Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 12, 2009

Fluoridation Ineffective & Harmful, studies show

{{editprotected}} The following sentence is not true: "in the mouth it creates low levels of fluoride in saliva, which reduces the rate at which tooth enamel demineralizes and increases the rate at which it remineralizes in the early stages of cavities."

According to the Centers for Disease Control the levels of fluoride in saliva that bathe the teeth are too low to have any cariogenic effect. ( Reference: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm )

This sentence is not true: "Typically a fluoridated compound is added to drinking water, a process that in the U.S. costs an average of about $0.92 per person-year."

In 2008, New York City spent approximately $24 million on water fluoridation ($5 million on fluoride chemicals)(1a). In 2010, NYC’s fluoride chemicals will cost $9 million (1b).

References: 1a) http://www.scribd.com/doc/18235930/NYC-Fluoridation-Costs-2008-Feb-2-2009-Letter-Page-1

1b) http://www.council.nyc.gov/html/budget/PDFs/fy_10_exec_budget_dept_enviro_protection.pdf

This sentence is not true: "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."

Reference: Children’s cavity rates are similar whether water is fluoridated or not, according to data published in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association by dentist J.V. Kumar of the NY State Health Department.

This sentence is wrong "There is no clear evidence of other adverse effects."

There is clear evidence that fluoridation creates dental fluorosis. It was acceptable at 10% when fluoridation began in the 1940's but fluorosis has grown to afflict up to 48% of US school children, according to the Centers for Disease Control ( Reference: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm )

The following is not entirely true: " It is controversial, and opposition to it has been based on ethical, legal, safety, and efficacy grounds."

Opposition is based mostly on the scientific evidence of harmful effects. See: http://www.fluorideAction.Net/health

These look like pretty controversial changes you're proposing, which would best be taken to the talk page of the article itself, I believe. GDallimore (Talk) 11:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor error in summary

{{editprotected}} Hi. The summary contains a minor error in that it states that "There is no clear evidence of other adverse effects" without there being a mention of any adverse affects at all. The full ~~summary~~ lead makes clear that the adverse effect being referred to is dental fluorosis. I suggest the summary should be amended to read: "There is no clear evidence of adverse effects other than dental fluorosis". GDallimore (Talk) 11:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly seems worth correcting it now, but I'm amazed nobody else has commented on this or corrected - as it currently reads, it sounds as though prevention of cavities is an adverse effect! GDallimore (Talk) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the template as the page should no longer be protected. You can use WP:ERRORS in the future to get a (much) faster response. — Jake Wartenberg 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I completely misread the "talk:Main page" page - d'oh. Thanks anyway. GDallimore (Talk) 01:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Thanks for reporting it. Eubulides (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]