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 |
Greenwood and Earnshaw, p. 792, provides a very succinct discussion of the toxicity of fluoride in drinking water. If anyone is going to alter the current article text on fluoridation, they might like to consider the main points raised in this authoritative textbook on inorganic chemistry.
In a nutshell:
This seems to be a balanced coverage of the issue, while giving due weight to the chemistry and not dwelling too long on controversy. The uncontroversial points are just as important as the controversial ones, but controversy always gets a lot of attention.
Fluorides aren't nearly as toxic as many other chemical species, but they are common in everyday experience and commonly encountered forms do have some degree of toxicity, so that is worth noting. I am ambivalent about the fluoridation controversy (I'm much more likely to die of something else!) but it's just interesting to see toxicity discussed and compared - I like reading about the toxicity of compounds, it's just one more aspect of their behaviour, i.e. how they react with people:
:| + mF− → :D
:) + nF− → :(
(m = just the right amount, n = too much)
Ben ( talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The above is not a balanced presentation of the toxicology of Fluorine/Fluoride. Please see Christopher Bryson's work on the topic of Fluoride toxicity. His book is easily the most cohesive and exhaustive treatment on Fluoride. He has utilized actual research, original documentation and simple logic to show exactly how toxic and harmful fluoride is to humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.252.94 ( talk) 06:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The title of Christopher Bryson's book is "the fluoride deception". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.252.94 ( talk) 06:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Lisa Christina ( talk) 22:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The article is new and might get into this fluoridation controversy!-- Stone ( talk) 16:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, hydrogen fluoride is a weak acid, therefore the fluoride anion is a relatively strong base. Shouldn't its alkanity appear in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.142.12 ( talk) 16:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Under "Occurrence"
1) "Its closest chemical relative is hydroxide." Please add a reference and state what does it really mean. I know that they both have the same van der Waal radius, that is probably what the author meant ?
2) "The Si-F linkage is one of the strongest single bonds" Energy ? Compare to something else maybe, usually C-C.
Under "Applications"
3) "It is principally used in the production of fluorocarbons ..." If my memory serves well, they use "magic acid" or SbF5 + HF. But I am not too sure about that. I will try to find a reference. Mandor ( talk) 23:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have applied tags to the section Fluoride#Invisible_water. The assertions are not duly sourced; they are apparently reported with serious distortion from an unnamed Mythbusters episode. The gas may be dense, but that does not make it "invisible water". If the section is not amended within a few days, it ought to be deleted.
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 02:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
There's no discussion of this issue that I can see, so I've downgraded this article to C-class, as this is an important topic/application (the rest of the applications are conveyed telegraphically as well). NAP has a free book (chapter) on this. I'll update the article from it over the weekend unless someone beats me to it. Also, it's not clear to me what should go in this article, as opposed to the article on the element itself, fluorine. Since this is a more general question, I've started a discussion at WT:CHEM. Xasodfuih ( talk) 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a friend who tells me the Nazis used to fluoride on prisoners to make them docile. All I can find about this is a few words purported to be from someone called Ian E. Stephenson and a few words purported to be from Charles Perkins. I was expecting to come to Wikipedia and be able to get the lowdown on this but found nothing. Am I wrong to expect to be able to find information either way on this kind of claim? I thought if there's any place it's Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.15.189 ( talk) 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I keep returning to the claim that this was revealed during the Nuremberg Trials. A review of the minutes of these trials may refute or support this. I have also read that Emanuel H. Bronner, the "Philosophical Soap Maker", allegedly Albert Einstein's nephew, who's products are still a favorite with hippies, made claims to this effect enthusiastically. He was arrested for making speeches against war and against fluoridation of drinking water which landed him in a Milwaukee jail, then transferred to a mental institution in Elgin, Ill., where allegedly he was given fluoride treatment and shock therapy. This is interesting to me because he was a chemist with many patents, a former captive in a Nazi prison camp who lost his parents to the holocaust, and who later attempted to expose "the global plot to poison the water supplies" through several publications. Another angle to this story is that enormous amounts of Fluoride were necessary to build the Bomb, who his uncle Albert Einstein was involved with, so Fluoride became in many ways tied up with the war effort and came to be seen as the other great bomb of the war. It's apparent that Bronner had many misgivings about war, and considered Fluoride in the water an act of war on par with the bomb based on his own seemingly relevant life experiences. -- Pickled beet eggs ( talk) 02:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I suggest once we see that Pickled is unable to respond with a reliable cite that we delete this and other forum-like discussions on the de-merits of water fluoridation. These fringe groups apparently have decided to use the Talk pages as a secondary forum, since their additions are swiftly removed from the articles. The fluoride pages - about 4 of them - merit some greater protection such that only registered users can edit them, although I realize administrators are wary of inhibiting (or appearing to suppress) free exchange of ideas. These articles are pretty stable, as is the technology, so the risks of excluding major developments by semi-protection are small IMHO. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 05:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed a couple of paragraphs in the toxicology section dealing with organoF compounds such as pyrolyzed Teflon and the nerve gas sarin. I am not trying to suppress this information, but it just does not see very relevant to an article on fluoride (F-). I also added a section essentially verbatim from the safety section of the article on sodium fluoride.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Fluoride is the element fluorine bonded with another element.
