Talk:Water fluoridation controversy/Archive 5

This article is in horrible shape

What precisely is the scope of this article? It is turning into a repository of "statements for" and "statements against" without any real context. Is it supposed to discuss the social, political, historical controversy? There is no real medical controversy, so why is the "against fluoridation" position receiving so much undue weight here? Yobol (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? no real medical controversy ?

"Artificial fluoridation of drinking water reaches the whole population, but is a controversial as a public health measure. Too much fluoride may be harmful, leading to discolouration and even damage to teeth from fluorosis. It has also been suggested that excess fluoride may have other health effects. " http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/

"Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor. This is reflected in the recommendations of the Medical Research Council (MRC)13 and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline14 on preventing and managing dental decay in preschool children (box 3). We know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty."

"Public and professional bodies need to balance benefits and risks, individual rights, and social values in an even handed manner. Those opposing fluoridation often claim that it does not reduce caries and they also overstate the evidence on harm.21 On the other hand, the Department of Hea
lth's objectivity is questionable—it funded the British Fluoridation Society and, along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review's findings9 selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation.22 In response to MRC recommendations,13 the department commissioned research on the bioavailability of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. The study had only 20 participants and was too small to give reliable results. Despite this and the caveats in the report's conclusion,23 this report formed the basis of a series of claims by government for the safety of fluoridation.24

Against this backdrop of one sided handling of the evidence, the public distrust in the information it receives is understandable." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/ LarryTheShark (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have been living under a rock for the last umpteen years, the controversy is about the fact that there is yet no scientific agreement on fluoridation. One can liken it to Newton's laws of motion, the two forces are equal and opposite -currently.

A little lesion in the ways of the World: Heath Care is an Industry. People working with in it are just like you and me – If the boss tells you to do something.. you do it – or at the next headcount one might might be looking for another job. Although the administrator might have been to medical school they are never the less, just very pressurized desk drivers and politicians. If they think fluoridation, satins, lithium salts (in the water to reduce the incidence of domestic violence – yes, lithium salts! I kid you not), etc., is a good idea – they get an underling to cheery pick some studies. It is not the job of these underlings to evaluate any studies – it is their job to fulfill their bosses desire. Then the anti's come along, show the justification to (say) a toxicologist who say: Ah, yes, but back in those days we did not understand how aluminum crossed the blood brain barrier to cause alzheimer's disease but later studies we are doing now, suggests it is carried over by fluoride. Then the anti's might show it to another toxicologist in a different field who says: Oh, Back the those day that those studies were done, we had no idea how ... and so on and so forth. This is now 2014. Science moves ever forward. Medical? No! The controversy is about scientific doubt, due to the lack of good quality studies that have eliminated confounding errors. --Aspro (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For any one who hasn't ever held a managerial position, and thinks that administrators that launch these proposals on Health Care initiatives have more that our lowly allowance of 24 hours in the day, to enable them to sit down down and study all the evidence themselves. Then just ask your own GP. (1) How much bumf do you receive each week to read?(2) How much of it do you actually read? The modern heath care system is a dinosaur. People work their way up into management because they dearly want to make the World they live in, a better place and they find themselves snowed under by paperwork. So they have to delegate jobs to underlings that don't know their **** from their ****** --Aspro (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

While I'm sure there is something relevant to this talk page in the above paragraphs, I would suggest that we avoid pontificating on the subject and try to stay focused on the article content/structure. Again, I want to clarify the scope of this article, as opposed to Water fluoridation. Yobol (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The scope of this article (if it is to be encyclopdic at all) should focus on the latest science - not orthadoxy (aka: belief).--Aspro (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, because most published findings are wrong. It should reflect the scientific consensus, not the latest study which may be driven by an agenda. The relevance of any political action to the scientific consensus is of course demonstrated by the Indiana Pi Bill. The claim that there is no scientific agreement is simply false. Lack of unanimity is not lack of agreement. There is a robust consensus that fluoride is safe and an equally robust consensus that it does what it says on the tin. The fact that in communities with good dental hygiene (i.e. the affluent) fluoridation is of marginal utility, does not contradict the fact that for those who are not affluent it is very important. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that that most most published findings are wrong. And yes, the article should not promote the latest support for fluoridation driven by agenda. But then a post above says The claim that there is no scientific agreement is simply false. Funnel plot analysis (which includes papers that are not popularly circulated because they suggest bad tidings) show a lack of scientific certainty when subjected to statistical Funnel plot analysis. I hope one understands the math and the significance of this.
Next: “Lack of unanimity is not lack of agreement. “ Even a school kid could nail the logical fallacy of that statement.
Next:“There is a robust consensus that fluoride is safe and an equally robust consensus that it does what it says on the tin.” Stating that Evidence of absence as valid proof is warned about in medial school as a foolish fallacy. Students also get informed about Medical students' disease too, but many still manage to contract it. Ho, Ho.

"Yes there are, a few, very vocal authorities who's pontifications are widely reported in the media. So, yes, I do agree with you that this article is in a mess. It contains too much Pseudosciences, Pseudoskepticisum and ideological nonsense and unfortunately, pontification like above, are often posted by editors that should know better.--Aspro (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that most individual studies overstate the result, is not a reason for assuming that the tiny minority of studies that show harm are the only ones that are right. Water itself is a dangerous toxin, at the right levels. Virtually every toxic chemical that occurs naturally can be found in water at some concentration, that does not make it unsafe at the concentrations normally found - and yes, the level of fluoride in fluoridated water is well within the range of naturally occurring fluoride levels.

I know that you are a believer in the fluoride is evil conspiracy theories, but I'm afraid they are no more valid now than they were when Kubrick satirised them in Dr. Strangelove. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy, You are talking as if the science behind water fluoridation is solid. nothing can be further from the truth. The UK's major report on water fluoridation, the 2000 York report, It's authors came out with an official statement in 2003 :

"We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.

We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.

This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.

An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.

The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.

Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this.

Another 2007 UK review states it similarly :

""Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor. This is reflected in the recommendations of the Medical Research Council (MRC)13 and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline14 on preventing and managing dental decay in preschool children (box 3). We know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty."

"Public and professional bodies need to balance benefits and risks, individual rights, and social values in an even handed manner. Those opposing fluoridation often claim that it does not reduce caries and they also overstate the evidence on harm.21 On the other hand, the Department of Health's objectivity is questionable—it funded the British Fluoridation Society and, along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review's findings9 selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation.22

In response to MRC recommendations,13 the department commissioned research on the bioavailability of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. The study had only 20 participants and was too small to give reliable results. Despite this and the caveats in the report's conclusion,23 this report formed the basis of a series of claims by government for the safety of fluoridation.24

Against this backdrop of one sided handling of the evidence, the public distrust in the information it receives is understandable."

LarryTheShark (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It is solid. Water fluoridation is overwhelmingly agreed to be a safe and effective intervention, the benefit is less in affluent communities that already have good dental hygiene and use fluoridated toothpaste, but even there it is measurable. Do not mistake poisoning the well for real evidence-based criticism. The York review states this: "What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth." The science is said to be poor, mainly because it is old. Better science is always good, but the fact remains that even the review you cite concludes benefit. Similar arguments are used to assert that the DoH is not a reliable source on vaccine safety, because it promotes vaccination, and it's baseless for exactly the same reason: the DoH promoted fluoridation because it judges form the evidence that it is safe and effective, that policy would change if credible evidence or harm were presented. There is a lot of similarity between anti fluoridation and anti vaccine conspiracists, and that's not a coincidence. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's your personal belief compared to the conclusions of two reviews encompassing all the data up to 2007. The 2011 EU SCHER report also mentions this “Scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water are less convincing.".

Your comparison of anti fluoridation and anti vaccine is spurious. Every nation on earth practices vaccinations. While most developed nations do not fluoridate their water and only 25 countries out of 193 worldwide have water fluoridation programs.

"According to the British Fluoridation Society (2012) : Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water. While 25 countries out of 193 worldwide have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%). Only 11 countries [2014 only 10] in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), {stop in 2014} Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%). In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population. There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.

LarryTheShark (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Close: it's my understanding from the dominant scientific consensus versus your cherry-picking the bits you like from two reviews. Your evasion of the point is noted: prevalence is irrleevant, the question is the tendentious assertion of nebulous and ever-shifting dangers, with the bogeyman always remaining the same. Nice try, though. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

LarryTheShark - You must realise that what politicians choose to do is NEVER proof of anything scientific.. In general, all it demonstrates is what some of them think the masses in their various countries want. It's popular vote stuff, quite the opposite of science. Those same politicians are also often the ones who cut expenditure on science education. HiLo48 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hey. G and H4, lets calm down a bit. It is not argumentum ab auctoritate that wins the day but mindful appraisal of the sum knowledge about the issues, as new insights are discovered and learned. --Aspro (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the key thing to note here is the very final sentence in the article you chose to pick from - "We hope this article helps provide professionals and the public with a framework for engaging constructively in public consultations." Very clearly to everyone but you Larry, the authors are pointing out that it is an article meant to stimulate debate NOT to be used a evidence or conclusions itself.--Daffydavid (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm, thanks. I am merely stating that LarryTheShark will not prevail by asserting The Truth™ against a scientific consensus which is well documented in this article and the one on water fluoridation. The fluoridation "controversy" is not a scientific controversy, it is a political one. Scientifically, fluoridation is not controversial at all. The evidence of safety is overwhelming, the evidence of harm at the levels normally used is basically zero. And when it comes to single purpose accounts, it is very important to minimise the disruption caused by endless rehashing of points refuted a thousand times before. I am not a single purpose account, I am an administrator with several years of Wikipedia experience, I have been round this loop many times before. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

N.B. The editor has been indefinitely banned by the admins so I would not hold your breath for any response. Lesion 11:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed after making the comment. That tends to be how it goes with people who come here to Right Great Wrongs. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

One of the main arguments against fluoridation by these single-issue editors is the apparent decline in the number of countries that fluoridate their water. This decline is often cited as evidence for the "badness" of fluoride. If this trend is real, it probably arises from the decreased benefits of water fluoridation in the context of other modalities such as fluoridated toothpastes and, in some countries, fluoridated salt, bread, etc. What I am referring to is basically original research, but possibly these data exist. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If the trend is real, it demonstrates nothing more than politicians pandering to what they believe is the opinion of voters whose level of scientific knowledge depends on funding by and the attitudes of said politicians. It says absolutely nothing about the science. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Restructure article?

