This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Water fluoridation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative Views articles
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
"Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses"
As with EU, the US is coming to the conclusion that flouride in the water supply has little benefit to teeth in comparison to topical usage and causes issues similar to mercury in younger [./Https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7261729/ children] .NIH.gov is US government health agency. I suggest this is an allowable addition to criticisms as it's official government study Cocoablini (talk). 17:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, makes sense for intelligence, but not ADHD yet. However, it secondary sources do say it benefits teeth in absence of topical use. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not tout the value of the URL of an indexing engine that loudly proclaims "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health." or claim that an article that has not a single author affiliated with any US organization is any sort of US anything. DMacks (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source (doi:10.1007/s00204-020-02725-2) clearly states: "In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.".
This statement is what other good metareviews state - there is no fuss about it.
The problem is that the entirety of the world isn't comprised of Europe.
The US National Toxicology Program systematic review (2022) finds, with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure is consistently associated with lower IQ in children, and that more studies are needed to understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ.
That's a draft but even so it's finding no evidence for adults, and some evidence of an 'association' for children exposed to water with excessive amounts of flouride. When/if this gets published it may be worth adding for adverse effects of flouridation above recommended levels. In the meantime, the most recent evidence seems to be PMID:38318766. Bon courage (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily fluoridation above recommended levels, but total fluoride exposure once all sources are considered. The NTP has stated (if this admittedly low quality source is to believed) "Several of the highest quality studies showing lower IQs in children were done in optimally fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas… many urinary fluoride measurements exceed those that would be expected from consuming water that contains fluoride at 1.5 mg/L."
I'm sure studies were done at various concentrations, but the evidence points to the moderate association being at the highest levels, at least in the draft you linked. Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third sentence in the opening section states "Fluoridated water operates on tooth surfaces: in the mouth, it creates low levels of fluoride in saliva,". Shouldn't this be "high levels"? How does exposing your mouth/body to fluoride lower saliva levels? 118.92.202.147 (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Low" is what's supported by the refs. I would assume it's low as opposed to very very low or even none if water does not supply fluoride. DMacks (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's trying to point out that the levels of fluoride in saliva will be very small, although higher than would otherwise occur. For example, the article includes "recommended fluoride levels in the United States were changed to 0.7 ppm" and if that is the current rate in most tap water, the levels in saliva would be significantly lower, making it way under a part per million which is a low level. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Typically a fluoridated compound is added to drinking water, a process that in the U.S. costs an average of about $1.26 per person-year." I couldnt find such figure in either of the two sources given. --Nomad (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is a simple grammatical error in the following sentence:
"Although fluoridation can cause dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of developing teeth or enamel fluorosis;[3] the differences are mild and usually not an aesthetic or public health concern."
Maybe I'm reading it wrongly, but the sentence at the beggining of the article
"In 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program found that water fluoridation levels above 1.5 mg/L are associated with lower IQ in children."
seems to be in direct contradiction to a later sentence in the next paragraph, which states
"There is no clear evidence of other side effects from water fluoridation."
Maybe this needs a correction or some sort of rephrasing? 2001:818:E94C:D00:38B7:BE7D:D8D2:776D (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think the intro is messed up and could do with a refresh. It has the "in 2024..." claim preceding the definitive "There is no clear evidence...". I think the definitive sentence is implying that the "in 2024..." claim is not clear evidence. I am not surprised we are confused. Hopefully someone will see your post and fix the lead. Commander Keane (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
