Talk:Water fluoridation controversy/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

William Marcus was the Senior Science Advisor for the EPA's office of water in 1990. Marcus was fired for reporting that fluoride causes cancer then sued and won his job back. This is information about that story.

Marcus v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 92-TSC-5 (Sec'y Feb. 7, 1994) http://www.kkc.com/files/92tsc05c.htm

US EPA Office of the Water Internal Memo May 1, 1990

www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/ntp/marcus-memo.html

Interview with William Marcus www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/ntp/marcus-interview.html

Statement of William Marcus of the EPA Union before the Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water (See the Cancer Bioassay Findings for the information about William Marcus nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/629FINAL.htm

William Marcus was the first EPA employee to obtain protection under the environmental whistleblower statutes when he was fired from EPA for pointing out that fluoride causes cancer. http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=860&Itemid=108

The Washington Post December 9, 1992 Article: EPA Told to Reinstate Whistle-Blower http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1038666.html (Zxoxm (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC))

I propose to remove references citing the journal Fluoride (http://www.fluorideresearch.org/), which

) 01:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no, if I understand you correctly....

Junk science journals should be sent to some obscure place far away from here. The only place they are allowed (required!) to be used is in articles about themselves.

Because this article is about the controversy, it will be necessary to mention advocacy groups and their basic position. They will have no standing in the sense of their position being presented as "true". It will only be described. See

WP:FRINGE

for more about how to deal with fringe positions and sources of information. It can be done, but carefully.

All biomedical details and claims must be sourced with MEDRS quality sources, but other types of information are NOT governed by MEDRS, only by RS. See my recent addition to MEDRS (the second sentence below), which has now been modified, but I think you'll get the gist:

• "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at
  WP:MEDRS
  )

IOW, this article must have two types of information, some governed strictly by MEDRS and other governed only by RS.

My reply to an AIDS denialist may also be helpful. --

talk

) 04:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then I will be restrained. I admit to finding the Fluoride Action Network to be highly dishonest. I removed one section on the EPA union who "expressed concerns", since a union has no particular stature. Thank you for your help. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't let me hold you back too much...;-) I share your opinion about the Fluoride Action Network. Keep in mind that even if they get mentioned, their website and newsletter aren't RS and would only be allowable on an article about themselves, nowhere else. That of course limits coverage of what they say. If they are quoted in a RS, then we can quote them. If not, then they don't get to speak here. Now chew on that one and see how that affects the current sourcing in this article! Get out your pruning shears and get to work. Fringe cruft is supposed to have a tough time here. --

talk

) 06:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In the 'statements for' section, hailed is misspelled as haled. Sorry I can't just edit it, it's the semi-protected status.

Done, thanks! Yobol (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

However, a new study published in the American Chemical Society (ACS) journal Langmuir has found that the “protective layer” created by fluoride is actually 100 times thinner than previously believed, which may render it practically useless as a cavity-preventing intervention.

http://dprogram.net/2011/03/07/does-topical-fluoride-really-protect-tooth-enamel-study-suggests-no/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

www.naturalnews.com/About.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Natural News] is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The ACS is though. [1] Tentontunic (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See

Identifying reliable sources (medicine). There is no reason to include this study. TFD (talk

) 15:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are saying the American Chemical Society is not a reliable source? This study was published in their journal Langmuir (journal). A reason for inclusion would be of course this source backs the claims of those who oppose fluoridation. I think it ought to be added and shall do so unless you have an compelling argument against it. Tentontunic (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that all. However you should read MEDRS which explains why this study should not be added to the article. TFD (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Many problems here. Your section heading says "fl useless", when what is actually said is "may render it practically useless". Obviously much less certainty. Yours looks like a somewhat biased interpretation. The material to which you linked is not what was published by the ACS. It simply tells us that an article was published there. (Why not find and use that article?) The article also says "The finding...still needs to be validated by follow-up studies..." Your source is obviously one with a preconceived view on the matter - "To learn the truth about fluoride..." - despite the admitted doubts about this research. Based on your heading, it would seem that you have similar preconceptions. That's fine, but Wikipedia needs better sourcing and less original research. HiLo48 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with TFD and HiLo48; material from this single primary source is inappropriate (per PSTS and MEDRS, we should be using secondary reviews); the way the original suggestion was framed was also WP:OR. We should wait until this paper has been reviewed in the medical literature before adding. Yobol (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is already peer reviewed as it is published by the ACS journal [2] and one of the authors is Matthias Hannig Tentontunic (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Your views are duly noted, and happen to go against our

guidelines. Yobol (talk

) 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A content guideline does not exclude the usage of peer reviewed studies whic hhave a bearing on the subject. Tentontunic (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No notability of this study has been established. TFD (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the content guideline specifically cautions against use of sources like this (see here). You are welcome to suggest changing the guidelines, but insisting on ignoring the guidelines over objections of the other editors seems imprudent. Note that there are also other reasons to exclude, including violation of

WP:UNDUE; addition of a single study like this that has not been evaluated in the medical literature through review places undue weight on it as we do not know the reaction of the medical community to it (is it an important study? will it be ignored?) This is why we build our wikipedia articles on secondary sources - to help us assess its notability in context with the rest of the medical literature. Were we to include every single primary study in the medical literature to every article that may be relevant for it, as you seem to be suggesting would be appropriate by insisting this one primary source be added, these medical wikipedia articles would be many hundreds of thousands of kb in size, an obviously untenable position. Yobol (talk

) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable section

"In addition, over 3,038 health industry professionals, including one Nobel prize winner in medicine (Arvid Carlsson), doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers from a variety of disciplines are calling for an end to water fluoridation in an online petition to Congress.[39]"

First of all, RE: "over 3,038" if you are going to estimate then why use such a specific number? If you want to be specific then lose the word "over". How many is "over 3,038"? 3,039? Or 4,294,967,296? Second, that reference leads eventually to a page called "Add your name to the Professionals' Statement Calling for an End to Fluoridation" Where ANYBODY can add their name to the petition just by filling out a few fields (for ex. Name, Email, Country, etc.) I guess they're assuming that no one could possibly lie on these forms? Bottom line: "over 3,038 health industry professionals ... are calling for an end to water fluoridation..." is completely UNVERIFIED. For An Angel (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Why is it that I can't post in this message the link to "fluoridealert" that this statement is using as a reference? It says that the site is registered on Wikipedia's blacklist but it is still being used as a reference in the article. For An Angel (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that anti-fluoridation activists have set up an on-line petition may be notable if there are reliable sources that report it. However, the text reads like advocacy. TFD (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with above. I can find no reliable independent sources that mention this petition. I would support the removal of this entire section until such independent sources are found. Yobol (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

@ For An Angel, I suspect you can't post it because the bot only catches additions, not existing links. --

talk

) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing to lower the amount of fluoride that is added to the water. The new water fluoridation level is .07 Part Per Million (PPM) instead of .07 PPM up to 1.2PPM. The lowering is a effort to lower the dental fluorosis caused by fluoride. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/20110107a.html

I think we should wait to see if they do actually lower it and then report it

Noformation (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Those links are written in magnificent bureaucratese, making them less than clear to me. But I think some would argue that they're not exactly proposing a lower level, but a narrowing in on the lower end of the already recommended range. If someone is already targetting that end of the range, nothing would change. (I apologize if I've got this wrong.) I just recommend care with the wording. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments by typing 4 tildes ~ Noformation (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What the U.S. HHS has done regarding fluoridation is not something that should be included in the article because you think something. It is a matter of fact and should be included so the article is comprehensive and of good quality. What the HHS says in the article should be included in a matter of fact manner. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did propose to lower the nations water fluoridation levels and you may want to hide that information but hiding information is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place where you get to decide what is included as long as it fits in your agenda. Sure you would rather the U.S. HHS never proposed such a thing but guess what they did.

Please

reliable sources reporting it. Further more, you should provide exact changes you'd like to make to the article. Also, as HiLo48 has pointed out above, the proposal doesn't seem to seek an outright change in amounts but rather narrows the already existent range to the lower end. And again, please SIGN your posts by typing four tildes Noformation (talk) Noformation (talk

) 01:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In the context of the water fluoridation article events like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services advising the water fluoridation levels be lowered regardless if it happens or not is notable and the fact that it happened should be included. The fact that the HHS proposed it shows their position which goes in the face of what the propaganda was was used to promote fluoridation for 50 years. The new guidelines are huge and to attempt to ignore them regardless if they pass or not is ignorant.

To describe earlier positions as propaganda shows a POV position on your part, something we try very hard to avoid here. That, combined with your refusal or inability to comprehend and comply with requests by others to sign your contributions (or learn anything about correct formatting here), shows a lack of good faith on your part. I see little point in this discussion continuing at all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48 when s/he points out that "[t]o describe earlier positions as propaganda shows a POV position on your part," because that makes it very clear that you have a certain opinion you'd like included in the article. While I can understand that we all want our opinions expressed, Wikipedia is NOT the place to do it. As for now, I say that discussion on this information is closed until the DHHS either accepts or rejects this proposal, at which point we can discuss its relevance to the article Noformation (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The current instructions seem to state that the safety and effectiveness sections are supposed to be summaries of the sections in the main Water fluoridation article. Other "controversy" articles such as Aspartame controversy actually expands on the literature discussion that the "main" (Aspartame) article doesn't. Which one route should this article take? Yobol (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation." The source url for this statement is 404-page not found. It makes it sound as if only European and English-speaking countries had water fluoridation in practice.Smmrsvr (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed link N^oformation ^Talk 08:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the content, this article is about the controversy, not the practice. For information about the controversy in other countries we would need sources but I'm not sure if there is much of a controversy in other countries. N^oformation ^Talk 08:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This sentence should be edited due to fact that fluoridation is practiced in Continental Europe. More specific it is practiced in all Balkan countries, Hungary, Slovakia, France, Italy and Poland. Most likely in more, but I have no knowledge about it either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.145.162 (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That stuff about "Dr. Strangelove" is in there twice. 207.59.211.146 (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Right now the article talks about salt fluoridation, toothpaste fluoride and milk fluoridation none of which are water fluoridation. The article does not include fluoridation thru pesticides and fumigants at all. Sulfuryl fluoride; tolerances for residues. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=43270856f1e636b2e2f6623baf3e42ce&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:24.0.1.1.28.3.19.306&idno=40

§ 180.145 Fluorine compounds; tolerances for residues. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=43270856f1e636b2e2f6623baf3e42ce&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:24.0.1.1.28.3.19.22&idno=40

Questions and Answers about EPA’s Sulfuryl Fluoride Actions http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sulfuryl-fluoride/questions.html#q1

http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/fluoride_index.cfm

Fluoridation from pesticides, fumigants, water, toothpaste, milk and salt should all be covered and the name of the article changed to fluoridation controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.189 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you have some points, but we have created myriad pages to cater to the near hysteria about fluoride. I list them at the bottom of User:Smokefoot. I think that this article is fine. It is aimed at water fluoridation, but contextualizes the theme by mentioning other modalities of fluoridation in lieu of water fluoridation.

Curating these pages is a chore because of fairly common vandalism. Chemically-illiteracy seems to infuriate the very people who seem most agitated. So editors here have our hands full coping. To address one of your specific concerns, we have a decent article on sulfuryl fluoride. The article fluorine is also pretty comprehensive. You might bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a US-only thing, it has a worldwide editorship and readership.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How does salt fluoridation information contextualize the theme of a water fluoridation controversy article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.189 (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Because salt fluoridation shows that places that do not fluoridate their drinking water acknowledge that fluoridation is an effective measure for dental health. The article is often attacked to people claiming that fluoridation is some sort of government conspiracy (you could look at the talk page of water fluoridation including messages that were deleted for being too ranting).--Smokefoot (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is a good idee to have a section about different players in the conflict? I found one that is interesting : http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf the document is written by two "scientific advisors" to ACSH See:http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf It seems to be a front organisation for ACSH. If one check the members one find that a lot of them is/or has been linked to ACSH. See: http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/fellows/ Actually they have two versions one "policy statement" and one "white paper". I did check the first reference in the policy statement "Fluoride is necessary for developing and maintaining strong bones and teeth. In 1998, the Insti- tute of Medicine classified fluoride a “nutrient” because of its important role in sustaining health.1" ,and I can not see that the references is in the book. The book do not say that Fluroide is a "nutrient". The book is :"1! Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes: A Risk Assessment Model For Establishing Upper Intake Levels For Nutrients (Washington: National Academies Press, 1998):20,22,23,28. (

) 22:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We need good independent secondary sources to discuss specific positions and to establish that they deserve

WP:WEIGHT to be in this article. What is your specific recommendation as far a what text you would add and to what source are you proposing to source that addition to? Yobol (talk

) 23:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that not what TDF wanted?--Karl den tolfte (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You are claiming that the pro-industry advocacy group ACSH is a "player in the conflict". You need a source for that and must explain what you think this article should say. The group itself by the way is not a reliable source for medical claims. TFD (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

See: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190977,00.html http://www.talkinternational.com/PDF/flouride-report.pdf

This is serious science and that must be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.199.242 (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

U.S. (or any country's) television news does not meet

WP:MEDRS. Probably best to get a textbook or a major review to support assertions. Thanks for the suggestion. --Smokefoot (talk

) 13:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You didn,t read the link I guess? You find the sources in the end of the article. See here:"Study Links Fluoride to Bone Cancer in Men

Written By Daniel J. DeNoon Published April 07, 2006 WebMD

Probably not. The user cowering behind the "Smokefoot" nym cares about valid science insofar as it supports his position. Who is he, BTW? Anyone know who "Smokefoot" really is? Xkit (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Boys who drink fluoridated water have an increased risk of a deadly bone cancer, a new study suggests. Elise Bassin, DDS, completed the study in 2001 for her doctoral dissertation at Harvard, where she now is clinical instructor in oral health policy and epidemiology. The study finally was published in the May issue of Cancer Causes and Control. Bassin and colleagues' major finding: Boys who grew up in communities that added at least moderate levels of fluoride to their water got bone cancer -- osteosarcoma -- more often than boys who drank water with little or no fluoride. The risk peaked for boys who drank more highly fluoridated water between the ages of 6 and 8 years -- a time at which children undergo a major growth spurt. By the time they were 20, these boys got bone cancer 5.46 times more often than boys with the lowest consumption. No effect was seen for girls. Unexpected Results In a prepared statement provided to WebMD, Bassin says she "was surprised by the results." "Having a background in dentistry and dental public health, [I] was taught that fluoride at recommended levels is safe and effective for the prevention of dental [cavities]," Bassin says in the statement. "All of [our analyses] were consistent in finding an association between fluoride levels in drinking water and an increased risk of osteosarcoma for males diagnosed before age 20, but not consistently for girls." It's not surprising that Bassin found a risk for boys but not for girls. Osteosarcoma is about 50% more common in males than in females. And boys tend to have more fluoride in their bones than girls. Caution About Study However, a commentary accompanying Bassin's article warns to take her findings with a grain of salt. Ironically, it is from Harvard professor Chester W. Douglass, DMD, PhD. Douglass led Bassin's PhD committee, which approved of the study when it was presented as her doctoral dissertation. Douglass warns that the Bassin study is based only on a subset of people exposed to fluoridated water. Preliminary results from the entire population of exposed individuals, Douglass writes, show no link between bone cancer and water fluoridation. But Bassin specifically looked at the subgroup of people most likely to be affected by fluoridation: children. She limited her analysis to people who got bone cancer by age 20. That's because most cases of osteosarcoma occur either during the teen years or after middle age. Fluoride collects in the bones. And it's particularly likely to accumulate in the bones during periods of rapid bone growth. So Bassin looked at fluoride exposures during childhood for 103 under-20 osteosarcoma patients and compared them with 215 matched people without bone cancer. Her study took into account how much fluoride was in the water in the communities where children actually lived and the history of municipal, well water, or bottled water use. The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit watchdog organization, says water fluoridation should stop until further research can refute or confirm Bassin's findings. Tim Kropp, PhD, is a senior scientist at EWG. "About 65 percent of the U.S. water supply has added fluoride," Kropp tells WebMD. "With evidence this strong, it only makes sense to act on it. Right now, it makes the most sense to put fluoride in toothpaste, and not into our water. It's not like this is a huge contaminant that will cost billions of dollars to fix. We can just stop adding it to our water it if we want to." According to the American Cancer Society, every year some 900 Americans -- 400 of them children and teens -- get osteosarcoma. By Daniel J. DeNoon, reviewed by Louise Chang, MD SOURCES: Bassin, E.B. Cancer Causes and Control, May 2006; vol 17: pp 421-428. Douglass, C.W. and Joshipura, K. Cancer Causes and Control, May 2006; vol 17: pp 481-482. Elise Bassin, DDS, prepared statement, provided by the Harvard University press office. Tim Kropp, PhD, senior scientist, Environmental Working Group, Washington, D.C.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190977,00.html#ixzz1zBxc4BeI" But of course here is an other link to a british newspapper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jun/12/medicineandhealth.genderissues --Karl den tolfte (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

i think it is important for people that read wikipedia to know, that fluoride in the water we drink cause cancer in young boys. Do you not agree?--Karl den tolfte (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That source does not comply with

our guideline on reliable sourcing for medical information. Please read that first, and suggest only sources that meet that requirement. Thanks. Yobol (talk

) 14:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course Guardian is a reliable source according to wikipedia. If not you will have to rewrite a lot of articles in wikipedia . I guess you are familiar with this link:http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/May_2011_Update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl den tolfte (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the Guardian does not meet MEDRS, which discusses reliable sources for medical claims, though it may be reliable for non medical information. Please review the above link. Yobol (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Youbol will you accpt this type of sources: "Medical claims

Main page: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim."? --Karl den tolfte (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

See

WP:MEDRS. There are studies showing that absolutely everything might cause cancer, we need sources that explain the degree of acceptance that new studies have received. Note too the press release does not say fluoride "cause[s] cancer", but that the study "suggests" there is an "increased risk". TFD (talk

) 15:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

4th Reference listed doesn't load any information - Perhaps a dubious reference

Title says it all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.18.73 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The reference is to the journal Fluoride, which is not recognized as an objective source of scientific information by PubMed. The antifluoridation groups have long been disappointed by the damaging exclusion of their main journal (see http://www.fluorideresearch.org/453Pt1/files/FJ2012_v45_n3Pt1_p0ii-00v_sfs.pdf) I was going to remove it but it is actually reprinted in another, perhaps more legit journal. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Recently

Y source that I posit is not reliable for anything.

The other source appears to be a local newscast; while those types of newscasts can be reliable it depends on what they're reporting, and I certainly wouldn't use them to establish

as they have a reputation for small town sensationalism and great smiles, not serious journalism.

It appears that this edit may be giving

weight to these signatures. Because I can't find the actual list of signatories (mednews links to a dead link that redirects to the main FAN page), I can only go on what is reported in the edit, which is this: "hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide." Well, medical professionals are a big group that include doctors, public health officials, nurses, MAs, etc, and since there's no list there's no way to know whether to assign weight to these signatures. Academics, as well, are a large and diverse group of people, some of whom may have expertise in the matter and some who don't. Even if we assumed that everyone on the list qualifies as an expert deserving weight, we're talking about a list of 600 people versus the hundreds of thousands of experts who haven't signed.

Granted, the edit states that EPA officials and Nobel laureates have signed as well, and this may deserve some attention in the article if better

01:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Note:Page protection requested due to IP edit warring and refusing to discuss.

02:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't argue with anything you've said there. Our IP editor does seem pretty obsessed with this addition. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Complete and utter bullshit.

you are doing everything to suppress dissenting views. What is not reliable? a direct interview with a Nobel winner with a direct quote? that 600 (now over 4000) professionals sign a petition? this whole article is about the controversy. these people have made statement against your believes. are they the minority? possible. but fist let notice them and then quote your "main stream" views. don't hide behind wk this and wk that ,and abuse their true meaning. anyone who is interested in the controversy will easily find the complete information in other places on the web. the only thing you achieve by your bias and propagandist actions here is to destroy WK credibility of NPOV information. . Wikipedia reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.2.22 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, editors here aren't "doing everything to suppress dissenting views", because this article is dedicated to describing the main features of the controversy with an effort to be neutral. The article is not a forum for opinions or a blog for ranting - for that, there are indeed "other places on the web," as you point out. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, You can use Nobel Prize winner Arvid Carlsson WK article sources :

Carlsson is opposed to the fluoridation of drinking water.[4][5] He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that water fluoridation should be illegal due to ethics. He believes that water fluoridation violates modern pharmacological principles, which indicate that medications should be tailored to individuals.[6] 4^ Fluoride in drinking water can cause cancer, Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish) 5^ Torell P, Forsman B (February 1979). "[Arvid Carlsson's fluoride ponderings 1978]" (in Swedish). Tandlakartidningen 71 (3): 142–57.

PMID 287207

. 6^ Bryson C. The Fluoride Deception, p. 240.

And then quote him from the interview : "Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete." and "Those Nations that are still using it should feel ashamed of themselves, it's not.. It's against Science actually" [41] 41^ "Interview with Dr. Arvid Carlsson on water Fluoridation" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmpv__jQyzA&t=1m04s

I find it strange not to mention the professionals petition. the list is available for inspection here: fluoridealert DOT org/researchers/professionals-statement/signers01/ we must not forget that most of the world, most of Europe and most of OECD do not fluoridate their water. and in the countries that sell fluoridated salt the citizens have a choice to use it or not.109.64.32.41 (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

FAN is not "

WP:FRINGE

Y"

I've naïvely walked into this conflict in the best possible way: last week I consulted this article to orient myself with respect to the various things I have heard in media (mostly, NPR) with respect to opposition to water floridation. I have an expectation of Wikipedia that it offer for most topics an efficient, unbiased orientation. This is the cardinal virtue, I've concluded over the years, of a tertiary source. In the broadest sense of the word, I have deep faith in the process by which Wikipedia becomes progressively better orienting.

I read the article, felt somehow that the case had been made in media more comprehensively than the article suggested, and went to Google with that odd feeling I get when Wikipedia inexplicably leaves something out, even though the article seems to have received an expected amount of editorial attention. Google: Water floridation controversy.

I think of Google as a quaternary source. It is semi-discriminating in that it has many criteria for what to prioritize, but very few about what to exclude. It is a critical thing to have when a tertiary source fails. On this occasion, in this order:

• Wikipedia:Water floridation controversy (listed first, as it should be)
• Fluoride Action Network, a well-constructed, well-edited site of an advocacy group directed and advised by a spectrum of scientists and medical professionals, headed by Dr. Paul Connett, (PhD Chemistry)
• 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation, a paper thoroughly footnoted by citations of peer-reviewed journals, authored by Dr. Paul Connett, PhD Chemistry, and published on Fluoride Action Network.
• Links to a broad spectrum of groups opposing water fluoridation, several of which cite 50 Reasons.
• Links to media coverage of the water floridation controversy

Well done, Google. This is what one would expect of a quaternary source in the ideal case.

I read through 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation, and immediately saw coherently summarized much of what I've heard over the years with the sort of detail and concision I would expect of Wikipedia, albeit in a work of advocacy. It covered several points I noticed were missing in the Wikipedia article. It was ripe with citations to harvest. Wikipedian gold! An easy win! Low-hanging fruit! I didn't have time to copyedit that day, but decided I could put together a proper citation with {{Cite web}} for Further reading, and I (or others, should the bus finally get me) could proceed from there.

Spamblock. The words, fluoridealert dot org are now it seems unutterable on Wikipedia in any linkable sense. Apparently, there was an incident. Maybe incidents. Reading what I could about the incident(s), I saw statements of the form, "...Fluoride Action network, which is not

...", none of which explain why FAN might be unreliable. If some idiot spammed Whitehouse.gov or the American Dental Association, no one would consider spamblocking them (?), but with FAN, the vague, unfounded suggestion that it is itself somehow worthless makes it way too easy to justify a block.

This section starts with

Y source that I posit is not reliable for anything.". Really? Anything? Not even reliable on the topic "Water floridation controversy"? Bear in mind, this is an article about the controversy itself, and FAN would seem to be a significant player in it. How fringey can they be, they seem to be at the very center of the opposition?

My request that the cannonical link to 50 Reasons be unblocked was summarily dismissed as vexatious, as I had had the temerity to suggest that this was needed to correct a deliberate bias, "Attempting to achieve whitelisting by tossing unfounded accusations at others is unacceptable, particularly when clear evidence of abuse and sockpupetry have been provided to you. Understand that spamming and sockpuppetry are prohibited under official Wikipedia policy of long standing". It was suggested I link to 50 Reasons on another site (?!). The "clear evidence" consisted of vague complaints about spamming sock puppeteers and some broken links. Nothing about unreliability, or what any of this had to do with linking 50 Reasons.

Also, the first book cited in the Further reading section is coauthored by Paul Connett, PhD, the author of 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation. Why is the book citable, but the author's thoroughly-annotated summary of the opposition's reasoning, conveniently on line and readable immediately, is not?

Our own Water fluoridation controversy article seems to say, There was concern about fluoridation, including from red-scare types (haha), and people still get irrationally wound up about it, but look at all these citations which show it to be, y'know, completely unfounded. Well if you wanna read a dry old book about it, you could try..... With respect to the topic, the controversy itself, this is clearly biased and should be corrected. Linking 50 Reasons would go a long way towards that. Meanwhile, Google.

-SM 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

FAN is "

Pubmed, the US's assessor of health-relevant journals, refused to accredit. In summary, FAN is literally a mom and pop organization, and pop isn't well credentialed and his journal is viewed officially as a unreliable. So those are some reasons that FAN looks very fringey. --Smokefoot (talk

) 12:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Paul Connett has more than enough credentials to be a notable and esteem figure in this debate/article. his CV http://www.americanhealthstudies.org/connett.bio.html

if FAN is a mom and pop organization why has Nobel Laurette Dr. Arvid signed it's anti fluoride petition why have other prominent scientist sign in as well ? why is the Advisory board list of FAN full of credentialed professionals ? fluoridealert DOT org/about/team/

FAN has been noted as an anti fluoridation group in numerous WK:RS On major Fluoridation issues :

https://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/11/11greenwire-epa-proposes-phaseout-of-fluoride-based-pestic-97414.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704739504576068162146159004.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-05/pinellas-county-florida-votes-no-fluoride-in-drinking-water/50673318/1 See the entire listing at fluoridealert DOT org/about/fan_news/.

The censorship of Peer reviewed Fluoride Journal by Pubmed is totally politically driven "Censorship of medical journals" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1488805/

To not include and mention FAN Fluoride Action Network in this article and the signed petition is a blatant stray from WK neutrality.109.65.13.19 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The references at Fluoride Action Network seem to be primary. Got any objective sources to cite about them that might establish wp:Notability? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have linked to 3 secondary sources from FAN's list. just searching the titles on Google and you will find the original articles. in 2007 Dr. Connet was invited to Israel by Israel's leading 3 environmental groups when the controversy went public in Israel. An article from Israel's leading online news paper Ynet, discussing the water fluoridation in Israel talks about Dr.Connet visit to Israel and FAN http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3445244,00.html, and an article in Maariv (newspaper) mentions him as well and quotes his work http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/580/133.html . just use Google translate for English

The man and the organization are notable. let's not forget that FAN is notable enough to already be on wikipeida - Fluoride Action Network109.65.13.19 (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Fluoride salt in Europe misquote

It is stated in the WK article intro "Instead, fluoride is added to most table salt in Europe."

It is sourced from : Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_122.pdf

But that source never states that. The quote from the EU document is (page 21) : Many countries recommend the consumption of fluoridated salt and such products are available in at least 15 countries. The salt is fluoridated up to 350 mg/kg. Figures about the proportion of fluoridated salt sold are available (Gotzfried et al, 2006).

No official body is adding anything to all table salt. it is simply stating that this kind of salt is available as a product in the market place in "at least 15 countries"109.64.32.41 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As a European I have never seen fluoridated salt on sale anywhere over here. Iodized salt yes but never fluoridated.. I think what the reference means is that its not illegal to sell salt with this amount of fluoride in some EU countries. Yet I've never seen it on supermarket shelves. So the article is certainly inaccurate.--Aspro (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed in to "in some countries". None of the countries mentioned were in Europe. TFD (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

TFD, the EU document mention 4 countries (page 28) : Mexico, Costa Rica ,Jamaica and Switzerland .further more your new edit implies as if in those countries, the Government is fluoridating all table salt. That is not the case according to the EU Source. It is stated simply, that Fluoridated salt is available in shops in some countries  ?79.179.4.248 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

One more thing - Dr. Arvid Carlsson ,winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, is the most prominent figure in the list of the opposing fluoridation statements. he should, off course be at the top of the list, and not cramped nearly the end.79.179.4.248 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, to be pedantic for a minute. The section Efficacy states that:

“This failed to account for the fluoride added to table salt in continental Europe.” Yet, the fact that in some EU counties, their law may state that it 'it is admissible to add fluoride to salt' does not mean that it has ever been 'available' to the actual consumer. If the consumer wants fluoride they buy fluoride tooth past. So supermarkets don't bother to stock fluoridated salt -even if they can – because no one apparently buys it. (I shop for low sodium salt -so I look for these things) Therefore, this statement needs to be corrected as well. --Aspro (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"

Low sodium salt"??? Did you mean potassium chloride, or other salt substitutes? In either case, the issue we are interested in here isn't the metal ion, it's the halide ion. They dissociate in water, so sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride would have much the same effect on fluorine uptake. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog:What you said above doesn't make sense.--Aspro (talk