Talk:Water fluoridation

Since it's in the water it's in everything

Should be made more clear that since it is in the water it ends up in most prepared food, beers, sodas, juices, and wines.

this was previously on the USDA website. http://www.fortcollinscwa.org/pages/fluoride.htm

Would be interesting to see a side by side comparison with countries that don't add fluoride to the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

ok i found it on the USDA website. http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/Fluoride/F02.pdf

A few specific foods to highlight the issue in the safety section or perhaps the ethics and politics section. Beer, wine, juice, and some fruits and vegetables should be mentioned specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't leave out the amount of fluoride found in "Tea, instant, powder, unsweetened" of 897.72 parts per million (ppm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.176.89 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you can't add a comparison of food from fluoridated countries to others, but it does seem worth mentioning that "other sources of fluoride" include beer, wine, fruits, vegetables, etc.

So It has been a month... Can someone add something to the article regarding other sources of fluoride? Also from the World Health Organization this seems quite relevant: While daily intake of 1–3 mg of fluoride prevents dental caries, long-term exposure to higher amounts may have deleterious effects on tooth enamel and bone. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/123075/AQG2ndEd_6_5Fluorides.PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you add the information? Campoftheamericas (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources Buffet

Please enjoy with plentiful servings added to main article: http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
See also http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.pdf
At these sites, you will find links to unbiased, relevant, peer-reviewed scientific research. Campoftheamericas (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, these are activist sites and not relevant for our purposes. Secondly, even if they weren't activist sites no one is going to waste time reading through dozens of articles to find...what exactly? If you'd like to include something on the page then suggest specific wording and include a source or two to cite your wording. Also, I'm not sure why you reverted the archive bot - those conversations are dead so there's no reason to keep them on the page. N^oformation ^Talk 04:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTFORUM. Once you read these, if you think there's anything useful among those links, please suggest an edit. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

IQ citations

In reference to adding the citation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562 to support the following sentence in the article: "Antifluoridationist literature links fluoride exposure to a wide variety of effects, including AIDS, allergy, Alzheimer's, arthritis, cancer, and low IQ (place citation here)", Noformation's response was: Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, please stop adding irrelevant citations to the "IQ" line. I've said it twice but please understand: that sentence is about antifluoridationist literature on the web. not about specific studies that confirm/deny anything. That line is cited already (cite #22) and is not making the statement you think it is/should be. It would be wise for you to discuss changes before making them. N^oformation ^Talk 04:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you suggest a different sentence to place it at? Or perhaps creating a new sentence? Campoftheamericas (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you revert yourself and hope an admin at WP:3RRN takes that into consideration instead of blocking you, but until then a conversation is pointless since you'll probably be taking a break for 24-48 hours otherwise. After the administrative issue is resolved the content issue can be discussed. N^oformation ^Talk 05:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't want to talk about the article? Campoftheamericas (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"until then a conversation is pointless since you'll probably be taking a break for 24-48 hours otherwise. After the administrative issue is resolved the content issue can be discussed" N^oformation ^Talk 05:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, how about now? Do you think this citation can be put somewhere in the article? I would like to say that flouride at 1.31mg/L (approx 1.31ppm) causes decreased IQ. Any objections? Campoftheamericas (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That statement requires a source. Please provide a source which meets the criteria of WP:MEDRS. You should read it carefully, expect me to quote from it to explain why whatever source you'll come up with is invalid. 03:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562/Campoftheamericas (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

From WP:MEDRS: In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom.

This paper which you claim to be "lower quality evidence", was published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials. The publisher is Elsevier, one of the biggest if not the biggest publisher of scientific journals. Do you think articles published by Elsevier are of low quality? Campoftheamericas (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)h

That's not the point WP:MEDRS is making. What WP:MEDRS is indicating is that a secondary source is needed; the study by Ding that you mentioned is a primary source. A secondary source will gather, evaluate and analyze a number of primary sources like that one. Zad68 03:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Got any systematic reviews we can look at? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

systematic review, aka "secondary" source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/ Campoftheamericas (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How about removing the line "Other adverse effects lack sufficient evidence to reach a confident conclusion.[11]", or at least making the article clear that it is referring only to low levels of fluoride? Campoftheamericas (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The statement is sourced, why would we remove it? It's clear that it only applies to water fluoridation, the topic of the article, and not contaminated or natural water supplies. If there is a more-recent systematic review of water fluoridation that contradicted the statement, only then would we replace the statement with the new revelation. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The statement should be clarified, because there is a newer systematic review showing that water fluoridation can cause other ill effects. So for example, instead of "There is no clear evidence of other adverse effects.[11]", it should say "At the dosage level recommended for water fluoridation, there is no clear evidence of other adverse effects.[11]" Campoftheamericas (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Source? (When you make a claim and don't provide a source, I will ask for the source, please provide it in advance.) TippyGoomba (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you forget the systematic review above? I thought you would remember since you asked for it before. It is in bold. Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't pertain to your suggested edit anyway. I increased the verbosity to make it clear we're talking about water fluoridation [1]. I don't think it adds anything, personally. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

non-article content
RFC? I see Campoftheamericas restored the RFC notification box but it's hard to figure out what the RFC question might be, especially for a newcomer to this conversation. An RFC works best when the question is clearly defined and focused on one particular proposed change along with the source. Zad68 03:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

