Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 17 April 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, (new)(back)

Before[edit]

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)

Arguments For section[edit]

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)

Woo?[edit]

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. --Putin2.jpg Brasov 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: ‎95.25.237.158 / talk / contribs

Criticism[edit]

"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!

Alternative conspiracy[edit]

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. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Which I'm sure human, as a brit, can appreciate...-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Unhand me, scoundrel! 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
If it wasn't lead, it was probably tetracycline.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Unhand me, scoundrel! 19:44, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Citizen Notice[edit]

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)

Harvard Study[edit]

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. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 15:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with determining the credibility of sources[edit]

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. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 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

Pineal gland[edit]

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)

The Form of Fluoride Is Not Stated[edit]

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)

Sugar the real issue.[edit]

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) Scarlet A.pngd 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)

Lovely BoN edit[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)

What's wrong with this data?[edit]

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)

My issues with the recent "AmateurEncyclopedia" et. al. edits[edit]

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 talkModerator 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)


Fluoridation:Or how I learned to stop worrying and accept 41% rates of dental fluorosis instead of regenerating teeth with stem-cells.[edit]

Conclusion[edit]

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)

A response[edit]

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.”

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)

Footnotes[edit]

  1. http://www.livescience.com/37123-fluoridation.html

Recent study[edit]

Good analysis. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is embarrassing, and show Rationalwiki's love of pseudoscience when supported by "Authority"[edit]

"Most of the arguments against fluoridation are based on ethical and moral issues, namely that water fluoridation is medicating large numbers of people without their explicit consent."

Right.

"Curiously they don't typically complain about regulations that add "drugs" to other foods, like iodine added to salt, vitamin D added to milk, iron added to cereal, or folic acid added to flour."

What? First, how does that address the claim that people are being medicated without consent? It doesn't.

Second, Iodine is something you must consume or you will die. Fluoride helps your teeth if applied topically - there is no need to consume fluoride.

Furthermore, iodine added to salt is not necessary, and people should be eating unrefined salts not refined salts which are horribly unhealthy. Iodine is important, but the amount added to salt is not nearly enough - it will only stop goiter. Vitamin D added to milk is also not necessary. Iron added to cereal I assume is a joke - does anyone think cereal is healthy? Does anyone your body actually absorbs much of the added vitamins and minerals in cereal?

I do complain about all those added ingredients (I'm not aware of any regulations enforcing vitamin D be added to milk or iodine to salt, the milk I buy has no Vitamin D added, the salt I buy is not refined with added iodine), so this argument makes no sense.

"Despite fluoride naturally occurring in food and water,[25] a common argument against it is the appeal to nature."

What? Fluoride does naturally occur in some water and some foods, but that is not the same fluoride that is put in the water. The fluoride used in water systems is agricultural waste.

So people are being treated with agricultural waste that's being called medicinal without their consent. The article rebuttal - "well, you don't complain about other stuff."

Really? If you read this article and find it intellectually honest, you're probably not a very rational person. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Christopher (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
You should realise if you say "you're not rational" at any point in a discussion we'll just use that template and ignore you. Christopher (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to find the basis of Rationalwiki, maybe as a regular user you can tell me? Are these articles trying to be as rational/logical as possible? Are they trying to present the mainstream opinion - and if that's the case, doesn't wikipedia already do that? Is the point to just attack anything that appears "pseudoscientific?" If something is considered pseudoscience, but is actually backed up by science, then would Rationalwiki want their article to call that thing pesudoscience because that's what it's considered to be, or would they want their article to be as true as possible even if it contradicts the mainstream?
That's why I keep saying rational - it's what I assumed was the basis of this website's philosophy.
Also, why don't you address anything I said besides the last sentence? I don't care if you ignore me, I'm just presenting logical points of error in various articles.97.70.1.221 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I, or someone else, will hopefully address your points at some point. I was warning you not to say the word "rational" or people will just say: "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! and forget about it. If you want your points listened to don't say that. Christopher (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't have a "neutral" or "mainstream" point of view but a rational one (we hope). Christopher (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that attacking the rationality of an article was a meme already, though perhaps I should've figured. Thanks.
You go on to say that Rational wiki is supposed to be a rational, not a neutral or mainstream POV. Great! I think you'll see that all my uses of "rational" are in direct reference to logical error. I don't use it just to support my opinions. As you can see in my criticisms here, there is faulty, misleading logic. But I'll avoid using "rational" as a point of attack, because it appears it will lump me in with hysterical people without logical arguments.97.70.1.221 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to let you know, it's considered an unforgivable sin and an abomination unto the Lord to edit comments, including your own, after someone has replied to them. Christopher (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
You pointed out that my one barely relevant comment at the bottom of my post could get get me dismissed, so I edited it out.97.70.1.221 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Look, buddy, pal, the problem is, if we're being totally straight with each other, you're fucking crazy. Calling a pure diatomic compound "agricultural waste" is a "fact" you can only have decided is true by drinking deep from the conspiracy trough. They produce the most commonly used florides by neutralizing hydrofloric acid with sodium hydroxide. This is a reaction a fucking high school student could understand and apply. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
"Calling a pure diatomic compound "agricultural waste" is a "fact" you can only have decided is true by drinking deep from the conspiracy trough." Let's see if your claim (and in the process my claim) is accurate.
Water is treated with Silicofluorides - "Silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products; they are unprocessed industrial by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry."
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/343/files/FJ2001_v34_n3_p161-164.pdf, http://fluoridealert.org/articles/phosphate01/
There are many recent scientific papers addressing the threats of using Silicofluorides in our water, just google it yourself.
"They produce the most commonly used florides by neutralizing hydrofloric acid with sodium hydroxide."
Yes, for tooth pastes and the like. That's not the fluoride used in the water. So you see, you were misinformed, but because you thought you were right, you got all high and mighty and called me crazy. Do you see how that's not rational (hardy har har)?
Well the template was created because it's a point that's been argued a lot and users here got tired of constantly discussing it. It's a little passive aggressive for my tastes. In any case, I'll address your argument anyway:
I do complain about all those added ingredients (I'm not aware of any regulations enforcing vitamin D be added to milk or iodine to salt, the milk I buy has no Vitamin D added, the salt I buy is not refined with added iodine), so this argument makes no sense.
The article is really addressing the mainstream argument that people focus on mainly fluoride. If you worry about other drugs in your digestible substances, then you are in a minority. In any case, fluoride levels are something to worry about when its outside the safe level. You can read what your fluoride levels are in your water from your local water provider's website, some areas do have unsafe level. You can also test it out yourself at home. Just keep in mind that a substance in any amount is poison. So if you are drinking water with safe levels of fluoride, it's as harmful as drinking water with safe amounts of cyanide. If you disagree with the documented safe levels and think it is an example of scientists lying, I suggest attending/conducting clinical trials and observing yourself.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
"The article is really addressing the mainstream argument that people focus on mainly fluoride. If you worry about other drugs in your digestible substances, then you are in a minority."
That doesn't address the logical mistake of the argument. If people focus on fluoride and not others that is evidence they are hypocrites - it does not address the claim that people are being medicated without consent, and worse, medicated at an arbitrary level equal for all men women & children of every size.
You should see now how this is an argument that says most people are hypocrites so no one is allowed to not want to be medicated without consent. Does that sound logical to you?
"If you disagree with the documented safe levels and think it is an example of scientists lying, I suggest attending/conducting clinical trials and observing yourself."
Is all that necessary, are you sure these safe levels are still considered safe?
Here's a link to another recent study showing a link between lower IQs and fluoride. With the link to the paper itself below it. http://fluoridealert.org/articles/new-study-quantifies-fluorides-potential-to-lower-iq-in-children/
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/hirzy-2016.pdf
Here is scientific research showing kids are getting more than considered safe levels of fluoride: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/sources/f-toothpaste/
So now you've been presented with scientific evidence that goes against what you thought was considered right. Will you dismiss it? Or will you engage with it and see if maybe the science has come to a point that we now know kids get too much fluoride and that fluoridated water leads to lower IQs?97.70.1.221 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


"What? First, how does that address the claim that people are being medicated without consent? It doesn't. Second, Iodine is something you must consume or you will die. Fluoride helps your teeth if applied topically - there is no need to consume fluoride."

It's constructing an analogy and it does address the argument. Why complain about fluoride being added into water when we already have ingredients that fortify our own food? "there is no need to consume fluoride", I mean, yeah, but it does lower cavity rate if we simply add the fluoride to an easily-accessed commodity.

"Furthermore, iodine added to salt is not necessary, and people should be eating unrefined salts not refined salts which are horribly unhealthy. Iodine is important, but the amount added to salt is not nearly enough - it will only stop goiter. Vitamin D added to milk is also not necessary."

Eh? I searched unrefined salt, and I got results that stink highly of woo, and I mean shit from "natural" and "organic" sites AND NaturalNews to boot. I don't think this article is arguing that it is necessary to consume fluoride, but there is no doubt that fluoride improves human life, as how Vitamin D does. Sure, you have a problem with added ingredients, based on your assessment that "people should be eating unrefined salts", it doesn't sound like it's founded on science. Thank you, but I'd rather buy salt refined.

