Talk:Fluoride

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Chemicals WikiProject
Portal:Chemistry
 Chemistry Portal
Fluoride is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Please put some history of discovery and its applications here.

If you want to find out if fluoride is useful for your theeth, search the internet. Thanks


Removed paragraph:

For this reason, fluorides are often added to toothpaste. To retain their right to practice, various dental associations require dentists to tell clients that fluorides are harmless and beneficial to the teeth. Dentists who say otherwise have their licenses revoked.

"To retain their right to practice" This smells like a POV statement. Credible evidence is needed. "various dental associations require dentists to tell clients that fluorides are harmless and beneficial to the teeth." What? This is a serious allegation that dental associations are forcing dentists to poison their patients. This requires serious proof. Associations don't have such power anyway. "Dentists who say otherwise have their licenses revoked." Again credible evidence is needed for this statement of fact. I suggest that the author of this passage actually read our NPOV policy. -- mav

I can offer this alternative: "…many dentists who oppose fluoridation fear American Dental Association reprisal if they say so publicly, according to a poll conducted by the Unified Health Alliance of Reno, Nevada, and reported by Unified Health Alliance former editor Lois Eckroat in the Reno Gazette-Journal on October 20, 2002" (the RGJ article)
‘An ADA white paper written in 1979 states: “Dentists' nonparticipation [in fluoridation promotion] is overt neglect of professional responsibility.” An ADA spokesperson says this is still the association's official policy. In recent years, several dentists who have testified on the anti fluoridation side have been reprimanded by their state dental officers.’[1] (No specification on the latter claim; but outlines of smear campaigns against certain antifluoridationists do follow.)

From the article: Other studies also suggest that even lower fluoride levels may be causing an increased incidence in elevated lead levels seen in the blood of children, and higher violent crime rates associated with lead neurotoxicity.

Can someone explain the supposed mechanism for this? Fluoride and lead are different elements, and unless the fluoride supply (or a naturally fluoride-rich water supply) were contaminated with lead, there is no way I can see that adding fluoride to something, such as water (or children), would add lead to it. --FOo

I don't buy it but "Acidic water resulting from silicofluoride treatment could extract lead from pipes, solder and fixtures, increasing the bioavailability of lead at the tap (Consumer Reports 1993)." [2] --mav
Sure, only if there was already lead in the pipes (i.e. old pipes, already a risk); also, if the water is too acidic, public water utilities usually neutralize it, don't they? --FOo
You are probably right. --mav
I can find only one study indexed in MEDLINE that shows a correlation between the use of silicofluorides in a community's water, and blood lead levels. Consumer Reports is just speculating about one possible mechanism, and not very convincingly. The mechanism for the correlation, if it is replicable and causal, might also be biological rather than chemical. As an example, Vitamin D increases intestinal absorption of lead through its interaction with receptors in the gut (but we still put it in milk) <G>. -- Someone else 04:53 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Supplemented the summary of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination [3], which was misleadingly summarized. -- Someone else 06:27 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

From fluorine:

  • Sodium fluoride has been used as an insecticide, especially against cockroaches.
  • Some other fluorides are often added to toothpaste and municipal water supplies.

I moved the above, in the hopes that the poor innocent element fluorine can repose in peaceful slumber while we discuss the application of one of its ions here. --Uncle Ed

Other than stopping Clutch from starting another edit war there is no good reason at all to do this Ed. The best thing for the fluorine article is to have this introductory material in it and have a detailed run-down of the facts and controversy here. All that is needed in the fluorine article is for us to mention that there is a controversy and provide a link here. --mav
LOL And why should flourine have peaceful slumber? NaCl is vital to life; NaF is antithetical to it. Is it sodium's fault?--Kwantus 17:01, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I realise it was said in jest, and I replied (half) in jest; nevertheless:
  • "Fluorine was substituted for chlorine in Lindane, to make it a far more toxic substance." (Plummer & Wall Science Vol. 127, 1958)
  • "Fluorine is substituted for chlorine in DDT to produce more effective and more toxic insecticides." (Reimschneider Suddent. Apoth. Ztg 1947)
--Kwantus 01:16, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Come to think of it, it's quite relevant for a page about fluorine compounds, so here're some more
  • Rohypnol ("date-rape drug") is fluorinated Valium.
  • Paxil, Prozac, and fenfluramine are all psychoactive fluorides
  • Nerve gases Soman and Sarin are fluorine compounds (so why is there any surprise fluoride in water might be bad for the brain? F interferes with the Ca needed for neurotransmission (Toxicological Profile for Fluorides p125) - sounds like the same affinity that's supposed to benefit teeth. Furthermore, Sarin is "rapidly hydrolyzed by dilute aqueous sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate forming relatively non-toxic products. Water alone removes the fluorine atom producing a non-toxic acid"EPA which indicates it is the combination with fluorine and that alone which makes the nasty.)
  • so is Teflon (and some do wonder whether it's wise to heat teflon and put food on it, but personally I'm more worried about the fluorine pollution already in the food)--Kwantus 03:00, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If it is sodium fluoride, sodium monofluorophosphate, and stannous fluoride which are used for dental purposes including water fluoridation, then how, pray tell, are silicofluorides (an entirely separate class of compounds) relevant to the debate? Is the claim that sodium fluorides are contaminated with silicofluorides? That they produce silicofluorides in the water? (By reaction with what?) --FOo

Silicofluorides are also used for fluoridation by some communities. They're an actual additive, not something inadvertently produced. -- Someone else 19:42 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
Either the PHS or the EPA recommended silicofluorides as a cheaper source for fluoridation. Silicofluorides have been shown to be even more poisonous than NaF. -- Kwantus 17:03, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Does " NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination" require a link, external link or additional notation? What country is this? (I assume Britain when I see NHS) Dramatic 05:10 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, it's the UK's NHS. By all means, let's make an article about it. -- Tarquin 12:47 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

I see a pro-flouridator has shown up. Should I bother finding sources, or will everything I find be incredible becaue I found it?

  • "Even at 1ppm, fluoride in drinking water poisons cattle, horses and sheep" (Moules, G.R., Water Pollution Research and Summary of Current Literature, 1944.
  • 1943-53 US Public Health Service study of Bartlett TX correlates death rates with fluoride concentration
  • """fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons..." "Chronic Fluorine Intoxication", JAMA, 1943 Sep 18 (Grand rapids gets flouridated despite this warning.

1944-8 Mantahhatan project aware of negative physiological and psycho-behavioral effects of fluorides, via use of UF6 in the isotope separation process. Docs declassified from Nat'l Archive in '97 ... try specifically for a 1994 Apr 29 memo "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect, with mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude as the conspicuous features... it seems that the fluoride component is the causative factor"

  • "knowledge of the subject does not warrant the introduction of fluorine in community water supplies generally. Sodium fluoride is a highly toxic substance...the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for good."
" JA Dental A, 1944 Oct
  • 1945 Commonwealth Brewing COmpany charged by FDA with poisoning its beer with flouride: "an added poison or deleterious poison, fluoride, which was unsafe within the meaning of the statute (Section 301a of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act)" The jury was instructed that fluoride was established to be harmful and poisonous, and that quantity (.5ppm in this case) was unimportant
  • 1945 Fouridation of Grand Rapids begins despite above ADA warning. The ten-year study is terminated after one one year. The control, Muskegon, has fluoridation imposed and is thus destroyed.
  • 1945 fluoride's affinity for magnesium and manganese ions enables it to deplete their availability for vital enzyme functions. (Borei, H., "Inhibition of Cellular Oxidation by Fluoride", Arkiv.Kemi,Mineral,Geol., 20A, No. 8, 1945). (Soviet?)
  • 1946-7 Reports from the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the Armed Forces note the dociling effect of fluorides in the water supplies at military bases. (Despite this, and assertions by proponents that fluoride is only useful during the growth of permanent teeth, adult-only military bases remain heavily fluorided.)
  • (About this time Oscar Ewing, ALCOA's transplant to the Federal Security Agency, in charge of the Public Health Service, begins having fluoride naysayers painted as "deranged", etc. doesn't that sound familiar.)
  • Forrestal opposes using fluoride to keep military men docile. ork Daily Times, Letters to the Editor from former FBI agent Wesley C. Trollope, Omaha, Neb., March 17, 1967).
  • 1948 English study correlates fluoride concentration of 1ppm with skeletal defects
  • 1950 The 24th edition of the U.S. Dispensatory (pp 1456-1457) defines fluorides as "violent poisons to all living tissue because of their precipitation of calcium...the use of fluoride-containing dentifrices and internal medicants is not justified."
  • 1950 fluorides "lower hemoglobin and may cause irreversible loss of potassium from the red cells." C. W. Sheppard, Science
  • (1950 Sugar industry joins efforts to impose fluoridation. US supplying fluoride to Soviets, who are using it keep prisoners subservient)
  • "Some of the basic and necessary metabolic processes in the cell are stopped by concentrations of fluorides such as are found in acute poisoning. These changes are comparable to those seen in high-grade anoxia and are the basis for describing fluorides as general protoplasmic poisons." Cox & Hodge, JADA 1950 Apr, again 1962 Nov
  • 1951 JAMA disparages fluoride in Feb 10 issue
  • 1951 Public health service instructs dentists so say fluoride is okay even though it isn't. (Minutes/proceedings of the Wash DC meeting.)
  • 1952 Dr. A.L. Miller, former Nebraska Health Commissioner now Congressman, puts in the Congressional Record (Mar 24) how he had been bamboozled by Oscar Ewing. Miller would also report to the Select Committee to Investigate Use of Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics. that "The US Dental Assn made some examination and recommended to the farmers that fluorine not be added to the water of pregnant sows because it did something to the pigs that were unborn"
  • 1952 JADA volte-faces and instructs its readers to withold their personal opinions of fluoride
  • 1953 Stillbirth rate in New Britian CT has more than doubled in the three years since fluoridation was imposed
  • "The administration of fluorides to animals revealed histological changes in the thyroid, kidneys and bones, decline of enzyme activity and pathological changes in internal organs and bones, a low health level and high mortality."
 Am J Public Health, 43:700-703, 1953
  • (1953 Florence Birmingham testifies to Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce that Massachusetts has been doing fluoride experiments at state institutions for the feebleminded on the orders of the state health department. A clear violation of the Nuremberg Pact.)
  • fluoride is carcinogenic in animals (A Taylor, "Sodium Fluoride in the Drinking Water of Mice",Dental Digest, Vol 60, pp170-172)
  • 1956 Cancer death rates found rising faster in fluoridated cities
  • 1954 61 of 81 living Nobel laureates in chemistry, medicine, and physiology disapprove of fluoridation (Christian Science Monitor poll...proponents continue to claim endoresement by "all reputable scientists")
  • 1955 Oregon fed court finds in favour of the plaintiff in fluoride-poisoning case (Martin v Reynolds Metals)
  • GE scientist K K Plauev points out a case of fraud in profluoridation's so-called science - fluoride had delayed eruption of permanent teeth, but these ungrown teeth were counted as "sound"
  • 1956 "skeletal deposition of fluoride is a continuing process in which a considerable portion of the ingested fluoride, perhaps 25 to 50%, is deposited in the skeleton." Hodge, J Am Dental Ass'n (yet proponents claim fluoride, for all its affinities, does not accumulate)
  • 1956 Ionel Rapaport of the U of Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute correlates Downs' Syndrome with fluoridation
  • 1957 shortly after Santa Fe is subjected to fluoridation, mortality in State Game Bird Farm partridge chicks shoots up. It drops again when chicks are put on distilled water.
  • 1957 Thomas Douglas, puzzling over why so many of patients had oral lesions all of a sudden, discovered they all used fluorided toothpastes. ("Fluoride Dentifrice and Stomatitis" Northwest Medicine, 1957 Sep)
  • 1957 ALCOA begins selling NaF directly to municipalities for drinking-water fluoridation. NaF is already in use as rat poison
  • 1958 April 15000+-member Association of American Physicians and Surgeons "condemns the addition of any substance to the public water supply for the purpose of affecting the bodily or mental function of the consumer."
  • 1958 F.J. Stare of Harvard blatantly inverts the conclusion of a study (J of Nutrition, 62, 561-573, 1957) on the nonessential nature of fluorine as a nutrient (Stare's BS is still cited)
  • 1958 fluoride linked to genetic dmage (H J Muller, Symposium on Emphysema and Chronic Bronchitis: "Do Air Pollutants Act as Mutagens?", Aspen, Colorado, June 13-15)
  • 1958 7-member WHO expert c'tee on fluoride stacked with 5 known fluoride promoters. Research documenting poisoning from fluoridated water was rejected.
  • 1959 U of Melbourne finds that all profluoride "science" so far was faulty and/or fraudulent (Philip R.N. Sutton & Arthur B.P. Amies "Fluoridation Errors And Omissions in Experimental Trials")
  • 1959 Rapoport replicates and extends the Downs' Syndrome linkage
  • 1959 experiment by J D Ebert in which fluorides were used as an enzyme inhibitor. In low concentrations sodium fluoride blocked almost completely the regions destined to form muscle, primarily affecting the heart muscle. In higher concentrations, it caused the entire embryo to disintegrate in a clear-cut pattern, starting with the heart-forming region.
  • 1959 Ontario minster of heath bans fluoridation "no one knows for sure what the effect is to persons given fluoride throughout a lifetime." (Which isn't exactly true, but at least he acknowledges the proponents aren't telling the truth)
  • 1960 Nov 29 200x50-foot hole in San Franciso street ultimately attributed to water main corroded by flouridation
  • 1961 Dec 9 Colin Harrison in Australian Medical Journal "The biological activity of fluoride is not fully appreciated. It is a cytoplasmic toxin, interfering with the action of oxidase enzyme systems..."
  • 1961 flouridation blamed for maiming, killing dogs and stillborn pups in Knoxville TN (Knoxville Free Press 1961 Oct 27) The town abandons fluoridation
  • 1961 "Fluoride is a well-known inhibitor of several enzyme systems, and can form spectroscopically recognizable compounds with the enzyme catalase, resulting in its inhibition. Catalase poisoning has been linked with the development of viruses and the causation of a number of diseases, including cancer..." R.A.Holman, Royal Institute of Pathology, in British Medical Journal, Apr 15
  • Portugese study links 1ppm fluoride to hepatic and ureal impairment (Sullivan & Von Knobeledorff, Broteria Serie de Ciencias Naturais 1962)
  • Knutson finds 22% more cancer deaths in Grand Rapids than Muskegon, despite the attempt to destroy the control (Fluoride Drinking Waters 1962 p.213)
  • 1962 Revision of Drinking Water Standards lists 0 as fluoride's safety factor
  • 1962 Noted oncologist Ludwig Gross in hot water for writing "The plain fact that fluoride is an insidious poison - harmful, toxic, and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amount, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that 'fluoridation of the water supply is safe'"
  • 1963 Canadian study finds fluoride interferes with calcium supply "during periods of high metabolic demand" such as pregnancy (Archives of Environmental Health featured a Canadian, May 1963)
  • 1963 flouride correlated to cancer (Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton "Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors...Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride", Genetics, Vol 48, pp307-310)
  • 1963 U of WI studies correlate fluoride with stillbirths
  • 1967 Pittsburg Press, Oct 15, notes the crooked teeh 13-15 year olds have acquired - 15 years after Pittsburgh imposes fluoridation

As Sternglass concluded with radiation poisoning, the more of it there is, the stupider everyone gets, thus the less likely the problem gets corrected; indeed it's likely to be made worse. (And couple that to James Kerwin, Dental Digest, or F.W. Lengemann "The Metabolism of Alkaline Earth Metals by Bone" to AEC Division of Biology and Medicine, both 1959, showing fluorine and strontium have a pathogenic ball together. Plus A. Shatz Low Level Fluoridation and Low-Level Radiation -- Two Case Histories of Misconduct of Science Philadelphia, 1996).

Fluoride may be all a very nice thing for your teeth when properly administered -- topical application in regulated dose at the proper time of life. Fluoridated water, with its systemic, unregulated, lifetime dosage, and side effects acknowledged even by rabid proponents, is almost as far from a proper administration as you ca get. (That's a summation I got from my own dentist. See, in Canada, they're still allowed to tell the truth.) If you think fluoride is good to drink and needs to foisted upon everyon, chugalug a cupful of sodium flouride (rat poison). Please.

Profuse thanks to Val Valerian which provided all that. Heaps more there, but I've lifted enough to rebut the "no evidence fluoride is harmful" crap. -- Kwantus 22:56, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Even proponents of fluoridation have noted that examination of the evidence tends to cause antifluoridationism: Dr. William T. Jarvis, a member of the board of the American Council of Science and Health...[spoke] on "The Psychology of Anti-fluoridation", noting that debates on fluoride always "seem to result in people becoming anti-fluoridationist."[4] -- Kwantus 01:14, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Another example: In 1980 dentist John Colquhoun, then an ardent supporter of fluoridation, was sent by officials from Wellington, the capital, on a world study tour of fluoridation so that he would be qualified to lead a campaign to extend fluoridation in New Zealand. After completing his tour and considering his research he became an outspoken critic of fluoridation. [5] citing Perspectives in Biology & Medicine No 41,1-Autumn, 1997. University of Chicago. -- Kwantus 04:29, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Another recanter: Hardy Limeback ‘Canada's leading fluoride authority and, until recently, the country's primary promoter of the controversial additive...“the crowning blow was the realization that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs for half a century. The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida, smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry.”’[6][7] (emphasis added - two fer one!) -- Kwantus 15:47, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I removed a large section from flouridation benefits that was clearly not about the benefits of fluoridation and was not encyclopedic ("Please post..."). Also I beleive we agreed long ago that most of the debate on fluoridation belonged on the fluoridation page, not here. Rmhermen 23:56, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Obviously I misremembered. There is strangely no fluoridation page. This is the page for debate on fluoridation, not fluorine. Still it needs to be properly written. Rmhermen 00:06, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
There is a fluoridation page -- presently redir'd to fluoride. Maybe that's what you're trying to say. And strictly, they are entirely different issues -- fluoride does seem to have some dental benefit when carefully used, but dumping what the EPA once acknowledged is toxic industrial waste en masse into the water supply (fluoridation) is not careful, medicinal use. It's a scam, and proven so. Fluorides are simply not safe for internal consuption; even US dental products have occasionally acknowledged that with "do not swallow me" warnings. Now: will it cause more or less confusion to split "fluoride" from "fluoridation"? -- Kwantus 00:52, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I love the Melbourne incident, as an example of both how poisonous fluorides are and how the profluoride misinformation is likely killing people...but it somoehow doesn't fit, either =( -- Kwantus 02:43, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Moved this comment from the article: <Should be noted that Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, last I read, banned fluoridation at the federal level, sometimes constitutionally> RickK 04:10, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Kwantus, I have no problem with the change you just made. The above was an editorial comment, however, and had no place in the article. RickK 04:17, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I found a source for it, anyhow. -- Kwantus 04:29, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Since the Melbourne incident's been purged, I'll outline it here. Boy (Jason Burton) swallows six fluoride tablets, 0.5mg fluoride each; family doctor recovers four with stomach pump; boy loses consciousness, goes to hospital; hospital so disinformed about fluoride they neglect to check the books and assume it takes 200+ tablets to be lethal; child dies anyway; official death certificate lists "Fluoride poisoning" as cause; Australian authorities deny fluoride has ever killed anyone. It strikes me the child may have been oversensitive; the interesting parts are that the hospital didn't realise fluoride is poisonous and the denials that fluoride cn kill. [8] -- Kwantus 01:15, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The tone and wording of this entry is appalling. It reads like just-barely-restrained-from-frothing-at-the-mouth anti-flouridation rant. The information contained within it may or may not be accurate, but the way it is presented is simply unacceptable. A top-to-bottom rewrite is imperative.

(Disclosure of my own view: the debate confuses me but, on the whole, I am against flouridation of drinking water supplies.)

Tannin

I entirely agree (about the tone... "so fix it, dear Tannin, dear Tannin!" =). I'm not even trying, 'cause the case for fluoridation is scientifically dead. (The ADA was quite clear, 60 years ago, it was the wrong way to use fluoride, and all the "science" in between that says otherwise has been shown to riddled with error and fraud. Even the US CDC has said topical application is the best way while praising fluoridation at the same time, now figure that out.) But you should've seen it after the last profluordation hack at it. (He asked for some rebuttal, explicitly, and he's getting some.) And it wasn't neutral to start with, with unsubtantiated (and readily shredded) laudification of flouridation. ("one of the most important elements of the 20th century dental revolution"? Schpeeeew.) At least I provide sources. -- Kwantus 06:24, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I see only one "out" for the profluoridationists, and it's Pyhrric. Argue that the proven decline in caries in nonflouridated areas is actually due to increased "natural" or background flouridation from increasing fluoride pollution. And that, of course, is simply an argument to cease wasting public money exacerbating what's happening all over. -- Kwantus 07:37, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Some citations I reassembled from the Val Valerian chronology (it aggravatingly mentions a lot of others without specifics) and hate to waste. But I don't know how to fit them in. Someone with access to a good science lib should check them out. Kwantus 08:12, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

  • Chicago Tribune "Fluoride Blamed in Dialysis Deaths", 1993 July 31
  • Varner, J.A. et al, "Chronic Aluminum Fluoride Administration: II. Selected Histological Observations" Neuroscience Research Communications, Vol 13 No.2, 1993, pp.99-104
  • Chase, M., "Rat Studies Link Brain Cell Damage with Aluminum and Fluoride in Water", Wall Street Journal, October 28, 1992
  • Mullenix, Denbensten, Schunior & Kernan Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No. 2, pp. 169-177, 1995 (Mullenix got fired for this one)
  • Kay, A.R., et al "Fluoride in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with fluorosis", Journal of Neuroscience, Vol 6, pp.2915-2920,1986;
  • Ziegler et al, Experimental Carcinogenesis and Mutagenesis Branch, National Institute for Envrionmental Health Sciences, "Genetic Toxicity of Fluoride", Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, Vol 21, 1993, p.309-318
  • Sullivan, W.D.,S.J., and Von Knobeledorff, A.J., Broteria Serie de Ciencias Naturais Lisbon, 21, No.1, 1962
  • Fridlyland, I.G. "The Effect of Industrial Poisons on the Immunological State of the Organism" Gigiena i Sanitariya 24 (8) p56 1959
  • Gabler & Long "Fluoride Inhibition of Polymorphonuclear Leukocytes", Journal of Dental Research Vol 48, No.9, p1933-1939, 1979
  • D.W.Allman et al "Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Tissue Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo" Journal of Dental Research, Vol 55, Sup B, p523, 1976
  • Gibson, S., "Effects of Fluoride on the Immune System", Complimentary Medical Research, Vol 6, No.3, October 1992, pp.111-113
  • Clark "Neutrophil Iodination Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation" Blood, Vol 57, pp913-921, 1981
  • Ionel Rapaport Bulletin of the Academy of National Medicine Paris, Vol 140, pp.529-531;
  • Narayana and Chinoy, "Effect of Fluoride on Rat Testicular Steroidogenesis", Fluoride, Vol 27, No. 1, pp.7-12, 1994
  • Freni, S.C., "Exposure to High Fluoride Concentrations on Drinking Water Associated with Decreased Birth Rates", Journal of Toxicological and Environmental Health, Vol.42, p.109-121, 1994
  • Danielson, C., et al, "Hip Fractures and Fluoridation in Utah's Elderly Population", Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 286, No.6, August 1992, pp.746-748
  • Moules, G.R., Water Pollution Research and Summary of Current Literature, 1944
  • Borei "Inhibition of Cellular Oxidation by Fluoride", Arkiv.Kemi,Mineral,Geol. 20A, No. 8, 1945
  • Cox & Hodge, "Toxicity of Fluorides in Relation to Their Use in Dentistry", Journal of the American Dental Association Vol 40:440, April 1950
  • Maurer & Day "The Non-Essentiality of Fluoride in Nutrition" Journal of Nutrition 62, 561-573 (deliberately misrepresented by F. J. Stare, who is still quoted despite his recantation in Boston Herald Traveler 1972 Apr 6);
  • D.B. Ferguson in Nature Vol. 231, pp.159-160, June 2, 1971
  • Gupta, I.P., et al, "Fluoride as a Possible Etiological Factor in Non-Ulcer Dyspepsia", Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vol 7, 1992, pp.355-356
  • Susheela, A.K., "Fluoride Ingestion and Its Correlation with Gastrointestinal Discomfort", Fluoride, Vol 25 No.1, 1992,pp.5-22
  • Takeki Tsutsui, NDU "Sodium Fluoride Induced Morphological and Neoplastic Transformation, Chromosome Aberrations and Unscheduled DNA Synthesis..." Cancer Research Vol 44,pp938-941, 1984
  • Susheela, Sharma et al "Fluoride poisoning and the Effects of Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Non-osseous Tissue", Toxicological European Research, Vol 3, No.2, pp99-104, 1981
  • Drozdz et al., "Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds upon Connective Tissue Metabolism in Growing Rats", Toxilogical European Research, Vol 3, No.5, pp.237,239-241, 1981
  • Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton "Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors...Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride", Genetics Vol 48, pp307-310
  • Taylor "Sodium Fluoride in the Drinking Water of Mice" Dental Digest Vol 60, pp170-172
  • Taylor & Taylor, "Effect of Fluoride on Tumor Growth", Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine Vol 65, pp252-255
  • Mohamed, A.H.,et al, "Cytological Effects of Hydrogen Fluoride on Tomato Chromosomes" Canadian Journal of Genetic Cytology Vol 8, p.575-583, 1966 (these things poison our food as well as poison us via our food)

Kwantus, you are not helping by totally ignoring the other POV in this issue. Part of adhering to our NPOV policy is to write for the enemy. You have not done that and appear to be placing every anti-fluoridation study in this article while ignoring studies that show benefits. Part of the problem is that fluoride and fluoridation are being mixed here; they should be separated since the amount of fluoride used in rat poison is not comparable to the amount used in water supplies and that most things we consider to be good are in fact toxic in large quantities. Please separate the two subjects on different pages so that the material correctly shows up as being authored by you. Otherwise I'll move it myself. It will then be easier to NPOV this one-sided material. --mav 16:56, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You find the studies that show benefits and I'll find tha material that show they've erroneous or fraudulent. (In particular, address the studies i've added which show an increase in caries with fluoridation. Where's the benefit?) If you'd read the material you'd see most of it refers to concentrations comparable or lower than is recommended for fluoridation. Noone is helped by perpetuation of the fluoridation myths. --Kwantus 17:05, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Even if fluoridation did improve teeth, i'm going to take cancer, birth defects, mental retardation, kidney failure, liver failure, heart failure... just for good teeth? so i can have a perfect (if i happen to luck out and avoid fluorosis) smile in the nuthouse on dialysis at 40? like i said before, what drugs is this idea on?--Kwantus 17:26, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Even if fluoridation did improve teeth, the environment is now chock full of fluoride pollution, and enough gets in the water and our food on its own there's no longer any need to waste public money adding it (and risking accidents such as Annapolis MD 1979).--Kwantus 18:03, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Kwantus, please read our NPOV policy. Rmhermen 17:19, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
The earth is flat or the earth is round. Show me the neutral ground and i'll stand there. I'd rather this entire page be deleted than these bald lies promoting fluoridation get one inch.--Kwantus 17:26, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
This is why we have a policy. Rmhermen 17:32, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
So I should go over to the page about Nazis and explain why they were nice guys just so there's balance? Look, I have no problem with balance, if it can be achieved. But I see no remaining scientific middle ground on fluoridation. Its only benefit is financial, to dentists (Must I recite the ADA's own article?) and the industries with fluoride wastes to dispose of. (Tthe benefits of a mentally subservient population to a fascist government is mere gravy I needn't touch.) If you can find some scientific balance, then cite it. And then I'll see if it stood up to scrutiny. That's how science works. If that's not how Wikipedia wants to work, then f@k it.-- Kwantus 17:49, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Although, re the gravy, I'd like to know why military bases were among the very first to suffer fluoridation, when fluoridation was supposed to be about improving childrens' teeth and claimed even then only to be effective on childrens' teeth.--Kwantus 01:26, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Kwantus, you obliviously have an axe to grind and an extreme POV in this matter. You are therefore creating a one-sided soapbox article on why fluoridation is a bad thing. Obviously a great many people think otherwise, yet you ignore their POV and express only your own. This is a violation of our NPOV policy and I'm asking you to stop. I'll work on this article later. Please use that time to move the material about fluoridation to that page. Fluoride is just an ion; it can be used in a great many ways both for good and bad. This article should reflect that and most of the controversy stuff about adding fluoride compounds to water supplies and toothpaste, should be at fluoridation. This will help us to NPOV the text. --mav 17:59, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No axe; I fortunately live in a fluoridation-free province. But I do have a strong POV which I am convinced is grounded in science. And a great many people (say, western Europe) agree with me, too (for what merit such an argument has, which is none, but you made it)--Kwantus 18:06, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
BTW I'm pretty damn sure I didn't start the fluoridation debate on this page, so don't blame it on me.--Kwantus
I have a suspicion I must clarify something else: by "fluoridation" i mean "addition of fluoride(s) to water supplies" which in my perception is the general understanding of "fluoridation". As I mentioned above, yesterday (check the history) there does seem to be evidence supporting the medically-supervised topical application of fluoride(s) at appropriate times of life in the reduction of tooth decay with tolerable side effects. This is not comparable to unregulated-dosage systemic lifetime application caused by dumping industrial waste (see the 1983 March 30 letter from Rebecca Hanmer of the EPA) into municipal water supplies. I may have occasionally, in the heat, used "fluoride" where i meant "fluoridation" and that would be an error on my part--Kwantus 18:18, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I must point out there are those who object even to topical application. I'm not so fanatical as that, but they have their reasons -- deaths, usually of children, during or shortly after fluoride treatment[9] (which proves the claims fluoride is "perfectly" safe as rubbish, if only on the grounds nothing is perfectly safe as the fluoridation defenders here have noted).
  • The 1974 NYC case, where the hygienist turned away before instructing the boy to rinse with the cup of water instead of drink it, was clearly one of overwork/neglect/malpractice/human error/unsupervised use etc. Lamentably, that's always going to happen. It happens in fluoridation plants too (eg Annapolis 1979) -- and makes a lot more people sick or dead when it does. (This is the technological sword o'Damoclese which profluoridators frantically ignore. Of course it exists with chlorinators too, but my understanding thus far is that fluorides more corrosive than the chlorides, which would lead to more failure and more expensive machinery.)
  • Hygienist Terry Leder refuses to apply fluoride after witnessing (1969) a child go into fatal convulsions moments after it was applied -- a clear case of oversensitivity which happens with most medicines (if I may set aside the profluoridationist's bogosity that fluoride is nutrient not medicine) from time to time. Tragic, but far from unique to fluoride. It happens with anæsthetics, too, and I sure as @hit ain't goin' under the drill w/o those. Usually, nonlethal test can be developde for such things; unfortunately usually only after people "croak of the cure." It's worth pointing out Leder has furthermore convinced herself fluoride doesn't reduce cavities. --Kwantus 17:48, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)


For someone who claimed that he only did research and was not interested in cleaning up his writing, Kwantus has certainly done a lot of writing in this article. Are you two people, Kwantus, or do you only write when you feel like it? RickK 01:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Motivation helps. Although this "writing" was mostly a listing of facts - or what seem to me to be facts - as before. What I've done here is still more researching/studying/thinking than writing.--Kwantus 01:26, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
And my original wording was kackhanded. I didn't mean to say I only did research, but that I did it better than I write. (Considering how much flak my writing has drawn - and how i screwed up my own statement - I think it's soundly demonstrated my writing is indefensible. So you can only hope my researches are better. I sure do.) -k
Somethine I will say in defense of my research: I will not dismiss a theory simply because some appointee authority tells me to. I will read it, consider its logic and evidence, and then make up my own mind. (This is probably a consequence of my training in "hard sciences" like maths and physics, where a claimant's logic and evidence count more than salary.) And several alternative theories are readily disposable on that basis. Antifluordation theroies are not. Every time I go looking, I find another chunk of scientific evidence against fluoridation. In the last round, triggered by the "antifluoridators are conspiracy nuts" @sshol@, I found out fluoridation has not been shown to substantially reduce caries; quite the opposite. And this is why I no longer see middle or "neutral" ground; the only proposed health benefit I'm aware of was the reduction in caries, and that's up the spout. (Even if it weren't up the spout, there are proven cheaper, safer, and more effective means of getting that benefit of fluoride(s) than fluoridation.) There are other benefits to fluoridation, but not to the public, and to argue for those really would look kooky and paranoid. So on what neutral ground am I supposed to stand, in intellectual honesty?--Kwantus 13:33, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Oh yeah, there was that "fluorine is nutritious" claim. That seems to have been thoroughly debunked too, even by officialdom. But I want to get the references back in paw before I rework that piece of the article.--Kwantus 14:17, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Aw J@sus you gotta admire professional bull-something-ers like Stephen Barret. "Instead of telling you that fluoride is found naturally in all water, [antifluoridationists] call it a 'pollutant'" ("all" water??) Taken to its logical conclusion, we must invert all water treatment, adding things like cholera, E. coli, arsenic, uranium, lead, etc. that also occur naturally in "all" water so they can be allowed to do their wonders, too. ("all" water? I dunno, but "most" water is seawater, and try living on untreated seawater.) "Instead of telling you that fluoride is a nutrient essential to life, they call it a 'poison'" well explain why NaF, a sometime fluoridation ingredient, is also the active ingredient of some rat poisons. Explain the biochemists who have said for decades "fluorine is a mycoplasmic poison." [PS: the phrase I was looking for was "cytoplasmic poison" -- curiously, although I've read it in several places the last few days, Google lists only one page with that phrase] And if fluorine is a nutrient essential to life, how come you can go a long lifetime without, say, any NaF intake but get in trouble very quickly if you try to do without NaCl (which is so necessary to life people were willing to be paid in it, hence "salary")? If F is a nutrient, why in hell is NaF lethal in much smaller amounts than NaCl? ("LD100 [not LD50] for fluoride in the average adult has been estimated to be 32–64 mg/kg bw (as NaF)"[10] which I convert to about 3 g. Here's a tablespoon of NaCl and another of NaF. Do, please, Mr Barrett, demonstrate for us your faith in the nutrient value of fluorine.) Barret is trying, in that piece, to show how antifluoridationists, whom he calls "poison mongers", abuse language. A poison monger sells poisons, which is what the antifluoridations are trying to stop. Who is abusing the language? -- Kwantus 14:48, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I deleted Fluoride ions (F-) are regarded as a probable essential element for humans. i recall reading somewhere no known human biochemistry is reliant on fluorine. Also ‘On March 16, 1979, the FDA deleted paragraphs 105.3(c) and 105.85(d)(4) of Federal Register documents which had classified fluorine, among other substances, as "essential" or "probably essential". Since that time, nowhere in the Federal Regulations is fluoride classified as "essential" or "probably essential". These deletions were the immediate result of 1978 Court deliberations(3). No essential function for fluoride has ever been proven in humans(4,5,6,7,8)’[11] citing (3) Federal Register, 3/16/79, page 16006 (4) Federal Register: December 28, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 249)] Rules and Regulations , Page 67163-67175 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration, 21 CFR Part 101 Docket No. 90N-0134, RIN 0910-AA19 (5) Report of the Department of Health and Social Subjects, No. 41, Dietary Reference Values, Chapter 36 on fluoride (HMSO 1996). (6) "Is Fluoride an Essential Element?" Fluorides, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 66-68 (1971) (7) Richard Maurer and Harry Day, "The Non-Essentiality of Fluorine in Nutrition" Journal of Nutrition, 62: 61-57(1957) (8) William R. Stine Applied Chemistry 2nd ed, p413 & 416 (Allyn & Bacon, Inc)
Now, does someone have support for this "essential trace element" assertion? (As a bonus, that fluoridation does not wildly oversupply this need?) -- Kwantus 16:13, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

removed/withdrew assuming there are enough unfluoridated mass supplies in the US to make a significant sample For instance, Illinois in 1989 had 1931 public water facilities, only 1000 of which fluoridated. I figure that's balanced enough to analyse, at least re Illinois. Probable root source, Crete IL Record 1989 Sep 21, a story that only 115 of those 1000 facilities met the state's fluoridation-award standard-- Kwantus 02:36, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

re profluoridations' claims fluoride is a nutrient because it reduces caries (assuming it does): "That in itself is no indication of fluorine essentiality, inasmuch as caries incidence depends on many factors, and many persons with perfectly sound dentition have had only minimal exposure to fluoride." Biological Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants: Fluorides Nat'l Academy of Sciences 1971 -- Kwantus 18:24, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Fluoridation Issue

I used to know why fluoridation is such a big issue, but I forget now. I think it was mentioned in Dr. Strangelove as sapping one's "vital fluids" (i.e., causing sexual impotence) -- but that seems a bit far-fetched.

Are there any studies which demonstrate (or fail to demonstrate) links between fluoridated water and tooth decay (going down) or side effects (going up)? If so, let's cite them and be done with it.

Maybe we should break out fluoridation or fluoridated water as a separate article. We might even have to make a fluoridation controversy article, if it's going to be one of those long, drawn-out things that people in the real (non-Wikipedia) world are perennially fussing over. --Uncle Ed 21:44, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It became controversial mainly in small-town (as opposed to rural) America because of state government mandates to install and maintain costly flouridation equipment on municipal water systems, generally at the expense of the municipality. This occurred in the early 1980s at the height of public distrust of science particularly where the effect of chemicals on the human body was involved. A good deal of pseudoscience was used to delay implementation by communities who opposed flouridation chiefly for financial reasons. Much of this pseudoscience was parrotted by the popular press, and made its way into courtrooms when the states took enforcement actions. There have also been some well-publicized but statistically weak studies that purport to show that flouridation decreases IQ that fanned the usual class-warfare flames. It's all rubbish and most responsible parents in the U.S. who *don't* have flouride in their water give sodium flouride supplements to their young children. UninvitedCompany

[edit] Skybunny's response to Ed

Ed - bottom line: I wanted to bust the NPOV on this article.

Most North American communities fluoridate their water. A vocal minority of Americans (currently about 15% or so) are skeptical of the practice, and studies are traded like baseball cards over whether water fluoridation is inherently beneficial, harmful, or a tradeoff of both. There seems to be less controversy over the idea of using toothpaste on one's teeth and spitting it out when you're done. The article as written didn't seem to say much of anything except 'fluorides are bad' and 'here's so many studies telling you so that you can't help but agree'. Hence the NPOV, I suppose.

I did my best to give the controversy its say while explaining why it's a pervasive practice.

This article was brought to my attention by a person who had really interspersed language intended to make the reader draw a conclusion, advocacy, etc. in John F. Kennedy assassination, which I also did a lot of work on.

Heaven help me.

Skybunny 21:59, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] On a separate fluoridated water controversy article...

Sounds good to me. That section was difficult to manage as is. Ultimately, of course, the controversy page should have both sides stated, fairly. Probably means we'd stick more to statistics on this page. Eh, I don't know.

Skybunny 22:02, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Skybunny. I hope you can work the 15% of Americans statistic into the article. Sounds like a sizeable minority to me: enough to account for the "fuss". Keep up the good work. --Uncle Ed 22:08, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- Can a mere mortal ask what the dihydrogen monoxide link has to do with profluoridation? Google finds no mention of "fluoride" and only one of "fluorine" ... it's a bloody spoof, for heaven's sake! Some milliwits might think it resembles the antifluoridation claims, but hydric acid is essential and beneficial and pretty safe even in large quantities, whereas fluorides are not. Antifluoridationism does not ignore the benefits of fluoridation, but points out that the evidence is against their existence.(eg)

For ref: Ontario ministry of Health, 1999 Nov 15: "current studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have design weaknesses and methodological flaws". Although "the balance of evidence suggests that rates of dental decay are lower in fluoridated than non-fluoridated communities[, t]he magnitude of the effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." In fact, "the effect tends to be more pronounced in the deciduous dentition" -- the baby teeth.

Curious point to research further: "Calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water in minute quantities and is believed to be beneficial or at least harmless. Sodium fluoride, most [of the dentists] felt, is a dangerous toxic by-product of chemical processing."[12] Curious that the rat poison is put into water instead of the naturally-occurring stuff that's probably safer...ignoring the relative prices and sources of CaF2 and its competitors, of course. CaF2 seems to be insoluble[13]--presumably it gets into natural water by mechanical erosion--which would make it difficult to use in fluoridation. OTOH it may the very insolubility--the F ion never gets loose--that makes it safer.

Yet what happens? they dig up fluorispar (calcium f'ide), convert it to NaF and then dilute it again--even though the solubility of fluorispar is only about ten times the "optimal" concentration anyway whereas NaF's is thousands of times.[14][15] Wouldn't it be a whole lot safer -- eg less risk of Annapolis and Hooper Bay type accidents -- if the solute used was incapable of wildly overfluoridating the water? Teotia & Teotia concluded calcium deficiencies exacerbated fluorosis -- perhaps using fluorispar would offset that.

[edit] Please Note

The NPOV notice for this article has been removed. I believe there's at least an approaching balance on what fluoridation does, positive and negative. Required substantial rewriting of the article.

Skybunny 02:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks as though the NPOV has been removed by an anonymous user as of Oct. 13, 2003. (Kwantus appears to be back.) I've removed the editorializing HTML comments from the article. If anyone cares to keep the NPOV around, it will probably involve a long, drawn-out continuing fight with this user.

I think it is better now. --mav 22:47, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Did a little myself. --Skybunny 01:34, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Trying to pretend there's no rational controversy is actually an old profluoridationist trick -- read the advice of Frank Bull on how to sell fluoridation: Federal Security Administration (1951) Proc Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau, US Dept of Health, Education & Welfare Library

[edit] Sources?

Water fluoridation is a highly controversial practice and banned in most countries in Europe, China, India and Japan. Is there a source for this? It sounds dubious to me, I know that the UK for one routinely fluoridates the water. On another point, after the Tsunami disaster, many people of non-local origin were identified by dental records and at least one dentist is on record as saying that he could instantly tell whether a person was born prior to 1967 because that was when fluoridation was introduced on a widespread basis, and teeth post-dating that year were generally far healthier. My impression was that this applied whether the person was Australian, European or North American (i.e. westeners) , which would tend to suggest that the statement about a ban in Europe at least is incorrect. If there are bans in place, they need an official source to back up the assertion. Also, the Tsunami information is quite interesting - can it be mentioned in the article somehow? Graham 06:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move water fluoridation paragraphs?

This article still discusses water fluoridation in some depth. I am inclined to move most of this to the Water Fluoridation page, except for a mention that water fluoridation exists. The article devotes almost as much time to fluoridation as it does to fluroide, the ion. Oasisbob 03:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Someone restored the text that I removed over a month ago. This page clearly states that it is not for Water Fluoridation, but is rather about Fluoride, the ion. Water Fluoridation Controversy has crept back to Water Fluoridation, and back this article on Fluoride, the ion. The old text is non-NPOV, redundant, off-topic for fluoride the ion, sloppy, chemically-inaccurate, and far too verbose. It was removed for a reason. If someone takes exception to this, I'm more than happy to discuss it. --Oasisbob 11:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It seems perfectly reasonable to keep this article focused on the chemistry, with a mention of and link to a separate article that addresses the social/political issues of water fluoridation.

[edit] This article is terrible

Obvious political rhetoric. There are hundreds if not thousands of studies showing that fluoride rebuilds tooth enamel.

  • Thank you, 69.226.31.237, for your constructive feedback. As it stands, the Fluoride article has a lot of work to get it to quality NPOV. However, blanket comments like this do not help. If you'd like to help move information from this article to Water_fluoridation_controversy, add more information about Fluoride (the ion), or otherwise improve this article, feel free. That would be a big help. -Oasisbob 05:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remove NPOV notice?

Looking over the page as it stands now, I believe that it is safe to remove the non-NPOV notice. I still worry that there is still too much water fluoridation content on the page, but the information provided seems NPOV and reasonably accurate. The last batch of edits have been good incremental improvements. If nobody objects, I'll remove the notice in a few days. -Oasisbob 09:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I read this page for the first time today, I was astonished to see the non-NPOV notice. I've taken it off as you suggest.--Stronimo 15:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This page will confuse people due to your mention of fluoridation below 4ppm being safe (at beginning of article). Could you please amend that to conform with your later statement re 0.7-1.2ppm (near end of article). To suggest that 4ppm is safe is a confusing and misleading statement. Thanks for amending that figure downwards. LisaChris 00:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Its still NPOV and of topic

I will try to get more chemical information in the article. Fluoridation can be a link in it but not a paragraph! In some other wikipediae the Fluoridation is not even mentioned. So Thats get rid of it! (No agression! I will not delet it but I will creat an alternative page and let others decide if it is exchanged with the current version.) Stone 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and rotten.com

I for one don't go around clicking on random rotten.com links. :-) I think the Criticism section should really be something else than a sole link, especially one on that slightly scary URL. --Northgrove 07:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. The section was only a link, which does not make much sense to have a whole section devoted to one link. Also, there is no benefits sections, while also some criticisms are mentioned in the "Low concentrations" section. Thus, there does not seem to be a reason for a criticism section. Lastly, conspiracy theories really do not need to be in this article. See water fluoridation controversy for all conspiratorial needs. - Dozenist talk 10:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd reference

"Jennifer Luke from the University of Surrey" What's the nature of this relationship? Professor? Asst? Lecturer? Student? I couldn't find this info. [16], [17]

[edit] Personal Results

I for one, have gotton a lot more cavities since I moved to an area where the water is not flouridated (just found this fact out from my dentist last week). I am 31 years old and had only a couple cavvities my whole life. Now I got 4 in one visit. And my wife, the same story, just got 8 cavities after a couple years of living here. My brother is in his late 30's and never had a cavity; but now lives in an unflouridated area and got 12 cavities. This is actually all very strange considering that flouridation on average is reported to reduce cavities by only 12%, in children (what about adults?). Any others here that live in both flouridated and non-flouridated areas, that can share their experience? ~e~


[edit] What does it do?

What exactly are flourines effects in toothpaste? I can't find it on the page itself.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/l/u/Talk%7EFluoride_4f44.html"