Talk:Water fluoridation

History of water fluoridation

The first phrase lacks a reference to prove not that water fluoridation also can affect the brain and can induce serious neurological effects. Not mentioning that major aspect of water fluoridation is not sufficient neither scientifically acceptable, as the whole fluoridation history clearly shows that water fluoridation was first found and developed in a lab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.70.113 (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please provide sources thanks. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dangers

I am shocked at the cheerleading going on here. Flouride is an industrial waste product and it accumulates in the Pineal Gland of the brain. I will cite my sources when I edit the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.10.134 (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The fluoridation cheerleading is sickening. Just because WHO says this chemical is useful is no reason to fall into line and support this chemical's use. Most tooth decay in developed nations is due to processed sugar. Based on the number of dentists and the outrageous fees they charge, you're not hearing too many complaints from the ADA.

First of all, the WHO also promotes and supports Codex Alimentarius, the global standards body for defining the MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LEVELS OF CHEMICALS IN FOOD. Mind you, we're not talking about chemicals which are naturally occurring in foods. Codex basically supports the industrial food chain and approaches food safety from a toxicology standpoint in terms of how much chemical contamination is allowable. Considering the laughable WHO charter of working to improve population health, their actions and support of chemical use strikes me as rather subversive and contrary to their published principles. I guess that's why all regimes have a good public relations Czar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schratboy (talk • contribs) 21:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't good for anything that has bias from the establishment. Agreed. 24.49.128.83 (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Was anyone planning on providing reliable sources such as recent review articles to back up these claims? Show us the evidence we have missed and I am sure we could expand the section on concerns regarding fluoride. Google scholar is a good place to look as is pubmed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many studies linked from this page: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/pineal/ ie: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.242.136 (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another paper showing that the pineal gland can absorb as much fluoride as teeth do: "Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland" Jennifer Luke, School of Biological Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Royal London Hospital http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.242.136 (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

High levels

This was just added

Long-term exposure to levels higher than 4.0 mg/L can cause a condition called skeletal fluorosis, in which fluoride accumulates in the bones. This can eventually result in joint stiffness and pain, and can lead to weak or brittle bones in older adults..

Are there cases from Water Fluridation? If not than it should be removed. I cannot find it in the ref.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No Mention of Chinese Study

Wasn't the largest blind study on water fluoridation conducted in China? It dwarfed anything cited in this article. I seem to remember it was 50,000-strong and not only found little evidence of the benefits of ingesting fluoride, but found correlatives to decreased IQ and possibly bone cancer. Much of the benefit supposedly from fluoridation was eliminated when "modernization in living" variables like improved nutrition and dental care access were accounted for. This wouldn't be the first or the last time a particular remedy was in dispute due to conflicts of interest with the funding for original studies. Look at phenylephrine and allergies. Fluorides are a chief nuclear processing ingredient & byproduct, along with more well known radioactive materials, used in centrifuges for enrichment. That fact should be in this article. That is fact, not disputed controversy. Go look up nuclear processing chemistry/physics if you need to. Not to add this is evidence of bias. To only add it as a passing reference alongside easily discredited "theories" is suspect. I'm also troubled about the mentioning of holistic medicine and chiropractors as being part of the push against fluoridation. These are ad homonym attacks designed to point out how nutty some people on a particular side are. How about you go over to the Holocaust page and point out how many thousands of people throughout the years have pretended to be victims of the Nazis who were not? How many dentists actually couldn't get through medical school? Do you really want to go there? There are whacky or unscientific people all over the place. Furthermore, considering the John Birch Society, who first spread the idiotic Communist Conspiracy Theory for Fluoridation, were partially funded by the nuclear industry, this particular meme can be seen as a rear guard action from the original marketing campaign for water fluoridation. The Birchers are provocateur straw men. Either whittle this article down to nothing but the bare facts about what fluoridation is and leave the rest to the "Controversy" article, or give the opposition a fair & factual shake without diluting it through distortion and faux-objectivity framing strategies. -Reticuli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.93 (talk • contribs) 23:29, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Please place new posts at the bottom of the page, and sign your posts by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. Please see WP:MEDRS on secondary review sources for medical statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

O.k. :-) Thanks for moving it for me. - Reticuli 66.178.139.91 (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition

A recent addition added new information that violates WP:MEDRS in that we do not use primary studies to rebut secondary sources. Please familiarize yourself with the thee policies. Yobol (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This article should be about water fluoridation is and not cavities.

The article is not balanced and strays off topic now. The article should be shortened to clearly describe water fluoridation and not stray off on cavities as much as it does now. (Zxoxm (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

I disagree, dental decay is absolutely central to the topic. Graham Colm (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The article clearly is about water fluoridation and should be on that topic but it now greatly discusses dental carries and while related it is off topic.(Zxoxm (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

The Dental caries article on Wikipedia is for the the dental caries information not the water fluoridation article. The water fluoridation article should have a active link to the wikipedia dental caries article and not discuss cavities as much as it currently does. The Water fluoridation article is long winded and goes on and on now which is not a good quality article.(Zxoxm (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC))