Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:30, 1 August 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about editors' beliefs about fluoridation. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about editors' beliefs about fluoridation at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Dentistry This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

2005-2007 early 2008

Keepers of the Well

Please do not remove this reference from the external links section. It is within the mainstream of the safe water movement, and is a central website for people who oppose water fluoridation. Petergkeyes (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence please. Jefffire (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

KOTW is an educational arm of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water. CSDW is an aggressive activist group that opposes water fluoridation. The group has had many successes in passing local referenda that prohibits water fluoridation, and is currently raising funds for a federal lawsuit against the practice. Petergkeyes (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not evidence, but an argumentative opinion. Has this group achieved some sort of notability or prominence which could be verified by (for example) coverage in independent news sources? MastCell  22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some of the local ordinances that they have passed or promoted:

FAN says, "About Citizens for Safe Drinking Water: One of the most active groups in the country..."

In the media in Hawaii:

KOTW is raising funds for the upcoming federal lawsuit aimed at halting fluoridation:

Media mention from May 22, 2008:

Water Industry:

The Oregonian: Petergkeyes (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter, you should have a look at what Wikipeida constitutes as a source. Simply put, a reference "reproduced" by a third party has the reliability of that third party, not the original. So by you providing all those links just confirms what Mastcell is saying, KOTW is only a minor fringe organisation that is only parrotted by other minor fringe organisations. Per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE Misplaced Pages policy tells us what to do with these sources. Shot info (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about putting in an external link. There seems to be some confusion over what RS means in this situation -- which is, probably nothing. If we want to demonstrate that an organization is significant within a movement, then certainly citing its prominence within that movement is appropriate. Similarly, we wouldn't count "# of Google hits" as a reliable source, but we do mention this when discussing notability. In an article on "water fluoridation opposition", it is certainly appropriate to include links to the main organizations involved in it, regardless of whether certain editors consider these organizations to be "fringe".

Simply put, a reference "reproduced" by a third party has the reliability of that third party, not the original.

— Shot info

I have repeatedly asked you to point out where it says this, because I don't see it at WP:RS. In any case, the original source can be looked up, and if the work is not copyrighted, then I see no problem with linking to a copy of the full-text after that text has been verified as accurate. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. RS101 which is why when you have previously questioned me, I had ignored you. It is clear that you need to review the basis five pillars of Misplaced Pages if you are unsure what constitutes a reliable source. Shot info (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shot Info. You have expressed your opinion regarding websites you do not consider reliable sources of information for the water fluoridation opposition page. What are some websites that you would consider reliable sources for this topic? Petergkeyes (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one adding the information with the dubious sources. The onus to supply reliable sources for edit is on the edit making the inserts. I am only following the clear policy directives per WP:RS. Shot info (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is good to be skeptical. I would advise restraint in accusations of WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. There is plenty of each for this, and related topics. And there is also a wealth of well referenced information available from both proponents and opponents of water fluoridation. Careful, thoughtful distinction between dubious theories and proper research is needed here. Petergkeyes (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Though of course we cannot conduct original research here, and so the widely-accepted theories should be presented as such. - Dozenist talk 11:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove reference

Certainly, one of the most famous references to this belief is in Dr. Strangelove. As such, I included mention of this in the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly? You don't even provide a basic reference for the claim that it is so famous or well-known -- yes, Dr. Strangelove is well-known, but we I doubt many people picked up on that reference. Anyway, I'm not going to edit-war with you, since I try not to sink to that level. Let's hear what other people have to say. ImpIn | (t - c)

I certainly have to admit that when it comes to fluoridation, Dr. Strangelove is the first thing I think of. But it possibly is no the "most famous". Not without a source at anyrate. But I'm willing to leave it only as I like it :-) Shot info (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia is discouraged on WP. MaxPont (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help verify these claims

User:ImperfectlyInformed just added the following section, entitled Aluminum compounds. I copyedited it but then noticed some of the references do not support the statements they follow.

Fluorine is the most reactive element, and as such it readily forms compounds with almost all other elements. Of particular concern is fluoride's ability to form compounds with toxic metals, and in particular, aluminium, which is a known neurotoxin. Evidence suggests that aluminium fluoride complexes can then cross the blood-brain barrier. The National Research Council of the United States suggests that "many of the untoward effects of fluoride are due to the formation of AlFx complexes". Rats administered fluoride as both sodium fluoride (NaF) or aluminium fluoride (AlF₃) were found to have twice as much aluminum in the brain upon their deaths as control rats. Concerns have been raised over cooking in aluminum pans, as Science News reports that "water with 1 part per million (ppm) of fluoride frees nearly 200 ppm of aluminum when boiled 10 minutes in aluminum cooking pots. That is 1,000 times the aluminum leached by nonfluoridated water".

1. It's Elemental -- Fluorine
2. Banks, W.A. (1989). "Aluminum-induced neurotoxicity: alterations in membrane function at the blood-brain barrier". Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 13 (1): 47–53. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(89)80051-X. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
3. Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press.
4. Brainy ties that bind (the blood-brain barrier).

Problems:

• Fluorine (i.e. F₂) is the most reactive element in its standard state (diatomic gas) but fluoride is certainly not the most reactive species known, not by far! Could be misleading to imply this is the case, since discussion switches from reactivity of fluorine to that of fluoride.

• Aluminium does have a certain degree of neurotoxicity, as referenced, but the ref doesn't say anything about concern about fluoride.

• The "untoward effects" quote is here, i.e. page 219 of the book referenced. Took a lot of searching to find the page.

• I read the Science News article - the wrong one is referenced, it should be this. It references this Nature letter. Further papers on this topic: , .

• These references would be a lot more convincing if they were from respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, especially as referenced by (scientific) review articles that critically consider the veracity and importance of these facts. It's often possible to find one reference in a good scientific journal for something that was later proved to be a wrong. The Nature letter is certainly acceptably scientific, but the later paper by the same authors shows that the 1:200 ratio of F:Al leached is not found at neutral or nearly neutral pH.

If there are any willing scientists out there, particularly toxicologists familiar with the literature, could they please help improve this section by finding a comprehensive review of aluminium toxicity enhanced by fluoridated water.

Ben (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good catches; sorry for the mistakes. I'll yield the first as misleading; I'm no chemist. The intro just needs to convey that fluoride forms complexes in the body with aluminium (and possibly other metals? The aluminium article has a brief section on this. I'm not sure -- and if aluminium is the correct spelling, then why does it get underlined as misspelled? should be fixed). The 217 should have been used for the rats administered NaF and AlF; even rats administered fluoride with no aluminium had twice as much aluminium in the brain upon death -- Varner attributes the Al in the NaF group to the rat chow (search for Varner fluoride on PubMed for the articles). I'm sorry you had to read a bunch, but if you'd been patient I could have helped you! -- plus it's good background for this article. I planned on expanding on the connection between aluminium in the brain and neurological problems, specifically Alzheimer's.

List of articles on aluminium and fluoride

Searching for aluminium rather than aluminum on PubMed doesn't seem to make a difference. A PubMed search for aluminium neurotoxin turns up 142 articles, 38 reviews. Aluminium neurotoxicity turns up 254 articles, 53 reviews; most of the reviews different from the preceding search. Aluminum fluoride turns up 1586 articles, 56 reviews. I just looked at the reviews for the first search. Most of the relevant ones I had no access to. Articles descending from latest date

• THE BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY OF METALLIC FLUORIDE: ACTION, MECHANISM, AND IMPLICATIONS (2003). Free access.
• Aluminium as a risk factor in Alzheimer's disease, with emphasis on drinking water. (2001). I have access -- free access? See related links for many more articles.
• The epidemiology of chemical contaminants of drinking water. (2000). Accessible for me. General paper -- mentions fluoride (osteosarcoma, fluorosis) and aluminium (Alzheimer's).
• Toxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. (1997). Don't have access.

As you can see, there is a wealth of literature on the topic, which can be accessed by following the papers cited (or citing) by the above papers or checking related links in PubMed. They tend to be technical, but they have areas of less technicality which can be cited. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to complain about the time it took to search for this stuff - all I meant to show is that it would take the average reader of this article a little time (if they even bothered to persevere) to find the supporting evidence, so we should try and put in a more direct link to the quote.

Thanks for adding this para in the first place, it's good - interesting stuff, well supported by the literature. Don't want to alarm people by making it seem like using Al saucepans is definitely going to poison them - there is some possibility of this, but severity depends greatly on conditions (fluoride concentration, pH of saucepan, etc), and it's not clear from the refs I read exactly how bad the health effects are. Might be best to say, yes, under certain conditions you can get up to 200 ppm aluminium from 1 ppm fluoride, but usually it's more like 0.4 ppm Al from 1 ppm fluoride in neutral-ish conditions (which are much more common in cooking).

As for spelling aluminium vs. aluminum, WP:CHEM decided that in all chemistry-related contexts, aluminium should be spelled with an i for consistency. It shows up as wrong on US spellcheckers, but that's for general usage rather than specific chemical contexts. IUPAC prefers aluminium. The purpose of having a consistent spelling for an element is to make searching databases etc. easier, avoiding the need to search for two terms. It's not just a case of "let's use the UK spelling for all elements", though: all chemists now spell sulfur with an f.

Stick the para back in, but rewrite the first bit to say something like:

The fluoride ion, F, readily complexes aluminium to form stable aluminofluorides. Fluoride can leach aluminium from saucepans, forming aluminofluoride complexes that can be absorbed by humans and may subsequently cross the BBB, potentially leading to neurotoxicity. The amount of aluminium leached depends greatly on the pH of the cooking environment, and can range from 0.4 Al per F at neutral pH to 200 Al per F under very basic or acidic conditions.

Ben (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it back in at some point here, maybe after some more reading. The leaching from pans is an incidental point; the broader point is that concurrent consumption of aluminium and fluoride may allow the aluminium to cross the blood-brain barrier, even in people who are not renally-impaired. This is suggested by Varner's study with rats, but I'll look for some more definite statements to that effect. By the way, I like consistent spelling. I'd prefer that the IUPAC chose the simpler one -- aluminum -- but since they've got the power, why don't we all use aluminium? What's the root of this -ium fixation? And why isn't it universal, e.g. platinum? ImpIn | (t - c) 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's all explained at Aluminium#Etymology.

As for AlF_x crossing the BBB, it'd be good to find a source that details what actually happens to people afterwards. It's all very good putting some clues on the table (Al has a way of getting into the brain, Al is a neurotoxin, etc) but readers might imply a particular outcome (i.e. certain death, v. high risk of brain damage, etc.). If we can find a neutral, scientific article on the clinical (as opposed to molecular and microscopic) effects of Al consumption, that'd be more satisfactory.

Ben (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement from the National Kidney Foundation: avoid Fluoride

Reference to be integrated in the article: Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease MaxPont (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

revamp

This page needs a lot of work. Hopefully I don't step on too many toes with bold edits and revisions. Petergkeyes (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Skagit County, Washington State

I removed this paragraph from the, "Contemporary Challenges," section.

"In Skagit County, in Washington State, the county commissioners have been empowered by the Washington State attorney general to act as the Board of Health. They are telling the local Public Utility Disctrict/ PUD to start fluoridating the public water supply by Jan. 2009. $1.2 million could be provided by a private group, Washington Dental Service Foundation, to begin building the equipment needed to add fluoride to the Judy Resevoir which supplies the majority of Skagit Valley's water customers. The source and type of fluoride to be added to the drinking water of more than 70,000 citizens has not been disclosed."

It does not describe a contemporary challenge to water fluoridation, nor is it about the opposition to water fluoridation. The paragraph resides on the water fluoridation page, with POV language removed. Petergkeyes (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

World Health Organization: "Water Fluoridation Safe and Viable?"

This page is about opposition to water fluoridation, not praise or criticism of fluoride. This claim, "The World Health Organization...still list fluoridation of water as a viable and safe option of maintaining a healthy level of fluoride in the oral cavity," is suspect. The citation provided is 45 pages long. I do not see anywhere in there where it says water fluoridation is always safe and viable in every country of the world. Please notate page numbers if WHO actually makes this universal claim in this document. Petergkeyes (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE it is ok. The CDC is US based and only should be used for US information. Note that the article is "Safe and Viable". Not "Always Safe and Viable in every country of the world". That's a difference...and not so subtle. Shot info (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a page just for criticism. It is a page for a critical yet balanced discussion of the issue. Specificaly, p. 16 states "Community water fluoridation is effective in preventing caries in both children and adults." They repeat this sentiment elsewhere. On p. 19 they state that there are risks to fluoride exposure, and it may be impossible to fluoridate water without some degree of fluorosis. So you should present their entire outlook, rather than a biased presentation. II | (t - c) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So page 19 clearly states that it is NOT safe, that some toxic reactions may be an inevitable consequence of water fluoridation. And page 16 does not claim the practice to be either "safe" or "viable." I placed a "citation needed" tag on the claim. Page numbers that correspond with safe and viable claims by W.H.O. should satisfy the challenge. Where in the document does the World Health Organization claim water fluoridation to be safe and viable? Petergkeyes (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Tremello22 (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We can't read your mind, Tremello22. Anyway, I like much of the improvements that Peter has done here, but it is obvious he's taking a very biased, slanted approach, and this is bad. From what I saw in that reference, it is obvious that the WHO supports fluoridation while noting its possible risks. There's no reason to present a biased view of their perspective. II | (t - c) 00:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Peter I note you have removed the vn tag. The point to this tag was that yes, there is critism, but exactly who is doing the criticising? It isn't mentioned in the article, and it's unclear the value of it in the supplied reference. Just because their is "criticism" doesn't make it notable. Shot info (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The authors of the document stating that fluoridation of public water supplies violates the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999 are Robert J. Carton and D.W. Cross, as they wrote in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health in 2003, like the reference states. What is unclear about this matter? Petergkeyes (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, can you please indent your edits? Secondly, so two random people have published something in a journal. Why is this relevant? What is special about Carton and Cross? What makes this publication by them particularly notable? Shot info (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Look up Robert Carton. 100% guarantee this individual qualifies as an appropriate source for this article. I trust you will agree with me that you were premature in labeling Carton and Co. as, "random people." Petergkeyes (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to explain here in this talkpage why it is an RS for use here in this Misplaced Pages article. You wish it added, you need to justify it . Shot info (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fluoride Alert

I note that once again, lots of references to FA have been inserted back into the article contrary that the advise provided by RS/N. These will be progressively removed and replacement sources requested. Shot info (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What is RS/N? You may find that some agree with you - that the American Dental Association - proprietors of FluorideAlert.com are not a particularly reliable source. Petergkeyes (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Try the "search" field. And you will find that they didn't agree with you and gave you advice on what to do. Please try to engage constructively. Shot info (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I constructively argue in favor of restoring and keeping all references from Fluoride Action Network. FAN is at the forefront of opposition to water fluoridation, and is uniquely qualified as a reliable source for this article. Petergkeyes (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As was pointed out to you at RS/N, FAN is not an RS and edits material that they (re)publish. Hence it is not a reliable source. By all means, add in the original untarnished and unedited source from it's original location. Shot info (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What is RS/N? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergkeyes (talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliabe sources/noticeboard. Here is the discussion. My main concerns are copyright issues. II | (t - c) 06:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

fluoridation.com

Fluoridation.com is also right in the mainstream of the opposition to water fluoridation movement. References to this source should also be restored. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of "left" and "right", unreliable sources are unreliable. Sources that "republish" information are inherently unreliable (see WP:RS), especially those who don't have a reputation for fact checking. Shot info (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Hi II,

With regards to the linking of references in the lede, my preference is to follow WP:LEADCITE and have a minimal (but the "best") reference in the actual lede. For sure, we can go crazy in the body but all those .. just looks plain ugly. The particular reference I removed as the first three instances under the #cancer subsection refer to salts and don't really say that they are linked to cancer at all. Shot info (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Using CTRL-F, I don't get a hit on "salt" until the allergy section. You should look at the reference again.

I agree with putting the best references in the lead. I agree it was terrible before. I also agree with LEADCITE when it says that "complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." As it stands, Second Look's bibliography, complemented with Colquhoun's commentary, offer some of the strongest material on the possible deleterious health effects of fluoride. We could also put Limeback's commentary, the recent Scientific American report, and the National Academy of Sciences 2006 book Fluoride in the Drinking Water. I've been thinking about overhauling this page ... might get around to it, although there's lots of page that I keep thinking about overhauling. II | (t - c) 05:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Big long subarticle about Fluorosis

Given that the current reverted piece about Fluorosis is just about Fluorosis it will be cut back to the parts that are relevant to the discussion about "Water Fluoridation Opposition" and a "Main article" link to Fluorosis. This is just so the section is not about Fluorosis which it is at the moment. Peter, can I suggest you cease editwarring? Shot info (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, read thru it and the article as it stood has no information that is not already covered in the Fluorosis albeit badly worded with very poor grammar. Peter, if you are concerned about the concern about Fluorosis, please look at the section immediately above it which has the Health Risks. Fluorosis is there, but under children and it links to the main page. If there is a risk about Fluorsis but it applying outside of the context of children, then please edit according (with cites). Each of the health risks do not need to be discussed in this article other than a listing as the risks are more adaquately discussed elsewhere. Shot info (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Although fluorosis is an epidemiological concern outside of the opposition movement, the fluorosis phenomenon is certainly one of the major factors behind the opposition movement. So I think it should stay. II | (t - c) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, since it does not discuss the opposition movement at all. I have reworded it to avoid it becoming a POVFORK and pointing to the actual article. In on the opposition movement and their attitude to Fluorosis now should be added. Shot info (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

John Colquhoun is Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand. He is an elected official.

Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS is an Associate Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto. Is he not an official in the field of dentistry? Petergkeyes (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you will need to clarify what does "Official" mean, as so far you have used the same term on (what you indicate above) two different "Positions". This is the reason why I question the use of the term. It seems very weaselly. You will note that Colquhoun was an elected councillor, then later Principal Dental Officer in the Department of Health in Auckland. A position he retired from in 1984. Mind you he signed the same paper as John Colquhoun, School of Education, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand.. So, "officical" of what exactly, because he wasn't a councillor not an officer when he wrote Why I changed my mind about Water Fluoridation in 1997? Shot info (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated stuff

There was a lot of bollocks being included in this article with references to very high concentrations of fluoride. I removed all I could find. This article could use an improvement, especially because this paranoia is so pathological as to be lampooned viciously by Stanley Kubrick more than 40 years ago! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Fluoride poisoning is real, but it is only peripherally related to Water fluoridation conspiracy theory. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent page move

Just checking, was there consensus for the most recent page move? If so, could someone please point me to the discussion? Otherwise the page should be moved back. Controversial moves should go through WP:RM. --Elonka 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked SA about that on their talk page. There may be conspiracy theorists editing here, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory. I'm not aware of any consensus, and I would oppose such a move since the title would prejudice the page. Opposition to fluoridation is a legitimate topic (although I personally find some of the zOMG poison! claims to be a little over the top). Franamax (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No. The move was a pointy response to my pointing out the mainstream health effects discussion on fluoridation on a separate article a few minutes ago, as I pointed out just now at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. ScienceApologist is so emotional about this issue that he can't engage in discussion about studies. As far as the zOMG poison claims, I'd love for Franamax to raise those points individually. There seems to be very few people here interested in reading the content objectively. II | (t - c) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the page to its original title of Water fluoridation opposition. In the future, anyone wishing to make a controversial page move, should go through WP:RM. Thanks, --Elonka 22:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Water fluoridation opposition is actually a bad name for it as well. It was moved there by Franamax without much comment, but given the amount of controversy within the scientific community around it, it should be moved back to water fluoridation controversy. I'll probably put in a RM about it. II | (t - c) 22:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm? ImperfectlyInformed indeed. Moved there by Franamax? Care to back that up? My contribution was to point out that the "controversy" was being systematically stripped of balance, and it wasn't even at this article. Thanks for the wild accusation though, no need to consider any facts. Franamax (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed moved, but not by Franamax, it was The Transhumanist (talk · contribs), back in April. I looked through the archives, but didn't see anyone objecting to the move at the time. So since the page has been stable at the "opposition" title for a few months, I recommend leaving it here, and engaging in discussion about what the best title should be from this point forward. --Elonka 23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry! I saw your comment on it today and I carelessly assumed that you'd followed through with it. I don't know who moved it, then. My apologies. It was The Transhumanist who moved it. Anyway, I would certainly prefer that this article be made balanced, and I hope you would support me in moving it back to "water fluoridation controversy". Should we move it before or after we balance the page? The reason I have trouble with this title is that it associates the article with a vague and small "opposition" movement, when the controversy actually extends into the mainstream science. This was sort of the excuse used by Jefffire and Shot info for taking out the York Review of fluoridation, which certainly is relevant to the controversy. II | (t - c) 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. No problems here :) The basic problem here is that there are two separate themes: one is the legitimate concern about excess fluoride intake - but note though that is not strictly a water fluoridation issue, it's a dietary fluoride issue, water fluoride by itself, within limits, is generally fine. The devil is in the details, when it's combined with fluoride-rich foods, now there can be overdosing (and of course, natural water with excessive fluoride levels can be bad too); and the other theme is exemplified by Dr. Strangelove, that is where the "zOMG, they're poisoning our water, next they'll take our guns away!" mindset comes into play. I believe that part of it can be properly labelled as a conspiracy theory.

Water fluoridation and Water fluoridation opposition should ideally be merged. But as long as we have editors who wish to note every rat that died and every letter that says "no we don't fluoridate", we have a problem. So the status quo is to keep the issues separate. I'd be happy to work with you to achieve some balance. I went out and bought the January 2008 Scientific American issue, I checked out the papers it cited, I tried to add balanced content to express both sides. I think there is still an "and" left from my work. If we can separate the mainstream from the fringe though, I'm all for it. Franamax (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure they should be merged; there is a lot of material to cover here, although it can certainly be trimmed to a summary style. One major issue with water fluoridation is that it is rather hard to regulate how much water is being consumed, combined with the lack of strong evidence for efficacy shown by the York review. A 100-pound woman who drinks a gallon of water a day because it is "healthy" might end up facing harmful effects, as might a child. The several epidemiological studies in China correlating fluoride intake with lower IQ also add to the concern. These studies were comparing areas with high natural fluoride to areas with less, but there is quite possibly a smaller linear effect in people consuming less. (That's not to say the IQ effects are confirmed -- but they warrant more research and possible suspension until the research is performed.) In any case, the epidemiological IQ effect, along with endocrine effects, are the most worrying to me. Masters and Coplan's work in the lead leaching into the water also add to the concern, with a study recently showing that fluoride increases leaching from brass pipes. II | (t - c) 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

CRAZY REVERT

THERE ARE PEOPLE CRAZY WRITING THIS ARTICLE TO CRAZY. WHY IS WIKIPEDIA LETTING IDIOTS WRITE IT? LOGANA (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I THINK THAT THE LAST VERSION BY SCIENTOLOGIST IS TRUE. WHAT IS THIS OTHER CRAZY? 02:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class dentistry articles
• Unknown-importance dentistry articles
• WikiProject Dentistry articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• Skepticism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics