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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
How about this Harvard study?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 ( talk) 17:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I see the phrase "other sources of fluoride" mentioned in this article but it doesn't explain what those "other sources" might be. We know fluoride can be found in toothpaste, tea, tobacco, air pollution, in pesticide residues left on our foods, in soft drinks, juice, raisins, flour, etc. Perhaps it would be easier to just explain what people can ingest that DOESN'T contain fluoride?
We already know that fluoride bio-accumulates in the body from ALL sources, regardless of the amount maintained in tap water.
And what agency/organization is responsible for monitoring the bio-accumulative effects of fluoride? Would that be Colgate? Or your family dentist? Or your local water district? Is there a special lab test one can request to determine their body load of fluoride? As in determining whether they're exposed to too much, or too little? Or is this just determined by guess-timation (or psueudo-science)?
A little clairification in this area would be great and would thus reduce a great deal of controversy regarding dose... scientifically speaking... of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.176.89 ( talk) 21:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you please include a link to "Fluoride - a chronological history" ( http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/10/31/fluoride-a-chronological-history/) to provide an alternative perspective.
203.2.35.176 ( talk) 22:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please enjoy with plentiful servings added to main article:
http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
Campoftheamericas (
talk) 02:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
See also
http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.pdf
At these sites, you will find links to unbiased, relevant, peer-reviewed scientific research.
Campoftheamericas (
talk) 05:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The caption on the first picture says that the fluoride in the water "doesn't change the appearance, taste or smell of drinking water." and then cites a source where those claims are inaccessible to the public because it needs to be purchased after going through login registration. In the information available to the public the claim isn't there. To view the reference it costs $35.
I live in Japan, where fluoridation is rare and went back home the the US and tasted the fluoride in concentrated orange juice. Perhaps the reason most people don't taste the fluoride in the water is that they have been drinking fluoridated water all or most of their lives. Regardless, that caption should be changed and use of the inaccessible references should be minimized.
Being that one of the first things that anyone viewing the page sees is probably those claims, doesn't that claim also poison the well? Instead of reading the article someone could go to the page and see those claims, that without $35 no one can confirm, and jump to conclusions.
Please change the caption. It isn't a good caption.
126.13.41.49 ( talk) 23:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, please stop adding irrelevant citations to the "IQ" line. I've said it twice but please understand: that sentence is about antifluoridationist literature on the web. not about specific studies that confirm/deny anything. That line is cited already (cite #22) and is not making the statement you think it is/should be. It would be wise for you to discuss changes before making them. Noformation Talk 04:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't pertain to your suggested edit anyway. I increased the verbosity to make it clear we're talking about water fluoridation [1]. I don't think it adds anything, personally. TippyGoomba ( talk) 03:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
RFC? I see
Campoftheamericas restored the RFC notification box but it's hard to figure out what the RFC question might be, especially for a newcomer to this conversation. An RFC works best when the question is clearly defined and focused on one particular proposed change along with the source.
Zad
68
03:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with
this edit that adds a primary source that does not study or review antifluoridationist literature to a sentence covering that topic.
Zad
68
12:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Should be made more clear that since it is in the water it ends up in most prepared food, beers, sodas, juices, and wines.
this was previously on the USDA website. http://www.fortcollinscwa.org/pages/fluoride.htm
Would be interesting to see a side by side comparison with countries that don't add fluoride to the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 ( talk) 05:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
ok i found it on the USDA website. http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/Fluoride/F02.pdf
A few specific foods to highlight the issue in the safety section or perhaps the ethics and politics section. Beer, wine, juice, and some fruits and vegetables should be mentioned specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 ( talk) 12:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
So It has been a month... Can someone add something to the article regarding other sources of fluoride? Also from the World Health Organization this seems quite relevant: While daily intake of 1–3 mg of fluoride prevents dental caries, long-term exposure to higher amounts may have deleterious effects on tooth enamel and bone. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/123075/AQG2ndEd_6_5Fluorides.PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 ( talk) 10:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The following statement in the article: "most of this is mild and usually not considered to be of aesthetic or public-health concern.[10] "
contradicts with [11], where the research states: "At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning".
I propose changing the wording to: "Those exposed to fluoride level of 1ppm or above, have a 12.5% chance of having dental fluorosis they would find aesthetically concerning [11]"
FYI, [11] is right next to [10] on the following page:
/info/en/?search=Water_fluoridation#References
Campoftheamericas (
talk) 08:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
please see Talk:Water_fluoridation#IQ_citations for the topics of discussion. Also Water_fluoridation#Aesthetic_Concern and Water_fluoridation#IQ_Citations.2C_Ding_Et_Al Campoftheamericas ( talk) 09:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I have had a look through the above discussion but I am still not quite sure exactly what the disagreement is about. Is it principally about the standard of source required to make certain adverse comments about fluoridation? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 08:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we still need a bit more work on the use of Choi, specifically what Choi et al. mean by "high fluoride". This is being used in our article's Safety section, and it needs to be specified whether this effect is something that would be expected to be found in water that has its fluoride levels managed for the purpose of dental health. I would not want a reader of our article to come away with the idea that these effects would be found at those levels, if Choi isn't saying that. Specifically, Choi says "The exposed groups had access to drinking water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang SX et al. 2007); thus, in many cases concentrations were above the levels recommended (0.7–1.2 mg/L; DHHS) or allowed in public drinking water (4.0 mg/L; U.S. EPA) in the United States (U.S. EPA 2011)." I think this should be worked in if we're going to use Choi, I'd like to pore over it a bit more on this.
Zad
68
04:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
non-article content
|
---|
|
Sounds reasonable. And I removed it again. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
We are writing an encyclopedia not acting out the pro/anti fluoridation debate. Both sides of this debate should, of course, be represented here in an encyclopedic manner but this article is not the place to push views for or against fluoridation. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/463/files/FJ2013_v46_n3_p104-117_pq.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.192.202 ( talk) 20:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The journal Fluoride is not carried by the
National Library of Medicine at all, its NLM catalog entry is
here but
this shows none of its articles are PubMed or MEDLINE indexed. I think we're all in agreement that per
WP:MEDRS its articles can't be used here to source biomedical info.
Campoftheamericas, although you state that the "Society does not take a position on fluoridation",
Quackwatch says
The International Society for Fluoride Research may sound respectable, but it is actually an antifluoridation group. We really need to be very careful about using anything published by them, even as a resource to gather sources, because clearly we'd only get one side. I do not see any value in using the lists of references their publications use when we can just use PubMed to search for well-qualified sources. Regarding "Perhaps some of those sources could be used to make the Wikipedia article more neutral, rather than only PRO-fluoridation"-- if the authoritative reliable sources do indeed express a consensus that fluoride is largely safe and beneficial, the Wikipedia article will reflect that, and it would not make it "more neutral" to change the article away from what the best-quality sources say.
Zad
68
15:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
non-article content
|
---|
|
Quackwatch has been discussed at length on Wikipedia before and consensus is that it's a useful resource to comment on those pushing fringe views in science and medicine. Either way, as mentioned, Fluoride isn't PubMed indexed and would not be useful to look for sourcing for this article. Per
WP:MEDRS The International Society for Fluoride Research isn't the kind of organization we seek out for sourcing, either. From
WP:MEDRS, we're looking for: literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies.
Zad
68
03:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This edit proposes the follow change to the opening sentence: "Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce for the purpose of reducing tooth decay." This edit appears to add more words without really changing the meaning conveyed. I prefer the existing wording.
Zad
68
12:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Evidence that water fluoridation is not a good thingout of it.
Zad
68
01:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)I see you
modified your statement after I replied to it, I really wish you wouldn't do that, please. Yes, I agree with you that the medical literature indicates that the anticavity action of fluoride is topical (as I said) and not systemic. The article already states that pretty clearly. I think historically people used to believe the effect was systemic but that's not the consensus today. Still not sure what the issue is you're looking to address.
Zad
68
02:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article ... does not express the current scientific establishment
<== Demonstrating that this is true through the proper use of authoritative reliable sourcing that meets
WP:MEDRS is the one and only path to seeing changes to the article stick. I think most of the editors here don't agree with your statement, and feel the article already does express the views of the current scientific establishment. The sources you've brought, or your use of them, haven't yet made a convincing argument that there's a NPOV problem.
Zad
68
02:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Please keep the NPOV tag, to show that the neutrality is being discussed on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campoftheamericas ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Note to editors: A
WP:NPOVN noticeboard discussion has been opened about this article
here.
Zad
68
19:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, is there a consensus to add a POV maintenance tag to this article? I do not believe it is necessary, but I want to give a chance for broader input. I won't bother with an RFC unless there is more disagreement than I'm expecting. Andrew 327 15:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Zad68, wants to discuss the removal of the claim = "Studies on adverse effects have been mostly of low quality." and "With regard to potential adverse effects, almost all research has been of low quality." https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=prev&oldid=576431509 This generailzation on the science is based on review criteria from 2002 http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v192/n9/full/4801410a.html Because the statement is based on a 11 years old review criteria, it gives a false impression on current studies on potential adverse effects. Prokaryotes ( talk) 13:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
There's another way that this could have been written, and it points to an overall bias of the page. McDonagh et al [4]are cited in order to dismiss concerns about adverse impacts, on the grounds that studies about adverse effects are of lower quality (mainly because they don't account for potential confounding effects). There is a failure in logic here. The same lack of quality research means that claims of safety (an absence of adverse effects) are also under-supported. As McDonagh et al. say (page xiv), "The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms." I read this as saying that there is insufficient evidence to say whether fluoridation safe or unsafe. If you're going to be citing McDonagh et al, why not express what they say about the state of research overall? They also criticize the quality of research for the efficacy of water fluoridation on preventing caries. It is better than the research on safety, but it is still lacking, they say. Why not include the following quote by McDonagh? "Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken." This aligns with the quote from the NRC Commission chair, above. Two groups of scientists conducted in depth reviews and both found that the scientific research basis for water fluoridation (efficacy, and especially safety) was less than you would expect for such an old and widespread program. Pigkeeper ( talk) 19:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Goal section: Once a cavity occurs, the tooth's fate is that of repeated restorations, with estimates for the median life of an amalgam tooth filling ranging from 9 to 14 years.[23] Oral disease is the fourth most expensive disease to treat.[24]
Mechanism section: Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.[12] ... Drinking water is typically the largest source of fluoride. In many industrialized countries swallowed toothpaste is the main source of fluoride exposure in unfluoridated communities. ...
"No clear evidence of other adverse effects exists though almost research thereof has been poor" - somebody accidentally a word, I think. Should be "almost *all* research". Would fix but page is locked and I have no account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.237.176.7 ( talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Choi et al 2012 is a major Meta-Analysis by a Harvard and Chinese team which found an association between higher fluoride levels and lower IQ. It can be found at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
This was discussed previously ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Water_fluoridation/Archive_9 ). Someone referenced the article and suggested it for inclusion (without making a case). Some thought it would be good to include it. Others argued against its inclusion for two reasons. First, it was argued that this page is about human-caused water fluoridation, not naturally occurring higher levels of fluoride. Second, it was argued cognitive impacts were found at water fluoride levels which were were "far in excess of WHO recommended levels" of 1.5 mg/L. People made cheeky comments that even water is toxic at very high doses.
This was too hasty a decision. There should be a reconsideration, and Choi et al should be included on this page. At a bare minimum, IQ reduction should be added to the adverse effects of elevated levels of natural fluoride in water. [Safety section] However, from Choi et al, there is justification for making a stronger statement.
First, as the article currently stands, there are references to adverse effects associated with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in water. But this does not included reduction in IQ. Why not?
Second, most of the studies which Choi et al reference show reduced IQ scores at fluoride concentration levels which are NOT "much higher" than WHO levels (as one wikipedian said), but rather are within the same order of magnitude. From table one, I count 19 studies which look at drinking water levels within an order of magnitude of the WHO levels--and most of them were much closer than an order of magnitude. Seventeen of those found that children from areas with higher-fluoride water had significantly lower IQ.
Not good enough for you? I counted 12 studies where the "high dose" of fluoride was less than 3x the WHO recommendation, and in 10 of those, there was a detectable decrease in IQ. That's really a big deal. Consider the therapeutic ratio for drugs. Drugs which have toxic effects at 3x the therapeutic range are considered dangerous. Of course, when you're dosing whole populations with the water, dosing levels are anything but exact. Some people drink more water. And in the United States, people get a good deal of fluoride from other sources besides drinking water, too. (Fagin 2008 citing Levy's work)
Furthermore, there is a 2011 article ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562 ) which addresses the question of "whether low fluoride exposure levels less than 3.0 mg/L in drinking water adversely associated with children's intelligence". Children from several sites in Inner Mongolia, China were compared, where there was natural fluoridation at lower levels in the drinking water (0.24–2.84 mg/L). The sample size was 331 children, and a comparison was made between the children's urine fluoride levels and IQ. From the abstract: "Urine fluoride was inversely associated with IQ in the multiple linear regression model when children’s age as a covariate variable was taken into account (P< 0.0001). Each increase in 1 mg/L of urine fluoride associated with 0.59-point decrease in IQ (P= 0.0226). Meanwhile, there was a dose–response relationship between urine fluoride and dental fluorosis (P< 0.0001). In conclusion, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose–response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis."
Something about this deserves to make it on the page, in the safety section. This isn't manufactured hysterical controversy, this is the real deal. Pigkeeper ( talk) 23:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Have brought this here for discussion "A 2012 meta-analysis found that fluoride exposure may be associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in children, as manifested in lower IQ scores, [5]though the authors cautioned that its results are not really applicable to the United States as their research focused on much higher levels of fluoride exposure. [6]"
potential to produce "chemical brain drain," Grandjean writes, is an issue that "definitely deserves concern." And: ""only 4 of 27 studies" in the Harvard review used the high levels that the Wichita paper described, and "clear differences" in IQ "were found at much lower exposures." [5] Note: the "Wichita paper" refers to this article. Jinkinson talk to me 02:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This new study, conducted by a professor at Harvard's School of Public Health, was published in a high impact journal is compelling and should be integrated in this article. I heard about this study on NPR, and it has rightly gotten much press. I say "rightly" because this review of research was published in a high impact journal and was conducted by a professor at Harvard (even Harvard's press release about this study is noteworthy). http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract DanaUllman Talk 16:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
In the article's section on "Evidence," there is the statement: "No clear evidence of other adverse effects exists, though almost all research thereof has been of poor quality." At the very least, there is clear evidence now from a couple meta-analyses published in high impact journals that provide evidence from high quality studies verifying dangers to exposure to fluoride. For starters, this statement now needs to be removed. DanaUllman Talk 03:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Z
I'm in agreement with the others here that the Lancet article doesn't appear to be related to the topic of water fluoridation so that it can be used here. DanaUllman, what exactly is your proposed change to the Wikipedia article using this source? Without a specific change proposal this discussion doesn't appear to be a good use of time.
Zad
68
05:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation [6] 212.200.213.54 ( talk) 20:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a challenging site to edit.. and takes some time to do so. As only an occasional editor, it is discouraging to have had my edits completely undone. It was fair to list the key and effective lawsuit in Israel and the resulting change in public policy. When the editors on this site reverted all work based on my citing the Choi study, the didn't remove part of it.. they removed the whole thing.
A process that is destructive to the contributions of less familiar contributors who have interest in the subjects progress!
The second effort was to properly categorize the two facts as controversy since they were not the majority opinion. That should have been let stand. I referenced the very detailed debate on why the Harvard Choi study was not listed because upon examination saw that great detail went into it. If it offended I would not have repeated it. Also again, shouldn't the editors of this page have simply removed that and not all contributions.
There seems to be a very aggressive group protecting this page. When I tried to reference one site, the computer showed me it was a blacklisted site. I found that odd as it seemed to be a simply activist site on the topic.
For all of the guarding of this page and topic, against possible zealots, the result is you are frustrating reasonable contributors.. at least me for certain, and the article has so much run on repetition it looks like a bad sales page quite frankly.
The cartoon under the Ethics topic is just prejudicial and insulting grouping dissenting opinion together with other groups.
This page has a long way to go. Please realize this is a moving subject and many quotes and sources are OLD dated and not reflective of key changes. Israel banned the use of Fluoridation after a public lawsuit. That's a whole nation, why remove that?
Please put back the content on controversy and remove the comment that offended. Thank you for any assistance!!
WikiShares ( talk) 22:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Reverted this [7] as the compounds were already mentioned Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The summary paragraphs are too long it obscures the Index it its fervor to sum up the process. Let readers click to topics of interest. And left out of the full screen of summary is reference to the key component being varied.
More importantly the use of fluoride is oversimplifying.. Early on varying Fluoride Compounds should be referenced, letting the reader find the variations below and not mistakenly assume as was once commonly thought a naturally occurring substance. The most predominantly used Fluoride compound is an acid compound, and was derived from fertilizer. I understand that is not a warming comment but it is real. So at the very least.. one or more of varying Fluoride compounds are added might lessen the over simplification of the summary. We do want to suggest early on that the reader look further into the types.. and might learn.. of calcium fluoride vs Fluorosilicic acid - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=601624283&oldid=601442814 That is what is added for the most part. WikiShares ( talk) 14:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The new Choi/ Harvard study must be admitted based on Wikis Verifiability policy which is as follows:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true".
The Choi Harvard Study has been quoted by Harvard it its own press release supporting the research, Huffington Post, and Fox News to name a few. It is verifiable! It must be admitted as a reference on this topic of varying opinion... even if it is considered the minority, it can be shown as such. But realize it is decades newer so minimizing fewer new studies in favor of many old studies is not exactly cutting edge research, as people want to see. Its simply old science we are showing. Obviously studies based on longer time periods available have more data to utilize so it is highly imprudent to have delayed this so long.
WikiShares ( talk) 06:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Ten, thanks for the politeness and tips, I am finding this a cumbersome process. LOL. Lets begin with simple things that go to the datedness of this featured article. Firstly and most obviously a dated article.. is the politically incorrect pejorative reference to economically disadvantaged persons as "the poor". This was corrected quite decently of me and reverted. I found that reckless and frustrating, as if the editors were so single minded of purpose the goal being simple to guard the hope diamond, a hopelessly dated pitchy article on a very key, in trending topic, and embarrassment to Wiki. Hopefully this is a diff.. ha https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=601624283&oldid=601453146 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiShares ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 March 2014
We should be writing with simple English, thus "the poor" is better than "economically disadvantaged" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
How about this Harvard study?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 ( talk) 17:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I see the phrase "other sources of fluoride" mentioned in this article but it doesn't explain what those "other sources" might be. We know fluoride can be found in toothpaste, tea, tobacco, air pollution, in pesticide residues left on our foods, in soft drinks, juice, raisins, flour, etc. Perhaps it would be easier to just explain what people can ingest that DOESN'T contain fluoride?
We already know that fluoride bio-accumulates in the body from ALL sources, regardless of the amount maintained in tap water.
And what agency/organization is responsible for monitoring the bio-accumulative effects of fluoride? Would that be Colgate? Or your family dentist? Or your local water district? Is there a special lab test one can request to determine their body load of fluoride? As in determining whether they're exposed to too much, or too little? Or is this just determined by guess-timation (or psueudo-science)?
A little clairification in this area would be great and would thus reduce a great deal of controversy regarding dose... scientifically speaking... of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.176.89 ( talk) 21:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you please include a link to "Fluoride - a chronological history" ( http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/10/31/fluoride-a-chronological-history/) to provide an alternative perspective.
203.2.35.176 ( talk) 22:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please enjoy with plentiful servings added to main article:
http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
Campoftheamericas (
talk) 02:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
See also
http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.pdf
At these sites, you will find links to unbiased, relevant, peer-reviewed scientific research.
Campoftheamericas (
talk) 05:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The caption on the first picture says that the fluoride in the water "doesn't change the appearance, taste or smell of drinking water." and then cites a source where those claims are inaccessible to the public because it needs to be purchased after going through login registration. In the information available to the public the claim isn't there. To view the reference it costs $35.
I live in Japan, where fluoridation is rare and went back home the the US and tasted the fluoride in concentrated orange juice. Perhaps the reason most people don't taste the fluoride in the water is that they have been drinking fluoridated water all or most of their lives. Regardless, that caption should be changed and use of the inaccessible references should be minimized.
Being that one of the first things that anyone viewing the page sees is probably those claims, doesn't that claim also poison the well? Instead of reading the article someone could go to the page and see those claims, that without $35 no one can confirm, and jump to conclusions.
Please change the caption. It isn't a good caption.
126.13.41.49 ( talk) 23:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, please stop adding irrelevant citations to the "IQ" line. I've said it twice but please understand: that sentence is about antifluoridationist literature on the web. not about specific studies that confirm/deny anything. That line is cited already (cite #22) and is not making the statement you think it is/should be. It would be wise for you to discuss changes before making them. Noformation Talk 04:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't pertain to your suggested edit anyway. I increased the verbosity to make it clear we're talking about water fluoridation [1]. I don't think it adds anything, personally. TippyGoomba ( talk) 03:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
RFC? I see
Campoftheamericas restored the RFC notification box but it's hard to figure out what the RFC question might be, especially for a newcomer to this conversation. An RFC works best when the question is clearly defined and focused on one particular proposed change along with the source.
Zad
68
03:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with
this edit that adds a primary source that does not study or review antifluoridationist literature to a sentence covering that topic.
Zad
68
12:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Should be made more clear that since it is in the water it ends up in most prepared food, beers, sodas, juices, and wines.
this was previously on the USDA website. http://www.fortcollinscwa.org/pages/fluoride.htm
Would be interesting to see a side by side comparison with countries that don't add fluoride to the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 ( talk) 05:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
ok i found it on the USDA website. http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/Fluoride/F02.pdf
A few specific foods to highlight the issue in the safety section or perhaps the ethics and politics section. Beer, wine, juice, and some fruits and vegetables should be mentioned specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 ( talk) 12:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
So It has been a month... Can someone add something to the article regarding other sources of fluoride? Also from the World Health Organization this seems quite relevant: While daily intake of 1–3 mg of fluoride prevents dental caries, long-term exposure to higher amounts may have deleterious effects on tooth enamel and bone. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/123075/AQG2ndEd_6_5Fluorides.PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 ( talk) 10:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The following statement in the article: "most of this is mild and usually not considered to be of aesthetic or public-health concern.[10] "
contradicts with [11], where the research states: "At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning".
I propose changing the wording to: "Those exposed to fluoride level of 1ppm or above, have a 12.5% chance of having dental fluorosis they would find aesthetically concerning [11]"
FYI, [11] is right next to [10] on the following page:
/info/en/?search=Water_fluoridation#References
Campoftheamericas (
talk) 08:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
please see Talk:Water_fluoridation#IQ_citations for the topics of discussion. Also Water_fluoridation#Aesthetic_Concern and Water_fluoridation#IQ_Citations.2C_Ding_Et_Al Campoftheamericas ( talk) 09:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I have had a look through the above discussion but I am still not quite sure exactly what the disagreement is about. Is it principally about the standard of source required to make certain adverse comments about fluoridation? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 08:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we still need a bit more work on the use of Choi, specifically what Choi et al. mean by "high fluoride". This is being used in our article's Safety section, and it needs to be specified whether this effect is something that would be expected to be found in water that has its fluoride levels managed for the purpose of dental health. I would not want a reader of our article to come away with the idea that these effects would be found at those levels, if Choi isn't saying that. Specifically, Choi says "The exposed groups had access to drinking water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang SX et al. 2007); thus, in many cases concentrations were above the levels recommended (0.7–1.2 mg/L; DHHS) or allowed in public drinking water (4.0 mg/L; U.S. EPA) in the United States (U.S. EPA 2011)." I think this should be worked in if we're going to use Choi, I'd like to pore over it a bit more on this.
Zad
68
04:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
non-article content
|
---|
|
Sounds reasonable. And I removed it again. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
We are writing an encyclopedia not acting out the pro/anti fluoridation debate. Both sides of this debate should, of course, be represented here in an encyclopedic manner but this article is not the place to push views for or against fluoridation. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/463/files/FJ2013_v46_n3_p104-117_pq.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.192.202 ( talk) 20:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The journal Fluoride is not carried by the
National Library of Medicine at all, its NLM catalog entry is
here but
this shows none of its articles are PubMed or MEDLINE indexed. I think we're all in agreement that per
WP:MEDRS its articles can't be used here to source biomedical info.
Campoftheamericas, although you state that the "Society does not take a position on fluoridation",
Quackwatch says
The International Society for Fluoride Research may sound respectable, but it is actually an antifluoridation group. We really need to be very careful about using anything published by them, even as a resource to gather sources, because clearly we'd only get one side. I do not see any value in using the lists of references their publications use when we can just use PubMed to search for well-qualified sources. Regarding "Perhaps some of those sources could be used to make the Wikipedia article more neutral, rather than only PRO-fluoridation"-- if the authoritative reliable sources do indeed express a consensus that fluoride is largely safe and beneficial, the Wikipedia article will reflect that, and it would not make it "more neutral" to change the article away from what the best-quality sources say.
Zad
68
15:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
non-article content
|
---|
|
Quackwatch has been discussed at length on Wikipedia before and consensus is that it's a useful resource to comment on those pushing fringe views in science and medicine. Either way, as mentioned, Fluoride isn't PubMed indexed and would not be useful to look for sourcing for this article. Per
WP:MEDRS The International Society for Fluoride Research isn't the kind of organization we seek out for sourcing, either. From
WP:MEDRS, we're looking for: literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies.
Zad
68
03:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This edit proposes the follow change to the opening sentence: "Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce for the purpose of reducing tooth decay." This edit appears to add more words without really changing the meaning conveyed. I prefer the existing wording.
Zad
68
12:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Evidence that water fluoridation is not a good thingout of it.
Zad
68
01:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)I see you
modified your statement after I replied to it, I really wish you wouldn't do that, please. Yes, I agree with you that the medical literature indicates that the anticavity action of fluoride is topical (as I said) and not systemic. The article already states that pretty clearly. I think historically people used to believe the effect was systemic but that's not the consensus today. Still not sure what the issue is you're looking to address.
Zad
68
02:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article ... does not express the current scientific establishment
<== Demonstrating that this is true through the proper use of authoritative reliable sourcing that meets
WP:MEDRS is the one and only path to seeing changes to the article stick. I think most of the editors here don't agree with your statement, and feel the article already does express the views of the current scientific establishment. The sources you've brought, or your use of them, haven't yet made a convincing argument that there's a NPOV problem.
Zad
68
02:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Please keep the NPOV tag, to show that the neutrality is being discussed on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campoftheamericas ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Note to editors: A
WP:NPOVN noticeboard discussion has been opened about this article
here.
Zad
68
19:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, is there a consensus to add a POV maintenance tag to this article? I do not believe it is necessary, but I want to give a chance for broader input. I won't bother with an RFC unless there is more disagreement than I'm expecting. Andrew 327 15:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Zad68, wants to discuss the removal of the claim = "Studies on adverse effects have been mostly of low quality." and "With regard to potential adverse effects, almost all research has been of low quality." https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=prev&oldid=576431509 This generailzation on the science is based on review criteria from 2002 http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v192/n9/full/4801410a.html Because the statement is based on a 11 years old review criteria, it gives a false impression on current studies on potential adverse effects. Prokaryotes ( talk) 13:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
There's another way that this could have been written, and it points to an overall bias of the page. McDonagh et al [4]are cited in order to dismiss concerns about adverse impacts, on the grounds that studies about adverse effects are of lower quality (mainly because they don't account for potential confounding effects). There is a failure in logic here. The same lack of quality research means that claims of safety (an absence of adverse effects) are also under-supported. As McDonagh et al. say (page xiv), "The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms." I read this as saying that there is insufficient evidence to say whether fluoridation safe or unsafe. If you're going to be citing McDonagh et al, why not express what they say about the state of research overall? They also criticize the quality of research for the efficacy of water fluoridation on preventing caries. It is better than the research on safety, but it is still lacking, they say. Why not include the following quote by McDonagh? "Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken." This aligns with the quote from the NRC Commission chair, above. Two groups of scientists conducted in depth reviews and both found that the scientific research basis for water fluoridation (efficacy, and especially safety) was less than you would expect for such an old and widespread program. Pigkeeper ( talk) 19:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Goal section: Once a cavity occurs, the tooth's fate is that of repeated restorations, with estimates for the median life of an amalgam tooth filling ranging from 9 to 14 years.[23] Oral disease is the fourth most expensive disease to treat.[24]
Mechanism section: Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.[12] ... Drinking water is typically the largest source of fluoride. In many industrialized countries swallowed toothpaste is the main source of fluoride exposure in unfluoridated communities. ...
"No clear evidence of other adverse effects exists though almost research thereof has been poor" - somebody accidentally a word, I think. Should be "almost *all* research". Would fix but page is locked and I have no account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.237.176.7 ( talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Choi et al 2012 is a major Meta-Analysis by a Harvard and Chinese team which found an association between higher fluoride levels and lower IQ. It can be found at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
This was discussed previously ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Water_fluoridation/Archive_9 ). Someone referenced the article and suggested it for inclusion (without making a case). Some thought it would be good to include it. Others argued against its inclusion for two reasons. First, it was argued that this page is about human-caused water fluoridation, not naturally occurring higher levels of fluoride. Second, it was argued cognitive impacts were found at water fluoride levels which were were "far in excess of WHO recommended levels" of 1.5 mg/L. People made cheeky comments that even water is toxic at very high doses.
This was too hasty a decision. There should be a reconsideration, and Choi et al should be included on this page. At a bare minimum, IQ reduction should be added to the adverse effects of elevated levels of natural fluoride in water. [Safety section] However, from Choi et al, there is justification for making a stronger statement.
First, as the article currently stands, there are references to adverse effects associated with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in water. But this does not included reduction in IQ. Why not?
Second, most of the studies which Choi et al reference show reduced IQ scores at fluoride concentration levels which are NOT "much higher" than WHO levels (as one wikipedian said), but rather are within the same order of magnitude. From table one, I count 19 studies which look at drinking water levels within an order of magnitude of the WHO levels--and most of them were much closer than an order of magnitude. Seventeen of those found that children from areas with higher-fluoride water had significantly lower IQ.
Not good enough for you? I counted 12 studies where the "high dose" of fluoride was less than 3x the WHO recommendation, and in 10 of those, there was a detectable decrease in IQ. That's really a big deal. Consider the therapeutic ratio for drugs. Drugs which have toxic effects at 3x the therapeutic range are considered dangerous. Of course, when you're dosing whole populations with the water, dosing levels are anything but exact. Some people drink more water. And in the United States, people get a good deal of fluoride from other sources besides drinking water, too. (Fagin 2008 citing Levy's work)
Furthermore, there is a 2011 article ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562 ) which addresses the question of "whether low fluoride exposure levels less than 3.0 mg/L in drinking water adversely associated with children's intelligence". Children from several sites in Inner Mongolia, China were compared, where there was natural fluoridation at lower levels in the drinking water (0.24–2.84 mg/L). The sample size was 331 children, and a comparison was made between the children's urine fluoride levels and IQ. From the abstract: "Urine fluoride was inversely associated with IQ in the multiple linear regression model when children’s age as a covariate variable was taken into account (P< 0.0001). Each increase in 1 mg/L of urine fluoride associated with 0.59-point decrease in IQ (P= 0.0226). Meanwhile, there was a dose–response relationship between urine fluoride and dental fluorosis (P< 0.0001). In conclusion, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose–response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis."