The above section is, as pointed out, conflating political controversy with scientific controversy. The article could well benefit from restructuring to separate these discussions. I'd suggest that in that case the most reliable sources should be identified first, before delving into interpretation discussions. The usual MEDRS principles apply to the selection of scientific sources, while political discussions are likely to be the usual mass-media free-for-all. Thoughts? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestion. It would separate the arguments into those based on scientific fact and those based on political expediency. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: refusal to add Statements against water fluoridation

Four additions for the 'Statements against water fluoridation' section need NPOV editors to review and comment. 79.180.147.42 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The continuing, aggressive, repetitive assault on this article by those advocating against fluoridation is unhelpful and disappointing but revealing. The fact that the most virulent messages arise from editors focused on this single-issue detracts from their credibility - they demonstrate little or no ability to edit calmly other technical articles. The fact that these editors rarely have even mildly informative user pages also diminishes their standing on a complex topic where major health organizations (ADA, CDC in the U.S.) have weighed in repeatedly.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I find the demurrals offered by Daffydavid, HiLo48, Ochiwar, and others to be sensible and aligned with the spirit of Wikipedia's content and sourcing policies. Particular concerns surround problems of undue weight: providing excessive (and potentially unbalanced) coverage of what seem to often be minor (and/or non-current) positions of relatively minor groups. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole bogus arguments which have been presented by those who oppose the additions are nothing more than smoke and mirrors for thier real motivation: they don't want water fluoridation to appear to have legitimate opposition. They tend to ignore the obvious, they are the ones who are in violation of WP:Fringe they are the ones violating POV and undue-weight in this article:

Water fluoridation is a fringe practice among nations worldwide. According to the British Fluoridation Society (2012) : Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water. While 25 countries out of 193 worldwide have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%). Only 11 countries [2014 only 10] in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%). In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population. There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.

The dubious and minute, water fluoridation practice is diminishing not increasing. Israel termination of its fluoridation practice is one current example.

What's even more ironic and ridiculous is this very article is about the controversy, for which the opposition view (representing the majority of countries in the world) is censored(same editor as before)79.180.147.42 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You are proposing sources that are not reliable for medical statements. Consequently, your proposals are being rejected. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Enric Naval, my suggested additions are identical in their scope and wording to the material already established in that section. see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy#Statements_against_water_fluoridation

The purpose of that section is to list the notable opposition to water fluoridation and summarize their position.(the original editor))109.67.143.145 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, that sounds reasonable. I think that each proposal should be assesed on its own merits. Personally, I would only add #5, and only because it had enough impact to get responses from the national government. And more weight should be given to the responses given by the government. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Enric Naval, that's strange, actually #2 has had the most impact - The ending of fluoridation practice in a country (Israel). and according to you weight should be given to the government decision to end fluoridation and not to its critics. Nevertheless, all the additions achieve notability(same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, #2 is also good, although the proposed text looks unbalanced (only includes the arguments against? it doesn't mention the reduced rate of caries?) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

#5, It took the governments 5 years to respond to FAN and I see he was but 1 of numerous presenters at the event. Was this the only response to a presenter? I'm still not convinced of WP:NOTABILITY. But if we did decide to include it the sentence needs to change to reflect the fact that the government reports refuted or dismissed each item on the list.--Daffydavid (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source reporting that the government reports "refuted or dismissed each item on the list" ? if not, it conflicts with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. (same editor)79.181.5.72 (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the Wiki policies you linked. You want to use the Israeli gov't regs but the gov't reports here are OR, that's too funny. Please make up your mind. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh i understand them perfectly, that's why your usual strategy of misusing them is not working with me.

I am not stating a personal opinion (WP:OR, WP:NPOV)) if the israeli new regulations are good or bad, i use them for direct quotation as to when water fluoridation will end in Israel. its not an interpretation. What you are trying to do is to state your opinion about the irish/New Zealand rebuttals. for an opinion about if they have "refuted or dismissed each item on the list" you will need to find a Secondary source commentary. (same editor)109.66.59.99 (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment -- Only here for the RFC Something about this subject seems to sap rationality, let alone restraint, and I don't have time for religious sectarian violence. The title (and I should have hoped, the topic) of the article is: "Water fluoridation controversy", a topic of reporting & history, not advocacy. The sub-text and much of the text of this RFC seem to be: "Water fluoridation evils and how the conspiracy should be stamped out." If that is your doctrine, live with it in good dental/mental health, but what does it have to do with this topic? The material objections, alternatives and recommendations are matters of fact, and they and their supporting citations belong in elucidation of facts in Water fluoridation. How you think it should be stamped out or who is wearing haloes or hero badges or black hats belongs in your local political rag or church newsletter, not in an encyclopaedia. This is independent of the notoriety or competence of the sources, which should meet the standards applicable to any other article, and the spittle and abuse do not override such standards. JonRichfield (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment -- only here for the RFC Something about this subject saps rationality -- I agree. Like vaccination, people have long associated it with whatever bogeyman they were afraid of; vaccination was long associated with a Jewish plot and water fluoridation was associated with Communists, as in Dr. Strangelove. Any arguments against water fluoridation would need to be supported by multiple peer-reviewed scientific articles. The word "fluoride" in the abstract of a Lancet or Nature paper is not enough. To support a specific claim, there would need to be a reference to a study with a large sample size, a control group that differs from the experimental group only in the consumption or non-consumption of fluoride, and a clear, statistically significant conclusion.

The fact that various groups have said they oppose water fluoridation is not relevant. There are specific groups whose purpose is to oppose fluoridation of water; their opinions are only scientifically relevant if they can be supported by research of the type I just mentioned. As for unions and other otherwise-neutral groups who have decided to oppose fluoridation, I have personal experience with politics of that sort, and I can tell you decisions like that are usually made by a small group of people and do not necessarily represent the majority of the membership. (Someone will hold a meeting on the subject, get a quorum and pass a resolution.) At any rate, there are countless thousands of NGOs that are each entitled to an opinion, and the purpose of this article is not to state the opinions of those organizations (which would be an argument from authority). Even whole countries do not necessarily stop fluoridation because of the "risks" (even if they try to wrap it up that way, politically); they probably stop for financial reasons, as there are more cost-effective ways of fluoridating teeth, especially with the increase in bottled water consumption.

The article is intended to provide reliable scientific information about the controversy on fluoridated water, not to say who is and who is not against it. Roches (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reject all six - for the reasons given by Roches. Only here for the RfC. 78.86.131.23 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems to me like the article on the controversy over water fluoridation should include mention of organizations that oppose fluoridation, however only if their actions associated with that opposition are themselves notable. This means more than just releasing a statement somewhere – continued public or political advocacy are more likely to be notable. What this section shouldn't be is a laundry list designed to sway the reader's opinion by its size alone, or a list of arguments from authority against fluoridation (which the part about Arvid Carlsson seems like right now).  — daranz [ t ] 16:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the addition of these statements per WP:Undue. I don't like the way the statements currently in the article are presented either. Reads too much like a pro and con list. They should either be incorporated into the article in a single section or multiple sections. AIRcorn (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

An admissable source?: 50 Health Scares That Fizzled

I just ran across this book chapter (on-line from my library):"50 Health Scares That Fizzled" by Joan R. Callahan, 2011, published by ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38538-4. In the chapter "Fear of Fluoridation and Chlorination" author criticizes anti-fluoridation campaigns, but it is an article that at least discusses the controversy. A quote: "The people who object to fluoridation often are the same ones who can afford bottled water and dental care. For lower-income people with no insurance, fluoridated water (like enriched flour and fortified milk) looks more like a free preventative health measure that a few elitists are trying to take away." It seems that this source would enrich the current Wiki article. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

But doesn’t that introduce a logical fallacy to the article. It suggests that fluoridation is a substitute for good dental hygiene. Over in Europe we are dispensing with fluoridation because the promise did not live up to expectations. The science has been found to be crude and erroneous.--Aspro (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

We arent here to debate the merits of fluoridation but to debate the article. I'll leave a note at your Talk page on the off-topic stuff. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

“Suggest a source for helping your colleague get up to speed” The World Wide Web springs to mind. Yet, I see your point. Most WP editors don't belong to organisations that provide them with access to a wide selection of medical databases -free of charge (i.e., no $30 charge or so, for each paper accessed). Example: [1]. So, to answer you question: If I can't get direct access myself on my subscriptions, I either sweet-talk someone that will log me in to their journals and databases or persuade them to do my boolean search for me, or go to my local central library that often can. However, WP doesn't favour primary evidence as much as tertiary evidence – i.e., that which is published in hoi polloi publications, written by medical writers that are not technologists. So the pro's have very much the advantage here because WP is built upon verifiability not truth. Thus, the fluoridation articles are at present, a messed up load of poor science.--Aspro (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

actually Aspro that is not what WP:MEDRS says. For health related content, secondary sources (reviews in the biomedical literature, preferably systematic, critical reviews like Cochrane) and statements by major medical and scientific bodies are the preferred sources. Tertiary sources are not preferred. Primary sources are very not preferred. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Where did I refer to WP:MEDRS ?--Aspro (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

no one said you did.Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

OK who did? And why?--Aspro (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

no one said you did. why are you asking? Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is not did someone refer to it but rather that WP:MEDRS is applicable to this article. Do you have an actual edit suggestion?--Daffydavid (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Pineal gland calcification

Daily intakes of fluoride vary widely according to the various sources of exposure. Values ranging from 0.46 to 3.6–5.4 mg/day have been reported in several studies (IPCS, 1984) Over the span of a decade this accumulate several grams of fluoride in the body. Calcification of the pineal gland (known as the "third eye") is typical in adults, and has been observed in children as young as 2. Fluoride deposits in the pineal gland have been correlated with aging, showing that, as the brain ages, more deposits collect. A 2013 study found dimethyltryptamine in microdialysate obtained from a Rat's pineal gland, providing evidence of endogenous DMT in the mammalian brain. This experiment could be re-evaluated by administer high doses of fluoride to first calcify the brains of the rats to discover if that will stop them from producing DMT. However, no water fluoride regulators like governments, and WHO, have had any interest in doing this.

References

To follow WP:MEDRS we need secondary sources from the biomedical literature or statements by major medical or scientific bodies for these kinds of statements. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

agreed! first sentence is fine.. it is the rest that goes off the rails with primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, "third eye" means arse, which is, by a strange coincidence, the very orifice from which most of the anti-fluoridation claims emanate. The para is pure WP:SYN: there is no evidence that this is linked to water fluoridation, it's much more likely to be linked to water with fluoride levels far above the artificially supplemented level (which is, of course, where the anti-fluroidationists' heads asplode, since this is natural and therefore cannot possibly be bad). Guy (Help!) 21:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete reference in public health discussion

I've read the history of edits on this page, and I also just finished reading the following NIH study in its entirety:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

I have not actually found this 2012 NIH study to be discussed directly on this page, and I feel that especially short shrift has been given to the following section, to which I will give a direct quote:

"The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults (Grandjean 1982). For neurotoxicants such as lead and methylmercury, adverse effects are associated with blood concentrations as low as 10 nmol/L. Serum fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 µmol/L—more than 1,000 times the levels of some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage. Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 µmol/L) of water fluoride for 1 year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared with controls (Varner et al. 1998)."

This is the National Institute of Health, not a fringe environmental group. I read the plain language of this statement as expressing concern that current levels of flouridation may be neurotoxic and having negative effects on child cognitive development.

Further evidence is here, from the same source:

"In its review of fluoride, the NRC (2006) noted that the safety and the risks of fluoride at concentrations of 2–4 mg/L were incompletely documented. Our comprehensive review substantially extends the scope of research available for evaluation and analysis. Although the studies were generally of insufficient quality, the consistency of their findings adds support to existing evidence of fluoride-associated cognitive deficits, and suggests that potential developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride should be a high research priority. "

If the "potential developmental neurotoxicity of flouride should be a high research priority", than I don't think the NIH authors are absolutely sure that water flouridation is safe anymore. This is in direct contrast to statements here.

I am a complete rookie at Wikipedia editing and have never considered this matter before today, and I think that the critics of this talk page have a point.

I would suggest editing the talk page on this controversy to include, at minimum, a statement along the following lines:

" Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory

(Chioca et al. 2008; Mullenix et al. 1995). A recent experimental study where the rat hippocampal neurons were incubated with various concentrations (20 mg/L, 40 mg/L, and 80 mg/L) of sodium fluoride in vitro showed

that fluoride neurotoxicity may target hippocampal neurons (Zhang M et al. 2008)."

I am aware of no counter-argument or counter-evidence whatever dissenting from the finding that high levels of flouride is neurotoxic in laboratory animals, and this is not among the negative side effects listed on the main page from overflouridation.

I don't know how to use wikipedia formatting, so I'm sorry about any resulting format inconsistencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.161.124 (talk • contribs)

Searching the Wikipedia talk page archives can be a bit of a nuisance when editing on topics related to water fluoridation, because there are two major articles on this topic: this one, Water fluoridation controversy with this talk page Talk:Water fluoridation controversy; and Water fluoridation with Talk:Water fluoridation. Often times a particular paper or finding will be brought up on one article's talk page or the other, but not necessarily both, or not always at the same time. It can be a pain, but you can often save yourself some trouble by checking the archives of both pages. (At the top of the page, try some suitable terms in the 'Search archives' tool.) I don't see it in the history of this talk page, but the most recent discussion of Choi et al. (2012) is at 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 'low-fluoride' control groups had levels of 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 conclusions about the 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.

Broadly speaking, we are very reluctant on Wikipedia to include medical claims – positive or negative – about health effects of any chemical, drug, or natural product based on in vitro or animal studies. The generalizability of effects in cell-culture and even animal studies to human health is often poor—look at how many new drug candidates wash out in clinical trials! Looking at your proposed addition (taken from the Choi paper), the Zhang study mentioned examined neuronal cells removed from a rat brain, grown in culture, and directly exposed to fluoride concentrations twenty to eighty times the levels found in flouridated drinking water. Speaking for myself, I don't see anything obviously methodologically unsound with the paper; I'm willing to believe (for myself) that these particular rat brain cells are sensitive to these concentrations of fluoride, and even (with some equivocation) that these cells might be specifically and particularly sensitive to these concentrations of fluoride—but I also know that the paper is an awfully long chalk away from circumstances and conditions that pertain to human brain tissue indirectly exposed to fluoride at reasonable concentrations in orally-ingested drinking water.

Wikipedia shies away from primary studies, vastly preferring systematic reviews, large and high-quality clinical trials, and good meta-analyses. Our full guideline on sourcing medical information is at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine); in health-related discussions on Wikipedia you will almost always see it referred to using a short-form 'shortcut': WP:MEDRS or just MEDRS. The restrictions imposed by WP:MEDRS are a double-edged sword—yes, the most bleeding-edge research takes a little longer to find its way into Wikipedia, but we also screen out a hell of a lot of chaff, and the disciplined approach enforced by MEDRS generally produces very robust medical articles.

Finally, while the journal Environmental Health Perspectives is published by one of the national institutes (the NIEHS), many of the papers that appear in its pages are not actually "NIH studies", in that they don't necessarily have NIH funding, aren't conducted by NIH-employed scientists, or – most importantly – don't carry any endorsement as an official view, statement, or conclusion of the NIH. (This situation isn't uncommon in scientific publishing, and one should be aware of the distinction. By the same token, papers in Science don't actually represent official positions or statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; and papers in JAMA aren't generally official opinions of, or represent research conducted by, the American Medical Association.) Unless otherwise explicitly noted, the opinions of the authors published in these journals should never be read as representing the views of the journal's publisher. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

To add, 98.169.161.124 -- this article isn't about water fluoridation per se but rather the sociological phenomenon of water fluoridation controversy. Meaning, discussion over the use of F. The Choi paper doesn't really even cover this aspect and so wouldn't be useful here. Zad68 17:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the LD50 of hexafluorosilicic acid used in water fluoridation irrelevant in this article regarding the controversy?

I don't even see the LD50 of the fluoridation chemical used mentioned in this article. Wikipedia states that the LD50 of hexafluorosilicic acid is 70 mg/kg. (Under subtitle "safety" - on another page). Is this correct? And if naturally occurring "calcium fluoride" is in fact less toxic to the body with an LD50 level of 4250 mg/kg., why isn't it used in water fluoridation instead of hexafluorosilicic acid? Do you have an answer to this? Calcium fluoride seems to be what you find normally in water anyway as fluoride naturally seeks out calcium in nature, in water, in bones, teeth, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.176.89 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Relax 99.61.176.89 . However, toxic a substance may be in the laboratory, it suddenly be comes safe and beneficial to health when added to our water supply. The people that tell us these things would not be paid such vast salaries if they where not right -would they?--Aspro (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be relevant if any HFSA was still present in the water by the time it reached the tap; there isn't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Aspro and TenOfAllTrades, you're kidding right? Perhaps you need to discuss with a toxicologist instead of a dentist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.176.89 (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Documenting scientific illiteracy surrounding the controversy

The controversy is fueled, in part, because of the scientific illiteracy of some contesting parties. Perhaps that aspect could be discussed in the article, i.e. the inability of the contesting parties to agree on basic chemistry such as solubility product of CaF₂, the difference or non-diffeence between "natural" and "manufactured" fluoride sources, and the hydrolysis of SIF₆^2-. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits for more neutrality?

The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe has ceased water fluoridation.

The controversy persists in many countries, however Continental Europe, among other countries, has ceased water fluoridation.

-This statement is referenced using a source from 1989, which does not reflect political decisions since that time, and this can easily be seen by looking at the Wiki page Fluoridation by country that shows legislation in many countries (not only English-speaking). It seems an odd phrase to use that is misleading, out-dated, and uninformative.

Despite opponents' concerns, water fluoridation has been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.

Some countries choose water fluoridation as a method to reduce cavities in both children and adults.

-"Despite opponents' concerns" is an irrelevant phrase that creates bias in the sentence. A more accurate statement would be that water fluoridation is a method (because there are several methods of fluoridation in use) being used in those countries with the goal of reducing cavities. There is a section devoted to efficacy, which I think is more suited for presentation of evidence that it is effective. In this paragraph, it dangles without supporting evidence that is provided a few sections later.

In recent years water fluoridation has become a pervasive health and political issue in many countries, resulting in changes to public policy regarding water fluoridation.

-I briefly included a more current update at the end of the paragraph citing communist conspiracy theories from 50 years ago. It comes off as biased to end this section with Red Scare attitudes with no mention of ongoing discussions on a global scale. I thought this was also an appropriate place to add a Wiki link to Fluoridation by country to link readers to more information.

They argue that consent by all water consumers cannot be achieved, nor can water suppliers accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, nor monitor their response.

Because consent by all water consumers cannot be achieved and water suppliers cannot accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, movements have begun to opt out of mandatory city water fluoridation.

-"They argue" implies that the statement is not a fact. I flipped the sentence, so the reasoning would be given first, then the response.

In her book 50 Health Scares That Fizzled Joan Callahan writes that: "For lower-income people with no insurance, fluoridated water (like enriched flour and fortified milk) looks more like a free preventative health measure that a few elitists are trying to take away."

-This sentence currently appears in the article with her book improperly in quotes rather than italicized.

Trace levels of arsenic and lead may be present in fluoride compounds added to water, but no credible evidence exists that their presence is of concern: concentrations are below measurement limits.

Trace levels of arsenic and lead may be present in fluoride compounds added to water, however, concentrations are below measurement limits.

-"No credible evidence" requires evidence from the reference in the text. Without that evidence, I think it would be safe to report it in a straightforward manner - that these levels exist in low concentrations without making claims they are either harmful or benign.

Fluoride also prevents cavities in adults of all ages. There are fewer studies in adults however, and the design of water fluoridation studies in adults is inferior to that of studies of self- or clinically applied fluoride.

Fluoride is also used to prevent cavities in adults. However, there are fewer studies in adults, and the design of water fluoridation studies in adults is inferior to that of studies of self- or clinically-applied fluoride.

-Personal style preference - "of all ages" sounds like someone marketing a circus...

Citing impacts on the environment, the economy and on health, the Green Party of Canada seeks a ban on artificial fluoridation products. The Canadian Green Party adopted in 2010 a platform position which considers water fluoridation to be unsustainable

Citing impacts on the environment, economy, and health, the Green Party of Canada seeks a ban on artificial fluoridation products. In 2010 the Canadian Green Party adopted a platform position which considers water fluoridation to be unsustainable.

-The first sentence has grammatical errors, and the second sentence has minor sentence construction errors.

He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that it should be illegal due to ethics.

He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that it should be illegal due to ethical concerns.

-Whoever constructed this sentence likely meant "ethical concerns" rather than "ethics".

Theories for why the public tends to reject fluoridation include "alienation from mainstream" society, but evidence for that is weak. Another interpretation is confusion introduced during the referendum. Some studies of the sociology of opposition to water fluoridation have been criticized for having an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge.

-These sentences that appear under the history section seem irrelevant and present a bias against anti-fluoridationists using an ad hominem argument that seems amiss in a brief history of the controversy. If this were to remain in the article, I think it would need to be flagged for bias.

Sub heading: Conspiracy theories Sub heading: Communist conspiracy theory (1940s-1960s)

-This section heading needed clarification because it only addresses one type, so it wouldn't be pluralized. In addition, there are multiple theories (and conspiracy theories) surrounding this issue, yet this section only addresses those related to Communism during the 1940s-1960s, so it should be properly labeled to reflect this content.

This viewpoint led to major controversies over public health programs in the US, most notably in the case of the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act controversy of 1956.

-This sentence is completely irrelevant (red herring) and does not address the fluoride controversy.

In the case of fluoridation, the controversy had a direct impact on local programs. During the 1950s and 1960s, referendums on introducing fluoridation were defeated in over a thousand Florida communities.

This controversy had a direct impact on local programs during the 1950s and 1960s, where referendums on introducing fluoridation were defeated in over a thousand Florida communities.

-Minor edit to improve sentences stylistically

Some anti-fluoridationists claimed that the conspiracy theories were damaging their goals; Dr. Frederick Exner, an anti-fluoridation campaigner in the early 1960s, told a conference: "most people are not prepared to believe that fluoridation is a communist plot, and if you say it is, you are successfully ridiculed by the promoters. It is being done, effectively, every day ... some of the people on our side are the fluoridators' 'fifth column'."

-This should be a stand-alone paragraph. Currently it is part of a paragraph on cinematic representations of fluoride.

References

-User:Rebecca_hare 11:12 19 June 2014 (CDT) — Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2014

This sentence:

"The controversy persists in many countries, however Continental Europe, among other countries, has ceased water fluoridation."

obviously needs cleaning up. I suggest the following:

While some countries, particularly in Europe, have ceased water fluoridation, the controversy persists in others.

72.225.230.150 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - fully agree "Continental Europe" is not a country, so cannot be "among other countries" - Arjayay (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hypersensitivity

This is a difficult topic as folks on both sides of the controversy simply state "facts" that aren't really facts and have built in assumptions. One such "fact" is that municipal water fluorididation reduces cavities. There is some question of fluoride's efficacy in that regard, and CDC and EPA acknowledge that the benefit of fluoride is primarily topical. That key issue dominates the "he said - she said" argument.

However, one fact that is documented is that some folks are hypersensitive. This includes people with various skin conditions - who shouldn't even wash in it let alone drink it. Neurological and gastrointestinal disturbances are also listed as known reactions in a percentage of the population. This fact is ignored. Here is a list of Physician Desktop Reference excerpts can be found on the Fluoride Alert website.

Additionally, fluoride was used to treat hyperactive thyroid. That depressing effect is well known: http://thyroid.about.com/od/thyroidbasicsthyroid101/ss/preventthyroid_7.htm

Beyond that, some of us discovered the hard way that using fluoridated mouthwashes caused bizarre symptoms like burning urination and aching kidneys, as well as dry mouth. The research indicates that there may be connections between bladder, kidney and liver issues and fluoridation, however "more research is needed." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16834990

Ditto on heart disease. From the library of the National Institute of Health, an increase in fluoride uptake is associated with heart disease. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616

I suggest, something needs to be in this article regarding the controversy that does acknowledge the often overlooked facts about the hypersensitive population. In other words, this shouldn't be a controversy about fluoride as an absolute good or bad, it should include the facts that whether or not it is reducing cavities in poor children or lowering their IQ, it is causing suffering in thousands of folks who can't escape its presence in their lives, and are consequently living in chronic pain. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog - you undid my addition, previously.... perhaps you want to rewrite what I originally wrote using this material? Seabreezes1 (talk)

Your references in no way support your "hypersensitivity" hypothesis. Anything you find on the "Flouride Alert website" is useless. I myself am tempted to delete this rant.--Daffydavid (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Might as well. It's certainly not going to achieve anything. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Seebreezes: If you want to contribute effectively to any conversation among scientifically literate editors, do not cite the Fluoride Action Network. It is literally a Mom and Pop (and now son) operation headed up by a guy with almost zero scientific publlcations, no scientific accolades, and retired from a small, non-research institution. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

as i noted, Seabreezes, "need to cite the actual source. also unclear if this is relevant here. water is toxic if you have too much in the wrong place." I am glad you are bringing sources but as per the discussion above, they don't support what you wanted to say... Thank you for talking! Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Understood about Fluoride Alert website as being over the top. I referenced the NCBI and a Thyroid website re data. The only reference I made to Fluoride Alert was for the Physicians Desk Reference, and that's only because I couldn't find the PDR online. However if anyone can find it electronically, it should be easy to check what it says about fluoride sensitivity, which is something with which I have first hand experience. No need to go into my medical history, here. Much too long of a story. See Allergy website on fluoride: http://allergysymptomsx.com/toothpaste-allergy.php

However, most reversals on medical dogma do have a few outlandish extremists involved, and begins with a pattern of anecdotes. That isn't a reason to shut down the conversation. I think it's really important to consider the situation of the hypersensitive, as well as look hard at the data on the efficacy of water fluoridation. Weigh benefits and costs.... and ask can you get the benefits in other manner without the costs. But we wander off topic.

This article is about the controversy itself. On that topic, I feel strongly that this Wiki article is heavily weighted with 1950s arguments that makes the opponents look like fringe crazy people. As one of the hypersensitive, I hate to see that fact lost in arguments over the methodology of an IQ study done in China.

So..... how about coming to some agreement about making this Wiki article more balanced with some of the less dramatic and more accepted facts on fluoride side effects? Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Seabreezes you need to first find high-quality, authoritative sources that cover the topic of "Water fluoridation controversy" as a social phenomenon. This article isn't a dumping ground for fringe ideas or ideas that otherwise do not have broad support. Zad68 00:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@zad68 No fair. Hypersensitivity and allergic reactions to fluoride is real. I cited the NIH and other mainstream sources. I finally found the PDR online, and under most of the fluoride items, it lists "allergic rash and idiosyncrasy" as possible adverse conditions. PDR: http://www.pdr.net/search-results?q=fluoride

My participation here in Talk has been to state that the article seems weighted towards the more extreme arguments in the controversy, drowning out three bullet points in the anti-fluoride campaign:

• Fluoride is contra-indicated for a sizable minority of the general population, who have no recourse when municipal water is fluoridated.
• There are a wide range of studies indicating that there are unintended biologic consequences of systemic dosing of populations. More study is warranted.
• New data is prompting some re-examination of this topic in the 21st century. For example, the CDC in 2001 changed its position on how fluoride is most effective (topical rather than systemic) and in 2010-2011, recommended water fluoridation levels be lowered, and along with the ADA in recent years is delivering confusing messages about infant formula and fluoridated water .

Excerpt from CDC 2001 Report: http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm “The laboratory and epidemiologic research that has led to the better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental caries indicates that fluoride’s predominant effect is posteruptive and topical and that the effect depends on fluoride being in the right amount in the right place at the right time. Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted, especially when small amounts are maintained constantly in the mouth, specifically in dental plaque and saliva (37). Thus, adults also benefit from fluoride, rather than only children, as was previously assumed.”

CDC level adjustment: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/#overview5

I'm signing off..... I have no desire to get into an e-war on any topic. However, not including more than a passing reference to the the National Kidney Foundations warning, while including multiple paragraphs on the extremists in this argument is not presenting the controversy fairly. Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Just one more reference on hypersensitivity - the standard FDA warning from multiple dental product packaging from the National Library of Medicine:

• CONTRAINDICATIONS: Do not use in patients with hypersensitivity to fluoride.
• ADVERSE REACTIONS:.... The following adverse reactions are possible in individuals hypersensitive to fluoride: eczema, atopic dermatitis, urticaria, gastric distress, headache and weakness.

See: http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=e20b7cc8-5682-4e66-b5d5-5fa1035c0b77

I repeat, not fringe science at all, but a part of the controversy that proponents of water fluoridation ignore. Hypersensitivity belongs in this Wiki article. I suggest that the conspiracy controversy from the 50s be reduced and assigned a "historical" heading, while a new section on the 21st century revival of the controversy include the new data that caused CDC changes in position, the hypersensitivity argument, and the NIM studies that "warrant further research." Seabreezes1 (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about fluoride sensitivity. This article is about the water fluoridation controversy, the social phenomenon. None of the source provided here cover that topic. Zad68 20:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Other platforms

There are a few other notable arguments on the anti fluoride side. How about these:

• Phyllis Mullenix, a neurotoxicologist fired from her position at Forsyth Dental Center at Harvard University following the 1995 publication of her study linking fluoride exposure with neurological defects, advises that based on the culminative effects of fluoride in the brain and the change in behavior observed in her test subjects that the neurological risks far exceed any hoped for any dental benefit. (Phyllis J. Mullenix, Pamela K. Denbesten, Ann Schuniorand and William J. Kernan. Neurotoxicity of Fluoride in Rats, in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 169-177, 1995 )
• The NTEU Chapter 280 of the EPA, consisting of over 1500 scientists, lawyers and other professionals, protest the systemic suppression of anti-fluoride science and the manipulation of data to minimize the adverse results attributed to fluoride.
• The 2006 National Research Council report "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards," advises that current levels of fluoride exposure in US drinking water are too high, certain sub-populations are at heightened risk of adverse effects, there is an unacceptable degree of dental fluorosis in US youth, and more study is needed to fill in gaps regarding the endocrine and neurological impact of chronic low dose water fluoridation. (NRC/NAS Report in Brief http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/fluoride_brief_final.pdf)

Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A non-NOTABLE person, a union report and a position report from the NRC which "produces reports that shape policies and inform public opinion", not exactly earth shaking stuff. Adding this would violate WP:WEIGHT.--Daffydavid (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe you first refer to "Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats", PMID 7760776. It is a 1995 publication of a rat study, at extraordinarily high doses (up to 125 ppm in water, oral, which is about 2.4 times the LD50 for rats as per Toxnet which had been long established at that time). I fail to see its relevance to the discussion of the levels on the order of 1 ppm seen in drinking water fluoridation.

The second source is interesting, even though it does not meet wp:RS for its assertions. A union presentation for the professionals at the EPA to a senate subcomittee will carry credibility, if not scientific rigour. The "1500" figure tells us little except the size of the NTEU local being represented. Perhaps the most useful content there is that they recommended the comittee reexamine the evidence from the 1977-2000 period (since the previous 1977 hearings). The same union local's current position paper (www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm) would seem to indicate that the real issue is the firing of William Marcus, who was their treasurer at the time he was fired from his post as the EPA Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist. A labour-management dispute over scientific principles is interesting material that might have a place in the article. That place should not, however, be represented as current science, it's 15 and more years out of date.

The third is a brief, taken from ISBN 9780309657990 which is available for free download (in full) at nap.edu. This secondary work directly refers to Mullenix et al., obviating the need to use that earlier work as a source here. I recommend a careful analysis of the full NAS work, not just the brief. It's about as reliable a source as we could ask for. It's key finding is hardly earth-shattering:

Recommendation: To develop an MCLG that is protective of severe enamel fluorosis, clinical stage II skeletal fluorosis, and bone fractures, EPA should update the risk assessment of fluoride to include new data on health risks and better estimates of total exposure (relative source contribution) in individuals and to use current approaches to quantifying risk, considering susceptible subpopulations, and characterizing uncertainties and variability.

— p.352

Of course they also recommend more research. The likely effect of following their recommendations would be to reduce the MCLG (maximum level of fluoride), where added, from the 4 mg/L (seen in few places anyway) to "the lower levels seen by most U.S. citizens", in the 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L range. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional fine sources from the World Health Organization are Fluoride in drinking-water (2006) ISBN 978 92 4 156319 2 and Guidelines for drinking-water quality - 4th ed. (2011) ISBN 978 92 4 154815 1.

