Talk:Fluoride toxicity

Factual error - Brain damage - (Meta-Analysis citation contradicts statement in wiki article)
In the brain effects section of this article, only one statement is present "Some research has suggested that high levels of fluoride exposure may adversely affect neurodevelopment in children, but the evidence is of insufficient quality to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn"

The citation then links to a meta analysis that, while states in the background section that neurotoxicity may occur in adults, little is known about neurotoxicity in children. HOWEVER, the results section in the study finds: "The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas."

The meta analysis actually quite firmly indicates a strong relationship between fluoride ingestion and impaired neurodevelopment in children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethalattraction (talk • contribs) 11:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethalattraction (talk • contribs) 11:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From the article's conclusion: "each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious ones, that limit the conclusions that can be drawn". Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That was in the discussion not the conclusion. The conclusion is that the results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethalattraction (talk • contribs) 11:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion actually begins with "Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest an inverse association between high fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethalattraction (talk • contribs) 11:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it does "suggest" that, but the evidence is poor so conclusions aren't firm. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a fan of the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethalattraction (talk • contribs) 12:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Alzheimer
"However, an epidemiological study found that a high-fluoride area had one-fifth the Alzheimer's that a low-fluoride area had"
 * A study from 1980. From the abstract: A case-control study of first admissions of persons aged 55 or older to South Carolina Department of Mental Health hospitals from 1971-1979 revealed significantly lower (p<0.0001) annual incidence of PDD in Horry County (3.6/100,000; water fluoride 4.18 mg/liter) than in York County (17.1/100,000; water fluoride 0.61 mg/liter) or Anderson County (20.8/100,000; water fluoride 0.49 mg/liter). No significant differences were found in other types of dementia (vascular, alcoholic and other).
 * According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5059894 they examined case records for 160 patients, and based on that evidence, diagnosed 67 of them with primary degenerative dementia (AD). They then calculated the incidence for each county based on those cases.
 * Seems a low quality study that makes quite a few assumptions, including: 1) that aluminium is the cause of AD, 2) that fluoride will protect by decreasing the bio-availability of Al, 3) that Al exposure is equal for the three counties (or did they measure the Al content of the water?), and 4) that DMH hospitals admissions represent a fair sample of dementia cases in the counties. Given the distance to the nearest SC DMH hospital (Horry county: about 110 miles; York 65 miles; Anderson county: local), maybe Horry county dementia cases were referred to DMH hospitals when they were atypical (early-onset, non-AD), while most "normal" late-onset AD cases were diagnosed in local hospitals?


 * If 4 mg/l fluoride content really reduced Alzheimer's incidence with 80%, it wouldn't take more than 38 years to confirm, we would all be taking fluoride supplements by now... Prevalence  13:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"5 to 10 ge/kg"
What the heck is a ge? Orangesherbet0 (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect information about lethal dose

 * the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g/kg body weight).[1][2][3] Ingestion of fluoride can produce gastrointestinal discomfort at doses at least 15 to 20 times lower (0.2–0.3 mg/kg or 10 to 15 mg for a 50 kg person) than lethal doses.

0.2-0.3 mg is not 15-20 times lower than 5-10 g. Furthermore on the page for Sodium_fluoride it says the lethal dose is 5-10 g for a 70 kg adult which would be around 0.07-0.14 g/kg body weight. I don't have access to the sources listed so I cannot verify what values are correct.

--RebelKeithy (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Brain Effects section compared to its source
The Brain Effects section currently says, "Some research has suggested that high levels of fluoride exposure may adversely affect neurodevelopment in children, but the evidence is of insufficient quality to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn."

However, the source it cites begins its Conclusions with what seems to me to be a substantially stronger statement: "The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment." And its Discussion section begins with a paragraph that is absolutely much stronger: "Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest an inverse association between high fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence. Children who lived in areas with high fluoride exposure had lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-exposure or control areas. Our findings are consistent with an earlier review (Tang et al. 2008), although ours more systematically addressed study selection and exclusion information, and was more comprehensive...." Every other paragraph of the source's Discussion section also seems substantially stronger than the summary here to me.

I would like to re-write the Brain Effects section to make it more congruent with this WP:MEDRS source, but as this topic has been controversial for decades, I thought it best to discuss it here first. Does anyone think the current single sentence Brain Effects section is adequate or accurate? 2601:647:4D00:2C40:0:0:0:75DA (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)