Talk:Water fluoridation controversy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Large footnotes

There are about 25 footnotes made for a single sentence. Is this appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.205.16 (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. 128.205.75.125 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cross and Carton

Is the Cross and Carton reference a trustworthy source? There are only 5 Google links, excluding this article, that mention them. All mentions are based on this fluoride thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.205.16 (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Move to Opposition to water fluoridation. Better/more standard grammar. Badagnani (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This may not be the best time to make naming moves. Figuring out what the actual purpose of the page is may be more productive right now. Aligning the content to the purpose, addressing the multiple concerns raised above, that kind of stuff. I'm OK whatever, my watchlist seems to follow it all, but I doubt a rename is going to improve the situation :) Franamax (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Move it, please. We don't have Slavery opposition, we have Opposition to slavery. Badagnani (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See #Recent page move above. Any further move requests should go through WP:RM. --Elonka 05:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Dually agreed. I am prepared to unprotect the page for editing, but not for page moves. Please take any requests for this page, for the interim, to Requests for Page Moves. seicer | talk | contribs 05:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A move of Water fluoridation opposition to Opposition to water fluoridation has been mooted. Please continue discussion in this section. - Eldereft (cont.) 08:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support move to Opposition to water fluoridation. Current title may not be incorrect but proposed target sounds better. — AjaxSmack 16:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support the page move due to consistency. seicer | talk | contribs 16:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Suppport, obviously. Perhaps a more pertinent question to ask here would be whether anyone does not support a page move? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Water Fluoridation Controversy," was a superior title. It allowed more reliable information to be included, with less squabbling over whether this or that is part of the, "opposition movement." I suggest returning to the original title: Water Fluoridation Controversy. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's not a single controversy. Badagnani (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Therefore, several subsections could flesh out the various aspects of the controversies properly. Lately there has been an increased effort to remove large portions of text and citations from this article, with the stated reason being relevance to the, "opposition movement." If this page were retitled, "Water Fluoridation Controversy," that problem could potentially be solved. Petergkeyes (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral, but don't agree with moving it to Water Fluoridation Controversy. There are no "controversies" per se but rather opposition to WF with reasons. At the moment, the article lacks the sourcing for those reasons, who is making the claims, the reasons why those who are notable etc. etc. Shot info (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support If it's on the table, I'll support the move. This article is not about a controversy per se, rather it is an exhaustive list of reasons to oppose water fluoridation, many of them based on negative effects predicated on fluoride levels greater (and some far in excess) of dosage levels actually provided by common practice in municipal water fluoridation programs. Franamax (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page from Water fluoridation opposition to Opposition to water fluoridation, based on this discussion. Further moves should be discussed again through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "beck" :
  • Beck v. City Council of Beverly Hills, 30 Cal. App. 3d 112, 115 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1973) (citations omitted).
  • Beck v. City Council of Beverly Hills, 30 Cal. App. 3d 112, 115 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1973) ("Courts through the United States have uniformly held that fluoridation of water is a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power in the interest of public health. The matter is no longer an open question." (citations omitted)).

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's recent edit

ScienceApologist's recent edit [1] to this article changed the section title, and removed much well-sourced content concerning the risks of fluoridation, on the basis of his original research claim that every single municipality in the United States and every other country practicing fluoridation uses lower levels of fluoride in their water than would cause any of the health concerns reported in the numerous reliable sources cited. Wikipedia is not the place for unsourced pro-fluoridation activism or advocacy. 130.65.109.100 (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with SA removing the entirety of the text, but the majority of the removed text is claims of adverse health effects at doses far in excess of typical water fluoridation levels. It's disingenuous of you to suggest that is OR. Can you provide one single reference to support that any jurisdiction anywhere uses 12 mG/L fluoridation doses in water? Other references in the removed text are to well-known "anti"-fluoridation sites. This article is for discussion of opposition to water fluoridation, not for exhaustive listing of the negative effects of fluoride at pathological doses. Franamax (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider the following text removed by ScienceApologist

*Adverse effects on the kidney. Within the optimal dose, no effects are expected, but chronic ingestion in excess of 12 mg/day are expected to cause adverse effects, and an intake that high is possible when fluoride levels are around 4 mg/L.

Now, this was sourced to [2], by the respected National Academy of Sciences, certainly no anti-fluoridation activists. Earlier in the section, we learn that

In 1986 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride at a concentration of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is the legal limit of fluoride allowed in the water.

which can be sourced to [3], a page in the same report by the National Academy of Sciences. So, its fairly clear that levels of fluoride which are reasonably expected to cause the health problems described in some of the content that ScienceApologist removed are at least permissible in municipal water supplies in the United States. Of course, any text that's really sourced only "to well-known "anti"-fluoridation sites" can be removed as unreliable. Unreliable content should be handled with a scapel to remove only the offending material, not with a sledgehammer to remove everything in a section. 130.65.109.100 (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Attention to detail is really of vital importance here. The "12 mG/L fluoridation" described by Franamax is not at all the same thing as the "12 mg/day" of ingested fluoride described in the report cited, since the report recognizes that most people drinking only fluoridated tap water will consume more than one liter per day of the stuff. 130.65.109.100 (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's consider the references to those nasty anti-fluoridation websites, such as, say [4]. Obviously, www.fluoridation.com isn't itself a reliable source, but [5] does reference a great deal of research that has been published in peer-reviewed reliable sources. The article appears to be using [6] as a sort of short-hand reference, instead of writing out every peer-reviewed journal reference, and certainly not relying on any novel synthesis of the material by www.fluoridation.com. Indeed, it's questionable, from a copyright perspective, whether we actually can copy and paste all of www.fluoridation.com's references into the article itself. What is clear, at least in this particular case, is that we're not relying on an activist website as a source except in a very trivial fashion. 130.65.109.100 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did indeed misread per-liter and per-day. I've just spent the last while going through the NAS report. It's important to note that they are drawing on studies from areas where water fluoride concentrations are naturally high to investigate the 4 mG/L US limit (which they recommend halving). However, typical municipal fluoridation schemes use 0.7 - 1.2 mG/L. So it's correct that the current US limit of 4 mG/L could result in adverse effects, but also important to note that this limit is never approached - also, there's a bit of undue weight to devote so much space to a US-only issue, (the technical US limit) in a general section. Again, if you have sources to show that any jurisdiction fluoridates water to such a high concentration, the concerns become perfectly valid. I'd be happier to see more discussion on the combination of "standard" water fluoridation with dietary fluoride intake (processed foods etc.) as this seems more relevant to me.

(e/c) And to cover some other points, liver damage at 23 mG/day - you'd want to be drinking a whole heck of a lot of tapwater to pack all that in. Some of the other references seem to be to individual reports contained in the NAS study (genetic damage, IQ) which is possibly cherry-picking. The other reports showing no effects at all are not included. The actual conclusions of the NAS study should be what are reported here - 4 mG/L is potentially problematic, 2 mG/L is considered safe, rather than looking for the outliers in their collection of data. And I would consider both fluoridation.com and fluoridealert.org to be "anti" sites which shouldn't be used as RS. If they have RS contained within them, the direct RS should be used, rather than conveniently using a short-hand reference that draws the reader to an "activist" website. Franamax (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is one of reliable sources. If you can provide a reliable source that links municipal water fluoridation to any of these conditions, then we can include it otherwise, the inclusion of this list is a unwarranted synthesis forbidden by Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the content removed clearly isn't original research -- this is why "slash and burn" content removal isn't appropriate. The content I have restored [7] is clearly described as a health risk of municipally fluoridated water in the National Academies of Sciences' report -- that's why they're recommending lowering the maximum contaminant level for fluoride, which is presently at 4 mG/L. It's immaterial to claim that 4 mG/L levels of fluoride are never intentionally introduced in any municipal water system in the world because (1) this hasn't been established in reliable sources and (2) even if it were true, it's irrelevant: the water is no less fluoridated because the water company refuses to remove excess fluoride naturally present in the water supply than if fluoride is dumped into the water. One's kidneys don't care where the fluoride is coming from. This article is about all opposition to water fluoridation -- not hypothetical (and nonsensical) opposition to intentional water fluoridation only but not naturally occurring fluoride. 130.65.109.102 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this, so here's my late-breaking comment: no-o-o this article is about opposition to the intentional addition of fluoride compounds to municipal water systems. It is in no way about health concerns related to high fluoride levels in water from natural sources. You may wish to create a new article to cover that issue. The kidneys might not care, but Wikipedia does. Franamax (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If the ingestion of fluoride resulting from the intentional addition of fluoride to municipal water systems is believed by such groups to add to the body's burden from other sources, it doesn't negate the fact that such groups' primary focus in their activities and public statements is the abolition of intentional fluoridation. Such a stipulation as that above is illogical and shows a strong POV. Let's edit in a thorough, but neutral manner, summarizing all relevant issues rather than simply the ones we agree with. Badagnani (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias

A tone of bias is very detectable in this article. One that appears to be against people who believe that fluoridation is not what the mass media says it is. There are people who rightly believe many of the studies done that indicate the ineffectiveness of fluoride at preventing tooth decay. There are studies, which don't get much public media attention, that indicate fluoride as a neuro-toxin, especially in infants and very young children. Many of the studies have included people who were children decades before fluoridation of water became standard, who grew up without fluoridated water, and who have excellent enamel and teeth and very few dental carries throughout their lifetime. In many cases it has more to do with proper nutrition and oral hygiene than it does with fluoridation of water. This article seems to be attacking or putting down people who believe that fluoride is a health risk, especially for some people. The tone needs to be less like an attack on people who question fluoride and feature a more neutral voice.96.13.192.173 (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The best way to avoid further bias in this article would be to oppose ScienceApologist's efforts to remove well-sourced content regarding the risks of municipal water fluoridation. 130.65.109.102 (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this assessment. I've just read the article start to finish and I think overall it gives a very fair presentation. The main points of contention are all covered (Badagnani may interject here "what about the brain-n-n?") and I don't see suggestion of ridicule or dismissal. In fact, there is really no refutation at all, just presentation of the case and the facts. The "Court Cases" section rightly reflects that most litigation has not succeeded but only presents the decisions of the courts without editorializing. The "Conspiracy" section is a little overlong but it was recently added by a historian with detailed knowledge. That there was a conspiracy theory is historical fact and deserves mention, lest we succumb to recent-ism. We all need to read it several times of the course of days or weeks and get a sense of how to trim it down a little.

The "Health Risks" section needs a little reconstruction. SA took one tack - nuke it all, then let it be built up with just the valid contents. Not the best approach, but if we end up with a better section at the end, it works out. Franamax (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The above editors (not Franamax) are correct. In an article entitled "Opposition to water fluoridation," only a single organization opposing fluoridation is mentioned (in passing), and their reasons for opposing it are not outlined in a thorough manner (and fluoride's purported impacts on the brain are not mentioned). Sarcasm (as seen in the post just above) is not helpful or conducive to our project. Badagnani (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a prediction which was fulfilled, it was meant to be humourous not sarcastic, I'll strike it.

Isn't the Health Risk of lowering IQ a purported impact on the brain?

And what would you suggest as to improving the coverage of organizations and reasons for opposing? I think the lead very accurately covers the various reasons for opposing. Is something missing? Franamax (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a summary of the most active (and organized) organizations and some of their activities, as well as their stated reasons for opposition. It would also be good to contrast these groups and aims with the anti-fluoridation groups (and their aims) of yesteryear, who are often poked fun of for their association of fluoridation with communism, etc. Badagnani (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can provide some hints on this, say the three most-xxx organizations, I could take a shot at wording it. (Presumably the org's behind fluoridation.com and fluoridealert.org, any others?) Name of the org, membership, where to find info on their stance, etc. Presumably this would also involve some reworking of "Statements against" - maybe into two sections, "Organized opposition" and "Statements of opposition"? And of course, anyone else is free to take a shot too. Franamax (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad there's support for a section summarizing the main anti-fluoridation groups (current and former), and their reasons for opposition and activities. My feeling is that maybe some of the organizations reasons for opposition (especially in the old days) were "full of it," but they're still worth at least some discussion, if sources can be found, in light of the title of the article. Regarding current organizations, one sees common threads in their stated reasons for opposition, so these should be fairly easy to find in their own websites. Badagnani (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

10 liters of water a day issues

I did this because in order for this to be an actual concern you'd have to drink 10 liters of water a day in the places where the most fluoride is added to the water supply. That's an amount so large that you will have other problems (hypoatremia) before you encounter any adverse fluoride effects.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What about a section heading that reads, "Potential health effects"? seicer | talk | contribs 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, the section right now is about levels appropriate for healthy fluoridation. I'm not sure what the "potential health effects" being discussed in that section we would be referring to. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

SA, maybe we're reading this from different ends, but you're not correct. The US MCL is 4 mG/L, 3 L/day = 12 mG/day. That's squarely in the range of the NRC study, that's what they were addressing. Unless I've missed a recent development, US law permits that level of fluoridation, right? It's not recommended, it's not general practice, but no-one gets criminally charged or fired for running their plant at that level - right? So it's a legitimate area of concern, a US science academy has recommended the limits be lowered, they haven't been. The academy has compiled evidence that the higher limit can be harmful. What's your problem?