The following sites have information about this. http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele009.html http://www.fluoroseal.com/fluorine.html ( Zxoxm ( talk) 10:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
Yes Textbooks are a good place to learn about what fluoride is.( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)) Fluoride is the fluorine ion only when it is combined with another element. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.176.88 ( talk) 18:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you please explain how fluoride is currently being measured in the human body (i.e. hair, nails, blood, urine, bone or teeth)? We know too much results in dental fluorosis (i.e. mottled, pitted, and brittle teeth). This is actually dental damage that clearly benefits the dental industry. So how do they scientifically determine how much fluoride is in the human body? And who does this? The doctors, dentists, or the municipal water districts? You can't measure fluoride levels in the human body by counting cavities. It is unscientific. And it builds up in the body over your lifetime as less than 50% is excreted by the body. What scientific body in the USA is responsible for determining the population's fluoride levels in order to avoid potentially costly dental fluorosis? Measuring fluoride levels in tap water does not determine the levels in the human body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 22:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.202.162 ( talk) 02:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Why does sourced content (that I, not a sock) have added get removed [1] [2] with minor edits when removing content is a reason not to mark a diff as a minor edit? Furthermore, what does sock have to do with it? - Shootbamboo ( talk) 02:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | There have been a number of studies in humans on the relationship between cognitive function and fluoride in drinking water (Fan et al. 1991; Guo et al. 1991; He et al. 1989; Li et al. 1994; Li et al. 1995; Lu et al. 2000; Qin and Cui 1990; Ren et al. 1989; Zhao et al. 1996, Xiang et al. 2003 ). Studies by Zhao (Zhao et al. 1996), Lu (Lu et al. 2000), and Xiang (Xiang et al. 2003) have indicated an association between higher levels of drinking-water fluoride and a lower intelligence quotient (IQ) in children, but
other studies (WHO 2002) did not find such an association. |
” |
Lisa Christina ( talk) 22:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
@ Shootbamboo: Your "problems" here likely stem from the fact that Wikipedia has (recently and currently) been under intense attack by one or more anti-fluoridation activists (collectively tied to User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips), and your edits meant you happened to wander directly into the line of sight of a number of sock hunters who suddenly saw you in their crosshairs! A case of mistaken identity in such a case can sometimes lead to some misunderstandings, but fortunately no actual shootings, as Wikipedians don't shoot real bullets from their wikirifles...;-) After looking at your MO, user- and talk pages, and contribution history, I AGF and trust you're okay. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that iodine deficiency has been reported as accociated with a 10-15 point IQ loss, which is a major issue globally. Similarly, I have read that Fluoride can disrupt the function of the thyroid gland, resulting in hypothyroid symptoms. This alone raises the question that Fluoride might also be accociated with a similar IQ loss simply by way of it's effect on the thyroid during development, ex. tap water use during pregnancy or/or formula feeding. Specifically, are there citations that may support a connection between Fluoride exposure and subclinical cretinism, resulting from hypothyroid symptoms? Or perhaps there is compelling evidence but simply no unbiased sources? The research in India and China seems to observe a 10-15 point IQ loss, similar to iodine deficiency, in cases where Fluoride exposure was sufficient only to causes questionable or mild white spots in many cases. This has huge implications for countries like the United States where over 40% of children are now exhibiting white spots, and similarly decreasing IQ scores are reported. -- Pickled beet eggs ( talk) 02:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
HHS and EPA Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride. There may be something usable here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
1/10: EPA Proposes to Withdraw Use of Pesticide Sulfuryl Fluoride on Food http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sulfuryl-fluoride/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.11.70 ( talk) 03:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This section links to water fluoridation as the main article. Should it not link to Fluoride therapy? This page outlines the several methods of cavity prevention with fluoride of which water fluoridation is only one.
Any objections to it being changed? GadBeebe ( talk) 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The statement "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" cites two references. One of those references is a meta study (abstract mentions a review of other studies). The other study makes a bald assertion in the abstract. Is there a reputable controlled study on systemic ingestion of fluoride that can be added? Xkit ( talk) 02:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Bald assertions and appeal to authority are doubtful, yes.
The claim "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" is unsupported. Does adding fluoride to water reduce tooth decay? Need a controlled study with a control group and groups using varying doses. The statement should probably be more specific, too, e.g. "ingestion of [x amount] of sodium fluoride results in reduced tooth decay."
I see that the link at the end of that sentence to the talk page was removed. What is the proper way to add a link to the talk page for unverified claims? Xkit ( talk) 03:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi John, I got your welcome message on my user talk page. Thanks! Rather than reply on your user talk, or my user talk, I wanted to address what I see here. If I've done something wrong, please let me know what it was and how to correct it. The welcome material you sent includes the [
Sources] document, which links to the [
[3]] document. The Verifiability document states: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed" and "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies" and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".
I did a PubMed search for `systemic fluoride` but did not find valid scientific evidence proving that systemic ingestion fluoride reduces tooth decay. I found evidence that stannous flouride works topically, but that is a different story, and so doesn't support the claim that water fluoridation is effective.
The page will be changed the opposite of what it says. There is in fact no valid scientific evidence to show that ingestion of fluoride improves tooth decay.
Those who believe that systemic ingestion of either hexafluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride prevents tooth decay must bear burden of evidence before adding or restoring such material. Currently, no valid scientific research exists to support that claim. Xkit ( talk) 07:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
We still have no valid scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride reduces tooth decay.
Though we do now have evidence that the earth revolves around the sun (and not the other way around). Fancy that! And poor old Galileo spent all that time on house arrest :-(. Misconceptions are rife. Xkit ( talk) 00:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that source 17 answers that question for dental decay, which was a meta-study conducted not only by the CDC, but by the the US NAVY, and GIT, which are reliable institutions. who writes the following in the summery:
Twenty studies were included in the final body of evidence. Among studies published after/during 1980, any fluoride (self- and professionally applied or water fluoridation) annually averted 0.29 (95%CI: 0.16–0.42) carious coronal and 0.22 (95%CI: 0.08–0.37) carious root surfaces. The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27% (95%CI: 19%–34%). These findings suggest that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages.
It is quite clear that the question of whether or not prevents dental decay has been answered in those 20 studies. If you want your questions answered about the nitty-gritty, you should read each of those studies. Or ask a researcher at a local university.
"Heterogeneity was present. Heterogeneity was not an issue when we pooled the 5 fluoridation studies published after 1979."
"Documenting the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing/managing dental caries among adults is important."
Study compares two groups: Deming and Lordsburg. Lordsburg got 3.5mg F/L (5 times the "optimal" amount), Deming got 0.7, which is officially considered the "optimum" amount. The conclusion was essentially 3.5mg /L works better than 0.7mg/L.
Also, please refrain from personal attacks and focus on the content, and not the contributor. Otherwise, you are going to have a tough time convincing other contributors to this article of your views on this subject. Phearson ( talk) 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
"Well, since you are so sure that the study is biased, and that truly Fluoride does not prevent tooth decay" I kindly asked you to read my arguments from my very first post and after I restated them again. And here again, my very first claim: "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" is unsupported.
Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies (sic). You're off in space with your "Flouride does not prevent tooth decay" (sic). Who wrote that? You did. You misquoted me. You discredit yourself by making such gross misstatements (and to a lesser degree with misspelling). For your own sake, don't do that. And for the fifth time, IIRC, the discussion is about water fluoridation.
And for the last time, my initial statement:
The statement "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" is unsupported
Got it?
I carefully cited the relevant bits of the CDC's useless study "Effectiveness of Fluoride in Preventing Caries in Adults". I suggest you read them, along with the study itself, and my analysis before commenting on them.
You also wrote that I was "so sure that the study is biased". I didn't write that. But you touch upon a concerning point. Is the study biased? Can a CDC funded study used to justify CDC policy be considered neutral? BTW, the researcher on that study, Susan O. Griffin PhD, was also paid to conduct another metastudy to justify the economics of community water fluoridation (see "An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation").
And I am genuinely concerned about the edit block. I will bring it up with those admins you mentioned, thanks. Xkit ( talk) 08:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Fluorite crystals 270x444.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC) |
The mineral fluorite, a common mineral and chief source of fluoride for commercial applications. Citations are needed for the claims made here. If the challenged material can not be cited then it must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 ( talk) 03:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Link added was a dead link. A good citation must be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 ( talk) 20:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
From the cited reference: "All industrial hydrofluoric acid production starts from fluorite. Processes based on the recovery of fluorosilicic acid from phosphate rock have not yet gone beyond the development stage."
