Talk:Water fluoridation controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Medicine This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the project or you can direct questions about the rating system here.
Unassessed This article has been rated as Unassessed-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Dentistry. Please rate the article.


If I could butt in here to step back to the larger picture. The core of the controversy is about freedom of choice. Since other countrys do not do this (and many communities have voted to eliminate added flouride, which my comment on that was deleted) in order to exercise a freedom of choice NOT to saturate your pineal gland with flouride (or any other health consequences of inorganic highly reactive flouride compounds found or attached to SSRI antipsycotic medications that also have been found in drinking water supplies )[[1]][[2]] [[3]]You will have to grow your own food without commercial fertiliser and not use any food from the store with water in the ingrediants and hope your house is not condemed for not hooking up to the local water monopoly. Does the court ruling on the police power of the state citation not shock most people in a free republic? If that doesn't perhaps the provision in title 50USC code about how the government can experiment on the people as long as permission is granted by local 'authorities' look that up. Other than that I will have to take an alford plea to being a thought criminal against the insurmountable resources needed to defend against squashing of non-peer reviewed research that is to be considered an unreliable source. The "mission" of wikipedia needs some tweeking if it cannot allow informative articles that are not OBVIOUS attempts to advertise or promote products (including research papers?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.196.93 (talk • contribs) .(urls can change)

Contents

[edit] Hypothyroidism

I just added a blurb about the effects of fluoride on the thyroid gland in 2.4 "Fluoride is a Poison." It should be expanded, and the thyroid gland might even deserve its own section. It has a huge impact on health and behavior. See: [4]

OK somebody removed it without leaving any comment.... I'm putting it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.222.9 (talk • contribs) .

I removed it, and I did comment in my edit summary as to why. I removed it (and will remove it again) because it qualifies as (1) original research in violation of WP:NOR and (2) is uncited in violation of WP:V. If you can provide references to reliable sources to back up the claims you have made, feel free to incorporate them into the section and re-add it to the article. However, without references to reliable sources, the information does not belong in this article. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you on fucking crack? The source is the US National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences! [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.24.55 (talk • contribs) .
Actually, the reference you are using is Fluoride Alert, which is not the National Research Council. Also, if you read the first part of the paper produced by the National Research Council, it states, "The report does not examine the health risks or benefits of the artificially fluoridated water that millions of Americans drink, which contains 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L of fluoride. Although many municipalities add fluoride to drinking water for dental health purposes, certain communities' water supplies or individual wells contain higher amounts of naturally occurring fluoride; industrial pollution can also contribute to fluoride levels in water." The study refers to the EPA level of 4 mg/L (not the amount recommended for water fluoridation for dental health which is 1ppm). Even if you had the link pointing to the direct source of the National Research Council's paper, which is what the link would need to do, the paper self-proclaims its findings are not on water fluoridation used to promote dental health. - Dozenist talk 10:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Half the references in the article are from Fluoride Alert! They are citing the NRC among others.

Your quote from the NRC report is quite misleading isn't it, Dozenist? That is a sort of disclaimer meaning that the report is concerned with the maximum amount that should be allowed, not with what should be artificially added. It is clarified further at the end of the introduction on pg 13, par 4, saying, "this report does not evaluate nor make judgments about the benefits, safety, or efficacy of artificial water fluoridation. That practice is reviewed only in terms of being a source of exposure to fluoride."[6] I can see how you got confused.

Many of the findings, in fact, describe deleterious effects resulting from exposures that dip well below 0.7 mg/L. For instance, this quote from pg 218, par 3, "In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate."[7]

So when I repost this valuable information and back it up with more than enough sources, even sources within sources, please feel free to improve the integrity of the information by lining up each statement with the appropriate reference from the link I provided, or whatever else you feel is necessary, as I don't have time.

I agree with Dozenist. Also, please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. I hope you see how asking someone "are you on fucking crack?" violates this policy. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of History Section (duplication)

I took the very rare act of removing the history section as it was exactly duplicated on the Water Fluoridation page. I think it was a hold over from the prior conversion. My review of Wiki rules indicate that we don't want to see a duplicate section. Also, the section was on the history of water fluoridation, not the water fluoridation controversy.

If someone can justify having duplicative section, we can consider putting it back it. If one would like to add or edit something concerning water fluoridation history, it should go on that page. --Editmore 03:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Discussion

As I stated on the water fluoridation talk page, this article needs some serious work. The conspirational ravings that currently fill it are far too biased as is. - Jersyko talk 23:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

You only call them conspiratorial ravings because you disagree with them. This is actually quite a level headed article. Leaving out the important and real potential problems with water fluoridation would in fact be biased in favor of fluoridation. The arguments for water fluoridation are mentioned but they don't deserve as much space because they are already well known. (anon user)

So should we not even have an article about George Washington or English (language)? Those two subjects are better known than the water fluoridation controversy, yet their articles are far more in depth. Assuming the reader knowns the arguments in favor of water fluoridation is a fallacy, and one we would be wise to avoid. Doing so would simply be a justification for excluding the most widely accepted scientific information that is available. - Jersyko talk 12:19, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
There's something odd about this article, and I think it's that it was probably wikified directly from someone's term paper. I'm thinking about distilling it to its essence and merging it with water fluoridation. There's some good info in here, but I don't think this type of persuasive essay really belongs on WP. Jeeves 06:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hoping not to offend whoever wrote this, but it is the worst example of POV I have seen in a long time. I would go so far as to say I have a hard time believing some of the citations are not either blatantly wrong, or to very very poor quality sources. Even with quality studies, differing results can occur, but stating facts on one side, then the opposite fact on the other without any attempt to reconcile them is not a way to achieve NPOV. This should probably all be moved to a temp article, and only material verified from high quality sources should be brought back into the main article. I see no way the current material could be made into anything resembling NPOV. Sorry to be harsh, but I think sometimes we need to call it like it is, and this is really bad. -15:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. User Dozenist, who is more knowledgeable about this subject than I will ever be (from a scientific perspecitive, no less), is planning to rewrite and/or seriously edit this article to remove the problem sections soon. I'm sure he would welcome edits by anyone else with knowledge of the science regarding water fluoridation. - Jersyko talk 15:43, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I only read one study, but it was a survey of the peer reviewed literature, only as background to the main purpose of the paper if I recall that basically stated the overwhelming consensus is that fluoridated water supplies do indeed reduce caries. So I'm no expert, but one thing I certainly know is that this article is sub par. I stand by my thought that the only way forward is moving what is there now out to a temp page and rewriting from scratch. We can list on VFD if we need to get the consensus for the start over. I think that would fit with policy, I'm not sure. I tend to stay out of those wars. Or we can just go for it based on who agrees here. -Taxman Talk 17:16, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
What about rewriting to be much more concise, and remove the POV, then merge with water fluoridation? I highly doubt this would go through on Vfd myself, but if we merge it first, we can probably get this article removed (as it would be redundant). Jeeves 22:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well yeah, the main water fluoridation article needs a synopsis of the issue, in relation to how important it is. I know there is one, but not really how significant the controversy is. As I understand it, the opposition is certainly a minority view, but significant enough that not covering it in the fluoridated water article is POV too. If the goal is to get the synopsis in there, then that would work too. - Taxman Talk 23:29, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I recently moved this article here from water fluoridation as it seemed completely inappropriate in that article. My thoughts, originally, were to allow this article to discuss the supposed conspiracy (since the article's title gives it a bit more leeway than the orginal article), but to have someone edit it fiercely to remove the POV. I think Wikipedia should have a place for a discussion of this supposed controversy/conspiracy, but I'm still not convinced that the water fluoridation article itself is the place for it. See John F. Kennedy assassination and Kennedy assassination theories for an example of what I'm thinking about. In any event, you are correct that a summary of the supposed controversy belongs in the water fluroidation article. - Jersyko talk 23:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jersyko. This - long - article is basically a list of anti-floridation propaganda, with little to balance it. e.g. look at how long the stuff about the dangers are, compared to the short para about the large study which showed there were no dangers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this page does not stand up to that. Also, the last para feel POV to me. --Batmanand 21:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, which is why I was thinking this should be moved off to a temp page, beacue what is here is so bad, that it probably shouldn't be in the main namespace. Reallistically, I don't know enough about the subject to refactor it. If you guys want to refactor it great, but if no one feels like fixing it soon, go with the route of moving it off to a temp page. Either one is fine. - Taxman Talk 02:50, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Come on, now

This is a topic I stumbled upon out of curiosity and by no means am I competent on the subject matter, but I know bias when I see it. Considering that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, the phrase "conspiratorial ravings" does not seem out of line. The author adds emphasis to quotes, draws conclusions from studies that he admits were not mentioned in the studies themselves, and gives no air time to the opposing view. The author is intelligent and well read, and I find the article very compelling, but is nonetheless the most biased wikipedia article I have ever seen.

Yes, and if you read the above you'll see we agree. It just looks like a difficult enough task to fix that none of us have gotten it to the top of our priority lists. If you would like to properly fix it and research the issue, please go ahead. - Taxman Talk 22:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
It's actually not that bad, considering the topic. But it's clearly a personal essay by an anti-fluoridationist - it needs balance and encyclopedifying. I made a start by tidying up the links a bit. Rd232 15:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
It's already looking a little better, good job. Maybe now that Dozenist doesn't have to fret about his tooth enamel article achieving featured status anymore, he will have some time to work on it a bit . . . he's certainly more qualified to do so than anyone else I know. - Jersyko talk 19:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

1. The problem is not (merely) that the page is POV, but that it's appallingly written. For example: "In any case, the results aren't replicable today (references?), so many early studies cannot be trusted as much as previously claimed. Considering how many fluoride studies have been discredited or contested by peers, a recursive medical literature search about each and every study's contestation is basic prudence regardless of the side you take."

Um... how to say this politely? a) The '(references?)' insertion is just embarrassing. b) '... previously claimed' by whom? Where? c) There needs to be some kind of reference to at least one fluoride study that has been discredited or contested. d) Why is the author giving us (incredibly poorly-worded) advice about how to form our own opinions?

2. Some of the (quasi-) "legal" stuff re: Europe appears to be simply false. For example the claim that the Netherlands amended its constitution in 1976 to ban fluoridation of the water supply. There is certainly no reference in the Netherlands constitution link title to fluoride or additives. References to water are confined to machinery provisions about water-boards (i.e. how such boards are regulated etc). References to health are of a motherhood 'the Government should help everyone to have good health' nature. Article 6 which refers to freedom of religion specifically anticipates that exercise of that right may be limited by Parliament "for the protection of health". (It's worth noting that the Netherlands comprehensively re-wrote its Constitution in 1983; but I'm unable to find the version that subsisted from 1976-1983, and quite frankly I doubt whether the author could either.) SimonH 05:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As for conspiracy theories, such titles reek of POV and are not appropriate.

--AceLT 10:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional sources available

I have been reading about water fluoridation for a few weeks now. The least biased pieces of information that I have seen so far come from the World Health organization, at http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_cdoe_319to321.pdf and http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/fluoride.pdf. These papers actually mention the dangers of crippling skeletal fluorosis at high levels. The ADA paper on fluoride, http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf, is rather biased as well, in that it bashes the anti-fluoride studies without really stating much about how the studies which support their views were constructed. It doesn't really mention the toxicity of fluoride at high levels.

Don't forget to read The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson. It's incredibly long, and has many, many more references than I care to check. The amount of information available is overwhelming. I'm new to this site, so I don't want to edit the main page without taking more time to decide which sources are most credible. 151.203.243.204 01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)RFetters

[edit] Source

The link to "right-wing conspiracy theory of a communist plot" doesn't support the claim. The link itself says that there's an anti-fluoridation plot, but doesn't blame it on Communists, bringing up Communists only to explain why *other people* attribute the plot to Communists.

Is there any source other than Dr. Strangelove for the belief that fluoridation is a Communist plot (not just a plot)? Ken Arromdee 15:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Disputed Discussion

I think this article is a genuine attempt to put together a useful source of information. However, I believe that it has inadvertently become extremely non-NPOV and inaccurate.

1. "This adjustment process is similar to fortifying salt with iodine, milk with vitamin D and orange juice with vitamin C. It is the single most effective way to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health over a lifetime, for both children and adults."

The second sentence is unreferenced and oddly enough disputed by conclusion of a review in the Scientific Studies section. In addition, I would suggest not starting out an encyclopedia article on a controversy of the "health benefits" with a conclusion that it is the "most beneficial way to improve oral health...." I feel it is exceptionally non-NPOV.

2. "Benefits. In the most recent scientific review of 113 articles from 23 countries (59 of which were conducted in the U.S.) , it was observed that water fluoridation reduced dental decay by: • 40 to 49 percent in the primary dentition or baby teeth, • 50 to 59 percent in the permanent teeth or adult teeth."

Also, unreferenced is disputed by review in the Scientific Studies section and makes no mention of the studies on the other side of the issue.

3. "Risks. About 94 percent of fluorosis seen today remains largely limited to the very mild to mild categories."

Inaccurate since it varies significantly from country to country. Look at Singapore fluorosis for example. But the real concern is that the only item related to controversial risks that is mentioned is fluorosis. No mention of controversies related to neurological effects (until later in the article), bone strength/weakness, fluoride accumulation and controversy related to subtle forms of skeletal fluorisis, cancers, thyroid issues, etc.

4. "Medical approval. More than 100 national and international health...."

Any NPOV article on very controversial subjects will discuss organizations on both sides of the issue equally.

5. "Politics."

Inaccurate as it ignores the fact that the controversy and politics related to fluoridation are and have been nearly 100% health-related issues and not "communist plots" or "environmental causes." Non NPOV as well.

I believe this article needs a lot of work by persons familiar with the research and the controversy (on both sides of the issue) and determined to create an article that is NPOV and accurately presents both sides (i.e., describes) the controversies. Twoggle 06:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism in this article

Much of the overview in this article is plagiarized from the ADA's Fluoridation Facts. For example, the following points appear in the executive summary in ADA's document (page 6 of the pdf):

  • Fluoridation of community water supplies is the single most effective public health measure to prevent dental decay
  • Water that has been fortified with fluoride is similar to fortifying salt with iodine, milk with vitamin D, and orange juice with vitamin C.

Compare to the overview in this article:

Community water fluoridation is the process of adjusting the natural fluoride concentration in drinking water to a level recommended for optimal oral health, approximately 1 ppm (one part per million). This adjustment process is similar to fortifying salt with iodine, milk with vitamin D and orange juice with vitamin C. It is the single most effective way to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health over a lifetime, for both children and adults.

Many of the facts in the overview are obviously lifted from the same document. The ADA can serve as a good secondary source for information, but they as an organization are not neutral on the issue. Quoting their pro-fluoridation examples verbatim without acknowledging the source in the introduction to this issue is a blatent NPOV violation.

I intend to put some serious effort into editing this page. Oasisbob 03:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More information sources

I would like to draw your attention to some articles. I am not a scientist, but perhaps these statements can be verified by someone up to the challenge.

EPA Scientists & Workers Call for an End to Water Fluoridation Because of Cancer Risk [8]

A petition online: Recent, significant developments and trends have permanently changed the water fluoridation issue. Some of these changes are:

A 1998-2000 investigation into fluoridation in the US House Committee on Science which exposed the gross inadequacy of testing, approval and regulation of fluoridation chemicals1;

General acceptance of new research showing that fluoride's cavity-preventing effect on teeth is primarily topical, not systemic2;

Dramatic increases in the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis -- a clear and visible sign of fluoride toxicity in children -- resulting from excessive fluoride intake from multiple sources3;

A growing body of peer-reviewed science linking fluoride intake with a number of adverse health effects, including hip fracture, endocrine disruption, central nervous system, and, more recently, bone cancer in young males. National publicity regarding an apparent cover-up of the fluoride-bone cancer link by Dr. Chester Douglass, of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, is especially disturbing. Douglass is currently under investigation for possible ethics violations.

Further, well-documented sources6 have raised serious allegations related to the decisions and methods used to institute, implement, and promote water fluoridation as a U.S. public health policy. These allegations bring to light strong possibilities that this massive and longstanding public policy came about under questionable circumstances while breaching scientific integrity.

Other concerns, based on congressional documentation and a significant body of international, peer-reviewed science (cited above), focus on:

The cumulative doses of fluoride from many sources, including dental treatments and products, fluoride-based pesticides, processed foods and beverages, pharmaceuticals, and industrial emissions; Those individuals with compromised health or hypersensitivity to fluoridated water; The industrial waste products used as fluoridating agents (primarily silicofluorides), which are contaminated with known carcinogens and neurotoxins and have not been tested or approved by EPA or FDA for safety or effectiveness; and Fluoridation's environmental effects, known and unknown.

We urge Congress to fully investigate basic safety and environmental questions that fluoridation proponents, including government agencies, have avoided answering for many years.7 This refusal to openly discuss the risks and benefits of water fluoridation violates scientific principles and basic American ideals of fairness and integrity. Urgent, legitimate questions about fluoride's health effects, including the use of silicofluorides, now need to be answered under subpoena in a Congressional hearing.

Reference: [9]

[edit] NPOV-ing

I added statements con where there were pro and pro where there were con, attempting NPOV, added one citation. I don't think this article should be remerged to Water fluoridation, there are 2 separate subjects. Pedant 09:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I must say, this article is horrendously written. Judging by the discussion here, it seems that this indeed started out as a very one-sided article. Kudos to the people trying to clean it up, however it is of my judgement that this article should be merged (at least for the time being) with Water fluoridation, unless someone could take the time to seriously re-work this. I myself am busy for another week, so if no one else takes it, I'll spend my time working on it. Maverick 19:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] At least it's better than the fluoride page

One reads that one and expects to find science, and finds opinion instead. Here at least one knows what one is getting. I was hoping to provide a link for a friend of mine new to the topic. I am passionately anti-fluoride and went here to find a well-written, non-biased overview with a solid handle on the literature. I came to the conclusion five years ago that water fluoridation is a gross error in public health on par with "Here, I've prescribed you mercury salts for you syphillis," but on a much grander scale. But it's a tough topic to chat about and easier to ignore than confront. I guess what I'm saying "please won't some qualified, fair-minded person take another pass at this?" -Unknown

I consider myself able to be neutral about debates when necessary. As stated above, if no one else can take a shot at it within a week, I'll be free enough to help out here. Maverick 19:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do not merge with Water Fluoridation

The "Water fluoridation controversy" article should remain separate from the "Water Fluoridation" article, slightly mentioned by it, and in the see also. The one does not necessarily correspond to the other. Some users may be researching various aspects of fluoridation not related to any controversy, while others may be specifically looking for pro/con articles.

The "Water Fluoridation" article should remain like it is: consise and stub-like, providing the user with basic information and the links necessary to move on to more specific information. Any edit of the "Water fluoridation controversy" should remain here in this controversial area. Moecazzell 21:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Won't that just further legitimize one of the disputed sides on the controversy by side-lining the claims of the other to the 'controversy page'? -Unknown

[edit] Health and safety studies done

You list a number of organisetions who supposedly support fluoridation but you fail to mention that many of them (e.g. medical orgs) do not give blanket support but only on the proviso that the proper health and safety studies have been done. My research shows that these studies have NEVER been done - especially the WHO recommended daily fluoride intake studies. the WHO says that authorities "should" measure daily fluoride intake before setting fluoridation standards because it is well known that adverse health effects follow from consuming too much fluoride. However these studies have not (from my research) ever been done by any fluoridating country.

If an organisation supports fluoridation on the presumption that the recommended health and safety studies are done but those studies actually are not done then it is misleading and false to say that the organisation supports fluoridation.

Please remove this list of supporting organisations or note that the WHO recommended health and safety studies have never been done. To clarify this situation in general terms please see the York Review (McDonagh 2000 and 2003) which note the "surprising lack" of studies into fluoride's effects on health. Thanks LisaChris 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total dispute tag

Alright guys, I think this is quite a good article (I just came across it.) It certainly seems to have come a long way since the discussion at the top of this page. I ask those of you who have worked on it: What more do we need to do to get that annoying tag off the article? Grandmasterka 05:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • FYI, Dozenist and I (mostly Dozenist) have been rewriting the article over the last several weeks. Mainly through Dozenist's efforts, the rewritten article looks impressive, indeed. I think it's nearly ready to post here, though perhaps Dozenist could comment as well... - Jersyko·talk 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the rewritten article looks good too and will post it up this weekend, even though it is not completely finished. Before I do, there are a couple of minor edits I want to make though. If we are going to add the new version, might as well tidy up any loose ends on it. - Dozenist talk 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I added the article rewrite. I believe the edits add a lot to the article. - Dozenist talk 01:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll finish my copyedit, which is about 3/5 of the finished, once I finish the whole law school exams/getting married thing next month. I'd love to hear what other editors think of the rewrite, though. - Jersyko·talk 01:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Matter of Individual Rights

I have a high regard for Wikipedia and respect and support its Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy enthusiastically. In regard to a "controversy", neutrality will require presenting all arguments as clearly as possible. This particular subject is tailored made to test the NPOV policy since we are dealing with a public policy which effects the health, and individual rights, of all citizens regardless of class, race, religion, sex, age. While the complexity of the health and effectiveness issues surrounding this practice have taken up the bulk of the discussions here, it should be made apparent that the individual rights issue is more basic to the discussion and infinitely more straight forward.

To what extent can public policy impose its will on the public and how is it justified? In cases where the general health of the population is dependent of the policy, arguments can be made to justify policies like; required inoculations for contagious diseases for public school children; chlorination of public water supplies to prevent spread of contagious diseases; banning of smoking in public places to prevent exposure of second hand smoke people who value their right to clean air. Public policy has to consider and weigh the social benefits of a practice like water chlorination to the possible detriments. The key word here is “social”, meaning the effects would impact social interactions.

If in fact water was not chlorinated, contagious diseases would likely increase and thereby expose all of the citizenry to the dangers of cholera, e-coli, typhoid, hepatitis, etc. Compare this practice to water fluoridation. Water fluoridation does not prevent contagious disease and has no effect on “social” interactions beyond that of possibly limiting ones encounter with people with bad teeth. There is little justification in the realm of public policy for this practice. In fact, the practice exposes the entire population to a chemical which may, in fact, be toxic (detrimental health effects) to humans and the environment.

Court cases challenging water fluoridation avoid the issue of detrimental health effects and typically base the final decision on the public will. Judges state that the safety and effectiveness of the practice is out of their purview and leave that determination to the health department. The decision then comes down to the individual’s right to unmedicated drinking water. The rulings up to now have stated that individuals have the choice not to drink fluoridated water and therefore their individual rights have not been violated.

This decision is highly controversial in itself in view of the fact that; bottled drinks may be made with fluoridated water yet there is no way of determining this outside of calling the company and tracking the location of the bottling plant; bathing in fluoridated water is a potential source of exposure to fluoride by way of skin absorption; purchasing of bottled water is a hardship on the poorer classes and therefore this policy is an unfair burden on the poor which includes a higher percentage of children, aged, and minorities and therefore is a violation of civil rights legislation..

In summary, I would like to see more discussion of the public policy implications of water fluoridation and whether it is or isn't an imposition and violation of individual rights, regardless of its health benefits or detriments. Zorro2001 17:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point. This issue does need to be brought out more. -Editmore 06:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe the recent edits address the concern of ethics in water fluoridation. - Dozenist talk 01:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

In my attempt to improve the article, I used a guideline for the references: 1) Claims made by anti-fluoridationists can be drawn from anti-fluoridation websites. (2) Claims on health effects and policy should represent the concensus of medical/dental groups. Otherwise, contradicting views from a small minority can be used to misrepresent what is commonly accepted by those with the most knowledge on the topic. (3) Government policies is best referenced by official government websites.

I hope future editors will attempt to keep a similar guideline in place. Otherwise, it can become very easy to stumble into unreliable sources to make incorrect or misleading claims. - Dozenist talk 02:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should add as many scientific sources as posible.
Here is one of the original aticels: An investigation of mottled teeth: an endemic developmental imperfection of the enamel of the teeth, …FS McKay, GV Black - Dental Cosmos, 1916
I don't have time to look it up at the moment. --Equanimous2 17:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Specific sources, especially from the older material, is really good because it will help the article become a great place to find references to important landmark studies. Additionally, I would like to make the point that there is no reason to begin listing out all scientific studies in order to bolster arguments of either side. This would lead to a messy tit-for-tat war in the article, when it also would not address the quality of those studies. Wikipedia has to rely on health and health research organizations to interpret the multitudes of studies and their conclusions. But again, in reference to some of the older landmark studies, I think it is a great idea. That is why I used references directly from Dean and Cox. - Dozenist talk 19:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further edits?

User:Taxman commented at Talk:Water fluoridation that... well, here's the relevant portion of his comment:
Also, the structure separating pro and con arguments in different sections is a cop out, sorry. Instead, the article should address all of the facets of the topic in turn. I don't know the subject in detail to know what those are, but an article outline should be agreed upon for what are the most important facets of the topic and those should be how the article is sectioned.
If this is possible, the article might work better that way. Given that the two sides approach this thing so differently, I'm not sure that it is possible, though. In any event, I think that, upon further reflection, this article might be giving the anti-fluoridation argument too much vitality (since I helped write it in the first place, I suppose I'm partially to blame). Yes, it needs to be discussed thoroughly here, but the article needs to be more emphatic that anti-fluoridation is a minority viewpoint and perhaps devote less space to it per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Thoughts on either Taxman's idea or my own, or how they could work together? - Jersyko·talk 14:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned before, forking rest of the criticism material here shouldn't have been done. Trying to eliminate the controversy issue on the controversy page is a further POV violation. --Editmore 06:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, as a bureaucrat, knows a thing or two about Wikipedia policy, to say the least, and wrote that there is no forking problem here. Other experienced editors, myself and Dozenist, agree. Your continued insistence that there is a forking problem without reference to specific policy is unproductive. This has been hashed out and explained at Talk:Water fluoridation. - Jersyko·talk 12:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I have placed a new list so everyone can see how one sided lists look.--71.231.39.60 05:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that's a nice little violation of WP:POINT. I suppose this is AceLT, right? As you know from our discussion on Talk:Water fluoridation, it's not POV to point out that essentially every notable health agency is pro-fluoridation. In fact, to fail to do so would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. If every notable health agency was anti-fluoridation, it would be appropriate to list them as such. Finally, I think there's a certain amount of irony in the fact that, while you intended to prove a point about POV and the list, the list you inserted was completely empty. - Jersyko·talk 14:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Increasing"

User:Pat8722 wrote: "increasing" means "more of the same", which is not what floridation is, so we can't use it. I've never read this particular definition for "increasing", as I've always thought it meant to make greater or larger. In any event, Pat's edit makes it appear that only sodium-based fluoride is used in fluoridation, which is contradicted by the sourced next sentence. I'm reverting the change. - · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 17:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how this subsequent edit "accomodates" my objection. The text about fluoridation chemicals that was moved into the "History" subsection is completely out of place there. Also, the edits disrupt the logical flow of the introductory section, which is: (1) there's a controversy (first sentence), (2) a brief introduction to water fluordiation (rest of first paragraph), (3) advocates' position (2d paragraph), and (4) abolitionist position (3d paragraph). Finally, Pat said in the edit summary, "we want to capture what is the contoversy in the first sentence." Yes, I agree, and it's already there, "Water fluoridation controversy' refers to the debate surrounding the health benefits of public authorities fluoridating water supplies." Note that Pat did not edit the first sentence. I'm curious, Pat, as to specific suggestions you might have, if any, to improve the introductory paragraphs. Can you post them here? Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It accomodated your objections by removing the reference to "sodium". The specific chemicals being placed into the public water supply do not belong in an introductory section. Defining the specific chemicals used in public water fluoridation is the first step to defining the history of public water fluoridation, which is where it now is (you can bury the chemicals futher into the article, if you want, but they surely don't belong in an intro). The purpose of an introduction section is to define "what is the nature of controversy". The first sentence "Water fluoridation controversy' refers to the debate surrounding the health benefits of public authorities fluoridating water supplies" does not state the essense of the controversy, but is merely a restatement that a controversy exists. The controversy over public water fluorodation is the debate which argues on the one side, the facts that the substances being placed into the water supply to fluorodate it are known not to be naturally occurring in the food/water supply, are known not be nutritional substances, have been proven to have certain adverse health consequences, versus the pro argument that studies have shown the substances may help to prevent tooth decay. The other aspect of the controversy, now largely suppressed, is over whether fluorodation, beneficial to the teeth or not, can morally be forcefed to the public. I merely removed detail that does not belong in an introductory section, impacting none of the other apects you refer to. You have still not added a source for your use of the term "increasing", and as the fluoride compounds being added to the water are not an "increase" of any fluoride compound naturally occuring in water, we don't want to mislead the public by using the term, particularly when the very use of the term is part of the essence of the controversy. pat8722 19:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And you still haven't cited a source for how "increasing" means "more of the same" and is thereby "misleading" anyone. The source for the information in that sentence, in any event, is found later in the article, actually, it's the same source for the chemicals section you keep moving. Finally, your arguments don't justify moving the chemicals to a completely irrelevant subsection (even if the intro isn't appropriate, and i disagree with you that it is, the history section is a far worse place for it), screwing with the text formatting in the process. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed "increasing" to "adjusting," which is directly from the source. - · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tooth Paste and Dentistry

I find it odd that considering this entire discussion I came across while reading an article on minerals, not one mention of the use of fluoridated tooth paste and improved access to dental care was noted. Given the action of hydroxyl ion exchange for fluoride to protect against acid tooth decay forms the basis of fluoridation rationalisation, the consumption of fluoridated water probably allows for only a marginal amount of ion exchange. When one considers the contact time of water against the teeth, the rate of exchange reaction, and the concentration of fluoride within, I have my doubts that it provides much direct protection. Absorption of fluoride by the gut and relocation within the body itself to newly growing teeth may have an influence, but obviously that is limited in value to newly developing teeth.

In contrast, the use of toothpaste introduces much higher concentrations of fluoride for extended periods that is literally brushed into the highly uneven tooth surfaces. I would hazard a guess that one two minute brushing session probably provides far more ion exchange than several days worth of drinking water; probably exponentially more. Yet not one part of this article addresses that brushing in the time periods where fluoridation began was probably far less common than today (speculation), and that there were probably no controls for brushing during these studies. The fact that a recent study apparently noted insignificantly decreased rates of tooth decay amongst communities without water fluoridation is probably both an artifact of improved dental hygiene routines and better access to professional dental care (debatable in nations that don't publically cover dental care).

Obviously a dearth of studies on the topic is ultimately to blame, but these point seem fairly obvious to me, and that they were not noted creates a large grey area in terms of appreciating some seemingly conflicting data. It would be nice to see some of these skilled Wiki-writers weave this POV into the article, as I doubt I could do it justice. Thanks for your time. -Unknown

Your theory is sound until it comes up against the 'halo' effect of water fluoridation which is that other food stuffs such as dairy products and other food products have demonstrably increased concentrations of fluoride not just in regions that have fluoridated water but also in areas geographically related to fluoridated regions. This increases exposure time for ion exchange. Secondly, what you say about systemic vs. topical application of fluoride also stands up. Current thinking suggests that systemic delivery of fluoride over and above fluoride in water systems is unnecessary and possibly negligent. However, systemic delivery also results in an increase in fluoride concentration in saliva, thus resulting in a debatably higher exposure time. Despite what you correctly point out about low concentrations etc, studies have shown that water fluoridation works (as pointed out in the two articles concerning this subject on Wikipedia). It's mode of action is such that resistance to acid exposure in enamel increases over time, with a resulting decrease in the rate of new caries with time in a fluoridated water population. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 13:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war with Jersyko

User:Jersyko is reverting me without a discussion.--Fahrenheit451 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted only some of your changes. The other reversions were inadvertent, and I have self-reverted several of them. You're right to point out that this article does contain pro-fluoridation POV. In removing that POV, however, you have added a little bit of anti-fluoridation POV. I think a lot of your changes have been good ones. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The fluoridefacts.org website is very partisan. It is a coalition of dental societies and colleges in Massachusetts. Most of the 100 alleged supporters of water fluoridation do not have any citation available.I don't think this site is reliable.--Fahrenheit451 00:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that reliable sources are a problem in this article (I have no opinion of the source you point out). Many of the websites cited and the information contained therein does not meet the guideline. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There are only two popular culture references to fluoridation cited, that is not "numerous". Let's be honest and not exaggerate. I have made in changes to remove generalities that are uncited and added specific designations. I think we are getting it closer to NPOV. --Fahrenheit451 02:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EPA/Nobel in support?

I just thought since the opposition got a list, perhaps the pro side could include these groups, as well as various reputable universities in support? Anyone know any to add? We should add it even if blank for now. Tyciol 11:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

INDUSTRIAL BYPRODUCT AS SOURCE OF FLUORIDE There needs to be some research into where/how the fluoride is produced. Many say that it's an industrial byproduct and that it always has a small amount of lead an arsenic in it. Here's a story detailing one city: http://fluoridealert.org/news/2676.html

My guess is that it's almost always an industrial byproduct, which is why it's so cheap. It's hard to purify something like that. That puts an entire new spin on the issue - the Safe Drinking Water Act states that our water should have 0 lead and 0 arsenic, but that it's only a goal. But we should be doing whatever we can to reach that goal - the only reason it should be above that target is if it's uneconomical to clean it up. And it clearly isn't.

I'm personally shocked at how many people can support this amazingly blind policy. Yeah, maybe fluoride is good when applied on the teeth, but it's not that good. There are other much more effective methods out there right now: Cavistat toothpaste and Xylitol-sweetened being two biggies. --Concerned U.S. Citizen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leo dubiam (talk • contribs).

Please see Wikipedia's policy on original research. Thank you, though, for your ideas, I'm sure they will be useful. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The research has already been done, and the information is actually as verifiable as most of this other information. If you refuse to use information from anti-fluoridation researchers, then why are you using information from pro-fluoridation researchers, e.g. the ADA. Here is another site: http://www.thenhf.com/fluoridation_06.htm. It was published in a book. If you read the article than you can see that the EPA confirms it is an industrial byproduct in a 1983 letter: "This Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long standing problem? By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them." Of course, today the EPA's scientists contest water fluoridation...heh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leo dubiam (talk • contribs).
The problem for you, however, is Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. Also, please sign your talk page posts with this: ~~~~ · j e r s y k o talk · 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"The EPA scientists recently concluded, after reviewing all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used "as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless ... substance." They called for "an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry." The management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue. (See 1-6: "Why EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation", Chapter 280 Vice-President, J. William Hirzy, May 1, 1999)." - from http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question01.html
Is the EPA a credible enough source for you? Or would you consider it not "third-party" enough, since its composed of a bunch of scientists opposed to fluoridation? Does the fact that this citation come from an anti-fluoridation site matter? Do I have to dig up the book in order to cite it? And if I cite that print source and don't look it up, how does anyone know? I see a paucity of print sources on here which is in some ways an advantage, but also a disadvantage. Contrary to popular belief, most of the knowledge in the world has not been scanned into a computer. Leo dubiam 23:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
May I ask what, exactly, you're proposing to do to improve this Wikipedia article? Do you believe that it does not, in fact, discuss both sides of the "controversy"? Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, after all, but an encyclopedia. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the fluoride is an industrial byproduct containing lead and arsenic is key to why there is controversy around it. Wikipedia should cover all facets of the argument, including this one. I will look up the EPA source, verify it myself, and then post it - without a link, if that makes you more happy. What do you think of that? I have thus far shown you 3 sites stating the same thing: that the fluoride used is an industrial byproduct. All of them cite where they got this information. Yet you continue to say that they aren't reliable - but there's no evidence that they've falsified data in the past. I find that strange. Leo dubiam 23:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Leo dubiam
On your topic about lead and aresnic, the cdc has a paper on water fluoridation addressing that very issue. [10] A small clip of it says:
"Concerns have been raised about arsenic and lead in fluorosilicic-acid–treated water. However, there is no credible evidence that this is of concern. Urbansky and Schock add: The vast preponderance of the lead(II) in nearly all tap waters originates from the plumbing materials located between the water distribution mains and the end of the faucet used by the consumer."
There is more on the subject in the link that you may or may not be interested in. Certainly, science is dynamic and new questions will be raised and answered eventually, but as of now most reputable health organization say that water fluoridation is one of (if not the best) method of reducing tooth decay. This is also the stance of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the FDI World Dental Organization and the International Association for Dental Research. - Dozenist talk 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll look into that, and that sounds like a good reply to the EPA's point. However, the EPA scientists disagree on fluoridation, as does most (all?) of the non-English speaking developed world (and their tooth decay is on par http://fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html). Clearly there is not a -consensus- on the issue, and for good reason. We do need to distill this stuff down to the scientific facts and literature, however, and I'm going to be working hard on doing that. I'm convinced it will be sound anti-fluoride. Leo dubiam 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You say it's the "EPA's point". But it's cited to anti-fluoride websites. Sorry, not buying it. If you edit this article to include a lot of "science" that comes from anti-fluoride websites, we're going to come to a reliable sources problem. Everything you've cited on this talk page so far has been to patently unreliable sources for science, but perhaps reliable sources for *arguments* relating to fluoride. I'm saying this now because I can assure you that the talk page consensus here will develop against large changes in this article that result in further expansion of the anti-fluoride point of view (please see WP:NPOV) in this article (in fact, the anti-fluoride POV should be cut down here, not expanded). I've been watching this and similar articles for over a year now, and I promise that the result is always the same--attempts to incorporate "scientific" information from pseudoscientific websites never works. I just don't want you to waste your time, in all honesty. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/t/Talk%7EWater_fluoridation_controversy_297f.html"