![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Fluorine deficiency.
|
Fluorine has not been authoritatively shown to be an essential nutrient in the human diet (see my comments and linkage on the Essential Nutrient - Talk page). Therefore, a condition of "fluorine deficiency" cannot be shown either. This entry not only too short but IMO errondeous. Dus7 06:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Dus7. No other trace mineral that I know of is toxic in a high concentrations. Toxicity usually only occurs in high doses. This article is pathetic. Rift14 1:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"The extent to which the condition truly exists, and its relationship to fluoride poisoning has arisen some controversy.
Fluoride is considered essential in the development and maintenance of teeth", I don't see any contradictions? Do you? Rift14 5:01, 12 January 2007
There is no such thing as a fluoride or fluorine deficiency. They are not nutients. Please read http://www.med.uwo.ca/ecosystemhealth/education/casestudies/fluorosismed.htm. Here is the relevant portion:
What about Fluoride Deficiency?
You will not find Hypofluoremia in Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary simply because, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as human Fluoride Deficiency. Fluoride is ubiquitous in food, water, air, and most tissues of the human body, and no physiological dysfunction results from having a "theoretically impossible" Fluoride intake of zero.
The aim of artificial fluoridation of drinking water in some Western World countries as a public health measure is the prevention of dental caries. It is important to understand that dental caries are not caused by a lack of Fluoride. Rather, dental caries are caused by the presence of oral bacteria that thrive on the simple sugars that have become a prominent part of the standard American diet. The chemical action of Fluoride on teeth is to resist dissolution of the enamel by acid-producing oral bacteria.
This article should be deleted entirely.
Fluoride is not considered a nutrient therefore there is no such thing as fluoride deficiency. This page has been corrected several times however reverts back to the erroneous content. Please enable this entry to be corrected. SharonNY ( talk) 02:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
This article makes no claim that fluorine is a nutrient, so the primary prod rationale is moot. As to the document cited in the prod tag, it seems to be concerned with trace elements required to maintain "metabolic integrity", which is a quite different thing than maintaining optimal overall health. This article concerns the role of fluorine in development and maintenance of healthy teeth and bone and is quite capable of expansion. Thus, I shall remove the prod tag. Franamax ( talk) 09:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
When I looked up the definition of deficiency in my Websters New World College Dictionary, I found deficiency disease: "a disease, as rickets or pellagra, caused by a dietary lack of vitamins, minerals, etc. or by an inability to metabolize them". This article, by using the word deficiency, implies that fluorine deficiency is a deficiency disease. If this "disease" really existed, it should, IMHO, also be observed in other animals. I have made improvements to this article, with this edit, [2], for example, which vastly overstated the primary source attributed. Thank you, Franamax, for sourcing this first sentence. It removed the necessity of my tags. However, in order for me to not want this article deleted, IMHO, an authoritative source, such as the NIH, (and not a pharmaceutical company) should be cited to establish the existence of this deficiency/deficiency disease. Thank you. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Emphasizing and interpreting "may", when it is simply used by the source, seems like original research. A source analyzing the NIH's use of the word 'may' would have been needed to support the sentences added. I support the way it looks now. II | ( t - c) 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This article on fluorine deficiency, as well as that of fluoridation, lacks scientific thought and should be seriously questioned.
Repeating dated and unconfirmed research is a sign that an argument lacks evidence. Comparisons to iodide deficiency are melodramatic and inappropriate. No actual evidence that fluoride deficiency exists is presented, nor are any cases cited.
In fact, more recent research indicates that there is much greater financial motivation for deliberate fluoridation of water than there is health benefits. The industries benefiting from fluoridation should be examined, and the health claims should certainly be re-evaluated in light of more recent research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.235.31 ( talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
In 1979 the FDA required the deletion of all government references previously classifying fluoride as "essential or probably essential", (Federal Register, March 16, 1979, page 16006).
