94.71 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The article does have an Ethics and politics that goes into some detail in these areas, including countries that have discontinued fluoride. "By-product" is the term used by the source, and it sounds accurate: the process's goal is not to produce fluoride, but fluoride is produced as a byproduct. I installed a this edit to make it clear that the conspiracy theory alleges that water fluoridation is promoted behind the scenes by the industries in question, a claim that is well supported by the source (Armfield 2007, PMID 18067684). That same change adds a mention of the Kettering Laboratory, supported by a reliable source. I could not find any reliable source about the Fluorine Lawyers Committee. Eubulides (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the references have been investigated. The claims you mention about poison and manufacturers are discussed in the 4th paragraph of the Ethics and politics section, a paragraph that cites Armfield 2007 (PMID 18067684) and Newbrun 1996 (PMID 9034969). Eubulides (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous editor -- if you wish to do more research, and improve the article this would be a good place to start: A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides, why are the "claims" about "poison" not mentioned under the "Safety" heading? Putting this in the "Ethics and Politics" section is like putting it in a hiding place. Secondly, this "claim" can be easily verified. The upper lethal limit for humans is less that a teaspoon. Kangaroos die when they drink water with the levels used in Australian municipalities. Fluoride containers are marked with a skull and crossbones for goodness sake. The fact that this most controversial of articles is given the "featured article" status for "neutrality" is absurd. Why is the conspiracy section made to look like a joke? The "fluoride detractors" are painted as raving lunatics. Is it really Wikipedia's job to editorialize this issue? No. The political cartoon's caption says the author is commenting on fluoride being a "communist plot". This is a clear attempt to trivialize the issue as communism has nothing to do with the cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim I was talking about is "Some would argue it has no benefits and is just a toxin that has been given psuedo crudentials to justify poisioning our water supplies, and making us pay for that poision, as opposed to the manufacturs having to pay to dispose of it as toxic waste." This claim is a conspiracy theory and belongs in the discussion of conspiracy theories, not in the safety section. The safety section already discusses fluoride poisoning, and wikilinks to Fluoride poisoning, and discusses illnesses and one death due to overfluoridation, all supported by reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The cartoon is clearly about communism, as can be seen from the accompanying text in the flier containing the cartoon. The text says, among other things, "FIGHT COMMUNISTIC WORLD GOVERNMENT by destroying THE UNHOLY THREE!!!" Eubulides (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We're going to need something more solid than that this article disagrees with "All the information I've read lately" in order to support the NPOV tag just added. Yes the references have been checked, by editors involved in the Medicine Wikiproject and by editors at the Featured Article review process. I suspect you've been reading too much junk Internet conspiracy websites (and the one listed by Jrtayloriv is an example). Perhaps you should read some of the references listed by this article -- those whose titles are hyperlinks will be free to read online without subscription. Colin°^Talk 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The tags have been removed. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Scare image"

A severe case of dental fluorosis in a white adult male due to medical overexposure to fluoride as a child to succesfully prevent dental caries

I'd like to note that Eubulides has removed this picture by calling it a "scare image".

Pictured on the right is the result of a daily fluoride dosis way below 220mg/L administered for a few months (not more than 6) around the age of 5 years, where the child encountered no signs of fluoride poisoning such as nausea or even vomiting due to the low dosage. It's this level of color deviance that is euphemized as "aesthetic concern in about 1 of every 22 people" exposed to fluoride in the Safety section. In fact this pictured case is considered as mild in the professional dentist community that the individual "due to neglectibility" was denied any color affecting treatments by a number of dentists for years when seeking treatment as a teenager throughout the 1990s, whereas fluoride was always diagnosed as the cause at first sight, and was told more than once that the acquired immunity to cavities would more than make up for the "slight aberration" in color. This picture was not taken in a developing country with poor standards of living and hygiene; individual grew up in an upper middle-class (though single-parent) household in a First World nation in Western Europe, with a level of healthcare available superior to that, for instance, in the United States.

Another IP above has already commented upon how much this whole article reeks like whitewash by the industrial fluoridation lobby, and the fact the picture was removed doesn't do much to dispel that concern already voiced. Just why do you think that the colloquial term for dental fluoridosis happens to be "Colorado brown stain"? --79.193.38.159 (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A mild case of dental fluorosis, visible as white streaks on the subject's upper right central incisor.

The historical Colorado Brown Stain came from water naturally fluoridated to levels well above recommended levels. Yes, one can get severe dental fluorosis with sufficient exposure to fluoride, but the level of exposure evidenced in the scary image is much higher than what one would get with water fluoridation. The previous comment says that it came via exposure to fluoride at a level 220 mg/L for months, a level that would normally cause acute fluoride poisoning; in contrast, the maximum level for water fluoridation is 1.2 mg/L. The current article already has an image of dental fluorosis that could result from water fluoridation: see the image at right. Adding the scary image would be greatly misleading. Eubulides (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly wrong reading of the first comment. It says "WAY BELOW 220mg/L", as the dosage was so low not even nausea was present (and you'd need AT LEAST 220mg/L for vomiting to occur), it's just that the exact dosage (in standardized pill form manufactured and prescribed expressedly for the standard prevention of cavities in permanent teeth to toddlers losing their first teeth) administered by certified dentists cannot be reconstructed after 20 years.

Again, how can the colloquial name for the most common type refer to the color "brown" even today if the second picture is supposed to be anything like a common case, and how can a number of dentists refer to the first picture as a "neglectible" and "mild" case, immediately recognizing the cause as a common 1980s practice of prescribing legal, i. e. certifiedly low dosages of fluoride, if the common form does not look like [3] and the first picture above? Back during the late 1980s, these pills were not even classified as prescription-only medication as the amount of fluoride with them was so low. The removed picture looks a lot more like the one at the professional link, and the picture still in the article looks like a questionable case, at best.

More pictures and websites on the common form being yellow to brown from even just 5 minutes of googling for fluorosis: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], .org/health/epa/dental-fluorosis.html, [13], .org/health/teeth/fluorosis/moderate-severe.html, [14]. --79.193.38.159 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If the scary image is from an unknown level of fluoride, then it's not appropriate for Water fluoridation. Whatever the level was, it was evidently much higher than that recommended for water fluoridation. No reputable dentist would call the scary image a "negligible" or "mild" case. The "most common type" of fluorosis is the mild type, not Colorado brown stain. There are many web sites posting misinformation about fluoride (for more on this please see Armfield 2007, PMID 18067684), but the Water fluoridation article, like all Wikipedia articles, should be based on reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So Oralhealtheducation.com, TheFreeDictionary's Medical dictionary (main sources The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary, Second Edition and Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Care Consumers), Dr. Kamsiah Gulam Haider (also see [15]) are "unreliable sources"? All of those report yellow to brown teeth as primarily due to industrial water fluoridation. You might call the other links biased misinformation I guess, as no matter how many peer-reviewed studies they're quoting, they're communal public health campaigns educated by the existing professional literature in print. And could non-prescription doses of fluoride legal for and expressedly measured for daily toddler consumption in a Western country be that much higher than in water? These pills were even commonly advertized as substituting water fluoridation in areas where it was not available, and the exposure in the pictured "severe case" was even extremely short compared to lifelong intake from water and other dietary standards. --79.193.38.159 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this nearly-identical comment is occurring both here and in Talk:Dental fluorosis #"Most-typical"?, I've continue it there. No sense duplicating the thread. Eubulides (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eubulides -- the "extreme" image shown above is not at all representative of the effects of water fluoridation. Putting it into the article for water fluoridation would be extremely misleading. There is plenty of scientific evidence about the harmful effects of water fluoridation -- no need to resort to dishonest scare tactics. Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"There is plenty of scientific evidence about the harmful effects of water fluoridation" - Not if you're surfing wikipedia. Furthermore, the whitewashed image, at the default resolution, shows the smile of what looks to be a model from a toothpaste commercial. That's not dishonest? It seem an easy solution would be to have a picture that shows clearly a "mild" case of fluorosis, a picture where white staining AND worn edges are clearly visible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

File:MildFluorosis02-24-09.jpg shows a mild case of fluorosis, and shows white staining over about a third of a tooth. "Worn edges" are not a symptom of mild fluorosis. Eubulides (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides, please respond to the comment in full. I made several points. A: The picture is the smile of a tooth model. B: The wiki resolution is too low for one to see the "fluorosis". C: I noted that a more moderate picture could satisfy everyone. As for what you DID choose to comment on, that worn edges are not a symptom of fluorosis, this is manifestly false. It's there in your own picture!

Edward Bernays

Regarding this edit, I've restored it. It is a claim widely made, appearing on Sourcewatch, as well as the Wikipedia article on Edward Bernays. It needs a reliable source (I presume Sourcewatch isn't), but it hardly seems a conspiracy theory that he was involved in a PR campaign introducing water fluoridation. The wording can be improved, but see no need to remove it. Greenman (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Sourcewatch page is a clone of the Wikipedia page. It is one thing for a newbie to add POV unsourced material. I shouldn't have to remind an editor of five years experience that adding or restoring "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged" requires a source, not to mention the other policies this poor wording violates. Colin°^Talk 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides (and others), can you be specific about the objection? To say that's it's a "conspiracy theory", or "likely to be challenged" is unsatisfactory, as many projects of this type make use of PR campaigns. I understand that the insertion as it was is POV, with its underlying tone of special interest groups pulling the wool over the public, and that the claim is usually made in a conspirational manner. However, is there an objection to simply mentioning his involvement (or otherwise, if sources say otherwise?). I think it's important, as "conspiracy theories" are inundated with this claim, so it's a good reason to address it. For example, the aspartame and aspartame controversy articles deal with various widely-propogated misunderstandings and untruths by attempting to address them. Simply ignoring it leaves the field open to conspiracy - Wikipedia needs to own this fact, contextualising it properly. There's also the matter of consistency, since the claim is repeated on the Edward Bernays page. Greenman (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The main objection (aside from total lack of sources) is that of WP:WEIGHT. There are many theories about fluoridation that are unconventional and not supported by mainstream sources. Why focus on this particular one? Why mention Freud, for example? That's pretty far afield. The Water fluoridation article already discusses this particular theory briefly, when it talks about "claims that fluoridation was motivated by protecting the U.S. atomic bomb program from litigation" and claims "that it is backed by the sugar or aluminum or phosphate industries". Why go into more details? Eubulides (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Edward Bernays page has this claim but it is unsourced there too. It might be notable to mention in his article a campaign that was significant in his life but is it a notable part of the global story of water fluoridation? Is it an accurate commentary on what occured? Perhaps Water fluoridation in the United States might cover how fluoridation was promoted and mention Bernays if that is appropriate. But we'd need reliable sources in order to determine that. Colin°^Talk 20:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree any mention of Freud is completely unnecessary. And with the concerns about WP:WEIGHT. However, take a look at Aspartame_controversy#Methanol_and_formaldehyde, particularly the part beginning "Some opponents of aspartame have falsely claimed...". I believe the approach is a good model to follow. There's a widely-held view that seems to be incorrect. Rather than ignore it, it's addressed and explained. Stepping back, the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to inform readers. Many readers believe Bernays was involved (and they probably believe maliciously) in a PR campaign to garner support for fluoridation. If he wasn't, that's important to highlight, as it corrects a widely-held view. If he was, it's worth mentioning, but in a context that's not overwhelmingly POV. And why this one? It's a start. Other claims can follow. Until there are reliable sources claiming one or the other however, I'm happy to leave it out for now. But I believe it should be investigated. False claims need to be addressed, otherwise the ground is conceded and the unreliable websites out there are seen as more complete. Greenman (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We also have Opposition to water fluoridation, which could go into details about any incorrect claims made by opponents. This is a general article on water fluoridation and part of an encyclopedia. It is just as much not an advocacy site for the scientific-point-of-view as it is not a dumping ground giving every consipiracy theory free webpace on a top-10 Internet website. What do reliable sources say about Bernays? If they don't give the issue any column inches then we can't either, even if there are hundreds of Internet conspiracy sites mentioning it. Colin°^Talk 20:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy is a reasonable place to talk about incorrect claims about aspartame, but Aspartame itself (rightly) gives such claims short shrift. Although the Bernays-related fluoridation-is-a-conspiracy claim is suitable for a controversy article, it's not clear that it's significant enough to deserve more coverage in Water fluoridation than it already has. That being said, I'll see if I can find a newer source on these non-mainstream theories, since our current sources (Armfield 2007, PMID 18067684; Newbrun 1996, PMID 9034969) are a bit dated. By the way, shouldn't the controversy page be called Water fluoridation controversy rather than the more-POV Opposition to water fluoridation? I added a thread Talk:Opposition to water fluoridation #Article title should say "controversy" rather than "opposition" about this. Eubulides (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I reacquired a copy of Freeze & Lehr 2009 (ISBN 978-0-470-44833-5), an extensive and recent reliable source on the fluoride controversy. It devotes one of 13 chapters to the conspiracy theory involving Bernays, so I suppose that's good enough excuse to mention the Bernays theory in our paragraph on conspiracy theories. I made this edit as a first cut at that. Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm not sure about the word "gimmick". What about "ruse" or "stratagem" or similar? Colin°^Talk 09:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "Ruse" sounds good, so I switched to that. Eubulides (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Arsenic and high fluoride levels

A recent edit added the following to Safety:

"Recently, studies have concluded that high levels of fluoride found in the drinking water of certain communities in China and Mexico are associated with significantly reduced IQ." (citing Rocha-Amador et al. 2007, PMID 18038039; and Wang et al. 2007, PMID 17450237)

Neither of the cited studies are about water fluoridation. They are both about exposure to arsenic in combination with levels of fluoride well above those recommended for water fluoridation. Since they're not about water fluoridation, I reverted the change. Eubulides (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Curse those naturally occuring elements *shakes fist a the sky*. Shot info (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Two lobbies

A recent edit removed the following sourced text:

"Many people do not know that fluoridation is meant to prevent tooth decay, or that natural or bottled water can contain fluoride; as the general public does not have a particular view on fluoridation, the debate may reflect an argument between two relatively small lobbies." (citing Griffin et al. 2008, PMID 18333872)

with the edit summary "Vague/false. Who are the "two small lobbies"? http://www.fluoridealert .org/communities.htm says people DO have an anti-fluoride bend, whereas government overwhelmingly is pro-fluoride." The two small lobbies in question are the pro-fluoridation and the anti-fluoridation lobbies. Notice that the comment is talking about lobbies here: very few people lobby the government on either side of the question. The fluoridealert .org web site is not a reliable source on fluoridation. Griffin et al. is reliable and directly supports the text in question; for example, for lobbies it says (p. 101):

"The debate around fluoride has lasted for over 50 years.... The debate remains polarized, although the apparent vehemence in the debate may reflect arguments between a relatively small number of lobbyists on either side. Holloway commented in 1977 that because the general public does not have a particular view on fluoridation 'decision makers would have little guidance except for the activities of the pressure groups involved'. He suggested that both pro- and antifluoridation groups 'adopt similar strategies in that they communicate with those members of the community who are likely to influence decisions on water fluoridation', but that antifluoridation groups were more likely to use the media to influence the public directly. Lobbying strategies do not seem to have changed significantly over time."

To help clear up any confusion about the lobbies, I restored the text in question, appending the phrase "for and against fluoridation" to try to clarify who the two lobbies are. Eubulides (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"for and against fluoridation" does not clarify the issue. Who is the anti-fluoride lobby? Who is the pro-fluoride lobby? Is the pro-fluoride lobby actually "small"? The "source" you cite does not say what your wiki sentence says. The source you cite is a representation of an opinion stated by a man named Holloway. Your wiki sentence does not reflect this.

How is fluoridealert .org not a reliable source?

Please sign your comments. For what is a reliable source in Wikipedia, please read WP:RS. 07:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the Nazis?

Water Fluoridation was implemented by the Nazis for use in their concentration camps. The stated purpose for this was to sterilize the inmates. This exact information is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia. This information is pertinent here. Will someone add it? I'm not too familiar with how to write in Wikipedia style.

Source? Shot info (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Iodine competes with Fluorine/Bromine/Chlorine

Of the four, Iodine is an essential nutrient. Fluoride, like the other three, is not. Fluorine ingestion (through water fluoridation) inhibits Iodine absorption. This is well established and not controversial. There is no mention of it in this "Featured Article". A quick search reveals http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4088985?dopt=Abstract. Establishment "accepts" this "drawback" just as it "accepts" fluorosis. Therefore a section should be given to this topic here. It might also be written that in spite of this evidence, government organizations provide no recourse for iodine deficient citizens, and forced medication continues.

Do you have a teritary source stating the above? Shot info (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Clear Bias

This article is clearly biased. All research indicating potential health concerns has been removed or minimized (eg labelling it as "low quality research").

Article needs significant editing to bring it to a neutral pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.170.183 (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please can you indicate which health concerns are missing or wrongly worded, along with high quality reliable sources. You may want to check the talk page archives for earlier discussions. Colin°^Talk 13:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I cannot believe this article was ever featured. It is one of the most biased articles I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. Nobody can dispute that this is a controversial topic, yet that controversy is glossed over and one side is consistently belittled throughout this piece. The tone is extremely one sided. Coolgreycity (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)— Coolgreycity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree any article that does not share the alex jones opinion must be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.111.236 (talk)

Clearly the safety section needs improvement

The article suggests that the only clear side effect of fluoridation is dental fluorosis, while there have been many studies showing the long-term toxic effects of fluoride.

For example: http://www.fluoridealert .org/idd.htm "suggesting that a low iodine intake coupled with high fluoride intake exacerbates the central nervous lesions and the somatic developmental disturbance of iodine deficiency."

Average IQ of children in this study in a "high" fluoride area (.88mg/L, which is LESS than what the suggested 1mg/L from fluoridation in the United States) with low iodine levels was 71, while the IQ of children in a normal (.33mg/L) fluoride area with low iodine was 77, and the IQ of children in a normal fluoride area with high iodine from supplementation was 96.

These results are statistically significant and were reported in 1991. That's almost 20 years ago. Most Americans are deficient in iodine. And ingested fluorine is ineffective in promoting healthy teeth - only topical use is effective, albeit unnecessary as there are far safer, less toxic alternatives.Jayhammers (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the writer used "statistically significant" wrong. This happens all too often when somebody is trying support facts with words and not actual statistics. When something is statistically significant it is p<.05 or p<.01. When p is less than .05 we can be 95% confident that the results are not due by chance. When we say that p is less that .01 we can be 99% confident that the results are not due to chance. This person does not list what p is so we have know idea if the results are "statistically significant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.50.213 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless if the writer used statistically significant right or wrong, he makes a good point about the research that was done on the subject in question, which is the iq levels of children being in variation due to the fluoride use. It is a view point based on fact which is not represented in the original water fluoridation page, which would suggest a bias to the dental uses of fluoride in water. It is obvious the article isn't neutral....excuse me i have to cough. *propoganda*

redundant CDC sentence repetition

The following famous statement regarding the United States Centers for Disease Control is repeated in the lede and in the ethics and politics section. "The U.S. Centers for Disease Control listed water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century." I propose removing one of the copies of the sentence to reduce unneeded redundancy. I am leaning towards removing the one in the lede, which is a bit long at this time. Sound good? Petergkeyes (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not simply as case of "repetition". The statement is used in the lede as a comparison between the US and Europe, while in the second instance it is used in an expanded form as part of an explanation of who has supported the use. If we pull it from the lede, we would also have to remove the European notes. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The comments about use in Europe can stand alone without being next to the CDC endorsement. The CDC statement is self contained and does not have to be repeated twice. Does somebody have a better idea that will eliminate this redundancy? Petergkeyes (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD-- since the lead summarizes the article, info is sometimes repeated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Moderate to low quality

This edit removed the "of moderate to low quality" characterisation from the comment on studies showing fluoride's effectiveness on cavity prevention. I don't have access to the source but the abstract says "the studies included in the reviews were generally of moderate to low quality". I think this edit should be undone. This is a contentious subject and it is only fair to report that the pro-fluoridation research is not of the highest quality, if that is what our reviews say. The reviews still conclude that it is effective, just that they wish the research was better. Colin°^Talk 18:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's covered further in the same paragraph, in a less misleading way (that wording makes it sound like we're using poor studies in this article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. Petergkeyes (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pizzo

"...most European countries have experienced substantial declines in tooth decay without its use, primarily due to the introduction of fluoride toothpaste in the 1970s."

