![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This is an odd statement and needs to be given some substance instead of being expressed as a fact. If it is true than it would be interesting to have a paragraph that explains the slightly different taste/freshness of tap water with respect to bottled and untreated (rain) water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.253.195 ( talk) 23:51, 13 April 2011
Saying that fluoride does not affect the appearance, taste, or smell of drinking water is nonsense. Pure water has nothing in it and it is very clean and clear unlike water that has things added to it. You simply can not add things to water without affecting it's taste, appearance and smell and that is a fact. One would have to have clean water to compare the fluoridated water to see that difference. Statements like that are just nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.103.204 ( talk) 01:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't fluoride and bromine (not nutrients) compete in the body for iodine receptors, iodine being the heaviest element that is an essential nutrient? Reduced IQ, issues with bones, and many other of the corollaries that have, at least weakly, been found in studies of excessive fluoride exposure, seem to resemble iodine deficiency. 66.178.144.154 ( talk) 07:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I was looking at the citation to this claim and it doesn't seem to back up this claim. Hobson WL, Knochel ML, Byington CL, Young PC, Hoff CJ, Buchi KF. Bottled, filtered, and tap water use in Latino and non-Latino children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(5):457–61. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.5.457. PMID 17485621.
There is no mention of the amount of fluoride being removed by filters nor does it claim that bottled water typically has unknown fluoride levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charbon ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The U.S. HHS has proposed to lower the water fluoridation levels in the U.S.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/20110107a.html
I do not know what has been decided. If you would like to know more information about what the HHS is doing then call them and ask. Both sites have contact information.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to edit the statement that the UK applies water fluoridation. In fact, only a very small proportion of UK authorities do this, and the page should be edited to reflect this fact. The reference for this is:
http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/consumers/advice-leaflets/fluoridemap.pdf
Psnisbet ( talk) 14:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a problem with the following snippet of text
"pposition campaigns involve newspaper articles, talk radio, and public forums. Media reporters are often poorly equipped to explain the scientific issues, and are motivated to present controversy regardless of the underlying scientific merits. Internet websites, which are increasingly used by the public for health information, contain a wide range of material about fluoridation ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a disproportionate percentage opposed to fluoridation. Antifluoridationist literature anecdotally links fluoride exposure to a wide variety of effects, including AIDS, allergy, Alzheimer's, arthritis, cancer, and low IQ, along with diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, kidney, pineal gland, and thyroid.[22]"
It falsely states that lower IQ is based on "antifluoridationist literature", this is simply not true, there are many peer reviewed articles from scientific journals which do in fact link lower IQs levels in young children who are exposed to water fluoridation that experience medium to severe levels of fluorosis.
Suggest that above snippet is corrected and also the section titled "Evidence basis" is updated with findings in the linked study, i would be more than happy to make the changes if given access, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artonink ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
source updated http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947
please correct the article and clearly reference these studies or grant access, thanks
greetings smokefoot, below is a publication reviewing previous referenced studies and then some
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
important to note, reference [22] of snippet above does not relate in any way to lower IQ, the author, Jason Armfield, also cites dubious consumer reports, magazines and articles to support his claims, considering that the article isn't even reviewed raises further questions of its credibility. Lets try and be a little consistent here.
I do appreciate that there is a lot of misinformation surrounding this subject and we should be cautious about what is published however the studies/research presented here are from recognised experts, most of which are directly contactable via email, who have a number of publications to their name from recognised academic institutions from around the world. I also appreciate there is a lot of "antifluoridationist literature" and am well aware of the associated conspiracy theories, my intention is to not degrade the subject to such lows but to ensure that there is a balanced review of the scientific literature, best regards Artonink ( talk) 06:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Doc James, hope you are well
I cited the above publication since a link to pubmed was not deemed credible, study can be found on page 205
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=205
Artonink (
talk)
08:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thanks Doc James, i'll keep that in mind Back to my original request, can you please fix the article, as established here the notion of lower iq related to water fluoridation is not a result of antifluoridationist literature as incorrectly described in the article. Artonink ( talk) 07:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
lets not worry about the source, or even represent the findings of the various studies, lets just remove "low iq" from the article, as it stands the article incorrectly suggests the links of water fluoridation and low iq is baseless conjecture from antifluoridationists, this is clearly incorrect 60.240.216.167 ( talk) 08:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thankj00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.216.167 ( talk) 10:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The mechanism section states:
It is a direct quote from the reference Olivares M, Uauy R. Nutrients in Drinking Water. World Health Organization; 2005.
ISBN
92-4-159398-9. Essential nutrients in drinking water [PDF]. p. 41–60.. It suggests that fluoride is very likely to be an
Essential_nutrient, while in reality scientists agree it is not, unless one would redefine "essential" as anything that improves health.
That same source lists a WHO guideline value of 1.5 mg/L (last page), contrary to the 2004 WHO expert committee advice of an absolute upper limit of 1.0 mg/L or even lower (ref 6, and the same advice is given in an advice from 1994, see section implementation). An indication perhaps that WHO guidelines should not be seen as reliable sources for expert opinions.
DS Belgium (
talk)
19:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
"Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply"
So if I add fluoride to a 5 gallon jug of water for my private consumption, it would not be considered water fluoridation?
I propose eliminating "public" from the sentence. Gesellman ( talk) 03:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice article. I appreciate how it covers a controversial subject and gives appropriate weight (not much) to the kookier anit-F stuff.
Small crit: I felt like the sentence about females looking prettier and earning more money when fluoridated was a little too much. In another part of this article, it discusses poor quality or sketchiness of some research. And that thing about the females is a working paper (just a draft, really, a pdf on the net) not a published journal report. Plus it seems like a bit of a one off and prone to a lot of confounding factors.
TCO ( Reviews needed) 03:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems like the IQ stuff should go in a different section. I don't think (IANAD) that those journals linked are anti-F literature. Seems like they are decent journals.
Seems like they are talking more about the effect of actual damage from regions where there is too much fluoride (parts of China). Or perhaps that info should just be cut or put in some other article (not really about water fluoridation, but about exposure, much of it from coal burning).
TCO ( Reviews needed) 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
What we have to watch for here is that we cite reliable secondary sources that are discussing water fluoridation: the controlled addition of floride to the water. The moment we start citing sources (and primary ones at that) that just discuss fluoride in water or fluoride and health in general, then we are taking the WP:OR step that we consider those facts to be relevant to water fluoridation. As Smokefoot says, we have other articles that discuss these other aspects (and I should note that they by and large are not watchlisted or cared for like this article so beware). Colin° Talk 08:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, just want to reiterate that correlation studies are good for nothing other than suggesting that more research is necessary. Correlation studies suggest that storks deliver babies Noformation Talk 00:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Water quality is something I've paid considerable attention to over the past 22 years. I want to raise question about the notion that fluoride in drinking water has no adverse effects except potentially leading to dental fluorosis. It is published in PubMed that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland. According to this article is accumulates more readily in the pineal than in bone and teeth. [1] Numerous other PubMed articles indicate effects of fluoride toxicity. Most (perhaps all) of these studies are using significantly higher levels of fluoride than the EPA recommended limit for drinking water, although many have the same or similar levels to fluoridated table salt (another issue, for another Wiki page on Salt Fluoridation). For instance, it was shown that sodium fluoride (at 200ppm) decreases the activity of important antioxidants, resulting in myocardial damage in rats [2]. Just because they study was done at 200ppm, we can't conclude that lower dosages don't also have a negative impact on such antioxidant activity. Here is a study confirming the issue of fluoride increasing the uptake of lead in people exposed to both http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188782. There are also links between fluoride intake and thyroid dysfunction [3]. Again, most of these studies work with higher than what is likely from ingesting water with a maximum of 2ppm fluoride. Yet, it is faulty science to therefore conclude that at lower levels fluoridation of water is harmless or has no adverse effects.
While searching for the above studies, I came across this page: fluoridealert (dot) org / fluoride-facts.aspx (I see this link has been blocked, but for this disussion, I wish to refer editors to the material I am mentioning).
I have gone through the references cited by that article. Whilst some of the conclusions drawn by the author based on the references cited could be considered questionable (i.e. the studies are inconclusive at the levels commonly added to drinking water), I have to ask: Are the authors of this Wiki page dismissing all the points made in that article and all the cited references?
Please advise. Jonathan E. ( talk) 16:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not a fan of this sentence in the article - By comparison, brushing with a nonfluoride toothpaste has little effect on cavities.[49] The link doesn't work either. It makes it sound like brushing your teeth with non-flouride toothpaste is worthless and that is wrong. I don't have any proof, but flouride in toothpastes is sort of new. They didn't have flouride in them when I was a teenager or young adult. My mother brushed her teeth with baking soda her whole life and her teeth were fine.
Mylittlezach (
talk)
23:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Appeal to ignorance[
[1]]. All that needs to be done to prove that statement false is to find some evidence that brushing with anything other than fluoridated toothpaste can prevent dental caries.
"Search for 'toothbrush'", so you say. Yes, do that, and find the study copy'n'pasted a quote from some other guy. Classic fluoride science indeed. 67.169.93.56 ( talk) 19:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
i'd do it myself, but can't since the page is "semi-protected". under the Implementation section, there are 3 bullets which represent the 3 main compounds used in fluoridation. the first 2 bullets are links to their respective wikipedia articles, but the 3rd bullet is not a link, even though a wikipedia article does exist for it. can someone with the power please add the link for this third bullet? thanks in advance! feel free to delete this edit once it's done. Feugene ( talk) 11:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am taking this discussion here to prevent an impending edit war. As I tried to state in my edit summaries, my edit, which was:
“ | In July 2012, a study conducted by Harvard University was published in support of the notion that fluoride exposure can have adverse effects on the neurodevelopment of children. On July 20th, 2012, it was published online in a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal called Environmental Health Perspectives. It found that "... children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas". [1] | ” |
didn't use any primary research papers to verify information. What it did do, is use a reputable news website, marketwatch.com, to verify facts about a study. I did not use the study to make any claims, show any proofs regarding water fluoridation, or use it as a source; I am merely providing information about a study of water fluoridation. Gold Standard 20:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
“ | In July 2012, a review of various studies was conducted by Harvard University researchers and was published in support of the notion that increased fluoride exposure can have adverse effects on the neurodevelopment of children. The review compared the IQs of children in areas with abnormally high fluoride content to the IQs of children in areas with normal fluoride content, and found that "children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas". On July 20th, 2012, it was published online in a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal called Environmental Health Perspectives. [2] | ” |
Fyi, gold has posted to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Water_fluoridation as well as violated WP:3R. TippyGoomba ( talk) 00:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Gold Standard has made a number of mistakes with the text/sources and they are common enough mistakes to be worth examining.
I already conceded at WP:DRN. Gold Standard 17:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
In the Evidence Basis section it states "Moderate-quality research exists as to water fluoridation's effectiveness and its potential association with cancer". A clear reference to a source for this statement is essential as it makes a statement of fact. Could this reference please be added?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needleboy007 ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is there absolutely no mention of the use of water fluoridation at concentration camps in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia? It was used to make the inmates more docile and apathetic. Just asking why Wiki agents are hiding truths that contradict government propaganda. I'm glad my water company refuses to fluoridate water - https://www.affinitywater.co.uk/water-quality-fluoride.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.204.253 ( talk) 11:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Please check the Center for Disease Control website on this topic. Unless I am misunderstanding, it indicates that the source of fluoride used in public water supplies is the the pollution-scrubbing devices of the phosphate fertilizer industry. I think the article should have mentioned that this is where the fluoride comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.178.151 ( talk) 20:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Staying on the topic (the charge that fluoride and hexafluorosilicic acid are "waste products"). We're cool that fluoride is fluoride (no conflation). We're also cool that chlorate is not chloride (that would be conflation). Fluoride and hexafluorosilicic acid are not the same. On the other hand "form of the hexafluorosilicic acid additive" means hexafluorosilicic acid. The main point of this conversation was to resolve the accusation that fluoridation involves disposing of wastes. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is heavily biased regarding controversial issues. It dismisses people who are in opposition to water flouridation as non credible and "conspiracy theorists." Evidence is stated in this article that is in favor to flouridation, but none of the many studies regarding the dangers of flouridation is stated, take this [1] for example. This article clearly has an agenda and needs more balance. 149.63.60.58 ( talk) 23:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Josh
See below references to fluoride and cancer--
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7679201
"Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells"
"Conflicting evidence has been reported concerning the mutagenicity of sodium fluoride (NaF), especially clastogenicity at concentrations of more than 1 mM. NaF is known to induce chromosome aberrations at these concentrations in human cells, but not in most rodent cells. We considered that such species-specific difference in chromosomal sensitivity would be derived from the phylogenetic distance between rodents and man. To clarify the role of interspecies differences, we investigated the chromosomal sensitivity to NaF in cell lines from various primates, which diverged into many species, including rodent-like prosimians and human-like great apes. The results showed that the clastogenicity of NaF was limited to human and great ape cells." PMID: 7679201
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9002384
"Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan"
"The Okinawa Islands located in the southern-most part of Japan were under U.S. administration from 1945 to 1972. During that time, fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies in most regions. The relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality rate was studied in 20 municipalities of Okinawa and the data were analyzed using correlation and multivariate statistics. A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities " PMID: 9002384
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596294
"Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States)."
"We explored age-specific and gender-specific effects of fluoride level in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma. ..."
"Our exploratory analysis found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females." PMID: 16596294
Also on PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19812419
"Is there a need of extra fluoride in children?"
"Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate, disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea, causing disruptive effect on tissues in the body. It inhibits antibody formation, disturbs immune system and makes the child prone to malignancy. Fluoride has been categorized as a protoplasmic poison..." PMID:19812419
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11512573
"Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on WHO data..."
"...cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-biliary and urinary organs were positively associated with Fluoridated Drinking water (FD). This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. Brain tumors and T-cell system Hodgkin's disease, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma of the skin and monocytic leukaemia were also correlated with Fluoridated Drinking water." PMID: 11512573
I was thinking that if it really did cause cancer, wouldn't that make it in violation of the Delaney Clause? "the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration shall not approve for use in food any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals.--"Merrill, Richard A. "Food Safety Regulation: Reforming the Delaney Clause" in Annual Review of Public Health, 1997, 18:313-40. This source includes a useful historical survey of prior food safety regulation. If fluoride is in water that goes into foods wouldn't it be in violation of this clause?
The following papers explain that some caries are due to high lead levels and fluoride doesn't help in these cases.
"Enamel biopsies taken from school children in a community where exposure to lead was a health hazard were analyzed for lead and fluoride. The children with high enamel lead had significantly higher caries scores than the children with low enamel lead, in spite of the fact that the high lead group also was higher in enamel fluoride. There was no increase in enamel lead with age. The lead in saliva was only a fraction of that in blood. Infants with lead poisoning showed higher saliva lead than a normal infant."
•"Lead in Enamel and Saliva, Dental Caries and the Use of Enamel Biopsies for Measuring Past Exposure to Lead" http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/56/10/1165.abstract The fluoride in their teeth did not prevent the caries.
Lead is passed on from mother to child. The child doesn't necessarily have to ingest the lead. It can be transferred by the mother to her offspring, just like fluoride.
See "Association of Dental Caries and Blood Lead Levels" in JAMA. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190537
See "Blood lead level and dental caries in school-age children" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361944
"Mean blood lead level was significantly greater among the urban subgroup, as was the mean number of carious tooth surfaces. Blood lead level was positively associated with number of caries among urban children, even with adjustment for demographic and maternal factors and child dental practices."This study suggests that the fluoridation of water can lead to higher lead levels:
•"Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead" PMID: 11233755 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11233755
Chronic, low-level dosage of silicofluoride (SiF) has never been adequately tested for health effects in humans. We report here on a statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead (VBL) tests taken from children ages 0-6 inclusive, living in 105 communities of populations from 15,000 to 75,000. For every age/race group, there was a consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead. The highest likelihood of children having VBL> 10 microg/dL occurs when they are exposed to SiF treated water and subject to another risk factor known to be associated with high blood lead (e.g., old housing). "Abstract: Lead, a toxin that lowers dopamine function, has been associated with violent behavior as well as learning deficits. Hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which were substituted for sodium fluoride without testing as chemicals for public water treatment, increase absorption of lead from the environment and are associated with violent behavior. Given the costs of incarcerating violent criminals, these side-effects justify a moratorium on using silicofluorides for water treatment until they are shown to be safe."
http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/052909coms/fluoride/RMasters.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The claim is made "Water fluoridation is effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.[9]", but the paper linked to says in the abstract "While the reviews themselves were of good methodological quality, the studies included in the reviews were generally of moderate to low quality." It seems weak to make this claim without pointing out that the citation used to back it up is of studies that are generally moderate to low in quality. Isn't there a review based on good quality science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.193.55 ( talk) 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I added a section on the York review to the article - I'm also looking for other good quality reviews. Tilapidated ( talk) 22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Colin - it looks like you removed the reference to the WHO study on the hazards of over-floridated water - it's not clear to me why you think this article should only relate to artificial water fluoridation - water fluoridation is a natural process as well, and a huge amount of the fluoride that gets added to water is through natural processes - it seems to me that it's appropriate to deal with that here. Tilapidated ( talk) 19:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This paper refers to "Currently about 49 % of the U.S. population is artificially fluoridated (hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride and sodium fluoride) and 7 % have natural water fluoridation"
http://www.xxfluoride.com/Dr_Russell_statement.cfm
Given the common and technical uses of the term 'water fluoridation' include both natural water fluoridation and human water fluoridation, and given the importance of all sources of fluoride in water when discussing the topic, it seems prudent to adopt the standard language around this issue.
Both of these are, prima facie water fluoridation, since they are processes by which water becomes fluoridated. In discussion above I listed examples of the use of this terminology in academic and public health settings. It is clear, unambiguous, neutral, and the normal language used by the community of experts dealing with this issue.
It's also important to consider all sources of fluoride when discussing the issue - the article currently does this already, which, without clarity on terms, risks ambiguity and confusion. Tilapidated ( talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)is that it does indeed change the scope of the article from having F- added to water for the purpose of controlling tooth decay to the general topic of water having F- added to it for any reason. I think this is the point being raised elsewhere on this page and this edit is still running into that problem, can we work on it to maintain the article's scope to be the control of F- level in water for the purposes of controlling tooth decay?Water fluoridation is the addition of fluoride to water. In public health, it refers to the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Community water fluoridation is also used to mean the same thing, especially when used in contrast to 'natural water fluoridation', a (mainly) geological process.
Zad
68
03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Aren't all the items covered: F- is controlled for the purposes of dental health, it may come naturally, it may be added. Is the only thing missing the mention of the term Community water fluoridation? We can do that by just changing the opening words to: "Community water fluoridation is..." and we're done?Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride.
Zad
68
03:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)If that's not your concern, and we're all still in agreement that the scope of this article is the control of the F- levels in water (whether the F- got there naturally or artificially) for the purposes of improving public dental health, then I'm still missing what the issue is. Is it just that the term natural water fluoridation should appear? I did searches on PubMed - "water fluoridation" is by far the most common term, "community water fluoridation" is used but much less frequently, and "natural water fluoridation" is relatively uncommon. The current lead does say "this can occur naturally" and, in my opinion, that's sufficient to cover it. Would adding a redirect from
natural water fluoridation to this article cover this part of your concern?
Zad
68
14:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
As we're writing articles for humans to read, developing them is only part science; it's in large part art, and often the choice of wording comes down to subjective choices over what sounds good. So, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think a change to the article is warranted. You are of course welcome to try develop a consensus of support from other editors for your proposed changes.
Zad
68
19:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
A couple of users have reverted the addition of a section looking at the major academic reviews of community water fluoridation, and I'm struggling to understand their reasoning in doing this. The section as I inserted it is copied below, and consists of direct quotes from the most thorough peer reviewed literature reviews I have been able to find, all published from highly regarded research institutions in significant journals. I invite those reverting this information to kindly explain their reasoning, and am excited to see any other quality reviews that they feel are relevant. Tilapidated ( talk) 23:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
In 1999, the Department of Health commissioned CRD to conduct a systematic review into the efficacy and safety of the fluoridation of drinking water. The review was published on the CRD Fluoridation Review website and in the BMJ in October 2000. The authors stated in 2003: "We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review."
A report on systematic reviews and studies was conducted. Of the 59 publications identified, 3 systematic reviews and 3 guidelines were included. The paper states: "While the reviews themselves were of good methodological quality, the studies included in the reviews were generally of moderate to low quality."
A 2008 literature review was undertaken on English language publications from 1996 onwards. Of a total 5418 nonduplicate citations identified, 77 were included in the review. The review concluded "fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride."
Zad
68
03:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC) -- In fact the NHMRC source, current citation #10, which is on the second sentence, supports the first.
Zad
68
03:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is heavily biased regarding controversial issues. It dismisses people who are in opposition to water flouridation as non credible and "conspiracy theorists." Evidence is stated in this article that is in favor to flouridation, but none of the many studies regarding the dangers of flouridation is stated, take this [2] for example. This article clearly has an agenda and needs more balance. 149.63.60.58 ( talk) 23:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Josh
See below references to fluoride and cancer--
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7679201
"Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells"
"Conflicting evidence has been reported concerning the mutagenicity of sodium fluoride (NaF), especially clastogenicity at concentrations of more than 1 mM. NaF is known to induce chromosome aberrations at these concentrations in human cells, but not in most rodent cells. We considered that such species-specific difference in chromosomal sensitivity would be derived from the phylogenetic distance between rodents and man. To clarify the role of interspecies differences, we investigated the chromosomal sensitivity to NaF in cell lines from various primates, which diverged into many species, including rodent-like prosimians and human-like great apes. The results showed that the clastogenicity of NaF was limited to human and great ape cells." PMID: 7679201
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9002384
"Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan"
"The Okinawa Islands located in the southern-most part of Japan were under U.S. administration from 1945 to 1972. During that time, fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies in most regions. The relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality rate was studied in 20 municipalities of Okinawa and the data were analyzed using correlation and multivariate statistics. A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities " PMID: 9002384
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596294
"Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States)."
"We explored age-specific and gender-specific effects of fluoride level in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma. ..."
"Our exploratory analysis found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females." PMID: 16596294
Also on PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19812419
"Is there a need of extra fluoride in children?"
"Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate, disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea, causing disruptive effect on tissues in the body. It inhibits antibody formation, disturbs immune system and makes the child prone to malignancy. Fluoride has been categorized as a protoplasmic poison..." PMID:19812419
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11512573
"Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on WHO data..."
"...cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-biliary and urinary organs were positively associated with Fluoridated Drinking water (FD). This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. Brain tumors and T-cell system Hodgkin's disease, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma of the skin and monocytic leukaemia were also correlated with Fluoridated Drinking water." PMID: 11512573
I was thinking that if it really did cause cancer, wouldn't that make it in violation of the Delaney Clause? "the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration shall not approve for use in food any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals.--"Merrill, Richard A. "Food Safety Regulation: Reforming the Delaney Clause" in Annual Review of Public Health, 1997, 18:313-40. This source includes a useful historical survey of prior food safety regulation. If fluoride is in water that goes into foods wouldn't it be in violation of this clause?
The following papers explain that some caries are due to high lead levels and fluoride doesn't help in these cases.
"Enamel biopsies taken from school children in a community where exposure to lead was a health hazard were analyzed for lead and fluoride. The children with high enamel lead had significantly higher caries scores than the children with low enamel lead, in spite of the fact that the high lead group also was higher in enamel fluoride. There was no increase in enamel lead with age. The lead in saliva was only a fraction of that in blood. Infants with lead poisoning showed higher saliva lead than a normal infant."
•"Lead in Enamel and Saliva, Dental Caries and the Use of Enamel Biopsies for Measuring Past Exposure to Lead" http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/56/10/1165.abstract The fluoride in their teeth did not prevent the caries.
Lead is passed on from mother to child. The child doesn't necessarily have to ingest the lead. It can be transferred by the mother to her offspring, just like fluoride.
See "Association of Dental Caries and Blood Lead Levels" in JAMA. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190537
See "Blood lead level and dental caries in school-age children" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361944
"Mean blood lead level was significantly greater among the urban subgroup, as was the mean number of carious tooth surfaces. Blood lead level was positively associated with number of caries among urban children, even with adjustment for demographic and maternal factors and child dental practices."This study suggests that the fluoridation of water can lead to higher lead levels:
•"Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead" PMID: 11233755 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11233755
Chronic, low-level dosage of silicofluoride (SiF) has never been adequately tested for health effects in humans. We report here on a statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead (VBL) tests taken from children ages 0-6 inclusive, living in 105 communities of populations from 15,000 to 75,000. For every age/race group, there was a consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead. The highest likelihood of children having VBL> 10 microg/dL occurs when they are exposed to SiF treated water and subject to another risk factor known to be associated with high blood lead (e.g., old housing). "Abstract: Lead, a toxin that lowers dopamine function, has been associated with violent behavior as well as learning deficits. Hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which were substituted for sodium fluoride without testing as chemicals for public water treatment, increase absorption of lead from the environment and are associated with violent behavior. Given the costs of incarcerating violent criminals, these side-effects justify a moratorium on using silicofluorides for water treatment until they are shown to be safe."
http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/052909coms/fluoride/RMasters.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This is an odd statement and needs to be given some substance instead of being expressed as a fact. If it is true than it would be interesting to have a paragraph that explains the slightly different taste/freshness of tap water with respect to bottled and untreated (rain) water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.253.195 ( talk) 23:51, 13 April 2011
Saying that fluoride does not affect the appearance, taste, or smell of drinking water is nonsense. Pure water has nothing in it and it is very clean and clear unlike water that has things added to it. You simply can not add things to water without affecting it's taste, appearance and smell and that is a fact. One would have to have clean water to compare the fluoridated water to see that difference. Statements like that are just nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.103.204 ( talk) 01:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't fluoride and bromine (not nutrients) compete in the body for iodine receptors, iodine being the heaviest element that is an essential nutrient? Reduced IQ, issues with bones, and many other of the corollaries that have, at least weakly, been found in studies of excessive fluoride exposure, seem to resemble iodine deficiency. 66.178.144.154 ( talk) 07:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I was looking at the citation to this claim and it doesn't seem to back up this claim. Hobson WL, Knochel ML, Byington CL, Young PC, Hoff CJ, Buchi KF. Bottled, filtered, and tap water use in Latino and non-Latino children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(5):457–61. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.5.457. PMID 17485621.
There is no mention of the amount of fluoride being removed by filters nor does it claim that bottled water typically has unknown fluoride levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charbon ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The U.S. HHS has proposed to lower the water fluoridation levels in the U.S.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/20110107a.html
I do not know what has been decided. If you would like to know more information about what the HHS is doing then call them and ask. Both sites have contact information.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to edit the statement that the UK applies water fluoridation. In fact, only a very small proportion of UK authorities do this, and the page should be edited to reflect this fact. The reference for this is:
http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/consumers/advice-leaflets/fluoridemap.pdf
Psnisbet ( talk) 14:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a problem with the following snippet of text
"pposition campaigns involve newspaper articles, talk radio, and public forums. Media reporters are often poorly equipped to explain the scientific issues, and are motivated to present controversy regardless of the underlying scientific merits. Internet websites, which are increasingly used by the public for health information, contain a wide range of material about fluoridation ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a disproportionate percentage opposed to fluoridation. Antifluoridationist literature anecdotally links fluoride exposure to a wide variety of effects, including AIDS, allergy, Alzheimer's, arthritis, cancer, and low IQ, along with diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, kidney, pineal gland, and thyroid.[22]"
It falsely states that lower IQ is based on "antifluoridationist literature", this is simply not true, there are many peer reviewed articles from scientific journals which do in fact link lower IQs levels in young children who are exposed to water fluoridation that experience medium to severe levels of fluorosis.
Suggest that above snippet is corrected and also the section titled "Evidence basis" is updated with findings in the linked study, i would be more than happy to make the changes if given access, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artonink ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
source updated http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947
please correct the article and clearly reference these studies or grant access, thanks
greetings smokefoot, below is a publication reviewing previous referenced studies and then some
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
important to note, reference [22] of snippet above does not relate in any way to lower IQ, the author, Jason Armfield, also cites dubious consumer reports, magazines and articles to support his claims, considering that the article isn't even reviewed raises further questions of its credibility. Lets try and be a little consistent here.
I do appreciate that there is a lot of misinformation surrounding this subject and we should be cautious about what is published however the studies/research presented here are from recognised experts, most of which are directly contactable via email, who have a number of publications to their name from recognised academic institutions from around the world. I also appreciate there is a lot of "antifluoridationist literature" and am well aware of the associated conspiracy theories, my intention is to not degrade the subject to such lows but to ensure that there is a balanced review of the scientific literature, best regards Artonink ( talk) 06:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Doc James, hope you are well
I cited the above publication since a link to pubmed was not deemed credible, study can be found on page 205
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=205
Artonink (
talk)
08:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thanks Doc James, i'll keep that in mind Back to my original request, can you please fix the article, as established here the notion of lower iq related to water fluoridation is not a result of antifluoridationist literature as incorrectly described in the article. Artonink ( talk) 07:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
lets not worry about the source, or even represent the findings of the various studies, lets just remove "low iq" from the article, as it stands the article incorrectly suggests the links of water fluoridation and low iq is baseless conjecture from antifluoridationists, this is clearly incorrect 60.240.216.167 ( talk) 08:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thankj00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.216.167 ( talk) 10:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The mechanism section states:
It is a direct quote from the reference Olivares M, Uauy R. Nutrients in Drinking Water. World Health Organization; 2005.
ISBN
92-4-159398-9. Essential nutrients in drinking water [PDF]. p. 41–60.. It suggests that fluoride is very likely to be an
Essential_nutrient, while in reality scientists agree it is not, unless one would redefine "essential" as anything that improves health.
That same source lists a WHO guideline value of 1.5 mg/L (last page), contrary to the 2004 WHO expert committee advice of an absolute upper limit of 1.0 mg/L or even lower (ref 6, and the same advice is given in an advice from 1994, see section implementation). An indication perhaps that WHO guidelines should not be seen as reliable sources for expert opinions.
DS Belgium (
talk)
19:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
"Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply"
So if I add fluoride to a 5 gallon jug of water for my private consumption, it would not be considered water fluoridation?
I propose eliminating "public" from the sentence. Gesellman ( talk) 03:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice article. I appreciate how it covers a controversial subject and gives appropriate weight (not much) to the kookier anit-F stuff.
Small crit: I felt like the sentence about females looking prettier and earning more money when fluoridated was a little too much. In another part of this article, it discusses poor quality or sketchiness of some research. And that thing about the females is a working paper (just a draft, really, a pdf on the net) not a published journal report. Plus it seems like a bit of a one off and prone to a lot of confounding factors.
TCO ( Reviews needed) 03:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems like the IQ stuff should go in a different section. I don't think (IANAD) that those journals linked are anti-F literature. Seems like they are decent journals.
Seems like they are talking more about the effect of actual damage from regions where there is too much fluoride (parts of China). Or perhaps that info should just be cut or put in some other article (not really about water fluoridation, but about exposure, much of it from coal burning).
TCO ( Reviews needed) 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
What we have to watch for here is that we cite reliable secondary sources that are discussing water fluoridation: the controlled addition of floride to the water. The moment we start citing sources (and primary ones at that) that just discuss fluoride in water or fluoride and health in general, then we are taking the WP:OR step that we consider those facts to be relevant to water fluoridation. As Smokefoot says, we have other articles that discuss these other aspects (and I should note that they by and large are not watchlisted or cared for like this article so beware). Colin° Talk 08:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, just want to reiterate that correlation studies are good for nothing other than suggesting that more research is necessary. Correlation studies suggest that storks deliver babies Noformation Talk 00:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Water quality is something I've paid considerable attention to over the past 22 years. I want to raise question about the notion that fluoride in drinking water has no adverse effects except potentially leading to dental fluorosis. It is published in PubMed that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland. According to this article is accumulates more readily in the pineal than in bone and teeth. [1] Numerous other PubMed articles indicate effects of fluoride toxicity. Most (perhaps all) of these studies are using significantly higher levels of fluoride than the EPA recommended limit for drinking water, although many have the same or similar levels to fluoridated table salt (another issue, for another Wiki page on Salt Fluoridation). For instance, it was shown that sodium fluoride (at 200ppm) decreases the activity of important antioxidants, resulting in myocardial damage in rats [2]. Just because they study was done at 200ppm, we can't conclude that lower dosages don't also have a negative impact on such antioxidant activity. Here is a study confirming the issue of fluoride increasing the uptake of lead in people exposed to both http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188782. There are also links between fluoride intake and thyroid dysfunction [3]. Again, most of these studies work with higher than what is likely from ingesting water with a maximum of 2ppm fluoride. Yet, it is faulty science to therefore conclude that at lower levels fluoridation of water is harmless or has no adverse effects.
While searching for the above studies, I came across this page: fluoridealert (dot) org / fluoride-facts.aspx (I see this link has been blocked, but for this disussion, I wish to refer editors to the material I am mentioning).
I have gone through the references cited by that article. Whilst some of the conclusions drawn by the author based on the references cited could be considered questionable (i.e. the studies are inconclusive at the levels commonly added to drinking water), I have to ask: Are the authors of this Wiki page dismissing all the points made in that article and all the cited references?
Please advise. Jonathan E. ( talk) 16:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not a fan of this sentence in the article - By comparison, brushing with a nonfluoride toothpaste has little effect on cavities.[49] The link doesn't work either. It makes it sound like brushing your teeth with non-flouride toothpaste is worthless and that is wrong. I don't have any proof, but flouride in toothpastes is sort of new. They didn't have flouride in them when I was a teenager or young adult. My mother brushed her teeth with baking soda her whole life and her teeth were fine.
Mylittlezach (
talk)
23:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Appeal to ignorance[
[1]]. All that needs to be done to prove that statement false is to find some evidence that brushing with anything other than fluoridated toothpaste can prevent dental caries.
"Search for 'toothbrush'", so you say. Yes, do that, and find the study copy'n'pasted a quote from some other guy. Classic fluoride science indeed. 67.169.93.56 ( talk) 19:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
i'd do it myself, but can't since the page is "semi-protected". under the Implementation section, there are 3 bullets which represent the 3 main compounds used in fluoridation. the first 2 bullets are links to their respective wikipedia articles, but the 3rd bullet is not a link, even though a wikipedia article does exist for it. can someone with the power please add the link for this third bullet? thanks in advance! feel free to delete this edit once it's done. Feugene ( talk) 11:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am taking this discussion here to prevent an impending edit war. As I tried to state in my edit summaries, my edit, which was:
“ | In July 2012, a study conducted by Harvard University was published in support of the notion that fluoride exposure can have adverse effects on the neurodevelopment of children. On July 20th, 2012, it was published online in a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal called Environmental Health Perspectives. It found that "... children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas". [1] | ” |
didn't use any primary research papers to verify information. What it did do, is use a reputable news website, marketwatch.com, to verify facts about a study. I did not use the study to make any claims, show any proofs regarding water fluoridation, or use it as a source; I am merely providing information about a study of water fluoridation. Gold Standard 20:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
“ | In July 2012, a review of various studies was conducted by Harvard University researchers and was published in support of the notion that increased fluoride exposure can have adverse effects on the neurodevelopment of children. The review compared the IQs of children in areas with abnormally high fluoride content to the IQs of children in areas with normal fluoride content, and found that "children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas". On July 20th, 2012, it was published online in a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal called Environmental Health Perspectives. [2] | ” |
Fyi, gold has posted to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Water_fluoridation as well as violated WP:3R. TippyGoomba ( talk) 00:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Gold Standard has made a number of mistakes with the text/sources and they are common enough mistakes to be worth examining.
I already conceded at WP:DRN. Gold Standard 17:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
In the Evidence Basis section it states "Moderate-quality research exists as to water fluoridation's effectiveness and its potential association with cancer". A clear reference to a source for this statement is essential as it makes a statement of fact. Could this reference please be added?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needleboy007 ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is there absolutely no mention of the use of water fluoridation at concentration camps in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia? It was used to make the inmates more docile and apathetic. Just asking why Wiki agents are hiding truths that contradict government propaganda. I'm glad my water company refuses to fluoridate water - https://www.affinitywater.co.uk/water-quality-fluoride.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.204.253 ( talk) 11:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Please check the Center for Disease Control website on this topic. Unless I am misunderstanding, it indicates that the source of fluoride used in public water supplies is the the pollution-scrubbing devices of the phosphate fertilizer industry. I think the article should have mentioned that this is where the fluoride comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.178.151 ( talk) 20:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Staying on the topic (the charge that fluoride and hexafluorosilicic acid are "waste products"). We're cool that fluoride is fluoride (no conflation). We're also cool that chlorate is not chloride (that would be conflation). Fluoride and hexafluorosilicic acid are not the same. On the other hand "form of the hexafluorosilicic acid additive" means hexafluorosilicic acid. The main point of this conversation was to resolve the accusation that fluoridation involves disposing of wastes. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is heavily biased regarding controversial issues. It dismisses people who are in opposition to water flouridation as non credible and "conspiracy theorists." Evidence is stated in this article that is in favor to flouridation, but none of the many studies regarding the dangers of flouridation is stated, take this [1] for example. This article clearly has an agenda and needs more balance. 149.63.60.58 ( talk) 23:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Josh
See below references to fluoride and cancer--
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7679201
"Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells"
"Conflicting evidence has been reported concerning the mutagenicity of sodium fluoride (NaF), especially clastogenicity at concentrations of more than 1 mM. NaF is known to induce chromosome aberrations at these concentrations in human cells, but not in most rodent cells. We considered that such species-specific difference in chromosomal sensitivity would be derived from the phylogenetic distance between rodents and man. To clarify the role of interspecies differences, we investigated the chromosomal sensitivity to NaF in cell lines from various primates, which diverged into many species, including rodent-like prosimians and human-like great apes. The results showed that the clastogenicity of NaF was limited to human and great ape cells." PMID: 7679201
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9002384
"Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan"
"The Okinawa Islands located in the southern-most part of Japan were under U.S. administration from 1945 to 1972. During that time, fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies in most regions. The relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality rate was studied in 20 municipalities of Okinawa and the data were analyzed using correlation and multivariate statistics. A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities " PMID: 9002384
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596294
"Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States)."
"We explored age-specific and gender-specific effects of fluoride level in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma. ..."
"Our exploratory analysis found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females." PMID: 16596294
Also on PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19812419
"Is there a need of extra fluoride in children?"
"Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate, disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea, causing disruptive effect on tissues in the body. It inhibits antibody formation, disturbs immune system and makes the child prone to malignancy. Fluoride has been categorized as a protoplasmic poison..." PMID:19812419
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11512573
"Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on WHO data..."
"...cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-biliary and urinary organs were positively associated with Fluoridated Drinking water (FD). This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. Brain tumors and T-cell system Hodgkin's disease, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma of the skin and monocytic leukaemia were also correlated with Fluoridated Drinking water." PMID: 11512573
I was thinking that if it really did cause cancer, wouldn't that make it in violation of the Delaney Clause? "the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration shall not approve for use in food any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals.--"Merrill, Richard A. "Food Safety Regulation: Reforming the Delaney Clause" in Annual Review of Public Health, 1997, 18:313-40. This source includes a useful historical survey of prior food safety regulation. If fluoride is in water that goes into foods wouldn't it be in violation of this clause?
The following papers explain that some caries are due to high lead levels and fluoride doesn't help in these cases.
"Enamel biopsies taken from school children in a community where exposure to lead was a health hazard were analyzed for lead and fluoride. The children with high enamel lead had significantly higher caries scores than the children with low enamel lead, in spite of the fact that the high lead group also was higher in enamel fluoride. There was no increase in enamel lead with age. The lead in saliva was only a fraction of that in blood. Infants with lead poisoning showed higher saliva lead than a normal infant."
•"Lead in Enamel and Saliva, Dental Caries and the Use of Enamel Biopsies for Measuring Past Exposure to Lead" http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/56/10/1165.abstract The fluoride in their teeth did not prevent the caries.
Lead is passed on from mother to child. The child doesn't necessarily have to ingest the lead. It can be transferred by the mother to her offspring, just like fluoride.
See "Association of Dental Caries and Blood Lead Levels" in JAMA. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190537
See "Blood lead level and dental caries in school-age children" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361944
"Mean blood lead level was significantly greater among the urban subgroup, as was the mean number of carious tooth surfaces. Blood lead level was positively associated with number of caries among urban children, even with adjustment for demographic and maternal factors and child dental practices."This study suggests that the fluoridation of water can lead to higher lead levels:
•"Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead" PMID: 11233755 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11233755
Chronic, low-level dosage of silicofluoride (SiF) has never been adequately tested for health effects in humans. We report here on a statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead (VBL) tests taken from children ages 0-6 inclusive, living in 105 communities of populations from 15,000 to 75,000. For every age/race group, there was a consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead. The highest likelihood of children having VBL> 10 microg/dL occurs when they are exposed to SiF treated water and subject to another risk factor known to be associated with high blood lead (e.g., old housing). "Abstract: Lead, a toxin that lowers dopamine function, has been associated with violent behavior as well as learning deficits. Hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which were substituted for sodium fluoride without testing as chemicals for public water treatment, increase absorption of lead from the environment and are associated with violent behavior. Given the costs of incarcerating violent criminals, these side-effects justify a moratorium on using silicofluorides for water treatment until they are shown to be safe."
http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/052909coms/fluoride/RMasters.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The claim is made "Water fluoridation is effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.[9]", but the paper linked to says in the abstract "While the reviews themselves were of good methodological quality, the studies included in the reviews were generally of moderate to low quality." It seems weak to make this claim without pointing out that the citation used to back it up is of studies that are generally moderate to low in quality. Isn't there a review based on good quality science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.193.55 ( talk) 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I added a section on the York review to the article - I'm also looking for other good quality reviews. Tilapidated ( talk) 22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Colin - it looks like you removed the reference to the WHO study on the hazards of over-floridated water - it's not clear to me why you think this article should only relate to artificial water fluoridation - water fluoridation is a natural process as well, and a huge amount of the fluoride that gets added to water is through natural processes - it seems to me that it's appropriate to deal with that here. Tilapidated ( talk) 19:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This paper refers to "Currently about 49 % of the U.S. population is artificially fluoridated (hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride and sodium fluoride) and 7 % have natural water fluoridation"
http://www.xxfluoride.com/Dr_Russell_statement.cfm
Given the common and technical uses of the term 'water fluoridation' include both natural water fluoridation and human water fluoridation, and given the importance of all sources of fluoride in water when discussing the topic, it seems prudent to adopt the standard language around this issue.
Both of these are, prima facie water fluoridation, since they are processes by which water becomes fluoridated. In discussion above I listed examples of the use of this terminology in academic and public health settings. It is clear, unambiguous, neutral, and the normal language used by the community of experts dealing with this issue.
It's also important to consider all sources of fluoride when discussing the issue - the article currently does this already, which, without clarity on terms, risks ambiguity and confusion. Tilapidated ( talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)is that it does indeed change the scope of the article from having F- added to water for the purpose of controlling tooth decay to the general topic of water having F- added to it for any reason. I think this is the point being raised elsewhere on this page and this edit is still running into that problem, can we work on it to maintain the article's scope to be the control of F- level in water for the purposes of controlling tooth decay?Water fluoridation is the addition of fluoride to water. In public health, it refers to the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Community water fluoridation is also used to mean the same thing, especially when used in contrast to 'natural water fluoridation', a (mainly) geological process.
Zad
68
03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Aren't all the items covered: F- is controlled for the purposes of dental health, it may come naturally, it may be added. Is the only thing missing the mention of the term Community water fluoridation? We can do that by just changing the opening words to: "Community water fluoridation is..." and we're done?Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride.
Zad
68
03:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)If that's not your concern, and we're all still in agreement that the scope of this article is the control of the F- levels in water (whether the F- got there naturally or artificially) for the purposes of improving public dental health, then I'm still missing what the issue is. Is it just that the term natural water fluoridation should appear? I did searches on PubMed - "water fluoridation" is by far the most common term, "community water fluoridation" is used but much less frequently, and "natural water fluoridation" is relatively uncommon. The current lead does say "this can occur naturally" and, in my opinion, that's sufficient to cover it. Would adding a redirect from
natural water fluoridation to this article cover this part of your concern?
Zad
68
14:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
As we're writing articles for humans to read, developing them is only part science; it's in large part art, and often the choice of wording comes down to subjective choices over what sounds good. So, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think a change to the article is warranted. You are of course welcome to try develop a consensus of support from other editors for your proposed changes.
Zad
68
19:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
A couple of users have reverted the addition of a section looking at the major academic reviews of community water fluoridation, and I'm struggling to understand their reasoning in doing this. The section as I inserted it is copied below, and consists of direct quotes from the most thorough peer reviewed literature reviews I have been able to find, all published from highly regarded research institutions in significant journals. I invite those reverting this information to kindly explain their reasoning, and am excited to see any other quality reviews that they feel are relevant. Tilapidated ( talk) 23:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
In 1999, the Department of Health commissioned CRD to conduct a systematic review into the efficacy and safety of the fluoridation of drinking water. The review was published on the CRD Fluoridation Review website and in the BMJ in October 2000. The authors stated in 2003: "We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review."
A report on systematic reviews and studies was conducted. Of the 59 publications identified, 3 systematic reviews and 3 guidelines were included. The paper states: "While the reviews themselves were of good methodological quality, the studies included in the reviews were generally of moderate to low quality."
A 2008 literature review was undertaken on English language publications from 1996 onwards. Of a total 5418 nonduplicate citations identified, 77 were included in the review. The review concluded "fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride."
Zad
68
03:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC) -- In fact the NHMRC source, current citation #10, which is on the second sentence, supports the first.
Zad
68
03:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is heavily biased regarding controversial issues. It dismisses people who are in opposition to water flouridation as non credible and "conspiracy theorists." Evidence is stated in this article that is in favor to flouridation, but none of the many studies regarding the dangers of flouridation is stated, take this [2] for example. This article clearly has an agenda and needs more balance. 149.63.60.58 ( talk) 23:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Josh
See below references to fluoride and cancer--
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7679201
"Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells"
"Conflicting evidence has been reported concerning the mutagenicity of sodium fluoride (NaF), especially clastogenicity at concentrations of more than 1 mM. NaF is known to induce chromosome aberrations at these concentrations in human cells, but not in most rodent cells. We considered that such species-specific difference in chromosomal sensitivity would be derived from the phylogenetic distance between rodents and man. To clarify the role of interspecies differences, we investigated the chromosomal sensitivity to NaF in cell lines from various primates, which diverged into many species, including rodent-like prosimians and human-like great apes. The results showed that the clastogenicity of NaF was limited to human and great ape cells." PMID: 7679201
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9002384
"Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan"
"The Okinawa Islands located in the southern-most part of Japan were under U.S. administration from 1945 to 1972. During that time, fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies in most regions. The relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality rate was studied in 20 municipalities of Okinawa and the data were analyzed using correlation and multivariate statistics. A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities " PMID: 9002384
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596294
"Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States)."
"We explored age-specific and gender-specific effects of fluoride level in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma. ..."
"Our exploratory analysis found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females." PMID: 16596294
Also on PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19812419
"Is there a need of extra fluoride in children?"
"Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate, disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea, causing disruptive effect on tissues in the body. It inhibits antibody formation, disturbs immune system and makes the child prone to malignancy. Fluoride has been categorized as a protoplasmic poison..." PMID:19812419
On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11512573
"Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on WHO data..."
"...cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-biliary and urinary organs were positively associated with Fluoridated Drinking water (FD). This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. Brain tumors and T-cell system Hodgkin's disease, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma of the skin and monocytic leukaemia were also correlated with Fluoridated Drinking water." PMID: 11512573
I was thinking that if it really did cause cancer, wouldn't that make it in violation of the Delaney Clause? "the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration shall not approve for use in food any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals.--"Merrill, Richard A. "Food Safety Regulation: Reforming the Delaney Clause" in Annual Review of Public Health, 1997, 18:313-40. This source includes a useful historical survey of prior food safety regulation. If fluoride is in water that goes into foods wouldn't it be in violation of this clause?
The following papers explain that some caries are due to high lead levels and fluoride doesn't help in these cases.
"Enamel biopsies taken from school children in a community where exposure to lead was a health hazard were analyzed for lead and fluoride. The children with high enamel lead had significantly higher caries scores than the children with low enamel lead, in spite of the fact that the high lead group also was higher in enamel fluoride. There was no increase in enamel lead with age. The lead in saliva was only a fraction of that in blood. Infants with lead poisoning showed higher saliva lead than a normal infant."
•"Lead in Enamel and Saliva, Dental Caries and the Use of Enamel Biopsies for Measuring Past Exposure to Lead" http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/56/10/1165.abstract The fluoride in their teeth did not prevent the caries.
Lead is passed on from mother to child. The child doesn't necessarily have to ingest the lead. It can be transferred by the mother to her offspring, just like fluoride.
See "Association of Dental Caries and Blood Lead Levels" in JAMA. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190537
See "Blood lead level and dental caries in school-age children" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361944
"Mean blood lead level was significantly greater among the urban subgroup, as was the mean number of carious tooth surfaces. Blood lead level was positively associated with number of caries among urban children, even with adjustment for demographic and maternal factors and child dental practices."This study suggests that the fluoridation of water can lead to higher lead levels:
•"Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead" PMID: 11233755 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11233755
Chronic, low-level dosage of silicofluoride (SiF) has never been adequately tested for health effects in humans. We report here on a statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead (VBL) tests taken from children ages 0-6 inclusive, living in 105 communities of populations from 15,000 to 75,000. For every age/race group, there was a consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead. The highest likelihood of children having VBL> 10 microg/dL occurs when they are exposed to SiF treated water and subject to another risk factor known to be associated with high blood lead (e.g., old housing). "Abstract: Lead, a toxin that lowers dopamine function, has been associated with violent behavior as well as learning deficits. Hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which were substituted for sodium fluoride without testing as chemicals for public water treatment, increase absorption of lead from the environment and are associated with violent behavior. Given the costs of incarcerating violent criminals, these side-effects justify a moratorium on using silicofluorides for water treatment until they are shown to be safe."
http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/052909coms/fluoride/RMasters.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 ( talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)