Jump to content

Talk:Water fluoridation controversy/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Form of Fluoride in Water

I was just reverted by someone indicating that the form of fluoride in water was calcium fluoride and that the solubility of CaF2 had nothing to do with the form. As calcium fluoride is extremely insoluble, it has a significant amount to do with the form. The National Academy of Sciences study does not even mention calcium fluoride. I feel that the presence of fluoride is the important part, not the cation which may be present. JSR (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edit was quite correct, and I've restored it.
For the benefit of anyone inclined to revert again, please be aware that the source at the end of the sentence in question specifically discusses methods to reduce fluoride levels in high-fluoride water, and notes the addition of calcium (to bring about precipitation as calcium fluoride) as one of the more potent options. The source also notes that high fluoride in water is associated with low-calcium aquifers for this reason, and furthermore that by the time the groundwater reaches the surface any calcium may well have been replaced by other counterions (especially sodium):
"Concentrations in water are limited by fluorite solubility.... High fluoride concentrations may therefore be expected in groundwaters from calcium-poor aquifers.... Fluoride concentrations may also increase in groundwaters in which cation exchange of sodium for calcium occurs." [1]
(Internal citations omitted. Note, for reference, that fluorite is just the mineral form of calcium fluoride.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Techie thought. My tentative assertion: once in solution, fluoride and calcium do not interact. So there is no sodium-chloride in saline solution, just quite individual (solvated) ions. Similarly, CaF2 might be a (lousy but pervasive) source of F-, but I dont really know if the solutes contain Ca-F bonds. Would be interesting to dig into.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Further techie thought. That is why Ksp is measured. The concentration of calcium and fluoride is in equilibrium with the calcium fluoride solid. In a situation where the acid content is quite high, one can shift the equilibrium. One of the largest sources of fluoride for water treatment and other uses is from the phosphate industry. Calcium phosphate contains a significant amount of calcium fluoride, which is solubilized with concentrated sulfuric acid. The actual form obtained is hexafluorosilicic acid. But at the end of the day, the form of fluoride is not important, it is the amount of fluoride that is measured. JSR (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
To be very picky, "the acid content is quite high, one can shift the equilibrium. " the acid (H2SO4) does not shift the equilibrium, it introduces a new equilibrium, one involving HF. But the effect is as you describe.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2017

Flouride has been investigated for developmental neurotoxicity in children. Choi et al.'s meta-analysis of 27 studies published over 22 years suggested that children who lived in areas with high fluoride exposure had lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-exposure or control areas.[1] This finding was consistent with an earlier review and concerns expressed in the 2006 National Research Council report on EPA standards for flouride in drinking water. Corar2000 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Choi, A.L.; Guifan, S; Zhang, Y; Grandjean, P (Oct 2012). "Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". Environ Health Perspect. 120 (10). doi:10.1289/ehp.1206192.
 Not done Please review the discussion in #Neurotoxicity and the discussions linked therein. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Neurotoxicity

I did not see anywhere in the article where a reason people may dispute the consumption of fluoridated water as being a concern of neurotoxicity. How can levels be considered safe when there is no body of research on this topic in the US? I do not dispute that fluorine is a constituent of tooth enamel. I refer you to the following link: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanist human (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I refer you to the previous discussions of that article in the history of the talk page. See, for instance, Talk:Water fluoridation controversy/Archive 5#Incomplete reference in public health discussion, Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive 9#Choi review.
Briefly, the Choi analysis looked at a number of small, older Chinese studies that compared areas with low-to-moderate natural fluoride in drinking water to areas with very high natural fluoride levels. Typically, the so-callled 'low-fluoride' control groups had levels of naturally-occurring fluoride already comparable to levels recommended for artificial water fluoridation, whereas the 'high-fluoride' groups often significantly exceeded that. The comparison therefore was useful for suggesting potential risks of very high fluoride exposure (see our article on fluoride toxicity), but it wasn't appropriate to use to draw any conclusions about controlled, low levels of fluoride in artificially-fluoridated water. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, fluoride is one of the eleven common industrial chemicals that act as developmental neurotoxins note in "Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity" by Philippe Grandjean and Philip J Landrigan (Lancet Neurology 2014) http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422%2813%2970278-3/abstract

Quote form the abstract "In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers."