IQ Citations, Ding Et Al

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562/Campoftheamericas (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, the article you gave is also not about water fluoridation: Mean value of fluoride in drinking water was 1.31±1.05 mg/L (range 0.24-2.84). We require a higher quality source anyway, so it doesn't really matter but I thought you might be interested. TippyGoomba (talk)

I don't follow. How can research that involved fluoridated water, not involve the topic of water fluoridation? Campoftheamericas (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We have to follow WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, there is an article on Fluoride toxicity. You gave a source but you didn't suggest an edit. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit that adds a primary source that does not study or review antifluoridationist literature to a sentence covering that topic. Zad68 12:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(1) This is not a primary source (2) The sentence has bias, and should be changed to say: "Research presented links fluoride exposure to a wide variety of effects, including AIDS, allergy, Alzheimer's, arthritis, cancer, and low IQ, along with diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, kidney, pineal gland, and thyroid." Campoftheamericas (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a source (like a recent systematic review) for your suggested edit. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I wish to change the sentence to read as (2) above, without use of a source, because to say "antifluoridationist literature" is an argument from ignorance. Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean ad hominem? I don't think it's either, but I think I now understand what you're suggesting. If you're saying you'd like to replace "antifluoridationist literature" with different description, I have the same desire. However, unfortunately, that's what the source uses. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

While the source may use it, let's not purposely try to bring out the worst content in the citation. Campoftheamericas (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Aesthetic Concern

The following statement in the article: "most of this is mild and usually not considered to be of aesthetic or public-health concern.[10] "
contradicts with [11], where the research states: "At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning".
I propose changing the wording to: "Those exposed to fluoride level of 1ppm or above, have a 12.5% chance of having dental fluorosis they would find aesthetically concerning [11]"
FYI, [11] is right next to [10] on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#References Campoftheamericas (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please provide links, rather than the reference numbers (which can change). 10 is older than 11. We always prefer newer systematic reviews, all else equal. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you propose to deal with the discrepancy? Can the article be improved? Campoftheamericas (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, we go with the most recent but that's not always the case. See WP:MEDDATE. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions on changing the wording, since there is conflicting evidence? Definitely can't be said as if it is fact. Campoftheamericas (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Caption

The caption on the first picture says that the fluoride in the water "doesn't change the appearance, taste or smell of drinking water." and then cites a source where those claims are inaccessible to the public because it needs to be purchased after going through login registration. In the information available to the public the claim isn't there. To view the reference it costs $35.

I live in Japan, where fluoridation is rare and went back home the the US and tasted the fluoride in concentrated orange juice. Perhaps the reason most people don't taste the fluoride in the water is that they have been drinking fluoridated water all or most of their lives. Regardless, that caption should be changed and use of the inaccessible references should be minimized.

Being that one of the first things that anyone viewing the page sees is probably those claims, doesn't that claim also poison the well? Instead of reading the article someone could go to the page and see those claims, that without $35 no one can confirm, and jump to conclusions.

Please change the caption. It isn't a good caption.

126.13.41.49 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No one actually pays the $35, many of us access these articles via a university proxy, which has a license to a large amount of scholarship. If you were ever enrolled at a university, you should check if you still have access to their proxy, sometimes they don't bother to turn it off. Or you could ask a friend with access... TippyGoomba (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if that was not the case WP:PAYWALL, which specifically states that sources should not be rejected due to cost of access, applies here. In that case unless someone is suggesting replacing the current source with a free alternative of equal value there is nothing to discuss.--70.49.73.6 (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC

please see Talk:Water_fluoridation#IQ_citations for the topics of discussion. Also Water_fluoridation#Aesthetic_Concern and Water_fluoridation#IQ_Citations.2C_Ding_Et_Al Campoftheamericas (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have had a look through the above discussion but I am still not quite sure exactly what the disagreement is about. Is it principally about the standard of source required to make certain adverse comments about fluoridation? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the question being asked of the community? This does not appear to be a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the other commenters that this RFC should be clarified so that it asks a direct question. Zad68 13:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If I provide a quality source on a particular topic, then I can use it to support a sentence in the article on the same topic, correct? I believe that is how to create a well documented Wikipedia article. Campoftheamericas (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this an RFC comment, or something more general? Yes we start with good-quality sources, but then we also apply things like WP:WEIGHT to make sure the information ends up in the right article and with the right emphasis. It'd be better if you would propose a specific article content change based on a named source, rather than asking a general theoretical question. Zad68 16:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What text do you want to support with what ref? No ref supports all text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Jmh649, aka Doc James, I restored an edit by Podiaebba, which is the text that I wanted to support with the reference. I would also like to use the reference elsewhere in the article, where IQ effects are mentioned. I appreciate your work with "formatting" the reference https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=573617661&oldid=573605652, but I would like to preserve the text by Podiaebba, and the links to the articles. Campoftheamericas (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We generally paraphrase rather than quote. And if every sentence started with the type of study supporting it our articles would look like a joke. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we still need a bit more work on the use of Choi, specifically what Choi et al. mean by "high fluoride". This is being used in our article's Safety section, and it needs to be specified whether this effect is something that would be expected to be found in water that has its fluoride levels managed for the purpose of dental health. I would not want a reader of our article to come away with the idea that these effects would be found at those levels, if Choi isn't saying that. Specifically, Choi says "The exposed groups had access to drinking water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang SX et al. 2007); thus, in many cases concentrations were above the levels recommended (0.7–1.2 mg/L; DHHS) or allowed in public drinking water (4.0 mg/L; U.S. EPA) in the United States (U.S. EPA 2011)." I think this should be worked in if we're going to use Choi, I'd like to pore over it a bit more on this. Zad68 04:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For reference, Choi et al. has come up before on this talk page, most recently in July: Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive 9#Choi review. The problem with using Choi's metaanalysis in this article is that the study populations were drawn from areas where the water had naturally abundant fluoride. In practice, the comparisons were between moderate fluoride levels (often comparable to – or even appreciably exceeding – the WHO-recommended level of 0.5-1.0 ppm fluoride in artificially-fluoridated water) in the "reference" groups, and extremely high levels (anywhere from two to more than a hundred times the WHO guideline) in their "high fluoride" groups.

Bluntly, I didn't notice that it had snuck into the body text of this article, and I'm removing it now, since the consensus in the last discussion was clear. The data are more relevant to fluoride toxicity, and may warrant mention in that article. Choi's data, unfortunately, did not include information relevant to this article, as it did not include sufficient data (or offer analysis, or draw conclusions) about the effects – if any – of the relatively low fluoride levels in artificially-fluoridated water (0.5-1.0 ppm) versus unfluoridated, naturally-low-fluoride water (<0.5 ppm). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I added it to fluoride toxicity. Please expand there, if you can, on the fluoride levels covered by the study. Podiaebba (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

non-article content

Is this a RfC or not? If you want to discuss a particular edit, make a section for it. You're turning the talk page into a mess. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Maybe you didn't see that the above, where I say: "Jmh649, aka Doc James, I restored an edit by Podiaebba, which is the text that I wanted to support with the reference. I would also like to use the reference elsewhere in the article, where IQ effects are mentioned. I appreciate your work with "formatting" the reference https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=573617661&oldid=573605652, but I would like to preserve the text by Podiaebba, and the links to the articles. Campoftheamericas (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)". This is a discussion about article content. Feel free to reply in a logical way. Campoftheamericas (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC) This does not help matters. Do not refactor the comments of others. Refactoring your own comments is very confusing, please don't do that either. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Again, this does not help matters, see WP:REDACT. Please stop this. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Let's keep the bickering out of the content, shall we? If you have issues, address them on my talk page. Campoftheamericas (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please all bear in mind

We are writing an encyclopedia not acting out the pro/anti fluoridation debate. Both sides of this debate should, of course, be represented here in an encyclopedic manner but this article is not the place to push views for or against fluoridation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Fluoride Research Letter

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/463/files/FJ2013_v46_n3_p104-117_pq.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.192.202 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A systematic, second source study showing that the only safe level of Fluoride is zero. Will look further into it, and if the study is well done, it could add to the safety section. Campoftheamericas (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

An editorial is not a systematic review. The source fails WP:MEDRS pretty hard, so I'd guess it's useless for the article. But if anyone wants to suggest an edit, I'm prepared to be surprised. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an editorial from an advocacy website. Campoftheamericas (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

By saying "Yes" here, are you agreeing that as this is an editorial from an advocacy website, it would not be a sufficient source per Wikipedia's WP:MEDRS standards to support biomedical claims? Zad68 03:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked the editor, and he said that his editorial was published in the journal Fluoride. Fluoride is published by the International Society for Fluoride Research, and is in it's 46th year of publication. The Society does not take a position on fluoridation. To answer your question, I don't think this article qualifies as a peer-reviewed systematic study. However, his editorial cited 110 different sources. Perhaps some of those sources could be used to make the Wikipedia article more neutral, rather than only PRO-fluoridation. Campoftheamericas (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This paper does not appear to be pubmed indexed which raises concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The journal Fluoride is not carried by the National Library of Medicine at all, its NLM catalog entry is here but this shows none of its articles are PubMed or MEDLINE indexed. I think we're all in agreement that per WP:MEDRS its articles can't be used here to source biomedical info. Campoftheamericas, although you state that the "Society does not take a position on fluoridation", Quackwatch says The International Society for Fluoride Research may sound respectable, but it is actually an antifluoridation group. We really need to be very careful about using anything published by them, even as a resource to gather sources, because clearly we'd only get one side. I do not see any value in using the lists of references their publications use when we can just use PubMed to search for well-qualified sources. Regarding "Perhaps some of those sources could be used to make the Wikipedia article more neutral, rather than only PRO-fluoridation"-- if the authoritative reliable sources do indeed express a consensus that fluoride is largely safe and beneficial, the Wikipedia article will reflect that, and it would not make it "more neutral" to change the article away from what the best-quality sources say. Zad68 15:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would consider Quackwatch to be an advocacy site, since it doesn't try to be impartial. Quackwatch does not present supporting arguements for both sides. Speaking of... how about this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=575031116&oldid=574835058 Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

non-article content
What does that diff have to do with the fluoridation editorial? If you want to change topics, create a new section. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC) If you have an issue, please post on my talk page. Campoftheamericas (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch has been discussed at length on Wikipedia before and consensus is that it's a useful resource to comment on those pushing fringe views in science and medicine. Either way, as mentioned, Fluoride isn't PubMed indexed and would not be useful to look for sourcing for this article. Per WP:MEDRS The International Society for Fluoride Research isn't the kind of organization we seek out for sourcing, either. From WP:MEDRS, we're looking for: literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies. Zad68 03:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the single person that writes Quackwatch with no peer-review, and whose editorials are not published in any journal: "Under cross-examination Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. The most damning testimony before the jury, under the intense cross-examination by Negrete, was that Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single one at trial. During the course of his examination, Barrett also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)." Campoftheamericas (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No one is using quackwatch to justify anything. See WP:NOTFORUM. Let's get back on topic. Are you suggesting an edit? TippyGoomba (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Edit

I would consider Quackwatch to be an advocacy site, since it doesn't try to be impartial. Quackwatch does not present supporting arguements for both sides. Speaking of... how about this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=575031116&oldid=574835058 Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a new section? TippyGoomba (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit proposes the follow change to the opening sentence: "Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce for the purpose of reducing tooth decay." This edit appears to add more words without really changing the meaning conveyed. I prefer the existing wording. Zad68 12:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. How about "Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply. This is done with the belief that this reduces tooth decay, even though there are conflicting studies on effectiveness and safety. Campoftheamericas (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would put the opening sentences of the lead at odds with the content in the article body, and specifically the information in the section Evidence basis: Effectiveness. That section states pretty clearly that fluoride is indeed effective and good-quality secondary sources are cited in support. The lead needs to summarize the article body, it really can't contradict it. Zad68 18:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I was randomly selected for the RFC and I don't have any experience arguing about water fluoridation. However, it seems that the overwhelming amount of evidence supports the idea that fluoridation is completely safe. Adding caveats like Campoftheamericas proposes would be at odds with scientific consensus. Andrew³²⁷ 19:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

After reading this article, you may believe this. http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/may/19/fluoride-question-portland-water-supply-vote/#.Uksgm9j0f6o and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country Campoftheamericas (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any deeply held feelings on the matter, but I just can't find any major peer reviewed study that has found any harm in fluoridation. Feel free to find something in any of these journals if you want to change my mind. Andrew³²⁷ 19:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Try other search engines. For example: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=drinking+water+fluoride+toxicity. Or use the work of someone else who has done the search for you: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/library/guide/med/wd.html Campoftheamericas (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Google Scholar, ProQuest, and Ebsco Host are all giving me basically the same results. Too much fluoride is bad and there are documented cases from India and elsewhere where natural fluoridation levels are unhealthy. The literature appears to agree that the amount put in drinking water is good. I'm just not finding replicable studies in peer reviewed journals that connect municipal fluoridation with negative effects. Andrew³²⁷ 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The null hypothesis is, and will continue to be, that fluoride is toxic to humans at any level. It is not a nutrient. You could do the same study with trace amounts of cyanide in the water supply, and have a hard time proving that the trace amounts have a detrimental effect on human health. Sure, at higher amounts cyanide will kill you, but at trace amounts we do not have sufficient evidence that it is harmful. This is poor use of logic. Most developed nations do not fluoridate their drinking water. For reading about the toxicity of fluoride, see here: http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html Campoftheamericas (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOVN discussion notice

Note to editors: A WP:NPOVN noticeboard discussion has been opened about this article here. Zad68 19:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)