I see no evidence that Pizzo said the bit about toothpaste in the 1970's. But even if Pizzo did make that claim, it is still conjecture, it is still guesswork. It is unscientific, and not encyclopedic, therefore the claim should be stricken. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't decide what is conjecture-- we rely on reliable sources that meet WP:MEDRS, which this article does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The page is much better than it used to be. But it is not perfect. The practice is controversial enough that claims need to be sufficiently backed up. To date, nobody has defended the inclusion of the words, "primarily due to the introduction of fluoride toothpaste in the 1970s.". Plus, fluoride toothpaste was not introduced in the 1970's, it was introduced decades earlier. Petergkeyes (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

Petergkeyes, please read WP:MEDRS and refrain from adding primary sources to a featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will attempt to abide by that guideline. Please allow for bold editing, and try to be flexible in your enforcement of guidelines. I am here in good faith to work together with you to help improve this project in our spare time. Petergkeyes (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

illogical sentence removed

"An effect of water fluoridation was evident even in the assumed presence of fluoride from other sources such as toothpaste." If it is assumed, it is not evidence. I can't fix the sentence. If somebody can repair it so that it makes sense, and is encyclopedic, then it should return repaired. Petergkeyes (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A hurried editor claims that the sentence "makes perfect sense." Please defend here. Petergkeyes (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not parsing the sentence correctly-- it's unclear how to help you since the sentence is clear and based on the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This alleged "presence of fluoride from other sources such as toothpaste," may not exist, since it is simply assumed. Therefore such potential presence is not evidence of any effect. Petergkeyes (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)— Petergkeyes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

False. I have made many edits outside this topic. Petergkeyes (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of a handful of edits when you started in late 2006-early 2007, I'd say that at least 90% of your edits are fluoridation-related; possibly more. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There has got to be a more appropriate place to be having this discussion, as this conversation has strayed very far away from whether the sentence in question makes any sense or not. Petergkeyes (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

another illogical sentence fragment

The following sentence fragment is self contradictory. "sometimes the need for water fluoridation was met by alternative strategies." I propose a change to something like, "sometimes alternative strategies were employed to respond to oral health challenges." Petergkeyes (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the quote from the source to be sure you are sticking to the source's meaning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence fragment, culled from the, "use around the world" section, does not make sense. If alternative strategies "met" whatever was "needed," then, the "need" for water fluoridation ceased to exist. Stating it the other way promotes the POV (and debatable) notion that water fluoridation is something that is "needed." Petergkeyes (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Armfield

The following is a direct paraphrase from Armfield. "Ethical, moral and social issues regarding water fluoridation are legitimate, and further investigation is indicated." Armfield is a comprehensive review, not simply a primary study. The citation is practically tailor made for the Ethics and Politics section. Please understand that I intend to do good with these edits. I sincerely seek to work together with other WP volunteer editors to help continue to move the project forward. And please understand that my tendency is to perform this volunteer work boldly, and with gusto. It is a worthy experiment. Petergkeyes (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is not advanced by being "flexible" about blatant misrepresentation of sources. Armfield's summary is:

Water fluoridation is an important public health initiative that has been found to be safe and effective. Nonetheless, the implementation of water fluoridation is still regularly interrupted by a relatively small group of individuals who use misinformation and rhetoric to induce doubts in the minds of the public and government officials. It is important that public health officials are aware of these tactics so that they can better counter their negative effect.

but your edit[16] added:

A 2007 Australian study opined that ethical, moral and social issues regarding water fluoridation are legitimate, and that further investigation is indicated.

Looks like cherrypicking to add a conclusion that misrepresents the source to support your views. If you're willing to accurately represent the source, I will find the time to ping Tim Vickers to ask him if it's a decent review from a quality journal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The direct quote from Armfield, "While the moral, ethical and social concerns over water fluoridation are both legitimate and fully deserving of further investigation, they lie outside of the intent of this current paper. Instead, this paper will restrict its analysis to a critique of antifluoridationist literature." Armfield has long been vetted as a reliable source, the ethics comment belongs in the ethics and politics section. In the future, it may be nice to separate the ethics and politics sections from each other, if they can be disentangled. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

spills

The following prose is appropriate for the "safety" section.

"On Tuesday, June 29, 2010, approximately 60 gallons of fluoride were released into the water supply in Asheboro, North Carolina, between 10 and 11:30am. That same amount was intended to be released in a 24 hour period."

Reference: Fox 8, Asheboro Notifies Residents of Over-Fluoridation of Water, June 29,2010 http://www.myfox8.com/news/wghp-asheboro-fluoride-release-100629,0,2164002.story

At press time, the safety section suggested that there have been only about 3 noteworthy spills of too much fluoride chemical into public water supplies. But that overlooks the Dublin, CA. spill in 2002, the Marlboro, Mass. spill of 2003, and now the Asheboro, N.C. spill in 2010. Moreover, accidental fluoride spills into public water supplies happen more often than, "3 such outbreaks...between 1991 and 1998". Petergkeyes (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have had to do quite a bit of cleanup of that edit (you're an experienced editor, please be aware of guidelines when editing a featured article),[17] which I doubt belongs here. Wiki is not a news source: see WP:NOT, WP:RECENTISM and WikiNews. Was anyone hurt? Any deaths? Mentioned anywhere except local news? If not, doesn't belong here, but at minimum, please do not include extraneous newsy details (like the time of the incident) and please respect citation formatting and WP:FN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The third sentence of the Water Fluoridation article

The third sentence of the Water Fluoridation article currently reads as follows.

"The practice occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not fluoridate public water supplies, although some continental countries fluoridate salt."

Salt fluoridation is not water fluoridation and should not be in the Water fluoridation article much less the third sentence of it. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

Please wait for input from other editors before taking that out again. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This information should be left in as it provides context to why the water isn't fluroidated in some countries. Yobol (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires sources and not just why someone thinks something should be. The article is about water fluoridation not salt fluoridation. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

Please site a source showing that salt fluoridation is the same as water fluoridation Yobo. I have not found a source but perhaps you have one. Without a source showing the two are the same thing then the salt fluoridation info needs to be removed. Please site the link to the source here. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

Who said they were exactly the same? I just said that it was an alternative source of fluoride. Yobol (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The current source for sentence 3 on the water fluoridation article does not provide the information to back up the claims that it makes. The source is a bad source. The only way to fix this situation is to remove the salt fluoridation info and the source as they are bogus. Please check your sources and follow Wikipedia guide lines. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)) The current source to support salt fluoridation not a good source to support the claim that is currently being made. Here is the link to the source in the article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/?tool=pubmedƒ

The sourced article does not say anything to support the claim that salt is fluoridated in some continental countries. The salt fluoridation information needs to be removed until such time that a reliable source can be found to support such a claim. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

You need to read the figure too.Yobol (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobo you said that the salt fluoridation provides context to why the water is not fluoridated in some countries and now you say you said that it was a alternative source for fluoride. Their are also other sources for fluoride besides water and salt like Sulfuryl fluoride which is used as a pesticide on food crops. The fact that their are other sources for fluoride such as salt fluoridation has no real significance here in this WikiPedia article that requires sources. The fact is that the current sourced article to back up the current claim in the article is not a good source. Both the salt fluoridation part and the source need to be removed to improve the article.(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

It was pertinent enough for it to be included in the article by Cheng. You may disagree, but the reliable source felt it was pertinent enough to include that information. Yobol (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The current source for sentence 3 on the water fluoridation article does not provide the information to back up the claims that it makes. The source is a bad source. The only way to fix this situation is to remove the salt fluoridation info and the source as they are bogus. Please check your sources and follow Wikipedia guide lines. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

It is not a bad source. The information is in the figure, as I have already pointed out to you. Yobol (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The current source article to back up the salt fluoridation wording is showing that the rate of tooth decay has dropped between countries that fluoridate compared to countries that do not fluoridate. The graph is showing that fluoridation is not effective. Wikipedia is a serious place that requires information to be sourced and anything else will not be allowed. The current source is bogus. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

Not sure what you're going on about, but the information that you're saying needs sourcing is in the source, as required. Yobol (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your own original research cannot be put into an article on Wikipedia. You need to cite reliable sources. Please also see WP:V. Wikipedia is not about verifiability: Readers must be able to verify the text through citations to reliable sources. Please stop posting your uncited opinions to talk pages. If you carry on doing this, you will be blocked from editing.(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

Source 3 on the third sentence is not a good source to be used for the claim made. Salt fluoridation is mentioned only once and it does not say that some continental countries fluoridate salt. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

Updated lead with sources taken from the main body since you have a problem with that particular source. Also placed the worldwide coverage a little lower in the lead to match where it is in the main article. Yobol (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence of the water fluoridation article.

The second sentence of the water fluoridation article currently reads.

" Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride."

This sentence is not structured in a way that is clear and needs to be restructured to improve it's clarity. The current sentence needs to be broken down in to 2 or more sentences so is reads clearer removing any ambiguity.

The first part of the sentence currently reads as follows " Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities"

This message in this sentence is not clear because the amount of water people consume is not controlled.

The sentence currently makes many assumptions and is very vague and bad quality.

The sentence would be clearer to be structured in this way.

Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities if the consumption of the fluoridated water is within a certain unknown amount.

The second part of the current sentence can be clearer by being worded. Water is capable of having it's natural fluoride levels adjusted by adding fluoride or in some cases removing fluoride to reach the effective cavity fighting level which is unknown.(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

The 13th sentence should be deleted to improve the article

The 13th sentence currently reads.

"Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources."(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

This sentence is clearly off topic. The article is about water fluoridation and not about fluorides effects or the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

The 13th sentence should be removed to improve the article.

{GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

The information provides context so it is clearly not "off-topic". (Total fluoride consumption is off topic in an article discussing fluoride toxicity - really?) Yobol (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about water fluoridation and not about other forms of fluoridation or fluoridation's toxicity. The sentence 13th sentence says that fluorides effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources which information while may be true is off topic to the water fluoridation topic itself. The 13th sentence is clearly off topic. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

We can't properly discuss the safety issues of water fluoridation without providing the context of all fluouride consumption. Yobol (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The 14th sentence is only partly on topic and should be shortened.

The 14th sentence currently reads. " Drinking water is typically the largest source;[12] other methods of fluoride therapy include fluoridation of toothpaste, salt, and milk."

The 14th sentence is talking about other sources of fluoride therapy including fluoridation of toothpaste, salt and milk which are not water fluoridation and should be deleted to improve the article. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

See comments in section above. Yobol (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about water fluoridation not the safety of water fluoridation clearly.(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

The safety section begs to differ. Yobol (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Poorly written article about water fluoridation that needs to be more direct and stay on point.

The Water fluoridation article is poorly written and at times goes off topic which makes it very hard to read easily.

The article is not about salt fluoridation for example but nonetheless the article has the word salt in it 20 times.

The article is not about toothpaste but the article has toothpaste in it 23 times.

The article is not about milk fluoridation but the article has milk in it 9 times.

The article needs to be cleaned up and shortened to the topic of water fluoridation.

(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

See comments in two sections above. You really need to stop spamming this talk page with new sections when you are just making the same point over and over, that is disruptive. Also note that this article is a featured article, and is considered one of the best on Wikipedia. Yobol (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The article strays off the topic of water fluoridation and on to the dental cavities topic too much. For instance in the Goal section the only sentence that is on point is the first one then the article goes on and on about dental cavities. The featured article symbol is of no great achievement evidently. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

Time to invoke WP:DENY. Yobol (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Also WP:SOFIXIT. Come on editors - be bold - make your changes - be editors and edit! Shot info (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Errr, on an aside - GeneralMandrakeRipper is coming up as a sock and also blocked. If this is correct then all the above can be deleted. Shot info (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, blocked today - as a vandalism only account - makes sense. Shot info (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

History of water fluoridation

The first phrase lacks a reference to prove not that water fluoridation also can affect the brain and can induce serious neurological effects. Not mentioning that major aspect of water fluoridation is not sufficient neither scientifically acceptable, as the whole fluoridation history clearly shows that water fluoridation was first found and developed in a lab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.70.113 (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please provide sources thanks. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

High levels

This was just added

Long-term exposure to levels higher than 4.0 mg/L can cause a condition called skeletal fluorosis, in which fluoride accumulates in the bones. This can eventually result in joint stiffness and pain, and can lead to weak or brittle bones in older adults..

Are there cases from Water Fluridation? If not than it should be removed. I cannot find it in the ref.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition

A recent addition added new information that violates WP:MEDRS in that we do not use primary studies to rebut secondary sources. Please familiarize yourself with the thee policies. Yobol (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Water purification for discussion

Is the statement "Fluoride is also a known carcinogen" sources added here (initially added here), already addressed somewhere in Wikipedia. I thought this would be the best article to discuss the issue. The addition of the material and the subsequent sourcing looks like WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:COATRACK problems. Here's the full context: --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

long list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fluoride Removal: Although fluoride is added to water in many areas, some areas of the world have excessive levels of natural fluoride in the source water. Excessive levels can be toxic or cause undesirable cosmetic effects such as staining of teeth. Fluoride is also a known carcinogen Methods of reducing fluoride levels is through treatment with activated alumina and bone char filter media.

Looks like a sock of the same user that's been blocked across multiple fluoridation articles (Freedom5000/GeneralMandrakeRipper). Yobol (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Per DUCK it looks like you're right and I've tagged the userpage. We need to get all these articles semi-protected so only editors with autoreview rights can edit them. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The fluoridation of water is not particularly controversial among health professionals. So the question is the notability of the cause of small but highly vocal fringe groups. One has to wonder about WP:UNDUE.

Here are some further comments on the list of references above:

1) Fluoride is a very common, consequently many thousands of articles have been written about fluorides. For example, the entire aluminium industry relies on fluorides and a hefty fraction of pharmaceuticals contain fluorine. Of the many thousands of articles of fluoride, some will discuss toxicity effects. In view of this vast literature, the opportunity exists to cherry pick specific articles to support a various perspectives. Wikipedia has a method to limit such cherry-picking: WP:SECONDARY.

2) Most references in the list are primary citations. Especially for potentially controversial topics, Wikipedia typically expects more digested sources such as reviews and textbooks on technical subjects, per WP:SECONDARY.

3) Also, note refs 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 63, 68, 70 are to the so-called journal Fluoride, which was not been accredited by PubMed, which basically reported that Fluoride is a single-issue journal with a biased perspective.

4) Refs 2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13 are to news reports and usually have no standing in establishing a technical merits of a case.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks article being hit with anti-fluoride stuff

I just wanted to let the regular editors of this article know that some obvious anti-fluoride people are attempting to push a document on us that is supposedly been leaked by Wikileaks. However the document is being posted by a link from MIT with a reference link inside the doc. from wikileaks.org. I just wanted to give you guys a heads up that:

1. There are no reliable media outlets referencing this document.

2. Wikileaks.org domain is currently suspected of tampering by malicious people according to Spamhaus. (although, this is in dispute)

3. Wikileaks staff have not confirmed this document as authentic. And getting in touch with staff is really difficult at the moment.

And to end that note, the editor (suspected sockpuppet of Freedom5000) has stated that "The Fluoride document leaked by WikiLeaks is only the most important document that was leaked." Not to sound biased, but I think that Secret US military operations in Yemen are a little more important then unscientific claims that diluted fluoride is harmful. Phearson (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Business as usual (but thanks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And it's a Congressional Report that's always been publicly available. Nothing secret or new at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We already have legitimized this fringe group (i.e. the virulent anti-fluoride advocates) by allowing the creation of many articles on this area: fluoride poisoning, Water fluoridation controversy, dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, History of water fluoridation, Water fluoridation in the United States, Fluoridation by country. This group has exploited the vulnerability of Wikipedia to the creation of articles and the near impossibility of killing articles off. What they lack technical knowledge, this fringe group makes up for in persistence. The remaining hold-outs to their attack are water fluoridation and flouride, which are top-ranked hits related "fluoridation' on Google. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. It doesn't seem like it's requiring any undue effort to address these problems, let's not get all hysterical about a few fringers. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what "It's" refers to, but the general advice is taken, i.e. not to over-respond. The problem for Wikipedia is that battles with fringers have distracted editorial energies that could have been directed toward more sober discussion of technologies and challenges of fluoridation. We have no article on "fluoridation." For example water fluoridation is one modality, but the fluoridation of toothpaste probably has more significant impact on health, and the mechanism by which fluoridation enhances dental health is not discussed. But not to worry, I lack the time to do much here and most editorial efforts have focused on anti-vandalism.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't asking anybody to do anything, I was just giving warning in case these users came here with it. Being that this article is a high-value target for the fringies. Phearson (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

HHS and EPA Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride

HHS and EPA Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride. There may be something usable here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks more like a PR line. As you can see, it contains SEO tools and the like. I don't think it meets the guidelines WP:RS. Phearson (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source. BTW, if a kid brushes with fluoride toothpaste, and also drinks fluoridated water, does that mean the kid is at greater risk of getting excessive fluoride? It would seem so. That would be a great excuse for a kid who doesn't want to brush his teeth. -:)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This level of detail (decreased recommedation from 1.2 to 0.7 maximum) probably doesn't belong in this article...Water fluoridation in the United States may be a better place?Yobol (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The LA Times is reporting that the main reason for the proposed decrease in water fluoridation is that kids are now getting it from other sources such as... wait for it ....brushing their teeth.[18]Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no worries at all about sourcing that in this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Yobol's right. Water fluoridation in the United States would be be a better place. Of course a RS should be used, preferably directly from HHS or EPA. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Government agencies are never reliable sources, other than for sourcing their political statements and goals Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, wha? The FDA isn't a reliable source for what food/drug is safe? The CDC isn't a reliable source for medical information on diseases? Yobol (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, governments can be cited, because they're notable, but they're reliable only as to verification of their own statements. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Which policy/guideline are you basing this on?Yobol (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. Taken altogether, governments do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. However, they can be cited if care is taken. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly an interesting interpretation of policy. Yobol (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, governments can be cited, no worries there, but government statements should not be carried in an article's narrative voice. Rather, the narrative text should attribute a government statement to its source, so as not to mislead readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If I could give an example: If Nigeria were to say that Bananas are radioactive, and may put you at risk of Rad. poisoning, it would notable, but not reliable. Surprisingly, Bananas are indeed radioactive, and have been reported to be so from reliable sources. But before I throw you all into Banana fringe thinking, Bananas emanate only enough radio activity as a person would get from being out in the sun. Not sure if I'm correct on that at all, but its an example after all, and off-topic (sorry). Phearson (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Government agencies

I'm concerned by Gwen Gale's apparent demotion of all publications of "Government agencies" to that of a self-published source. While I'd certainly rank the views of a Health Minister (I'm from the UK, translate that as appropriate) as probably no more enlightened than the average Daily Mail reader coupled with some self-serving politics, I'm not sure this extends to all information that happens to be produced by an "agency" of the Government. In a "socialist" (as you American's regard it) country, the UK has a lot of government. Should we no longer trust the maps of Ordnance Survey or the reports issued by the Met Office? Of more medical concern, the reports produced by NICE are probably some of the best medical sources one could hope to use. I'm concerned. I think too much is being tarred with the same brush. Would privatisation make those agencies more reliable? Colin°^Talk 07:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think here in America we call them "Health Officials" with the highest official being the "Surgeon General". Other then that, I lack expertise in the medical field and will defer to others to answer the rest of your question. Phearson (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This article should be about water fluoridation is and not cavities.