If one wants balance for that fact, then one could skim the abstracts of the 218 articles citing that paper on scopus or similar, looking for mentions of floride. https://www.scopus.com/results/citedbyresults.uri?sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-84894029844&src=s&imp=t&sid=9FAC409BB85BEDDE9DFE87E967A972D8.wsnAw8kcdt7IPYLO0V48gA%3a30&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0&origin=inward&editSaveSearch=&txGid=9FAC409BB85BEDDE9DFE87E967A972D8.wsnAw8kcdt7IPYLO0V48gA%3a2

It's kinda insane that this wikipeida page does not mention developmental neurotoxicity at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.137.250 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This article appears very biased in favor of fluoridation. The absence of mention of neurotoxicity and the snide dismissal of the 2006 NRC report are examples of the bias.Corar2000 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please try to grasp the distinction between the Wang2006 study's extremely high, naturally occurring groundwater fluoride levels (up to 11.6 mg/L), and the lower, controlled levels relevant to fluoridation in advanced community water treatment systems (the NRC2006 recommendation is only 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L). Obviously, no treatment system would be designed to add fluoride to water that already has high natural levels. It's apples and oranges. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Israel ceases fluoridation on Tuesday 26 August 2017.

Israel needs to be deleted from the list of countries currently fluoridating their water and their history amended to show that it ceased on the above date.http://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-officially-banned-fluoridation-its-drinking-water-267411 Peter MacProf (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Old news. The cited refererence gives the date as 26 August 2014. Attention should be given as to whether flouridation may have been resumed since. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fluoride in the drinking water and cognitive ability

Maybe this research could be something to add to the discussion?

A new Swedish study from The Institute of Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy (IFAU) in Uppsala finds zero effects on cognitive ability, non-cognitive ability and math test scores for fuoride levels in Swedish drinking water. The researchers use a rich Swedish register dataset for the children born 1985–1992, together with drinking water fuoride data. They compare intramunicipality variation of fluoride, stemming from variation in the bedrock.[1] Saramart (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ifau.se/globalassets/pdf/se/2017/wp2017-20-the-effects-of-fluoride-in-the-drinking-water.pdf
At first blush, that does look like a good and thorough study, based on high-quality data (bless the Scandinavians and their Big Brother recordkeeping). For those who don't want to read the whole thing (it's an 83-page working paper from a Swedish government agency), the authors looked at the effect of fluoride at reasonable drinking-water concentrations (0-1.5 mg/L) on intelligence, math skills, dental health, and labor market outcomes. Briefly, they found that fluoride had no measurable effect on cognitive abilities (the 95% CI was pretty narrow, and included 0), they observed the expected positive effect on dental health, and they saw a beneficial influence on labor market outcomes (the authors suspect that better dental health has a weakly positive effect on income and employment). The Discussion section also touches on how the study and results compare to previous work (notably to the much-smaller and less roust Choi/Grandjean analyses that keep coming up on this talk page).
I'm not quite sure how this sort of working paper fits into the policy context of WP:MEDRS. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Water fluoridation controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2018

The "public opinion" section lists the results of surveys from 2009, 2003, and 1999. Please put them in chronological order: 1999, 2003, and 2009, rather than the reverse. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: These studies are not a chronological series and putting them in the requested order would imply that they were. The first is a survey of Australians, the second citizens from a group of European countries, and the third from one city in England. It is preferable to keep them in non-chronological order to ensure that the article does not imply these groups were the same across surveys. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Putting them in reverse chronological order implies that they're chronological and someone just wrote the article wrongly. In order to dispel this erroneous idea, could you move the date in each line so it's less obvious (for example, "A survey of Australians conducted in 2009"), or could you put either 1999 or 2009 in the middle so it's obviously not chronological? 208.95.51.38 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Reaction of NaF (Sodium Fluoride) with HCl (Hydrochloric acid) in the stomach

Sodium Fluoride (NaF) is described in the Wikipedia page on Water fluoridation thus:

"Sodium fluoride (NaF) was the first compound used and is the reference standard.[35] It is a white, odorless powder or crystal; the crystalline form is preferred if manual handling is used, as it minimizes dust.[36] It is more expensive than the other compounds, but is easily handled and is usually used by smaller utility companies.[37] It is toxic in gram quantities by ingestion or inhalation.[38]"

As far as I can determine - I am not a chemist - when Sodium Fluoride reacts with Hydrochloric acid, Hydrofluoric acid plus Sodium Chloride is produced.

