This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
If you want to find out if fluoride is useful for your theeth, search the internet. Thanks Here's a question to ask the gods that walked this planet before us: To make a massive dinosaur did you intend on their bones to contain fluoride which is known to make bones mechanically weaker? The absorption of fluorine into a dinosuars bones from the environment is constant and is used for dating such bones. Interestingly it has been found that such great beasts as dinosaurs were, did not rely on fluoride for strong bones or healthy teeth. Vaestanfors ( talk) 08:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Looks like I opened pandora's box...If anyone wants the truth on Fluoride then contact the Minister of Health then contact Comalco(Rio Tinto) then contact Merck in Germany, Also a sympathetic politician is an excellent source of information. This is a big hint for where and how to obtain classified information. When contacting companies like Comalco(the smelter in Invercargil is a good place to start) it is best to chat with factory managers as they know a lot about the dangers of Fluoride. When contacting government departments you'll need to soften the workers up and find out who in the office likes to chat a bit more than they're supposed to. I obtained my information from the horses mouth not the internet and now I challenge everyone out there to do the same rather than sit back and believe the rubbish that industry wants us to believe. The most valuable knowledge is not the actual facts on Fluoride but how to obtain truthful information so that you can make your own decisions about your life.
Removed paragraph:
For this reason, fluorides are often added to toothpaste. To retain their right to practice, various dental associations require dentists to tell clients that fluorides are harmless and beneficial to the teeth. Dentists who say otherwise have their licenses revoked.
"To retain their right to practice" This smells like a POV statement. Credible evidence is needed. "various dental associations require dentists to tell clients that fluorides are harmless and beneficial to the teeth." What? This is a serious allegation that dental associations are forcing dentists to poison their patients. This requires serious proof. Associations don't have such power anyway. "Dentists who say otherwise have their licenses revoked." Again credible evidence is needed for this statement of fact. I suggest that the author of this passage actually read our NPOV policy. -- mav
From the article: Other studies also suggest that even lower fluoride levels may be causing an increased incidence in elevated lead levels seen in the blood of children, and higher violent crime rates associated with lead neurotoxicity.
Can someone explain the supposed mechanism for this? Fluoride and lead are different elements, and unless the fluoride supply (or a naturally fluoride-rich water supply) were contaminated with lead, there is no way I can see that adding fluoride to something, such as water (or children), would add lead to it. -- FOo Australian water supplies use NaF at a concerntration of 0.7ppm
Supplemented the summary of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination [3], which was misleadingly summarized. -- Someone else 06:27 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
From fluorine:
I moved the above, in the hopes that the poor innocent element fluorine can repose in peaceful slumber while we discuss the application of one of its ions here. -- Uncle Ed
If it is sodium fluoride, sodium monofluorophosphate, and stannous fluoride which are used for dental purposes including water fluoridation, then how, pray tell, are silicofluorides (an entirely separate class of compounds) relevant to the debate? Is the claim that sodium fluorides are contaminated with silicofluorides? That they produce silicofluorides in the water? (By reaction with what?) -- FOo
Does " NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination" require a link, external link or additional notation? What country is this? (I assume Britain when I see NHS) Dramatic 05:10 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)
Well here's more information: When Mt Ruapehu erupted in the 1990's the fluoride contained in the ash killed most of the farm animals in the surrounding area, I had this confirmed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in New Zealand. This event was not reported in the news. The eruption disrupted commercial aircraft as far north as Auckland International Airport.
I see a pro-flouridator has shown up. Should I bother finding sources, or will everything I find be incredible becaue I found it?
1944-8 Mantahhatan project aware of negative physiological and psycho-behavioral effects of fluorides, via use of UF6 in the isotope separation process. Docs declassified from Nat'l Archive in '97 ... try specifically for a 1994 Apr 29 memo "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect, with mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude as the conspicuous features... it seems that the fluoride component is the causative factor"
" JA Dental A, 1944 Oct
Am J Public Health, 43:700-703, 1953
As Sternglass concluded with radiation poisoning, the more of it there is, the stupider everyone gets, thus the less likely the problem gets corrected; indeed it's likely to be made worse. (And couple that to James Kerwin, Dental Digest, or F.W. Lengemann "The Metabolism of Alkaline Earth Metals by Bone" to AEC Division of Biology and Medicine, both 1959, showing fluorine and strontium have a pathogenic ball together. Plus A. Shatz Low Level Fluoridation and Low-Level Radiation -- Two Case Histories of Misconduct of Science Philadelphia, 1996).
Fluoride may be all a very nice thing for your teeth when properly administered -- topical application in regulated dose at the proper time of life. Fluoridated water, with its systemic, unregulated, lifetime dosage, and side effects acknowledged even by rabid proponents, is almost as far from a proper administration as you ca get. (That's a summation I got from my own dentist. See, in Canada, they're still allowed to tell the truth.) If you think fluoride is good to drink and needs to foisted upon everyon, chugalug a cupful of sodium flouride (rat poison). Please.
Profuse thanks to Val Valerian which provided all that. Heaps more there, but I've lifted enough to rebut the "no evidence fluoride is harmful" crap. -- Kwantus 22:56, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
John Colquhoun reported back to his boss that he could not find a single page of evidence to support fluoridation and could he be advised on anywhere to find such information. John Colquhoun was told to find proof that fluoride was safe or he would lose his job, The late John Colquhoun could not find any proof to support fluoridation of New Zealand's water supply but he did find proof that it was dangerous and so started a campaign to have it banned. John Colquhoun personally asked me to finish his work as he was no longer able to fight the dental establishment in Dunedin and the bureaucracy in Wellington. John Colquhoun exposed government corruption but this information has never been published despite TVNZ being in receipt of the evidence. The truth on Fluoride is shocking to read and will make one question the motives of our own governments. Through John's inspiration and access to Government documents I was able to have the Waitakere City Council agree that fluoridation be banned but mayor Covic told me that because Waitakere is connected to the rest of Auckland it had to remain fluoridated as the Auckland City Council and North Shore Bays council voted to keep the water fluoridated. Soon after this John Colquhoun passed away but his campaign to have fluoride banned is still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.237.107 ( talk) 06:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Vaestanfors ( talk) 07:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record there was a case in Napier New Zealand where the children had a lot of tooth decay but the government did not give enough money to have the kids teeth repaired. At the time fluoride was not in the water but the government wanted to fluoridate and show that it fixes teeth. What happened next was that fluoride was addded to the water supply and the funds to fix the kids teeth were released by officials in Wellington. After one year the local kids of Napier had better teeth but what the government of New Zealand didn't know was that fluoride takes several years to have any visual effect on human teeth. Great work by the local dentists fixed the kids teeth not fluoride as the Department of Health reported on TV. This was one of the scams that John Colquhoun tried to expose on national TV but that story was edited to make fluoride look good. Vaestanfors ( talk) 07:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed a large section from flouridation benefits that was clearly not about the benefits of fluoridation and was not encyclopedic ("Please post..."). Also I beleive we agreed long ago that most of the debate on fluoridation belonged on the fluoridation page, not here. Rmhermen 23:56, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
I love the Melbourne incident, as an example of both how poisonous fluorides are and how the profluoride misinformation is likely killing people...but it somoehow doesn't fit, either =( -- Kwantus 02:43, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Moved this comment from the article: <Should be noted that Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, last I read, banned fluoridation at the federal level, sometimes constitutionally> RickK 04:10, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Kwantus, I have no problem with the change you just made. The above was an editorial comment, however, and had no place in the article. RickK 04:17, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I found a source for it, anyhow. -- Kwantus 04:29, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Since the Melbourne incident's been purged, I'll outline it here. Boy (Jason Burton) swallows six fluoride tablets, 0.5mg fluoride each; family doctor recovers four with stomach pump; boy loses consciousness, goes to hospital; hospital so disinformed about fluoride they neglect to check the books and assume it takes 200+ tablets to be lethal; child dies anyway; official death certificate lists "Fluoride poisoning" as cause; Australian authorities deny fluoride has ever killed anyone. It strikes me the child may have been oversensitive; the interesting parts are that the hospital didn't realise fluoride is poisonous and the denials that fluoride cn kill. [8] -- Kwantus 01:15, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
John Colquhoun told me that there is enough fluoride in a tube of Colgate tooth paste to kill a human baby, maybe thats why young kids are to be supervised when brushing teeth.