1. Thanks for the feedback, @LeadSongDog. Dr. Mullenix's response to the complaints about the dosage used are 1) rats are more resistant to fluoride than man and 2) the real measurement is the amount of fluoride in their blood, which is should match human. That it is standard neurotoxicology protocol to use blood levels rather than dosage levels when comparing cross species.

2. There is a YouTube of Wm. Marcus testifying about his experience, as well as numerous interviews where he says that although he has seen data downgraded before, he had never seen an across the board down grading of data so that it changed the results of the experiment. He also said before all that happened, he asked to see these slides because he was somewhat incredulous at the interpretation, but he found it indisputable. I hate to say it, but it does sound like money talks, and the money funding research into fluoride largely comes from the toothpaste industry that touts fluoride.

3.Yes, I did read the whole thing once. I work in corporate software development as a project manager, and I know how things get buried and how CYA is played. This is what appears to have happened here. This is the unpopular opinion. The initial Johns Hopkins studies in 1925 that showed that fluoride actually caused more dental problems than it helped was the foundation of the initial objections. In the 1950s, albeit concerning air pollution, the Martins c. Reynolds case was much more seriously taken than the Communist story which seems to be primarily a contortion of the John Birch Society position. John Birchers at that time are the equivalent of Tea Party folks, today - each a product of its time. Yet, in Wiki and other fact based sources leaves out these facts in favor of the more sensationalist statements. See Martins: https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/05augsep/martin.html

4. As to additional fine sources, sigh. Public opinion, power and money, cultural mindsets, and simply being beaten down often results in compromises and less than truthful policy. FWIW: A local pediatric dentist of my acquaintance refused to sign a letter to the editor supporting water fluoridation. The ADA paid him a visit, threatening him.

Note: I, personally, have had dramatic and bizarre allergic reactions to fluoride dental products. So I don't use them. I didn't realize my chronic problems of the past 23 years were related to water fluoridation. However, in my research I found studies from 1961 and before with clinical examples that match me perfectly in every way. My problems have abated by going to spring water. And when accidentally using fluoridated water, they flared. That said, I suffer permanent damage which I believe was caused by my exposure to something I was hypersensitive to. Hence my persistance in trying to get more balance into mainstream sources. I'm not the only one who thought the anti-fluoride movement was a bunch of crazy people, but my opinion was shaped by what I could find online. I trust Wiki. I want to help make it trustworthy.Seabreezes1 (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's obviously original research, along with being fringe science, and unacceptable here. HiLo48 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct, HiLo48. WP cannot make use of the personal experience of anonymous/pseudonymous editors. To do so would completely undermine reader trust. We rely on the best quality, current, independent, published, secondary sources. This is particularly crucial for controversial areas.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Guys - I am NOT suggesting my experience belongs here. Absolutely not! I added #4 and my Note to respond to your comments. Plus this wiki article is about the CONTROVERSY, which is more than the science. What I am saying is that the controversy is mis-represented, that things are emphasized that were minor and major things are left out. Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

History

@JyDog I added one paragraph to HISTORY section of this article about the Controversy documenting the climate of the 40s and 50s with 2 legal cases that made news, with references and referenced the research of 2 leading doctors of the times, and you pull it out? The opening sentence of this of this section as is is totally drawn from a single highly biased 1987 article that explains how profluoridationist should shape public opinion. I understand the requirements for stringent criteria as to science, but this representation of the controversy is not accurately representing either the current or past controversy and has a decidedly pro-fluoride POV. What I wrote was mild, but at least it included the fact that there were scientists and legal cases at that time that were anti-fluoride based on known air pollution damages and clinical results from doctors seeing patients in some of the first towns that were water fluorinated. Seabreezes1 (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I took it out because this article is about water fluoridation, and neither of those examples are about that - they are industrial pollution accidents. Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is about the controversy. This section is about the history of the controversy. As is, the history section of this article talks about the movie Dr. Strangelove and Communist Conspiracy theories. Proponents of fluoride always bring up the silly scene from that movie in any debates as an ad hominem tactic to ridicule the fluoride opponents. At the end of this section, you do include a quote that you should give more credence "most people are not prepared to believe that fluoridation is a communist plot, and if you say it is, you are successfully ridiculed by the promoters. It is being done, effectively, every day ... some of the people on our side are the fluoridators' 'fifth column'."

Adding the fact of current events of the day concerning fluoride air pollution as well as the reference to two of the leading doctors of water fluoridation who documented cases of low grade illness that aligns with the majority opposition of then and now. For the convenience of other followers in this trail, this is what I wrote with references at end:

Fluoride air pollution cases were in the news from coast to coast during the early days of the water fluoridation movement. During the 1950s, an Oregon farm family won $48,000 in damages for poisoned livestock, ruined land, and personal health problems as the result of fluorine emissions from the nearby metals plant in Martin v. Reynolds Metals. In 1946, the Salem Peach Growers sued the DuPont and the Manhattan Project for $430,000 in damages for ruined crops, lost livestock, and personal illness. Per author Christopher Bryson in his 2006 book "The Fluoride Deception," the thirteen New Jersey plaintiffs ultimately settled out of court, while DuPont and government officials sponsored lectures on the dental benefit of water fluoridation. The 1948 Donora smog incident was another current event that caused the public to resist water fluoridation. Additionally, many doctors of the day, such as George Waldbott and Reuben Feltman, opposed water fluoridation based on their research and clinical experience with individuals who had allergic like reactions to water fluoridation.

• Public Health Assessment of Reynolds Metals Company. January 14, 1997. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Superfund Site Assessment Branch
• Reynolds Metals Company vs. Paul Martin. Plaintiffs’ direct examination, p. 492, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals, San Francisco, Court Case Papers and Printed Matter, Case # 14990, transcript of record in six volumes, Folders 14990-14992, Boxes 5888-5890, RG 276
• Oregon State Bar Bulletin, Aug/Sept 2005 https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/05augsep/martin.html
• Philadelphia Record, October 18, 1946
• Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. † and George Kosel, B.S., M.S. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - Fourteen years of investigation - Final report.Journal of Dental Medicine 1961; 16: 190-99.

This or something very like this needs to be in this article to even begin approaching fairness in the representation of the debate. I also could suggest another "conspiracy" type entry, that

Another long standing conspiracy theory has industrial and political undertones. Current day, the opponents of fluoride protest that research that shows harmful neurological, immunological, and carcinogenic impacts of chronic fluoride exposure is being hampered by the fluoride industry which funds fluoride research. In a "follow the money" style, the opponents claim that political pressure is brought to bear on organizations as well as individuals. Fluoride opponents point to the case of William Marcus, Chief Scientist of the EPA who won a successful lawsuit under the Whistleblowers law for protesting the manipulation of data in a fluoride study regarding cancer so as to downgrade the findings of risk. They also point to the case of Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, a leading nationally recognized neurotoxocologist at Forsyth Dental Center at Harvard, who published a peer reviewed 1995 study on the behavioral and neurological deficits in 500 rats with a blood plasma level the equivalent of that in humans drinking fluoridated water. Dr. Mullenix was also fired from her position days after that publication.

Wordsmith it if you must, but both of the above sections have at least as much legitimacy in this article on the Controversy as the movie Dr. Strangelove. Seabreezes1 (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

From the perspective of regular editor, here is my response to the above:

• 1) If one is focused on a single social issue, Wikipedia will be dissatisfying. Period. Otherwise use blogs or publish if your views are not adequately represented in Wikipedia. Single issue editors can be tediously persistent because it is not the substance that is of interest, it is the POV that they seek represented. One day its "I, personally, have had dramatic and bizarre allergic reactions to fluoride dental products." And the next day the argument is about air pollution (in an article about water treatment), some conspiracy theories about the "fluoride industry which funds fluoride research" (well, one hopes they fund fluoride research!). Blogs are widely read and infinitely more gratifying than Wikipedia if one holds strong views that are not represented by the establishment.
• 2) And our mantra: get great sources: major textbooks, reviews in major biomedical journals. The more cited, more recent, and more prestigious the better.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is tedious, and I will walk away, soon. And I do have other interests. However, wiki is an encyclopedia, and as such needs to fairly represent issues. Being beat down isn't scientific. This page is not about the "science" but about the controversy, the two platforms. The difficulty of getting the science represented is part of the controversy. I probably should't have mentioned as an aside my own experience, but that is NOT what I've been trying to publish, it is only my motivation.....

Including 1) the fluoride air pollution cases with the resistance to water fluoridation in the 40s and 50s is reasonable as is 2) mentioning two of the leading researchers on illness associated with water fluoridation. They are both historical fact that has a bearing on this controversy.

Ultimately, science is tiresome in itself. Opinion evolves over time as new data and unknown connections are made, which requires revision. It happened with lead, asbestos, tobacco, and even radium.... another water and food additive of the early 20th century that revealed its toxicity in short order, but still not without initial opposition. Referencing Radium Girls might be a bit out on the limb for this article, but I guarantee you it was part of the early resistance to water fluoridation.

This article has a decided POV that there is only one right side in the controversy, and as such undermines the opposing view. I'm playing by the rules, if the 1950s parody Dr. Strangelove and Communist Conspiracy in History is considered appropriate, then so should the legal cases of the 40s and 50s, the 40s & 50s researchers, and the more recent whistleblowers.

Seabreezes1 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

seabreezes, above you wrote "The article is about the controversy." To be clear, the controversy that this article is about, is water fluoridation. It is not about industrial accidents concerning fluoride. You have made no case whatsoever that those industrial accidents have anything to do with water fluoridation. If you want to argue that the industrial accidents should be included, please say something - anything - to actually relate them to the topic of the article. Simply being "in the news" at the same time as something else (and it is unclear to me at least what you mean when you refer to the "water fluoridation movement" - what movement is that?) is not relating these accidents to anything. Note - you need a source that relates it. Doing that yourself is WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Jytdog here. As soon as I saw a new section beginning with an air pollution issue, in an article on a water related topic, it felt wrong. Seabreezes1 - if you are convinced that it belongs in the article, maybe you need to explain in the article, why it belongs. To me, it stood out as a classical example of the kind of soapboxing this article regularly attracts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying. I want whatever I suggest to be acceptable to all interested parties, and to have scientific integrity. I got to take a break from this for awhile. When I come up with something else, I'll post it here. Seabreezes1 (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Request feedback on fluoride controversy

Could you please take a few minutes to consider the following?

My intention is to have a fair and accurate representation of the fluoridation controversy. To that end, I have read publications from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60, and 70s as well as more current material. I’ve read over a thousand pages. It is hard to pull a few pages out of context, but I identified a few pages in a few of those resources for which I’d appreciate your feedback.

Item 1 This entire excerpt is wonderful, but back up to Chapter 1 in this 2010 book to look at Tables 1, 2 and 3. Also read the section “WHO says so” which focuses on studies from all decades.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KPn4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT153&lpg=PT153&dq=books+by+philip+sutton+fluoride&source=bl&ots=lhg0T_8ZrG&sig=RMdFFYKnJgIVimwtfrf49fbtw9U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P-gcVNjZD9edygTl2YDYDQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=books%20by%20philip%20sutton%20fluoride&f=false

Item 2 The 1960 book by Philip R.N. Sutton is entirely based on the analysis of the initial studies, responses and commentary. He did his survey in 1957. He was a statistician and didn't have a POV regarding fluoridation, just the way the trials were conducted. I don't know whether you'd want to read the entire book, but it at least proves that there were objections based on something other than "communists" in the 1950s. I've included a couple of shorter options, below. He was cited in the 2010 book above.

• Fluoridation: Errors & Omissions (1960): http://www.scribd.com/doc/212649060/Fluoridation-Errors-and-Omissions-in-Experimental-Trials-2-Ed-Phillip-Sutton-1960
• Chapter 10: http://www.fluoridation.com/sutton.htm
• Author Obit: http://www.fluorideresearch.org/283/files/FJ1995_v28_n3_p123-124.pdf

Item 3 The first 250 pages in The Great Dilemma (1978) are primarily science, and I found them fascinating. Sections, mostly clinical notes on patients, are reprinted from Waldbott’s 1965 book. George Waldbott was an internationally recognized allergist and research scientist who first identified penicillin allergies, human anaphylactic shock and the connection between what was then called idiopathic asthma and smoking.
You can find these references on www dot whale dot to /b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdf

Excerpt, p 380:

“For nearly a decade after 1931, the PHS sought to remove excessive fluoride from water supplies because of endemic mottled teeth. But after 1940, the balance began to tilt in the opposite direction - to augment water supplies with fluoride. On the basis of studies on a very small number of healthy young men, plus limited surveys of health effect in natural fluoride areas, PHS scientists concluded that fluoride had no significant adverse effect on health, except for occasional mild mottling….. “

• pp 304-305 In 1939, the level was 0.1, then they raised it to 1.0 to 1.5 in 1946 based on based on research of five young healthy men.
• pp 260- (the initial scientific debate of the 40s into the 50s.)
• pp 285 - 289 WHO vote and American Academy of Allergy statement
• pp. 301…. 1938 Mellon, Kettering, Cox & ADA
• p 344 succinct experiment re periodontal disease, missing teeth with age and kidney disease in lab experiment. Books includes other references to gum diseases and missing teeth in locales with high natural fluoride on 4 continents, including in USA.... but this conversation is primarily about the controversy.

Item 4 A short 2005 article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons re science & controversy: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.pdf

Again, my purpose is to have a fair and unbiased Wikipedia representation of the fluoridation controversy. As it stands, it is incomplete and inaccurate.

Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! I thought you were originally aiming to have some content included on "hypersensitivity" or the like. it is not clear what kind of content you would want to base on any of these sources. Quickly discussing them...

• On your item 1, unfortunately Barry Groves was not a mainstream figure. (see his website where he, for example, denies global warming, and says diet causes and can cure cancer ((he was a low-carb zealot)). Not the best source to bring.
• On your item 2, it appears that Sutton's evaluation of the initial clinical trials of fluoridation has been validated by the field. (see here on p 117 So it is not clear what point you want to make with this.
• on your item 3, very unclear what point you want to make with this. Science and standards evolve... what is the point?
• on item 4, The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not pubmed-index and is open-access. Not a good sign. And the article is pretty blatantly one sided and ends up with strong advocacy in the conclusion section... not a good sign either. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I want to see something on hypersensitivity on the FLUORIDE TOXICITY wiki page. Here, I'm addressing a fair representation of the CONTROVERSY, which seemed would involve less debate about the science, a logical step 1 as the increased sensitivity of certain sub-populations is in fact one of the main tenets of fluoridation opponents. Dr. Waldbott was the first and leading expert in the hypersensitivity area, publishing from 1955 -1998 (http://www.fluorideresearch.org/311/files/FJ1998_v31_n1_p020-025.pdf).

ITEM 1: I'm not particularly interested in Groves or his book, just the tables he references (which are in other older sources) are available online through his book, seemed the easiest way to bring your attention to the data. The tables are talking about the effectiveness of fluoride, which is, of course, another tenet of the opposition. The analysis of the data is skewed. Even proponents' analysis shows what earlier objections showed, that fluoride only delays the start of caries, that age eliminates any benefit. That although as an anti-bacterial in water, it may have an inhibitory effect, that same effect can cause gum disease and have an impact over time on other parts of the body, such as kidneys.

ITEM 2: Yes Sutton was validated in the 21st century. The Groves book uses his material. Why doesn't this wiki page acknowledge that the opponents had and have valid arguments? The original science is faulty, but we still point to it. The new science is still indicating the problems the opponents pointed to then, but isn't being treated seriously, it's being shunted aside by pointing to the "hundreds or thousands" of earlier studies. Look at the section from SUTTON in the Groves book under "WHO says" .... another tenet of the opposition is the proponents are basing it all on circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. Sutton is the key here.

Item 3: The point is the CONTROVERSY isn't about communist conspiracy theories, and never was. Most of the clinical research in that 1975 book is verbatim from his 1950s papers and 1965 book. Nothing has ever evolved. The same science from the 50s is still being supported by todays' limited research. It's become a political battle instead of a debate on health and science.

Item 4, I've got the pile of NCBI articles, but that one was open, and so easy to share. The point being, that the mis-representation of the opposition view, as I feel is in this article, is heaving biased. It assumes fluoride is safe for everyone, which is based on what has been acknowledged as faulty studies. References in this article, like this one on which you base the HISTORY section are proponent propaganda. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1267306/

Bottom Line:

1. Fluoride had been regarded as a pollutant harmful to all life up until the mid-1940s when it was proposed that small amounts could have a beneficial effect.
2. The resistance to adding it to the water supply wasn't illogical "conspiracy" hype. There were reasoned objections, and research opposing it, promoted by leading scientists. (That included the vulnerability of the hypersensitive sub-population and the long term impact of fluoridation on everyone.)
3. The initial trials were regarded as sloppy then, and in this century, our government has conceded they were heavily flawed, but proponent still point to them.
4. This article on the CONTROVERSY is actually promoting the proponent POV by emphasizing the ridicule element, down playing the fluorosis impact and ignoring everything else.

The whole Communist thing is actually the favorite tactic of the PROPONENTS, ridicule the opponents, refuse to discuss the science, and blacklist anyone or any website that doesn't support the dogma. That should also be on this page. Please read those references in the Waldbott book. And thank you for your patience. Asbestos, leaded gasoline, global warming and second-hand smoke (indeed smoking) were all regarded as safe at one time.... this is the same thing. Seabreezes1 (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You were doing pretty well up to the last sentence—now we know that fluoridating water has the same safety as asbestos, lead, global warming, and smoking. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL - give me a little latitude. I'm frustrated. I'm not trying to soap box, I'm asking for fair representation of the controversy and have provided resources that prove that the HISTORY of this debate included valid scientists and valid objections, much of which has been validated and supported with new science in recent years.

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Then: # 1949 JAMA article out of Forsyth Dental urging caution (not communists): http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1180760 # 1965 Waldbott: http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/WaldbottStruggleWithTitans.pdf # 1960 Sutton: http://www.scribd.com/doc/212649060/Fluoridation-Errors-and-Omissions-in-Experimental-Trials-2-Ed-Phillip-Sutton-1960 # 1937 Roholm https://archive.org/details/FluorineIntoxication (he warns against any prophylactic use, as well as the illness he observed with low exposure) Now: # 2014 The Lancet includes fluoride as a neurotoxicant: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract # 1990 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 # 2004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15153698?dopt=Abstract # See #495 http://www.toxicology.org/AI/PUB/Tox/2014Tox.pdf # 2014 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004 # 2014 100% contamination: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851 # 2008 http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Grand+Rapids+first+use

Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As I often find myself doing I agree with Johnuniq here. Seabreezes1 I'm sorry to say but you've really crossed over from what might reasonably considered to be article development suggestions into full-on WP:SOAPBOX that really should be removed from this article's Talk page. You need to find secondary sources that impartially and from an academic point of view cover the social phenomenon of the water fluoridation controversy. What you may not do is make arguments against fluoridation. Please read WP:TIGER and change your tack. Zad68 01:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68 My point is simply that this CONTROVERSY article does not fairly represent the controversy. Per request for proof that there was more than communist conspiracy objections, I pointed to scientific work from 1937, 1949, 1955, 1960, 1965 and 1978, none of which talk about communist conspiracy, but do talk about the failings in the trials' construction and execution, as well as to the medical and scientific objections to water fluoridation. JyDog said that Sutton's 1960 arguments were validated by the field. Johnunique only objected to one sentence in my response, which admittedly was not about water fluoridation. I apologize for that single sentence. But that does not negate the fact that any article that claims to offer both sides of a controversy should offer both sides. I've made a good faith effort to respond to requests for substantiation of the opponents historical and current arguments. That a reference to Kaj Roholm's 1937 document and the Forsyth Dental School's 1949 JAMA article, as well as current Toxepedia and NCBI articles is censored as "forum" material seems like an over-reaction for a TALK page where I was requested to substantiate that there was actual scientific opposition to fluoridation. For that list to be characterized as making an argument against fluoridation when I was asked to prove that such an argument existed... how can I prove there is something other than "conspiracy" theories when providing those links is deemed as "soapboxing?" POV doesn't matter here, but that these arguments exist does belongs. The current page is inaccurate and incomplete. Seabreezes1 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

seabreezes

* on item 1, we cannot cite things to a flaky source.

* on item 2 if you look at the reference i cited above for item #2, you will see that the mainstream acknowledges that the original studies were flawed but relies on more current ones for the mainstream view that current water fluoridation strategies are safe and effective enough. admitting that the pioneering studies were poor is not the same as validating all the conspiracy theories. sensible people (and the mainstream is sensible) don't take a black and white, all or nothing approach. when things are flawed or fuzzy, that is very acknowledgeable.

* on item 3, i have no idea why you are discussing communism etc. sorry. again if you look at the reference i cite above wrt to item 2 it discusses more recent data - the mainstream consensus does not rely on the studies from 50s - that is part of the anti-fluoridation mythology. it is just not true. the science and standards did evolve and will keep evolving. that is what real science does.

• 4 when you call mainstream science "proponent propaganda" you have placed yourself on the fringe. you can strike that if you want. otherwise i don't see much point in continuing to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I requested feedback on how to make this article more balanced and truthful, especially in the HISTORY section. The article mentions "communist" 19 times, but the 5 mentions of "adverse" are all qualified. I pointed to historical and current references JAMA, JADA, NRC, and books by Roholm, Sutton and Waldbott published in every decade from 1930s to 1970s as sources regarding the concerns, as well as to legal cases of the day that found for harm (Martins v. Reynolds, etc.) .... I'm discontinuing my efforts. Seabreezes1 (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel Ministry of Health statement

I've added the official statement opposing water fluoridation released by the ministry of Health of the state of Israel. There is currently a disruptive editor who has twice tried to remove it spuriously. Bigbaby23 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD it is incumbent upon this author to give a justification for adding this information here but instead has tried to use brute force by repeatedly inserting the information back into the page. The information does not belong here as it is only information released in conjunction with the end of fluoridation of the water in Israel. If we included all the statements from every authority that starts, stops or provides updates on why they fluoridate (or not)this page would be huge and hard to follow. I am removing it again as per these reasons. --Daffydavid (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree it does not belong here, it belongs in the countries article. Zad68 21:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid your edits are not done in WP:GF. You've tried WP:GAMING by trolling my talk page. Your reasoning is spurious; Why is it you have no problem with Health Canada statement that supports fluoridation? or the WHO or the CDCs? My addition is totaly appropriate for that section too. Bigbaby23 (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bigbaby23, again you continue with the allegations and continue to avoid the topic. I am going to go out on limb here and guess that this behaviour is why you gained yourself an editing ban in the past. So far, WP:Consensus is against you. If you wish to change that I would recommend actually addressing the issue at hand and stop trying to live up to what your name implies.--Daffydavid (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Daffy and Zad. One country's story is inappropriate in a global article. If you have problems with other content, that's a different matter. Raise it in another thread here for discussion and see if you can gain consensus for changing the article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not a 'story' its an official position of a ministry of health who is relevant in the story of water fluoridation (there are only a handful of countries that fluoridate most of their populations). allowing only statements from Institution in support and not against in an article about the controversy, is a violation of WP:NPOV. Bigbaby23 (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Separate issues. Start another thread on the content YOU don't believe belongs in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, I'm sorry, but my addition has been rejected on the grounds of 'we don't include statements from countries institutions'. It is evident that that is not the case: Health Canada statement is there, the U.S CDC statement is there. Without those two removed from the article as well; the rejection of my addition is spurious and POV Bias. Until they are both removed- the argument agains my addition is groundless. Bigbaby23 (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid, your whole paragraph in nothing but WP:PERSONAL "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks" you have been warned. Address and don't avoid the issue: According to your 'reasoning' why are you not objecting to the inclusion of Health Canada in the "support" section? Bigbaby23 (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that neither the CDC nor Health Canada are speaking on behalf of a government that enacted the legislation. In case you were unaware, responsibility for or against fluoridation is at at the city level. Also, you are overselling the "statement" as it is part of a section entitled "Questions and Answers Concerning the Ending of Fluoridation on Israel". Refactoring my statement to create a straw man argument won't get you very far here. As for the allegations you are making, please feel free to take the matter up with the appropriate noticeboard. Please read WP:BOOMERANG prior to doing so. HiLo48 advised you to bring up your proposed changes here under a new thread, instead you went ahead and removed long standing material. I concur with HiLo48--Daffydavid (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Israel is already listed as one of several countries that have stopped fluoridation. Its public reasons are no different from most other countries, whose concerns are already documented in the article. Adding a detailed report would be undue. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid Don't waste my time with your bullshit nuances. You simply don't want any Negative addition to that section.

HiLo48 You and david can't have it both ways either USA, Canada, Israel are in. or all are out. You both have made this trivial edit a tedious one. And its evident it's driven POV bias gate keeping. You've made it clear it is a waste of time expecting objective treatment here.You win, Wikipedia loses. I'm doneBigbaby23 (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Israeli government is politicians. They will do things based on what they think the voters want, not on science. If you had a report from an independent scientific body in Israel, this might be different. HiLo48 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

Please update this source, I'm getting a 404 error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy#cite_note-33

ClintMacleod (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching this! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Fluoride as neurotoxin

I'am sceptical on this one, since radicals frequently oppose Fluoridation without solid back up. But this 2014 academic article abstract states "Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers". May deserve attention.

• Grandjean, Philippe; Landrigan, Philip J (march), "Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity", The Lancet Neurology, 13 (3): 330–338 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

Yug (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

if you check the archives you will see that the lancet article has been discussed. Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As of 2014, why is the Harvard 2012 study not mentioned? Will someone who can add data to this locked article, post this information?

"In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children." http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.87.16 (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

again, please see the archives. short story is that this study has nothing to to do with the low levels of fluoride added to water, which is what the controversy - the subject of this article - is about. the natural levels of fluoride in some regions of China is very high. that is what is being studied. completely different topic. 18:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs)

"The dose makes the poison" for most substances. In sufficient doses, even pure water is toxic. Certainly oxygen is, and iron. Yet try living without any of them and see how it works out. There is room for rational debate over what precise amount of these substances is healthiest for different species, but not over whether they are beneficial. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@ LeadSongDog you said :Yet try living without any of them and see how it works out. Oh whoo, whoo whoo, Hold on there! Lets keep things scientific here. People who have had their guts removed for say untreatable Colitis have to be feed Parenterally. They don't benefit from any addition of Fluoride Salts. So the Parenteral nutrition does not contain it. It costs money for each and every ingredient. So as Fluoride Salts are not efficacious, it is not included. I would like to get this article more in line with what is known but so many editors here are doing what the Polish would say is: Pissing in the pot. So that this article doesn't reflect science but wee.--Aspro (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use this article Talk page to make comments about editors. The response to the suggestion was that the information discussed in the cited source wasn't on-topic enough to include in this article. Do you have anything to add regarding that? Zad68 13:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for pontification
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The fluoride that is added to water supplies is TOXIC WASTE hydrofluorosilic ACID or sodium fluoride and often the same ingredient as in rat poison or prozac. To "debate" whether toxic waste so toxic they FORCED the uranium and phosphate fertilizer industry's to collect it with a wet scrubber system and not pollute it into the atmosphere over half a century ago is insane. It's toxic. it's neurotoxic. it's biotoxic. it's toxic poison. toxic poison poisons. duh Truthseer 174.102.167.2 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Also somehow this article and anyone "attending" to it seems to forget the simple fact of how awfully long a half life toxic waste fluoride has! and its accumulation at the pineal gland primarily, devastating Truthseer 174.102.167.2 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is moderating this topic page? It is out of date

This topic appears to be heavily moderated, can a superuser step in and stop this? For example, it does not mention that Israel has banned fluoridation as of last year (2014), and does not link to this study that found fluoride in water is a neutrotoxin linked to thyroid problems: http://www.newsweek.com/water-fluoridation-may-increase-risk-underactive-thyroid-disorder-309173 (February 2015). Why not? Usually an unmoderated page is much more responsive to current events. I suspect there is a moderator here who is pro-fluoride. It makes me reluctant to contribute anything as it will be deleted. PS--off-topic, but I have stopped contributing both time and money to Wikipedia due to such excessive moderation.

Raylopez99 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The article clearly indicates that Israel is not fluoridating anymore and further information is at the relevant article Fluoridation by country linked at the top of the section. I was previously unaware of the link you provided but when I or another user has time to look at it, it will be added if appropriate for this article. Right now though I have to go cash my check from BIG-(whatever conspiracy theory you subscribe to).--Daffydavid (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The information on the main page seems out of date again (as does your conversation... no offence...). After the election of 2015 the fluoridation program was resumed by the new deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman. It seems Israel should be taken out of the list of countries that have banned water fluoridation. Either that or clearly state that it has been resumed. 85.64.18.217 (talk) 12:11 AM, February 6 2016 (UTC)

Yes clearly nazis who have a vested interest in fluoride or are hired by those that do are running this sick page.. The fact that most countries have an official statement about their decision to not poison their citizens anymore IS EXTREMELY RELEVANT to the "controversy" of adding carcinogenic braindamaging toxic waste to the people's water supplies. Now are you guys going to include the U.S. government's new recommendation to lower the amount of poisoning?? Probably they are concerned all the extra poisoning from the chemtrails and food and product supply will be a tad too much and we'll all drop dead too quickly instead of slowly and profitably

Truthseer 174.102.167.2 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Whew. So nice to be called "Nazis" for a change, the "Big Pharma shills" and "bleeding heart liberals" monikers were getting tired. We always appreciate originality when being slandered. Now, please read the infoboxes at the top of this talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2015

There is an issue with this article. Fluorosis of the teeth or should I be more specific , the Tooth Enamel is not just a cosmetic condition. It is actual long term damage to the tooth structure. Fluorosis actually makes the tooth porous and brittle. Therefor more prone to attacks from many conditions. The natural tooth minus fluoride if far stronger than a fluorosis riddled one. Please explain how dental fluorosis as ugly as it is, is alingned with something like a facial wrinkle? If this page cannot be corrected then I can only assume members of certain persuasions in the community have highjacked specific subject matters for their own moral ground. There is insufficient broad spectrum peer reviewed supported evidence to call this a balanced article. Fluorosis is a serious condition. It is long term damage to the tooth structure. Please investigate this article with much greater scrutiny before millions of people begin to form negative opinions of what should be a positive experience in truth not disneyland fluff which is what most segments on fluoride are in media.