Hydrochloric acid is produced naturally in the stomach for the digestion of food, so it appears that drinking water treated with Sodium Fluoride will react with the stomach acid in the body to generate Hydrofluoric acid and salt.

I understand Hydrofluoric acid leaches calcium from the bones, and is considered very dangerous. Perhaps we have a mechanism for the development of osteoporosis in humans by the reaction of NaF with HCl in the stomach. Also the production of common salt, Sodium Chloride (NaCl), an excess of which in susceptible people is related to high blood pressure. 81.111.219.235 (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read the policies on WP:Reliable sources (one Wikipedia page is not a reliable source for another page) and Original research (opinions by non-experts not published in secondary sources are not accepted for content). There is no reason to include any of this speculation in the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Confusing statement in the lede

The final sentence of the lede states "Two-thirds of the US population receives fluoridated water, and three-quarters of the US population on the public water supply." (emphases added) Two different groups are listed -- "two-thirds of the US population" and "three-quarters of the US population". One group "...receives fluoridated water", the other group "...on the public water supply", which reads to me like an incomplete phrase. Do they mean "in", rather than "on", and if so, what's the difference between "receiving fluoridated water" and "receiving fluoridated water in the public water supply"? Where else could the first group receive it, if not in the public water supply? Can anyone explain what is trying to be said here? Thanks. Bricology (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem throughout the article

This article suffers from serious problems throughout. My characterization is that throughout there is an implicit conflation of outright kookiness (1950's communist plots) with actual sensible discussion of the correct route of administration and dosing of fluoride (water fluoridation vs. fluoride tooth paste vs. fluoride-containing dental resins, etc.). This results in a severe disservice to both subjects: crack-pot anti-fluoride ideas are given credence by conflation with actual informed discussion of trade-offs and changing realities as dental health improves on one hand, and on the other hand quite sane discussion of fluoride's medical benefits and harms are associated with spooky anti-institutional garbage. It is possible this reflects a wider confusion of the two discussions, but this is a straight forward logical error on Wikipedia's part.

For example, Cochrane Reviews are cited in this article , yet Cochrane's "Main results" include: "There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels," and, "no studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria." <https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/full> This citation is immediately followed by the statement, "Fluoride may also prevent cavities in adults of all ages". Come on Wikipedians, this statement is junk!

This article needs a major overhaul to separate the wack-job beliefs from the serious science and medicine. They might both live in an article on "controversy", but this is a terrible way to do it. Pwfen (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have made a straightforward error of interpretation. Fluoride is not synonymous with water fluoridation. (It can be provided topically, or in toothpaste). The statement that water fluoridation is not proven to reduce caries in adults is consistent with the statement that fluoride reduces caries in adults.
Again, I think you are overstating your case. To a certain degree there may be conflation between genuine and daft criticisms of water fluoridation, but I remain to be convinced that the entire article is bogus. τ℗ʍ (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for injecting my comments here, but the fluoridealert.org reference below is off-topic and not germane.
Quoting from User:T0mpr1c3: "The statement that water fluoridation is not proven to reduce caries in adults is consistent with the statement that fluoride reduces caries in adults." So is the article about toothpaste or drinking water? I supposed in a technical sense your observation is supportable, but I don't find that observation to be well-directed at my basic criticism of the article.
Perhaps another example of what bothers me would help? To quote from the article Intro, "A small minority of scientists have challenged the medical consensus," How does "minority of scientists" jive with my quotes from the Cochrane Reviews above? The quotes are from Cochrane as cited in the article, and Cochrane would be closer to the ultimate authority in medicine than a "minority" view. In short, my concern about this article remains, and I am unconvinced that I've made a conflation between fluoride in any form and in drinking water. After all, I'm trying to talk about the subjects in the article. I am concerned that wikipedians may not have read the Cochrane's article before summarizing and citing it. Pwfen (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at fluoridealert.org. Hundreds of cities have rejected water fluoridation over the last few years. This article really does not accomplish much and appears highly biased towards water fluoridation.Rkcannon (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

fluoridealert.org and related organizations are not allowed on Wikipedia because they are viewed as fringe or Mom-and-Pop organizations. So another source is needed. One that does not discuss Nazis hopefully.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent treatment across Wikipedia entries

