Wikipedia

Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive 12

< Talk:Water fluoridation
Latest comment: 1 year ago by DMacks in topic Association between fluoridated water and ADHD
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Bottled water

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This was moved here from my User Talk, with TeeVeeed's permission Zad68 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit:

Also-I agree that the old ref did not exactly say anything whatsoever about fluoride, BUT--- but there are 3 sources of fluoride in bottled water in the US, and only ONE must be on the label, and that would be fluoride that is ADDED to the water by the manufacturer. As far as I can tell. The, now deleted FDA info. stated how they are in charge of labeling, and how added ingredients MUST be on the label, and then the (ref #50) says exactly, "The FDA does not require bottled water manufacturers to list the amount of fluoride on the label unless the manufacturer has added fluoride within set limits.".....so we are not saying that now in the article, and probably we could say it with only the one ref, (#50)? Somehow I think that we should say this, that it is not mandatory for bottled water to say if it has fluoride, unless it has been added by the bottler. And that it can contain fluoride if the bottler got it that way from the tap, or spring etc.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed it because it seems like a WP:SYNTH problem to use a source from the FDA that doesn't say anything about fluoride and put it next to other content that does--it seems like making a point by omission. And because the next sentences are supported by CDC sources that do mention fluoridation in relation to bottled water, it didn't seem necessary. Zad68 13:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that I agree that is is a bit of a synth. The (old) FDA ref did mention "flavored" water and water with added "nutrients", but not fluoride, so I don't even know if it is considered a nutrient?TeeVeeed (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Our article on Nutrient has a decent definition: "Nutrients are components in foods that an organism uses to survive and grow." You won't find sodium fluoride or stannous fluoride as components of food and I very much doubt there are any organisms that can feed on them. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Having said that, we have an article on Micronutrients which could conceivably include fluoride at a stretch. But that doesn't seem to be what the FDA source was discussing. --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It is a Dietary mineral but not required. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The relevant FDA source for bottled water is here; see also here for making health claims about it. The EPA is concerned with excess levels and considers Fl to be a "contaminant" - see hereJytdog (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section edit revert, August 3, 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I presented the following as a replacement to the controversy sub section:

The water fluoridation controversy arises from a vociferous debate concerning the science and public policy of the fluoridation of public water supplies. It involves scientific issues, such as the question of risk–benefit ratio It also involves medical ethics and political issues, such as the question of the common good against individual rights, and the question of how the decision to fluoridate is made; administratively or via referendum.[109] The controversy is propelled by a significant public opposition supported by a minority of professionals.[110] 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.[111][112][113]

Public health authorities throughout the world find a medical consensus that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent Dental caries.[3] The authorities views on the most effective Fluoride therapy for community prevention of tooth decay are mixed; some state water fluoridation is most effective while others see no special advantage and prefer topical application strategies.[11][15]

Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s.[114] During the 1950s and 1960s, conspiracy theorists claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine American public health.[115] 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.[10][116]

Proponents and opponents have been both criticized for overstating the benefits or overstating the risks, and understating the other, respectively.[117][118] Systematic reviews have cited the lack of high quality research for the benefits and risks of water fluoridation and questions that are still unsettled.[10][118][53] Researchers who oppose the practice state this as well.[119] According to a 2013 Congressional Research Service report on fluoride in drinking water, these gaps in the fluoridation scientific literature fuel the controversy.[116]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&oldid=732842323#Controversy

Editor CFCF reverted my edit, stating : "Didn't read beyond the first sentence of the addition - but its horrible. Wiktionary link to vociferous in the first sentence=)"

I reverted him back thinking he thought i was joking or something and explained to him "the source cited uses the word "vociferous" and so do 339 other published papers in google scholar and more in google books. try it: "vociferous water fluoridation" "

After 1 minute of my revert, editor CFCF reverted me again stating "Paraphrase, there are other additions that are problematic. Take this to talk."

Here i am in talk. But how can i assume good faith with the editor that tells me he didn't read past the first sentence, but then gives contradictory and different reason for revert?

Anyway. How is this summary not better than the current one?Bigbaby23 (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I keep getting caught up on the word "vociferous". We should write in easier to understand language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
That is exactly why i hyperlinked it to Wiktionary. I used this word; repeated in many sources, in order to remain NPOV in such a controversial topic. I also put 2 references at the end of the sentence for clarity.Bigbaby23 (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It was in easier to understand language before and therefore I restored the prior version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section revisited

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

What can I say, this is a hell of a biased article, involving some skillful propaganda and making me kinda worry about wikipedia's future. Of course this in general is an issue that can't be fully resolved, yet one learns to check the "controversy" section regardless of the article's size and one's time restrictions. Opposition to fluoridation is presented as if it was lacking a firm scientific basis (regarding at least the subjectivity of the correctness of fluoridation) and supported by groups either having no direct relation to science or health organisations, or constituting minorities - that is worldwide. Where exactly is "concern" for brain toxicity mentioned? More specifically the very sentence " With regard to ethics, like vaccination and food fortification, fluoridation pits the common good against individual rights." strongly suggests though not literally stating - as if spoken by a lawyer in a court - that if we put the common good above individual rights, none would doubt about the correctness of fluoridation. Say, you don't have individualistic ethics, do you? Before the phrase "Public health authorities find a medical consensus" a "U.S." could at least be put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.247.201 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Geez. I tried to add a reference to the Evidence section for the 2015 Cochrane review and for the 2006 NRC, changing the "poor quality' comment to 'that although evidence of benefit and harm both exist, there is still a controversy,' and it was undone within minutes. Just leaves a reference to the 2000 York Review with a slam. Guess the more modern science of the National Academies of Science, aka Supreme Court of Science, and the Cochrane Panel, aka the Gold Standard, just doesn't cut it with some. Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you're doing: the markup was broken pointing to a non-existent reference? Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
One of the two links wasn't working, yes, and I was in the process of trying to fix that link, but within minutes my work had been undone. I suggest that a reference to the 2015 Cochrane Review which confirmed the 2000 York Review findings a small dental benefit and no evidence of whole health safety and the 2006 NRC Review that documented adverse effects as well as advising the EPA that they had provided no evidence of safety to susceptible populations nor any LOAL with a statement that there is still controversy over both benefit and harm is the minimum to be added. Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
In that case, I don't see how the Cochrane reiew supports the wording you used. Alexbrn (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Since the addition appears to be controversial can you propose what you want to change and what references have text that support the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

