Jump to content

Talk:Water fluoridation controversy

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adamlankford (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 2 June 2010 (→Article title should say "controversy" rather than "opposition"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Health and Human Services Reference

A fellow editor removed a reference from the United States Health and Human Services. This - "Dosage cannot be controlled, and infants, the elderly, people with calcium and magnesium deficiencies, and people with impaired renal clearance are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride. [1] Was changed to this - "...but those organizations and individuals opposed raise concerns that the intake is not easily controlled, and that children, small individuals, and others may be more susceptible to health problems." The second statement is vague, cumbersome, and unreferenced. I say the first statement is far more encyclopedic, and should return. Petergkeyes (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why I removed a sentence fragment

"At the recommended concentration of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L (0.7 for hot climate, 1.2 in cool climates) the only apparent side-effect appears to be dental fluorosis..." I removed this sentence fragment for a couple of reasons. It does not state who recommends this concentration. But even if it did, concentration in community water supplies is not a controllable dose that allows for any generalizations to be made about side effects, or the lack thereof. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS

The National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 Environmental Protection Agency represents the professional employees at the headquarters offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More about Who they are can be seen at their site and following is the link to that. http://nteu280.org/nteu280-description.htm

Whose Mission Statement is: Working to Protect the Health and safety of the American People This mission statement can be seen at at their website is: http://nteu280.org/


The EPA Union has a section about fluoride that have opposing views about water fluoridation.Hereherer (talk)

The views that the EPA Union has about water fluoridation need to be a part of the opposition to water fluoridation article.Hereherer (talk) 

This information makes the article a more informative article.Hereherer (talk) Hereherer (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]


I have added a link to the external links section of the opposition to water fluoridation article with information about the EPA Union. The opposition to water fluoridation article mentions the EPA Union in the Statements against section but the link does not link to the EPA Unions site. The link links to the EPA site which is not correct site for the EPA Union's site.

The link to the EPA Union in the Statements against section needs to be corrected to so that it links to the EPA Unions website and not the regular EPA site so that it is correct. I am going to fix that link to make the article a better article. Hereherer (talk)

Further Reading Section

In order to improve the opposition to water fluoridation article's further reading section, I have added the following books.

  • [Fluoride Fatigue. Fluoride poisoning: is fluoride in your drinking water—and from other sources—making you sick? Revised 3rd printing. Dunedin, New Zealand: Paua Press Ltd; 2008. ISBN 978-0-473-13092-3]
  • [Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death by Barry Groves Publisher: Newleaf (June 2002) ISBN 978-0717132744]
  • [Fluoride the Aging Factor: How to Recognize and Avoid the Devastating Effects of Fluoride by John Yiamouyiannis Publisher: Newleaf (June 2002) ISBN 978-0913571033]
  • [The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson Publisher:Seven Stories Press(2004) ISBN 978-1583225264]


All these books are relevant to the opposition to water fluoridation article. These books make the further reading section better and improve the article opposition to water fluoridation.71.90.171.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC).Hereherer (talk)[reply]

User Ckatz why are you deleting books from the further reading section? You are vandalizing the further reading section doing that.Hereherer (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)--Hereherer (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these books is a reliable source; nor are any of them notable. They merely rehash the same old claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The books are books about opposition to water fluoridation and are good books.Hereherer (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you do not like the books is not reason to not include the books OrangeMike. The books are in fact very good books and I do not agree with your comments about them.Hereherer (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The public can decide after reading the books if they are good literature or not. Deleting the books from the further reading section does not improve the article.05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlourideBandit (talk • contribs) — FluorideBandit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These are not books about the opposition to fluoridation, they are books opposing fluoridation. They contribute nothing to this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMike you just deleted the Books. without discussion and that is not helping the articleHereherer (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note FYI, FluorideBandit is a confirmed sockpuppet of Hereherer. --Ckatzchatspy 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The books cover all aspects of water fluoridation and are excellent books for the opposition to water fluoridation article.Hereherer (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned repeatedly about such behaviour; resuming it immediately upon return from your block is not conducive to collaborative editing practices. --Ckatzchatspy 22:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On an aside, the new links added aren't actually about "Opposition to Water Fluoridation". Would like to invite the adding editor to give the reasons why they are applicable to the article - rather than just to water fluoridation in general per WP:PRIMARY. Shot info (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links removed yet again, unless Hereherer can establish consensus here to include them. Interested parties should note the user's extended history of edit warring to add links here, the resultant block, and the use of sockpuppets to pursue the same goal. --Ckatzchatspy 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Conspiracy Theory section

The article is about opposition to water fluoridation and not conspiracy theories.I think that the conspiracy theories section currently in the opposition to water fluoridation article needs to be in a new article separate from the opposition to water fluoridation article. Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the actual opposition to water fluoridation and the article would be improved if the conspiracy theories section was removed.

It can only be a conspiracy if they were doing it secretly but they are not. They do it with the consent of the voters representatives. Our elected officials vote to add the hazardous waste from China, Mexico and Florida to our drinking water. Since the generators of hydrofluosilicic acid contribute large sums to the dentists non-profit and the legislators themselves this is what happens when government serve industry and not the people. Not really a conspiracy is it?

The conspiracy theory section should be removed.Hereherer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

No. There doesn't have to be conspiracy in order to have a conspiracy theory. As the article shows, there are conspiracy theorists who oppose flouridation simply because they believe the theory. This is important.--76.120.66.57 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to water fluoridation is about the scientific opposition to water fluoridation and not conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories that oppose water fluoridation should be in a another article where those theories can be discussed. MIxing the two topics in to one article does not improve the quality of the article.Hereherer (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


One person's science can be another person's conspiracy, I found it very helpful when reading the article to have various ideas in one place and presenting this to a class of students. Cordyceps (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title should say "controversy" rather than "opposition"

Other articles on medical controveries have names that contain the word "controversy" or "controversies", for example, Aspartame controversy, Controversies in autism, Dental amalgam controversy, MMR vaccine controversy, Thiomersal controversy, Vaccine controversy. This article is the only one whose name says "Opposition to" instead of "controversy". The article should be renamed to Water fluoridation controversy. This is not only for consistency, but also for a more neutral point of view: saying "opposition to" in the title suggests a focus on only one side of the controversy, which is less neutral than saying "controversy". Eubulides (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those opposing fluoridation have opposing views that are entirely opposite from those who promote water fluoridation. Opposition is the correct term to describe the opposition to water fluoridation article. The opposition to water fluoridation article can be portrayed in a neutral point of view if those who promote water fluoridation would stop attempts to sabotage the article. Hereherer (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eubulides Shot info (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eubulides. The comments from Hereherer suggest that the move is appropriate since we aim for an article that gives an overview of the controversy, vs an article that takes a stand (i.e. a blog). The nature of the controversy is shifting also on several levels. For example, advocacy for fluoridation of public waters may be diminished since fluoride is delivered in so many modalities now (dental gels, fluoride-toothpastes, fluoridated salt, etc.).--Smokefoot (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that User:Hereherer is a conspiracy theorist single purpose account and was blocked over a month ago for (among other things) his obscenity-laced vandalisms of accounts of people he claimed were pro-fluoridation lackies. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eubulides. Petergkeyes (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change title to "Water fluoridation controversy". QuackGuru (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions from July 2008 and August 2008. There might be at least one more discussion. --83.43.253.56 (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title is clearly not neutral. The text is also a problem that needs a lot of work. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The title is not neutral and should be changed. Adamlankford (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information on conspiracy theories citing corporate collusion

A friend of mine once mentioned that she believed that water fluoridation was somehow linked to the aluminum/bauxite industry. If anyone has any links, information, or references to such collusion between the government and said industry--or, more likely, links, information, or references to the conspiracy theory--could they be added to the conspiracy theory section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.164.9 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. here's a link that mentions such a conspiracy, but both its style and content immediately mark it as unreliable, at least in my eyes: http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.164.9 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, U. S. Public Health Service,pp. F1-F7 (1991)http://keepers-of-the-well.org/diligence_pdfs/Susceptible_populations.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy&oldid=365690527"