This article refers to the "water fluoridation controversy", while the Conspiracy Theory page calls it a "conspiracy theory". [1]. Alone on the conspiracy page, water fluoridation is the single item that is not dichotomous, instead depending on the definition of a threshold limiting value (i.e. on a continuum). The "controversy" page's introduction states, "Public health authorities throughout the world find a medical consensus that fluoride therapy at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent dental caries,[1]" and turns around with a "Minority scientific view" section that is close to a flat contradiction to the claim of "medical consensus". Similarly, the conspiracy page includes obviously crack-pot claims from the John Birch Society in the 1960's, while neglecting to specify the threshold limiting value of fluoride that consitutes a safe level, or note that the US has recently lowered the fluoride limit due to changing circumstances. Should I infer that the US Government is now part of the "fluoride conspiracy"? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question).

The situation is clearly confused, involving both conspiracy theories and carefully considered regulatory change, wild-eyed theorizing about safety, and considered objections to particular aspects of fluoridation. The existing Wikipedia articles only promote the mass confusion on the subject and -- as written -- are in my opinion feeding the trolls. I see little value to the articles!

Given what I saw on the Talk page for "conspiracies", I'm trying this discussion here, not there. My suggestion would be to remove any mention of fluoride-in-general from the conspiracies page (the page has lots of problems with specificity), and fix this entry first.

Pwfen (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There can exist a scientific consensus and minority scientific view, at the same time. Scientists do occasionally disagree on some things.
I am personally relatively uninterested in the conspiracy aspect of skepticism over water fluoridation, as there is not really much to discuss. I don't think this article does much more than mention these conspiracies in passing, to be fair. τ℗ʍ (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
In that case, I will re-read the entire article. Pwfen (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Fluoridation

Introduction makes a false claim

Has anyone actually read citation 1 [1]? The Wikipedia Intro text reads, "Public health authorities throughout the world find a medical consensus that fluoride therapy at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent dental caries". Citation 1 does not support the Wikipedia claim, it contradicts it: "However, it is now accepted that the primary cariostatic action of fluoride occurs after tooth eruption. Moreover, the caries reduction directly attributable to water fluoridation have declined in the last decades as the use of topical fluoride had become more widespread, whereas enamel fluorosis has been reported as an emerging problem in fluoridated areas. Several studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities suggested that this method of delivering fluoride may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low. Although water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in poor and disadvantaged populations, the use of topical fluoride offers an optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries"[2]. Someone either needs to find a better citation (i.e. cherry pick the literature), or change this statement to reflect the nuanced view in the article. Pwfen (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you are overstating your case, but the medical consensus is not unanimous, and I invite you to alter the wording accordingly. (Might I remind you that medical opinion does not need to be unanimous for there to be a consensus opinion?)
If a better supporting citation is required, a good one might be the CDC report from 2001 (ref. 7) which states in the second sentence of the summary: "When used appropriately, fluoride is both safe and effective in preventing and controlling dental caries."
I am not a dogmatic supporter of water fluoridation, but I see nothing in the quote that contradicts the core statement that water fluoridation is safe and effective for the prevention of dental caries.
There is clearly an absence of decisive epidemiological data on water fluoridation, and with the benefit of hindsight it is clear that some dentists over-generalized the results from the early studies. The introduction says as much, if read in its entirety. My personal view is that subsequent research moderates rather than abolishes the claims of safety and efficacy, and there are plenty of references in the article to support such an interpretation. Alternative interpretations are indeed possible, have been published, and are cited in the introduction (e.g. ref 21).
I cordially suggest that taking the second paragraph of the introduction in isolation, without reference to other statements in the introduction and elsewhere in the article, would itself seem to be an example of selective quotation that deserves to be interpreted in a wider context (i.e. cherry picking). τ℗ʍ (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation. I will see what I can do. Pwfen (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
How about, "Because frequent exposure to small amounts of fluoride each day will best reduce the risk for dental caries in all age groups, the work group recommends that all persons drink water with an optimal fluoride concentration and brush their teeth twice daily with fluoride toothpaste," from (ref. 7)? Pwfen (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I came to the talk page to say the same thing. I know water fluoridation is a controversial topic utilized by a lot of conspiracy theorists, but I think it's really important Wikipedia stay as neutral as possible. The citation provided directly contradicts the statement and actually seems to advise against water fluoridation in developed countries due to the rising issue of enamel fluorosis. I'd highly suggest either finding a different source to support the claim (not a good practice either imo), changing the sentence, or removing the unsourced claim altogether. Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Issues with this article - a review of some of the most cited papers on the topic (posted: 2020, May 9)

Obviously water fluoridation, as the article points out, has been the subject of targeting by a lot of conspiracies. However, the purpose of Wikipedia is to compile and synthesize (mostly) scientific evidence and relay that in a digestible form to the public. Throughout, the article makes a lot of claims of the "scientific community's" stance on water fluoridation that is not supported by any of the sources cited. I took it upon myself to do some research to figure out what the "consensus" really is.