What is point of flowing faucet image?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Takes up a lot of space and makes the article look like a pamphlet promoting fluoridation.--Jrm2007 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Quickly orients people to the topic of the article in question. I do not see an issue with itDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it does quickly orient people to the topic of the article, but I do see Jrm2007's point that it's not the most relevant image - basically looks like a stock photo. I'd say keep it for now, but we might want to see what else is out there. Does anyone have proposals for replacement images? 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 02:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Healthy conversation. I think that a stock picture - slightly pejorative term - is good to (i) reinforce the idea that fluoridation is "stock" (boring, routine) technology and (ii) that fluoridated water looks just like regular water (not verified that the stock photo is of fluoridated water, I know). --Smokefoot (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


Mechanism

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The mechanism section makes correct general statements about the topical effects of fluorde but misses the most important mechanism by which water fluoridation reduces rates of tooth decay. Water fluoridation reduces rates of tooth decay primarily by a systemic, rather than topical, mechanism. In children whose teeth are still forming (typically age 0 to age 12 years), fluoride is incorporated into all of the enamel and not just the outer surface layer that topical application of fluoride affects. Because resistance to decalcification is increased thoughout the entire enamel structure, resistence to coronal tooth decay is significantly reduced even if the person moves to an area where there is no fluoride in the water. Water fluoridation thus helps people reduce tooth decay for an extended period over their lifetime. Topical fluoride wears off in a few days or a few weeks. It's important to distinguich between topical and systemic mechanisms. Further: as the tooth is forming (in the very early stages, under the gums) the ameleoblats which lay down the enamel actually concentrate fluoride in the new layers of enamel so that a very low systemic dose results in a concentration of fluoride in the enamel where it will have the greatest benefit. This is why dental flourosis is evidence of excess fluoride at the celular level. The ameoloblastst become unable to tolerate the fluoride they have absorbed and are unable to function normally. The enamel they produce is defective in various ways. The ideal balance bwteen these two extremes is generally considered to be acheived when the fluoride level in drinking water is 1.0 to 0.7 parts per million.LFlagg (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Good points. Could you identify some references? --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to dig around a bit.LFlagg (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Water fluoridation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Bottled water

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is about water flouridation, so descriptions of non-flouridated water are off topic. Any implications about the effect on dental health would need WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

"Sweden" should be removed from the list stated in 

    "Communities have discontinued water fluoridation in some countries, including Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland.<ref name=Cheng2007/>"

Sweden never ever had such a program. It is a publicly debunked myth. We just have it in our groundwater, and it is actively removed. The reference stated after the line talks of a program that investigated if there would be any benefit. It was not implemented. For more reference to the Swedish governments stance on the matter, in Swedish, pointing out that fluoridation has never ever been implemented in Sweden: http://www.svensktvatten.se/vattentjanster/dricksvatten/riskanalys-och-provtagning/kemiska-amnen-i-vatten/fluorid/

Best regards, Lucas Nordicmind (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Deli nk (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional news stories to address

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article currently does not contain any links (that I see) to recent studies and articles such as those from Harvard Chan School of Health, Phillipe Granjean, and others. I suggest that to more fully discuss the topic, these should be presented. Examples include:

1. Chachra D, Limeback H, Willett TL, Grynpas MD. The long-term effects of water fluoridation on the human skeleton. J Dent Res. 2010 Nov;89(11):1219-23.

2. Vieira AP, Hancock R, Dumitriu M, Limeback H, Grynpas MD. Fluoride's effect on human dentin ultrasound velocity (elastic modulus) and tubule size. Eur J Oral Sci. 2006 Feb;114(1):83-8.

3. Brothwell D, Limeback H. Breastfeeding is protective against dental fluorosis in a nonfluoridated rural area of Ontario, Canada. J Hum Lact. 2003 Nov;19(4):386-90.

4. Limeback H, Vieira AP, Lawrence H. Improving esthetically objectionable human enamel fluorosis with a simple microabrasion technique. Eur J Oral Sci. 2006 May;114 Suppl 1:123-6; discussion 127-9, 380.

5. Tang QQ, Du J, Ma HH, Jiang SJ, Zhou XJ. Fluoride and children's intelligence: a meta-analysis. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2008 Winter;126(1-3):115-20.

6. Ding Y, YanhuiGao, Sun H, Han H, Wang W, Ji X, Liu X, Sun D. The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children's intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. J Hazard Mater. 2011 Feb 28;186(2-3):1942-6.

7. Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Oct;120(10):1362-8.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Mrs whit (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia. I think a review of WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE would help you with this effort. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
It's also a good idea to search the archives of the talk page (see the box up at the top). I know that the Choi/Grandjean paper has been extensively discussed, for instance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Water fluoridation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Water fluoridation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Looking at authorities

For the WHO Inadequate or Excess Fluoride: A Major Public Health Concern (2010) is the most recent summary; it says the same thing as their most recent long report which is from 2011 but based on old refs: Guidelines for drinking-water quality, fourth edition (2011) (see p 372). The WHO really emphasizes getting the level righ, taking into account the whole world, where many regions have endogenous water fluoride levels that are too high.
ADA's most recent policy statement from 2015 is here.
CDC's page is here, was last updated in 2016.
For the EU, the Scherr report (2010) is still the most recent.

Looking at the literature:

PMID 26092033 2015 Cochrane review
PMID 28243675 2017 on risk perception and publication. (has free full text and is interesting for the consensus and the controversy: "Responses to low-hazard, high-outrage risks often begin by asking why many highly beneficial activities, such as drinking-water fluoridation, should raise such levels of public concern when multiple scientific studies have established that the risks are very low.3,4 However, 60 years of research into the determinants of risk perception now provide considerable insight into this question.....This research identifies multiple ‘fright factors’ that tend to amplify people’s concern or outrage.5,6 These include the degree to which people feel they have control over the risk; the degree to which they dread its consequences; whether the risk is perceived as natural or human-made; and the degree to which it is familiar. Control has a substantial impact – people have much lower perceptions of risk when they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are in control of the risk. When it is not possible to control a hazard directly, trust in an expert or government regulator gives a sense of control by proxy. When control-by-proxy measures – such as laws and government safety processes – fail to keep people safe, outrage results."
PMID 27352462 (2016) available free full text. pp78-70 deal with water fluoridation. "Provided that a community has a piped water supply, water fluoridation is the most effective method of reaching the whole population, so that all social classes benefit without the need for active participation on the part of individuals. Water fluoridation has been endorsed by the world’s leading science and health organizations, including WHO, the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), and FDI World Dental Federation." (p 78) and p79 has a long discussion of safety and consistently says "The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health"

There you go... Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Are any of these sources used in the article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't intend to keep deeply involved here, but I'll note this is an FA, so these sources jolly well should be being used. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: What does FA mean? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:FA. Alexbrn (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
It probably shouldn't be though. --John (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have let these sit a bit to folks a time to review them. I'll start updating the article with them tomorrow. Just going to move one step at a time... Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Water fluoridation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words tag

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

They very last sentence of the last section has the "who said this?" tag. The statement, "Assessing the ethical validity of the CDA policy on water fluoridation therefore requires a consideration of the potential benefits and harms of water fluoridation." appears in the first reference in citation 111 and the general argument but not a similar statement appears in the second reference of the citation.

I propose eliminating the second reference or possibly using it in another way and making it clear that the tagged statement is from the authors of the first reference in the citation. Thoughts? Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The phrase that I object to is "some argue that the practice [of water fluoridation] presents a conflict between the common good and individual rights." I think everyone would agree that there is a *potential* conflict -- but by itself, the statement that there is a potential ethical issue is completely uninformative. The quote that you have extracted from McNally and Downie also begs the question of under what circumstances an ethical conflict might arise. The Cohen and Locker piece states the argument that infringement of individual rights can accrue even in the absence of demonstrable harm, and that in the absence of convincing epidemiological data the dental profession has not established the moral authority to even advocate a position on public policy, let alone decide it. As such it is a better statement of the ethical case against water fluoridation. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
My suggestion is that the final sentence be rephrased to say something like: "Opposition to water fluoridation has arisen from multiple sources. Some doubt the cariostatic benefits, or play up the risk of fluorosis.[refs] It is also arguable that individual rights are infringed by universal water treatment, even in the absence of demonstrable harm [111]. Other criticisms have little factual basis, such as the possibility of serious health problems, and a variety of conspiracy theories.[refs]" T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
We could always pull the passage. It doesn't really add enough for it to be a loss if that happens Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Well someone went and changed it. I can live with what's there now.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't add much. I don't much like the phrasing as it is, but it is at least consistent with the lead on the main controversy page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Studies not cited

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are these types of pieces being added?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

"Extremely high levels of fluoride are known to cause neurotoxicity in adults, and negative impacts on memory and learning have been reported in rodent studies, but little is known about the substance’s impact on children’s neurodevelopment. 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. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted."

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/

"In June 2015, the Cochrane Collaboration [...] published an analysis of 20 key studies on water fluoridation. They found that while water fluoridation is effective at reducing tooth decay among children, “no studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries [cavities] in adults met the review’s inclusion criteria.”

The Cochrane report also concluded that early scientific investigations on water fluoridation (most were conducted before 1975) were deeply flawed. “We had concerns about the methods used, or the reporting of the results, in … 97 percent of the studies,” the authors noted. One problem: The early studies didn’t take into account the subsequent widespread use of fluoride-containing toothpastes and other dental fluoride supplements, which also prevent cavities. This may explain why countries that do not fluoridate their water have also seen big drops in cavity rates (see chart)."