The article is not balanced and strays off topic now. The article should be shortened to clearly describe water fluoridation and not stray off on cavities as much as it does now. (Zxoxm (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

I disagree, dental decay is absolutely central to the topic. Graham Colm (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The article clearly is about water fluoridation and should be on that topic but it now greatly discusses dental carries and while related it is off topic.(Zxoxm (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

The Dental caries article on Wikipedia is for the the dental caries information not the water fluoridation article. The water fluoridation article should have a active link to the wikipedia dental caries article and not discuss cavities as much as it currently does. The Water fluoridation article is long winded and goes on and on now which is not a good quality article.(Zxoxm (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

I also disagree, dental health is the center of this topic: it's the reason for fluoridaton of water. That perspective is widely held. You appear to be trying to suppress information that does not advance your antifluoridation cause.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Putting the information about cavities and Dental caries on it's proper Wikipedia page is not suppressing information. Suppressing information would be removing or deleting the information in it's entirety or attempting to lie about a topic and I am not advising that. I am advising that the article about water fluoridation be about water fluoridation and not include so much information about dental caries in it because it makes it hard to read. I went to the water fluoridation article to read about water fluoridation and if your not paying attention you would think it was a dental carries article instead.

What I am attempting to do is improve the article. The article can have links to the dental caries article but right now it is over the top. (Zxoxm (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

What you appear to be doing recently is to reconstruct history and context to favor your opposition to the fluoridation of drinking water. Caries are a major issue and naturally such material is covered in multiple articles. I recommend that you cease your efforts. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I can advance this discussion or not, but AFAIK the sole purpose of water fluoridation (intentional as opposed to naturally occurring or resulting from pollution or contamination) is to combat dental caries. If cavities weren't a health problem, intentional fluoridation would not be done, simple as that. So indeed, the two topics are intimately wound together. Franamax (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

While of course that is the case, nonetheless this is not the caries article, and undue emphasis should be trimmed back as necessary. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole pith of water fluoridation has to do with claims that it prevents caries, that's what the topic is about. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A major problem with the article is there a lot of focus ON cavities, but not actually on what credible studies have had to say about what water fluoridation does to PREVENT them. The same tactic used by tabloid newspapers and tacky TV / news shows to sway public opinion (the old Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt approach). A very best, it seems government studies on the whole have been highly ambivalent (with several suggesting it is harmful), which is why many governments have rejected the idea. The article could do with heavy trimming as well as a redress of balance. Iain Collins 188.221.137.245 (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidence basis section - There is no clear evidence of other adverse effects - I think I have found some.

