![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
There are about 25 footnotes made for a single sentence. Is this appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.205.16 ( talk) 07:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. 128.205.75.125 ( talk) 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Is the Cross and Carton reference a trustworthy source? There are only 5 Google links, excluding this article, that mention them. All mentions are based on this fluoride thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.205.16 ( talk) 07:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Move to Opposition to water fluoridation. Better/more standard grammar. Badagnani ( talk) 02:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the page from Water fluoridation opposition to Opposition to water fluoridation, based on this discussion. Further moves should be discussed again through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 17:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist's recent edit [1] to this article changed the section title, and removed much well-sourced content concerning the risks of fluoridation, on the basis of his original research claim that every single municipality in the United States and every other country practicing fluoridation uses lower levels of fluoride in their water than would cause any of the health concerns reported in the numerous reliable sources cited. Wikipedia is not the place for unsourced pro-fluoridation activism or advocacy. 130.65.109.100 ( talk) 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Now, this was sourced to [2], by the respected National Academy of Sciences, certainly no anti-fluoridation activists. Earlier in the section, we learn that*Adverse effects on the kidney. Within the optimal dose, no effects are expected, but chronic ingestion in excess of 12 mg/day are expected to cause adverse effects, and an intake that high is possible when fluoride levels are around 4 mg/L.
which can be sourced to [3], a page in the same report by the National Academy of Sciences. So, its fairly clear that levels of fluoride which are reasonably expected to cause the health problems described in some of the content that ScienceApologist removed are at least permissible in municipal water supplies in the United States. Of course, any text that's really sourced only "to well-known "anti"-fluoridation sites" can be removed as unreliable. Unreliable content should be handled with a scapel to remove only the offending material, not with a sledgehammer to remove everything in a section. 130.65.109.100 ( talk) 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)In 1986 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride at a concentration of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is the legal limit of fluoride allowed in the water.
The issue is one of reliable sources. If you can provide a reliable source that links municipal water fluoridation to any of these conditions, then we can include it otherwise, the inclusion of this list is a unwarranted synthesis forbidden by Wikipedia. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
A tone of bias is very detectable in this article. One that appears to be against people who believe that fluoridation is not what the mass media says it is. There are people who rightly believe many of the studies done that indicate the ineffectiveness of fluoride at preventing tooth decay. There are studies, which don't get much public media attention, that indicate fluoride as a neuro-toxin, especially in infants and very young children. Many of the studies have included people who were children decades before fluoridation of water became standard, who grew up without fluoridated water, and who have excellent enamel and teeth and very few dental carries throughout their lifetime. In many cases it has more to do with proper nutrition and oral hygiene than it does with fluoridation of water. This article seems to be attacking or putting down people who believe that fluoride is a health risk, especially for some people. The tone needs to be less like an attack on people who question fluoride and feature a more neutral voice. 96.13.192.173 ( talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I did this because in order for this to be an actual concern you'd have to drink 10 liters of water a day in the places where the most fluoride is added to the water supply. That's an amount so large that you will have other problems (hypoatremia) before you encounter any adverse fluoride effects.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Issue #1) Is municipal fluoridation rising to levels of 4 mG/L? The answer is a resounding no. Since that is the case, any health effect including fluorosis and the other health risks associated with high concentrations of fluoride (in excess of 1.2 mG/L) are hereby removed due to their irrelevancy.
Issue #2) Is high levels of fluoridation a risk? Absolutely. However, that risk is not relevant to this page. It may be relevant to the fluoride page, for example, but this is a page devoted to opposition to governmental INTENTIONAL fluoridation of water supplies. Not pollution. Not high natural concentrations.
Capice? ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we use Opposition to the Iraq War as a basic structure for reorganising this article? I note that the Iraq article has a "Reasons for opposition" which is a summary of a separate article (ie/ kind of what we are sort of doing here already but organised somewhat better). Shot info ( talk) 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This form of editing is not permissible at Wikipedia. Please revert and discuss. Badagnani ( talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The massive, massive blanking is highly damaging to the article, and our project. Having an article about the opposition to water fluoridation that willfully blanks mention of the actual reasons for such opposition does not provide the information our users will come here seeking. Please revert the massive, massive blanking, thanks. Badagnani ( talk) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
As we've seen, however, reason X (and Y, and Z, etc.) have been removed entirely. That's not helpful to our readers, seeing as several of the anti-fluoridation groups have made their reasons for opposition well known--yet we don't list any of those reasons. There's something very wrong. Badagnani ( talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
We now have one article on such a group, the Fluoride Action Network. Five other groups in English-speaking nations (the UK and Australia) have redlinks under "See also" in that article. I haven't found any groups in Canada, New Zealand, or South Africa that have websites. Badagnani ( talk) 01:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't make any sense of the above comment. Their positions have been stated clearly on their website, as well as in the media, when they have been quoted. Badagnani ( talk) 01:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe there's enough in the subfield of opposition (including early anti-communist groups as well as current scientifically-oriented groups) to merit this article. I haven't seen much evidence that anyone has yet delved into the anti-fluoridation groups' literature yet, which is strange. There's also a book about the issue, which is mentioned briefly in the article. Badagnani ( talk) 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be a different article, perhaps entitled "Literature about the effects of fluoridated water," rather than "Opposition to water fluoridation." Badagnani ( talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't, because it would leave out the views of the anti-fluoridation organizations even more than this article does (even though its title is "Opposition to water fluoridation" the groups and their stated aims and activities so far merit only a passing mention). Badagnani ( talk) 01:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see the section heading. At this point we're in a period of damage control, trying against all odds to maintain the integrity of our community against huge blanking. Once that is resolved, we can move on to implementing consensus. It would, however, be good to see some evidence that the interested editors have actually read through and carefully considered the relevant sources. Badagnani ( talk) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Including your post above, I've not seen any evidence that any editor has actually carefully read the sources regarding the anti-fluoridation groups (such as Fluoride Action Network, the most prominent such organization). Badagnani ( talk) 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Actual substantive discussion of the stated reasons for the opposition of water fluoridation from the most prominent and active groups (from the groups' websites as well as in major media), with links provided, so that we may evaluate such information for inclusion in the article. See again the title of this article. Until now, comments have dealt in generalities or reasons editors believe fluoridation should not be opposed. Badagnani ( talk) 03:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have just read the entire article and talk page.It is funny how badagnani keeps saying the editors don't understand the info on the subject when they clearly do.It is also funny how badagnani keeps getting asked for sources and never provides any.I also wonder how these anti fluoride people will ever over come the fact that water has been fluoridated for over 60 years and the average IQ is still 100.No amount of pseudoscience can over come that.This reads more like a debate on youtube with conspiracy theorists.I thought Wiki was an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 ( talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Moving this into new section as is an aside to current discussion. Shot info ( talk) 06:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Not perfect, and can be easily populated with info currently in the article. Also the article doesn't need long discussions on the particular topic under "Reasons for oppostiion" (eg/ Fluorsis) but rather can simply say "a reason for opposition is fluorsis Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).". Fleshed out of course to make it more readable. --Shot info
Are sections 2 and 3 which are about the health risks associated with fluoride levels well in excess of any caused by municipalities fluoridating their water relevant to this article? Note that communities with high contamination or natural levels of fluoride in their water supply do not fluoridate their water and therefore the effects of fluorosis and other "health risks" listed are not associated with municipal fluoridation. The reason that this item is included is because editors at this page who are affiliated with anti-fluoridation campaigns are using these "health risks" and fluorosis concerns as a red-herring scare tactic. They get people scared about the health risks associated with high levels of fluoride even though that such high levels are never present in places where municipal fluoridation happens. Such bait-and-switch tactics may be used by the anti-fluoridation activists and ideologues, but they are not based in fact and should not be presented as fact. It would be like in an article on Chihuahua ownership opposition we included two sections on the dangers of wolf ownership simply because anti-Chihuahua-ownership groups used that as propaganda to spread their message. If there is outside coverage of these tactics by reliable, independent third-party sources then we can report that they use these tactics, but having Wikipedia simply state these "health risks and fluorosis facts" is a bald endorsement of these tactics and an obvious violation of WP:SOAP. My solution is either remove the two sections to a more relevant article (such as the fluoride article) or rewrite them so that the tactical nature of how anti-fluoridation activists use this "information" is explained to the reader. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Sigh This is my first arrival at this article. Disclaimer: I don't have a conflict of interest. Overall, I agree with SDY. The article contains much non-neutral information. Several items in the so-called "Health risks" have only a tenuous association with water fluoridation. Skeletal fluorosis is not caused by water fluoridation. This sentence from "Dental fluorosis": "The World Health Organization cautions that fluoride levels above 1.5 milligrams per liter leaves the risk for fluorosis Ref" is not backed up by the reference. This article needs heavy editing to approach a neutral viewpoint. Axl ( talk) 18:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
That make the page at hand more balanced and less like a POV/contentfork.
This source from the National Research Council. (2006) is significant enough to be mentioned in the Lead section. “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards National Academies Press.” (ref 13 in the article).
The fact that over 1,700 Health professionals Call for an End to Fluoridation of Drinking Water in a petition should also be included [9]. Signers include tons of MDs, PhDs and one Nobel Prize winner in medicine. At least one signer (the Nobel laurate) makes the petition notable enough to be mentioned, regardless of the media coverage I-Team: Fluoride Controversy, ABC WJLA/NewsChannel 8, Aug 9, 2007.
We should also add an overview of the various campaign organisations and other non-profits that are active in the area, probably by giving the more notable organisations two to five lines of text each. MaxPont ( talk) 06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Fluoride action network and fluoride alert are the same thing.Search fluoridealert and see what happens.FAN is not even close to being reliable.They claim to link to an NRC study wich says the current regulation of 4 ppm is toxic.The amount of 4ppm is not even mentioned on the NRC's report.The amount 4mg/L is.No municipalities use more than 1.2mg/L wich is also mentioned in said study.That is just one example of them lying so I question there integrity.I also question II's integrity as he claimed global warming skeptics out number people who know the truth on that subject.That is 100% untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 ( talk) 07:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
See [11]. An article entitled "Opposition to water fluoridaiton" should, in an encyclopedic manner, set out information about the organizations and individuals opposing water fluoridation, as well as their reasons for doing so (not ignore the issues that motivate them via enormous, massive blanking). Badagnani ( talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
An article about "Opposition to water fluoridation" should summarize actual reasons actual notable groups and individuals have opposed water fluoridation--not willfully ignore them through enormous, massive blanking. Badagnani ( talk) 01:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not productive to just add tons of tags with no attempt to solve the potential problems. IMO this article is "overtagged", one or maybe two tags can be kept mark the controversial nature of the article. The tags ought to be discussed, and removed if no compelling argument can be found for keeping them. MaxPont ( talk) 07:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence in this section:
"The largest study of water fluoridation's efficacy, conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research, showed no statistically significant difference in tooth decay rates among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.[26]"
implies that the study by the NIDR REPORTED "no statisticlly significant difference in tooth decay...". This is not true. The NIDR study data was reanalyzed by someone else who then reports this conclusion. 169.230.82.109 ( talk) 21:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Desoto10 ( talk) 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of the next sentence:
"A review of the evidence from the University of York, published in 2000, examined 30 studies.[27] The researchers concluded that the quality of evidence in most studies was poor, also expressing concern over the "continuing misinterpretations of the evidence".[28] "
is unclear. That review concluded:
"The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score."
I removed the statement, copied from the FAN website concerning topical vs. systemic fluoride application and caries. Please build a case as to why this is relevant and then just cite a decent review. Desoto10 ( talk) 03:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that conclusion was left out by mistake? Desoto10 ( talk) 21:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see some mention of the pineal gland thing. I've seen some studies about it. Andre ( talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The NPWA (National Pure Water Association) in England say that "The substance used in fluoridation schemes is fluorosilicic acid, an industrial waste product obtained from the pollution scrubbing operations of the phosphate fertiliser industry. It is contaminated with heavy metals and cancer-causing substances such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, mercury, silica and vanadium." Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 ( talk) 02:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Fluorosilic acid recovered from the phosphate industry is mainly used in water fluoridation [12]. Most water fluoridation in the US uses fluorosilic acid. It does have heavy metals, but only in very small amounts, and because it's only added in small amounts, the amount becomes theoretically negligible. Smokefoot is probably not correct that the acid is "purified" after it is isolated -- that would not be economically feasible. The possible relationship to blood lead levels is due to the corrosive effects of fluorides on metal pipes rather than the small amounts of lead. II | ( t - c) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The Potential health risks and Efficacy sections do not reflect the main article Water fluoridation. I'm not convinced that these sections belong in here at all given the title. Should they appear at all, they ought to summarize the corresponding stuff from the main article (which still has a few issues, but is overall of higher quality). Xasodfuih ( talk) 03:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there are two errors here: it's probably citing the wrong Yeung paper (i.e. one in adults PMID 17891121), which says "The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27.2%" in the abstract (I do not have full text access to this one). Second, since [28] comes after the York report ref, I think it was attempting to cite the other Yeung paper ( PMID 18584000), which only reviewed one extra study compared to York wrt. efficacy, and they say that it did not the change the oucome in comparision to York (no numbers given). The 40% number is not given in that 5-page summary paper either. Perhaps it's in the full report? (haven't checked that one). Xasodfuih ( talk) 21:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
A particular user who is under sanction from WP:AE made a pretty dramatic series of edits at this article. [13]. This is wholly unacceptable fringe POV-promtion, especially at the section on "Potential health risks". Due to the fact that this article is subject to pseudoscience arbitration enforcement and the user in question has already been warned, I have also reported this behavior to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Pseudoscience Report (2). ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
this edit makes a lot of changes. I have concerns with a large number of the changes made - specifically, the article states that at reccomended concentrations dental fluorosis can occour - I'm not sure this is verifiable, and certainly would require a source. I question why dispute tags (badsummary) were removed. Perhaps some of the changes made should stick, but it's hard to figure that out from a bulk edit that makes a number of controversial changes. If you could propose changes to this article on talk, we could discuss them and reach consensus before implementing them all at once. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The "bad summary" was restored to the efficacy section. Since that edit [14] was clear and simple, please point out any problems. II | ( t - c) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
So it was not wild for Diesendorf to call it a mystery in 1986, and it still isn't wild to call it mysterious. II | ( t - c) 22:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)It is remarkable, however, that the dramatic decline in dental caries which we have witnessed in many different parts of the world (for reviews, see Glass, 1982; Fejerskov and Baelum, 1998) has occurred without the dental profession being fully able to explain the relative role of fluoride in this intriguing process. It is a common belief that the wide distribution of fluoride from toothpastes may be a major explanation (Bratthall et al., 1996), but serious attempts to assess the role of fluoridated toothpastes have been able to attribute, at best, about 40-50% of the caries reduction to these fluoride products (Marthaler, 1990; Scheie, 1992). This is not surprising, if one takes into account the fact that dental caries is not the result of fluoride deficiency.
Hi. Like I said, I really can't follow when you make a lot of changes all at once. Perhaps you could propose one change at a time on the talk page, and we could discuss it. Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 00:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This section needs to be split in two subsections: one that properly summarizes the side-effects accepted by mainstream, and another that details the additional concerns raised by opposition, but which are not generally accepted. As it stands this section freely mixes the two in way that may easily confuse a reader unfamiliar with the topic. Xasodfuih ( talk) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The same observation applies to the "Efficacy" section. Xasodfuih ( talk) 19:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The Martin study does not criticize the theories of opposition - it criticizes the studies of the theories. Also, we should try to avoid summarizing specific parts of the study as opposed to focusing on the abstract and what the author thought was most important. I also wonder how well received the Martin 98 work was. Hipocrite ( talk) 00:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Fluorosis, or an excess of fluoride in the body can calcify spinal ligaments, which will compress and shorten the spine - http://www.myspinedoctors.com/conditions.aspx?srv=spinal_stenosis
There are a few conditions that cause spinal stenosis that are neither congenital nor the result of aging. Tumors--- can invade any of the spinal spaces and compress nerves. Paget’s Disease--- is a bone disorder that causes the vertebrae to thicken, obstructing the openings. Fluorosis--- or excessive exposure to fluoride, causes calcification of the ligaments around the spinal openings. The posterior longitudinal ligament, which runs down the back behind the spinal cord, may turn to bone and put pressure on nerves. - http://www.stenosisadvisor.com/spinal-stenosis-causes
Spinal Stenosis. Sciatica can also be caused by pressure on the nerve due to a narrowing of the spinal canal. There are several possible conditions that lead to spinal stenosis: Fluorosis--- Fluorosis is an excessive level of fluoride in the body. It may result from chronicinhalation of industrial dusts or gases contaminated with fluorides, prolonged ingestion of water containing large amounts of fluorides, or accidental ingestion of fluoride-containing insecticides. The condition may lead to calcified spinal ligaments or softened bones and to degenerative conditions like spinal stenosis. - http://www.stenosisadvisor.com/what-is-sciatica-and-what-causes-it
Concerns about fluoride use Nov 11, 2007 Symptoms of chronic end-stage poisoning may include sleep disturbance, mitral valve prolapse, cognitive difficulties, muscle pain/stiffness and spinal stenosis. Non-water sources include food contaminated with herbicides, pesticides, phosphate fertilizers, vehicle emissions, industrial wastes and Scotchgard. (La Crosse Tribune, WI) - http://health.surfwax.com/files/Spinal_Stenosis.html
Causes A lot of things can cause spinal stenosis. Some of them are: Congenital spinal stenosis--- you are born with it Scoliosis--- or other progressive inherited conditions that narrow the spinal openings Injury--- that results in a slipped disc, vertebral fractures or other trauma to the vertebral column Medical conditions--- such as Paget's disease [and Fluorosis], where abnormal bone metabolism causes deformity of the vertebrae. Toxins--- particularly excessive exposure to fluoride in insecticides, which causes abnormal bone growth. Degenerative diseases--- such as arthritis, that are part of the aging process - http://www.back-ache.org/a173687-what-is-spinal-stenosis.cfm
Fluorosis - An excessive level of fluoride in the body. It may result from chronic inhalation of industrial dusts or gases contaminated with fluorides, prolonged ingestion of water containing large amounts of fluorides, or accidental ingestion of fluoride-containing insecticides. The condition may lead to calcified spinal ligaments or softened bones and to degenerative conditions like spinal stenosis. - http://www.drjarmain.com/SpineConditions.asp?typ=spinalstenosis
Bone sampling can be done in special cases to measure long-term exposure to fluorides. - http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts11.html
There is no way, short of taking a bone sample, to unequivocally determine one's cumulative exposure to fluoride. It isn't possible to remove fluoride from the body as can be done for lead and other heavy metals. But "if you stop exposure, it will very gradually come out of the bone," committee member Thomas Webster of Boston University said. - http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/wsj.html
- http://balancingcenter.com/articles/fluoride.html
It is reasonable that 99% of the fluoride in humans resides in bone and the whole body half-life, once in bone, is approximately 20 years (see Chapter 3 for more discussion of pharmacokinetic models) - http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=133 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.72 ( talk) 16:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is input that should be sourced and and added to the article: "Hampshire MPs pledge to put fluoridation decision on hold in Southampton" [15] MaxPont ( talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
To integrate in the article: http://www.dentalproductsreport.com/articles/show/dpr0709_news_fluoride MaxPont ( talk) 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"At the recommended concentration of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L (0.7 for hot climate, 1.2 in cool climates) the only apparent side-effect appears to be dental fluorosis"
This implies that dental fluorosis is necessarily a side effect at these concentrations, which is definitely not the case. Very few people suffer any degree of fluorosis at these concentrations. It would also be useful to state who makes this recommendation, or if this is general scientific consensus.
"Constant ingestion of high levels of fluoride can cause adverse effects including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones; the WHO has a guideline of 1.5 mg/L."
This seems to imply that concentrations above 1.5 mg/L will cause the aforementioned conditions; however, the guideline of 1.5 mg/L is set to put a buffer between the therapeutic dose and harmful doses. In small children, there may be mild mottling of teeth at 1.5 mg/L, but nothing more. In adults, tooth mottling begins at dosages around 5 mg/L. Skeletal fluorosis and weakened bones require much (much!) greater intakes. (General scientific consensus on this, but if you need a cite, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/fluoride/fluoride.html is an easy to read secondary source.)
I'd like to suggest that these be reworded, but as this article is probably somewhat contentious, I don't want to do it myself, and leave the decision to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.44.127 ( talk) 20:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
but differences in socioeconomic status and access to dental care may make fluoridation more necessary in the United States.
The above claim is guesswork, and POV. The word, "may," tells us that the authors have no idea whether or not there is actually any merit to their claim. And it is not about the opposition to water fluoridation. Those are some of the reasons why it gets removed. Petergkeyes ( talk) 12:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Australia was one of the first countries to introduce flouridation, and is home to one of the earliest and most persistent (and convincing) critics, Mark Diesendorf, whose work is not adequately covered in this article. See New Evidence on Flouridation 1997, Breaking the Silence Barrier 1996, Overdosing of Formula Fed Babies with Flouride, Have the Benefits of Flouridation been Overestimated 1990, List of Publications Amandajm ( talk) 10:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Fluoridation general article has more on this topic, though still not enough. The fact that fluorides and fluoride waste products are integral to centrifuge processing of uranium and plutonium, and that fluorides in concentrated form are some of the most toxic substances on Earth are relevant. You must dilute them and spread them out to make them more cost effective to contain/handle. It is the entire basis for the modern anti-fluoridation movement. 1) that most improvements to dental health in countries are unconnected to fluoride. 2) that most benefits to fluoride that are substantiated by the evidence derive from topical use. 3) that it was the nuclear and chemicals industry that funded early biased, even fraudulent research and marketing of fluoridation... a clear conflict-of interest and collusion. 4) that whacko right-wing anti-commie conspiracies generally are not trusted by the public regardless. Yet, only the Jack D. Ripper-style straw man meme is mentioned anywhere here. That was always fringe, and holds even less sway now. Only the Birchers still hold to discredited notion. I hardly think citing sociologist is relevant. Soft sciences attempting to evaluate the hard sciences is laughable. - Reticuli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.59 ( talk) 23:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
In the safety section, an editor added the word, "constant" to the beginning of this sentence, "Constant ingestion of high levels of fluoride can cause adverse effects including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones; the WHO has a guideline of 1.5 mg/L." A. I do not see the word constant in the cited reference. B. The statement is illogical, because nobody constantly consumes anything. We must pause to sleep, breathe, etc. The word "constant" should be removed from the beginning of the sentence. Petergkeyes ( talk) 22:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
A friend has been edit warring to replace the offending word without substantial comment. Please do not add inappropriate content to Wikipedia without consensus. Thank you. Petergkeyes ( talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
A fellow editor removed a reference from the United States Health and Human Services. This - "Dosage cannot be controlled, and infants, the elderly, people with calcium and magnesium deficiencies, and people with impaired renal clearance are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride. [1] Was changed to this - "...but those organizations and individuals opposed raise concerns that the intake is not easily controlled, and that children, small individuals, and others may be more susceptible to health problems." The second statement is vague, cumbersome, and unreferenced. I say the first statement is far more encyclopedic, and should return. Petergkeyes ( talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"At the recommended concentration of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L (0.7 for hot climate, 1.2 in cool climates) the only apparent side-effect appears to be dental fluorosis..." I removed this sentence fragment for a couple of reasons. It does not state who recommends this concentration. But even if it did, concentration in community water supplies is not a controllable dose that allows for any generalizations to be made about side effects, or the lack thereof. Petergkeyes ( talk) 05:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 Environmental Protection Agency represents the professional employees at the headquarters offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More about Who they are can be seen at their site and following is the link to that. nteu280.org/nteu280-description.htm
Whose Mission Statement is: Working to Protect the Health and safety of the American People This mission statement can be seen at at their website is: nteu280.org/
The EPA Union has a section about fluoride that have opposing views about water fluoridation.
Hereherer (
talk)
The views that the EPA Union has about water fluoridation need to be a part of the opposition to water fluoridation article. Hereherer ( talk)
This information makes the article a more informative article. Hereherer ( talk) Hereherer ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC).
I have added a link to the external links section of the opposition to water fluoridation article with information about the EPA Union.
The opposition to water fluoridation article mentions the EPA Union in the Statements against section but the link does not link to the EPA Unions site. The link links to the EPA site which is not correct site for the EPA Union's site.
The link to the EPA Union in the Statements against section needs to be corrected to so that it links to the EPA Unions website and not the regular EPA site so that it is correct. I am going to fix that link to make the article a better article. Hereherer ( talk)
In order to improve the opposition to water fluoridation article's further reading section, I have added the following books.
All these books are relevant to the opposition to water fluoridation article. These books make the further reading section better and improve the article opposition to water fluoridation. 71.90.171.86 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC). Hereherer ( talk)
User Ckatz why are you deleting books from the further reading section? You are vandalizing the further reading section doing that. Hereherer ( talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)-- Hereherer ( talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The books are books about opposition to water fluoridation and are good books. Hereherer ( talk) 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because you do not like the books is not reason to not include the books OrangeMike. The books are in fact very good books and I do not agree with your comments about them. Hereherer ( talk) 03:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The public can decide after reading the books if they are good literature or not. Deleting the books from the further reading section does not improve the article.05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlourideBandit ( talk • contribs) — FluorideBandit ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
OrangeMike you just deleted the Books. without discussion and that is not helping the article Hereherer ( talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Note FYI, FluorideBandit is a confirmed sockpuppet of Hereherer. -- Ckatz chat spy 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The books cover all aspects of water fluoridation and are excellent books for the opposition to water fluoridation article. Hereherer ( talk) 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is about opposition to water fluoridation and not conspiracy theories.I think that the conspiracy theories section currently in the opposition to water fluoridation article needs to be in a new article separate from the opposition to water fluoridation article. Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the actual opposition to water fluoridation and the article would be improved if the conspiracy theories section was removed.
It can only be a conspiracy if they were doing it secretly but they are not. They do it with the consent of the voters representatives. Our elected officials vote to add the hazardous waste from China, Mexico and Florida to our drinking water. Since the generators of hydrofluosilicic acid contribute large sums to the dentists non-profit and the legislators themselves this is what happens when government serve industry and not the people. Not really a conspiracy is it?
The conspiracy theory section should be removed. Hereherer ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC).
No. There doesn't have to be conspiracy in order to have a conspiracy theory. As the article shows, there are conspiracy theorists who oppose flouridation simply because they believe the theory. This is important.-- 76.120.66.57 ( talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Opposition to water fluoridation is about the scientific opposition to water fluoridation and not conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories that oppose water fluoridation should be in a another article where those theories can be discussed. MIxing the two topics in to one article does not improve the quality of the article. Hereherer ( talk) 19:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
One person's science can be another person's conspiracy, I found it very helpful when reading the article to have various ideas in one place and presenting this to a class of students.
Cordyceps (
talk)
08:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
People are showing their ignorance here. A "Conspiracy Theory" is not a "crazy fringe theory", despite the general cultural stigma attached to the phrase. A "Conspiracy Theory" explains how Julius Caesar was murdered, how Adolf Hitler came into power, and multiple other events throughout history. It is simply a theoretical explanation, which involves some kind of conspiracy.
In this case, some of the opposition theories involve a conspiracy to mass medicate citizens without informed consent, to do illegal scientific research and such, which are all clearly conspiracy theories, and completely relaven to this subject. The "Conspiracy Theories" section should remain, although it should be retitled, "Opposition Theories", or something to that effect as we have clearly shown the social stigma attached to the "Conspiracy Theory" phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.246.23 ( talk) 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs in the conspiracy theory section have strong undertones of political bias, which contravenes the whole NPOV thing. The wording should be changed to reflect a more neutral point of view. 58.6.103.94 ( talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. NW ( Talk) 20:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Opposition to water fluoridation →
Water fluoridation controversy — (No opinion - simply formatting and posting per existing discussion.
