Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:45, 27 October 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Water fluoridation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Water fluoridation is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 15, 2009 Good article nominee Listed February 12, 2009 Peer review Reviewed March 9, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 6, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Dentistry High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pharmacology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Water High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views Mid‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Other talk page banners

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. The contents of the History of water fluoridation page were merged into Water fluoridation. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hwasnak (article contribs).

removal of israel text

VdSV9, I reverted your edit as you removed cited text. The text has a lot of detail. The reason that Isreal stopped using the fluoride are valid (unless they are not included in the listed citation). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. Not only with the reversal, but I disagree that the reason they stopped it is valid. I don't think we should include the statements of every health department when they wish to change their policy, so we shouldn't include any. This move by the Israeli government was dubious, their reasoning is unscientific, and giving voice to it in this article, I think, goes against WP:FRINGE. VdSV9•♫ 16:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Israel government's actions are fringe? Seriously... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I forgot all about this discussion, sorry. @Jtbobwaysf: Their actions are not, and I didn't remove mention of their actions. Their claims are. Those comments mirror typical anti-fluoride conspiracy BS, and Misplaced Pages should not be a platform for that. That's my point. There's also the other point: "I don't think we should include the statements of every health department when they wish to change their policy, so we shouldn't include any". If we were to include those statements, there should be more statements for fluoridation than against it, per WP:DUE. But I much prefer that we just leave without. VdSV9•♫ 18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We do not have to count statements for an against to deal with weight issues. Obviously the justification for why a major nation stops using fluoride is fair game, we are not talking about opinion of a small town health department here, let's not conflate the issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bad reasoning is bad reasoning, whether it comes from non-scientists at the head of small towns or non-scientists at the head of states. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

So here is the archived statement. Does it really mean that it was discontinued (although I see "practically speaking, there will be no fluoridation in Israel", "Until now, approximately 70% of the water in Israel was fluoridated")? It says that it is no longer mandatory (and it is still used in some countries where it's not mandatory).

As has been mentioned before, this is also in the context of a new dental care education program and presumably fluoride and variants are still used in hygiene products (and I see "Application of a fluoride preparation on infants' teeth", "using toothpaste that contains fluoride", "Fluoride supplementation for children will be given in as decided by the dentist").

As for the reasons, "There is also scientific evidence that fluoride in large amounts can lead to damage to health." Fluorosis is possible in early childhood but this requires important amounts that are way beyond controled levels in water (the responsible sources can still lead to fluorosis without other lifestyle or environmental control). Regularly swallowing toothpaste containing fluoride has been considered a higher risk factor and amounts have changed especially for children-oriented products. "When fluoride is supplied via drinking water, there is no control regarding the amount of fluoride actually consumed, which could lead to excessive consumption." As previously noted there still is no control unless other sources, the ones that are sometimes problematic, are under control. Then there's "Supply of fluoridated water forces those who do not so wish to also consume water with added fluoride", but that is irrelevant if they are educated about it, including about misinformation. Some people will also avoid fluoridated hygiene products or fail to follow dental care recommendations and will at the same time no longer benefit.

"Data from the World Health Organization indicate that there is no significant difference in the level of dental caries between countries that fluoridate and those that do not fluoridate." they unfortunately fail to cite their source, but this is misleading, since there have been positive statistics including about the use of fluoride in products. It however is plausible that with proper education and followup, including the use of fluoride-containing toothpaste, water fluoridation no longer be necessary in those populations.

Considering all this, if this source is used, I would consider text like this to be better representation without potentially misleading quote mining: "When Israel implemented the 2014 Dental Health Promotion Program, that includes education, medical followup and the use of fluoride-containing products and supplements, Israel evaluated that mandatory water fluoridation was no longer necessary and ended it." or similar... —PaleoNeonate – 07:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

My proposal (for talk page archives), —PaleoNeonate – 08:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The proposed change seems ok, I added back a little of the quote. This article is not WP:TOOLONG so the quote to add the clarity should probably be there. It is the POV of a first world nation, and thus certainly WP:DUE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ll offer my tuppence as it differs from both of the above. Basically that this is not FRINGE and it is over-reacting jumping to conclusions calling it “typical anti-fluoride conspiracy BS”, but also that DUE is about WEIGHT of coverage not about Israeli being a significant nation and that a mention is fine or using this as one RS supporting stats is OK but a full quote is UNDUE . To me it is not FRINGE if Israel said it prefers it directly on teeth in controlled amounts via toothpaste and advocates selected points of science, and I take their highlighting of other statistics or points against flouridizing water as just normal sales pitch practice of showing presentable ‘it’s better for you’ justifications for the decision and skipping anything in their consideration which were negatives or possible less admirable motives such as maybe it’s mostly to dodge cost or because politics. It’s like any governments announcement, just a RS of what was done & said but BIASED. I also view the details of their pitch as UNDUE, because I think that level just didn’t get covered at the level of say BBC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the first para of the section "safety" which talks about cancer, please incorporate accordingly(as required) the following paragraph from the article osteosarcoma

 "There is no clear association between water fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma. Series of research concluded that concentration of fluoride in water doesn't associate with osteosarcoma. The beliefs regarding association of fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma stem from a study of US National Toxicology program in 1990, which showed uncertain evidence of association of fluoride and osteosarcoma in male rats. But there is still no solid evidence of cancer-causing tendency of fluoride in mice. Fluoridation of water has been practiced around the world to improve citizens' dental health. It is also deemed as major health success. Fluoride concentration levels in water supplies are regulated, such as United States Environmental Protection Agency regulates fluoride levels to not be greater than 4 milligrams per liter. Actually, water supplies already have natural occurring fluoride, but many communities chose to add more fluoride to the point that it can reduce tooth decay. Fluoride is also known for its ability to cause new bone formation. Yet, further research shows no osteosarcoma risks from fluoridated water in humans. Most of the research involved counting number of osteosarcoma patients cases in particular areas which has difference concentrations of fluoride in drinking water. The statistic analysis of the data shows no significant difference in occurrences of osteosarcoma cases in different fluoridated regions. Another important research involved collecting bone samples from osteosarcoma patients to measure fluoride concentration and compare them to bone samples of newly diagnosed malignant bone tumors. The result is that the median fluoride concentrations in bone samples of osteosarcoma patients and tumor controls are not significantly different. Not only fluoride concentration in bones, Fluoride exposures of osteosarcoma patients are also proven to be not significantly different from healthy people."

The sources for the same can be found in the article osteosarcoma from citation 9 to 19

Thank you!

Regards 2409:4042:2D95:B6B9:D8F9:7F4B:279B:FE45 (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cindercat 🐱 (Want to talk?) 11:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Studies exploring the link between water fluoridation and reduction in IQ

I find it a little suspicious that there is no mention in this article of the link between water fluoridation and reduction in Intelligence Quotient. Here is a non-exhaustive list of studies with, cumulatively, quite conclusive results. I hope at some point this critical information can make its way into the article.

• Effect of fluoridated water on intelligence in 10-12-year-old school children 2016 Dec, JISCPD: "A significant inverse relationship was found between the fluoride concentration in drinking water and IQ (r value = −0.204; P < 0.000). It was observed that IQ level was negatively correlated with fluoride concentration in drinking water."
• Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 2012 Oct, Environmental Health Perspectives: "Results: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease."
• Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico 2017 Sep, Environmental Health Perspectives: "In multivariate models we found that an increase in maternal urine fluoride of 0.5 mg/L (approximately the IQR) predicted 3.15 (95% CI: −5.42, −0.87) and 2.50 (95% CI −4.12, −0.59) lower offspring GCI and IQ scores, respectively."
• Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada 2019 Aug, JAMA Network: "Maternal exposure to higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years. These findings indicate the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy."
• Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort 2020 Jan, Environment International: "An increase of 0.5 mg/L in water fluoride concentration (approximately equaling the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions) corresponded to a 9.3- and 6.2-point decrement in Performance IQ among formula-fed (95% CI: −13.77, −4.76) and breast-fed children (95% CI: −10.45, −1.94)." Tempes1 (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You should familiarize yourself with WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. Misplaced Pages user collects studies with results the user likes, draws a conclusion from them that agrees with the user's opinion, and that conclusion ends up in the article? Misplaced Pages does not work like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS: "The best evidence for efficacy of treatments and other health interventions is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Systematic reviews of literature that include non-randomized studies are less reliable. Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality." —PaleoNeonate – 07:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