Please do not use this page as a general discussion forum. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidence basis - There is no clear evidence of other adverse effects - I think I have found some. I have been doing a bit of research myself on this subject. I am new to wikipedia so wanted to include some of the stuff I have found here rather than attempting to edit the main article. There is a section in the main article that states "There is no clear evidence of other adverse effects". These look to be genuine studies to me so I wanted to give a couple of examples of them and to ask if there was \ny reason why these would not be eligible to be included in the main article and appropriately referenced. Calderon J, et al. (2000). Influence of fluoride exposure on reaction time and visuospatial organization in children. Epidemiology 11(4): S153. (See abstract) Abstract - Epidemiology (Annual Conference of the International Society of Environmental Epidemiology) July 2000; 11(4): S153 Influence of Fluoride Exposure on Reaction Time and Visuospatial Organization in Children Jaqueline Calderon, Machado Blenda, Navarro Marielena, Carrizales Leticia, Ortiz Maria Deogracias, Diaz-Barriga F. University of North Caroline. Email: Jaqueline.Calderon@sph-unc.edu Fluoride exposure is an important public health problem in several Mexican states. In the city of San Luis Potosi, Mexico, above 90% of the children have some degree of dental fluorosis. The main source of exposure to fluoride is tap water. The objective of the study was to evaluate the influence of chronic exposure to fluoride on neuropsychological development in children. Sixty-one children aged 6 to 8 years were included. Fluoride concentration in tap water ranged from 1.2 to 3 mg/L. Fluoride exposure was measured in urine samples by electrothermal ion selective method. Blood lead (PbB) was measured as indicator of lead exposure by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Height for age index (HAI) was calculated as indicator of past nutritional status. Three tests were used to evaluate the neuropsychological development: (1) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revisited version for Mexico (WISC-RM), (2) Rey Osterreith-Complex Figure test and (3) Continuos Performance Test (CPT). Mean value of fluoride in urine was 4.3 mgF/g creatinine (1.6-10.8). Mean PhB value was 6.2 ug/dl (2.0-15.6). After controlling by significant confounders, urinary fluoride correlated positively with reaction time and inversely with the scores in visuospatial organization. IQ scores were not influenced by fluoride exposure. An increase in reaction time could affect the attention process, also the low scores in visuospatial organization could be affecting the reading and writing abilities in these children. Sun ZR, et al. (2000). Effects of high fluoride drinking water on the cerebral functions of mice. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 19: 262-263. (See abstract) Abstract - Chinese Journal of Endemiology 2000;19(4):262-3 (As cited and abstracted in Fluoride 2001; 34(1):80) Effects of high fluoride drinking water on the cerebral functions of mice Sun Z-R, Liu F-Z, Wu L-N, et al. For Correspondence: Department of Environmental Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300070, China. Objective: To study the effects of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on the cerebral functions of mice. Methods: Learning and memory abilities of high-fluoride exposed and control groups of mice were measured by behavior-toxicological test (Shuttle box Test), and the cholinesterase (ChE) activity in brain tissue homogenate of the mice was determined. Results: Learning and memory abilities of high-fluoride exposed groups were significantly lower than that of the control group, while the brain ChE activities of high-fluoride exposed groups were significantly higher. Conclusions: High fluoride concentration in drinking water can decrease the cerebral functions of mice. Fluoride is a neurotoxicant. This information (along with many other studies) is in the public domain. If thse would not be suitable basis for a new section within the main article could someone give me a brief explanation as to why not when they have a second? Many thanks. ChrisH48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisH48 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC) For one, we rely on secondary sources for our articles and these are primary sources. These sources also do not comply with the type of sources we want to use for medical claims. I should make it clear that available reviews of the literature show that water fluoridation is safe for human consumption at doses used to prevent caries, with minimal exceptions (as noted in the article already). Unless we have a recent review, published in the peer-reviewed medical literature, that complies with our guidelines as I noted (i.e. not from fringe journals such as Fluouride, we do not use primary studies to debunk secondary studies' conclusions. Yobol (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Many thanks for the helpful information. Can I ask if it would be ok to add some info regarding studies on the effect of flouride on animals? A lot of tests have been done on rats but neither the fluoridation article or the fluoridation controversy article mention any of them. The following text from Brysons "The Fluoride Deception" details the effect of fluoridation on rats in a study completed in 1990. The fluoride deception P11/12 Testing floridation on rats. "Fluoride added to their drinking water produced a variety of effects in the Forsyth rats. Pregnant rats gave birth to "hyperactive" babies. When the scientists gave fluoride to the baby rats following their birth, the animals had "cognitive deficits," and exhibited retarded behavior. There were sex differences, too. Males appeared more sensitive to fluoride in the womb; females were more affected when exposed as weanlings or young adults." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisH48 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Not really; that would place undue weight on information about rats (which is not really encyclopedic in nature), and the source (by the Brysons do not meet the criteria for reliable source for medical claims that I noted above. Yobol (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Hi. Thanks again for the info. I reluctantly accept the point about sources. I disagree however with what you say about experiments on rats. Wikipedias own artcle on rats states that: "Over the years, rats have been used in many experimental studies, which have added to our understanding of genetics, diseases, the effects of drugs, and other topics that have provided a great benefit for the health and wellbeing of humankind." I agree with this and it seems to me that to say that a mere mention of experiments with fluoride on rats would "place undue weight on information about rats." is not true. If you were claiming that studies on rats could lead to definate conclusions as to effects on humans then I would agree that is undue weight. If you are including a short bit of text which highlights studies done on rats and their possible indication of potential effects on humans then I dont see that this is undue weight. In all sorts of research rats are used as test subjects and the results of these studies are often often very useful in determining the way a substance is likely to effect humans. I have been searching again and have included some statements and associated references (which I believe to be from medical journals). Could you let me know if there are any reasons why these are not appropriate for the article? Many thanks again in advance. C 1. Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea. A.K. Susheela and Mohan Jha, " Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous Bone Composition," IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol. 9, No.11, pp. 1021-1022 (1981); Y. D. Sharma, " Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Collagen Cross-Link Precursors," Toxicological Letters, Vol. 10, pp. 97-100 (1982); A. K. Susheela and D. Mukerjee, " Fluoride poisoning and the Effect of Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Nonosseous Tissue," Toxicological European Research, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 99-104 (1981); Y.D. Sharma, " Variations in the Metabolism and Maturation of Collagen after Fluoride Ingestion," Biochemica et Biophysica Acta, Vol. 715, pp. 137-141 (1982); Marian Drozdz et al., " Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds upon Connective Tissue Metabolism in Growing Rats" and "Effect of Sodium Fluoride With and Without Simultaneous Exposure to Hydrogen Fluoride on Collagen Metabolism," Journal of Toxicological Medicine, Vol. 4, pp. 151-157 (1984). 2. Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood. Robert A. Clark, " Neutrophil Iodintion Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation," Blood, Vol. 57, pp. 913-921 (1981). 3. Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis. As little as 0.2 ppm fluoride stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1 ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents. John Curnette, et al, " Fluoride-mediated Activation of the Respiratory Burst in Human Neutrophils," Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 63, pp. 637-647 (1979); W. L. Gabler and P. A. Leong, ., " Fluoride Inhibition of Polymorphonumclear Leukocytes," Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 48, No. 9, pp. 1933-1939 (1979); W. L. Gabler, et al., " Effect of Fluoride on the Kinetics of Superoxide Generation by Fluoride," Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p. 281 (1985); A. S. Kozlyuk, et al., " Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated Environments," Zdravookhranenie, Issue 3, pp. 6-9 (1987) 4. Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body's own tissues, and increases the tumor growth rate in cancer prone individuals. Alfred Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, " Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumor Growth," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 119, p. 252 (1965); Shiela Gibson, " Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function," Complementary Medical Research, Vol. 6, pp. 111-113 (1992); Peter Wilkinson, " Inhibition of the Immune System With Low Levels of Fluorides," Testimony before the Scottish High Court in Edinburgh in the Case of McColl vs. Strathclyde Regional Council, pp. 17723-18150, 19328-19492, and Exhibit 636, (1982); D. W. Allman and M. Benac, " Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo," Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 55 (Supplement B), p. 523 (1976); S. Jaouni and D. W. Allman, " Effect of Sodium Fluoride and Aluminum on Adenylate Cyclase and Phosphodiesterase Activity," Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p. 201 (1985) 5. Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood. S. K. Jain and A. K. Susheela, " Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation in Rabbits," Environmental Research, Vol. 44, pp. 117-125 (1987) 6. Fluoride depresses thyroid activity. Viktor Gorlitzer Von Mundy, " Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism, Particularly on the Thyroid Gland," Muenchener Medicische Wochenschrift, Vol. 105, pp. 182-186 (1963); A. Benagiano, "The Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Thyroid Enzymes and Basal Metabolism in the Rat," Annali Di Stomatologia, Vol. 14, pp. 601-619 (1965); Donald Hillman, et al., " Hypothyroidism and Anemia Related to Fluoride in Dairy Cattle," Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 62, No.3, pp. .416-423 (1979); V. Stole and J. Podoba, " Effect of Fluoride on the Biogenesis of Thyroid Hormones," Nature, Vol. 188, No. 4753, pp. 855-856 (1960); Pierre Galleti and Gustave Joyet, " Effect of Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism," Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 18, pp. 1102-1110 (1958) 7. Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the body. T. Takamorim " The Heart Changes in Growing Albino Rats Fed on Varied Contents of Fluorine," The Toxicology of Fluorine Symposium, Bern, Switzerland, Oct 1962, pp. 125-129; Vilber A. O. Bello and Hillel J. Gitelman, " High Fluoride Exposure in Hemodialysis Patients," American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 15, pp. 320-324 (1990); Y. Yoshisa, " Experimental Studies on Chronic Fluorine Poisoning," Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, Vol. 1, pp. 683-690 (1959) 8. Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer. J.K. Mauer, et al., " Two-Year Cacinogenicity Study Of Sodium Fluoride In Rats," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 82, pp. 1118-1126 (1990); Proctor and Gamble " Carcinogenicity Studies with Sodium Fluoride in Rats" National Institute of Environmenrtal Health Sciences Presentation, July 27, 1985; S. E. Hrudley et al., " Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma," Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, pp. 415-416 (1990); P. D. Cohn, " A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and Incidence of Osteosarcoma in Young Males," New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, New Jersey, Nov. 1992; M. C. Mahoney et al., " Bone Cancer Incidence Rates in New York," American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, pp. 81, 475 (1991); Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton, " Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride," Genetics Vol. 48, pp. 307-310 (1963); J. A. Disney, et al., " A Case Study in Testing the Conventional Wisdom: School Based Fluoride Mouth Rinse Programs in the USA," Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Vol. 18, pp. 46-56 (1990); D. J. Newell, " Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer - An Association?," Applied Statistics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 125-135 (1977) 9. Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body. Nicholas Leone, et al., " Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water Supply," Public Health Reports, Vol. 69, pp. 925-936 (1954); J. David Erikson, " Mortality of Selected Cities with Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated Water Supplies," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 298, pp. 1112-1116 (1978); " The Village Where People Are Old Before Their Time," Stern Magazine, Vol. 30, pp. 107-108, 111-112 (1978) 10. Fluoride ingestion from mouth rinses and dentifrices in children is extremely hazardous to biological development, life span and general health. Yngve Ericsson and Britta Forsman, " Fluoride Retained From Mouth Rinses and Dentifrices In Preschool Children," Caries Research, Vol. 3, pp. 290-299 (1969); W. L. Augenstein, et al., " Fluoride Ingestion In Children: A Review Of 87 Cases," Pediatrics, Vol. 88, pp. 907-912, (1991); Charles Wax, " Field Investigation Report," State of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, March 19, 1980, 67 pages; George Waldbott, " Mass Intoxication from Over-Fluoridation in Drinking Water," Clinical Toxicology, Vol. 18, No.5, pp. 531-541 (1981) Forgot to sign - sorry. 193.113.48.17 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not particularly sure what policies apply for these, but what are we attempting to get at? Is this an edit request? We also can't WP:SYNTH these. Phearson (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I agree, and also these are all primary sources and very old ones at that, going back 30–40 years and more. The Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this, see WP:MEDRS, and none of the above are suitable for inclusion. They have all been superseded by more recent research and the results were never independently confirmed in all the cases that I have checked. Graham Colm (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC) What I am getting at is: 1. I think there should be information in the main article that highlights the toxic effects that fluoride has had on animals in tests. This would not place undue emphasis on animal testing. It is relevant and I think it should be included. I’m sure I can find plenty of secondary sources that show fluoride has been medically proven to harm rats. I disagree with Yobols statement "that would place undue weight on information about rats (which is not really encyclopedic in nature)." 2. I disagree with the general impression that this article gives, which is that fluoridation of drinking water is safe. I’m trying to find evidence that is acceptable to wikipedia to support my view. I am very new to the site so at this stage I do not want to edit anything as I don’t want to annoy anyone or create extra work for anyone. What I am doing is presenting evidence in the discussion page. If I find any that people are happy with then I will request to edit the page accordingly. I will now return to my search. ChrisH48 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) We need secondary review articles that show harm at doses found in water fluoridation. Evidence of accidents at water treatment plants have occurred and negative health outcomes that have resulted would be appropriate here if worded correctly and well sourced.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. When you say "We need secondary review articles that show harm at doses found in water fluoridation." would tests on animals be ok for this? I will certainly attempt to find the source material for this and for the accidents at water treatment plants. ChrisH48 (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC) ChrisH48, see WP:MEDRS. We don't use research papers as sources as they are classified as primary sources and using them leads to so many problems. Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources. A secondary source for this article would, for example, be a literature review in a very reliable publication or science journal, that is specifically discussing water fluoridation. Such an article will be written by an expert in the field, who draws on the primary research literature in order to build a balanced and fair report. We rely on these experts to decide if some animal experiment is relevant, or some study of 20 people is relevant, or if some study of 20,000 people is relevant. Such experts will know if an old study has been superseded by new research. Such experts are unlikely to be swayed by some random crackpot website they found on Google. If these experts believe that "drinking fluoridated water is safe" then we can't say otherwise even if you feel strongly that they've overlooked something, or they are all part of some government conspiracy, etc. As for the "accidents at water treatment plants", we already give some examples in the Safety section. -- Colin°Talk 19:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC) "I disagree with the general impression that this article gives, which is that fluoridation of drinking water is safe. I’m trying to find evidence that is acceptable to wikipedia to support my view." I think part of the problem lies with this viewpoint. To build a good encyclopedia, you need to review the available material and then come to a conclusion on what should be in it; your approach, which is to disagree and then include only material that agrees with you is probably not the best way to build a neutral encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I will ask that editors with more policy experience than I have to consider remove the lengthy lists of articles/abstracts from ChrisH48. The talk page is not a mechanism to highlight literature that is not even close to being admissable.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

American Dental Association document- should this be referenced?

I may have missed a reference to this issue/point, an ADA guidance document on flouride intake for babies:

http://www.ada.org/1767.aspx

It recommends that infants should not regularly be fed formula mixed with flouridated water.

It seems like an authoritative reference containing relevant information.

RiceMilk (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the baby formula theme is tangential to the technology and practice of fluoridatin. Furthermore, we dont give advice, at least we're not supposed to. Finally, we dont report on every government's rules (Wikipdia is not a US encyclopedia, it is global). So for those reasons, I recommend against following this well-intentioned suggestion.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

references to consider

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262393&Scope=archiv http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028005382.x/abstract 188.2.172.81 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done You were reverted before. And in what context to use for which lines? Refs are only used to backup the content that is on already on the page. Phearson (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

or, new sources can be used to find new information to include in the article, don't you think? yes i was reverted before, unjustly. 188.2.172.81 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources fail WP:MEDRS --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Phearson (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. See also WP:PSTS - Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources, like medical reviews in this case. The journal article is a primary study. Yobol (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, i agree its not secondary source, but i don't agree its not reputable - both have impact factor around 2. anyhow, explaining it as you did above is much more appropriate then deleting it with a not-a-forum explanation. regards. 188.2.172.81 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in understanding how these refs do not fail WP:MEDRS with the claim of "impact factor around 2". What matter of rating sorcery is this? Phearson (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also pretty old. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Water fluoridation is a large-scale, well-established technology

Fluoridation is a large-scale technology that has treated water consumed by hundreds of millions of people for about 50 years. As with any large-scale process, enough digging will reveal mistakes where someone has been hurt or where a facility has been operated incorrectly or even incompetently. In terms of toxicity, many thousands of articles have been written on fluorides. Doubtless, some of these articles identify risks and problems. Such is true for any large-scale technology or any widely used chemical compound. Thus, we need to guard against WP:UNDUE by giving weight to anecdotes and screw-ups.

Two related articles might provide models, both involving halogens provided to people, often as mandated by a government: Chlorination, which acknowledges briefly that screw-ups can occur, and iodized salt. One can be sure that all kinds of minor and some major disasters have occurred in implementing these processes, but the articles keep their focus on the mainstream point of the technology, not on some tangent.

Water fluoridation has been subjected to intense attack by those who are convinced that water fluoridation is a conspiracy or terribly risky. The history of this conspiracy goes back to the John Birch Society and continues today in many extremist groups. To acknowledge/appease these views, Wikipedia is host to many related articles: Fluoride poisoning, Fluorine deficiency, Water fluoridation controversy, Dental fluorosis, Skeletal fluorosis, History of water fluoridation, Water fluoridation in the United States, and Fluoridation by country.

The antifluoridation groups would like nothing more than to turn this page into a forum for their fringe theories. In recent weeks, some of of these editors and their sockpuppets have been shut down for inappropriate editing or POV pushing. So legitimate editors of Wikipedia should be cautious.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this page needs a FAQ. Colin°^Talk 19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with smokefoot. A couple of weeks ago, some sock/meatpuppets of user:Freedom5000 came to the Wikileaks article and attempted to push a PDF document hosted by MIT, stating that "This is the most important document that wikileaks has released" and robotic answers of "I'll get back to you etc". Of coarse, from technical analysis of the document, and verification against the files that wikileaks has bothered to archive/torrent, it was determined fake. Someone also, pointed out here that the document was already in circulation because it was publicly released by the US government. So I do believe that there are some pretty determined people out there to push that POV, so we need to keep a close eye on this and other articles relating to Fluoride. Phearson (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of trying to post anything to any articles without checking on the discussions page first.. Which I think is in line with wikipedia guidelines...

What about this? I found it on pub med, its recent, and its been done at a university and it seems to me to be a peer review of primary research.

Biol Trace Elem Res. 2008 Winter;126(1-3):115-20. Epub 2008 Aug 10.

Fluoride and children's intelligence: a meta-analysis. Tang QQ, Du J, Ma HH, Jiang SJ, Zhou XJ.

Department of Pathology, Nanjing University School of Medicine, Nanjing Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210002, People's Republic of China.

Abstract This paper presents a systematic review of the literature concerning fluoride that was carried out to investigate whether fluoride exposure increases the risk of low intelligence quotient (IQ) in China over the past 20 years. MEDLINE, SCI, and CNKI search were organized for all documents published, in English and Chinese, between 1988 and 2008 using the following keywords: fluorosis, fluoride, intelligence, and IQ. Further search was undertaken in the website www.fluorideresearch.org because this is a professional website concerning research on fluoride. Sixteen case-control studies that assessed the development of low IQ in children who had been exposed to fluoride earlier in their life were included in this review. A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ. The meta-analyses of the case-control studies estimated that the odds ratio of IQ in endemic fluoride areas compared with nonfluoride areas or slight fluoride areas. The summarized weighted mean difference is -4.97 (95%confidence interval [CI] = -5.58 to -4.36; p < 0.01) using a fixed-effect model and -5.03 (95%CI = -6.51 to 3.55; p < 0.01) using a random-effect model, which means that children who live in a fluorosis area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ than those who live in a nonfluorosis area or a slight fluorosis area.

PMID: 18695947 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ChrisH48 (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Any meta-analysis that takes "www.fluorideresearch.org" and their "journal" Fluoride seriously should not be used. Garbage in, garbage out.Yobol (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is here [19]. They where comparing children from severe fluorisis areas to areas with mild / no fluorisis. This is not the same as looking at water fluoride levels of commercial water. While it is a review article it is not very good and unsure how to properly summarize it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

So I have managed to track down the BMJ review article:

http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7622/699

The conclusions that I draw from it are:

a) The British government has used evidence selectively to over optimize assessments on fluoride safety. b) Some studies that have been done and declared fluoride to be safe would probably not have detected any results that could have found it unsafe. c) The British government has used studies which had too few participants to give useful results to make claims about fluoridation. d) The evidence of both the benefits and negative effects of fluoride is of a low quality.

I can see no reason why I cannot edit the evidence section to say that there is also no reliable evidence that fluoridation is safe in the long term (point d above). That at least some of the studies that have found fluoride safe could potentially have missed results to the contrary (point b above).

I also think that within the ethics and politics section it could be stated that the BMJ considers the British government to have used inappropriate studies and to have used studies inappropriately to over optimize fluoride assessments and to make claims about its safety.

This is a reasonably up to date review article form a very well respected organisation and includes opinions which are currently not stated in the wikipedia article.

I would be happy to concentrate on the UK and to write an article based solely on the issue of water fluoridation there if that wad deemed more useful/appropriate?

ChrisH48 (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That paper (available here) is already cited several times by the article. If you search for "Cheng" in the talk page archives, you can see it has been discussed aleady. This article does state that the quality of evidence regarding safety is low, but that is not to say there is "no reliable evidence". As for the inability of the British government in 2004 to accurately report science, I fail to see what is notable here. The situation wrt water fluoridation by water companies in the UK didn't materially change as a result and doesn't look likely to change. So we're talking about minor misdemeanour by a previous administration that affected nobody and was largely ignored. We already have some content dealing with the UK in Fluoridation by country. Note that an article in the BMJ is not the same thing as "the BMJ considers". When reviewing an opinion, I would have thought the BMJ editorial would have thought no further than whether it is reasonable (if that) and certainly not whether they agree with it.

I'm not convinced you've actually read this article in any detail. It seems you've just come here wanting to add some anti-fluoridation material to Wikipedia. That's not how we write an encyclopaedia. Colin°^Talk 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What is notable here Colin is that the British government in the past has a) selectively used and b) over optimised evidence from credible scientific studies in order to promote their case for adding fluoride to drinking water in the UK. If the evidence had suggested that fluoridation was completely safe then the government would have had no reason to use it selectively and inappropriately. I think an encyclopaedia article on a subject like this is incomplete without a reference to something as serious as the government being dishonest about the science of what they are adding to public drinking water. Therefore I see no reason not to add something like "In some countries credible scientific peer reviewed literature shows that governments have not been objective and honest in the way they have presented evidence pertaining to water fluoridation to the public" And then reference the Cheng article. The British government in 2004 were not as you put it "failing to report something accurately." They were "successfully reporting it inaccurately", which is a completely different thing. The fact that government is not currently in power is irrelevant as the policy of their successors on this subject has not changed. ChrisH48 (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are focused on one or narrow set of issues and are trying to correct historic injustices or "tell it the way it really is" according to various conspiracy theories, Wikipedia is not the place for you Chris or anyone. Blogs and chat rooms associated with these causes are ideal forums for complaining about governments or "setting the record straight". Wikipedia is already host to myriad articles that inform readers that aspects of water fluoridation are controversial. You are just wasting your time here.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

pretty useless map

The map shows natural and artificial fluoridation. While this may be of interest to some people, I find it rather useless, and even see it as an attempt to disguise the fact that most countries don't fluoridate artificially. Somebody should make a new map, please. Also, I hear that natural fluor is different from the stuff they add to the water (calcium-fluoride vs. sodium-fluoride), which is reportedly industrial waste. --Rittmeister (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If you contact your local John Birch Society or, better, one of the antifluoridation groups, they will give you the low-down. Fluor, as you call it, is a conspiracy to keep us docile, haven't you heard? They are watching us now ..... More seriously, in the mineral industry, one person's waste is another person's bonanza. Many commercial products, especially many products generated from rarer elements, are extracted from a stream or a sludge that people uneducated in technology call waste (a lot of gold comes from anodic sludge in copper refining). The map is imperfect, I agree. What we'd like is a dynamic image of those countries that once fluoridated water (and salt, milk, etc) and how water fluoridation has shifted concomitant with the broader application of alternative fluoridation modalities such as toothpastes, topical fluorides, etc. It would be interesting also to see a map of government-mandated salt iodization. If you see any maps leave a note here. Thanks for the idea.--Smokefoot (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As you can read on it's Wikipedia page, Sodium Fluoride is classed as toxic by both inhalation and ingestion. I don't know what you do with your tapwater, but I don't only brush my teeth. Anyway, living in Austria we don't have artificial fluoride in our water, and people don't have worse teeth than in the USA for sure. --Rittmeister (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that inhaling tap water wasn't good for you. Now I know why. Colin°^Talk 18:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Inhaling any water isn't good for you, per common sense. Phearson (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not true, outside of a desert area, water is inhaled with every breath. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, folks. I was being sarcastic! Colin°^Talk 18:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

