Talk:Water fluoridation controversy/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Water fluoridation controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

William Marcus

William Marcus was the Senior Science Advisor for the EPA's office of water in 1990. Marcus was fired for reporting that fluoride causes cancer then sued and won his job back. This is information about that story.

Marcus v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 92-TSC-5 (Sec'y Feb. 7, 1994) http://www.kkc.com/files/92tsc05c.htm

US EPA Office of the Water Internal Memo May 1, 1990

www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/ntp/marcus-memo.html

Interview with William Marcus www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/ntp/marcus-interview.html

Statement of William Marcus of the EPA Union before the Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water (See the Cancer Bioassay Findings for the information about William Marcus nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/629FINAL.htm

William Marcus was the first EPA employee to obtain protection under the environmental whistleblower statutes when he was fired from EPA for pointing out that fluoride causes cancer. http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=860&Itemid=108

The Washington Post December 9, 1992 Article: EPA Told to Reinstate Whistle-Blower http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1038666.html (Zxoxm (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC))

Clean-up of references, Jan, 2011

I propose to remove references citing the journal Fluoride (http://www.fluorideresearch.org/), which MedLine refused to acredit indicating that it was too one-sided.(http://www.fluorideresearch.org/424/files/FJ2009_v42_n4_p256-259.pdf) MedLine is an agency of the US Government and abstracts 5000 journals. Similarly, references to strong advocacy groups.odg, actually a fringe group, Fluoride Alert, have little standing in an article that discusses health-related issues. The corresponding statements supported by these references would be contracted, probably not completely. This set of revisions does not even approach the stringency recommended by WP:MEDRS. Comments, criticisms, etc. are welcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no, if I understand you correctly....

Junk science journals should be sent to some obscure place far away from here. The only place they are allowed (required!) to be used is in articles about themselves.

Because this article is about the controversy, it will be necessary to mention advocacy groups and their basic position. They will have no standing in the sense of their position being presented as "true". It will only be described. See WP:FRINGE for more about how to deal with fringe positions and sources of information. It can be done, but carefully.

All biomedical details and claims must be sourced with MEDRS quality sources, but other types of information are NOT governed by MEDRS, only by RS. See my recent addition to MEDRS (the second sentence below), which has now been modified, but I think you'll get the gist:

"This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability, with specific attention to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related aspects in any type of article, including information about alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content, including that in medical articles, is covered by the guideline on identifying reliable sources instead of this guideline." (From WP:MEDRS)

IOW, this article must have two types of information, some governed strictly by MEDRS and other governed only by RS.

My reply to an AIDS denialist may also be helpful. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then I will be restrained. I admit to finding the Fluoride Action Network to be highly dishonest. I removed one section on the EPA union who "expressed concerns", since a union has no particular stature. Thank you for your help. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't let me hold you back too much...;-) I share your opinion about the Fluoride Action Network. Keep in mind that even if they get mentioned, their website and newsletter aren't RS and would only be allowable on an article about themselves, nowhere else. That of course limits coverage of what they say. If they are quoted in a RS, then we can quote them. If not, then they don't get to speak here. Now chew on that one and see how that affects the current sourcing in this article! Get out your pruning shears and get to work. Fringe cruft is supposed to have a tough time here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling error

In the 'statements for' section, hailed is misspelled as haled. Sorry I can't just edit it, it's the semi-protected status.

Done, thanks! Yobol (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

New study shows fl useless

However, a new study published in the American Chemical Society (ACS) journal Langmuir has found that the “protective layer” created by fluoride is actually 100 times thinner than previously believed, which may render it practically useless as a cavity-preventing intervention.

http://dprogram.net/2011/03/07/does-topical-fluoride-really-protect-tooth-enamel-study-suggests-no/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

www.naturalnews.com/About.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Natural News] is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The ACS is though. [1] Tentontunic (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See Identifying reliable sources (medicine). There is no reason to include this study. TFD (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are saying the American Chemical Society is not a reliable source? This study was published in their journal Langmuir (journal). A reason for inclusion would be of course this source backs the claims of those who oppose fluoridation. I think it ought to be added and shall do so unless you have an compelling argument against it. Tentontunic (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that all. However you should read MEDRS which explains why this study should not be added to the article. TFD (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Many problems here. Your section heading says "fl useless", when what is actually said is "may render it practically useless". Obviously much less certainty. Yours looks like a somewhat biased interpretation. The material to which you linked is not what was published by the ACS. It simply tells us that an article was published there. (Why not find and use that article?) The article also says "The finding...still needs to be validated by follow-up studies..." Your source is obviously one with a preconceived view on the matter - "To learn the truth about fluoride..." - despite the admitted doubts about this research. Based on your heading, it would seem that you have similar preconceptions. That's fine, but Wikipedia needs better sourcing and less original research. HiLo48 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with TFD and HiLo48; material from this single primary source is inappropriate (per PSTS and MEDRS, we should be using secondary reviews); the way the original suggestion was framed was also WP:OR. We should wait until this paper has been reviewed in the medical literature before adding. Yobol (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is already peer reviewed as it is published by the ACS journal [2] and one of the authors is Matthias Hannig Tentontunic (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Your views are duly noted, and happen to go against our guidelines. Yobol (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A content guideline does not exclude the usage of peer reviewed studies whic hhave a bearing on the subject. Tentontunic (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No notability of this study has been established. TFD (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the content guideline specifically cautions against use of sources like this (see here). You are welcome to suggest changing the guidelines, but insisting on ignoring the guidelines over objections of the other editors seems imprudent. Note that there are also other reasons to exclude, including violation of WP:UNDUE; addition of a single study like this that has not been evaluated in the medical literature through review places undue weight on it as we do not know the reaction of the medical community to it (is it an important study? will it be ignored?) This is why we build our wikipedia articles on secondary sources - to help us assess its notability in context with the rest of the medical literature. Were we to include every single primary study in the medical literature to every article that may be relevant for it, as you seem to be suggesting would be appropriate by insisting this one primary source be added, these medical wikipedia articles would be many hundreds of thousands of kb in size, an obviously untenable position. Yobol (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable section

"In addition, over 3,038 health industry professionals, including one Nobel prize winner in medicine (Arvid Carlsson), doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers from a variety of disciplines are calling for an end to water fluoridation in an online petition to Congress.[39]"

First of all, RE: "over 3,038" if you are going to estimate then why use such a specific number? If you want to be specific then lose the word "over". How many is "over 3,038"? 3,039? Or 4,294,967,296? Second, that reference leads eventually to a page called "Add your name to the Professionals' Statement Calling for an End to Fluoridation" Where ANYBODY can add their name to the petition just by filling out a few fields (for ex. Name, Email, Country, etc.) I guess they're assuming that no one could possibly lie on these forms? Bottom line: "over 3,038 health industry professionals ... are calling for an end to water fluoridation..." is completely UNVERIFIED. For An Angel (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Why is it that I can't post in this message the link to "fluoridealert" that this statement is using as a reference? It says that the site is registered on Wikipedia's blacklist but it is still being used as a reference in the article. For An Angel (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that anti-fluoridation activists have set up an on-line petition may be notable if there are reliable sources that report it. However, the text reads like advocacy. TFD (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with above. I can find no reliable independent sources that mention this petition. I would support the removal of this entire section until such independent sources are found. Yobol (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

@ For An Angel, I suspect you can't post it because the bot only catches additions, not existing links. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposes to lower the fluoridation amounts

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing to lower the amount of fluoride that is added to the water. The new water fluoridation level is .07 Part Per Million (PPM) instead of .07 PPM up to 1.2PPM. The lowering is a effort to lower the dental fluorosis caused by fluoride. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/20110107a.html

I think we should wait to see if they do actually lower it and then report it

Noformation (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Those links are written in magnificent bureaucratese, making them less than clear to me. But I think some would argue that they're not exactly proposing a lower level, but a narrowing in on the lower end of the already recommended range. If someone is already targetting that end of the range, nothing would change. (I apologize if I've got this wrong.) I just recommend care with the wording. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments by typing 4 tildes ~ Noformation (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What the U.S. HHS has done regarding fluoridation is not something that should be included in the article because you think something. It is a matter of fact and should be included so the article is comprehensive and of good quality. What the HHS says in the article should be included in a matter of fact manner. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did propose to lower the nations water fluoridation levels and you may want to hide that information but hiding information is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place where you get to decide what is included as long as it fits in your agenda. Sure you would rather the U.S. HHS never proposed such a thing but guess what they did.

Please assume good faith when dealing with editors on talk pages and don't make this personal; I'm not on wikipedia to "hide" information as you accuse, I just don't think this information meets Wikipedia standards. Until something actually happens regarding changing fluoridation levels it's just a proposal and it doesn't add anything to the article to point out that a proposal was made at some point. If the proposal passes then we can talk about adding it to the page if there is are reliable sources reporting it. Further more, you should provide exact changes you'd like to make to the article. Also, as HiLo48 has pointed out above, the proposal doesn't seem to seek an outright change in amounts but rather narrows the already existent range to the lower end. And again, please SIGN your posts by typing four tildes Noformation (talk) Noformation (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In the context of the water fluoridation article events like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services advising the water fluoridation levels be lowered regardless if it happens or not is notable and the fact that it happened should be included. The fact that the HHS proposed it shows their position which goes in the face of what the propaganda was was used to promote fluoridation for 50 years. The new guidelines are huge and to attempt to ignore them regardless if they pass or not is ignorant.

To describe earlier positions as propaganda shows a POV position on your part, something we try very hard to avoid here. That, combined with your refusal or inability to comprehend and comply with requests by others to sign your contributions (or learn anything about correct formatting here), shows a lack of good faith on your part. I see little point in this discussion continuing at all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48 when s/he points out that "[t]o describe earlier positions as propaganda shows a POV position on your part," because that makes it very clear that you have a certain opinion you'd like included in the article. While I can understand that we all want our opinions expressed, Wikipedia is NOT the place to do it. As for now, I say that discussion on this information is closed until the DHHS either accepts or rejects this proposal, at which point we can discuss its relevance to the article Noformation (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Safety and Efficacy sections

The current instructions seem to state that the safety and effectiveness sections are supposed to be summaries of the sections in the main Water fluoridation article. Other "controversy" articles such as Aspartame controversy actually expands on the literature discussion that the "main" (Aspartame) article doesn't. Which one route should this article take? Yobol (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in 1st paragraph eurocentric

"The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation." The source url for this statement is 404-page not found. It makes it sound as if only European and English-speaking countries had water fluoridation in practice.Smmrsvr (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed link N^oformation ^Talk 08:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the content, this article is about the controversy, not the practice. For information about the controversy in other countries we would need sources but I'm not sure if there is much of a controversy in other countries. N^oformation ^Talk 08:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This sentence should be edited due to fact that fluoridation is practiced in Continental Europe. More specific it is practiced in all Balkan countries, Hungary, Slovakia, France, Italy and Poland. Most likely in more, but I have no knowledge about it either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.145.162 (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplicative

That stuff about "Dr. Strangelove" is in there twice. 207.59.211.146 (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

article should be called fluoridation controversy

Right now the article talks about salt fluoridation, toothpaste fluoride and milk fluoridation none of which are water fluoridation. The article does not include fluoridation thru pesticides and fumigants at all. Sulfuryl fluoride; tolerances for residues. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=43270856f1e636b2e2f6623baf3e42ce&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:24.0.1.1.28.3.19.306&idno=40

§ 180.145 Fluorine compounds; tolerances for residues. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=43270856f1e636b2e2f6623baf3e42ce&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:24.0.1.1.28.3.19.22&idno=40

Questions and Answers about EPA’s Sulfuryl Fluoride Actions http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sulfuryl-fluoride/questions.html#q1

http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/fluoride_index.cfm

Fluoridation from pesticides, fumigants, water, toothpaste, milk and salt should all be covered and the name of the article changed to fluoridation controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.189 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you have some points, but we have created myriad pages to cater to the near hysteria about fluoride. I list them at the bottom of User:Smokefoot. I think that this article is fine. It is aimed at water fluoridation, but contextualizes the theme by mentioning other modalities of fluoridation in lieu of water fluoridation.

Curating these pages is a chore because of fairly common vandalism. Chemically-illiteracy seems to infuriate the very people who seem most agitated. So editors here have our hands full coping. To address one of your specific concerns, we have a decent article on sulfuryl fluoride. The article fluorine is also pretty comprehensive. You might bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a US-only thing, it has a worldwide editorship and readership.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How does salt fluoridation information contextualize the theme of a water fluoridation controversy article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.189 (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Because salt fluoridation shows that places that do not fluoridate their drinking water acknowledge that fluoridation is an effective measure for dental health. The article is often attacked to people claiming that fluoridation is some sort of government conspiracy (you could look at the talk page of water fluoridation including messages that were deleted for being too ranting).--Smokefoot (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Different players in the conflict

Maybe it is a good idee to have a section about different players in the conflict? I found one that is interesting : http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf the document is written by two "scientific advisors" to ACSH See:http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf It seems to be a front organisation for ACSH. If one check the members one find that a lot of them is/or has been linked to ACSH. See: http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/fellows/ Actually they have two versions one "policy statement" and one "white paper". I did check the first reference in the policy statement "Fluoride is necessary for developing and maintaining strong bones and teeth. In 1998, the Insti- tute of Medicine classified fluoride a “nutrient” because of its important role in sustaining health.1" ,and I can not see that the references is in the book. The book do not say that Fluroide is a "nutrient". The book is :"1! Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes: A Risk Assessment Model For Establishing Upper Intake Levels For Nutrients (Washington: National Academies Press, 1998):20,22,23,28. (ISBN 0-309-06348-5)" The book is about upper intake levels for nutrients and food components. So why not a section about different players in the conflict. In order to find out who is acting in the conflict.--Karl den tolfte (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We need good independent secondary sources to discuss specific positions and to establish that they deserve WP:WEIGHT to be in this article. What is your specific recommendation as far a what text you would add and to what source are you proposing to source that addition to? Yobol (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that not what TDF wanted?--Karl den tolfte (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You are claiming that the pro-industry advocacy group ACSH is a "player in the conflict". You need a source for that and must explain what you think this article should say. The group itself by the way is not a reliable source for medical claims. TFD (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fluoride cause cancer in young boys

See: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190977,00.html http://www.talkinternational.com/PDF/flouride-report.pdf

This is serious science and that must be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.199.242 (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

U.S. (or any country's) television news does not meet WP:MEDRS. Probably best to get a textbook or a major review to support assertions. Thanks for the suggestion. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You didn,t read the link I guess? You find the sources in the end of the article. See here:"Study Links Fluoride to Bone Cancer in Men

Written By Daniel J. DeNoon Published April 07, 2006 WebMD

Probably not. The user cowering behind the "Smokefoot" nym cares about valid science insofar as it supports his position. Who is he, BTW? Anyone know who "Smokefoot" really is? Xkit (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Boys who drink fluoridated water have an increased risk of a deadly bone cancer, a new study suggests. Elise Bassin, DDS, completed the study in 2001 for her doctoral dissertation at Harvard, where she now is clinical instructor in oral health policy and epidemiology. The study finally was published in the May issue of Cancer Causes and Control. Bassin and colleagues' major finding: Boys who grew up in communities that added at least moderate levels of fluoride to their water got bone cancer -- osteosarcoma -- more often than boys who drank water with little or no fluoride. The risk peaked for boys who drank more highly fluoridated water between the ages of 6 and 8 years -- a time at which children undergo a major growth spurt. By the time they were 20, these boys got bone cancer 5.46 times more often than boys with the lowest consumption. No effect was seen for girls. Unexpected Results In a prepared statement provided to WebMD, Bassin says she "was surprised by the results." "Having a background in dentistry and dental public health, [I] was taught that fluoride at recommended levels is safe and effective for the prevention of dental [cavities]," Bassin says in the statement. "All of [our analyses] were consistent in finding an association between fluoride levels in drinking water and an increased risk of osteosarcoma for males diagnosed before age 20, but not consistently for girls." It's not surprising that Bassin found a risk for boys but not for girls. Osteosarcoma is about 50% more common in males than in females. And boys tend to have more fluoride in their bones than girls. Caution About Study However, a commentary accompanying Bassin's article warns to take her findings with a grain of salt. Ironically, it is from Harvard professor Chester W. Douglass, DMD, PhD. Douglass led Bassin's PhD committee, which approved of the study when it was presented as her doctoral dissertation. Douglass warns that the Bassin study is based only on a subset of people exposed to fluoridated water. Preliminary results from the entire population of exposed individuals, Douglass writes, show no link between bone cancer and water fluoridation. But Bassin specifically looked at the subgroup of people most likely to be affected by fluoridation: children. She limited her analysis to people who got bone cancer by age 20. That's because most cases of osteosarcoma occur either during the teen years or after middle age. Fluoride collects in the bones. And it's particularly likely to accumulate in the bones during periods of rapid bone growth. So Bassin looked at fluoride exposures during childhood for 103 under-20 osteosarcoma patients and compared them with 215 matched people without bone cancer. Her study took into account how much fluoride was in the water in the communities where children actually lived and the history of municipal, well water, or bottled water use. The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit watchdog organization, says water fluoridation should stop until further research can refute or confirm Bassin's findings. Tim Kropp, PhD, is a senior scientist at EWG. "About 65 percent of the U.S. water supply has added fluoride," Kropp tells WebMD. "With evidence this strong, it only makes sense to act on it. Right now, it makes the most sense to put fluoride in toothpaste, and not into our water. It's not like this is a huge contaminant that will cost billions of dollars to fix. We can just stop adding it to our water it if we want to." According to the American Cancer Society, every year some 900 Americans -- 400 of them children and teens -- get osteosarcoma. By Daniel J. DeNoon, reviewed by Louise Chang, MD SOURCES: Bassin, E.B. Cancer Causes and Control, May 2006; vol 17: pp 421-428. Douglass, C.W. and Joshipura, K. Cancer Causes and Control, May 2006; vol 17: pp 481-482. Elise Bassin, DDS, prepared statement, provided by the Harvard University press office. Tim Kropp, PhD, senior scientist, Environmental Working Group, Washington, D.C.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190977,00.html#ixzz1zBxc4BeI" But of course here is an other link to a british newspapper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jun/12/medicineandhealth.genderissues --Karl den tolfte (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

i think it is important for people that read wikipedia to know, that fluoride in the water we drink cause cancer in young boys. Do you not agree?--Karl den tolfte (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That source does not comply with our guideline on reliable sourcing for medical information. Please read that first, and suggest only sources that meet that requirement. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course Guardian is a reliable source according to wikipedia. If not you will have to rewrite a lot of articles in wikipedia . I guess you are familiar with this link:http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/May_2011_Update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl den tolfte (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the Guardian does not meet MEDRS, which discusses reliable sources for medical claims, though it may be reliable for non medical information. Please review the above link. Yobol (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Youbol will you accpt this type of sources: "Medical claims

Main page: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim."? --Karl den tolfte (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. There are studies showing that absolutely everything might cause cancer, we need sources that explain the degree of acceptance that new studies have received. Note too the press release does not say fluoride "cause[s] cancer", but that the study "suggests" there is an "increased risk". TFD (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

4th Reference listed doesn't load any information - Perhaps a dubious reference

Title says it all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.18.73 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The reference is to the journal Fluoride, which is not recognized as an objective source of scientific information by PubMed. The antifluoridation groups have long been disappointed by the damaging exclusion of their main journal (see http://www.fluorideresearch.org/453Pt1/files/FJ2012_v45_n3Pt1_p0ii-00v_sfs.pdf) I was going to remove it but it is actually reprinted in another, perhaps more legit journal. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

IP edits

Recently User:79.180.48.58 attempted to add this edit. I see a couple problems right off the bat. First, medicalnewstoday.com seems to be an aggregate site and as such is not a reliable source (they are in essence republishers, not publishers if I'm interpreting their site correctly). The actual source used in the article is the Fluoride Action Network, a very WP:FRINGEY source that I posit is not reliable for anything.

The other source appears to be a local newscast; while those types of newscasts can be reliable it depends on what they're reporting, and I certainly wouldn't use them to establish WP:WEIGHT as they have a reputation for small town sensationalism and great smiles, not serious journalism.

It appears that this edit may be giving WP:UNDUE weight to these signatures. Because I can't find the actual list of signatories (mednews links to a dead link that redirects to the main FAN page), I can only go on what is reported in the edit, which is this: "hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide." Well, medical professionals are a big group that include doctors, public health officials, nurses, MAs, etc, and since there's no list there's no way to know whether to assign weight to these signatures. Academics, as well, are a large and diverse group of people, some of whom may have expertise in the matter and some who don't. Even if we assumed that everyone on the list qualifies as an expert deserving weight, we're talking about a list of 600 people versus the hundreds of thousands of experts who haven't signed.

Granted, the edit states that EPA officials and Nobel laureates have signed as well, and this may deserve some attention in the article if better WP:SECONDARY sources can be found who comment and interpret the significance, but what has been presented so far does not pass the bar. Project Steve is good reading. Sædon ^talk 01:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Note:Page protection requested due to IP edit warring and refusing to discuss. Sædon ^talk 02:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't argue with anything you've said there. Our IP editor does seem pretty obsessed with this addition. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Complete and utter bullshit.

you are doing everything to suppress dissenting views. What is not reliable? a direct interview with a Nobel winner with a direct quote? that 600 (now over 4000) professionals sign a petition? this whole article is about the controversy. these people have made statement against your believes. are they the minority? possible. but fist let notice them and then quote your "main stream" views. don't hide behind wk this and wk that ,and abuse their true meaning. anyone who is interested in the controversy will easily find the complete information in other places on the web. the only thing you achieve by your bias and propagandist actions here is to destroy WK credibility of NPOV information. . Wikipedia reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.2.22 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, editors here aren't "doing everything to suppress dissenting views", because this article is dedicated to describing the main features of the controversy with an effort to be neutral. The article is not a forum for opinions or a blog for ranting - for that, there are indeed "other places on the web," as you point out. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, You can use Nobel Prize winner Arvid Carlsson WK article sources :

Carlsson is opposed to the fluoridation of drinking water.[4][5] He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that water fluoridation should be illegal due to ethics. He believes that water fluoridation violates modern pharmacological principles, which indicate that medications should be tailored to individuals.[6] 4^ Fluoride in drinking water can cause cancer, Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish) 5^ Torell P, Forsman B (February 1979). "[Arvid Carlsson's fluoride ponderings 1978]" (in Swedish). Tandlakartidningen 71 (3): 142–57. PMID 287207. 6^ Bryson C. The Fluoride Deception, p. 240.

And then quote him from the interview : "Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete." and "Those Nations that are still using it should feel ashamed of themselves, it's not.. It's against Science actually" [41] 41^ "Interview with Dr. Arvid Carlsson on water Fluoridation" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmpv__jQyzA&t=1m04s

I find it strange not to mention the professionals petition. the list is available for inspection here: fluoridealert DOT org/researchers/professionals-statement/signers01/ we must not forget that most of the world, most of Europe and most of OECD do not fluoridate their water. and in the countries that sell fluoridated salt the citizens have a choice to use it or not.109.64.32.41 (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

FAN is not "WP:FRINGEY"

I've naïvely walked into this conflict in the best possible way: last week I consulted this article to orient myself with respect to the various things I have heard in media (mostly, NPR) with respect to opposition to water floridation. I have an expectation of Wikipedia that it offer for most topics an efficient, unbiased orientation. This is the cardinal virtue, I've concluded over the years, of a tertiary source. In the broadest sense of the word, I have deep faith in the process by which Wikipedia becomes progressively better orienting.

I read the article, felt somehow that the case had been made in media more comprehensively than the article suggested, and went to Google with that odd feeling I get when Wikipedia inexplicably leaves something out, even though the article seems to have received an expected amount of editorial attention. Google: Water floridation controversy.

I think of Google as a quaternary source. It is semi-discriminating in that it has many criteria for what to prioritize, but very few about what to exclude. It is a critical thing to have when a tertiary source fails. On this occasion, in this order:

Wikipedia:Water floridation controversy (listed first, as it should be)
Fluoride Action Network, a well-constructed, well-edited site of an advocacy group directed and advised by a spectrum of scientists and medical professionals, headed by Dr. Paul Connett, (PhD Chemistry)
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation, a paper thoroughly footnoted by citations of peer-reviewed journals, authored by Dr. Paul Connett, PhD Chemistry, and published on Fluoride Action Network.
Links to a broad spectrum of groups opposing water fluoridation, several of which cite 50 Reasons.
Links to media coverage of the water floridation controversy

Well done, Google. This is what one would expect of a quaternary source in the ideal case.

I read through 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation, and immediately saw coherently summarized much of what I've heard over the years with the sort of detail and concision I would expect of Wikipedia, albeit in a work of advocacy. It covered several points I noticed were missing in the Wikipedia article. It was ripe with citations to harvest. Wikipedian gold! An easy win! Low-hanging fruit! I didn't have time to copyedit that day, but decided I could put together a proper citation with {{Cite web}} for Further reading, and I (or others, should the bus finally get me) could proceed from there.

Spamblock. The words, fluoridealert dot org are now it seems unutterable on Wikipedia in any linkable sense. Apparently, there was an incident. Maybe incidents. Reading what I could about the incident(s), I saw statements of the form, "...Fluoride Action network, which is not WP:RS...", none of which explain why FAN might be unreliable. If some idiot spammed Whitehouse.gov or the American Dental Association, no one would consider spamblocking them (?), but with FAN, the vague, unfounded suggestion that it is itself somehow worthless makes it way too easy to justify a block.

This section starts with Sædon, "...the Fluoride Action Network, a very WP:FRINGEY source that I posit is not reliable for anything.". Really? Anything? Not even reliable on the topic "Water floridation controversy"? Bear in mind, this is an article about the controversy itself, and FAN would seem to be a significant player in it. How fringey can they be, they seem to be at the very center of the opposition?

My request that the cannonical link to 50 Reasons be unblocked was summarily dismissed as vexatious, as I had had the temerity to suggest that this was needed to correct a deliberate bias, "Attempting to achieve whitelisting by tossing unfounded accusations at others is unacceptable, particularly when clear evidence of abuse and sockpupetry have been provided to you. Understand that spamming and sockpuppetry are prohibited under official Wikipedia policy of long standing". It was suggested I link to 50 Reasons on another site (?!). The "clear evidence" consisted of vague complaints about spamming sock puppeteers and some broken links. Nothing about unreliability, or what any of this had to do with linking 50 Reasons.

Also, the first book cited in the Further reading section is coauthored by Paul Connett, PhD, the author of 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation. Why is the book citable, but the author's thoroughly-annotated summary of the opposition's reasoning, conveniently on line and readable immediately, is not?

Our own Water fluoridation controversy article seems to say, There was concern about fluoridation, including from red-scare types (haha), and people still get irrationally wound up about it, but look at all these citations which show it to be, y'know, completely unfounded. Well if you wanna read a dry old book about it, you could try..... With respect to the topic, the controversy itself, this is clearly biased and should be corrected. Linking 50 Reasons would go a long way towards that. Meanwhile, Google.

-SM 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

FAN is "WP:FRINGEY"

FAN is a fringe organization. It was founded by Paul Connett, a retired professor from a non-research university who has not published scholarly work or very little and has received no national awards for his scholarship. A typical research scholar in chemistry would publish dozens of journal articles over a career. The FAN "board" is populated by Connett's wife and son. It's associated with the journal Fluoride, which Pubmed, the US's assessor of health-relevant journals, refused to accredit. In summary, FAN is literally a mom and pop organization, and pop isn't well credentialed and his journal is viewed officially as a unreliable. So those are some reasons that FAN looks very fringey. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Paul Connett has more than enough credentials to be a notable and esteem figure in this debate/article. his CV http://www.americanhealthstudies.org/connett.bio.html

if FAN is a mom and pop organization why has Nobel Laurette Dr. Arvid signed it's anti fluoride petition why have other prominent scientist sign in as well ? why is the Advisory board list of FAN full of credentialed professionals ? fluoridealert DOT org/about/team/

FAN has been noted as an anti fluoridation group in numerous WK:RS On major Fluoridation issues :

https://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/11/11greenwire-epa-proposes-phaseout-of-fluoride-based-pestic-97414.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704739504576068162146159004.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-05/pinellas-county-florida-votes-no-fluoride-in-drinking-water/50673318/1 See the entire listing at fluoridealert DOT org/about/fan_news/.

The censorship of Peer reviewed Fluoride Journal by Pubmed is totally politically driven "Censorship of medical journals" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1488805/

To not include and mention FAN Fluoride Action Network in this article and the signed petition is a blatant stray from WK neutrality.109.65.13.19 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The references at Fluoride Action Network seem to be primary. Got any objective sources to cite about them that might establish wp:Notability? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have linked to 3 secondary sources from FAN's list. just searching the titles on Google and you will find the original articles. in 2007 Dr. Connet was invited to Israel by Israel's leading 3 environmental groups when the controversy went public in Israel. An article from Israel's leading online news paper Ynet, discussing the water fluoridation in Israel talks about Dr.Connet visit to Israel and FAN http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3445244,00.html, and an article in Maariv (newspaper) mentions him as well and quotes his work http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/580/133.html . just use Google translate for English

The man and the organization are notable. let's not forget that FAN is notable enough to already be on wikipeida - Fluoride Action Network109.65.13.19 (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Fluoride salt in Europe misquote

It is stated in the WK article intro "Instead, fluoride is added to most table salt in Europe."

It is sourced from : Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_122.pdf

But that source never states that. The quote from the EU document is (page 21) : Many countries recommend the consumption of fluoridated salt and such products are available in at least 15 countries. The salt is fluoridated up to 350 mg/kg. Figures about the proportion of fluoridated salt sold are available (Gotzfried et al, 2006).

No official body is adding anything to all table salt. it is simply stating that this kind of salt is available as a product in the market place in "at least 15 countries"109.64.32.41 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As a European I have never seen fluoridated salt on sale anywhere over here. Iodized salt yes but never fluoridated.. I think what the reference means is that its not illegal to sell salt with this amount of fluoride in some EU countries. Yet I've never seen it on supermarket shelves. So the article is certainly inaccurate.--Aspro (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed in to "in some countries". None of the countries mentioned were in Europe. TFD (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

TFD, the EU document mention 4 countries (page 28) : Mexico, Costa Rica ,Jamaica and Switzerland .further more your new edit implies as if in those countries, the Government is fluoridating all table salt. That is not the case according to the EU Source. It is stated simply, that Fluoridated salt is available in shops in some countries ?79.179.4.248 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

One more thing - Dr. Arvid Carlsson ,winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, is the most prominent figure in the list of the opposing fluoridation statements. he should, off course be at the top of the list, and not cramped nearly the end.79.179.4.248 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, to be pedantic for a minute. The section Efficacy states that:

“This failed to account for the fluoride added to table salt in continental Europe.” Yet, the fact that in some EU counties, their law may state that it 'it is admissible to add fluoride to salt' does not mean that it has ever been 'available' to the actual consumer. If the consumer wants fluoride they buy fluoride tooth past. So supermarkets don't bother to stock fluoridated salt -even if they can – because no one apparently buys it. (I shop for low sodium salt -so I look for these things) Therefore, this statement needs to be corrected as well. --Aspro (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Low sodium salt"??? Did you mean potassium chloride, or other salt substitutes? In either case, the issue we are interested in here isn't the metal ion, it's the halide ion. They dissociate in water, so sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride would have much the same effect on fluorine uptake. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog:What you said above doesn't make sense.--Aspro (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make it simpler. What did you mean by "low sodium salt", and what has it got to do with fluoride?LeadSongDog come howl! 21:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make it simpler. You appear to have just concatenated some terms that you have read somewhere (in the above post) without understanding what they mean. How can anyone follow nonsense (no-sense).--Aspro (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of the point of asking. You used the term "low sodium salt". It has multiple meanings. I'm not going to guess which one you intended, so I asked. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 September 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

All I want to do is alert you to a grammatical error. Paragraph 2. "The weight of scientific evidence have..." Obviously, "has" is the verb form needed here. Please correct it. Thank you. 76.105.189.88 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I've edited things a bit in that paragraph. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible Sources

So, I'm not very skilled at Wikipedia, but I saw these recently and thought someone might be able to make use of them: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi.html http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2012/10/developmental-fluoride-neurotoxicity-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/ They are about the effects of fluoride on neurological development. Let me know if this isn't the proper place to put these; as I said, I'm not very experienced here.--Triplefull368 (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is about artificial water fluoridation (at the moment). Those articles are about drinking water contaminated with higher levels of fluoride than the artificial levels. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The chronic toxicity is a massive problem globally as indicated in our article [fluoride toxicity]]. Some aquifers have high fluoride (some also have a lot of arsenic). --Smokefoot (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate here-if the standard was set before anything about neurological effects was known, and even now there has been little (in the world) to no (in the US) research on it, how can a person make a claim with any certainty that any certain level is "safe" in regards to neurological development? I also don't really understand why arsenic is relevant except that it maybe helps the opposition in this case.--Triplefull368 (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add another notable 'statement against'

From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Burk

Dean Burk (March 21, 1904 – October 6, 1988) was an American biochemist: a co-discoverer of biotin,[1] medical researcher, and a cancer researcher at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the National Cancer Institute. In 1934, he developed the Lineweaver–Burk plot together with Hans Lineweaver.[2]

After retiring form the NCI in 1974 Dean Burk remained active. He devoted himself to his opposition to water fluoridation.[6][7] According to Burk "fluoridation is a form of public mass murder."[8][9] Dean Burk argued against water fluoridation proposal before the Dutch Parliament in the Netherlands.[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.35.109 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem notable to me. Did he actually publish papers on the topic? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7679201

"Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells"

"Conflicting evidence has been reported concerning the mutagenicity of sodium fluoride (NaF), especially clastogenicity at concentrations of more than 1 mM. NaF is known to induce chromosome aberrations at these concentrations in human cells, but not in most rodent cells. We considered that such species-specific difference in chromosomal sensitivity would be derived from the phylogenetic distance between rodents and man. To clarify the role of interspecies differences, we investigated the chromosomal sensitivity to NaF in cell lines from various primates, which diverged into many species, including rodent-like prosimians and human-like great apes. The results showed that the clastogenicity of NaF was limited to human and great ape cells." PMID: 7679201

On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9002384

"Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan"

"The Okinawa Islands located in the southern-most part of Japan were under U.S. administration from 1945 to 1972. During that time, fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies in most regions. The relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality rate was studied in 20 municipalities of Okinawa and the data were analyzed using correlation and multivariate statistics. A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities " PMID: 9002384

On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596294

"Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States)."

"We explored age-specific and gender-specific effects of fluoride level in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma. ..."

"Our exploratory analysis found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females." PMID: 16596294

Also on PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19812419

"Is there a need of extra fluoride in children?"

"Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate, disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea, causing disruptive effect on tissues in the body. It inhibits antibody formation, disturbs immune system and makes the child prone to malignancy. Fluoride has been categorized as a protoplasmic poison..." PMID:19812419

On PubMed.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11512573

"Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on WHO data..."

"...cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-biliary and urinary organs were positively associated with Fluoridated Drinking water (FD). This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. Brain tumors and T-cell system Hodgkin's disease, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma of the skin and monocytic leukaemia were also correlated with Fluoridated Drinking water." PMID: 11512573

I was thinking that if it really did cause cancer, wouldn't that make it in violation of the Delaney Clause? "the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration shall not approve for use in food any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals.--"Merrill, Richard A. "Food Safety Regulation: Reforming the Delaney Clause" in Annual Review of Public Health, 1997, 18:313-40. This source includes a useful historical survey of prior food safety regulation. If fluoride is in water that goes into foods wouldn't it be in violation of this clause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead-Induced Caries

The following papers explain that some caries are due to high lead levels and fluoride doesn't help in these cases.

"Enamel biopsies taken from school children in a community where exposure to lead was a health hazard were analyzed for lead and fluoride. The children with high enamel lead had significantly higher caries scores than the children with low enamel lead, in spite of the fact that the high lead group also was higher in enamel fluoride. There was no increase in enamel lead with age. The lead in saliva was only a fraction of that in blood. Infants with lead poisoning showed higher saliva lead than a normal infant."

•"Lead in Enamel and Saliva, Dental Caries and the Use of Enamel Biopsies for Measuring Past Exposure to Lead" http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/56/10/1165.abstract The fluoride in their teeth did not prevent the caries.

Lead is passed on from mother to child. The child doesn't necessarily have to ingest the lead. It can be transferred by the mother to her offspring, just like fluoride.

See "Association of Dental Caries and Blood Lead Levels" in JAMA. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190537

See "Blood lead level and dental caries in school-age children" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361944

"Mean blood lead level was significantly greater among the urban subgroup, as was the mean number of carious tooth surfaces. Blood lead level was positively associated with number of caries among urban children, even with adjustment for demographic and maternal factors and child dental practices." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This study suggests that the fluoridation of water can lead to higher lead levels:

•"Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead" PMID: 11233755 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11233755

Chronic, low-level dosage of silicofluoride (SiF) has never been adequately tested for health effects in humans. We report here on a statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead (VBL) tests taken from children ages 0-6 inclusive, living in 105 communities of populations from 15,000 to 75,000. For every age/race group, there was a consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead. The highest likelihood of children having VBL> 10 microg/dL occurs when they are exposed to SiF treated water and subject to another risk factor known to be associated with high blood lead (e.g., old housing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"Abstract: Lead, a toxin that lowers dopamine function, has been associated with violent behavior as well as learning deficits. Hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which were substituted for sodium fluoride without testing as chemicals for public water treatment, increase absorption of lead from the environment and are associated with violent behavior. Given the costs of incarcerating violent criminals, these side-effects justify a moratorium on using silicofluorides for water treatment until they are shown to be safe."

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/052909coms/fluoride/RMasters.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Claim in text does not reflect claim made by the source.

In the section of efficacy of water fluoridation. "Although fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure among the poor and disadvantaged, it may be unnecessary for preventing tooth decay, particularly in industrialized countries where tooth decay is rare." The source does not claim that tooth decay is rare in those countries, but merely that water fluoridation may be unnecessary due to fluoridation from other sources, such as toothpaste and in foods. Promethean 238 (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical Error: Edit request on 3 April 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first line of the second paragraph in the "Ethics" section seems grammatically incorrect:

"Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal publication as a violation the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999."

I believe it should be:

"Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal publication as a violation of the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999."

or

"Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal publication as violating the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999."

Edward.mims (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Anchoring reference is pretty flimsy

The first and one of the most heavily cited references in this article is to Cross DW, Carton RJ (2003). "Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights". Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 9 (1): 24–9. PMID 12749628. This journal is a bottom-feeder. Its impact factor is 1.03 according to the journal site (http://maneypublishing.com/index.php/journals/oeh/). The editorial board is not represented by any top institution, except the editor in chief, who is an assoc prof of medicine at Brown U. I have differences with aspects of the antifluoridation movement, but I would bet that the more high end members of that movement would aspire to a more renown anchor article source than this one. I also wonder if this ref could not be deleted or subordinated (placed deeper in the article with qualifiers like "claimed ..."). --Smokefoot (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated dental health on European countries

Is there updated information on those European countries that have since banned or removed fluoride from their drinking water? It would be interesting to see if tooth decay has been on the rise. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn: Proposed new article on "conspiracy theories for water fluoridation," see List_of_conspiracy_theories#Water_fluoridation

The proposed article could include the Nazi plans for fluoridation, pineal gland interactions, various industries convincing the governments to flouridate water as a means of disposing wastes, fluoridation to make citizens "docile". With such an article at least editors and readers would have a place to go to. Wikipedia already has 9/11 conspiracy theories.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You think there's enough there to fill out a whole article? We've already got List_of_conspiracy_theories#Water_fluoridation. Zad68 04:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for pointing that out. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theories" in this article are a waste of space. SkepticalMinds (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we have a section on "conspiracy theories" in the present article? They form part of the controversy. Some parties might be angered that their views are considered to be conspiracy theories, which would be unfortunate. In other words, there are two levels of objection to fluoridation, underpinning the controversy:

some that find data supporting efficacy to be questionable. And there are some that dont like the idea of government doctoring their drinking water - those are opinions.
Then there is a whole separate group of objections, which are premised on theories that there is some conspiracy by governments and/or companies to impose fluoridation which these organization know to be unhealthy. The latter would be a conspiracy theory.