Something about this deserves to make it on the page, in the safety section. This isn't manufactured hysterical controversy, this is the real deal. Pigkeeper ( talk) 23:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Have brought this here for discussion "A 2012 meta-analysis found that fluoride exposure may be associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in children, as manifested in lower IQ scores, [5]though the authors cautioned that its results are not really applicable to the United States as their research focused on much higher levels of fluoride exposure. [6]"
potential to produce "chemical brain drain," Grandjean writes, is an issue that "definitely deserves concern." And: ""only 4 of 27 studies" in the Harvard review used the high levels that the Wichita paper described, and "clear differences" in IQ "were found at much lower exposures." [5] Note: the "Wichita paper" refers to this article. Jinkinson talk to me 02:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This new study, conducted by a professor at Harvard's School of Public Health, was published in a high impact journal is compelling and should be integrated in this article. I heard about this study on NPR, and it has rightly gotten much press. I say "rightly" because this review of research was published in a high impact journal and was conducted by a professor at Harvard (even Harvard's press release about this study is noteworthy). http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract DanaUllman Talk 16:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
In the article's section on "Evidence," there is the statement: "No clear evidence of other adverse effects exists, though almost all research thereof has been of poor quality." At the very least, there is clear evidence now from a couple meta-analyses published in high impact journals that provide evidence from high quality studies verifying dangers to exposure to fluoride. For starters, this statement now needs to be removed. DanaUllman Talk 03:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Z
I'm in agreement with the others here that the Lancet article doesn't appear to be related to the topic of water fluoridation so that it can be used here. DanaUllman, what exactly is your proposed change to the Wikipedia article using this source? Without a specific change proposal this discussion doesn't appear to be a good use of time.
Zad
68
05:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation [6] 212.200.213.54 ( talk) 20:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a challenging site to edit.. and takes some time to do so. As only an occasional editor, it is discouraging to have had my edits completely undone. It was fair to list the key and effective lawsuit in Israel and the resulting change in public policy. When the editors on this site reverted all work based on my citing the Choi study, the didn't remove part of it.. they removed the whole thing.
A process that is destructive to the contributions of less familiar contributors who have interest in the subjects progress!
The second effort was to properly categorize the two facts as controversy since they were not the majority opinion. That should have been let stand. I referenced the very detailed debate on why the Harvard Choi study was not listed because upon examination saw that great detail went into it. If it offended I would not have repeated it. Also again, shouldn't the editors of this page have simply removed that and not all contributions.
There seems to be a very aggressive group protecting this page. When I tried to reference one site, the computer showed me it was a blacklisted site. I found that odd as it seemed to be a simply activist site on the topic.
For all of the guarding of this page and topic, against possible zealots, the result is you are frustrating reasonable contributors.. at least me for certain, and the article has so much run on repetition it looks like a bad sales page quite frankly.
The cartoon under the Ethics topic is just prejudicial and insulting grouping dissenting opinion together with other groups.
This page has a long way to go. Please realize this is a moving subject and many quotes and sources are OLD dated and not reflective of key changes. Israel banned the use of Fluoridation after a public lawsuit. That's a whole nation, why remove that?
Please put back the content on controversy and remove the comment that offended. Thank you for any assistance!!
WikiShares ( talk) 22:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Reverted this [7] as the compounds were already mentioned Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The summary paragraphs are too long it obscures the Index it its fervor to sum up the process. Let readers click to topics of interest. And left out of the full screen of summary is reference to the key component being varied.
More importantly the use of fluoride is oversimplifying.. Early on varying Fluoride Compounds should be referenced, letting the reader find the variations below and not mistakenly assume as was once commonly thought a naturally occurring substance. The most predominantly used Fluoride compound is an acid compound, and was derived from fertilizer. I understand that is not a warming comment but it is real. So at the very least.. one or more of varying Fluoride compounds are added might lessen the over simplification of the summary. We do want to suggest early on that the reader look further into the types.. and might learn.. of calcium fluoride vs Fluorosilicic acid - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=601624283&oldid=601442814 That is what is added for the most part. WikiShares ( talk) 14:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The new Choi/ Harvard study must be admitted based on Wikis Verifiability policy which is as follows:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true".
The Choi Harvard Study has been quoted by Harvard it its own press release supporting the research, Huffington Post, and Fox News to name a few. It is verifiable! It must be admitted as a reference on this topic of varying opinion... even if it is considered the minority, it can be shown as such. But realize it is decades newer so minimizing fewer new studies in favor of many old studies is not exactly cutting edge research, as people want to see. Its simply old science we are showing. Obviously studies based on longer time periods available have more data to utilize so it is highly imprudent to have delayed this so long.
WikiShares ( talk) 06:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Ten, thanks for the politeness and tips, I am finding this a cumbersome process. LOL. Lets begin with simple things that go to the datedness of this featured article. Firstly and most obviously a dated article.. is the politically incorrect pejorative reference to economically disadvantaged persons as "the poor". This was corrected quite decently of me and reverted. I found that reckless and frustrating, as if the editors were so single minded of purpose the goal being simple to guard the hope diamond, a hopelessly dated pitchy article on a very key, in trending topic, and embarrassment to Wiki. Hopefully this is a diff.. ha https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=601624283&oldid=601453146 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiShares ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 March 2014
We should be writing with simple English, thus "the poor" is better than "economically disadvantaged" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)