Talk:Fluoride/Archive 1

Please put some history of discovery and its applications here.
If you want to find out if fluoride is useful for your theeth, search the internet. Thanks Here's a question to ask the gods that walked this planet before us: To make a massive dinosaur did you intend on their bones to contain fluoride which is known to make bones mechanically weaker? The absorption of fluorine into a dinosuars bones from the environment is constant and is used for dating such bones. Interestingly it has been found that such great beasts as dinosaurs were, did not rely on fluoride for strong bones or healthy teeth. Vaestanfors (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Looks like I opened pandora's box...If anyone wants the truth on Fluoride then contact the Minister of Health then contact Comalco(Rio Tinto) then contact Merck in Germany, Also a sympathetic politician is an excellent source of information. This is a big hint for where and how to obtain classified information. When contacting companies like Comalco(the smelter in Invercargil is a good place to start) it is best to chat with factory managers as they know a lot about the dangers of Fluoride. When contacting government departments you'll need to soften the workers up and find out who in the office likes to chat a bit more than they're supposed to. I obtained my information from the horses mouth not the internet and now I challenge everyone out there to do the same rather than sit back and believe the rubbish that industry wants us to believe. The most valuable knowledge is not the actual facts on Fluoride but how to obtain truthful information so that you can make your own decisions about your life.

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

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


 * I can offer this alternative: "&hellip;many dentists who oppose fluoridation fear American Dental Association reprisal if they say so publicly, according to a poll conducted by the Unified Health Alliance of Reno, Nevada, and reported by Unified Health Alliance former editor Lois Eckroat in the Reno Gazette-Journal on October 20, 2002" (the RGJ article)


 * &lsquo;An ADA white paper written in 1979 states: &ldquo;Dentists' nonparticipation [in fluoridation promotion] is overt neglect of professional responsibility.&rdquo; An ADA spokesperson says this is still the association's official policy. In recent years, several dentists who have testified on the anti fluoridation side have been reprimanded by their state dental officers.&rsquo; (No specification on the latter claim; but outlines of smear campaigns against certain antifluoridationists do follow.)

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

Can someone explain the supposed mechanism for this? Fluoride and lead are different elements, and unless the fluoride supply (or a naturally fluoride-rich water supply) were contaminated with lead, there is no way I can see that adding fluoride to something, such as water (or children), would add lead to it. --FOo Australian water supplies use NaF at a concerntration of 0.7ppm
 * I don't buy it but "Acidic water resulting from silicofluoride treatment could extract lead from pipes, solder and fixtures, increasing the bioavailability of lead at the tap (Consumer Reports 1993)." --mav


 * Sure, only if there was already lead in the pipes (i.e. old pipes, already a risk); also, if the water is too acidic, public water utilities usually neutralize it, don't they? --FOo


 * You are probably right. --mav


 * I can find only one study indexed in MEDLINE that shows a correlation between the use of silicofluorides in a community's water, and blood lead levels. Consumer Reports is just speculating about one possible mechanism, and not very convincingly. The mechanism for the correlation, if it is replicable and causal, might also be biological rather than chemical. As an example, Vitamin D increases intestinal absorption of lead through its interaction with receptors in the gut  (but we still put it in milk) . -- Someone else 04:53 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
 * One way that lead gets into the bloodstream is indeed from the source of fluoride. Silicofluorides contain arsenic, radionucleides and heavy metals (including lead). In addition, Masters and Coplan found in 1999 and 2000 that silicofluorides increase the uptake of lead from the environment (e.g., leaded house paint). 2nr Tom 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

From fluorine:


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

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


 * Other than stopping Clutch from starting another edit war there is no good reason at all to do this Ed. The best thing for the fluorine article is to have this introductory material in it and have a detailed run-down of the facts and controversy here. All that is needed in the fluorine article is for us to mention that there is a controversy and provide a link here. --mav


 * LOL And why should flourine have peaceful slumber? NaCl is vital to life; NaF is antithetical to it. Is it sodium's fault?--Kwantus 17:01, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I realise it was said in jest, and I replied (half) in jest; nevertheless:


 * "Fluorine was substituted for chlorine in Lindane, to make it a far more toxic substance." (Plummer &amp; Wall Science Vol. 127, 1958)
 * "Fluorine is substituted for chlorine in DDT to produce more effective and more toxic insecticides." (Reimschneider Suddent. Apoth. Ztg 1947)
 * --Kwantus 01:16, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, it's quite relevant for a page about fluorine compounds, so here're some more

If it is sodium fluoride, sodium monofluorophosphate, and stannous fluoride which are used for dental purposes including water fluoridation, then how, pray tell, are silicofluorides (an entirely separate class of compounds) relevant to the debate? Is the claim that sodium fluorides are contaminated with silicofluorides? That they produce silicofluorides in the water? (By reaction with what?) --FOo
 * Rohypnol ("date-rape drug") is fluorinated Valium.
 * Paxil, Prozac, and fenfluramine are all psychoactive fluorides
 * Nerve gases Soman and Sarin are fluorine compounds (so why is there any surprise fluoride in water might be bad for the brain? F interferes with the Ca needed for neurotransmission ( Toxicological Profile for Fluorides p125) - sounds like the same affinity that's supposed to benefit teeth. Furthermore, Sarin is "rapidly hydrolyzed by dilute aqueous sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate forming relatively non-toxic products. Water alone removes the fluorine atom producing a non-toxic acid"EPA which indicates it is the combination with fluorine and that alone which makes the nasty.)
 * so is Teflon (and some do wonder whether it's wise to heat teflon and put food on it, but personally I'm more worried about the fluorine pollution already in the food)--Kwantus 03:00, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Silicofluorides are also used for fluoridation by some communities. They're an actual additive, not something inadvertently produced. -- Someone else 19:42 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC) Hydrofluosilicic acid used to used for fluoridation but now sodium fluoride is used. It is true that sodium fluoride is used as insecticides but more commonly used as rat poison.


 * Either the PHS or the EPA recommended silicofluorides as a cheaper source for fluoridation. Silicofluorides have been shown to be even more poisonous than NaF. -- Kwantus 17:03, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

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


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

Well here's more information: When Mt Ruapehu erupted in the 1990's the fluoride contained in the ash killed most of the farm animals in the surrounding area, I had this confirmed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in New Zealand. This event was not reported in the news. The eruption disrupted commercial aircraft as far north as Auckland International Airport.

I see a pro-flouridator has shown up. Should I bother finding sources, or will everything I find be incredible becaue I found it? 1944-8 Mantahhatan project aware of negative physiological and psycho-behavioral effects of fluorides, via use of UF6 in the isotope separation process. Docs declassified from Nat'l Archive in '97 ... try specifically for a 1994 Apr 29 memo "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect, with mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude as the conspicuous features... it seems that the fluoride component is the causative factor" " JA Dental A, 1944 Oct Am J Public Health, 43:700-703, 1953
 * "Even at 1ppm, fluoride in drinking water poisons cattle, horses and sheep" (Moules, G.R., Water Pollution Research and Summary of Current Literature, 1944.
 * 1943-53 US Public Health Service study of Bartlett TX correlates death rates with fluoride concentration
 * """fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons..." "Chronic Fluorine Intoxication", JAMA, 1943 Sep 18 (Grand rapids gets flouridated despite this warning.
 * "knowledge of the subject does not warrant the introduction of fluorine in community water supplies generally. Sodium fluoride is a highly toxic substance...the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for good."
 * 1945 Commonwealth Brewing COmpany charged by FDA with poisoning its beer with flouride: "an added poison or deleterious poison, fluoride, which was unsafe within the meaning of the statute (Section 301a of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act)" The jury was instructed that fluoride was established to be harmful and poisonous, and that quantity (.5ppm in this case) was unimportant
 * 1945 Fouridation of Grand Rapids begins despite above ADA warning. The ten-year study is terminated after one one year. The control, Muskegon, has fluoridation imposed and is thus destroyed.
 * 1945 fluoride's affinity for magnesium and manganese ions enables it to deplete their availability for vital enzyme functions. (Borei, H., "Inhibition of Cellular Oxidation by Fluoride", Arkiv.Kemi,Mineral,Geol., 20A, No. 8, 1945). (Soviet?)
 * 1946-7 Reports from the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the Armed Forces note the dociling effect of fluorides in the water supplies at military bases. (Despite this, and assertions by proponents that fluoride is only useful during the growth of permanent teeth, adult-only military bases remain heavily fluorided.)
 * (About this time Oscar Ewing, ALCOA's transplant to the Federal Security Agency, in charge of the Public Health Service, begins having fluoride naysayers painted as "deranged", etc. doesn't that sound familiar.)
 * Forrestal opposes using fluoride to keep military men docile. ork Daily Times, Letters to the Editor from former FBI agent Wesley C. Trollope, Omaha, Neb., March 17, 1967).
 * 1948 English study correlates fluoride concentration of 1ppm with skeletal defects
 * 1950 The 24th edition of the U.S. Dispensatory (pp 1456-1457) defines fluorides as "violent poisons to all living tissue because of their precipitation of calcium...the use of fluoride-containing dentifrices and internal medicants is not justified."
 * 1950 fluorides "lower hemoglobin and may cause irreversible loss of potassium from the red cells." C. W. Sheppard, Science
 * (1950 Sugar industry joins efforts to impose fluoridation. US supplying fluoride to Soviets, who are using it keep prisoners subservient)
 * "Some of the basic and necessary metabolic processes in the cell are stopped by concentrations of fluorides such as are found in acute poisoning. These changes are comparable to those seen in high-grade anoxia and are the basis for describing fluorides as general protoplasmic poisons." Cox &amp; Hodge, JADA 1950 Apr, again 1962 Nov
 * 1951 JAMA disparages fluoride in Feb 10 issue
 * 1951 Public health service instructs dentists so say fluoride is okay even though it isn't. (Minutes/proceedings of the Wash DC meeting.)
 * 1952 Dr. A.L. Miller, former Nebraska Health Commissioner now Congressman, puts in the Congressional Record (Mar 24) how he had been bamboozled by Oscar Ewing. Miller would also report to the Select Committee to Investigate Use of Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics. that "The US Dental Assn made some examination and recommended to the farmers that fluorine not be added to the water of pregnant sows because it did something to the pigs that were unborn"
 * 1952 JADA volte-faces and instructs its readers to withold their personal opinions of fluoride
 * 1953 Stillbirth rate in New Britian CT has more than doubled in the three years since fluoridation was imposed
 * "The administration of fluorides to animals revealed histological changes in the thyroid, kidneys and bones, decline of enzyme activity and pathological changes in internal organs and bones, a low health level and high mortality."
 * (1953 Florence Birmingham testifies to Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce that Massachusetts has been doing fluoride experiments at state institutions for the feebleminded on the orders of the state health department. A clear violation of the Nuremberg Pact.)
 * fluoride is carcinogenic in animals (A Taylor, "Sodium Fluoride in the Drinking Water of Mice",Dental Digest, Vol 60, pp170-172)
 * 1956 Cancer death rates found rising faster in fluoridated cities
 * 1954 61 of 81 living Nobel laureates in chemistry, medicine, and physiology disapprove of fluoridation (Christian Science Monitor poll...proponents continue to claim endoresement by "all reputable scientists")
 * 1955 Oregon fed court finds in favour of the plaintiff in fluoride-poisoning case (Martin v Reynolds Metals)
 * GE scientist K K Plauev points out a case of fraud in profluoridation's so-called science - fluoride had delayed eruption of permanent teeth, but these ungrown teeth were counted as "sound"
 * 1956 "skeletal deposition of fluoride is a continuing process in which a considerable portion of the ingested fluoride, perhaps 25 to 50%, is deposited in the skeleton." Hodge, J Am Dental Ass'n (yet proponents claim fluoride, for all its affinities, does not accumulate)
 * 1956 Ionel Rapaport of the U of Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute correlates Downs' Syndrome with fluoridation