These studies certainly should be mentioned. If there are recent studies that show results that do not agree, they should also be mentioned in the article. However I'm not aware of any recent studies that contradict these results. Please correct me if I'm wrong. According to WP:MEDRS, new studies should be favored over old studies. This article seems to be basing its conclusions on low quality studies from decades ago. Tempes1 (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Those studies are utter BS. See this this or this or NHS and so on. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You are not in a position to question peer reviewed science published in reputable journals. That is not your job. The fact that you would say such a ridiculous thing is indicative of your ignorance and personal bias. If this is a controversial topic with valid arguments on both sides, it seems that the article should cover the controversy in an objective manner. Something very telling is that all of the people who are calling these high quality studies "bs" and dismissing them out of hand is that these same people are unable to provide high quality modern studies that prove both the safety and effectiveness of fluoridating water supplies. Why might that be? Tempes1 (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, I am. See WP:MEDRS. So more fcks1httery from your side? --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

And I won a Nobel Prize. Unless you can use credible sources to back your opinions up, please refrain from making them. Tempes1 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

'solely'

Who could possibly be certain there is not any additional purpose? JeffreyHood (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a dubious claim. I changed the word `solely` to `ostensibly`, as that more accurately reflects the uncertainty and controversy surrounding the subject. Tempes1 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverted. It is the sole stated intention, and it's not like any potential consequences haven't been looked at. --Project Osprey (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If it's merely the intention, then that should be highlighted. And potential consequences have indeed been looked at, which is why the word ostensible is apt. Tempes1 (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

What do the best references actually say? --Hipal (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It depends on who you consider to be the best references. All recent studies I've looked at say that there is no effect. However some governmental health authorities say otherwise. Tempes1 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute

This entire article, and especially the lead, is written from the perspective of a pro-fluoridation agenda. There are a innumerable studies and a library full of scientific literature that dispute the effectiveness of water fluoridation, as well as highlight many possible negative health impacts. Moreover, the vast majority of countries do not practice water fluoridation. Nonetheless, many of the claims made in this article are erroneously stated as a matter of fact, and there is very little representation of more recent studies and literature. Therefore this article cannot be considered accurate until proportionate representation is given to the other side, and controversial claims are stated as such, rather than presented as fact. Tempes1 (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Please bring on those reliable sources. BTW my understanding is that many countries do not bother to fluoridate their water because their population gets fluoridated toothpaste (or fluoridated milk, bread, etc).

The US CDC ranks water fluoridation as one of the top public health innovations. So if you dispute such an agency, you're probably pursuing fringe perspectives or some conspiracy theory. This article is probably not the place to represent your views since Misplaced Pages is so reliant on WP:RS. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The article, and the entire encyclopedia, is written from the perspective of a pro-science agenda. Because that is the perspective from which it is meant to be written. See WP:GOODBIAS. There is a certain amount of Fluoride in all natural sources of water. Some countries don't need to fluoridate their water because their water naturally has significant levels of Fluoride. Certain places actually have water that has such high natural Fluoride levels that make it unfit for human consumption -- and in some of those places, the population still consume it because they are poor and that is their only source of water. Some countries add fluoride in milk, some have it in salt. In some of the very richest countries, the population has such good access to dentistry services and fluoridated toothpaste, that they can forgo fluoridation altogether, since personal hygiene and dental care make fluoridation unnecessary. The overwhelming evidence is that fluoridation is safe and effective, and is also dirt-cheap, making it the most cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay, especially among the most vulnerable populations. If you have any reliable sources that you wish to bring to discussion, we will discuss it. But please check WP:MEDRS before you it, and you might also look at some of the previous discussions before you bring references that have been previously discussed. Rehashing old debunked arguments would be a huge waste of our time.VdSV9•♫ 14:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I have already cited a bunch of peer reviewed studies and reviews in a discussion above (which someone archived for some reason). Please do not remove the template, as the issue has not been resolved. Tempes1 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Quoting myself Rehashing old debunked arguments would be a huge waste of our time. Please don't waste our time. VdSV9•♫ 16:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Tempes1 is an anti-science user. He/she did the same on the saturated fat article and did the same thing 4 months before. Their agenda is to push fringe theories and dispute mainstream scientific consensus on Misplaced Pages by adding "dispute" templates where no dispute exists. If this behavior continues it should be raised at WP:FTN. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. This is not conducive to improving wikipedia. Tempes1 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

But these are not good faith edits , you are re-adding dispute templates where no dispute exists on different articles. You have not provided any evidence for your claims. Also this sort of drive-by tagging is not helpful. If you had a consensus to do that I would support you but there is no consensus for what you are doing. You also said you want nothing archived but inactive conversations over 90 days old can be manually archived or a bot can do it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• FA-Class dentistry articles
• High-importance dentistry articles
• WikiProject Dentistry articles
• FA-Class pharmacology articles
• Mid-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• FA-Class Water articles
• High-importance Water articles
• FA-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• FA-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics