Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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[1] 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),[2] 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.[3]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: [email protected] 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 [4]. 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://en.wikipedia.org/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)