I noticed this phrase in the introduction section and tried to fix it, but cannot because the page is semi-locked: "to prevent caries among people". Pretty sure that should say "cavities". I am an anonymous user (with no interest in creating an account) but I often fix small issues like these. Perhaps someone who has access to the article would like to correct the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.51.249 (talk • contribs)

No, 'caries' is correct. It refers to dental caries. Mindmatrix 17:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, that should be linked in the article. It's not a common term in US English, at least, thanks to the numerous toothpaste ads using "cavities" instead. I thought it was a misspelling, myself, until I copied the word into the search box. It would serve the readers to link it for clarity, or include the synonym next to it. oknazevad (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Caries has the broader meaning, it means decay (rot), a cavity is a kind of decay. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate content

I have to respectfully dispute the following sentence in the article, "By comparison, brushing with a nonfluoride toothpaste has little effect on cavities.[48]". It is well known that xylitol is a fluoride alternative that is anti-cavity in nature. This can be seen in the following wikipedia article, "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Xylitol#Dental_care". Furthermore, Xylitol-based products are allowed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to make the medical claim that they do not promote dental cavities (which is mentioned in the xylitol link as [21]). Therefore non-fluoride toothpastes containing high amounts of xylitol CAN prevent dental cavities. Some non-fluoridated toothpastes have as high as 36% xylitol content. The [48] reference in this article assumes the non-fluoride toothpaste is xylitol free too. It should be rephrased as "By comparison, brushing with a nonfluoride and non-xylitol toothpaste has little effect on cavities" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.179.61 (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between "do not promote dental cavities" and "prevents dental cavities". This is a sugar-substitute. Is there a reliable source that says fluoride-free but xylitol-containing toothpaste is effective at preventing cavities? Colin°^Talk 08:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Does not promote dental cavities and prevents dental cavities is the same thing. It appears to me that some people are not even willing to accept FDA findings. I give up my case. I posted a wikipedia link itself about xylitol preventing cavities. However, I don't own wikipedia and its pointless to argue with vague reasoning like "do not promote" and "prevent" is not same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.179.61 (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. "Does not promote" means it doesn't actively contribute to cavity formation, while "prevents" mean it does actively fight against them. One is active, one is neutral. Your argument has no merit. oknazevad (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he means regarding FTC and FDA regulations. If you say it in a way that is protected by those regulators, then it better do what it is claimed to do. If not, its free wheelin' and dealin'. Phearson (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No i'm not wrong but you are wrong. Here is a link from California Dental Association which specifically states that xylitol fights cavities http://www.cda.org/popup/XylitOL. How will you deny a dental association now? Like this there are 1000's of links on the internet which state it prevents cavities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.179.61 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is taken from a state level, What about National? Phearson (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but the article is not about xylitol, that info would be tangential. And regarding the California vs US, Wikipedia is not a US publication - worldwide, so who cares what some province in one country says? --Smokefoot (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, globalize! Phearson (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You say the article is not about xylitol but the article does mention about xylitol. Why? I did not insert that. Reason being that this article emphasizes a great deal on cavity prevention. And when cavity prevention is discussed, xylitol also comes into the picture to make it fair and balanced article. If you follow the article properly, you would not be saying, "this article isn't about xylitol". Likewise it can be said that this article is not about dental cavities either. You have to cover all aspects of dental cavities, if its prevention is to be mentioned. I am not going to search for anymore links, because wikipedia itself has an article on xylitol which states it helps prevents cavities. However, that wikipedia article itself has been ignored earlier. Also from this own article it states, "Other agents to prevent tooth decay include antibacterials such as chlorhexidine and sugar substitutes such as xylitol" And there is a reference for that within this same article itself. prevention of tooth decay is the same thing as prevention of cavities. My original point was that this article chose to mention non-fluoride toothpastes, which has nothing to do with fluoridation of water. And that contradicts the fact that fluoride isn't the only anti-cavity substance. Over here you seem to be arguing that fluoride is the sole anti-cavity ingredient. That is not the case, as mentioned in the alternative section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.179.61 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It was giving examples, not every single product to prevent tooth decay. I think you be happier if you edited xylitol instead. Phearson (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for inserting this in evidence basis section

FDA requires all fluoridated toothpastes to carry the warning that "If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, contact poison control center immediately". This information is very relevant to fluoridated toothpastes as toothpastes have been emphasized in this article a lot (non-fluoride toothpastes are mentioned too in this article). This warning on all fluoridated toothpastes indicates that swallowing of fluoride is dangerous for the body. I would suggest that the management team of this article please insert this. If not, then explain why. Also exclusion of this fact, gives rise to the opinion of article not being neutral. A neutral article discusses both the pros and cons. Most of it is overwhelmingly pro-fluoride. So its an opportunity to make it sound neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.176.246 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with Water fluoridation? Phearson (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. This editor seems to have gotten lost on the way to the Toothpaste talk page. Yobol (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not have to do with water fluoridation. However the article mentions fluoridated toothpastes as it is evident by the image of Crest toothpaste being shown and a mention beneath it that it prevents cavities. Non-fluoridated toothpastes are mentioned too. If the article is only about water fluoridation then why are fluoridated toothpastes and non-fluoridated toothpastes mentioned in the article? Either remove all toothpaste content and focus only on water fluoridation or add toothpaste related information too. That crest toothpaste image can be seen as advertisement for fluoridated toothpaste. The image is off-topic. And that is why I thought of suggesting to include the FDA warning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.176.246 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that it compliments the article in the aspect of preventing cavities in regards to fluoridation of water. Obvious pro-brush-your-teeth though, but not particularly WP:SOAP. Phearson (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Fluoridation does not affect the appearance, taste, or smell of drinking water."

This is an odd statement and needs to be given some substance instead of being expressed as a fact. If it is true than it would be interesting to have a paragraph that explains the slightly different taste/freshness of tap water with respect to bottled and untreated (rain) water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.253.195 (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2011

Why do you think it is an "odd statement"? Surely it is desirable that any water treatment has no noticable effect on the water? The statement cites a study where it was found that people could not tell if water was fluoridated or not. The issues regarding tap water taste vs rain or bottled water are propbably best discussed at bottled water and tap water. Colin°^Talk 07:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying that fluoride does not affect the appearance, taste, or smell of drinking water is nonsense. Pure water has nothing in it and it is very clean and clear unlike water that has things added to it. You simply can not add things to water without affecting it's taste, appearance and smell and that is a fact. One would have to have clean water to compare the fluoridated water to see that difference. Statements like that are just nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.103.204 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Effects on Iodine Absorption

Don't fluoride and bromine (not nutrients) compete in the body for iodine receptors, iodine being the heaviest element that is an essential nutrient? Reduced IQ, issues with bones, and many other of the corollaries that have, at least weakly, been found in studies of excessive fluoride exposure, seem to resemble iodine deficiency. 66.178.144.154 (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

F^- and I^- are very different in size, so their competition would be surprising. I have heard that perchlorate (ClO₄^-) competes with I^-, see Perchlorate#Biological functions. Usually in chemistry, F^- and hydroxide (OH^-) are more similar, as shown by the uptake of fluoride into apatite in the enamel. One need to be circumspect on this theme because there is a lot of wacky literature about the effects of fluoride, often written by undereducated conspiracy theorists.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Bottled water typically has unknown fluoride levels, and some domestic water filters remove some or all fluoride.

I was looking at the citation to this claim and it doesn't seem to back up this claim. Hobson WL, Knochel ML, Byington CL, Young PC, Hoff CJ, Buchi KF. Bottled, filtered, and tap water use in Latino and non-Latino children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(5):457–61. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.5.457. PMID 17485621.

There is no mention of the amount of fluoride being removed by filters nor does it claim that bottled water typically has unknown fluoride levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charbon (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"The type of water filter used impacts the amount of fluoride and bacteria removed from the water. Faucet-mounted or pitcher filters only remove impurities, while under-the-sink filters, such as reverse osmosis and distillation filters, remove 65% to 95% and 100% of the fluoride, respectively." ... "However, 10.2% of our filter users use under-the-sink filters, such as reverse osmosis or distillation filters, that remove between 65% and 100% of fluoride4 and, therefore, did not receive adequately fluoridated water."

"A stud of drinking water in Cincinnati, Ohio, found that bacterial counts in bottled water were often higher than those in tap water and fluoride concentration was inconsistent." ... "The impact of always drinking bottled water on fluoride intake is uncertain because the regulations for bottled water do not require disclosure of fluoride content on the labels. Although it is likely that some bottled water contains some fluoride, physicians and families cannot quantify the fluoride consumption of their patients or children."

If this information was controversial, I'd probably want a better source than the discussion aspects of a primary research paper. But I'm not aware of any controversy in this regard. Colin°^Talk 21:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

The U.S. HHS has proposed to lower the water fluoridation levels in the U.S.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/20110107a.html

That info says they would decide on the proposal by Spring 2011-- did they? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what has been decided. If you would like to know more information about what the HHS is doing then call them and ask. Both sites have contact information.

That would be an interesting exercise, but a phone call from a Wiki editor to them would not be a source we would use on Wikipedia. Please sign your posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote in Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy, this is not relevant until the proposal actually passes. Noformation (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Psnisbet, 27 July 2011

I wish to edit the statement that the UK applies water fluoridation. In fact, only a very small proportion of UK authorities do this, and the page should be edited to reflect this fact. The reference for this is:

http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/consumers/advice-leaflets/fluoridemap.pdf

Psnisbet (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This article covers fluoridation worldwide (though the US is better covered because it is better covered by the sources). Very few countries have 100% fluoridated water. So the paragraph says "It has been introduced to varying degrees in many countries and territories outside the U.S., including ... the UK, ..." (my emphasis). I think this is appropriate and deals with the fact that only a portion of UK supply is fluoridated. For more detailed information, the reader is directed (via a hatnote) to Fluoridation by country. Colin°^Talk 15:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)