Highest cited literature

I used Microsoft Academic to search the term "water fluoridation" and sorted the results by number of citations. The most cited paper, with 726 citations, was from 2003 called "Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents." (link). It is a critical evaluation of fluoride toothpastes that does find their efficacy is well-supported. However, in the same study, we also are told:

Emphasis, of course, was added by me. The next most-cited, with 669 citations, is a 1996 paper that is more directly helpful for our case. It's titled, "Reasons for the caries decline: what do the experts believe?" and it's a survey of expert opinion on why the rate of dental caries has decreased in westernized countries. What they concluded is that there is huge variability in what experts think the factors are. One of the few things they agreed on was the use of fluoride toothpaste. Digging past the abstract, we find that 35% of experts rated "Effects of fluorides made available through artificial water fluoridation" as very important and 10% as just "important". Those figures were 63% and 33% respectively for "Effects of fluorides from toothpastes used in "homecare" situations". Of course, this survey was only of 55 "experts", but it's worth noting they found considerable variation in everything but fluoridated toothpaste opinions.

The next article was from 2000 and is a meta-analysis (warnings about meta analyses should be kept in mind) of 214 past studies: "Systemic review of water fluoridation" (link). It found an overall increase in mean differences between dental caries in kids with fluoridated water and kids without, however it also stated that the quality of the studies were low to moderate with a serious lack in high quality reviews. In the conclusion, they say:

This is definitely not the first time the issue of dental fluorosis is brought up in these reviews.

Citations in the article

As discussed in other parts of the talk page, the very first citation in the article, (incorrectly) used for the claim that "For deprived groups in both maturing and matured countries, international and national agencies and dental associations across the world support the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation." was the 2007 paper "Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review" (link). However, this paper basically directly contradicts the statement, finding that "Several studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities suggested that this method of delivering fluoride may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low." In fact, the abstract concludes saying that it's possible water fluoration is still useful in poor and disadvantaged populations, but we should focus on topical fluoride treatment. Moreover, the article also brings up the issue of dental fluorosis saying, "Moreover, the caries reduction directly attributable to water fluoridation have declined in the last decades as the use of topical fluoride had become more widespread, whereas enamel fluorosis has been reported as an emerging problem in fluoridated areas." This is a risk not communicated in the original statement this serves as a citation for and, in my opinion, is a total misuse of the citation and violates Wikipedia editing policies by providing an irrelevant, or even contradictory, citation to make it look like a claim is in fact cited.

More recent evidence

Lastly, to get an idea of some of the more recent literature, I wanna provide some more recent citations:

  • (2015, 169 citation) Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries: Another meta-analysis that actually used tools to point out paper bias (Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool). It points out that the majority of studies were conducted before the widespread introduction of fluoridated toothpastes, which biases many other reviews. Additionally, it says that there is no evidence that there was an effect across socio-economic status, further suggesting that positive benefits seen in earlier reviews were likely due to other factors (factors that were not evenly dispersed across socio-economic status). It also found highly increased risks of dental fluorosis. But the most important thing it found was how much bias there was in studies and how weak the quality of past studies had been. It concludes saying, "There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries. There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between‐study variation."
  • (2012, 99 citations) The prevalence of molar incisor hypomineralisation in Northern England and its relationship to socioeconomic status and water fluoridation: "Conclusion. Prevalence of [molar incisor hypomineralisation] is equivalent to other European populations. Prevalence was related to socioeconomic status but not to background water fluoridation."
  • (2014, 71 citations) Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention: This review focused on potential health effects of excessive fluoride exposure. This is a topic sorely understudied as found by the 2015 article above. "The authors conclude that available evidence suggests that fluoride has a potential to cause major adverse human health problems, while having only a modest dental caries prevention effect. As part of efforts to reduce hazardous fluoride ingestion, the practice of artificial water fluoridation should be reconsidered globally, while industrial safety measures need to be tightened in order to reduce unethical discharge of fluoride compounds into the environment."

