Talk:Sodium fluoride/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Where is the Production section?

Am I the only one to find it odd that the article only details the use of this compound, and not it's production, such as Sodium chloride?--Happysomeone (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

damage to pineal gland can someone do some research and post findings on the relationship between sodium fluoride and the pineal gland thanks


Does anyone have any evidens that sodium fluoride prevents cavities ??? My own research shows that it more proberly calcium fluoride which prevents cavities.

Sorry can't provide you with evidence, perhaps some other user can. But there seems only 3 fluoride compounds are commonly used in commercial tooth paste as a decay retarding compounds. Stannous fluoride SnF2 (Tin fluoride), sodium monofluorophosphate or sodium fluoride. All these fluoride compounds are manufactured from hydrofluoric acid, which commercially is usually manufactured from fluorspar (calcium fluoride). So yes in a manner of speaking, calcium fluoride prevents cavities if you accept that sodium fluoride does. I have responded further on you talk page User talk:Equanimous2.--blue520 15:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't accept that sodium flouride prevents cavities. I think calcium is an importen component. I just think that if we can't find hard evidence that sodium fluoride prevents cavities then it should be removed from the article or we should write that it is in the article with out any evidens. Equanimous2 19:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an article at J Am Dent Assoc. 1959 Feb;58(2):43-55 titled "Dental caries in the molar teeth of rats. III. Bio-assay of sodium flouride and sodium lauroyl sarcosinate as caries-inhibitory agents." Unfortunatly I dont think its online. This might shed some light on the argument, though I dont have access to this particular year. However there is another article "Clinical evaluation of sodium flouride chewable tablets in dental caries." Indian J Dent Res. 1999 Oct-Dec;10(4):146-9. Abstract: Chewable tablets containing low dosage flouride content were prepared using two varities of celluloses and their in vitro parameters were evaluated. An eighteen month clinical trial revealed that both these formulations were effective in controlling the caries. However, ethyl cellulose is proved to be superior to methylcellulose as a controlled release matrix material in controlling caries. Thus this study recommends ethylcellulose matrix tablets containing low flouride content is an efficacious and cost effective drug device in controlling dental caries. So it is my belief that sodium flouride does indeed contribute to the prevention of cavities. Fitz05 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Behavior on heating

What happens to NaF if you heat up to melting point in air vs pure nitrogen vs hydrogen nitrogen? Do you retain the original chemical? Does it decompose? Do you form HF and Na2O? Do you form Na metal, HF? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

In general, metal halides are very stable, and sodium fluoride is no exception. No element is more electronegative than fluorine, and only the heavier alkali metals are more electropositive than sodium, so it doesn't react with any of the gases you mention. —Keenan Pepper 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sodium fluoride is toxic

Guys, this article is crap, calcium fluoride in TINY trace amounts is good for the human body, sodium fluoride is HIGLY toxic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Er... calcium flouride is also toxic. Sodium flouride is added to toothpaste and other such things, in small quantities. Fitz05 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Calcium fluoride isn't retained by the body. Sodium fluoride and Stannous fluoride are toxic poisons that persist in your intestinal tract. The chemical weapon attacks your guts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes let's stick to medical facts, shall we? Note: Neurolanis (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is a farce. I tried adding info about the dangers of sodium fluoride with some credible sources, but it is common knowledge anyway. I felt that people who look up things on Wikipedia probably deserve to know that sodium fluoride is the main ingredient in rat poisons! But the brief information I added was removed and I was told, literally, that Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth; it cares only about facts that fit with mainstream concepts. This site isn't worth spit. I've had it. Goodbye. Neurolanis (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, regardless of the fluoride controversy, just because something can kill you doesn't meant that it's bad for you in lower concentrations... caffeine, GHB, alcohol, oxygen etc. This is a fairly limited view on things. Had you consulted with others and not pushed your POV, you would have fared better. You can't have an agenda on WP. You should also read what the "truth" is before taking another user's remarks out of context. Freestyle-69 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I once read a book about real life murder cases. There was an old woman who murdered relatives by poisoning them slowly over time, with small doses (I forget which poison she used, arsenic I believe.) The toxins build up in your body, especially if you consume a certain amount day after day. I once saw a toothpase that warned that if a child consumed a tablespoon amount that they should be taken to a doctor (because of flouride poisoning.) It kills brain cells, over time. Alcohol does the same thing, and if you've known anyone who has drunken heavily over a long period of time you'll have no doubts. Sodium flouride is not only toxic but extremely toxic. Check out: Neurolanis (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Only certain toxins build up over time - see Bioaccumulation.
Ben (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
That reference can hardly be defined as credible. To eat an acutely toxic (but non-fatal) dose of NaF an adult would have to consume much more than a tubeful, assuming a typical concentration of < 1% w/w. Regardless of your intentions, it appears you aren't basing your argument on any real knowledge base. If you're not a scientist or otherwise knowledgeable person, you're wasting your time. Appeal to the respective government agency in your country, or start/join a protest group. In any case, WP is not the correct forum.
That said, welcome back. I saw your "retirement" the other week; it would be a shame to lose any editor if they can contribute in a meaningful fashion. I deliberately steer away from areas that I am emotional about, and I stick to those that I'm qualified and/or experienced in. Just a thought. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
We have plenty of reliable assessments that sodium fluoride is toxic – the EU classification, the International Chemical Safety Card, the ATSDR toxicological profile… I also have another toxicological profile from the French government and the environmental health criteria from the IPCS in my files. On the other hand, we also have the US Institute of Medicine defining 3–4 mg/day of fluoride for adults as "estimated fluoride intake that has been shown to reduce the occurrence of dental caries maximally in a population without causing unwanted side effects including moderate dental fluorosis." [1] (pp. 35–36 of the PDF file).
The toothpaste in my bathroom is 0.145% sodium fluoride (expressed as fluorine content): at a minimum acute toxic dose of 5 mg(F)/kg for alkali metal fluorides (IPCS), I would have to consume at least three tubes over a short period of time to show adverse effects and at least ten tubes before I was at risk of "toothpaste suicide".
Chronic toxicity of alkaline fluorides (as skeletal fluorosis) is also known, either in the aluminium industry (INRS) or from environmental exposure to high fluoride levels, especially in India and China (IPCS). Five environmentally-related cases have been reported in the US over the last 40 years (IPCS).
Sodium fluoride is not "the main ingredient in rat poisons" (that would be sodium fluoroacetate), it is not "retained in your intestinal tract" (it is rapidly absorbed and excreted, although it can build up in bones), it does not "kill brain cells over time" (although there can be acute neurological effects due to hypocalcaemia). It is quite pointless including rubbish in the article when we have such an abundance of reliable sources that are underutilised. Physchim62 (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
According to Emsley's The Elements of Murder, sodium fluoride was used as rat, ant, and cockroach poison, but presumably it is not used much anymore (given his use of the past tense). Sodium fluoride is certainly toxic in high enough amounts (what isn't?). He mentions a couple of fatal incidents: one accident and one murder. You can read the relevant pages of the book at [2]. The fatal dose is usually at least one gram, which is pretty substantial. So, while NaF is toxic, it is hardly the most poisonous substance out there! (Qualitatively, I would place it about halfway between sodium chloride and sodium cyanide.) --Itub (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Freestyle-69. I am emotional/passionate about nearly every subject from one angle or another.
And not only is it highly toxic but it carries with it other health concerns. See: Neurolanis (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Several Canadian provinces have made it illegal for sodium fluoride to be used in drinking water, I wonder why. Tubes of toothpaste recently all had the same warning: If a child consumes more than the normal amount of toothpaste used for brushing teeth, take them immediately to a hospital -- yet now they do not have any ingredients or warning on them at all, and again gee I wonder why. Hawaii has banned it. And most significantly of all for this argument, it has been scientifically PROVEN to be toxic to humans! A Scientific American study "Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid -- the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism." The report also notes that "a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ." In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys. "New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - between the ages of 10 and 19," according to a London Observer article about the study.
An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children's liver and kidney functions. Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it's also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972. The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany's Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin.) 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however 10% of Britons drink it and the UK government is trying to fast track the fluoridation of the entire country's water supply. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water. Fluorides are cumulative toxins. The fact that fluorides accumulate in the body is the reason that US law requires the Surgeon General to set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride content in public water supplies as determined by the EPA. This requirement is specifically aimed at avoiding a condition known as Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis (CSF), a disease thought to progress through three stages. The MCL, designed to prevent only the third and crippling stage of this disease, is set at 4ppm or 4mg per litre. It is assumed that people will retain half of this amount (2mg), and therefore 4mg per litre is deemed ``safe." Yet a daily dose of 2-8mg is known to cause the third crippling stage of CSF.
In 1998 EPA scientists, whose job and legal duty it is to set the Maximum Contaminant Level, declared that this 4ppm level was set fraudulently by outside forces in a decision that omitted 90 percent of the data showing the mutagenic properties of fluoride. The Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 5th Edition (1984) gives lead a toxicity rating of 3 to 4 (3 = moderately toxic, 4 = very toxic) and the EPA has set 0.015 ppm as the MCL for lead in drinking water—with a goal of 0.0ppm. The toxicity rating for fluoride is 4, yet the MCL for fluoride is currently set at 4.0ppm, over 250 times the permissible level for lead. Neurolanis (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, you just ranted. However, this talk page is meant for constructive discussion on how to improve the sodium fluoride page. Perhaps you are implicitly saying a couple more tox. sentences should be added to this page (that are "highlights" from the fluoride poisoning page?) Not sure. Please be straightforward and please do not rant on the talk page. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
NaF is about 30 times more toxic than NaCl. So why isn't there about 1/30 of the the attention devoted to this slightly-less-nasty beast that we place (or is already contained) in our food in large volumes? Leave it to the scientists- eventually they'll work out once and for all whether it's that bad, or whether it cures cancer, and we'll all be happy. It took a long time before we worked out that smoking will kill you and there's still people that smoke, and our govts let them... Neurolanis, you need to join an action group against NaF and devote your time there, because you are probably wasting your time here on WP. WP has rules, procedures and etiquette that you seem to have struggled with. If you don't like the rules, you can try to get them changed- WP:VP is a good place to start. Perhaps you would be best suited to developing one of the many anti-fluoridation websites. They may not be scientific (i.e. presenting facts in a balanced way) like many people here are trying to make WP, but you would probably get a whole lot more satisfaction. Freestyle-69 (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what "IMHO" means. I will assume that you are addressing me as I was the last to post. I think you should research the definition of "rant". What I wrote there was a couple paragraphs of evidence that overwhelmingly supports the toxic effects of sodium fluoride. Because it is long does not make it a rant, it means I had a lot of evidence to divulge. I wouldn't think that that much information would be necessary, but according you it is still not enough. So for you to complain about its length is rather absurd.
Freestyle-69, you are demonstrating the very attitude that I refuse to adhere to: dishonest, condescending, and holding personal status as weighed solely by one's position in a fabricated reality as well as the belief in supporting that fabrication above the true reality of the world we live in. You talk about science, but science is a search for truth. It is not presumptions or beliefs held by religious, corporate or national governments. It is a search for real, provable truth. Independent, highly accredited and respected individuals have proven the toxicity of sodium fluoride. The very fact that it has been the main or sole ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons alone proves beyond any doubt the very nature of sodium fluoride. When someone like you ignores what a five year old child could easily understand and hide behind the proud word of "science" as if you have any respect for what science is about, I know I am doing right by speaking against your attitude. Words are cheap, actions speak more loudly. The action that you continually commit on WP is deplorable.
Wikipedia should be educating, not misinforming. Neurolanis (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This page and the related pages on fluoridation are magnets for strangeness. The remark that "Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry..." is misleading. Virtually all chemicals are recovered from processing of raw materials. The recovered NaF (actually it is HF that is recovered) finds its way into a significant fraction of life-saving pharmaceuticals (see organofluorine chemistry). In terms of NaF being a rat poison, many chemicals have been sold to kill rats; given NaF's low LD50, one can understand why it would be discontinued. The following statement from the U.S. Center for Disease Control is, in my opinion, insurmountable: ...fluoridation is "one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century in the U.S."[[3]] This statement does not say that fluoridation was perfectly practiced always or that the technology is static - but its benefits rank with anti-smoking campaigns and seat belts. So Neurolanis and colleagues, you either buy the CDC conclusions or you accept that most of the chemically literate wikipedia editors are co-conspirators. In general, conspiracy-oriented discussions have been unproductive in Wikipedia, but better suited for blogs.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it humanly impossible to reply to that statement without breaking several Wikipedia rules... Neurolanis (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

EU classification (as by Directive 67/548/EEC)

Sodium fluoride is classified as toxic (T). If a substance, that is toxic or very toxic happens to be irritant (Xi), this classification is superseeded by the "toxic/very toxic" (i.e., the T/T+ is considered more important than Xi). Only if the chemical happens to be corrosive (C), noxious to environment (N) or explosive (E), should this risk classifications be stated apart the T/T+. Cheers, -- (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes and no. The full EU classification is "T; R25 – Xi; R36/38 – R32", something which is incomprehensible even to most chemists. What you are saying is completely true for the labelling requirements, as the same site confirms: only one safety icon is required, and that is the one for "Toxic". The reason why Wikipedia includes the irritant class in the classification is to try to be consistent with the inclusion of carcinogen, mutagen and reproductive hazard categories, which are needed elsewhere (though not for sodium fluoride). When you remember that we also have to be aware of the sensibilities of English speakers who do not use the EU classes (in the US, Canada, Australia, etc.), I hope you can forgive our slight mixing of terms. Physchim62 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ow okay, nevermind. I myself am completely lost in this EU legislative, I wonder whether there is actually a person who understands it completely. :) Have a nice day. -- (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a rumour that such people exist at the European Chemicals Agency, but unfortunately it's yet to be confirmed! Until then, we do the best we can ;) Physchim62 (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sodium Fluoride Tablets

"Sodium fluoride is sold in tablets for cavity prevention."

  • I think this sentence on the tablets' picture might be providing disputed information, because I didn't see any sentence saying that it is dangerous & can cause Dental fluorosis.[4] --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that the tablets indeed are probably sold for the purpose of cavity prevention. Would you recommend that the caption include a warning label? Because Wikipedia usually avoids offering advice.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI.... -- (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC) -- (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sodium Fluoride

What is the pH of sodium fluoride solution ? The alkalinity of different brand of NaF will be different ?? (p.s. 40g/1000ml)

Sodium Fluoride and how it applies to Tooth Enamel

Lately I've been concerned about my teeth, and went to the drug store to find out about what fluoridated products were available. Discovered that Sodium Fluoride is the Active Ingredient in most products, and that the amount varied. Also, how the percentage of Fluoride was expressed varied from product to product.

Came here to the Wiki to find out about this, why it is and also (in particular) exactly HOW the Fluoride helps the tooth enamel.

I'm thinking, most people have teeth, and most fluoride is used for teeth, and so it follows that the Wiki ought to have a substantial section dedicated to describe the relationship between Fluoride and teeth, aimed primary at the Layperson, such as myself.

Noted that dental fluoride is sometimes given in pill form, yet the product safety instructions prohibit ingesting the fluoridated mouth wash I use.

How does fluoride improve teeth ? Is it an "inside-out" effect, where fluoride in the body somehow circulates into the teeth from within, or is the only benefit from circulating fluoride around the outside of the teeth ?

How much fluoride is too much ? How much is enough ? Why are there different ways of expressing fluoride content in products ? (Something about "ionic content" or words based on "ion" confused me...)

Also, I think it's fair to mention the "disputed nature" of the safety of fluoride, but no more than that. As a Wiki user, I don't need to know certain things. If experts can't agree, I do not need my awareness disrupted by the conflicts of other people; I certainly have enough of my own. (I'm also not all that interested in WTC Tower #7, and am very tired of the zealots on THAT trying to push their agenda into my awareness. That goes double for the Pro-Life people. If the anti-Fluoride people cannot respect my basic right to research basic, common and every-day information without having to sort through their contortions, they fully deserve to be marginalized and castigated as kooks, zealots and other persons with Mental Illness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and steers away from offering advice (see WP:NOTMANUAL). So this sober article is about a semi-boring chemical compound. Many articles have been created about various aspects of the controversy, which discuss issues ranging from the John Birch Society's concerns to various scientific analyses (i.e. ingested vs topical fluoride), see Opposition to water fluoridation and Water fluoridation. Unfortunately, the fluoridation is so controversial (actually it is not very controversial among technical professionals - but its use infuriates segments of the populace) that these articles tend to be long-winded (because so many angles are covered). To editorialize, it is curious that iodised salt (also governmental, top-down medication of the masses) does not cause such outrage. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Rat Poison

Sodium Fluoride is historically used as rat poison. This should be listed under "Applications". I understand this edit has been made in the past and has since been reverted. What is the objection? I will add it myself if no one objects to it here. The sources for this are abundant.

Vitamin D, along with anticoagulants that save people from strokes are also common rat poisons. Vitamin D is clearly beneficial to humans, and anticoagulants can be beneficial in low doses. My grandmother takes "rat poison" to keep herself alive. I don't see how usage as rat poison alone makes anything dangerous to humans in therapeutic amounts. It is all about the dosage, and in Vitamin D's case, biochemistry of rats vs. humans. (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of sodium fluoroacetate, which is still widely used in various parts of the world for killing critters. In terms of poisons for rats, bugs, ants, and other household pests, just about everything has been tried at one time or another (I am thinking of what my Mom tried for ants!). Wikipedia is not a forum for long lists of ever little use of every chemical compound, see WP:not (otherwise my Mom would contribute a lot of content about her unending campaign against the infernal ants). The rat poison story also seems to be propagated by a lively group opposed to water fluoridation. I have never understood where they get their information because it is not in the usual professional monographs.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fluoride Toxicity and Removed Edits

Please stop removing reliable, substantiated content about the dangers of Sodium Fluoride. After posting the following under 'Saftey';

"Sodium Fluoride is toxic and has been linked to cancer, genetic damage and mental health implications. Its introduction into toothpaste and drinking water has caused outrage amongst many, who say that it is unethical, forced mass-medication."


... my addition was removed and I have been threatened with a block if I re-post. There are no grounds for removing this edit. I will re-post because the information and the source is reliable.

REVISED- Since re-posting it has once again been removed. This is not acceptable. Whilst admins can contact me, I can find no way of asking them for an explanation. Whilst I understand that the topic is 'contraversial' this makes it even more important to disseminate good information.

Please do not remove this post again.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 

My opinions are also being suppressed. No doubt some egotistical dentist who has no fucking idea what hes talking about, and has never been in a lab to do his own research on the topic. This is america, all opinions count, if you have an issue allowing other to state their opinions, I will be more than happy on all these peoples parts to report you for misconduct, it is not YOUR descision to decide weither or not this information is valid, it is the desision of the reader. If you going to suppress people opinions, do so elsewhere, this is a public project. thanks.

ps. I added a reference on a study done by the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. If you wanna suppress their studies as well, you must have nothing better to do.

The guy that is removing these needs to be banned. Someone please do so. thanks alot. He is refusing to stop doing this, I have reposted the website with the WHO link 5 times as of now. This guy really has no life at all.

You're additions to this page have been removed because they are idiotic urban myths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

^^ Urban myths that the WHO (Who quite obviously has more knowledge about the topic than you do) endorses. Thanks. ^^ Urban Myth: From Wikipidia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit: An urban legend, urban myth, urban tale, or contemporary legend, is a form of modern folklore consisting of apocryphal stories believed by their tellers to be true.

^^ Fact: From Wikipidia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit: The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept. (Such as a WHO study on fluoride).

Link to prove my point: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishingforbasses (talkcontribs) 09:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys

A lot of people overall here are stating that their is someone with no life that is continously removing posts oriented around fluoride being a toxic chemical. I have continuosly posted the information on here over a period of months and people keep taking it down. this is unacceptable. I have a feeling it is the same person. We need to find a way to get this person to cut it out. I see like 6 other people here who are trying to do the same thing and our opinions are being suppressed. Everyone should report this person. This person is obviously bad for wikipedia as a whole and i don't even want to think about how many other article out there he is also harrassing.

More specifially the graph I am trying to upload on this site: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishingforbasses (talkcontribs) 10:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This is my link to the World Health Organizations study done on fluoride and tooth decay. this is reliable information on all accounts, and the person suppressing this information needs to cut it out immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishingforbasses (talkcontribs) 10:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a boring salt called sodium fluoride, and is not a forum for folks that are worried about water fluoridation. An entire article has been created for that subject called opposition to water fluoridation. Fluoridealert is a fringe organization managed by a retired professor from a minor university and his son. I do not think that they are considered to be authoritative by the standards of Wikipedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless on wether or not YOU think they are fringe, I am stating facts from very acceptable sources. Quite possibly the most acceptable source. If you *looked* at my information, it was HOSTED on a "fringe" website, that took the information *DIRECTLY* from the World Health Organization. When someone looks up sodium fluoride, the water fluoridation "conspiracy" doesn't come up, this page does, therefore the need for this information on this particular topic is very nessacary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for including the links to the graphs of dental problems vs time vs the implementation of public fluoridation of water. You could suggest that the data be part of the articles opposition to water fluoridation or even water fluoridation. The main issue you might encounter is the interpretation of the data, but you'd need to avoid interpretating the data. In terms of my comment on the fringe nature of Fluoride Alert Network here are some views:
1) If an organization is run by a retired professor from a small college and his son, then that organization is probably not considered very authoritative within Wikipedia science community. (frankly kind of an embarrassment, right?).
2)The main journal of the Fluoride Action Network is "Fluoride". This journal is not recognized by MEDLINE, the U.S. organization that determines the quality of technical journals. Check out this whiner: "MEDLINE AGAIN REJECTS FLUORIDE" FAN typically cites articles from this discredited source. Embarrassing.
Finally, the article on sodium fluoride is not about water fluoridation, so the information that you seek to insert would be tangential to the article, which is focused on technical details of a fairly boring inorganic compound. We are however constantly looking for energetic editors though, so maybe fluoride chemistry is an area you want to read up on. Editors here would be happy to provide you with some excellent sources. Although some might find the prose a little dry, these sources are interesting for those that like reading inorganic chemistry of fluorine, a colourful and fascinating subject.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think positive effects of water fluoridation are too controversial for them to have a just cause of being in effect. However, the negative effects are also not conclusive enough to include in this article. I added "water fluoridation" to the "see also" section. The water fluoridation page links to the water fluoridation controversy page. I think this is enough.Freedomaniac (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, what you and I think does not matter very much here. There is relatively little controversy among health professionals or scientists. The loudest screamers are completely unable discuss chemical or biological phenomena on a technical level, so they are forced to refer to "authorities" or "well known facts" (Nazis using fluoride, communist conspiracy, Einstein's cousin advocating against it, etc). Their shortcoming in technical expertise must be frustrating.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi there :-)

The solubility of sodium fluoride in water according to the Merck Index is around 4 gram/ml as follow: solubility in water (g/100 ml): 4.0 (15°); 4.3 (25°); 5.0 (100°). These data is not in agreement with the data that is written in the the wiki about sodium fluoride.

Best regards, TG

The effects are possibly incomplete

Many chemicals we are exposed to on a daily basis produce long term effects, especially those that don't cause any (adverse) short-term tend to show effect only after repeated intermittent use. Therefore, I believe this wiki needs to clarify also if long-term effects or their absence have been reported in research on Sodium Fluoride. It's not my field so I don't have a good idea where to find a conclusive answer.

Hexafluorosilic Acid comes from hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride

Please view above explanation about hydro/hexafluorosilic acid. I think the section on it needs to be corrected

Start at 6:09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"NaF is prepared by neutralizing hydrofluoric acid or hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), byproducts of the reaction of fluorapatite (Ca5(PO4)3F) (from phosphate rock) from the production of superphosphate fertilizer. Neutralizing agents include sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate. Alcohols are sometimes used to precipitate the NaF: HF + NaOH → NaF + H2O From solutions containing HF, sodium fluoride precipitates as the bifluoride salt NaHF2. Heating the latter releases HF and gives NaF. HF + NaF ⇌ NaHF2 In a 1986 report, the annual worldwide consumption of NaF was estimated to be several million tonnes.[10]"

The above quote from this article is a very naïve understanding of the difference between Sodium Fluoride and Hexaflourisilic acid

Please see this, starting at 6:09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia required reliance on strong sources, which YouTube is not. Of the folks who write letters like yours, few or none of them are sufficiently knowledgeable of chemistry to discuss technical matters directly. What in particular seems to be the problem?--Smokefoot (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)