The tone and wording of this entry is appalling. It reads like just-barely-restrained-from-frothing-at-the-mouth anti-flouridation rant. The information contained within it may or may not be accurate, but the way it is presented is simply unacceptable. A top-to-bottom rewrite is imperative.
(Disclosure of my own view: the debate confuses me but, on the whole, I am against flouridation of drinking water supplies.)
Some citations I reassembled from the Val Valerian chronology (it aggravatingly mentions a lot of others without specifics) and hate to waste. But I don't know how to fit them in. Someone with access to a good science lib should check them out. Kwantus 08:12, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Kwantus, you are not helping by totally ignoring the other POV in this issue. Part of adhering to our NPOV policy is to write for the enemy. You have not done that and appear to be placing every anti-fluoridation study in this article while ignoring studies that show benefits. Part of the problem is that fluoride and fluoridation are being mixed here; they should be separated since the amount of fluoride used in rat poison is not comparable to the amount used in water supplies and that most things we consider to be good are in fact toxic in large quantities. Please separate the two subjects on different pages so that the material correctly shows up as being authored by you. Otherwise I'll move it myself. It will then be easier to NPOV this one-sided material. -- mav 16:56, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The entry below is very true and is backed up with valid research submitted to the international society for fluoride research. Vaestanfors ( talk) 08:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Kwantus, you obliviously have an axe to grind and an extreme POV in this matter. You are therefore creating a one-sided soapbox article on why fluoridation is a bad thing. Obviously a great many people think otherwise, yet you ignore their POV and express only your own. This is a violation of our NPOV policy and I'm asking you to stop. I'll work on this article later. Please use that time to move the material about fluoridation to that page. Fluoride is just an ion; it can be used in a great many ways both for good and bad. This article should reflect that and most of the controversy stuff about adding fluoride compounds to water supplies and toothpaste, should be at
fluoridation. This will help us to NPOV the text. --
mav 17:59, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
For someone who claimed that he only did research and was not interested in cleaning up his writing, Kwantus has certainly done a lot of writing in this article. Are you two people, Kwantus, or do you only write when you feel like it?
RickK 01:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
removed/withdrew assuming there are enough unfluoridated mass supplies in the US to make a significant sample For instance, Illinois in 1989 had 1931 public water facilities, only 1000 of which fluoridated. I figure that's balanced enough to analyse, at least re Illinois. Probable root source, Crete IL Record 1989 Sep 21, a story that only 115 of those 1000 facilities met the state's fluoridation-award standard-- Kwantus 02:36, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
re profluoridations' claims fluoride is a nutrient because it reduces caries (assuming it does): "That in itself is no indication of fluorine essentiality, inasmuch as caries incidence depends on many factors, and many persons with perfectly sound dentition have had only minimal exposure to fluoride." Biological Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants: Fluorides Nat'l Academy of Sciences 1971 -- Kwantus 18:24, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I used to know why fluoridation is such a big issue, but I forget now. I think it was mentioned in Dr. Strangelove as sapping one's "vital fluids" (i.e., causing sexual impotence) -- but that seems a bit far-fetched.
Are there any studies which demonstrate (or fail to demonstrate) links between fluoridated water and tooth decay (going down) or side effects (going up)? If so, let's cite them and be done with it.
Maybe we should break out fluoridation or fluoridated water as a separate article. We might even have to make a fluoridation controversy article, if it's going to be one of those long, drawn-out things that people in the real (non-Wikipedia) world are perennially fussing over. -- Uncle Ed 21:44, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ed - bottom line: I wanted to bust the NPOV on this article.
Most North American communities fluoridate their water. A vocal minority of Americans (currently about 15% or so) are skeptical of the practice, and studies are traded like baseball cards over whether water fluoridation is inherently beneficial, harmful, or a tradeoff of both. There seems to be less controversy over the idea of using toothpaste on one's teeth and spitting it out when you're done. The article as written didn't seem to say much of anything except 'fluorides are bad' and 'here's so many studies telling you so that you can't help but agree'. Hence the NPOV, I suppose.
I did my best to give the controversy its say while explaining why it's a pervasive practice.
This article was brought to my attention by a person who had really interspersed language intended to make the reader draw a conclusion, advocacy, etc. in John F. Kennedy assassination, which I also did a lot of work on.
Heaven help me.
Skybunny 21:59, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. That section was difficult to manage as is. Ultimately, of course, the controversy page should have both sides stated, fairly. Probably means we'd stick more to statistics on this page. Eh, I don't know.
Skybunny 22:02, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
--- Can a mere mortal ask what the dihydrogen monoxide link has to do with profluoridation? Google finds no mention of "fluoride" and only one of "fluorine" ... it's a bloody spoof, for heaven's sake! Some milliwits might think it resembles the antifluoridation claims, but hydric acid is essential and beneficial and pretty safe even in large quantities, whereas fluorides are not. Antifluoridationism does not ignore the benefits of fluoridation, but points out that the evidence is against their existence.( eg)
For ref: Ontario ministry of Health, 1999 Nov 15: "current studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have design weaknesses and methodological flaws". Although "the balance of evidence suggests that rates of dental decay are lower in fluoridated than non-fluoridated communities[, t]he magnitude of the effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." In fact, "the effect tends to be more pronounced in the deciduous dentition" -- the baby teeth.
Curious point to research further: "Calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water in minute quantities and is believed to be beneficial or at least harmless. Sodium fluoride, most [of the dentists] felt, is a dangerous toxic by-product of chemical processing." [12] Curious that the rat poison is put into water instead of the naturally-occurring stuff that's probably safer...ignoring the relative prices and sources of CaF2 and its competitors, of course. CaF2 seems to be insoluble [13]--presumably it gets into natural water by mechanical erosion--which would make it difficult to use in fluoridation. OTOH it may the very insolubility--the F ion never gets loose--that makes it safer.
Yet what happens? they dig up fluorispar (calcium f'ide), convert it to NaF and then dilute it again--even though the solubility of fluorispar is only about ten times the "optimal" concentration anyway whereas NaF's is thousands of times. [14] [15] Wouldn't it be a whole lot safer -- eg less risk of Annapolis and Hooper Bay type accidents -- if the solute used was incapable of wildly overfluoridating the water? Teotia & Teotia concluded calcium deficiencies exacerbated fluorosis -- perhaps using fluorispar would offset that.
The NPOV notice for this article has been removed. I believe there's at least an approaching balance on what fluoridation does, positive and negative. Required substantial rewriting of the article.
Skybunny 02:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks as though the NPOV has been removed by an anonymous user as of Oct. 13, 2003. (Kwantus appears to be back.) I've removed the editorializing HTML comments from the article. If anyone cares to keep the NPOV around, it will probably involve a long, drawn-out continuing fight with this user.
Trying to pretend there's no rational controversy is actually an old profluoridationist trick -- read the advice of Frank Bull on how to sell fluoridation: Federal Security Administration (1951) Proc Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau, US Dept of Health, Education & Welfare Library
Water fluoridation is a highly controversial practice and banned in most countries in Europe, China, India and Japan. Is there a source for this? It sounds dubious to me, I know that the UK for one routinely fluoridates the water. On another point, after the Tsunami disaster, many people of non-local origin were identified by dental records and at least one dentist is on record as saying that he could instantly tell whether a person was born prior to 1967 because that was when fluoridation was introduced on a widespread basis, and teeth post-dating that year were generally far healthier. My impression was that this applied whether the person was Australian, European or North American (i.e. westeners) , which would tend to suggest that the statement about a ban in Europe at least is incorrect. If there are bans in place, they need an official source to back up the assertion. Also, the Tsunami information is quite interesting - can it be mentioned in the article somehow? Graham 06:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
This article still discusses water fluoridation in some depth. I am inclined to move most of this to the Water Fluoridation page, except for a mention that water fluoridation exists. The article devotes almost as much time to fluoridation as it does to fluroide, the ion. Oasisbob 03:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Obvious political rhetoric. There are hundreds if not thousands of studies showing that fluoride rebuilds tooth enamel.
Wow, what a great find, we use aluminum-product waste to 'strengthen' our teeth and bones because some people with "motteld" teeth were overexposed to fluoride. CaseyBrady ( talk) 11:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking over the page as it stands now, I believe that it is safe to remove the non-NPOV notice. I still worry that there is still too much water fluoridation content on the page, but the information provided seems NPOV and reasonably accurate. The last batch of edits have been good incremental improvements. If nobody objects, I'll remove the notice in a few days. - Oasisbob 09:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This page will confuse people due to your mention of fluoridation below 4ppm being safe (at beginning of article). Could you please amend that to conform with your later statement re 0.7-1.2ppm (near end of article). To suggest that 4ppm is safe is a confusing and misleading statement. Thanks for amending that figure downwards. LisaChris 00:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I will try to get more chemical information in the article. Fluoridation can be a link in it but not a paragraph! In some other wikipediae the Fluoridation is not even mentioned. So Thats get rid of it! (No agression! I will not delet it but I will creat an alternative page and let others decide if it is exchanged with the current version.) Stone 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I for one don't go around clicking on random rotten.com links. :-) I think the Criticism section should really be something else than a sole link, especially one on that slightly scary URL. -- Northgrove 07:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"Jennifer Luke from the University of Surrey" What's the nature of this relationship? Professor? Asst? Lecturer? Student? I couldn't find this info. [16], [17]
I for one, have gotton a lot more cavities since I moved to an area where the water is not flouridated (just found this fact out from my dentist last week). I am 31 years old and had only a couple cavvities my whole life. Now I got 4 in one visit. And my wife, the same story, just got 8 cavities after a couple years of living here. My brother is in his late 30's and never had a cavity; but now lives in an unflouridated area and got 12 cavities. This is actually all very strange considering that flouridation on average is reported to reduce cavities by only 12%, in children (what about adults?). Any others here that live in both flouridated and non-flouridated areas, that can share their experience? ~e~
What exactly are flourines effects in toothpaste? I can't find it on the page itself.
Fluoride's effects are to combine with calcium hydroxy appetite in the body to form calcium fluoride hydroxy appetite which is seen by the immune system as a foreign compound. In other words it makes a type of bone material that leads to bone cancer. Vaestanfors ( talk) 10:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Fluoride rinsing and fluoride toothpaste are two of the most widespread applications, but they are not even mentioned among the applications, instead water fluoridation, which is something rather periferal in impact, is mentioned. Why? Having read the discussion page I suppose it may have something to do with the fluoride conspiracy believers and non believers, but since these other applications are outside the contested areas, shouldn't they be better fleshed out? At the moment this page could just as well be renamed "The Fluoride Conspiracy, a myth or a fact?" Since that's pretty much what it covers... It's not even a POV or NPOV uestion it's a question of OT or non-OT.
"Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland," reports Scientific American editors (January 2008). "Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift," writes author Dan Fagin.
I'll come back and take a look....not feeling well right now, but thought this would be an interesting reference for the article. TableManners C· U· T 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Dozenist, as this page is the subject of ongoing edit warring, please discuss any major edits here on the talk page before implementing. I have reverted to yesterday's version until then. Thank you. -- AeronM ( talk) 14:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, the FDA requires a warning label on toothpaste. This is a verifiable fact, and does belong on the Fluoride page. Please stop deleting it. Thank you. -- AeronM ( talk) 14:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving this chunk from the article, because I feel strongly it fails WP:RS:
Since World War II, fluoride is believed to be the most poisonous toxic waste coming from factory smokestacks. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Fluoride pollution is also known for causing what is considered the worst industrial air pollution disaster in U.S. history. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
In fact, it was this disaster which is believed to have jump-started the U.S. environmental movement. [10] [11] [12]
Therefore, I am adding this text back into article. Thanks. -- AeronM ( talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I am a neutral outside editor to this article. It has clearly involved some rather heated debate in the past. It's time to clean it up. Regarding the recent additions, specifically the quoted text above, the material is factual, relevant, verifiable, and properly sourced. Because it does not comply with your POV is not sufficient reason to remove it. Please see WP:NPOV You are welcome to submit a contrasting view, provided it passes the same criteria. I have returned it to the article.
It sounds as though you may have a strong POV regarding one of the sources. If that is the case, you can always make a case for why it should not be included. Meanwhile, I see no reason not to use it. A cursory Google search turns up much regarding the controversial nature of the topic, and wiki guidleines indicate that it is correct to teach the controversy. -- AeronM ( talk) 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV.
Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy.