In order to have a deficiency, fluoride would have to considered a nutrient, which it is not. Having this page up implies that fluoride is a nutrient. It is deceptive, at best, and should be removed. Fluoride is a halogen just like iodine. But iodine is a nutrient. Fluoride displaces iodine in the iodine receptors og the body and thyroid gland causing fluoride-induced hypothyroidism, goiter, destruction of the thyroid gland, and even thyroid cancer. Anyone with an elementary education in nutrition knows this. Fluoride compounds were once used to treat hyperthyroidism caused by adding iodine to drinking water. This treatment was discontinued due fluorides toxic effects to the thyroid gland. Wikipedia should get the politics out of its information and simply print the facts. Fluoride is no more of a nutrient than chlorine or bromide is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 03:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Fluoride replaces iodide because of it's electron configuration! The 2p⁵ orbital jumps to a energetically favorable state, in this case 2p⁶. Because this is the second "shell" (quantum number n = 2), the distance to the nucleus is not as big as the distanced in the other halogenides (n > 2). So the 2p⁶ is energetically far lower than the 3p⁶ or 4p⁶ state e.g. more stable. Fluoride displaces the halogen iodine in the iodine receptors of the thyroid gland and the body. Medical doctors (endocrinologists) even know this (i.e. Dr. Jerry Tennant). Maybe instead of focusing on the "virulent antifluoride crowd", you should be focusing on the science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 20:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
"Oral manifestations of thyroid disorders and its management"
"Fluoride was used as a drug to treat hyperthyroidism because it reduces thyroid activity quite effectively. This is due to the ability of fluoride to mimic the action of thyrotropin (TSH). Excess fluoride correlates with the other thyroid-related issues such as iodine deficiency. Fluorine and iodine, both being members of the halogen group of atoms, have an antagonistic relationship. When there is excess of fluoride in the body it can interfere with the function of the thyroid gland. Thus, fluoride has been linked to thyroid problems." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 20:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
To be scientific, determining a fluorine "deficiency" in anyone would require medical lab work on the individual. Do they determine a deficiency with analysis of blood, urine, bone, fingernails, hair, or what? How often is this analysis done in a given population and by whom? You can't determine a deficiency by counting cavities unless your intention is to be deceptive, or unscientific. Let's look at Singapore for instance. Singapore has been 100% fluoridated since 1956 yet 40% of their preschoolers suffer from severe dental caries. Would it be scientific to claim they aren't getting enough fluoride from their water without doing some kind of lab work on the population? Physicians can determine iron levels, Vitamin D levels, cholesterol levels, etc. By not mentioning lab work that can be done on an individual to determine fluoride levels, you are omitting science and the scientific method. Is this your intent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 20:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 22:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
As fluoride is not a nutrient there is no such thing as fluoride deficiency. This entry cites the ICD codes for "mineral deficiency" not for fluoride deficiency. SharonNY ( talk) 02:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The United States and European Union both recognize fluoride as an essential nutrient. However, neither felt that there was sufficient information to identify an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) or Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), so instead designated as "Adequate Intake." This is in effect a placeholder designation - based primarily on what people actually consume via food and beverages (including water). In time, the expectation is that nutrients 'graduate' to having EARs and RDAs. An example, is vitamin D, which went from AI in 1997 to EAR and RDA in 2010. Both groups also set a fluoride UL, which is the upper limit for safety, above which adverse effects may occur. The difference between recommended and too much is not large, but this is not unique. For vitamin D, older adults are advised to consume at least 20 ug but less than 100 ug. For calcium, older adults are advised to consume at least 1300 mg/day but less than 2000 mg/day. David notMD ( talk) 06:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fluorine deficiency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is full of mistakes and misinformation. In 2012 and 2013, the European Food Safety Authority in consideration of dietary reference values (DRV) wrote “Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified,” and “Overall, there was a lack of high quality evidence upon which DRVs may potentially be based for fluoride.” http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/search/doc/283e.pdf and hhttps://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3332
The 1997 IOM did not set a RDA. They determined that although fluoride was not a nutrient in the traditional sense, that based on claims of dental benefit from ingestion with no adverse effects, they would include an ADEQUATE INTAKE (AI) and UPPER LIMIT (UL). https://www.nap.edu/read/11537/chapter/35
However, in 1999 and 2001, even the CDC admitted that any benefit was primarily and predominantly topical after teeth erupted. They wrote, “Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth..." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm
The IOM will not revisit their AI and UL as it seems to be a political process that requires an appropriate government sponsor.
