Talk:Water fluoridation opposition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
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.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
This is not a forum for general discussion of editors' beliefs about fluoridation.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Contents

[edit] freedom of choice

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)

[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
I also disagree with this because the water fluoridation and water fluoridation controversy articles are a copy/paste of each other with a few edits. They have the same illustrations, almost the same footnotes, and both discuss contraversy. If you read the article on Fluoride it links to each of these several times, in redundant and confusing ways. In no case is the separation between these articles clear. They should EITHER be merged, OR be separated.67.62.240.136 13:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[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)

Several good points were raised here, but unfortunately, even these could be attacked by pro-fluoridation advocates as being non-NPOV (i.e. "slanted", "biased", etc.). For example, calling water fluoridation "medication" is automatically suspect, since they do not regard it as medicine (question: so what can we call it?). I would also argue, however, that the risks of ingesting fluoridated water are possibly unhealthier than the alleged risks of breathing in second-hand smoke. Both of these positions (pro-fluoridation; anti-2ndhand smoke) seem to be the official politically-correct Establishment points of view; I would love to see some more renegade, contrarian (unconventional) feedback on both of these.

[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)

First of all, sorry if I accidentily write flour instead of fluor. I will try my best to spellcheck.

So you basically admit there's a significant risk of overconsumption of fluoride then? I'm sure neither of us have a study about it at hand, I'm just pointing out what you just implicated.

I would presume that if you have additional sources of fluoride you would inadvertedly consume more flouride and in an uncontrollable fashion for agencies and the goverments involved. You mention foodstuff - Swedish farms defenitely use common water supplies for irrigation, and I'm pretty sure that here it's the same water in my shower as in my faucet - thus it would be containing flouride too. This is just three possible sources of additional fluoride. Even if all sources contained "acceptable" amounts of fluoride it's easy to see a "halo" effect here too.

So in your effort to, what I percieve as, defend fluoridation through some "halo" effect, you actually pointed out a huge flaw in the entirely line of thinking. You can't control how much flouridated food someone consumes. You cant control how long showers they take. You cant control how much water they drink. You cant control how much toothpaste they accidentily swallow. And so on...

Obviously you cant do that with vitamins either but that is hardly a pro-flouridation argument but rather a con argument against the entire "additives" line of reasoning.

213.141.89.53 16:19, 13 October 2007 (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] Industrial byproduct

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).

There is some research to indicate (in Christopher Bryson's book and other places), that not only is flouride an industrial byproduct, it was added to the drinking water as a means of dilution/diposal with the full knowledge that it was toxic to humans. --AeronM (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)

Right. You dont want him to waste time... in all honesty. Altruistic human being! ALERT THE MEDIAS! WE HAVE FOUND ONE! He's right here! On wikipedia.. quick now, lets capture him so we can study it. Sorry for the sarcasm but that cliché just bugs me the hell out.

You wanted to make an eloquent point to discourage him, with just a hint of threat. That is all. When it comes to pseudoscience I couldn't agree more. However, wether you buy something or not I find completely irrelevant. The question remains. Where does the added fluoride come from?

213.141.89.53 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fluroide therapy - Dental treatment

The Fluoride therapy dental treatment section needs your help! People concerned about the fluoridation controversy will naturally want to learn about topical treatment alternatives. It is hard to find that section, and there is little info there when you finally get there. The section on fluoride treatment at the dentist needs much more. Some dentists routinely treat all patients with high-concentration foam in trays. This can add $25 USD to each cleaning visit. What chemicals are used? What concentrations? What are major brands/products? What are pros/cons of such treatment? To what extent can same benefits/results be obtained at home? How much cheaper would that be? 69.87.200.131 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the hell did you revert!

If there is a section on organizations supporting fluoridation, there should be one for organizations opposing, for the sake of NPOV ....Lakinekaki 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. There is a list of organizations that support fluoridation because nearly every major health organization of note supports fluoridation. Including a similar list of the minor organizations (in comparison) opposed to fluoridation would violate undue weight. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am civil. I mentioned hell because I was so surprised by your action. No need to cite [[WP:N] for sentences, only for articles. What you consider minor organization, I suggest you do some research about it. Lakinekaki 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you agree that flouride action network is less notable than the World Health Organization? · j e r s y k o talk · 02:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
There is whole section about opponents relying on experts, and that section is IMO violating NPOV. Since there is a section that describes reliance on experts, there should be one describing reliance on 'minor' organizations.
Is American Dental Hygienists Association as notable as WTO? Lakinekaki 02:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course not, but that's an argument for removing ADHA, not adding anti-fluoride groups. Besides the point, of course, given that including a list of anti-fluoride organizations (most of which are single-issue advocacy groups) would be giving undue weight to a small minority viewpoint. As it is, the article might already devote too much to said minority viewpoint, and adding a list of anti-fluoride groups (which, by the way, hasn't been done, only one was added with accompanying encouragement to "add more") is going to make the undue weight problem worse. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
How about letting other editors find some significant opposing organizations, and if not many appear, then move it to the 'expert' section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lakinekaki (talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
(edit conflict) I suggest making such a request for more organizations on this talk page if you believe that this list can exist in the article in accord with Wikipedia policy (I'm convinced it cannot, however). Writing "add more" in the article text is unencyclopedic. Additionally, RFC could be utilized if you're interested in gauging consensus on this issue. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No need to cite basic policies. I agree that for such a developed article like this one should not do that. However, for most articles I think it is actually desirable, and it actually used to be a rule -- leave things unfinished, make obvious mistakes, and things like that [11] ! Don't know if some guideline still sais so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lakinekaki (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Medical disapproval

Many organizations recognize dangers of fluoride water:

  • Fluoride Action Network [12]
  • National Treasury Employees Union[13]
  • more knowledgeable editors can add other organizations, and if sufficent number is collected, this can be moved to article. Lakinekaki 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some more references

I put here references in hope that they will provide more material to make this article even better. Also, probably some can be useful for Fluoride article.

  • A.K. Susheela and Mohan Jha, "Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous Bone Composition," IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol. 9, No.11, pp. 1021-1022 (1981)
  • Y. D. Sharma, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Collagen Cross-Link Precursors," Toxicological Letters, Vol. 10, pp. 97-100 (1982)
  • A. K. Susheela and D. Mukerjee, "Fluoride poisoning and the Effect of Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Nonosseous Tissue," Toxicological European Research, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 99-104 (1981)
  • Y.D. Sharma, "Variations in the Metabolism and Maturation of Collagen after Fluoride Ingestion," Biochemica et Biophysica Acta, Vol. 715, pp. 137-141 (1982)
  • Marian Drozdz et al., "Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds upon Connective Tissue Metabolism in Growing Rats" and "Effect of Sodium Fluoride With and Without Simultaneous Exposure to Hydrogen Fluoride on Collagen Metabolism," Journal of Toxicological Medicine, Vol. 4, pp. 151-157 (1984).
  • Robert A. Clark, "Neutrophil Iodintion Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation," Blood, Vol. 57, pp. 913-921 (1981).
  • John Curnette, et al, "Fluoride-mediated Activation of the Respiratory Burst in Human Neutrophils," Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 63, pp. 637-647 (1979)
  • W. L. Gabler and P. A. Leong, ., "Fluoride Inhibition of Polymorphonumclear Leukocytes," Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 48, No. 9, pp. 1933-1939 (1979)
  • W. L. Gabler, et al., "Effect of Fluoride on the Kinetics of Superoxide Generation by Fluoride," Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p. 281 (1985); A. S. Kozlyuk, et al., "Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated Environments," Zdravookhranenie, Issue 3, pp. 6-9 (1987)
  • Alfred Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumor Growth," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 119, p. 252 (1965)
  • Shiela Gibson, "Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function," Complementary Medical Research, Vol. 6, pp. 111-113 (1992)
  • Peter Wilkinson, "Inhibition of the Immune System With Low Levels of Fluorides," Testimony before the Scottish High Court in Edinburgh in the Case of McColl vs. Strathclyde Regional Council, pp. 17723-18150, 19328-19492, and Exhibit 636, (1982)
  • D. W. Allman and M. Benac, "Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo," Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 55 (Supplement B), p. 523 (1976)
  • S. Jaouni and D. W. Allman, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride and Aluminum on Adenylate Cyclase and Phosphodiesterase Activity," Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p. 201 (1985)
  • S. K. Jain and A. K. Susheela, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation in Rabbits," Environmental Research, Vol. 44, pp. 117-125 (1987)
  • Viktor Gorlitzer Von Mundy, "Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism, Particularly on the Thyroid Gland," Muenchener Medicische Wochenschrift, Vol. 105, pp. 182-186 (1963)
  • A. Benagiano, "The Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Thyroid Enzymes and Basal Metabolism in the Rat," Annali Di Stomatologia, Vol. 14, pp. 601-619 (1965)
  • Donald Hillman, et al., "Hypothyroidism and Anemia Related to Fluoride in Dairy Cattle," Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 62, No.3, pp. .416-423 (1979)
  • V. Stole and J. Podoba, "Effect of Fluoride on the Biogenesis of Thyroid Hormones," Nature, Vol. 188, No. 4753, pp. 855-856 (1960)
  • Pierre Galleti and Gustave Joyet, "Effect of Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism," Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 18, pp. 1102-1110 (1958)
  • T. Takamorim "The Heart Changes in Growing Albino Rats Fed on Varied Contents of Fluorine," The Toxicology of Fluorine Symposium, Bern, Switzerland, Oct 1962, pp. 125-129
  • Vilber A. O. Bello and Hillel J. Gitelman, "High Fluoride Exposure in Hemodialysis Patients," American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 15, pp. 320-324 (1990)
  • Y. Yoshisa, "Experimental Studies on Chronic Fluorine Poisoning," Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, Vol. 1, pp. 683-690 (1959)
  • J.K. Mauer, et al., "Two-Year Cacinogenicity Study Of Sodium Fluoride In Rats," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 82, pp. 1118-1126 (1990)
  • Proctor and Gamble "Carcinogenicity Studies with Sodium Fluoride in Rats" National Institute of Environmenrtal Health Sciences Presentation, July 27, 1985
  • S. E. Hrudley et al., "Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma," Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, pp. 415-416 (1990)
  • P. D. Cohn, "A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and Incidence of Osteosarcoma in Young Males," New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, New Jersey, Nov. 1992
  • M. C. Mahoney et al., "Bone Cancer Incidence Rates in New York," American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, pp. 81, 475 (1991)
  • Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton, "Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride," Genetics Vol. 48, pp. 307-310 (1963)
  • J. A. Disney, et al., "A Case Study in Testing the Conventional Wisdom: School Based Fluoride Mouth Rinse Programs in the USA," Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Vol. 18, pp. 46-56 (1990)
  • D. J. Newell, "Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer - An Association?," Applied Statistics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 125-135 (1977)
  • Nicholas Leone, et al., "Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water Supply," Public Health Reports, Vol. 69, pp. 925-936 (1954)
  • J. David Erikson, "Mortality of Selected Cities with Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated Water Supplies," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 298, pp. 1112-1116 (1978)
  • "The Village Where People Are Old Before Their Time," Stern Magazine, Vol. 30, pp. 107-108, 111-112 (1978)
  • Yngve Ericsson and Britta Forsman, "Fluoride Retained From Mouth Rinses and Dentifrices In Preschool Children," Caries Research, Vol. 3, pp. 290-299 (1969)
  • W. L. Augenstein, et al., "Fluoride Ingestion In Children: A Review Of 87 Cases," Pediatrics, Vol. 88, pp. 907-912, (1991)
  • Charles Wax, "Field Investigation Report," State of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, March 19, 1980, 67 pages
  • George Waldbott, "Mass Intoxication from Over-Fluoridation in Drinking Water," Clinical Toxicology, Vol. 18, No.5, pp. 531-541 (1981)

Lakinekaki 05:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falsely substantiated assertion

The following paragraph copied from the article references footnote 61.

Some other theories rest on the dental community as a whole. Some believe that a secret, Masonic society of dentists with 26,000 members around the world influence fluoridation policy for their own goals.[1]

The linked website in that footnote does indeed discuss fluoridation and a secret society of dentists-- but there is nothing to suggest that the maintainers of the website believe that the secret dental society is interested in fluoridation issues. So the assertion of the paragraph is unjustified. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I will delete the paragraph in a few days. Neoprote 10:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Neoprote 11:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 cents

fluorITE is a rock composed of calcium and our little friend fluoride. when fluoride is in our water, it stands to reason it could bond with the calcium in our teeth. however, by drinking it, it bonds all over the place, causing joint damage and arthritis. i'll get some references from my mom, but in a fit gotta-do-Something she mailed all her clippings to one of our (IL) senators. fluorite, btw, is our state mineral. (we're doomed sluggo!!) Idrankthepaint 22:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight for organizations that allegedly support fluoridation

In some parts, this article seems to be greatly biased towards the pro-fluoridation POV. For example, there is a section on organizations that support fluoridation but none that oppose it. One particular editor has frequently used "undue weight" to remove anti-fluoridation data and citations. --Fahrenheit451 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the status of the organizations that not only accept fluoridation, but promote it (WHO, etc.), it would only be undue weight to "balance" the pro-fluoridation groups with a list of anti-fluoridation groups. The NPOV policy explicitly does not require balance, which is what you are espousing. Rather, appropriate weight is to be given to views. On water fluoridation, again, the status of organizations supporting fluoridation is heavily weighted toward a pro-fluoridation view, considering the status, weight, and influence of the relevant organizations. For example, the World Health Organization in addition to multiple large and notable medical organizations are listed. These organizations are respected internationally (perhaps not by all, but that's not the point) and have significant reputations in their respective fields, not just on the issue of fluoridation. On the other hand, the most notable anti-fluoridation groups tend to be single issue or nearly single issue groups with influence and reputations that, to be frank, do not come anywhere close to those of the pro-fluoridation organizations (the very idea of a "pro-fluoridation organization" is honestly a misnomer, since they generally aren't advocacy groups). Thus, there are numerous medical organizations on one side and mostly advocacy groups on the other with a few governments in the mix (some of which merely switched to other means of delivering fluoride and are not anti-fluoridation generally). In that case, undue weight compels that the small minority view be given appropriate weight, not equal weight, and likewise to the majority view. · jersyko talk 02:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Jersyko, your explanation comes across as sophistry, as you are stating your opinion as if it were fact. I have seen a number of your explanations to other editors using this same devise. Please explain what this "delivering fluoride" stuff is about. This seems highly POV.--Fahrenheit451 02:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Salt#Fluorinated salt. · jersyko talk 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
All right. So fluoridated salt is available to those who voluntarily wish to use it. That is human rights compliant: Nobody is forced to drink it or be bathed in it.--Fahrenheit451 21:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
To avoid the charge of sophistry, I'll boil down my points above: (1) NPOV explicitly does not require "balance", but that appropriate weight be given to differing views, (2) the status of the major, notable medical organizations that accept or promote fluoridated water is much more substantial than the status of most of the organizations and interest groups that oppose fluoridation, (3) thus, at least regarding listing organizations that support / oppose fluoridation, clearly NPOV (per undue weight) requires that the subsection be weighted in favor of notable medical organizations, nearly all of which happen to support or accept water fluoridation. · jersyko talk 04:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Your reply is still specious in that an opinion in support of is NOT the same thing as advocacy for, which is not the same thing as, "We conducted a controlled clinical study that was peer-reviewed and found that...". YOUR notion of undue weight seems POV and conveniently arbitrary to me. --Fahrenheit451 21:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Jersyko, another faulty point you made: "pro-fluoridation organization" is NOT a misnomer (honestly or dishonestly). Look up pro- in the dictionary. It means supportive of. It has nothing to to with advocacy.--Fahrenheit451 02:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If I accept the science of gravity, it does not necessarily mean that I should be described as "pro-gravity". No, I am not comparing the science of gravity to the science of fluoridation. · jersyko talk 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Appears to me like you attempting to dodge answering my questions to you by subtly changing the subject.--Fahrenheit451 21:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The article already discusses groups of people opposing water flouridation and lists countries that do not engage in water fluoridation, even though they may use fluoridation in salt and/or other avenues. - Dozenist talk 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Other avenues? Such as what?--Fahrenheit451 02:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Fluoridation through water, salt, milk, toothpaste, mouthwash, or a concentrated topical form. - Dozenist talk 02:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dozenist, you fail to differentiate between topical application, examples of which are toothpaste, mouthwash, and gels. And systemic vehicles which are water and salt. Who fluoridates milk? My discussion was with Jersyko and my questions were addressed to him where he stated that cetain governments were "delivering fluoride". So, I shall presume that the two vehicles for government instigated "fluoride delivery" are drinking water and salt. Those involve systemic ingestion.--Fahrenheit451 03:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If the topic was unclear to you, then yes you can distinguish topical and systemic fluoridation. Topically applied fluorides (varnishes, gels, mouthwashes) and fluoridated toothpaste are the "topical category". The systemic category is water, salt, and milk (Please see page 16 in The World Oral Health Report 2003 released by the World Health Organization (as referenced in the article) to note that there is milk fluoridation), but keep in mind that water fluoridation (as I would suspect milk as well) has both a systemic and topical effect. Either way, these mechanisms have all been shown to be effective in reducing tooth decay. - Dozenist talk 11:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You stated "effective in reducing tooth decay". Has it been shown safe as a fluoridation agent in drinking water as shown in a controlled clinical trial by toxicologists?--Fahrenheit451 21:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding what this has to do with the subject of this subsection "Undue weight for organizations that allegedly support fluoridation." Water fluoridation is effective and safe in reducing tooth decay as explained by the World Health Organization, American Dental Association, British Dental Association, British Medical Association, Canadian Dental Association, European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, etc. If you have a problem with their assertions, then take it up with them away from Wikipedia. These are reputable medical sources. Countering these reliable sources which constitute the majority of scientific thought is not the purpose of this encyclopedic article. - Dozenist talk 23:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are still mentioning organizations with stated opinions rather than controlled, clinical trials that are peer-reviewed. Opinions are NOT scientific unless based on scientific method. Clearly, a dentist are utter an offhand personal opinion or a party line, but recounting proper scientific research is an entirely different body of data. I am surprised that you don't know the difference. I also do not appreciate your attempts to sweep this content dispute under the rug by telling me in so many words to buzz off somewhere else.--Fahrenheit451 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to sit here and argue with you, as what I have stated is based on proper science and is accepted by well-respected and recognized authorities on medical science. And I still have no idea what this has to do with the title of this subsection which you titled, "Undue weight for organizations that allegedly support fluoridation." Again, if you have a suggestion for the article following Wikipedia guidelines, then you are more than welcomed to post your thoughts. On the other hand, if you want to counter these respected and reliable medical/scientific organizations on what is "the truth" of fluoridation, then I suggest employing your original research elsewhere. - Dozenist talk 01:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Dozenist, those "authorities" you allude to have no more weight than if the NFL or NHL were to utter such opinions. You are falsely accusing me of original research so I advise to knock off your personal attacks. WP:NPA.--Fahrenheit451 01:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
If my response was construed as a "personal attack", then I certainly take back whatever statements you believe is offensive. Nonetheless, I still see no way of improving the article as you have put forth in this discussion and cannot respond further, especially if you believe WHO, ADA, IADR, etc is as much an authority on the topic as the NFL. - Dozenist talk 01:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Dozenist, I have stated that a scientific opinion is an opinion based on science. On the other hand, a spokesman for a medical organization can offer an opinion on anything, even though it has no scientific basis. Do you see the difference?--Fahrenheit451 02:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is all too much. The flitting from topic to topic without any focus is impossible to follow. The topic I was addressing was the list of organizations and how it does not violate WP:UNDUE. I am still at a loss as to what the counterargument is on the specific issue of the list. It seems now that we've moved to the meaning of "pro-", other delivery methods for fluoride, topical vs. systemic, studies proving safety, and tooth decay. If the conversation becomes more focused, I'll be back. Otherwise, I don't see how it can be constructive. Cheers. · jersyko talk 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors

  • Oh my, this page is a mess. No, it is not neutral to have a section entitled "medical approval" (I'm assuming this is the section that this RFC is about) but it is also not neutral to have section entitled "reliance on experts." Honestly, I think it's the actual existence of this article that is the problem. My suggestion is to put all the pretty pictures and sources into fluoridation and to simply turn this article into a redirect. The history would be preserved, but not the tortured he-said-she-said "organization" of this article. The existance of this article is unacceptable content forking, and, in fact, fluoridation needs to be written in a much more neutral way. Enuja 00:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Because no-one has replied to my comment, and this RfC is fairly old, I'm going to assume that its time is over and I'm removing the template on top, which will remove it from the RfC list. Enuja 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fahrenheit451 is concerned about being tag-teamed by User:Jersyko and User:Dozenist

The previous discussion thread looks to me that I am being tag-teamed by these two users who have a definite POV on the topic of drinking water fluoridation. I started a discussion with Jersyko, Dozenist then joined the discussion with his own angle. They both conveniently tag-teamed my replies. Is this an attempt to drive me off the article? --Fahrenheit451 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Geez, assume good faith, please. In any event, don't worry, you and Dozenist can finish your conversation about whatever it is you're talking about above that isn't the list of organizations. As I said, I'm out of there. · jersyko talk 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Jersyko, I practice WP:AGF, however your tag-teaming tactic puts your actions up to question. You conveniently state you are leaving the discussion after I get tag-teamed. --Fahrenheit451 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you have me leave the discussion before you got "tag teamed"? Perhaps remain in the discussion to continue "tag teaming"? I don't really understand what you would have me do, or why it is inappropriate in any way for two users to disagree with a single user on a talk page. In any event, the fact that Dozenist and I are monitoring this talk page shouldn't surprise you, given the amount of work that he and I (he more than I) put in to write it, both here and in his sandbox. · jersyko talk 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Jersyko, FYI, you and Dozenist do not own this article. Tag-teaming another editor who disagrees with your POV is not welcoming, nor is it WP:CIVIL. --Fahrenheit451 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
No, we don't own the article. I mentioned the fact that we wrote it simply to deflect the confusing "tag team" criticism by pointing out that we both have a perfectly good reason to pay attention to this article and respond at talk (other than to "tag team" someone we allegedly don't want to edit the article). The accusation that two users civilly disagreeing with one user on an article talk page violates WP:CIVIL is completely wrong, however. I have not been uncivil, and neither has Dozenist. I invite you to take a look at the emphasis put on collaborative decision making and discussion that is contained at WP:CONSENSUS. · jersyko talk 01:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has nothing to do with tag-teaming and I would appreciate that you stop attempting to change the subject of this thread.--Fahrenheit451 01:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on what tag teaming is or why it's prohibited. You initiated a discussion, I proceeded with an argument in opposition, Dozenist chimed in as well . . . that just sounds like the consensus building process to me. Neither of us agree with you, yet our expression of our disagreement is called "tag teaming", which you believe is inappropriate somehow. Therefore, I'm not sure how you expect us to respond to either this thread or the one above it. Anyway, I'll leave it alone for tonight. · jersyko talk 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to follow the conversation and got lossed. The two of them together never seemed to contradict your points, they were both saying that you were wrong, but I will read the article to see what this is about. 10max01 01:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with fahrenheit on the fact it seems a little POV - the word although is what really gets me, not the list. a list could be added for negative as well, if somebody has that list, but the although part seems POV. 10max01 01:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I wandered across this page by accident, and I believe that the two users in question may not have been making personal attacks, nor have they necessarily been incivil, but I do believe that they are mincing the issue and defaulting to the "standard" POV because it's the one they share (unintentionally, I assume). The user who called into question the POV of the article was not asking to make his/her own factual claims, or to introduce inappropriate "balancing" into the article, but was questioning the fact that there may be another POV that needs to be expounded on this page, a POV that has its own reliable sourcing (either as the opinion of a notable organization or as an academic/scientific conclusion) and that is not original research. The two users jumped to the conclusion that this third user wished to introduce original research into the article because I think they assume that there is no research to contradict the material that's already there (either because they are defaulting to their "standard" POV, or because this user didn't produce any off-hand). A user is allowed to question the POV of an article without providing sources to prove that an alternate POV is missing. I think they overreacted, and that tensions rose to the point of being highly nonconstructive and uncooperative. --Cheeser1 23:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not take issue with much of your statement, though I'm fairly certain that I disagree with it. I will, however, disagree that my reaction was an overreaction. I provided a detailed explanation as to why I believed the user was incorrect, and in response, I got a short statement accusing me of "sophistry" and later of "tag teaming" (which I still do not understand completely). I invite other users to examine the responses above to determine whether Cheeser1's assessment that Dozenist and I were truly the ones that "overreacted" in this situation. · jersyko talk 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I should be clear - by overreaction, I mean that the character of your reaction was far too demanding. The user asked why there is no mention of groups that have opinions against fluoridation, and why citations of the "anti-fluoridation" studies are removed - WP:UNDUE aside, it is obviously not a "tiny minority" (hence the existence of this article). Reliable scientific sources are reliable scientific sources. Demanding that the user somehow pipe down and obey WP:UNDUE doesn't make sense, in terms of policy, and seems like an overreaction. Yes, I realize that was not (I assume) your intent, nor would some interpret your actions in that fashion, but you both just threw WP:UNDUE at him/her over and over until she/he felt "tag-teamed." I know you can't please everybody, but it seems like you both came on really strong, and could easily be (mis)construed as "tag-teaming" or overreaction. --Cheeser1 00:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think I "demanded" that the user "pipe down". Please let me know if I said something that you believe was over the line. As I made clear in this post, I intended *only* to address the list of organizations, which was the sole specific concern raised by the user in the first post. I explained my disagreement with exactly what the user stated, i.e. that "there is a section on organizations that support fluoridation but none that oppose it" (was I wrong to read a clear implication that the user desired to add this information to the article, thus my comments about "balance"?). I explained why I believe that there should not be such an addition to the article, addressing only organizations that support or oppose fluoridation, not the science behind supporting or opposing. Whether anyone agrees with me or not is quite another matter. That the discussion thereafter moved into other areas, such as "reliable scientific sources", as you point out, was beyond the scope of my comment and comprehension (but if the science is varied, then of course this article should discuss that). In any event, I believe my involvement in this discussion has been mischaracterized. · jersyko talk 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
And all I've tried to explain here was that your idea of "mischaracterized" is actually a misunderstanding. Like I said, I do not think you were telling anyone to "pipe down" or that you were attacking anyone, in any way. I've made it very clear that I'm making every good faith assumption I can. My point was that you are being misunderstood because you were heavy handed. Saying things like "mischaracterized" invokes an accusatory voice, at least to me, and it makes it sound like you're either way too defensive or on the attack. This isn't an impeachment hearing, I'm not misquoting you in order to ruin your life, I am not a yellow journalist - all I'm trying to do is explain that even if it wasn't your intent, you made somebody feel ganged up on, and in my eyes, you were a bit too heavy handed (as the consequences might indicate). I didn't say you were ganging up on him, or assume any bad faith - I have no idea how I could be mischaracterizing you to the point you now feel the need to defend yourself and assert that I am apparently spinning things to make you sound worse than you are. Nowhere did I say you were wrong or bad or out of line - I'm just trying to explain that the way you think you're acting or intend to act may not always be the way you come across - especially when you're just throwing a policy at somebody whose concerns are broader and more valid than you seem (notice: seem) to give him/her credit for. Don't act like I'm here to put the blame on you, or on someone else - it's everybody's fault, and nobody's, because it's just a misunderstanding that got out of hand. --Cheeser1 04:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EPA Union Opposition

The Union of EPA employees has come out with a statement about concerns with water fluoridation. There's a good deal of scientific citations included. I'm not that nice with the wiki editing, but I feel this should be in the article somewhere. http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouridestatement.htm Lotustrail 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 31c per year

I removed the sentence "Opponents of water fluoridation point out that direct application of fluoride, as in toothpaste, is more cost effective given so much water is used for things unrelated to drinking such as laundry, bathing, and gardening" because it appears to be clutching at straws and raising an objection using a very insignificant issue to make a point. Above it is stated that fluoridation costs 31 US cents per person per year, which is surely such a tiny amount compared with the cost of the water itself that it is not significant. Besides, the facts should speak for themselves. The reader should be able to make up his or her own mind based on the facts of the cost. Booshank 15:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV warnings

Is it really necessary to put three NPOV warnings in the article (two neutrality, one weasel words)? I get the point already. --Arperry 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BMJ article

The British Medical Journal has published this article: doi:10.1136/bmj.39318.562951.BE. JFW | T@lk 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

File not found? --Cheeser1 17:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Being in the current issue, it looks like the doi (given above) hasn't been raised yet, so here is the straight URL to the BMJ article so that it can be viewed now: Adding fluoride to water supplies. Hope this helps. --Aspro 18:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: log-in required. --Cheeser1 18:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Executive summary, anyone? · jersyko talk 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illogical

I presume I'm technically not allowed to discuss the issue on this page, and it's supposed to be a discussion about the article. Fine.

I find this whole fluoridation thing to be illogical and idiotic to say the least. We know fluoride can cause horrible side-effects if taken inappropriately. Damaged IQ and chromosomes come to mind. All the risks of that for a small POSSIBLE gain in dental healthcare? It's already been established that unfluoridated water countries is on par with the fluoridating westernized countries.

I remembered in horror the few times I ate toothpaste as a child just because it tasted so good. I could have been destroying my genetics and IQ over a cavity?

What's worse is the "but we already bump up vitamin-whatever in milk" defence but I wont get into that. To get back on the article. What relevancy does the list of organisations have again? Maybe you should put another list that mentions organisations AND COUNTRIES that believe fluoride to be an unnecessary risk on there too. If it's purely opinion I find it pretty much as useful as this post of mine. It too is opinion.

213.141.89.53 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that there are only "three fluoridating Western countries" is incorrect. Many governments simply leave it up to localities without making a pronouncement for or against fluoridation. As a result, people in the United States, the UK, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Brazil, Chile, and South Africa, among other countries, receive fluoridated water. In other countries, notably in Europe, people may not have fluoridated water but they still have fluoride added to their foodstuffs. For example, France fluoridates salt. Say what you will about whether fluoridation should be occurring, but the facts are bit different from what you have presented on this talk page. In any event, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Thanks. · jersyko talk 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah as I already pointed out in my edit, I had removed that part already, but you already knew that, wich is exactly why you posted it lined out anyway. It wasn't even an important part, in fact it was irrelevant to my point. That's why I removed it, oh I dont know, 60 seconds after I wrote it on my own accord.

And alot of Europe doesn't add fluoride at all. Scandinavia comes to mind. In fact, most european countries doesn't fluoridate water and only some fluoridate salt and then not all salt in that country is fluoridated.

And yes, I know I broke the rules, that's why I pointed it out in the first sentence I wrote. Also, the only fact I stated was that fluor can be extremely hazardous and that unfluoridating countries, like mine, who doesn't fluoridate anything AT ALL besides toothpaste, still have on par dental healthcare.

[edit] Added precise information on what fluorosilicic acid is, including opposition by EPA employee union/government dental researchers

Much of the controversy about water fluoridation is not just about adding fluoride to water, but from where this "fluoride" is derived. If there's no information on what fluorosilicic acid actually contains, including which government scientists and researchers oppose it and why, then there's not much use in having a fluoridation controversy article, unless this page was simply created as a gatekeeper that's meant to obfuscate the truth. It's kind of like saying "fluoridation opponent's primary health concern is fluorosis."

Also, why is "History of water fluoridation" on a page devoted to fluoridation controversy, especially since it already appears on the main water fluoridation page? It's repetitive and completely irrelevent to the topic. I noticed in the talk section that this was deleted a year ago. Can anyone give me a good reason why it should be duplicated here?

2nd edit -- In an attempt to better organize my information and keep the introduction uncluttered, I decided to add a sub-category for "Fluorosilicic acid." In the interest of NPOV, I also added a line that separates the beliefs of the individual scientists/researchers from official government policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 822wiki (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, what does "This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry" mean?

Thanks,

822wiki 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Me again

As a new Wikipedia member, I'd like to apologize in advance to any of the editors or regulars whose work I've infringed upon. I've spent a lot of time trying to improve it without adding to what seems to be a long-running controversy. But this topic captured my interest and two things bothered me. First, that the neutrality of this article is disputed -- which I agree with, but it's a disservice to Wikipedia for it to stay that way semi-permanently. I'd like to do what I can to bring some much-needed balance and have the tag removed. Secondly, two sentences in the intro were false. If the facts aren't correct at the beginning of what's supposedly a reference article, then I wouldn't have much hope for the rest.

1) Water fluoridation controversy refers to debate surrounding the addition of fluoride to public water supplies. Calcium fluoride is a naturally-occurring mineral found in all water sources, such as lakes, rivers, groundwater and oceans.

Absolutely incorrect. Fluoride/calcium fluoride is in no way a naturally-occurring mineral found in ALL water sources. Calcium fluoride (fluorite) is insoluble in water, at least according to Wikipedia:

"Most people do not know that plain "fluoride" does not exist in our water. The naturally occurring form of fluoride, calcium fluoride, is not toxic - but this form is not used to fluoridate water."

http://www.drlam.com/A3R_brief_in_doc_format/2002-No5-Water.cfm

"Sodium fluoride readily dissolves in water, but calcium fluoride does not."

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs11.html

"Portland does not add fluoride to the water. No fluoride is detected in Bull Run [watershed] water, but it is a naturally-occurring trace element in groundwater."

"Selenium, fluoride and boron occur naturally in some groundwater and may be potential health concerns in one form or another."

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-2541.html

"Calcium fluoride (CaF2) occurs naturally in the ground water in certain areas of the world. When water is artificially fluoridated, sodium fluoride (NaF), sodium silicofluoride or hydrofluosilic acid is added." (I went with this one because it sounded the most accurate and neutral.)

2) "Water fluoridation is practiced in approximately 60 countries, with over 360,000,000 (three hundred sixty million) people (about 5 percent of the world population) receiving fluoridated water."[2]

60 countries? Are you sure? I know that's what this small Utah water district claims, but they make a couple other dubious claims. There's a list of countries both on their site and here. Neither list exceeds 10-15 countries. I've read elsewhere that's it actually less than 10, but I could be wrong. If anyone can locate a detailed accounting that's anywhere near 60 countries, I'll personally restore it with my apologies.

For the sake of brevity and assuming that most are familiar with the controversy, I left out a couple of sentences explaining exactly what fluoridation is, including the mention of "tens of millions" who are in danger of being poisoned by "naturally-occuring" high levels of fluoride every year. I can't figure out if "naturally-occuring" means all the fluorite rock in India suddenly became soluble or Union Carbide set up shop down the block.

I'll assume good faith, but I'm a little disappointed to find two glaring errors right off the top that favor the party line in a neutrality-disputed article that's been around for a while and was specifically created to keep the ruffians and proles from mucking up the main page with their conspiratorial rantings. (-; I haven't carefully examined the rest of this article, but I noticed some declarations from CDC, WHO, NCI, et al denying there's any evidence backing up claims of medical harm. Well, allow me to introduce myself. I'm a relatively young guy who's got two artificial hips after my joint cartilage mysteriously disintegrated and a top orthopaedic surgeon couldn't explain why or precisely diagnose my condition -- so me and my 7000 angry buds at the EPA along with my 1 in 3 fellow Americans who now have some form of skele... I mean "arthritis" would respectfully disagree. I don't think the letter agencies want to see the volumes of scientific literature that's backing our suspicions.

If that's not enough, I'll introduce you to some Australian frogs I read about today who were also diagnosed as having "arthritis", complete with strange bony growths on their spines. They're called "osteophytes." Just like what the surgeon removed from my hip. They're formed when fluoride displaces calcium and the calcium ions remineralize, for all you systemic fluoride tooth enamel fans out there.

822wiki 21:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who is generally a skeptic (in this case, skeptical of the potential for harm), I appreciate your effort, 822wiki. I would say that the article is beginning to resemble something I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. So far, it looks like you're doing a pretty good job of shifting the article to one that presents information instead of making a case. Being fairly new to Wikipedia (mostly good samaritan edits before creating my account today), I'm not so certain of the list of "point/counterpoint" items (and especially the number of point/counterpoints), but perhaps that's the best way to present contested information. Oh, and best wishes with your personal issues. Sounds rough. Rabagley 03:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Thank you, Rabagley. I appreciate your support, especially from someone who's skeptical about the potential harm from fluoride. I also agree with your thoughts about the excessive number of point/counterpoints in this article. From what I can gather about the history of the Wikipedia "water fluoridation"/"fluoridation controversy" articles, it appears that any controversial information about fluoride was forked to to a fluoridation controversy article that was also written and continuously edited by editors who wrote the original pro-water fluoridation article. So even though it seems no balance is allowed in the original article -- for example, pointing out in the "History" section that fluoridation was the brainchild of Drs. H. Trendley Dean and Gerald J. Cox, who worked for Andrew W. Mellon, head of the USPHS and founder of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) -- every statement here requires balance, even though it has nothing to do with an article about "fluoridation controversy". If the authors of the original article assert that any and all controversy be contained in a separate article, then they should allow all factual, impartial information to remain without being edited out or constantly qualified with "despite the concerns or objections raised by X, Y or Z, government organizations such as CDC and WHO say water fluoridation is a safe and effective means of reducing tooth decay."

And speaking of government "public health" organizations, aren't these the same guys who claimed nuclear tests were safe to watch, Agent Orange didn't cause health problems, aspartame (Nutrasweet) is safe, Gulf War Syndrome is all psychological and the air in NYC after 9/11 was safe to breathe? And just because a government organization makes a particular claim doesn't necessarily mean their employees agree, as the EPA and it's 7000 unionized employees aptly demonstrates. Numerous government scientists in the Bush administration have accused them of suppressing, editing and censoring their research. Many biological researchers have even died in mysterious accidents. I doubt previous administrations were much different, especially when it comes to something like water fluoridation.

I'm also curious why this article doesn't show up in a Google search, even though the original "water fluoridation" article appears at the top. For these reasons, I'm calling for additional outside comment (WP:RFC) on what would be required to remove the "neutrality disputed" tag (and the new "clean-up" tag that just appeared), preferably from those who aren't affiliated with the WikiProject Dentistry group that's had what I believe to be an undue influence on this entire topic, which is contrary to Wikipedia WP:NPOV guidelines, based on commercial and trade group interests.

822wiki 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree that this article seems slanted. It begins with a section titled "role in oral health". I'm going to be working on it too; unfortunately my laptop is broken at the moment. I think we need some drastic reorganization, beginning with a History or Overview section, then move on to a thorough review of the scientific literature. The emphasis on health organizations without detailing studies is weak, and the argument bears a resemblance to the "appeal to authority" fallacy. OptimistBen (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc

Fixed RFCxxx template, set section param in template to match section heading of discussion page article where template is included. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Is it fair to have a "water fluoridation" article where contrary information and balance is not permitted, but a "water fluoridation controversy" article where it's required? What sections should be added, eliminated or modified to remove the WP:NPOV and other tags in this article? (this article was tagged NPOV before additional information in the first three paragraphs was added, based on suggestions in the talk section.)

822wiki 00:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EPA Union of Scientists and the STUDIES need more prominence

Wow why has this section been sent to the bottom of the page? "Opponents" are not just wackos, they are scientists who have done research on water fluoridation. The fact is that many Western countries do not use fluoridation, likely because of health concerns. The US and WHO stance on fluoridation is not the only stance, nor is it necessarily the right one.

I am new to this issue, however, I was impressed to such a degree by the paper by the EPA Union of Scientists linked to in this article on november 3, 2007, that I have decided to stop using fluoride even in toothpaste, and to start buying bottled water. The argument is that fluoride is not very effective when drunk. It is effective when used topically. Thus toothpaste is the best method of delivery. In addition, fluoride is associated with health problems, so why bother fluoridating water? However, even in toothpaste, fluoride may be associated with health problems.

I really think this reference needs to be given much more prominence.

This article can not give the impression that concerns over fluoridation are unreasonable. Have you guys read this Union of Scientists paper and the associated studies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.113.53 (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

First, the EPA union subsection has not been moved to the bottom of the article, but rather to the middle as part of a subsection about the stances of medical and scientific organizations on fluoridation. If you have an argument regarding why it should not be part of such a subsection, I'm all ears.
Second, it was previously the first subsection in this article. This article is about the controversy, thus it would be much more helpful to provide more general information first, wouldn't you say? For example, information about the general argument surrounding fluoridation (compulsory medication, health effects) or information about what countries implement fluoridation should probably be first. Otherwise, if the article just launches straight into "EPA union opposes fluoridation", the reader is left confused by the lack of context.
Third, the EPA union subsection is entirely too much at the moment. I have not edited it down, but it needs to be cut down considerably. This is a union that opposes fluoridation, not a major health organization or the EPA itself. Sure, it's important enough to include in this article, given that the union happens to be a union that includes some EPA scientists. However, the coverage here is entirely too much when compared to the coverage of the positions of more prominent medical or scientific organizations. For example, there is no comparable subsection discussing in detail the position of the WHO. From WP:UNDUE: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." Currently, the views of medical/scientific organizations are not presented as such, indicating the the EPA union information should be cut back a bit or that the subsection should be expanded greatly to include much more from the other relevant organizations. · jersyko talk 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Good points. However I was very impressed by this letter, and want it to be given prominence. I don't know if I would have found it if it had not been in the opening header (at the time). "Opponents" in first section, needs to be contrasted with "several major". Perhaps a stronger wording is necessary.
In addition, there must be a section with the current research (including, perhaps the studies mentioned by the EPA union of scientists, as well as the other UK study that is up there. They should be given their own section. This is the heart of the matter -- what does science say about fluoride in water and in general?
By the way, the EPA Union of Scientists is "comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.". That would seem to be pretty significant. It is not "a union", but is more like, the entire headquarters of the EPA.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.113.53 (talk • contribs)
I understand that you are impressed with this letter and want to give it more prominence. However, the article must comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines for content. It already does not comply, and giving it more prominence would exacerbate this problem. Also, I'm not sure about including the EPA union letter in a "research" subsection. From what I see, this isn't research, but rather a position taken by a union on an issue that has been researched by others. I agree with your statement regarding the makeup of the EPA union. However, it's still not "the EPA". It's the EPA's union. Again, I agree that the position of the EPA union deserves coverage in this article, I'm not arguing with that. However, the coverage must be proportional, presented neutrally, and well-documented in reliable sources. Currently, it fails the first of those tests, and possibly the second (I haven't checked it closely enough yet). · jersyko talk 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko, your POV is flashing through again. The material under discussion can comply with all the criteria with proper editing. Your panic button seems to be to scream WP:UNDUE when some information is presented that disrupts your POV world view on drinking water fluoridation.--Fahrenheit451 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it can be fixed with editing. I agree completely. I said so above. Where's the good faith? Also, where's the counterargument to what I've said above? · jersyko talk 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endless POV Editing, Re-writing and Burying Information Needs to STOP!

Not to single anyone out or appear to lack good faith, but it needs to be said: jersyko has been engaging in an obvious POV campaign since the beginning of this article and throughout the entire discussion. Check it out for yourself. His excuses for constantly removing, re-writing, editing, watering down and burying information are unilateral, spurious, transparent and irrevocable. It's gotten to the point where he simply declares "the article does not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines" without any justification or citation.

A community-wide request for comment was made for this topic and none was received. The only thing that happened was jersyko returned and made major POV edits without comment, even though he wouldn't allow any balance in the "Water Fluoridation" article. Any opposing information had to go here. Now he's attempting to re-write and bury the pertinent information in this article.

This has really gone too far. If it continues, some kind of formal complaint needs to be made.

Libertyinfo 17:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You could make a formal complaint against me if you like. That could be done at WP:ANI. You could also continue to throw out blanket accusations regarding me and my POV. Instead, however, I suggest you respond to the specific points that I raise in the preceding subsection, with reference to applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. · jersyko talk 18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
For what its worth, continuing to revert like this when there's an ongoing discussion on a talk page is not only not going to help your argument, it's edit warring. Discuss, don't revert, please. As a sign of good faith, I'm not going to touch it for at least 24 hours to foster discussion, though I have seen no convincing response to my reasoning above about the placement of the subsection. · jersyko talk 18:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
May I point out that you were the first one who made significant recent edits to this article without any discussion, even when community-wide opinion was formally requested? Regarding your assertion that "This article is about the controversy, thus it would be much more helpful to provide more general information first, wouldn't you say?" No, I would not. That general information has been more than adequately covered in the original "Water fluoridation" article, where no contradictory information is even allowed. As the title of this article suggests, "Water fluoridation controversy" should be about exactly that -- controversy. Not a rehash of the 1930s Andrew Mellon/ALCOA/USPHS pro-fluoridation "research" or constantly mentioning the ADA/WHO cheerleaders (I wonder what their employees think?) As for your assertion that "This is a union that opposes fluoridation, not a major health organization or the EPA itself", that is also fallacious. It is not just "a union", it is ALL 11 UNIONS representing more than 7000 EPA employees, including the government scientists and researchers who are directly involved in the research and testing of fluoride and who have been UNANIMOUSLY opposed to it for over a DECADE -- all without having anything to gain except a genuine concern for public health. Your suggestion that "the EPA itself" is nothing more than a temporary political appointee who makes official public health statements and policy before getting a lucrative position in the private sector that they formerly regulated, is patently absurd. It's too bad nobody asked EPA employees what they thought when "the EPA itself" former chief Christine Whitman assured New Yorkers that the air was completely safe after 9/11.
As someone who has single-handedly fought tooth and nail to edit, suppress, revise and water down this article from the very beginning, isn't it finally time to acknowledge your role as a gatekeeper for powerful pro-fluoridation forces? Can there be any other reason for such vehement and long-standing opposition? Perhaps you have a soft spot in your heart for a substance that's more toxic than lead and slightly less than arsenic? For someone who's so quick to cite any and every Wikipedia policy to further what seems to be an obvious bias, this is surely the most egregious and cynical manipulation of what Wikipedia supposedly represents. Libertyinfo 00:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have nearly 14,000 edits over the course of nearly three years of editing on Wikipedia. The percentage of my edits that involve this article is not particularly high compared to a few others. You can verify that here, not that I have anything to prove. If you continue to fail to assume good faith, as required by Wikipedia policy, I will report this behavior.
You act as if I've eliminated the EPA union subsection from the article in my editing. Absolutely not, as I clearly explain in the above subsection. Your view is that the EPA union opposition should be the most prominently placed, first subsection in the article and that it should take up more of the article than the views of major world health organizations. I disagree, believing that it should be moved to a subsection about the views of health and science organizations in the middle of the article and pared down (though, and let me be very clear about this, I have not even attempted to cut down of the subsection's size yet).
Finally, you have not cited a single Wikipedia policy or guideline in support of your arguments or in response to mine. In fact, I posit that no such policy or guideline to support your position exists. Again, I'm inviting you to provide a citation to prove me wrong. · jersyko talk 01:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was certainly a quick response. So you want examples of Wikipedia policies? No problem. Let's start with the primary issue that Wikipedia was founded on: "The Wikimedia projects as a community have certain foundation issues that are essentially considered to be beyond debate. People who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project. These issues include 1) Neutral point of view as the guiding editorial principle..."

How about this one? "WP:CON Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected..."

How about this? "WP:POVPUSH POV pushing refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent, and undermine Wikipedia's neutrality policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) by creating and editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view."

Then there's this: "m:MPOV, short for Megalomaniacal point of view, is a variation on Neutral point of view. It should not be confused with My Point of View, which is usually just abbreviated as POV.

MPOV is characterized not by a belief that your own personal viewpoints are correct and thus must be represented in Wikipedia — although those who hold a MPOV very often also believe this — but rather by the belief that your own personal viewpoints are neutral. This leads to the associated belief that you are a special expert on the topic, and have particular authority to dictate how the article should read..."

Need I go on? From the very beginning of this article -- as Fahrenheit 451 pointed out and as anyone can plainly see by scrolling to the top of the discussion -- that single, predominant point of view that lacks an NPOV, without the slightest bit of consensus but dominated by an obvious POV and m:POV, has been yours and yours alone, in stark contrast to and opposition from a multitude of contributors -- which is not unlike the head of the EPA and their employees.

If opposition by all 11 unions representing over 7000 EPA employees to your "mass medication" (one of the many changes you made without discussion) isn't one of, if not the most significant and salient point in an article about the controversy over water fluoridation, then I don't know what is.

P.S. "I have nearly 14,000 edits over the course of nearly three years of editing on Wikipedia. The percentage of my edits that involve this article is not particularly high compared to a few others."

User: Jersyko average edits per page: 3.73 Libertyinfo 02:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How do any of those policies support the following two points: (1) the EPA union subsection should be the first subsection in this article and (2) the EPA union subsection should be longer, more detailed, and be given more weight than any subsection of this article discussing the views of other major health or science organizations, such as the World Health Organization? · jersyko talk 02:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
1) Asked and answered several times. As the agency charged with U.S. environmental and health policy, when all 7000 of their employees -- including the scientists and researchers who do the actual research that justifies those policies -- decide to go public with an appeal to end a practice that they know from their research is highly detrimental to human health, that's extremely significant. It should NOT be buried at the bottom with less significant information and other "government policy."
2) Again, this page is about fluoridation controversy, not endorsements OR the "Role in oral health" paragraph that you snuck in, even when it had nothing to do with the controversy and should have been added to the "Effectiveness" paragraph that already existed. I'd have no problem adding the WHO policy as long as you don't mind adding the EPA employees' appeal every time the ADA or WHO endorsements are mentioned on the "Water fluoridation" page. Libertyinfo 03:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't have anything to do with the original writing of the "oral health" sentence. Check the article history if you like. And again, the union of EPA employees doesn't make official EPA policy. That's beside the point, of course, since I completely agree that the position of that union should be mentioned in this article. I don't really know how many times I have to say that.
You continue to assert that the subsection is being "buried" in the article. Ok, would you be amenable to (1) incorporating the EPA subsection into a section about the positions of major scientific and health organizations on the subject and then (2) moving that subsection toward the top of this article?
After looking at it a bit more, I'm convinced that the article is a bit of a mess in terms of order right now as a whole. Consolidating subsections where we can is really one of the only ways that a comprehensible order can be achieved, putting aside questions of neutral point of view and undue weight. Are you in agreement on this point? · jersyko talk 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to apologize for any incivil or accusatory remarks. All I'm asking for is consistency. If any contrary or alternative information was not allowed in the original fluoridation article and instead had to be forked to a separate "controversy" article, then why are you insistent that other organizations' opinions be added here, when 1) those opinions have already been stated in the original article, which would make them redundant, 2) it has nothing to do with the subject of this article, which again, is water fluoridation "controversy", 3) those endorsements and other pro-fluoridation material has somehow worked it's way into this article, even though it's outside the intended scope, and 4) notions of "balance" or "consolidation" are being suggested in an article after it wasn't allowed in the original.
Sorry, but I must note that you're once again taking it upon yourself to propose wholesale changes without a bit of community consensus. This violates both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia WP:CON policy. If there's anything in this article that's truly inappropiate and should be edited out, it's "Role in oral health", "Reliance on experts" and "Medical and scientific organizations". None of these sections have anything to do with the topic. Libertyinfo 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary. How can you accurately describe a medical controversy over fluoride without describing its role in oral health and the opinion of major medical and scientific organizations? Turning the article into a POV fork with largely or only anti-fluoride material and no context would violate WP:NPOV, which states: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." MastCell Talk 04:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
edit conflict I'm not opposed to cutting sections from this article, or at least editing them harshly. This article needs a lot of work. However, "controversy" necessarily implies more than one opinion on a subject, no? If only one side of the controversy is presented here, that is, the anti-fluoridation position (whether from the EPA union or anyone else), then this article would be in direct conflict with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Take a look at NPOV: all significant views are to be presented in an article. UNDUE adds the qualification that the significant views presented be written in a certain proportion. Thus, including the position of one major organization (the EPA union) here but not the positions of other major organizations (WHO, ADA, etc.) directly conflicts with the concept that all significant views be presented in an article and that they be presented in appropriate proportion. The fact that this article is about the controversy surrounding water fluoridation does not indicate that it should focus solely on the views of fluoridation opponents, just as an article about the JFK assassination doesn't ignore the lone gunman theory. Finally, the other option is to delete this article and redirect it to the main article. This has been proposed in the past. If this happened, the information about the controversy would have to be cut down drastically in order for the main article to comply with WP:UNDUE, otherwise the article would be badly overwhelmed by the single subject of the controversy. · jersyko talk 04:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways. If you're such a big proponent of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, then why wasn't it allowed in the original article? Let's tell the WHOLE truth in the "History" section about who those 1930s "researchers" worked for and who headed the USPHS. Let's tell the WHOLE truth about what fluoride really is and how there's not a single scientific study that backs either it's efficacy or safety, when in actuality there are numerous studies which suggest the exact opposite. Hey, I've always been in favor of hearing all significant views and getting the ENTIRE truth. But if you are too, then you have to support it EVERYWHERE, not selectively. Libertyinfo 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If this article was incorporated into the water fluoridation article, it would basically have to be gutted to avoid the controversy overwhelming the main article, thereby violating UNDUE. This article is huge, the main article is relatively short by comparison. After thinking about it for nearly a year now, I'm not necessarily opposed to gutting this article and including just two or three paragraphs about the controversy in the main article. However, I'm not proposing to do that right now, because I know consensus could not be reached on that point. Regarding your statements regarding scientific studies supporting or opposing fluoridation, I will merely state that your statement is quite wrong, given that the article already discusses both types of studies. · jersyko talk 13:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree there. Telling the "WHOLE story" is one thing, whereas it would appear User:Libertyinfo is concerned with presenting a solely anti-fluoridation viewpoint in this article. You may have Wikipedia confused for something it is not; for example, Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy of particular views. The Internet provides an abundance of such forums, but Wikipedia is instead intended to summarize the views of reliable sources in a appropriately proportionate fashion. MastCell Talk 18:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with presenting an anti-fluoridation viewpoint. Perhaps MastCell isn't aware that the "neutrality disputed" tag was added to this article precisely because any information about water fluoridation controversy continues to be aggressively deleted, re-written and obfuscated by a single individual using a variety of proportional, presented neutrally, well-documented and reliable sources excuses to justify unilateral deletions and POV edits. This discussion is about why these finally acknowledged reliable sources shouldn't be buried under a mis-mash of fluoridation minutiae, irrelevent information and point/counterpoints. Sorry you don't agree that the information in an article should be related to it's title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyinfo (talk • contribs)
Actually, I thought this discussion was about where to place the EPA union information and how much to include about it, not about whether the information should be included at all. Regarding the POV tag in this article, it's there because I added it in April, not because someone thinks my edits are making the article fail to achieve a neutral point of view. For the fourth time, I agree that the EPA union's position should be in this article. So what am I deleting, exactly? I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually interested in a constructive discussion. · jersyko talk 01:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of unilateral deletions, there were some subsections that went missing completely in this edit, no? · jersyko talk 01:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Libertyinfo and the anon in the above subsection are the same editor (and that's really the only way any of this makes sense), it appears clear to me that Libertyinfo has an extremely specific agenda regarding the EPA union information. Above, the anon states "I was very impressed by this [EPA union] letter, and want it to be given prominence," among other statements strongly indicating their desire to promote the EPA union information. This motivation has been borne out in the subsequent edits by Liberyinfo both in the article and here at talk. I gave Libertyinfo time to rebut my arguments. Instead, we're back to the beginning where Libertyinfo is assuming bad faith about me and the reason for my edits here. I offered a compromise to Libertyinfo, which was rejected. Thus, I'm left with the final impression that Libertyinfo is here to push an agenda and is not interested in following Wikipedia policy that conflicts with that agenda. Thus, I have reverted Libertyinfo's edit to this article, fully realizing that this discussion, such as it is, is ongoing. · jersyko talk 02:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formal complaint filed against jersyko alleging bias, lack of consensus and misuse of administrative powers

Hello Water fluoridation opposition. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyinfo (talk • contribs)

Good luck. · jersyko talk 14:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My thanks to Libertyinfo for bringing this to administrators' attention. I have issued a final warning that unless Libertyoinfo stops the aggressive POV pushing I will block him for disruption and violation of WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how objecting to one person unilaterally controlling the information contained in an article for 16 months can be perceived as POV pushing. Scroll to the top of this discussion and see for yourself. Notice in the current article how totally irrelevent sections on "Reliance on experts" and "Medical and scientific organizations" still remain and are now deemed more important than 7000 EPA employees who do the actual research and an online petition by more than a thousand independent scientists, medical researchers, doctors and dentists who are calling for an end to fluoridation? That says it all... Libertyinfo (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to see what a real article about water fluoridation controversy looks like before it's been edited 17 times by one person, without any discussion or consensus?

huge amount of text redacted in favor of a diff

Take a look at this article now. A "controversy" where all details have been deleted or buried and that'll probably be further edited after this controversy dies down. And I'm the one who's pushing an aggressive POV agenda? Libertyinfo (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have much to say at this point other than please learn to use edit diffs. Here's the url. · jersyko talk 05:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Liberty, you seem to have a very clear idea of what you want the article to say and how to say it, but your view disagrees with others here. To edit on Wikipedia, you need to be interested in working with others on improving articles and staying within the guidelines of Wikipedia policies. If you are not interested in that, then there are many other websites that you can contribute to. - Dozenist talk 13:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Disagreeing with other editors is not only allowed, it's encouraged here at wikipedia. Shame on you, Dozenist, you should know better by now! --AeronM (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that you and jersyko have a very clear idea of what you don't want the article to say? I'm not the one who's been aggressively eliminating information from the other editors. Water fluoridation is destined historically to be ranked with the wisdom of using mercury in dental fillings. Libertyinfo (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libertyinfo blocked

I have indefinitely blocked Libertyinfo as an unrepentant POV warrior who seems constitutionally unable to play nice. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So he's completely blocked and unable to plead his case now? From what I've seen he was not that incivil nor that disruptive. See [[14]] and notice that most of his edits were on the Talk Page. He wasn't continually reverting edits back. This looks like an abusive block, and you should keep in mind that when you do things like that, you severely hurt the reputation of Wikipedia and the willingness of people to contribute. According to the blocking policy that I read, an indefinite block should be used as a last resort. An indefinite block doesn't look necessary here. OptimistBen (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --AeronM (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual Use of Words in Safety Section

In the section 'Safety', "These persons" is a very unusual (and grammatically dubious) use of the English language. I would use a term like this to belittle my opponents - subtly suggesting that they are divided, not representative of common opinion, and small in number (almost "One or two silly boys, who shall remain unnamed"). I suggest changing this term to "Opponents". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water Fluoridation Controversy Overview

moved from my talk page. · jersyko talk

Hi Jersyko. It's apparent that you have a vested interest in making this controversy slanted towards water fluoridation, and I'm somewhat on the other side. I recently added some information which was well-cited and you took it out. You asked why I mentioned only two countries. Why is it invalid to mention two countries and not more? The two countries offer an interesting dichotomy which adds to the article. The overview section is designed to introduce the reader, not survey each country's stance. China represents one philosophy and the US, the other. Further, this is going to be a work in progress (as all Wikipedia articles are) and I'll add further information to other countries as I describe the different approaches to water fluoridation. In the Overview section the focus is not in describing countries' takes but rather philosophies or reasons behind a wariness of fluoride. China's stance offers an interesting perspective on why fluoride could be harmful, and the US position offers a perspective on what is considered reasonable by the other side. Feel free to add more to the Overview section to flesh it out.

I'm going to request that you add back what you took out unless you can come up with a better reason for it to be taken out. Skeletal fluoris is one of the major concerns associated with water fluoridation and so its mention is relevant.

I noticed your edit claiming that "few" is relative and POV. Unfortunately, the claim that water fluoridation is "prevalant in other industrialized countries" is uncited and misleading. Considering the POV nature of "prevalent" and even "industrialized countries", it may be best if we simply list which countries fluoridate most of their water. Then we avoid the POV nature of "prevalance". The list actually seems to be fairly small. It seems that many countries don't want to spend the money -- developing nations, from what I'm seeing, are largely unrepresented in the main article. According to the main article, that means we can add New Zealand and Chile. The UK only fluoridates 10%. So, I may do that edit, adding New Zealand and Chile. Let me know if I'm missing a country. I don't think we can broadly claim that "industrialized countries" fluoridate water without a citation. OptimistBen (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. You make a good point about industrialized countries and the lack of a citation. Reworded as such. Feel free to suggest any other changes to that subsection.
  2. This isn't a reliable source for what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration thinks about fluoride.
  3. The "overview" subsection continues to note that fluorosis is one of the major concerns of fluoridation opponents. I did not remove it.
  4. China has a large amount of naturally occurring fluoride in many of its water supplies in addition to atmospheric fluoride from pollution, if I'm not mistaken. Thus, setting up a contrast with the implementation of fluoridation in the U.S., without context, is a bit unfair. This is especially true if placed into the first subsection of the article. Furthermore, purposefully setting up such a contrast smacks of original research. That's not to say the status of fluoridation in China should not be discussed here (or perhaps the main article if it is not already), of course.

Just thought I'd chime in as a recent visitor over the past few months. Generally looks good, Jerseyko seems very accommodating. Yes, he does seem to be pushing an agenda, but so was one of the OP's here. This article should be linked to more related material on Wikipedia, I was frankly surprised and disappointed that it is not. Off the top of my head: "Toothpaste", "Sodium Fluoride", "Dental Fluorosis". Thanks for an informative article.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] is using an image of a suspected "meth mouth"

really appropriate for an article on water floridation? Plugwash (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks to be a photo of a small child, who I doubt is a habitual meth user. Do have reason to believe otherwise? --AeronM (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I took the photo. The patient was definitely not a small child. The teeth are clearly adult teeth. They look nothing like baby teeth. - Dozenist talk 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Jersyko. It's apparent that you have a vested interest in making this controversy slanted towards water fluoridation...

...pretty much says it all, despite being repeated over and over since the beginning of this discussion. Can someone please explain how jersyko continues to unilaterally control the content (or lack of content) of an entire Wikipedia article from Day 1, contrary to the wishes and good faith efforts of a multitude of contributors?

There's a lot of important information that really needs to be included, but it's quite apparent that jersyko will just keep making his unjustified POV edits no matter what anyone says. Could someone please cite the authority he's been given as final arbiter of this article? Such obvious bias destroys Wikipedia's credibility.

For example, why does an article about fluoridation CONTROVERSY begin by saying, "The current stance of several major medical and dental research associations is that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health", even though all 11 EPA employee unions representing over 7000 scientists and public health professionals have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people -- not to mention that more than 1000 independent doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers are calling for an end to water fluoridation -- is noted near the end of the article as an afterthought?

And what does the second paragraph, "Use throughout the world" have to do with CONTROVERSY, especially when all of it has been duplicated in the main Water Fluoridation article?

What's wrong with this picture? Does ANYONE in Wikipedia really care about neutrality and a lack of bias? Evidently not... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.29.239 (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, we care about neutrality. That's why I just semi-=protected the article again to stop the numerous biased edits by anonymous individuals apparently obsessed with promoting one side of the issue. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope to get some good refs for this soon, such as a summary study of all the peer-reviewed double-blind safety studies from the 1930s to the 1990s, as well as the huge health costs to places like Los Angeles when fluoridation was stopped. There are a number of people who honestly believe that fluoridation is toxic and is part of some sort of conspiracy. I've met some of them, and they are sincere. I don't think that such nonsense needs to be given much print space, but it needs to be debunked. Although I'm guessing, I imagine that a lot of the rhetoric about cost, personal choice, and fluorosis is really motivated by these fears. It's weird, since many of these same people take herbal supplements like St John's wort, which not only hasn't been adequately been tested for safety, despite its apparent medicinal effects, but which they can't even be sure they're taking, because there's no law or oversight to ensure that bottles of "St John's wort" actually contain St John's wort. There could be anything in them. kwami (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure debunked is the right word - documented is closer to it, with documentation to support the reception of this view in mainstream sources (especially if we can find journal articles that describe it explicitly as a conspiracy theory). Otherwise I agree: it's controversial only to a very small number of individuals. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you believe the views of an organisation (composed of people with no ulterior motive unlike companies that use fluoride) that was set up to help the public and who are a lot more knowledgeable than you, me and even the dentists(who just follow orders and will do what they are told as long as they can continue to get paid and feed their families)? Tremello22 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you believe that dentists are just as capable of independent thought as the people who run a self-published anti-fluoride website? And, assuming you're prone to conspiracism, shouldn't dentists oppose fluoridation, thereby ensuring a flow of people with bad teeth and securing themselves more income? I'm still getting the hang of these theories. MastCell Talk 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't the thoughts of a self-published website it was the EPA (enviromental protection agency) In 1997, more than 1,000 members of the union working at the Environmental Protection Agency HQ in Washington DC voted unanimously in favour of banning water fluoridation. Not all dentists are misinformed but most are. Some former advocates did a complete reverse turn on the benefits of water fluoridation.Tremello22 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The largest dental insurance company in California even ponied up $100,000 to help cities set up fluoridation. They're only out for profit, and they feel fluoridated water will save them money in claims. kwami (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of editing the article, but as someone who was given fluoride tablets as a kid, has lived in a state which has fluoridated water for the last 24 years and has almost perfect teeth, I think there's a lot of mythology banging around. Orderinchaos 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the position that we need to keep the article neutral, verifiable, and otherwise reasonable, can we not stoop to refuting complaints (which may, at times, be valid) with things like "if it were bad, insurance companies wouldn't support it" or "I drink fluoridated water and I'm fine"? None of that seems any more reasonable than what you're trying to refute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The comment "not all dentists are ill-informed, but most are" perfectly illustrates the problem with most editors on the anti-fluoridation side of this dispute. Wikipedia is not the place to fix the "fact" that "most" dentists are "ill-informed", it's the place to document the received wisdom as defined by the bulk of professional opinion, while noting that dissent exists. The article has been abused for a long time by people trying to argue the case against fluoridation. That';s not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is for documenting, not influencing. There appears to be no significant movement among dentists or public health professionals to remove fluoridation, and no likelihood of thought leaders adopting an anti position, so little likelihood of a change in policy, but even that is only of tangential relevance, as Wikipedia is not supposed to be an instrument for influencing public policy. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • To address Cheeser1's comment, you're absolutely correct. I should not have bothered to respond. In fact, the best approach is probably to follow the {{notaforum}} template at the top of the page and simply remove comments which do not address concrete changes or improvements to the article (mine included). MastCell Talk 21:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Quite right. I have no particular interest either way in how this article is written, but when someone complaints (sensibly or not) about a pro-fluoride bias, the last thing that will help is to make invalid or dismissive rebuttals. I'd say that comments that aren't constructive should simply go unaddressed. Those that express an encyclopedic concern should be discussed, but within the confines of building the encyclopedia, without alluding to which side of the controversy is "right" or "wrong" (if there is such a thing). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There will be at least an implicit endorsement of one side if we're to be unbiased, just as there will in, say, astrology or the idea of a flat Earth. kwami (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Unbiased does not mean 50/50 split. Refer to WP:UNDUE. No one is suggesting that we make sure to have exact mirror statements or the same amount of "support" for each side. We shouldn't be supporting either side, just presenting the current issue as defined by reliable sources and verifiable information. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sources

It seems to me that the "fuzzy math" commentary is a poor source for the statement it supposedly supports, being polemical and in any case a discussion by an activist of a source which we should cite directly. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request for foreign language research

We need some Wikipedia editors who are fluent enough in foreign languages to go research the folowing:

  • Why Japan stopped fluoridating water.
  • Why Sweeden stopped fluoridating water
  • Why Finland stopped fluoridating water
  • Why the Netherlands stopped fluoridating water.
  • Why Germany stopped fluoridating water.
  • Why Czechoslovakia stopped fluoridating water.
  • Why the Soviet Union stopped fluoridating water.
 This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Japan or the Japan Portal may be able to help recruit one.

If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Finland or the Finland Portal may be able to help recruit one.

If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Netherlands or the Netherlands Portal may be able to help recruit one.

If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Germany or the Germany Portal may be able to help recruit one.

If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Russia or the Russia Portal may be able to help recruit one.

If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.

76.85.197.45 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fluoridation in Sweden

In 1952, Norrköping became one of the first cities in Europe to fluoridate its water supply, allegedly without public disclosure, though I haven't found any reliable sources confirming that. Norrköping's fluoridation experiment was declared illegal by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court in 1961. In 1962, the Swedish parliament legalized fluoridation. In -66, the government gave Norrköping permission to resume the experiment. In 1971, the law was repealed. The repealing bill emphasized that the medical research did not unanimously say that water fluoridation was risk-free, and that water fluoridation was a forced mass-medication and an encroachment on citizens' private integrity. An official investigation/inquiry committee was formed, which published its final report in 1981 ("Fluor i kariesförebyggande syfte - Betänkande av fluorberedningen. SOU 1981:32"). The report recommended other ways of reducing tooth decay (changing food and oral hygiene habits) instead of tap water fluoridation. It also said that many people found fluoridation to impinge upon personal liberty/freedom of choice, and that the long-term effects of fluoridation were not sufficiently known. They also lacked a good study on the effects of fluoridation on formula-fed infants.

There was never a large fluoridation program in Sweden. Besides Norrköping, three other cities received permission to fluoridate their water in 1968. I'm not sure how many of them actually started fluoridation before the bill was repealed. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 08:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] CDC Reference

In the introduction of the cited source, it states: "The recommendations presented in this report were developed by the Task Force and are not necessarily the recommendations of CDC, DHHS, or other participating organizations." I have therefore removed the CDC reference. --AeronM (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Edit Warring

Please do not delete edits before discussing here on the talk page. This constitutes edit warring and is frowned upon here at Wikipedia. Thank you. --AeronM (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, edit warring occurs when individuals repeatedly revert edits to a page, not when edits are deleted once. See WP:EW for more information. If you want to start a discussion, feel free to start one, but I fail to see how spurious charges of edit warring are going to accomplish that. In any event, I encourage any involved editors to join potentially relevant discussion here: Talk:Fluoride#Edit Warring. · jersyko talk 02:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. I did want to start a discussion, and I did, just above, when I asked everyone, yourself included, to discuss edits (including deletions) here prior to executing them. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AeronM, it appears to me that you label any statement that does not support your POV as "non-neutral" and any edit that removes content you added as "edit warring." I don't think you will find that many people around Wikipedia (not to mention the world at large) support your interpretations.

You apparently regard my edits to this article as edit warring, or at least as "POV". I, on the other hand, perceive that I removed a blatant bit of POV from the first sentence of the article and removed another paragraph that was original research.

The POV I deleted was the word "questionable" in the following passage: "Water fluoridation controversy refers to activism against the addition of fluoride to public water supplies, and the consequent discussion of its questionable safety and benefits to public health." Without the word questionable that is a pretty straightforward statement, but the insertion of that one word indicates a bias against fluoride. By boldly deleting that word, I was attempting to make Wikipedia better by removing POV.

I disagree. By "boldly" deleting that word, the sentence now sounds like fluoride is safe and beneficial to public health. Perhaps there is a word, not as strong as "questionable" that we could use instead? --AeronM (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting perspective. In the world I inhabit, a "discussion of safety" is almost always a discussion of hazards. For example, when someone talks about "highway safety", we don't need to put a negative word like "questionable" or "doubtful" in front of that to know that they recognize highways to be inherently dangerous. --Orlady (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, the original research that I deleted was the following paragraph:

There are two main areas of contention in the water fluoridation controversy. One questions the efficacy of ingesting fluoride as a means to deter tooth decay, while the other relates to the notion that having fluoride added to the water supply by the municipalities effectively constitutes mass medication of the population.
I simply reiterated this from elsewhere on the page. --AeronM (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for failing to recognize this as a good-faith attempt to summarize the article. I did not find the statement credible because it didn't even mention concern about safety and health effects as an issue. --Orlady (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Who determined that there are two main areas of contention and that they are "the efficacy of ingesting fluoride as a means to deter tooth decay" and "the notion that having fluoride added to the water supply by the municipalities effectively constitutes mass medication of the population"? If these ideas are based on a published analysis in a reliable source, please cite the source. If this is your own interpretation or that of another Wikipedian, it's original research and needs to be deleted. (Regardless of whose interpretation this is, I disagree with it and I think I could find a reliable source to support my view.)

In reply, you said:

If you are asking for reliable sources I would be happy to provide them. Meanwhile I have restored the text you reverted. Please discuss all edits on the talk page prior to making them, per your POV tag. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised that the need for reliable sources is not a negotiable item around Wikipedia. The policy WP:V gave me the right, if not also the obligation, to remove that piece of unsourced analysis. I and other Wikipedians do not need your permission to edit this article, particularly when our edits are removing material that is unsourced and potentially controversial. After perusing the edit history of the article, I am replacing that paragraph with a somewhat better version that existed several weeks ago.

For the record, it's not "my" POV tag, although I did comment in an summary on the amount of bias I found in this article. Just as it's not my POV tag, though, it's not your article, either. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your remarks correctly, I may make major changes to this article without discussing it here on the talk page first. Also, I did not state or imply that I thought that I owned this article. On the contrary, I asked that everyone abide by the same rules, and that includes discussing major edits here first, per wiki policy. PS Your admission that you remove material that is potentially controversial signifies a serious WP:POV problem. --AeronM (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You do not understand my remarks correctly. I was talking about removing unsourced content, consistent with Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to contain any unsourced content, but levels of tolerance vary with the nature of the content. Unsourced defamatory statements about living persons get removed on sight, while unsourced statements that are almost certainly true and are uncontroversial in nature may merely get labeled "citation needed." Most of the unsourced content in this article lies somewhere in between those two extremes... --Orlady (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
See comments above. --AeronM (talk)

[edit] Lawsuit vs. case

Since I feel confident I could well be challenged to explain myself regarding this edit summary, I'll merely point out that requests for a Declaratory ruling are not considered lawsuits. Second, the cause of the court cases is fluoridation. The "apparent dangers" of fluoridation did not always precipitate the cases. Cases were often brought for reasons unrelated to dangers of fluoridation, such as privacy concerns or disputes over the bounds of municipal or state power. Thus, the change was simply wrong. · jersyko talk 00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added the date of your reference (1973) to the article for clarity. --AeronM (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. I agree that the next subsection in the article adequately explains that the consensus persists today. Actually, the subsection already said that the consensus developed by 1973, so I'm not sure why you feel a note of the year is necessary in the second sentence. As my favorite presidential candidate recently said with a bemused look, however, I'm happy to concede this point. · jersyko talk 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that. --AeronM (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Safety section

I strongly support the deletion of the following passage, which Itub deleted (with an edit summary saying "Patent nonsense -- "fluoride" is not the same as HF or F2. Heck, fluoride is not even a substance! It is an ion..."), but which AeronM restored with an edit summary saying "Compromise":

Fluoride is so corrosive that has to be transported in rubber-lined tankers.[citation needed] After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, U.S. authorities were advised to keep a close eye on shipments of the substance.[21]

Itub is correct. That is patent nonsense. Hydrofluoric acid is highly corrosive, but "fluoride" is not the same thing as hydrofluoric acid. "Compromise" is not an option when dealing with patent nonsense. --Orlady (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we're back to the same debate: is the reference within WP:RS and WP:V ? According to my wiki research, it is. I am still waiting for opponents of this reference to show why it should not be included. Once we establish whether or not the reference cited complies with WP:RS and WP:V, then we can argue over whether portions of it's content should or should not be included in the article. Again, my goal here is to get us a little closer to NPOV.--AeronM (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I took out the sentence you objected to the loudest. Leaving the other two sentences was the compromise. But I am open to discussion, as always. --AeronM (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Which sentence was that? The passage is still the same bunch of nonsense it was earlier. --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence, Orlady. And it's not a bunch of nonsense, thank you. Jeez. Where are everyone's manners?? --AeronM (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps patent nonsense was a bit strong. I looked at the ref., and it turns out that the substance in question is not HF but (concentrated solutios of) fluorosilicic acid, which is one of the substances that can be used for water fluoridation, and apparently it is the major one in the US. I don't deny that it is corrosive when concentrated and that it it seems plausible that Uncle Sam will be interested in protecting it from terrorists. The real question is whether these facts are relevant to this article. Verifiability does not imply relevance! And especially when the facts are presented out of context to make them seem scarier. For perspective, remember that acetic acid is a nasty and somewhat corrosive substance when concentrated, but yet I don't see many activists worrying about keeping vinegar away from their salads. --Itub (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
But in any case, it is not fluoride! You'll find that your credibility will increase by an order of magnitude when you start to refer to totally different substances using accurate names. --Itub (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll leave it for the next sucker to try to get this article to NPOV. I'm outie! I'll check back in a month or two and see if you've made any progress. --AeronM (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keepers of the Well

Please do not remove this reference from the external links section. It is within the mainstream of the safe water movement, and is a central website for people who oppose water fluoridation. Petergkeyes (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence please. Jefffire (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

KOTW is an educational arm of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water. CSDW is an aggressive activist group that opposes water fluoridation. The group has had many successes in passing local referenda that prohibits water fluoridation, and is currently raising funds for a federal lawsuit against the practice. Petergkeyes (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not evidence, but an argumentative opinion. Has this group achieved some sort of notability or prominence which could be verified by (for example) coverage in independent news sources? MastCell Talk 22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some of the local ordinances that they have passed or promoted: [15]

FAN says, "About Citizens for Safe Drinking Water: One of the most active groups in the country..." [16]

In the media in Hawaii: [17]

KOTW is raising funds for the upcoming federal lawsuit aimed at halting fluoridation: [18]

Media mention from May 22, 2008: [19]

Water Industry: [20]

The Oregonian: [21] Petergkeyes (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter, you should have a look at what Wikipeida constitutes as a source. Simply put, a reference "reproduced" by a third party has the reliability of that third party, not the original. So by you providing all those links just confirms what Mastcell is saying, KOTW is only a minor fringe organisation that is only parrotted by other minor fringe organisations. Per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE Wikipedia policy tells us what to do with these sources. Shot info (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about putting in an external link. There seems to be some confusion over what RS means in this situation -- which is, probably nothing. If we want to demonstrate that an organization is significant within a movement, then certainly citing its prominence within that movement is appropriate. Similarly, we wouldn't count "# of Google hits" as a reliable source, but we do mention this when discussing notability. In an article on "water fluoridation opposition", it is certainly appropriate to include links to the main organizations involved in it, regardless of whether certain editors consider these organizations to be "fringe".

Simply put, a reference "reproduced" by a third party has the reliability of that third party, not the original.

– Shot info

I have repeatedly asked you to point out where it says this, because I don't see it at WP:RS. In any case, the original source can be looked up, and if the work is not copyrighted, then I see no problem with linking to a copy of the full-text after that text has been verified as accurate. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. RS101 which is why when you have previously questioned me, I had ignored you. It is clear that you need to review the basis five pillars of Wikipedia if you are unsure what constitutes a reliable source. Shot info (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shot Info. You have expressed your opinion regarding websites you do not consider reliable sources of information for the water fluoridation opposition page. What are some websites that you would consider reliable sources for this topic? Petergkeyes (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one adding the information with the dubious sources. The onus to supply reliable sources for edit is on the edit making the inserts. I am only following the clear policy directives per WP:RS. Shot info (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is good to be skeptical. I would advise restraint in accusations of WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. There is plenty of each for this, and related topics. And there is also a wealth of well referenced information available from both proponents and opponents of water fluoridation. Careful, thoughtful distinction between dubious theories and proper research is needed here. Petergkeyes (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Though of course we cannot conduct original research here, and so the widely-accepted theories should be presented as such. - Dozenist talk 11:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Strangelove reference

Certainly, one of the most famous references to this belief is in Dr. Strangelove. As such, I included mention of this in the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly? You don't even provide a basic reference for the claim that it is so famous or well-known -- yes, Dr. Strangelove is well-known, but we I doubt many people picked up on that reference. Anyway, I'm not going to edit-war with you, since I try not to sink to that level. Let's hear what other people have to say. ImpIn | (t - c)
I certainly have to admit that when it comes to fluoridation, Dr. Strangelove is the first thing I think of. But it possibly is no the "most famous". Not without a source at anyrate. But I'm willing to leave it only as I like it :-) Shot info (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Trivia is discouraged on WP. MaxPont (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please help verify these claims

User:ImperfectlyInformed just added the following section, entitled Aluminum compounds. I copyedited it but then noticed some of the references do not support the statements they follow.

Fluorine is the most reactive element[3], and as such it readily forms compounds with almost all other elements. Of particular concern is fluoride's ability to form compounds with toxic metals, and in particular, aluminium, which is a known neurotoxin[4]. Evidence suggests that aluminium fluoride complexes can then cross the blood-brain barrier. The National Research Council of the United States suggests that "many of the untoward effects of fluoride are due to the formation of AlFx complexes"[5]. Rats administered fluoride as both sodium fluoride (NaF) or aluminium fluoride (AlF3) were found to have twice as much aluminum in the brain upon their deaths as control rats. Concerns have been raised over cooking in aluminum pans, as Science News reports that "water with 1 part per million (ppm) of fluoride frees nearly 200 ppm of aluminum when boiled 10 minutes in aluminum cooking pots. That is 1,000 times the aluminum leached by nonfluoridated water".[6]

  1. ^ Delta Sigma Delta: Dentistry's secret society, Fluoride.org.uk website, accessed 22 February, 2006.
  2. ^ http://www.health.utah.gov/lhd/tooele/Community_Health/Fluoridation/Public_Policy_Fluoride.html
  3. ^ It's Elemental -- Fluorine
  4. ^ Banks, W.A.; Kastin, A.J. (1989). "Aluminum-induced neurotoxicity: alterations in membrane function at the blood-brain barrier.". Neurosci Biobehav Rev 13 (1): 47-53. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(89)80051-X. 
  5. ^ Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press.
  6. ^ Brainy ties that bind (the blood-brain barrier).

Problems:

  • Fluorine (i.e. F2) is the most reactive element in its standard state (diatomic gas) but fluoride is certainly not the most reactive species known, not by far! Could be misleading to imply this is the case, since discussion switches from reactivity of fluorine to that of fluoride.
  • Aluminium does have a certain degree of neurotoxicity, as referenced, but the ref doesn't say anything about concern about fluoride.
  • The "untoward effects" quote is here, i.e. page 219 of the book referenced. Took a lot of searching to find the page.
  • I read the Science News article - the wrong one is referenced, it should be this. It references this Nature letter. Further papers on this topic: [22], [23].
  • These references would be a lot more convincing if they were from respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, especially as referenced by (scientific) review articles that critically consider the veracity and importance of these facts. It's often possible to find one reference in a good scientific journal for something that was later proved to be a wrong. The Nature letter is certainly acceptably scientific, but the later paper by the same authors shows that the 1:200 ratio of F−:Al leached is not found at neutral or nearly neutral pH.

If there are any willing scientists out there, particularly toxicologists familiar with the literature, could they please help improve this section by finding a comprehensive review of aluminium toxicity enhanced by fluoridated water.

Ben (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Good catches; sorry for the mistakes. I'll yield the first as misleading; I'm no chemist. The intro just needs to convey that fluoride forms complexes in the body with aluminium (and possibly other metals? The aluminium article has a brief section on this. I'm not sure -- and if aluminium is the correct spelling, then why does it get underlined as misspelled? should be fixed). The 217 should have been used for the rats administered NaF and AlF; even rats administered fluoride with no aluminium had twice as much aluminium in the brain upon death -- Varner attributes the Al in the NaF group to the rat chow (search for Varner fluoride on PubMed for the articles). I'm sorry you had to read a bunch, but if you'd been patient I could have helped you! -- plus it's good background for this article. I planned on expanding on the connection between aluminium in the brain and neurological problems, specifically Alzheimer's.

[edit] List of articles on aluminium and fluoride

Searching for aluminium rather than aluminum on PubMed doesn't seem to make a difference. A PubMed search for aluminium neurotoxin turns up 142 articles, 38 reviews. Aluminium neurotoxicity turns up 254 articles, 53 reviews; most of the reviews different from the preceding search. Aluminum fluoride turns up 1586 articles, 56 reviews. I just looked at the reviews for the first search. Most of the relevant ones I had no access to. Articles descending from latest date

As you can see, there is a wealth of literature on the topic, which can be accessed by following the papers cited (or citing) by the above papers or checking related links in PubMed. They tend to be technical, but they have areas of less technicality which can be cited. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to complain about the time it took to search for this stuff - all I meant to show is that it would take the average reader of this article a little time (if they even bothered to persevere) to find the supporting evidence, so we should try and put in a more direct link to the quote.
Thanks for adding this para in the first place, it's good - interesting stuff, well supported by the literature. Don't want to alarm people by making it seem like using Al saucepans is definitely going to poison them - there is some possibility of this, but severity depends greatly on conditions (fluoride concentration, pH of saucepan, etc), and it's not clear from the refs I read exactly how bad the health effects are. Might be best to say, yes, under certain conditions you can get up to 200 ppm aluminium from 1 ppm fluoride, but usually it's more like 0.4 ppm Al from 1 ppm fluoride in neutral-ish conditions (which are much more common in cooking).
As for spelling aluminium vs. aluminum, WP:CHEM decided that in all chemistry-related contexts, aluminium should be spelled with an i for consistency. It shows up as wrong on US spellcheckers, but that's for general usage rather than specific chemical contexts. IUPAC prefers aluminium. The purpose of having a consistent spelling for an element is to make searching databases etc. easier, avoiding the need to search for two terms. It's not just a case of "let's use the UK spelling for all elements", though: all chemists now spell sulfur with an f.
Stick the para back in, but rewrite the first bit to say something like:
The fluoride ion, F−, readily complexes aluminium to form stable aluminofluorides. Fluoride can leach aluminium from saucepans, forming aluminofluoride complexes that can be absorbed by humans and may subsequently cross the BBB, potentially leading to neurotoxicity. The amount of aluminium leached depends greatly on the pH of the cooking environment, and can range from 0.4 Al per F− at neutral pH to 200 Al per F− under very basic or acidic conditions.
Ben (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it back in at some point here, maybe after some more reading. The leaching from pans is an incidental point; the broader point is that concurrent consumption of aluminium and fluoride may allow the aluminium to cross the blood-brain barrier, even in people who are not renally-impaired. This is suggested by Varner's study with rats, but I'll look for some more definite statements to that effect. By the way, I like consistent spelling. I'd prefer that the IUPAC chose the simpler one -- aluminum -- but since they've got the power, why don't we all use aluminium? What's the root of this -ium fixation? And why isn't it universal, e.g. platinum? ImpIn | (t - c) 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's all explained at Aluminium#Etymology.
As for AlFx crossing the BBB, it'd be good to find a source that details what actually happens to people afterwards. It's all very good putting some clues on the table (Al has a way of getting into the brain, Al is a neurotoxin, etc) but readers might imply a particular outcome (i.e. certain death, v. high risk of brain damage, etc.). If we can find a neutral, scientific article on the clinical (as opposed to molecular and microscopic) effects of Al consumption, that'd be more satisfactory.
Ben (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement from the National Kidney Foundation: avoid Fluoride

Reference to be integrated in the article: Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease [24] [25] MaxPont (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] revamp

This page needs a lot of work. Hopefully I don't step on too many toes with bold edits and revisions. Petergkeyes (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)