Just an idea. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

@Smokefoot - Someone could do a separate short article on water fluoridation "conspiracy theories". Then in the "See Also" section of this article could be a link to that article. I've seen shorter articles on Wikipedia than what would be in a water fluoridation "conspiracy theories" article.SkepticalMinds (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't objectors to this article register?

Strange that those that find this and related articles objectionable are almost always unregistered. Why are these editors so disinclined to describe themselves? What is behind this trend - paranoia? Disinterest in anything but this single topic? Anti-collegiality? ----Smokefoot (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum.SkepticalMinds (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

burn!. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

@Skeptical, I'm assuming that's you, 99.61.178.14? Zad68 04:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What about Harold Hodge?

I see no mention of Harold Hodge. Wasn't he part of the water fluoridation controversy? Not worthy of mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What is your source and proposed content? Zad68 02:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Source. Harold_Hodge. "Harold Carpenter Hodge (1904 – 1990) was a well-known toxicologist who published close to 300 papers and 5 books. He was the first president of the Society of Toxicology in 1960. He received a BS from Illinois Wesleyan University and a PhD in 1930 from the State University of Iowa, publishing his first paper in 1927. He received a number of honors and awards during his career, and he was president of the International Association for Dental Research in 1947, president of the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (1966-1967), president of the Association of Medical School Pharmacologists (1968-1970).[1]"

I just think he should be mentioned in an article such as this. I really don't care what is said or how it is worded.99.61.178.14 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, now we're getting somewhere. (And thank you for signing!!) Couple things: First, the content you're proposing is just a bio of Hodge and makes no mention of fluoridation. This article is "Water fluoridation controversy" and the content you're proposing does nothing to tie Hodge into the topic of this article. Second, as incredible as it may sound, you cannot use a Wikipedia article as a source for something in another Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a reliable source - see WP:CIRCULAR. Given that, I looked at the Harold Hodge article, and the relevant content there is sourced to the book The Fluoride Deception by Bryson. This book wouldn't appear to be a good, neutral source on the topic. It received absolutely no attention in PubMed, and in fact Harold Hodge receives no mention in PubMed at all. Can you bring a good-quality reliable source that places Hodge in the context of the history of the water fluoridation controversy? Zad68 14:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you insisting that Harold Hodge have work on PubMed to be mentioned in this article? Just curious. Are you trying to reference his peer-reviewed work? I don't believe he published any regarding fluoride. But he did play a part in fluoridation. There are people and organizations mentioned in this article that do not have peer-reviewed studies on PubMed. Are you insisting that everyone (or organization) mentioned in this article to have a peer-reviewed study on PubMed? SkepticalMinds (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No... maybe you didn't realize (not everyone does) but PubMed contains a lot more than just scientific study results, it also has articles about history, society, ethics, law, politics, etc. if it relates at all to medicine or public health. (PubMed currently indexes over 22 million items, that's quite a lot.) I just did a quick search there for articles covering the history of water fluoridation, and I pulled up 150+ results. I found three separate articles covering the history of fluoridation that mention Frederick McKay by name, and two that mention H. Trendley Dean name. I found zero that mention Hodge. Because we can see the PubMed does include many articles that cover the history of fluoridation and mention important figures by name, the fact that Hodge is never mentioned does argue against mentioning him here by name. Zad68 20:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

PubMed isn't the only source of information for an article like this. Water fluoridation is still controversial in the world. I've brought up quite a bit of information found on PubMed previously but you refused to give any of them any weight for one reason, or another. Is your POV influencing your actions?SkepticalMinds (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

@Zad - Did you really look for Harold Hodge on PubMed? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7102580 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6494187 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6221038 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7315769 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/968908

He has work on PubMed.SkepticalMinds (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Phyllis Mullenix is also involved in the water fluoridation controversy but there is no mention of her either in this article. She's mentioned on PubMed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16350475 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7760776 SkepticalMinds (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

@Zad - the point should be that this article remain neutral, regardless of the source. Do you really believe the ADA and CDC are neutral? Do you believe those opposed to fluoridation are neutral? Neither are neutral. Just present both sides as neutrally as possible. Leave the opinions up to the reader. Are you trying to promote water fluoridation?SkepticalMinds (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Zad's first objection remains: the content you're proposing is just a bio of Hodge and makes no mention of fluoridation. This article is "Water fluoridation controversy" and the content you're proposing does nothing to tie Hodge into the topic of this article. See also WP:COATRACK#The_Flea. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A secondary source includes "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA Standards (2006), page 80. "Hodge and Smith (1965) summarized a number of studies of skeletal fluorosis, including two that indicated affected individuals in the United States with water supplies containing fluoride at 4.8 or 8 mg/L."

Phyllis Mullenix is mentioned in the same book. It's a book about water fluoridation SkepticalMinds (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That would fall under WP:SYNTH or WP:WEIGHT. Are you really suggesting to insert a random bio with no context? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be disrespectful to not mention Hodge. See Oxford Journals, Toxicological Sciences, Harold Carpenter Hodge (1904–1990). "Appointed initially in biochemistry, Hodge pursued dental research including the toxicity of fluoride, as there was a huge stigma against using fluoride for the public health. (It was, after all, a rat poison.) "... he was fascinated by teeth and fluoride and thereby became involved in early research toward the prevention of dental caries. He spawned a great interest in the university in dental research that continues today." SkepticalMinds (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

He's dead, so I don't think he'll mind. We're safe to disrespect him by not adding his bio to the teeth article. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Edward Bernays be mentioned in an article such as this?

See Edward_Bernays. "Bernays helped the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) and other special interest groups to convince the American public that water fluoridation was safe and beneficial to human health. This was achieved by using the American Dental Association in a highly successful media campaign. [24]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Response is pretty much the same as for Hodge. You can't use the Wikipedia article as a source, the source that is cited in the article isn't reliable, you need to bring a good, reliable source that places Bernays in the historical context of the topic of this article. Zad68 14:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How are you defining "reliable source"? Does it have anything to do with your specific point of view, or bias? The article should remain neutral, especially considering the controversy involved.SkepticalMinds (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You've been directed to WP:MEDRS several times now. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't say that I interprete WP:MEDRS the same way you do. Regarding "Reliable Sources" it says "The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Experiments and other studies have fallen victim to deliberate fraud. (See: Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy, and Schön affair.)" "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." It also says, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."SkepticalMinds (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The first quote does not have anything to do with your source. It is not refereed scholarship. Even if it was, are you using that quote to suggest that your source is deliberate fraud?

The last quote contains the text give each side its due weight, which we are doing as far as I can tell. Do you have some peer reviewed scholarship to suggest otherwise? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

See Public Relations Wiki - Edward Bernays.

"Bernays' clients included President Calvin Coolidge, Procter & Gamble, CBS, the United Fruit Company, the American Tobacco Company, General Electric, Dodge Motors, and the fluoridationists of the Public Health Service. Beyond his contributions to these famous and powerful clients,"

See Innovation in Cambridge - Public Relations. "Additionally Bernays is credited with making bacon and eggs the All-American breakfast, promoting Russian ballet, selling the idea of fluoride in drinking water to be healthy, promoting disposable paper cups as more sanitary than reusable cups,"

Bernays' role in water fluoridation seems to be known in most places but isn't known in this article because it is intentionally being omitted. SkepticalMinds (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing that falls under WP:MEDRS, got anything else or can we close this? TippyGoomba (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is that Edward Bernays played a role in the water fluoridation program but you want to avoid mentioning it in this article? Is this what you are saying? SkepticalMinds (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Facts You Should Know About Fluoridation", Health Research Books. SkepticalMinds (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying you haven't given us sources for me to evaluate the question. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors of this article should read "The Engineering of Consent" by E.L. Bernays and Howard Walden Cutler at the library BEFORE writing an article regarding the controversy of fluoridation? SkepticalMinds (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a change to the article? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I am suggesting Edward Bernays be mentioned in this article. I don't care what is said or how it is worded. But he did play a part. SkepticalMinds (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion needs to be in the from "let's add X to section Y, here are my sources". TippyGoomba (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't there any mention in this article regarding Dr. David Kennedy?

hatted per WP:NOTFORUM, no change is being suggested

I see Dr. Hardy Limeback is mentioned but not Dr. David Kennedy? Dr. David Kennedy is also opposed to water fluoridation. He is involved in the controversy. SkepticalMinds (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this? A roll call of anybody who has ever commented on fluoridation? Proposals to change an article have to be better than that. As TippyGoomba said above, you need to tell us what wording you would like to see, and back it up with some sources that help the rest of us see how the new content is notable enough for inclusion. You telling us that someone "is involved in the controversy" is simply not good enough. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I need to confirm if its notable before doing content."Dr. David Kennedy discusses the toxicity and ineffectiveness of fluorid:ion IAOMT 2009" .

Dr. David Kennedy DDS.

SkepticalMinds (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Skeptical, the answer to all your repeated questions Why isn't so-and-so mentioned? Is: Per WP:UNDUE. This is policy. Please familiarize yourself with it. Zad68 05:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You could add more statements against water fluoridation:

Closing per WP:SOAP, the talk page is for discussing changes to the article

[Redacted massive wp:COPYVIOs LeadSongDog come howl! 02:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you filter your list of sources to those that mention water fluoridation (and perhaps even quote their findings in that regard directly)? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I did, but I see that you've deleted it all in its entirety. Clever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

None of the content you quoted mentioned water fluoridation, as I recall. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It did not, but that wasn't the point. The policy on wp:COPYVIO doesn't leave any real option, they have to be deleted. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I had asked the IP to filter the sources for relevance. He claimed he had but they were deleted. My comment was addressing the fact that all the sources he gave seemed to be irrelevant. I didn't mean to claim that this was the reason for deletion :) TippyGoomba (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not know what copyright violation your are referring to. I was given permission to quote portions of online article from book "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds" page 791, regarding "dental fluorosis... http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50295a026 Here is permission to quote portions of this article. https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet You can get permission also (its free). PERMISSION/LICENSE IS GRANTED FOR YOUR ORDER AT NO CHARGE

This type of permission/license, instead of the standard Terms & Conditions, is sent to you because no fee is being charged for your order. Please note the following:

Permission is granted for your request in both print and electronic formats, and translations. If figures and/or tables were requested, they may be adapted or used in part. Please print this page for your records and send a copy of it to your publisher/graduate school. Appropriate credit for the requested material should be given as follows: "Reprinted (adapted) with permission from (COMPLETE REFERENCE CITATION). Copyright (YEAR) American Chemical Society." Insert appropriate information in place of the capitalized words. One-time permission is granted only for the use specified in your request. No additional uses are granted (such as derivative works or other editions). For any other uses, please submit a new request.

In online article from book "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds" page 791, regarding "dental fluorosis, it states: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50295a026 "Mottled teeth are not only disfiguring in appearance but are so defective in structure and strength that they often have to be replaced by false teeth at an early age."

In article from book "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds" (online) page 791. The footnote also states: "Unpublished data at hand now indicate that a concentration of fluorine in water of as little as 1 p.p.m. as determined by the Willard or Foster methods of analysis as sufficient to cause mottled enamel of human teeth. A concentration of 2 p.p.m. is now found to be associated with mottled enamel of the more severe type." This information was available in 1932. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50295a026

If you'd rather not mention this, its fine with me. I don't care. I was simply trying to be helpful with your Wikipedia article. There was nothing else mentioned that was any kind of copyright violation either. Do as you wish. Its your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10901407 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3605090 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask again. Please filter out those that have nothing to do with water fluoridation. High concentrations of fluoride is bad, it has nothing to do with water fluoridation at the current levels. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be of the mindset that the body only considers/counts the amount of fluoride contained in water and discounts fluoride ingested/absorbed from all other sources. Fluoride bio-accumulates in the body from ALL sources regardless of the amount maintained in tap water. Its even used as pesticides on the foods we eat in much higher amounts than maintained in tap water. All the previous studies are essentially flawed due to this type of fallacy. Furthermore, you can't determine the amount of fluoride in the body by counting cavities unless your intention is to be unscientific or deceptive. No one really knows how much fluoride anyone is ingesting as no lab work is being done on the population. It would actually be wise for pro-fluoridationists to heed the warning of the World Health Organisation: "Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the TOTAL fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries prevention." (Fluorides and Oral Health, WHO, 1994). You can use my statement above as an arguement against water fluoridation. Its nothing more than common sense.

Whether you want to use any of the information provided above is up to you. I don't have the time to rewrite your Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You're at the wrong article. Maybe Fluoride toxicity is more suitable? I'm not sure. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You have got to admit that 99.61.178.14 has a very good point. The rational behind water fluoridation was to make good a perceived deficit in environmental fluoride. To try and divorce this now from environmental fluoride this late stage is a non sequitur. --Aspro (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Forced medication via tap water that may benefit one body system (i.e. teeth) at the expense of other body systems (i.e. thyroid gland, brain) isn't logical.

Confounding many of these epidemiological studies is the fact that artificially added inorganic fluoride is much more damaging to living tissue than organic, naturally occurring "calcium fluoride". And when measuring only the absolute levels of the fluoride anion, studies wind up comparing apples to oranges.

The LD50 toxicity levels of chemical compounds is what it takes to kill 50% of the population. Lets compare current water fluoridation chemicals to naturally occurring "calcium fluoride".

LD50 of Calcium Fluoride = 3,750 mg/kg; LD50 of Sodium Fluoride = 52 mg/kg; LD50 of Hexafluorosilicic acid = 70 mg/kg

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see we have a problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can see you have a problem understanding wikipedia policies wp:NOR, wp:RS and especially wp:SOAP. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

At least in the US, we also force the populace to consume chloride because we chlorinate water. And it would be very difficult to not find iodized salt, a program that is also encouraged by the government. One could get fluoride-free water, chloride free water, and iodide free salt, but it would take some effort. My guess is that all manner of additives are required or recommended by the FDA in other things that we consume. My point? Stop picking on poor ole fluoride - there is a lot of regulation going on.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a problem here that I am sure you are quite aware of - chloride and iodide are biologically-essential, fluoride is not. We can tolerate rather large relative dosages of chloride, and even iodide (see recommended dosages for thyroid protection from radiation for example), but this is not the case with fluoride, as even in dosages of milligrams per day it leads to fluorosis of the skeleton, gastrointestinal problems, and thyroid suppression at the least. Poisonedwater (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Then why aren't we all incredibly sick? HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Who's claiming people aren't sick? "Fluoride was used as a drug to treat hyperthyroidism because it reduces thyroid activity quite effectively. This is due to the ability of fluoride to mimic the action of thyrotropin (TSH). Excess fluoride correlates with the other thyroid-related issues such as iodine deficiency. Fluorine and iodine, both being members of the halogen group of atoms, have an antagonistic relationship. When there is excess of fluoride in the body it can interfere with the function of the thyroid gland. Thus, fluoride has been linked to thyroid problems." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169868/ The prior therapeutic use of F to reduce thyroid hormone levels in cases of thyrotoxicosis is well documented (Goldemberg, (1926, 1930, 1932); May (1935, 1937); Orlowski (1932) and Galletti and G. Joyet, (1958)).

"A total of $4.3 billion was spent on treatment for thyroid disease among adult women in 2008". http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st348/stat348.pdf

I'm claiming that we "aren't...all incredibly sick", and that's the last I will debate your paranoia here. These pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for proving that fluoride is killing us all. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just stick with the facts. No one is paranoid unless it is you. Who's claiming fluoride is killing everyone? Not yet anyway. But it isn't contributing to overall health by any stretch of the imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? That last sentence is precisely what we've told you doesn't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's an interesting paper on PubMed.gov: "Effects of the fluoride on the central nervous system" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21255877

Their conclusion was, "The prolonged ingestion of F may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system. Therefore, it is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain F, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of F." PMID: 21255877

But I'm sure the writers here would just consider this paranoia, bias, anti-fluoridation propaganda, or whatever. Couldn't be linked to Autism or any other disease in the USA they haven't found a cause for yet.

Here's another paper on PubMed.gov: "A possible central mechanism in AUTISM spectrum disorders" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19284184

"...a number of environmental neurotoxins, such as FLUORIDE, lead, cadmium, and aluminum, can result in these pathological and biochemical changes." PMID: 19284184 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You have made another mistake, thinking this is about the USA. This is a global encyclopaedia. I am not American. Just propose some explicit words you would like to see added, with the relevant source, and we can discuss it. But please stop telling us that fluoride is bad. Having such a strong view yourself is obviously making it difficult for you to edit and discuss this objectively. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You should point out in your article that water fluoridation is so effective that only 40% of the preschoolers in Singapore suffer from SEVERE dental decay. Singapore has been 100% fluoridated since 1956. That is an excellent success rate. http://yourhealth.asiaone.com/content/40-spore-preschoolers-suffer-severe-tooth-decay

You could also compare Singapore's dental caries rate of 40% with the 4.6% dental caries rate of Ibadan, Nigeria. See PubMed.gov: "The fluoride content of drinking water and caries experience in 15-19 year old school children in Ibadan, Nigeria" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18756850

"955 students aged 15-19 years randomly selected from eleven secondary schools in Ibadan metropolis were examined for dental caries. The fluoride level of the different water sources was between 0.02 and 0.03 ppm. [only] Forty-four (4.6%) of the children had dental caries. In conclusion, both the fluoride level and caries prevalence were low." PMID: 18756850

But if you are severely biased, you won't be able to mention this on Wikipedia due to your severe bias.

Another PubMed paper is "New evidence on fluoridation" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9161076

"A review of recent scientific literature reveals a consistent pattern of evidence-- hip fractures, skeletal fluorosis, the effect of fluoride on bone structure, fluoride levels in bones and osteosarcomas-- pointing to the existence of causal mechanisms by which fluoride damages bones. In addition, there is evidence, accepted by some eminent dental researchers... that there is negligible benefit from ingesting fluoride..." PMID: 9161076

It seems there is plenty of information that is available on water fluoridation that is simply being ignored on this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS clearly states which studies we can and shouldn't use. If there's new systematic reviews on the topic, great, feel free to add them (keep in mind WP:WEIGHT). Just because a page doesn't have the information you seek it doesn't mean it's being 'ignored'. Maybe it's simply not there yet. DVMt (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a joke. There is not one atom of the fluoride controversy in this article. The chemicals used in water fluoridation (hexafluorosilicic acid) are the waist products of the phosphors industry. Water fluoridation is is a toxic waist disposal program started and promoted by the chemical industry. That is the controversy. How do you wake up Wikipedia! The dentist obviously have control of this page and will not allow the truth out. If the dentists any integrity they should look at the arguments against fluoridation clearly and defeat their science on each point. But no. The CDC and the National Science Foundation have asked for a review of water fluoridation policies because the found significant reason to question the science. So the EPA went back and said they would only look at one study in 1940 (cherry picking studies is the biggest warning sign of scientist with an agenda) to justify their policies.

Who ever controls this page has a pro fluoride bias. This page should be controled by someone who is aware of the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfb102455 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors here are aware of the many complaints, but Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources and many of the complainers are unable to cite sources we find credible. There is not much you can do if there is a conspiracy (see List of conspiracy theories) by the dentists of the world, because Wikipedia editors find those sources to be reliable. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Statements against - Edit request on 17 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mrs. Yael German the new Minister of Health of Israel http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mkindex_current_eng.asp?view=4 Opposes Water fluoridation (It is By law in Israel)

She has just signed a new regulation Overturning the compulsory law beginning next year.

Quote: "She insisted that it was better to provide fluoride in other ways to “target audiences” such as poor children, who were unlikely to brush their teeth regularly with fluoride toothpaste.

“It must be known to you that fluoridation can cause harm to the health of the chronically ill and pregnant women,” German wrote in the letter.

She argued that only 2% of water is used for drinking by the population, with the rest used for dishwashing, bathing, industry and other uses." http://www.jpost.com/Health/Article.aspx?id=310965

Another article in israel's main newspaper in Hebrew (Google translate) "When she was mayor of Herzliya , strongly opposed adding fluoride German drinking Israel and those who petitioned the High Court against the Ministry of Health." http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=www.ynet.co.il%2Farticles%2F0%2C7340%2CL-4366896%2C00.html&safe=off 109.64.170.235 (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done per IRWolfie. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Editors here may find these useful:

Naz Onel Drinking Water Fluoridation: Controversy and Issues (March 10, 2012). Business & Health Administration Proceedings, Chicago: MBAA International Conference, pp. 21-31, 2012

Robert MacGregor Battle renewed over value of fluoridation

CMAJ July 12, 2011 vol. 183 no. 10 doi: 10.1503/cmaj.111-2054 PMID 21746832 (letter)

- MacGregor was, at the time of writing, the president of the Canadian Dental Association, commenting on:
  - Caroline George CMAJ Battle renewed over value of fluoridation 2011 Jun 14;183(9):E531-2. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-3888 PMID 21555382 (news)

Clara Ho, Calgary dentists report more cavities in kids after fluoride removed from water Calgary Herald May 17, 2013

I hope these will be useful. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Added to the First Paragraph

I added the line, "that it is without the permission or consent of the local population." to the reasons/justifications for opposition to water fluoridation in the first paragraph. I think this sort of goes without saying, but in addition, under the Ethics section, the first line is "Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of compulsory mass medication." So I think the lack of consent from the public can be considered one of the main reasons that many people are opposed to public water fluoridation.

I also think it is worth adding, that according to the CDC (Page 23, Charge #18), the charge that water fluoridation is mass medication is not a valid one because "Fluoridation is not a medicine. It does not treat or cure anything. It is a 'nutrient' which prevents dental decay. Like other minerals in the diet, fluoride helps the body to resist disease. And dental decay is a serious disease." I find this argument to be moot, and furthermore sidestepping the issue using semantics. It still does not address the fact that it is compulsory & massive, whether it be medicine or a nutrient. However, I am also skeptical of the idea that it is a nutrient... calcium fluoride is a nutrient, but I'd hardly call sodium fluoride a nutrient (it is not found in nature, and one cannot die of malnutrition without it... one won't necessarily even have tooth decay without it; they might, or they might not, depending on the amounts of sugar & acids in their diets & their dental hygiene habits).

(Psychonaut25 - 13355p34k / C0n7r1b5 03:29 AM EST, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

Without taking a side on the matter of fluoridation, our governments do lots of things without our explicit permission. The approval or otherwise of what they do is at the ballot box. I'm not comfortable with your addition. Do you have a source for such an argument? HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Ethics section. Also, the CDC document (Page 23, Charge #19). In any case, I think my taking a side on the issue only makes me more suitable to be editing this particular article, because it is an article about the controversy itself & the reasons for the existence of the controversy. This is not an article about the other things that governments do without the permission of their constituents... but if it were, I would've added it there too, if it were indeed a part of the argument opposing the policy, as it is in this case. In any case, I think voting is irrelevant; this is a type of policy which affects each individual's very physical body. As new children are born, they cannot vote until they are adults. I would've much preferred to have had a say in which chemical compounds were added to my water as a child, but I didn't learn to avoid sodium fluoride (whenever feasible, or to avoid swallowing it anyhow) until I got older. I was not given an opportunity to make that decision for myself, as I should have been. But hey, I can't stop you.

(Psychonaut25 - 13355p34k / C0n7r1b5 03:51 AM EST, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

I don't think you understood very much at all of what I said. But those obsessed with issues like this tend not to pay attention to what others say. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, I not only understood, but responded to, all of what you said (but those apathetic about issues like this tend not to accurately quote or interpret what the opposition says). In any case, here is your link (Page 23, Charges #18 & #19).

(Psychonaut25 - 13355p34k / C0n7r1b5 03:58 AM EST, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

I am now even more concerned about your comprehension here. That source does not say that "Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of compulsory mass medication" is one of the arguments against it. You're digging a big hole here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What it says is, a) "Fluoridation is mass medication." (i.e. without the consent of those being medicated), and b) "Fluoridation is unconstitutional and an illegal invasion of of individual rights." What rights? The rights to decide what to ingest, and what not to ingest, into one's own body. I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the charges, sir or ma'am, but those are the charges. So yeah, it in fact does say pretty much exactly that, what you just said it doesn't say.

(Psychonaut25 - 13355p34k / C0n7r1b5 04:09 AM EST, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

Those words are NOT in that document. This is not a rational conversation. I retire. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you blind? Page 23, charge number 18 is literally "Fluoridation is mass medication." That is an exact quote. I also directly quoted charge number 19, also on page 23.

(Psychonaut25 - 13355p34k / C0n7r1b5 04:23 AM EST, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

Those are not the words you added to the article. Again, I give up. (I shouldn't have responded this time.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I paraphrased, because it sounded more 'encyclopedic.'

(Psychonaut25 - 13355p34k / C0n7r1b5 04:35 AM EST, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

If it's any consolation, I completely sympathize about your 'pretend dirty word', and I, too, hate American, conservative, fundamentalist Christians (though from a more immersed perspective perhaps, as I am American... though I come from a liberal suburb just outside of Washington D.C.)

(Psychonaut25 - 13355p34k / C0n7r1b5 04:46 AM EST, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

Psychonaut25, Content added must be supported by accurate RS refs and be from a NPOV. The material you added is neither. Please note that you are at 2RR at 3RR you may be blocked from editing. Please read the advice given to you by HiLo48 and please adhere to Wikipedia policies. Thank you. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, given that threat, I am just about finished arguing over it and I will not continue to revert. However, I would not have added the content had I not found it to be RS, and it shouldn't be of a neutral point of view; this is an article about a controversy. It is an article about biased points of view. Moving on, I did read the advice given to me by HiLo48, I responded to it, explained my justifications & reasons for my actions, which were sound. Everything about it was fit to the standards of WikiPedia, and encyclopedic material in general. I would hardly find the CDC to not be an RS. I simply did not want to directly quote Charge #18 in the first paragraph because I did not want to repeat almost identically the first sentence in the Ethics section. But suit yourselves... but as I see it, this is exactly the type of "civility nonsense" that HiLo48 was talking about on his page. I cannot stress enough, that this is an article about biased points of view (i.e. the two opposing views in this debate, or controversy... while there certainly should be plenty of neutral analysis of the controversy, in the descriptions of the two opposing points of view, it would simply not be accurate for it to be an NPOV)...and no, thank you.

(Psychonaut25 - 13355p34k / C0n7r1b5 05:13 AM EST, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

Lawrence, Kansas

In these edits is added a story about Lawrence, Kansas. The text added, and the reference, do not establish any direct link between fluoridation and the events described. Since this is only conjecture, does it belong in WP? -- Scray (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like another editor removed it. I agree that it's out of place here. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This article should be about the of the beliefs inherent in conspiracy and not about if they are true or false.

This article should be about the beliefs of the conspiracy not whether those beliefs are true of false. This article fall far short of that goal. It is totally dominated by pro fluoride editors who have not posted the full story. This is wikipedia at its worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.158.78 (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done! Edit requests must be of the form "Please change X to Y". TippyGoomba (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please change this article from propaganda to one that explores the very real dangers of fluoridation.

"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical."--Dean Burk -- Congressional Record 21 July 1976 "They (ACS) lie like scoundrels."----Dean Burk, Ph.D., 34 years at the National Cancer Institute. — FLUORIDE "amounts to public murder on a grand scale" --Dean Burk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read a few lines above, I said: Edit requests must be of the form "Please change X to Y". TippyGoomba (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fluoride Alert Network (FAN) embodies the controversy and banning it is form of censorship.

Shame on Wikipedia for being taken over by the thought control police! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfb102455 (talk • contribs)

FluorideAlert was added to the spam blacklist in 2010, because links to it were being repeatedly spammed by an aggressive sockpuppeteer: [3]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

About FAN: it is literally a Mom and Pop organization, being run by a undistinguished (largely unpublished) and undecorated (zero national awards) professor retired from a tiny college together with his son and his wife. Contrast those characteristics with groups that are guided, not by family, but by decorated professors and professionals from major organizations. Even FANs main journal is not recognized by PubMed. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not in the sprite of Wikipedia. They embody the meaning of this article. You ar make an unjustified value judgement that reduced the value of truth on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.158.78 (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is being taken over by censorship. Probably by those with vested interest.

The heading of this article is evidently pro-fluoridation. it is not written in an exploratory tone at all.

Does anyone know if it is possible to stop self righteous characters from censoring the page?

Haaaa (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence of censorship. Just standards of evidence. -- Scray (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, excluding what is clearly fringe content is not censorship. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly not fringe it is well cited and thought out, and there is no good response to the list of 50 reasons against fluoridation the site provides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is fringe, since it is totally ignored by scientists and the media. It's trivial for any scholar to write a well-cited fringe article. We rely on secondary sources to judge when something is significant. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What you are describing is not representative of the website in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Statements against

This section seems a bit sparse. Would it be possible to add stronger statements against please?

"I am opposed to fluoridation because of the overwhelming evidence that fluoridation is not only potentially harmful but has already caused considerable, well-documented harm." Albert Schatz, Ph.D., biochemistry, world-renowned discoverer of streptomycin (Oct., 1999)

"Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry." Dr. J. W. Hirzy, representing the 1,500 scientists and professionals at EPA Headquarter's Union — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed to wp:MEDRS sources.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

yes can someone help source these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You provided the quotes, where did you get them from? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

any tips of sourcing quotes? seems like, since they are quotes they should not need to be wp:MEDRS or do they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You took them from here, they may as well have been fabricated outright. Including the opinions of random scientists/doctors would violate WP:WEIGHT. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Using http://scholar.google.com

Flouride deposition in bone over a lifetime: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1951556/

Motherload: www.slweb.org/bibliography.html

Bad summaries

There are currently two sections which have this tag:

The best way to fix this is to use the actual sections from the linked "main" subarticles. I'll do that. If this doesn't work, we can revert and discuss. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Other sources of fluoride

It seems relevant that other sources of fluoride be mentioned since one of the problems claimed to exist is accumulation of fluoride and the effect on the kidneys in filtering it from the blood. The other sources include beer, wine, juice, fruits, vegetables, grains, boiled foods, and other prepared foods.

from the USDA http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/Fluoride/F02.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And how many of these sources were from the use of fluoridated water? Campoftheamericas (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

POV too strongly pushed in some sections

Specifcally the primary sections on ethics/safety/etc. Ethics is an especially flagrant one. It contains only alleged ethics concerns, rather than reflecting the controversy. The article is about the different stances (the heart of a controversy) regarding fluroidation, and yet in Ethics especially, and in many other sections, only the anti-fluoridation perspective is shown. A seemingly tacked-on bit later on talks about "statements for fluoride" but it seems that it would be better to show the controversey in each aspect. I would recommend that the statements in ethics be shown from both persepctives. At the very least it should be balanced...though I'd argue Due Weight should kick in here too. This sort of separate but equal thing we've got going now with a small afterthought section for pro-fluoride doesn't help the reader understand the controversy. Reading the ethics section, one would take away that there are only ethical issues on the anti- side, and that the pro-side has no comment. That is not a controversy; it's a position statement. 76.238.186.96 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources we can cite, preferably from well known ethicists? I'm sure it has been covered in secondary ethical literature. N^oformation ^Talk 04:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please reference Linked Harvard Study and results of medicating water supplies with fluoride. http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/arsenic/references/Ars_Fluo_shanyin.pdf

172.242.247.144 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done The link you gave is primarily about Arsenic contamination with some parallel studies about fluoride contamination. The levels of fluoride studied in the link are above the levels used in water fluoridation, hence it isn't relevant. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It does seem relevant that from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

“In conclusion, our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should formally evaluate dose–response relations based on individual-level measures of exposure over time, including more precise prenatal exposure assessment and more extensive standardized measures of neurobehavioral performance, in addition to improving assessment and control of potential confounders.”

It seems strange that fluoridation has been taking place for 68 years and there is little research done on dosages of fluoride one is likely to receive in fluoridated areas upon the development of the brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Fluoride research

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/463/files/FJ2013_v46_n3_p104-117_pq.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.192.202 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Source

I removed this comment: [4] which was being claimed as an editorial (its not). It's also explained by the halo effect, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The summary state that dental fluorosis is the only known disadvantage of water fluoridation. This has not been established.

The statement is too strong and in the absence of long term safety studies of water fluoridation, cannot be made given the current understanding on the topic. Much as how the scientific law accuracy is limited to specific conditions (i.e. Newtonian laws do not stand under relativistic conditions), the statement tantamount to an absolute declaration that water fluoridation is a safe practice. The statement does not reflect the controversy in an unbiased manner.

Will the guy who lock the page give respond to this? Haaaa (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The person who locked the page is almost certainly an uninvolved editor. The statement you are objecting to is sourced. I replicated the reference closer to the statement for clarity. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying it is the only "known" disadvantage has been established. While there may be "unknown" disadvantages, none of these are known. The comparison with physics does not stand, since the reference to known disadvantages is only intended to apply to known uses of fluoridation. TFD (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Without a precise definition, I'd think that the many decades of observation of the results of use have to count for being long term studies. Not sure how long the OP wants. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would NOT say that the argument is too strong, in fact, I would say that much factual information about fluoridated water is all but missing. In particular, any of the 20 or 30 studies on brain damage and IQ reduction. There is even a Harvard meta-analysis of these studies, and most of them are credible and qualified. I am hesitant to edit it; apologetic fluoride imbibers will most likely immediately censor any other health effects. Truly disappointing -- Regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Communist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.148.205 (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there are already existing studies indicating the possible danger from water fluoridation.

That the source is cited does not necessary mean it is conclusive in the face of contradictory evidence like below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=10.1289/ehp.1104912

Where there are contradictory evidences, that particular study should not be cited, especially in the headline where it would received undue prominence, giving bias to the article

HiLo48, rather, than asking about how long do I have in mind, perhaps one should ask, what are the available length of safety studies available?

So to TFD, there are existing concerns about the dangers of fluoridation already. They are not unknown, but they are not appearing on the article to provide a balance viewpoint thanks to overzealous self-censorship.

Haaaa (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Lancet Neurology Study

This new study, conducted by a professor at Harvard's School of Public Health, was published in a high impact journal is compelling and should be integrated in this article. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract DanaUllman^Talk 01:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You are going to have to do better than your rather vague suggestion. What exactly does this study have to do with this Wikipedia article? --Daffydavid (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My point is that there is now solid evidence, drawn from a metaanalysis published in a high impact journal, that fluoridation in water leads to negative effects on brain function. I just wanted to make certain that people here knew about this new study and would then consider incorporating this information into the article here. DanaUllman^Talk 15:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, no; that's not what that paper (or the meta it cites) actually says. Incidentally, one doesn't find "fluoridation" in water; one finds the dissolved ion fluoride. Fluoridation is the process of deliberately adding fluoride to water. It is essential to grasp the distinction between the two terms, otherwise one is likely to misunderstand, misinterpret, and inadvertently misrepresent the literature on this topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And of course the highest levels of fluoride are perfectly natural and therefore entirely harmless. Or something. Guy (Help!) 02:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Paper does not appear to mention fluoridation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This article states "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44". I think 'flouride in drinking water' = flouridation unless it was naturally occuring flouride, right?Sthubbar (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked on the main article talk page and see that this study has been thoroughly discussed. No need to open the discussion again here.Sthubbar (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some parts of China have very high levels of naturally-occurring fluoridation. This document from the WHO states "Fluoride concentrations in the groundwater of some villages in China were greater than 8 mg/litre". This document from the CDC gives an optimal fluoridation level of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter, and this from the EPA gives a goal of a maximum of 4.0 mg/L for safety. The Lancet study cited does not appear relevant to the topic of this article. Zad68 05:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Some semi-random facts to inform this conversation:

The article Fluoride toxicity describes the problem with high fluoride (from mineral sources) across the globe.
404,000 articles, patents, and reports mention "fluoride" according to Chemical Abstracts Service yesterday.
According to Fluoride, seawater contains slightly above 1 ppm of fluoride.

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

#4 Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) which represents professional employees at the headquarters offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oppose water fluoridation. In 2005 they have stated on behalf of a coalition of EPA Unions: "We, the undersigned representatives of a majority (eleven) of EPA’s employee unions, are requesting that you direct the Office of Water to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking setting the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride at zero, in accordance with Agency policy for all likely or known human carcinogens."

Sources:

This is a medical article, so all references should not only be WP:RS, but to be more specific they need to comply to WP:MEDRS, especially where medical or scientific claims are being sourced. Most of the sources being provided for addition are not MEDRS. Ochiwar (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: WP:UNDUE; We generally do not include direct quotations of legislation in articles.

--Mdann52talk to me! 14:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the position of Environmental Working Group (EWG) on water fluoridation in the 'Statements against' section.

American environmental organization, Environmental Working Group (EWG) opposes water fluoridation citing "a growing body of evidence demonstrates the known and potential health consequences of fluoridated water...the main concern is for pregnant women and bottle-fed infants" http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2007/08/ask-ewg-what-can-i-do-about-fluoride-my-water

79.178.3.146 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with NO for your request, the information you provided is from a blog which is almost never considered WP:RS. Also, your edit suggestion is two verbatim lines from a copyrighted work, which means we can't use it. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your reasons for rejection are blatanty false and do not represent wikipedia guidelines:

1)The source is in compliance of WP:PRIMARY. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. " It's the Organization own blog, and It is giving a statement about its own self and describing there own reason for this position. The self statement from the source is unambiguous "true that EWG opposes water fluoridation.".

2) The passage is definitely in compliance of copyrighted work via WP:QUOTE. "Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called "quotes"—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words."

My first line gives credit to the source plus use of quotation. and the quote is used in order to avoid any POV on this controversial issue.

Your response does not qualify changing the tag to "answered"79.178.3.146 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, how about the fact that this Environmental Working Group blog is still non-WP:RS and is flogging woo and as such it isn't notable enough for inclusion in the article. Go here - [| ADA website] and please enlighten me on where it backs up the claim of this blog(EWG says ADA says "don't use floridated water to make formula" - but alas they don't say that). While we are at it I suggest you set-up an account and stop IP hopping when you edit here and at the Homeopathy page. Oh, and still NO--Daffydavid (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that an environmental group doesn't seem to have quite the right credentials to be looking at the complexities of health issues. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid you are clearly invested in illegitimately suppressing the 'Against' section - after you came up with reasons to reject my additions the first time, that proved to be total bogus, you decide to change avenue and challenge notability, which is. off course, Bogus too: Environmental Working Group. the 'EnviroBlog' is part of their official website.

It is not my job to enlighten your ignorance, but nevertheless - The EWG article is from 2006 and the ADA statement' comes from here http://web.archive.org/web/20071119103032/http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infants.asp

HiLo48 EWG is a reputable source *(from their wiki article) "52 percent of EWG's resources go to toxic chemicals and human health" that is what they do. EWG position should be added to the Against section. (i am the editor who requested the addition)109.64.50.177 (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources that back up the official statement in the primary source (the organization own website) and its notability on the subject:

1)"In June [2005] the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a watchdog organization, petitioned the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to list fluoride in tap water as a carcinogen. " http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1118379,00.html

2)"Since 2005, EWG has been calling on federal agencies to respond to these findings, which come from National Academy of Sciences and many others, documenting that excess fluoride exposure poses dangers that range from discolored teeth to potential hormone disruption and neurotoxicity" http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/07/fluoride.recommendations/

3)"The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respected Washington-based research organisation. The group reports that it has assembled a 'strong body of peer-reviewed evidence' and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the US government's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans" http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jun/12/medicineandhealth.genderissues

4)"The president of the watchdog group, Ken Cook, says, “It is time for the U.S. to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it’s as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.” http://www.wnd.com/2007/08/42991/

5)"Much stricter fluoride standards are recommended by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. It believes that "fluoride exposure should be limited to toothpaste, where it provides the greatest dental benefit and presents the lowest overall health risk." http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1759632 (I am the original requester of the addition)79.179.128.177 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: To the 2 IP editors, from your persistence and accusatory tone I'm beginning to think you are not only the same person but also George1935. Please open accounts of your own. Also resetting the request is unnecessary since we have an ongoing discussion but I'm sure it will be reset in the very next edit anyway. "It is not my job to enlighten your ignorance, but nevertheless" followed by an outdated (deleted from ADA website - thus your need to use Wayback)interim link that is no longer the position of the ADA. Clearly here I should suggest (in keeping with your tone) that you are part of an anti-fluoridation misinformation campaign, but I'm going to suggest you provide a WP:RS and also provide proof that EWG meets the WP:NOTABILITY requirement. So far all I see is a fringe group that is very rarely mentioned anywhere on the net except in alternative communities which in themselves aren't considered WP:RS. Wikipedia articles themselves are not considered a WP:RS either. --Daffydavid (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid every time you get an answer, you move the goal posts further away = The definition of a pseudo-skeptic and an intellectual charlatan. and therefore make you totally irrelevant and illegitimate in this discussion . I let other editors who posses integrity and NPOV to give their opinion.(same editor)79.177.33.236 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As I predicted you put up the notice again. I should start a psychic website.

Not done: You are entitled to your opinion, but I only provided additional reasons, I didn't retract the original reasons. The sources you provided allegedly establishing WP:NOTABILITY are old and WND has been determined to be non-RS, so unless you have newer and good quality RS sources EWG is NOT notable. You have opted to ignore those reasons and engage in name calling instead. Please read WP:NPA and set up your own account and stop IP hopping. Do have a nice day. :-) --Daffydavid (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid, Oh so now Notability, according to you, aka 2006 articles are too old. WOW! Here are some from February 2014 (have a wonderful day too :O) )

The Group is a leading and notable environmental organization. (same editor)79.177.33.236 (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange that if they are a "leading and notable environmental organization", that most of your links don't mention the word "environmental" when discussing EWG, one calls it "a Washington advocacy group that supports labeling", one says "consumer group" and another says "a health research organization". Not a single one says "leading" of any kind. So I'm not satisfied that they are indeed notable and if they were it wouldn't really be that hard to find a WP:RS source stating the EWG position on fluoridation. EWG appears to be known primarily for their "Dirty Dozen" list. Also, shouldn't a "leading and notable environmental organization" have something a little newer and updated to remove reference to an out-dated ADA interim report. A 7 year old blog post, really? --Daffydavid (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: IP editor, resetting the request without addressing the concerns indicates you have no interest in following Wikipedia protocols and are instead here just to do tendentious edits. Address the concerns raised. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid i am done dealing with your nonsense. i have taken the matter to WP:DRN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Water_fluoridation_controversy

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

#3 Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

American political advocacy group, John Birch Society (JBS) opposes the fluoridation of public water supplies on the grounds that it is an involuntary mass medical treatment that violates individual rights.

Opposition to fluoridation was never a major action item of any JBS campaign. Yawn --Daffydavid (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE covers this I believe..... --Mdann52talk to me! 14:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

JBS have been notable for their position to fluoridation since the 60s :"The society opposed water fluoridation, which it called "mass medicine"[41] and saw as a communist plot to poison Americans.[42]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society#1960s

This addition also fulfills the same requirements that as the established list in the article(same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

#2 Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Yael German, Minister of Health of Israel Opposes Water fluoridation. in 2014, she has ended Israel decades of water fluoridation practice. In her view it is better to provide fluoride in other ways to “target audiences” such as poor children, who were unlikely to brush their teeth regularly with fluoride toothpaste, she sees water fluoridation as a health risk: “It must be known to you that fluoridation can cause harm to the health of the chronically ill and pregnant women,”.

Sources:

Ynet: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4366896,00.html
The Jerusalem Post: http://www.jpost.com/Health/Article.aspx?id=310965
Calcalist: http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3599895,00.html
Israel HaYom: http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/83141
Maariv (newspaper): http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/459/984.html?hp=1&cat=479&loc=12
Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/health/1.1991841
TheMarker: http://www.themarker.com/consumer/health/1.1991891
Supreme Court of Israel, July 2013, ruling: "We have noted before us the State’s obligation to stop the fluorination of drinking water within one year. Due to the cancellation of the Original Regulations and the fact that Regulation 20 of the New Regulations shall expire within a year, and since neither the Petitioners nor the Respondents have indicated another source of authorization for water fluorination, the Petition has been exhausted and is to be stricken. Incidentally, it should be noted that apparently, the way by which the New Regulations were phrased is not optimal as far as the clarity of the law is concerned – once the Respondents have decided to stop the water fluorination, it would have been better to set the rule of non-fluorination as a primary arrangement, and the continuation of the fluorination as a temporary transitory provision, instead of the manner by which it had been done. http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/12/730/081/a12/12081730.a12.pdf (page 2, #3) (same editor as first request)79.177.33.236 (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yawn..... HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48 Yawn, but your edit wouldn't be approved as suggested anyway because it is not WP:NPOV, the articles you linked show other statements opposing the view of German and without presenting both viewpoints it violates the policy. Also, the removal of fluoridation hasn't taken place yet so WP:NOTNEWS would apply. Finally WP:WEIGHT would indicate that a simple statement indicating that Israel had stopped fluoridating would be sufficient. It would be appropriate to add the item WHEN IT HAPPENS, not before. I'm not going to bother setting the edit request to answered because you will only reset it as we have seen over and over and over again. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I had enough of you and HiLo48 approches . i have turned to WP:DRN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy.23Addition_to_Statements_against_water_fluoridation 79.177.33.236 (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is already added to Fluoridation_by_country#Israel. The text could be twaked, but the addition is correct!

Note that the law had already been passed! We can already add "Israel (1981-2014)" to Water_fluoridation_controversy#Use_throughout_the_world. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is not valid in this case: Water fluoridation has ended de facto by law in 2013. as stated by the supreme court ruling , the new signed regulation, limits fluoridation for only one more year (until 2014).
The WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT are actually valid quite to the contrary: 1) German is an MP (Knesset) and the minister of health - therefore her action represent the policy of the Government of Israel. The Government of Israel Has Due-Weight on this subject. 2) Every major newspaper in Israel, has made German opposition and statement most notable. (same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Since a statement is already on the article over there adding it here would be overkill, I would suggest adding the month Israel is ending fluoridation in order to avoid inaccurate information until the event actually happens. --Daffydavid (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

IP sock, I have to ask, since your edits are already in the other article why are you so insistent on getting them inserted here.--Daffydavid (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid, The israeli government has ended its practice of water fluoridation, not due to lack of funds,raw materials, mechanical problems etc. It did it on behalf of health risks. The statement made by The Minister of Health sums the official position " that fluoridation can cause harm to the health of the chronically ill and pregnant women". therefore this position is a prime example for this article, in the section "Statements against water fluoridation".

As a general note: in-order to avoid WP:NPA. refrain from addressing me as "IP Sock" as if my IP change is deliberate for "improper purpose"(WP:SOCK) and not due to my ISP supplier. "IP editor" is the proper description. and Wikipedia does not oblige me to register (same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide a RS source stating that fluoridation has indeed stopped so we can verify the information. Jerusalem Post perhaps or something like that, hopefully with a reference to either the decree or judgement or dare we hope - both? I'm addressing you here since it has been pointed out that trying to address you on the IP page is probably futile. You'll have to forgive me if don't consider your word RS. I've addressed your other argument before and we are getting nowhere, so we will just have to agree to disagree.--Daffydavid (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I have found the exact date in which the law requires to stop public water fluoridation in Israel: Exactly 1 year from August 25, 2013.

Health Minister German signed The "Public Health Regulations: The Sanitary Quality Of Drinking Water and Drinking Water Facilities-2013" on April 11, 2013 (all the media sources references quote that date). These regulations are usually updated every decade or so
The "Public Health Regulations-2013" have officially commenced on August 25, 2013 (See in Hebrew: תקנות מי השתיה בתוקף מ - 25.8.2013)
A copy of these regulations is available on the Health Ministry website in English as well. Regulation #20 (Fluoridation), is the regulation that enforced and enforces public water fluoridation in israel. Regulation #40 (Temporary Provision -Fluoridation) says "Regulation 20 shall remain in force for a period of one year from the commencement date." (As the July 2013, Supreme court ruling explained) (original editor)79.178.6.210 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Israeli villages will no longer be required by law to fluoride their water, according to Haaretz[5]. Of course, this is not the same as ordering that fluoridation is stopped...... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The July 2013, supreme court ruling (see above) has made it clear - "We have noted before us the State’s obligation to stop the fluorination of drinking water within one year."

German has explained on her official FaceBook Page, that it would have taken a longer bureaucratic procedure in order to change the 'language' of the regulation code. so this is how it is being done. The very reason to stop public fluoridation according to German is because of health risks. (same editor)79.178.6.210 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, do we have a WP:RS source stating that the event has happened or not? Surely, if this is such a huge news issue worthy of note we would have multiple RS sources trumpeting the end of fluoridation and celebrating the fact that it was done for health reasons. I noticed while I was reading that the Ministry changed the way to deliver fluoride, which seems odd if she feels so strongly against fluoridation as the IP ed is urging us to include in the article. From the regulations I see that Fluoride is set at no more than 1700 mcgl, I don't really know what to make of that. We should have a better source than a Facebook page, why is this so hard to come by? Is fluoridation stopped? When? As per RS source(s). Is this a non-issue in Israel? Is this why we have no WP:RS sources? --23:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

...still after my last meticulous post, you are asking the questions. ok :

German clearly stated that she is against Public water fluoridation due to Health risks to sub-populations "Chronically ill and pregnant women". She would have stopped it "today", but due to bureaucratic procedure, this was the fastest way to implement the end of fluoridation. (she did not author the regulations, she just signed them, which the prior government refused to sign)
The "Huge news issue" of the end of fluoridation was indeed noticed through every major news outlet in Israel (ie. all the references) at the day of German Signing the Regulations (April 11, 2013)
The signed regulations state (regulation #40) that Public water fluoridation will end 1 year from the legal commencing of the regulations
The legal commencing date of the regulations is August 25, 2013
Public water fluoridation will end by law 1 year from August 25, 2013. (same editor)79.178.104.72 (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And still no RS stating that this will happen on the date you provided.--Daffydavid (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave a link to ministry of health website where it is written when these regulations are officially commencing August 25, 2013 + a link to the regulations themselves from the ministry of health website. regulation #40 states that fluoridation will end 1 year from the date these regulations have commenced. there is no ambiguity. (same editor)109.66.59.99 (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

#5 Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Leading water fluoridation critic(1)(2), Paul Connett, emeritus professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University and executive director of the Fluoride Action Network(3), one of the largest organizations opposing water fluoridation(4), compiled and presented to the *Irish Fluoridation Forum in October 2000 "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation".(5)(6), The paper led the Department of Health of Ireland and the Ministry of Health of New Zealand in 2005 to post their rebuttal to Connet's paper(7)(8), to which Connett responded.(9)

References:

(1) The National Council Against Health Fraud: http://www.ncahf.org/digest13/13-15.html
(2) Physicians for Social Responsibility: http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/paul-connett.html
(3) Chemical & Engineering News: https://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8436gov1.html
(4) Canadian Dental Hygienists Association: http://www.cdha.ca/pdfs/Profession/Resources/ProbeFluoride.pdf
(5) BMJ: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/ (Reference #21)
(6) Aust New Zealand Health Policy (Journal): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/ (References #57, #84)
(7) Department of Health (Ireland): http://www.dohc.ie/other_health_issues/dental_research/
(8) Ministry of Health (New Zealand): http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/response-50-reasons-oppose-fluoridation_1.pdf
(9) http://web.archive.org/web/20120327021832/http://www.fluoridealert .org/50reasons.ireland.pdf
* http://www.fluoridationforum.ie/ (same editor as previous requests)79.180.147.42 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm seeing an RFC and mentions of DRN. Please address this through those venues before attempting additional requests here. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

FAN is considered a non-RS source as per discussion at [[WP:RSN] and I'd have to look it up again, but I'm pretty sure they may even be blacklisted. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Now that's funny, did you even read the links you provided IP79, the first one I clicked on randomly Canadian Dental Hygienists Association not only supports water fluoridation but actually recommends expanding it. I guess we should use this source as a supporting statement then. What do you think? --Daffydavid (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

My 2nd random click on your list(the one with no number)http://www.fluoridationforum.ie/ led me to an old page, so I clicked through to the updated page - http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/faq/ which fully supports fluoridation. Shall we use this source too? To use your suggested edit would completely violate WP:WEIGHT. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid, I'll tell you what's funny - this article is called 'Water fluoridation controversy'. This very article existence, establishes that there is indeed a controversy. My additions are listing the figures/bodies that represent the opposing side of the controversy, without them - there is no opposing side. but that is really your intention, so what you need to do, is to nominate this article for deletion. Because no suggested addition + the current established list in the article meet the 'Daffydavid criteria' for notable opposition. according to your pseudo-reasoning you presented so far - there is no water fluoridation controversy at all.(same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I thank for such high praise "Daffydavid criteria" I can feel my head swelling with pride. But I feel that since you hold me in such high esteem that I should point out that addressing the concerns raised in a point by point manner would be a much more effective use of your time. The sources you provided don't validate your suggestion, but rather refute it. I predict you won't address the concerns raised but will instead continue attacking editors (me in particular). --Daffydavid (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The links in source #5 and #6 are identical(why they list the same link as 57 and 84 in #6 is beyond me) and it is to blacklisted website \bfluoridealert\.org\b. Source #2 links to a different page on the same blacklisted website. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should i address deliberate nonsense ? "My suggestion" is- Leading water fluoridation critic Paul Connett head of one the largest organization opposing water fluoridation presented to the Irish Fluoridation Forum in October 2000 "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation" and that paper got responses from 2 different governments health agencies.

How do my sources not validate this statement?

How do they refute this statement? (same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Because you are cherry-picking statements piecemeal to support the conclusion you wish to make. To place this line would completely violate WP:WEIGHT. One guy with a family run organization is not WP:NOTABLE and what you are trying to insert is WP:OR, if however you find a WP:RS source (news organization - Guardian, ABC, NY Times, etc.) saying what your edit suggestion says then we would be getting somewhere. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You are basicaly describing, the whole of wikipedia as cherry-picking. i find it quite amusing. According to You he in not notable, Six quality sources epitomize him as the opposition to water fluoridation. Two ministries of health found him and his work notable enough to write rebuttals. And WP:OR certainly doesn't apply here, since non of the sources depict him other than a fluoridation critic. As usual you misue Wikipedia policies.

As i have commented earlier, according to the 'Daffydavid standard' there is no opposition to water fluoridation, and this very article violates WP:WEIGHT.

Your line of reasoning is attacking the existence of this article itself. Get the article deleted and you'll have a case (same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Six quality sources, lol. Reread my previous comment(s) which you have chosen to ignore and do try to respond to the request(s), unless of course you can't find a source to satisfy the request, then please continue with the attacks since you have obviously decided to ignore WP:NPA. Reread WP:OR, it applies to way you are trying to justify your sentence. It is completely applicable here. Repeating yourself over and over again and ignoring requests for RS sources just wastes everybody's time. --Daffydavid (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Re "Leading water fluoridation critic(1)(2), Paul Connett, emeritus professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University and executive director of the Fluoride Action Network" Paul Connett is long retired from a tiny (non-research) school. He has almost zero publications in peer-reviewed journals. Look at the St. Lawrence University website and look him up. He's a nobody in the scientific scene. He has received no external recognition. Wikipedia once had a Wikipedia article on Fluoride Action Network (FAN), but editors decided that FAN was too flimsy to merit an article. FAN is run by Connett and his wife and one son. It is literally a mom and pop (and son) organization. And pop (as well as mom and son) has no scientific stature.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Eight of the references demonstrate that Connet is viewed as a leading and influential water fluoridation opponent.

Connet also co-authored perhaps the most scholarly and notable, opposition to water fluoridating books. "The Case against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There". A review of the book in a legitimate journal doi:10.1080/09581596.2011.593350 describes Connet as "A leading Academic from the USA" and praises the book as "well researched and cogently argued".

2000, Nobel Laureate for Medicine Arvid Carlsson in his review of the book wrote "Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s and, in this excellent book, these three scientists have confirmed the wisdom of that decision. (the original editor)79.178.6.210 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Further more, Connett is is invited by Environmental organizations worldwide to come and lecture on the the subject, and gets media notice of his visit by local major media such as in Israel and in New Zealand (same editor as above)79.178.6.210 (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

So, he's an opponent of fluoridation who is famous for being an opponent of fluoridation who can be labeled a scientist. He is not notable in any way for any scientific works whatsoever. This is circular reasoning at its most primitive. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

FAN is blacklisted on Wikipedia, the link I provided above is in fact the web address for FAN and this is why #9 in the list provided by IP ed is not linked properly, because it can't be added to Wikipedia. --Daffydavid (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's get back on track here:

The discussion is not about fluoridealert.org blacklisting. fluoridealert.org has been blacklisted from wikipedia on the account of a technicality - spamming.
The discussion is not about FANs WP:RS status on Wikipedia] (FAN WP:RS discussion). "FAN is run by Connett and his wife and one son" , if you describe it like that so is Quackwatch, FAN is advised largely by PhDs with reputations fluoridealert.org/about/team/ and has been covered numerous times in the media fluoridealert.org/about/fan_news/ .

Both administrative sanctions appear to be pro fluoridation supporters work to censor the leading opposition group from Wikipedia.

The discussion is about the the individual suggested for addition for the 'Against' section - Paul Connet + his '50 reasons' paper.Does this fulfill WP:Notability for "Statements against" section ? Yes. Are the references WP:RS? Yes (same editor)79.178.104.72 (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned already Connet is not notable by himself and his 50 paper is linked back to FAN in your "reliable sources". The coffin nail has been driven in this edit suggestion. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It's says a lot about the weakness of your pro fluoridation arguments that you crave to censor your opposition view. Unfortunately for you i have linked to two articles in two legitimate journals one of them being BMJ that use the link to FAN 50 reasons in their own references. So go ahead - challenge these 2 journals as being non WP:RS.

I have provided 8 references proving notability. I have not seen 1 challenge to the references WP:RS. what's also quite ironic is that your very side (reference #1) describes Connett as "Leading water fluoridation critic". speaking of nails in your coffin.. (same editor)109.66.59.99 (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to Israeli IP 79.* and 109.*- Please pause and read replies

To the editor posting from the Israeli ISP, using IP addresses beginning with 79.* or 109.*:

Please slow down! With the exception of this message, you have created all of the new sections on this talk page. You're up to seven new sections in two days, and I'm concerned that you're not allowing time to discuss your proposed edits.
Stop and read the responses to your edit requests. A little over a day ago, Technical13 responded to (and rejected) two of your edit requests with the explanation that you should establish a consensus in favor of your requests before a change would be made to the article. Five hours later, you created another edit request (your fifth consecutive request) without engaging in any prior discussion to establish consensus first. Six hours after that, ElHef responded to (and rejected) that request giving essentially the same advice – resolve the outstanding disputes before requesting additional edits. Eight hours later (as the very next edit to the talk page) you opened your sixth consecutive edit request—again, without making any effort to discuss the edit in advance. You're getting specific, explicit information about why your requests are getting rejected, but you're not making use of it.
Quality is better than quantity. Take a moment to figure out what the most important edits you would like to suggest are. Figure out if and how they are compatible with Wikipedia's policies, especially those on reliable sourcing (particularly sourcing for medical claims) and neutral point of view (especially with regards to giving appropriate weight to coverage of different sources and views). Present a persuasive but concise argument. Participate in – but don't try to dominate or overwhelm by sheer volume – the discussion. Be prepared to accept that other editors may differ in their interpretation of these Wikipedia policies, but note that a patient, civil, calm approach will never be less effective than spraying a large number of edit requests and dispute resolution notices and hoping something sticks. If your editing continues to make this talk page essentially unusable for other editors, then it is likely that technical steps – blocks of your IP address, or semi-protection of this talk page – will be taken.
Consider registering an account. Because you're unregistered (and your ISP has not provided you with a static IP address) your edits to this talk page come from a range of addresses; there's no way to direct a personal message – like this one – to you specifically, so editors are left with leaving messages on talk pages (like this one!) where we hope you'll stumble across them.

I hope that some of that helps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, i thank you for your time and post. let me explain:

my additions are identical to the requirements fulfilled by the present 'against statements' section. actually mine are much thoroughly cited. This is a clear indication that the real reason behind the rejection has nothing to do with WP:Notability (which has been established) and WP:RS (which have been presented).

Just see the first addition, discussion. every time a "demand" is fulfilled, a new excuse is given. Daffydavid at first, thought he could seal the case with bullshit so he intentionaly misused and accused my addition of violating WP:RS+WP:CV, but when i simply quoted the authentic meaning of those policies, he then attacked with WP:Notability, and also went on to demand i prove EWG integrity. this is what i had to deal with - a complete intellectual charlatan. and nobody here said a word about this.

There was one legitimate and authentic comment on the first addition discussion made by Technical 13. he asked for further secondary sources on top of the primary, showing EGW stance on fluoridation. i added 5, from major media. This is where the Addition should have been accepted.

but Daffydavid had to find a way to stop the addition at all cost so he changed to intention of Technical 13 and invented a rule "sources from 2006 are to old" to prove EWG WP:Notability, funny ha?

Just for the sheer exercise i added 12 citation just for the month of Feb 2014. for WP:Notability. but off-course Daffydavid clings to my own description "Leading organization". nothing is never enough. like filing paperwork to leave East-Germany.

The same thing happened with perhaps the most profound implication (cessation of fluoridation in israel) and heavily cited addition (#2). i understood that the same game is being applied there too. this is where i tried (first time i ever did) to initiate some kind of outside arbitration, with the limited knowledge i had on such processes.

Do you get now why "Good Faith" is down the drain? "patient, civil, calm approach" are for legitimate and honest discourse. none has happened here so far (except for your last post).

Non of the present material in that section qualify to the "Daffydavid standard" which, off-course - is not to allow any addition to the fluoridation opposing side.

When i asked for the DRM (against Daffydavid and HiLo48) i finally got the glimpse for the real reason for the rejection, and that all the discussion was just hocus-pocus to mask the real intention . in HiLo48 (the Sarcastic "Yawn" editor), DRM words "fairly dramatic change to the POV of the article". so all those comments had nothing to do with Notability,RS,CV,Primary etc. just an exercise to discourage and try to belittle a contributor to wikipedia. Which i find nothing short of despicable. (the editor you refer to)109.67.143.145 (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

While I understand that you are feeling frustrated, choosing to level attacks against editors who have disagreed with you, and continuing to make hyperbolic accusations of bad faith against them, isn't ever going to help your case.

Also consider that different editors may disagree with a given (proposed) edit for different reasons; it's not always an instance of gaming the system if different editors present different lines of argument or different policy reasons to reject a particular proposed change. Moreover, it's not always the case that an editor will have the time or inclination – or even necessarily the ability – to immediately and exhaustively list every applicable objection to a given proposed edit; again, this isn't a sign of bad faith or gaming the system.

Please don't read this as an invitation to continue to re-argue the same points, especially not accompanied by further attacks on other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no deadline. Posting and pushing for hurried conclusions as if there is a deadline can be seen as bad faith editing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, Your sole contribution/response to my thoroughly cited #2 Addition request: "Yawn..... HiLo48 (talk)", not can, but has been established as bad faith editing. And now with this 'Wikipedia has no deadline' You just trying to use a different strategy to get rid of these legitimate edit requests. "if we can't kill it, lets just wait for it to die" (same editor)109.67.143.145 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If other editors support your position, it won't die. But so far there hasn't been enough time for most editors interested in this topic to even see this discussion. As a matter of fact, I would like to add a lot more, but happen to be very busy in my off-Internet life right now. Just be patient. There is no need to rush. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IP79 All the conversations that have happened here are available to everyone so I find your attempts to slander me actually rather humorous. But please read WP:NPA and adhere to it in the future as other editors may not find you so amusing. It would be much more productive if you actually read the replies and addressed the concerns raised than frothing at the mouth with indignation. As I said at your DRM complaint, if other editors found your argument compelling they could approve your edit(s). Since that hasn't happened I imagine it can only be for 1 of 2 reasons, 1- you haven't made your case, or 2- We Wikipedia gate keepers paid by BIG PHARMA are conspiring to stop you, bwahahah (This is sarcasm in case you missed it). --Daffydavid (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Small note :I have registered to wikipedia (the original IP editor), with the following signed nick. LarryTheShark (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

#6 Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

the following paragraph should be added to "Statements against water fluoridation" section:

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) at the 2011 LULAC national convention in Cincinnati, adopted a resolution against public water fluoridation, stating "fluoridation is mass medication of the public through the public water supply; and...current science shows that fluoridation chemicals pose increased risk to sensitive subpopulations, including infants, the elderly, diabetics, kidney patients, and people with poor nutritional status; and...minority communities are more highly impacted by fluorides as they historically experience more diabetes and kidney disease; and...minorities are disproportionately harmed by fluorides as documented by increased rates of dental fluorosis (disfiguration and discoloration of the teeth)"

References:

Doesn't look like a reliable source by WP:MEDRES standards. Associations of citizens are not reliable sources of medical statements? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Enric Naval, our discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy#RfC:_refusal_to_add_Statements_against_water_fluoridation, applies here too.(same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. But this is "only" a citizen organization. It has some little problems:

should we list every organization of citizens that has made a statement "pro" or "against"? (pro hint: this only works in obscure topics, where there are very few statements available to choose from. For example, in Laundry ball I got away with listing the statement of every consumer organization, because there are only a few statements)
Do we list only statements that had an influence on real-world politics of fluoridation? (pro hint: by default we assume that there was no influence, we need to find a RS to establish an influence)

--Enric Naval (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

New Evidence

The Lancet, the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journal, recently published a report classifying Fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin. The report puts Fluoride in the same category Arsenic, Lead, and Mercury.

Fluoride is everywhere in the United States. The most obvious place is toothpaste which is why we have written a few articles on organic, safe toothpaste. But fluoride isn’t just found in toothpaste, it’s found in the water supply, bottled water, food, medications and more. So it’s not as easy as you think to avoid this stuff. Fluoride is an accumulative poison and should be avoided at all costs. That’s why many of countries have banned Fluoride use, such as: 99% of western continental Europe has rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation due to environmental, health, legal, or ethical hazards. Oh and don’t forget China, Austria, Japan, and Hungary, they all banned fluoride too. Just like GMOs, they too are being banned by ENTIRE countries.

Referenced:(http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2014/03/3084.html)

(http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laneur/PIIS1474442213702783.pdf?id=baak8dkBlaiXPhJTjuTsu)**Actual Medical Report** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.217.53 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here on this very talk page. Yobol (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Many substances that are beneficial or even essential in low doses may be harmful in high doses. TFD (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And in no doses at all, they can cure everything from the common cold to cancer, provided you go through the magic rigmarole of dilution and twerking. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)