Jump to content

Talk:Fluoride/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Toxicity of fluoridated water

Greenwood and Earnshaw, p. 792, provides a very succinct discussion of the toxicity of fluoride in drinking water. If anyone is going to alter the current article text on fluoridation, they might like to consider the main points raised in this authoritative textbook on inorganic chemistry.

In a nutshell:

  • SnF2 is used in toothpastes
  • low concentrations of F− in drinking water protect against dental caries (originally investigated in the 1930s by H. T. Dean et al (some literature refs here, at the bottom)).
  • below 1 ppm F−, there are no adverse effects, short term or long term
  • several countries fluoridate their water, using NaF or H2SiF6
  • 2-3 ppm F− can turn teeth brown
  • at 50 ppm F− harmful toxicity occurs
  • 150 mg of NaF causes poisoning, but this can be easily reversed with appropriate treatment
  • fluoridation has been controversial for a long time - however, much of the controversy is not about whether fluoride is toxic but whether people have a right to access untreated water if they want to

This seems to be a balanced coverage of the issue, while giving due weight to the chemistry and not dwelling too long on controversy. The uncontroversial points are just as important as the controversial ones, but controversy always gets a lot of attention.

Fluorides aren't nearly as toxic as many other chemical species, but they are common in everyday experience and commonly encountered forms do have some degree of toxicity, so that is worth noting. I am ambivalent about the fluoridation controversy (I'm much more likely to die of something else!) but it's just interesting to see toxicity discussed and compared - I like reading about the toxicity of compounds, it's just one more aspect of their behaviour, i.e. how they react with people:

:| + mF− → :D

:) + nF− → :(

(m = just the right amount, n = too much)

Ben (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is not a balanced presentation of the toxicology of Fluorine/Fluoride. Please see Christopher Bryson's work on the topic of Fluoride toxicity. His book is easily the most cohesive and exhaustive treatment on Fluoride. He has utilized actual research, original documentation and simple logic to show exactly how toxic and harmful fluoride is to humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.252.94 (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The title of Christopher Bryson's book is "the fluoride deception". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.252.94 (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the very title of that book shows it to be biased!
Ben (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
That book is very clearly biased just from the title. Also, Christopher Bryson is a reporter, not a chemist. Not a good source. -Ehburrus (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Bryson's book is correctly titled - exposing a deception. Bryson is not only a journalist, but a researcher. His book presents scientific (and other more political) evidence which demonstrate errors and omissions in the traditional fluoride story. The fact that there are other more toxic chemicals than fluoride does not excuse the intentional addition of the toxin Fluoride to public drinking water. The fluoride added to drinking water is not the naturally occurring calcium fluoride, CaF, but the man-made industrial waste product, SiF6.

Lisa Christina (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Silicofluoric acid

The article is new and might get into this fluoridation controversy!--Stone (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Made a redirect because we have an article already! --Stone (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Acidity/Alkanity

As I understand it, hydrogen fluoride is a weak acid, therefore the fluoride anion is a relatively strong base. Shouldn't its alkanity appear in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.142.12 (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hydrofluoric acid (HF) is a weak acid in aquaeous solution (at 25oC, K = 7.2 x 10-5 according to Basic Inorganic Chemistry 3rd Edition p. 233), but liquid HF is one of the strongest known acid. I would also suggest to use the word basicity over alkalinity. Mandor (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
That is considering to different definitions of "strong", not differences in HF. Rmhermen (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Already covered in Hydrogen fluoride, Fluorine and Hydrofluoric acid. It just need some data. Mandor (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some ideas

Under "Occurrence"

1) "Its closest chemical relative is hydroxide." Please add a reference and state what does it really mean. I know that they both have the same van der Waal radius, that is probably what the author meant ?

2) "The Si-F linkage is one of the strongest single bonds" Energy ? Compare to something else maybe, usually C-C.

According to Basic Inorganic Chemistry 3rd Edition the bond energy at 25oC (in kJ mol-1) is 368 for Si-O, 582 for Si-F and 356 for C-C. A quick look at the table reveals that this (Si-F single bond) is indeed very high if not the highest (???) Mandor (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Under "Applications"

3) "It is principally used in the production of fluorocarbons ..." If my memory serves well, they use "magic acid" or SbF5 + HF. But I am not too sure about that. I will try to find a reference. Mandor (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong ! According to Tetrahedron 59 (2003) 437–454, they use an appropriate fluorinating agent such as elemental fluorine, cobalt trifluoride or anhydrous hydrogen fluoride in an electrochemical cell. It is a really nice article on perfluorination of hydrocarbons. Mandor (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
All right it is getting late. This is already covered in "Perfluorocarbon". Mandor (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Invisible water?

I have applied tags to the section Fluoride#Invisible_water. The assertions are not duly sourced; they are apparently reported with serious distortion from an unnamed Mythbusters episode. The gas may be dense, but that does not make it "invisible water". If the section is not amended within a few days, it ought to be deleted.

–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 02:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As micronutrient

There's no discussion of this issue that I can see, so I've downgraded this article to C-class, as this is an important topic/application (the rest of the applications are conveyed telegraphically as well). NAP has a free book (chapter) on this. I'll update the article from it over the weekend unless someone beats me to it. Also, it's not clear to me what should go in this article, as opposed to the article on the element itself, fluorine. Since this is a more general question, I've started a discussion at WT:CHEM. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

See fluorine deficiency, which is covered under biological role there. The NAP book is OK but 12 years old. Fluoride is no longer used for osteoporosis, and most sources don't think that ingesting fluoride prevents tooth decay (see Aoba 2002 and Pizzo 2007). NAP 1997 classifies as fluoride as a beneficial but not essential nutrient. II | (t - c) 07:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
regarding the content of this article: the general view among active editors is that Wikipedia should have articles on the main anions. The practice is asymmetric in the sense that WE doesn't have articles on the corresponding cations, probably for etymological reasons: "sodium" means both "Na" and "Na+"). Fluoride is so extremely controversial (myriad articles on various fluorine-related themes to satisfy the nutcases, staunch communist conspiracies, etc) that the fluoride articles are often a focal point for argumentation, so tread carefully and reference well to non-primary sources such as the NAS report.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Both the articles I mentioned are reviews. 12 years is a long time in medical research. II | (t - c) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nazis used fluoride to make people docile?

I have a friend who tells me the Nazis used to fluoride on prisoners to make them docile. All I can find about this is a few words purported to be from someone called Ian E. Stephenson and a few words purported to be from Charles Perkins. I was expecting to come to Wikipedia and be able to get the lowdown on this but found nothing. Am I wrong to expect to be able to find information either way on this kind of claim? I thought if there's any place it's Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.15.189 (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It only gets into Wikipedia when someone discovers it's not there and finds a reliable source to support/refute it.:( I've seen this claim on lots of blogs and sites with a clear agenda, but no actual reputable historical evidence. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I keep returning to the claim that this was revealed during the Nuremberg Trials. A review of the minutes of these trials may refute or support this. I have also read that Emanuel H. Bronner, the "Philosophical Soap Maker", allegedly Albert Einstein's nephew, who's products are still a favorite with hippies, made claims to this effect enthusiastically. He was arrested for making speeches against war and against fluoridation of drinking water which landed him in a Milwaukee jail, then transferred to a mental institution in Elgin, Ill., where allegedly he was given fluoride treatment and shock therapy. This is interesting to me because he was a chemist with many patents, a former captive in a Nazi prison camp who lost his parents to the holocaust, and who later attempted to expose "the global plot to poison the water supplies" through several publications. Another angle to this story is that enormous amounts of Fluoride were necessary to build the Bomb, who his uncle Albert Einstein was involved with, so Fluoride became in many ways tied up with the war effort and came to be seen as the other great bomb of the war. It's apparent that Bronner had many misgivings about war, and considered Fluoride in the water an act of war on par with the bomb based on his own seemingly relevant life experiences. --Pickled beet eggs (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What documents are you referring to? Please cite specific documents to back up your claims per WP:V. Phearson (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Pickled, please be careful to follow our talk page guidelines. Wikipedia is not a forum. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC
this is a good debunking of the Nazi claims, which date back to self published material by Ian E Stephens (1987). Obviously not a credible source for wikipedia. http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/06/critics-water-fluoridation/truth-about-fluoride-doesnt-include-nazi-myth/ Benvenuto (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


Semi-Protection Discussion

Well, I suggest once we see that Pickled is unable to respond with a reliable cite that we delete this and other forum-like discussions on the de-merits of water fluoridation. These fringe groups apparently have decided to use the Talk pages as a secondary forum, since their additions are swiftly removed from the articles. The fluoride pages - about 4 of them - merit some greater protection such that only registered users can edit them, although I realize administrators are wary of inhibiting (or appearing to suppress) free exchange of ideas. These articles are pretty stable, as is the technology, so the risks of excluding major developments by semi-protection are small IMHO. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing we place the article under semi-protection? Phearson (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose that Fluoride and Water fluoridation be semi-protected. They seem to be under the most frequent pressure. Dental fluorosis, Water fluoridation controversy, and Sodium fluoride seem to be less frequently attacked.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It might be a little difficult to persuade a admin to protect the articles unless there is active and ongoing vandalism by IP editors. Simply asking them to do so based on content disputes and sporadic Soapboxing will not work. Since this conflict affects several articles we will need to have discussion at WP:DRN for more input from the outside. Phearson (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Toxicity section

I removed a couple of paragraphs in the toxicology section dealing with organoF compounds such as pyrolyzed Teflon and the nerve gas sarin. I am not trying to suppress this information, but it just does not see very relevant to an article on fluoride (F-). I also added a section essentially verbatim from the safety section of the article on sodium fluoride.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What is fluoride?

Fluoride is the element fluorine bonded with another element.

The following sites have information about this. http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele009.html http://www.fluoroseal.com/fluorine.html (Zxoxm (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

The textbooks are probably even more authoritative than any webstie because publishers have more quality control and are subject to academic review. I included your suggestion about fluorides are often compounds with bonds to F.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Textbooks are a good place to learn about what fluoride is.(Zxoxm (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)) Fluoride is the fluorine ion only when it is combined with another element. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.176.88 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain how fluoride is currently being measured in the human body (i.e. hair, nails, blood, urine, bone or teeth)? We know too much results in dental fluorosis (i.e. mottled, pitted, and brittle teeth). This is actually dental damage that clearly benefits the dental industry. So how do they scientifically determine how much fluoride is in the human body? And who does this? The doctors, dentists, or the municipal water districts? You can't measure fluoride levels in the human body by counting cavities. It is unscientific. And it builds up in the body over your lifetime as less than 50% is excreted by the body. What scientific body in the USA is responsible for determining the population's fluoride levels in order to avoid potentially costly dental fluorosis? Measuring fluoride levels in tap water does not determine the levels in the human body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride

A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.202.162 (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

removing sourced content with minor edits

Why does sourced content (that I, not a sock) have added get removed[1][2] with minor edits when removing content is a reason not to mark a diff as a minor edit? Furthermore, what does sock have to do with it? -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't read anything into the "minor" tag; that is a known issue that occurs with certain combinations of scripts and reverts, one that is never noticed until after the fact. (There is no choice made to mark it as minor, and no setting in "Preferences" to prevent it.) As for the material itself, I would suggest you present it here for discussion. Given the controversial nature of the topic, and the fact it was presented by a banned user, it is better to sort it out and make sure that any material presented is clear and properly in context. --Ckatzchatspy 02:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)--Ckatzchatspy 02:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


It's also presented at Environmental Health Perspectives' website, on their home page in the "Ahead of Print" section where I saw it first. It's a pretty straightforward summary of that piece, so I'll have to say it's hardly controversial. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
But here it is: doi:10.1289/ehp.1003171. The abstract states "Background: Animal studies show that brain fluoride levels increase with increasing exposure to fluoride. Human studies have indicated an association between high levels of drinking-water fluoride and lower intelligence. Data on the association between serum fluoride and children’s intelligence quotient (IQ) are limited." I wondered how consistent/well characterized this finding is and on page 5/23 of the PDF it states
I added to the article "As of 2010, a few studies, but not all, have found an association with lower IQ as fluoride exposure increases." Anyone have a problem? -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say it needs some work. We need to be much more specific about the studies, who, roughly how many (out of the larger pool), etc. Also, "as exposure increases" is vague and could be interpreted to mean over time (whereas the material you mention above seems to suggest larger individual doses). --Ckatzchatspy 03:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned elsewhere, accept my apologies if I too quickly deleted a citation presented from a vandal. I am sensitive to the selective use of "peer reviewed" primary literature. Virtually all journals are "peer reviewed," (there are peers, and then there are peers), but in the end much published work is not so great, usually being not great means making ultra minor discoveries. But sometimes it can mean overinterpreting or over-extrapolating. The situation is difficult to appreciate, i.e. the extent that the journal publication business is fundamentally about making money for the publisher. Hence Wikipedia's emphasis on WP:SECONDARY. My preference for the articles with biomedical implications would be to go to a still higher standard, and which is the gist of WP:MEDRS, i.e. we should shift toward textbooks. Generally on matters of fluoride toxicity, I defer to Shootbamboo, who had spent a lot of time on this area.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
And if you really want to prove yourselves, check out the recent edits at Fluoride poisoning (almost a misnomer - one would have to eat grams of the stuff!). As I have pointed out, the so-called journal "Fluoride" is the tell-tale sign of the Fluoride Action Network, a journal that PubMed refused to acredit. Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, the Fluoride Action Network isn't an RS in the context of what WP calls an RS. Shot info (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The Fluoride Action Network is what it says - a network aiming for action on fluoride, not an RS. The journal 'Fluoride' is an RS, regardless that PubMed refuse to acredit it for the reason that it documents studies questioning the safety of fluorine chemicals.

Lisa Christina (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Shootbamboo: Your "problems" here likely stem from the fact that Wikipedia has (recently and currently) been under intense attack by one or more anti-fluoridation activists (collectively tied to User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips), and your edits meant you happened to wander directly into the line of sight of a number of sock hunters who suddenly saw you in their crosshairs! A case of mistaken identity in such a case can sometimes lead to some misunderstandings, but fortunately no actual shootings, as Wikipedians don't shoot real bullets from their wikirifles...;-) After looking at your MO, user- and talk pages, and contribution history, I AGF and trust you're okay. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that iodine deficiency has been reported as accociated with a 10-15 point IQ loss, which is a major issue globally. Similarly, I have read that Fluoride can disrupt the function of the thyroid gland, resulting in hypothyroid symptoms. This alone raises the question that Fluoride might also be accociated with a similar IQ loss simply by way of it's effect on the thyroid during development, ex. tap water use during pregnancy or/or formula feeding. Specifically, are there citations that may support a connection between Fluoride exposure and subclinical cretinism, resulting from hypothyroid symptoms? Or perhaps there is compelling evidence but simply no unbiased sources? The research in India and China seems to observe a 10-15 point IQ loss, similar to iodine deficiency, in cases where Fluoride exposure was sufficient only to causes questionable or mild white spots in many cases. This has huge implications for countries like the United States where over 40% of children are now exhibiting white spots, and similarly decreasing IQ scores are reported. --Pickled beet eggs (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you read this from the Flouride Action Network? Phearson (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Pickled, please be careful to follow our talk page guidelines. Wikipedia is not a forum. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

HHS and EPA Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride

HHS and EPA Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride. There may be something usable here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

1-10-2010 EPA Proposes to Withdraw Use of Pesticide Sulfuryl Fluoride on Food

1/10: EPA Proposes to Withdraw Use of Pesticide Sulfuryl Fluoride on Food http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sulfuryl-fluoride/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.11.70 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is more relevant to Sulfuryl fluoride Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

cavity prevention

This section links to water fluoridation as the main article. Should it not link to Fluoride therapy? This page outlines the several methods of cavity prevention with fluoride of which water fluoridation is only one.

