Jump to content

Talk:Purified water

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geoinline (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 2 June 2009 (→HUGE citation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChemistry Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Health aspects of drinking purified water

There is a common understanding that drinking a lot of purified water can be bad for you (ostensibly because it will absorb minerals that would otherwise be consumed by your body). However, I could only find one clear article describing this and it is widely disseminated, by Zoltan P. Rona MD, MSc. Unfortunately the vast majority of the web sites that contain this article are trying to sell water purifiers or water itself and therefore are suspect sources of material. Can anyone provide information about whether drinking purified water is good or bad for you in the short or long-term?

Note: I started this same discussion under "bottled water" as well. -- S. Gartner talk 02:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of any articles, but a basic chemistry class will teach you that truly purified or distilled water contains, well, nothing other than basic water molecules. A basic biology class will teach you that you need neurons firing in your brain to function properly, and for this to happen you'll need ions or electrolytes, which distilled and purified water don't have. You normally get the ions you need from standard bottled water or tap water. -71.104.92.157 04:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get most of your electrolytes from the water, anyway. The vast majority of the electrolytes in your diet comes from your food. The whole thing is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.83.70 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is much controversy over drinking purified water, but my research led me to conclude that 1) we don't rely on inorganic minerals for mineral absorbtion, as we rely on the organic minerals in food to supply, and the absorption rate or inorganic minerals, as those found in water, are of little or no consequence as compared to, say, a bite of an apple, or an egg. Hard water consumption imports many unwanted guests in the water that purified water can eliminate from your body. I sleep better knowing that I do have a choice to choose distilled water for my hydration, and rely on good diet to provide add'l vitamins and mineralsSJR55 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Distilled water carries both health benefits and health risks. Therapeutically distilled water can be used for short durations as part of a cleansing/detoxifying diet. As distilled water carries a negative polarity it leaches excessive salts, minerals and toxins from the body and is therefore very beneficial if used therapeutically in the short term. However, such is its ability to attract trace elements that, if used for prolonged periods, distilled water will strip the body of too many vital nutrients resulting in a detrimental effect on ones healthPoppydom3 (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distilled water is not charged either positively or negatively, is chemically neutral, so the statement that it has a negative polarity is false. True distillation of water does not change anything about the water itself only separates impurities. Absorption of water in to the body is the most important aspect to focus on and the effect of impurities on the small intestine. Tap water, for individual consumption, does not contain consistent levels of any impurity and should not be represented as being predictable. Localized, environmental conditions have a major impact on the quality of water and therefore making a discussion of 'tap' water vs. distilled pointless. Perceived beneficial elements contained in tap water are in no way level, of consistent quality, or proven to be responsible for the presence of the minerals in the body. The Minerals found in our food diet, for example, are much more likely to produce consistent levels in our bodies compared to the consumption of water. How much water would you need to drink to get the sodium found in a french fry? How much water would you need to drink to get the calcium found in a few sesame seeds? Now, what else are you consuming with that water? If you don't know you need to find out. If you are taking a good vitamin and are consuming an average American diet and drinking distilled water where is the problem? Tap water poses a much greater health treat due to a serious risk of local vulnerability to bacteria, pollution, or even missteps by the treatment facility itself. The city of West Palm Beach, FL had a recent fecal 'matter' scare with its tap water, which went at least twenty four hours before it was reported. So the people of West Palm Beach, drinking straight from the tap, were taking in fecal 'matter' as part of the water they were drinking. It turned it the contamination was coming from the facility itself. Also, Carcinogen is a word people need to learn and think about. Just because you purchased 'spring water' or 'drinking water' doesn't make you immune from these problems. How well do you know the area from which that water comes? Arsenic contamination anyone?

The ships that deploy where all the water is distilled would be a likely source information if there are health risks. I have never hearded any word from there of problems. Having been in the Navy submarine service and still in touch with others who have served, none of the group know of any problems. We are not the medical staff so there may have been problems and nothing reported or not recognised. —Preceding poopoo2609 comment added by 74.37.156.233 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double distilled water, one with no minerals can create severe digestive problems depending on the quantity ingested. Double distilled water should not be drunk. The problem with distilled water is that, by osmosis, it will diffuse into cells making them burst, since water always diffuse from a solution of lesser concentration to a solution of higher concentration.

This statement is false.

However, distilled water sold to drink is only distilled once, leaving some minerals. The problem with ingesting high amount of simple distilled water is that the renal cells need salts to get rid of it, and could deplete that amount leading to too much water in the bloodstream.

This is also false. Your assumption about renal cells is wrong and 'too much water in the bloodstream' is laughable.
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


quite surprisingly there is no reference to a preliminary WHO report ("Health risks from drinking demineralized water") which can be found here: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutdemineralized/en/ 192.28.2.55 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Units

Just a small note. I'm not familiar with elertical conductivity literature, but the units of siemens-cm seems incorrect. Shouldn't it be siemens-m? Astrobit (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milli-Q

Need there be some mention of the Milli-Q purification system? It seems to be a common standard for purified water in a lot of labs and scientific papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roddyboy (talk • contribs) 05:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think it's mainly an ignorance issue. Milli-Q is just a system made by the most popular brand. My (extensive) experience is that bench scientists know surprisingly little about their water purification systems or the standards they are trying to meet. --134.231.11.112 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Health Effects Of Fluoride

It should be noted that the negative health effects of fluoride in water are well documented. Could someone who maintains this article mention them along with proper sources?24.83.148.131 (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)BeeCier[reply]

I have repeatedly added a mention of a few of the negative health affects but, someone keeps removing my warning. I believe that removing a warning of the toxicity of fluoride is opposed to the principle of a neutral point of view. Even if you believe fluoride is safe and effective, you should in my opinion provide evidence for your claim and have both sides of the argument presented, rather then simply deleting the other side.--Geoinline (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the dispute over the health benefits vs. the harmful effects on health deserve mention in this article, I find the current paragraph dealing with this issue very POV. I therefore added the neutrality disputed flag rather than try to deal with the paragraph myself, which seems to have been the subject of an edit war.Theseeker4 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is extensive information on these issues on the Water fluoridation page. I don't think that anything other than a link to this page is necessary, framed in an appropriate paragraph mentioning specifically the relationship between fluoridation and purified water.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me too. I did that, and removed the tag. Eubulides (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of inappropriate picture and caption

I see no reason for this picture to be included on this page. If it belongs anywhere, the picture should be put on a page dealing specifically with filtration. The caption ("A homemade waterfilter using charcoal (carbon), together with sand and grass is often employed for making safe drinking water") does not describe who uses such filtrations systems, to what end, where, or under what circumstances. I have taken the liberty of removing the picture.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HUGE citation

There's a sentence in the "Drinking Purified Water" section which has been given a huge number of citations (numbers 6 through 31). All the superscript is distorting the look of the paragraph. Is all that really necessary? Sounds a bit like overkill...

Fixed; also see #Negative Health Effects Of Fluoride above. Eubulides (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Geoinline has reverted your edit twice (Rifleman 82 had reverted his revert). I'll revert it again. If he reverts my revert without gaining consensus here, this should probably go to WP:DR or something. --Wulf (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in my reversion Argumentum ad populum, is a logical fallacy which is being appealed to justify the validity of Wikipedia content. But this is not a valid means of understanding the world, since it is an appeal to a logical fallacy, which means it is without any basis at all. Since it is not a valid means of understanding the world I have reverted back to content backed by scientific research. If you wish to dispute the content of the page do so based on scientific research.

To address concerns about the number of citations I quote the below content from Wikipedia's Citing sources page.

"In some cases, more than one citation may be necessary to support a fact. This can be because the claim is particularly controversial ... or because the claim itself is one of wide external coverage of a fact."

The claim is considered controversial ad populum, since most people, in my experience, believe the claim to be false. However, the scientific consensus is not controversial at all. The science supports the claim unanimously. Thus I believe the number of citations, given the controversial status of the claim is justified.

Also the claim is one of "wide external coverage of a fact", that is to say the claim is based on evidence from a wide range of studies which themselves cover a wide range of issues, all of which support the claim. Thus I believe the number of citations, given the scope of the claim, is justified.Geoinline

The Purified water article is not the place for an extended discussion of the pros and cons of water fluoridation. Those citations belong in Opposition to water fluoridation, not here. I just now rewrote the text to do that. Please do not attempt to edit-war in a lengthy argument against fluoridation. Eubulides (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means an extended discussion, it is only 3 sentences in total, barely enough to provide both sides of a issue which is highly relevant to purified water, since purified water deals with water purity, by the definition of the word. Discussing common impurities seems highly relevant do you not agree? Discussing the benefits of fluoridation here seems appropriate to you, but you seem opposed to any mention of the potential negative effects. This is POV. Wikipedia is required to take a neutral position. --Geoinline (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Discussing common impurities seems highly relevant do you not agree?" Only insofar as reliable sources on purified water discuss the impurities. But the sources being cited here by and large do not mention purified water, which means the article has some original research, contrary to Wikipedia policy.

False conclusion, just because a source does not mention purified water does not mean said source is original research.

  • "Wikipedia is required to take a neutral position." Neutral doesn't mean that the article should give equal time to all sides; it means that the article should give roughly the same weight that reliable sources do. The existing text is biased far too much on the (minority) opinion that water fluoridation is hazardous.

False, the scientific community is unanimously opposed to water fluoridation read some of the several hundred if not thousands of sources I cited.

  • "it is only 3 sentences in total" Fair enough, I struck the "extended" from my previous comment. Let me rephrase. Purified water is no place for discussion of pros and cons of water fluoridation that involves dozens of citations about water fluoridation, none of which mention purified water. It's Wikipedia policy that material in an article must be supported by reliable sources that are directly related to the article's topic (see WP:OR). That's clearly not the case with the text in question (which I quote below):

Either you are saying my sources to not support the claims I cited them for or you are saying that the claims are not relevant to the article. If you are saying the latter you are a hypocrite since you go on to replace this paragraph with one which discusses water fluoridation, thus you implicitly agree that water fluoridation is relevant to the article. And I do believe that my sources support my claims, however if you doubt this I suggest you continue reading since I site more sources to support my claim.

"It has been suggested that, because distilled water lacks fluoride ions that are added by a minority of governments (e.g., municipalities in the United States) at water treatment plants using sodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid for their effect on the inhibition of cavity formation, the drinking of distilled water may increase the risk of tooth decay.[citation needed] However, many medical authorities argue that the effects of fluoridation on teeth are topical (brushed on) rather than systemic (swallowed). [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Also the benefit of fluoride supplementation, for any purpose, should be cautioned due to potential negative effects to IQ and motor functions.[27][28][29][30]"


  • It's not merely the number of citations that's faulty here. There are other problems.
  • "many medical authorities argue that the effects of fluoridation on teeth are topical (brushed on) rather than systemic (swallowed)" This mischaracterizes the meaning of "topical". "Topical" does not mean "brushed on"; it means applied to the surface of the teeth. Fluoridated water is a topical treatment, just as fluoride toothpaste is. This text gives the misleading impression to the reader that there's a genuine dispute among reliable sources over whether fluoridated water is an effective treatment for cavities. There is no such dispute.

I do not believe the main argument here has anything to do with stating that water fluoridation does not come into contact with the teeth, this is a given. The point is that it is consumed! Fluoride tooth paste has a warning on the back saying "Harmful! If swallow contact the poison control agency immediately! It has this warning because of the fluoride, a poison. You should not swallow fluoride! That is the point being made in the above passage.

  • "Also the benefit of fluoride supplementation, for any purpose, should be cautioned due to potential negative effects to IQ and motor functions." There is no support among reliable sources that water fluoridated to recommended levels has negative effects on IQ or on motor functions. The sources cited to support this claim are not reliable on this subject. Mullenix et al. 1995 is an old primary source that was reviewed by the 2006 NRC report on high-fluoride water; the reviewers said that its results were irreproducible in the practical sense, a very serious criticism. The Fagin article talks about Chinese studies, which were investigating fluoride well above recommended levels. The Colquhoun article does not mention IQ. And the Second Look citation is not a citation at all; it's merely a pointer to a list of what must be hundreds of articles.

False, There is a majority support among reliable sources that water fluoridation has a negative effect on IQ. But you are right I should include better sources.. here you go

(1) Chen Y, Han F, Zhou Z, Zhang H, Jiao X, Zhang S, Huang M, Chang T, Dong Y. (1991) Research on the intellectual development of children in high fluoride areas. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 1991;6 Suppl:99-100. 1991. English version published in Fluoride 41(2):120–124. April-June 2008. Translated by Julian Brooke and published with the concurrence of the Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(2) Guo X, Wang R, Cheng C, Wei W, Tang L, Wang Q, Tang D, Liu G, He G, Li S. (1991) A preliminary investigation of the IQs of 7-13 year old children from an area with coal burning-related fluoride poisoning. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 1991;10(2):98-100. 1991. English version published in Fluoride 41(2):125–128. April-June 2008. Translated by Julian Brooke and published with the concurrence of the Chinese Journal of Endemiology. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(3) Hong F, Cao Y, Yang D, Wang H. (2001) Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environments. Chinese Primary Health Care 2001;15(3):56-7. 2001. Translated by Julian Brooke and published with the concurrence of Chinese Primary Health Care. English version published in Fluoride 41(2):156–160. April-June 2008. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(4) Li Y, Li X, Wei S. (1994) The effects of high fluoride intake on child mental work capacity and preliminary investigation into mechanisms involved. The Journal of West China University of Medical Sciences 1994: 25(2): 188-191. 1994. • Translation into English by Julian Brooke. (English translation not yet published) • NRC did not have this study for review.

(5) Li Y, Jing X, Chen D, Lin L, Wang Z. (2003) The effects of endemic fluoride poisoning on the intellectual development of children in Baotou. Chinese Journal of Public Health Management 2003:19(4):337-8. 2003. Translated by Julian Brooke and published with the concurrence of the Chinese Journal of Public Health Management. English version published in Fluoride 41(2):161–164. April-June 2008. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(6) Qin L, Huo S, Chen R, Chang Y, Zhao M. (1990) Using the Raven’s standard progressive matrices to determine the effects of the level of fluoride in drinking water on the intellectual ability of school-age children. Chinese Journal of the Control of Endemic Diseases 5:203-204. Translated by Julian Brooke and published with the concurrence of the Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases. English version published by Fluoride 41(2):115–119. April-June 2008. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(7) Ren D, Li K, Liu D. (1989) A study of the intellectual ability of 8-14 year-old children in high fluoride, low iodine areas. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases Vol. 4, No. 4, p 251. 1989. • Translation into English by Julian Brooke. (English translation not yet published) • NRC did not have this study for review.

(8) Wang G, Yang D, Jia, Wang H. (1996) A study of the IQ levels of four- to seven-year-old children in high fluoride areas. Endemic Diseases Bulletin, Vol. 11, No. 1, 60-6. February 1996. • Translation into English by Julian Brooke. (English translation not yet published) • NRC did not have this study for review.

(9) Wang S, Zhang H, Fan W, Fang S, Kang P, Chen X, Yu M. (2005) The effects of endemic fluoride poisoning caused by coal burning on the physical development and intelligence of children. Journal of Applied Clinical Pediatrics 20(9): 897-898. September 2005. • Translation into English by Julian Brooke. (English translation not yet published) • NRC did not have this study for review.

(10) Li XS, Zhi JL, Gao RO. (1995) Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 28(4): 189-192. 1995. • NRC cited this study in its references.

(11) Lin FF, Aihaiti, Zhao HX, Lin J, Jiang JY, Maimaiti, and Aiken (1991) The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Xinjiang Institute for Endemic Disease Control and Research; Office of Leading Group for Endemic Disease Control of Hetian Prefectural Commitlee of the Communist Party of China; and County Health and Epidemic Prevention Station, Yutian, Xinjiang. • NRC cited this study in its references.

(12) Lu Y, Sun ZR, Wu LN, Wang X, Lu W, Liu SS. (2000) Effect of high-fluoride water on intelligence in children. Fluoride 33(2): 74-78. 2000. • NRC cited this study in its references.

(13) Rocha-Amador D, Navarro ME, Carrizales L, Morales R, Calderón J. (2007) Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 23 Sup 4:S579-S587. 2007. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(14) Trivedi MH, Verma RJ, Chinoy NJ, Patel RS, Sathawara NG . (2007) Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India. Fluoride 40(3):178–183. July-September. 2007. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(15) Wang SX, Wang ZH, Cheng XT, Li J, Sang Z-P, Zhang X-D, Han L-L, Qiao X-Y, Wu Z-M, Wang Z-Q. (2007) Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children’s IQ and growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives115(4):643-647. April 2007. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(16) Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, Wang C, Chen B, Chen X, Zhou M. (2003) Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence. Fluoride 36(2): 84-94. 2003. • NRC cited this study in its references.

(17) Zhao LB, Liang GH, Zhang DN, Wu XR. (1996) Effect of high-fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Fluoride 29(4): 190-192. 1996. • NRC cited this study in its references.

(18) Seraj B*, Shahrabi M, Falahzade M, Falahzade F, Akhondi N. (2007) Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children's intelligence. • English translation forwarded by lead author: (B. Seraj, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry,Tehran University of Medical Sciences) Journal of Dental Medicine 19(2):80-86. 2007. • NRC did not have this study for review.


  • "minority of governments" another POV phrase. What difference does it make for purified water how many governments are involved?

It is a fact. Facts are not POV.

It matters because these classified hazardous toxic wastes are not pharmaceutical grade fluoride, and contain a whole host of additional toxins.

  • To summarize, the current text has two serious problems: its use of citations that are not about purified water is a serious WP:OR problem. And its evident bias against water fluoridation is against mainstream opinion and is a serious WP:NPOV problem. To attempt to work around both problems I installed a change that cuts the number of citations from dozens to two, and attempts to give both sides of the fluoridation controversy in rough proportion to what reliable sources say.
Eubulides (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Again if a citation does not contain a certain key word it by no means makes it original research, this is a ludicrous claim!
2. Again you are attempting to use Argumentum ad populum to support your position when you say "is against mainstream opinion", but argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Thus your argument is baseless.

Eubulides your positions lack soundness or reason and scientific support. Please continue to edit this article replacing my claims with your poorly researched and illogical claims, I find them quite amusing!

--Geoinline (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

water purifying

Is that feasible to distill sea water using multi effective evpouratours. we can sell the byproduct which is the salt. the vapour which is distilled could be compressed by solar compressers.

with regards, shahabaaz ali raza --Shahbaazali (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water fluoridation dispute

This dispute is over how much the Purified water should discuss the pros and cons of water fluoridation. Geoinline feels that the Purified water article should present a lengthy set of citations concerning the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation, whether the mechanism of water fluoridation is topical or systemic, whether breastfeeding protects against dental fluorosis, whether fluoride pills should be taken, etc. I think Geoinline's version has serious WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems, and that Purified water should only briefly present the fluoridation controversy and should cite only sources that are directly relevant to purified water.

The topic has been further discussed in #HUGE citation above. Here is the version that Geoinline prefers:

Purified water may have little to no fluoride, as pitcher or faucet-mounted filters do not alter fluoride; the more-expensive reverse osmosis filters remove 65%–95% of fluoride, and distillation filters remove all fluoride.[31]
It has been suggested that, because distilled water lacks fluoride ions that are added by a minority of governments (e.g., municipalities in the United States) at water treatment plants using sodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid for their effect on the inhibition of cavity formation, the drinking of distilled water may increase the risk of tooth decay.[citation needed] However, many medical authorities argue that the effects of fluoridation on teeth are topical (brushed on) rather than systemic (swallowed). [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] Also the benefit of fluoride supplementation, for any purpose, should be cautioned due to potential negative effects to IQ and motor functions.[58][28][29][59]

and here is the version that I prefer:

Some water is purified to avoid water fluoridation, which is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Although health and dental organizations worldwide have endorsed fluoridation's safety and effectiveness, opposition to water fluoridation is considerable, and companies selling water filters are involved in the opposition.[60] Whether purified water contains fluoride depends on which technology is used to purify the water. Pitcher or faucet-mounted filters do not alter fluoride; the more-expensive reverse osmosis filters remove 65%–95% of fluoride, and distillation filters remove all fluoride. Unnecessary use of filtered water may harm dental health.[61]

Eubulides (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fluoride & Tooth Decay: Topical Vs. Systemic Effects
  2. ^ Pizzo G, Piscopo MR, Pizzo I, Giuliana G. (2007). Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93.
  3. ^ National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 13.
  4. ^ European Commission. (2005). The Safety of Fluorine Compounds in Oral Hygiene Products for Children Under the Age of 6 Years. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, September 20.
  5. ^ Hellwig E, Lennon AM. (2004). Systemic versus topical fluoride. Caries Research 38: 258-62.
  6. ^ Fejerskov O. (2004). Changing paradigms in concepts on dental caries: consequences for oral health care. Caries Research 38: 182-91.
  7. ^ Warren JJ, Levy SM. (2003). Current and future role of fluoride in nutrition. Dental Clinics of North America 47: 225-43.
  8. ^ Brothwell D, Limeback H. (2003). Breastfeeding is protective against dental fluorosis in a nonfluoridated rural area of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90.
  9. ^ Zimmer S, et al. (2003). Recommendations for the Use of Fluoride in Caries Prevention. Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry 1: 45-51.
  10. ^ Aoba T, Fejerskov O. (2002). Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine 13: 155-70.
  11. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50(RR14): 1-42.
  12. ^ Featherstone, JDB. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association 131: 887-899.
  13. ^ Formon, SJ; Ekstrand, J; Ziegler, E. (2000). Fluoride Intake and Prevalence of Dental Fluorosis: Trends in Fluoride Intake with Special Attention to Infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.
  14. ^ Adair SM. (1999). Overview of the history and current status of fluoride supplementation schedules. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 1999 59:252-8.
  15. ^ Burt BA. (1999). The case for eliminating the use of dietary fluoride supplements for young children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 260-274.
  16. ^ Featherstone JDB. (1999) Prevention and Reversal of Dental Caries: Role of Low Level Fluoride. Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology 27: 31-40.
  17. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48: 933-940.
  18. ^ Limeback, H. (1999). A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 27: 62-71.
  19. ^ Locker D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
  20. ^ Diesendorf, M. et al. (1997). New Evidence on Fluoridation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 21 : 187-190.
  21. ^ Ekstrand J, et al. (1994). Fluoride pharmacokinetics in infancy. Pediatric Research 35:157–163.
  22. ^ Zero DT, et al. (1992). Fluoride concentrations in plaque, whole saliva, and ductal saliva after application of home-use topical fluorides. Journal of Dental Research 71:1768-1775.
  23. ^ Leverett DH. (1991). Appropriate uses of systemic fluoride: considerations for the '90s. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 51: 42-7.
  24. ^ Wefel JS. (1990). Effects of fluoride on caries development and progression using intra-oral models. Journal of Dental Research 69(Spec No):626-33;
  25. ^ Carlos JP. (1983) Comments on Fluoride. Journal of Pedodontics Winter. 135-136.
  26. ^ Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A, Larsen MJ. (1981). Rational Use of Fluorides in Caries Prevention: A Concept based on Possible Cariostatic Mechanisms. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 39: 241-249.
  27. ^ Mullenix, Phillis (1995), "Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats", Neurotoxicology and Teratology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 169–177, doi:10.1016/0892-0362(94)00070-T
  28. ^ a b "Second Thoughts on Fluoride". Scientific American.Reuters summary.
  29. ^ a b John Colquhoun (1998). "Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation" (reprinted from Perspectives in Biology and Medicine). Fluoride. 31 (2): 103–118.
  30. ^ Second Look. A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride
  31. ^ Hobson WL, Knochel ML, Byington CL, Young PC, Hoff CJ, Buchi KF (2007). "Bottled, filtered, and tap water use in Latino and non-Latino children". Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 161 (5): 457–61. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.5.457. PMID 17485621.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  32. ^ Fluoride & Tooth Decay: Topical Vs. Systemic Effects
  33. ^ Pizzo G, Piscopo MR, Pizzo I, Giuliana G. (2007). Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93.
  34. ^ National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 13.
  35. ^ European Commission. (2005). The Safety of Fluorine Compounds in Oral Hygiene Products for Children Under the Age of 6 Years. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, September 20.
  36. ^ Hellwig E, Lennon AM. (2004). Systemic versus topical fluoride. Caries Research 38: 258-62.
  37. ^ Fejerskov O. (2004). Changing paradigms in concepts on dental caries: consequences for oral health care. Caries Research 38: 182-91.
  38. ^ Warren JJ, Levy SM. (2003). Current and future role of fluoride in nutrition. Dental Clinics of North America 47: 225-43.
  39. ^ Brothwell D, Limeback H. (2003). Breastfeeding is protective against dental fluorosis in a nonfluoridated rural area of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90.
  40. ^ Zimmer S, et al. (2003). Recommendations for the Use of Fluoride in Caries Prevention. Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry 1: 45-51.
  41. ^ Aoba T, Fejerskov O. (2002). Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine 13: 155-70.
  42. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50(RR14): 1-42.
  43. ^ Featherstone, JDB. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association 131: 887-899.
  44. ^ Formon, SJ; Ekstrand, J; Ziegler, E. (2000). Fluoride Intake and Prevalence of Dental Fluorosis: Trends in Fluoride Intake with Special Attention to Infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.
  45. ^ Adair SM. (1999). Overview of the history and current status of fluoride supplementation schedules. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 1999 59:252-8.
  46. ^ Burt BA. (1999). The case for eliminating the use of dietary fluoride supplements for young children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 260-274.
  47. ^ Featherstone JDB. (1999) Prevention and Reversal of Dental Caries: Role of Low Level Fluoride. Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology 27: 31-40.
  48. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48: 933-940.
  49. ^ Limeback, H. (1999). A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 27: 62-71.
  50. ^ Locker D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
  51. ^ Diesendorf, M. et al. (1997). New Evidence on Fluoridation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 21 : 187-190.
  52. ^ Ekstrand J, et al. (1994). Fluoride pharmacokinetics in infancy. Pediatric Research 35:157–163.
  53. ^ Zero DT, et al. (1992). Fluoride concentrations in plaque, whole saliva, and ductal saliva after application of home-use topical fluorides. Journal of Dental Research 71:1768-1775.
  54. ^ Leverett DH. (1991). Appropriate uses of systemic fluoride: considerations for the '90s. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 51: 42-7.
  55. ^ Wefel JS. (1990). Effects of fluoride on caries development and progression using intra-oral models. Journal of Dental Research 69(Spec No):626-33;
  56. ^ Carlos JP. (1983) Comments on Fluoride. Journal of Pedodontics Winter. 135-136.
  57. ^ Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A, Larsen MJ. (1981). Rational Use of Fluorides in Caries Prevention: A Concept based on Possible Cariostatic Mechanisms. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 39: 241-249.
  58. ^ Mullenix, Phillis (1995), "Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats", Neurotoxicology and Teratology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 169–177, doi:10.1016/0892-0362(94)00070-T
  59. ^ Second Look. A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride
  60. ^ Armfield JM (2007). "When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature". Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 4: 25. doi:10.1186/1743-8462-4-25. PMC 2222595. PMID 18067684.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  61. ^ Hobson WL, Knochel ML, Byington CL, Young PC, Hoff CJ, Buchi KF (2007). "Bottled, filtered, and tap water use in Latino and non-Latino children". Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 161 (5): 457–61. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.5.457. PMID 17485621.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Purified_water&oldid=294017984"