TL;DR: the claim that scientific support for the effectiveness of water fluoration is a consensus is unsuported. An anlysis of the most highly cited papers in the field paints a picture far from "consensus". Major reviews found weak evidence and also pointed out the risk of dental fluorosis, an issue not discussed in this article. Additionally, more recent papers seem to be advocating quite the opposite, suggesting a shift in the opinions of medical professionals. Overcorrecting for reactionary conspiracies is also a form of bias; one that seems to have affected the quality of this article.

To clarify, my purpose is not to show that water fluorosis is or isn't effective, but rather to disprove the idea that there is a consensus about its efficacy by demonstrating important papers from highly regarded journals arguing against its efficacy. Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not done a complete review of the citations of the article, but if mods go ahead and review the information I posted and consider me a reliable source, I'd be willing to go through it and review the citations and point out more claims that are unsupported. Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&oldid=887209195
  2. ^ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00784-007-0111-6

Common Good?

As of Oct 7, 2020, this article contains the statement "Water fluoridation pits the common good against individual rights". This article could be improved by re-wording that in a more precise way, because "common good" is a poorly-defined, nebulous, amorphous, and vague concept lacking in the rigor found in mathematics and the sciences. At a minimum you could change it to "pits theories of the common good against theories of individual rights". Further, the analogy to vaccination is defective and should be removed to improve the article. The reason the analogy is defective is that vaccinating several children nearby to each other will reduce the risk for other nearby children who are not vaccinated, while ingestion of fluoride by several children nearby to each other will do nothing to reduce the risks for other nearby children who are not ingesting fluoride. The fact that fluoridation and vaccination are NOT parallel in this respect, but are cited as if they were, is an error in reasoning that reduces the quality of this article.2604:2000:1383:8B0B:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

“U.S. Surgeon General” or “Office of the Surgeon General”?

The “Medical consensus” section includes the “U.S. Surgeon General” in a list of organizations favorable water fluoridation—I believe it would be appropriate to change this to “the United States Office of the Surgeon General” for the sake of consistency. (An even better revision, in my opinion, would be to replace “the U.S. Surgeon General” with “the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”—this would seem more consistent with the other health authorities listed.) RiMediaN (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

In the section "opposition group & campaign" please add that linking of water fluoridation with Alzheimer's, allergy, low IQ, gastrointestinal tract etc., by anti-fluoridationists have no scientific backing. The same is supported by the given reliable source( Citation no. 71 i.e. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/ ). Also here's an additional reliable citation/source for the same ( Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report from the CDC) : https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm

Thank you :) 2409:4042:4E18:3AF9:969:2C6E:59B3:993 (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I used a more updated CDC source though: [2], as the report you linked was from 1999. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

In the second paragraph of the section later conspiracy theory, please change from " Christopher Bryson claimed that" to " Christopher Bryson suggested a false conspiracy theory that".

Wikipedia readers need to know it's a false conspiracy theory, just like how the claim in first paragraph of the same section is stated as "dismissed by reputable holocaust historians as untrue".

Thank you! 2409:4042:D07:8373:F9FF:A070:FAC6:695 (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards ripping that paragraph out. The book doesn't seem to be discussed at all in secondary sources, and the author doesn't seem to be notable or a subject-area expert. FYI, the paragraph got added in a rewrite in 2006. I'm keeping this request open for a second opinion. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with @Ganbaruby, the paragraph should be removed. WP:NOHOAXES. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 03:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done I removed the paragraph per this discussion. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: @FormalDude: I know I'm late but I think the paragraph should be included cause it was in the correct section "later conspiracy theory" as it is a hoax/conspiracy theory, only that Wikipedia should be mentioning it is a false conspiracy theory. As stated in WP:NOHOAXES, Wikipedia shouldn't make audience into believing that something false is real. So it should be mentioned that it is false. 2409:4042:D07:8373:F9FF:A070:FAC6:695 (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jlouro1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

Request to add LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory under the section Water fluoridation controversy#Later conspiracy theories. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources connecting fluoridation to that subject? It isn't mentioned in that article, so I'd suggest getting that fixed first. Then it could be added here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy/Archive_6&oldid=1240805188"