Edstar59 (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

An edit request is for a straight-forward proposal regarding changing text in the article, with the change specified in the request. Articles require reliable sources and no change of the nature mentioned above can occur without them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

FTN Discussion

-Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of non-controversial issues

Currently, the sections on "Efficacy" and "Medical Consensus" do not indicate that these topics are controversial. Either the controversies related to these topics need to be included, or the topics should be excluded from this page. These topics are covered in detail on the main Fluoridation page.Jdkag (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not certain what the history of these articles are, but it seems that this article was probably originally formed as a WP:SPLIT from Water flouridation. The section Water_fluoridation#Ethics_and_politics there, should really just be the lead of this article, with sources added, per WP:SYNC which is what you to constantly maintain after you do a split. It appears that what has happened over time is that people gravitated to the main article and added to that section there without updating this article, and the two articles have gotten out of SYNC. We should either merge this back into the main article, or update this article with content from the Water_fluoridation#Ethics_and_politics section, update the LEAD of this article, then replace the current Water_fluoridation#Ethics_and_politics section with the lead of this article. A bunch of work. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

it might be best to merge to main article Water flouridation...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The original rationale for having a separate topic for the water fluoridation controversy was that the controversy only exists because of "fringe" views and should therefore not be part of the main topic. However, the pro-fluoride editors have introduced into this subtopic a requirement that the sections on safety and efficiency, rather than reviewing the fringe views, should only contain material that is included in the main water fluoridation page. Consequently the subtopic page serves no purpose except as a mechanism for preventing any mention of the fringe views from appearing in Wikipedia. According to the definitive 2015 work of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) division of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, these views include "possible adverse health effects, specifically, severe dental fluorosis, bone fractures, skeletal fluorosis, carcinogenicity, lowered IQ and other neurological effects, and endocrine disruption." As opposed to Wikipedia editors, the PHS study did not discount any of these concerns as being unworthy of discussion, but rather analyzed each one in detail, concluding with the following NPOV statement: "After a thorough review of the comments opposing the recommendation, the panel did not identify compelling new information to alter its assessment that the [new] recommended fluoride concentration (0.7 mg/L) provides the best balance of benefit to potential harm." U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water Jdkag (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Let's avoid talking about perceptions of editors' motives and focus on identifying high-quality relevant sourcing and how it should be summarized in the article. What article content change are you suggesting, based on what source? Zad68 13:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this article, I agree with jdkag, and agree with Ozzie10aaaa to merge it with the main article.Bigbaby23 (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Do to a disccussion in the talk page of the main article, and a second look; The relevent material about the controversy has been merged to the main article. Surprisingly it is not much. Most of this article is topics and info already in the main article thst have nothing yo do with the controversy. This sub article is now redundan , and csn now be deleted.Bigbaby23 (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Updating the remark above: the merge was done by Bigbaby and then reverted. Bigbaby dropped the merge effort, here at the other talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Misleading, poor citations

I could not even get through the first 4 paragraphs without finding misleading or outright false information. In the fourth paragraph it states, "...a medical consensus..." on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. It than proceeds to cite this source: Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. If you look at the article, which by the way is a review more than primary source, it states this

However, it is now accepted that systemic fluoride plays a limited role in caries prevention [12, 38]. Several epidemiologic studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities clearly indicated that CWF may be unnecessary for caries prevention [1, 5, 15, 19, 21, 23], particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low [16, 21]. Moreover, the evidence of an increased prevalence of fluorosis, particularly in fluoridated areas, needs to be considered [3, 22]. Nevertheless, water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in populations where oral hygiene conditions are poor,

I think this should be changed to reflect the true conclusion of that source, Or entirely removed. Outright lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkeetingphd (talk • contribs) 13:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The current lead is too ambigous and some what whishy whashy, as if reluctant to talk about the controversy. There is no need for that. We have good sources saying things in a straight forward way.

This is the current lead with my added material:

The water fluoridation controversy arises from political, moral, ethical,economic, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. Those opposed argue that water fluoridation has no or little cariostatic benefits, may cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and pharmacologically obsolete.

With regard to ethics, water fluoridation pits the common good against individual rights. Some say the common good overrides individual rights, and equate it to vaccination and food fortification. Others say that individual rights override the common good, and say that individuals have no choice in the water that they drink, unless they drink more expensive bottled water, and some argue unequivocally, that it does not stand up to scrutiny relative to medical ethics.

Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s, conspiracy theorists claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine American public health. In recent years water fluoridation has become a prevalent health and political issue in many countries, resulting in some countries and communities discontinuing it's use while others have expanded it.

Public health authorities find a medical consensus that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent suffering and promote oral health, and generally support fluoridation. The controversy is propelled by a significant public opposition supported by a minority of professionals, which include researchers, dental and medical professionals, alternative medical practitioners, health food enthusiasts, a few religious groups (mostly Christian Scientists in the U.S.), and occasionally consumer groups and environmentalists. Organized political opposition has come from libertarians, the John Birch Society, and from groups like the Green parties in the UK and New Zealand.

Proponents and opponents have been both criticized for overstating the benefits or overstating the risks, and understating the other, respectively. Systematic reviews have cited the lack of high quality research for the benefits and risks of water fluoridation and questions that are still unsettled. Researchers who oppose the practice state this as well. According to a 2013 Congressional Research Service report on fluoride in drinking water, these gaps in the fluoridation scientific literature fuel the controversy.

Public water fluoridation was first practiced in 1945, in the U.S.. As of 2012, 25 countries have artificial water fluoridation to varying degrees, 11 of them have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water. A further 28 countries have water that is naturally fluoridated, though in many of them the fluoride is above the recommended safe level. As of 2012 about 435 million people worldwide received water fluoridated at the recommended level (i.e., about 5.4% of the global population). About 214 million of them living in the United States.

References

Bigbaby23 (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been a revert regarding references not being present also in the body of the article. This has bern remediedBigbaby23 (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

bit added to lead

In my view this is UNDUE in the lead. Per WP:LEAD WEIGHT in the lead follows the WEIGHT in the body. The body doesn't give near this much space to this issue. Bigbaby please speak to that. Thanks.

At the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, consistent evidence suggests that it causes dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development, most of which is mild and not usually of aesthetic concern. No clear evidence of other adverse effects exists, though almost all research thereof has been of poor quality. Dental fluorosis is cosmetic and unlikely to represent any other effect on public health. Some countries choose water fluoridation as a method to reduce cavities in both children and adults.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no problems with it not being in the lead.Bigbaby23 (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Great. Ok hopefully you and i are close to agreeing on this now. Yes? If so let's make a note at the Main article so folks can come check the lead and make sure that when we SYNC it will be stable. Once this is really SYNCed - I get it that right now you are not happy enough with the Controversies section in the main article - then we can work together to keep the two articles SYNCed and stable. That will be happy. Jytdog (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Im happy to say we're almost there. The current lead here is now sufficient , and can be synched to the mainBigbaby23 (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I misunderstood you. By looking at your time stamp, latest comment and inactivity editing the article ; i thought all the issues have been resolved. So i synched the main. Bigbaby23 (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

We need to be careful that this article doesn't simply become a dumping ground for all the things people perceive as bad about water fluoridation. Every topic covered here must be supported by independent reliable secondary sourcing demonstrating the topic is indeed a genuine controversy related to water fluoridation. Zad68 12:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The lede is a mess

Per WP:LEDE ledes must summarize article bodies. The lede here doesn't. Most obviously, this is betrayed by how many citations are to references made in the lede only. It's also too long. The maximum recommended size for a lede is 4 paragraphs. These two problems go hand-in-hand. Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, fixing required. Zad68 12:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"lede only" issue , was just duplicate refs. Fixed itBigbaby23 (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, took a shot at shortening the lede tooBigbaby23 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This is my version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&oldid=717935469 . Don't know why it was reverted backBigbaby23 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead you created fails WP:LEAD as it does not summarize the article; it also appears to emphasize the anti-fluoridation arguments compared to previous lead. Yobol (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Nuffield Council on Bioethics

I maintain that Nuffield Council on Bioethics, should get weight on the ethics issue.

It is a report made by a panel of experts, not a dentist giving his view in a dental journal on ethics http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7226655.stm

They are mentioned numerous times in the British Medical Association "Medical Ethics Today: The BMA's Handbook of Ethics and Law" and have weight when discussing Water fluoridation http://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/news%20views%20analysis/bma_fluoride.pdf

They get weight on the water fluoridation ethics, in discussions about CWF in the U.S. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/24/13/36/community-water-fluoridation-in-the-united-states New Zealand https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no-1406/6365 and The UK http://www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/081120-countc-R1113153858.html Canda http://www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/081120-countc-R1113153858.html Ireland http://www.lenus.ie/hse/bitstream/10147/236473/1/FlourideSuppArt3.pdf mentioned in Israel debate http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/show/p/102 Bigbaby23 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Many more can be found on google scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=Nuffield+bioethics+fluoridation+&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Bigbaby23 (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This group appears to be a minor ethics organization in one country; it does not deserve to be in the lead, and does not deserve prominence in this article. Yobol (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, but some editors have lost the plot here. There are several minor ethics organizations in this one country but together their voice is significant – as in other countries. Have to face facts that World-Wide fluoridation hypothesis has passed its sell-by date. If the original studies were to be put forward to-day, peer review would would reject them, since there is no allowance for co-founding factors, etc. There is no room for Lewis Carroll's “What I tell you three times is true.” nonsense any more. Scientific analysis develops and improves with each generation. The lead should reflect this and google is your friend. The article shows undue weight to small cohort's of the World's people that enjoy fluoridated water. They account for way, way less than 50% of people in the rest of the World now, who are also privileged to be connected to a modern water distribution network. We have to stick to our guidelines of due weight and improve this articles lead to remove the systemic bias.--Aspro (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Excising the soapboxing from your response, we get, in response to Yobol's concern that this group is a minor local organization and should not get undue weight: "Maybe so" and agreement that this is a minor ethics organization. I agree with this, a brief summary sentence is what's due. Bulleted lists should be avoided per WP:USEPROSE. Zad68 01:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What 'soapboxing' ? This is about human health! --Aspro (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Fluoride so people can keep eating loads of sugar

Is not the real reason why they put fluoride in water is so people can keep eating loads of sugar to the affect that they are addicted to sugar and all the health problems come with eating loads of sugar? If water did not have fluoride put in it then a large number of people would stop eating foods with processed sugar in them because of tooth decay and that would be bad for a lot of food businesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.184.86 (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No. this is a misunderstanding. There is no good and well conducted research evidence (and I have looks for it over many years) that fluoride allows people to eat loads of sugar without getting dental caries. Good dental hygiene is the key. Some healthy fruit juices contain enough acid, that if consumed every day would dissolve the protective tooth enamel just like the acids created by the mouth flora of bugs that feed on sugar rich diets. Fluoride doesn’t prevent enamel erosion by what ever origin of the acid that comes into contact with it. Coca Cola contains orthophosphoric acid and that dissolves the enamel as well. No amount of fluoride will overturn chemical science. So it doesn't allow people to eat loads of sugar without fear of dental caries.--Aspro (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Fluoride in WW2

Why there is no reference that fluoride was used in drinking water in Nazis camps for Allies prisoners to make them dumb, so they couldn't plot any escapes or camp takeover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.105 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the Nazi-fluoride connection is a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. The rumor/theory was probably dreamed up by those opposed to the fluoridation of drinking water. But I would love to be proven wrong - your main requirement is to identify a solid source. Not to some advocacy group, but historical record. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about Further Reading section

Why are none of the Further Reading materials supportive of fluoridation? They all appear to be anti- and none of them appear to examine the various anti-theories and refute them with facts. This came about because fluoride is not hazardous waste, or as asserted on Democracy Now by Christopher Byerson, nuclear waste. 208.106.32.144 (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I've changed the header on this discussion to better reflect its content.)

Honestly? It's likely because the entire section has flown under the radar. Flipping back through the article's edit history, that section hasn't seen any major chance since at least 2012. (Indeed, the only change in the last five years or so appears to be the addition of a second publication from Brian Martin.) It certainly appears that there are already many sources that are better-quality, more recent, or both cited in-line in the article and collected in the footnotes.

Does anyone see any good reason to retain the list at all, at this point? My (admittedly fairly cursory) examination suggest that we would do no harm to dispense with the Further Reading section altogether. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)