Talk:Water fluoridation
Before you get started on critiques, make sure you check out the Baloney Argument guide. THe fact that the ADA approves it is a good thing, not a bad thing.--PalMD-yada yada 00:28, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Arguments For section
We need to expand the arguments for section with well sourced articles. I'm also slowly adding more content to this page, I live in Portland and have argued/researched against anti-fluoridationists since that dumb vote happened.--NerdyWizard (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Woo?
Someone added this to category:woo. Does anyone know why? humanbe in 12:22, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
- I dunno. I keep on meaning to work on this page, but never seem to get around to it. I vote to un-woo(?) this page. Sterile 13:01, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
- I would vote to un-woo, too. Daecon 04:57, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- Me too, though I can sorta see their logic. Seems this is more "fearmongering" than "woo" -- this time the evidence is in favor of the "medicine" and the crackpots are saying it's dangerous. Best fit I can think of (aside from creating something like category:anti-woo) is toxins, which it's already in.--Chupi 02:04, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
The justification of "improving dental health" sounds pretty weak to have the public medicated with uncontrollable doses of this element. These kind of fads propagate through imitation and once mainstream they're hard to reverse. --
Brasov 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: 95.25.237.158 / talk / contribs
[edit] Criticism
"Most health effect arguments against water fluoridation (such as toxicity and mottled teeth) base their assumptions on much higher doses of fluoride than are allowed in tap water." Isn't it also dependent on how much tap water someone consumes? Obviously they would be getting a much higher dose, perhaps approaching the toxicity limit? Daecon 04:56, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not expert (to the slightest), but I think some effects are concentration dependent (mottled teeth?) independent of total dose (x ppb in the water vs. total consumed x mg) and some are dosage dependent. Sterilesnore!
[edit] Alternative conspiracy
Do you have an explanation for the conspiracy theory that there has always been fluoride in our water, and that the government only claims to put it in there so people will be content, because they are to lazy to start more water purification systems?— Unsigned, by: 144.92.44.153 / talk / contribs
- Just a question: If that were really the case, why haven't they done it with anything else so far? ("Yeah, we'll be adding a bit of nitrate to your water. It's good for your... kidneys. Trus us.") --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:48, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- Actually the way that "they" found that fluoride is both good at certain doses and bad at higher doses was to investigate the natural mineral amounts of fluoride and their effects on people's teeth. So in a (vague, rather tangential) sense, you are right (except it's not a conspiracy). Sterilesnore!
- "...water purification systems"? Fluoridation is not a purification system, it doesn't make water cleaner or safer. It just helps people's teeth. ħuman
18:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- Which I'm sure human, as a brit, can appreciate...--
-PalMD --Broccoli 18:37, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- Luckily I grew most of my adult teeth stateside ;) Completely irrelevantly, I think (some of) my brother's teeth were discolored when he was young by some antibiotic or other. ħuman
19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- If it wasn't lead, it was probably tetracycline.--
-PalMD --Broccoli 19:44, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- If it wasn't lead, it was probably tetracycline.--
- Luckily I grew most of my adult teeth stateside ;) Completely irrelevantly, I think (some of) my brother's teeth were discolored when he was young by some antibiotic or other. ħuman
- Which I'm sure human, as a brit, can appreciate...--
- "...water purification systems"? Fluoridation is not a purification system, it doesn't make water cleaner or safer. It just helps people's teeth. ħuman
- Actually the way that "they" found that fluoride is both good at certain doses and bad at higher doses was to investigate the natural mineral amounts of fluoride and their effects on people's teeth. So in a (vague, rather tangential) sense, you are right (except it's not a conspiracy). Sterilesnore!
[edit] Citizen Notice
A new municipal candidate distributed flyers sating that poison is being adde to tap water under the guise that it is good for your teeth. He claims there's tangible harm, but the flyer only states that the fluoride used to poison the water is the byproduct of sulfuric acid added to raw phosphate ore (which doesn't explain where Fluoride comes from), and that the resulting deadly gasses caused the governments to force industries to use smoke stack scrubbers and concentrate the toxins.
He also says that cavities are caused by bacteria that live in the mouth, that eat sugar and secrete acid, and that fluoride is the poison which kills bugs (actually, it reacts with the teeth to re-harden them), and to spit out the flouride when done. He also states "My opinion on these matters should not mater, because I am your representative. It is your opinion that matters."
And people wonder why arguments against fluoridation aren't taken seriously. --Sigma 7 (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there's some reality in there, at least the part about bacteria causing cavities (I think it tends to be Lactobacillus spp), but the rest -- I would imagine NaF comes from multiple sources and it doesn't necessarily matter as long as it's of food-grade purity. And I have no idea what it has to do with stack scrubbers, but that sounds like an anti-green ass pull. EVDebs (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Harvard Study
Here's the actual paper as the press article had butchered up the link to it. I'll go over it in more detail later.
narchist
15:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Help with determining the credibility of sources
A flouride detractor, when challenged to provide a peer-reviewed, credible source, gave me this: http://www.fluorideaustralia.org/articleView.asp?Article=6
It certainly has the appearances of an academic source, but I remain skeptical. I for one find it difficult to believe that there is a concerted conspiracy to deliberately poison the drinking water of massive quantities of the civilian population. However, I remain open to the possibility that certain relevant data has been overlooked regarding health dangers. I suspect that most of the misalignment of "flouride is fine" vs "flouride is poison" has much to do with a misunderstanding on the part of the conspiracy theorists regarding dosage/toxicity. However, this article purports to address that.
I do lots of internet reading, so I always inevitably run into moonbats with... persuasive arguments, so I use RationalWiki to help me to keep a duly skeptical outlook on things. I would immensely appreciate it if you would give this article a look and tell me if you believe it is credible, and if not, why. Thank very much. ~UberHat.
- You asked for a peer reviewed source, and he gave you a petition, and now you find him persuasive? If he can't provide what you asked for, then it's pretty clear it doesn't exist. Hipocrite 11:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I read that as "moonbats wtih [ostensibly] persuasive arguments" where the arguments only seem persuasive on the surface. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I looked at that list of so-called medical professionals and noticed a high proportion of NDs (naturopathic doctors) as well as some LLBs (lawyers), DCs (doctor of dhiropractic) and a "sewage treatment plant operator". The list doesn't look half as impressive when you take all those out.
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?
14:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- In general I agree, once investigated more thoroughly woo tends to fall away as credible sources agree on most of the issues. I suppose I was slightly jarred because I had never had a moonbat link to a site that wasn't... "Conspiracy Watch" or... "Truth Network" or the like. From the mere fact it wasn't blatantly moon-batish I was momentarily fooled into thinking it might be legitimate. Thanks to everyone for their help. So far to me it seems overwhelmingly that anti-flouridation people are overly concerned (usually they make allusions to Nazi mind control or the disposal of nuclear waste...) although personally I am somewhat intrigued by the fact that a drug which acts topically is being administered through drinking water despite having no systemic effect on tooth decay, I doubt it is some sinister conspiracy so much as an outdated 20th Century drug administration method. ~Uberhat
- I looked at that list of so-called medical professionals and noticed a high proportion of NDs (naturopathic doctors) as well as some LLBs (lawyers), DCs (doctor of dhiropractic) and a "sewage treatment plant operator". The list doesn't look half as impressive when you take all those out.
- I read that as "moonbats wtih [ostensibly] persuasive arguments" where the arguments only seem persuasive on the surface. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Pineal gland
New one on me:
Tweet:
@HippieG2
Did you know the government puts fluoride in our water to create blockages in your #pinealgland
Scream!! (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
[edit] The Form of Fluoride Is Not Stated
It is true that fluoride is present in tea and other food, such as raisins. However, the form of flouride added to the water is hydrofluosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride. Also, a few plants use other fluoride sources such as hydrofluoric acid and ammonium silicofluoride. Besides sodium fluoride, are there any possible detriments to these forms of fluoride? There are claims that these forms are from "industrial wastes." Is this true? Have experiments been conducted to test their bio-availability and purity? — Unsigned, by: 70.210.133.221 / talk / contribs
- Industrial fluoride added to water is indistinguishable from natural fluoride once the sand dissolves. Hexafluorosilicic acid, the most commonly used fluoride additive, is an industrial byproduct, which doesn't mean anything. There are a lot of products that are industrial byproducts, including many food items (especially many meat products), because something is an industrial byproduct that fact alone doesn't mean that the substance is unsafe. I'm not sure what you mean by bio-availability in this context, but as for hexafluorosilicic acid, they test for its purity. As with any EPA regulated hazardous substance (which you can read into thinking that fluoride is a hazardous substance in trace amounts, which it isn't), there are guidelines for how the purity is measured and tested.--NerdyWizard (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Sugar the real issue.
I can't see much critical thinking here. Focusing on woo clouds the issue i.e. historically high amount of sugar in our post-industrial diet. This in turn leads to diabetes and other health problems. I can't understand fluoridation as a solution, it seems to exasibabte it by letting people get away with consuming more sugar and hiding the real cost by having good teeth. I think, and this might sound like a conspiracy theory, its harder to get people to consume less sugar because of the policy changes and the shit fight that would happen with companies that rely on sugar...any one else with me here? — Unsigned, by: Skinnytony1 / talk / contribs
- Sugars take too many forms to be able to avoid it, even in the pre-industrial diet. Did you eat an apple? It's mostly sugar. Wheat? Also sugar. So, no. I don't agree. Zero (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You've provided a straw man zero, I didn't say avoidance and your apple example is silly i.e. look at reality...do you know how sugar is refined? The issue is that we consume a shit ton more sugar (as well as other stuff that bad for teeth) and carbs that have a high glycemic load. I've been living in a remote indigenous community in the Australia where people were living as hunter gatherers as recent as the 1930's. Sugar was such a rare thing (it's highest concentrations found in the native bee hive (trigona), that is usually found in Ironwood trees - not the easiest tree in the world to crack open even with chainsaws) to come by that it was and still is highly prized culturally (as well as biologically) hence today there is a massive increase in "diseases of civilization," i.e. diseases of insulin resistance, obesity, coronary heart disease etc etc, they don't have the cultural and linguistic resources to deal with these yet (which I was trying to help establish)... Check out what the science actually says from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2005 vol. 81 no. 2 341-354:
"Although sugars and grains with a high glycemic load now represent a dominant element of the modern urban diet, these foods were rarely or never consumed by average citizens as recently as 200 y ago."
and
"Within the past 20 y, substantial evidence has accumulated showing that long term consumption of high glycemic load carbohydrates can adversely affect metabolism and health (71, 77, 78). Specifically, chronic hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia induced by high glycemic load carbohydrates may elicit a number of hormonal and physiologic changes that promote insulin primary metabolic defect in the metabolic syndrome (79). Diseases resistance (71, 77, 78). Chronic hyperinsulinemia represents the of insulin resistance are frequently referred to as “diseases of civilization” (5, 78, 79) and include: obesity, coronary heart disease (CHD), type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia [elevated serum triacylglycerols, small-dense, LDL cholesterol and reduced HDL cholesterol]. It is likely that the metabolic syndrome may extend to other chronic illnesses and conditions that are widely prevalent in Western societies, including: myopia (80), acne (81), gout (79), polycystic ovary syndrome, epithelial cell cancers (breast, colon, and prostate), male vertex balding [WHAT THE F&*K!!??], skin tags and acanthosis nigricans (78). Diseases of insulin resistance are rare or absent in hunter-gatherer and other less westernized societies living and eating in their traditional manner (5, 21, 82, 83)."
I restate my case doesn't fluoridation mask (partially) the fact that our diet is fucked up and that we should be doing something about that instead of a band aid solution. Any one hear me??— Unsigned, by: Skinnytony1 / talk / contribs
- You sort of kind of have half a point, but only in the overall context of dental health, and only if you disregard the concept of "defense in depth", which is never a good idea. As regards water fluoridation, it's totally irrelevant. You're basically making a pointless moral hazard argument. EVDebs (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks EVDebs for that speedy reply...Where is sugar in the debate? Surely fluoridation is a temporary and transitory measure where the real issue is the cause of the tooth decay and "diseases of civilization". Fluoridation needs to be put into the context of a historical change in diet, one which needs to be adjusted again if health has value (as it is assumed with fluoridation). Is this not instrumental rationality? Skinnytony1 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, people eat too much refined sugar and it would certainly be better in terms of tooth decay, obesity and diabetes if people ate less of the stuff. All the negative information about sugar is pretty readily available.
- But suffering from obesity and an increased risk of diabetes doesn't seem to put people off their sugar very much. Would obliging people to suffer more tooth decay really reduce sugar consumption?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- As a quick-as-possible explanation: fluoride works by replacing an OH group in your teeth's minerals with an F. This makes it significantly more resistant to acid erosion because you can't (easily, that is) protonate a F group in order to chemically activate it (though it makes it slightly more brittle, hence why the dose is so low and we don't just swill out with a concentrated F- solution, so that the side-effect doesn't undo the benefit). It's one vector towards better overall protection against a lot of food substances that attack tooth enamel. Simply saying "we should cut out refined sugar" isn't a solution; dentists will agree that you should minimise it, but overall it isn't the sole and only factor in acid-based erosion. We would still benefit from fluoridation even if we did cut out all "refined sugars". (See Bob's "I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." signature)
d hominem 09:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to provide arguments. I've totally changed my position. Making people needlessly suffer tooth decay to reduce sugar doesn't make sense, especially when fluoride makes teeth more resistant to acid erosion, acid erosion that would still happen if sugar was removed from a persons diet. It's a cheap vector towards better population tooth health, so yeah thanks for the reasoned arguments. Skinnytony1 (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- As a quick-as-possible explanation: fluoride works by replacing an OH group in your teeth's minerals with an F. This makes it significantly more resistant to acid erosion because you can't (easily, that is) protonate a F group in order to chemically activate it (though it makes it slightly more brittle, hence why the dose is so low and we don't just swill out with a concentrated F- solution, so that the side-effect doesn't undo the benefit). It's one vector towards better overall protection against a lot of food substances that attack tooth enamel. Simply saying "we should cut out refined sugar" isn't a solution; dentists will agree that you should minimise it, but overall it isn't the sole and only factor in acid-based erosion. We would still benefit from fluoridation even if we did cut out all "refined sugars". (See Bob's "I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." signature)
[edit] Lovely BoN edit
"Water Fluoridation is responsible for creating sites like RationalWiki as it calcifies the pineal gland cutting the general population off from spirituality and higher truths. Water fluoridation should be fought in the United States as it is a program created to enslave America to communism. Communism will result in mass death starvation barbaric treatment and North Korea like conditions. " Filled me with glee. Scream!! (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Lol. 124.185.56.64 (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- This article really needs more info on the oft regurgitated pineal gland argument. Its like, where all your mystical energy comes from, brah. --NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 10:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
[edit] What's wrong with this data?
| Fluoridation of public water supplies has been one of the most widely debated public health measures in English-speaking countries. <ref name=Martin>[3], Sociological Quarterly </ref>
There are fewer critics who ask the question of why fluoridation of public water supplies should be the way to spread the benefits of fluoride. The options of fluoride tablets, topical fluoride treatments by dentists, fluoridation of school water supplies or school milk, and fluoride added to table salt each reduce or eliminate the compulsion associated with water fluoridation. <ref name=Martin/> ===Sociology of flouridation controversy=== In their major study, Crain et al. (1969) obtained information from over 700 cities on how the fluoridation issue had been dealt with. The most important findings were that stable blue-collar cities are most amenable to fluoridation, that "the most educated communities have most trouble with fluoridation" (Crain et al., 1969, p. 215) <ref name=Martin/> ===Around the world, not so much=== Several European countries have introduced fluoridation to a limited degree, most of these programs have been terminated. There is no large-scale water fluoridation in Europe today (Auermann and Lingelbach 1964; Farkas 1982; Forrest 1967; Myers, Plueckhahn, and Rees 1980, pp. 70-87; Scobie 1975). (The countries with the highest percent of population drinking water with added fluoride include Australia [about 67%], Ireland [66%], United States [53%], New Zealand [50%], and Canada [37%].) <ref name=Martin/> |
— Unsigned, by: Amateur Encyclopedist / talk / contribs 15:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- You're citing data that is 20 years old. I love the "compulsion associated with water fluoridation" bit. Does it really matter if its in salt, milk, or water? Fluoride is fluoride. The argument that you would have the choice to ingest it only really makes sense to moonbats who think fluoride is water conspiracy juice. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] My issues with the recent "AmateurEncyclopedia" et. al. edits
1. "Fluoridation of public water supplies has been one of the most widely debated public health measures in English-speaking countries." This isn't true and the citation for this is non-existent.
2. "Professional smooth talking bastard Edward Bernays helped the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) and other special interest groups to convince the American public that water fluoridation was safe and beneficial to human health. This was achieved by using the American Dental Association in a highly successful media campaign." This makes it seem like there's a corporate conspiracy to add fluoride to the water. The citation is to a non-peer reviewed non-scientific essay written by a self-admitted "anti-fluoridationist".
3. "There are fewer critics who ask the question of why fluoridation of public water supplies should be the way to spread the benefits of fluoride. The options of fluoride tablets, topical fluoride treatments by dentists, fluoridation of school water supplies or school milk, and fluoride added to table salt each reduce or eliminate the compulsion associated with water fluoridation." Really? The "compulsion" like someone is forcing us to drink water conspiracy juice? These other measures do work, but water fluoridation is just an easy and cost effect option. People can overdose on fluoride tablets, not everyone can afford to go to the dentist, other options exist for sure, but perhaps rephrase this with a non-conspiratorial bent.
4. "Others allege that behind the scenes it is promoted by the sugary food or phosphate fertilizer or aluminum industries, or that it is a smokescreen to cover failure to provide dental care to the poor." This is just poorly worded, but since its in the "Conspiracy theories" section it should stay.
5. "Around the world, not so much" section: This is old data and not particularly relevant. Europe mostly adds it to salt. This should be merged with the "Arguments against" section and the citations fixed. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Point 1. If the "citation for this is non-existent," then why does the cited article contain a sentence that reads, and I quote, "Since then the fluoridation of public water supplies has been one of the most widely debated public health measures in English-speaking countries."
- Point 2. Why should I pay attention to the rest of your gripes when you're proven yourself unable to read a simple article before complaining about it? Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
19:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Are you seriously putting forward all of this information from one singular source? Is this source valid? Where is the link to the source? Was this peer-reviewed? Is this a scientific document? The original edit had a citation that lead to nowhere. But since someone else thankfully reverted these terrible edits this point is moot. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually we don't need the questioned reference at all anymore. The wikipedia page for flouridation by country has more up to date figures and provides figures for even more countries. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country) Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Are you seriously putting forward all of this information from one singular source? Is this source valid? Where is the link to the source? Was this peer-reviewed? Is this a scientific document? The original edit had a citation that lead to nowhere. But since someone else thankfully reverted these terrible edits this point is moot. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Fluoridation:Or how I learned to stop worrying and accept 41% rates of dental fluorosis instead of regenerating teeth with stem-cells.
| Wikipedia copypasta dump |
|---|
[edit] History of fluoridationIn 1874, the German public health officer Carl Erhardt recommended potassium fluoride supplements to preserve teeth.[1] In 1892 the British physician James Crichton-Browne noted in an address that fluoride's absence from diets had resulted in teeth that were "peculiarly liable to decay", and who proposed "the reintroduction into our diet ... of fluorine in some suitable natural form ... to fortify the teeth of the next generation".[2] Public water fluoridation was first practiced in the USA[3] and has been introduced to many other countries to varying degrees, [4] with many countries having water that is naturally fluoridated to recommended levels and others, such as in Europe, using fluoridated salts as an alternative source of fluoride.[5] [edit] Arguments against fluoridationThe CDC did issue a statement that one study showed a potential increase in osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, in young males who drink fluoridated water. [6] According to the CDC, as of 2010, 41 percent of kids ages 12 to 15 had some form of dental fluorosis in the U.S. [7] A 2009 study that tracked fluoride exposure in more than 600 children in Iowa found no significant link between fluoride exposure and tooth decay. [8] [edit] Arguments for further researchAnother 2007 review in the British Medical Journal stated that "there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation," which is currently standard for all drugs. [9] [edit] DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) Status for 12 year olds by Country- World Health Organization Data (2012) - Country DMFTs Year Status* Denmark 0.7 2008 No water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. Germany 0.7 2005 No water fluoridation. 67% salt fluoridation. England 0.7 2009 11% water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. Netherlands* 0.8 2002 No water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. Switzerland** 0.82 2009 No water fluoridation. 88% salt fluoridation. Belgium 0.9 2009-10 No water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. Sweden 0.9 2008 No water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. Australia 1.0 2003-2004 80% water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. Austria 1.0 2002 No water fluoridation. 6% salt fluoridation. Ireland 1.1 2002 100% water fluoridation in study. No salt fluoridation. Italy 1.1 2004 No water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. United States 1.19 1999-2004 64% water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. Finland 1.2 2006 No water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. France 1.2 2006 No water fluoridation. 65% salt fluoridation. Spain 1.3 2004 11% water fluoridation. 10% salt fluoridation. Greece 1.35 2005-06 No water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. Iceland 1.4 2005 No water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. New Zealand 1.4 2009 61% water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. Japan 1.7 2005 No water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation. Norway 1.7 2004 No water fluoridation. No salt fluoridation.
Tooth Decay data from: World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Education, Training, and Research in Oral Health, Malmö University, Sweden. http://www.mah.se/CAPP/ Salt fluoridation data from: Gotzfried F. (2006). Legal aspects of fluoride in salt, particularly within the EU. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 116:371-75. [10] [edit] Stop reading the data wrongOne study published in the fall of 2012 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found a link between high fluoride levels found naturally in drinking water in China and elsewhere in the world, and lower IQs in children. The paper looked at the results of 27 different studies, 26 of which found a link between high-fluoride drinking water and lower IQ. The average IQ difference between high and low fluoride areas was 7 points, the study found. [11] [edit] Fluoridation by country[Water fluoridation]] has been introduced to varying degrees in many countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Malaysia, the U.S., and Vietnam,[12] and is used by 5.7% of people worldwide.[13] Continental Europe largely does not fluoridate water, although some of its countries fluoridate salt; locations have discontinued water fluoridation in Germany, the Netherlands, and other countries.[13] Health and dental organizations support water fluoridation in the countries that practice water fluoridation.[14] [edit] IndiaWater fluoridation is not practiced in India.[15][16] In 2004 both skeletal and dental fluorosis were endemic in at least 20 states, including Nalgonda, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.[17] The maximum permissible limit of fluoride in drinking water in India is 1.2 mg/L,[18] and the government has been obligated to install fluoride removal plants of various technologies to reduce fluoride levels from industrial waste and mineral deposits. [edit] ChinaIn China, water fluoridation began in 1965 in the urban area of Guangzhou. It was interrupted during 1976–1978 due to the shortage of sodium silico-fluoride. It was resumed only in the Fangcun district of the city, due to objections, and was halted in 1983. The fluoridation reduced the number of cavities, but increased dental fluorosis; the fluoride levels could have been set too high, and low-quality equipment led to inconsistent, and often excessive, fluoride concentrations.[19] As of 2002, there was no water fluoridation in China.[20] [edit] JapanLess than 1% of Japan practices water fluoridation.[21] [edit] IsraelYael German, Minister of Health of Israel signed a law making water fluoridation voluntary instead of mandatory except in areas with very low population. German believes fluoride should be provided in other ways, as well as considering water fluoridation a health risk to those with chronic illness and pregnant women. Her views have been privately disputed by other ministry public health officials, which have for years supported water fluoridation, and her views were disputed by the country's leading professors of community dentistry, one of whom stated, "According to all mainstream, professional and scientific data from around the world and within Israel, fluoride in general and in water specifically, is the most efficient, cheapest and safest measure of dental health promotion that reaches across the socio-economic spectrum."[22] Israel supreme court, July 2013, ruling has clarified the state of affairs: "We have noted before us the State’s obligation to stop the fluorination of drinking water within one year. Due to the cancellation of the Original Regulations and the fact that Regulation 20 of the New Regulations shall expire within a year, and since neither the Petitioners nor the Respondents have indicated another source of authorization for water fluorination, the Petition has been exhausted and is to be stricken. [23] According to "Public Health Regulations: The Sanitary Quality Of Drinking Water and Drinking Water Facilities-2013", Israel will cease public water fluoridation one year from August 25, 2013.[24] [edit] MalaysiaIn 1998, 66% of Malaysians were getting fluoridated water.[25] In 2010, Bernama reported, "Principal Director (Oral Health) in the Health Ministry, Datuk Dr Norain Abu Taib said that only 75.5% of the country’s population are enjoying the benefits of water fluoridation".[26] [edit] SingaporeIn 1956, Singapore was the first Asian country to institute a water fluoridation program that covered 100% of the population.[27][28] Water is fluoridated to a typical value of 0.4-0.6 mg per litre.[29] [edit] VietnamAbout 4% of the population of Vietnam has water fluoridation, whereas only 70% get their water from public supplies.[30] [edit] EgyptEgypt does not fluoridate water, although a pilot study commenced in Alexandria.[31] [edit] NigeriaOnly a fraction of Nigerians receive water from waterworks, so water fluoridation would affect only a few people. A 2009 study found that about 21% of water sources naturally containing fluoride to the recommended range of 0.3–0.6 ppm, about 62% have fluoride below this range, and the remainder are above this range.[32] [edit] South AfricaSouth Africa's Health Department recommends adding fluoridation chemicals to drinking water in some areas. It also advises removal of fluoride from drinking water (defluoridation) where the fluoride content is too high.[33][34] Legislation around mandatory fluoridation was introduced in 2002, but has been on hold since then pending further research after opposition from water companies, municipalities and the public.[35] [edit] AustriaAustria has never implemented fluoridation.[21] [edit] BelgiumBelgium does not fluoridate its water supply, although legislation permits it.[21] [edit] Czech RepublicCzech Republic (previously Czechoslovakia) started water fluoridation in 1958 in Tábor. In Prague fluoridation started in 1975. It was stopped in Prague in 1988 and subsequently in the whole country. Since 2008 no water has been fluoridated.[36] Fluoridated salt is available.[37] [edit] CroatiaCroatia does not fluoridate its water.[38] [edit] DenmarkAccording to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, "toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies", therefore Denmark does not practice artificial water fluoridation. However there are a number of naturally occurring contaminants in the Danish drinking water, as it can be seen on © HOFOR's website (© HOFOR is Copenhagen's water supply).[21] [edit] FinlandOnly one community (with 70,000 people) was ever fluoridated, Kuopio.[21] Kuopio stopped fluoridation in 1992. There was no evidence of additional benefit in children's dental health because of preexisting public health measures, such as promoting toothbrushing.[39] In regions with rapakivi bedrock (small, but densely populated regions), 22% of well waters and 55% of drilled well waters exceed the legal limit of 1.5 mg/l; generally, surface and well waters have 0.5-2.0 mg/l fluoride in affected regions.[40] [edit] FranceFluoridated salt is available in France,[21] and 3% of the population uses naturally fluoridated water,[30] but the water is not artificially fluoridated.[30] [edit] GermanyDrinking water is not fluoridated in any part of Germany. One experiment, started 1952 in Kassel-Wahlershausen, was discontinued in 1971.[41] The GDR used to fluoridate drinking water in a few cities, but it was discontinued after the German reunification.[12] [edit] GreeceThere is no water fluoridation in Greece.[42] [edit] HungaryIn the early 1960s the city of Szolnok briefly fluoridated its water. The program was discontinued due to technical problems and a view that fluoridation did not seem reasonable.Template:Clarify Hungary has not used artificially fluoridated water since then.[citation needed] [edit] IrelandIn the Republic of Ireland the majority of drinking water is fluoridated; 71% of the population in 2002 resided in fluoridated communities.[43] The fluoridation agent used is hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA; H2SiF6).[44] In a 2002 public survey, 45% of respondents expressed some concern about fluoridation.[45] In 1957, the Department of Health established a Fluorine Consultative Council which recommended fluoridation at 1.0 ppm of public water supplies, then accessed by ~50% of the population.[46] This was felt to be a much cheaper way of improving the quality of children's teeth than employing more dentists.[47] The ethical approval for this was given by the "Guild of Saints Luke, Cosmas and Damian", established by Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid.[46] This led to the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960, which mandated compulsory fluoridation by local authorities.[47][48] The statutory instruments made in 1962–65 under the 1960 Act were separate for each local authority, setting the level of fluoride in drinking water to 0.8–1.0 ppm.[49][50] The current regulations date from 2007, and set the level to 0.6–0.8 ppm, with a target value of 0.7 ppm.[51] Implementation of fluoridation was held up by preliminary dental surveying and water testing,[52] and a court case, Ryan v. Attorney General.[53] In 1965, the Supreme Court rejected Gladys Ryan's claim that the Act violated the Constitution of Ireland's guarantee of the right to bodily integrity.[53][54] By 1965, Greater Dublin's water was fluoridated; by 1973, other urban centers were.[55] Studies from the late 1970s to mid 1990s showed a higher decrease in (and lower incidence of) dental decay in school children living in areas where water was fluoridated than in areas where water was not fluoridated.[56] A private member's bill to end fluoridation was defeated in the Dáil on 12 November 2013.[57][58] It was supported by Sinn Féin and some of the technical group and opposed by the Fine Gael-Labour government and Fianna Fáil.[58][59][60] [edit] Latvia1.5 mg/l of Fluoride[61] is added mainly in Riga, because it's the only city with a large community water supply. [edit] NetherlandsWater was fluoridated in large parts of the Netherlands from 1960 to 1973, when the High Council of The Netherlands declared fluoridation of drinking water unauthorized.[62] Dutch authorities had no legal basis for adding chemicals to drinking water if they would not improve the safety of doing so.[31] Drinking water has not been fluoridated in any part of the Netherlands since 1973. [edit] NorwayIn 2000, representatives of the Norwegian National Institute for Public Health reported that no cities in Norway were practicing water fluoridation. There had been intense discussion of the issue around 1980, but no ongoing political discussion in 2000.[63] [edit] SpainAround 10% of the population receives fluoridated water.[64] [edit] SwedenIn 1952, Norrköping in Sweden became one of the first cities in Europe to fluoridate its water supply.[65] It was declared illegal by the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden in 1961, re-legalized in 1962[66] and finally prohibited by the parliament in 1971,[67] after considerable debate. The parliament majority said that there were other and better ways of reducing tooth decay than water fluoridation. Four cities received permission to fluoridate tap water when it was legal.[65]:56–57 An official commission was formed, which published its final report in 1981. They recommended other ways of reducing tooth decay (improving food and oral hygiene habits) instead of fluoridating tap water. They also found that many people found fluoridation to infringe upon personal liberty/freedom of choice by forcing them to be medicated, and that the long-term effects of fluoridation were insufficiently acknowledged. They also lacked a proper study on the effects of fluoridation on formula-fed infants.[65]:29 [edit] SwitzerlandIn Switzerland since 1962 two fluoridation programs had operated in tandem: water fluoridation in the City of Basel, and salt fluoridation in the rest of Switzerland (around 83% of domestic salt sold had fluoride added). However it became increasingly difficult to keep the two programs separate. As a result some of the population of Basel were assumed to use both fluoridated salt and fluoridated water. In order to correct the situation, in April 2003 the State Parliament agreed to cease water fluoridation and officially expand salt fluoridation to Basel.[68][69] [edit] United KingdomAround 10% of the population of the United Kingdom receives fluoridated water,[64] about half a million people receive water that is naturally fluoridated with calcium fluoride, and about 6 million total receive fluoridated water.[70] The Water Act 2003 required water suppliers to comply with requests from local health authorities to fluoridate their water.[70] The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in two small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years. By 1999, fluoridation ceased in those two areas, as well.[citation needed] In 2004, following a public consultation, Scotland's parliament rejected proposals to fluoridate public drinking water.[71] [edit] CanadaThe decision whether to fluoridate lies with local governments, with guidelines set by provincial, territorial, and federal governments. Brantford, Ontario became the first city in Canada to fluoridate its water supplies in 1945.[72] In 1955, Toronto approved water fluoridation, but delayed implementation of the program until 1963 due to a campaign against fluoridation by broadcaster Gordon Sinclair.[73] The city continues to fluoridate its water today.[74] In 2008 the recommended fluoride levels in Canada were reduced from 0.8–1.0 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L to minimize the risk of dental fluorosis. Ontario, Alberta, and Manitoba have the highest rates of fluoridation, about 70–75%. The lowest rates are in Quebec (about 6%), British Columbia (about 4%), and Newfoundland and Labrador (1.5%), with Nunavut and the Yukon having no fluoridation at all.[72] Overall, about 45% of the Canadian population had access to fluoridated water supplies in 2007.[72] A 2008 survey found that about half of Canadian adults knew about fluoridation, and of these, 62% supported the idea.[75] In 2010, the Region of Waterloo held a referendum for residents to decide if water fluoridation should continue.[76][77] The result of the vote was 50.3% voting against fluoridation.[77][78] In 2011, Calgary city council voted 10-3 to stop adding fluoride to the city's drinking water, having started water fluoridation in 1991.[79][80] [edit] United StatesSee the main article on this topic: Water fluoridation in the United States
As of May 2000, 42 of the 50 largest U.S. cities had water fluoridation.[81] In 2010, 66% of all U.S. residents and 74% of U.S. residents with access to community water systems receive fluoridated water.[82] In 2010, a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study determined that "40.7% of adolescents aged 12–15 had dental fluorosis [in 1999–2004]".[83] In response, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services together with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are proposing[84] to reduce the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water to the lowest end of the current range, 0.7 milligrams per liter of water (mg/L), from the previous recommended maximum of 1.2 mg/L.[85] This could effectively terminate municipal water fluoridation in areas where fluoride levels from mineral deposits and industrial pollution exceed the new recommendation.[86] [edit] AustraliaFile:Percentage of Australian population with access to fluoridated water as of 2012.jpg Australian residents served with community water fluoridation, 2005[87] and 2012. The percentages are the proportions of the resident population served by public water supplies who are receiving fluoridated water. See the main article on this topic: Water fluoridation in Australia
Australia now provides fluoridated water for 70% or more of the population in all states and territories. Many of Australia's drinking water supplies began fluoridation in the 1960s and 1970s. By 1984 almost 66% of the Australian population had access to fluoridated drinking water, represented by 850 towns and cities.[88][89] Some areas within Australia have natural fluoride levels in the groundwater, which was estimated in 1991 to provide drinking water to approximately 0.9% of the population.[88] The first town to fluoridate the water supply in Australia was Beaconsfield, Tasmania in 1953.[90] Queensland became the last state to formally require the addition of fluoride to public drinking water supplies in December 2008.[91] [edit] New ZealandThe use of water fluoridation first began in New Zealand in Hastings in 1954. A Commission of Inquiry was held in 1957 and then its use rapidly expanded in the mid 1960s.[92] New Zealand now has fluoridated water supplied to about half of the total population.[93] Of the six main centers, only Christchurch[94] and Tauranga[95] do not have a fluoridated water supply. Wellington's water supply is mostly fluoridated, but the suburbs of Petone and Korokoro receive a non-fluoridated supply.[96] In 2013, a Hamilton City Council committee voted to remove fluoride from late June 2013.[97] A referendum was held during the council elections in October 2013 with approximately 70% of voters voting for fluoride to be added back into the water supply, and in March 2014, the council voted 9 to 1 to re-introduce fluoride into the supply.[98] In a 2007 referendum about half of voters in the Central Otago, South Otago and the Southland Region did not want fluoridation[99] and voters in the Waitaki District were against water fluoridation for all Wards.[100] Ashburton and Greymouth also voted against fluoridation.[101] [edit] BrazilWater fluoridation was first adopted in Brazil in the city of Baixo Guandu, ES, in 1953.[102] A 1974 federal law required new or enlarged water treatment plants to have fluoridation, and its availability was greatly expanded in the 1980s, with optimum fluoridation levels set at 0.8 mg/L. Today, the expansion of fluoridation in Brazil is a governmental priority; state-sponsored research points to a sharp correlation between the availability of fluoridation and benefits to human health. Between 2005 and 2008, fluoridation became available to 7.6 million people in 503 municipalities.[citation needed] As of 2008, 3,351 municipalities, 60.3% of total, adopted fluoridation, up from 2,466 in 2000.[103] The proportion of the national population affected is greater, because cities with fluoridation tend to be larger. [edit] ChileIn Chile 70.5% of the population receives fluoridated water (10.1 million added by chemical means, 604,000 naturally occurring).[104] |
[edit] Conclusion
As the British Medical Journal stated that "there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation," which is currently standard for all drugs. [105] Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
| Great Wall O'footnotes |
|---|
|
[edit] Footnotes
|
[edit] A response
How is this information at all relevant to the article? RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. What sort of argument are you putting forward here? NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 22:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- The differing views of different countries provides a global perspective, however I didn't want to cherry pick which countries opinions are worth mentioning, as that should be a community decision. The Danish government has the harshest criticism calling fluoride toxic. India and China show what can go wrong with over fluoridation. The Minister of Health of Israel believes it should be voluntary and can put certain people like pregnant women at risk. That most of Europe and Japan don't add fluoride means most heavily developed countries do not fluoridate. Right now the article is written from an exclusively American perspective, and Americas is the minority opinion in this case. That Edward Bernays advertising expertise was needed to push fluoridation would have triggered Carl Sagan's bull shit detector as well, the science should be speaking for it's self. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- "That Edward Bernays advertising expertise was needed to push fluoridation would have triggered Carl Sagan's bull shit detector" the fact that you have to essentially provide a non-scientific cop out (saying someone sold the public on this "harmful chemical") and then invoke that somehow the actual science of community water fluoridation is somehow in question or "up for debate" betrays the weakness of your position. So far you've only provided fallacious arguments and pseudoscientific documents to back up your rather half-baked attack on "the science". "India and China show what can go wrong with over fluoridation." How so exactly? These are areas where the natural groundwater occurrence of fluoride is extremely high, where water fluoridation control efforts are essentially aimed at removing excessively high, yet naturally occurring, harmful levels of fluoride. "The Minister of Health of Israel believes it should be voluntary and can put certain people like pregnant women at risk." Even if someone said this, this doesn't reflect the overarching scientific consensus on fluoridation. People with crank ideas make it into government quite frequently, and this argument is itself a fallacious appeal to authority. Where is your citation for this statement, so that I could at least take it halfway seriously? "That most of Europe and Japan don't add fluoride means most heavily developed countries do not fluoridate" Europe mostly adds it to milk and salt, which I've already stated (and don't want to make this into a PRATT). Since the source you've provided was essentially copy and pasted from Wikipedia, if you were as so bold as to actually follow the citation for Japanese levels of fluoridation (which is 1%) you would notice the statement: "Dental disease in Japan is very severe compared to the United States." Hmmm, I wonder why that would be? And also you assume Europe and Japan are "most heavily developed countries". What about China, Russia, the United States, India, and Australia? NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 10:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I also don't like the term developed countries but it's the one taught in geography classes as a euphemism for richest. Also the Israeli Health Ministers quite clearly made that statement, why are you making it sound like she didn't? Which of these sources from Wikipedia and the straight dope isn't scientific? Oh, and you're right about Japan having higher rates of dental disease, but compare that to Denmark, The Netherlands, or Sweden. (http://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/) The 2012 WHO data does not support fluoridation as being a reason for the decline in dental decay in 12 year olds that has been occurring in recent decades.”
- "That Edward Bernays advertising expertise was needed to push fluoridation would have triggered Carl Sagan's bull shit detector" the fact that you have to essentially provide a non-scientific cop out (saying someone sold the public on this "harmful chemical") and then invoke that somehow the actual science of community water fluoridation is somehow in question or "up for debate" betrays the weakness of your position. So far you've only provided fallacious arguments and pseudoscientific documents to back up your rather half-baked attack on "the science". "India and China show what can go wrong with over fluoridation." How so exactly? These are areas where the natural groundwater occurrence of fluoride is extremely high, where water fluoridation control efforts are essentially aimed at removing excessively high, yet naturally occurring, harmful levels of fluoride. "The Minister of Health of Israel believes it should be voluntary and can put certain people like pregnant women at risk." Even if someone said this, this doesn't reflect the overarching scientific consensus on fluoridation. People with crank ideas make it into government quite frequently, and this argument is itself a fallacious appeal to authority. Where is your citation for this statement, so that I could at least take it halfway seriously? "That most of Europe and Japan don't add fluoride means most heavily developed countries do not fluoridate" Europe mostly adds it to milk and salt, which I've already stated (and don't want to make this into a PRATT). Since the source you've provided was essentially copy and pasted from Wikipedia, if you were as so bold as to actually follow the citation for Japanese levels of fluoridation (which is 1%) you would notice the statement: "Dental disease in Japan is very severe compared to the United States." Hmmm, I wonder why that would be? And also you assume Europe and Japan are "most heavily developed countries". What about China, Russia, the United States, India, and Australia? NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 10:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
SOURCE: Neurath C. (2005). Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in nonfluoridated and fluoridated countries. Fluoride 38:324-325.
Carl Sagan said that massive advertisement campaigns are used when there is no noticeable difference between the products, as an advertiser Edward Bernays made people stupider and less willing to trust their own judgement. That's just his opinion on advertising in general though and wasn't something I was going to include in the article. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- "I also don't like the term developed countries but it's the one taught in geography classes as a euphemism for richest." So you're still ignoring China, Russia, the United States, India, and Australia. "Also the Israeli Health Ministers quite clearly made that statement, why are you making it sound like she didn't?" Where's your source? Again if they did say it, plenty of cranks make it into government anyways. "Which of these sources from Wikipedia..." listing a bunch of countries' fluoridation practices is a non-sequitur for your argument. Some countries fluoridate, some to varying degrees, some put it in salt, milk, some have government healthcare programs that give out tablets. Who cares? "straight dope" isn't a scholarly journal, however they are usually pretty spot on with their blogs. Oh wait, where did you source it again? And then you drop the Fluoride Alert link. That's like making an argument that homeopathy works and then using NaturalNews as a source. Paul Connett is a pseudostatitician, he takes data and interprets however he feels like. Really, tooth decay and its population rates is an incredibly complex issue with lots of confounding variables (population sugar intake, access to health care, education, diet, natural groundwater occurrence of fluoride, alternative fluoride treatment options, the availability of fluoride containing mouthwash and toothpastes) and if you ignore them, its a lot easier to twist conclusions out of the statistics which do not reflect reality. Since you've invoked Carl Sagan, I strongly suggest reading The Fine Art of Baloney Detection. Especially "Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics", Observational selection, Non sequitur, Correlation does not imply causation, and Argument from authority. I think you'll find anything about advertising curiously absent from the kit (although advertisers use fallacious arguments all the time).NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Does NaturalNews use U.N. studies? Also, the only country you listed that was left out was Russia. Why don't you think Denmark views on fluoridation are worth mentioning, and why have you not reverted my addition of their opposition to vitamin supplements in that article as well? The conclusion I stated was that their is inconclusive evidence, so rational wiki should avoid making a statement on water fluoridation.
Appeals to authority are frequent in the pro fluoridation section. "The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention considers water fluoridation to be one of the top 10 public health advances of the 20th century. The American Dental Association unreservedly endorses the fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective and necessary in preventing tooth decay. The World Health Organization states that fluoridation of water supplies, where possible, is the most effective public health measure for the prevention of dental decay." The 2012 WHO study seems to suggest Europe has found more effective means of preventing tooth decay, what ever that may be.
I've provided many more arguments against, and the ones currently listed are not very good. "Additional studies on links between fluoride and cancer, and fluoride and bone fractures have been shown to be invalid" The CDC study I added suggests fluoridation does increase the likelihood of osteosarcoma a rare type of bone cancer.
Some prominent figures against fluoridation? There's no need for this section unless we want to include the opposite section for people like Edward Bernays and any other famous supporters. That Portland Oregon get's it's section but Denmark does not is completely bias to America.
The Harvard section isn't worth mentioning unless we also include the skeletal and dental fluorosis in China and India. One study published in the fall of 2012 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found a link between high fluoride levels found naturally in drinking water in China and elsewhere in the world, and lower IQs in children. The paper looked at the results of 27 different studies, 26 of which found a link between high-fluoride drinking water and lower IQ. The average IQ difference between high and low fluoride areas was 7 points, the study found. [1] Wikipedia only mentions dental fluorosis, not skeletal. As of 2010, 41 percent of American kids ages 12 to 15 had some form of dental fluorosis, according to the CDC.
Also because you couldn't be bothered to check the link at the end of the Israel section, here it is. (http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/Professors-slam-change-to-water-fluoridation-policy-310965) You are correct in that like Denmark she does not cite a study, which is unfortunate.
At this point I would like to hear some outside opinions, lest we just endlessly repeat the arguments we have already made. In the future NerdyWizard, please choose to use paragraphs. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- You know what our page on argument from authority says? "An argument from authority, when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source." You know who I think might know about floridation? Dentists. You know what orginizaiton is a global authority on health? The world health organization. Look it's quite clear that the science is in on floridation. Our article states that the issue has been studied "to death". It's fine if you want to report on varying opinions of floridation or various floride idiocy, but don't make it look like we endorse it. There are some real risks of toxic levels of floride, you can report on how it's avoided by managing levels of florine. Another way the article could be expanded is by explaining what natural levels of florine are. But I think an anti-scientific consensus anti-floridation view doesn't belong here.
- so basically like I said before I think NerdyWizard has the right idea here. This post came out rather more extreme then I intended take it with a grain of salt. also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
. At the commonly recommended dosage, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and is unlikely to represent any real effect on aesthetic appearance or on public health
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis
usually mild and difficult for anyone except a dental health care professional to see
--NonPerson (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- double posting. just wanted to say http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=1345933&oldid=1345878 Encyclopedist it looks like it's already an edit war to me rofl. I think you two might have invested a bit too much of yourselves into this article. If this post seems stupid that's because it's my bed time. --NonPerson (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, the last Encyclopedist addition didn't offend me, other than the poor choice of reference. Why reference an outside State of California website stating that the EPA regulates fluoride when you could just reference the EPA website? NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 12:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)