As Sternglass concluded with radiation poisoning, the more of it there is, the stupider everyone gets, thus the less likely the problem gets corrected; indeed it's likely to be made worse. (And couple that to James Kerwin, Dental Digest, or F.W. Lengemann "The Metabolism of Alkaline Earth Metals by Bone" to AEC Division of Biology and Medicine, both 1959, showing fluorine and strontium have a pathogenic ball together. Plus A. Shatz Low Level Fluoridation and Low-Level Radiation -- Two Case Histories of Misconduct of Science Philadelphia, 1996).
 * 1957 shortly after Santa Fe is subjected to fluoridation, mortality in State Game Bird Farm partridge chicks shoots up. It drops again when chicks are put on distilled water.
 * 1957 Thomas Douglas, puzzling over why so many of patients had oral lesions all of a sudden, discovered they all used fluorided toothpastes. ("Fluoride Dentifrice and Stomatitis" Northwest Medicine, 1957 Sep)
 * 1957 ALCOA begins selling NaF directly to municipalities for drinking-water fluoridation. NaF is already in use as rat poison
 * 1958 April 15000+-member Association of American Physicians and Surgeons "condemns the addition of any substance to the public water supply for the purpose of affecting the bodily or mental function of the consumer."
 * 1958 F.J. Stare of Harvard blatantly inverts the conclusion of a study (J of Nutrition, 62, 561-573, 1957) on the nonessential nature of fluorine as a nutrient (Stare's BS is still cited)
 * 1958 fluoride linked to genetic dmage (H J Muller, Symposium on Emphysema and Chronic Bronchitis: "Do Air Pollutants Act as Mutagens?", Aspen, Colorado, June 13-15)
 * 1958 7-member WHO expert c'tee on fluoride stacked with 5 known fluoride promoters. Research documenting poisoning from fluoridated water was rejected.
 * 1959 U of Melbourne finds that all profluoride "science" so far was faulty and/or fraudulent (Philip R.N. Sutton &amp; Arthur B.P. Amies "Fluoridation Errors And Omissions in Experimental Trials")
 * 1959 Rapoport replicates and extends the Downs' Syndrome linkage
 * 1959 experiment by J D Ebert in which fluorides were used as an enzyme inhibitor. In low concentrations sodium fluoride blocked almost completely the regions destined to form muscle, primarily affecting the heart muscle. In higher concentrations, it caused the entire embryo to disintegrate in a clear-cut pattern, starting with the heart-forming region.
 * 1959 Ontario minster of heath bans fluoridation "no one knows for sure what the effect is to persons given fluoride throughout a lifetime." (Which isn't exactly true, but at least he acknowledges the proponents aren't telling the truth)
 * 1960 Nov 29 200x50-foot hole in San Franciso street ultimately attributed to water main corroded by flouridation
 * 1961 Dec 9 Colin Harrison in Australian Medical Journal "The biological activity of fluoride is not fully appreciated. It is a cytoplasmic toxin, interfering with the action of oxidase enzyme systems..."
 * 1961 flouridation blamed for maiming, killing dogs and stillborn pups in Knoxville TN (Knoxville Free Press 1961 Oct 27) The town abandons fluoridation
 * 1961 "Fluoride is a well-known inhibitor of several enzyme systems, and can form spectroscopically recognizable compounds with the enzyme catalase, resulting in its inhibition. Catalase poisoning has been linked with the development of viruses and the causation of a number of diseases, including cancer..." R.A.Holman, Royal Institute of Pathology, in British Medical Journal, Apr 15
 * Portugese study links 1ppm fluoride to hepatic and ureal impairment (Sullivan &amp; Von Knobeledorff, Broteria Serie de Ciencias Naturais 1962)
 * Knutson finds 22% more cancer deaths in Grand Rapids than Muskegon, despite the attempt to destroy the control (Fluoride Drinking Waters 1962 p.213)
 * 1962 Revision of Drinking Water Standards lists 0 as fluoride's safety factor
 * 1962 Noted oncologist Ludwig Gross in hot water for writing "The plain fact that fluoride is an insidious poison - harmful, toxic, and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amount, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that 'fluoridation of the water supply is safe'"
 * 1963 Canadian study finds fluoride interferes with calcium supply "during periods of high metabolic demand" such as pregnancy (Archives of Environmental Health featured a Canadian, May 1963)
 * 1963 flouride correlated to cancer (Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton "Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors...Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride", Genetics, Vol 48, pp307-310)
 * 1963 U of WI studies correlate fluoride with stillbirths
 * 1967 Pittsburg Press, Oct 15, notes the crooked teeh 13-15 year olds have acquired - 15 years after Pittsburgh imposes fluoridation

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

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


 * Even proponents of fluoridation have noted that examination of the evidence tends to cause antifluoridationism: Dr. William T. Jarvis, a member of the board of the American Council of Science and Health...[spoke] on "The Psychology of Anti-fluoridation", noting that debates on fluoride always "seem to result in people becoming anti-fluoridationist." -- Kwantus 01:14, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Another example: In 1980 dentist John Colquhoun, then an ardent supporter of fluoridation, was sent by officials from Wellington, the capital, on a world study tour of fluoridation so that he would be qualified to lead a campaign to extend fluoridation in New Zealand. After completing his tour and considering his research he became an outspoken critic of fluoridation. citing Perspectives in Biology & Medicine No 41,1-Autumn, 1997. University of Chicago. -- Kwantus 04:29, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

John Colquhoun reported back to his boss that he could not find a single page of evidence to support fluoridation and could he be advised on anywhere to find such information. John Colquhoun was told to find proof that fluoride was safe or he would lose his job, The late John Colquhoun could not find any proof to support fluoridation of New Zealand's water supply but he did find proof that it was dangerous and so started a campaign to have it banned. John Colquhoun personally asked me to finish his work as he was no longer able to fight the dental establishment in Dunedin and the bureaucracy in Wellington. John Colquhoun exposed government corruption but this information has never been published despite TVNZ being in receipt of the evidence. The truth on Fluoride is shocking to read and will make one question the motives of our own governments. Through John's inspiration and access to Government documents I was able to have the Waitakere City Council agree that fluoridation be banned but mayor Covic told me that because Waitakere is connected to the rest of Auckland it had to remain fluoridated as the Auckland City Council and North Shore Bays council voted to keep the water fluoridated. Soon after this John Colquhoun passed away but his campaign to have fluoride banned is still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.237.107 (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Vaestanfors (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record there was a case in Napier New Zealand where the children had a lot of tooth decay but the government did not give enough money to have the kids teeth repaired. At the time fluoride was not in the water but the government wanted to fluoridate and show that it fixes teeth. What happened next was that fluoride was addded to the water supply and the funds to fix the kids teeth were released by officials in Wellington. After one year the local kids of Napier had better teeth but what the government of New Zealand didn't know was that fluoride takes several years to have any visual effect on human teeth. Great work by the local dentists fixed the kids teeth not fluoride as the Department of Health reported on TV. This was one of the scams that John Colquhoun tried to expose on national TV but that story was edited to make fluoride look good.Vaestanfors (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another recanter: Hardy Limeback &lsquo;Canada's leading fluoride authority and, until recently, the country's primary promoter of the controversial additive...&ldquo;the crowning blow was the realization that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs for half a century. The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida, smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry.&rdquo;&rsquo; (emphasis added - two fer one!) -- Kwantus 15:47, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

- I removed a large section from flouridation benefits that was clearly not about the benefits of fluoridation and was not encyclopedic ("Please post..."). Also I beleive we agreed long ago that most of the debate on fluoridation belonged on the fluoridation page, not here. Rmhermen 23:56, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
 * Obviously I misremembered. There is strangely no fluoridation page. This is the page for debate on fluoridation, not fluorine. Still it needs to be properly written. Rmhermen 00:06, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
 * There is a fluoridation page -- presently redir'd to fluoride. Maybe that's what you're trying to say. And strictly, they are entirely different issues -- fluoride does seem to have some dental benefit when carefully used, but dumping what the EPA once acknowledged is toxic industrial waste en masse into the water supply (fluoridation) is not careful, medicinal use. It's a scam, and proven so. Fluorides are simply not safe for internal consuption; even US dental products have occasionally acknowledged that with "do not swallow me" warnings. Now: will it cause more or less confusion to split "fluoride" from "fluoridation"? -- Kwantus 00:52, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

John Colquhoun told me that there is enough fluoride in a tube of Colgate tooth paste to kill a human baby, maybe thats why young kids are to be supervised when brushing teeth.

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

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

Tannin


 * I entirely agree (about the tone... "so fix it, dear Tannin, dear Tannin!" =). I'm not even trying, 'cause the case for fluoridation is scientifically dead. (The ADA was quite clear, 60 years ago, it was the wrong way to use fluoride, and all the "science" in between that says otherwise has been shown to riddled with error and fraud. Even the US CDC has said topical application is the best way while praising fluoridation at the same time, now figure that out.) But you should've seen it after the last profluordation hack at it. (He asked for some rebuttal, explicitly, and he's getting some.) And it wasn't neutral to start with, with unsubtantiated (and readily shredded) laudification of flouridation. ("one of the most important elements of the 20th century dental revolution"? Schpeeeew.) At least I provide sources. -- Kwantus 06:24, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I see only one "out" for the profluoridationists, and it's Pyhrric. Argue that the proven decline in caries in nonflouridated areas is actually due to increased "natural" or background flouridation from increasing fluoride pollution. And that, of course, is simply an argument to cease wasting public money exacerbating what's happening all over. -- Kwantus 07:37, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Some citations I reassembled from the Val Valerian chronology (it aggravatingly mentions a lot of others without specifics) and hate to waste. But I don't know how to fit them in. Someone with access to a good science lib should check them out. Kwantus 08:12, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Chicago Tribune "Fluoride Blamed in Dialysis Deaths", 1993 July 31
 * Varner, J.A. et al, "Chronic Aluminum Fluoride Administration: II. Selected Histological Observations" Neuroscience Research Communications, Vol 13 No.2, 1993, pp.99-104
 * Chase, M., "Rat Studies Link Brain Cell Damage with Aluminum and Fluoride in Water", Wall Street Journal, October 28, 1992
 * Mullenix, Denbensten, Schunior &amp; Kernan Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No. 2, pp. 169-177, 1995 (Mullenix got fired for this one)
 * Kay, A.R., et al "Fluoride in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with fluorosis", Journal of Neuroscience, Vol 6, pp.2915-2920,1986;
 * Ziegler et al, Experimental Carcinogenesis and Mutagenesis Branch, National Institute for Envrionmental Health Sciences, "Genetic Toxicity of Fluoride", Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, Vol 21, 1993, p.309-318
 * Sullivan, W.D.,S.J., and Von Knobeledorff, A.J., Broteria Serie de Ciencias Naturais Lisbon, 21, No.1, 1962
 * Fridlyland, I.G. "The Effect of Industrial Poisons on the Immunological State of the Organism" Gigiena i Sanitariya 24 (8) p56 1959
 * Gabler &amp; Long "Fluoride Inhibition of Polymorphonuclear Leukocytes", Journal of Dental Research Vol 48, No.9, p1933-1939, 1979
 * D.W.Allman et al "Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Tissue Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo" Journal of Dental Research, Vol 55, Sup B, p523, 1976
 * Gibson, S., "Effects of Fluoride on the Immune System", Complimentary Medical Research, Vol 6, No.3, October 1992, pp.111-113
 * Clark "Neutrophil Iodination Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation" Blood, Vol 57, pp913-921, 1981
 * Ionel Rapaport Bulletin of the Academy of National Medicine Paris, Vol 140, pp.529-531;
 * Narayana and Chinoy, "Effect of Fluoride on Rat Testicular Steroidogenesis", Fluoride, Vol 27, No. 1, pp.7-12, 1994
 * Freni, S.C., "Exposure to High Fluoride Concentrations on Drinking Water Associated with Decreased Birth Rates", Journal of Toxicological and Environmental Health, Vol.42, p.109-121, 1994
 * Danielson, C., et al, "Hip Fractures and Fluoridation in Utah's Elderly Population", Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 286, No.6, August 1992, pp.746-748
 * Moules, G.R., Water Pollution Research and Summary of Current Literature, 1944
 * Borei "Inhibition of Cellular Oxidation by Fluoride", Arkiv.Kemi,Mineral,Geol. 20A, No. 8, 1945
 * Cox &amp; Hodge, "Toxicity of Fluorides in Relation to Their Use in Dentistry", Journal of the American Dental Association Vol 40:440, April 1950
 * Maurer &amp; Day "The Non-Essentiality of Fluoride in Nutrition" Journal of Nutrition 62, 561-573 (deliberately misrepresented by F. J. Stare, who is still quoted despite his recantation in Boston Herald Traveler 1972 Apr 6);
 * D.B. Ferguson in Nature Vol. 231, pp.159-160, June 2, 1971
 * Gupta, I.P., et al, "Fluoride as a Possible Etiological Factor in Non-Ulcer Dyspepsia", Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vol 7, 1992, pp.355-356
 * Susheela, A.K., "Fluoride Ingestion and Its Correlation with Gastrointestinal Discomfort", Fluoride, Vol 25 No.1, 1992,pp.5-22
 * Takeki Tsutsui, NDU "Sodium Fluoride Induced Morphological and Neoplastic Transformation, Chromosome Aberrations and Unscheduled DNA Synthesis..." Cancer Research Vol 44,pp938-941, 1984
 * Susheela, Sharma et al "Fluoride poisoning and the Effects of Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Non-osseous Tissue", Toxicological European Research, Vol 3, No.2, pp99-104, 1981
 * Drozdz et al., "Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds upon Connective Tissue Metabolism in Growing Rats", Toxilogical European Research, Vol 3, No.5, pp.237,239-241, 1981
 * Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton "Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors...Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride", Genetics Vol 48, pp307-310
 * Taylor "Sodium Fluoride in the Drinking Water of Mice" Dental Digest Vol 60, pp170-172
 * Taylor &amp; Taylor, "Effect of Fluoride on Tumor Growth", Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine Vol 65, pp252-255
 * Mohamed, A.H.,et al, "Cytological Effects of Hydrogen Fluoride on Tomato Chromosomes" Canadian Journal of Genetic Cytology Vol 8, p.575-583, 1966 (these things poison our food as well as poison us via our food)

