Talk:Fluorine deficiency

Fluorine
Fluorine has not been authoritatively shown to be an essential nutrient in the human diet (see my comments and linkage on the Essential Nutrient - Talk page). Therefore, a condition of "fluorine deficiency" cannot be shown either. This entry not only too short but IMO errondeous. Dus7 06:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dus7. No other trace mineral that I know of is toxic in a high concentrations. Toxicity usually only occurs in high doses. This article is pathetic. Rift14 1:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"The extent to which the condition truly exists, and its relationship to fluoride poisoning has arisen some controversy.

Fluoride is considered essential in the development and maintenance of teeth", I don't see any contradictions? Do you? Rift14 5:01, 12 January 2007

There is no such thing as a fluoride or fluorine deficiency. They are not nutients. Please read http://www.med.uwo.ca/ecosystemhealth/education/casestudies/fluorosismed.htm. Here is the relevant portion:

What about Fluoride Deficiency?

You will not find Hypofluoremia in Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary simply because, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as human Fluoride Deficiency. Fluoride is ubiquitous in food, water, air, and most tissues of the human body, and no physiological dysfunction results from having a "theoretically impossible" Fluoride intake of zero.

The aim of artificial fluoridation of drinking water in some Western World countries as a public health measure is the prevention of dental caries. It is important to understand that dental caries are not caused by a lack of Fluoride. Rather, dental caries are caused by the presence of oral bacteria that thrive on the simple sugars that have become a prominent part of the standard American diet. The chemical action of Fluoride on teeth is to resist dissolution of the enamel by acid-producing oral bacteria.

This article should be deleted entirely.


 * Disagree that this article should be deleted altogether. I found it educational: no such thing as deficiency.  Great!  The quote above would be more informative in the article than on the Talk page (and if I knew anything about editing WP I'd do it).  Suggest redirect to subsection of Fluoride if necessary. Bmael (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fluoride is not considered a nutrient therefore there is no such thing as fluoride deficiency. This page has been corrected several times however reverts back to the erroneous content. Please enable this entry to be corrected. SharonNY (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion (prod) tag
This article makes no claim that fluorine is a nutrient, so the primary prod rationale is moot. As to the document cited in the prod tag, it seems to be concerned with trace elements required to maintain "metabolic integrity", which is a quite different thing than maintaining optimal overall health. This article concerns the role of fluorine in development and maintenance of healthy teeth and bone and is quite capable of expansion. Thus, I shall remove the prod tag. Franamax (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fluoride for tooth decay is already covered in many articles, making this one superflous. Why expand this one when we have fluoride therapy? Plus, this article misleading in that it is based on outdated research which considers fluoride's systemic effect to be major. For example, Aoba 2002 says that the predominant, if not the entire, explanation for how fluoride controls caries lesion development lies in its topical effect on de- and remineralization processes taking place at the interface between the tooth surface and the oral fluids. It later says that it is possible for maximum caries protection to be obtained without the ingestion of fluorides to any significant extent. (2007) refers to the systemic effect of fluoride as a persistent dogma. Will you reconsider your deletion of the prod tag, or should I take it to AfD?  II  | (t - c) 18:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you put up the ICD-9 link, but an ICD-10 (the updated version) entry does not appear to exist. Check out the relevant section . A search for fluoride or fluorine reveals a long list of poisoning, one for mottled teeth, one for mineral salts, and one for dental drugs, topically applied. II  | (t - c) 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, I assume you use the "royal you" or the vernacular "y'all" when you mention the ICD-9 link, since that wasn't my (Franamax's) edit.
 * To the substance of your posts above, the link you supplied in the prod is helpful, since it deals with contents of drinking water. I've read elsewhere (please don't ask where, I've reviewed so many references on this :) of how topical application is important, and of how topical persistence due to retention of fluorine-containing water in the oral cavity has a beneficial effect. This is distinct from systemic effects, on which I've no opinion - although as usual, there is a dose-response curve which distinguishes beneficent and maleficent effects (i.e. poisoning). That's the reason I incorporated your supplied link into the article with explanatory text.
 * And as far as removal of the prod tag, well, that's pretty much the way they work. Anyone is free to add one anywhere, and anyone else is free to remove it. I've provided my rationale here - basically, I think that the concept of fluorine deficiency is notable: it may or may not be true, but there are reliable sources discussing it, the article can be expanded with additional RS and discusses a notable topic, it could be an item of interest to the casual reader seeking information, thus it is encyclopedic. The response to removal of a prod tag, should you choose to pursue it, is of course a reference to AFD. I can't do any more than remove the tag and provide my rationale. Franamax (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that's how they work. I'm just saying that if you agreed that this article is superflous, you could always rethink your removal of the prod and see if someone else removes it. I just don't like having to go through the work of the template and make a bunch of people do research. You might notice that none of the articles referenced thus far use the term fluoride deficiency. II  | (t - c) 00:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to be patronizing when discussing the prod/AFD bit, and sorry if I came across that way, it was not my intent at all. In the event, I don't think this article is superfluous, since it discusses the specific topic of whether or not (and how) lack of dietary fluorine (not fluoride, although that will be the most common mode) may affect human well-being. This is quite distinct from the water fluoridation issue, instead it is one side of the toxicity coin, "too-much" vs. "not-enough". As such, is is article-worthy, not as a place for advocacy, instead as a place for neutral discussion. I'd not be averse to a requested-merge into a more comprehensive article, say Effects of fluorine in the human body, where the positive and negative effects could be discussed in one place. Franamax (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit I missed, the ICD-9/269.3 link, whilst being a catch-all and possibly outdated (as you note), does indeed contain Deficiency->fluorine. Franamax (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of deficiency, deficiency disease, and disease; authoritative classification and necessity of article
When I looked up the definition of deficiency in my Websters New World College Dictionary, I found deficiency disease: "a disease, as rickets or pellagra, caused by a dietary lack of vitamins, minerals, etc. or by an inability to metabolize them". This article, by using the word deficiency, implies that fluorine deficiency is a deficiency disease. If this "disease" really existed, it should, IMHO, also be observed in other animals. I have made improvements to this article, with this edit,, for example, which vastly overstated the primary source attributed. Thank you, Franamax, for sourcing this first sentence. It removed the necessity of my tags. However, in order for me to not want this article deleted, IMHO, an authoritative source, such as the NIH, (and not a pharmaceutical company) should be cited to establish the existence of this deficiency/deficiency disease. Thank you. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, first of all, I checked my Webster'ses and just before deficiency disease is plain old deficiency: "The state of being deficient; a failing; shortage; want, either total or partial; a defect; a deficit." (Living Webster) and "defect; lack" (New Dictionary and Thesaurus). Fluorine deficiency is directly referenced in the ICD-9 classifications. I can't find it in ICD-10, presumably in E63.8 or E63.9, but I'm not sure of the exact status of ICD-10 or if I've found the correct text.
 * As far as being a "disease", the article is not claiming that flourine deficiency is a "deficiency disease" per your definition. As regards observing the (let's call it a syndrome so we don't apply value judgements to the exact word) "syndrome" in other animals, poor dental condition is widely observed as a factor in animal morbidity. You can't really draw the parallel necessarily, lifespans, different physiology and all that.
 * Looking at the sources, some term dental caries as a "disease", some as a "disorder". All generally agree that it's not a good thing. I believe that our article terms it a disease. Certainly, untreated cavities are a concern, and the archaeological record confirms that in humans.
 * I've some sympathy on the "drug company" bit, except that the Merck Manual is considered authoritative as the "the world's best-selling medical textbook" "created by an independent editorial board and peer reviewers". You might get a rough ride at AfD saying it's not a neutral and reliable source.
 * The source I found at the NIH discusses caries as a disorder and fluoride as "recommended", so I couldn't see any way to incorporate it. I think I've found another Medline reference just now though containing the desired "fluoride deficiency" text, so I'll try adding that also. I still think that it's the fluorine atom itself, not the fluoride molecule, whose lack causes deficiency, but that's splitting a pretty thin hair... Franamax (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the POV tag per the new Medline source that uses the words "fluoride deficiency." Thank you for adding it. Because organofluorine compounds are rare in nature, the fluorine atom would be in the form of the fluoride ion as a source (like sodium fluoride). (A true fluorine atom would be a radical, but it can also exist with a positive or negative charge.) As a chemist, this is a pretty "thick" hair ;-). In fact, fluorine deficiency still looks laughable to me. (And it contributed to my unease and skepticism over the basis for the article.) It should be renamed, IMHO. Thanks again! -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes, persuading a fluorine atom to pose alone for a photograph is a thick hair indeed. :) They do like to have dance partners. And thereby hangs a metallurgical/gasketing/design tale which I would digress to tell - suffice to say that it's not wise to solicit equipment bids for a confidential distillation process and not tell the bidders that the process involves HF - cost and complexity may increase in a rapid and unpredictable fashion. ;)
 * I do understand the "deficiency"/"disease"/"disorder"/"does-it-exist" quandary. It's in one of those grey areas, which is exactly why I think this can be a valuable article on expansion. That's presuming it doesn't become another POV battleground - here we can discuss plain and reported facts on the science (I know, wishful thinking :).
 * As regards organofluorines, whenever I think about F, I also think about Pb and how Mr. Kettering developed those miracle substances tetraethyl lead and Freon. What a brain, and how thin the dividing line between advancing civilization and destroying it! Franamax (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research and 'may'
Emphasizing and interpreting "may", when it is simply used by the source, seems like original research. A source analyzing the NIH's use of the word 'may' would have been needed to support the sentences added. I support the way it looks now. II | (t - c) 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand how it might seem like OR, but I don't think it qualifies AFAIK. Anyways, I'm fine with the look now thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not satisfied. Now the Merck source is understated. Thus my motivation to tease apart the contradictory (one source with the position it exists to another that states it only may exist) references with this edit ... Can we overcome hesitation over the appearance of OR? It seems like there would be a way to still be good editors and point out this significant difference between these two foundational sources to highlight the ambiguity of the very existence of this article in the first place. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Merck source is unreferenced. Regardless of its reputation for reliability, it's not as high-quality as the two recent, high-quality reviews of fluoride and fluoridation currently used. These state that there is a minimal, and perhaps exaggerated, systemic effect for fluoride in the prevention of tooth decay, and they are emphasized above the Merk source, as they should be. II  | (t - c) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS QUESTIONABLE
This article on fluorine deficiency, as well as that of fluoridation, lacks scientific thought and should be seriously questioned.

Repeating dated and unconfirmed research is a sign that an argument lacks evidence. Comparisons to iodide deficiency are melodramatic and inappropriate. No actual evidence that fluoride deficiency exists is presented, nor are any cases cited.

In fact, more recent research indicates that there is much greater financial motivation for deliberate fluoridation of water than there is health benefits. The industries benefiting from fluoridation should be examined, and the health claims should certainly be re-evaluated in light of more recent research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.235.31 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there Reliable Sources to back up your claims? Phearson (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In 1979 the FDA required the deletion of all government references previously classifying fluoride as "essential or probably essential", (Federal Register, March 16, 1979, page 16006).

In order to have a deficiency, fluoride would have to considered a nutrient, which it is not. Having this page up implies that fluoride is a nutrient. It is deceptive, at best, and should be removed. Fluoride is a halogen just like iodine. But iodine is a nutrient. Fluoride displaces iodine in the iodine receptors og the body and thyroid gland causing fluoride-induced hypothyroidism, goiter, destruction of the thyroid gland, and even thyroid cancer. Anyone with an elementary education in nutrition knows this. Fluoride compounds were once used to treat hyperthyroidism caused by adding iodine to drinking water. This treatment was discontinued due fluorides toxic effects to the thyroid gland. Wikipedia should get the politics out of its information and simply print the facts. Fluoride is no more of a nutrient than chlorine or bromide is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have trouble with the concept of this article. But there is so much hysteria and ignorance about fluoride, that many articles have been created to cope with this hysteria and ignorance.  I am pretty sure chloride is required for life.  I would be surprised that fluoride competes with iodide in the thyroid, that sounds like the kind of pseudoscience propagated by the virulent antifluoride crowd.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fluoride replaces iodide because of it's electron configuration! The 2p⁵ orbital jumps to a energetically favorable state, in this case 2p⁶. Because this is the second "shell" (quantum number n = 2), the distance to the nucleus is not as big as the distanced in the other halogenides (n > 2). So the 2p⁶ is energetically far lower than the﻿ 3p⁶ or 4p⁶ state e.g. more stable. Fluoride displaces the halogen iodine in the iodine receptors of the thyroid gland and the body. Medical doctors (endocrinologists) even know this (i.e. Dr. Jerry Tennant). Maybe instead of focusing on the "virulent antifluoride crowd", you should be focusing on the science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips. This is not really the place for us to discuss our knowledge as much to review content.  I will say that the radii of F- and I- differ greatly, and if there were a problem, then one might expect chloride to be a problem.  If you find a WP:MEDRS article on F- interfering with I- uptake under physiological conditions,  that would be relevant.  The usual anion that interferes with iodide is perchlorate, at least that what I have heard.  If you find articles on this F vs I topic, that don't make the strict MEDRS standard, then send the ref to my talk page.   --Smokefoot (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Oral manifestations of thyroid disorders and its management"

"Fluoride was used as a drug to treat hyperthyroidism because it reduces thyroid activity quite effectively. This is due to the ability of fluoride to mimic the action of thyrotropin (TSH). Excess fluoride correlates with the other thyroid-related issues such as iodine deficiency. Fluorine and iodine, both being members of the halogen group of atoms, have an antagonistic relationship. When there is excess of fluoride in the body it can interfere with the function of the thyroid gland. Thus, fluoride has been linked to thyroid problems." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what lab work is used to determine a fluoride deficiency?
To be scientific, determining a fluorine "deficiency" in anyone would require medical lab work on the individual. Do they determine a deficiency with analysis of blood, urine, bone, fingernails, hair, or what? How often is this analysis done in a given population and by whom? You can't determine a deficiency by counting cavities unless your intention is to be deceptive, or unscientific. Let's look at Singapore for instance. Singapore has been 100% fluoridated since 1956 yet 40% of their preschoolers suffer from severe dental caries. Would it be scientific to claim they aren't getting enough fluoride from their water without doing some kind of lab work on the population? Physicians can determine iron levels, Vitamin D levels, cholesterol levels, etc. By not mentioning lab work that can be done on an individual to determine fluoride levels, you are omitting science and the scientific method. Is this your intent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting a change to the article? TippyGoomba (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Maybe I can comb your hair while you get ready to tell us about it? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no ICD code for fluoride deficiency
As fluoride is not a nutrient there is no such thing as fluoride deficiency. This entry cites the ICD codes for "mineral deficiency" not for fluoride deficiency. SharonNY (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In looking over the article, editing it seems a waste of time. It's full of false information and was most likely created by either someone with a mistaken POV or is a piece of astroturf. Fluoride has been entirely or largely abandoned for treatment of osteoporosis since although it increases bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, it does not result in a reduction in vertebral fractures and worsens the symptoms of arthritis and causes gastrointestinal side effects, again without any positive effect on the vertebral fracture rate. Additionally, longitudinal studies of fluoride ingestion by dental researchers at the Iowa Fluoride Study (IFS) have repeatedly found that "ingestion of fluoride is not essential for caries prevention" (Warren 2003) and " findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake,” (Warren 2009). Moreover, the 2000 York and 2015 Cochrane reviews of fluoridation literature have found them to be low quality with conclusions not supported by the evidence. Thesis consistent with the study evaluating the data from a large US study of 39k US children that found no difference in decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated regions. (Water Fluoridation & Tooth Decay: Results from the 1986-1987 National Survey of U.S. Children. John A. Yiamouyiannis. Fluoride. Vol 23. No 2. April 1990.: http://www.fluorideresearch.org/232/files/FJ1990_v23_n2_p055-067.pdf) So the only question is how does one go about properly deleting a false article? Seabreezes1 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Added Dietary recommendations as section
The United States and European Union both recognize fluoride as an essential nutrient. However, neither felt that there was sufficient information to identify an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) or Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), so instead designated as "Adequate Intake." This is in effect a placeholder designation - based primarily on what people actually consume via food and beverages (including water). In time, the expectation is that nutrients 'graduate' to having EARs and RDAs. An example, is vitamin D, which went from AI in 1997 to EAR and RDA in 2010. Both groups also set a fluoride UL, which is the upper limit for safety, above which adverse effects may occur. The difference between recommended and too much is not large, but this is not unique. For vitamin D, older adults are advised to consume at least 20 ug but less than 100 ug. For calcium, older adults are advised to consume at least 1300 mg/day but less than 2000 mg/day. David notMD (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fluorine deficiency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019174633/http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/nutoverview.pdf to http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/nutoverview.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate information
This article is full of mistakes and misinformation. In 2012 and 2013, the European Food Safety Authority in consideration of dietary reference values (DRV) wrote “Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified,” and “Overall, there was a lack of high quality evidence upon which DRVs may potentially be based for fluoride.” http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/search/doc/283e.pdf and hhttps://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3332 The 1997 IOM did not set a RDA. They determined that although fluoride was not a nutrient in the traditional sense, that based on claims of dental benefit from ingestion with no adverse effects, they would include an ADEQUATE INTAKE (AI) and UPPER LIMIT (UL). https://www.nap.edu/read/11537/chapter/35

However, in 1999 and 2001, even the CDC admitted that any benefit was primarily and predominantly topical after teeth erupted. They wrote, “Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth..." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm

The IOM will not revisit their AI and UL as it seems to be a political process that requires an appropriate government sponsor.

Even the pro-fluoride Iowa Fluoride Study researchers wrote in 2009 that, “These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.” http://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19054310

I suggest this article be replaced with a short statement of fact per above, and locked down to prevent malicious promotion of disinformation. Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Having recently studied the effects of fluoride on biological life in depth, I was shocked to find that this wiki not only exists, but is filled with patently false information. This article is doing far more harm than good in its current state. I've added a factual accuracy dispute template for now. 99.240.76.148 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Fluoride deficiency does not exist, and this page is an insult to science.
Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Someone please delete this shameful page. We have enough real problems that we don't need to invent fictional ones. 2600:4040:501E:B100:972:B9DB:31DB:E354 (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)