Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive 1

I'll put the traditional greeting on your talk page. The main difference between http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org and here is probably the NPOV policy, which you should look at. Basically Wikipedia should attribute all opinions and not take a position, articles shouldn't be one-sided or propagandistic. It's also helpful to discussion if you get log-in name and sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ )...they get converted to your user name when the page is saved.

As for "FDA approval", fluoride doesn't have it because it doesn't need it: its use is authorzed by law. See 21 CFD 170.45 for the current Federal policy: "170.45 Fluorine-containing compounds. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs has concluded that it is in the interest of the public health to limit the addition of fluorine compounds to foods (a) to that resulting from the fluoridation of public water supplies as stated in § 250.203 of this chapter, (b) to that resulting from the fluoridation of bottled water within the limitation established in § 103.35 (d) of this chapter, and (c) to that authorized by regulations (40 CFR part 180) under section 408 of the Act."

I suspect the principle, if any, behind the "moving" is to keep the propaganda on one page so that people looking for information on the element fluorine don't have to wade through it to find what they want. - Nunh-huh 05:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. All those policies are reasonnable and accepted as such.

And as for FDA approval, this is FDA limitation and not an acceptance of the 'helps teeth at levels not too toxic' part; limitations are used when a substance isn't banned or approved yet but a known toxic dose has been noticed by the FDA (i.e. preliminary to making more research - may results in bans or more restrictions). A true FDA approval (i.e. Prozac approval) is much more complex, and explicitely states benefit and toxicity. Not to mention there are 100's of fluorine compounds and one prozac. The FDA didn't make it a nutrient either(it's wrongly presented as a nutrient in the 8 vitamin books I consulted - and it isn't a nutrient in Canada where I live either). All that is enough to raise an eyebrow and have a thesis chapter about. How come 8 different vitamin books all mention it as a nutriment???

This FDA document also comes after well over 3 decades of ignoring the issue altogether in the face of constant opposition to fluoridation. Regardless of current policy, this is interesting to historians, and has been the case of most things banned in the US today (i.e. lead in gasoline). It's however a first for a medication!

And by the way. The study about slower reaction to a peripherial light after taking fluorides. Where can I find a good link for that?

What about fluoridation in the rest of the world? There was a debate in the UK on the subject.

fluoridation is overwhelmingly an english-speaking country practice.

China, Japan, europe, countries/provinces of the old URSS, and many others don't fluoridate at all or only in one city as a test. Some european contries have altered their constitution(!) to ban fluoridation completely and forever. Many nobel prize winners(as well as some past american EPA leaders such as Robert Carton) consider fluoridation the fraud of the century. All cities that fluoridate have strong opposition to fluoridation.

Regardless of the merits or problems of fluoridation, one has to realize american influence correlates with the practice of fluoridation more than anything else I can think of.

India, for example, has an anti-fluoride program that removes natural fluorides from water at levels that would be considered "good for teeth" in the US. Scientific studies done by the India government, notably the Teotia study has given results in direct contradiction of the early US studies or US claims.

In contrast the US government has solidly been behind fluoridation in every way since the very beginning(before the very first serious scientific study was made). Their commitment was infallible since day one and the marketing campaign(by Edward Bernays at the time) for the launching of all early fluoride products(fluoridation, toothpaste, but not fluoride drops) it is one of the most expensive in history.

All this discussion of scientific studies in the US being generally in contradiction with scientific studies from non-US influenced countries may be too large, complex, and edit-war-generating for the article. We need something anyone can check quickly or else we will have plenty of true statements removed because they are very contrary to opinions vehiculated by the US media and need more than one link click to verify.

What we can do that's NPOV is a map of where fluoridation is used or not(this is easily verified), and maybe a short note indicating why the government stopped or didn't accept it.

There is a partial map here , but more work needs to be done. A small .GIF with fluoridated, non-fluoridated, and fluoridation-banned areas would be nice once ready.

Japan's comment from Japan's official letter on the subject says:

REJECTED: "...may cause health problems...." The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium-fluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.

A question about why calcium fluoride wasn't used in fluoridation was removed from the article just recently. Considering some modern, industrialized countries like Japan officially consider fluoridation a conspiracy to dump toxic waste in water at low cost, and back it with many credible scientific studies(in Japaneese) to boot, I don't see why the wikipedia article should exist without a comment that many countries banned or completely disagree with fluoridation on scientific grounds.


 * I assume CaF isn't used because it is not very soluble in water. The Ksp of CaF is 3.2 x 10-11, which means that for all intents and purposes, CaF is insoluble in water. For a comparison, the Ksp of marble (CaCO3) is 3.3 x 10-9, so CaF is less soluble in water than marble, whereas NaF would have a near infinite solubility in water when compared to CaF.


 * Darrien 04:08, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)


 * Then fluoridation couldn't be discovered by natural calcium fluoride in municipal water like the pro-fluoridationists claim? Or was it somehow somewhat soluble in that town only? Obviously I'm expecting it's too costly, but I'd be astonished if it wasn't doable; at least in form of calcium fluoride pills(all fluoride supplement pills are now banned as untested by the FDA, and calcium fluoride pills were never made).


 * Even as insoluble as CaF is, (if my math is correct) it is still soluble to the order of about 0.2 mg per liter of water. If the water was acidic, it would increase the solubility somewhat.


 * Darrien 11:16, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Once a fluoridation/ban fluoridation map is ready, no one will remove comments like "...but most of europe disagrees...". Because the comment will be "Most of europe does not practice fluoridation". Both statements are equally true but the first seems very POV in the POV of the average uninformed person while the second seems fact even to most pro-fluoridationists.


 * For the record the comment was not removed by an american so could you please take your sterotyping away please?Geni 07:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * SB: I removed the 'american' word from my own text. Sorry about the stereotyping. And I started signing as 'SB' so you can trace all my mistakes to me. (-;


 * You should consider getting a username. It's quick and it doesn't even require an email address.


 * Darrien 11:16, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

SB: Oh, why was the category medical ethics removed?


 * Because there isn't enough evidence that fluoridation is harmful, and people are not being forced to drink fluoridated water. They can buy bottled water or install filtration systems to remove the fluoride ions if they choose to.


 * Darrien 11:16, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about all the scientific evidence to say something about that the possible risks, but I do know that it still is a controversial issue. The scientific debate over this isn't finished yet (just like the recent studies on vitamin intake effects show how little we know about the interaction of some chemicals with the human body). The scientific debate isn't the only thing about this issue. This is also about special government intervention into the health of nearly all people via trusted public goods. Should the government be allowed to put 'healthy' mechanisms into public services, perhaps to reduce obesity, prevent cancer, boost vitamin/mineral intake, etc.? This is why I think the issue belongs in the medical ethics section. Walden 11:40, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Even if fluoridation was proved safe and effective, the issue of medicating an entire population without choice has been a medical ethics question for decades for a large number of substances and distribution systems. This one question is gonna stick around for centuries to come, probably without consensus. The question of going for either the safest, or lowest cost, or the most teeth-protection fluoridation system if we can't have all 3 at once will also come up. I humbly suggest you add back the category, Darrian. Or suggest an alternative page that would deserve a connection between ethics and some uses of fluorides and thus be listed under the category; I have the feeling I'm about to learn another wikipedia unwritten law!

SB: Anwsering Darrien:

You said fluorides aren't proven to be toxic. Here is one study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11233755 1. They augment lead poisoning. But only with certain fluorides (which raises an ethical question).


 * flawed study becasue it did not acount for varations in economic statusGeni


 * Also, that link only shows the summary of the study.


 * Darrien 11:08, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

So what is the safe level for lead? There is no safe level. Each ug decreases IQ, among other effects. http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=6711


 * you've linked to a letter by a campian group. Not the worlds most unbiased source. The apaer claimed as the source does support the claim that "Each ug decreases IQ"Geni

1. They are 177 conditions linked to fluorosis; and 177 conditions linked to hypothyroidism. (This isn't surprising since fluorides baths were historically used as a treatment for hyperthyroidism - at levels lower than standard fluoridation). 


 * Interesting. Now, can you show me someone that has gotten fluorosis by drinking fluoridated water?


 * Darrien 11:08, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

So that's another point for both toxicity (to people already having hypothyroidism or fluorosis) and ethics - mass medicating a population!

So is that mass medication avoidable?

"The study concluded that more than half of the juices have more fluoride than is recommended."  So not only must people with fluorosis buy bottled water, they must avoid most juices on the market too!


 * I could not find that text on the page you provided.


 * Darrien 11:08, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

"Around the same time (1932) Gorlitzer von Mundy, being aware that fluorides also get absorbed through the skin, began fluoride treatments of hyperthyroid patients in Austria by prescribing 20 minute baths containing 30ccm (0.03l) HF per 200 liters of water. He reported on his successful treatment spanning over 30 years and involving over 600 patients at a 1962 symposium on fluoride toxicity organized by Gordonoff in Bern, which was also attended by other world-leading experts including the great George Waldbott, Steyn, and others." http://www.digitalnaturopath.com/treat/T473193.html

So fluorosis patients as well as the hypothyroidic must avoid baths and showers, too. Not to mention washing of clothes with fluoridated water.


 * How do you come to this reasoning? The amount of fluoride present in those baths was far beyond the levels used in mass fluoridation.


 * Darrien 11:08, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

"...less chemical exposure from drinking contaminated water than using it to wash the clothes or take a shower (American Journal of Public Health, May 1984)." and no I don't have a link for that one. I checked the journal at the library.


 * Could you give me page numbers or the full name of the article? I would be interested in reading the whole thing.


 * "We conclude that skin absorption of contaminants in drinking water has been underestimated and that ingestion may not constitute the sole or even primary route of exposure." -American Journal of Public Health, May, 1984, Vol. 74, No. 5


 * Darrien 11:08, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

So here you have it. Flurides aren't easily avoidable by drinking fluoridated water, it takes an extreme lifestyle to really avoid it! Moving in a low fluoridation area however remains an option.


 * Which is why people aren't being forced to drink/bathe/wash/whatever in fluoridated water.

Poor people cannot afford those alternatives. Much milk formula being another example - most poor will use tap water with it no matter what you say to them.


 * Darrien 11:08, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

I'll be sticking the medical ethics thingy back when I figure out how it works again - grrrr!


 * Please don't, at least not until this discussion is finished.

OK.


 * Darrien 11:08, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

And then I'll add something to the article with 3 studies to back each point. (-;


 * Please make sure your sources are reputable and non-biased. Also, have you given any thought to getting a username?


 * Darrien 11:08, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

I'll be trying the 'argument from valid authority' technique. tell me if I'm making progress or if you're more into trusting a medical study you can read for yourself...

Nobel prize winners who oppose fluoridation:

Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine (2000) claims no proof of benefit and proof of harm to some.


 * He's a neurologist not a toxicologistGeni


 * In 1962 he is a member of the Collegium Internationale Neuro-Psychopharmacologicum (he was President 1978-1980). As well as lots of societies with both "pharmacology" and "neurology" in the name (or "biological psychiatry" as some countries call it). 16 varied medical societies in all, with the focus seemingly the effects of substances on the brain (one of his acheivements: he proved Dopamine is a neurotransmitter and not a precursor). He's certainly qualified to comment on how a substance may affect the brain (fluoridation is neurotoxic according to many), and is professionally capable of recognizing the scientific method and validity (or lack thereof) used in medical studies relating to pharmacology even if they're not about the brain.

Albert Schatz (medicine nobel prize) claims fluoridation is a huge fraud. He doesn't support toothpaste either if I recall (geez, where did I put that toothpaste article???)

Hugo Theorell (nobel prize for enzyme chemistry work) stated: "Even if the risks from the viewpoints of enzyme chemistry with water fluoridation up to 1ppm are not be exaggerated, the distance to toxic doses is so short that hesitation should be justified." 

William P. Murphy (medicine nobel prize)  He reported fluoride allergic-type reactions existed - and opposes fluoridation.

Marshall Nirenberg (nobel prize, worked for the EPA) says fluoridation causes thyroid cancer. Hitler's fluoridation experiments are also mentionned. (by the way. Hitler's experiments failed to cause 'mindcontrol' of any kind. It just made people sick. I don't want to be associated with references more that "Hitler was experimenting with fluorides".)

James B. Summer, nobel prize for enzyme chemistry work. Opposes fluoridation. Mentions the nobel institute as main cause of non-fluoridation in Sweden. 

I couldn't find a nobel prize in favor of fluoridation so far, but I'm still seeking.

(geez, I wish I could edit when online. Gotta buy myself a nice PC soooooon!)

I will anwser Darrien's question on my next login.

Moving of quotes
It's not really appropriate to have all those quotes that were at the beginning of the article, at least on wikipedia, so they've been moved to a new page - water fluoridation quotes where maybe some can be selected and uesd in the article, and that new article can hopefully be formatted into something more readable (remove the excess capital letters, for example), or alternatively that content may be removed from wikipedia. From here, I think we can work on the actual content of this article and achieve something more than an article full of quotes. --Brendanfox 12:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Needs Work
This article is embarassing - while the intro paragraph gives some introductory scientific facts about water fluoridation, almost all of the rest of the article is spent discussing (and advocating) the controversy and supposed conspiracy. The tooth enamel article has a more thorough, scientific section on fluoridation, for goodness sake. While Wikipedia should make a place for a discussion of the controversy, the article in its current form goes too far. This article needs to either: 1) be moved to an article titled Water Fluoridation controversy or the like, or 2) be expanded to include some actual, scientific information instead/in addition to the conspirational ravings that currently fill it. - Jersyko 22:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Still waiting on a response to the above. I'm inclined to move a lot of this article's content to Water Fluoridation controversy, leaving a much shorter and more scientific article (with a small discussion of the controversy and a link to the other article).  Unless someone objects in good faith, I think this will be my weekend project. -  Jersyko    talk   03:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I object to that article structure. It's not normal to segregate controversy. Mirror Vax 05:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. See John F. Kennedy assassination and Kennedy assassination theories. -  Jersyko    talk   17:39, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * For starters, define what is "controversial" and what isn't. Are epidemiology studies controversial? They generally are. So what is left if you remove anything controversial? The effect of flouide on teeth is covered in other articles. Mirror Vax 19:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's the way I think this article should look: 1) keep the introductory material (which could hopefully be expanded soon), 2) remove everything that follows to the new article (it all fits under the "fluoridation debate" heading, after all), and 3) add a section consisting of a paragraph or two summarizing the debate and linking to the other article. Why remove everything after the intro?  Well, because everything after it references the controversy or is relevant solely to the controversy (even the information that is empirically verifiable).  Additionally, much of this information is presented in a POV or biased manner and would need to be cleaned up at a later time, after it is moved to the new article. -  Jersyko    talk   20:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see any benefit to that. It seems like an attempt to "clean up" the article by moving the lower quality part into a new article, even though it logically belongs here. Or, maybe you really think it ought to be deleted, but don't want to start an edit war. Is that it? My suggestion is, confront the problem directly. Edit mercilessly, and see what happens. Mirror Vax 20:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would support it. If you need any help fact checking, leave a message on my talk page.


 * P.S. If/when you create a new article, remember that fluorine was named after the Latin word "fluere" and is spelled "Fluorine".


 * Darrien 16:32, 2005 May 28 (UTC)


 * Ahh, yes, thanks. - Jersyko    talk   17:39, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Section move
I moved most of this article to Water Fluoridation controversy as I originally suggested. Now, this article needs to be expanded to include more scientific information as well as a paragraph or two about the controversy. - Jersyko    talk   00:05, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * This seems to be totally pointless. The article already had information about the controversy, and now you say it needs information because you moved it. Mirror Vax 02:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that's an oversimplification. This article needs an unbiased summary of the controversy, which wasn't contained anywhere in the sections that I moved.  Again, I point to John F. Kennedy assassination and Kennedy assassination theories as a template. -  Jersyko    talk   14:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * It makes perfect sense to me. This article could address and explain the current concensus among the scientific community, instead of addressing at length (and from a biased view) all the conspiracy theories. These theories, which are almost completely dismissed by dental health professionals and biochemical experts, can still be mentioned in full in their own article.  What is needed in this article is more data and results found from research.  By doing that, we would help improve the reliability of this article as a source. dozenist 13:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the purpose of Wikepedia is to inform people, why would you have two subjects - for the same topic - one "fluoridation" and the other "fluoridation controversy" I think "fluoridation controversy" must be removed Then proper links to fluoridationists sites (which the relentless fluoridation re-editor  seems to favor) could be listed along side with pure water advocates. Let the reader decide which side of the fluoridation issue is controversial. Careful researchers will find fluoridationists view is very controversial because it is not supported by valid science.
 * "Let the reader decide which side of the fluoridation issue is controversial" - yet in the next sentence, you seem to decide for them, despite the fact that the most widely accepted medical science indicates otherwise. "Fluoridationists" vs. "pure water advocates"?  Geez . . . -  Jersyko   talk  14:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you what a group of UK experts found when they actually looked at the scientific studies "supporting" fluoridation, "We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide." (The York Review)

So you see, there is no scientfic controversy existing with fluoridation because there is NO valid science that supports water fluoridation. The controversy exsits in the belief systems of people's minds who truly believe in fluoride - but science is unable to support their comfortable beliefs.


 * . . . but it's a long logical jump from a reputable health agency saying that there aren't many good quality studies regarding fluoride to "fluoride is evil." In any event, there are many reputable scientific agencies that do consider the available scientific evidence sufficient to encourage fluoridation. -  Jersyko   talk  16:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

THIS SITE SHOULD BE RENAMED THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION'S (ADA) VIEW ON WATER FLUORIDATION BECAUSE THAT'S ALL IT IS. The ADA is simply a union organized to protect its member dentists not the public. This may be why today dentists make much more money than physicians while working fewer days and fewer hours - while they neglect those who need their help the most and lobby against those who want to treat teeth in places and mouths where dentists refuse to go.


 * C'mon, now, don't start making blanket attacks on a profession only tangentially related to the issue. Even if you're right about the ADA, that doesn't prove anything in re water fluoridation being evil.  Additionally, what about other reputable health/science agencies that encourage fluoridation? -  Jersyko   talk  13:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"THIS SITE SHOULD BE RENAMED THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION'S... "

Yes, the site needs some work and much of the article is written heavily POV. However, with some thoughtful editing, both arguments can be presented here. Let's be patient.

--AceLT 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Added section below so both of you folks can add your groups.

--Editmore 02:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Fluoride page should end up here
The health effects of fuoride have a better place here than on the fuoride page which should be more concerned with the chemistry. Stone 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This article deals only with the aspect of water fluoridation.  The health effects of fluoride occur whether it is ingested in water, in salt, in a pill, or taken with only topical effect.  It would be best to keep the health effects of fluoride on the fluoride article, which should address the chemistry and the medicinal value. - Dozenist  talk  00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is on "water fluoridation." Thus, both arguments pro and con on "water fluoridation" should be placed here in as neutral POV manner as possible. The page is getting better but still needs some work.

Poisoning from fluoride equipment malfunctions
I have placed the topic here as it has to do with water fluoridation issue, not theories one way or another whether fluoridation at normal levels is beneficial or not.

--AceLT 04:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, then put more balanced articles on it then,

Fluoridation
All county health departments will provide the recent standard for the most often used agent: Fluorosilicic Acid, supplied by American Water Works Association, which is:

AWWA Standard for Fluorosilicic Acid B703-06. This 22 page standard notes in the Foreword the source and process evolving the agent, and notes concern for the contaminants in the commercial/industrial grade byproduct of phosphate fertilizer pro- duction. The Contents page notes the entire page of contaminants, starting with heavy metals; arsenic, lead, beryllium and more, then "Radionuclides" as uranium and radium 226 and 228, alpha and beta particles (page 8 and 13).

Anita 12.77.219.175 04:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting

--Editmore 07:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added some simple straightforward water fluoridation status info for different countries. Anyoneone that finds others can add them.

Added pro and con position on water fluoridation
I have beeing reviewing and editing the various fluoridation pages for a few days now.

After discussing the matter with others and reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines, it is clear to me that the pro and con arguments concerning "water fluoridation" belong indeed in the "Water Fluordation" article. If someone wishes to read the article on water fluoridation, they should be able to see both the pro and con arguments. This discussion is completely on topic.

After reviewing a number of other subjects, I see that the substantive pro and con discussion are indeed on the subject matter discussed. Moving the pro and con arguments to another article completely is a POV action in my view.

However, I have left the Water Fluoridation Controversy article as it was and have not deleted any of the text.

--Editmore 03:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just reviewed two much more controversial topics: Ritalin and nuclear power

Although contested, both have the health risks discussion on the main page of the article.

In fact, I have not seen a topic yet where the health risks of a topic are relegated to another page.

--Editmore 04:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice clean up. Thanks.

--Editmore 23:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko said it a year ago, and I'll repeat it: this article is embarrassing. This is Wikipedia, not Everything2; readers shouldn't be bombarded with a debate they most likely have no interest in. Check out the Sodium page -- it's nasty stuff, and we eat it every day, yet there's no sodium controversy. A bad example? Of course, just like this page is a bad example of a Wikipedia page.

Since the controversy aspect now takes up the majority of the page, yet is peripheral to the subject, I am forced to disagree with Editmore's strategy of merging the Water fluoridation controversy page back in to this one. A "section consisting of a paragraph or two summarizing the debate and linking to the other article" is by far the more professional way of structuring this page. 50 years down the line, when the requisite research has finally been done and the controversy is settled, one side or other is going to look somewhat foolish. Being more of a centrist, I don't really mind so much, but we can all work towards decreasing the embarrassment by following sound Wiki practice and not throwing cream pies around where innocent bystanders might be hit.

Comments on this position are welcome. pmj 10:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that the controversy surrounding water fluoridation should be listed on a different page, especially since some of that debate lies in either misunderstanding of science or on pseudo-science. It is a large enough topic to stand on its own, and the water fluoridation article itself should stay relatively clean of the topic. Also, this discussion had gone on previously and with concensus. - Dozenist  talk  10:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Every topic I have read has a section critical of an issue whether it be a controversial figure, prescription drug or other issue.

There are certainly studies pro and con. Trying to make the page all pro fluoridation and removing the negative studies and ill effects to another page is a unallowable POV action.

As an example, both side of the debate aknowledge that water fluoridation causes dental fluorosis. This is a negative effect of water fluoridation and is rightfully on the page.

Dental fluorosis is an effect of water fluoridation and is something readers of the article are entitled to hear.

"I don't really mind so much, but we can all work towards decreasing the embarrassment"

I think the real issue is that everyone needs to work to cite their sources.

As noted, other articles handle the situation the same.

Here's some similar items treats this way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prozak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Each has a criticism section.

As far as the issue being resolved, some cities have voted to enact fluoridation, some have not.

--AceLT 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, [ http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20060405/index.php Harvard University] just published a peer reviewed article stating that

"Boys who drink water with levels of fluoride considered safe by federal guidelines are five times more likely to have a rare bone cancer than boys who drink unfluoridated water"

Yes, the study is directly on topic of "water fluoridation." Not exactly Dr. Stangelove.

This should go under health risks.

However, if you believe you have an article on the subject, concerning the health risks or benefits of water fluoridation, more editing would be beneficial.

--AceLT 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of bad examples, controversy takes up a tiny portion of the Prozac page (about 1/8), and the Scientology page has exactly the kind of link to a separate controversy page that I'm advocating for Water fluoridation!

Fully half of the water fluoridation page is taken up by playground tussles arguing back and forth -- including the Status section, which looks like some kind of faddish public masturbation contest.

'''The state of this page is unprofessional. It blatantly violates good practice, aesthetics, and honesty.'''

The argument here is not whether the controversial issues surrounding water fluoridation should be discussed, but how it should be done to present a clean and consistent -- hence believable and trustworthy -- page. I know people who say that Wikipedia is a low-quality source and that they always need to cross-check its information with a web search. This is a scandalous state of affairs, and pages like this only server to make it worse.

The current page is not worthy of a place on this site, and I ask people on both sides of the debate (as well as those in the middle) to consider splitting off the bulk of the controversial section, keeping some three to five paragraphs of summary. pmj 22:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would review other similar issues in Wikipedia. From what I see, they all have similar pro and con sections.

The health concerns and other concerns of fluoridation belong directly on this topic just as they included in other medication or supplements on Wikipedia.

One option could be that instead of having pro and con sections, the same discussion was put into sections such as different health concerns. However, there are studies which have found health risks and some that have not. In a NPOV, both studies can be cited and shortly discussed. However, the result is going to be nearly the same.

The areas of the United States and the world which are fluoridated and which are not are also directly on point of water fluoridation. People should be able to see which cities fluoridate and which do not.

--AceLT 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's something from Wikipedia that may be useful here (2nd Wiki rule) "Wikipedia uses the neutral point-of-view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution. "

Thus, I believe having an alternative cited view is appropriate. (AceLT?)

Here's why I made some of the changes, although there were others that made some as well:

First, around two weeks ago, the water fluoridation page had dozens of statements extolling the purported benefits of water fluoridation with statements suggesting the practice was healthy and effective. Some studies were cited.

However, all of the studies indicating there was a health risk were relegated on tbe "controversy" page.

I added cited studies discussing health risks of water fluoridation to the article to give the other view.

Second, after reviewing numerous other articles in Wikipedia, the common practice is to cite health risks on the main page of substance such as fluoride. There is a separate page on fluoride which has some health risks explained, however, water fluoridation has a number of studies specifically on health risks.

Third, the health risks of a substance are appropriate to place on a page of a substance if properly cited. This is similar to receiving a prescription medicine. The risks are explained right there.

Fourth, I believe the proper Wikipedia method is to as neutrally explain as possible the "multiple points of view." There are studies to be cited showing health risk and no health risk.

I would suggest we keep working on fairly discussing each point of view and not try to relegate others to alternative pages.

If there is nothing on either side, all would be left of this article would be the definition of water fluoridation.

--Editmore 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the page again, the pro and con arguments do seem a bit bulky and redudent and are redundent with some of the history section. In fact the history section is basically one sided pro but I have left it at that.

One acceptable change could be to place it in another format as mentioned above. It could have different sections such as health concerns with pro and con studies included in it with both points of view. There would be different sections such as dental fluorosis and other health issues.

This would save alot of space.

The status of water fluoridation is looking pretty good and a good number of people have worked on it. The section is well cited and I believe neutraly discribes the status of water fluoridation in the world.

--Editmore 04:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at WP:NOT, you find some more guidelines that pertain to here. First of all, an encyclopedia cannot go through every scientific (and pseudo-scientific) study and analyze the results in the context of all other research.  That is why wikipedia must rely on the current concensus of the scientific community which has made its own conclusion on this topic.  If we try to begin arguing different sides by using specific studies supporting one view, that would violate NPOV and No Original Research.  In the event that any edits are made in this article for the purpose of pursuading readers of the dangers of water fluoridation (again, something not currently believed by the scientific community but I digress), then those edits should be read in the context that wikipedia is not a soapbox.

"Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."
 * Additionally, as mentioned in WP:NPOV, both sides of the water fluoridation debate do not necessarily have to be portrayed equally to be NPOV.

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.
 * Coincidentally, it goes on further to say:

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
 * And lastly, I just want to mention that usually disagreements over editing articles like this occur first on the talk page and a consensus or agreement is reached. This has already been discussed earlier on keeping this article as clean/simple as possible from any issue of controversy, and I would like to hold on to that agreement because it made for a much better article. - Dozenist  talk  04:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's my response:

No Original research

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

This means you have to cite a reference or study. This has been done quite a bit by a number of people and should continue to be done. Any statement made based on a person opinion one way or another should not be in the article.

The studies cited by both the pro and con sections qualify as citable sources. I do not see any examples of the off limited sources described by Wikipedia.

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science

I agree. That is why we should strive to cite the best sources possible and question uncited statements. There are plently of published peer reviewed articles on both points in the matter that have been cited. One should certainly question uncited statements.

''and I would like to hold on to that agreement because it made for a much better article. - ''

I understand your position and have refrained from editing the pro statements as much as I would have liked in deference.

With that said, the article 10 days ago was a one sided POV piece with numerous conclusory one sided statements. Water fluoridation, like many medications has both purported benefits and drawbacks. Fortunately, we have studies to cite for both of these points of view.

--Editmore 04:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the [http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/030910128X?OpenDocument National Academies' National Research Council] has just published the most comprehensive US study of the health risks of water fluoridation. The is the head scientific organization in the US.

If someone has the time to review the document, it might be useful. This is currently the scientific consensus of US scientists on the matter. It certainly has specific findings of health concerns with water fluoridation though it certainly doesn't completely repudiate it.

Here's a statement they make in their meta study:

"On average, approximately 10 percent of children in communities with water fluoride concentrations at or near 4 mg/L develop severe tooth enamel fluorosis, the new report says."

--Editmore 04:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The link from the National Academies says, "The report does not examine the health risks or benefits of the artificially fluoridated water that millions of Americans drink, which contains 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L of fluoride. Although many municipalities add fluoride to drinking water for dental health purposes, certain communities' water supplies or individual wells contain higher amounts of naturally occurring fluoride; industrial pollution can also contribute to fluoride levels in water." The study refers to the EPA level of 4 mg/L (not the amount recommended for water fluoridation for dental health which is 1ppm).  To relate this study to water fluoridation is to make our own conclusions since the writers and researchers explicitely state that the study is not related to water fluoridation.  Also, despite the study, health organization have not had an official change in policy. When that occurs, then we can present the results of the study as accepted fact. - Dozenist  talk  11:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have taken some of the discussion above into consideration and am seeking to solidify the article. Elimnited redundancies in both pro and con today.

--Editmore 02:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)