IMO it is probably better to reference the original studies, if they are relevant, rather than these digests. The first (Choi et al.) is of questionable relevance because the exposures are far higher (up to 11mg/L) than the concentrations at which fluoride is added to public water supplies (0.7–1.2 mg/L), there is no statistical control for contaminants such as lead, and dose effects are not estimated. (Compare the New Zealand study.) The study was widely misinterpreted to the extent that the authors put out a press release later that year stating their view that the results were inapplicable to the debate over community water fluoridation. The Cochrane report, and commentaries on it, are already referenced multiple times.🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The problematic Grandjean and Choi work has been discussed fairly extensively on this talk page before; you can search the archives if you want to see the previous threads. As I said back in 2013:
Many of the studies included in Choi's meta-analysis (Table 1) reported fluoride levels of 0.5-1.0 ppm (mg/L) in their "reference" populations—the same level of fluoride recommended by WHO guidelines for artificially fluoridated water. The "high fluoride" populations typically reported drinking water fluoride concentrations significantly higher, most coming in far in excess of WHO recommended levels. At best, Choi's meta lends moderate support to the hypothesis that extremely high fluoride levels may have neurotoxic effects. It says nothing about the effects of artificial water fluoridation to recommended levels; as such, it is potentially a worthwhile source for our article on fluoride toxicity, but isn't really relevant to this article.
As T0mpr1c3 notes above, some of the studies involved more than a 10-fold excess of fluoride over recommended levels. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

NPOV issues in controversy section

Latest comment: 5 years ago51 comments8 people in discussion

I have removed the word consensus and also added a better source needed tag to this sentence for the controversy section, that states that consensus has been reached that Fluoridation is safe. However, the whole point of the section is that there is a controversy relating to this concept, and the content above it on the page goes into great lengths to show that fluordiation is in fact safe. Thus this sentence in this section seeks to debunk this WP:FRINGE theory that it is non controversial. The issue is that it is attempting to debunk this theory using a primary source. It is well documented that the ADA states that flurodation is safe, thus using the ADA website is WP:PRIMARY. Note on this page there is no mention of the word consensus, thus this is a summary. We dont do that on wikipedia. For example, Mike Tyson saying he is the best boxer in the world might be true, but we need to find a a few WP:IRS that agree with him before we are going to add it to the wikipedia article. We are not going to use his personal website stating the same. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The ADA are primary for their view as a view, but in general the position of major medical bodies on health topics may simply be asserted as facts about those topics (for which they are secondary) per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Alex, are you referring to WP:MEDORG?
I agree with you this list of organizations that support fluoridation would be sufficient to use as a secondary source for the purpose of adding organizations in the list to this Wikipedia and other wikipedia articles. However, their view that the world has reached a consensus on fluroridation would be primary, as it is there view (note that they don't assert consensus on the page).
The second more glaring issue is that in fact the ADA doesn't even assert any consensus (which would be their view per above) on this page nor does ADA even use the word consensus on the cited page. It is simply us humble editors reading a long list and assuming that list is 'long enough' to be a conensus. That assumption by us editors is in fact WP:OR on the part of the editor. If we are going to say there is a consensus we need to find an RS that meets MEDORG.
Comments on the above two points?
Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what your proposal is. All I am saying is that the views of reputable medical organizations are ideal sources, and not suspect on account of WP:PRIMARY. I'd say the ADA meets WP:RS/AC too. Is an actual change being proposed? Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it appears that WP:RS/AC is what applies here. I removed the "consensus" in this edit here Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This change failed verification. This change also failed verification. The entire sentence needs to be rewritten in order to comply with V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Quack, the entirety of text on the source's page only says "National and International Organizations That Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Community Water Fluoridation for Preventing Dental Decay". There is no mention of many, safety, etc. The entire sentence lacks a source and is subject to removal. Your assertion of many vs. some is your own WP:OR. @Alexbrn: I think it was you who removed the tags, please feel free to discuss here next time before removal. I have re-added the tags. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The article says "Many public health authorities find a that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent suffering and promote oral health, and generally support fluoridation.[116]"
The source says "National and International Organizations That Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Community Water Fluoridation for Preventing Dental Decay".[1]
Both "some" and "many" fail verification. The source does not mention some or many or any such similar wording. See WP:WEASEL. The source also does not mention safe and effective, among other things. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree, I thought some was a better weasel word than many. But yes, both is us editors trying to create a position out of a list of organizations. Us editors are really just doing WP:OR by putting words in the ADA's mouth. I guess they must have made some other statement about their consenusus and fluoride being safe, so let's delete the text or find a better source. That's how wikipeida works, no crusades for the public good, this page included. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Have removed the tag per WP:MEDRS. It is the position statement of a major medical organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit James, feel free to reach consenus here. There is numerous issues with this content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Statements by medical major organizations are reliable secondary sources per MEDRS. This is very basic stuff. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Again you deleted the tag, looking a bit like edit warring. What is the statement this organization is making exactly? The entire text on the page is ""National and International Organizations That Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Community Water Fluoridation for Preventing Dental Decay" and that is far different from the text in the article. If you want to put the text in the article, then simply sumarize it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
RTFM. Your writing It is the position of the ADA that floridation is safe, thus this citation is a primary source is simply incompetent-- Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I might be incompetent, its entirely possible... but you swearing at me on this page and my talk page seems a bit beyond the scope of this discussion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have added a second statement, this one from WHO. They are easy to find as so many health organizations say this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: this additional source you have added supports the use of fluroide to prevent dental issues, same the other ADA source. That is not disputed. However, neither of those two sources support the safety claim in this sentence, nor do they assert that fluoridation is generally supported. If they are easy to find, then add one that supports the other claims (safety and general acceptance). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
So you are dropping your objection to the source as "primary" - is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
We are dropping the FV content. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
JYT, yes I am dropping the Primary objection as the sentece is currently contstructed by QuackGuru [2]. Thanks QuackGuru for solving this! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Great. I have further tweaked. It is good to get rid of the "some". The safety and effectiveness is dependent on dose (as it always is) which may involve raising or lowering fluoride levels. There are places where the drinking water coming out of the ground has very high fluoride and it needs to be removed! The WHO is especially attuned to that. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The content failed verification using the ADA source.[3] It was introduced here[4] to another article and copied to this article.[5] QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
JYT, we can't change the definition of fluoridation in this small controversy section. It is defined in the article header as "Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay." No mention of removing fluoride. Second it makes no mention it is safe way to prevent tooth decay. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

no definition is being changed. Read the WHO source. 02:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

We are also using the American Dental Association source.
Current wording: Public health authorities in the US and internationally attest that water flouridation, which may involve increasing or decreasing the amount of fluoride present in the water supply, is a safe and effective method to inhibit cavities in children and other vulnerable populations.[116][117] Both sources do not verify the claim. It may be a WP:SYN violation. I am unable to pinpoint where in the WHO source verifies the claim.
Previous wording: Public health authorities in the US and internationally attest to the health benefits of public water fluoridation for inhibiting cavities.[116] Water fluoridation, where possible and culturally agreeable, has considerable benefits especially for subpopulations with an increased risk of developing cavities.[117] The content is sourced to each citation. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Gah this has gotten all screwed up from people messing with it. It is out of sync with the controversies article now. ffs. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The WHO source says "There is no credible evidence that water fluoridation is associated with any adverse health effects (5, 6)." It doesn't say the word safe, nor does it say that other organizations agree. Want to just say the following?: The WHO says: "there is no credible evidence that water fluoridation is associated with any adverse health effects." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I re-synced it, here. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The current wording: "Public health authorities throughout the world find a medical consensus that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent dental caries."
The review says "Nevertheless, for underprivileged groups in both developing and developed countries, the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation has been endorsed, even in recent years, by international and national agencies and dental associations throughout the world"[6]. QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I sure don't see where medical consensus can be construed from this Pizzo source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The part "medical consensus" and "at appropriate levels" failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
It is a summary of that. We summarize sources here. The source talks about raising or lowering fluoride levels to reach appropriate levels. It could be improved by adding something like "for vulnerable populations".... Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
That source is from 2007. We should look and see what more recent reviews say and update this everywhere. Will do that in the morning and post what i find here. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Raising or lowering fluoride levels is not what the international and national agencies and dental associations have endorsed. They endorsed specifically "the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation". Furthermore, what they endorsed does not mean medical consensus. The part about raising or lowering fluoride levels to reach appropriate levels can be added to another section. The wording can tweaked or a newer source can be used. If a newer source is not found soon I or another editor can improve the wording. There is no rush. QuackGuru (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I largely agree, and would like to see a source that says "safe" if we want to use that in this section and if that cannot be sourced then we put in the section what we can source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
JYT, you seem to have edited the content on the page again using the Pizzo G source. This source fails verification relating to medical consensus and safety. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There is more content that failed verification. The part about "medical consensus that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent dental caries" entirely failed verification. Adding "for vulnerable populations" would also fail verification. Public health authorities endorsed "the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation". The part about medical consensus blatantly failed verification because the source said "has been endorsed,...". The part endorsed does not mean there is medical consensus. Also the part about "at appropriate levels" and "means to prevent dental caries" is a WP:SYN violation. We are supposed to summarize the source. It is not a summary. It is poorly written. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I am a bit confused. You have created a list of sources in the talk page section below you titled Source Review. As QuackGuru noted, this content you keep adding fails verfication. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you are confused. The current content is fine given the sources that are there now. The article needs to be updated with the refs below to maintain its FA status. I am working on getting back to that. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Whether the content is updated or not the current wording fails verification. I explained the problems with the current wording in detail. QuackGuru (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
There is only one source for the sentence we are discussing, what do you mean by "sources"...i understand the plural to mean more than one. I tagged the offending content for a second time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The only person supporting you here is Quackguru, whose editing privileges are hanging by a thread that is extremely close to breaking (you can search ANI to see for yourself). If you want to improve this article, please review the MEDRS sources below and draft new language. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to propose more text from the sources below, be my guest. But the existing text fails verification, so it needs to be discussed and deleted if you cant find a source to support your claim. It has nothign to do with the new sources you are proposing, nor do I need to propose more content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It is true that you don't need to do anything and no one said you that you needed to do anything. The failed verification claim you are making is incorrect, but there is no point arguing over content that is going to be re-sourced soon; the claim in the content is not "mine" btw. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
In this edit [7] you removed the tag and stated "(Do that again and I will bring you to EWN and you will likely be blocked.)" in your edit notes. Please explain what is EWN why I would be blocked for tagging content. Second, what is your justification for deleting the tag? That was the second time you have deleted the tag on the content you added. Looks like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: I noted your edit [8] and which continues to use to the Pizzo abstract as the sole RS. This content, post your trimming still fails verification. There is nothing in this abstract that points to safety and this source actually contradicts the content, with the source stating "Moreover, the caries reduction directly attributable to water fluoridation have declined in the last decades as the use of topical fluoride had become more widespread, whereas enamel fluorosis has been reported as an emerging problem in fluoridated areas." Please comment, thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I very much doubt Doc is using just the abstract, but citing the whole paper. Editors must not use sources they haven't read: WP:NOABSTRACT. Jtbobwaysf you're not doing that are you? Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I read the source. See diff. It no longer fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The Pizzo et al. 2007 study is referenced 11 times in the article, yet no mention that the author concluded based on existing studies at the time, that flouridating water may be unnecessary for caries prevention. - The article is using this study in a selective way. Kudos, it is actually mentioned, in the large lede. prokaryotes (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I inserted information on legal action against fluoridation, but it was removed. HeloPait (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Your source was an private sensationalist site. Wikipedia strives for objectivity by relying on technical journals or reports major organizations, see WP:MEDRS. Typical attributes: boring prose, no ads for miracle cures, etc.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Add reference to the recent study linking fluoridation to a reduction in IQ of male infants. Science Magazine: Drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy may lower IQ in sons, controversial study says Fauxmaha (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not done Reverted yesterday as being a preliminary study, WP:PRIMARY, and unencyclopedic. A WP:MEDRS review of high-quality clinical research is needed for such a conclusion. --Zefr (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Zefr. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Then indicate that it's a preliminary student, or stipulate some of the objections that have been raised. Caveat the hell out of it if you want. But this study was widely reported in scientific and popular publications. It was thoroughly vetted (subject to higher than usual scrutiny by the journal that published to ensure that it was methodologically sound) and was subject to careful peer review. I say include.TheBlueCanoe 16:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTJOURNAL #6 and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not a textbook or journal where preliminary studies are reported as they are published. Several studies like the one referenced would need to be reviewed and published in a high-quality journal or professional statement to be reliable encyclopedic content per WP:MEDREV which states: "Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as original, primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be entirely omitted (see recentism)." --Zefr (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
If it's truly an impactful article, then it will likely be the subject of discussion in upcoming reviews on the topic of water fluoridation and will be examined there. It's premature to add it now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Would help to give an indication of natural fluoride levels, not just max.

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is said that naturally occurring fluoride levels may be as high as 50mg/litre (which is quite rare, I might add) but I think it would help to add something that gives readers a feeling for the range - which is sometimes a little below 0.1mg/l (e.g. 0.08mg/l was a common measurement in the Waimairi district of New Zealand) but most often is in the range of 0.1 to a few ppm (in most of Europe). So the points that need to be made are: 

1. The natural fluoride level is never zero (and rare to be much below 0.1 mg/l)
2. The range that nature provides is very wide - even when unusual locations such as near volcanic mountains or deserts are excluded the ratio still is close to two orders of magnitude!
3. (possibly needs to be said the the "controversy" section): The recommended range of 0.5 to 1.5 mg/l is very narrow compared with the range people have encountered in nature and, given the cost of removing fluoride, the question of water supply authorities filtering or not when levels are only somewhat raised can also be the subject of debate.

Maitchy (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020: Drinking water was first fluoridated in Newburgh, N.Y. as well as Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945.

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please edit to include Newburgh, N.Y. as a test city for fluoridation of drinking water in 1945. Truthseeker1995 (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that information?VdSV9•♫ 18:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  Not done, per the above. Feel free to reopen with a source. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Grammar correction (incomplete sentence): Change "About 214 million of them living in the United States." to "About 214 million of them live in the United States." Evanlenz (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

new study from 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651320316626

I found this study recently. If someone wants to edit it in. I wont do it since the arricle is locked and i dont care about this topic, i post this study here if someone finds it useful.

--320luca (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

removal of israel text

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

VdSV9, I reverted your edit [10] as you removed cited text. The text has a lot of detail. The reason that Isreal stopped using the fluoride are valid (unless they are not included in the listed citation). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. Not only with the reversal, but I disagree that the reason they stopped it is valid. I don't think we should include the statements of every health department when they wish to change their policy, so we shouldn't include any. This move by the Israeli government was dubious, their reasoning is unscientific, and giving voice to it in this article, I think, goes against WP:FRINGE. VdSV9•♫ 16:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The Israel government's actions are fringe? Seriously... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I forgot all about this discussion, sorry. @Jtbobwaysf: Their actions are not, and I didn't remove mention of their actions. Their claims are. Those comments mirror typical anti-fluoride conspiracy BS, and Wikipedia should not be a platform for that. That's my point. There's also the other point: "I don't think we should include the statements of every health department when they wish to change their policy, so we shouldn't include any". If we were to include those statements, there should be more statements for fluoridation than against it, per WP:DUE. But I much prefer that we just leave without. VdSV9•♫ 18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
We do not have to count statements for an against to deal with weight issues. Obviously the justification for why a major nation stops using fluoride is fair game, we are not talking about opinion of a small town health department here, let's not conflate the issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Bad reasoning is bad reasoning, whether it comes from non-scientists at the head of small towns or non-scientists at the head of states. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

So here is the archived statement. Does it really mean that it was discontinued (although I see "practically speaking, there will be no fluoridation in Israel", "Until now, approximately 70% of the water in Israel was fluoridated")? It says that it is no longer mandatory (and it is still used in some countries where it's not mandatory).

As has been mentioned before, this is also in the context of a new dental care education program and presumably fluoride and variants are still used in hygiene products (and I see "Application of a fluoride preparation on infants' teeth", "using toothpaste that contains fluoride", "Fluoride supplementation for children will be given in as decided by the dentist").

As for the reasons, "There is also scientific evidence that fluoride in large amounts can lead to damage to health." Fluorosis is possible in early childhood but this requires important amounts that are way beyond controled levels in water (the responsible sources can still lead to fluorosis without other lifestyle or environmental control). Regularly swallowing toothpaste containing fluoride has been considered a higher risk factor and amounts have changed especially for children-oriented products. "When fluoride is supplied via drinking water, there is no control regarding the amount of fluoride actually consumed, which could lead to excessive consumption." As previously noted there still is no control unless other sources, the ones that are sometimes problematic, are under control. Then there's "Supply of fluoridated water forces those who do not so wish to also consume water with added fluoride", but that is irrelevant if they are educated about it, including about misinformation. Some people will also avoid fluoridated hygiene products or fail to follow dental care recommendations and will at the same time no longer benefit.

"Data from the World Health Organization indicate that there is no significant difference in the level of dental caries between countries that fluoridate and those that do not fluoridate." they unfortunately fail to cite their source, but this is misleading, since there have been positive statistics including about the use of fluoride in products. It however is plausible that with proper education and followup, including the use of fluoride-containing toothpaste, water fluoridation no longer be necessary in those populations.

Considering all this, if this source is used, I would consider text like this to be better representation without potentially misleading quote mining: "When Israel implemented the 2014 Dental Health Promotion Program, that includes education, medical followup and the use of fluoride-containing products and supplements, Israel evaluated that mandatory water fluoridation was no longer necessary and ended it." or similar... —PaleoNeonate – 07:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

My proposal (for talk page archives), —PaleoNeonate – 08:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The proposed change seems ok, I added back a little of the quote. This article is not WP:TOOLONG so the quote to add the clarity should probably be there. It is the POV of a first world nation, and thus certainly WP:DUE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I’ll offer my tuppence as it differs from both of the above. Basically that this is not FRINGE and it is over-reacting jumping to conclusions calling it “typical anti-fluoride conspiracy BS”, but also that DUE is about WEIGHT of coverage not about Israeli being a significant nation and that a mention is fine or using this as one RS supporting stats is OK but a full quote is UNDUE . To me it is not FRINGE if Israel said it prefers it directly on teeth in controlled amounts via toothpaste and advocates selected points of science, and I take their highlighting of other statistics or points against flouridizing water as just normal sales pitch practice of showing presentable ‘it’s better for you’ justifications for the decision and skipping anything in their consideration which were negatives or possible less admirable motives such as maybe it’s mostly to dodge cost or because politics. It’s like any governments announcement, just a RS of what was done & said but BIASED. I also view the details of their pitch as UNDUE, because I think that level just didn’t get covered at the level of say BBC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the first para of the section "safety" which talks about cancer, please incorporate accordingly(as required) the following paragraph from the article osteosarcoma 

 "There is no clear association between water fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma.[9] Series of research concluded that concentration of fluoride in water doesn't associate with osteosarcoma. The beliefs regarding association of fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma stem from a study of US National Toxicology program in 1990, which showed uncertain evidence of association of fluoride and osteosarcoma in male rats. But there is still no solid evidence of cancer-causing tendency of fluoride in mice.[10] Fluoridation of water has been practiced around the world to improve citizens' dental health. It is also deemed as major health success.[11] Fluoride concentration levels in water supplies are regulated, such as United States Environmental Protection Agency regulates fluoride levels to not be greater than 4 milligrams per liter.[12] Actually, water supplies already have natural occurring fluoride, but many communities chose to add more fluoride to the point that it can reduce tooth decay.[13] Fluoride is also known for its ability to cause new bone formation.[14] Yet, further research shows no osteosarcoma risks from fluoridated water in humans.[15] Most of the research involved counting number of osteosarcoma patients cases in particular areas which has difference concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.[16] The statistic analysis of the data shows no significant difference in occurrences of osteosarcoma cases in different fluoridated regions.[17] Another important research involved collecting bone samples from osteosarcoma patients to measure fluoride concentration and compare them to bone samples of newly diagnosed malignant bone tumors. The result is that the median fluoride concentrations in bone samples of osteosarcoma patients and tumor controls are not significantly different.[18] Not only fluoride concentration in bones, Fluoride exposures of osteosarcoma patients are also proven to be not significantly different from healthy people.[19]"

The sources for the same can be found in the article osteosarcoma from citation 9 to 19

Thank you!

Regards 2409:4042:2D95:B6B9:D8F9:7F4B:279B:FE45 (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Cindercat 🐱 (Want to talk?) 11:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I find it a little suspicious that there is no mention in this article of the link between water fluoridation and reduction in Intelligence Quotient. Here is a non-exhaustive list of studies with, cumulatively, quite conclusive results. I hope at some point this critical information can make its way into the article.

You should familiarize yourself with WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia user collects studies with results the user likes, draws a conclusion from them that agrees with the user's opinion, and that conclusion ends up in the article? Wikipedia does not work like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS: "The best evidence for efficacy of treatments and other health interventions is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[11] Systematic reviews of literature that include non-randomized studies are less reliable.[12] Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality." —PaleoNeonate – 07:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
These studies certainly should be mentioned. If there are recent studies that show results that do not agree, they should also be mentioned in the article. However I'm not aware of any recent studies that contradict these results. Please correct me if I'm wrong. According to WP:MEDRS, new studies should be favored over old studies. This article seems to be basing its conclusions on low quality studies from decades ago. Tempes1 (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Those studies are utter BS. See this this or this or NHS and so on. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
You are not in a position to question peer reviewed science published in reputable journals. That is not your job. The fact that you would say such a ridiculous thing is indicative of your ignorance and personal bias. If this is a controversial topic with valid arguments on both sides, it seems that the article should cover the controversy in an objective manner. Something very telling is that all of the people who are calling these high quality studies "bs" and dismissing them out of hand is that these same people are unable to provide high quality modern studies that prove both the safety and effectiveness of fluoridating water supplies. Why might that be? Tempes1 (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Wrong, I am. See WP:MEDRS. So more fcks1httery from your side? --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

'solely'

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Who could possibly be certain there is not any additional purpose? JeffreyHood (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a dubious claim. I changed the word `solely` to `ostensibly`, as that more accurately reflects the uncertainty and controversy surrounding the subject. Tempes1 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Reverted. It is the sole stated intention, and it's not like any potential consequences haven't been looked at. --Project Osprey (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
If it's merely the intention, then that should be highlighted. And potential consequences have indeed been looked at, which is why the word ostensible is apt. Tempes1 (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
What do the best references actually say? --Hipal (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
It depends on who you consider to be the best references. All recent studies I've looked at say that there is no effect. However some governmental health authorities say otherwise. Tempes1 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This entire article, and especially the lead, is written from the perspective of a pro-fluoridation agenda. There are a innumerable studies and a library full of scientific literature that dispute the effectiveness of water fluoridation, as well as highlight many possible negative health impacts. Moreover, the vast majority of countries do not practice water fluoridation. Nonetheless, many of the claims made in this article are erroneously stated as a matter of fact, and there is very little representation of more recent studies and literature. Therefore this article cannot be considered accurate until proportionate representation is given to the other side, and controversial claims are stated as such, rather than presented as fact. Tempes1 (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Please bring on those reliable sources. BTW my understanding is that many countries do not bother to fluoridate their water because their population gets fluoridated toothpaste (or fluoridated milk, bread, etc).
The US CDC ranks water fluoridation as one of the top public health innovations. So if you dispute such an agency, you're probably pursuing fringe perspectives or some conspiracy theory. This article is probably not the place to represent your views since Wikipedia is so reliant on WP:RS. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The article, and the entire encyclopedia, is written from the perspective of a pro-science agenda. Because that is the perspective from which it is meant to be written. See WP:GOODBIAS. There is a certain amount of Fluoride in all natural sources of water. Some countries don't need to fluoridate their water because their water naturally has significant levels of Fluoride. Certain places actually have water that has such high natural Fluoride levels that make it unfit for human consumption -- and in some of those places, the population still consume it because they are poor and that is their only source of water. Some countries add fluoride in milk, some have it in salt. In some of the very richest countries, the population has such good access to dentistry services and fluoridated toothpaste, that they can forgo fluoridation altogether, since personal hygiene and dental care make fluoridation unnecessary. The overwhelming evidence is that fluoridation is safe and effective, and is also dirt-cheap, making it the most cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay, especially among the most vulnerable populations. If you have any reliable sources that you wish to bring to discussion, we will discuss it. But please check WP:MEDRS before you it, and you might also look at some of the previous discussions before you bring references that have been previously discussed. Rehashing old debunked arguments would be a huge waste of our time.VdSV9•♫ 14:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I have already cited a bunch of peer reviewed studies and reviews in a discussion above (which someone archived for some reason). Please do not remove the template, as the issue has not been resolved. Tempes1 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Quoting myself Rehashing old debunked arguments would be a huge waste of our time. Please don't waste our time. VdSV9•♫ 16:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Tempes1 is an anti-science user. He/she did the same on the saturated fat article [11] and did the same thing 4 months before. Their agenda is to push fringe theories and dispute mainstream scientific consensus on Wikipedia by adding "dispute" templates where no dispute exists. If this behavior continues it should be raised at WP:FTN. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. This is not conducive to improving wikipedia. Tempes1 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
But these are not good faith edits [12], [13] you are re-adding dispute templates where no dispute exists on different articles. You have not provided any evidence for your claims. Also this sort of drive-by tagging is not helpful. If you had a consensus to do that I would support you but there is no consensus for what you are doing. You also said you want nothing archived but inactive conversations over 90 days old can be manually archived or a bot can do it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hwasnak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Association between fluoridated water and ADHD

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I found a 2015 scientific study which suggests that fluoridating the public water supply leads to greater rates of ADHD in children in the US: [14]. This study was covered by Newsweek: [15]. The association was also found in a Canadian sample: [16]

An opinion article in Nature disputes the connection: [17] Another study states that "Current epidemiological evidence indicates that fluoride exposure may have neurotoxic effects on neurodevelopment, including behavioral alterations, cognitive impairment and psychosomatic issues. However, the heterogeneity in study designs and results from human studies did not allow us to reliably identify fluoride exposure as a risk factor for ADHD development. More rigorous studies are needed to provide conclusive evidence of an etiologic association between pre- or post-natal fluoride exposure and ADHD." [18]

Should these issues be mentioned on the page? Sonicsuns (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably not, given the WP:FRINGE issues with the general topic of this article, and the age of the study, and the subsequent articles. --Hipal (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree not, per Hipal. WP:MEDRS is the controlling standard. Being cited in popular press does not add value to human-health claims, especially controversial-at-best ones. MDPI-published journals are often low value also. DMacks (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The NIH.gov source study is an official government agency and should be cited the Newsweek article is just a consumable article for general public. This isn't part of conspiracy or fringe theory. So the citation of NIH.gov site is perfectly fine as newer studies in 2020 suggest it is a neurotoxin Cocoablini (talk). 17:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Isn't the NIH.gov link just a database entry for a journal article? It has a huge banner "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health." DMacks (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_fluoridation/Archive_12&oldid=1218732607"