I see what you are saying, however I might point out, also from WP:CONTROVERSY:
It is not a matter of which is the mainstream view and which isn't. It appears more a matter of conventional wisdom vs. current science. Both must be represented, else we have not done our job properly. -- AeronM ( talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And yet the article seems light on fact, especially current scientific data which describes a) that fluoride is not effective in preventing cavities, and b) the many physical ailments that fluoride has been linked to. Since we are all in agreement that both sides must be given equal weight, I am proposing a short introduction to the Cavity Prevention section describing the scientific research which illustrates the above points, without going into specific detail. I agree this is not the place for that. If the article were to reflect the "coverage in mainstream, reliable sources," then, according to my research, the article should be 80% on the negative effects of Fluoride, and 20% on the positive. I won't hold you to that, of course. I notice you said "supposed" harm fluoride causes. Are you saying you do not believe Fluoride is harmful? Are you familiar with current science on the issue? -- AeronM ( talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, the more research I do, the more interesting it becomes. I think we should also include the Harvard Study. Would Harvard University be an acceptable source to you, Jersko? -- AeronM ( talk) 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
After stepping back a bit, I think I've noticed something regarding the different approaches we are taking here. Please do not take offense if I mischaracterize any position, these are merely my observations. AeronM is citing global warming and the cigarette cancer link because these subjects demonstrate that the minority view can and often should overtake the majority view on scientific subjects. In other words, scientists believe a paradigm, which is challenged by an individual or group. Eventually, the challenging theory becomes the new paradigm. AeronM appears to believe that the fluoride debate is following or has followed the same path. Whether this is true or not, however, is irrelevant. Why? First, the paradigm has not been replaced regarding fluoride. The legal, scientific, and organizational consensus is clearly still not anywhere near where the paradigm challengers want it to be. Thus, comparing the fluoride debate to cigarettes or global warming is a faulty analogy. Second, and most importantly, we should be looking at whether this article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not how the fluoride debate compares to other public health debates. · jersyko talk 00:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Since Water Fluoridation has a Water Fluoridation Controversy page, let's add a Fluoride Controversy page. I think it would be appropriate, don't you agree? -- AeronM ( talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Smokefoot, deleting chunks of sourced material is a no-no at wiki and could be considered vandalism. Please discuss major edits here on the talkpage first. Thanks. -- AeronM ( talk) 02:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
"Since World War II, fluoride is believed to be the most poisonous toxic waste coming from factory smokestacks. [14] [15] [16] [17] Fluoride pollution is also known for causing what is considered the worst industrial air pollution disaster in U.S. history. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] In fact, it was this disaster which is believed to have jump-started the U.S. environmental movement. [23]" This kind of grandiose claim seems suspect. At the least, few fluoride compounds are coming out of any smokestacks. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, dear, I think we all need to rehash Chemistry 101. For the record, the problem with toxic emissions from smokestacks in places like Donora, Pennsylvania, was hydrogen fluoride, also known as hydrofluoric acid, which is a strong and highly corrosive acid (among other things, it dissolves glass). The fact that hydrofluoric acid vapor is horrible stuff to be exposed to does not mean that all fluoride compounds are highly toxic. For analogy, consider that chlorine gas is highly toxic and has been used as a chemical weapon, but sodium chloride (table salt) is pretty innocuous stuff (indeed, the sodium is a bigger risk to humans than the chloride). -- Orlady ( talk) 03:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there is already an article describing the fluoride controversy, I find that the controversy should be given a brief mention in the fluoride page, with a link to the water fluoridation controversy page per WP:UNDUE. I also feel strongly that the sources cited by AeronM fail WP:RS, belonging for the most part, activist/advocacy groups. Lastly, he uses superlatives to describe fluoride's toxicity, though WP:REDFLAG states that exceptional claims (which include superlatives, IMHO) require exceptional proof.
I see no point in quoting diffs and making references to a person's conduct; the issue is simple, the discussion is focussed here, nobody has been going around censoring comments, and the participants are still civil. I thus request an RFC to simply determine what should be or should not be in the article.-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that some discussion is here. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - This article needs to be about this form of the element, its reactivity, the compounds containing fluoride, its sources and uses in industry, and its functions and toxicology in living organisms. Perhaps a sentence or two could note that fluoride is added to some drinking water, but discussing this at length, using WP:Fringe sources is an obvious breach of the neutral point of view policy. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You also forgot to alert me to this RfC on my talk page, which I believe is proper per wiki policy. PS I am a 'she' not a 'he,' FYI. -- AeronM ( talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Rifleman 82, I am curious to know why you have added the POV tag to the fluoride salts section. -- AeronM ( talk) 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Itub, if you believe the fluoride that is put in the water we drink does not come from smokestacks (and other industrial waste), then perhaps you could enlighten us. You will need references, of course, if the info in the article is to be altered. -- AeronM ( talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The uses and sources of fluorine compounds in industrial applications definitely are appropriate content for Wikipedia, although not necessarily for this article. Based on this reliable information source (a USGS commodities report on fluorspar), it is true that much fluorine is acquired as a byproduct (for example, by extracting it from industrial waste streams), but it would be a gross oversimplification to say that all of it comes from "industrial waste" or any other specific source. According to the USGS report I cite here, fluorosilicic acid (the compound used in fluoridation of water) is produced primarily as a byproduct from processing of phosphate rock to make phosphoric acid, and represents no more than about 12% of total U.S. usage of fluorine compounds. -- Orlady ( talk) 16:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Orlady, since that is the 4th revert of that piece of information, I beg you to consider a discussion here on the take page. The contribution was made in good faith and citing valid resources per WP:RS. You have not provided sufficient reasons to delete it. Your comment that the worst fluoride-related air pollution disaster does not belong in the toxicology section of the Fluoride page confuses me. -- AeronM ( talk) 22:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A review of the article history is instructive:
The above discussions about fluoride are so long that I have lost track of where we are, other than some of the antifluoridation links look questionable. I was going to re-edit that article to bring some balance to the references. As it stands, there are three general references about fluoride chem and technology and 15 references to pro/anti fluoridation, mainly dealing with risks and the controversy. This 15:3 ratio is out of balance with an article about fluoride. So I propose to trim many of the fluoridation reports (and put them here).-- Smokefoot ( talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
One lesson that many of editors learned: Googling is a rotten mechanism to obtain technical information because the quality of the hits is uneven and the hits are often tainted by sensationalism/commercialism/self-promotion. My guess is that the many references in this article are derived from Google searches. More effective ways of extracting technical information are via scientific search engines and on-line (but not free always) reference works. Googling is great for getting the latest on Britney Spears, an opinion on Hillary, and the latest scores on Aussie Rules, but not very useful for scientific topics.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Smokefoot's recent version is the best so far. The operative sentence here is: "Fluoride-containing compounds are so diverse that it is not possible to generalize on the their toxicity." Thus a lengthy discussion is toxicology is meaningless; it should be relegated to the appropriate compound pages. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 05:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
All this negativity about fluoride is probably part of a campaign to distract us from far more dangerous chemicals that are forced on our daily lives without our knowledge. Did you know that there is a far worse chemical that:
I could go on and on, but I'll just refer you to a reliable source detailing many of the other dangers of this chemical. [23] -- Itub ( talk) 05:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)The dihydrogen monoxide hoax involves listing negative effects of water under an unfamiliar scientific name, then asking individuals to help control the seemingly dangerous substance. The hoax is designed to illustrate how the lack of scientific knowledge and an exaggerated analysis can lead to misplaced fears. Dihydrogen monoxide, shortened to DHMO, is a scientific name for water that, while technically correct, is almost never employed. ...
In 1997, Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old junior high student at Eagle Rock Junior High School in Idaho Falls, Idaho, gathered 43 votes to ban the chemical, out of 50 people surveyed among his classmates. Zohner received the first prize at Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair for analysis of the results of his survey.[1] In recognition of his experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term "Zohnerism" to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion."[4]
Once again, this section reads like a pamphlet from the ADA. Where is the other side? All of my attempts to get this article, and this section in particular, to NPOV have been summarily deleted by the fluoride gestapo. I give up. Some other sucker is going to have to go up against the bullies, cuz frankly, I have better things to do. I'll check back in a month or two to see if the article is anywhere closer to NPOV.... but I won't hold my breath! -- AeronM ( talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am back from vacation and wondering where we are on the RfC? I also notice the Cavity prevention section still reads like a Pro-Flouride brochure from the ADA. Can we mention the other side of the issue here? Also, I am concerned that the recent additions of chemical formulas and terminology are beginning to get too technical for the average reader. Certainly the article would benefit from some simplification and streamlining, then list some external refs for further reading on the more technical/chemical stuff. -- AeronM ( talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you give specific examples of terms or formulas that you think are inaccessible? Articles should be made as readable as possible, but not at the expense of "dumbing them down" to the point of introducing inaccuracies, and sometimes the terms and formulas are the only way of being precise. -- Itub ( talk) 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
If you want to find out if fluoride is useful for your theeth, search the internet. Thanks Here's a question to ask the gods that walked this planet before us: To make a massive dinosaur did you intend on their bones to contain fluoride which is known to make bones mechanically weaker? The absorption of fluorine into a dinosuars bones from the environment is constant and is used for dating such bones. Interestingly it has been found that such great beasts as dinosaurs were, did not rely on fluoride for strong bones or healthy teeth. Vaestanfors ( talk) 08:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Looks like I opened pandora's box...If anyone wants the truth on Fluoride then contact the Minister of Health then contact Comalco(Rio Tinto) then contact Merck in Germany, Also a sympathetic politician is an excellent source of information. This is a big hint for where and how to obtain classified information. When contacting companies like Comalco(the smelter in Invercargil is a good place to start) it is best to chat with factory managers as they know a lot about the dangers of Fluoride. When contacting government departments you'll need to soften the workers up and find out who in the office likes to chat a bit more than they're supposed to. I obtained my information from the horses mouth not the internet and now I challenge everyone out there to do the same rather than sit back and believe the rubbish that industry wants us to believe. The most valuable knowledge is not the actual facts on Fluoride but how to obtain truthful information so that you can make your own decisions about your life.
Removed paragraph:
For this reason, fluorides are often added to toothpaste. To retain their right to practice, various dental associations require dentists to tell clients that fluorides are harmless and beneficial to the teeth. Dentists who say otherwise have their licenses revoked.
"To retain their right to practice" This smells like a POV statement. Credible evidence is needed. "various dental associations require dentists to tell clients that fluorides are harmless and beneficial to the teeth." What? This is a serious allegation that dental associations are forcing dentists to poison their patients. This requires serious proof. Associations don't have such power anyway. "Dentists who say otherwise have their licenses revoked." Again credible evidence is needed for this statement of fact. I suggest that the author of this passage actually read our NPOV policy. -- mav
From the article: Other studies also suggest that even lower fluoride levels may be causing an increased incidence in elevated lead levels seen in the blood of children, and higher violent crime rates associated with lead neurotoxicity.
Can someone explain the supposed mechanism for this? Fluoride and lead are different elements, and unless the fluoride supply (or a naturally fluoride-rich water supply) were contaminated with lead, there is no way I can see that adding fluoride to something, such as water (or children), would add lead to it. -- FOo Australian water supplies use NaF at a concerntration of 0.7ppm
Supplemented the summary of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination [3], which was misleadingly summarized. -- Someone else 06:27 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
From fluorine:
I moved the above, in the hopes that the poor innocent element fluorine can repose in peaceful slumber while we discuss the application of one of its ions here. -- Uncle Ed
If it is sodium fluoride, sodium monofluorophosphate, and stannous fluoride which are used for dental purposes including water fluoridation, then how, pray tell, are silicofluorides (an entirely separate class of compounds) relevant to the debate? Is the claim that sodium fluorides are contaminated with silicofluorides? That they produce silicofluorides in the water? (By reaction with what?) -- FOo
Does " NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination" require a link, external link or additional notation? What country is this? (I assume Britain when I see NHS) Dramatic 05:10 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)
Well here's more information: When Mt Ruapehu erupted in the 1990's the fluoride contained in the ash killed most of the farm animals in the surrounding area, I had this confirmed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in New Zealand. This event was not reported in the news. The eruption disrupted commercial aircraft as far north as Auckland International Airport.
I see a pro-flouridator has shown up. Should I bother finding sources, or will everything I find be incredible becaue I found it?
1944-8 Mantahhatan project aware of negative physiological and psycho-behavioral effects of fluorides, via use of UF6 in the isotope separation process. Docs declassified from Nat'l Archive in '97 ... try specifically for a 1994 Apr 29 memo "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect, with mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude as the conspicuous features... it seems that the fluoride component is the causative factor"
" JA Dental A, 1944 Oct
Am J Public Health, 43:700-703, 1953
As Sternglass concluded with radiation poisoning, the more of it there is, the stupider everyone gets, thus the less likely the problem gets corrected; indeed it's likely to be made worse. (And couple that to James Kerwin, Dental Digest, or F.W. Lengemann "The Metabolism of Alkaline Earth Metals by Bone" to AEC Division of Biology and Medicine, both 1959, showing fluorine and strontium have a pathogenic ball together. Plus A. Shatz Low Level Fluoridation and Low-Level Radiation -- Two Case Histories of Misconduct of Science Philadelphia, 1996).
Fluoride may be all a very nice thing for your teeth when properly administered -- topical application in regulated dose at the proper time of life. Fluoridated water, with its systemic, unregulated, lifetime dosage, and side effects acknowledged even by rabid proponents, is almost as far from a proper administration as you ca get. (That's a summation I got from my own dentist. See, in Canada, they're still allowed to tell the truth.) If you think fluoride is good to drink and needs to foisted upon everyon, chugalug a cupful of sodium flouride (rat poison). Please.
Profuse thanks to Val Valerian which provided all that. Heaps more there, but I've lifted enough to rebut the "no evidence fluoride is harmful" crap. -- Kwantus 22:56, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
John Colquhoun reported back to his boss that he could not find a single page of evidence to support fluoridation and could he be advised on anywhere to find such information. John Colquhoun was told to find proof that fluoride was safe or he would lose his job, The late John Colquhoun could not find any proof to support fluoridation of New Zealand's water supply but he did find proof that it was dangerous and so started a campaign to have it banned. John Colquhoun personally asked me to finish his work as he was no longer able to fight the dental establishment in Dunedin and the bureaucracy in Wellington. John Colquhoun exposed government corruption but this information has never been published despite TVNZ being in receipt of the evidence. The truth on Fluoride is shocking to read and will make one question the motives of our own governments. Through John's inspiration and access to Government documents I was able to have the Waitakere City Council agree that fluoridation be banned but mayor Covic told me that because Waitakere is connected to the rest of Auckland it had to remain fluoridated as the Auckland City Council and North Shore Bays council voted to keep the water fluoridated. Soon after this John Colquhoun passed away but his campaign to have fluoride banned is still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.237.107 ( talk) 06:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Vaestanfors ( talk) 07:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record there was a case in Napier New Zealand where the children had a lot of tooth decay but the government did not give enough money to have the kids teeth repaired. At the time fluoride was not in the water but the government wanted to fluoridate and show that it fixes teeth. What happened next was that fluoride was addded to the water supply and the funds to fix the kids teeth were released by officials in Wellington. After one year the local kids of Napier had better teeth but what the government of New Zealand didn't know was that fluoride takes several years to have any visual effect on human teeth. Great work by the local dentists fixed the kids teeth not fluoride as the Department of Health reported on TV. This was one of the scams that John Colquhoun tried to expose on national TV but that story was edited to make fluoride look good. Vaestanfors ( talk) 07:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed a large section from flouridation benefits that was clearly not about the benefits of fluoridation and was not encyclopedic ("Please post..."). Also I beleive we agreed long ago that most of the debate on fluoridation belonged on the fluoridation page, not here. Rmhermen 23:56, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
I love the Melbourne incident, as an example of both how poisonous fluorides are and how the profluoride misinformation is likely killing people...but it somoehow doesn't fit, either =( -- Kwantus 02:43, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Moved this comment from the article: <Should be noted that Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, last I read, banned fluoridation at the federal level, sometimes constitutionally> RickK 04:10, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Kwantus, I have no problem with the change you just made. The above was an editorial comment, however, and had no place in the article. RickK 04:17, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I found a source for it, anyhow. -- Kwantus 04:29, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Since the Melbourne incident's been purged, I'll outline it here. Boy (Jason Burton) swallows six fluoride tablets, 0.5mg fluoride each; family doctor recovers four with stomach pump; boy loses consciousness, goes to hospital; hospital so disinformed about fluoride they neglect to check the books and assume it takes 200+ tablets to be lethal; child dies anyway; official death certificate lists "Fluoride poisoning" as cause; Australian authorities deny fluoride has ever killed anyone. It strikes me the child may have been oversensitive; the interesting parts are that the hospital didn't realise fluoride is poisonous and the denials that fluoride cn kill. [8] -- Kwantus 01:15, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
John Colquhoun told me that there is enough fluoride in a tube of Colgate tooth paste to kill a human baby, maybe thats why young kids are to be supervised when brushing teeth.
The tone and wording of this entry is appalling. It reads like just-barely-restrained-from-frothing-at-the-mouth anti-flouridation rant. The information contained within it may or may not be accurate, but the way it is presented is simply unacceptable. A top-to-bottom rewrite is imperative.
(Disclosure of my own view: the debate confuses me but, on the whole, I am against flouridation of drinking water supplies.)
Some citations I reassembled from the Val Valerian chronology (it aggravatingly mentions a lot of others without specifics) and hate to waste. But I don't know how to fit them in. Someone with access to a good science lib should check them out. Kwantus 08:12, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Kwantus, you are not helping by totally ignoring the other POV in this issue. Part of adhering to our NPOV policy is to write for the enemy. You have not done that and appear to be placing every anti-fluoridation study in this article while ignoring studies that show benefits. Part of the problem is that fluoride and fluoridation are being mixed here; they should be separated since the amount of fluoride used in rat poison is not comparable to the amount used in water supplies and that most things we consider to be good are in fact toxic in large quantities. Please separate the two subjects on different pages so that the material correctly shows up as being authored by you. Otherwise I'll move it myself. It will then be easier to NPOV this one-sided material. -- mav 16:56, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The entry below is very true and is backed up with valid research submitted to the international society for fluoride research. Vaestanfors ( talk) 08:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Kwantus, you obliviously have an axe to grind and an extreme POV in this matter. You are therefore creating a one-sided soapbox article on why fluoridation is a bad thing. Obviously a great many people think otherwise, yet you ignore their POV and express only your own. This is a violation of our NPOV policy and I'm asking you to stop. I'll work on this article later. Please use that time to move the material about fluoridation to that page. Fluoride is just an ion; it can be used in a great many ways both for good and bad. This article should reflect that and most of the controversy stuff about adding fluoride compounds to water supplies and toothpaste, should be at
fluoridation. This will help us to NPOV the text. --
mav 17:59, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
For someone who claimed that he only did research and was not interested in cleaning up his writing, Kwantus has certainly done a lot of writing in this article. Are you two people, Kwantus, or do you only write when you feel like it?
RickK 01:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
removed/withdrew assuming there are enough unfluoridated mass supplies in the US to make a significant sample For instance, Illinois in 1989 had 1931 public water facilities, only 1000 of which fluoridated. I figure that's balanced enough to analyse, at least re Illinois. Probable root source, Crete IL Record 1989 Sep 21, a story that only 115 of those 1000 facilities met the state's fluoridation-award standard-- Kwantus 02:36, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
re profluoridations' claims fluoride is a nutrient because it reduces caries (assuming it does): "That in itself is no indication of fluorine essentiality, inasmuch as caries incidence depends on many factors, and many persons with perfectly sound dentition have had only minimal exposure to fluoride." Biological Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants: Fluorides Nat'l Academy of Sciences 1971 -- Kwantus 18:24, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I used to know why fluoridation is such a big issue, but I forget now. I think it was mentioned in Dr. Strangelove as sapping one's "vital fluids" (i.e., causing sexual impotence) -- but that seems a bit far-fetched.
Are there any studies which demonstrate (or fail to demonstrate) links between fluoridated water and tooth decay (going down) or side effects (going up)? If so, let's cite them and be done with it.
Maybe we should break out fluoridation or fluoridated water as a separate article. We might even have to make a fluoridation controversy article, if it's going to be one of those long, drawn-out things that people in the real (non-Wikipedia) world are perennially fussing over. -- Uncle Ed 21:44, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ed - bottom line: I wanted to bust the NPOV on this article.
Most North American communities fluoridate their water. A vocal minority of Americans (currently about 15% or so) are skeptical of the practice, and studies are traded like baseball cards over whether water fluoridation is inherently beneficial, harmful, or a tradeoff of both. There seems to be less controversy over the idea of using toothpaste on one's teeth and spitting it out when you're done. The article as written didn't seem to say much of anything except 'fluorides are bad' and 'here's so many studies telling you so that you can't help but agree'. Hence the NPOV, I suppose.
I did my best to give the controversy its say while explaining why it's a pervasive practice.
This article was brought to my attention by a person who had really interspersed language intended to make the reader draw a conclusion, advocacy, etc. in John F. Kennedy assassination, which I also did a lot of work on.
Heaven help me.
Skybunny 21:59, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. That section was difficult to manage as is. Ultimately, of course, the controversy page should have both sides stated, fairly. Probably means we'd stick more to statistics on this page. Eh, I don't know.
Skybunny 22:02, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
--- Can a mere mortal ask what the dihydrogen monoxide link has to do with profluoridation? Google finds no mention of "fluoride" and only one of "fluorine" ... it's a bloody spoof, for heaven's sake! Some milliwits might think it resembles the antifluoridation claims, but hydric acid is essential and beneficial and pretty safe even in large quantities, whereas fluorides are not. Antifluoridationism does not ignore the benefits of fluoridation, but points out that the evidence is against their existence.( eg)
For ref: Ontario ministry of Health, 1999 Nov 15: "current studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have design weaknesses and methodological flaws". Although "the balance of evidence suggests that rates of dental decay are lower in fluoridated than non-fluoridated communities[, t]he magnitude of the effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." In fact, "the effect tends to be more pronounced in the deciduous dentition" -- the baby teeth.
Curious point to research further: "Calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water in minute quantities and is believed to be beneficial or at least harmless. Sodium fluoride, most [of the dentists] felt, is a dangerous toxic by-product of chemical processing." [12] Curious that the rat poison is put into water instead of the naturally-occurring stuff that's probably safer...ignoring the relative prices and sources of CaF2 and its competitors, of course. CaF2 seems to be insoluble [13]--presumably it gets into natural water by mechanical erosion--which would make it difficult to use in fluoridation. OTOH it may the very insolubility--the F ion never gets loose--that makes it safer.
Yet what happens? they dig up fluorispar (calcium f'ide), convert it to NaF and then dilute it again--even though the solubility of fluorispar is only about ten times the "optimal" concentration anyway whereas NaF's is thousands of times. [14] [15] Wouldn't it be a whole lot safer -- eg less risk of Annapolis and Hooper Bay type accidents -- if the solute used was incapable of wildly overfluoridating the water? Teotia & Teotia concluded calcium deficiencies exacerbated fluorosis -- perhaps using fluorispar would offset that.
The NPOV notice for this article has been removed. I believe there's at least an approaching balance on what fluoridation does, positive and negative. Required substantial rewriting of the article.
Skybunny 02:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks as though the NPOV has been removed by an anonymous user as of Oct. 13, 2003. (Kwantus appears to be back.) I've removed the editorializing HTML comments from the article. If anyone cares to keep the NPOV around, it will probably involve a long, drawn-out continuing fight with this user.
Trying to pretend there's no rational controversy is actually an old profluoridationist trick -- read the advice of Frank Bull on how to sell fluoridation: Federal Security Administration (1951) Proc Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau, US Dept of Health, Education & Welfare Library
Water fluoridation is a highly controversial practice and banned in most countries in Europe, China, India and Japan. Is there a source for this? It sounds dubious to me, I know that the UK for one routinely fluoridates the water. On another point, after the Tsunami disaster, many people of non-local origin were identified by dental records and at least one dentist is on record as saying that he could instantly tell whether a person was born prior to 1967 because that was when fluoridation was introduced on a widespread basis, and teeth post-dating that year were generally far healthier. My impression was that this applied whether the person was Australian, European or North American (i.e. westeners) , which would tend to suggest that the statement about a ban in Europe at least is incorrect. If there are bans in place, they need an official source to back up the assertion. Also, the Tsunami information is quite interesting - can it be mentioned in the article somehow? Graham 06:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
This article still discusses water fluoridation in some depth. I am inclined to move most of this to the Water Fluoridation page, except for a mention that water fluoridation exists. The article devotes almost as much time to fluoridation as it does to fluroide, the ion. Oasisbob 03:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Obvious political rhetoric. There are hundreds if not thousands of studies showing that fluoride rebuilds tooth enamel.
Wow, what a great find, we use aluminum-product waste to 'strengthen' our teeth and bones because some people with "motteld" teeth were overexposed to fluoride. CaseyBrady ( talk) 11:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking over the page as it stands now, I believe that it is safe to remove the non-NPOV notice. I still worry that there is still too much water fluoridation content on the page, but the information provided seems NPOV and reasonably accurate. The last batch of edits have been good incremental improvements. If nobody objects, I'll remove the notice in a few days. - Oasisbob 09:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This page will confuse people due to your mention of fluoridation below 4ppm being safe (at beginning of article). Could you please amend that to conform with your later statement re 0.7-1.2ppm (near end of article). To suggest that 4ppm is safe is a confusing and misleading statement. Thanks for amending that figure downwards. LisaChris 00:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I will try to get more chemical information in the article. Fluoridation can be a link in it but not a paragraph! In some other wikipediae the Fluoridation is not even mentioned. So Thats get rid of it! (No agression! I will not delet it but I will creat an alternative page and let others decide if it is exchanged with the current version.) Stone 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I for one don't go around clicking on random rotten.com links. :-) I think the Criticism section should really be something else than a sole link, especially one on that slightly scary URL. -- Northgrove 07:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"Jennifer Luke from the University of Surrey" What's the nature of this relationship? Professor? Asst? Lecturer? Student? I couldn't find this info. [16], [17]
I for one, have gotton a lot more cavities since I moved to an area where the water is not flouridated (just found this fact out from my dentist last week). I am 31 years old and had only a couple cavvities my whole life. Now I got 4 in one visit. And my wife, the same story, just got 8 cavities after a couple years of living here. My brother is in his late 30's and never had a cavity; but now lives in an unflouridated area and got 12 cavities. This is actually all very strange considering that flouridation on average is reported to reduce cavities by only 12%, in children (what about adults?). Any others here that live in both flouridated and non-flouridated areas, that can share their experience? ~e~
What exactly are flourines effects in toothpaste? I can't find it on the page itself.
Fluoride's effects are to combine with calcium hydroxy appetite in the body to form calcium fluoride hydroxy appetite which is seen by the immune system as a foreign compound. In other words it makes a type of bone material that leads to bone cancer. Vaestanfors ( talk) 10:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Fluoride rinsing and fluoride toothpaste are two of the most widespread applications, but they are not even mentioned among the applications, instead water fluoridation, which is something rather periferal in impact, is mentioned. Why? Having read the discussion page I suppose it may have something to do with the fluoride conspiracy believers and non believers, but since these other applications are outside the contested areas, shouldn't they be better fleshed out? At the moment this page could just as well be renamed "The Fluoride Conspiracy, a myth or a fact?" Since that's pretty much what it covers... It's not even a POV or NPOV uestion it's a question of OT or non-OT.
"Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland," reports Scientific American editors (January 2008). "Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift," writes author Dan Fagin.
I'll come back and take a look....not feeling well right now, but thought this would be an interesting reference for the article. TableManners C· U· T 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Dozenist, as this page is the subject of ongoing edit warring, please discuss any major edits here on the talk page before implementing. I have reverted to yesterday's version until then. Thank you. -- AeronM ( talk) 14:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, the FDA requires a warning label on toothpaste. This is a verifiable fact, and does belong on the Fluoride page. Please stop deleting it. Thank you. -- AeronM ( talk) 14:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving this chunk from the article, because I feel strongly it fails WP:RS:
Since World War II, fluoride is believed to be the most poisonous toxic waste coming from factory smokestacks. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Fluoride pollution is also known for causing what is considered the worst industrial air pollution disaster in U.S. history. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
In fact, it was this disaster which is believed to have jump-started the U.S. environmental movement. [10] [11] [12]
Therefore, I am adding this text back into article. Thanks. -- AeronM ( talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I am a neutral outside editor to this article. It has clearly involved some rather heated debate in the past. It's time to clean it up. Regarding the recent additions, specifically the quoted text above, the material is factual, relevant, verifiable, and properly sourced. Because it does not comply with your POV is not sufficient reason to remove it. Please see WP:NPOV You are welcome to submit a contrasting view, provided it passes the same criteria. I have returned it to the article.
It sounds as though you may have a strong POV regarding one of the sources. If that is the case, you can always make a case for why it should not be included. Meanwhile, I see no reason not to use it. A cursory Google search turns up much regarding the controversial nature of the topic, and wiki guidleines indicate that it is correct to teach the controversy. -- AeronM ( talk) 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV.
Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy.
I see what you are saying, however I might point out, also from WP:CONTROVERSY:
It is not a matter of which is the mainstream view and which isn't. It appears more a matter of conventional wisdom vs. current science. Both must be represented, else we have not done our job properly. -- AeronM ( talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And yet the article seems light on fact, especially current scientific data which describes a) that fluoride is not effective in preventing cavities, and b) the many physical ailments that fluoride has been linked to. Since we are all in agreement that both sides must be given equal weight, I am proposing a short introduction to the Cavity Prevention section describing the scientific research which illustrates the above points, without going into specific detail. I agree this is not the place for that. If the article were to reflect the "coverage in mainstream, reliable sources," then, according to my research, the article should be 80% on the negative effects of Fluoride, and 20% on the positive. I won't hold you to that, of course. I notice you said "supposed" harm fluoride causes. Are you saying you do not believe Fluoride is harmful? Are you familiar with current science on the issue? -- AeronM ( talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, the more research I do, the more interesting it becomes. I think we should also include the Harvard Study. Would Harvard University be an acceptable source to you, Jersko? -- AeronM ( talk) 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
After stepping back a bit, I think I've noticed something regarding the different approaches we are taking here. Please do not take offense if I mischaracterize any position, these are merely my observations. AeronM is citing global warming and the cigarette cancer link because these subjects demonstrate that the minority view can and often should overtake the majority view on scientific subjects. In other words, scientists believe a paradigm, which is challenged by an individual or group. Eventually, the challenging theory becomes the new paradigm. AeronM appears to believe that the fluoride debate is following or has followed the same path. Whether this is true or not, however, is irrelevant. Why? First, the paradigm has not been replaced regarding fluoride. The legal, scientific, and organizational consensus is clearly still not anywhere near where the paradigm challengers want it to be. Thus, comparing the fluoride debate to cigarettes or global warming is a faulty analogy. Second, and most importantly, we should be looking at whether this article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not how the fluoride debate compares to other public health debates. · jersyko talk 00:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Since Water Fluoridation has a Water Fluoridation Controversy page, let's add a Fluoride Controversy page. I think it would be appropriate, don't you agree? -- AeronM ( talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Smokefoot, deleting chunks of sourced material is a no-no at wiki and could be considered vandalism. Please discuss major edits here on the talkpage first. Thanks. -- AeronM ( talk) 02:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
"Since World War II, fluoride is believed to be the most poisonous toxic waste coming from factory smokestacks. [14] [15] [16] [17] Fluoride pollution is also known for causing what is considered the worst industrial air pollution disaster in U.S. history. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] In fact, it was this disaster which is believed to have jump-started the U.S. environmental movement. [23]" This kind of grandiose claim seems suspect. At the least, few fluoride compounds are coming out of any smokestacks. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, dear, I think we all need to rehash Chemistry 101. For the record, the problem with toxic emissions from smokestacks in places like Donora, Pennsylvania, was hydrogen fluoride, also known as hydrofluoric acid, which is a strong and highly corrosive acid (among other things, it dissolves glass). The fact that hydrofluoric acid vapor is horrible stuff to be exposed to does not mean that all fluoride compounds are highly toxic. For analogy, consider that chlorine gas is highly toxic and has been used as a chemical weapon, but sodium chloride (table salt) is pretty innocuous stuff (indeed, the sodium is a bigger risk to humans than the chloride). -- Orlady ( talk) 03:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there is already an article describing the fluoride controversy, I find that the controversy should be given a brief mention in the fluoride page, with a link to the water fluoridation controversy page per WP:UNDUE. I also feel strongly that the sources cited by AeronM fail WP:RS, belonging for the most part, activist/advocacy groups. Lastly, he uses superlatives to describe fluoride's toxicity, though WP:REDFLAG states that exceptional claims (which include superlatives, IMHO) require exceptional proof.
I see no point in quoting diffs and making references to a person's conduct; the issue is simple, the discussion is focussed here, nobody has been going around censoring comments, and the participants are still civil. I thus request an RFC to simply determine what should be or should not be in the article.-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that some discussion is here. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - This article needs to be about this form of the element, its reactivity, the compounds containing fluoride, its sources and uses in industry, and its functions and toxicology in living organisms. Perhaps a sentence or two could note that fluoride is added to some drinking water, but discussing this at length, using WP:Fringe sources is an obvious breach of the neutral point of view policy. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You also forgot to alert me to this RfC on my talk page, which I believe is proper per wiki policy. PS I am a 'she' not a 'he,' FYI. -- AeronM ( talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Rifleman 82, I am curious to know why you have added the POV tag to the fluoride salts section. -- AeronM ( talk) 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Itub, if you believe the fluoride that is put in the water we drink does not come from smokestacks (and other industrial waste), then perhaps you could enlighten us. You will need references, of course, if the info in the article is to be altered. -- AeronM ( talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The uses and sources of fluorine compounds in industrial applications definitely are appropriate content for Wikipedia, although not necessarily for this article. Based on this reliable information source (a USGS commodities report on fluorspar), it is true that much fluorine is acquired as a byproduct (for example, by extracting it from industrial waste streams), but it would be a gross oversimplification to say that all of it comes from "industrial waste" or any other specific source. According to the USGS report I cite here, fluorosilicic acid (the compound used in fluoridation of water) is produced primarily as a byproduct from processing of phosphate rock to make phosphoric acid, and represents no more than about 12% of total U.S. usage of fluorine compounds. -- Orlady ( talk) 16:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Orlady, since that is the 4th revert of that piece of information, I beg you to consider a discussion here on the take page. The contribution was made in good faith and citing valid resources per WP:RS. You have not provided sufficient reasons to delete it. Your comment that the worst fluoride-related air pollution disaster does not belong in the toxicology section of the Fluoride page confuses me. -- AeronM ( talk) 22:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A review of the article history is instructive:
The above discussions about fluoride are so long that I have lost track of where we are, other than some of the antifluoridation links look questionable. I was going to re-edit that article to bring some balance to the references. As it stands, there are three general references about fluoride chem and technology and 15 references to pro/anti fluoridation, mainly dealing with risks and the controversy. This 15:3 ratio is out of balance with an article about fluoride. So I propose to trim many of the fluoridation reports (and put them here).-- Smokefoot ( talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
One lesson that many of editors learned: Googling is a rotten mechanism to obtain technical information because the quality of the hits is uneven and the hits are often tainted by sensationalism/commercialism/self-promotion. My guess is that the many references in this article are derived from Google searches. More effective ways of extracting technical information are via scientific search engines and on-line (but not free always) reference works. Googling is great for getting the latest on Britney Spears, an opinion on Hillary, and the latest scores on Aussie Rules, but not very useful for scientific topics.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Smokefoot's recent version is the best so far. The operative sentence here is: "Fluoride-containing compounds are so diverse that it is not possible to generalize on the their toxicity." Thus a lengthy discussion is toxicology is meaningless; it should be relegated to the appropriate compound pages. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 05:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
All this negativity about fluoride is probably part of a campaign to distract us from far more dangerous chemicals that are forced on our daily lives without our knowledge. Did you know that there is a far worse chemical that:
I could go on and on, but I'll just refer you to a reliable source detailing many of the other dangers of this chemical. [23] -- Itub ( talk) 05:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)The dihydrogen monoxide hoax involves listing negative effects of water under an unfamiliar scientific name, then asking individuals to help control the seemingly dangerous substance. The hoax is designed to illustrate how the lack of scientific knowledge and an exaggerated analysis can lead to misplaced fears. Dihydrogen monoxide, shortened to DHMO, is a scientific name for water that, while technically correct, is almost never employed. ...
In 1997, Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old junior high student at Eagle Rock Junior High School in Idaho Falls, Idaho, gathered 43 votes to ban the chemical, out of 50 people surveyed among his classmates. Zohner received the first prize at Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair for analysis of the results of his survey.[1] In recognition of his experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term "Zohnerism" to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion."[4]
Once again, this section reads like a pamphlet from the ADA. Where is the other side? All of my attempts to get this article, and this section in particular, to NPOV have been summarily deleted by the fluoride gestapo. I give up. Some other sucker is going to have to go up against the bullies, cuz frankly, I have better things to do. I'll check back in a month or two to see if the article is anywhere closer to NPOV.... but I won't hold my breath! -- AeronM ( talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am back from vacation and wondering where we are on the RfC? I also notice the Cavity prevention section still reads like a Pro-Flouride brochure from the ADA. Can we mention the other side of the issue here? Also, I am concerned that the recent additions of chemical formulas and terminology are beginning to get too technical for the average reader. Certainly the article would benefit from some simplification and streamlining, then list some external refs for further reading on the more technical/chemical stuff. -- AeronM ( talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you give specific examples of terms or formulas that you think are inaccessible? Articles should be made as readable as possible, but not at the expense of "dumbing them down" to the point of introducing inaccuracies, and sometimes the terms and formulas are the only way of being precise. -- Itub ( talk) 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)