Even the pro-fluoride Iowa Fluoride Study researchers wrote in 2009 that, “These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.” http://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19054310
I suggest this article be replaced with a short statement of fact per above, and locked down to prevent malicious promotion of disinformation. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 13:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Someone please delete this shameful page. We have enough real problems that we don't need to invent fictional ones. 2600:4040:501E:B100:972:B9DB:31DB:E354 ( talk) 19:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Fluorine deficiency.
|
Fluorine has not been authoritatively shown to be an essential nutrient in the human diet (see my comments and linkage on the Essential Nutrient - Talk page). Therefore, a condition of "fluorine deficiency" cannot be shown either. This entry not only too short but IMO errondeous. Dus7 06:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Dus7. No other trace mineral that I know of is toxic in a high concentrations. Toxicity usually only occurs in high doses. This article is pathetic. Rift14 1:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"The extent to which the condition truly exists, and its relationship to fluoride poisoning has arisen some controversy.
Fluoride is considered essential in the development and maintenance of teeth", I don't see any contradictions? Do you? Rift14 5:01, 12 January 2007
There is no such thing as a fluoride or fluorine deficiency. They are not nutients. Please read http://www.med.uwo.ca/ecosystemhealth/education/casestudies/fluorosismed.htm. Here is the relevant portion:
What about Fluoride Deficiency?
You will not find Hypofluoremia in Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary simply because, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as human Fluoride Deficiency. Fluoride is ubiquitous in food, water, air, and most tissues of the human body, and no physiological dysfunction results from having a "theoretically impossible" Fluoride intake of zero.
The aim of artificial fluoridation of drinking water in some Western World countries as a public health measure is the prevention of dental caries. It is important to understand that dental caries are not caused by a lack of Fluoride. Rather, dental caries are caused by the presence of oral bacteria that thrive on the simple sugars that have become a prominent part of the standard American diet. The chemical action of Fluoride on teeth is to resist dissolution of the enamel by acid-producing oral bacteria.
This article should be deleted entirely.
Fluoride is not considered a nutrient therefore there is no such thing as fluoride deficiency. This page has been corrected several times however reverts back to the erroneous content. Please enable this entry to be corrected. SharonNY ( talk) 02:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
This article makes no claim that fluorine is a nutrient, so the primary prod rationale is moot. As to the document cited in the prod tag, it seems to be concerned with trace elements required to maintain "metabolic integrity", which is a quite different thing than maintaining optimal overall health. This article concerns the role of fluorine in development and maintenance of healthy teeth and bone and is quite capable of expansion. Thus, I shall remove the prod tag. Franamax ( talk) 09:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
When I looked up the definition of deficiency in my Websters New World College Dictionary, I found deficiency disease: "a disease, as rickets or pellagra, caused by a dietary lack of vitamins, minerals, etc. or by an inability to metabolize them". This article, by using the word deficiency, implies that fluorine deficiency is a deficiency disease. If this "disease" really existed, it should, IMHO, also be observed in other animals. I have made improvements to this article, with this edit, [2], for example, which vastly overstated the primary source attributed. Thank you, Franamax, for sourcing this first sentence. It removed the necessity of my tags. However, in order for me to not want this article deleted, IMHO, an authoritative source, such as the NIH, (and not a pharmaceutical company) should be cited to establish the existence of this deficiency/deficiency disease. Thank you. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Emphasizing and interpreting "may", when it is simply used by the source, seems like original research. A source analyzing the NIH's use of the word 'may' would have been needed to support the sentences added. I support the way it looks now. II | ( t - c) 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This article on fluorine deficiency, as well as that of fluoridation, lacks scientific thought and should be seriously questioned.
Repeating dated and unconfirmed research is a sign that an argument lacks evidence. Comparisons to iodide deficiency are melodramatic and inappropriate. No actual evidence that fluoride deficiency exists is presented, nor are any cases cited.
In fact, more recent research indicates that there is much greater financial motivation for deliberate fluoridation of water than there is health benefits. The industries benefiting from fluoridation should be examined, and the health claims should certainly be re-evaluated in light of more recent research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.235.31 ( talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
In 1979 the FDA required the deletion of all government references previously classifying fluoride as "essential or probably essential", (Federal Register, March 16, 1979, page 16006).
In order to have a deficiency, fluoride would have to considered a nutrient, which it is not. Having this page up implies that fluoride is a nutrient. It is deceptive, at best, and should be removed. Fluoride is a halogen just like iodine. But iodine is a nutrient. Fluoride displaces iodine in the iodine receptors og the body and thyroid gland causing fluoride-induced hypothyroidism, goiter, destruction of the thyroid gland, and even thyroid cancer. Anyone with an elementary education in nutrition knows this. Fluoride compounds were once used to treat hyperthyroidism caused by adding iodine to drinking water. This treatment was discontinued due fluorides toxic effects to the thyroid gland. Wikipedia should get the politics out of its information and simply print the facts. Fluoride is no more of a nutrient than chlorine or bromide is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 03:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Fluoride replaces iodide because of it's electron configuration! The 2p⁵ orbital jumps to a energetically favorable state, in this case 2p⁶. Because this is the second "shell" (quantum number n = 2), the distance to the nucleus is not as big as the distanced in the other halogenides (n > 2). So the 2p⁶ is energetically far lower than the 3p⁶ or 4p⁶ state e.g. more stable. Fluoride displaces the halogen iodine in the iodine receptors of the thyroid gland and the body. Medical doctors (endocrinologists) even know this (i.e. Dr. Jerry Tennant). Maybe instead of focusing on the "virulent antifluoride crowd", you should be focusing on the science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 20:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
"Oral manifestations of thyroid disorders and its management"
"Fluoride was used as a drug to treat hyperthyroidism because it reduces thyroid activity quite effectively. This is due to the ability of fluoride to mimic the action of thyrotropin (TSH). Excess fluoride correlates with the other thyroid-related issues such as iodine deficiency. Fluorine and iodine, both being members of the halogen group of atoms, have an antagonistic relationship. When there is excess of fluoride in the body it can interfere with the function of the thyroid gland. Thus, fluoride has been linked to thyroid problems." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 20:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
To be scientific, determining a fluorine "deficiency" in anyone would require medical lab work on the individual. Do they determine a deficiency with analysis of blood, urine, bone, fingernails, hair, or what? How often is this analysis done in a given population and by whom? You can't determine a deficiency by counting cavities unless your intention is to be deceptive, or unscientific. Let's look at Singapore for instance. Singapore has been 100% fluoridated since 1956 yet 40% of their preschoolers suffer from severe dental caries. Would it be scientific to claim they aren't getting enough fluoride from their water without doing some kind of lab work on the population? Physicians can determine iron levels, Vitamin D levels, cholesterol levels, etc. By not mentioning lab work that can be done on an individual to determine fluoride levels, you are omitting science and the scientific method. Is this your intent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 20:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 22:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
As fluoride is not a nutrient there is no such thing as fluoride deficiency. This entry cites the ICD codes for "mineral deficiency" not for fluoride deficiency. SharonNY ( talk) 02:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The United States and European Union both recognize fluoride as an essential nutrient. However, neither felt that there was sufficient information to identify an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) or Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), so instead designated as "Adequate Intake." This is in effect a placeholder designation - based primarily on what people actually consume via food and beverages (including water). In time, the expectation is that nutrients 'graduate' to having EARs and RDAs. An example, is vitamin D, which went from AI in 1997 to EAR and RDA in 2010. Both groups also set a fluoride UL, which is the upper limit for safety, above which adverse effects may occur. The difference between recommended and too much is not large, but this is not unique. For vitamin D, older adults are advised to consume at least 20 ug but less than 100 ug. For calcium, older adults are advised to consume at least 1300 mg/day but less than 2000 mg/day. David notMD ( talk) 06:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fluorine deficiency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is full of mistakes and misinformation. In 2012 and 2013, the European Food Safety Authority in consideration of dietary reference values (DRV) wrote “Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified,” and “Overall, there was a lack of high quality evidence upon which DRVs may potentially be based for fluoride.” http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/search/doc/283e.pdf and hhttps://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3332
The 1997 IOM did not set a RDA. They determined that although fluoride was not a nutrient in the traditional sense, that based on claims of dental benefit from ingestion with no adverse effects, they would include an ADEQUATE INTAKE (AI) and UPPER LIMIT (UL). https://www.nap.edu/read/11537/chapter/35
However, in 1999 and 2001, even the CDC admitted that any benefit was primarily and predominantly topical after teeth erupted. They wrote, “Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth..." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm
The IOM will not revisit their AI and UL as it seems to be a political process that requires an appropriate government sponsor.
Even the pro-fluoride Iowa Fluoride Study researchers wrote in 2009 that, “These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.” http://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19054310
I suggest this article be replaced with a short statement of fact per above, and locked down to prevent malicious promotion of disinformation. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 13:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Someone please delete this shameful page. We have enough real problems that we don't need to invent fictional ones. 2600:4040:501E:B100:972:B9DB:31DB:E354 ( talk) 19:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)