Ckatz
chat
spy
20:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
Other articles on medical controveries have names that contain the word "controversy" or "controversies", for example, Aspartame controversy, Controversies in autism, Dental amalgam controversy, MMR vaccine controversy, Thiomersal controversy, Vaccine controversy. This article is the only one whose name says "Opposition to" instead of "controversy". The article should be renamed to Water fluoridation controversy. This is not only for consistency, but also for a more neutral point of view: saying "opposition to" in the title suggests a focus on only one side of the controversy, which is less neutral than saying "controversy". Eubulides ( talk) 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Previous discussions from July 2008 and August 2008. There might be at least one more discussion. -- 83.43.253.56 ( talk) 12:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A friend of mine once mentioned that she believed that water fluoridation was somehow linked to the aluminum/bauxite industry. If anyone has any links, information, or references to such collusion between the government and said industry--or, more likely, links, information, or references to the conspiracy theory--could they be added to the conspiracy theory section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.164.9 ( talk) 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
E.g. here's a link that mentions such a conspiracy, but both its style and content immediately mark it as unreliable, at least in my eyes: http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.164.9 ( talk) 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I also feel that it may be appropriate to put a semi-protect on it once neutrality has been established. This topic is targeted by conspiracy theorist and under-informed people. Adamlankford ( talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The whole text is very under-informed. This article is obviously written by persons who are opposed to opinions and research that oppose fluoride in the USA water supply. Fluoride is a top 10 household toxin according to Time Magazine April 2010. Warning labels on toothpaste tell you not to swallow the poisonous substance so why would it be safe to drink. Fluoride works topically and is available in foods that we eat, toothpaste, dentist do applications, and other sources. There is a danger of consuming too much Fluoride so it's a waste of money to pay for it to be added to water. There are consumers who do not want to drink Fluoride tainted water but have no choice. Good teeth come from good nutrition. When the dentists and others tell children that candy is bad for their teeth it makes sense that the nutritional value of sugar compared to the 4 food groups is obviously bad for the teeth. A little common sense is needed here and some self defense against toxic poisoning. The context of the supposedly opposition needs to have the articles at the bottom of the page moved to the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.30.136 ( talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
My input under the discussion tab on the Water Fluoridation entry was deleted for containing "copyrighted material" which I quoted and for which I provided links to the source material which I quoted. I'm proud to have participated in the discussion that led to the creation of this sub-page. I would like to provide a few additional external links if that is acceptable. There is no reason to omit the following links: http://www.slweb.org/fluoridation.html ; www.nofluoride.com/ ; http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/ 9chambers ( talk) 07:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 9chambers (John Chalos)
This controversial change renamed the section. But there is broad consensus for many articles to name such sections simply as Safety. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This page needs a section entitled Adverse Effects. I propose changing the name of the "safety" section to "adverse effects." The section is more about the potential for harm than it is about "safety." "Adverse effects" is more germane to the topic than the relative safety of the practice. Petergkeyes ( talk) 22:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Surely the book by Chris Bryson merits mention somewhere on this page. The entire volume of investigative journalism painstakingly details a compelling conspiracy theory about water fluoridation. The deleting party complained, "no personal claims especially without background information..." but that statement is without merit. The conspiracy is thoroughly alleged, and the book is replete with background information. If the conspiracy theory section is the wrong place to mention this book, please suggest a better place on Wikipedia. (DISCLAIMER - I am in no way affiliated with the marketing of this product! I simply believe it to be inherently relevant.) Petergkeyes ( talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Bryson's opinion is relevant because he researched and wrote one of the most comprehensive books stating the case against water fluoridation. Unless you've also written one of the most well-known books on the topic, then your opinion would not be more notable than his.-- TerrierHockey ( talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Editors should start to redirect references to the actual source that FA is mirroring. If that cannot be done, then alternative references should be sourced. Shot info ( talk) 22:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The second sentence of the water fluoridation article reads.
" The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation, although some continental states fluoridate salt."
Salt fluoridation is not the same thing as water fluoridation and should not be included in the article much less the second sentence. This article is about the water fluoridation controversy and not salt fluoridation. ( 5007a ( talk) 17:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC))
Salt fluoridation needs it's own page on Wikipedia as it is has nothing to do with water fluoridation at all. (
5007a (
talk)
19:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC))
Water fluoridation controversy
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hertz1888 (talk | contribs) at 10:31, 15 November 2010. It may differ significantly from the current revision.( 5007a ( talk) 18:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC))
The following is a continuity transcript form the movie Dr. Strangelove.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html ( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
Harold Hodge Oxford Journals Toxicological Sciences
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/2/157.full
( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 18:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
Find Target Reference Article about Harold Hodge
http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Harold%20Hodge/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Please explain Ckatz why the external link to Harold Hodge was removed by you on the water fluoridation article. (
GeneralMandrakeRipper (
talk)
19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
I was trying to contact you but could not put a message on your talk page so I undid the deletion you did as the only way that I could initiate contact with you. (----)( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 19:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
Thank you for establishing communication here Chatz on the issue regarding the Harold Hodge External link. ( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
The reference section is for the purpose for referencing information in the Water Fluoridation Controversy article itself is it not. The Water Fluoridation Controversy article currently does not mention Harold Hodge so I I did not put it in the reference section and chose the external links section instead. Most people do not know about Harold Hodge's influence with water fluroidation and I was just attempting to make that information available.
It would possible to add information about Harold Hodge to the article however I do think that someone would just delete it so I did not attempt that. I will make an attempt to add a section about Harold Hodge to the water fluoridation article but think that that information will be censored rapidly. I understand why you would want to keep the external links section clear but in the case of this subject it is hard to get any communication as we have been attempting to do so for over 60 years and have to overcome communist propaganda in the process.
I will make an attempt to include Harold Hodge in the Water fluoridation article shortly so that it references to the Oxford Journal Harold Hodge article. Thank you. ( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 19:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
All I was trying to do was figure out how to write this without all the little boxes and now this Wiki image is on here too. I do not know what is going on here. ( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
This reference can now be found at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm 128.250.5.247 ( talk) 14:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I recently adjusted the summary of the "precautionary principle" section under the Ethics subsection to better reflect, IMO, the content of the journal article that is referenced. My problems with the text at that time (and current text as my changes were reverted):
Further comments appreciated. Yobol ( talk) 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, read the source. You seemed to have said you have not read the source/reference for the section we're discussing. I am wondering how you could know if there is a context problem if you haven't read the source. And please, comment on the content, not on the contributor. Yobol ( talk) 14:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
WP has lots of articles about controversies, about global warming, evolution, 911, Barack Obama's birth certificate, the JFK murder. The general approach is to present the topic as it is described in reliable sources, not to copy every article that questions conventional thought. If this article has not been reported by third parties then I do not see its notability. TFD ( talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned that Gwen is edit-warring over this source. If you haven't read a paper, it seems like a bad editing practice to repeatedly revert someone who has read the paper. I appreciate that these papers can be hard to come by, but most libraries can help you obtain a copy - at least, that's been my experience. Certainly it seems preferable to using an "executive summary" of the paper (from an anti-fluoride website) as the basis for edit-warring with someone who's read the actual paper. But that's a meta-issue. MastCell Talk 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
See the section. What type of water does CDC recommend for mixing infant formula?
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1( Zxoxm ( talk) 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
The Section reads as follows directly from the above CDC site.
"What type of water does CDC recommend for mixing infant formula?
Parents should follow the advice of the formula manufacturer and their child’s doctor for the type of water appropriate for the formula they are using. Parents and caregivers of infants fed primarily with formula from concentrate who are concerned about the effect that mixing their infant’s formula with fluoridated water may have in developing dental fluorosis can lessen this exposure by mixing formula with low fluoride water most or all of the time. This may be tap water, if the public water system is not fluoridated (check with your local water utility). If tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride (0.7 mg/L or higher), a parent may consider using a low-fluoride alternative water source. Bottled water known to be low in fluoride is labeled as purified, deionized, demineralized, distilled, or prepared by reverse osmosis. Most grocery stores sell these types of low-fluoride water. Ready to feed (no-mix) infant formula typically has little fluoride and may be preferred for use at least some of the time." - http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1(
The CDC says to use a alternative low fluoride water source if the tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride. ( Zxoxm ( talk) 22:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
The CDC article is contradictory on the water fluoridation topic. The CDC can not just come out and say that fluoridation is not helping because that would be the end of the water fluoridation program. The CDC has to sit on both sides of the fence and has no credibility. ( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm
Blacks Disproportionately Harmed by Fluorides and Fluoridated Water
http://iaomt.com/news/archive.asp?intReleaseID=249&month=10&year=2007 (
Zxoxm (
talk)
22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
I would like to improve the article but the governmental co conspirators and industry co conspirators involved in the water fluoridation conspiracy are at the height of their corruption now and will make every attempt to hide the truth so I chose to update the talk page instead. ( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
Water fluoridation is the pinnacle of all conspiracies and noting will ever compare to it. Water fluoridation is such a awful conspiracy with such devastation in store that it's kind of fun to it witness it unfold on the populations really. ( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
http://iaomt.com/news/archive.asp?intReleaseID=252&month=11&year=2007 ( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intake for Infants and Young Children
http://www.ada.org/1767.aspx ( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
The Original Notice sent out by the ADA on November 9, 2006 about Interim Guidance on Reconstituted Infant Formula
fluoridealert.org/ada.egram.pdf ( Zxoxm ( talk) 00:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
Vermont Health Department infant fluoride warning article www.fluoridealert.org/media/2006n.html
Do a search for the following terms to find more articles about this. ada warning not to give infants fluoridated water ( Zxoxm ( talk) 00:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
The three panel members of the 2006 NRC report who opposed water fluoridation are Dr. Robert Isaacson, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen and Dr. Hardy Limeback. The NRC Chair Dr. John Doull also voiced opposition to water fluoridation.
Here is the reference
www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/index.html
The report "should be a wake-up call."
- Dr. Robert Isaacson, NRC Panel Member.
“The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored. What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.” - Dr. John Doull , NRC Panel Chair
"l personally feel that the NRC report is relevant to many aspects of the water fluoridation debate... [T]he report discusses the wide range of drinking water intake among members of the population, which means that groups with different fluoride concentrations in their drinking water may still have overlapping distributions of individual fluoride exposure. ln other words, the range of individual fluoride exposures at 1 mg/L will overlap the range of individual exposures at 2 mg/L or even 4 mg/L. Thus, even without consideration of differences in individual susceptibility to various effects, the margin of safety between 1 and 4 mg/L is very low." - Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NRC Panel Member.
"In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation." - Dr. Hardy Limeback, NRC Panel Member.
I was trying to do the edit the article as requested correctly and require some assistance to do it correctly. ( Zxoxm ( talk) 22:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC))
The following is quoted from the Fluoride Action Networks about page. www.fluoridealert.org/about-fan.htm "About the Fluoride Action Network (F.A.N.)
The Fluoride Action Network is an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures.
Along with providing comprehensive and up-to-date information on fluoride issues to citizens, scientists, and policymakers alike, FAN remains vigilant in monitoring government agency actions that may impact the public's exposure to fluoride. FAN's work has been cited by national media outlets including Wall Street Journal, TIME Magazine, National Public Radio, Chicago Tribune, Prevention Magazine, and Scientific American, among others." ( Zxoxm ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
Do you have any sources back up your claim that it is a fringe group that holds fringe views because Wikipedia requires sources.( Zxoxm ( talk) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
There are about 25 footnotes made for a single sentence. Is this appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.205.16 ( talk) 07:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. 128.205.75.125 ( talk) 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Is the Cross and Carton reference a trustworthy source? There are only 5 Google links, excluding this article, that mention them. All mentions are based on this fluoride thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.205.16 ( talk) 07:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Move to Opposition to water fluoridation. Better/more standard grammar. Badagnani ( talk) 02:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the page from Water fluoridation opposition to Opposition to water fluoridation, based on this discussion. Further moves should be discussed again through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 17:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist's recent edit [1] to this article changed the section title, and removed much well-sourced content concerning the risks of fluoridation, on the basis of his original research claim that every single municipality in the United States and every other country practicing fluoridation uses lower levels of fluoride in their water than would cause any of the health concerns reported in the numerous reliable sources cited. Wikipedia is not the place for unsourced pro-fluoridation activism or advocacy. 130.65.109.100 ( talk) 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Now, this was sourced to [2], by the respected National Academy of Sciences, certainly no anti-fluoridation activists. Earlier in the section, we learn that*Adverse effects on the kidney. Within the optimal dose, no effects are expected, but chronic ingestion in excess of 12 mg/day are expected to cause adverse effects, and an intake that high is possible when fluoride levels are around 4 mg/L.
which can be sourced to [3], a page in the same report by the National Academy of Sciences. So, its fairly clear that levels of fluoride which are reasonably expected to cause the health problems described in some of the content that ScienceApologist removed are at least permissible in municipal water supplies in the United States. Of course, any text that's really sourced only "to well-known "anti"-fluoridation sites" can be removed as unreliable. Unreliable content should be handled with a scapel to remove only the offending material, not with a sledgehammer to remove everything in a section. 130.65.109.100 ( talk) 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)In 1986 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride at a concentration of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is the legal limit of fluoride allowed in the water.
The issue is one of reliable sources. If you can provide a reliable source that links municipal water fluoridation to any of these conditions, then we can include it otherwise, the inclusion of this list is a unwarranted synthesis forbidden by Wikipedia. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
A tone of bias is very detectable in this article. One that appears to be against people who believe that fluoridation is not what the mass media says it is. There are people who rightly believe many of the studies done that indicate the ineffectiveness of fluoride at preventing tooth decay. There are studies, which don't get much public media attention, that indicate fluoride as a neuro-toxin, especially in infants and very young children. Many of the studies have included people who were children decades before fluoridation of water became standard, who grew up without fluoridated water, and who have excellent enamel and teeth and very few dental carries throughout their lifetime. In many cases it has more to do with proper nutrition and oral hygiene than it does with fluoridation of water. This article seems to be attacking or putting down people who believe that fluoride is a health risk, especially for some people. The tone needs to be less like an attack on people who question fluoride and feature a more neutral voice. 96.13.192.173 ( talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I did this because in order for this to be an actual concern you'd have to drink 10 liters of water a day in the places where the most fluoride is added to the water supply. That's an amount so large that you will have other problems (hypoatremia) before you encounter any adverse fluoride effects.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Issue #1) Is municipal fluoridation rising to levels of 4 mG/L? The answer is a resounding no. Since that is the case, any health effect including fluorosis and the other health risks associated with high concentrations of fluoride (in excess of 1.2 mG/L) are hereby removed due to their irrelevancy.
Issue #2) Is high levels of fluoridation a risk? Absolutely. However, that risk is not relevant to this page. It may be relevant to the fluoride page, for example, but this is a page devoted to opposition to governmental INTENTIONAL fluoridation of water supplies. Not pollution. Not high natural concentrations.
Capice? ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we use Opposition to the Iraq War as a basic structure for reorganising this article? I note that the Iraq article has a "Reasons for opposition" which is a summary of a separate article (ie/ kind of what we are sort of doing here already but organised somewhat better). Shot info ( talk) 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This form of editing is not permissible at Wikipedia. Please revert and discuss. Badagnani ( talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The massive, massive blanking is highly damaging to the article, and our project. Having an article about the opposition to water fluoridation that willfully blanks mention of the actual reasons for such opposition does not provide the information our users will come here seeking. Please revert the massive, massive blanking, thanks. Badagnani ( talk) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
As we've seen, however, reason X (and Y, and Z, etc.) have been removed entirely. That's not helpful to our readers, seeing as several of the anti-fluoridation groups have made their reasons for opposition well known--yet we don't list any of those reasons. There's something very wrong. Badagnani ( talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
We now have one article on such a group, the Fluoride Action Network. Five other groups in English-speaking nations (the UK and Australia) have redlinks under "See also" in that article. I haven't found any groups in Canada, New Zealand, or South Africa that have websites. Badagnani ( talk) 01:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't make any sense of the above comment. Their positions have been stated clearly on their website, as well as in the media, when they have been quoted. Badagnani ( talk) 01:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe there's enough in the subfield of opposition (including early anti-communist groups as well as current scientifically-oriented groups) to merit this article. I haven't seen much evidence that anyone has yet delved into the anti-fluoridation groups' literature yet, which is strange. There's also a book about the issue, which is mentioned briefly in the article. Badagnani ( talk) 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be a different article, perhaps entitled "Literature about the effects of fluoridated water," rather than "Opposition to water fluoridation." Badagnani ( talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't, because it would leave out the views of the anti-fluoridation organizations even more than this article does (even though its title is "Opposition to water fluoridation" the groups and their stated aims and activities so far merit only a passing mention). Badagnani ( talk) 01:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see the section heading. At this point we're in a period of damage control, trying against all odds to maintain the integrity of our community against huge blanking. Once that is resolved, we can move on to implementing consensus. It would, however, be good to see some evidence that the interested editors have actually read through and carefully considered the relevant sources. Badagnani ( talk) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Including your post above, I've not seen any evidence that any editor has actually carefully read the sources regarding the anti-fluoridation groups (such as Fluoride Action Network, the most prominent such organization). Badagnani ( talk) 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Actual substantive discussion of the stated reasons for the opposition of water fluoridation from the most prominent and active groups (from the groups' websites as well as in major media), with links provided, so that we may evaluate such information for inclusion in the article. See again the title of this article. Until now, comments have dealt in generalities or reasons editors believe fluoridation should not be opposed. Badagnani ( talk) 03:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have just read the entire article and talk page.It is funny how badagnani keeps saying the editors don't understand the info on the subject when they clearly do.It is also funny how badagnani keeps getting asked for sources and never provides any.I also wonder how these anti fluoride people will ever over come the fact that water has been fluoridated for over 60 years and the average IQ is still 100.No amount of pseudoscience can over come that.This reads more like a debate on youtube with conspiracy theorists.I thought Wiki was an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 ( talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Moving this into new section as is an aside to current discussion. Shot info ( talk) 06:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Not perfect, and can be easily populated with info currently in the article. Also the article doesn't need long discussions on the particular topic under "Reasons for oppostiion" (eg/ Fluorsis) but rather can simply say "a reason for opposition is fluorsis Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).". Fleshed out of course to make it more readable. --Shot info
Are sections 2 and 3 which are about the health risks associated with fluoride levels well in excess of any caused by municipalities fluoridating their water relevant to this article? Note that communities with high contamination or natural levels of fluoride in their water supply do not fluoridate their water and therefore the effects of fluorosis and other "health risks" listed are not associated with municipal fluoridation. The reason that this item is included is because editors at this page who are affiliated with anti-fluoridation campaigns are using these "health risks" and fluorosis concerns as a red-herring scare tactic. They get people scared about the health risks associated with high levels of fluoride even though that such high levels are never present in places where municipal fluoridation happens. Such bait-and-switch tactics may be used by the anti-fluoridation activists and ideologues, but they are not based in fact and should not be presented as fact. It would be like in an article on Chihuahua ownership opposition we included two sections on the dangers of wolf ownership simply because anti-Chihuahua-ownership groups used that as propaganda to spread their message. If there is outside coverage of these tactics by reliable, independent third-party sources then we can report that they use these tactics, but having Wikipedia simply state these "health risks and fluorosis facts" is a bald endorsement of these tactics and an obvious violation of WP:SOAP. My solution is either remove the two sections to a more relevant article (such as the fluoride article) or rewrite them so that the tactical nature of how anti-fluoridation activists use this "information" is explained to the reader. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Sigh This is my first arrival at this article. Disclaimer: I don't have a conflict of interest. Overall, I agree with SDY. The article contains much non-neutral information. Several items in the so-called "Health risks" have only a tenuous association with water fluoridation. Skeletal fluorosis is not caused by water fluoridation. This sentence from "Dental fluorosis": "The World Health Organization cautions that fluoride levels above 1.5 milligrams per liter leaves the risk for fluorosis Ref" is not backed up by the reference. This article needs heavy editing to approach a neutral viewpoint. Axl ( talk) 18:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
That make the page at hand more balanced and less like a POV/contentfork.
This source from the National Research Council. (2006) is significant enough to be mentioned in the Lead section. “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards National Academies Press.” (ref 13 in the article).
The fact that over 1,700 Health professionals Call for an End to Fluoridation of Drinking Water in a petition should also be included [9]. Signers include tons of MDs, PhDs and one Nobel Prize winner in medicine. At least one signer (the Nobel laurate) makes the petition notable enough to be mentioned, regardless of the media coverage I-Team: Fluoride Controversy, ABC WJLA/NewsChannel 8, Aug 9, 2007.