Continually reverting and now changing the section name to "Healthy intake levels" is really not helpful. "Healthy intake levels" is a good candidate for Water fluoridation but not this article. This article is to discuss the factual basis for opposition (among other things). Unless I've missed something recent, 4 mG/L MCL is the factual limit, NRC has provided a factual study showing the risks. I'm going to revert back, unless you are just determined to remove any discussion of legitimate health concerns from this article, I hope we can discuss further here. Franamax (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your 4 mG/L limit is not what any municipality fluoridates their water to. The upper limit for added fluoridation is 1.2 mG/dat and we have no evidence that communities with high initial fluoride contamination or natural occurrence fluoridate at the 1.2 mG/day level to obtain a 4 mG/L limit imposed by the EPA. In effect, what you are doing is making a synthesis of original research. This is an article about opposition to water fluoridation NOT an article about opposition to high fluoride levels that happen independent of intentional fluoridation done by municipalities. There is a HUGE difference. Do you get what I'm pointing out here? You're confusing the idea that a municipal drinking supply may have a very high amount of fluoride in it with the idea that the municipality is fluoridating their water to obtain this high value. There is no evidence in ANY of the references provided so far that this is the case. Do you have any references that show a community at, say, a 3 mG/L level fluoridating up to 4 mG/L? If not, then this red herring should be removed as irrelevant to the subject of the water and merely a soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So as to avoid future misunderstandings such as this, I pointed out explicitly the problem with this speculative line of argumentation. I hope this suffices. Regards. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand and mostly agree with this now. I suppose I agree that the article should concern the risks of water fluoridation itself. Two issues present themselves: there will be a demand for "proof" that no utility fluoridates above the 1.2 mG/L limit; and there is the issue as discussed in the Jan08 Scientific American article that fluoridated water combined with dietary (i.e. food) sources add up to an unhealthy total dosage. To that extent, the NRC compilation may act as a proxy estimate of the potential effects - although we would then need a RS stating that water plus diet is equivalent to 4 mG/L. Franamax (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If anti-fluoridation organizations understand the above (as I believe some of them do), and these are part of their reasons for opposing fluoridation, it is certainly notable enough for inclusion. Badagnani (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Great - now all we need is the commentary of RS discussing the anti-fluoridation organizations. The "anti" orgs themselves are not RS. Third-party coverage is required. Franamax (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Third party coverage is required to establish that the organizations or people are important or relevant. Once prominence to the topic at hand is established, such would be RS for their own opinions (presented as such, of course). - Eldereft (cont.) 01:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of discussion, but have those commenting here actually read through the anti-fluoridation sources? I don't see much evidence that that has yet taken place, for what reason I can't understand, in light of the title of this article. Many sources are easily found at Fluoride Action Network. Badagnani (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, if a notable anti-fluoridation organization makes a statement of their views, it would certainly be acceptable to quote that statement from their official website, in the same manner that we summarize the officially stated aims of Veterans for Peace on their WP article, as found on their official site. We should be presenting a thorough summary of all relevant issues, not simply those we agree with and support ourselves. Badagnani (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Two distinct issues

Issue #1) Is municipal fluoridation rising to levels of 4 mG/L? The answer is a resounding no. Since that is the case, any health effect including fluorosis and the other health risks associated with high concentrations of fluoride (in excess of 1.2 mG/L) are hereby removed due to their irrelevancy.

Issue #2) Is high levels of fluoridation a risk? Absolutely. However, that risk is not relevant to this page. It may be relevant to the fluoride page, for example, but this is a page devoted to opposition to governmental INTENTIONAL fluoridation of water supplies. Not pollution. Not high natural concentrations.

Capice? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a page about fluoride in the water, and people's misgivings about it. Go check out fluoridealert.com. They want the amount of fluoride to be reduced. In any case, there are plenty of people who disagree with you for good reasons. Plus, the lead/silicofluorides is unrelated to the amount of consumption. So is the osteosarcoma link. The NRC basically states in its section that "as fluoride increases, intelligence decreases". These happened in ranges of 1 mg/L to 2.5 mg/L. The information is presented neutrally so that people can clearly see what the possible effects are. This is good. In some cases, it might qualm fears, since liver and kidney damage appear likely only at rather high levels. One of the other things often cited is that people with impaired kidney function could get equivalent sorts of fluoride at lower consumption levels, and children as well. Briefly noting the possible health risks is necessary for this article. II | (t - c) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Does Fluoride in the water redirect here? No it doesn't. This is a page about opposition to water fluoridation. It's not about the feelings and misgivings of people at your pet website. I've tagged the article. There are serious ownership issues going on here. Do you work for fluoridealert.com? If so, then you have a COI, and I'll report it to WP:COIN. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you need to read WP:NOT. You think Wikipedia is a public service announcement for your favorite causes. It isn't. It's an encyclopedia. Information that is IRRELEVANT to the topic of an article will be removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Does water fluoridation discuss salt and milk fluoridation? Yes, it does. There are often issues relevant to an article which are not embedded, per se, in the article title. That doesn't justify their exclusion. Your opinion that these things should be excluded, does not make it so. Giving an accurate, neutral presentation of the scientific consensus on the health effects of systematic fluoride intake informs the readers of this article, and informs discussion surrounding the article. II | (t - c) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a page where the anti-fluoridation movement is allowed to soapbox their claims. That's EXPLICITLY forbidden by Wikipedia policy. That's what you are pushing for and that's what will, like it or not, be excised from this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you believe encyclopedic, sourced discussion of actual reasons fluoridation of water has been and is opposed, that is your opinion. However, we don't simply blank most text in Opposition to the Iraq War because it would be giving a "soapbox" to those opposing the Iraq War; we follow WP procedures at all times and provide the best, properly sourced, and most encyclopedic content regarding all aspects of the subject of the article. Badagnani (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that my comments here have been used to justify re-insertion of the entire laundry list of every study and every possible way excess fluoride is bad for you. Let me disavow that interpretation right now. I actually liked it for a brief moment when it showed the misperception of the health risks, as in 1.2 mG/L is the standard, here are some of the potential effects at 4 mG/L - which do not exist at 1.2 mG/L. I think that reflects a large portion of the actual opposition to municipal fluoridation - misundertanding. Actual suspected effects at the 1.2 mG/L level of course deserve discussion - assuming such can be found. If Badagnani can present RS discussing brain effects at the 1,2 mG/L level, those too should be mentioned. As I've said many times now, the combination of fluoridated water with dietary sources should be mentioned. But I don't support at all warring to include the list of cherry-picked primary sources that discuss fluoride levels in general. Fluoridation.com and fluoridealert.org may throw in everything but the kitchen sink, but they are not RS's of commentary and we don't have to slavishly mimic them. Franamax (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's preferred that only literature from actual anti-fluoridation organizations, outlining the studies and other data on which they base their opposition, be used in this article, that would be fine. As long as there's a full treatment of "Opposition to water fluoridation," which actually gives the actual reasons why organizations and prominent individuals have opposed, and do oppose it. As in Opposition to the Iraq War, we don't have to prove that every cited reason for opposition of that war is correct; we simply provide reliable sources showing that opponents have used such a reasoning. Similarly, we don't need to "prove" that water fluoridation was a communist plot in order to mention, in the article, with proper sourcing, that prominent and vocal anti-fluoridation groups did in fact at one time in history state their belief that this was the case. Badagnani (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we use Opposition to the Iraq War as a basic structure for reorganising this article? I note that the Iraq article has a "Reasons for opposition" which is a summary of a separate article (ie/ kind of what we are sort of doing here already but organised somewhat better). Shot info (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The only difference is that there are many varied constituencies opposing the Iraq War, whereas most of the international anti-fluoridation groups (with the exception of the early anti-communist ones) are quite similar to one another in their stated aims and motivations. Badagnani (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So why is it again that we cannot use Opposition to the Iraq War as a basic structure for reorganising this article? Shot info (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify by saying that I think many of your ideas are very fine. I was just setting out one fundamental difference between the nature and variety of the organizations and individuals opposing both things, which wouldn't allow for the exact duplication of that article's structure. Badagnani (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. FWIW, I get the impression (from reading the sources) that the opposition to water fluoridation is rather disparent - and definately less organised. Probably why we are stuck in the loop of looking of reasons for opposition, rather than the actual opposition. Shot info (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not actually take a look at the anti-fluoridation sources? It would be very helpful if editors commenting here would do that before commenting, seeing as the title of this article is "Opposition to water fluoridation." Badagnani (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I personally cannot speak for all editors, however I know that I personally have, which is why I have been revising the article and discussing things on the talk page (like now you know). The main problem I know I have had is opposition to making changes to remove the superfluous information and include in info about the opposition groups. So I stood back from the article a bit to see what happens, after all it's not as if the worlds going to end tomorrow if this article ain't perfect :-). Shot info (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanket removals from the article

This form of editing is not permissible at Wikipedia. Please revert and discuss. Badagnani (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Have nothing to say above? Try discussing yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The massive, massive blanking is highly damaging to the article, and our project. Having an article about the opposition to water fluoridation that willfully blanks mention of the actual reasons for such opposition does not provide the information our users will come here seeking. Please revert the massive, massive blanking, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, the article needs to discuss that people are opposed for reason X. Not just go on about reason X. Reason X is best discussed in the article about reason X. Currently the overly long discussions about the various health problems associated with Fluorine belong either in that article, or in the specific case of health issues associated with Water Fluoridation (which most are) discussed in that article. This article needs to discuss the nature of the movement, and in the case of the movement being small/large, organised/disorganised, etc. etc. At the moment, the article fails to discuss who is the actual opposition to Water Fluoridation. Perhaps as a group of editors, we should look at reforming the current structure and then reorganising? Cause it's a mess and has been for several months now. Shot info (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As we've seen, however, reason X (and Y, and Z, etc.) have been removed entirely. That's not helpful to our readers, seeing as several of the anti-fluoridation groups have made their reasons for opposition well known--yet we don't list any of those reasons. There's something very wrong. Badagnani (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be expanded to explain these mysterious anti-fluoridation groups rather than drown in a discussion of reason(s) X, Y, Z etc. You will find the reasons X, Y, Z discussed is other areas of Wikipedia, and our readers do know how to use a mouse and click on links of their interest. Please help add to the article about the opposition to water fluoridation rather than focusing on reasons why they oppose. Something like, Group X - a large/small/medium group composing of members ABC opposed water fluoration because link1, link2, link3. No reason to copy info in link1, link2, link3 into this article however. Shot info (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We now have one article on such a group, the Fluoride Action Network. Five other groups in English-speaking nations (the UK and Australia) have redlinks under "See also" in that article. I haven't found any groups in Canada, New Zealand, or South Africa that have websites. Badagnani (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really, unless raising awareness of the health effects of fluoride ingestion (due to water fluoridation as well as other sources), which it believes to be problematic due to fluoride's toxicity equates to opposition to water fluoridation. Either they are opposed or they are not. While us mere mortals know they are an opposition group, officially FAN tries to be all things to all people it seems :-) Shot info (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't make any sense of the above comment. Their positions have been stated clearly on their website, as well as in the media, when they have been quoted. Badagnani (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) At any rate, as a collective, the opposition can be discussed here, with the reasons. While the actual nitty gritty can be farmed off to articles such as Fluoride Action Network or those relevant to a particular health issue. We don't need to write 1,000k here, a simple 3 section with 10 or so paragraph article is all thats needed here. In fact, I'm wondering if we should merge this article into a section under Water fluoridation with links of to the health issue(s) and also the more prominant groups (ie/ the ones with articles). Most of this article as it stands is quite redundant and we all (at least we seem to) agree that in it's current form, the article is in bad shape. Shot info (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe there's enough in the subfield of opposition (including early anti-communist groups as well as current scientifically-oriented groups) to merit this article. I haven't seen much evidence that anyone has yet delved into the anti-fluoridation groups' literature yet, which is strange. There's also a book about the issue, which is mentioned briefly in the article. Badagnani (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can hazard a guess, it's because we are concentrating more on what the mainstream world (ie/ medical/scientific literature) says about health effects, rather than what the Opposition actually says it's mission/goals/aims/reasons are. But that's just a guess based on what I have seen the arguments raging over. Shot info (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a different article, perhaps entitled "Literature about the effects of fluoridated water," rather than "Opposition to water fluoridation." Badagnani (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought here - would it be beneficial to rename and retarget this article then to something along the lines of "Effects of excess fluoride intake"? Then the cogent portions related to the actual controversy over municipal water fluoridation could be relocated to Water fluoridation (including a condensed section on the communist conspiracy theory) and the wider discussion of the negative effects of excess fluoride intake would have a better home, without a title that causes endless wars. Would that be a viable solution? (That does leave out where to discuss the anti-fluoride organizations, but still...) Franamax (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, because it would leave out the views of the anti-fluoridation organizations even more than this article does (even though its title is "Opposition to water fluoridation" the groups and their stated aims and activities so far merit only a passing mention). Badagnani (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, you keep mention the title and lamenting the fact that it doesn't include the pertinent info. You know, you could actually....edit the article? Shot info (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the section heading. At this point we're in a period of damage control, trying against all odds to maintain the integrity of our community against huge blanking. Once that is resolved, we can move on to implementing consensus. It would, however, be good to see some evidence that the interested editors have actually read through and carefully considered the relevant sources. Badagnani (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, how 'bout if I change the heading then? Do you have any specific editors in mind who have not been reading and considering the relevant sources? Remember that blanking can always be met with judicious and discussed re-addition. The end goal is a better article. And as Shot info says, you can always try adding some sourced content written by yourself. Franamax (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Including your post above, I've not seen any evidence that any editor has actually carefully read the sources regarding the anti-fluoridation groups (such as Fluoride Action Network, the most prominent such organization). Badagnani (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK help me out then. What would constitute such evidence? Franamax (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actual substantive discussion of the stated reasons for the opposition of water fluoridation from the most prominent and active groups (from the groups' websites as well as in major media), with links provided, so that we may evaluate such information for inclusion in the article. See again the title of this article. Until now, comments have dealt in generalities or reasons editors believe fluoridation should not be opposed. Badagnani (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, please indent your comments when responding to others so that other editors may follow the thread. Shot info (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also it would help if you stop generalising your particular concerns as "editors" or "we". If you have an issue, feel free to say here that you have an issue rather than framing it as a group problem. Shot info (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll second Shot info's request to indent thread responses the same as everyone else tries to do.

And Badagnani, thanks for clarifying your criteria for evidence of the participants here (my paraphrase) "understanding" the issues. Can you point us to the evidence that you also have engaged in "substantive discussion...with links provided"? Maybe we can build on your contributions. Franamax (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding more and more comments about other things than the actual sources regarding opposition to water fluoridation (the subject and title of this article) is not helpful. Let's begin by actually presenting and evaluating these sources. I've been looking at them for many days now but don't see evidence that other editors have been doing so. Badagnani (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just read the entire article and talk page.It is funny how badagnani keeps saying the editors don't understand the info on the subject when they clearly do.It is also funny how badagnani keeps getting asked for sources and never provides any.I also wonder how these anti fluoride people will ever over come the fact that water has been fluoridated for over 60 years and the average IQ is still 100.No amount of pseudoscience can over come that.This reads more like a debate on youtube with conspiracy theorists.I thought Wiki was an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger

Moving this into new section as is an aside to current discussion. Shot info (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose merge for the reason that we don't merge Opposition to the Iraq War into Iraq War. I still don't see any evidence that editors have seriously read and considered the anti-fluoridation sources (the subject of this article), but instead continue to comment off the tops of their heads. Actual discussion of those sources is rather important to a proper and complete treatment of this subject. Regarding nations, the U.S. is not the only one with a controversy; as mentioned earlier, there are also organizations in the UK and Australia, as well as a few other nations, although not all have websites. Badagnani (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Badag, I added, and completely read, the Brian Martin article, which is the best third-party source on the "opposition" that we have. He also has a more recent 200 page book that I have not read. The fact is that when you strip away the things which could go in the main article (efficacy, ethics) you're left with the sociology of the opposition, the conspiracy theories, and the court cases. I suppose it is enough for an article. II | (t - c) 06:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, just in case someone wishes to hold up a mirror to you - can you place here just one single source that you have seriously read and considered? Give us a little precis of what that source means, beyond the headline quote or the abstract? You're the one questioning everyone else's understanding, can you show some leadership? I'm busy enough with the hundred or so pages I've read from the NRC report, the Scientific American article, the text of the sources in that. I recognize that at some point I will need to dig up each single one of the 25 or so references copied blindly into the Efficacy section - honest now, have you actually read each of those papers? Put another way, is there some method by which you could make a substantive contribution? Franamax (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I do not have any strong opinion here. But there are some irrelevant information in the article. For example Health risks and Fluorosis do not belong in this article. Otherwise the article overall looks fine. Opposition to X is valid topic. I did not check all the references provided, care should be taken so that fringe sources are not given. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Section List

• Lede
• Reasons for opposition
  • General
  • Efficacy
  • Health Risks
  • Ethics
  • Conspiracy theories
• Opposition in the United States
  • Court cases
• Opposition in European countries
  • Ireland
    • Court cases
  • <other>
• Opposition throughout other parts of the world
  • <other>
• See also
• Notes and References
• External links

Not perfect, and can be easily populated with info currently in the article. Also the article doesn't need long discussions on the particular topic under "Reasons for oppostiion" (eg/ Fluorsis) but rather can simply say "a reason for opposition is fluorsis ". Fleshed out of course to make it more readable. --Shot info

This is not suitable until the actual sources regarding anti-fluoridation groups, prominent individuals, and books have been carefully examined, as those would necessarily influence the best structure of the article. Badagnani (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about?? Shot info (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The headings selected may not match the ones that have actually been customarily held by anti-fluoridation groups and individuals, past and present. Such sources should be presented and evaluated here before the headings are formulated. There's also no distinction made between past and present anti-fluoridation efforts. However, it's a start. Badagnani (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please indent your comments. Let's see what other editors have to say now shall we? Shot info (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Reviewing this:

• I'm not sure how General will differentiate from Lede. To me, the current lead does a good job of summarizing the reasons for opposition. It may not do well at making prominent the organized US opposition, and it may have a few too many words about conspiracies, but it to a large degree subsumes the need for General in the Opposition section..
• In a general sense, I'm not comfortable with addressing Opposition on such a regio-centric basis (hell, I'll say it - why does the US come first? :) (and thanks for putting Canada in the ROW - helloo? the big white space at the top of the map? :) Is there a better way to organize Opposition? Perhaps "Activist Opposition" (the "anti"s), "Opposition by Organized Groups" (EPA union, whichever medical/dental org's have made statements), "Opposition Statements" (individual medical professionals, etc.). I suppose there will be too much POV involved to segregate along those lines, but is there a better way to clarify how Opposition breaks down?
• Similarly, I like seeing the Court Cases treated separately as they in a way form a different treatment of the subject.
• And Badagnani, please do advance beyond critical generalities with your own substantive suggestions and relevant sources. Franamax (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, I have no real hard and fast feelings with the sections. In reality I just copied the sections from Opp to Iraq War, and added in bits that are currently in this article. Feel free to pull it apart as you suggested. "General" is really just "everything not discussed elsewhere" :-) and probably not needed in a mature article (but probably useful to have as a bucket while article is being (re)written). Also unfortunately the US seems to be the locus of opposition to fluoridation but what we can do is just put in the information, and the section with the most info (which I suspect will be the US) we can put up front, with the rest trailing out. Just my 2ic worth. Shot info (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point I do think we should merge this into the water fluoridation page. That's why I'm trying to clean it up a bit. People seem to forget that only a couple months ago this was titled "water fluoridation controversy", and it was just tossed here because Jerysko didn't like all the negative information the main article had (I'm not sure I blame him). Opposition can be a subsection in the main article on the sociology of the opposition. Ethics, efficacy, health risks, and similar things really deserve to be on the main page. II | (t - c) 05:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I think cleaning up in place is the best idea for now. We still have to resolve whether the "laundry list" of acute fluoride effects is appropriate in the context of municipal water fluoridation, whether here or in the main article. Are we anywhere close to agreement on that?

And I've committed to giving a shot to describing the major anti-fluoridation organizations; I plan to try it, but over the next 3-4 days, you know, having a life and all that, I just can't :) Others are free to try, otherwise I'd appreciate a week or so to gather the necessaries and essay a wording.

Also I'm still thinking about where the outlet will be for the description of acute health effects due to excessive fluoride intake. Currently that is here (and regrettably in the main article also) and has no proper distinction between "adding fluoride to water" and "fluoride levels in water". Regardless of our rationality in merging and titling articles, there needs to be a place to make the extensive list of maleficent effects of fluorine in humans. We just need to question whether that should be under the rubric of "water fluoridation". Franamax (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the health risks discussed here are acute. They are all chronic. See fluoride poisoning for the acute effects. I think the possible health effects can be summarized neatly in the water fluoridation article. I propose that, even if the relationship occurs only at a high level, we describe that level as it is described by the best scholarly review, the NRC. That just puts the scientific consensus out there and informs people who read the article that the relationship has been tested, possibly helping to qualm fears. I've started on that by noting that kidney and liver damage appear only at high levels. The osteosarcoma link, which is equivocal (3 or so epidemiological studies concluding yes, the rest -- not sure on number -- concluding no), occurs at the optimal dose. The lead thing is preliminary, and I still need to see how much the epidemiological studies find in increased lead. The intelligence thing occurs at somewhat higher levels, and that should be noted. When we use the NRC to discuss all these health effects, fluoride will come out seeming not all that risky. I did read somewhere that there is evidence that children get 3-4 times the fluoride intake (by weight) that adults do, but I haven't found any articles on that. II | (t - c) 06:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To Franamax - Go for it, the world isn't going to end tomorrow. And if it does, well Wikipedia is the lest of our problems :-)

To II, yep, I pretty much agree with your vision. Minor clarifications (which I believe agrees with what you are saying...I hope) - probably best to keep the effects of fluoride poisoning in fluoride poisoning. Problems with water fluoridation treatment problems, best in Water fluoridation. Items on actual health effects should be moved to the articles on the health effects (such as Fluorsis or as you indicate above. After that we will have the core of the Opposition article that we can hand on the sections skeleton and expand. Of course it's perfectly valid to say in this article that Notable Person X opposes fluoration because of Reason Y. But probably no reason to expand on Person X or Reason Y in this article. Shot info (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Are sections 2 and 3 relevant to this article?

Are sections 2 and 3 which are about the health risks associated with fluoride levels well in excess of any caused by municipalities fluoridating their water relevant to this article? Note that communities with high contamination or natural levels of fluoride in their water supply do not fluoridate their water and therefore the effects of fluorosis and other "health risks" listed are not associated with municipal fluoridation. The reason that this item is included is because editors at this page who are affiliated with anti-fluoridation campaigns are using these "health risks" and fluorosis concerns as a red-herring scare tactic. They get people scared about the health risks associated with high levels of fluoride even though that such high levels are never present in places where municipal fluoridation happens. Such bait-and-switch tactics may be used by the anti-fluoridation activists and ideologues, but they are not based in fact and should not be presented as fact. It would be like in an article on Chihuahua ownership opposition we included two sections on the dangers of wolf ownership simply because anti-Chihuahua-ownership groups used that as propaganda to spread their message. If there is outside coverage of these tactics by reliable, independent third-party sources then we can report that they use these tactics, but having Wikipedia simply state these "health risks and fluorosis facts" is a bald endorsement of these tactics and an obvious violation of WP:SOAP. My solution is either remove the two sections to a more relevant article (such as the fluoride article) or rewrite them so that the tactical nature of how anti-fluoridation activists use this "information" is explained to the reader. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

One supposes if prose in a Wikipedia article is angled strongly towards one bias or another, a rewrite is in order. Whether a bias is present, I shall leave up to the article regulars, but certainly, if what S.A. says is correct, a rewrite of the relevant sections would be wise. Anthøny 15:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is a POV, rewriting would seem better than simply removing. A brief intro with link to related articles like fluorosis seems justified for an article on this topic. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Even better would be to carefully consider anti-fluoridation sources and cite the reasons they themselves oppose fluoridation (keeping in mind that the article's title is "Opposition to water fluoridation" and not "Drawbacks to water fluoridation" or "Problems caused by water fluoridation." It doesn't matter if the reasons are scary; all that matters is that it has verifiably been raised as a reason for opposition, by those who have opposed it. Badagnani (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally critical of all "Criticism of" articles, and "Opposition to" articles have the same problem: they fail NPOV because the article is about a one-sided argument. Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (Papa Bear!), for example, is a one-sided attack that is longer than the actual Bill O'Reilly article. As written, this is a WP:POVFORK of water fluoridation, though it could probably be rewritten as a "History of water fluoridation" and cover the opposition arguments in actual balance. Anything else should be in the water fluoridation article in proper WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. SDY (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh This is my first arrival at this article. Disclaimer: I don't have a conflict of interest. Overall, I agree with SDY. The article contains much non-neutral information. Several items in the so-called "Health risks" have only a tenuous association with water fluoridation. Skeletal fluorosis is not caused by water fluoridation. This sentence from "Dental fluorosis": "The World Health Organization cautions that fluoride levels above 1.5 milligrams per liter leaves the risk for fluorosis Ref" is not backed up by the reference. This article needs heavy editing to approach a neutral viewpoint. Axl (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If the article would actually reflect the activities and statements of anti-fluoridation groups and notable individuals, both past and present, and their reasons for opposition (since the title is "Opposition to water fluoridation"), that would be even better. We can begin by having interested editors actually carefully consider sources about the anti-fluoridation groups and notable individuals, something that doesn't yet seem to have taken place despite the fact that such materials are readily available on the Internet and in print form. Badagnani (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

At minimum, I think these sections need to be re-written. They should probably also be merged into the same section. Effects that cannot possibly be caused by normal municipal water fluoridation (or fluoridation of table salt, which is what happens in many "non-fluoridating" developed countries) should not be included.

I also have no conflict of interest, and in case anyone's curious, I officially live in a non-fluoridating community: the water here is naturally high in fluoride.

Re-writing this as a history might have some benefits for managing the concerns over bias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A history of anti-fluoridation campaigns, and the controversy in general would seem a fine way of reorganizing the article. That way, a discussion of purported problems with fluoridation without mentioning actual groups who have cited such reasons as motivations for their opposition wouldn't be seen as synthesis, or discussing these purported problems in a vacuum, but instead illustrate that actual anti-fluoridation groups have conducted public campaigns using such issues as their motivation. Just as long as editors actually carefully consider the materials regarding the prominent anti-fluoridation groups and campaigns, which have not as yet been discussed in a substantive manner in the article, or on this discussion page. Badagnani (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• The health effects are often cited by "opposition" groups as the major reason for their opposition to fluoridation. The NRC report is cited particularly often. Sourcing the health effects from these groups would result in a non-neutral presentation of the effects. Thus, I've been trying to source the scientific consensus directly from a very scholarly source. The intro to the health risks section clearly states that most of these occur at levels above the "optimal dosage"; nevertheless, those who oppose active fluoridation also believe that the MCL should be lowered on natural fluoride, which is used as a replacement for the active work in some areas. I've said before that I don't really mind working these things into the main article. The potential health risks could be worked into the main article on water fluoridation. Even though these affects are seen at levels above the MCL, it doesn't seem like a bad thing to briefly explain exactly what happens. But if people oppose putting these effects in these articles, then I suppose I'll have to make a new article called "Fluoride toxicity" (separate from fluoride poisoning). II | (t - c) 21:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My take on this particular page is that it should really focus on the groups that oppose it: who they are, their concerns, etc... Any actual discussion of "pros and cons" should be covered in the main article or in a "health effects of fluoridation" article. "Group X is concerned that fluoride levels in Elbonia are higher than Group E's recommendations." "Group Y is concerned that this is a communist conspiracy and that their bodily fluids are too precious to be fluoridated." etc... If there's actual hard science about the health effects, it should be presented on the main article (in proper weight and such). Banishing it to the "ghetto of criticism" causes NPOV problems for the main article as well. SDY (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those thoughts. Incidentally, your comment "if there's actually hard science" seems to suggest that you didn't read the article, because there's plenty of hard science (at the same time, not enough). One should always try to read the article, and the relevant sections especially, before commenting in a RfC. Wikipedians have a unfortunate habit of reading only discussion boards. They can discuss articles for months upon months, tracking changes, but never actually reading the article. II | (t - c) 19:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. The various motivations behind the groups may lay on a continuum ranging from silly to having scientific weight, but it's not our business to insert POV regarding this, only to present evidence regarding "Opposition to water fluoridation" -- a controversy that has flared regularly over a period of many decades, and continues to rage in some regions of the world. Badagnani (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The efforts and motivations of the anti-fluoridation groups have been noted in many media. Have they yet been carefully read through and considered? Don't forget that this article is entitled "Opposition to water fluoridation" and not "drawbacks of water fluoridation." Badagnani (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would happily redirect to whole article back to water fluoridation, and be done. As noted above, this article exists solely to provide an avenue to document the opposition arguments without concern for balancing them. If this article persists, then the fluoridosis section needs to be removed, and replaced with a wikilink to the main fluorosis article. The effects described in this article have nothing to do with things that can actually occur as a result of municipal fluoridation. There is also a soapbox concern with this article, especially viewing the threat to create a Flouride toxicity article if the fluorosis section is deleted from this one.
  Kww (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no wish to use this article as a soapbox, simply to document a long-standing and still active controversy. See, again, the title of the article. Redirecting or merging, on the other hand, would certainly serve a POV. It seems time to actually carefully evaluate literature regarding anti-fluoridation campaigns and discuss them in a methodical and NPOV manner in the article. Badagnani (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As a suggestion, this article used to be called "water fluoridation controversy". This allowed an opportunity to mention the concerns of those who oppose water fluoridation but in the context of what is widely believed in the scientific and medical communities. It was not an article where those opposed to fluoridation could spew their arguments, even if those arguments are discredited by respected groups, such as the American Dental Association and the World Health Organization. There are drawbacks for structuring the article in this manner, but it may be worth considering again. Here is an old version of the article with this structure: [8]. Note especially the section titled "Safety". Nonetheless, I agree with many of you who believe the current state of this article is appalling and something needs to be done to improve it. - Dozenist talk 15:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something needs to be done. I agree that this article probably forked off of Water fluoridation#Opposition, but if there's enough to say in a balanced way I'm not opposed to keeping it as a fully-formed page. If there's enough to say about the opposition (groups, tactics & ad campaigns, rationales) that is well-cited, and it sounds like there may be, that would make a fine article here. Otherwise, could broaden the topic towards the whole controversy, in which case again the opposition groups and their specific health concerns would remain, along with the "pro" side. Could move even more content from Water fluoridation into the article here.

That make the page at hand more balanced and less like a POV/contentfork.

In either of these cases, issues of fluoride toxicity by other routes of administration or other doses would not be appropriate. Material about Topic X doesn't belong in an article about Topic Y, regardless of how true and sourced the Topic X info might be. I see we already do have a Fluoride poisoning article (that's a hard-science/health page, not POV or about any controversy or social issues) so any actual scientific material from the page here can be merged into there. That would allow the page here to focus on the groups, history, etc of the debate.

Fluoride therapy seems to be headed in the wrong direction, where some of the material is getting off-topic or redundant for the poisoning article.

DMacks (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the sections are relevant, as health effects are cited by fluoridation opponents (is it not their main arguement). But at the moment, these sections are far too long, giving them undue weight. A short summary of deleterious effects of fluoride is needed, along with a clear explanation of the studies lack of ecological validity (ie, no-one drinks the amounts of water necessary, or that highly flouridated water. I would say both sections need to be a maximimum a half their current size - there are seperate articles for people interested in health effects outside of the tap-water fluoridation debate.Yobmod (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• The sections are relevant as long as the "opposition" makes them relevant, whether they are Truly Relevant or not. To use an "argument by caricature", if notable anti-fluoridation organizations were to say that water fluoridation is dangerous because it will cause a rain of kilogram-sized chunks of fluorite that would kill us from blunt trauma, we would have to report that. It is a question of notability, not of science. That said, the material would have to be presented as "arguments from the opposition", and not as facts. Again using the caricature, one would have to say: "According to Mothers Against Freaking Fluridation, fluoridation is dangerous because being hit by a 1-kg chunk of fluorite at terminal velocity can be deadly" and not simply say "being hit by a 1-kg chunk of fluorite at terminal velocity can be deadly", because then one can rightly wonder whether the factoid is relevant or not. --Itub (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources that should be added

This source from the National Research Council. (2006) is significant enough to be mentioned in the Lead section. “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards National Academies Press.” (ref 13 in the article).

The fact that over 1,700 Health professionals Call for an End to Fluoridation of Drinking Water in a petition should also be included [9]. Signers include tons of MDs, PhDs and one Nobel Prize winner in medicine. At least one signer (the Nobel laurate) makes the petition notable enough to be mentioned, regardless of the media coverage I-Team: Fluoride Controversy, ABC WJLA/NewsChannel 8, Aug 9, 2007.

We should also add an overview of the various campaign organisations and other non-profits that are active in the area, probably by giving the more notable organisations two to five lines of text each. MaxPont (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Are those things not yet in the article? Badagnani (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the article seeks to present the controversy without taking sides, both "sides," pro and con, should be mentioned. For example in the paragraph describing/citing the US NRC's analysis of water fluoridation, we should cite http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm, indicating the US CDC's listing of water fluoridation as one of the top ten health achievements of the 20th century. On a related subject of balance and context about water fluoridation. The data on efficacy of water fluoridation, and presumably the calls by some to cease fluoridating public water, are driven in part because fluoride is being delivered (in the first world) via multiple mechanisms (dental gels, toothpastes, table salt, milk) in addition to water fluoridation. So the decline in the extent of water fluoridation is attributable to the increased number of delivery methods. Also to provide context to the controversy, it may be useful to disucss the widespread use of iodized salt for prevention of goiters.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, that isn't the objective, since the article is now entitled "Opposition to water fluoridation." If the article were entitled "Water fluoridation controversy" or "Benefits of water fluoridation," or even "Water fluoridation," such a manner of organization/addition would be appropriate. Badagnani (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Smokefoot, I agree that this article should not take a side when it documents the efficacy, possible harms, and ultimate cost-benefit analysis. The CDC's position was stated a long time ago. It's a tertiary source, so we don't really know what data they are basing it off. With that said, as a general statement reflecting widespread opinion, it is fine to cite, and it could probably fit in the lead. It should not be confused with conclusive, hard evidence. It should certainly not be used to refute the York review, which concluded that the evidence was universally poor and the median reduction in caries was 14%. As far as your "in addition to water fluoridation", that's not really true. Water fluoridation is only common in English-speaking countries. This is an encyclopedic fact that needs to be, and is, noted. The other mechanisms are cited as a good reason for why water fluoridation is unnecessary, and they do make it difficult to tell how effective water fluoridation has really been, which is also noted by scholars. Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Belgium -- all of these fluoridate neither salt nor water[10], and have less mean cavities than the US. Colquoun and Limeback both point out that many areas which are fluoridated have higher levels of caries than nonfluorided areas. I've went over this with you. As far as the iodine, I agree that it would be relevant to the ethics section, but you would have to find a source which made that connection explicitly. I'm sure it has been done. II | (t - c) 03:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

okay, I got the message - the article is about the arguments against, not trying to present both sides. That's cool. The aspect of II's argumentation that I find objectionable is the "shell game" between primary and tertiary sources: the CDC's praise for water fluoridation should be rejected as it is merely tertiary, vs. II's primary sources offering more reliable analyses. In many WE-chem articles (where I mainly edit), we urge against primary literature (vs reviews and texts) since the primary literature has not been assessed, tends to be hyperspecialized, and, from a practical perspective, one can overwhelm any wikipedia article with primary literature: many, many thousands of scientific publications appear every year, so we cannot possibly hope to cite them well and with balance. (On a specific non-format theme: I am astounded that intelligent editors find the CDC (and the WHO) to be lackeys of poor analysis or participants in some conspiracy, but that view is a digression). --Smokefoot (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I mentioned the York review, a systematic review of the evidence. It is a secondary, not primary, source. However, it was removed from the page by Ronz. I said specifically in the above paragraph that the CDC should not take precedence over a careful analysis of the literature like the York review, which expressed strong reservations about the quality of the evidence. I also said that I agree that this page should not take sides when it comes to the efficacy or possible harms. I even said that we could maybe fit the CDC's position in the lead. Please read my paragraph above slowly. I've made these points several times to you in an above section, and you continue to misinterpret them. I wouldn't really mind if this page was merged with water fluoridation, as long as none of the relevant information is deleted, including the possible health effects section. II | (t - c) 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

One hopefully helpful thought on this article: No topic is completely static, but this controversy might be espcially dynamic because the initial opposition was driven by opposition to government-imposed mass medication but the more recent opposition is driven by technical misgivings about efficacy associated with the breadth of the fluoridation modalities that in part obviate water fluoridation.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related subject, as I and others have mentioned before, I think there is a WP:RS problem by using FluorideAlert as a source for several subjects, especially issues on safety and government laws/regulation of fluoridation. I am not including the York Review or CDC findings, of course. Perhaps this issues was already discussed and agreed to, but I just wanted to point out that FluorideAlert and other anti-fluoridation advocacy groups would likely fall what is described in WP:RS as "Extremist and fringe sources" since the views of these groups are "views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field". - Dozenist talk 01:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If that particular organization states on its official site that they're against something, there's no problem with sourcing, because it's their own website. The article is entitled "Opposition to water fluoridation" so we want to have good, reliable information about which organizations and individuals have opposed fluoridation, and for which reasons. Badagnani (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as the statement that is being referenced mentions that this is the point of view or beliefs of this and similar groups. - Dozenist talk 02:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Who else's point of view would we seek to represent? All Wikipedia articles must be entirely NPOV. Badagnani (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A statement such as "Fluoride causes cancer", or something along those lines, would need a reliable source. FluorideAlert would not be a reliable source for that statement. Although it may seem obvious, that was the only thing I was trying to point out. Again, I would point out WP:RS, which also says, "When using such sources [Extremist and Fringe sources], reliable mainstream sources must be found in order to allow the dispute to be characterized fairly, presenting the mainstream view as the mainstream, and the fringe theory as a minority fringe view."- Dozenist talk 11:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but note that the only time Fluoride Alert is used right now is to cite Hardy Limeback's statement. Limeback has published over 100 articles in dentistry, and served on the NRC's 12-person panel on fluoride's toxicology. He's citable whether he's published or not, as an expert indicated by previous publications. Also, FAN is not an extremist or fringe source, although many in the US might think they are. Pretty much only English-speaking countries, and a handful of Latin American countries, fluoride their water; as Kim pointed out earlier, it was rejected by the Dutch Supreme Court, presumably as unethical. 5 of the prestigious scientists on the NRC's panel said that they were very worried about it. When the York review was published in 2001, an editorialist at the BMJ said "I am now persuaded by the arguments that those who wish to take fluoride (like me) had better get it from toothpaste rather than the water supply". So, among those who have looked at the recent evidence, there is certainly a very real controversy. As some have pointed out (can't remember the source), the ADA has at this point a very strong vested interest in one side of the issue, making them a somewhat dubious source. It's not easy to admit you're wrong when you've been vociferously pushing a position for 50 years. Sources like the York review, or the NRC panel's chair, are more neutral, and more believable. It is hard to say which side is mainstream at this point. Yes, if you count the ADA's thousands of members, they overwhelm by number the NRC panel members and the numerous scientists who publish in Fluoride. But the global warming skeptics by far outnumber the global warming scientists, and many of these skeptics are doctors, scientists, and even many climatologists (the climatologists have trouble publishing papers, however). Dentists are not toxicologists -- they aren't even scientists. (Limeback, OTOH, has a PhD in biochemistry.) That's not to say that many of the dental researchers in the ADA aren't scientists, but it is a toss-up as to which position is more mainstream among relevant scientists at this point. II | (t - c) 21:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would still say it is difficult to claim that the views of FluorideAlert are mainstream views considering the number of organizations that hold the opposite view. These organizations include many dental associations with the United States (the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Association of Public Health Dentistry, and of course the American Dental Association), dental associations throughout the world (including the British Dental Association, the Australian Dental Association, the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, and the FDI World Dental Federation), respected research groups (such as the International Association for Dental Research and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research), and of course the notable organizations the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization. Textbooks are also great sources to find what is commonly accepted beliefs, which also reflect the views held by these dental and health organizations. - Dozenist talk 23:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there's mainstream scientists on both sides, but calling a position held by a large number of mainstream scientists, as well as a large proportion of the public, "fringe", is fairly absurd. Those expressing misgivings have some recent scientific evidence on their side, but ultimately the debate rests upon what value you place on uncertainty. The CDC proclaimed that water fluoridation was one of the top 10 public health achievements in 1999. In 2001, the York systematic review expressed strong misgivings about the quality of the evidence and misinterpretations. Essentially, it stated that the evidence has been exaggerated. Anyway, I already said that the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is not a good source, especially not for something contentious. Also, in general it is better to go to the data and the studies rather than try to argue from authority. We can do that, and we should. II | (t - c) 01:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this article is not trying to prove anything, as the above post implies, but instead to thoroughly document "Opposition to water fluoridation" (the title of the article). It really doesn't do that now, largely because the actual literature regarding the notable groups and individuals opposing fluoridation have not been discussed in a comprehensive (or even cursory) manner here. Badagnani (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fluoride alert bases everything it says on the studies done. If you are suggesting they are just making it up then you are wrong. I agree the actual site shouldn't be cited as a reference though - you should cite the actual study that fluoride alert is basing what it says on. I thought this went without saying. Unfortunately a lot of these studies cannot be read because you have to pay a large amount of money to read them online or be a member of Athens or some other medical association. However you can read the university of york's review which found no hard evidence of water fluoridation's efficacy. Also the fact that members of the USA's EPA and others oppose water fluoridation means that this topic shouldn't be dismissed as a wacko conspiracy theory - it should be treated seriously.Tremello22 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't necessarily be necessary to cite the actual study on which Fluoride Alert bases its opposition because the article's title is "Opposition to water fluoridation." A thorough and comprehensive treatment of the notable organizations and individuals that have opposed fluoridation, and the reasons they have given for doing that, would be the main focus of this article (titled "Opposition to water fluoridation"). At this moment, the article gives only glancing or passing mentions of these, preferring to focus on evidence that fluoridation is beneficial or not, while largely failing to comprehensively or thoroughly address the actual "Opposition to water fluoridation" (the article's title). Badagnani (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with that but don't you think there is a place for a critical examination of the studies? Or are you suggesting that the critical examination and listing of the studies etc should be put on a different page - say the water fluoridation page? If so I wouldn't have a problem either way.Tremello22 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the specific reasons for opposition can be examined or even deconstructed, but that would necessarily be secondary to the main thrust of the article, as it is titled. I sense, however, that the backgrounds of most of the editors who are interested in this topic, who contribute here, cause them to focus on the deconstruction rather than the actual explication of the phenomenon itself, something that really does need to be treated in a comprehensive manner. The article does not even come close to doing this at this moment. Badagnani (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you start up a history section yourself? II | (t - c) 20:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I assumed that other editors here, who had worked on it for a longer time, had more expertise in this topic, and familiarity with the available sources, than I. Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fluoride action network and fluoride alert are the same thing.Search fluoridealert and see what happens.FAN is not even close to being reliable.They claim to link to an NRC study wich says the current regulation of 4 ppm is toxic.The amount of 4ppm is not even mentioned on the NRC's report.The amount 4mg/L is.No municipalities use more than 1.2mg/L wich is also mentioned in said study.That is just one example of them lying so I question there integrity.I also question II's integrity as he claimed global warming skeptics out number people who know the truth on that subject.That is 100% untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

4 ppm and 4 mg/L are essentially the same thing. --Itub (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring/enormous, massive blanking against consensus

See [11]. An article entitled "Opposition to water fluoridaiton" should, in an encyclopedic manner, set out information about the organizations and individuals opposing water fluoridation, as well as their reasons for doing so (not ignore the issues that motivate them via enormous, massive blanking). Badagnani (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the RFC above, or did you simply argue with everybody? Certainly what I took from it was that information about effects that could not be caused by municipal fluoridation did not belong in the article, and that's what SA took out. That's why I reverted your restoration of the material. If you want to have massive sections of text devoted to the toxic effects of fluoride when used in far larger concentrations than municipal fluoridation introduces, you should try to form a consensus in that direction. I think you will have a very difficult time.Kww (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

An article about "Opposition to water fluoridation" should summarize actual reasons actual notable groups and individuals have opposed water fluoridation--not willfully ignore them through enormous, massive blanking. Badagnani (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are dodging my question ... did you read the RFC above? If so, how can you state that the result of the RFC was that material should be kept?Kww (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Massive blanking" is Badagnani's favourite phrase. This information, as was established by the RFC, has no place here. Hence the removal of a small block of text was entirely supported by consensus and policy. Verbal chat 06:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Massive blanking" would be a great name for a band, though... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag spamming - 7 tags: should be discussed or removed

It is not productive to just add tons of tags with no attempt to solve the potential problems. IMO this article is "overtagged", one or maybe two tags can be kept mark the controversial nature of the article. The tags ought to be discussed, and removed if no compelling argument can be found for keeping them. MaxPont (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Watch out for accusations of "massive blanking" however :-) Shot info (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the recent purge of barely-related content got rid of the justification for most of the tags as well.Kww (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Efficacy

The lead sentence in this section:

"The largest study of water fluoridation's efficacy, conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research, showed no statistically significant difference in tooth decay rates among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.[26]"

implies that the study by the NIDR REPORTED "no statisticlly significant difference in tooth decay...". This is not true. The NIDR study data was reanalyzed by someone else who then reports this conclusion.169.230.82.109 (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Desoto10 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the next sentence:

"A review of the evidence from the University of York, published in 2000, examined 30 studies.[27] The researchers concluded that the quality of evidence in most studies was poor, also expressing concern over the "continuing misinterpretations of the evidence".[28] "

is unclear. That review concluded:

"The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score."