Is this ambiguous? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 20:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
It could be said that that is ambiguous as well untrue. First hydrofluoric acid is not fluorite or fluoride. The mineral fluorite is not a phosphate rock. Apatite is a phosphate rock mined to make hydrofluoric acid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 ( talk)
I don't understand why you find this statement so disagreeable. Have you read this cited reference? You seem to spend a lot of effort on this small point, whereas apatite does not have a reference. If you find a source which tells us something different, feel free to discuss -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 21:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
The mineral fluorite is not the chief source for fluoride for commercial applications as the current caption says. Now 2 sources are cites and neither one has any information that says the chief source of fluoride for commercial applications is from the mineral fluorite. Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Information that is not cited must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 ( talk) 23:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The information is not supported by the cited sources. That is why the tags were put on. But no one can help stupid and you all are stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.169.20 ( talk) 03:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
NIST WebBook list the entropy as a different value, which is right? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 13:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I just removed a lot of material about covalent compounds containing fluorine. This has nothing to do with fluoride, except perhaps in the synthesis, which was not mentioned in those sections. JSR ( talk) 13:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems Harvard also thinks fluoride makes us dumb.
“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”
As described in the first sentence (though somewhat obtusely), fluoride by definition is attached to another element, forming a molecule. The article then goes on to frequently treat fluoride as if it is running about independantly, though that would be fluorine, not fluoride. So, the writer(s) are not always describing the actual compounds, thus misleading the reader and perpetuating this confusion. I'd like to see a chemistry expert really tackle this and correct these errors, and also with the article "Water fluoridation," which also incorrectly talks about fluoride as an independant molecule, rather than as an element in a molecule. It's silly, like calling water 'hydrogen' just because the element hydrogen comprises part of the water molecule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.111.209 ( talk) 05:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Saying that is misleading. See article online from book "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds" (page 791) regarding dental fluorosis...
"Mottled teeth are not only disfiguring in appearance but are so defective in structure and strength that they often have to be replaced by false teeth at an early age." http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50295a026
Also note the footnote in lower left of page in "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds", page 791:
"Fluoride determinations made by the modified Fairchild ferric chloride method described in Aria Expt. Sta. Tech Bull 43(1932). Unpublished data at hand now indicate that a concentration of fluorine in water of as little as 1 p.p.m. as determined by the Willard or Foster methods of analysis as sufficient to cause mottled enamel of human teeth. A concentration of 2 p.p.m. is now found to be associated with mottled enamel of the more severe type."
Perhaps you could stick with the facts? This information was available in 1934. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 23:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that dental fluorosis is just the visual effect of what is now believed to be a general systemic effect, affecting other organs and not just teeth. If this is true, then surely we should not dismiss dental fluorosis as 'merely aesthetic'. Lisa Christina ( talk) 23:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The "toxicology" section needs two things:
1. To be written in less technical terms using fewer mentions of dosage etc.
2. To be more neutrally written. Currently it is severely alarmist and does not discuss the fact that water supplies and toothpaste generally have only trace amounts of fluoride not comparable to fatal doses. This ought to be included given the amount of media attention towards de-fluoridation. - Sweet Nightmares 00:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to have a tension about if it is about the ion or fluorine compounds in general. (And then if about organic or inorganic). Given this thing is pretty short and we now have a very well structured and long article on compounds of fluorine, I wonder if we could repurpose this to be just about the ion. Put a hatnote of explanation, link to compounds article, and cut the general compounds chemistry.
We would keep some general discussion of the ion, it's properties in water and sure...little dental and tox stuff.
But I don't want no fights and if someone loves this, I will just stay away...can live with the inconsistency. And definitely don't want the compounds article harmed.
TCO ( talk) 23:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this a real application or something that is in research to be an application?
"Biomedical applications[edit]
Fluoride salts are commonly used to inhibit the activity of phosphatases, such as serine/threonine phosphatases.[18] Fluoride mimics the nucleophilic hydroxyl ion in these enzymes' active sites.[19] Beryllium fluoride and aluminium fluoride are also used as phosphatase inhibitors, since these compounds are structural mimics of the phosphate group and can act as analogues of the transition state of the reaction.[20][21]"
TCO ( talk) 02:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
What is the reaction, if any, of fluoride when exposed to Ultraviolet radiation? 50.47.111.214 ( talk) 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears that there are certain editors watching this article who believe that WP:RS is open to interpretation when it comes to including fluoride's recent recognition as a neurotoxicant, as reported in this month's edition of The Lancet. My edits in this regard have been twice reverted on questionable grounds that go against WP:LGL and in particular WP:EQ and appear to have been done so based on WP:OR/ WP:Opinion vs. the WP:RS test.
The Lancet is a widely-accepted, unbiased, authoritative, independent, published, scholarly, secondary source medical journal that unequivocally meets the WP:RS and WP:V tests. Therefore, a properly-sourced note on fluoride's recent classification as a neurotoxicant, such as the one I posted, is worthy of inclusion on this topic. There should be no debate or contention about this for those who respect the legitimacy and verifiability of reliable sources such as The Lancet.
I heartily invite counterarguments to this premise and/or the inclusion of this new, properly-sourced, verifiable information on fluoride toxicity. - Wikiwag ( blahblah...) 16:36, 5 March 2014 (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 |
Greenwood and Earnshaw, p. 792, provides a very succinct discussion of the toxicity of fluoride in drinking water. If anyone is going to alter the current article text on fluoridation, they might like to consider the main points raised in this authoritative textbook on inorganic chemistry.
In a nutshell:
This seems to be a balanced coverage of the issue, while giving due weight to the chemistry and not dwelling too long on controversy. The uncontroversial points are just as important as the controversial ones, but controversy always gets a lot of attention.
Fluorides aren't nearly as toxic as many other chemical species, but they are common in everyday experience and commonly encountered forms do have some degree of toxicity, so that is worth noting. I am ambivalent about the fluoridation controversy (I'm much more likely to die of something else!) but it's just interesting to see toxicity discussed and compared - I like reading about the toxicity of compounds, it's just one more aspect of their behaviour, i.e. how they react with people:
:| + mF− → :D
:) + nF− → :(
(m = just the right amount, n = too much)
Ben ( talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The above is not a balanced presentation of the toxicology of Fluorine/Fluoride. Please see Christopher Bryson's work on the topic of Fluoride toxicity. His book is easily the most cohesive and exhaustive treatment on Fluoride. He has utilized actual research, original documentation and simple logic to show exactly how toxic and harmful fluoride is to humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.252.94 ( talk) 06:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The title of Christopher Bryson's book is "the fluoride deception". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.252.94 ( talk) 06:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Lisa Christina ( talk) 22:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The article is new and might get into this fluoridation controversy!-- Stone ( talk) 16:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, hydrogen fluoride is a weak acid, therefore the fluoride anion is a relatively strong base. Shouldn't its alkanity appear in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.142.12 ( talk) 16:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Under "Occurrence"
1) "Its closest chemical relative is hydroxide." Please add a reference and state what does it really mean. I know that they both have the same van der Waal radius, that is probably what the author meant ?
2) "The Si-F linkage is one of the strongest single bonds" Energy ? Compare to something else maybe, usually C-C.
Under "Applications"
3) "It is principally used in the production of fluorocarbons ..." If my memory serves well, they use "magic acid" or SbF5 + HF. But I am not too sure about that. I will try to find a reference. Mandor ( talk) 23:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have applied tags to the section Fluoride#Invisible_water. The assertions are not duly sourced; they are apparently reported with serious distortion from an unnamed Mythbusters episode. The gas may be dense, but that does not make it "invisible water". If the section is not amended within a few days, it ought to be deleted.
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 02:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
There's no discussion of this issue that I can see, so I've downgraded this article to C-class, as this is an important topic/application (the rest of the applications are conveyed telegraphically as well). NAP has a free book (chapter) on this. I'll update the article from it over the weekend unless someone beats me to it. Also, it's not clear to me what should go in this article, as opposed to the article on the element itself, fluorine. Since this is a more general question, I've started a discussion at WT:CHEM. Xasodfuih ( talk) 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a friend who tells me the Nazis used to fluoride on prisoners to make them docile. All I can find about this is a few words purported to be from someone called Ian E. Stephenson and a few words purported to be from Charles Perkins. I was expecting to come to Wikipedia and be able to get the lowdown on this but found nothing. Am I wrong to expect to be able to find information either way on this kind of claim? I thought if there's any place it's Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.15.189 ( talk) 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I keep returning to the claim that this was revealed during the Nuremberg Trials. A review of the minutes of these trials may refute or support this. I have also read that Emanuel H. Bronner, the "Philosophical Soap Maker", allegedly Albert Einstein's nephew, who's products are still a favorite with hippies, made claims to this effect enthusiastically. He was arrested for making speeches against war and against fluoridation of drinking water which landed him in a Milwaukee jail, then transferred to a mental institution in Elgin, Ill., where allegedly he was given fluoride treatment and shock therapy. This is interesting to me because he was a chemist with many patents, a former captive in a Nazi prison camp who lost his parents to the holocaust, and who later attempted to expose "the global plot to poison the water supplies" through several publications. Another angle to this story is that enormous amounts of Fluoride were necessary to build the Bomb, who his uncle Albert Einstein was involved with, so Fluoride became in many ways tied up with the war effort and came to be seen as the other great bomb of the war. It's apparent that Bronner had many misgivings about war, and considered Fluoride in the water an act of war on par with the bomb based on his own seemingly relevant life experiences. -- Pickled beet eggs ( talk) 02:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I suggest once we see that Pickled is unable to respond with a reliable cite that we delete this and other forum-like discussions on the de-merits of water fluoridation. These fringe groups apparently have decided to use the Talk pages as a secondary forum, since their additions are swiftly removed from the articles. The fluoride pages - about 4 of them - merit some greater protection such that only registered users can edit them, although I realize administrators are wary of inhibiting (or appearing to suppress) free exchange of ideas. These articles are pretty stable, as is the technology, so the risks of excluding major developments by semi-protection are small IMHO. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 05:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed a couple of paragraphs in the toxicology section dealing with organoF compounds such as pyrolyzed Teflon and the nerve gas sarin. I am not trying to suppress this information, but it just does not see very relevant to an article on fluoride (F-). I also added a section essentially verbatim from the safety section of the article on sodium fluoride.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Fluoride is the element fluorine bonded with another element.
The following sites have information about this. http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele009.html http://www.fluoroseal.com/fluorine.html ( Zxoxm ( talk) 10:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
Yes Textbooks are a good place to learn about what fluoride is.( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)) Fluoride is the fluorine ion only when it is combined with another element. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.176.88 ( talk) 18:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you please explain how fluoride is currently being measured in the human body (i.e. hair, nails, blood, urine, bone or teeth)? We know too much results in dental fluorosis (i.e. mottled, pitted, and brittle teeth). This is actually dental damage that clearly benefits the dental industry. So how do they scientifically determine how much fluoride is in the human body? And who does this? The doctors, dentists, or the municipal water districts? You can't measure fluoride levels in the human body by counting cavities. It is unscientific. And it builds up in the body over your lifetime as less than 50% is excreted by the body. What scientific body in the USA is responsible for determining the population's fluoride levels in order to avoid potentially costly dental fluorosis? Measuring fluoride levels in tap water does not determine the levels in the human body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 22:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.202.162 ( talk) 02:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Why does sourced content (that I, not a sock) have added get removed [1] [2] with minor edits when removing content is a reason not to mark a diff as a minor edit? Furthermore, what does sock have to do with it? - Shootbamboo ( talk) 02:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | There have been a number of studies in humans on the relationship between cognitive function and fluoride in drinking water (Fan et al. 1991; Guo et al. 1991; He et al. 1989; Li et al. 1994; Li et al. 1995; Lu et al. 2000; Qin and Cui 1990; Ren et al. 1989; Zhao et al. 1996, Xiang et al. 2003 ). Studies by Zhao (Zhao et al. 1996), Lu (Lu et al. 2000), and Xiang (Xiang et al. 2003) have indicated an association between higher levels of drinking-water fluoride and a lower intelligence quotient (IQ) in children, but
other studies (WHO 2002) did not find such an association. |
” |
Lisa Christina ( talk) 22:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
@ Shootbamboo: Your "problems" here likely stem from the fact that Wikipedia has (recently and currently) been under intense attack by one or more anti-fluoridation activists (collectively tied to User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips), and your edits meant you happened to wander directly into the line of sight of a number of sock hunters who suddenly saw you in their crosshairs! A case of mistaken identity in such a case can sometimes lead to some misunderstandings, but fortunately no actual shootings, as Wikipedians don't shoot real bullets from their wikirifles...;-) After looking at your MO, user- and talk pages, and contribution history, I AGF and trust you're okay. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that iodine deficiency has been reported as accociated with a 10-15 point IQ loss, which is a major issue globally. Similarly, I have read that Fluoride can disrupt the function of the thyroid gland, resulting in hypothyroid symptoms. This alone raises the question that Fluoride might also be accociated with a similar IQ loss simply by way of it's effect on the thyroid during development, ex. tap water use during pregnancy or/or formula feeding. Specifically, are there citations that may support a connection between Fluoride exposure and subclinical cretinism, resulting from hypothyroid symptoms? Or perhaps there is compelling evidence but simply no unbiased sources? The research in India and China seems to observe a 10-15 point IQ loss, similar to iodine deficiency, in cases where Fluoride exposure was sufficient only to causes questionable or mild white spots in many cases. This has huge implications for countries like the United States where over 40% of children are now exhibiting white spots, and similarly decreasing IQ scores are reported. -- Pickled beet eggs ( talk) 02:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
HHS and EPA Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride. There may be something usable here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
1/10: EPA Proposes to Withdraw Use of Pesticide Sulfuryl Fluoride on Food http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sulfuryl-fluoride/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.11.70 ( talk) 03:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This section links to water fluoridation as the main article. Should it not link to Fluoride therapy? This page outlines the several methods of cavity prevention with fluoride of which water fluoridation is only one.
Any objections to it being changed? GadBeebe ( talk) 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The statement "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" cites two references. One of those references is a meta study (abstract mentions a review of other studies). The other study makes a bald assertion in the abstract. Is there a reputable controlled study on systemic ingestion of fluoride that can be added? Xkit ( talk) 02:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Bald assertions and appeal to authority are doubtful, yes.
The claim "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" is unsupported. Does adding fluoride to water reduce tooth decay? Need a controlled study with a control group and groups using varying doses. The statement should probably be more specific, too, e.g. "ingestion of [x amount] of sodium fluoride results in reduced tooth decay."
I see that the link at the end of that sentence to the talk page was removed. What is the proper way to add a link to the talk page for unverified claims? Xkit ( talk) 03:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi John, I got your welcome message on my user talk page. Thanks! Rather than reply on your user talk, or my user talk, I wanted to address what I see here. If I've done something wrong, please let me know what it was and how to correct it. The welcome material you sent includes the [
Sources] document, which links to the [
[3]] document. The Verifiability document states: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed" and "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies" and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".
I did a PubMed search for `systemic fluoride` but did not find valid scientific evidence proving that systemic ingestion fluoride reduces tooth decay. I found evidence that stannous flouride works topically, but that is a different story, and so doesn't support the claim that water fluoridation is effective.
The page will be changed the opposite of what it says. There is in fact no valid scientific evidence to show that ingestion of fluoride improves tooth decay.
Those who believe that systemic ingestion of either hexafluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride prevents tooth decay must bear burden of evidence before adding or restoring such material. Currently, no valid scientific research exists to support that claim. Xkit ( talk) 07:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
We still have no valid scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride reduces tooth decay.
Though we do now have evidence that the earth revolves around the sun (and not the other way around). Fancy that! And poor old Galileo spent all that time on house arrest :-(. Misconceptions are rife. Xkit ( talk) 00:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that source 17 answers that question for dental decay, which was a meta-study conducted not only by the CDC, but by the the US NAVY, and GIT, which are reliable institutions. who writes the following in the summery:
Twenty studies were included in the final body of evidence. Among studies published after/during 1980, any fluoride (self- and professionally applied or water fluoridation) annually averted 0.29 (95%CI: 0.16–0.42) carious coronal and 0.22 (95%CI: 0.08–0.37) carious root surfaces. The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27% (95%CI: 19%–34%). These findings suggest that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages.
It is quite clear that the question of whether or not prevents dental decay has been answered in those 20 studies. If you want your questions answered about the nitty-gritty, you should read each of those studies. Or ask a researcher at a local university.
"Heterogeneity was present. Heterogeneity was not an issue when we pooled the 5 fluoridation studies published after 1979."
"Documenting the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing/managing dental caries among adults is important."
Study compares two groups: Deming and Lordsburg. Lordsburg got 3.5mg F/L (5 times the "optimal" amount), Deming got 0.7, which is officially considered the "optimum" amount. The conclusion was essentially 3.5mg /L works better than 0.7mg/L.
Also, please refrain from personal attacks and focus on the content, and not the contributor. Otherwise, you are going to have a tough time convincing other contributors to this article of your views on this subject. Phearson ( talk) 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
"Well, since you are so sure that the study is biased, and that truly Fluoride does not prevent tooth decay" I kindly asked you to read my arguments from my very first post and after I restated them again. And here again, my very first claim: "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" is unsupported.
Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies (sic). You're off in space with your "Flouride does not prevent tooth decay" (sic). Who wrote that? You did. You misquoted me. You discredit yourself by making such gross misstatements (and to a lesser degree with misspelling). For your own sake, don't do that. And for the fifth time, IIRC, the discussion is about water fluoridation.
And for the last time, my initial statement:
The statement "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" is unsupported
Got it?
I carefully cited the relevant bits of the CDC's useless study "Effectiveness of Fluoride in Preventing Caries in Adults". I suggest you read them, along with the study itself, and my analysis before commenting on them.
You also wrote that I was "so sure that the study is biased". I didn't write that. But you touch upon a concerning point. Is the study biased? Can a CDC funded study used to justify CDC policy be considered neutral? BTW, the researcher on that study, Susan O. Griffin PhD, was also paid to conduct another metastudy to justify the economics of community water fluoridation (see "An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation").
And I am genuinely concerned about the edit block. I will bring it up with those admins you mentioned, thanks. Xkit ( talk) 08:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Fluorite crystals 270x444.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC) |
The mineral fluorite, a common mineral and chief source of fluoride for commercial applications. Citations are needed for the claims made here. If the challenged material can not be cited then it must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 ( talk) 03:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Link added was a dead link. A good citation must be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 ( talk) 20:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
From the cited reference: "All industrial hydrofluoric acid production starts from fluorite. Processes based on the recovery of fluorosilicic acid from phosphate rock have not yet gone beyond the development stage."
Is this ambiguous? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 20:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
It could be said that that is ambiguous as well untrue. First hydrofluoric acid is not fluorite or fluoride. The mineral fluorite is not a phosphate rock. Apatite is a phosphate rock mined to make hydrofluoric acid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 ( talk)
I don't understand why you find this statement so disagreeable. Have you read this cited reference? You seem to spend a lot of effort on this small point, whereas apatite does not have a reference. If you find a source which tells us something different, feel free to discuss -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 21:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
The mineral fluorite is not the chief source for fluoride for commercial applications as the current caption says. Now 2 sources are cites and neither one has any information that says the chief source of fluoride for commercial applications is from the mineral fluorite. Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Information that is not cited must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 ( talk) 23:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The information is not supported by the cited sources. That is why the tags were put on. But no one can help stupid and you all are stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.169.20 ( talk) 03:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
NIST WebBook list the entropy as a different value, which is right? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 13:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I just removed a lot of material about covalent compounds containing fluorine. This has nothing to do with fluoride, except perhaps in the synthesis, which was not mentioned in those sections. JSR ( talk) 13:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems Harvard also thinks fluoride makes us dumb.
“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”
As described in the first sentence (though somewhat obtusely), fluoride by definition is attached to another element, forming a molecule. The article then goes on to frequently treat fluoride as if it is running about independantly, though that would be fluorine, not fluoride. So, the writer(s) are not always describing the actual compounds, thus misleading the reader and perpetuating this confusion. I'd like to see a chemistry expert really tackle this and correct these errors, and also with the article "Water fluoridation," which also incorrectly talks about fluoride as an independant molecule, rather than as an element in a molecule. It's silly, like calling water 'hydrogen' just because the element hydrogen comprises part of the water molecule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.111.209 ( talk) 05:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Saying that is misleading. See article online from book "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds" (page 791) regarding dental fluorosis...
"Mottled teeth are not only disfiguring in appearance but are so defective in structure and strength that they often have to be replaced by false teeth at an early age." http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50295a026
Also note the footnote in lower left of page in "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds", page 791:
"Fluoride determinations made by the modified Fairchild ferric chloride method described in Aria Expt. Sta. Tech Bull 43(1932). Unpublished data at hand now indicate that a concentration of fluorine in water of as little as 1 p.p.m. as determined by the Willard or Foster methods of analysis as sufficient to cause mottled enamel of human teeth. A concentration of 2 p.p.m. is now found to be associated with mottled enamel of the more severe type."
Perhaps you could stick with the facts? This information was available in 1934. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 23:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that dental fluorosis is just the visual effect of what is now believed to be a general systemic effect, affecting other organs and not just teeth. If this is true, then surely we should not dismiss dental fluorosis as 'merely aesthetic'. Lisa Christina ( talk) 23:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The "toxicology" section needs two things:
1. To be written in less technical terms using fewer mentions of dosage etc.
2. To be more neutrally written. Currently it is severely alarmist and does not discuss the fact that water supplies and toothpaste generally have only trace amounts of fluoride not comparable to fatal doses. This ought to be included given the amount of media attention towards de-fluoridation. - Sweet Nightmares 00:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to have a tension about if it is about the ion or fluorine compounds in general. (And then if about organic or inorganic). Given this thing is pretty short and we now have a very well structured and long article on compounds of fluorine, I wonder if we could repurpose this to be just about the ion. Put a hatnote of explanation, link to compounds article, and cut the general compounds chemistry.
We would keep some general discussion of the ion, it's properties in water and sure...little dental and tox stuff.
But I don't want no fights and if someone loves this, I will just stay away...can live with the inconsistency. And definitely don't want the compounds article harmed.
TCO ( talk) 23:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this a real application or something that is in research to be an application?
"Biomedical applications[edit]
Fluoride salts are commonly used to inhibit the activity of phosphatases, such as serine/threonine phosphatases.[18] Fluoride mimics the nucleophilic hydroxyl ion in these enzymes' active sites.[19] Beryllium fluoride and aluminium fluoride are also used as phosphatase inhibitors, since these compounds are structural mimics of the phosphate group and can act as analogues of the transition state of the reaction.[20][21]"
TCO ( talk) 02:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
What is the reaction, if any, of fluoride when exposed to Ultraviolet radiation? 50.47.111.214 ( talk) 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears that there are certain editors watching this article who believe that WP:RS is open to interpretation when it comes to including fluoride's recent recognition as a neurotoxicant, as reported in this month's edition of The Lancet. My edits in this regard have been twice reverted on questionable grounds that go against WP:LGL and in particular WP:EQ and appear to have been done so based on WP:OR/ WP:Opinion vs. the WP:RS test.
The Lancet is a widely-accepted, unbiased, authoritative, independent, published, scholarly, secondary source medical journal that unequivocally meets the WP:RS and WP:V tests. Therefore, a properly-sourced note on fluoride's recent classification as a neurotoxicant, such as the one I posted, is worthy of inclusion on this topic. There should be no debate or contention about this for those who respect the legitimacy and verifiability of reliable sources such as The Lancet.
I heartily invite counterarguments to this premise and/or the inclusion of this new, properly-sourced, verifiable information on fluoride toxicity. - Wikiwag ( blahblah...) 16:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)