Talk:Water fluoridation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hwasnak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Association between fluoridated water and ADHD

I found a 2015 scientific study which suggests that fluoridating the public water supply leads to greater rates of ADHD in children in the US: [1]. This study was covered by Newsweek: [2]. The association was also found in a Canadian sample: [3]

An opinion article in Nature disputes the connection: [4] Another study states that "Current epidemiological evidence indicates that fluoride exposure may have neurotoxic effects on neurodevelopment, including behavioral alterations, cognitive impairment and psychosomatic issues. However, the heterogeneity in study designs and results from human studies did not allow us to reliably identify fluoride exposure as a risk factor for ADHD development. More rigorous studies are needed to provide conclusive evidence of an etiologic association between pre- or post-natal fluoride exposure and ADHD." [5]

Should these issues be mentioned on the page? Sonicsuns (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably not, given the WP:FRINGE issues with the general topic of this article, and the age of the study, and the subsequent articles. --Hipal (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree not, per Hipal. WP:MEDRS is the controlling standard. Being cited in popular press does not add value to human-health claims, especially controversial-at-best ones. MDPI-published journals are often low value also. DMacks (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The NIH.gov source study is an official government agency and should be cited the Newsweek article is just a consumable article for general public. This isn't part of conspiracy or fringe theory. So the citation of NIH.gov site is perfectly fine as newer studies in 2020 suggest it is a neurotoxin Cocoablini (talk). 17:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the NIH.gov link just a database entry for a journal article? It has a huge banner "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health." DMacks (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

USGOV Agency is coming to the conclusion that flouride is a neurotoxin

"Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses"

As with EU, the US is coming to the conclusion that flouride in the water supply has little benefit to teeth in comparison to topical usage and causes issues similar to mercury in younger [./Https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7261729/ children] .NIH.gov is US government health agency. I suggest this is an allowable addition to criticisms as it's official government study Cocoablini (talk). 17:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, makes sense for intelligence, but not ADHD yet. However, it secondary sources do say it benefits teeth in absence of topical use. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Do not tout the value of the URL of an indexing engine that loudly proclaims "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health." or claim that an article that has not a single author affiliated with any US organization is any sort of US anything. DMacks (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the paper is German. Though there are ongoing US GOV (National Toxicology Program) discussions about fluoride neurotoxicity: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/ongoing/fluoride

"there is an association between higher fluoride exposures and lower IQ in children" Chamaemelum (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is the problem now?

The source (doi:10.1007/s00204-020-02725-2) clearly states: "In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.".

This statement is what other good metareviews state - there is no fuss about it.

Interestingly, the lack in iodide causes some problems. Many studies from China does not even account for this.--Julius Senegal (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Low levels or high?

The third sentence in the opening section states "Fluoridated water operates on tooth surfaces: in the mouth, it creates low levels of fluoride in saliva,". Shouldn't this be "high levels"? How does exposing your mouth/body to fluoride lower saliva levels? 118.92.202.147 (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"Low" is what's supported by the refs. I would assume it's low as opposed to very very low or even none if water does not supply fluoride. DMacks (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's trying to point out that the levels of fluoride in saliva will be very small, although higher than would otherwise occur. For example, the article includes "recommended fluoride levels in the United States were changed to 0.7 ppm" and if that is the current rate in most tap water, the levels in saliva would be significantly lower, making it way under a part per million which is a low level. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Costs

"Typically a fluoridated compound is added to drinking water, a process that in the U.S. costs an average of about $1.26 per person-year." I couldnt find such figure in either of the two sources given. --Nomad (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)