"What? Fluoride does naturally occur in some water and some foods, but that is not the same fluoride that is put in the water. The fluoride used in water systems is agricultural waste."

Wa? How exactly isn't it the "same"? Because I think on the chemical level, your body won't notice the difference.

"Really? If you read this article and find it intellectually honest, you're probably not a very rational person."

lol

--It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"Why complain about fluoride being added into water when we already have ingredients that fortify our own food?"
Do you not see how illogical your argument is here? This would be evidence that the person arguing is a hypocrite or misinformed, not that somehow medicating without consent is now somehow fine.
I addressed this argument above: You should see now how this is an argument that says most people are hypocrites so no one is allowed to not want to be medicated without consent. Does that sound logical to you?
"I searched unrefined salt, and I got results that stink highly of woo,"
Try googling mineral content of sea salt, or celtic sea salt, or Himalayan pink salt, or any unrefined salt. Then search for the mineral content of table salt. You will see that unrefined salt has many trace (trace as in small amounts) elements that table salt does not.
"I don't think this article is arguing that it is necessary to consume fluoride, but there is no doubt that fluoride improves human life"
From above: Here's a link to another recent study showing a link between lower IQs and fluoride. With the link to the paper itself below it. http://fluoridealert.org/articles/new-study-quantifies-fluorides-potential-to-lower-iq-in-children/
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/hirzy-2016.pdf
Here is scientific research showing kids are getting more than considered safe levels of fluoride: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/sources/f-toothpaste/
Fluoride applied to the teeth does improve human life, however consuming it at the rate it's being consumed now is lowering kids IQ, and since consuming it is not necessary for health benefits, why would it make any sense to put it in the water?
Just because we have in the past? Just because you don't want to admit you were wrong?
"Wa? How exactly isn't it the "same"? Because I think on the chemical level, your body won't notice the difference."
I love it when people make claim totally off the top of their heads.
From above:
Water is treated with Silicofluorides - "Silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products; they are unprocessed industrial by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry."
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/343/files/FJ2001_v34_n3_p161-164.pdf, http://fluoridealert.org/articles/phosphate01/
There are many recent scientific papers addressing the threats of using Silicofluorides in our water, just google it yourself.97.70.1.221 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems I've gained a following. Hopefully we can actually start correcting these mistakes in the articles and not just endlessly talk about them.97.70.1.221 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears you've gained a following? If you looked at recent changes you'd see how little goes on here compared to TOW. Anyone going on rationalwiki hasn't got much else to do (except just read an article and look for small improvements to make). Christopher (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@97.70.1.221 I don't think I can trust self hosted studies and original content from websites that have a clear bias against Fluoride. Also, are we talking about the pure element Fluoride being harmful or just any compound containing it. Just because a compound contains a "toxic" element doesn't necessarily mean it's harmful. Take for instance, NaCl, it contains Chlorine which is a deadly gas, yet we consume it everyday.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
"I don't think I can trust self hosted studies and original content from websites that have a clear bias against Fluoride."
So you have no specific objections? Did you even look at the content?
"Also, are we talking about the pure element Fluoride being harmful or just any compound containing it."
It's all about how much fluoride you're getting, you don't need to consume any to protect your teeth. Fluoride from any source natural or industrial waste if at too high of a level will cause lowering of IQs and thyroid problems. http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20150225/fluoride-in-drinking-water-tied-to-higher-rates-of-underactive-thyroid#1
"Just because a compound contains a "toxic" element doesn't necessarily mean it's harmful." Right, but we have studies that say kids are getting too high of levels of fluoride (which we know is toxic in too high a dose, as you yourself said above) just from toothpastes and the like, adding it to all water (even bathing water) is just totally bizarre. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
'We the people paying the water rates' also wish 'them providing the water' to remove all the toxic nasties that end up in the outflow pipes (from factories, sewage, 'dirt blown by the wind into the water storage' etc).
Can the human body get rid of excess fluoride if not 'ingested in large amounts in a short period' (the equivalent of Vitamin A poisoning from polar bear liver)? If so, then fluoridation of water is not a problem.
Are the usual newspapers producing shock-horror reports on fluorine, or the medical authorities saying that it should be consumed in moderation (until next week's scare story)? If not, there is no real problem.
And is Dihydrogen oxide toxic in large quantities? Yes. 31.51.114.124 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Objections? Here, a post by Steve Novella. And then there is Snopes, which the categorize as false. The link you cited referred to a Chinese study, which I suppose is Choi et al 2012, and it relates to very high exposure, not normal exposure, like many studies that "link" fluoride exposure to adverse health effects. For instance, the control group were given fluoride levels similar to recommended levels by the EPA. Not relevant to the safety of fluoride in of itself. I also wouldn't link anything from something like "fluoridealert" which sounds like political advocacy and not a scientific organization that does any actual research. I looked at the site, looked at some of its articles. Meh. Also, no, just because there is a correlation between one factor and another doesn't necessarily mean it causes it. Stop saying that it "causes" lowering of IQ and "causes" thyroid problems because of a Chinese study that showed differences between safe levels of fluoride and unsafe levels of fluoride (and they're conducted in China because water in places have naturally high concentrations) and a single study you cite in webmd even says that there isn't evidence for a cause-effect. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
"Can the human body get rid of excess fluoride if not 'ingested in large amounts in a short period' (the equivalent of Vitamin A poisoning from polar bear liver)? If so, then fluoridation of water is not a problem."
Why are you theorizing that the body can handle fluoride like it does Vitamin A an essential nutrient? Fluoride does not need to be consumed for any reason, it's benefits come from topical application. We know fluoride is toxic, we know it effects IQ (I've linked many studies including recent ones in New Zealand http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/), we know there is no reason to consume it.
"Are the usual newspapers producing shock-horror reports on fluorine, or the medical authorities saying that it should be consumed in moderation (until next week's scare story)? If not, there is no real problem."
I'm posting recent scientific studies including in New Zealand, not shock horror reports,
And is Dihydrogen oxide toxic in large quantities? Yes.
Yawn, false equivalence. Water is necessary to life, fluoride does not need to be consumed whatsoever. — Unsigned, by: 97.70.1.221 / talk / contribs
Dose makes poison (not a false equivalence), adding fluoride in water is an easy way to prevent cavities, and studies that show IQ change use a control group that ingests the recommended dose of fluoride and compare it to an experimental group that exceeds the recommended dose. The article you cite refers to the Choi study that has been discussed to death thousands of times (see Wikipedia talk page; also, the lancet study cited in that page has also been discussed thousands of times) and is completely irrelevant to fluoride safety in of itself. And it even admits that there isn't a demonstrable cause-effect relationship, but it still says "ADVISE CAUTION" because there is still a correlation or something. Most of the studies are done in China (32 out of 50 according to that article you posted) because China has large bodies of water with naturally high amounts of fluoride that likely exceeds recommended levels. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

...I miss LogicMaster. CorruptUser (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I remember that... thing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I mean, right now we are dealing with screeds about water fluoridation and HIV denial. At least with LM, it was original nonsense. Or, at least, nonsense I hadn't seen before. Water fluoridation is boring. CorruptUser (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Fluoridating water is religion because it's a government action. And we all know that government is religion, and religion is a fluoridated binding contract by nature. Damn, I don't think I can match it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Water fluoridation is a small part of the Leviathan that people in white suits use to deceive us into believing that so-called "universities" can magically transform humans into "dentists". The graduation ceremony is a ritual, and proves that there are no such things as dentists. Can you provide any evidence that dentists exist? CorruptUser (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Dentistry is a religion! Just like as we have priests in Christianity, they are a magic men. A druid. A magistrate. A modern day shaman-cardinal of a particular religion that interpret a bunch of leaves of paper for us and dictate our facts and rule our lives by order of the Leviathan. Is that proof enough they exist? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
You drink industrial waste.
How about we move to the talk page on the Big Bang, would that interest you more? I'd love for Rationalwiki to take the rational approach and call out the Big Bang theory for the nonsense it is. It's bad science, the equivalent of religion.97.70.1.221 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that's a big Koopa to stomp. Sure you're up for it? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd actually prefer to get some discussion going at the 9-11 page. I know there's a lot to go through, but I was hoping someone would get to it. The Big bang theory's not tough to refute, it's on the outs. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you being snarky or are you actually a big bang denialist or a 9-11 truther? CorruptUser (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Big Bang Denialist? Have you no shame? Do you know anything about the history of the Big Bang or cosmology? Are you aware that the Big Bang is almost totally disconnected from observation and relies on dark matter - which is claimed to be 80+% of the universe yet has never been proven to exist (they say it exists because without it their equations would not work). This is what scientists who have alternate theories say, it's not crackpot stuff. Whether their theories are correct is another question, but the holes in the Big Bang are blatant.
As for 9-11, I think it was the first talk comment I made. I'd love for you to look at the evidence I posted, it's in the link below from Mario.97.70.1.221 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm no expert on 9-11, and that stuff doesn't interest me, but have a shot here. And I think trying to refute the Big Bang theory would be much tougher than you think since it is widely accepted and is considered a scientific theory, which is the highest level to predict and explain phenomena. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(moved to Talk:Big Bang)