We should also add an overview of the various campaign organisations and other non-profits that are active in the area, probably by giving the more notable organisations two to five lines of text each. MaxPont ( talk) 06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Fluoride action network and fluoride alert are the same thing.Search fluoridealert and see what happens.FAN is not even close to being reliable.They claim to link to an NRC study wich says the current regulation of 4 ppm is toxic.The amount of 4ppm is not even mentioned on the NRC's report.The amount 4mg/L is.No municipalities use more than 1.2mg/L wich is also mentioned in said study.That is just one example of them lying so I question there integrity.I also question II's integrity as he claimed global warming skeptics out number people who know the truth on that subject.That is 100% untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 ( talk) 07:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
See [11]. An article entitled "Opposition to water fluoridaiton" should, in an encyclopedic manner, set out information about the organizations and individuals opposing water fluoridation, as well as their reasons for doing so (not ignore the issues that motivate them via enormous, massive blanking). Badagnani ( talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
An article about "Opposition to water fluoridation" should summarize actual reasons actual notable groups and individuals have opposed water fluoridation--not willfully ignore them through enormous, massive blanking. Badagnani ( talk) 01:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not productive to just add tons of tags with no attempt to solve the potential problems. IMO this article is "overtagged", one or maybe two tags can be kept mark the controversial nature of the article. The tags ought to be discussed, and removed if no compelling argument can be found for keeping them. MaxPont ( talk) 07:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence in this section:
"The largest study of water fluoridation's efficacy, conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research, showed no statistically significant difference in tooth decay rates among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.[26]"
implies that the study by the NIDR REPORTED "no statisticlly significant difference in tooth decay...". This is not true. The NIDR study data was reanalyzed by someone else who then reports this conclusion. 169.230.82.109 ( talk) 21:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Desoto10 ( talk) 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of the next sentence:
"A review of the evidence from the University of York, published in 2000, examined 30 studies.[27] The researchers concluded that the quality of evidence in most studies was poor, also expressing concern over the "continuing misinterpretations of the evidence".[28] "
is unclear. That review concluded:
"The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score."
I removed the statement, copied from the FAN website concerning topical vs. systemic fluoride application and caries. Please build a case as to why this is relevant and then just cite a decent review. Desoto10 ( talk) 03:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that conclusion was left out by mistake? Desoto10 ( talk) 21:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see some mention of the pineal gland thing. I've seen some studies about it. Andre ( talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The NPWA (National Pure Water Association) in England say that "The substance used in fluoridation schemes is fluorosilicic acid, an industrial waste product obtained from the pollution scrubbing operations of the phosphate fertiliser industry. It is contaminated with heavy metals and cancer-causing substances such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, mercury, silica and vanadium." Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 ( talk) 02:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Fluorosilic acid recovered from the phosphate industry is mainly used in water fluoridation [12]. Most water fluoridation in the US uses fluorosilic acid. It does have heavy metals, but only in very small amounts, and because it's only added in small amounts, the amount becomes theoretically negligible. Smokefoot is probably not correct that the acid is "purified" after it is isolated -- that would not be economically feasible. The possible relationship to blood lead levels is due to the corrosive effects of fluorides on metal pipes rather than the small amounts of lead. II | ( t - c) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The Potential health risks and Efficacy sections do not reflect the main article Water fluoridation. I'm not convinced that these sections belong in here at all given the title. Should they appear at all, they ought to summarize the corresponding stuff from the main article (which still has a few issues, but is overall of higher quality). Xasodfuih ( talk) 03:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there are two errors here: it's probably citing the wrong Yeung paper (i.e. one in adults PMID 17891121), which says "The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27.2%" in the abstract (I do not have full text access to this one). Second, since [28] comes after the York report ref, I think it was attempting to cite the other Yeung paper ( PMID 18584000), which only reviewed one extra study compared to York wrt. efficacy, and they say that it did not the change the oucome in comparision to York (no numbers given). The 40% number is not given in that 5-page summary paper either. Perhaps it's in the full report? (haven't checked that one). Xasodfuih ( talk) 21:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
A particular user who is under sanction from WP:AE made a pretty dramatic series of edits at this article. [13]. This is wholly unacceptable fringe POV-promtion, especially at the section on "Potential health risks". Due to the fact that this article is subject to pseudoscience arbitration enforcement and the user in question has already been warned, I have also reported this behavior to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Pseudoscience Report (2). ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
this edit makes a lot of changes. I have concerns with a large number of the changes made - specifically, the article states that at reccomended concentrations dental fluorosis can occour - I'm not sure this is verifiable, and certainly would require a source. I question why dispute tags (badsummary) were removed. Perhaps some of the changes made should stick, but it's hard to figure that out from a bulk edit that makes a number of controversial changes. If you could propose changes to this article on talk, we could discuss them and reach consensus before implementing them all at once. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The "bad summary" was restored to the efficacy section. Since that edit [14] was clear and simple, please point out any problems. II | ( t - c) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
So it was not wild for Diesendorf to call it a mystery in 1986, and it still isn't wild to call it mysterious. II | ( t - c) 22:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)It is remarkable, however, that the dramatic decline in dental caries which we have witnessed in many different parts of the world (for reviews, see Glass, 1982; Fejerskov and Baelum, 1998) has occurred without the dental profession being fully able to explain the relative role of fluoride in this intriguing process. It is a common belief that the wide distribution of fluoride from toothpastes may be a major explanation (Bratthall et al., 1996), but serious attempts to assess the role of fluoridated toothpastes have been able to attribute, at best, about 40-50% of the caries reduction to these fluoride products (Marthaler, 1990; Scheie, 1992). This is not surprising, if one takes into account the fact that dental caries is not the result of fluoride deficiency.
Hi. Like I said, I really can't follow when you make a lot of changes all at once. Perhaps you could propose one change at a time on the talk page, and we could discuss it. Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 00:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This section needs to be split in two subsections: one that properly summarizes the side-effects accepted by mainstream, and another that details the additional concerns raised by opposition, but which are not generally accepted. As it stands this section freely mixes the two in way that may easily confuse a reader unfamiliar with the topic. Xasodfuih ( talk) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The same observation applies to the "Efficacy" section. Xasodfuih ( talk) 19:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The Martin study does not criticize the theories of opposition - it criticizes the studies of the theories. Also, we should try to avoid summarizing specific parts of the study as opposed to focusing on the abstract and what the author thought was most important. I also wonder how well received the Martin 98 work was. Hipocrite ( talk) 00:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Fluorosis, or an excess of fluoride in the body can calcify spinal ligaments, which will compress and shorten the spine - http://www.myspinedoctors.com/conditions.aspx?srv=spinal_stenosis
There are a few conditions that cause spinal stenosis that are neither congenital nor the result of aging. Tumors--- can invade any of the spinal spaces and compress nerves. Paget’s Disease--- is a bone disorder that causes the vertebrae to thicken, obstructing the openings. Fluorosis--- or excessive exposure to fluoride, causes calcification of the ligaments around the spinal openings. The posterior longitudinal ligament, which runs down the back behind the spinal cord, may turn to bone and put pressure on nerves. - http://www.stenosisadvisor.com/spinal-stenosis-causes
Spinal Stenosis. Sciatica can also be caused by pressure on the nerve due to a narrowing of the spinal canal. There are several possible conditions that lead to spinal stenosis: Fluorosis--- Fluorosis is an excessive level of fluoride in the body. It may result from chronicinhalation of industrial dusts or gases contaminated with fluorides, prolonged ingestion of water containing large amounts of fluorides, or accidental ingestion of fluoride-containing insecticides. The condition may lead to calcified spinal ligaments or softened bones and to degenerative conditions like spinal stenosis. - http://www.stenosisadvisor.com/what-is-sciatica-and-what-causes-it
Concerns about fluoride use Nov 11, 2007 Symptoms of chronic end-stage poisoning may include sleep disturbance, mitral valve prolapse, cognitive difficulties, muscle pain/stiffness and spinal stenosis. Non-water sources include food contaminated with herbicides, pesticides, phosphate fertilizers, vehicle emissions, industrial wastes and Scotchgard. (La Crosse Tribune, WI) - http://health.surfwax.com/files/Spinal_Stenosis.html
Causes A lot of things can cause spinal stenosis. Some of them are: Congenital spinal stenosis--- you are born with it Scoliosis--- or other progressive inherited conditions that narrow the spinal openings Injury--- that results in a slipped disc, vertebral fractures or other trauma to the vertebral column Medical conditions--- such as Paget's disease [and Fluorosis], where abnormal bone metabolism causes deformity of the vertebrae. Toxins--- particularly excessive exposure to fluoride in insecticides, which causes abnormal bone growth. Degenerative diseases--- such as arthritis, that are part of the aging process - http://www.back-ache.org/a173687-what-is-spinal-stenosis.cfm
Fluorosis - An excessive level of fluoride in the body. It may result from chronic inhalation of industrial dusts or gases contaminated with fluorides, prolonged ingestion of water containing large amounts of fluorides, or accidental ingestion of fluoride-containing insecticides. The condition may lead to calcified spinal ligaments or softened bones and to degenerative conditions like spinal stenosis. - http://www.drjarmain.com/SpineConditions.asp?typ=spinalstenosis
Bone sampling can be done in special cases to measure long-term exposure to fluorides. - http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts11.html
There is no way, short of taking a bone sample, to unequivocally determine one's cumulative exposure to fluoride. It isn't possible to remove fluoride from the body as can be done for lead and other heavy metals. But "if you stop exposure, it will very gradually come out of the bone," committee member Thomas Webster of Boston University said. - http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/wsj.html
- http://balancingcenter.com/articles/fluoride.html
It is reasonable that 99% of the fluoride in humans resides in bone and the whole body half-life, once in bone, is approximately 20 years (see Chapter 3 for more discussion of pharmacokinetic models) - http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=133 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.72 ( talk) 16:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is input that should be sourced and and added to the article: "Hampshire MPs pledge to put fluoridation decision on hold in Southampton" [15] MaxPont ( talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
To integrate in the article: http://www.dentalproductsreport.com/articles/show/dpr0709_news_fluoride MaxPont ( talk) 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"At the recommended concentration of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L (0.7 for hot climate, 1.2 in cool climates) the only apparent side-effect appears to be dental fluorosis"
This implies that dental fluorosis is necessarily a side effect at these concentrations, which is definitely not the case. Very few people suffer any degree of fluorosis at these concentrations. It would also be useful to state who makes this recommendation, or if this is general scientific consensus.
"Constant ingestion of high levels of fluoride can cause adverse effects including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones; the WHO has a guideline of 1.5 mg/L."
This seems to imply that concentrations above 1.5 mg/L will cause the aforementioned conditions; however, the guideline of 1.5 mg/L is set to put a buffer between the therapeutic dose and harmful doses. In small children, there may be mild mottling of teeth at 1.5 mg/L, but nothing more. In adults, tooth mottling begins at dosages around 5 mg/L. Skeletal fluorosis and weakened bones require much (much!) greater intakes. (General scientific consensus on this, but if you need a cite, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/fluoride/fluoride.html is an easy to read secondary source.)
I'd like to suggest that these be reworded, but as this article is probably somewhat contentious, I don't want to do it myself, and leave the decision to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.44.127 ( talk) 20:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
but differences in socioeconomic status and access to dental care may make fluoridation more necessary in the United States.
The above claim is guesswork, and POV. The word, "may," tells us that the authors have no idea whether or not there is actually any merit to their claim. And it is not about the opposition to water fluoridation. Those are some of the reasons why it gets removed. Petergkeyes ( talk) 12:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Australia was one of the first countries to introduce flouridation, and is home to one of the earliest and most persistent (and convincing) critics, Mark Diesendorf, whose work is not adequately covered in this article. See New Evidence on Flouridation 1997, Breaking the Silence Barrier 1996, Overdosing of Formula Fed Babies with Flouride, Have the Benefits of Flouridation been Overestimated 1990, List of Publications Amandajm ( talk) 10:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Fluoridation general article has more on this topic, though still not enough. The fact that fluorides and fluoride waste products are integral to centrifuge processing of uranium and plutonium, and that fluorides in concentrated form are some of the most toxic substances on Earth are relevant. You must dilute them and spread them out to make them more cost effective to contain/handle. It is the entire basis for the modern anti-fluoridation movement. 1) that most improvements to dental health in countries are unconnected to fluoride. 2) that most benefits to fluoride that are substantiated by the evidence derive from topical use. 3) that it was the nuclear and chemicals industry that funded early biased, even fraudulent research and marketing of fluoridation... a clear conflict-of interest and collusion. 4) that whacko right-wing anti-commie conspiracies generally are not trusted by the public regardless. Yet, only the Jack D. Ripper-style straw man meme is mentioned anywhere here. That was always fringe, and holds even less sway now. Only the Birchers still hold to discredited notion. I hardly think citing sociologist is relevant. Soft sciences attempting to evaluate the hard sciences is laughable. - Reticuli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.59 ( talk) 23:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
In the safety section, an editor added the word, "constant" to the beginning of this sentence, "Constant ingestion of high levels of fluoride can cause adverse effects including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones; the WHO has a guideline of 1.5 mg/L." A. I do not see the word constant in the cited reference. B. The statement is illogical, because nobody constantly consumes anything. We must pause to sleep, breathe, etc. The word "constant" should be removed from the beginning of the sentence. Petergkeyes ( talk) 22:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
A friend has been edit warring to replace the offending word without substantial comment. Please do not add inappropriate content to Wikipedia without consensus. Thank you. Petergkeyes ( talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
A fellow editor removed a reference from the United States Health and Human Services. This - "Dosage cannot be controlled, and infants, the elderly, people with calcium and magnesium deficiencies, and people with impaired renal clearance are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride. [1] Was changed to this - "...but those organizations and individuals opposed raise concerns that the intake is not easily controlled, and that children, small individuals, and others may be more susceptible to health problems." The second statement is vague, cumbersome, and unreferenced. I say the first statement is far more encyclopedic, and should return. Petergkeyes ( talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"At the recommended concentration of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L (0.7 for hot climate, 1.2 in cool climates) the only apparent side-effect appears to be dental fluorosis..." I removed this sentence fragment for a couple of reasons. It does not state who recommends this concentration. But even if it did, concentration in community water supplies is not a controllable dose that allows for any generalizations to be made about side effects, or the lack thereof. Petergkeyes ( talk) 05:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 Environmental Protection Agency represents the professional employees at the headquarters offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More about Who they are can be seen at their site and following is the link to that. nteu280.org/nteu280-description.htm
Whose Mission Statement is: Working to Protect the Health and safety of the American People This mission statement can be seen at at their website is: nteu280.org/
The EPA Union has a section about fluoride that have opposing views about water fluoridation.
Hereherer (
talk)
The views that the EPA Union has about water fluoridation need to be a part of the opposition to water fluoridation article. Hereherer ( talk)
This information makes the article a more informative article. Hereherer ( talk) Hereherer ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC).
I have added a link to the external links section of the opposition to water fluoridation article with information about the EPA Union.
The opposition to water fluoridation article mentions the EPA Union in the Statements against section but the link does not link to the EPA Unions site. The link links to the EPA site which is not correct site for the EPA Union's site.
The link to the EPA Union in the Statements against section needs to be corrected to so that it links to the EPA Unions website and not the regular EPA site so that it is correct. I am going to fix that link to make the article a better article. Hereherer ( talk)
In order to improve the opposition to water fluoridation article's further reading section, I have added the following books.
All these books are relevant to the opposition to water fluoridation article. These books make the further reading section better and improve the article opposition to water fluoridation. 71.90.171.86 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC). Hereherer ( talk)
User Ckatz why are you deleting books from the further reading section? You are vandalizing the further reading section doing that. Hereherer ( talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)-- Hereherer ( talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The books are books about opposition to water fluoridation and are good books. Hereherer ( talk) 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because you do not like the books is not reason to not include the books OrangeMike. The books are in fact very good books and I do not agree with your comments about them. Hereherer ( talk) 03:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The public can decide after reading the books if they are good literature or not. Deleting the books from the further reading section does not improve the article.05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlourideBandit ( talk • contribs) — FluorideBandit ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
OrangeMike you just deleted the Books. without discussion and that is not helping the article Hereherer ( talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Note FYI, FluorideBandit is a confirmed sockpuppet of Hereherer. -- Ckatz chat spy 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The books cover all aspects of water fluoridation and are excellent books for the opposition to water fluoridation article. Hereherer ( talk) 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is about opposition to water fluoridation and not conspiracy theories.I think that the conspiracy theories section currently in the opposition to water fluoridation article needs to be in a new article separate from the opposition to water fluoridation article. Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the actual opposition to water fluoridation and the article would be improved if the conspiracy theories section was removed.
It can only be a conspiracy if they were doing it secretly but they are not. They do it with the consent of the voters representatives. Our elected officials vote to add the hazardous waste from China, Mexico and Florida to our drinking water. Since the generators of hydrofluosilicic acid contribute large sums to the dentists non-profit and the legislators themselves this is what happens when government serve industry and not the people. Not really a conspiracy is it?
The conspiracy theory section should be removed. Hereherer ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC).
No. There doesn't have to be conspiracy in order to have a conspiracy theory. As the article shows, there are conspiracy theorists who oppose flouridation simply because they believe the theory. This is important.-- 76.120.66.57 ( talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Opposition to water fluoridation is about the scientific opposition to water fluoridation and not conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories that oppose water fluoridation should be in a another article where those theories can be discussed. MIxing the two topics in to one article does not improve the quality of the article. Hereherer ( talk) 19:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
One person's science can be another person's conspiracy, I found it very helpful when reading the article to have various ideas in one place and presenting this to a class of students.
Cordyceps (
talk)
08:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
People are showing their ignorance here. A "Conspiracy Theory" is not a "crazy fringe theory", despite the general cultural stigma attached to the phrase. A "Conspiracy Theory" explains how Julius Caesar was murdered, how Adolf Hitler came into power, and multiple other events throughout history. It is simply a theoretical explanation, which involves some kind of conspiracy.
In this case, some of the opposition theories involve a conspiracy to mass medicate citizens without informed consent, to do illegal scientific research and such, which are all clearly conspiracy theories, and completely relaven to this subject. The "Conspiracy Theories" section should remain, although it should be retitled, "Opposition Theories", or something to that effect as we have clearly shown the social stigma attached to the "Conspiracy Theory" phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.246.23 ( talk) 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs in the conspiracy theory section have strong undertones of political bias, which contravenes the whole NPOV thing. The wording should be changed to reflect a more neutral point of view. 58.6.103.94 ( talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. NW ( Talk) 20:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Opposition to water fluoridation →
Water fluoridation controversy — (No opinion - simply formatting and posting per existing discussion.
Ckatz
chat
spy
20:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
Other articles on medical controveries have names that contain the word "controversy" or "controversies", for example, Aspartame controversy, Controversies in autism, Dental amalgam controversy, MMR vaccine controversy, Thiomersal controversy, Vaccine controversy. This article is the only one whose name says "Opposition to" instead of "controversy". The article should be renamed to Water fluoridation controversy. This is not only for consistency, but also for a more neutral point of view: saying "opposition to" in the title suggests a focus on only one side of the controversy, which is less neutral than saying "controversy". Eubulides ( talk) 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Previous discussions from July 2008 and August 2008. There might be at least one more discussion. -- 83.43.253.56 ( talk) 12:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A friend of mine once mentioned that she believed that water fluoridation was somehow linked to the aluminum/bauxite industry. If anyone has any links, information, or references to such collusion between the government and said industry--or, more likely, links, information, or references to the conspiracy theory--could they be added to the conspiracy theory section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.164.9 ( talk) 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
E.g. here's a link that mentions such a conspiracy, but both its style and content immediately mark it as unreliable, at least in my eyes: http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.164.9 ( talk) 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I also feel that it may be appropriate to put a semi-protect on it once neutrality has been established. This topic is targeted by conspiracy theorist and under-informed people. Adamlankford ( talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The whole text is very under-informed. This article is obviously written by persons who are opposed to opinions and research that oppose fluoride in the USA water supply. Fluoride is a top 10 household toxin according to Time Magazine April 2010. Warning labels on toothpaste tell you not to swallow the poisonous substance so why would it be safe to drink. Fluoride works topically and is available in foods that we eat, toothpaste, dentist do applications, and other sources. There is a danger of consuming too much Fluoride so it's a waste of money to pay for it to be added to water. There are consumers who do not want to drink Fluoride tainted water but have no choice. Good teeth come from good nutrition. When the dentists and others tell children that candy is bad for their teeth it makes sense that the nutritional value of sugar compared to the 4 food groups is obviously bad for the teeth. A little common sense is needed here and some self defense against toxic poisoning. The context of the supposedly opposition needs to have the articles at the bottom of the page moved to the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.30.136 ( talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
My input under the discussion tab on the Water Fluoridation entry was deleted for containing "copyrighted material" which I quoted and for which I provided links to the source material which I quoted. I'm proud to have participated in the discussion that led to the creation of this sub-page. I would like to provide a few additional external links if that is acceptable. There is no reason to omit the following links: http://www.slweb.org/fluoridation.html ; www.nofluoride.com/ ; http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/ 9chambers ( talk) 07:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 9chambers (John Chalos)
This controversial change renamed the section. But there is broad consensus for many articles to name such sections simply as Safety. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This page needs a section entitled Adverse Effects. I propose changing the name of the "safety" section to "adverse effects." The section is more about the potential for harm than it is about "safety." "Adverse effects" is more germane to the topic than the relative safety of the practice. Petergkeyes ( talk) 22:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Surely the book by Chris Bryson merits mention somewhere on this page. The entire volume of investigative journalism painstakingly details a compelling conspiracy theory about water fluoridation. The deleting party complained, "no personal claims especially without background information..." but that statement is without merit. The conspiracy is thoroughly alleged, and the book is replete with background information. If the conspiracy theory section is the wrong place to mention this book, please suggest a better place on Wikipedia. (DISCLAIMER - I am in no way affiliated with the marketing of this product! I simply believe it to be inherently relevant.) Petergkeyes ( talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Bryson's opinion is relevant because he researched and wrote one of the most comprehensive books stating the case against water fluoridation. Unless you've also written one of the most well-known books on the topic, then your opinion would not be more notable than his.-- TerrierHockey ( talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Editors should start to redirect references to the actual source that FA is mirroring. If that cannot be done, then alternative references should be sourced. Shot info ( talk) 22:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The second sentence of the water fluoridation article reads.
" The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation, although some continental states fluoridate salt."
Salt fluoridation is not the same thing as water fluoridation and should not be included in the article much less the second sentence. This article is about the water fluoridation controversy and not salt fluoridation. ( 5007a ( talk) 17:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC))
Salt fluoridation needs it's own page on Wikipedia as it is has nothing to do with water fluoridation at all. (
5007a (
talk)
19:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC))
Water fluoridation controversy
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hertz1888 (talk | contribs) at 10:31, 15 November 2010. It may differ significantly from the current revision.( 5007a ( talk) 18:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC))
The following is a continuity transcript form the movie Dr. Strangelove.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html ( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
Harold Hodge Oxford Journals Toxicological Sciences
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/2/157.full
( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 18:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
Find Target Reference Article about Harold Hodge
http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Harold%20Hodge/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Please explain Ckatz why the external link to Harold Hodge was removed by you on the water fluoridation article. (
GeneralMandrakeRipper (
talk)
19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
I was trying to contact you but could not put a message on your talk page so I undid the deletion you did as the only way that I could initiate contact with you. (----)( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 19:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
Thank you for establishing communication here Chatz on the issue regarding the Harold Hodge External link. ( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
The reference section is for the purpose for referencing information in the Water Fluoridation Controversy article itself is it not. The Water Fluoridation Controversy article currently does not mention Harold Hodge so I I did not put it in the reference section and chose the external links section instead. Most people do not know about Harold Hodge's influence with water fluroidation and I was just attempting to make that information available.
It would possible to add information about Harold Hodge to the article however I do think that someone would just delete it so I did not attempt that. I will make an attempt to add a section about Harold Hodge to the water fluoridation article but think that that information will be censored rapidly. I understand why you would want to keep the external links section clear but in the case of this subject it is hard to get any communication as we have been attempting to do so for over 60 years and have to overcome communist propaganda in the process.
I will make an attempt to include Harold Hodge in the Water fluoridation article shortly so that it references to the Oxford Journal Harold Hodge article. Thank you. ( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 19:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
All I was trying to do was figure out how to write this without all the little boxes and now this Wiki image is on here too. I do not know what is going on here. ( GeneralMandrakeRipper ( talk) 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
This reference can now be found at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm 128.250.5.247 ( talk) 14:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I recently adjusted the summary of the "precautionary principle" section under the Ethics subsection to better reflect, IMO, the content of the journal article that is referenced. My problems with the text at that time (and current text as my changes were reverted):
Further comments appreciated. Yobol ( talk) 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, read the source. You seemed to have said you have not read the source/reference for the section we're discussing. I am wondering how you could know if there is a context problem if you haven't read the source. And please, comment on the content, not on the contributor. Yobol ( talk) 14:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
WP has lots of articles about controversies, about global warming, evolution, 911, Barack Obama's birth certificate, the JFK murder. The general approach is to present the topic as it is described in reliable sources, not to copy every article that questions conventional thought. If this article has not been reported by third parties then I do not see its notability. TFD ( talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned that Gwen is edit-warring over this source. If you haven't read a paper, it seems like a bad editing practice to repeatedly revert someone who has read the paper. I appreciate that these papers can be hard to come by, but most libraries can help you obtain a copy - at least, that's been my experience. Certainly it seems preferable to using an "executive summary" of the paper (from an anti-fluoride website) as the basis for edit-warring with someone who's read the actual paper. But that's a meta-issue. MastCell Talk 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
See the section. What type of water does CDC recommend for mixing infant formula?
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1( Zxoxm ( talk) 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
The Section reads as follows directly from the above CDC site.
"What type of water does CDC recommend for mixing infant formula?
Parents should follow the advice of the formula manufacturer and their child’s doctor for the type of water appropriate for the formula they are using. Parents and caregivers of infants fed primarily with formula from concentrate who are concerned about the effect that mixing their infant’s formula with fluoridated water may have in developing dental fluorosis can lessen this exposure by mixing formula with low fluoride water most or all of the time. This may be tap water, if the public water system is not fluoridated (check with your local water utility). If tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride (0.7 mg/L or higher), a parent may consider using a low-fluoride alternative water source. Bottled water known to be low in fluoride is labeled as purified, deionized, demineralized, distilled, or prepared by reverse osmosis. Most grocery stores sell these types of low-fluoride water. Ready to feed (no-mix) infant formula typically has little fluoride and may be preferred for use at least some of the time." - http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1(
The CDC says to use a alternative low fluoride water source if the tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride. ( Zxoxm ( talk) 22:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
The CDC article is contradictory on the water fluoridation topic. The CDC can not just come out and say that fluoridation is not helping because that would be the end of the water fluoridation program. The CDC has to sit on both sides of the fence and has no credibility. ( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm
Blacks Disproportionately Harmed by Fluorides and Fluoridated Water
http://iaomt.com/news/archive.asp?intReleaseID=249&month=10&year=2007 (
Zxoxm (
talk)
22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
I would like to improve the article but the governmental co conspirators and industry co conspirators involved in the water fluoridation conspiracy are at the height of their corruption now and will make every attempt to hide the truth so I chose to update the talk page instead. ( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
Water fluoridation is the pinnacle of all conspiracies and noting will ever compare to it. Water fluoridation is such a awful conspiracy with such devastation in store that it's kind of fun to it witness it unfold on the populations really. ( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
http://iaomt.com/news/archive.asp?intReleaseID=252&month=11&year=2007 ( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intake for Infants and Young Children
http://www.ada.org/1767.aspx ( Zxoxm ( talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
The Original Notice sent out by the ADA on November 9, 2006 about Interim Guidance on Reconstituted Infant Formula
fluoridealert.org/ada.egram.pdf ( Zxoxm ( talk) 00:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
Vermont Health Department infant fluoride warning article www.fluoridealert.org/media/2006n.html
Do a search for the following terms to find more articles about this. ada warning not to give infants fluoridated water ( Zxoxm ( talk) 00:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
The three panel members of the 2006 NRC report who opposed water fluoridation are Dr. Robert Isaacson, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen and Dr. Hardy Limeback. The NRC Chair Dr. John Doull also voiced opposition to water fluoridation.
Here is the reference
www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/index.html
The report "should be a wake-up call."
- Dr. Robert Isaacson, NRC Panel Member.
“The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored. What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.” - Dr. John Doull , NRC Panel Chair
"l personally feel that the NRC report is relevant to many aspects of the water fluoridation debate... [T]he report discusses the wide range of drinking water intake among members of the population, which means that groups with different fluoride concentrations in their drinking water may still have overlapping distributions of individual fluoride exposure. ln other words, the range of individual fluoride exposures at 1 mg/L will overlap the range of individual exposures at 2 mg/L or even 4 mg/L. Thus, even without consideration of differences in individual susceptibility to various effects, the margin of safety between 1 and 4 mg/L is very low." - Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NRC Panel Member.
"In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation." - Dr. Hardy Limeback, NRC Panel Member.
I was trying to do the edit the article as requested correctly and require some assistance to do it correctly. ( Zxoxm ( talk) 22:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC))
The following is quoted from the Fluoride Action Networks about page. www.fluoridealert.org/about-fan.htm "About the Fluoride Action Network (F.A.N.)
The Fluoride Action Network is an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures.
Along with providing comprehensive and up-to-date information on fluoride issues to citizens, scientists, and policymakers alike, FAN remains vigilant in monitoring government agency actions that may impact the public's exposure to fluoride. FAN's work has been cited by national media outlets including Wall Street Journal, TIME Magazine, National Public Radio, Chicago Tribune, Prevention Magazine, and Scientific American, among others." ( Zxoxm ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
Do you have any sources back up your claim that it is a fringe group that holds fringe views because Wikipedia requires sources.( Zxoxm ( talk) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC))