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. |
What precisely is the scope of this article? It is turning into a repository of "statements for" and "statements against" without any real context. Is it supposed to discuss the social, political, historical controversy? There is no real medical controversy, so why is the "against fluoridation" position receiving so much undue weight here? Yobol ( talk) 17:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Guy, You are talking as if the science behind water fluoridation is solid. nothing can be further from the truth. The UK's major report on water fluoridation, the 2000 York report, It's authors came out with an official statement in 2003 :
"We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.
Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this.
Another 2007 UK review states it similarly :
""Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor. This is reflected in the recommendations of the Medical Research Council (MRC)13 and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline14 on preventing and managing dental decay in preschool children (box 3). We know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty."
"Public and professional bodies need to balance benefits and risks, individual rights, and social values in an even handed manner. Those opposing fluoridation often claim that it does not reduce caries and they also overstate the evidence on harm.21 On the other hand, the Department of Health's objectivity is questionable—it funded the British Fluoridation Society and, along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review's findings9 selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation.22
In response to MRC recommendations,13 the department commissioned research on the bioavailability of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. The study had only 20 participants and was too small to give reliable results. Despite this and the caveats in the report's conclusion,23 this report formed the basis of a series of claims by government for the safety of fluoridation.24
Against this backdrop of one sided handling of the evidence, the public distrust in the information it receives is understandable."
LarryTheShark ( talk) 08:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"According to the British Fluoridation Society (2012) : Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water. While 25 countries out of 193 worldwide have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%). Only 11 countries [2014 only 10] in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), {stop in 2014} Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%). In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population. There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.
LarryTheShark ( talk) 11:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The above section is, as pointed out, conflating political controversy with scientific controversy. The article could well benefit from restructuring to separate these discussions. I'd suggest that in that case the most reliable sources should be identified first, before delving into interpretation discussions. The usual MEDRS principles apply to the selection of scientific sources, while political discussions are likely to be the usual mass-media free-for-all. Thoughts? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Four additions for the 'Statements against water fluoridation' section need NPOV editors to review and comment. 79.180.147.42 ( talk) 13:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I just ran across this book chapter (on-line from my library):"50 Health Scares That Fizzled" by Joan R. Callahan, 2011, published by ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38538-4. In the chapter "Fear of Fluoridation and Chlorination" author criticizes anti-fluoridation campaigns, but it is an article that at least discusses the controversy. A quote: "The people who object to fluoridation often are the same ones who can afford bottled water and dental care. For lower-income people with no insurance, fluoridated water (like enriched flour and fortified milk) looks more like a free preventative health measure that a few elitists are trying to take away." It seems that this source would enrich the current Wiki article. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 21:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Daily intakes of fluoride vary widely according to the various sources of exposure. Values ranging from 0.46 to 3.6–5.4 mg/day have been reported in several studies (IPCS, 1984) [1] Over the span of a decade this accumulate several grams of fluoride in the body. Calcification of the pineal gland (known as the "third eye") is typical in adults, and has been observed in children as young as 2. Fluoride deposits in the pineal gland have been correlated with aging, showing that, as the brain ages, more deposits collect. [2] A 2013 study found dimethyltryptamine in microdialysate obtained from a Rat's pineal gland, providing evidence of endogenous DMT in the mammalian brain. [3] This experiment could be re-evaluated by administer high doses of fluoride to first calcify the brains of the rats to discover if that will stop them from producing DMT. However, no water fluoride regulators like governments, and WHO, have had any interest in doing this.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysource=
, |laysummary=
, and |laydate=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
To follow WP:MEDRS we need secondary sources from the biomedical literature or statements by major medical or scientific bodies for these kinds of statements. -- David Hedlund ( talk) 21:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I've read the history of edits on this page, and I also just finished reading the following NIH study in its entirety:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/
I have not actually found this 2012 NIH study to be discussed directly on this page, and I feel that especially short shrift has been given to the following section, to which I will give a direct quote:
"The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults (Grandjean 1982). For neurotoxicants such as lead and methylmercury, adverse effects are associated with blood concentrations as low as 10 nmol/L. Serum fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 µmol/L—more than 1,000 times the levels of some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage. Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 µmol/L) of water fluoride for 1 year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared with controls (Varner et al. 1998)."
This is the National Institute of Health, not a fringe environmental group. I read the plain language of this statement as expressing concern that current levels of flouridation may be neurotoxic and having negative effects on child cognitive development.
Further evidence is here, from the same source:
"In its review of fluoride, the NRC (2006) noted that the safety and the risks of fluoride at concentrations of 2–4 mg/L were incompletely documented. Our comprehensive review substantially extends the scope of research available for evaluation and analysis. Although the studies were generally of insufficient quality, the consistency of their findings adds support to existing evidence of fluoride-associated cognitive deficits, and suggests that potential developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride should be a high research priority. "
If the "potential developmental neurotoxicity of flouride should be a high research priority", than I don't think the NIH authors are absolutely sure that water flouridation is safe anymore. This is in direct contrast to statements here.
I am a complete rookie at Wikipedia editing and have never considered this matter before today, and I think that the critics of this talk page have a point.
I would suggest editing the talk page on this controversy to include, at minimum, a statement along the following lines:
" Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory
(Chioca et al. 2008; Mullenix et al. 1995). A recent experimental study where the rat hippocampal neurons were incubated with various concentrations (20 mg/L, 40 mg/L, and 80 mg/L) of sodium fluoride in vitro showed
that fluoride neurotoxicity may target hippocampal neurons (Zhang M et al. 2008)."
I am aware of no counter-argument or counter-evidence whatever dissenting from the finding that high levels of flouride is neurotoxic in laboratory animals, and this is not among the negative side effects listed on the main page from overflouridation.
I don't know how to use wikipedia formatting, so I'm sorry about any resulting format inconsistencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.161.124 ( talk • contribs)
To add, 98.169.161.124 -- this article isn't about water fluoridation per se but rather the sociological phenomenon of water fluoridation controversy. Meaning, discussion over the use of F. The Choi paper doesn't really even cover this aspect and so wouldn't be useful here.
Zad
68
17:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't even see the LD50 of the fluoridation chemical used mentioned in this article. Wikipedia states that the LD50 of hexafluorosilicic acid is 70 mg/kg. (Under subtitle "safety" - on another page). Is this correct? And if naturally occurring "calcium fluoride" is in fact less toxic to the body with an LD50 level of 4250 mg/kg., why isn't it used in water fluoridation instead of hexafluorosilicic acid? Do you have an answer to this? Calcium fluoride seems to be what you find normally in water anyway as fluoride naturally seeks out calcium in nature, in water, in bones, teeth, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.176.89 ( talk) 21:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Aspro and TenOfAllTrades, you're kidding right? Perhaps you need to discuss with a toxicologist instead of a dentist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.176.89 ( talk) 23:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The controversy is fueled, in part, because of the scientific illiteracy of some contesting parties. Perhaps that aspect could be discussed in the article, i.e. the inability of the contesting parties to agree on basic chemistry such as solubility product of CaF2, the difference or non-diffeence between "natural" and "manufactured" fluoride sources, and the hydrolysis of SIF62-. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 05:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe has ceased water fluoridation. [1]
The controversy persists in many countries, however Continental Europe, among other countries, has ceased water fluoridation.
-This statement is referenced using a source from 1989, which does not reflect political decisions since that time, and this can easily be seen by looking at the Wiki page Fluoridation by country that shows legislation in many countries (not only English-speaking). It seems an odd phrase to use that is misleading, out-dated, and uninformative.
Despite opponents' concerns, water fluoridation has been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.
Some countries choose water fluoridation as a method to reduce cavities in both children and adults.
-"Despite opponents' concerns" is an irrelevant phrase that creates bias in the sentence. A more accurate statement would be that water fluoridation is a method (because there are several methods of fluoridation in use) being used in those countries with the goal of reducing cavities. There is a section devoted to efficacy, which I think is more suited for presentation of evidence that it is effective. In this paragraph, it dangles without supporting evidence that is provided a few sections later.
In recent years water fluoridation has become a pervasive health and political issue in many countries, resulting in changes to
public policy regarding water fluoridation.
-I briefly included a more current update at the end of the paragraph citing communist conspiracy theories from 50 years ago. It comes off as biased to end this section with Red Scare attitudes with no mention of ongoing discussions on a global scale. I thought this was also an appropriate place to add a Wiki link to Fluoridation by country to link readers to more information.
They argue that consent by all water consumers cannot be achieved, nor can water suppliers accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, nor monitor their response.
Because consent by all water consumers cannot be achieved and water suppliers cannot accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, movements have begun to opt out of mandatory city water fluoridation.
-"They argue" implies that the statement is not a fact. I flipped the sentence, so the reasoning would be given first, then the response.
In her book 50 Health Scares That Fizzled Joan Callahan writes that: "For lower-income people with no insurance, fluoridated water (like enriched flour and fortified milk) looks more like a free preventative health measure that a few elitists are trying to take away."
-This sentence currently appears in the article with her book improperly in quotes rather than italicized.
Trace levels of
arsenic and lead may be present in fluoride compounds added to water, but no credible evidence exists that their presence is of concern:
concentrations are below measurement limits.
[2]
Trace levels of arsenic and lead may be present in fluoride compounds added to water, however, concentrations are below measurement limits. [2]
-"No credible evidence" requires evidence from the reference in the text. Without that evidence, I think it would be safe to report it in a straightforward manner - that these levels exist in low concentrations without making claims they are either harmful or benign.
Fluoride also prevents cavities in adults of all ages. There are fewer studies in adults however, and the design of water fluoridation studies in adults is inferior to that of studies of self- or clinically applied fluoride.
Fluoride is also used to prevent cavities in adults. However, there are fewer studies in adults, and the design of water fluoridation studies in adults is inferior to that of studies of self- or clinically-applied fluoride.
-Personal style preference - "of all ages" sounds like someone marketing a circus...
Citing impacts on the environment, the economy and on health, the
Green Party of Canada seeks a ban on artificial fluoridation products. The Canadian Green Party adopted in 2010 a platform position which considers water fluoridation to be unsustainable
Citing impacts on the environment, economy, and health, the Green Party of Canada seeks a ban on artificial fluoridation products. In 2010 the Canadian Green Party adopted a platform position which considers water fluoridation to be unsustainable.
-The first sentence has grammatical errors, and the second sentence has minor sentence construction errors.
He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that it should be illegal due to ethics.
He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that it should be illegal due to ethical concerns.
-Whoever constructed this sentence likely meant "ethical concerns" rather than "ethics".
Theories for why the public tends to reject fluoridation include "alienation from mainstream" society, but evidence for that is weak. Another interpretation is confusion introduced during the referendum.
[3] Some studies of the sociology of opposition to water fluoridation have been criticized for having an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge.
[1]
-These sentences that appear under the history section seem irrelevant and present a bias against anti-fluoridationists using an ad hominem argument that seems amiss in a brief history of the controversy. If this were to remain in the article, I think it would need to be flagged for bias.
Sub heading: Conspiracy theories
Sub heading: Communist conspiracy theory (1940s-1960s)
-This section heading needed clarification because it only addresses one type, so it wouldn't be pluralized. In addition, there are multiple theories (and conspiracy theories) surrounding this issue, yet this section only addresses those related to Communism during the 1940s-1960s, so it should be properly labeled to reflect this content.
This viewpoint led to major controversies over public health programs in the US, most notably in the case of the
Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act controversy of 1956.
-This sentence is completely irrelevant (red herring) and does not address the fluoride controversy.
In the case of fluoridation, the controversy had a direct impact on local programs. During the 1950s and 1960s, referendums on introducing fluoridation were defeated in over a thousand Florida communities.
This controversy had a direct impact on local programs during the 1950s and 1960s, where referendums on introducing fluoridation were defeated in over a thousand Florida communities.
-Minor edit to improve sentences stylistically
Some anti-fluoridationists claimed that the conspiracy theories were damaging their goals; Dr. Frederick Exner, an anti-fluoridation campaigner in the early 1960s, told a conference: "most people are not prepared to believe that fluoridation is a communist plot, and if you say it is, you are successfully ridiculed by the promoters. It is being done, effectively, every day ... some of the people on our side are the fluoridators' 'fifth column'."
[4]
-This should be a stand-alone paragraph. Currently it is part of a paragraph on cinematic representations of fluoride.
References
Martin1989
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Pollick
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Musto
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Johnston
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).- User:Rebecca_hare 11:12 19 June 2014 (CDT) — Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Water fluoridation controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This sentence:
obviously needs cleaning up. I suggest the following:
72.225.230.150 ( talk) 16:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Done - fully agree "Continental Europe" is not a country, so cannot be "among other countries" - Arjayay ( talk) 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a difficult topic as folks on both sides of the controversy simply state "facts" that aren't really facts and have built in assumptions. One such "fact" is that municipal water fluorididation reduces cavities. There is some question of fluoride's efficacy in that regard, and CDC and EPA acknowledge that the benefit of fluoride is primarily topical. That key issue dominates the "he said - she said" argument.
However, one fact that is documented is that some folks are hypersensitive. This includes people with various skin conditions - who shouldn't even wash in it let alone drink it. Neurological and gastrointestinal disturbances are also listed as known reactions in a percentage of the population. This fact is ignored. Here is a list of Physician Desktop Reference excerpts can be found on the Fluoride Alert website.
Additionally, fluoride was used to treat hyperactive thyroid. That depressing effect is well known: http://thyroid.about.com/od/thyroidbasicsthyroid101/ss/preventthyroid_7.htm
Beyond that, some of us discovered the hard way that using fluoridated mouthwashes caused bizarre symptoms like burning urination and aching kidneys, as well as dry mouth. The research indicates that there may be connections between bladder, kidney and liver issues and fluoridation, however "more research is needed." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16834990
Ditto on heart disease. From the library of the National Institute of Health, an increase in fluoride uptake is associated with heart disease. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616
I suggest, something needs to be in this article regarding the controversy that does acknowledge the often overlooked facts about the hypersensitive population. In other words, this shouldn't be a controversy about fluoride as an absolute good or bad, it should include the facts that whether or not it is reducing cavities in poor children or lowering their IQ, it is causing suffering in thousands of folks who can't escape its presence in their lives, and are consequently living in chronic pain. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jytdog - you undid my addition, previously.... perhaps you want to rewrite what I originally wrote using this material? Seabreezes1 ( talk)
RESPONSE: Understood about Fluoride Alert website as being over the top. I referenced the NCBI and a Thyroid website re data. The only reference I made to Fluoride Alert was for the Physicians Desk Reference, and that's only because I couldn't find the PDR online. However if anyone can find it electronically, it should be easy to check what it says about fluoride sensitivity, which is something with which I have first hand experience. No need to go into my medical history, here. Much too long of a story. See Allergy website on fluoride: http://allergysymptomsx.com/toothpaste-allergy.php
However, most reversals on medical dogma do have a few outlandish extremists involved, and begins with a pattern of anecdotes. That isn't a reason to shut down the conversation. I think it's really important to consider the situation of the hypersensitive, as well as look hard at the data on the efficacy of water fluoridation. Weigh benefits and costs.... and ask can you get the benefits in other manner without the costs. But we wander off topic.
This article is about the controversy itself. On that topic, I feel strongly that this Wiki article is heavily weighted with 1950s arguments that makes the opponents look like fringe crazy people. As one of the hypersensitive, I hate to see that fact lost in arguments over the methodology of an IQ study done in China.
So..... how about coming to some agreement about making this Wiki article more balanced with some of the less dramatic and more accepted facts on fluoride side effects? Seabreezes1 ( talk) 23:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
00:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)@zad68 No fair. Hypersensitivity and allergic reactions to fluoride is real. I cited the NIH and other mainstream sources. I finally found the PDR online, and under most of the fluoride items, it lists "allergic rash and idiosyncrasy" as possible adverse conditions. PDR: http://www.pdr.net/search-results?q=fluoride
My participation here in Talk has been to state that the article seems weighted towards the more extreme arguments in the controversy, drowning out three bullet points in the anti-fluoride campaign:
Excerpt from CDC 2001 Report: http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm “The laboratory and epidemiologic research that has led to the better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental caries indicates that fluoride’s predominant effect is posteruptive and topical and that the effect depends on fluoride being in the right amount in the right place at the right time. Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted, especially when small amounts are maintained constantly in the mouth, specifically in dental plaque and saliva (37). Thus, adults also benefit from fluoride, rather than only children, as was previously assumed.”
CDC level adjustment: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/#overview5
I'm signing off..... I have no desire to get into an e-war on any topic. However, not including more than a passing reference to the the National Kidney Foundations warning, while including multiple paragraphs on the extremists in this argument is not presenting the controversy fairly. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 18:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Just one more reference on hypersensitivity - the standard FDA warning from multiple dental product packaging from the National Library of Medicine:
See: http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=e20b7cc8-5682-4e66-b5d5-5fa1035c0b77
I repeat, not fringe science at all, but a part of the controversy that proponents of water fluoridation ignore. Hypersensitivity belongs in this Wiki article. I suggest that the conspiracy controversy from the 50s be reduced and assigned a "historical" heading, while a new section on the 21st century revival of the controversy include the new data that caused CDC changes in position, the hypersensitivity argument, and the NIM studies that "warrant further research." Seabreezes1 ( talk) 20:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)There are a few other notable arguments on the anti fluoride side. How about these:
Seabreezes1 ( talk) 18:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course they also recommend more research. The likely effect of following their recommendations would be to reduce the MCLG (maximum level of fluoride), where added, from the 4 mg/L (seen in few places anyway) to "the lower levels seen by most U.S. citizens", in the 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L range. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Recommendation: To develop an MCLG that is protective of severe enamel fluorosis, clinical stage II skeletal fluorosis, and bone fractures, EPA should update the risk assessment of fluoride to include new data on health risks and better estimates of total exposure (relative source contribution) in individuals and to use current approaches to quantifying risk, considering susceptible subpopulations, and characterizing uncertainties and variability.
— p.352
@JyDog I added one paragraph to HISTORY section of this article about the Controversy documenting the climate of the 40s and 50s with 2 legal cases that made news, with references and referenced the research of 2 leading doctors of the times, and you pull it out? The opening sentence of this of this section as is is totally drawn from a single highly biased 1987 article that explains how profluoridationist should shape public opinion. I understand the requirements for stringent criteria as to science, but this representation of the controversy is not accurately representing either the current or past controversy and has a decidedly pro-fluoride POV. What I wrote was mild, but at least it included the fact that there were scientists and legal cases at that time that were anti-fluoride based on known air pollution damages and clinical results from doctors seeing patients in some of the first towns that were water fluorinated. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 03:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Adding the fact of current events of the day concerning fluoride air pollution as well as the reference to two of the leading doctors of water fluoridation who documented cases of low grade illness that aligns with the majority opposition of then and now. For the convenience of other followers in this trail, this is what I wrote with references at end:
Fluoride air pollution cases were in the news from coast to coast during the early days of the water fluoridation movement. During the 1950s, an Oregon farm family won $48,000 in damages for poisoned livestock, ruined land, and personal health problems as the result of fluorine emissions from the nearby metals plant in Martin v. Reynolds Metals. In 1946, the Salem Peach Growers sued the DuPont and the Manhattan Project for $430,000 in damages for ruined crops, lost livestock, and personal illness. Per author Christopher Bryson in his 2006 book "The Fluoride Deception," the thirteen New Jersey plaintiffs ultimately settled out of court, while DuPont and government officials sponsored lectures on the dental benefit of water fluoridation. The 1948 Donora smog incident was another current event that caused the public to resist water fluoridation. Additionally, many doctors of the day, such as George Waldbott and Reuben Feltman, opposed water fluoridation based on their research and clinical experience with individuals who had allergic like reactions to water fluoridation.
- Public Health Assessment of Reynolds Metals Company. January 14, 1997. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Superfund Site Assessment Branch
- Reynolds Metals Company vs. Paul Martin. Plaintiffs’ direct examination, p. 492, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals, San Francisco, Court Case Papers and Printed Matter, Case # 14990, transcript of record in six volumes, Folders 14990-14992, Boxes 5888-5890, RG 276
- Oregon State Bar Bulletin, Aug/Sept 2005 https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/05augsep/martin.html
- Philadelphia Record, October 18, 1946
- Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. † and George Kosel, B.S., M.S. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - Fourteen years of investigation - Final report.Journal of Dental Medicine 1961; 16: 190-99.
This or something very like this needs to be in this article to even begin approaching fairness in the representation of the debate. I also could suggest another "conspiracy" type entry, that
Another long standing conspiracy theory has industrial and political undertones. Current day, the opponents of fluoride protest that research that shows harmful neurological, immunological, and carcinogenic impacts of chronic fluoride exposure is being hampered by the fluoride industry which funds fluoride research. In a "follow the money" style, the opponents claim that political pressure is brought to bear on organizations as well as individuals. Fluoride opponents point to the case of William Marcus, Chief Scientist of the EPA who won a successful lawsuit under the Whistleblowers law for protesting the manipulation of data in a fluoride study regarding cancer so as to downgrade the findings of risk. They also point to the case of Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, a leading nationally recognized neurotoxocologist at Forsyth Dental Center at Harvard, who published a peer reviewed 1995 study on the behavioral and neurological deficits in 500 rats with a blood plasma level the equivalent of that in humans drinking fluoridated water. Dr. Mullenix was also fired from her position days after that publication.
Wordsmith it if you must, but both of the above sections have at least as much legitimacy in this article on the Controversy as the movie Dr. Strangelove. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 14:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Seabreezes1 ( talk) 15:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please take a few minutes to consider the following?
My intention is to have a fair and accurate representation of the fluoridation controversy. To that end, I have read publications from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60, and 70s as well as more current material. I’ve read over a thousand pages. It is hard to pull a few pages out of context, but I identified a few pages in a few of those resources for which I’d appreciate your feedback.
Item 1
This entire excerpt is wonderful, but back up to Chapter 1 in this 2010 book to look at Tables 1, 2 and 3. Also read the section “WHO says so” which focuses on studies from all decades.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KPn4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT153&lpg=PT153&dq=books+by+philip+sutton+fluoride&source=bl&ots=lhg0T_8ZrG&sig=RMdFFYKnJgIVimwtfrf49fbtw9U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P-gcVNjZD9edygTl2YDYDQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=books%20by%20philip%20sutton%20fluoride&f=false
Item 2 The 1960 book by Philip R.N. Sutton is entirely based on the analysis of the initial studies, responses and commentary. He did his survey in 1957. He was a statistician and didn't have a POV regarding fluoridation, just the way the trials were conducted. I don't know whether you'd want to read the entire book, but it at least proves that there were objections based on something other than "communists" in the 1950s. I've included a couple of shorter options, below. He was cited in the 2010 book above.
Item 3
The first 250 pages in The Great Dilemma (1978) are primarily science, and I found them fascinating. Sections, mostly clinical notes on patients, are reprinted from Waldbott’s 1965 book.
George Waldbott was an internationally recognized allergist and research scientist who first identified penicillin allergies, human anaphylactic shock and the connection between what was then called idiopathic asthma and smoking.
You can find these references on www dot whale dot to /b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdf
Excerpt, p 380:
“For nearly a decade after 1931, the PHS sought to remove excessive fluoride from water supplies because of endemic mottled teeth. But after 1940, the balance began to tilt in the opposite direction - to augment water supplies with fluoride. On the basis of studies on a very small number of healthy young men, plus limited surveys of health effect in natural fluoride areas, PHS scientists concluded that fluoride had no significant adverse effect on health, except for occasional mild mottling….. “
Item 4 A short 2005 article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons re science & controversy: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.pdf
Again, my purpose is to have a fair and unbiased Wikipedia representation of the fluoridation controversy. As it stands, it is incomplete and inaccurate.
Seabreezes1 ( talk) 18:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Seabreezes1 ( talk) 23:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
As I often find myself doing I agree with
Johnuniq here.
Seabreezes1 I'm sorry to say but you've really crossed over from what might reasonably considered to be article development suggestions into full-on
WP:SOAPBOX that really should be removed from this article's Talk page. You need to find secondary sources that impartially and from an academic point of view cover the social phenomenon of the water fluoridation controversy. What you may not do is make arguments against fluoridation. Please read
WP:TIGER and change your tack.
Zad
68
01:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added the official statement opposing water fluoridation released by the ministry of Health of the state of Israel. There is currently a disruptive editor who has twice tried to remove it spuriously. Bigbaby23 ( talk) 15:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)This
edit request to
Water fluoridation controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update this source, I'm getting a 404 error.
/info/en/?search=Water_fluoridation_controversy#cite_note-33
ClintMacleod ( talk) 17:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'am sceptical on this one, since radicals frequently oppose Fluoridation without solid back up. But this 2014 academic article abstract states "Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers". May deserve attention.
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)Yug (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
As of 2014, why is the Harvard 2012 study not mentioned? Will someone who can add data to this locked article, post this information?
"In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children." http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.87.16 ( talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for pontification |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The fluoride that is added to water supplies is TOXIC WASTE hydrofluorosilic ACID or sodium fluoride and often the same ingredient as in rat poison or prozac. To "debate" whether toxic waste so toxic they FORCED the uranium and phosphate fertilizer industry's to collect it with a wet scrubber system and not pollute it into the atmosphere over half a century ago is insane. It's toxic. it's neurotoxic. it's biotoxic. it's toxic poison. toxic poison poisons. duh Truthseer 174.102.167.2 ( talk) 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Also somehow this article and anyone "attending" to it seems to forget the simple fact of how awfully long a half life toxic waste fluoride has! and its accumulation at the pineal gland primarily, devastating Truthseer 174.102.167.2 ( talk) 19:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
This topic appears to be heavily moderated, can a superuser step in and stop this? For example, it does not mention that Israel has banned fluoridation as of last year (2014), and does not link to this study that found fluoride in water is a neutrotoxin linked to thyroid problems: http://www.newsweek.com/water-fluoridation-may-increase-risk-underactive-thyroid-disorder-309173 (February 2015). Why not? Usually an unmoderated page is much more responsive to current events. I suspect there is a moderator here who is pro-fluoride. It makes me reluctant to contribute anything as it will be deleted. PS--off-topic, but I have stopped contributing both time and money to Wikipedia due to such excessive moderation.
Raylopez99 ( talk) 14:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes clearly nazis who have a vested interest in fluoride or are hired by those that do are running this sick page.. The fact that most countries have an official statement about their decision to not poison their citizens anymore IS EXTREMELY RELEVANT to the "controversy" of adding carcinogenic braindamaging toxic waste to the people's water supplies. Now are you guys going to include the U.S. government's new recommendation to lower the amount of poisoning?? Probably they are concerned all the extra poisoning from the chemtrails and food and product supply will be a tad too much and we'll all drop dead too quickly instead of slowly and profitably
Truthseer 174.102.167.2 ( talk) 19:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Water fluoridation controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an issue with this article. Fluorosis of the teeth or should I be more specific , the Tooth Enamel is not just a cosmetic condition. It is actual long term damage to the tooth structure. Fluorosis actually makes the tooth porous and brittle. Therefor more prone to attacks from many conditions. The natural tooth minus fluoride if far stronger than a fluorosis riddled one. Please explain how dental fluorosis as ugly as it is, is alingned with something like a facial wrinkle? If this page cannot be corrected then I can only assume members of certain persuasions in the community have highjacked specific subject matters for their own moral ground. There is insufficient broad spectrum peer reviewed supported evidence to call this a balanced article. Fluorosis is a serious condition. It is long term damage to the tooth structure. Please investigate this article with much greater scrutiny before millions of people begin to form negative opinions of what should be a positive experience in truth not disneyland fluff which is what most segments on fluoride are in media.
Edstar59 ( talk) 02:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has been opened on the fringe theories noticeboard concerning this article. Interested editors are encouraged to join in. |
- Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the sections on "Efficacy" and "Medical Consensus" do not indicate that these topics are controversial. Either the controversies related to these topics need to be included, or the topics should be excluded from this page. These topics are covered in detail on the main Fluoridation page. Jdkag ( talk) 15:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The original rationale for having a separate topic for the water fluoridation controversy was that the controversy only exists because of "fringe" views and should therefore not be part of the main topic. However, the pro-fluoride editors have introduced into this subtopic a requirement that the sections on safety and efficiency, rather than reviewing the fringe views, should only contain material that is included in the main water fluoridation page. Consequently the subtopic page serves no purpose except as a mechanism for preventing any mention of the fringe views from appearing in Wikipedia. According to the definitive 2015 work of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) division of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, these views include "possible adverse health effects, specifically, severe dental fluorosis, bone fractures, skeletal fluorosis, carcinogenicity, lowered IQ and other neurological effects, and endocrine disruption." As opposed to Wikipedia editors, the PHS study did not discount any of these concerns as being unworthy of discussion, but rather analyzed each one in detail, concluding with the following NPOV statement: "After a thorough review of the comments opposing the recommendation, the panel did not identify compelling new information to alter its assessment that the [new] recommended fluoride concentration (0.7 mg/L) provides the best balance of benefit to potential harm." U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water Jdkag ( talk) 13:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)I could not even get through the first 4 paragraphs without finding misleading or outright false information. In the fourth paragraph it states, "...a medical consensus..." on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. It than proceeds to cite this source: Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. If you look at the article, which by the way is a review more than primary source, it states this
However, it is now accepted that systemic fluoride plays a limited role in caries prevention [12, 38]. Several epidemiologic studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities clearly indicated that CWF may be unnecessary for caries prevention [1, 5, 15, 19, 21, 23], particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low [16, 21]. Moreover, the evidence of an increased prevalence of fluorosis, particularly in fluoridated areas, needs to be considered [3, 22]. Nevertheless, water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in populations where oral hygiene conditions are poor,
I think this should be changed to reflect the true conclusion of that source, Or entirely removed. Outright lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkeetingphd ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The current lead is too ambigous and some what whishy whashy, as if reluctant to talk about the controversy. There is no need for that. We have good sources saying things in a straight forward way.
This is the current lead with my added material:
The water fluoridation controversy arises from political, moral, ethical,economic, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. Those opposed argue that water fluoridation has no or little cariostatic benefits, may cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and pharmacologically obsolete. [1] [2] [3] [4]
With regard to ethics, water fluoridation pits the common good against individual rights. Some say the common good overrides individual rights, and equate it to vaccination and food fortification. [5] [6] Others say that individual rights override the common good, and say that individuals have no choice in the water that they drink, unless they drink more expensive bottled water, [7] and some argue unequivocally, that it does not stand up to scrutiny relative to medical ethics. [8]
Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s. [9] During the 1950s and 1960s, conspiracy theorists claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine American public health. [10] In recent years water fluoridation has become a prevalent health and political issue in many countries, resulting in some countries and communities discontinuing it's use while others have expanded it. [11] [12]
Public health authorities find a medical consensus that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent suffering and promote oral health, and generally support fluoridation. [13] The controversy is propelled by a significant public opposition supported by a minority of professionals, [14] which include researchers, dental and medical professionals, alternative medical practitioners, health food enthusiasts, a few religious groups (mostly Christian Scientists in the U.S.), and occasionally consumer groups and environmentalists. [15] Organized political opposition has come from libertarians, [16] the John Birch Society, [17] and from groups like the Green parties in the UK and New Zealand. [18]
Proponents and opponents have been both criticized for overstating the benefits or overstating the risks, and understating the other, respectively. [19] [20] Systematic reviews have cited the lack of high quality research for the benefits and risks of water fluoridation and questions that are still unsettled. [20] [21] [11] Researchers who oppose the practice state this as well. [22] According to a 2013 Congressional Research Service report on fluoride in drinking water, these gaps in the fluoridation scientific literature fuel the controversy. [23]
Public water fluoridation was first practiced in 1945, in the U.S.. As of 2012, 25 countries have artificial water fluoridation to varying degrees, 11 of them have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water. A further 28 countries have water that is naturally fluoridated, though in many of them the fluoride is above the recommended safe level. [24] As of 2012 about 435 million people worldwide received water fluoridated at the recommended level (i.e., about 5.4% of the global population). [24] About 214 million of them living in the United States. [25]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
Bigbaby23 ( talk) 05:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
There has been a revert regarding references not being present also in the body of the article. This has bern remedied Bigbaby23 ( talk) 06:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In my view this is UNDUE in the lead. Per WP:LEAD WEIGHT in the lead follows the WEIGHT in the body. The body doesn't give near this much space to this issue. Bigbaby please speak to that. Thanks.
At the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, consistent evidence suggests that it causes
dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during
tooth development, most of which is mild and not usually of aesthetic concern.
[1]
[2] No clear evidence of other adverse effects exists, though almost all research thereof has been of poor quality.
[3] Dental fluorosis is cosmetic and unlikely to represent any other effect on public health.
[2] Some countries choose water fluoridation as a method to reduce cavities in both children and adults.
[4]
References
Ih2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).YorkReview2000
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Jytdog ( talk) 07:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
We need to be careful that this article doesn't simply become a dumping ground for all the things people perceive as bad about water fluoridation. Every topic covered here must be supported by independent reliable secondary sourcing demonstrating the topic is indeed a genuine controversy related to water fluoridation.
Zad
68
12:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:LEDE ledes must summarize article bodies. The lede here doesn't. Most obviously, this is betrayed by how many citations are to references made in the lede only. It's also too long. The maximum recommended size for a lede is 4 paragraphs. These two problems go hand-in-hand. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I maintain that Nuffield Council on Bioethics, should get weight on the ethics issue.
It is a report made by a panel of experts, not a dentist giving his view in a dental journal on ethics http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7226655.stm
They are mentioned numerous times in the British Medical Association " Medical Ethics Today: The BMA's Handbook of Ethics and Law" and have weight when discussing Water fluoridation http://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/news%20views%20analysis/bma_fluoride.pdf
They get weight on the water fluoridation ethics, in discussions about CWF in the U.S. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/24/13/36/community-water-fluoridation-in-the-united-states New Zealand https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no-1406/6365 and The UK http://www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/081120-countc-R1113153858.html Canda http://www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/081120-countc-R1113153858.html Ireland http://www.lenus.ie/hse/bitstream/10147/236473/1/FlourideSuppArt3.pdf mentioned in Israel debate http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/show/p/102 Bigbaby23 ( talk) 04:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Many more can be found on google scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=Nuffield+bioethics+fluoridation+&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Bigbaby23 ( talk) 04:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Is not the real reason why they put fluoride in water is so people can keep eating loads of sugar to the affect that they are addicted to sugar and all the health problems come with eating loads of sugar? If water did not have fluoride put in it then a large number of people would stop eating foods with processed sugar in them because of tooth decay and that would be bad for a lot of food businesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.184.86 ( talk) 19:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Why there is no reference that fluoride was used in drinking water in Nazis camps for Allies prisoners to make them dumb, so they couldn't plot any escapes or camp takeover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.105 ( talk) 18:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Why are none of the Further Reading materials supportive of fluoridation? They all appear to be anti- and none of them appear to examine the various anti-theories and refute them with facts. This came about because fluoride is not hazardous waste, or as asserted on Democracy Now by Christopher Byerson, nuclear waste. 208.106.32.144 ( talk) 09:47, 25 January 2017 (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. |
What precisely is the scope of this article? It is turning into a repository of "statements for" and "statements against" without any real context. Is it supposed to discuss the social, political, historical controversy? There is no real medical controversy, so why is the "against fluoridation" position receiving so much undue weight here? Yobol ( talk) 17:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Guy, You are talking as if the science behind water fluoridation is solid. nothing can be further from the truth. The UK's major report on water fluoridation, the 2000 York report, It's authors came out with an official statement in 2003 :
"We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.
Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this.
Another 2007 UK review states it similarly :
""Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor. This is reflected in the recommendations of the Medical Research Council (MRC)13 and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline14 on preventing and managing dental decay in preschool children (box 3). We know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty."
"Public and professional bodies need to balance benefits and risks, individual rights, and social values in an even handed manner. Those opposing fluoridation often claim that it does not reduce caries and they also overstate the evidence on harm.21 On the other hand, the Department of Health's objectivity is questionable—it funded the British Fluoridation Society and, along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review's findings9 selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation.22
In response to MRC recommendations,13 the department commissioned research on the bioavailability of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. The study had only 20 participants and was too small to give reliable results. Despite this and the caveats in the report's conclusion,23 this report formed the basis of a series of claims by government for the safety of fluoridation.24
Against this backdrop of one sided handling of the evidence, the public distrust in the information it receives is understandable."
LarryTheShark ( talk) 08:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"According to the British Fluoridation Society (2012) : Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water. While 25 countries out of 193 worldwide have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%). Only 11 countries [2014 only 10] in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), {stop in 2014} Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%). In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population. There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.
LarryTheShark ( talk) 11:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The above section is, as pointed out, conflating political controversy with scientific controversy. The article could well benefit from restructuring to separate these discussions. I'd suggest that in that case the most reliable sources should be identified first, before delving into interpretation discussions. The usual MEDRS principles apply to the selection of scientific sources, while political discussions are likely to be the usual mass-media free-for-all. Thoughts? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Four additions for the 'Statements against water fluoridation' section need NPOV editors to review and comment. 79.180.147.42 ( talk) 13:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I just ran across this book chapter (on-line from my library):"50 Health Scares That Fizzled" by Joan R. Callahan, 2011, published by ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38538-4. In the chapter "Fear of Fluoridation and Chlorination" author criticizes anti-fluoridation campaigns, but it is an article that at least discusses the controversy. A quote: "The people who object to fluoridation often are the same ones who can afford bottled water and dental care. For lower-income people with no insurance, fluoridated water (like enriched flour and fortified milk) looks more like a free preventative health measure that a few elitists are trying to take away." It seems that this source would enrich the current Wiki article. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 21:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Daily intakes of fluoride vary widely according to the various sources of exposure. Values ranging from 0.46 to 3.6–5.4 mg/day have been reported in several studies (IPCS, 1984) [1] Over the span of a decade this accumulate several grams of fluoride in the body. Calcification of the pineal gland (known as the "third eye") is typical in adults, and has been observed in children as young as 2. Fluoride deposits in the pineal gland have been correlated with aging, showing that, as the brain ages, more deposits collect. [2] A 2013 study found dimethyltryptamine in microdialysate obtained from a Rat's pineal gland, providing evidence of endogenous DMT in the mammalian brain. [3] This experiment could be re-evaluated by administer high doses of fluoride to first calcify the brains of the rats to discover if that will stop them from producing DMT. However, no water fluoride regulators like governments, and WHO, have had any interest in doing this.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysource=
, |laysummary=
, and |laydate=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
To follow WP:MEDRS we need secondary sources from the biomedical literature or statements by major medical or scientific bodies for these kinds of statements. -- David Hedlund ( talk) 21:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I've read the history of edits on this page, and I also just finished reading the following NIH study in its entirety:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/
I have not actually found this 2012 NIH study to be discussed directly on this page, and I feel that especially short shrift has been given to the following section, to which I will give a direct quote:
"The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults (Grandjean 1982). For neurotoxicants such as lead and methylmercury, adverse effects are associated with blood concentrations as low as 10 nmol/L. Serum fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 µmol/L—more than 1,000 times the levels of some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage. Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 µmol/L) of water fluoride for 1 year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared with controls (Varner et al. 1998)."
This is the National Institute of Health, not a fringe environmental group. I read the plain language of this statement as expressing concern that current levels of flouridation may be neurotoxic and having negative effects on child cognitive development.
Further evidence is here, from the same source:
"In its review of fluoride, the NRC (2006) noted that the safety and the risks of fluoride at concentrations of 2–4 mg/L were incompletely documented. Our comprehensive review substantially extends the scope of research available for evaluation and analysis. Although the studies were generally of insufficient quality, the consistency of their findings adds support to existing evidence of fluoride-associated cognitive deficits, and suggests that potential developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride should be a high research priority. "
If the "potential developmental neurotoxicity of flouride should be a high research priority", than I don't think the NIH authors are absolutely sure that water flouridation is safe anymore. This is in direct contrast to statements here.
I am a complete rookie at Wikipedia editing and have never considered this matter before today, and I think that the critics of this talk page have a point.
I would suggest editing the talk page on this controversy to include, at minimum, a statement along the following lines:
" Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory
(Chioca et al. 2008; Mullenix et al. 1995). A recent experimental study where the rat hippocampal neurons were incubated with various concentrations (20 mg/L, 40 mg/L, and 80 mg/L) of sodium fluoride in vitro showed
that fluoride neurotoxicity may target hippocampal neurons (Zhang M et al. 2008)."
I am aware of no counter-argument or counter-evidence whatever dissenting from the finding that high levels of flouride is neurotoxic in laboratory animals, and this is not among the negative side effects listed on the main page from overflouridation.
I don't know how to use wikipedia formatting, so I'm sorry about any resulting format inconsistencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.161.124 ( talk • contribs)
To add, 98.169.161.124 -- this article isn't about water fluoridation per se but rather the sociological phenomenon of water fluoridation controversy. Meaning, discussion over the use of F. The Choi paper doesn't really even cover this aspect and so wouldn't be useful here.
Zad
68
17:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't even see the LD50 of the fluoridation chemical used mentioned in this article. Wikipedia states that the LD50 of hexafluorosilicic acid is 70 mg/kg. (Under subtitle "safety" - on another page). Is this correct? And if naturally occurring "calcium fluoride" is in fact less toxic to the body with an LD50 level of 4250 mg/kg., why isn't it used in water fluoridation instead of hexafluorosilicic acid? Do you have an answer to this? Calcium fluoride seems to be what you find normally in water anyway as fluoride naturally seeks out calcium in nature, in water, in bones, teeth, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.176.89 ( talk) 21:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Aspro and TenOfAllTrades, you're kidding right? Perhaps you need to discuss with a toxicologist instead of a dentist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.176.89 ( talk) 23:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The controversy is fueled, in part, because of the scientific illiteracy of some contesting parties. Perhaps that aspect could be discussed in the article, i.e. the inability of the contesting parties to agree on basic chemistry such as solubility product of CaF2, the difference or non-diffeence between "natural" and "manufactured" fluoride sources, and the hydrolysis of SIF62-. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 05:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe has ceased water fluoridation. [1]
The controversy persists in many countries, however Continental Europe, among other countries, has ceased water fluoridation.
-This statement is referenced using a source from 1989, which does not reflect political decisions since that time, and this can easily be seen by looking at the Wiki page Fluoridation by country that shows legislation in many countries (not only English-speaking). It seems an odd phrase to use that is misleading, out-dated, and uninformative.
Despite opponents' concerns, water fluoridation has been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.
Some countries choose water fluoridation as a method to reduce cavities in both children and adults.
-"Despite opponents' concerns" is an irrelevant phrase that creates bias in the sentence. A more accurate statement would be that water fluoridation is a method (because there are several methods of fluoridation in use) being used in those countries with the goal of reducing cavities. There is a section devoted to efficacy, which I think is more suited for presentation of evidence that it is effective. In this paragraph, it dangles without supporting evidence that is provided a few sections later.
In recent years water fluoridation has become a pervasive health and political issue in many countries, resulting in changes to
public policy regarding water fluoridation.
-I briefly included a more current update at the end of the paragraph citing communist conspiracy theories from 50 years ago. It comes off as biased to end this section with Red Scare attitudes with no mention of ongoing discussions on a global scale. I thought this was also an appropriate place to add a Wiki link to Fluoridation by country to link readers to more information.
They argue that consent by all water consumers cannot be achieved, nor can water suppliers accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, nor monitor their response.
Because consent by all water consumers cannot be achieved and water suppliers cannot accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, movements have begun to opt out of mandatory city water fluoridation.
-"They argue" implies that the statement is not a fact. I flipped the sentence, so the reasoning would be given first, then the response.
In her book 50 Health Scares That Fizzled Joan Callahan writes that: "For lower-income people with no insurance, fluoridated water (like enriched flour and fortified milk) looks more like a free preventative health measure that a few elitists are trying to take away."
-This sentence currently appears in the article with her book improperly in quotes rather than italicized.
Trace levels of
arsenic and lead may be present in fluoride compounds added to water, but no credible evidence exists that their presence is of concern:
concentrations are below measurement limits.
[2]
Trace levels of arsenic and lead may be present in fluoride compounds added to water, however, concentrations are below measurement limits. [2]
-"No credible evidence" requires evidence from the reference in the text. Without that evidence, I think it would be safe to report it in a straightforward manner - that these levels exist in low concentrations without making claims they are either harmful or benign.
Fluoride also prevents cavities in adults of all ages. There are fewer studies in adults however, and the design of water fluoridation studies in adults is inferior to that of studies of self- or clinically applied fluoride.
Fluoride is also used to prevent cavities in adults. However, there are fewer studies in adults, and the design of water fluoridation studies in adults is inferior to that of studies of self- or clinically-applied fluoride.
-Personal style preference - "of all ages" sounds like someone marketing a circus...
Citing impacts on the environment, the economy and on health, the
Green Party of Canada seeks a ban on artificial fluoridation products. The Canadian Green Party adopted in 2010 a platform position which considers water fluoridation to be unsustainable
Citing impacts on the environment, economy, and health, the Green Party of Canada seeks a ban on artificial fluoridation products. In 2010 the Canadian Green Party adopted a platform position which considers water fluoridation to be unsustainable.
-The first sentence has grammatical errors, and the second sentence has minor sentence construction errors.
He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that it should be illegal due to ethics.
He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that it should be illegal due to ethical concerns.
-Whoever constructed this sentence likely meant "ethical concerns" rather than "ethics".
Theories for why the public tends to reject fluoridation include "alienation from mainstream" society, but evidence for that is weak. Another interpretation is confusion introduced during the referendum.
[3] Some studies of the sociology of opposition to water fluoridation have been criticized for having an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge.
[1]
-These sentences that appear under the history section seem irrelevant and present a bias against anti-fluoridationists using an ad hominem argument that seems amiss in a brief history of the controversy. If this were to remain in the article, I think it would need to be flagged for bias.
Sub heading: Conspiracy theories
Sub heading: Communist conspiracy theory (1940s-1960s)
-This section heading needed clarification because it only addresses one type, so it wouldn't be pluralized. In addition, there are multiple theories (and conspiracy theories) surrounding this issue, yet this section only addresses those related to Communism during the 1940s-1960s, so it should be properly labeled to reflect this content.
This viewpoint led to major controversies over public health programs in the US, most notably in the case of the
Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act controversy of 1956.
-This sentence is completely irrelevant (red herring) and does not address the fluoride controversy.
In the case of fluoridation, the controversy had a direct impact on local programs. During the 1950s and 1960s, referendums on introducing fluoridation were defeated in over a thousand Florida communities.
This controversy had a direct impact on local programs during the 1950s and 1960s, where referendums on introducing fluoridation were defeated in over a thousand Florida communities.
-Minor edit to improve sentences stylistically
Some anti-fluoridationists claimed that the conspiracy theories were damaging their goals; Dr. Frederick Exner, an anti-fluoridation campaigner in the early 1960s, told a conference: "most people are not prepared to believe that fluoridation is a communist plot, and if you say it is, you are successfully ridiculed by the promoters. It is being done, effectively, every day ... some of the people on our side are the fluoridators' 'fifth column'."
[4]
-This should be a stand-alone paragraph. Currently it is part of a paragraph on cinematic representations of fluoride.
References
Martin1989
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Pollick
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Musto
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Johnston
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).- User:Rebecca_hare 11:12 19 June 2014 (CDT) — Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Water fluoridation controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This sentence:
obviously needs cleaning up. I suggest the following:
72.225.230.150 ( talk) 16:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Done - fully agree "Continental Europe" is not a country, so cannot be "among other countries" - Arjayay ( talk) 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a difficult topic as folks on both sides of the controversy simply state "facts" that aren't really facts and have built in assumptions. One such "fact" is that municipal water fluorididation reduces cavities. There is some question of fluoride's efficacy in that regard, and CDC and EPA acknowledge that the benefit of fluoride is primarily topical. That key issue dominates the "he said - she said" argument.
However, one fact that is documented is that some folks are hypersensitive. This includes people with various skin conditions - who shouldn't even wash in it let alone drink it. Neurological and gastrointestinal disturbances are also listed as known reactions in a percentage of the population. This fact is ignored. Here is a list of Physician Desktop Reference excerpts can be found on the Fluoride Alert website.
Additionally, fluoride was used to treat hyperactive thyroid. That depressing effect is well known: http://thyroid.about.com/od/thyroidbasicsthyroid101/ss/preventthyroid_7.htm
Beyond that, some of us discovered the hard way that using fluoridated mouthwashes caused bizarre symptoms like burning urination and aching kidneys, as well as dry mouth. The research indicates that there may be connections between bladder, kidney and liver issues and fluoridation, however "more research is needed." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16834990
Ditto on heart disease. From the library of the National Institute of Health, an increase in fluoride uptake is associated with heart disease. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616
I suggest, something needs to be in this article regarding the controversy that does acknowledge the often overlooked facts about the hypersensitive population. In other words, this shouldn't be a controversy about fluoride as an absolute good or bad, it should include the facts that whether or not it is reducing cavities in poor children or lowering their IQ, it is causing suffering in thousands of folks who can't escape its presence in their lives, and are consequently living in chronic pain. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jytdog - you undid my addition, previously.... perhaps you want to rewrite what I originally wrote using this material? Seabreezes1 ( talk)
RESPONSE: Understood about Fluoride Alert website as being over the top. I referenced the NCBI and a Thyroid website re data. The only reference I made to Fluoride Alert was for the Physicians Desk Reference, and that's only because I couldn't find the PDR online. However if anyone can find it electronically, it should be easy to check what it says about fluoride sensitivity, which is something with which I have first hand experience. No need to go into my medical history, here. Much too long of a story. See Allergy website on fluoride: http://allergysymptomsx.com/toothpaste-allergy.php
However, most reversals on medical dogma do have a few outlandish extremists involved, and begins with a pattern of anecdotes. That isn't a reason to shut down the conversation. I think it's really important to consider the situation of the hypersensitive, as well as look hard at the data on the efficacy of water fluoridation. Weigh benefits and costs.... and ask can you get the benefits in other manner without the costs. But we wander off topic.
This article is about the controversy itself. On that topic, I feel strongly that this Wiki article is heavily weighted with 1950s arguments that makes the opponents look like fringe crazy people. As one of the hypersensitive, I hate to see that fact lost in arguments over the methodology of an IQ study done in China.
So..... how about coming to some agreement about making this Wiki article more balanced with some of the less dramatic and more accepted facts on fluoride side effects? Seabreezes1 ( talk) 23:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
00:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)@zad68 No fair. Hypersensitivity and allergic reactions to fluoride is real. I cited the NIH and other mainstream sources. I finally found the PDR online, and under most of the fluoride items, it lists "allergic rash and idiosyncrasy" as possible adverse conditions. PDR: http://www.pdr.net/search-results?q=fluoride
My participation here in Talk has been to state that the article seems weighted towards the more extreme arguments in the controversy, drowning out three bullet points in the anti-fluoride campaign:
Excerpt from CDC 2001 Report: http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm “The laboratory and epidemiologic research that has led to the better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental caries indicates that fluoride’s predominant effect is posteruptive and topical and that the effect depends on fluoride being in the right amount in the right place at the right time. Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted, especially when small amounts are maintained constantly in the mouth, specifically in dental plaque and saliva (37). Thus, adults also benefit from fluoride, rather than only children, as was previously assumed.”
CDC level adjustment: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/#overview5
I'm signing off..... I have no desire to get into an e-war on any topic. However, not including more than a passing reference to the the National Kidney Foundations warning, while including multiple paragraphs on the extremists in this argument is not presenting the controversy fairly. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 18:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Just one more reference on hypersensitivity - the standard FDA warning from multiple dental product packaging from the National Library of Medicine:
See: http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=e20b7cc8-5682-4e66-b5d5-5fa1035c0b77
I repeat, not fringe science at all, but a part of the controversy that proponents of water fluoridation ignore. Hypersensitivity belongs in this Wiki article. I suggest that the conspiracy controversy from the 50s be reduced and assigned a "historical" heading, while a new section on the 21st century revival of the controversy include the new data that caused CDC changes in position, the hypersensitivity argument, and the NIM studies that "warrant further research." Seabreezes1 ( talk) 20:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)There are a few other notable arguments on the anti fluoride side. How about these:
Seabreezes1 ( talk) 18:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course they also recommend more research. The likely effect of following their recommendations would be to reduce the MCLG (maximum level of fluoride), where added, from the 4 mg/L (seen in few places anyway) to "the lower levels seen by most U.S. citizens", in the 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L range. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Recommendation: To develop an MCLG that is protective of severe enamel fluorosis, clinical stage II skeletal fluorosis, and bone fractures, EPA should update the risk assessment of fluoride to include new data on health risks and better estimates of total exposure (relative source contribution) in individuals and to use current approaches to quantifying risk, considering susceptible subpopulations, and characterizing uncertainties and variability.
— p.352
@JyDog I added one paragraph to HISTORY section of this article about the Controversy documenting the climate of the 40s and 50s with 2 legal cases that made news, with references and referenced the research of 2 leading doctors of the times, and you pull it out? The opening sentence of this of this section as is is totally drawn from a single highly biased 1987 article that explains how profluoridationist should shape public opinion. I understand the requirements for stringent criteria as to science, but this representation of the controversy is not accurately representing either the current or past controversy and has a decidedly pro-fluoride POV. What I wrote was mild, but at least it included the fact that there were scientists and legal cases at that time that were anti-fluoride based on known air pollution damages and clinical results from doctors seeing patients in some of the first towns that were water fluorinated. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 03:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Adding the fact of current events of the day concerning fluoride air pollution as well as the reference to two of the leading doctors of water fluoridation who documented cases of low grade illness that aligns with the majority opposition of then and now. For the convenience of other followers in this trail, this is what I wrote with references at end:
Fluoride air pollution cases were in the news from coast to coast during the early days of the water fluoridation movement. During the 1950s, an Oregon farm family won $48,000 in damages for poisoned livestock, ruined land, and personal health problems as the result of fluorine emissions from the nearby metals plant in Martin v. Reynolds Metals. In 1946, the Salem Peach Growers sued the DuPont and the Manhattan Project for $430,000 in damages for ruined crops, lost livestock, and personal illness. Per author Christopher Bryson in his 2006 book "The Fluoride Deception," the thirteen New Jersey plaintiffs ultimately settled out of court, while DuPont and government officials sponsored lectures on the dental benefit of water fluoridation. The 1948 Donora smog incident was another current event that caused the public to resist water fluoridation. Additionally, many doctors of the day, such as George Waldbott and Reuben Feltman, opposed water fluoridation based on their research and clinical experience with individuals who had allergic like reactions to water fluoridation.
- Public Health Assessment of Reynolds Metals Company. January 14, 1997. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Superfund Site Assessment Branch
- Reynolds Metals Company vs. Paul Martin. Plaintiffs’ direct examination, p. 492, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals, San Francisco, Court Case Papers and Printed Matter, Case # 14990, transcript of record in six volumes, Folders 14990-14992, Boxes 5888-5890, RG 276
- Oregon State Bar Bulletin, Aug/Sept 2005 https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/05augsep/martin.html
- Philadelphia Record, October 18, 1946
- Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. † and George Kosel, B.S., M.S. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - Fourteen years of investigation - Final report.Journal of Dental Medicine 1961; 16: 190-99.
This or something very like this needs to be in this article to even begin approaching fairness in the representation of the debate. I also could suggest another "conspiracy" type entry, that
Another long standing conspiracy theory has industrial and political undertones. Current day, the opponents of fluoride protest that research that shows harmful neurological, immunological, and carcinogenic impacts of chronic fluoride exposure is being hampered by the fluoride industry which funds fluoride research. In a "follow the money" style, the opponents claim that political pressure is brought to bear on organizations as well as individuals. Fluoride opponents point to the case of William Marcus, Chief Scientist of the EPA who won a successful lawsuit under the Whistleblowers law for protesting the manipulation of data in a fluoride study regarding cancer so as to downgrade the findings of risk. They also point to the case of Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, a leading nationally recognized neurotoxocologist at Forsyth Dental Center at Harvard, who published a peer reviewed 1995 study on the behavioral and neurological deficits in 500 rats with a blood plasma level the equivalent of that in humans drinking fluoridated water. Dr. Mullenix was also fired from her position days after that publication.
Wordsmith it if you must, but both of the above sections have at least as much legitimacy in this article on the Controversy as the movie Dr. Strangelove. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 14:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Seabreezes1 ( talk) 15:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please take a few minutes to consider the following?
My intention is to have a fair and accurate representation of the fluoridation controversy. To that end, I have read publications from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60, and 70s as well as more current material. I’ve read over a thousand pages. It is hard to pull a few pages out of context, but I identified a few pages in a few of those resources for which I’d appreciate your feedback.
Item 1
This entire excerpt is wonderful, but back up to Chapter 1 in this 2010 book to look at Tables 1, 2 and 3. Also read the section “WHO says so” which focuses on studies from all decades.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KPn4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT153&lpg=PT153&dq=books+by+philip+sutton+fluoride&source=bl&ots=lhg0T_8ZrG&sig=RMdFFYKnJgIVimwtfrf49fbtw9U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P-gcVNjZD9edygTl2YDYDQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=books%20by%20philip%20sutton%20fluoride&f=false
Item 2 The 1960 book by Philip R.N. Sutton is entirely based on the analysis of the initial studies, responses and commentary. He did his survey in 1957. He was a statistician and didn't have a POV regarding fluoridation, just the way the trials were conducted. I don't know whether you'd want to read the entire book, but it at least proves that there were objections based on something other than "communists" in the 1950s. I've included a couple of shorter options, below. He was cited in the 2010 book above.
Item 3
The first 250 pages in The Great Dilemma (1978) are primarily science, and I found them fascinating. Sections, mostly clinical notes on patients, are reprinted from Waldbott’s 1965 book.
George Waldbott was an internationally recognized allergist and research scientist who first identified penicillin allergies, human anaphylactic shock and the connection between what was then called idiopathic asthma and smoking.
You can find these references on www dot whale dot to /b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdf
Excerpt, p 380:
“For nearly a decade after 1931, the PHS sought to remove excessive fluoride from water supplies because of endemic mottled teeth. But after 1940, the balance began to tilt in the opposite direction - to augment water supplies with fluoride. On the basis of studies on a very small number of healthy young men, plus limited surveys of health effect in natural fluoride areas, PHS scientists concluded that fluoride had no significant adverse effect on health, except for occasional mild mottling….. “
Item 4 A short 2005 article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons re science & controversy: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.pdf
Again, my purpose is to have a fair and unbiased Wikipedia representation of the fluoridation controversy. As it stands, it is incomplete and inaccurate.
Seabreezes1 ( talk) 18:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Seabreezes1 ( talk) 23:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
As I often find myself doing I agree with
Johnuniq here.
Seabreezes1 I'm sorry to say but you've really crossed over from what might reasonably considered to be article development suggestions into full-on
WP:SOAPBOX that really should be removed from this article's Talk page. You need to find secondary sources that impartially and from an academic point of view cover the social phenomenon of the water fluoridation controversy. What you may not do is make arguments against fluoridation. Please read
WP:TIGER and change your tack.
Zad
68
01:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added the official statement opposing water fluoridation released by the ministry of Health of the state of Israel. There is currently a disruptive editor who has twice tried to remove it spuriously. Bigbaby23 ( talk) 15:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)This
edit request to
Water fluoridation controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update this source, I'm getting a 404 error.
/info/en/?search=Water_fluoridation_controversy#cite_note-33
ClintMacleod ( talk) 17:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'am sceptical on this one, since radicals frequently oppose Fluoridation without solid back up. But this 2014 academic article abstract states "Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers". May deserve attention.
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)Yug (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
As of 2014, why is the Harvard 2012 study not mentioned? Will someone who can add data to this locked article, post this information?
"In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children." http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.87.16 ( talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for pontification |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The fluoride that is added to water supplies is TOXIC WASTE hydrofluorosilic ACID or sodium fluoride and often the same ingredient as in rat poison or prozac. To "debate" whether toxic waste so toxic they FORCED the uranium and phosphate fertilizer industry's to collect it with a wet scrubber system and not pollute it into the atmosphere over half a century ago is insane. It's toxic. it's neurotoxic. it's biotoxic. it's toxic poison. toxic poison poisons. duh Truthseer 174.102.167.2 ( talk) 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Also somehow this article and anyone "attending" to it seems to forget the simple fact of how awfully long a half life toxic waste fluoride has! and its accumulation at the pineal gland primarily, devastating Truthseer 174.102.167.2 ( talk) 19:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
This topic appears to be heavily moderated, can a superuser step in and stop this? For example, it does not mention that Israel has banned fluoridation as of last year (2014), and does not link to this study that found fluoride in water is a neutrotoxin linked to thyroid problems: http://www.newsweek.com/water-fluoridation-may-increase-risk-underactive-thyroid-disorder-309173 (February 2015). Why not? Usually an unmoderated page is much more responsive to current events. I suspect there is a moderator here who is pro-fluoride. It makes me reluctant to contribute anything as it will be deleted. PS--off-topic, but I have stopped contributing both time and money to Wikipedia due to such excessive moderation.
Raylopez99 ( talk) 14:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes clearly nazis who have a vested interest in fluoride or are hired by those that do are running this sick page.. The fact that most countries have an official statement about their decision to not poison their citizens anymore IS EXTREMELY RELEVANT to the "controversy" of adding carcinogenic braindamaging toxic waste to the people's water supplies. Now are you guys going to include the U.S. government's new recommendation to lower the amount of poisoning?? Probably they are concerned all the extra poisoning from the chemtrails and food and product supply will be a tad too much and we'll all drop dead too quickly instead of slowly and profitably
Truthseer 174.102.167.2 ( talk) 19:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Water fluoridation controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an issue with this article. Fluorosis of the teeth or should I be more specific , the Tooth Enamel is not just a cosmetic condition. It is actual long term damage to the tooth structure. Fluorosis actually makes the tooth porous and brittle. Therefor more prone to attacks from many conditions. The natural tooth minus fluoride if far stronger than a fluorosis riddled one. Please explain how dental fluorosis as ugly as it is, is alingned with something like a facial wrinkle? If this page cannot be corrected then I can only assume members of certain persuasions in the community have highjacked specific subject matters for their own moral ground. There is insufficient broad spectrum peer reviewed supported evidence to call this a balanced article. Fluorosis is a serious condition. It is long term damage to the tooth structure. Please investigate this article with much greater scrutiny before millions of people begin to form negative opinions of what should be a positive experience in truth not disneyland fluff which is what most segments on fluoride are in media.
Edstar59 ( talk) 02:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has been opened on the fringe theories noticeboard concerning this article. Interested editors are encouraged to join in. |
- Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the sections on "Efficacy" and "Medical Consensus" do not indicate that these topics are controversial. Either the controversies related to these topics need to be included, or the topics should be excluded from this page. These topics are covered in detail on the main Fluoridation page. Jdkag ( talk) 15:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The original rationale for having a separate topic for the water fluoridation controversy was that the controversy only exists because of "fringe" views and should therefore not be part of the main topic. However, the pro-fluoride editors have introduced into this subtopic a requirement that the sections on safety and efficiency, rather than reviewing the fringe views, should only contain material that is included in the main water fluoridation page. Consequently the subtopic page serves no purpose except as a mechanism for preventing any mention of the fringe views from appearing in Wikipedia. According to the definitive 2015 work of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) division of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, these views include "possible adverse health effects, specifically, severe dental fluorosis, bone fractures, skeletal fluorosis, carcinogenicity, lowered IQ and other neurological effects, and endocrine disruption." As opposed to Wikipedia editors, the PHS study did not discount any of these concerns as being unworthy of discussion, but rather analyzed each one in detail, concluding with the following NPOV statement: "After a thorough review of the comments opposing the recommendation, the panel did not identify compelling new information to alter its assessment that the [new] recommended fluoride concentration (0.7 mg/L) provides the best balance of benefit to potential harm." U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water Jdkag ( talk) 13:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)I could not even get through the first 4 paragraphs without finding misleading or outright false information. In the fourth paragraph it states, "...a medical consensus..." on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. It than proceeds to cite this source: Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. If you look at the article, which by the way is a review more than primary source, it states this
However, it is now accepted that systemic fluoride plays a limited role in caries prevention [12, 38]. Several epidemiologic studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities clearly indicated that CWF may be unnecessary for caries prevention [1, 5, 15, 19, 21, 23], particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low [16, 21]. Moreover, the evidence of an increased prevalence of fluorosis, particularly in fluoridated areas, needs to be considered [3, 22]. Nevertheless, water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in populations where oral hygiene conditions are poor,
I think this should be changed to reflect the true conclusion of that source, Or entirely removed. Outright lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkeetingphd ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The current lead is too ambigous and some what whishy whashy, as if reluctant to talk about the controversy. There is no need for that. We have good sources saying things in a straight forward way.
This is the current lead with my added material:
The water fluoridation controversy arises from political, moral, ethical,economic, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. Those opposed argue that water fluoridation has no or little cariostatic benefits, may cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and pharmacologically obsolete. [1] [2] [3] [4]
With regard to ethics, water fluoridation pits the common good against individual rights. Some say the common good overrides individual rights, and equate it to vaccination and food fortification. [5] [6] Others say that individual rights override the common good, and say that individuals have no choice in the water that they drink, unless they drink more expensive bottled water, [7] and some argue unequivocally, that it does not stand up to scrutiny relative to medical ethics. [8]
Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s. [9] During the 1950s and 1960s, conspiracy theorists claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine American public health. [10] In recent years water fluoridation has become a prevalent health and political issue in many countries, resulting in some countries and communities discontinuing it's use while others have expanded it. [11] [12]
Public health authorities find a medical consensus that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent suffering and promote oral health, and generally support fluoridation. [13] The controversy is propelled by a significant public opposition supported by a minority of professionals, [14] which include researchers, dental and medical professionals, alternative medical practitioners, health food enthusiasts, a few religious groups (mostly Christian Scientists in the U.S.), and occasionally consumer groups and environmentalists. [15] Organized political opposition has come from libertarians, [16] the John Birch Society, [17] and from groups like the Green parties in the UK and New Zealand. [18]
Proponents and opponents have been both criticized for overstating the benefits or overstating the risks, and understating the other, respectively. [19] [20] Systematic reviews have cited the lack of high quality research for the benefits and risks of water fluoridation and questions that are still unsettled. [20] [21] [11] Researchers who oppose the practice state this as well. [22] According to a 2013 Congressional Research Service report on fluoride in drinking water, these gaps in the fluoridation scientific literature fuel the controversy. [23]
Public water fluoridation was first practiced in 1945, in the U.S.. As of 2012, 25 countries have artificial water fluoridation to varying degrees, 11 of them have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water. A further 28 countries have water that is naturally fluoridated, though in many of them the fluoride is above the recommended safe level. [24] As of 2012 about 435 million people worldwide received water fluoridated at the recommended level (i.e., about 5.4% of the global population). [24] About 214 million of them living in the United States. [25]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
Bigbaby23 ( talk) 05:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
There has been a revert regarding references not being present also in the body of the article. This has bern remedied Bigbaby23 ( talk) 06:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In my view this is UNDUE in the lead. Per WP:LEAD WEIGHT in the lead follows the WEIGHT in the body. The body doesn't give near this much space to this issue. Bigbaby please speak to that. Thanks.
At the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, consistent evidence suggests that it causes
dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during
tooth development, most of which is mild and not usually of aesthetic concern.
[1]
[2] No clear evidence of other adverse effects exists, though almost all research thereof has been of poor quality.
[3] Dental fluorosis is cosmetic and unlikely to represent any other effect on public health.
[2] Some countries choose water fluoridation as a method to reduce cavities in both children and adults.
[4]
References
Ih2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).YorkReview2000
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Jytdog ( talk) 07:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
We need to be careful that this article doesn't simply become a dumping ground for all the things people perceive as bad about water fluoridation. Every topic covered here must be supported by independent reliable secondary sourcing demonstrating the topic is indeed a genuine controversy related to water fluoridation.
Zad
68
12:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:LEDE ledes must summarize article bodies. The lede here doesn't. Most obviously, this is betrayed by how many citations are to references made in the lede only. It's also too long. The maximum recommended size for a lede is 4 paragraphs. These two problems go hand-in-hand. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I maintain that Nuffield Council on Bioethics, should get weight on the ethics issue.
It is a report made by a panel of experts, not a dentist giving his view in a dental journal on ethics http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7226655.stm
They are mentioned numerous times in the British Medical Association " Medical Ethics Today: The BMA's Handbook of Ethics and Law" and have weight when discussing Water fluoridation http://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/news%20views%20analysis/bma_fluoride.pdf
They get weight on the water fluoridation ethics, in discussions about CWF in the U.S. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/24/13/36/community-water-fluoridation-in-the-united-states New Zealand https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no-1406/6365 and The UK http://www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/081120-countc-R1113153858.html Canda http://www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/081120-countc-R1113153858.html Ireland http://www.lenus.ie/hse/bitstream/10147/236473/1/FlourideSuppArt3.pdf mentioned in Israel debate http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/show/p/102 Bigbaby23 ( talk) 04:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Many more can be found on google scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=Nuffield+bioethics+fluoridation+&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Bigbaby23 ( talk) 04:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Is not the real reason why they put fluoride in water is so people can keep eating loads of sugar to the affect that they are addicted to sugar and all the health problems come with eating loads of sugar? If water did not have fluoride put in it then a large number of people would stop eating foods with processed sugar in them because of tooth decay and that would be bad for a lot of food businesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.184.86 ( talk) 19:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Why there is no reference that fluoride was used in drinking water in Nazis camps for Allies prisoners to make them dumb, so they couldn't plot any escapes or camp takeover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.105 ( talk) 18:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Why are none of the Further Reading materials supportive of fluoridation? They all appear to be anti- and none of them appear to examine the various anti-theories and refute them with facts. This came about because fluoride is not hazardous waste, or as asserted on Democracy Now by Christopher Byerson, nuclear waste. 208.106.32.144 ( talk) 09:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)