I removed the statement, copied from the FAN website concerning topical vs. systemic fluoride application and caries. Please build a case as to why this is relevant and then just cite a decent review.Desoto10 (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that conclusion was left out by mistake?Desoto10 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pineal

I'd like to see some mention of the pineal gland thing. I've seen some studies about it. Andre (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there used to be some info, but ScienceApologist deleted it. The NAS summarizes it starting on page 252. The only human studies were epidemiological, looking at girls' age of puberty. The study you probably saw was from Luke. She gave those gerbils a lot of fluoride, so it's not really generalizable to human intake, but it was interesting in that by disturbing the pineal gland with fluoride, she was able to speculate what the effects of the pineal gland could be. Increased F in the pineal gland led to less melatonin (based on reduced urinary excretion), which led to accelerated puberty in female rats and a lower testes weight in male rats. II | (t - c) 19:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is CRYSTAL of course, and the minor annoying fact that FA isn't a RS. Shot info (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that it necessarily should be in this article. I said it is not generalizable. What does CRYSTAL have do with anything? For that matter, what does FA really matter -- the NAS summary is certainly reliable, and Luke's research was published in Caries Research. II | (t - c) 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Chill, I'm responding to Andre. Will deindent to make clearer. Shot info (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that CRYSTAL applies at all, this isn't a prediction of a future event. Fluoride Alert might not be a reliable source, but I'm fairly sure that if it was a real study, it's possible to find it in a reputable journal of some kind. Andre (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Industrial waste?

The NPWA (National Pure Water Association) in England say that "The substance used in fluoridation schemes is fluorosilicic acid, an industrial waste product obtained from the pollution scrubbing operations of the phosphate fertiliser industry. It is contaminated with heavy metals and cancer-causing substances such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, mercury, silica and vanadium." Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the statement you quote. This NPWA page is the closest I can find. This is also interesting. See also fluorosilicic acid. Rd232 ^talk 09:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Many chemical products are "recovered wastes," so the basic argument is deceptive, preying on naive folks that dont understand the chemical reality in which we exist. Humans are very good at recovering wastes, purifying crud, recrystallizing gunk to be resold. A large section of industry undertakes this activity. Most of the fluorosilicic acid is used to make products to make aluminium to make other aluminium things to fabricate into objects to sell, like the devices we are ranting with right now. We praise garden and trash recyclers but for some reason, the antifluoridation groups are alarmed about this recovery of fluoride from the production of phosphate. The alternative is to get the fluoride from fluorite, and that process is more wasteful, that is why fluorosilicic won out.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that was the point. You're talking about things which are not consumed, and the key issue in the quote isn't the recovery, it's the alleged contamination. Rd232 ^talk 14:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my oversight. My point is that many if not most chemicals are not only recycled, but they are often recovered from quite toxic contaminants. The fluoride use to make drugs is partially recovered from the stuff that we fluoridate water with. The water that we drink is often purified from quite toxic sludge, filled with pathogens. Arguments that suggest that hexafluorosilicic acid is especially bad because the crud it came from once contains dangerous contaminants, is quite deceptive (and I think should not be allowed except to point out the lameness of some antifluoridationists) because the chemical industry is removing contaminant from many, many product streams.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I suppose we agree then - it doesn't matter where it came from, what matters is what's left after processing. Pathogens are pretty effectively killed by modern drinking water processing methods; I'm not sure the same is true of removing residual heavy metals, whether in the source water or added with fluoridation. So to reformulate the anon's original question: (a) does fluoridation introduce significant heavy metal contaminants; and (b) can/does drinking water processing filter these out? Rd232 ^talk 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fluorosilic acid recovered from the phosphate industry is mainly used in water fluoridation [12]. Most water fluoridation in the US uses fluorosilic acid. It does have heavy metals, but only in very small amounts, and because it's only added in small amounts, the amount becomes theoretically negligible. Smokefoot is probably not correct that the acid is "purified" after it is isolated -- that would not be economically feasible. The possible relationship to blood lead levels is due to the corrosive effects of fluorides on metal pipes rather than the small amounts of lead. II | (t - c) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

POV fork

The Potential health risks and Efficacy sections do not reflect the main article Water fluoridation. I'm not convinced that these sections belong in here at all given the title. Should they appear at all, they ought to summarize the corresponding stuff from the main article (which still has a few issues, but is overall of higher quality). Xasodfuih (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"which is roughly equivalent to preventing 40% of cavities.[28] "

Resolved

 – This has been explained by User:Eubulides in detail in the WF FAC archive. In summary, the 40% number comes from an editorial because the York report did not compute it. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two errors here: it's probably citing the wrong Yeung paper (i.e. one in adults PMID 17891121), which says "The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27.2%" in the abstract (I do not have full text access to this one). Second, since [28] comes after the York report ref, I think it was attempting to cite the other Yeung paper (PMID 18584000), which only reviewed one extra study compared to York wrt. efficacy, and they say that it did not the change the oucome in comparision to York (no numbers given). The 40% number is not given in that 5-page summary paper either. Perhaps it's in the full report? (haven't checked that one). Xasodfuih (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeung is commenting on the York review's median value. I haven't seen the paper, but Eubulides says it is in there. II | (t - c) 22:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This two-page article does not appear to be an original review. It's labeled a "Summary Review" on the journal's site, and on pubmed it's listed as a comment on PMID 17452559 (Griffin's metaanalysis). Based on the virtually identical data in the abstracts of the two papers 27.2% (95% CI, 19.4–34.3%) in this Yeung and 27% (95%CI: 19%-34%) in Griffin, I'm 99% sure this is the case. Why do we need this Yeung summary, which isn't even about York's study, to reinterpret the data from York? Xasodfuih (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair question. The 40% number is currently in the main article. I just copied it. I don't particularly understand how one can translate a percentage of children without caries into a reduction of caries for all children, although I suppose one could simply sum up all caries and subtract from that the number of caries that the children who are caries free would have gotten. II | (t - c) 01:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I can waste somebody else's time and have a photocopy of this 2-page summary emailed to me by filling an electronic form (it will take about two weeks for me to get it), but I don't think this is necessary because this 2-page paper is not an original review, but merely a summary plus a short commentary of somebody else's work. Practically all papers in Evidence-based dentistry are of this kind; see free sample issue. Because of this issue, I'm objecting to attributing any numbers to these summaries/commentaries. Instead they should come from the original reviews. See my full objection on the Water fluoridation FAC. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Report on AE regarding this page

A particular user who is under sanction from WP:AE made a pretty dramatic series of edits at this article. [13]. This is wholly unacceptable fringe POV-promtion, especially at the section on "Potential health risks". Due to the fact that this article is subject to pseudoscience arbitration enforcement and the user in question has already been warned, I have also reported this behavior to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Pseudoscience Report (2). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't follow

this edit makes a lot of changes. I have concerns with a large number of the changes made - specifically, the article states that at reccomended concentrations dental fluorosis can occour - I'm not sure this is verifiable, and certainly would require a source. I question why dispute tags (badsummary) were removed. Perhaps some of the changes made should stick, but it's hard to figure that out from a bulk edit that makes a number of controversial changes. If you could propose changes to this article on talk, we could discuss them and reach consensus before implementing them all at once. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The occurrence of mild dental fluorosis at the PHS recommended concentration is not controversial, all mainstream reviews and metaanalyses mention it, and even quantify it; see Water fluoridation#Safety. I won't comment on the rest of the changes, because I've not reviewed them. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mild dental fluorosis is essentially a cosmetic issue, not a health risk. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So? II changed "Most of the health effects are associated with water fluoridation at levels above the recommended concentration of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L (0.7 for hot climate, 1.2 in cool climates)," to "At the recommended concentration of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L (0.7 for hot climate, 1.2 in cool climates) the only apparent side-effect appears to be dental fluorosis," (emphasis mine) which is an improvement (except for the slight WP:WEASEL phrase "the only apparent ... appears"). Also, the long editors of the main article, User:Eubulides and User:Colin, object to changing the title of that section from "safety" to "side-effects", so if you think that a cosmetic issue should not be discussed in a section about safety, take it up with them. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like II is trying in one large edit to reintroduce material that was introduced, discussed, and rejected in August 2008. I can't help but suspect that II views SA's topic ban as an opportunity to get a free hand with this article. Regarding Xasodfuih's comment, II changed a whole bunch of things all at once, and the line in question is far from the most important. Looie496 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, why can't you reference anything in particular, and what discussion are you referring to? Bit disappointed in the empty rhetoric. Having been active in this page, I can't recall any such discussion, and my edit generally reduced the POV of the page. Since apparently some people find it more difficult than I expect to to read side-by-side changes. As far as the wording about dental fluorosis being the only apparent side-effect, there is insufficient evidence to definitely rule out other effects (allergy, ect.) and quite a bit of evidence which suggests they exist. II | (t - c) 21:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Could well be. Like I said, I haven't reviewed all of II's changes, but that one is/was being discussed because Hipocrite singled it out. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad summary

The "bad summary" was restored to the efficacy section. Since that edit [14] was clear and simple, please point out any problems. II | (t - c) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As the that section looks now, the 2nd paragraph discusses a primary study no longer discussed in the main article (we've removed a some primary studies there per WP:MEDRS, I don't recall if that one was among them). The 3rd paragraph is somewhat okay, although it's not clear why an opposition guy (leader?) needs to be mentioned since there are mainstream sources saying that fluoride toothpaste was responsible for the reduction caries in those countries (see Water fluoridation#Alternative methods, 2nd paragraph). Xasodfuih (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As this is a daughter article and perhaps as sociological/historical as it is medical, I thought it was appropriate to mention a contested, large-scale study. Why should no primary articles be discussed in a daughter article, particularly one which was debated? Plus, the primary study is discussed through secondary coverage of it from Colquhoun and Horowitz. Incidentally, the benefit of studies like the one contested is that they are not just a face-off between two cities, which could potentially run into the problem of comparing cities with different habits/socioeconomic status/drinking water. Instead it was an examination of average rates of DMFs in a large number cities, which can perhaps approximate the relationship in a way that runs similar to the large of large numbers. Mark Diesendorf is indeed one of the outspoken leaders, the article was in a mainstream publication, and he does mention in the article that fluoride toothpaste is probably one of the main reasons. Also, high-quality sources basically say that fluoridated toothpaste is the only thing that could be it, but they also say it hasn't been rigorously established. Even as late as 2002, Aoba et al. say:

It is remarkable, however, that the dramatic decline in dental caries which we have witnessed in many different parts of the world (for reviews, see Glass, 1982; Fejerskov and Baelum, 1998) has occurred without the dental profession being fully able to explain the relative role of fluoride in this intriguing process. It is a common belief that the wide distribution of fluoride from toothpastes may be a major explanation (Bratthall et al., 1996), but serious attempts to assess the role of fluoridated toothpastes have been able to attribute, at best, about 40-50% of the caries reduction to these fluoride products (Marthaler, 1990; Scheie, 1992). This is not surprising, if one takes into account the fact that dental caries is not the result of fluoride deficiency.

So it was not wild for Diesendorf to call it a mystery in 1986, and it still isn't wild to call it mysterious. II | (t - c) 22:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Like I said, I really can't follow when you make a lot of changes all at once. Perhaps you could propose one change at a time on the talk page, and we could discuss it. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have no concrete criticism to offer, I suggest you move another page, or even better to simple.wikipedia.org. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to ask an editor to propose changes to a contentious article on a talk page before making them. It's not unreasonable to ask an editor to make discreet changes rather than engage in wholesale rewrites all at once. That's my concrete criticism. Please propose discrete major changes clearly on this talk page before making them. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is unreasonable. I have no reason to believe that you can reader better on a talkpage than a diff. The changes that I made are clear and easy to read in a diff, and you cannot expect to function on Wikipedia if you cannot read diffs. In fact, the changes are much easier to understand in the diff, since that places it into context. II | (t - c) 07:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad summary tags added (back) for "Potential health risks" and "Efficacy"

This section needs to be split in two subsections: one that properly summarizes the side-effects accepted by mainstream, and another that details the additional concerns raised by opposition, but which are not generally accepted. As it stands this section freely mixes the two in way that may easily confuse a reader unfamiliar with the topic. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The same observation applies to the "Efficacy" section. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. In each case, the first paragraph clearly lays out the authoritative, mainstream conclusions. In the efficacy case, the second paragraph begins with "opponents have challenged ..." which I feel is enough to tell the reader that they are venturing into opposition arguments. Arguments coming from opponents are clearly telegraphed. The adverse effects section is not quite as clear, although that was partly addressed in the last revision I did, which was reverted by Hipocrite. II | (t - c) 07:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin study summary

The Martin study does not criticize the theories of opposition - it criticizes the studies of the theories. Also, we should try to avoid summarizing specific parts of the study as opposed to focusing on the abstract and what the author thought was most important. I also wonder how well received the Martin 98 work was. Hipocrite (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think focusing on the abstract is always the right approach. I haven't seen any criticism of Martin, but I'm sure it's out there. I doubt the extreme proponents appreciate the work of someone who mentions the value components in the decision or looks at the scientific opposition as anything but nonsense, so I'm sure there is heavy criticism out there. Martin's work was reviewed neutrally in Ripa's widely-cited paper; however, it's not in the abstract. II | (t - c) 00:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Fluorosis Connection to Spinal Stenosis

Fluorosis, or an excess of fluoride in the body can calcify spinal ligaments, which will compress and shorten the spine - http://www.myspinedoctors.com/conditions.aspx?srv=spinal_stenosis

There are a few conditions that cause spinal stenosis that are neither congenital nor the result of aging. Tumors--- can invade any of the spinal spaces and compress nerves. Paget’s Disease--- is a bone disorder that causes the vertebrae to thicken, obstructing the openings. Fluorosis--- or excessive exposure to fluoride, causes calcification of the ligaments around the spinal openings. The posterior longitudinal ligament, which runs down the back behind the spinal cord, may turn to bone and put pressure on nerves. - http://www.stenosisadvisor.com/spinal-stenosis-causes

Spinal Stenosis. Sciatica can also be caused by pressure on the nerve due to a narrowing of the spinal canal. There are several possible conditions that lead to spinal stenosis: Fluorosis--- Fluorosis is an excessive level of fluoride in the body. It may result from chronicinhalation of industrial dusts or gases contaminated with fluorides, prolonged ingestion of water containing large amounts of fluorides, or accidental ingestion of fluoride-containing insecticides. The condition may lead to calcified spinal ligaments or softened bones and to degenerative conditions like spinal stenosis. - http://www.stenosisadvisor.com/what-is-sciatica-and-what-causes-it

Concerns about fluoride use Nov 11, 2007 Symptoms of chronic end-stage poisoning may include sleep disturbance, mitral valve prolapse, cognitive difficulties, muscle pain/stiffness and spinal stenosis. Non-water sources include food contaminated with herbicides, pesticides, phosphate fertilizers, vehicle emissions, industrial wastes and Scotchgard. (La Crosse Tribune, WI) - http://health.surfwax.com/files/Spinal_Stenosis.html

Causes A lot of things can cause spinal stenosis. Some of them are: Congenital spinal stenosis--- you are born with it Scoliosis--- or other progressive inherited conditions that narrow the spinal openings Injury--- that results in a slipped disc, vertebral fractures or other trauma to the vertebral column Medical conditions--- such as Paget's disease [and Fluorosis], where abnormal bone metabolism causes deformity of the vertebrae. Toxins--- particularly excessive exposure to fluoride in insecticides, which causes abnormal bone growth. Degenerative diseases--- such as arthritis, that are part of the aging process - http://www.back-ache.org/a173687-what-is-spinal-stenosis.cfm

Fluorosis - An excessive level of fluoride in the body. It may result from chronic inhalation of industrial dusts or gases contaminated with fluorides, prolonged ingestion of water containing large amounts of fluorides, or accidental ingestion of fluoride-containing insecticides. The condition may lead to calcified spinal ligaments or softened bones and to degenerative conditions like spinal stenosis. - http://www.drjarmain.com/SpineConditions.asp?typ=spinalstenosis

Bone sampling can be done in special cases to measure long-term exposure to fluorides. - http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts11.html

There is no way, short of taking a bone sample, to unequivocally determine one's cumulative exposure to fluoride. It isn't possible to remove fluoride from the body as can be done for lead and other heavy metals. But "if you stop exposure, it will very gradually come out of the bone," committee member Thomas Webster of Boston University said. - http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/wsj.html

- http://balancingcenter.com/articles/fluoride.html

It is reasonable that 99% of the fluoride in humans resides in bone and the whole body half-life, once in bone, is approximately 20 years (see Chapter 3 for more discussion of pharmacokinetic models) -http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=133 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.72 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy in the UK

Here is input that should be sourced and and added to the article: "Hampshire MPs pledge to put fluoridation decision on hold in Southampton"[15] MaxPont (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

State of California cancer review

To integrate in the article: http://www.dentalproductsreport.com/articles/show/dpr0709_news_fluoride MaxPont (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A few statements that don't mean what were probably intended

"At the recommended concentration of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L (0.7 for hot climate, 1.2 in cool climates) the only apparent side-effect appears to be dental fluorosis"

This implies that dental fluorosis is necessarily a side effect at these concentrations, which is definitely not the case. Very few people suffer any degree of fluorosis at these concentrations. It would also be useful to state who makes this recommendation, or if this is general scientific consensus.

"Constant ingestion of high levels of fluoride can cause adverse effects including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones; the WHO has a guideline of 1.5 mg/L."

This seems to imply that concentrations above 1.5 mg/L will cause the aforementioned conditions; however, the guideline of 1.5 mg/L is set to put a buffer between the therapeutic dose and harmful doses. In small children, there may be mild mottling of teeth at 1.5 mg/L, but nothing more. In adults, tooth mottling begins at dosages around 5 mg/L. Skeletal fluorosis and weakened bones require much (much!) greater intakes. (General scientific consensus on this, but if you need a cite, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/fluoride/fluoride.html is an easy to read secondary source.)

I'd like to suggest that these be reworded, but as this article is probably somewhat contentious, I don't want to do it myself, and leave the decision to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.44.127 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

fluoridation is not necessary, according to its opposition.

but differences in socioeconomic status and access to dental care may make fluoridation more necessary in the United States.

The above claim is guesswork, and POV. The word, "may," tells us that the authors have no idea whether or not there is actually any merit to their claim. And it is not about the opposition to water fluoridation. Those are some of the reasons why it gets removed. Petergkeyes (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The authors are expert in the field, and of course think there is merit to the claim, which is why they stated the claim. They also know that the claim doesn't have support in the form of scientific studies, which is why they qualified it. This article is not supposed to be a forum only for opponents to water fluoridation, without giving due weight to mainstream support for it. In this particular case, not only do the authors in question support the claim, but the other source cited, Pizzo et al. (PMID 17333303), writes "water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in poor and disadvantaged populations". This summary is better, because it's not so U.S.-centric, so I added it. My addition also reworded the claim "The decline has motivated the argument that", which is not present in Pizzo et al.; Pizzo et al. doesn't talk about motivation. Also, Pizzo et al. says fluoridation "may" be unnecessary in industrialized countries; we shouldn't turn that into a confident "is" in our summary. I made an edit along those lines. Eubulides (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC) ite dan from dean

Important critic

Australia was one of the first countries to introduce flouridation, and is home to one of the earliest and most persistent (and convincing) critics, Mark Diesendorf, whose work is not adequately covered in this article. See New Evidence on Flouridation 1997, Breaking the Silence Barrier 1996, Overdosing of Formula Fed Babies with Flouride, Have the Benefits of Flouridation been Overestimated 1990, List of Publications Amandajm (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Diesendorf is certainly a persistent and prolific critic, but "important" might be overstating his stature. The practical problem for the antifluoridation groups (or some other causes - advocates for intelligent design suffer the similar challenges) is that their membership does not include the scientific elite. Of course "eliteness" can be difficult to assess, but the usual measure is election by peers to societies of high, national esteem such as United States National Academy of Sciences and U.S. Institute of Medicine, U.K.'s Royal Society of Medicine and Royal Society, the College de France, etc. Bottom-line is saying someone is "important" without independent assessment, is just another assertion. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Chemical and Nuclear Industries

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Fluoridation general article has more on this topic, though still not enough. The fact that fluorides and fluoride waste products are integral to centrifuge processing of uranium and plutonium, and that fluorides in concentrated form are some of the most toxic substances on Earth are relevant. You must dilute them and spread them out to make them more cost effective to contain/handle. It is the entire basis for the modern anti-fluoridation movement. 1) that most improvements to dental health in countries are unconnected to fluoride. 2) that most benefits to fluoride that are substantiated by the evidence derive from topical use. 3) that it was the nuclear and chemicals industry that funded early biased, even fraudulent research and marketing of fluoridation... a clear conflict-of interest and collusion. 4) that whacko right-wing anti-commie conspiracies generally are not trusted by the public regardless. Yet, only the Jack D. Ripper-style straw man meme is mentioned anywhere here. That was always fringe, and holds even less sway now. Only the Birchers still hold to discredited notion. I hardly think citing sociologist is relevant. Soft sciences attempting to evaluate the hard sciences is laughable. - Reticuli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.59 (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2010‎ (UTC)

constant ingestion

In the safety section, an editor added the word, "constant" to the beginning of this sentence, "Constant ingestion of high levels of fluoride can cause adverse effects including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones; the WHO has a guideline of 1.5 mg/L." A. I do not see the word constant in the cited reference. B. The statement is illogical, because nobody constantly consumes anything. We must pause to sleep, breathe, etc. The word "constant" should be removed from the beginning of the sentence. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A friend has been edit warring to replace the offending word without substantial comment. Please do not add inappropriate content to Wikipedia without consensus. Thank you. Petergkeyes (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Health and Human Services Reference

A fellow editor removed a reference from the United States Health and Human Services. This - "Dosage cannot be controlled, and infants, the elderly, people with calcium and magnesium deficiencies, and people with impaired renal clearance are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride. Was changed to this - "...but those organizations and individuals opposed raise concerns that the intake is not easily controlled, and that children, small individuals, and others may be more susceptible to health problems." The second statement is vague, cumbersome, and unreferenced. I say the first statement is far more encyclopedic, and should return. Petergkeyes (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

why I removed a sentence fragment

"At the recommended concentration of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L (0.7 for hot climate, 1.2 in cool climates) the only apparent side-effect appears to be dental fluorosis..." I removed this sentence fragment for a couple of reasons. It does not state who recommends this concentration. But even if it did, concentration in community water supplies is not a controllable dose that allows for any generalizations to be made about side effects, or the lack thereof. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS

The National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 Environmental Protection Agency represents the professional employees at the headquarters offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More about Who they are can be seen at their site and following is the link to that. nteu280.org/nteu280-description.htm

Whose Mission Statement is: Working to Protect the Health and safety of the American People This mission statement can be seen at at their website is: nteu280.org/

The EPA Union has a section about fluoride that have opposing views about water fluoridation.Hereherer (talk)

The views that the EPA Union has about water fluoridation need to be a part of the opposition to water fluoridation article.Hereherer (talk)

This information makes the article a more informative article.Hereherer (talk) Hereherer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

I have added a link to the external links section of the opposition to water fluoridation article with information about the EPA Union. The opposition to water fluoridation article mentions the EPA Union in the Statements against section but the link does not link to the EPA Unions site. The link links to the EPA site which is not correct site for the EPA Union's site.

The link to the EPA Union in the Statements against section needs to be corrected to so that it links to the EPA Unions website and not the regular EPA site so that it is correct. I am going to fix that link to make the article a better article. Hereherer (talk)

Further Reading Section

In order to improve the opposition to water fluoridation article's further reading section, I have added the following books.

• [Fluoride Fatigue. Fluoride poisoning: is fluoride in your drinking water—and from other sources—making you sick? Revised 3rd printing. Dunedin, New Zealand: Paua Press Ltd; 2008. ISBN 978-0-473-13092-3]

• [Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death by Barry Groves Publisher: Newleaf (June 2002) ISBN 978-0717132744]

• [Fluoride the Aging Factor: How to Recognize and Avoid the Devastating Effects of Fluoride by John Yiamouyiannis Publisher: Newleaf (June 2002) ISBN 978-0913571033]

• [The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson Publisher:Seven Stories Press(2004) ISBN 978-1583225264]

All these books are relevant to the opposition to water fluoridation article. These books make the further reading section better and improve the article opposition to water fluoridation.71.90.171.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC).Hereherer (talk)

User Ckatz why are you deleting books from the further reading section? You are vandalizing the further reading section doing that.Hereherer (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)--Hereherer (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

None of these books is a reliable source; nor are any of them notable. They merely rehash the same old claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The books are books about opposition to water fluoridation and are good books.Hereherer (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because you do not like the books is not reason to not include the books OrangeMike. The books are in fact very good books and I do not agree with your comments about them.Hereherer (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The public can decide after reading the books if they are good literature or not. Deleting the books from the further reading section does not improve the article.05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlourideBandit (talk • contribs) — FluorideBandit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These are not books about the opposition to fluoridation, they are books opposing fluoridation. They contribute nothing to this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OrangeMike you just deleted the Books. without discussion and that is not helping the articleHereherer (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Note FYI, FluorideBandit is a confirmed sockpuppet of Hereherer. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The books cover all aspects of water fluoridation and are excellent books for the opposition to water fluoridation article.Hereherer (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been warned repeatedly about such behaviour; resuming it immediately upon return from your block is not conducive to collaborative editing practices. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

On an aside, the new links added aren't actually about "Opposition to Water Fluoridation". Would like to invite the adding editor to give the reasons why they are applicable to the article - rather than just to water fluoridation in general per WP:PRIMARY. Shot info (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Links removed yet again, unless Hereherer can establish consensus here to include them. Interested parties should note the user's extended history of edit warring to add links here, the resultant block, and the use of sockpuppets to pursue the same goal. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Conspiracy Theory section

The article is about opposition to water fluoridation and not conspiracy theories.I think that the conspiracy theories section currently in the opposition to water fluoridation article needs to be in a new article separate from the opposition to water fluoridation article. Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the actual opposition to water fluoridation and the article would be improved if the conspiracy theories section was removed.

It can only be a conspiracy if they were doing it secretly but they are not. They do it with the consent of the voters representatives. Our elected officials vote to add the hazardous waste from China, Mexico and Florida to our drinking water. Since the generators of hydrofluosilicic acid contribute large sums to the dentists non-profit and the legislators themselves this is what happens when government serve industry and not the people. Not really a conspiracy is it?

The conspiracy theory section should be removed.Hereherer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

No. There doesn't have to be conspiracy in order to have a conspiracy theory. As the article shows, there are conspiracy theorists who oppose flouridation simply because they believe the theory. This is important.--76.120.66.57 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to water fluoridation is about the scientific opposition to water fluoridation and not conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories that oppose water fluoridation should be in a another article where those theories can be discussed. MIxing the two topics in to one article does not improve the quality of the article.Hereherer (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One person's science can be another person's conspiracy, I found it very helpful when reading the article to have various ideas in one place and presenting this to a class of students. Cordyceps (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

People are showing their ignorance here. A "Conspiracy Theory" is not a "crazy fringe theory", despite the general cultural stigma attached to the phrase. A "Conspiracy Theory" explains how Julius Caesar was murdered, how Adolf Hitler came into power, and multiple other events throughout history. It is simply a theoretical explanation, which involves some kind of conspiracy.

In this case, some of the opposition theories involve a conspiracy to mass medicate citizens without informed consent, to do illegal scientific research and such, which are all clearly conspiracy theories, and completely relaven to this subject. The "Conspiracy Theories" section should remain, although it should be retitled, "Opposition Theories", or something to that effect as we have clearly shown the social stigma attached to the "Conspiracy Theory" phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.246.23 (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs in the conspiracy theory section have strong undertones of political bias, which contravenes the whole NPOV thing. The wording should be changed to reflect a more neutral point of view. 58.6.103.94 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. NW (Talk) 20:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Opposition to water fluoridation → Water fluoridation controversy — (No opinion - simply formatting and posting per existing discussion. Ckatz^chat_spy 20:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Other articles on medical controveries have names that contain the word "controversy" or "controversies", for example, Aspartame controversy, Controversies in autism, Dental amalgam controversy, MMR vaccine controversy, Thiomersal controversy, Vaccine controversy. This article is the only one whose name says "Opposition to" instead of "controversy". The article should be renamed to Water fluoridation controversy. This is not only for consistency, but also for a more neutral point of view: saying "opposition to" in the title suggests a focus on only one side of the controversy, which is less neutral than saying "controversy". Eubulides (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Those opposing fluoridation have opposing views that are entirely opposite from those who promote water fluoridation. Opposition is the correct term to describe the opposition to water fluoridation article. The opposition to water fluoridation article can be portrayed in a neutral point of view if those who promote water fluoridation would stop attempts to sabotage the article. Hereherer (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Eubulides Shot info (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Eubulides. The comments from Hereherer suggest that the move is appropriate since we aim for an article that gives an overview of the controversy, vs an article that takes a stand (i.e. a blog). The nature of the controversy is shifting also on several levels. For example, advocacy for fluoridation of public waters may be diminished since fluoride is delivered in so many modalities now (dental gels, fluoride-toothpastes, fluoridated salt, etc.).--Smokefoot (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Hereherer is a conspiracy theorist single purpose account and was blocked over a month ago for (among other things) his obscenity-laced vandalisms of accounts of people he claimed were pro-fluoridation lackies. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Eubulides. Petergkeyes (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Change title to "Water fluoridation controversy". QuackGuru (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussions from July 2008 and August 2008. There might be at least one more discussion. --83.43.253.56 (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The title is clearly not neutral. The text is also a problem that needs a lot of work. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The title is not neutral and should be changed. I raised the issue at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Adamlankford (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I made a request to move the article but it was mysteriously reverted. I thought there was this thing called consensus to move the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see your confusion. What you did was to rewrite the lead sentence, not request a move. Typically, the lead is left in sync with the article title until such time as the article is actually moved to the new location. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've formatted and filed notice of the discussion. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I see you are claiming there was confusion when there was no confusion. My edit summary was a request to change the title. Getting the article ready for a page move is appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not claiming any such thing, simply letting you know that you had not properly filed a move request. Nothing more, nothing less. (Placing a note in an edit summary and rewriting the lead is not the same thing, especially for a controversial topic.) Anyway, moot point, as I've filed the notice. Give it a few days for more eyes, then it will be moved. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see consensus for the page move. It have been more than a few days. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to standard naming. Verbal chat 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support move per other examples given above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not a neutral title as currently written. Adamlankford (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support move. Quality of page should improve dramatically with more neutral title. Petergkeyes (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support move to neutral title. QuackGuru (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Information on conspiracy theories citing corporate collusion

A friend of mine once mentioned that she believed that water fluoridation was somehow linked to the aluminum/bauxite industry. If anyone has any links, information, or references to such collusion between the government and said industry--or, more likely, links, information, or references to the conspiracy theory--could they be added to the conspiracy theory section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.164.9 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

E.g. here's a link that mentions such a conspiracy, but both its style and content immediately mark it as unreliable, at least in my eyes: http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.164.9 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation to Check Neutrality of Page

I also feel that it may be appropriate to put a semi-protect on it once neutrality has been established. This topic is targeted by conspiracy theorist and under-informed people. Adamlankford (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole text is very under-informed. This article is obviously written by persons who are opposed to opinions and research that oppose fluoride in the USA water supply. Fluoride is a top 10 household toxin according to Time Magazine April 2010. Warning labels on toothpaste tell you not to swallow the poisonous substance so why would it be safe to drink. Fluoride works topically and is available in foods that we eat, toothpaste, dentist do applications, and other sources. There is a danger of consuming too much Fluoride so it's a waste of money to pay for it to be added to water. There are consumers who do not want to drink Fluoride tainted water but have no choice. Good teeth come from good nutrition. When the dentists and others tell children that candy is bad for their teeth it makes sense that the nutritional value of sugar compared to the 4 food groups is obviously bad for the teeth. A little common sense is needed here and some self defense against toxic poisoning. The context of the supposedly opposition needs to have the articles at the bottom of the page moved to the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.30.136 (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional external links for your consideration:

My input under the discussion tab on the Water Fluoridation entry was deleted for containing "copyrighted material" which I quoted and for which I provided links to the source material which I quoted. I'm proud to have participated in the discussion that led to the creation of this sub-page. I would like to provide a few additional external links if that is acceptable. There is no reason to omit the following links: http://www.slweb.org/fluoridation.html ; www.nofluoride.com/ ; http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/ 9chambers (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 9chambers (John Chalos)

Broad consensus for Safety section name

This controversial change renamed the section. But there is broad consensus for many articles to name such sections simply as Safety. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Adverse Effects

This page needs a section entitled Adverse Effects. I propose changing the name of the "safety" section to "adverse effects." The section is more about the potential for harm than it is about "safety." "Adverse effects" is more germane to the topic than the relative safety of the practice. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Adverse effects" is non-neutral whereas "safety" is neutral and in line with the other section titles . It is a generic title that does not imply either positive or negative effects. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bryson Conspiracy Theory

Surely the book by Chris Bryson merits mention somewhere on this page. The entire volume of investigative journalism painstakingly details a compelling conspiracy theory about water fluoridation. The deleting party complained, "no personal claims especially without background information..." but that statement is without merit. The conspiracy is thoroughly alleged, and the book is replete with background information. If the conspiracy theory section is the wrong place to mention this book, please suggest a better place on Wikipedia. (DISCLAIMER - I am in no way affiliated with the marketing of this product! I simply believe it to be inherently relevant.)Petergkeyes (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious why Bryson (who is he and why should his opinion be any more notable than say, well, mine?) has articulated a view of fluoridation which largely clashes with say this article? Wikipedia isn't a a grab all of irrelevant information by random people? Shot info (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bryson is an award winning investigative journalist. It is not that his book clashes with the history wiki. Bryson states facts that do not appear in the sanitized history. It is likely that the history wiki would be improved by including information from Bryson within. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bryson's opinion is relevant because he researched and wrote one of the most comprehensive books stating the case against water fluoridation. Unless you've also written one of the most well-known books on the topic, then your opinion would not be more notable than his.--TerrierHockey (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As with everything on Wikipedia, we need sources to include something. In this case, we need a (independent) reliable source about Bryson that explains his importance to this controversy before we can even consider adding info about him. Pre-emptive: no, book reivews don't count. Yobol (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"most well-known books" - one thing that Wikipedia has taught me is that when an editor says this - it's highly likely that there isn't a source to back it up... While I personally don't care if it's in or out - I'm just finding that there seems to be no evidence to back up this particular dotpoint of opinion. As I said above, Wikipedia isn't a mirror. Shot info (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Should not be included. The book is about fluoridation, not the controversy. It could be that it is part of the controversy, but we would need sources that explain its impact on the controversy. TFD (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Poppycock. The Fluoride Deception is about the conspiracy between industry and government science and health officers to promote the practice of water fluoridation despite known hazards. The book is all about how and why fluoridation is controversial. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sources to explain it's impact, without them it just becomes a random person with a random book. Shot info (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A book by a known investigative journalist published by an independent publisher may always be used as a source. There is nothing that requires a citation that explains its impact on the controversy. It is a reporting on the topic. If the book were self-published, then of course you'd have an argument, but it isn't. Don't create imaginary requirements where no such requirements exist, TFD and Shot info. Yworo (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"a known investigative journalist" - 2nd time I've seen this and haven't seen any proof that said "known investigative journalist" is 1. Known, 2. An investigative journalist. Hence the reason I question the the WP:WEIGHT source. That's all - in particular when there are various editors who don't seem to have read the book in question making comments above. Shot info (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Also "an independent publisher" is a meaninglessly broad term; it may mean a solid reliable publisher, or self-publication by "Cranks-R-Us Press: We Dare To Publish The Truth Despite The Little Men In Our Heads!" --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, I've looked at the publisher site and the publisher looks legit, not a POD or self-publishing company. I think the burden is really on you to show otherwise. Yworo (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, I've also looked at the publisher site and find the publishers creditials irrelevant. So far you and no other editor can prove that this particular reference needs to be included per WEIGHT. And like anything in WP, the onus is on the editor adding the info to prove otherwise. Frankly I'm surprised that you cannot prove your own words - namely "A book by a known investigative journalist". Shot info (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you find the publisher's credentials irrelevant, then you don't really understand WP:RS. Editors are not required to do original research on the authors of books. Being published by a reliable publisher who can be assumed to have vetted the material is sufficient. Your claim that the burden is on the editor is completely bogus. The burden is on the editor to provide a citation to a reliable source. That's it. If someone says the source is unreliable, the burden is on them to prove that it's not reliable, not the other way around. So prove it. Yworo (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the publisher provides his credentials, here. Reporter for BCC World Service, NPR, and the Atlanta Constitution. Part of a team which won two investigative reporting awards. So, unless you think the publisher is unreliable, their bio needs to be taken at face value. So again, what makes you think the publisher is unreliable? Yworo (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the publisher also publishes Noam Chomsky and their books are reviewed in The New York Review of Books. Not a fly-by-night or self-publishing company. Your objections to this book are completely uncalled for. They appear to simply be bullying of an editor with whom you don't agree. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo - are you actually participating in the same discussion as everybody else here - it isn't a matter of a RS - its a matter of WEIGHT and whether or not this random author should be given the time to have his views incorporated into the article. This is what is being discussed. Shot info (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

At anyrate, perhaps you would care to comment on the section immediately below about the Fluoride Action Network? Shot info (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of Christopher Bryson's book to this page, and section on 'Water fluoridation controversy' is obvious. Christopher Bryson's book is mentioned on the page about Harold Hodge, as follows..."Hodge is also singled out by BBC journalist Christopher Bryson in his book The Fluoride Deception as having played a key role in promoting the implementation of water fluoridation in the U.S., from which the water fluoridation controversy stems." It's not a matter of WEIGHT, it's a matter of editorial bias. The solution to the matter is to include reference to Christopher Bryson's book.Gymboot (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A brief bio from the publisher of his book outlines the undisputed facts of Christopher Bryson's journalistic credits. Given his experience, and the topic of this page, his book should be included as a reference. http://www.sevenstories.com/author/index.cfm?fa=ShowAuthor&Person_ID=205. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymboot (talk • contribs) 07:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very much a matter of WP:WEIGHT, as is any source. As is posted above, we need sources talking about Bryson before we use Bryson. N^oformation ^Talk 08:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Fluoride Alert

Is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Editors should start to redirect references to the actual source that FA is mirroring. If that cannot be done, then alternative references should be sourced. Shot info (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence of the water fluoridation controversy article.

The second sentence of the water fluoridation article reads.

" The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation, although some continental states fluoridate salt."

Salt fluoridation is not the same thing as water fluoridation and should not be included in the article much less the second sentence. This article is about the water fluoridation controversy and not salt fluoridation. (5007a (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

Salt fluoridation needs it's own page on Wikipedia as it is has nothing to do with water fluoridation at all. (5007a (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

WP:SOFIXIT Shot info (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fluoridation controversy article deletion

Water fluoridation controversy

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hertz1888 (talk | contribs) at 10:31, 15 November 2010. It may differ significantly from the current revision.(5007a (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

Excessive content removed, replaced with history link. The undiscussed, unreferenced changes were reverted because they lacked reputable sources and were full of opinion and speculation. The poster is welcome to discuss them here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Shortening the section title. My edits consisted only of formatting fixes, without regard to content, and are immaterial to any discussion that may ensue here. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove: A Continuity Transcript

The following is a continuity transcript form the movie Dr. Strangelove.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Information about Harold Hodge who was instrumental in the fluoridation of water.

Harold Hodge Oxford Journals Toxicological Sciences

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/2/157.full

(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Find Target Reference Article about Harold Hodge

http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Harold%20Hodge/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain Ckatz why the external link to Harold Hodge was removed by you on the water fluoridation article. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

The source should be used as a reference if applicable; we generally shy away from simply adding more items to external links sections. Furthermore, the EL section already has a link to the Open Directory Project, a good location for links. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to contact you but could not put a message on your talk page so I undid the deletion you did as the only way that I could initiate contact with you. (----)(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for establishing communication here Chatz on the issue regarding the Harold Hodge External link. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

The reference section is for the purpose for referencing information in the Water Fluoridation Controversy article itself is it not. The Water Fluoridation Controversy article currently does not mention Harold Hodge so I I did not put it in the reference section and chose the external links section instead. Most people do not know about Harold Hodge's influence with water fluroidation and I was just attempting to make that information available.

It would possible to add information about Harold Hodge to the article however I do think that someone would just delete it so I did not attempt that. I will make an attempt to add a section about Harold Hodge to the water fluoridation article but think that that information will be censored rapidly. I understand why you would want to keep the external links section clear but in the case of this subject it is hard to get any communication as we have been attempting to do so for over 60 years and have to overcome communist propaganda in the process.

I will make an attempt to include Harold Hodge in the Water fluoridation article shortly so that it references to the Oxford Journal Harold Hodge article. Thank you. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

All I was trying to do was figure out how to write this without all the little boxes and now this Wiki image is on here too. I do not know what is going on here. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Agree with Ckatz that the material he/she removed (including this material on Hodge) is not appropriate for the external links section. It would be better to provide WP:RS that shows his role in the controversy and place it in the text of the article. Yobol (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is better to use ELs to reference text where appropriate, instead of building a long list at the end of the article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference 16

This reference can now be found at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm 128.250.5.247 (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Updated, thanks!Yobol (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Precautionary principle text

I recently adjusted the summary of the "precautionary principle" section under the Ethics subsection to better reflect, IMO, the content of the journal article that is referenced. My problems with the text at that time (and current text as my changes were reverted):

• the referenced article is clearly not a review of the water fluoridation literature as to its safety and efficacy; the article is primarily a editorial (or "commentary" as the authors put it) on the application of the precautionary principle, with a small "case example" of how it could be applied to the idea of water fluoridation - and our text needs to reflect that (and currently does not); as an editorial, we need to make sure we attribute the positions to the authors of the article rather than use Wikipedia's voice
• our current text lists the examples produced in the referenced journal article as to how fluoridation might be dangerous without the noted caveats that referenced article listed including that the CDC and ADA support its use as efficacious and safe which is a clear UNDUE violation
• our current list of possible harm is also not placed in the context of the article - the authors are obviously using the list of studies that show possible harm to justify their discussion of the precautionary principle as it related to water fluoridation - the "ethics" discussion comes not from the "unethical" use of water fluoridation due to the possible danger from as illustrated in the list as is implied by the way our text currently reads, but using the studies of possible harm to justify the application of the precautionary principle; we have to make sure we place these studies in this proper context as the authors place it
• the listing of possible harm in our current article also implies that this was the main thrust of the journal article (clearly not true) and ignores the policy conclusions that the authors came to (i.e. not that fluoridation is not safe - as implied by our current text - but that we need to do further study)

Further comments appreciated.Yobol (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

the tl;dr version of my text above: our current text is basically cherry picking items out of the article without placing the discussion in proper context, clearly violating NPOV. Yobol (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The essense of the argument in the paper is that while there is no evidence that the consumption of fluoride is harmful, it might be and therefore we should avoid fluoridation. The paper says, "While often criticized as antiscientific, the precautionary principle represents a challenge to scientists and public health professionals...."[16]

Academic papers are considered reliable sources for facts and the opinions of their authors. However, when deciding whether to present those opinions in articles we must determine their notablity. We need to show that other scientists have given credence to the views expressed (which is unlikely) or that the anti-fluoridation movement has adopted this paper. Otherwise we are fanning the controversy rather than reporting it.

I would recommend removing the article unless notability can be established in third party sources.

TFD (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the authors of the editorial do not say fluoridation should be avoided, just that if the precautionary principle is applied then further study and more communication is necessary. Of course, anti-fluoridation activists (and our current text) seem to imply otherwise, which is even more reason we need to adjust the text.

Your point about how much weight it is to be given due to how it is viewed in the academic literature is well-taken though; it appears to have been cited only twice since its publication so it hasn't been completely ignored. I think one or two sentences in this article might be a proper weight for it, though it should focus mostly on application of the precautionary principle, rather focusing on safety or efficacy studies as it does now. Yobol (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

But isn't the precautionary principle applicable to anything? TFD (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I was thinking something along the lines of this diff, perhaps shortened for weight purposes. Yobol (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My worries as to WP:Weight here go the other way. The title of this article is Water fluoridation controversy, after all. I don't see any need at all to keep this sourced content away from readers. If the length is shortened, that's ok, but going on about precautionary principle won't do at all. Rather, list the worries themselves, they're sourced and have everything to do with both the topic and its weighting. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that the journal article we are using as a source is about the precautionary principle. Discussion about water fluoridation is less than 1 page of the 10 pages of the journal article, with most of that trying to justify the use of the principle with the list of studies we're using now. The journal article is not a comprehensive review of the fluoridation literature, and using it to justify our current text is really inappropriate, as it ignores the context the the authors of the journal article put the information in (thus likely violation OR and POV. If we're not going to discuss the precautionary principle , I agree with TFD that this is an inappropriate article and the entire section should be removed. Yobol (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think the article is inappropriate, take it to WP:AFD, don't remove verifiable content. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The journal article is inappropriate for the content it is citing - no one said anything about the WP article. WP:V is not the only policies we use, our content needs to follow WP:NPOV and WP:OR as well, and we need to change the text if it does not follow them. Yobol (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, thanks. I still don't understand why you think the source is inappropriate. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the information is being taken out of context? Either we alter the information to put it in the proper perspective, or we shouldn't use the information at all. Yobol (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't read the article but going by how it's sourced, I don't see how it's out of context. Rather, they seem to have cited this verifiable information as an example and it does have bearing on the controversy, which is the topic of this article. I'm thinking that at the pith of this, perhaps you, all in your good faith, don't like (or agree with) the content. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how could you possibly know if the material is taken out of context if you haven't read the source itself? May I suggest, all in my good faith, that you read the article and discuss it rather than try to project motives on to me that aren't there? Yobol (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the article? Are you talking about the source or the WP article? As for your motives, yes, it's true, so far, I don't think you agree with what the source says about the topic. Likewise, so far, I see no context worries. Please keep in mind, I do think you're trying to help. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, read the source. You seemed to have said you have not read the source/reference for the section we're discussing. I am wondering how you could know if there is a context problem if you haven't read the source. And please, comment on the content, not on the contributor. Yobol (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was able to find the executive summary here. I see no context worries. The citation to the article text is reliable and wholly verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That isn't an "executive summary", that is an editorial by Richard G Foulkes, a well known anti-fluoride activist in a completely different journal, Fluoride, which isn't even MEDLINE registered (i.e. it isn't a reliable source). Again, material can meet WP:V and fail WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You have not addressed these problems (which isn't surprising, as you haven't even read the source in question). Yobol (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I would think that source should be cited too. Meanwhile, have you read the source which is now cited in the WP article? If so, if you want me to read it, a means to do so would be welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We should be citing an editorial from a well known anti-flouride activist in a well known anti-fluroide journal that isn't generally considered a reliable source? What?

And yes, I already read the source. That is why I edited the WP article to begin with, it did not meet NPOV. It would seem to me that it would be wise to actually read the source before commenting on it. Yobol (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would say a well known anti-fluroide activist is highly citable in an article called Water fluoridation controversy. As I said, the citation in the article as it stands looks ok to me. Please don't remove verifiable content from the article. If you can give me a means through which I can read the cited source, I'll be happy to do so and comment further. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are once again ignoring the issues of WP:NPOV. While the citation in the article "looks ok" to you, it is hard to place much weight on such opinions when you haven't even read the source that is being discussed and can mistake an editorial in a completely different journal by a different author as an "executive summary". I see no further point in wasting any more of anyone's time discussing this until you've read it. I get my access to the journal through my work; I believe most libraries will have an interlibrary loan program that would be able to get a copy of the source for you.Yobol (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you don't seem to like what the source says and owing to your own lack of neutrality on the topic, wish to remove verifiable content from the article text. This is nothing more than a content dispute. Input from other editors is welcome and I think the only thing to do is wait for that. Meanwhile, please don't remove verifiable content from the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And as I said, the material fails NPOV. Your objections based on nothing more than your own perception of my motivations, rather than actually reading the content of the source, is duely noted. I would welcome further input (from editors who have read the source) on how to improve my changes, which I have already implemented. Yobol (talk)

You asked me to comment here and I have done. You can try to edit war over this, but in time, the sources will have sway. I do think your edits are wholly PoV driven. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you to comment on the content, not on your perception on my motivation. I again ask you to please refrain from commenting on me and to stick with the content. Yobol (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have now raised the issue at the NPOV noticeboard here.Yobol (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WP has lots of articles about controversies, about global warming, evolution, 911, Barack Obama's birth certificate, the JFK murder. The general approach is to present the topic as it is described in reliable sources, not to copy every article that questions conventional thought. If this article has not been reported by third parties then I do not see its notability. TFD (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean the source? The source need not be notable, only verifiable and reliable. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RS do not need to be notable in order to use them as a source for facts. However when we report opinions expressed in reliable sources they must be notable. See WP:WEIGHT: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." TFD (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

These are not "tiny minorities." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that? TFD (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, do you think the source should meet MEDRS? I attempted to shorten the text while removing the bulleted text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• (Coming here from WT:MED, where a request for input was posted) Having looked at the article in question, I tend to agree with Yobol's reading of it. The article is primarily about the difficulties in applying the precautionary principle to matters of public health, and in integrating the principle with evidence-based practice. Fluoride is mentioned as one case study, but fluoride-specific material occupies a relatively small portion of the total content of the article. Looking at the content of the article as a whole, it seems improper to use it to editorially argue for the removal of fluoride, as I'm a bit concerned that this diff does. That said, I think both versions give excess weight to this article, which should probably be covered in one short sentence (e.g. "Some authors have placed the fluoride debate in the context of the precautionary principle.")

  I'm a little concerned that Gwen is edit-warring over this source. If you haven't read a paper, it seems like a bad editing practice to repeatedly revert someone who has read the paper. I appreciate that these papers can be hard to come by, but most libraries can help you obtain a copy - at least, that's been my experience. Certainly it seems preferable to using an "executive summary" of the paper (from an anti-fluoride website) as the basis for edit-warring with someone who's read the actual paper. But that's a meta-issue. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(Also coming from WT:MED) I note the general caution notices at the head of this talkpage which editors should be observing. The edit war should be stopped immediately.

The general reliability level of sources for this WP article seems rather sad. Certainly there are available high quality wp:MEDRS sources easily identifiable, eg by querying http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=fluoridation%20controversy%20review from PubMed. I'm particularly disturbed to find a political party's talking points from 2003 being mistreated as evidence of something other than the position of that party in the debate at that time. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now with more eyes here, I was actually wondering if this article is necessary; Water fluoridation is a featured article, and frankly, does each sectionbetter than this one (safety, efficacy, even ethics). Is this article really necessary now - it seems much more a POV fork than when it was created back in 2005. (As an aside, if you're worried about sourcing in this article, I wouldn't look at dental amalgam controversy...) Yobol (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I see it as a legitimate topic. Books like The fluoride wars could serve as a model for how the article might be presented. TFD (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a legitimate topic, but perhaps we need to better define the scope. There is so much overlap from the parent article, it would probably be best to define its boundaries to avoid that overlap - perhaps rename as "politics of water fluoridation"? That way things like "efficacy" and "safety" don't need to be repeated here.Yobol (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

CDC recommends using water with no fluoride for infants

See the section. What type of water does CDC recommend for mixing infant formula?

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1(Zxoxm (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

The title of this section is incorrect. "CDC will continue to assess the science regarding the use of fluoride in preventing tooth decay while limiting dental fluorosis, and will modify its recommendations as warranted. CDC believes that community water fluoridation is safe and healthy and promotes its use for people of all ages." Yobol (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Section reads as follows directly from the above CDC site.

"What type of water does CDC recommend for mixing infant formula?

Parents should follow the advice of the formula manufacturer and their child’s doctor for the type of water appropriate for the formula they are using. Parents and caregivers of infants fed primarily with formula from concentrate who are concerned about the effect that mixing their infant’s formula with fluoridated water may have in developing dental fluorosis can lessen this exposure by mixing formula with low fluoride water most or all of the time. This may be tap water, if the public water system is not fluoridated (check with your local water utility). If tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride (0.7 mg/L or higher), a parent may consider using a low-fluoride alternative water source. Bottled water known to be low in fluoride is labeled as purified, deionized, demineralized, distilled, or prepared by reverse osmosis. Most grocery stores sell these types of low-fluoride water. Ready to feed (no-mix) infant formula typically has little fluoride and may be preferred for use at least some of the time." -http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1(

The CDC says to use a alternative low fluoride water source if the tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride. (Zxoxm (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

You seem to have missed the part where this advice is only for those parents "who are concerned about the effect that mixing their infant's formula with fluoridated water may have in dental fluorosis." The CDC itself has not changed its recommendations and believe fluoridated water is safe. Yobol (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The CDC article is contradictory on the water fluoridation topic. The CDC can not just come out and say that fluoridation is not helping because that would be the end of the water fluoridation program. The CDC has to sit on both sides of the fence and has no credibility. (Zxoxm (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

CDC chart showing disproportionate harm to African Americans from fluoridated water

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm

Blacks Disproportionately Harmed by Fluorides and Fluoridated Water http://iaomt.com/news/archive.asp?intReleaseID=249&month=10&year=2007 (Zxoxm (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? Yobol (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to improve the article but the governmental co conspirators and industry co conspirators involved in the water fluoridation conspiracy are at the height of their corruption now and will make every attempt to hide the truth so I chose to update the talk page instead. (Zxoxm (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

There might be something useful in that CDC Surveillance article, but it would help if you'd be more explicit about what you think it might be, rather than simply assuming there's a conspiracy afoot here.LeadSongDog come howl! 23:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Water fluoridation is the pinnacle of all conspiracies and noting will ever compare to it. Water fluoridation is such a awful conspiracy with such devastation in store that it's kind of fun to it witness it unfold on the populations really. (Zxoxm (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

Pub Med article Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

http://iaomt.com/news/archive.asp?intReleaseID=252&month=11&year=2007 (Zxoxm (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

I think you mean PMID 17697714. It's an interesting primary source, but not terribly useful. In any case all it really shows is that lead doesn't belong in new plumbing fixtures. We've known that for quite a while, and there are better sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ADA Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intake for Infants and Young Children

Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intake for Infants and Young Children

http://www.ada.org/1767.aspx (Zxoxm (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

The Original Notice sent out by the ADA on November 9, 2006 about Interim Guidance on Reconstituted Infant Formula

fluoridealert.org/ada.egram.pdf (Zxoxm (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

Vermont Health Department infant fluoride warning article www.fluoridealert.org/media/2006n.html

Do a search for the following terms to find more articles about this. ada warning not to give infants fluoridated water (Zxoxm (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

2006 NRC section

The three panel members of the 2006 NRC report who opposed water fluoridation are Dr. Robert Isaacson, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen and Dr. Hardy Limeback. The NRC Chair Dr. John Doull also voiced opposition to water fluoridation.

Here is the reference

www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/index.html

The report "should be a wake-up call." - Dr. Robert Isaacson, NRC Panel Member.

“The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored. What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.” - Dr. John Doull , NRC Panel Chair

"l personally feel that the NRC report is relevant to many aspects of the water fluoridation debate... [T]he report discusses the wide range of drinking water intake among members of the population, which means that groups with different fluoride concentrations in their drinking water may still have overlapping distributions of individual fluoride exposure. ln other words, the range of individual fluoride exposures at 1 mg/L will overlap the range of individual exposures at 2 mg/L or even 4 mg/L. Thus, even without consideration of differences in individual susceptibility to various effects, the margin of safety between 1 and 4 mg/L is very low." - Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NRC Panel Member.

"In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation." - Dr. Hardy Limeback, NRC Panel Member.

I was trying to do the edit the article as requested correctly and require some assistance to do it correctly. (Zxoxm (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC))

Hello there, I reverted your edit. Please refrain to using academic titles in-text. It might help to share your addition here first, so that we can assist you with the correct formating and the likes. Chartinael (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think if you read Limeback's comments, he opines that water fluoridation is no longer justified because people are obtaining sufficient fluoride from other sources, such as toothpaste and gels applied by dentists. The Fluoride Action Network is probably best viewed as fringe, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with their stands. It is led by Paul Connett, a retired professor from a small college and his son, and the board is not well populated by luminaries. The article cited by Thiessen mentioned above appeared in the journal Fluoride, which is not recognized by PubMed, which accredits journals on their scientific objectivity. So it is probably a good idea to avoid citing that journal because it lacks credibility. Of course if one thinks that water fluoridation is a conspiracy, there is not much to discuss. --Smokefoot (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The following is quoted from the Fluoride Action Networks about page. www.fluoridealert.org/about-fan.htm "About the Fluoride Action Network (F.A.N.)

The Fluoride Action Network is an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures.

Along with providing comprehensive and up-to-date information on fluoride issues to citizens, scientists, and policymakers alike, FAN remains vigilant in monitoring government agency actions that may impact the public's exposure to fluoride. FAN's work has been cited by national media outlets including Wall Street Journal, TIME Magazine, National Public Radio, Chicago Tribune, Prevention Magazine, and Scientific American, among others." (Zxoxm (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

How it describes itself does not make it any more reliable. It is a fringe group that promotes fringe views. Yobol (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources back up your claim that it is a fringe group that holds fringe views because Wikipedia requires sources.(Zxoxm (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC))