Talk:Water fluoridation

USGOV Agency is coming to the conclusion that flouride is a neurotoxin
"Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses"

As with EU, the US is coming to the conclusion that flouride in the water supply has little benefit to teeth in comparison to topical usage and causes issues similar to mercury in younger [./Https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7261729/ children] .NIH.gov is US government health agency. I suggest this is an allowable addition to criticisms as it's official government study Cocoablini (talk). 17:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, makes sense for intelligence, but not ADHD yet. However, it secondary sources do say it benefits teeth in absence of topical use.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 18:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Do not tout the value of the URL of an indexing engine that loudly proclaims "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health." or claim that an article that has not a single author affiliated with any US organization is any sort of US anything. DMacks (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, the paper is German. Though there are ongoing US GOV (National Toxicology Program) discussions about fluoride neurotoxicity: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/ongoing/fluoride
 * "there is an association between higher fluoride exposures and lower IQ in children"  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 18:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Where is the problem now?
 * The source clearly states: "In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.".
 * This statement is what other good metareviews state - there is no fuss about it.
 * Interestingly, the lack in iodide causes some problems. Many studies from China does not even account for this.--Julius Senegal (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the entirety of the world isn't comprised of Europe.
 * The US National Toxicology Program systematic review (2022) finds, with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure is consistently associated with lower IQ in children, and that more studies are needed to understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ.
 * https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2023/fluoride/documents_provided_bsc_wg_031523.pdf
 * This review is relevant to the 'Safety' section of the article. Elisha&#39;o&#39;Mine (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a draft but even so it's finding no evidence for adults, and some evidence of an 'association' for children exposed to water with excessive amounts of flouride. When/if this gets published it may be worth adding for adverse effects of flouridation above recommended levels. In the meantime, the most recent evidence seems to be 38318766. Bon courage (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily fluoridation above recommended levels, but total fluoride exposure once all sources are considered. The NTP has stated (if this admittedly low quality source is to believed) "Several of the highest quality studies showing lower IQs in children were done in optimally fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas… many urinary fluoride measurements exceed those that would be expected from consuming water that contains fluoride at 1.5 mg/L."
 * https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/government-report-finds-no-safe-level-of-fluoride-in-water-fluoridation-policy-threatened-301774635.html Elisha&#39;o&#39;Mine (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure studies were done at various concentrations, but the evidence points to the moderate association being at the highest levels, at least in the draft you linked. Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Low levels or high?
The third sentence in the opening section states "Fluoridated water operates on tooth surfaces: in the mouth, it creates low levels of fluoride in saliva,". Shouldn't this be "high levels"? How does exposing your mouth/body to fluoride lower saliva levels? 118.92.202.147 (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Low" is what's supported by the refs. I would assume it's low as opposed to very very low or even none if water does not supply fluoride. DMacks (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's trying to point out that the levels of fluoride in saliva will be very small, although higher than would otherwise occur. For example, the article includes "recommended fluoride levels in the United States were changed to 0.7 ppm" and if that is the current rate in most tap water, the levels in saliva would be significantly lower, making it way under a part per million which is a low level. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Costs
"Typically a fluoridated compound is added to drinking water, a process that in the U.S. costs an average of about $1.26 per person-year." I couldnt find such figure in either of the two sources given. --Nomad (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024
There is a simple grammatical error in the following sentence:

"Although fluoridation can cause dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of developing teeth or enamel fluorosis;[3] the differences are mild and usually not an aesthetic or public health concern."

In the sentence above, the semi-colon after "fluorosis" should be replaced with a comma. 2600:1700:110:DB0:C19C:115E:42DB:B03D (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jamedeus (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)