Any objections to it being changed? GadBeebe (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. How about linking to both though? Yours looks more on-topic, but existing is likely what many readers are interested in finding (toothpaste and other dental preparations are not nearly as newsy/public-mind-controversy as water-supply). DMacks (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That seems like a good way of dealing with it. Thanks GadBeebe (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Water Fluoridation

The statement "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" cites two references. One of those references is a meta study (abstract mentions a review of other studies). The other study makes a bald assertion in the abstract. Is there a reputable controlled study on systemic ingestion of fluoride that can be added? Xkit (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Metastudies can be pretty indicative. Is there any real doubt that fluoride reduces tooth decay? --John (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bald assertions and appeal to authority are doubtful, yes.

The claim "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" is unsupported. Does adding fluoride to water reduce tooth decay? Need a controlled study with a control group and groups using varying doses. The statement should probably be more specific, too, e.g. "ingestion of [x amount] of sodium fluoride results in reduced tooth decay."

I see that the link at the end of that sentence to the talk page was removed. What is the proper way to add a link to the talk page for unverified claims?Xkit (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi John, I got your welcome message on my user talk page. Thanks! Rather than reply on your user talk, or my user talk, I wanted to address what I see here. If I've done something wrong, please let me know what it was and how to correct it. The welcome material you sent includes the [Sources] document, which links to the [[3]] document. The Verifiability document states: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed" and "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies" and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".

I did a PubMed search for `systemic fluoride` but did not find valid scientific evidence proving that systemic ingestion fluoride reduces tooth decay. I found evidence that stannous flouride works topically, but that is a different story, and so doesn't support the claim that water fluoridation is effective.

The page will be changed the opposite of what it says. There is in fact no valid scientific evidence to show that ingestion of fluoride improves tooth decay.

Those who believe that systemic ingestion of either hexafluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride prevents tooth decay must bear burden of evidence before adding or restoring such material. Currently, no valid scientific research exists to support that claim. Xkit (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. CDC seem to think it works, and so does the CDA and the ADA. --John (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
None of those documents are scientific studies. Xkit (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
True. They are arbiters of public health, and this is a public health issue. --John (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We still have no valid scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride reduces tooth decay.

Though we do now have evidence that the earth revolves around the sun (and not the other way around). Fancy that! And poor old Galileo spent all that time on house arrest :-(. Misconceptions are rife. Xkit (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To propose that the U.S. CDC is misleading the public would make one a conspiracy theorist. Not that there is anything evil about being one, but consipiracy theorists just do not have much traction in Wikipedia. There is however a very lively group led by a retired small-college professor and his son (not very promising, I know, but that's the leadership situation) that caters to concerns about fluoride in public water called the Fluoride Action Network. Their journal, Fluoride, was also basically discredited by the U.S. government and is not accepted by Wikipedia as credible source. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


I was blocked from editing just after my last comment on this page. I've been unblocked. I'm back now.
Your argument that for one to propose that the CDC is misleading the public would imply a conspiracy is nutty (see Hanlon's Razor and Bullshit). Thus, would not make one (me) a conspiracy theorist. Pontification about whether conspiracy theorists are evil or not are off in space (in more than one sense). How much traction conspiracy theorists (don't) hold is further irrelevance. Passive form of speech doesn't disguise your accusations very well.
How promising you think Fluoride Action Network is is also irrelevant. Your claim that that U.S. government (department and branch unspecified) has discredited Fluoride Action Network is totally irrelevant (Red Herring, it seems) and also most likely false (though Hanlon's Razor, again), and how non-authoritative the person running that organization might be are off in the weeds.
The claim "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" is *still* unsupported. This is a problem for this page. I'm here to discuss it (as poor as this medium is for discussion). Try to follow along and stay on topic. Thanks.
The claim that public water fluoridation prevent tooth decay is handwaved (that's usually a fair indicator of Bullshit). How, in what amount, and for whom? Xkit (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
What does it matter? Clearly the research is there, and it says it prevents tooth decay. You may be interested in editing Water fluoridation controversy instead. Phearson (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
What does *what* matter? The research supporting water fluoridation is absent, no hypothesis as to how it works, in what amount, etc. And that is precisely the point I've been on about since my first comment. No scientific proof. Sorry, did you want to add a study about how water fluoridation prevents tooth decay? I don't mean to be an bear but I'm growing disdainful of repeating myself to whining, defensive prattles from individuals who seem to believe that the CDC publishes infallible doctrine (Smokefool). Answer the basic scientific questions? Xkit (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that source 17 answers that question for dental decay, which was a meta-study conducted not only by the CDC, but by the the US NAVY, and GIT, which are reliable institutions. who writes the following in the summery:

Again, this discussion is not about fluoride in general. It is about the statement: "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay". Xkit (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Twenty studies were included in the final body of evidence. Among studies published after/during 1980, any fluoride (self- and professionally applied or water fluoridation) annually averted 0.29 (95%CI: 0.16–0.42) carious coronal and 0.22 (95%CI: 0.08–0.37) carious root surfaces. The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27% (95%CI: 19%–34%). These findings suggest that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages.

Yes, yes, but that's irrelevant. We're not talking about topical application of fluoride, we're discussing the statement: "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay".Xkit (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is quite clear that the question of whether or not prevents dental decay has been answered in those 20 studies. If you want your questions answered about the nitty-gritty, you should read each of those studies. Or ask a researcher at a local university.

And that too is irrelevant for the same reasons. Xkit (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Meta-studies offer yet another abstraction layer of bias, [mis]interpretation, and human error. For my own research, I discount meta studies off hand. A waste of time to slog through all of that. I want the actual studies. But since all we have for that statement is a government-sponsored meta-study, used to justify the actions of government: The FT:- [|"Effectiveness of Fluoride in Preventing Caries in Adults"]
The study's abstract begins with "To date, no systematic reviews have found fluoride to be effective in preventing dental caries in adults." 60+ years of community water fluoridation; now it's time to find some justification.
That meta study covers four types of studies. Only 9 of which are community water fluoridation studies. Of that nine, they had non-uniform results, so they select 5 studies. From those 5 selected studies, their first [study] (Burt BA) concludes just that 3.5 mg F/L (five times the "optimal" does" has an effect over 0.7mg F/L.

"Heterogeneity was present. Heterogeneity was not an issue when we pooled the 5 fluoridation studies published after 1979."

- but does not have a control group to compare with the "optimal" dose.
The meta study's other three categories include subcategories of professionally and/or self-applied /topical/ fluoride. They don't aim to see if systemic fluoride works (it doesn't). If they're out to *justify* community fluoridation, why would they look at the effects systemic flouride? They wouldn't. But they did include this boastful gem:

"Documenting the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing/managing dental caries among adults is important."

Yes, particularly since this has been going on for 60+ years. Xkit (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Their selected study by Burt BA. http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/86/5/410/T1.expansion.html

Study compares two groups: Deming and Lordsburg. Lordsburg got 3.5mg F/L (5 times the "optimal" amount), Deming got 0.7, which is officially considered the "optimum" amount. The conclusion was essentially 3.5mg /L works better than 0.7mg/L.

Burt BA has acknowledged the lack of cariostatic effect of systemic fluoride. The only logical explanation for cariostatic efficacy of water fluoridation is that water touches the teeth when drunk. The act of drinking water does not result in a large amount of water touching the teeth, nor in uniform amount, and the efficacy of 0.7 mg/L isn't shown in comparison to a control group.
Their number 1 study out of their 5 selected studies did not show efficacy of the "optimal" amount. Efficacy of water fluoridation wasn't demonstrated by that study. Xkit (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from personal attacks and focus on the content, and not the contributor. Otherwise, you are going to have a tough time convincing other contributors to this article of your views on this subject. Phearson (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you follow from my very first comment, you'll see that this all started out fine. Then there was the back and forth editing (edit wars), subsequent ad homimen, then an unexplained edit block (no explanation given). [insert smiley here].
And I hope my interleaved style is taken without offense. ISTM better for point-by-point rebuttal. Regards. Xkit (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, since you are so sure that the study is biased, and that truly Fluoride does not prevent tooth decay, I ask that you please provide the following extraordinary evidence:
  1. Documents publicly available from either US Government, or proper news outlets or elsewhere (not fringe/conspiracy theorist blogs or websites), that indicate that the government, is bias, and conspiring in a malicious, calculated effort, along with the Navy, and a Private institution to say that Fluoride prevents tooth decay, and not providing information on it's true (and perhaps evil) purpose.
  1. . Provide several documents from secondary sources that overwhelmingly state that Flouride does not prevent tooth decay.
Please do not respond in a interleaved format, it makes it difficult for other editors to read. Also, you are not excused from making personal attacks, no matter what the situation, it only makes it worse. And the last thing I need to address before it gets out of hand, your block was part of a normal range block to stop another editor from abusing the Dynamic (changing) IPs from its internet service provider to vandalize Wikipedia. If you think that this is not the case, then you should speak to administrators at WP:ANI to review the circumstances regarding your block. Phearson (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Well, since you are so sure that the study is biased, and that truly Fluoride does not prevent tooth decay" I kindly asked you to read my arguments from my very first post and after I restated them again. And here again, my very first claim: "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" is unsupported.

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies (sic). You're off in space with your "Flouride does not prevent tooth decay" (sic). Who wrote that? You did. You misquoted me. You discredit yourself by making such gross misstatements (and to a lesser degree with misspelling). For your own sake, don't do that. And for the fifth time, IIRC, the discussion is about water fluoridation.

And for the last time, my initial statement:

The statement "The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay" is unsupported

Got it?

I carefully cited the relevant bits of the CDC's useless study "Effectiveness of Fluoride in Preventing Caries in Adults". I suggest you read them, along with the study itself, and my analysis before commenting on them.

You also wrote that I was "so sure that the study is biased". I didn't write that. But you touch upon a concerning point. Is the study biased? Can a CDC funded study used to justify CDC policy be considered neutral? BTW, the researcher on that study, Susan O. Griffin PhD, was also paid to conduct another metastudy to justify the economics of community water fluoridation (see "An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation").

And I am genuinely concerned about the edit block. I will bring it up with those admins you mentioned, thanks. Xkit (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing how this statement is unsupported. The statement is reliably sourced, therefore, the existence of such statement is valid on Wikipedia. Where are you trying to go with this? Are you looking to have it removed? Phearson (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
It is impossible to argue with single-issue editors and it is also inappropriate for us to debate the quality of the published research or the stature of the US CDC, that debate would constitute original research. If there is a large-scale conspiracy by many government agencies across the globe, then Wikipedia is not the place to set that right great wrong. The US government (via NIH) does not recognize the scientific legitimacy of the main publication vehicle for the main antifluoridation group (Fluoride Action Network). Nazis, John Birch, poisonous wastes, lower IQ's, etc. Fringe stuff. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190977,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.196.208 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is the history about the hiding of Bassins scientiffic research: http://www.talkinternational.com/PDF/flouride-report.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.199.242 (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Fluorite crystals 270x444.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fluorite crystals 270x444.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Statements made with the picture of the fluorite are not cited.

The mineral fluorite, a common mineral and chief source of fluoride for commercial applications. Citations are needed for the claims made here. If the challenged material can not be cited then it must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Link added was a dead link. A good citation must be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


From the cited reference: "All industrial hydrofluoric acid production starts from fluorite. Processes based on the recovery of fluorosilicic acid from phosphate rock have not yet gone beyond the development stage."

Is this ambiguous? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It could be said that that is ambiguous as well untrue. First hydrofluoric acid is not fluorite or fluoride. The mineral fluorite is not a phosphate rock. Apatite is a phosphate rock mined to make hydrofluoric acid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 (talk)

I don't understand why you find this statement so disagreeable. Have you read this cited reference? You seem to spend a lot of effort on this small point, whereas apatite does not have a reference. If you find a source which tells us something different, feel free to discuss --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Villalba, Gara; Ayres, Robert U.; Schroder, Hans (2008). "Accounting for Fluorine: Production, Use, and Loss". Journal of Industrial Ecology. 11: 85–101. doi:10.1162/jiec.2007.1075. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
This might be the best point to stop the discussion. This makes clear that only very small amounts of fluorides hydrogenfluoride and fluorine come from other sources than fluorite.--Stone (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The mineral fluorite is not the chief source for fluoride for commercial applications as the current caption says. Now 2 sources are cites and neither one has any information that says the chief source of fluoride for commercial applications is from the mineral fluorite. Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Information that is not cited must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.164.11 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed in the source by Stone above. 71.90.164.11, You need to stop tagging and discuss here first. Yobol (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The information is not supported by the cited sources. That is why the tags were put on. But no one can help stupid and you all are stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.169.20 (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing that HF is not fluoride or that HF is not the main commercially important fluoride intermediate? But obviously at this point (based on preceding sentence) you're no longer interested in learning chemistry or collaborating to resolve your understanding or our explanations in the article, so no sense anyone further treating your concerns seriously. DMacks (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Entropy

NIST WebBook list the entropy as a different value, which is right? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Both of them. One is aqueous the other (NIST) is gaseous. I'll put them both in and reference them both.JSR (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Can't figure out a way to put them in without making a mess. This preserves the aqueous value and reference. If you can figure out how to get them in, please go ahead. -13.8 J/mol K (aqueous)[1]JSR (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of extraneous material was removed

I just removed a lot of material about covalent compounds containing fluorine. This has nothing to do with fluoride, except perhaps in the synthesis, which was not mentioned in those sections.JSR (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, per the cited definition, organofluorides are in-scope for this article, and there are organic items later in the article. Noting the range of applications/effects in the lead seems important to dispelling "OMG fluorine is deadly therefore all these compounds are bad and I can't believe they'd put that in my water supply!!!!!". DMacks (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
It gets to be awful cluttered when every article tries to cover everything. Fluorine is the better place to discuss a lot of that.JSR (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I am sympathetic with some of JohnSRoberts99's views. Many articles suffer from bloat and tangential material. In this particular case, I do not agree for one main reason. Within Wikipedia-Chem, one of our most incessant sources of vandalism or rage comes from those convinced that every kind of fluoride is somehow super toxic and/or an ingredient in a government-led conspiracy to make us dumb. The breadth of this article reminds those folks that fluoride comes in many forms, some of which are in fact medicinal. Yes, if these folks were logical and knew their chemistry, they would consult fluorine for a broad perspective. Unfortunately they are not very fluent in chemistry and do not always behave in a logical way. We made similar but smaller accommodation in cyanide.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I can edit it back with redirects in the organic synthesis portion. This would show breadth and usefulness without cluttering up the landscape. Those that are coming in with any other viewpoint are not likely to change that viewpoint based on anything that is said here.JSR (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Q.E.D. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluoride&curid=155650&diff=500712442&oldid=500695334--Smokefoot (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Definitely have the barbarians at the gate.JSR (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems Harvard also thinks fluoride makes us dumb.

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

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

If Fluoride never exists independantly of another element, why is it treated like this in this article?

As described in the first sentence (though somewhat obtusely), fluoride by definition is attached to another element, forming a molecule. The article then goes on to frequently treat fluoride as if it is running about independantly, though that would be fluorine, not fluoride. So, the writer(s) are not always describing the actual compounds, thus misleading the reader and perpetuating this confusion. I'd like to see a chemistry expert really tackle this and correct these errors, and also with the article "Water fluoridation," which also incorrectly talks about fluoride as an independant molecule, rather than as an element in a molecule. It's silly, like calling water 'hydrogen' just because the element hydrogen comprises part of the water molecule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.111.209 (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In ionic compounds, the ions really are independent of each other (or at least not distinct "molecules" in the sense you seem to think). And the interesting aspect of their chemistry is often the fluoride part regardless of whatever other parts may be present. For example, when NaF dissolves in water, it becomes loose and separate Na+ and F– ions, each of which has separate effects and each impart some different properties to the overall solution. KF leads to the same effects due to its F– part, so let's talk about the commonality of the F– effects. It's like saying "lemons and oranges are citrus fruits, so we can talk about the common 'citric acid' component that behaves the same way in each case" rather than treating each "whole fruit" as a unique item with no relationship to others. DMacks (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Dental fluorosis is only cosmetic?

Saying that is misleading. See article online from book "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds" (page 791) regarding dental fluorosis...

"Mottled teeth are not only disfiguring in appearance but are so defective in structure and strength that they often have to be replaced by false teeth at an early age." http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50295a026

Also note the footnote in lower left of page in "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds", page 791:

"Fluoride determinations made by the modified Fairchild ferric chloride method described in Aria Expt. Sta. Tech Bull 43(1932). Unpublished data at hand now indicate that a concentration of fluorine in water of as little as 1 p.p.m. as determined by the Willard or Foster methods of analysis as sufficient to cause mottled enamel of human teeth. A concentration of 2 p.p.m. is now found to be associated with mottled enamel of the more severe type."

Perhaps you could stick with the facts? This information was available in 1934. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a slight change to this section, changing 'mild' to 'very mild'. 'Mild' fluorosis is a technical term, signifying visually apparent significant damage. The more appropriate term in the context of the comment is 'very mild', with the damage being less, but still visually apparent.

The problem as I see it is that dental fluorosis is just the visual effect of what is now believed to be a general systemic effect, affecting other organs and not just teeth. If this is true, then surely we should not dismiss dental fluorosis as 'merely aesthetic'. Lisa Christina (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, just be careful with good sources. These articles on fluoride are magnets for weird opinions, that mostly get rejected because they are so poorly sourced. The journal Fluoride and its parent organization FAN (run by an undistinguished-unpublished-retired from a tiny school and his son, and perhaps wife too) is are considered by most editors as being fringey or conspiracy theorists (i.e. US CDC and various governments are intent on deluding the populace ...). --Smokefoot (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

The "toxicology" section needs two things:

1. To be written in less technical terms using fewer mentions of dosage etc.

2. To be more neutrally written. Currently it is severely alarmist and does not discuss the fact that water supplies and toothpaste generally have only trace amounts of fluoride not comparable to fatal doses. This ought to be included given the amount of media attention towards de-fluoridation. - Sweet Nightmares 00:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You are encouraged to recommend more specific suggestions or try to edit yourself. Articles on fluoride-related topics are regular targets of (usually unregistered) editors with very strong views, verging on conspiracy theories. So the section on toxicity is the result of many challenges by agitated folks who cannot reconcile the modest toxicity of fluoride salts (or the beneficial effects of fluoride drugs or the CDC's praise of fluoridation) with their views. Further complicating matters is that few (none actually) of those upset parties are able to edit on any technical level and rarely can cite decent WP:SECONDARY sources. The upshot is that there is a collection of frustrated, upset people out there who are watching for an opening to promote their fringe views. Consequently many neutral editors tend to document each statement and quote quantitative data when possible. But you are welcome to take a crack and revising this article, I just recommend that you do so incrementally because the article is carefully scrutinized. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I just want to say, I'm tired of people making "Conspiracy Theory" seem like a bad thing, or turning it into an insult, there are a wide variety of legitimate conspiracy theories which have been proven true throughout history, I don't see any harm in any, or every article allowing a category for "Popular Conspiracy theories" it may spark interest in the theories and maybe even lead to evidence or proof of the theories being correct, or being "debunked" and proven false later on. With all due respect, I feel that the comment made by Smokefoot was not very tactful, and was made in pure ignorance, or attempt to start a comment war with these "agitated folks" sounds as if Smokefoot has a conspiracy theory of his own the way he generalizes these "agitated folks" Freegen (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

cutting and repurposing?

This article seems to have a tension about if it is about the ion or fluorine compounds in general. (And then if about organic or inorganic). Given this thing is pretty short and we now have a very well structured and long article on compounds of fluorine, I wonder if we could repurpose this to be just about the ion. Put a hatnote of explanation, link to compounds article, and cut the general compounds chemistry.

We would keep some general discussion of the ion, it's properties in water and sure...little dental and tox stuff.

But I don't want no fights and if someone loves this, I will just stay away...can live with the inconsistency. And definitely don't want the compounds article harmed.

TCO (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article should be about the fluoride ion, and the chemistry of the ion, covalent compounds of fluorine has no place here. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

enzyme enhibiting?

Is this a real application or something that is in research to be an application?

"Biomedical applications[edit]

Fluoride salts are commonly used to inhibit the activity of phosphatases, such as serine/threonine phosphatases.[18] Fluoride mimics the nucleophilic hydroxyl ion in these enzymes' active sites.[19] Beryllium fluoride and aluminium fluoride are also used as phosphatase inhibitors, since these compounds are structural mimics of the phosphate group and can act as analogues of the transition state of the reaction.[20][21]"

TCO (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Googling around it looks like this is some sort of in-lab type biochem assay processing thingie. Not in vivo. Article does not make that clear. I also wonder how important although there are companies selling NaF for it. Will leave for now, but I wonder if would be better to just have a little stub on its own (if it is someone's baby).TCO (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ultraviolet degradation

What is the reaction, if any, of fluoride when exposed to Ultraviolet radiation? 50.47.111.214 (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

fluoride as a "Newly recognised developmental neurotoxicant"

It appears that there are certain editors watching this article who believe that WP:RS is open to interpretation when it comes to including fluoride's recent recognition as a neurotoxicant, as reported in this month's edition of The Lancet. My edits in this regard have been twice reverted on questionable grounds that go against WP:LGL and in particular WP:EQ and appear to have been done so based on WP:OR/WP:Opinion vs. the WP:RS test.

The Lancet is a widely-accepted, unbiased, authoritative, independent, published, scholarly, secondary source medical journal that unequivocally meets the WP:RS and WP:V tests. Therefore, a properly-sourced note on fluoride's recent classification as a neurotoxicant, such as the one I posted, is worthy of inclusion on this topic. There should be no debate or contention about this for those who respect the legitimacy and verifiability of reliable sources such as The Lancet.

I heartily invite counterarguments to this premise and/or the inclusion of this new, properly-sourced, verifiable information on fluoride toxicity. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 16:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

One author feels fluoride is a neurotoxicant (the same author that published the Choi meta-analysis). This might be appropriate for fluoride toxicity with in text attribution to the author, but probably does not deserve WP:WEIGHT here. Not everything published in the Lancet deserves mention in every article about the subject. Yobol (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's at least eighteen authors; the four from the original citation in Environ Health Perspect, the two from The Lancet who cited it, and the 12 members of the National Academies Press who came to the same conclusion in 2006. Against this, a single passage in a 1,700-word article hardly constitutes WP:Undue, rather it serves WP:NPOV. I realize that you've got a much longer and varied edit history than I and a fair bit of experience on this article particularly. However, I know enough about WP:LGL from my 6 years here to know what's at issue is WP:VNT. This development it's topical, it's relevant, it meets all relevant tests for inclusion and should be so. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 18:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Moreover, The Lancet is described as a "Core general medical journal" in WP:MEDRS. So tell me again where the argument against inclusion lies? - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 19:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The question is not whether the Lancet is a reliable source; of course it is. Just because something appears in a reliable sources does not mean it necessarily has to be included in the article. Specifically in this case, there needs to be a case made that this opinion (that fluoride has been proven to have neurotoxic effects) deserves WP:WEIGHT in this article. The National Academy document you presented certainly doesn't back that up; all it says is that more research is needed in the topic, it comes to no conclusion. You have provided two sources both authored (at least in part) by the same author, Grandjean. This may be an indication that there is not a wide acceptance that fluoride is neurotoxic if only the same authors come to that conclusion. It would help your case to include here if you can show other high quality sources that say that it is nuerotoxic (again, the National Academy source you provided does not say that at all - please choose your sources more carefully). Yobol (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
2 things. 1) Content proposed was way too strong for what the source says. 2) Content proposed (which was unsupported by article) was WP:FRINGE. If the mainstream, consensus view was that flouride IS a neurotoxicant, do you think for a heartbeat it would still be widely used in water supplies? Wild exaggeration of public health risks is disgusting, ax-grinding, irresponsible behavior that HAS ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN WIKIPEDIA. Unbelievable. Really. Makes me angry. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Water is a "neurotoxicant" under this kind of reading. So is blood. Horrible.Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC) (too harsh, striking. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC))
Chill, Jytdog. There's no reason to get angry. The content proposed is no stronger or weaker than the text it's drawn from; take your displeasure and vent it at the source. On the other hand Yobol, you make good points. I'll withdraw for the time being and see what I can find or decide if it's even worth my time to press this issue. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
if you cannot recognize the difference between "is" (what you wrote) and "may be" (what is in the source) you have no business writing health related content. ditto, if you have no concept of the relevance of dose to toxicity. Much less waving a bunch of irrelevant policies (which makes this even more grating) instead of asking for a discussion. NO it is not worth your time to press the issue that fluoride IS a neurotoxicant. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC) (too harsh, striking Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC))
User:Wikiwag sorry for being too harsh. Glad you are withdrawing the content. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Masterson, William L.; Hurley, Cecile N. (2006). Chemistry: Principles and Reactions: A Core Text (Updated 5th ed.). London: Brooks/Cole. p. 449. ISBN 9780495365020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fluoride/Archive_2&oldid=1083344601"