Talk:Water fluoridation

Lancet Neurology Study

This new study, conducted by a professor at Harvard's School of Public Health, was published in a high impact journal is compelling and should be integrated in this article. I heard about this study on NPR, and it has rightly gotten much press. I say "rightly" because this review of research was published in a high impact journal and was conducted by a professor at Harvard (even Harvard's press release about this study is noteworthy). http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract DanaUllman^Talk 16:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a 2014 review articles in Lancet Neurol. The problem is that it does not appear to mention "water fluoridation" So what should we use it to say? Yes we all agree that large amount of fluoride are bad. So are large amounts of iron as they fairly rapidly result in death. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on this important new review of research, it seems prudent to reduce exposures to certain elements, such as fluoride, and its various means to exposure, especially for children whose brains are in more active development. Because Doc James is a special in preventive medicine, I assume that he has some appreciation for the precautionary principle. I'm no expert on water fluoridation and do not plan to participate in the writing of the article, but I hope that those of you who are active in this article will figure out a place for this body of evidence. DanaUllman^Talk 01:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes well aware of the precautionary principle. The difficulty in question is that the article you list does not mention water fluoridation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The article in question provides a strong case for limiting exposure to certain toxic substances, and because fluoride in water provides additional exposure, it seems obvious that fluoridated water creates additional risk to populations, not just because of people drinking the water but also due to people using water to wash fruits and vegetables and to water their edible gardens. Whether fluoride in water is naturally occurring or fluoride in water is an added ingredient, it seems prudent to warn people about the dangers of both, especially because the evidence here commands it. DanaUllman^Talk 15:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Everything after "it seems obvious..." in your statement above is unsupported by the linked paper (or the 2012 Choi meta that its fluoride claims are based on). As Wikipedia article talk pages are not discussion forums for general chat, I hope that you can understand why I would ask you to propose specific changes to this article (and indicate specifically which passages of the source support your proposed statements) if you would like to continue posting on this talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article's section on "Evidence," there is the statement: "No clear evidence of other adverse effects exists, though almost all research thereof has been of poor quality." At the very least, there is clear evidence now from a couple meta-analyses published in high impact journals that provide evidence from high quality studies verifying dangers to exposure to fluoride. For starters, this statement now needs to be removed. DanaUllman^Talk 03:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe I actually have to point this out, but that statement is in a paragraph that specifically says it's talking about "water fluoridation". I know it's been mentioned many times exactly what that means, that this whole article is limited to that scope, and that the ref is not within that scope. DMacks (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Z I'm in agreement with the others here that the Lancet article doesn't appear to be related to the topic of water fluoridation so that it can be used here. DanaUllman, what exactly is your proposed change to the Wikipedia article using this source? Without a specific change proposal this discussion doesn't appear to be a good use of time. Zad68 05:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

[User:Zad68] has asked me what "specific" change I was recommending. I thought I was clear about this. I will reiterate: "At the very least, there is clear evidence now from a couple meta-analyses published in high impact journals that provide evidence from high quality studies verifying dangers to exposure to fluoride. For starters, this statement now needs to be removed." And for the record, the research that I referenced provided evidence that fluoride can lead to disruption in cognitive function, and because water fluoridation increases exposure to fluoride, there IS a case for why reference to this study in a high impact journal is worthy of reference in this article. If I am the only one who considers this reference worthy, I will relent, but in any case, the above mentioned sentence still deserves to be deleted. DanaUllman^Talk 02:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please quote the exact passage from the paper that specifically contradicts the statement in this Wikipedia article? Like Zad68 and DMacks, I cannot find any mention of water fluoridation – the controlled addition of small, regulated amounts of fluoride to drinking water – in Grandjean's review. (As I noted a few days ago at Talk:Water fluoridation controversy, you appear to be conflating and confusing fluoridation and fluoride.)

As far as I can see, of the 115 footnotes in Grandjean, just one deals with fluoride toxicity: the already much-discussed Choi et al. 2012 meta on which Grandjean was senior author. That paper deals with studies of naturally-occurring, uncontrolled, high fluoride levels in rural Chinese water supplies; it further explicitly notes that no conclusions can be drawn from the data regarding the (potential) toxicity of fluoride exposure at the levels used for water fluoridation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for confusing people here when asked what I was specifically recommending as a change in the article. Although my original comment above was clear, my repetition of this comment was not clear and was erroneous. I meant to say that this sentence needs to be deleted from the section on "Evidence": "No clear evidence of other adverse effects exists, though almost all research thereof has been of poor quality." DanaUllman^Talk 02:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you have failed to identify the passage within Grandjean that contradicts the sentence you're asking be deleted. There remains no clear evidence of other adverse effects of water fluoridation—the topic of the sentence in question and of this entire article. The only adverse effects that Grandjean has published on deal with uncontrolled exposure to high concentrations of (naturally-occurring) fluoride – generally significantly greater than those in fluoridated water – and even those possible effects are based on studies which Grandjean himself acknowledged suffer from incomplete data and methodological flaws. You're insisting on reading into Grandjean something that just isn't in his papers, and you're pushing deep into WP:IDHT territory to do it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ten, I don't see support for this change with the source provided. Unwilling to continue down the path of repetitious arguments any further, so if that's all that's happening here it's probably best to just stop responding. Zad68 05:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

what about this info from NZ government site

Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation [1] 212.200.213.54 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Discouraging new contributions on this topic

Wikipedia is a challenging site to edit.. and takes some time to do so. As only an occasional editor, it is discouraging to have had my edits completely undone. It was fair to list the key and effective lawsuit in Israel and the resulting change in public policy. When the editors on this site reverted all work based on my citing the Choi study, the didn't remove part of it.. they removed the whole thing.

A process that is destructive to the contributions of less familiar contributors who have interest in the subjects progress!

The second effort was to properly categorize the two facts as controversy since they were not the majority opinion. That should have been let stand. I referenced the very detailed debate on why the Harvard Choi study was not listed because upon examination saw that great detail went into it. If it offended I would not have repeated it. Also again, shouldn't the editors of this page have simply removed that and not all contributions.

There seems to be a very aggressive group protecting this page. When I tried to reference one site, the computer showed me it was a blacklisted site. I found that odd as it seemed to be a simply activist site on the topic.

For all of the guarding of this page and topic, against possible zealots, the result is you are frustrating reasonable contributors.. at least me for certain, and the article has so much run on repetition it looks like a bad sales page quite frankly.

The cartoon under the Ethics topic is just prejudicial and insulting grouping dissenting opinion together with other groups.

This page has a long way to go. Please realize this is a moving subject and many quotes and sources are OLD dated and not reflective of key changes. Israel banned the use of Fluoridation after a public lawsuit. That's a whole nation, why remove that?

Please put back the content on controversy and remove the comment that offended. Thank you for any assistance!!

WikiShares (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to edit a featured article and one of the most controversial at that. Please have a read of WP:MEDRS. Plus part of what you are attempting has been discussed above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Compounds used

Reverted this [2] as the compounds were already mentioned Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The verifiability policy

The new Choi/ Harvard study must be admitted based on Wikis Verifiability policy which is as follows:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true".

The Choi Harvard Study has been quoted by Harvard it its own press release supporting the research, Huffington Post, and Fox News to name a few. It is verifiable! It must be admitted as a reference on this topic of varying opinion... even if it is considered the minority, it can be shown as such. But realize it is decades newer so minimizing fewer new studies in favor of many old studies is not exactly cutting edge research, as people want to see. Its simply old science we are showing. Obviously studies based on longer time periods available have more data to utilize so it is highly imprudent to have delayed this so long.

WikiShares (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

On the same policy page you are referring to, it states (and I quote): "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." So there's really no "must" on what you are trying to include; except that you "must" stop trying to include it against consensus. Doc talk 08:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It is helpful, when discussing sources, to include both a full citation and/or a link to the study so that we know which study we're talking about, and to avoid confusion. When you say 'new Choi/Harvard' study, do you mean Choi et al. (in Grandjean's group) from 2012, or is there a newer 'new' Choi paper? If the former, then you should know that the 2012 paper – and where it might be useful to Wikipedia – has been pretty thoroughly discussed on this talk page in the past; searching archives (using the search box near the top of this page) will find those for you.

As Doc9871 notes, reliability (per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) is just one criterion for inclusion of material in a Wikipedia article; specific relevance and appropriate context (per WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE) are others.

As a bit of general Wikipedia editing advice, when opening a talk page discussion about a specific edit or proposing the addition of particular text, it's very helpful to include a diff showing the edit, or a copy of the proposed new text, or at least a specific-as-possible description of the proposed change. Discussions about the use of sources always need to address two elements: the source itself, and how the source is intended to be used to support a specific portion of a Wikipedia article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ten, thanks for the politeness and tips, I am finding this a cumbersome process. LOL. Lets begin with simple things that go to the datedness of this featured article. Firstly and most obviously a dated article.. is the politically incorrect pejorative reference to economically disadvantaged persons as "the poor". This was corrected quite decently of me and reverted. I found that reckless and frustrating, as if the editors were so single minded of purpose the goal being simple to guard the hope diamond, a hopelessly dated pitchy article on a very key, in trending topic, and embarrassment to Wiki. Hopefully this is a diff.. ha https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=601624283&oldid=601453146 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiShares (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, no one has reverted your change of "the poor" to "economically disadvantaged". It appears that you made that change with this edit. That edit appears to have inadvertently introduced a grammatical error by deleting the first part of another paragraph (by removing the Although water...); that error was corrected by Piguy101 in this edit, but the rest of your change was left unmodified. (As a general style note/opinion – and an argument that I'm not interested in starting or carrying on here – I'm not sure that you're going to get universal agreement that "the poor" is pejorative when used in an appropriate context, and you may get some pushback if you get too aggressive in trying to replace it widely with what some will see as a rather cumbersome euphemism.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

We should be writing with simple English, thus "the poor" is better than "economically disadvantaged" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the word back to "poor". Many people reading these articles are not native English speakers and do not understand the Western practice of using long unusual words as a show of respect to disadvantages persons. This community has literally thousands of pages of debate in the Manual of Style for best practices for all kinds of purposes and there is consensus for not using new jargon terms when older simple words are better understood. You could petition for change as we do wish to be as respectful as possible, but this might best be done by building off the existing precedent and years of past discussions advocating for simplicity in presentation rather than debating a single instance in a single article. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Fluoride vs Fluorides

The summary paragraphs are too long it obscures the Index it its fervor to sum up the process. Let readers click to topics of interest. And left out of the full screen of summary is reference to the key component being varied.

More importantly the use of fluoride is oversimplifying.. Early on varying Fluoride Compounds should be referenced, letting the reader find the variations below and not mistakenly assume as was once commonly thought a naturally occurring substance. The most predominantly used Fluoride compound is an acid compound, and was derived from fertilizer. I understand that is not a warming comment but it is real. So at the very least.. one or more of varying Fluoride compounds are added might lessen the over simplification of the summary. We do want to suggest early on that the reader look further into the types.. and might learn.. of calcium fluoride vs Fluorosilicic acid - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=601624283&oldid=601442814 That is what is added for the most part. WikiShares (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead is fine and follows policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

From the standpoint of what comes out of the tap, fluoridation with sodium fluoride versus sodium fluorosilicate or fluorosilicic acid is essentially indistinguishable. At high dilution (low concentration) and near-neutral pH – that is, under the conditions at which the compounds are used in water fluoridation – fluorosilicates are rapidly and completely hydrolyzed into fluoride and trace amounts of inert silicon dioxide. (Silicon dioxide, incidentally, is the major chemical ingredient in the glass you're drinking the water from.)

As for the "acid compound" and "derived from fertilizer" stuff—I'll file that under 'factual but irrelevant and misleading'. The former is an appeal to the sort of 'acids are scary!' cartoon view of chemistry, preying on the relative lack of knowledge of readers to attempt to scare them. The latter is implicitly some combination of genetic fallacy and appeal to nature, again with the intent to scare without informing. It would be technically correct – and equally misleading – to say "Oranges contain acid compounds derived from fertilizer". We treat our readers with more respect than that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Israel Ceases Water Fluoridation - Is that Fringe?

Hardly, as a well educated industrialized nation the practice will be discontinued as pressure was brought to bear by a vocal (fringe?) citizen group led by Yaacov Gurman. A dramatic $4 billion dollar lawsuit was petitioned to their highest court. A new health minister was brought in and the court cited the cessation in reply to the petitioner. This is quite relevant as it is recent and reflects change taking place by an entire nation that is not considered radical or fringe.

The landscape of this topic changing.. lets show the current facts as they are today... not merely decades past. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=601624283&oldid=601390742 This is quite relevant and was reverted wholesale by doing a complete reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiShares (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The complete reversion was over a lot of issues. Anyone who does not want their content reverted completely should be conscious of not putting a copyediting burden on others by dividing their edits. Persons wanting points considered individually should make them individually. There are a lot of changes in this revision which have nothing to do with the issue described. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

As a technical note, you may want to re-read the link to WP:DIFF I provided above. The diff that you've provided here covers 17 edits by six different editors; it's not clear which changes are yours, or what edits you're trying to discuss. To produce a diff of a single edit, go to the article's history page, and look at the address of (or click on) the link labelled "prev" next to a particular edit. That generates a diff (the difference) showing the changes made in that edit. If you instead click on "curr", it gives you a link showing the difference between that revision and the current version of the page (and may span dozens or hundreds of edits.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets be very clear. Israel did not "ban" fluoriation, it rescinded national regulations requiring local governments to ensure fluoridation, and it did so over the strong objections of national medical societies. The end result of thi will be a small number of municipalities in a small country changing their policy. Any attempt to use a decision by a small fraction of 1% to change their fluoridation policy as evidence of an incipient shift in scientific concensus would clearly be premature and misleading. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The laws do not change for a few more months in Israel do they? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that antifluoridationists are (as they always do) conflating politics and science. Even if Israel banned fluoridation outright (which it hasn't), it would make precisely no difference at all to the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health intervention. It's equivalent to the Indiana Pi Bill. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

EU 2010 SCHER water fluoridation report. Not represented in the article???

I find it quite incredible that even 1 citation or even a miserly mention of the most comprehensive and updated (2010) review of water fluoridation from the European Commission - Is not in this article.

I searched the talkpage archive, and about 10 months ago, another editor raised the question and also went into specifics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation/Archive_8#facts.2C_sources.2C_NPOV_...

The single response he got was basically "i don't know what this report is.." and then was completely ignored.

So I' m going to revive that thread and copy-paste it's relevant stuff.

I'll start with an answer to that question: What is the SCHER report ? "To obtain an up to date scientific view on the matter [fluoridation of drinking water] the European Commission asked the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) to elaborate an opinion on the safety of fluoride" http://ec.europa.eu/health/publications/docs/achievements2010_en.pdf (page 30)

And some of my additions (quotes from the report) :

• “Fluoride is not an essential element for human growth and development…”

• “Systemic exposure to fluoride through drinking water is associated with an increased risk of dental and bone fluorosis in a dose-response manner without a detectable threshold.”

• “Scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water are less convincing. No obvious advantage appears in favor of water fluoridation as compared with topical application of fluoride.”

• “For younger children (1-6 years of age) the UL (The upper tolerable intake level) was exceeded when consuming more than 1 L of water at 0.8 mg fluoride/L (mandatory fluoridation level in Ireland) and assuming the worst case scenario for other sources. For infants up to 6 months old receiving infant formula, if the water fluoride level is higher than 0.8 mg/L, the intake of fluoride exceeds 0.1 mg/kg/day, and this level is 100 times higher than the level found in breast milk (less than 0.001 mg/kg/day).”

Quoted from older thread:

The article seems to overstate the benefits of water fluoridation (compared to alternatives), misrepresent the situation in Europe, does a fine job avoiding neutral sources. First non-wiki result when I google water fluoridation europe is Questions on water fluoridation - European Commission - Europa but SCHER or publications by the European commission aren't used as source anywhere in the article.

In it's 2010 report to the European Commission, the conclusions of the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks' include:

• The benefits of preventive systemic supplementations (salt or milk fluoridation) are not proven.
• The efficacy of population-based policies, e.g. drinking water, milk or salt fluoridation, as regards the reduction of oral-health social disparities, remains insufficiently substantiated.
• No obvious advantage appears in favor of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention. The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable once the permanent teeth have erupted.
• SCHER agrees that topical application of fluoride is most effective in preventing tooth decay. Topical fluoride sustains the fluoride levels in the oral cavity and helps to prevent caries, with reduced systemic availability.

About the studies regarding salt fluoridation in Jamaica, SCHER finds:

• These studies are all considered of simplistic methodological quality.

The ethics and politics section doesn't mention that information gaps regarding fluoride “prevented the committee from making some judgments about the safety or the risks of fluoride at concentrations of 2 to 4 mg/L., and that water systems could supply up to 4mg/L for a year before informing the customers. Instead we get the crazy theories of some opponents. Other articles (like 9/11) don't need a list of all the conspiracy theories to strengthen the official version by contrast. (they don't even allow them in the main article)

The mechanism section:

• Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.

No they don't, at least not the beneficial effects. Together with:

• others, such as in Europe, using fluoridated salts as an alternative source of fluoride

it suggests that the situation in Europe is fundamentally no different: be it through milk, salt or water fluoridation, the systemic intake would be comparable to countries with water fluoridation. that is not the case. Also, Switzerland and Germany are the only european countries where most salt is fluoridated.

• unlike most European countries, the U.S. does not have school-based dental care

Which countries? Only Sweden provides free dental treatment for schoolchildren afaik. Eastern Europe did the same during the communist era, but those days are long gone. They may get free check-ups in some countries, and a note for the parents telling them they need to go see a dentist, that's about it. It's not the only doubtful claim about "many countries", "most people", ..

WHO DMFT data for 12-y olds in 2004 shows W. European countries scoring as good as or better than the U.S. and Canada. Helen Whelton's study shows much more cases of dental fluorosis in areas with water fluoridation or high natural fluoride content. which makes the statement dental fluorosis, which is mostly due to fluoride from swallowed toothpaste., although technically correct, a bit misleading.109.66.59.99 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know enough about this subject to comment on all of the remarks above, but the full version of the final report is found here: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf

1 “Fluoride is not an essential element for human growth and development…” Does the article say it is? I did not see that.

2 “Systemic exposure to fluoride through drinking water is associated with an increased risk of dental and bone fluorosis in a dose-response manner without a detectable threshold.” Yes, but mild dental fluorosis has almost no clinical significance at all and "intake of less than 0.1 mg F/kg BW/day in children up to 8 years old corresponds to no significant occurrence of “moderate” forms of fluorosis in permanent teeth". The report also states that skeletal fluorosis has not been observed in the EU with the exception of certain industrial workers with high exposure associated with their jobs. So the lead sentence seems to be discussing a phenomenon that is detectable but without clinical significance at fluoride levels associated with water fluoridation.

3. “For younger children (1-6 years of age) the UL (The upper tolerable intake level) was exceeded when consuming more than 1 L of water..." This might be worth looking into.

4. "The efficacy of population-based policies, e.g. drinking water, milk or salt fluoridation, as regards the reduction of oral-health social disparities, remains insufficiently substantiated." Yes, but the report waffles on this point. Elsewhere it states "Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or varnish, appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition, but topical application is the more efficient measure", "water fluoridation offers additional benefits over alternative topical methods because its effect does not depend on individual compliance", and "The effect of water fluoridation tends to be maximized among children from the lower socio-economic groups, so that this section of the population may be the prime beneficiary"

Overall, I can see some possible concerns about the overall balance of this article, but I'm also struck that the SCHER report waffles a lot and that there may be some selective quotation in the above critique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

SCEHR

A recent edit tried to say that the EU considers fluoridation as "controversial"; while true in a general sense due to the external controversies and advocacy, this implies that the document considers the benefits "controversial" which it clearly does not, "Fluoride, either naturally present or intentionally added to water, food and consumer products, e.g. toothpaste, is generally considered beneficial to prevent dental caries." Adding this text to the lead without context would seem inappropriate. Yobol (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You are misquoting the document . it doesn't write "EU considers fluoridation as controversial" it writes "Artificial fluoridation of drinking water reaches the whole population, but is a controversial as a public health measure". That is the position of the EUs "CDC" . You may not like it. but that is what it is. stop reverting this editLarryTheShark (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It is controversial because others have made it controversial. The benefits are not controversial, as the quote from the professional summary shows. Yobol (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That is your personal POV. which is violating WP:OR, there is a whole section above going in detail. “Scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water are less convincing. No obvious advantage appears in favor of water fluoridation as compared with topical application of fluoride.”LarryTheShark (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Which means they found it beneficial. Yobol (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Which means the benefit to risk ratio doesn't justify it when other avenues of fluoride usage are available.LarryTheShark (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, not the doucment's. The document summary says "Fluoride, either naturally present or intentionally added to water, food and consumer products, e.g. toothpaste, is generally considered beneficial to prevent dental caries." Yobol (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not added any interpretation to the article. this is what you are trying to do. I have used the exact words of the document. hence NPOV. the USA is a water fluoridation hugger. the EU is not. similar to position about GMO's : USA is YES , and EU is NO. LarryTheShark (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Without saying what is controversial about it, saying it is "controversial" is a WP:WEASEL...it suggests that the controversy is possibly "good vs bad" or "more vs less" or "what chemical to use" or any number of other aspects of it. By popular media, "controversial" generally means for-vs-against. Some of those possible meanings are clearly not what the source supports, and not-defining the scope of the controversy means you're open to interpretation in a way that has negative connotations and not supported by ref. DMacks (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The EU general statement belongs after the CDC general statement. they are of the same quality.

WP:WEASEL talks about " Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed". The sentence put in the article is clearly attributed and sourced. what should be done is adding more information in the body of the article of the EU position. as requested in the section above

You also forgetting that the EU doesn't practice water fluoridation (same like the vast majority of the world). Their statement also reflects the continent practice.

According to the British Fluoridation Society (2012) : Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water. While 25 countries out of 193 worldwide have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%). Only 11 countries [2014 only 10] in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), {stop in 2014} Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%). In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population. There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.LarryTheShark (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits reverted of 4/4/14

Editor adding only anti-fluoridation content to the article. Suspect POV editing. Should not edit on topics which we have strong opinions about, instead either avoiding them or editing neutrally. These edits were not neutral imo. Request demonstration that there is a consensus for such edits to this article using the talk page. Regards, Lesion 12:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the diff: [3]. Lesion 12:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My last edits have been reverted Carte blanche, by the editor 'Lesion' who seems to be a water fluoridation advocate, on the ground of "anti-water fluoridation content and changing the previous tone of the article".

I find that accusation spurious.

Non of my references are coming from anti fluoridation websites. my references and statements are coming from major and consensus scientific reviews: 2000 York review/2003 addition, 2007 UK, Cheng review and 2011 EU SCHER review. The "tone" of a wikipedia article should represent WP:NPOV information. and with my edits, it does.LarryTheShark (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

When I described your edits as "anti-water fluoridation" my meaning was each edit seemed to be adding content which was worded to oppose water fluoridation. Sources sound ok, I haven't checked them, but not sure about how they are being used. Please seek consensus. Thank you, Lesion 12:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Incredible. so you have not checked the information. and you revert. that is called personal POV.

Another editor/fluoride advocate, reverted on the grounds of "cherry picked quotes changing the POV of the article" deliberately omitting that most statements are backed/quoted by not 1 but 2 major sources.LarryTheShark (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. do not change the subject of this section which i have started to your POV.LarryTheShark (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In an attempt to move things forward, I will start discussion about one of the more concerning edits (not all were this POV):

Before	After
Water fluoridation prevents cavities in both children and adults, with studies estimating an 18–40% reduction in cavities when water fluoridation is used by children who already have access to toothpaste and other sources of fluoride.	Scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application (e.g.. Toothpaste) is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water are relatively poor and less convincing. Water fluoridation prevents cavities in both children and adults, with studies estimating an 18–40% ...

Is a major change in the previous tone of the article. Can we demonstrate that this view is supported by the majority of sources? Lesion 13:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. the two references are the 2011 EU SCHER major review + UK, Cheng 2007 review. The EU uses the word "Less convincing" and Cheng uses "relatively poor" .The 2000 UK York review is much harsher (i have not placed in the lead but in the 'Evidence' section lead):

"We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.

We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.

This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm

What authoritative sources you have stating otherwise? LarryTheShark (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am mostly unfamiliar with the literature here, but just had a look through the first page of pubmed results with keywords "water fluoridation", and the scientific consensus appears to be strongly in favor of water fluoridation. Therefore a series of edits each adding content which is worded to oppose water fluoridation is questionable. Would appreciate if you gave rationale to each edit here as above, so we can move towards a consensus for each. Lesion 13:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your approach is WP:OR and amateur work. This is why the scientific community relies on Reviews/Meta analysis of studies. All the reviews (except for the australian) say that the evidence is of relatively poor quality. and this is what i stated in my edit.LarryTheShark (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There have been only 3 reviews since 2000? Encourage you to make one of these threads for each edit, so it doesn't look like an editor adding anti water fluoridation content over and over. Lesion 13:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Those are the major reviews. York 2000 study for UK government (the country fluoridates 11% of population)), Cheng 2007 (UK, independent), Australia 2007 for the australian government (the country fluoridates 80%), EU SCHER 2011 for the European Union (EU 3% water fluoridates). the very reference that is now in the article (from ireland, 73% fluoridate) states "While the reviews themselves were of good methodological quality, the studies included in the reviews were generally of moderate to low quality" there is no controversy that the studies used to show water fluoridation works are "relatively poor and less convincing" only the Australians think they are "great" LarryTheShark (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

SCHER

OK, starting to look at the "SCHER" source, which is being characterized here as a "major review". I do not find support for this characterization. The SCHER appears to be one of several relatively small advisory bodies which produce opinion papers, and their recommendations are not binding. They publish their own works and so are self-published. Their papers are not carried by the standard major databases of biomedical articles, like PubMed or MEDLINE. I cannot find any major news sources that regularly carry articles covering their publications, like I can find for major medical organizations. Therefore I do not find any support for giving their viewpoint significant weight in our article. They may--maybe--deserve a brief mention, making sure we follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but I do not see justification for making significant use of their publication. Zad68 13:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The SCHER summary states, "Fluoride, either naturally present or intentionally added to water, food and consumer products, e.g. toothpaste, is generally considered beneficial to prevent dental caries." Beneficial. LarrytheShark has cherry picked and turned every single negative commentary about fluoridation out of that review, apparently to push an agenda. Yobol (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I should note that our article contains a number of different secondary sources that support fluoridation and so cherry picking the only negative ones/only negative comments from secondary sources, while ignoring the positive ones, appears to be more POV pushing. Yobol (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of reliable sources, there is a cochrane review [4] but it looks like it is currently in progress. Lesion 14:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)