Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive 8

@Zad68 Regarding John Birch Society Reference
I believe I may have determined the reason that the John Birch Society was listed under opposition:

In 1992, libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard reprised the Covert Action story in an article for the John Birch Society-affiliated magazine The New American. In that article Rothbard wondered, "It has always been a bit of a mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry 'cancer' even more absurdly than the boy cried 'Wolf,' who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance." 

Original article link:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold Standard (talk • contribs)


 * The reference to the John Birch Society was originally added in this edit from January 2009 by Eubulides, the main editor of this article who developed it to WP:FA standard (listed as FA in June 2009), source at that was the same Reason article you cited. Between January and June that reference to the Reason article was removed and replaced with the book The Fluoride Wars which I see does indeed support the John Birch mention.  So I'll put that back now that we've got the source identified. And, by amazing co-incidence, check this out, that same edit removed the the mention of Carlsson by name!  The edit summary says "Focus on today and on group issues, instead of on actors in long-ago events."  I see the point of this.  I'm still not very keen on adding in Carlsson by name.    01:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested variance on reliable sources (medicine) for water fluoridation
"Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation" (Technical Report) February 2012.

Please do not intimidate or go on the attack. I'm just asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk • contribs)


 * Would it be too much to ask you to please sign your posts. All you have to do at the end of your posts it to type four tildes like this:  ~ .  Everybody else does it, could you please do it too. Here's the deal with mentioning sources:  You can't just mention a source, you have to also specify content you are proposing using the source.  No source is always good for all uses, no source is always bad for all uses.  Sources don't exist by themselves, you have to specify the article content using it. What is the article content you are proposing using this source?    02:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding: This report is the self-published monograph of Declan Waugh.  It really can only be used to source statement of Mr. Waugh's own opinion, and nothing has been provided at all to establish that Waugh's opinion is notable enough for inclusion here.  You haven't read WP:MEDRS it appears.    02:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@Zag - I've read WP:MEDRS but unfortunately you and I don't interprete it the same way. It also says, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What you gave isn't a reliable source. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Reliable Sources" it says "The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Experiments and other studies have fallen victim to deliberate fraud. (See: Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy, and Schön affair.)" "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers."

Why can't we report and remain neutral on this topic given all the controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A lengthy discussion is already in the article under Ethics and politics. Once again, what content change are you proposing ?   03:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be another section regarding the current opposing views of water fluoridation with the names of those opposed to it, highlighting why they each oppose it with citations. Allow the readers enough information to form their own opinion if they wish. It isn't all that difficult and it can be done in a neutral way. That way the article doesn't come off as being severely biased which is what I think most people are opposed to anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Arguments raised by opponents are already given. No supporters of fluoridation are specified by name.  Why should opponents be specified by name?    03:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@Zad - If you want to list the supporters by name, I think that would be a great idea. Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like a really bad idea. Articles on a given topic would have a list of people that support the concept and those that dont?  Unworkable.  These articles are not forums.  It is an encyclopedia. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c to say the same thing) Because there'd be far too many of them, and it'd be WP:UNDUE weight to highlight attention on individuals like that when the important topic is the groups that support. It'd also be a WP:GEVAL problem.    03:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We could just limit the names to 10 or 15 of those most outspoken for or against water fluoridation. There is no need to make it difficult. And just keep it neutral. I don't see a major problem with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear IP,
 * Firstly, sign your posts by placing " ~ " at the end. Several others have advised you to do so.  Secondly, 99% of American Medical Association members support water fluoridation.  This is why it is nearly impossible to find a source from a medical journal that opposes or even questions water fluoridation.  Even if one were found, the folks here would rightfully consider the consensus to be still in favor of water fluoridation.  Medical consensus is far from infallible, and in my personal opinion this subject is a striking example of that, but there is no exception to Wikipedia needing to follow medical consensus just because of my opinion.  The cold, hard reality is that unless medical consensus changes from being supportive of water fluoridation to recognizing the long-term dangers of it, this article will remain staunchly supportive of water fluoridation.
 * Regards,
 * Gold   Standard  04:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not certain about the "world" medical consensus on "water" fluoridation when there are also many other sources of fluoride in one's environment and diet. Don't less than 5% or 6% of the world practice water fluoridation? Haven't many other countries abondoned this practice? It seems the consensus in the USA is yes, use water fluoridation at all costs whether there are medical lab results on patients to prove anyone might be deficient, or not. "Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the TOTAL fluoride exposure in﻿ the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme﻿ for caries﻿ prevention." (Fluorides and Oral Health, WHO, 1994). But in the USA, this seems to be ignored. I don't believe countries like Japan, Cuba, Finland, China, India, Germany, Russia and many other countries practice "water" fluoridation for reasons due to ethics or otherwise. But I have doubts it is the "world" consensus when other forms of fluoride are also available. Correct me if I'm wrong. 99.61.178.14 (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't objectors to these fluoridation articles register?
Strange that those that find this article so objectionable are almost always unregistered. Why are these editors so disinclined to describe themselves. Why this trend - paranoia? disinterest? Anti-collegiality?--Smokefoot (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'm too new to have taken the time to figure it all out. Are you trying to incite others? Intimidate? Attack?
 * I have left you a welcome message with lots of helpful links.  Gold   Standard  04:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Systemic Fluoride Intake vs. Topical Application to the Teeth
Why does this article not discuss systemic effects of the fluoride on the human body (replacement of calcium in the bones making them brittle - fluorosis and thyroid supression)? What is the advantage or negative effect of fluoride in the drinking water vs. fluoride in toothpastes and mouthwashes? Why do we need fluoride in the drinking water, when it is already available in most toothpastes and many mouthwashes? Effect of fluoride on thyroid - fluoride used to be prescribed for overactive thyroid to reduce its activity. What is the effect of fluoride on a normal thyroid? What daily intake of fluoride should be deemed above dangerous levels? What fluoride dosages are commonly found in our tap water? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poisonedwater (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"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." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169868/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC) The prior therapeutic use of F to reduce thyroid hormone levels in cases of thyrotoxicosis is well documented (Goldemberg, (1926, 1930, 1932); May (1935, 1937); Orlowski (1932) and Galletti and G. Joyet, (1958)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What specific article content change are you suggesting, using what sources?   14:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The rationale for the systemic intake of fluoride from our water vs. just topical application of fluoride to teeth would be a good start. Are there advantages to systemic fluoride intake from water vs. application to teeth from dentifrice? Also recommended maximum safe daily systemic fluoride intake, and the approximate average systemic intake from fluoridated water and other fluoride sources in the USA. Poisonedwater (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You've missed the key points so let me emphasis them. What specific article content change are you suggesting, using what sources? TippyGoomba (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even more specifically: using what RELIABLE sources? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with this article? It sounds to me like content for Water fluoridation controversy. Don't be greedy, one soapbox at a time please! JonRichfield (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Right now the dosage for systemic fluoride intake is totally unclear in this article, since the amount of fluoridated water intake varies greatly between individuals (and furthermore, the dosage per liter of water differs in communities - there is no single standard). What would be more meaningful and precise is the exact amount of milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body mass of safe fluoride intake per day. Let's remember that fluoride has no essential biological function in the body, and is not a nutrient. It is a drug that affects the calcium structures in the body - in the case of teeth (bony structures) it is the enamel. Its accumulation in bones is already mentioned in this article. It has a history of being used as a drug for thyroid issues as well - it's thyroid effects are not a conspiracy theory. Like for any drug, perhaps there should be a lowered dosage information for special populations, such as those with chronic kidney disease, kidney failure, or reduced kidney function, and yes, perhaps a hypo/hyper active thyroid. Also there are studies that show that topical fluoride application is either more effective or at least as water fluoridation. Are there any recent studies/medical sources that at least demonstrate the scientific rationale for whole body fluoridation rather than simply using fluoridated dentifrice? If not, why not? The above could go into either this or the controversy article, wherever more appropriate. I think the biggest benefit this article could have is to help an individual decide how much fluoride/fluoridated water intake he or she should safely have (perhaps considering other fluoride sources as well) Poisonedwater (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. See "Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Fluoride readily crosses the placenta (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2003). "Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to permanent damage (Grandjean and Landrigan 2006). The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults (Grandjean 1982). The estimated decrease in average IQ associated with fluoride exposure based on our analysis may seem small and may be within the measurement error of IQ testing. However, as research on other neurotoxicants has shown, a shift to the left of IQ distributions in a population will have substantial impacts, especially among those in the high and low ranges of the IQ distribution (Bellinger 2007)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Fluoridated water can cause kidney damage in children. See "The dose-effect relationship of water fluoride levels and renal damage in children". "Over 2.0 mg/L fluoride in drinking water can cause renal damage in children, and the damage degree increases with the drinking water fluoride content. Renal damage degree is not related to whether the children suffered from dental fluorosis and mainly due to water fluoride concentration."

Fluoride may reduce Fertility Rates. See "Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates". "A review of fluoride toxicity showed decreased fertility in most animal species studied. The current study was to see whether fluoride would also affect human birth rates. Most regions showed an association of decreasing TFR with increasing fluoride levels.  There is no evidence that this outcome resulted from selection bias, inaccurate data, or improper analytical methods. However, the study is one that used population means rather than data on individual women." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And at least one paper on PubMed links fluoride to Autism. See "A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders...". "In addition, a number of environmental neurotoxins, such as FLUORIDE, lead, cadmium, and aluminum, can result in these pathological and biochemical changes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet another scattershot batch of inappropriate sources, either from questionable journals or outdated. As above see WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines.    03:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what dates must they be? And can you please list the journals that you find "unquestionable"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a different objection. Your sources have nothing to do with the article, since they don't mention water fluoridation. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@TippyGoomba - At least three of the sources above are specifically discussing water fluoridation. Two others are regarding fluoride in general but may include fluoride in water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, what edits are you suggesting? TippyGoomba (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@TippyGoomba - I'm still searching PubMed for more information but we were discussing Systemic Fluoride Intake vs. Topical Application to the Teeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article state what level of fluoride you should not exceed?
See "CDA Position on Use of Fluorides in Caries Prevention".

"...the total daily fluoride intake from ALL sources should not exceed 0.05-0.07 mg F / kg body weight". So as with most chemicals on which we rely (H2O, O2, C27H44O NaF/SnF2...), there is a range of intakes which are beneficial. Below or above that range there may be either no benefit, or harm. Communities considering water fluoridation are encouraged to review their individual circumstances carefully and in detail, giving attention to any available data on the dental health of community members, the size of the group not likely exposed to adequate fluoride from other sources, and the minimum level of fluoride required to be beneficial.

"Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the TOTAL fluoride exposure in﻿ the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries﻿ prevention." (Fluorides and Oral Health, WHO, 1994). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Most published reports show 1 to 5 milligrams of fluoride per liter of black tea, but a new study shows that number could be as high as 9 milligrams." Science Daily "Tea May Contain More Fluoride Than Once Thought, Research Shows". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The article already has content covering this.   03:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is essentially useless. See my comment above. Poisonedwater (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it should also be noted that 41% of children between the ages of 12 and 15 years old in the USA have been overexposed to fluoride whether they live in fluoridated areas or NON-fluoridated areas. See CDC, "Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004".


 * It doesn't say that, it says "Prevalence of dental fluorosis was higher among younger persons and ranged from 41% among adolescents aged 12-15 to 9% among adults aged 40-49." The source makes no equivalence between fluorosis and 'overexposure.'  There's no discussion of 'overexposure' on that page at all.    04:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand that dental fluorosis is caused by overexposure to fluoride? See WebMD, "Fluorosis Overview". "It’s caused by overexposure to fluoride during the first eight years of life. This is the time when most permanent teeth are being formed."

Quite frankly, I'm confused as to what your objection to that is.


 * "overexposure" isn't defined, hence the quotes. Your suggested definition combined with the article you cite is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH. Also, what edit are you suggesting? TippyGoomba (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@TippyGoomba - Dental fluorosis is a result of overexposure to fluoride. Overexposure to fluoride results in dental fluorosis. Its not difficult. I simply felt the article should state somewhere that the total daily fluoride intake from ALL sources should not exceed 0.05-0.07 mg F / kg body weight. This would be helpful given the rate of dental fluorosis in the USA. Furthermore some people may not be aware of the high levels of fluoride found in black tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The article already has content covering this" TippyGoomba (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories involving fluoridation are common?
What does the statement "Conspiracy theories involving fluoridation are common" mean? Certainly they are not common among the general public. And from where is it sourced? Gold   Standard  05:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You should aggressively remove stuff like that. If you think a source can be found, add a tag instead. Worst case scenario, someone reverts and we end up here anyway, check out WP:BRD :) TippyGoomba (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done! Gold   Standard  07:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, take a look at the source. That statement was taken directly out of it.  Can this source be trusted?   Gold   Standard  07:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That source and its use of it look OK to me.   15:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theories involving fluoridation are common" has no meaning. Does a large percentage of the population really believe in fluoridation conspiracies? In what part of the world is this statement addressing?  Are they common amongst people in the US, or all over the world?  The statement is as ambiguous as it is nonsensical.   Gold   Standard  00:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm finding no issue with the plain meaning of the source. It means just what it says:  when you review antifluoridation literature, in addition to seeing cherry-picking of studies, ignored evidence, and fear mongering, it's not unusual to find conspiracy theories.  It's an important point.  Read the whole Health Policy article to understand the context of the sentence. I don't see a reason to remove this from the article.    02:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are missing my point. I'm not saying that the point made in the source is ambiguous. The statement made in the article, which does not come across as the same point, is ambiguous and nonsensical in the context of the article: "Conspiracy theories involving fluoridation are common, and include claims that fluoridation was motivated by ..."  Common amongst who? People reading this are not going to know what to think.   Gold   Standard  03:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's tweak the wording in the article to more accurately convey the meaning found in the source, I'm open to suggestions. Heading to bed soon but will think about it.    04:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My suggested revision:
 * Among those who oppose fluoridation for solely political reasons, conspiracy theories are common.
 * Gold   Standard  04:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the source, I don't think this moves article content to better reflect it, source doesn't limit that discussion to "solely political reasons." Maybe something like, "Within the literature of water fluoridation opponents, conspiracy theories are common." ?    20:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But by definition someone who is anti-fluoridation for ethical reasons and not political reasons would not be involved in conspiracy theories.  Gold   Standard  04:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can think a non-political conspiracy theory like "Corporate executives falsified study results to fool people into thinking F was useful so they could profit off of selling their industrial waste" which apparently is actually one of them. Anyway, I don't want to engage in WP:OR, and the source doesn't talk about "solely political reasons" in its mention of common conspiracy theories.  Let's just summarize what the source actually says.  Is there anything fundamentally inaccurate about my suggested content?    04:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, you are right. Good point about WP:OR too.  Gold   Standard  05:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert
Below is material copied from my talk page; I felt this thread is more appropriately discussed here:Yobol (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Yobol,

Would you mind explaining your revert of my edit? I do not understand it simply based on your edit summary.

Thanks,

Gold   Standard  03:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my edit summary was incomplete. What I meant to say is we don't inline attribute to the journal title like you proposed; first, attribution would be to the author if it was necessary, but is unnecessary for uncontentious material. Attribution, when unnecessary, makes it appear that only that source is making that claim and makes it appear like less the generally accepted principle that it should be presented as. Yobol (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't "highly misleading picture" clearly contentious material, given that it is being used to describe opposition? Also, could you please explain the two other changes I made that you reverted?   Gold   Standard  03:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not contentious as the scientific/medical consensus is that the arguments against water fluoridation are spurious. Inline attributing to the source makes it appear as if only that source feels that way, when that is not (or really shouldn't be) a contentious point.  I have no strong opinion about the order of the paragraphs, though I note that the current sequence is not out of order as conspiracy theories are a big driver of the opposition to fluoridation. Yobol (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then would it not be correct to say, "opposition that, according to scientific and medical consensus, ..."? Also, the water fluoridation controversy article is opposed to your last statement.  It says that "moral, ethical, political, and safety concerns" are the main drivers of the opposition.  It seems to me that the conspiracy theory paragraph interrupts the paragraph on opposition in general and the paragraph describing the types of people who are opposed.  Lastly, I am strongly opposed to your edit removing the list of names.  Listing those names adds detail to the paragraph.  Also, it is certainly notable that a nobel prize winning scientist is among the opponents.   Gold   Standard  04:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there is no need to attribute it. We don't say "According to the scientific consensus, HIV causes AIDS" just because there are a few denialists who try to create a controversy where there really is none. We just plainly state "HIV is the cause of AIDS" - no attribution necessary. The controversy article is in a horrible state, and I wouldn't use that as an example for anything to strive for, or, frankly, for accurate information.  Lastly, I do not mind a mention of notable opponents of fluoridation; however, mention would need to come from an independent reliable secondary source that demonstrates that opponent's notability in the context of their fluoridation views.  Yobol (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even the section that we are working on declares that there are other (arguably more) major contributors to opposition to water fluoridation. The Nobel Prize winning scientist, for example, is opposed for ethical reasons.  Also, if you do not mind a mention of notable opponents of fluoridation, why did you delete the sourced list that was already there? Arvid Carlsson is a Nobel Prize winning scientist; he is perfectly notable because his statement is against mass medication.  One does not have to have done work with fluoride to be opposed to mass medication.  In fact, he is perfectly notable for this because he serves as an example of someone who holds an ethical argument against fluoridation.   Gold   Standard  04:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Find an independent, reliable, secondary source that mentions that Carlsson is important to the ethics of water fluoridation, and I would not object to it going back in. 04:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How can someone be "important to the ethics of water fluoridation" except by being an advocate for ethics in public policy on mass medication? The references I took from Carlsson's article do perfectly well at demonstrating Carlsson's stance and action taken on his stance. Gold   Standard  04:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If he is well known and discussed in reliable, independent secondary sources as an important contributor to the discussion of ethics of water fluoridation, it can go in. Not all views of every Nobel winner deserves mention on Wikipedia; only the significant ones as documented by independent reliable sources. Yobol (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will add him back using this source: (readable thanks to Google Translate).  I will also flip the paragraph order while I'm at it.   Gold   Standard  04:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree to the singling out by name of Carlsson using an individual newspaper article, when the rest of the types of opponents listed come from a chapter in a book by CDC epidemiology program director John W. Ward, and Professor of History Christian Warren at the NY Academy of Medicine. The Svenska Dagbladet doesn't come close to the authority of the book on this subject, so naming Carlsson (and nobody else) in this way is a problem with WP:UNDUE.  If individuals are to be named, we should instead use the individuals named in the book chapter:  Gladys Caldwell who opposed on environmental concerns, and Ralph Nader on questioning the use of public funds.    13:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding: We may consider using this book:  link.  Here's a review of the book in the British Dental Journal:  link.  This book is far better than an individual newspaper article but I'm only lukewarm about using it, as I'm not convinced the authority of it is quite in the same ballpark as the book the article currently uses.   13:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, would you like me to do it? Gold   Standard  00:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess you're agreeing that we shouldn't take action using just Svenska Dagbladet? I'm not yet advocating any action to add Carlsson to the article.  I see the good sense in just discussing the antifluoridation efforts by groups and not individuals.    02:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, why only rely on a single source when we have others? Also, Carlsson is a very prominent and active figure in the ethical discussion of fluoride. The minority viewpoint here is not that small, so it would be undue weight in the other direction to omit the mention of prominent figures who are opposed to water fluoridation.   Gold   Standard  04:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue will be exactly the problem with the kind of thing currently being proposed in this section on this Talk page.   04:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you mean, sorry. Gold   Standard  04:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (continued below break)
 * Yobol's dead on here. Also would like to point out that this article is WP:FA and water fluoridation controversy isn't even WP:GA so I wouldn't be looking at that article as the standard to compare this one against.    04:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

break
Meaning, many noteworthy individuals can be found in newspapers or the like and included in a big list, but that really is a problem with WP:UNDUE or along the lines of WP:GEVAL, because it gives the impression that the individuals are equally as notable as the lobbying groups or organizations. It would be like saying, "Water fluoridation is supported by the ADA, the CDC, the AMA, the AAP, and dentist Katina Spadon of Naperville, Illinois, who said 'drinking fluoridated water and limiting frequent between-meal snacking on sugary or starchy foods will help keep most children and adults' teeth decay-free.'"(sourced to this article in the Rock River Times) The article is a legit source covering her views and so you can make the argument it should be included in the article, but the issue (and I know I'm making my point with a little reducito ad absurdum here) is the false appearance of equal weight of the views of this once local dentist lined up against large, influential national organizations like the ADA and the CDC. The IP is suggesting "We could just limit the names to 10 or 15 of those most outspoken for or against water fluoridation" with their views. So basically adding a list of 20-30 names to the article with some quotes and views for each, maybe. This is a terrible idea and would worsen the article. Even keeping it down to a few names is still moving in this direction of an equal-validity problem. The article is better off discussing influential groups and not individuals. 20:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There are some individuals who aren't in a particular group that oppose water fluoridation and may be worthy of mention. Perhaps groups, organizations, and/or individuals. And there are individual countries that oppose water fluoridation. But I still think individuals who are the most outspoken (in any country) either way should be included in the article with at least a citation. There isn't anything wrong with being specific. Do people come to read generalities or specifics at Wikipedia? I know when I've visited Wikipedia for any subject, I wanted to read the details. The more the better. (Within reason of course). SkepticalMinds (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Gold   Standard  05:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Zad68. He makes a good point about all the people in the various organisations who support fluoridation. Many of them will be experts in the field and higly qualified to talk on WF. We don't name them individully. Sometimes I wonder if being a Nobel Prize-winning scientist should bar one from ever publicly speaking on subjects outside one's speciality. There are several such scientists who either use their fame (or have their fame used) to promote their views on subjects we wouldn't nomally listen to them about. Let's stick to facts and the confidence (or otherwise) our reliable secondary sources accord to them, and not fall into the trap of name-dropping to try to persuade the reader of false authority. Colin°Talk 17:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's also try to supress our personal bias and ignorance. The bias drives the ignorance which breeds controversy on both sides of the WF issue. Poisonedwater (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is very bias
Wow, has this article been written by the Government? Fluoride hasnt even been proven to be good for your teeth, and there is plenty of evidence to support the harmful effects of Fluoride. So much factual information missing. Going to add just a little truth, to see if gets deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.83.125 (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're planning on adding content you expect to be removed? That doesn't sound productive.  Be sure to cite a source for your new content.  See WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's standards for sourcing biomedical information.   04:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's medical sources must be from published medical journals. The medical establishment gets significant government funding for research, so it makes sense that this article appears to have been written by the government, I sympathize with you there.  Unfortunately, no matter how obvious it might seem that ingesting massive quantities of these compounds over long periods would be harmful, or no matter how much "non-reliable" independent research there is, if medical consensus dictates that it is not harmful, we must adhere to medical consensus per Wikipedia policy.   Gold   Standard  06:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the cases when the medical establishment refuses to publish certain studies in certain journals for political or other reasons? The studies that go against the opinion or results of medical establishment (as well known are sometimes not without problems - because statistics and lies, damn lies, etc. Drugs do get approved and pulled off the market all the time, and Fluorine and fluoride are neither nutrients, nor do they play any biological roles in human body. Just as for example aluminum - the element and its salts are not needed by us for any biological processes). What about the statin Wikipedia page? It mentions The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, a small group of scientists such as Uwe Ravnskov offering a dissenting conclusion to the established consensus on statins, whose many attempts at publishing in major journals were/are systematically refused. This page does come off far more biased against the WF skeptics compared to the statin page. Poisonedwater (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The medical establishment says that the only harmful effect of fluoridation is fluorosis, so we have to stick with that so long as Wikipedia policy remains as it is. If you'll notice, the part of that article that you referenced has sources from published medical journals.  On that issue, there is clearly not consensus because there is an entire dissenting faction within the medical establishment.  To change something to do with water fluoridation, you would probably need to demonstrate a clear violation of consensus.  If you can find a few sources from published medical journals in the last five years that refutes an issue in this article such as the under-emphasized safety issues, then we can start looking at making some modifications.  Until then, there is really nothing we can do to reduce the incredible bias in this article because of how trusting Wikipedia policy is of the medical establishment on this issue.   Gold   Standard  01:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gold, I commend you for editing in a way that upholds Wikipedia standards even when they produce article content that goes against your personal views.   02:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Zad68, I appreciate it! :) Gold   Standard  05:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. New here. I remember seeing something comparing efficacy of intake vs. direct teeth treatment. Whole body fluoridation by the general public should have a heavy reasoning behind it, so one would think there should be studies recommending it over dentifrice. Studies that underscore drinking fluorides vs. just the regular route of topical treatment - through dentifrice. Or studies showing the advantage or maybe even a tie of drinking fluorides vs dentifrice. Plus effects on the body. Or it's just simple economics. It does seem like there should be more studies explaining these, but looks like there aren't that many studies concerned with fluorides in the first place compared to other substances, unfortunately. Poisonedwater (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I am also disputing citation number one
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9332806?dopt=Abstract

This study has nothing to do with the taste of fluoridated water. The aim of this study was to "find out whether the occurrence of 25 selected symptoms was connected with exposure to fluoridated water."

Why is the first photo on the top of the page a picture of water with the claim "fluoridated water is etc etc etc"

How about a picture of the actual chemicals listed under the broad term of fluoride?

Also this study is from 1997.


 * The percentage of those with two or more symptoms was the same (45%) in November and in December but decreased to 32% in March. The mean number of symptoms per respondent decreased from 1.9 in November to 1.4 in March (P < 0.001) and in December-March from 1.8 to 1.2.

translated: symptoms decreased after cessation of fluoridation.

"Since the occurrence and mean number of symptoms were fairly similar during actual and supposed fluoridation, the results do not support the theory that the symptoms considered in this study are caused by the physical effect of fluoridated water."

"fairly"

Wow what a scientific term.

"On the other hand, the significant reduction in the number of symptoms only after the respondents had become aware of the discontinuation of fluoridation reveals that fluoridation may have psychological effects which present as perceived symptoms."

Is this study a joke? Guessing the reason behind change in symptoms? This is clearly a skewed study. These authors have agendas. They ignore the change in symptoms and then label them as "psychological effects." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't use your WP:OR to rebut the reference. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You sound reasonable, can you undo the deletion of my first edit (above this one) about ethics of mandated medication without consent, someone named "Ronz" deleted it under the auspice of "neutrality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused. Per the history link, Ronz hasn't edited this page since April 15th, and that was just to move a discussion, not delete it. --71.231.75.104 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well where did my article go then? What is this, the twilight zone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "my article"? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay."
This opening sentence is misleading. Often, fluoridation is without the consent of the individual and is forced medication.

Controlled should be changed to mandated or required. . . medication of the water supply

fluoride is being used as a medication to enhance teeth health, controlled implies the person is knowingly adding fluoride to their water when in fact that is rarely the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk)
 * I removed "controlled". Not really onboard with the rest. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"The goal of water fluoridation is to prevent a chronic disease whose burdens particularly fall on children and on the poor." - Third paragraph, first sentence

Wiki article on "Medication."- "A pharmaceutical drug, also referred to as a medicine or medication, can be loosely defined as any chemical substance - or product comprising such - intended for use in the medical diagnosis, cure, treatment, or prevention of disease."

?

"or prevention of disease."

"is to prevent a chronic disease" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You posted this in my talk page as well. Are you suggesting an edit? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I pointing out how fluoridation is the medication of the water supply without the consent of the recipient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * An edit request should be of the form "Let's add sentence X to paragraph Y, here are my sources etc etc". TippyGoomba (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

First sentence
The first sentence currently reads:
 * Water fluoridation is the addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay.

It used to read "controlled addition" but "controlled" was removed. I think the sentence (either with or without "controlled") is missing the real meaning here, which is that the fluoride level is being managed or maintained for that purpose, and that can be done either by adding or removing fluoride, or just monitoring it if it's naturally at the desired level. Suggested change for first sentence:
 * Water fluoridation is the management of the fluoride level in a public water supply to reduce tooth decay.

Does that sound more on target? 03:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hrmm, I guess it does miss the point now. My goal was to avoid the issue of consent that "controlled" implies. However "management" has the same issue. The stop sign article doesn't address the issue of consent and I don't think this one should either. I think "controlled" and "managed" are both fine. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What, you don't get out of your car and sign a consent form every time you come to a stop sign or traffic light? :-P  Well, it's the level of fluoride that's being managed, not the townspeople.  I'm not quite seeing the reason for the concern so I'm not sure how to address it.    03:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the evidence section in need of rewording?
The authors of the September 2000 paper "A Systematic review of water fluoridation" McDonagh et al, stated that the quality of the 214 studies included in their paper were "low to moderate". This includes all of the 214 studies they looked at, studies who's results both support and fault fluoridation. On this Wiki page, the very first sentence of the 'evidence' section states that "Existing evidence strongly suggests that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay". This opening sentence comes from the National Health and Medical Research Council paper "A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation" which is based primarily upon the the McDonagh et al (2000a) paper.

Quoted from the "National Health and Medical Research Council" paper:

"The McDonagh et al (2000a) review has been chosen to form the evidence base for the effect of water fluoridation on dental caries in this current review as it provides more detailed and comprehensive results than those shown in the Truman et al (2002) review. It should be noted that all studies included in the McDonagh review were considered to be B level evidence (moderate quality and a moderate risk of bias)"

And as noted above, it is a fact that the the McDonagh et al paper is based on "moderate to low" evidence in itself.

As the "National Health and Medical Research Council" paper is primarily based on the McDonagh et al paper, the "National Health and Medical Research Council" paper must also be based on "low to moderate" level evidence, or at best, "moderate" evidence. The "National Health and Medical Research Council" paper only included one additional original study outside of the material from the McDonagh et al paper, a study about which they say: "It should be noted that the methodological quality of this (additional) study was assessed and was considered to be poor".

The opening words "evidence strongly suggests" within the Wiki sentence in question is misleading in that it signifies that "the evidence is strong" - which is perhaps overstating the facts considering the evidence is actually of low to medium quality. In a semiotic interpretation of this word combination, an association between the words "evidence" and "strong" results in each word supporting the other, no matter which order they are placed in. The resulting word association combined with the omission of the fact that the scientific studies were of moderate to low quality results in a slightly biased impression.

So, should it be included that the "evidence", spoken of in this opening Wiki sentence, according to the two papers that support this opening paragraph, is not of a high quality level? This is the truth according to these papers. Scientific studies provide the due weight to medical articles on wikipedia, so something needs to be done.

I find it troubling that the study result from the McDonagh et al paper regarding the quality level of the evidence supporting positive health effects is not included in the first line, when from the very same paper the quality of the evidence supporting negative health effects is clearly included: "With regard to potential adverse effects, almost all research has been of low quality".

In conclusion, the true quality level of the evidence in support of fluoridation reducing tooth decay should be included here to reflect the scientific consensus arrived at by these papers.

Here is a simplified version of the "A Systematic review of water fluoridation" McDonagh et al paper, with numerous mentions of the "low to moderate" evidence quality:

Here is their unsumarized "A Systematic review of water fluoridation" McDonagh et al, paper where they state in their conclusion section they find it "suprising that little high quality reserach has been undertaken":

The "National Health and Medical Research Council" paper:

Birdycatcher (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest changing the below "strongly suggests" to "the evidence that suggests ... is of a low to moderate quality" as how can evidence of a "low to moderate" level "strongly" suggest? "Strongly" does not reflect the results of these two papers. At least "strongly" should be removed.

Evidence basis:

Existing evidence "strongly suggests" that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay. There is also consistent evidence that it causes dental fluorosis, most of which is mild and not usually of aesthetic concern.[10] There is no clear evidence of other adverse effects. With regard to potential adverse effects, almost all research has been of low quality.[11] Birdycatcher (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The first citation being the Austrailian review and the second being McDonagh? Looks good to me. We could be a bit more specific: With regard to potential adverse effects, a 2000 systematic review found that, almost all research has been of low quality TippyGoomba (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The change you suggest for the final line is much better I think. Though it's the first line that is off the mark. The citation that supports this first line does not reflect what this line is presently stating. The citation states that the researchers found the evidence supporting water fluoridation to be of low to medium quality. My reasoning above shows this. At least, "Strongly" needs to be removed. And to be even more specific to the reviews, it should be stated that the evidence supporting it, according to the Australian review and the McDonagh review, is of low to moderate quality.Birdycatcher (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I've made a change that reflects the actual evidence basis in references [10] and [11]. Birdycatcher (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the change and restored "strongly". The cited review says "The existing body of evidence strongly suggests that water fluoridation is beneficial at reducing dental caries." There's no getting away from that. Looking at what they say about the evidence quality and drawing a different conclusion is original research and merely reflects the views of editors rather than the authors of the source. For what it is worth, we do say "suggests" rather than stating the reduction as a fact. Later on we comment on the evidence quality. The text here is fine and has been picked over ad nauseum already. Unless some new groundbreaking review comes along, the conclusions aren't going to change. Colin°Talk 07:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes the cited review concludes "The existing body of evidence strongly suggests that water fluoridation is beneficial at reducing dental caries." Thank you for being fair and clear.
 * Regarding the particular question "Is intentional water fluoridation more efficacious than no water fluoridation in the prevention of dental caries?" by the Australian review, they say their conclusion is drawn entirely from the McDonagh et al review, with the addition of only one more study. In the McDonagh et al review, review objectives 1, 2, 3 and 5 draw upon 50 studies that relate to this question. These 50 studies are cited as of "low to moderate" quality level. I note that the 26 studies included for objective 1 were of "moderate" quality evidence level, and Studies included for objective 3 were entirely of a  "low" quality evidence level.
 * The term "low" quality evidence has disappeared from the Australian review. They failed to mention that some of their evidence is of low quality.
 * If regarding the above question, the Australian review is based almost entirely upon the McDonagh review, and the McDonagh review is based upon "low to moderate" evidence quality, that should really be stated here in the Wiki article where evidence quality is commented on. "Moderate" could be changed to "Low to moderate" to reflect what is said in the McDonagh review.
 * If there were lots of additional studies brought forth by the Australian review, then they would have a right to change the reported evidence levels, but they only added one original study relating to the question "Is intentional water fluoridation more efficacious than no water fluoridation in the prevention of dental caries?" on top of what McDonagh et al had already considered.
 * Might choosing to quote the evidence level from one review and not the other be inadvertent cherry picking?
 * Or, does the question "Is intentional water fluoridation more efficacious than no water fluoridation in the prevention of dental caries?" only relate to objective 1 in the McDonagh review. Objective 1 includes moderate level evidence, not low. This could explain what I have missed here, though the other objectives seem relevant. If you are a professional scientist please have a close look at the objectives in the McDonagh review.
 * Also, the evidence quality of alleged adverse effects is included in the opening statement, but the comment on evidence quality supporting carries reduction is situated further down as if it is less important? This might be unbalanced. Birdycatcher (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not a professional scientist. I think you are labouring the "low quality" aspect a bit much. Very few things can be measured or experimented in such a way to generate "high quality" studies. The classifications of low/moderate/high are crude. One also has to remember the adage that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It appears the moderate quality research into beneficial effect has convinced the reviewers whereas the low quality research on serious adverse effects has not. Mainstream scientific and medical opinion is largely agrees with this. We can't really suggest otherwise, even if we strongly feel those conclusions are wrong. Colin°Talk 20:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Resource Number 9
The ninth resource's hyperlink will bring you to the US National Library on Medicine - National Institute on Health website. There you can read that the authors of the source state the "studies included in the reviews were generally of moderate to low quality". Further, you can also access a report from that very same site which reports that the health community now states that giving fluoridated water to infants is contraindicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.182.200 (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We already discuss water fluoridation in infants in the article. It is not clear what source you are referring to, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus request
Hello, I made some changes to the safety section, and User_talk:IRWolfie- twice blanked the section, saying first said the changes violated and the later stating that the changes needed consensus first. Can an administrator please advise the following:

1. Do the required changes I made require consenus? 2. Do the changes violate MEDRS?

Here is what I added:

There is debate in the scientific community whether fluoridation causes cancer. Some say there is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma. Other adverse effects lack sufficient evidence to reach a confident conclusion. The National Institutes of Health says that fluoridation is not a cause of cancer. The National Institutes of Health says on their website: "In a February 1991 Public Health Service (PHS) report, the agency said it found no evidence of an association between fluoride and cancer in humans." However, another study sponsored by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer conducted by the University of Tokyo states: "Brain tumors and T-cell system Hodgkin's disease, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma of the skin and monocytic leukaemia were also correlated with fluoridated drinking water...The likelihood of fluoride acting as a genetic cause of cancer requires consideration." The American Cancer Society has taken no position on water fluoridation. Therefore, it is clear that there is debate in the community about the potential carcinogenic risks of fluoridation.

Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the suggested changes require consensus, thank you for bringing this to the Talk page for discussion. Right off the top, I do not see clear support in the source cited for "There is debate in the scientific community whether fluoridation causes cancer." - I am looking at the summary on pages 11-12 of the source cited, and the detailed discussion starting on the page labeled page 99.  The proposed content then lines up the statements from the authoritative secondary sources from the NHMRC and the WHO, which do not make a clear assertion that there is a significant cancer risk or that there is any serious debate in the scientific community, with, a primary source.  This is a clear violation of the Wikipedia guideline WP:MEDREV.  So unless you can find equally authoritative sources stating that there really is a debate about fluoridation and cancer, the proposed content addition is unsupported.    13:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All changes on Wikipedia require consensus. One might be bold and assume there will be consensus for one's edit the first time (though this is increasingly unlikely the more controversial the article is) but subsequent attempts to reinsert the same text, without discussion and without gaining clear explicit consensus, are not healthy actions. I think you've confused the "around the level of noise" quality of pro/anti cancer effects seen by some studies and there being any serious debate in the scientific community. The paragraph reads like original research. Don't attempt to argue the case for something in front of the reader, that's journalism, not encyclopaedic writing. Colin°Talk 14:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cancer claims
Jtbobwaysf is edit warring quite large medical claims into an article, and attempting to counter reviews with a primary study, contrary to WP:MEDRS. Jtbobwaysf is also engaging in OR by synthesising these points together and claiming there is a debate. Jtbobwaysf is also ignoring WP:BRD, showing how you should not edit war your claims into an article, rather discuss them first after they are reverted. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, i found your response here. Please explain how the Tokyo study does not meet WP:MEDRS. The Tokyo study is a secondary source that cites a primary research in 1996. Primary: http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.elis.tmu.edu.tw/pubmed/9002384 Secondary: http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.elis.tmu.edu.tw/pubmed/11512573 Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Tokyo study (PMID: ) is not a secondary source whereas PMID: is. Furthermore correlation does not prove causation. Tokyo study also found negative correlation between fluoridation exposure and cancer rates for some cancers. Tokyo study was very cautious with their conclusions and only suggest that further study is justified.  The conclusion that there is a debate is not warranted by the sources supplied.  Boghog (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Boghog, first I didn't say anything about causation. Second, can you please explain how you differentiate PMID: as a secondary source and (PMID: ) as a primary source. I am not experienced with PubMed. Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerning causation, I was just trying to point out that even if a study showed a correlation between fluoridation exposure and cancer rates, this is insufficient to prove that fluoridation causes cancer. In any case, it is not directly relevant to your assertion there is a controversy so please ignore that comment. Concerning how to determine if a source is secondary or not, on the PubMed abstract page, just below the abstract, click on the "+" symbol next to this  "Publication types, MeSH Terms".  You will see  "Publication Type" for   is "Review". The Tokyo study (PMID: ) has not been classified as a review or a meta-analysis.  Hence it is a primary source. (See the last paragraph of searching for sources for more information) Boghog (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict]: Just to clarify:
 * Hence parts of the article may be considered secondary (e.g., the introduction), but the rest of the paper including the authors conclusions is primary. Boghog (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the fluoridation business, the above short definition about secondary reference is not (to me) correct. All decent scientific papers begin with a review of the area, sometimes lengthy, sometimes not.  The paper  in question is probably not a review because it reports a new analysis.  A real review conducts minimal new analysis but is a report on what has been done with comments on relative merits and contextualization.  Also, reviews call themselves reviews - the abstract to  does not. We should sharpen our wording at WP:SECONDARY.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording at WP:SECONDARY is accurate. The introduction of a peer reviewed article that reviews the literature is secondary. There is absolutely no difference between the introduction of a peer reviewed primary source and the body of a review article other than its length.  Of course one needs to be careful about using these types of sources as secondary and stick to what is presented in the introduction.  Boghog (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with this, parts of research studies can be and often are secondary sources, just need to be careful in using them. Also it is important to be keenly aware that the background section of a research study is often limited to just the area being investigated and so should not be considered a complete overview, and also it may very well be slanted in its approach to the background overview so that it supports the findings of the research study.  If at all possible an independent dedicated review article should really be used.    14:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) In theory there's no difference; in practice, there certainly is. The focus and emphasis of both the content and the peer review it receives tends to be very different when looking at a primary research paper versus a review article.
 * In any case, I suspect that we're probably bumping up against some Wikipedia-specific terminology or interpretation that might be slightly askew from general usage. While technically the introduction of a primary research paper contains secondary information, that should not be construed as conferring 'reliable' status on the contents of that introduction for Wikipedia article sourcing purposes.  (That is, for the purposes of judging reliability, we tend to consider all content in a primary research paper as being, collectively, part of a "primary source", even if some of that content is secondary in nature.)
 * Treating the intro of a primary paper as a secondary source for reliability purposes gets us in a mess of trouble, among other reasons because it would permit cranks to bootstrap themselves into Wikipedia. Let's say Wingnut publishes a primary research paper in 2010.  By itself, it doesn't clear the bar of WP:MEDRS.  Later, Wingnut et al. (2013) cites Wingnut et al. (2010) when presenting previous work in its introduction.  Suddenly, the conclusions of Wingnut et al. (2010) are endorsed by a secondary source, and Wingnut gets to put his nonsense in Wikipedia.  Lather, rinse, repeat for every crank and snake-oil salesman who manages to publish two consecutive papers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello TenOfAllTrades, these two studies (Osaka and Tokyo) are by different authors. Confused by your comments. Please clarify. Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My comments were addressing (one aspect of) the problems inherent to treating the intro (or discussion) of a primary research paper as a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia's purposes. I was responding to Boghog's comment – since clarified – drawing an equivalence between a primary paper's intro and a secondary paper's content.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why just being a secondary source isn't really enough to satisfy MEDRS. There's a reason it gives pride of place to current systematic reviews published in respected peer-reviewed journals. The more controversial a statement is, the more attentive we need to be to source quality, per wp:REDFLAG. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Re "There is absolutely no difference between the introduction of a peer reviewed primary source and the body of a review article other than its length."  At least in the technical publishing business where I work, there is a huge difference between the intro to a primary source and a review article.  The former is setting up the background for a specific set of results to be disclosed, whereas a review is typically more comprehensive and is detached from supporting the disclosure of new results. That is the perception in chem, biochem, materials sci, areas. It would be a big complication for Wikipedia's reliability factor if every primary paper were also treated a secondary source.   --Smokefoot (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that secondary sources are more likely to be reliable. Furthermore I also agree that the use of primary sources is much more likely to be abused. However secondary sources are not automatically better than primary sources. Secondary sources are often written by experts in the field as they should be but this also introduces the potential for bias. Furthermore some secondary sources are rather superficial summaries of literature that have been published in a field with little critical analysis of the reliability or significance of the results. In cases where high quality review articles are lacking, the introduction of a high quality primary source may be superior to the available low quality secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if there are high quality review articles relevant to the subject, those should be used instead of the introduction of a primary source. The intention of the above quoted passaged in WP:SECONDARY was to allow supporting citations to be added in situations where relevant secondary sources are not yet be available. Getting back to the original subject of this thread, the Tokyo study (PMID: ) is a primary source and the way this source was used was inappropriate. I quoted WP:SECONDARY to make clear why. Boghog (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of the sources listed, I can't find one that mentions the Tokyo study in the background section. Perhaps someone can point out. But I think we are all clear that drawing text from the background section of a research paper is scraping the barrel in terms of desirable sourcing and raises serious questions about whether Wikipedia should be covering the points at all. Water fluoridation is a major topic, not some rare disease only three people ever had. Colin°Talk 19:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Colin, you will find the PubMed search here that shows the Tokyo study (Secondary) citing the Osaka (primary) study. http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.elis.tmu.edu.tw/pubmed/?term=loftextEBSCOPub[filter]+AND+0917-5040[ta]+AND+1996%3A2012[dp]+AND+fluoride It is not logical that a review would be done on Regression analysis, unless a reviewer wants to dispute the math. Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. Just to clarify, the Tokyo study was in the foreground (i.e, it was cited directly and the body and not the introduction of this citation was used to support the conclusion that there is a debate) and that is why its use was inappropriate. Equally important, this primary source itself did not state there is a debate. Boghog (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Boghog, You seem to be making two points here, am I correct? Point 1: I did the citations incorrectly, is that correct? Please advise how to do the citations correctly. Point #2: Whether the primary source said there was a debate. I thought the presence of a different opinion from the summarized existing wiki section was sufficient to state there was a debate (without the cited article saying explicitly there was a debate). I did cite the Oregon Public Broadcasting ‎article which did say there was a debate. If not, please advise how to properly add the primary (Osaka) and secondary (Tokyo) research (that generated similar findings and in which the secondary cites the primary) to the page. Last, as an etiquette question, is it ok if I respond on this talk page to each comment inline, or should I summarize my response to various wiki editors in one master response (as I have done above today)? Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is not how you formatted the citation to the 'Tokyo' study, but rather it was not appropriate to cite this source to support your contention there is a controversy. Just to be absolutely clear, the 'Tokyo' study is not a secondary source, it is a primary source.  Furthermore the 'Tokyo' study does not state there is a controversy. Boghog (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to the citations ([10][11]) already contained in this article, there are following secondary sources:
 * The above review articles support the conclusion that there is no link between fluoridation and cancer and also support the view there is no significant debate within the scientific community concerning this conclusion.
 * Most of the recent "controversy" seems to be a result of this primary study:
 * Note the authors were very cautious in their own conclusions. Furthermore, this 2006 study has been challenged by two more recent primary studies:
 * Taking the above five citations into account, I see no evidence to support there is a controversy. Boghog (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Having now read Takahashi et al. (the 2001 'Tokyo' study), I can see an excellent example of why Wikipedia strongly discourages medical claims based on primary papers. It just...isn't very good.  One low-quality, 12-year-old, seldom-cited primary paper shouldn't be held up as evidence of a "debate in the scientific community".  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note the authors were very cautious in their own conclusions. Furthermore, this 2006 study has been challenged by two more recent primary studies:
 * Taking the above five citations into account, I see no evidence to support there is a controversy. Boghog (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Having now read Takahashi et al. (the 2001 'Tokyo' study), I can see an excellent example of why Wikipedia strongly discourages medical claims based on primary papers. It just...isn't very good.  One low-quality, 12-year-old, seldom-cited primary paper shouldn't be held up as evidence of a "debate in the scientific community".  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking the above five citations into account, I see no evidence to support there is a controversy. Boghog (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Having now read Takahashi et al. (the 2001 'Tokyo' study), I can see an excellent example of why Wikipedia strongly discourages medical claims based on primary papers. It just...isn't very good.  One low-quality, 12-year-old, seldom-cited primary paper shouldn't be held up as evidence of a "debate in the scientific community".  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

facts, sources, NPOV ...
The article seems to overstate the benefits of water fluoridation (compared to alternatives), misrepresent the situation in Europe, does a fine job avoiding neutral sources. First non-wiki result when I google water fluoridation europe is Questions on water fluoridation - European Commission - Europa but SCHER or publications by the European commission aren't used as source anywhere in the article.

In it's 2010 report to the European Commission, the conclusions of the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks' include:
 * The benefits of preventive systemic supplementations (salt or milk fluoridation) are not proven.
 * The efficacy of population-based policies, e.g. drinking water, milk or salt fluoridation, as regards the reduction of oral-health social disparities, remains insufficiently substantiated.
 * No obvious advantage appears in favor of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention. The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable once the permanent teeth have erupted.
 * SCHER agrees that topical application of fluoride is most effective in preventing tooth decay. Topical fluoride sustains the fluoride levels in the oral cavity and helps to prevent caries, with reduced systemic availability.

About the studies regarding salt fluoridation in Jamaica, SCHER finds:
 * These studies are all considered of simplistic methodological quality.

The ethics and politics section doesn't mention that information gaps regarding fluoride “prevented the committee from making some judgments about the safety or the risks of fluoride at concentrations of 2 to 4 mg/L., and that water systems could supply up to 4mg/L for a year before informing the customers. Instead we get the crazy theories of some opponents. Other articles (like 9/11) don't need a list of all the conspiracy theories to strengthen the official version by contrast. (they don't even allow them in the main article)

The mechanism section: No they don't, at least not the beneficial effects. Together with: it suggests that the situation in Europe is fundamentally no different: be it through milk, salt or water fluoridation, the systemic intake would be comparable to countries with water fluoridation. that is not the case. Also, Switzerland and Germany are the only european countries where most salt is fluoridated.
 * Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.
 * others, such as in Europe, using fluoridated salts as an alternative source of fluoride

Which countries? Only Sweden provides free dental treatment for schoolchildren afaik. Eastern Europe did the same during the communist era, but those days are long gone. They may get free check-ups in some countries, and a note for the parents telling them they need to go see a dentist, that's about it. It's not the only doubtful claim about "many countries", "most people", ..
 * unlike most European countries, the U.S. does not have school-based dental care

WHO DMFT data for 12-y olds in 2004 shows W. European countries scoring as good as or better than the U.S. and Canada. Helen Whelton's study shows much more cases of dental fluorosis in areas with water fluoridation or high natural fluoride content. which makes the statement dental fluorosis, which is mostly due to fluoride from swallowed toothpaste., although technically correct, a bit misleading.

I'll leave it at that, I don't doubt WP:RS confirming the primary sources and points mentioned can be found, but don't fancy the job, given the controversy and number of watchers.. Ssscienccce (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been official policy for 60 years, it only manages to give 75% of schoolchildren their daily dose of fluoride, and it still seems the best and only approach? I expected some sources would have noticed that obvious flaw. You teach 99% of children to read and write, giving them a glass of fluoridated water between classes shouldn't be too hard to organize. The claim that water fluoridation is the best and only way to reach those kids seems hardly justified. But that's my opinion and WP:OR
 * Very odd. I can't figure out what that SCHER link actually is. Navigating it is a nightmare, apparently there's no pdf version. "Level 3" is cited as being taken from here which states The opinions of the Scientific Committees present the views of the independent scientists who are members of the committees. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. The opinions are published by the European Commission in their original language only. The rest is written by "Jon Turney". Not sure what to make of it. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Alleged poison is ranked as top ten health achievement of 20th century
"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical."--Dean Burk -- Congressional Record 21 July 1976 "They (ACS) lie like scoundrels."Dean Burk, Ph.D., 34 years at the National Cancer Institute. — FLUORIDE "amounts to public murder on a grand scale" --Dean Burk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are looking for tips on how to source, here is an example:
 * --Smokefoot (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century, along with vaccination, family planning, recognition of the dangers of smoking, and other achievements.... Source: CDC. Ten great public health achievements—United States, 1900–1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48(12):241–3. . Reprinted in: JAMA. 1999;281(16):1481. doi:10.1001/jama.281.16.1481. "


 * The original title of this section was simply poison. This was changed by someone other than the originator of the section. The information provided by the CDC is inaccurate and does not reflect the views of the majority of the world. American propaganda should not bully the truth or other verifiable accurate sources out of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of one's views on the merits of water fluoridation, if you think that the U.S.'s CDC is intentionally misleading the public, then you are a conspiracy theorist on this theme, . Conspiracy theorests never have a happy editing experience within Wikipedia on the topic of their theory. That is the very nature of conspiracy theories.  Nothing evil or saintly, just an operational definition.  So find another topic within Wikipedia that catches your fancy or where you know a lot, and edit there for a happier experience.
 * The other "phenotype" of conspiracy-driven editors is that they edit on narrow set of topics, they rarely register, and they never have user pages. Obsessive, noncollegial editors generally have an unhappy experience in Wikipedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the way it works here, and fortunately so. Those who learn to follow our sourcing and content policies, edit in a collegial manner, and otherwise stop pushing fringe POV and using dubious sources, often become good editors. Otherwise they usually end up getting topic banned or blocked. In this case it might be a case of fluoride deficiency, similar to how opposers of aspartame seem to be suffering from an aspartame deficiency. (irony ) -- Brangifer (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the irrelevant ad hominem attacks. These are not conspiracy driven edits. There seems to be quite a lot of controversy on this topic indicated by the so far 8 pages of history here. How about this Harvard study?
 * http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually this is a good source we could use. It's a review with a secondary use at Harvard. We can cite both if we wish. To make this easier, I'm going to copy this to a new section. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The response to the first line about fluoride causing cancer seems to be: "but it cleans teeth". That does not address the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing new here. We've been over this countless times. If you have a concrete proposal for content that will improve the article without pushing the fringe POV (which is documented in the water fluoridation controversy article), please propose the wording and source here and we can prepare it for inclusion. Otherwise please refrain from using Wikipedia to push a fringe POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So the answer upon reviewing the archives is forever the same. If someone says it's poison they are called a conspiracy theorist and it is pointed out that it's good for teeth. You are avoiding the issue not addressing it. I can accept that though. I may be back with more articles, but I do realize there's a good chance it will be drowned out by the articles on how great it is for teeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dosage is important, but by putting it in the water many have no choice in the dosage. Since it is in the water it gets into the food. Many get far more than the "safe" dosage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)