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

The entry below is very true and is backed up with valid research submitted to the international society for fluoride research.Vaestanfors (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Kwantus, you obliviously have an axe to grind and an extreme POV in this matter. You are therefore creating a one-sided soapbox article on why fluoridation is a bad thing. Obviously a great many people think otherwise, yet you ignore their POV and express only your own. This is a violation of our NPOV policy and I'm asking you to stop. I'll work on this article later. Please use that time to move the material about fluoridation to that page. Fluoride is just an ion; it can be used in a great many ways both for good and bad. This article should reflect that and most of the controversy stuff about adding fluoride compounds to water supplies and toothpaste, should be at fluoridation. This will help us to NPOV the text. --mav 17:59, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * No axe; I fortunately live in a fluoridation-free province. But I do have a strong POV which I am convinced is grounded in science. And a great many people (say, western Europe) agree with me, too (for what merit such an argument has, which is none, but you made it)--Kwantus 18:06, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * BTW I'm pretty damn sure I didn't start the fluoridation debate on this page, so don't blame it on me.--Kwantus
 * I have a suspicion I must clarify something else: by "fluoridation" i mean "addition of fluoride(s) to water supplies" which in my perception is the general understanding of "fluoridation". As I mentioned above, yesterday (check the history) there does seem to be evidence supporting the medically-supervised topical application of fluoride(s) at appropriate times of life in the reduction of tooth decay with tolerable side effects. This is not comparable to unregulated-dosage systemic lifetime application caused by dumping industrial waste (see the 1983 March 30 letter from Rebecca Hanmer of the EPA) into municipal water supplies. I may have occasionally, in the heat, used "fluoride" where i meant "fluoridation" and that would be an error on my part--Kwantus 18:18, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I must point out there are those who object even to topical application. I'm not so fanatical as that, but they have their reasons -- deaths, usually of children, during or shortly after fluoride treatment (which proves the claims fluoride is "perfectly" safe as rubbish, if only on the grounds nothing is perfectly safe as the fluoridation defenders here have noted).
 * The 1974 NYC case, where the hygienist turned away before instructing the boy to rinse with the cup of water instead of drink it, was clearly one of overwork/neglect/malpractice/human error/unsupervised use etc. Lamentably, that's always going to happen. It happens in fluoridation plants too (eg Annapolis 1979) -- and makes a lot more people sick or dead when it does. (This is the technological sword o'Damoclese which profluoridators frantically ignore. Of course it exists with chlorinators too, but my understanding thus far is that fluorides more corrosive than the chlorides, which would lead to more failure and more expensive machinery.)
 * Hygienist Terry Leder refuses to apply fluoride after witnessing (1969) a child go into fatal convulsions moments after it was applied -- a clear case of oversensitivity which happens with most medicines (if I may set aside the profluoridationist's bogosity that fluoride is nutrient not medicine) from time to time. Tragic, but far from unique to fluoride. It happens with an&aelig;sthetics, too, and I sure as @hit ain't goin' under the drill w/o those. Usually, nonlethal test can be developde for such things; unfortunately usually only after people "croak of the cure." It's worth pointing out Leder has furthermore convinced herself fluoride doesn't reduce cavities. --Kwantus 17:48, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For someone who claimed that he only did research and was not interested in cleaning up his writing, Kwantus has certainly done a lot of writing in this article. Are you two people, Kwantus, or do you only write when you feel like it? RickK 01:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Motivation helps. Although this "writing" was mostly a listing of facts - or what seem to me to be facts - as before. What I've done here is still more researching/studying/thinking than writing.--Kwantus 01:26, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * And my original wording was kackhanded. I didn't mean to say I only did research, but that I did it better than I write. (Considering how much flak my writing has drawn - and how i screwed up my own statement - I think it's soundly demonstrated my writing is indefensible. So you can only hope my researches are better. I sure do.) -k
 * Somethine I will say in defense of my research: I will not dismiss a theory simply because some appointee authority tells me to. I will read it, consider its logic and evidence, and then make up my own mind. (This is probably a consequence of my training in "hard sciences" like maths and physics, where a claimant's logic and evidence count more than salary.) And several alternative theories are readily disposable on that basis. Antifluordation theroies are not. Every time I go looking, I find another chunk of scientific evidence against fluoridation. In the last round, triggered by the "antifluoridators are conspiracy nuts" @sshol@, I found out fluoridation has not been shown to substantially reduce caries; quite the opposite. And this is why I no longer see middle or "neutral" ground; the only proposed health benefit I'm aware of was the reduction in caries, and that's up the spout. (Even if it weren't up the spout, there are proven cheaper, safer, and more effective means of getting that benefit of fluoride(s) than fluoridation.) There are other benefits to fluoridation, but not to the public, and to argue for those really would look kooky and paranoid. So on what neutral ground am I supposed to stand, in intellectual honesty?--Kwantus 13:33, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, there was that "fluorine is nutritious" claim. That seems to have been thoroughly debunked too, even by officialdom. But I want to get the references back in paw before I rework that piece of the article.--Kwantus 14:17, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Aw J@sus you gotta admire professional bull-something-ers like Stephen Barret. "Instead of telling you that fluoride is found naturally in all water, [antifluoridationists] call it a 'pollutant'" ("all" water??) Taken to its logical conclusion, we must invert all water treatment, adding things like cholera, E. coli, arsenic, uranium, lead, etc. that also occur naturally in "all" water so they can be allowed to do their wonders, too. ("all" water? I dunno, but "most" water is seawater, and try living on untreated seawater.) "Instead of telling you that fluoride is a nutrient essential to life, they call it a 'poison'" well explain why NaF, a sometime fluoridation ingredient, is also the active ingredient of some rat poisons. Explain the biochemists who have said for decades "fluorine is a mycoplasmic poison." [PS: the phrase I was looking for was "cytoplasmic poison" -- curiously, although I've read it in several places the last few days, Google lists only one page with that phrase] And if fluorine is a nutrient essential to life, how come you can go a long lifetime without, say, any NaF intake but get in trouble very quickly if you try to do without NaCl (which is so necessary to life people were willing to be paid in it, hence "salary")? If F is a nutrient, why in hell is NaF lethal in much smaller amounts than NaCl? ("LD100 [not LD50] for fluoride in the average adult has been estimated to be 32–64 mg/kg bw (as NaF)" which I convert to about 3 g. Here's a tablespoon of NaCl and another of NaF. Do, please, Mr Barrett, demonstrate for us your faith in the nutrient value of fluorine.) Barret is trying, in that piece, to show how antifluoridationists, whom he calls "poison mongers", abuse language. A poison monger sells poisons, which is what the antifluoridations are trying to stop. Who is abusing the language? -- Kwantus 14:48, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I deleted Fluoride ions (F-) are regarded as a probable essential element for humans. i recall reading somewhere no known human biochemistry is reliant on fluorine. Also &lsquo;On March 16, 1979, the FDA deleted paragraphs 105.3(c) and 105.85(d)(4) of Federal Register documents which had classified fluorine, among other substances, as "essential" or "probably essential". Since that time, nowhere in the Federal Regulations is fluoride classified as "essential" or "probably essential". These deletions were the immediate result of 1978 Court deliberations(3). No essential function for fluoride has ever been proven in humans(4,5,6,7,8)&rsquo; citing (3) Federal Register, 3/16/79, page 16006 (4) Federal Register: December 28, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 249)] Rules and Regulations, Page 67163-67175 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration, 21 CFR Part 101 Docket No. 90N-0134, RIN 0910-AA19 (5) Report of the Department of Health and Social Subjects, No. 41, Dietary Reference Values, Chapter 36 on fluoride (HMSO 1996). (6) "Is Fluoride an Essential Element?" Fluorides, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 66-68 (1971) (7) Richard Maurer and Harry Day, "The Non-Essentiality of Fluorine in Nutrition" Journal of Nutrition, 62: 61-57(1957) (8) William R. Stine Applied Chemistry 2nd ed, p413 &amp; 416 (Allyn &amp; Bacon, Inc)
 * Now, does someone have support for this "essential trace element" assertion? (As a bonus, that fluoridation does not wildly oversupply this need?) -- Kwantus 16:13, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

Skybunny's response to Ed
Ed - bottom line: I wanted to bust the NPOV on this article.

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

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

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

Heaven help me.

Skybunny 21:59, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

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

Skybunny 22:02, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

Skybunny 02:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

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


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

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

Sources?
Water fluoridation is a highly controversial practice and banned in most countries in Europe, China, India and Japan. Is there a source for this? It sounds dubious to me, I know that the UK for one routinely fluoridates the water. On another point, after the Tsunami disaster, many people of non-local origin were identified by dental records and at least one dentist is on record as saying that he could instantly tell whether a person was born prior to 1967 because that was when fluoridation was introduced on a widespread basis, and teeth post-dating that year were generally far healthier. My impression was that this applied whether the person was Australian, European or North American (i.e. westeners), which would tend to suggest that the statement about a ban in Europe at least is incorrect. If there are bans in place, they need an official source to back up the assertion. Also, the Tsunami information is quite interesting - can it be mentioned in the article somehow? Graham 06:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a list of countries who do not fluoridate their water supplies on fluoridealert.org with links to letters from each of those governments. Included are Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Finland, N. Ireland, Austria, Czech Republic, Scotland, Switzerland.74.220.66.57 07:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of those countries you list have fluoride rinses in schools and salt fluoridation. - Dozenist talk  12:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true. I'm referring to putting fluoride into water systems. One can refuse rinses and fluoridated salt. 74.220.66.57 17:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Move water fluoridation paragraphs?
This article still discusses water fluoridation in some depth. I am inclined to move most of this to the Water Fluoridation page, except for a mention that water fluoridation exists. The article devotes almost as much time to fluoridation as it does to fluroide, the ion. Oasisbob 03:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone restored the text that I removed over a month ago. This page clearly states that it is not for Water Fluoridation, but is rather about Fluoride, the ion. Water Fluoridation Controversy has crept back to Water Fluoridation, and back this article on Fluoride, the ion. The old text is non-NPOV, redundant, off-topic for fluoride the ion, sloppy, chemically-inaccurate, and far too verbose. It was removed for a reason. If someone takes exception to this, I'm more than happy to discuss it. --Oasisbob 11:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. It seems perfectly reasonable to keep this article focused on the chemistry, with a mention of and link to a separate article that addresses the social/political issues of water fluoridation.

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


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


 * There were hundreds of studies that said smoking did not cause lung cancer. Now we know better. Follow the money trail; who is funding the studies? --AeronM (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the early years of the 20th Century, a young dentist named Frederick McKay settled in Colorado Springs, Colorado. There he discovered that as many as 90% of lifetime residents of the town had grotesque brown stains on their teeth, and that the tooth enamel had an irregular surface texture described as "mottled". Locals referred to the familiar condition as Colorado Brown Stain, but no one had a clue as to its cause. Over the next two decades Dr. McKay, later with the help of dental researcher G. V. Black, proved that the cause was something contaminating the water supply. They also speculated that the affected teeth might be somewhat more resistant to decay.

Wow, what a great find, we use aluminum-product waste to 'strengthen' our teeth and bones because some people with "motteld" teeth were overexposed to fluoride. CaseyBrady (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Get in line if you wish to complain about the supposed lies promoted by this article, because there are several similarly out-raged people - we hear from them at least weekly here. Complaining that a compound is derived from a waste stream is invalid: many, many chemical compounds (pharmacuticals included) come from "wastes," that's how a lot of the industrial chemistry world works - they extract things that they can sell from cruddy-looking stuff.   And the fact that fluoridation of water can be done badly does not logically imply that the underlying technology is flawed.  All effective technologies have been implemented badly at various times.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Criticism and rotten.com
I for one don't go around clicking on random rotten.com links. :-) I think the Criticism section should really be something else than a sole link, especially one on that slightly scary URL. --Northgrove 07:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit. The section was only a link, which does not make much sense to have a whole section devoted to one link.  Also, there is no benefits sections, while also some criticisms are mentioned in the "Low concentrations" section.  Thus, there does not seem to be a reason for a criticism section.  Lastly, conspiracy theories really do not need to be in this article.  See water fluoridation controversy for all conspiratorial needs. - Dozenist  talk  10:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Personal Results
I for one, have gotton a lot more cavities since I moved to an area where the water is not flouridated (just found this fact out from my dentist last week). I am 31 years old and had only a couple cavvities my whole life. Now I got 4 in one visit. And my wife, the same story, just got 8 cavities after a couple years of living here. My brother is in his late 30's and never had a cavity; but now lives in an unflouridated area and got 12 cavities. This is actually all very strange considering that flouridation on average is reported to reduce cavities by only 12%, in children (what about adults?). Any others here that live in both flouridated and non-flouridated areas, that can share their experience? ~e~
 * I don't see how this is helpful. There can be any number of reasons for getting cavities. I grew up in a non-fluoridated area and never had cavities until I moved to another city when I was 32. So maybe it was the moving to another area that caused the cavities?74.220.66.57 07:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This type of discussion (e.g. personal anecdotes, however valid) is better left for the forums. --AeronM (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Fluoride's effects are to combine with calcium hydroxy appetite in the body to form calcium fluoride hydroxy appetite which is seen by the immune system as a foreign compound. In other words it makes a type of bone material that leads to bone cancer. Vaestanfors (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Applications?
Fluoride rinsing and fluoride toothpaste are two of the most widespread applications, but they are not even mentioned among the applications, instead water fluoridation, which is something rather periferal in impact, is mentioned. Why? Having read the discussion page I suppose it may have something to do with the fluoride conspiracy believers and non believers, but since these other applications are outside the contested areas, shouldn't they be better fleshed out? At the moment this page could just as well be renamed "The Fluoride Conspiracy, a myth or a fact?" Since that's pretty much what it covers... It's not even a POV or NPOV uestion it's a question of OT or non-OT.

New source: Scientific America reports risks for flouoride (Reuters story)

 * 'Second Thoughts about Fluoride,' Reports Scientific American Jan 2, 2008

I'll come back and take a look....not feeling well right now, but thought this would be an interesting reference for the article. Table Manners C·U·T 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Dozenist, as this page is the subject of ongoing edit warring, please discuss any major edits here on the talk page before implementing. I have reverted to yesterday's version until then. Thank you. --AeronM (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For example, the FDA requires a warning label on toothpaste. This is a verifiable fact, and does belong on the Fluoride page. Please stop deleting it. Thank you. --AeronM (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The warning-label issue is used in a selective way in this article, included in a context that suggests "fluoride is bad, period". That's not the warning's goal, and moreover, it talks about about eating toothpaste. So the warning is essentially if you really excessively misuse the product, it could cause harm. That doesn't sound notable, and lends undue weight and/or takes the warning out of context. Beyond that, the whole warning section is misplaced, unless swallowing tubes of Crest is a "chronic" problem. DMacks (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources by Bryson (the book and the article) seem to be a favorite of WP:FRINGE theories, and I wonder if they are WP:RS. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this chunk from the article, because I feel strongly it fails WP:RS:


 * Okay, here are some other sources for the above, since for some reason (which you still have not explained) the source I used was deemed "unreliable:"

Since World War II, fluoride is believed to be the most poisonous toxic waste coming from factory smokestacks.

Fluoride pollution is also known for causing what is considered the worst industrial air pollution disaster in U.S. history.

In fact, it was this disaster which is believed to have jump-started the U.S. environmental movement.

Therefore, I am adding this text back into article. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, here's another fluoride smog disaster: which should be added.--AeronM (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Would quotes from the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine be acceptable to you? --AeronM (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

--Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with Rifleman 82) I share the concerns about the reliability of the sources used, particularly The Fluoride Deception. Furthermore, I would point out that the material added to this article all shares a specific, quite strong anti-fluoride point of view, in large part because of the sources used for the material which, again, are of questionable reliability. · jersyko   talk  15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a neutral outside editor to this article. It has clearly involved some rather heated debate in the past. It's time to clean it up. Regarding the recent additions, specifically the quoted text above, the material is factual, relevant, verifiable, and properly sourced. Because it does not comply with your POV is not sufficient reason to remove it. Please see WP:NPOV You are welcome to submit a contrasting view, provided it passes the same criteria. I have returned it to the article.

It sounds as though you may have a strong POV regarding one of the sources. If that is the case, you can always make a case for why it should not be included. Meanwhile, I see no reason not to use it. A cursory Google search turns up much regarding the controversial nature of the topic, and wiki guidleines indicate that it is correct to teach the controversy. --AeronM (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I quote from WP:REDFLAG:

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
 * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV.


 * You're using a book written for the lay-public to reference superlatives on " ... the most poisonous toxic waste coming from factory smokestacks ... the worst industrial air pollution disaster in U.S. history". How does this reconcile with "exceptional claims require exceptional sources"?


 * A google search of this author and reference shows it being cited (to my knowledge) solely by anti-fluoridation POV-holders such as fluoride-alert, mercola, etc. A brief examination of your contributions also belie your claim to be non-POV: apart from cleaning up this article, as well as water fluoridation and water fluoridation controversy, you are inserting your point of view, while minimizing the mainstream view. While it is all fine and well to teach the controversy, I quote from WP:CONTROVERSY which you earlier highlighted:

"Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must 'give equal validity' to minority views in a controversy."


 * --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, however I might point out, also from WP:CONTROVERSY:


 * "It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy." The controversy already exists.  We did not create it.  But we must report it.

It is not a matter of which is the mainstream view and which isn't. It appears more a matter of conventional wisdom vs. current science. Both must be represented, else we have not done our job properly. --AeronM (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No disagreement here, but instead of describing the controversy, your edits with regard to the factory smokestacks seem to be taking a side in the controversy. The controversy has already been described here, and in detail on Water_fluoridation_controversy itself. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember also that discussing the controversy (or controversial statements) in detail in this article also runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. Topics covered under a given subject are to be given weight appropriate to their coverage in mainstream, reliable sources.  Here, the fluoride controversy and the supposed harm fluoride causes is given appropriate weight by including a paragraph summarizing the controversy with a link to the water fluoridation controversy article. ·  jersyko   talk  18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet the article seems light on fact, especially current scientific data which describes a) that fluoride is not effective in preventing cavities,  and  b) the many physical ailments that fluoride has been linked to. Since we are all in agreement that both sides must be given equal weight, I am proposing a short introduction to the Cavity Prevention section describing the scientific research which illustrates the above points, without going into specific detail. I agree this is not the place for that. If the article were to reflect the "coverage in mainstream, reliable sources," then, according to my research, the article should be 80% on the negative effects of Fluoride, and 20% on the positive. I won't hold you to that, of course. I notice you said "supposed" harm fluoride causes. Are you saying you do not believe Fluoride is harmful? Are you familiar with current science on the issue? --AeronM (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You say "we are all in agreement that both sides must be given equal weight". Please re-read WP:UNDUE.  This is exactly the opposite of what the policy says. ·  jersyko   talk  19:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also note that the burden on demonstrating a source's reliability falls on the editor wishing to include the material cited, per WP:V. Merely stating that an editor does not like a source because of that editor's POV is insufficient; evidence of the source's reliability, as defined by the guideline, is needed. ·  jersyko   talk  18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I notice that you did not answer my questions. --AeronM (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Would quotes from the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine be acceptable to you? --AeronM (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the more research I do, the more interesting it becomes. I think we should also include the Harvard Study. Would Harvard University be an acceptable source to you, Jersko? --AeronM (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember that even Linus Pauling turned into a quack with Vitamin C, so appealing to authority is not the solution. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's quite possible that such sources would be considered reliable under the guideline. But is the information presented by said sources, however, a minority view?  Is the information presented by the sources in line with the widely accepted consensus among experts and major health organizations that fluoride is dangerous in high doses but not in lower doses?  If not, then I would suggest that we be careful not to provide this material undue weight. ·  jersyko   talk  20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, so then the widely accepted consensus among experts is accepted as fact, and the newer, more reliable scientific evidence, because it is in the minority, is not acceptable here. So then, if we apply your theory, then cigarette smoking does not cause lung cancer, and phthalates do not cause birth defects. I am so glad we have cleared that up. Should we alert Scientific American and Discovery that they have published erroneous articles? ; ) --AeronM (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That the newer study is "more reliable" is your point of view, not a fact. That it is a minority is a fact, as you appear to acknowledge above.  Thus, I believe my concern about undue weight appears to be justified, no?
 * I don't follow your logic for the rest of your comment. That cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is a widely accepted, widely studied phenomenon.  As such, it should be discussed in appropriate weight at the relevant article(s).  Similarly, the bogus research funded by the cigarette companies themselves which indicates that smoking does not cause cancer should be discussed, but only insofar as is appropriate.  That is, it should only bear mentioning that it exists and is against the majority of the evidence, with a link to a Wikipedia article, perhaps, discussing the scandal surrounding the cigarette companies funding medical research. ·  jersyko   talk  22:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you would agree that if fluoride studies were funded by parties with a vested interest, this would throw doubt on the study, yes?  BTW, the current science on Fluoride is not "my point of view," it is accepted scientific fact, and easily verifiable as such.


 * You mention you did not understand my point re: cigarette smoking, which was: there was a lot of "scientific" material made available to the public regarding the safety of cigarette smoking. It was widely accepted, at the time, that cigarette smoking was not harmful.  But if you had followed the money trail, you would have discovered that much of the 'science' available at the time was funded by parties with a vested interest in the outcome of the study. When independent scientists began to find results which indicated there was a link to cancer (and other problems) they were widely discredited. And do I even need to mention the many government-funded "scientific' studies which 'proved' that global warming was a myth?   Come on, Jersyko, wake up and smell the Fluoride!!  -- AeronM (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're talking of conspiracies. Proven with cigarette companies, alleged with fluoride.  Sorry, just not willing to go there ;)  Remember, too, that the point is whether this article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not whether one can be convinced of the merit of the anti- or pro-fluoride position.  Verifiability, not truth, is the goal of Wikipedia.  Finally, re global warming, the scientific consensus on it is now remarkably clear, which is why we report it as such at global warming.  ·  jersyko   talk  23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

After stepping back a bit, I think I've noticed something regarding the different approaches we are taking here. Please do not take offense if I mischaracterize any position, these are merely my observations. AeronM is citing global warming and the cigarette cancer link because these subjects demonstrate that the minority view can and often should overtake the majority view on scientific subjects. In other words, scientists believe a paradigm, which is challenged by an individual or group. Eventually, the challenging theory becomes the new paradigm. AeronM appears to believe that the fluoride debate is following or has followed the same path. Whether this is true or not, however, is irrelevant. Why? First, the paradigm has not been replaced regarding fluoride. The legal, scientific, and organizational consensus is clearly still not anywhere near where the paradigm challengers want it to be. Thus, comparing the fluoride debate to cigarettes or global warming is a faulty analogy. Second, and most importantly, we should be looking at whether this article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not how the fluoride debate compares to other public health debates. · jersyko   talk  00:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do understand what you are saying, and I am not trying to change your opinion on fluoride. I am merely trying to illustrate why teaching the controversy does not violate WP:UNDUE weight. --AeronM (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really have anything of substance to add to my comment above, because I still believe we're not making any headway regarding whether the material can conform to Wikipedia policy. I remain unsure about how cigarettes or global warming informs our discussion about whether this article conforms to the undue weight policy given the clarity of the consensus on this issue and the amount of this article (and other relevant wikipedia articles) that is already devoted to the controversy.  I find it a bit humorous, though, that the "teach the controversy" article that continues to be inexplicably linked to is about a right-wing attempt to inject non-scientific beliefs into science curriculum.  That's all for now, I'm off to enjoy the rest of my Friday night. ·  jersyko   talk  02:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Since Water Fluoridation has a Water Fluoridation Controversy page, let's add a Fluoride Controversy page. I think it would be appropriate, don't you agree? --AeronM (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (the main benefit of which would be: I would be out of your hair for a bit while I wrote it!) --AeronM (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You might as well move water fluoridation controversy to fluoridation controversy, and cover other aspects of fluoridation which are supposedly deleterious to human health. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried, but Orlady wouldn't have it. --AeronM (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section
Smokefoot, deleting chunks of sourced material is a no-no at wiki and could be considered vandalism. Please discuss major edits here on the talkpage first. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will be more systematic in my edits. This kind of "controversy" can be hugely time-consuming as it ranges from a Hitler-inspired conspiracy to legitimate concerns about the biological role of fluoride.  The practical problem is that regardless of your views, this article is about a much broader topic - compounds that contain the element F.  These compounds range from Teflon to Sarin to many thousands of other species, only a tiny fraction of which are remotely connected to water treatment.  So those of us that have views on fluoridation, should conduct our editing elsewhere, specifically water fluoridation and water fluoridation controversy. Can we agree to that?


 * Now I did just remove this bit:

"Since World War II, fluoride is believed to be the most poisonous toxic waste coming from factory smokestacks.    Fluoride pollution is also known for causing what is considered the worst industrial air pollution disaster in U.S. history.      In fact, it was this disaster which is believed to have jump-started the U.S. environmental movement. " This kind of grandiose claim seems suspect. At the least, few fluoride compounds are coming out of any smokestacks. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * AeronM, we're not done discussing these disputed points. Why do you persist in re-adding them into the article? You've added a bunch of refs, many of which are on activist sites. Let's strike them all out and rely strictly on WP:RS. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have followed wiki policy here to the letter, contributing relevant information and sourcing it all, multiple times over. The material should stay in the article.  IF you are able to find refs which contradict the material that I've added, we can address this again at that time.  Even then, both sides of the issue should be included in the article.   Second request: please stop deleting sourced contributions without a valid reason for doing so. This smacks loudly of POV editing.


 * I'm beginning to recognize a pattern here, one that has been going on for a while: when contributions are made that are not in line with your way of thinking, first you attack (and swiftly delete) the contribution. Then you attack the reliability of the sources. And then you attack the contributor. Now that we have gone through all three stages, (and since you are very near your three revert limit), let's just leave the material where it is until such a time as you can come up with something to show it is not an appropriate contribution to this article. Your opinion is not enough. Thank you. --AeronM (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * AeronM, you appear quick to point out perceived POV on the part of other contributors, but I am not certain if you have acknowledged your own bias in regard to fluoride. Do you claim that you are editing in an unbiased manner, that the sources you have used are reliable, and that your interest in this subject is academic rather than advocacy? I ask this because every edit you have made has inserted material that comports with the minority anti-fluoride position.  Are we to believe this is merely a coincidence? ·  jersyko   talk  23:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to revert any more, I'm taking it to dispute resolution; unfortunately it will take a while. I recognize that the page will have to be left at WP:the wrong version, which is unfortunate. I will add the NPOV-section tag; this tag should stay on until the end of the dispute resolution process. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I think we all need to rehash Chemistry 101. For the record, the problem with toxic emissions from smokestacks in places like Donora, Pennsylvania, was hydrogen fluoride, also known as hydrofluoric acid, which is a strong and highly corrosive acid (among other things, it dissolves glass). The fact that hydrofluoric acid vapor is horrible stuff to be exposed to does not mean that all fluoride compounds are highly toxic. For analogy, consider that chlorine gas is highly toxic and has been used as a chemical weapon, but sodium chloride (table salt) is pretty innocuous stuff (indeed, the sodium is a bigger risk to humans than the chloride). --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering that sodium fluoride is a salt (thus high melting), I was puzzled by how it could be an air pollutant, since her bryson ref didn't explicitly describe it. I was thinking HF, but that was just my speculation. Anyway, HF is one of the nastiest things you could use in a laboratory, being able to attack glass and dissolve bone. That said, I like the analogy between HF, NaF, F2 and HCl, Cl2, NaCl. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch, Orlady! Even the ref given explicitly says it's HF (which is indeed nasty stuff, no question). But broadening the danger of HF to "all fluorides" or "fluoride itself" does indeed WP:OR unless there's a ref that has some actual basis for this broad-brush interpretation. DMacks (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that the cryolite in the electrolysis of aluminium is a big problem, but I do not know if the flouride is transported as dust or as volatile compound. For this a reference would be OK.--Stone (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Since there is already an article describing the fluoride controversy, I find that the controversy should be given a brief mention in the fluoride page, with a link to the water fluoridation controversy page per WP:UNDUE. I also feel strongly that the sources cited by AeronM fail WP:RS, belonging for the most part, activist/advocacy groups. Lastly, he uses superlatives to describe fluoride's toxicity, though WP:REDFLAG states that exceptional claims (which include superlatives, IMHO) require exceptional proof.

I see no point in quoting diffs and making references to a person's conduct; the issue is simple, the discussion is focussed here, nobody has been going around censoring comments, and the participants are still civil. I thus request an RFC to simply determine what should be or should not be in the article.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that some discussion is here. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I sense that Wikipedia is being exploited to promote fringe and extreme views at the expense of explaining the elementary chemistry that would seem to be this article's intended purpose. The article (and, periodically, some others like it) have been been converted into a kind of soapbox or forum for a controversy. My sense is that this article is supposed to explain the occurence and behavior of the fluoride ion and fluorochemicals. There is a lot to be said since fluorine is fairly abundant. Much of the editing bandwidth has instead been focused on the water fluoridation and the possibility that fluoride/fluorochemiscals are otherwise far more dangerous than appreciated. The reference section in particular has been flooded or diluted, so as to marginalize conventional literature (textbooky stuff) and promote narrowly published work.  Publication is so easy, especially "internet publications," that it is often possible to find tons of citations to support even fringe-iest views. We created water fluoridation controversy as a forum for discussion of one dispute, and I would hope that we can shift the cited literature to that site.  It will need to be dealt with even there, since much of it is again narrow.--Smokefoot (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will watch the page to and I will try to help where I can!--Stone (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about fluoride, an ion or a functional group. It is not about conspiracy theories, which can be dealt with in more specific articles. While some discussion about the toxicity of fluorides is appropriate, it should be 1) clear and specific, not confounding substances as diverse as F2 and HF with a generic "fluoride"; 2) attributed to reliable sources, such as scientific works, and not blogs and advocacy websites; 3) not use superlatives unless explicitly attributed to a notable source (e.g., "according to the U.N. environment programme, this is the worst..." may be OK, but not "according to Joe's blog, this is the worst..."). This should all be obvious from Wikipedia policy, but apparently it isn't. --Itub (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the interest of making consensus clear, I agree with Rifleman 82's presentation of the disagreement, the problems with the article, and with his proposed solution. · jersyko   talk  13:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If Smokefoot's proposal is to be adopted, and the fluoride page only discusses the "occurence and behavior of the fluoride ion (etc)," then that is one thing. As soon as the topic of fluoride and dentistry comes up, that is another story. There is plenty of science out there to support the material I have added, and to label the sources as promotional of 'fringe theories' and the like is not accurate. I'm sure the studies cited, such as the Harvard Study, would be acceptable for the article, yes?  I am simply trying to provide some balance to this page in order to get a little closer to NPOV. --AeronM (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, user:Rifleman 82 and user:jersyko have both expressed a concern about one of the references I have cited (The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson, Seven Stories Press, 2004). I have re-read WP:RS and WP:V and am unable to find a reason why this book cannot be referenced. The book presents a compilation of scientific study, published articles and expert testimony that these two editors disagree with, however, the book falls within wiki guidelines as I understand them.  Unless the editors can provide some valid reasons (not just their own opinions) why the book cannot be included as a reference, I see no reason not to use it. --AeronM (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I feel that conventional science is being mugged by fringe citations that are less convincing than textbooks and standard references. For example, the "Harvard report" is controversial as to who did what and what was even reported and the legitimacy thereof.  As a consequence of such contaminated microreports, scientifically oriented editors are pulled off-task because we are forced to clean up or respond to such reports.  And if we remove a citation, we are accused of vandalism or lack of NPOV.  The situation is reminiscent of the creationist issues: advocates for which can tap into a limitless supply of "scientific reports" demonstrating the flaws of evolution.  In general, I think that most of the Wikipedia Chemistry articles should adopt a policy of discouraging citations to blogs, op-ed's, and even recent journal articles, in deference to textbooks and related standardized sources.  Otherwise we are opening ourselves up to "death by a million cuts" by advocacy groups.  It is depressing that the antifluoridation groups dedicate so much editorial effort on the supposed evil conspiracy when the nature of F- in aqueous solution is not even presented well in this article.  If such groups are so concerned about the facts and about helping the world in the wiki-way, then they would be explaing the chemistry of fluoride, but alas, such editors cannot or choose not to contribute technical content. Also by citing such flimsy and narrow reports, the antifluoridation cause, which has legitimate points, is obscured by lousy sourcing.  So everyone loses.  --Smokefoot (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that calling the Harvard Study a 'fringe citation' speaks volumes about your point of reference. --AeronM (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A clone of the Uranium trioxide discussion is back! I liked it so much. I will read the Harvard stuff to get into it!--Stone (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson, Seven Stories Press, 2004 interview with Bryson plays in the same league like most of the 9/11 conspiracy books its good enough for a obscure conspiracy chapter in a long article, but to include it into a short article ror the fluoride ion would make the whole thing unbalanced.--Stone (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This book would fall into "Questionable Sources" as well as lacking in general scholarship. Given that it is not a chemistry textbook, it is not approprate at all for this particular article and it's use in other related articles is problematic. Shot info (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't realize that only chemistry textbooks were allowed to be referenced. I must have missed that in WP:RS. --AeronM (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PS, I'm sure you will provide some back-up to support your assessment that this book falls into "Questionable Sources," yes? --AeronM (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not go so far as to limit the sourcing to "chemistry textbooks", but I definitly think that an article about a basic science topic should NOT rely on a book by a veteran investigative journalist, published by an independent book publisher that specializes in "works of the imagination" and "political titles by voices of conscience" (and does not list "science" or "chemistry" among the topics in its catalog). For a basic science article, that is not a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what your are saying, but it still seems like it is your opinion that this book should not qualify. I still see no info from WP:RS or WP:V that would exclude it. I'm not saying that it should be the only reference in the article, but surely including it as one of many would be fair. --AeronM (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is my opinion that the book isn't a reliable source. Per the policy.  It does have it's place, in stating that there are opposition views, and stating those views.  But it is not a factual source of technical and historical information, which it was being used for.  For this, we have chemistry textbooks and the like.  Shot info (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, my opinion and the fact that it dovetails exactly into the pertinent policy. Rather than defending the particular source, please be encouraged to find another, there are thousands out there.  Thanks --Shot info (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have. Many.  Every single one shot down as 'fringe theory,' etc.  Remarkable, isn't it? --AeronM (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have added blogs, selfpublished sources and extremist material, all of which are forbidden by basic Wikipedia policy. It is strongly encouraged that you review WP:NPOV to see what sort of information is required in Encyclopedic articles.  Shot info (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a note that ocean water also contains high amounts of sodium, comparable to the fact that it contains higher amounts of fluoride. While I understand that the purpose of the Occurence section is to simply explain how fluoride occurs in nature, I feel that it is misleading to the reader to tell him/her that fluoride occurs in higher concentration in ocean water without reminding the reader that ocean water is in general not drinkable. Adding this note does not subtract from the integrity of the section, it simply prevents the reader from accidently supporting what sounds like a slightly biased way of writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.179.133 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree about this being useful or improving NPOV. If readers have to be told "ocean water is not potable", they have more serious problems than understanding the vagaries of a few ppm of fluoride. Conversely, it actually makes it sound like fluoride is a healthy thing, given that sodium is an important nutrient (though usually not taken in the form of salinated water). DMacks (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This article needs to be about this form of the element, its reactivity, the compounds containing fluoride, its sources and uses in industry, and its functions and toxicology in living organisms. Perhaps a sentence or two could note that fluoride is added to some drinking water, but discussing this at length, using WP:Fringe sources is an obvious breach of the neutral point of view policy. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Notification
You also forgot to alert me to this RfC on my talk page, which I believe is proper per wiki policy. PS I am a 'she' not a 'he,' FYI. --AeronM (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You obviously watch this page, as evidenced from your many edits here. Need we split hairs (and I don't mean your gender)? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rifleman 82, you name AeronM in the RfC, so it would have been courteous of you to notify her personally. --Una Smith (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * AeronM, I apologize for not notifying you in person. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As the RfC concerns a content dispute, not editor conduct, no personal notification is necessary. --Una Smith (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's no problem, Rifleman82. I must admit to being somewhat confused myself, as it seems the original "complaint" filed here was definitely about me, and not the fluoride article content. Can you clarify, is this RfC connected to the original complaint? Or is it a separate issue?  And it is purely regarding a content dispute on the fluoride page, yes?  In which case it would not be appropriate for other editors from other pages to weigh in here, just as it would not be appropriate to cite my editing on other pages, is that correct? --AeronM (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
Rifleman 82, I am curious to know why you have added the POV tag to the fluoride salts section. --AeronM (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Where Does it come from?
Itub, if you believe the fluoride that is put in the water we drink does not come from smokestacks (and other industrial waste), then perhaps you could enlighten us. You will need references, of course, if the info in the article is to be altered. --AeronM (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add the reliable source that does enlighten us. Given that it is from smokestacks and other industrial waste, surely there is an industry source?  After all, it is a commodity item available for sale.  Shot info (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case you are confusing fluoride, which is an ion or a functional group, with fluorosilicic acid, a specific compound that can indeed be obtained from smokestacks and is used for water fluoridation. However, it is not the only compound used for fluoridation and it is not just "fluoride". Calling it "industrial waste" is a POV label meant to scare people; this is neither the first nor the last industrial byproduct that is recycled and put to another use. Generally, recycling is a good thing, right? I understand that there is some debate about the efficacy and safety of water fluoridation. However, that has nothing to do with whether one fluoridation agent comes from smokestacks, or whether it is corrosive when highly concentrated (here I'm referring to the rubber-sealed containers and 9/11 from the other article). --Itub (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To put in in context, in Singapore, tap water is purified sewage. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying that the fluoride put in our drinking water comes from industrial waste is a fact, not POV. Anyway, it doesn't really matter where it comes from, but it's source is definitely relevant to the page. --AeronM (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The uses and sources of fluorine compounds in industrial applications definitely are appropriate content for Wikipedia, although not necessarily for this article. Based on this reliable information source (a USGS commodities report on fluorspar), it is true that much fluorine is acquired as a byproduct (for example, by extracting it from industrial waste streams), but it would be a gross oversimplification to say that all of it comes from "industrial waste" or any other specific source. According to the USGS report I cite here, fluorosilicic acid (the compound used in fluoridation of water) is produced primarily as a byproduct from processing of phosphate rock to make phosphoric acid, and represents no more than about 12% of total U.S. usage of fluorine compounds. --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

4th revert
Orlady, since that is the 4th revert of that piece of information, I beg you to consider a discussion here on the take page. The contribution was made in good faith and citing valid resources per WP:RS. You have not provided sufficient reasons to delete it. Your comment that the worst fluoride-related air pollution disaster does not belong in the toxicology section of the Fluoride page confuses me. --AeronM (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I infer that you are probably referring to my deletion of the passage that begins "Since World War II, fluoride is believed to be the most poisonous toxic waste coming from factory smokestacks..."

A review of the article history is instructive:
 * On 27 February, AeronM added this passage to the article.
 * On 29 February, Rifleman 82 deleted that passage with the comment "discuss on talk first." Rifleman 82 followed through by posting on this discussion page, including this post in which he said that he deleted the subject passage "because I feel strongly it fails WP:RS."
 * Later that day AeronM restored the passage.
 * Then Rifleman 82 deleted it again (still on 29 February) and on 1 March AeronM restored it and Smokefoot deleted it again, with the statement "remove inflammatory or at least hyperbolic language and place on Talk," after which Smokefoot posted a long comment on this discussion page.
 * Then on 2 March AeronM restored the passage again. On 3 March, Itub deleted the passage with an edit summary saying "removed vague and misleading statements attributed to unreliable sources (blogs, advocacy websites, etc."
 * Shortly thereafter AeronM restored it again.
 * After a couple of intervening edits by others (including placement of a "disputed" template on the section), Orlady (that's me) deleted the passage again, with a note saying "remove paragraph that conflates ACUTE hazard of inhaling acid fumes with chronic toxicity; as I noted on talk page, Donora situation is irrelevant here". (Earlier I had posted on this page regarding the fallacy underlying that passage, and Rifleman 82 and DMacks had posted their agreement.)
 * In response, AeronM restored the passsage yet again, with a note saying "That is the 4th revert. Please stop. Discussion on talk page."
 * In summary:
 * (1) You created this passage a few days ago.
 * (2) Over the intervening days, the passage was removed 5 times, by 4 different Wikipedians (Rifleman 82, Smokefoot, Itub, and Orlady). Also, at least 4 Wikipedians (including three of the forenamed, plus DMacks) have posted on this discussion page to explain the reasons why they consider the subject passage to be erroneous/inaccurate/wrong/nonsense and/or not reliably sourced.
 * (3) You have reverted every one of those deletions (5 reversions so far), generally with minimal explanation, and yet you are charging that all of the rest of us are engaged in an edit war of which you are an innocent victim!
 * Sorry, but I don't buy your story of victimhood.
 * --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This was also my reason given in the talk page for deleting this information, although it doesn't refer only to that paragraph. . Hint to AeronM: you are the one who is engaing in revert warring and who is likely to get blocked. There is clearly no consensus on the talk page for adding this paragraph. If you really want to discuss it, you should try to change the consensus first. The burden is on you as the one who wants to have these statements added. --Itub (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It has become very clear that those who have deleted the information, which was contributed in good faith and from a reliable and verifiable source, are on one side of this controversy, and I (with no apparent help from any other editors as they seem to have a) given up or b) been run off) am on the other. All the more reason to allow the contribution as an attempt to get the article within NPOV. The issue here, however, is not the material added, but whether or not the source is admissible.  I still am of the opinion that it is, and that you have not provided sufficient evidence that it violates wiki policy.  Trying to turn this into an attack on me and my edits (again) is your way of deflecting attention from the main issue:  is the book in or out?   This is clearly something that will have to be decided by an outside/neutral editor as part of the RfC.  Please keep in mind that the RfC is content-related, not user-conduct-related, which was already addressed here. --AeronM (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that the book is an unreliable source in an absolute sense and for all purposes. It depends on several factors: 1) the nature of the claim being sourced; 2) how it is presented; 3) most importantly the relevance of the claim to this article;. For example, I think that the book and its author are a notable part of the water fluoridation debate. As such, it can certainly be cited in the fluoridation debate articles. It could even be used in this article for citing certain facts which are not disputed. What is wrong is 1) citing an opinion and presenting it as a fact; for example, using superlatives such as "the most toxic substance on the planet". 2) citing an opinion, even when presented as an opinion, when it is not relevant to this article. For opinions, we have more specific articles on water fluoridation and the controversy. 3) Misleading citation of facts, such as confusing "fluoride" (and especially when talking about the parts-per-million concentration) with concentrated fluorosilicic acid. 4) Threading facts and factoids taken out of context in a way that advances an argument. For example, the insinuation that the corrosive properties of concentrated fluorosilicic acid has anything to do with the safety of fluoride in water at parts-per-million concentration. My DHMO parody below intended to show precisely how such factoids, taken out of context, can make any substance seem bad. But blogs and most of the websites you quoted are simply not acceptable sources for this article. --Itub (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A new start on the discussion of the "deluge" by those advocating against fluoridation of drinking water
The above discussions about fluoride are so long that I have lost track of where we are, other than some of the antifluoridation links look questionable. I was going to re-edit that article to bring some balance to the references. As it stands, there are three general references about fluoride chem and technology and 15 references to pro/anti fluoridation, mainly dealing with risks and the controversy. This 15:3 ratio is out of balance with an article about fluoride. So I propose to trim many of the fluoridation reports (and put them here).--Smokefoot (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And about Googling for technical information
One lesson that many of editors learned: Googling is a rotten mechanism to obtain technical information because the quality of the hits is uneven and the hits are often tainted by sensationalism/commercialism/self-promotion. My guess is that the many references in this article are derived from Google searches. More effective ways of extracting technical information are via scientific search engines and on-line (but not free always) reference works. Googling is great for getting the latest on Britney Spears, an opinion on Hillary, and the latest scores on Aussie Rules, but not very useful for scientific topics.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I do not use google for the same reasons. --AeronM (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New Improved Version
I think Smokefoot's recent version is the best so far. The operative sentence here is: "Fluoride-containing compounds are so diverse that it is not possible to generalize on the their toxicity." Thus a lengthy discussion is toxicology is meaningless; it should be relegated to the appropriate compound pages. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Fluoride and many of it's compounds are highly toxic, and I think a short paragraph discussing this is relevant and necessary for NPOV. --AeronM (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In looking at wiki lead and arsenic pages for comparison, there is ample discussion of toxicity. Why should information about fluoride's toxicity be omitted from the fluoride page? -AeronM (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Smokefoot's cleanup and think that it is an improvement. However, I think this article should still have space for the toxicity of the fluoride ion itself, which of course can be bad in high enough doses like anything else. We do have an extensive section and even an article on toxicity of the cyanide ion, because relegating the discussion to articles on specific compounds would be impractical (otherwise we would have essentially duplicate discussion in articles such as potassium cyanide and sodium cyanide). But such a discussion has to be specific and accurate. No wild claims of it being the most toxic substance in the planet (it is not), but instead actual data and information on metabolism and such. With citations to reliable sources, not opinion pieces. --Itub (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussions about toxicity are to be about the biological effects of the fluoride counterion, what effect does it do in a human body. Talking about toxicity of fluoride is useless.  Fluoride always has a counterion, and while some salts are dangerously toxic, others are intrinsically dead.  HF is toxic as the fluoride there has a chance to get to the calcium in your bones, and has nasty effects, CaF2 itself is much less toxic or harmful.  Therefore, any mention of the toxicity of fluoride is useless without the discussion of the counterion.  And for the rest, we have to take care that we are not a manual, and are not to give medical advice, nor stuff beans up someones nose.  Please, be careful with this.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 16:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * CaF2 is not toxic because it is insoluble. But soluble fluorides, even the non-nasty ones such as NaF, are indeed toxic. They can precipitate calcium from blood, which can be fatal. The role of the counterion there is relatively unimportant, as long as the salt is soluble. --Itub (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a paragraph about the acute toxicity of soluble fluorides salts, which I think is not disputed. I think the main problem here is with the chronic exposure to very low concentrations, but I'm not interesting on writing about that. --Itub (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, the LD50 of NaF is ca 5-10 g for a normal adult. It is not particularly toxic stuff. It seems unrealistic to try steer determined extremely stupid people away from eating spoonfuls of chemicals. As Beestra indicates, we should be careful not to turn these pages into a manual or an advice column. If we wrote up warnings on every chemical that kills at the multigram level, these articles would become unwieldy, IMHO. I propose that one of our admins lead a policy discussion on the chem-project page, because this topic is going to return again, and we are going to be exploited by nut-cases and chemophobes (those most threatened by dihydrogen monoxide), and of course there are seriously legitimate concerns in some cases that we need to evaluate. I have views but remain pretty open minded on such policy.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you are not referring to my edit, because I did not intend to write a manual or to warn people. I just tried to summarize very briefly the quite large amount of literature on acute fluoride toxicity (search for it on google scholar and you'll see). It is a notable topic that might even deserve a full article, leaving a short summary here. I wouldn't want such sections on every chemical with multigram lethal dose, but this is not a random chemical but a very notable one (well, actually a group), which is well documented. Also note that not everyone who suffers from fluoride poisoning is a determined stupid person eating spoonfulls of the stuff. Sometimes it is accidental, due to mislabeling or industrial accidents; children are more sensitive and can in fact be poisoned from eating toothpaste. There are many cases in the literature about that too. --Itub (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you itub... a voice of reason. Actually, one tube of toothpaste can kill a 25lb child. But heavens, we wouldn't want to taint the fluoride article with silly facts like that!  Careful, itub, you'll be lumped in with us "fringe theorists" and "conspiracy theorists" if you aren't careful!!  --AeronM (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Aeron, I think you will find that because Itub has edited in accordance with Wikipedia policies, his edits are regarded as such by the Community. Please feel free to take some lessons from this - including the use of sources - and the weight of various points within the article.  Shot info (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are chemicals far more dangerous than fluoride
All this negativity about fluoride is probably part of a campaign to distract us from far more dangerous chemicals that are forced on our daily lives without our knowledge. Did you know that there is a far worse chemical that: I could go on and on, but I'll just refer you to a reliable source detailing many of the other dangers of this chemical. --Itub (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just like fluoride, needs to be transported in sealed containers to avoid leaks?
 * Just like fluoride, is highly corrosive? In fact, it is one of the three major chemical agents causing corrosion, worth billions of dollars in damages to infrastructure and personal property every year?
 * Just like fluoride, it is dangerous to children? In fact, thousands of children have died when exposed to large open containers of this chemical?
 * Just like fluoride, it has been watched more carefully by the US government since 9/11? Huge, high-energy stores of this chemical could cause untold devastation to local communities and to the environment if attacked.
 * Just like fluoride, it is also released from factory smokestacks, but in much larger quantities?
 * Unlike fluoride, it is used in large quantities by nuclear power plants, despite having been a major cause for the explosion of the Chernobyl reactor?


 * Interesting article on DHMO, but I'm not seeing how discussion of other chemicals is relevant to the fluoride talk page. But I'm glad to see you concur with the information i have added about the dangers of fluoride.--AeronM (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to Itub: Subtlety isn't working here. I don't think AeronM figured out that dihydrogen monoxide is water. --Orlady (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not a chemist! Very cute, though. --AeronM (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I quote dihydrogen monoxide:"The dihydrogen monoxide hoax involves listing negative effects of water under an unfamiliar scientific name, then asking individuals to help control the seemingly dangerous substance. The hoax is designed to illustrate how the lack of scientific knowledge and an exaggerated analysis can lead to misplaced fears. Dihydrogen monoxide, shortened to DHMO, is a scientific name for water that, while technically correct, is almost never employed. ... In 1997, Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old junior high student at Eagle Rock Junior High School in Idaho Falls, Idaho, gathered 43 votes to ban the chemical, out of 50 people surveyed among his classmates. Zohner received the first prize at Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair for analysis of the results of his survey.[1] In recognition of his experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term 'Zohnerism' to refer to 'the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion.'[4]" --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Cavity Prevention Section
Once again, this section reads like a pamphlet from the ADA. Where is the other side? All of my attempts to get this article, and this section in particular, to NPOV have been summarily deleted by the fluoride gestapo. I give up. Some other sucker is going to have to go up against the bullies, cuz frankly, I have better things to do. I'll check back in a month or two to see if the article is anywhere closer to NPOV.... but I won't hold my breath! --AeronM (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that Godwin's law has been fufilled again, I bid you adieu. · jersyko   talk  04:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Update?
I am back from vacation and wondering where we are on the RfC? I also notice the Cavity prevention section still reads like a Pro-Flouride brochure from the ADA. Can we mention the other side of the issue here? Also, I am concerned that the recent additions of chemical formulas and terminology are beginning to get too technical for the average reader. Certainly the article would benefit from some simplification and streamlining, then list some external refs for further reading on the more technical/chemical stuff. --AeronM (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The cavity prevention section could use some balancing. In particular, it should make clear that water fluoridation is just a small part of it. A large part of fluoride use for cavity prevention (all in some countries, I think) is based on topical application of fluoride, and I think this is not as controversial as water fluoridation. Can you give specific examples of terms or formulas that you think are inaccessible? Articles should be made as readable as possible, but not at the expense of "dumbing them down" to the point of introducing inaccuracies, and sometimes the terms and formulas are the only way of being precise. --Itub (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)