Talk:Fluoride/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fluoride, bacteria, and cavities

I wanted to add to the cavity prevention section this informaiton: "A single study has show the main but not the only mechanism for cavity prevention in fluoride is fluoride acting to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth. "

I already started to discuss this with Yobol because he feel it wasn't a good source. Here is my orignial post: A study has show the reason for cavity prevention is not due to fluoride hardening tooth enamel, rather fluoride is acting to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth. " Here is our disscussion: You reverted my edit, how does my addition contradic fluoride as a cavity prevent? "A study has show the reason for cavity prevention is not due to fluoride hardening tooth enamel, rather fluoride is acting to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth. [1]" I read through the what is a good source, why is this a bad source? I also stated that a source, as to not imply that this has been studied to death. It seemed like recent enough information since there hasn't been a good proposed reason for how flouride prevents cavities.Hardkhora (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Update (some further research): I get that finding evidence can be hard because there is a bunch of oppinion and-or unhelpful science, aka junk science but from my research is that the mechanism of cavity prevent has changed some over time, such as the idea that as a baby if you take it in it will help create stronger teeth. Some sources that I went through.

I can find a lot of sources that make the claim fluoride hardens enamel but only at the surface level when applied topically: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192485&resultClick=3 . http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm . http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=331502&resultClick=3 . http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/toothdecay.html . http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=266513&resultClick=3 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10553252 . http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/325151 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23712030 . http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b155e571-be97-4754-adf4-d9ea435b3a05%40sessionmgr115&vid=3&hid=112 . http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=417ee6cb-6664-42f8-b92c-360150f98d8f%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=103&bdata=Jmxhbmc9ZXM%3d#db=ddh&AN=36525036 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7497353 . http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=bb7ca822-0f1c-40e0-915a-b93cc4698cfa%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=103&bdata=Jmxhbmc9ZXM%3d .

As an example of unhelpful talk: http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question01.html http://"fluoridealert".org/issues/caries/topical_systemic/ Talks about the main prevention method being topical

Some other sources: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/l-3/5.htm Disagrees but says "No obvious advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention."

http://teethgeek.com/mechanisms-of-fluoride-in-caries-prevention/ Brings up modern questions, but doesn't make any claims.

While none of these show directly what my other source claims, it seems reasonable to infer that there haven't been new studies to confirm the claims or deny them.

I realize now I should have made it clear with the words: "the main cavity fighting benifit is claimed to be..." because like I said this is one source but I can find countless sources that project or hypothosis the mechinsism for cavity prevent. The idea is that some combintion of efects are preventing tooth decay but it seems like a lot of data but not a lot of conclusion on the main cause. The point being my source doesn't say that it doesn't harden enamal rather they found another mechanism that prevents cavities. Thinking now, would it be better to say that: "a source claims flouride aslo acts to keep tooth decaying bactria off teeth by making it harder for them to stay attached to teeth"?Hardkhora (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I would take this to the article talk page, but I'm not sure that the sources above support the text change that the mineralization hypothesis is incorrect. My suggestion is to take this to the article talk page, with specific recommendations for the changes you want to make and the source you wish to source that change to. Yobol (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How do others feel about this?Hardkhora (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Spurious original research is definitely WP:FRINGE...

Kidding, kidding.

Reduced adhesion of oral bacteria on hydroxyapatite by fluoride treatment. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23556545 The mechanisms of action of fluoride have been discussed controversially for decades. The cavity-preventive effect for teeth is often traced back to effects on demineralization. However, an effect on bacterial adhesion was indicated by indirect macroscopic studies. To characterize adhesion on fluoridated samples on a single bacterial level, we used force spectroscopy with bacterial probes to measure adhesion forces directly. We tested the adhesion of Streptococcus mutans , Streptococcus oralis , and Staphylococcus carnosus on smooth, high-density hydroxyapatite surfaces, pristine and after treatment with fluoride solution. All bacteria species exhibit lower adhesion forces after fluoride treatment of the surfaces. These findings suggest that the decrease of adhesion properties is a further key factor for the cariostatic effect of fluoride besides the decrease of demineralization. Xkit (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Xkit You quoted the abstract; I didn't understand your point, would you please explain? If you read further down the conversation went on for quite a while.Hardkhora (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Hardkhora if you read MEDRS, you will see that in Wikipedia we want to present reliable information to readers, and so we avoid primary sources and rely on secondary resources - on reviews that critically survey the literature and tell us what the consensus is and what is important. There are many many primary sources on many things, and it goes beyond any editor's authority here to himself/herself decide what is important - we rely on expert reviews to tell us that. We also want to present enduring information - we are not not a newspaper and we do not jump to every science-related press release. With all that in mind, here is my answer. No, we should not introduce this content nor the source. I recommend that you keep scanning the literature, and when a good review is published that discusses this work, and puts it in context, depending on what that review says, we can introduce relevant content. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog I did read MEDRS, I linked to the primary but I can link it to the Scientific America article I originally read and then read the primary. Also, you say Wikipedia is not the news and I can get the differentiation but on the home page there is a: "In the news" secontion so it does seem Wikipedia does try to stay current. That aside, I know I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor but when you say reviewed you mean not by a peer reviewed journal but by a second source, yes? The information has been viewed on scientific america. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardkhora (talk • contribs) 15:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! On health related stuff we do remain current with the scientific consensus - not with the most recent press release on the most recent original study. When I say "review" I mean a systematic review published in a medical journal, which is our gold standard; outside of that, statements by major medical and scientific bodies are also gold standard. So if the American Dental Association updates its statement on fluoride or some other major fluoride statement with information about this mechanism of action, that would be great too. A non-systematic Literature review published in a medical journal is kind of "silver standard" as it were. The Scientific American article is not a review. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't debate you on this being or not being a health issue, as I think we might waste some time on that. As for scientific consensus, so until several bodies of review have looked at something we shouldn't be putting it on Wikipedia, that is how I took that, no? I thought American Chemical Society was a good source. "A single study has show the main but not only mechanism in cavity prevention with fluoride is when fluoride acts to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth." I changed it a little but this still seems very well documented to me from the srouce I read. The reason I want to add it is because it is relavent to know all the documented mechanisms.Hardkhora (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

ok let me try to explain more. thanks for your patience as we go through this. OK. biology is hard. while we have learned a ton in the past twenty-thirty years, the field is still very immature, and there are huge gaping holes in our understanding of things. one of the key problems is that in order to do scientific experiments, you need to control everything, and change only one thing, perturb the system, and see what happens in the setup with the single change, versus the unchanged setup. this is a very artificial setup, and real living beings are way more complicated than any model can express. so scientists do these bite-sized, artificial experiments - and try to add them up to tell a bigger story, keeping in mind that every experiment they are trying to build with, was very artificial. Another key problem is that biology has a dramatic range in scale - from whole ecosystems down to nucleic acid molecules, and there are huge cross-scale interactions. one of the key things that flows from that, is that doing an actual experiment -- where you keep everything the same and change just one thing - is very very hard. it is hard just to get the experiment to work at all, and hard to interpret the results, and hard to replicate. The last thing is really important. It is hard to replicate original studies in biology. Please read this editorial from the editors of Nature, in which they announce that they are changing their policies in order to try to address the problem of irreproducibility. Bottom line - it is naive to believe that anything is true in biology, based on a single study. You wait to see if the results are replicated and if other scientists find the experiment and the results to be credible. We find out if that has happened, from reviews. With respect to health-related work, it is even more important that we be very careful not to make any kind of claims based on primary studies. We are an encylopedia, and we want to provide reliable information to the public - information that we are reasonably sure is true. Does that make more sense? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

from User:Hardkhora, I have studied some science and I wouldn't call biology immature at this point, but I know we are always learning new things just as in every scientific discipline. For biology not every experiment is artificial, because some are simply comparative to different ecosystems. Irreproducibility, yes this can be a major problem, including in chemistry. “it is naive to believe that anything is true in biology, based on a single study.” I would expand that to everything, including some well-established models, but you don’t throw them out without a better explanation. Skepticism is an important scientific tool. You also look at new information and see how that can fit or not fit with what you already understand. As for removing any doubt about making a claim how does this sound: “A study has shown one mechanism in cavity prevention with fluoride is when fluoride acts to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth.” I’ve stripped it down of anything other than presenting the evidence that a study has shown. “We are an encyclopedia, and we want to provide reliable information to the public - information that we are reasonably sure is true. Does that make more sense?” Makes sense, but it isn’t untrue or false to describe what is claimed. The point of talking about a body of evidence is to give weight to your claim, but not everything in science has a body of science, because sadly not everything is double or triple checked, I wish it were. So, as long as you have some evidence and don’t over “weigh” that evidence, presenting it is just acknowledging information is there. I don’t see Wikipedia taking down article that are highly debatable (if not just wrong), not to start another conversation I will just not include those. Just to summarize because I ranted on, it seems reasonable to me from what you’ve thus far described to include my information as long as I put the weight of the evidence in proper prospective, since it isn’t our duty to judge the information, but rather that is the sources job. Hardkhora (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

but in your sample sentence, you offering a statement about reality: "A study has shown one mechanism in cavity prevention with fluoride is when fluoride acts to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth", based on a single primary source. That is, is powerful - you are saying that this is true... which is as we agree, naive. that's a problem. But let's step back yet another step. Ideally when you work on a Wikipedia article, you read first, and add content after you understand what the literature says. It seems that you were grabbed by this specific publication you saw, and wanted to add content based on it to Wikipedia. The right thing to do, if you get interested in a topic, is read reviews and consider what content you want to add, based on them. The step you skipped, was looking for reviews, after you came across that primary source. I just did it (pubmed search is here). The topmost result is a fine MEDRS-acceptable review from 2011, that actually discusses antimicrobial effects of fluoride. If you had wanted to introduce content on antimicrobial activity of fluoride based on this source, nobody could have objected (assuming that the content was NPOV, appropriate weight, etc)... Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I say it is true because it is, a study showed. I could just say the sentence without the study part but that wouldn't be more or less true. "you offering a statement about reality", the reality is a study was done and their results were as such. I could make that claim about every study done, so I don't see the relevance to the point. “The right thing to do, if you get interested in a topic, is read reviews and consider what content you want to add, based on them. The step you skipped” I read the Scientific America and then I read the study. I posted it got taken down. I read a lot more studies and reviews (see conversation above for some noted information, which includes pubmed). The antimicrobial information you’re talking about is a different matter then the mechanism with teeth. The fluoride isn’t killing the microbes but rather causing them to not live on the teeth.Hardkhora (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I a study showed something because the evidence comes from a study. I could just say the sentence without the study part but that wouldn't be more or less true. "you offering a statement about reality", the reality is a study was done and their results were as such. I could make that claim about every study done, so I don't see the relevance to the point, unless you mean I say in a study they claim that... . “The right thing to do, if you get interested in a topic, is read reviews and consider what content you want to add, based on them. The step you skipped” I read the Scientific America and then I read the study. I posted it got taken down. I read a lot more studies and reviews (see conversation above for some noted information, which includes pubmed). The antimicrobial information you’re talking about is a different matter then the mechanism with teeth. The fluoride isn’t killing the microbes but rather causing them to not live on the teeth. Reading more into what you’re saying is put this under antimicrobial information relating to the mouth and we wouldn’t having this conversation?

“A study has shown one mechanism in cavity prevention with fluoride is when fluoride acts to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth.” Or compared with “one mechanism in cavity prevention with fluoride is when fluoride acts to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth.” The later seems more presumptuous than the first to me, but it could be down to opinion. taking from the start of my latest response, “In a study it was claimed they showed one mechanism in cavity prevention with fluoride is when fluoride acts to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth.” I could agree that is better if you are trying to make it more clear where the information is from and how hard we at wikipedia are tring to make no evaluation of the information. Hardkhora (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

hmmm Although you agreed above, when i wrote that we don't know if results of any given study are true (especially in biology) until they are replicated, you persist in saying "I say it is true because it is, a study showed" - this is maddening and shows that you didn't actually agree, or that you didn't understand. so i will say it one more time a different way, and then i am done. there are a scads of studies that have been done to try to figure out how fluoride works. if everybody did what you are doing, there would be scads of studies cited and described here. that is not how we work - we rely on review articles to guide us as to what the main ideas are, what key emerging ideas are, and what is definitely WP:FRINGE. The content you want to add should not be added until this study is referenced and discussed in a review article - a secondary source. "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources." as per WP:RS which is policy and WP:MEDRS which is the relevant guideline. A fundamental (really fundamental) principle of Wikipedia! Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear but what I mean is, it is true that a study says it, but that people might take that as an endorsement, I wouldn’t but I was trying to say I could see your point.

”There are a scads of studies that have been done to try to figure out how fluoride works” I agree, I pointed that out with another user as well, but specifically how it works to prevent cavities. I am not talking about including everything but instead including a novel discovery. It was studied by two universities, and granted they are sister universities but this isn’t some experiment on YouTube: Experimental Physics, Saarland University, 66041 Saarbrücken, Germany & Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, 66421 Homburg/Saar, Germany

And it was reviewed by the American Chemical Society, or at least I’ll take them on their word for that. This isn’t something fringe. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS it states “Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article. For example, popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American are not peer reviewed, but sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English. As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and general reliable sources guidelines.”

Reading over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS I’m guessing to you these sources don’t help: http://www.dental-tribune.com/articles/news/europe/12845_fluoride_reduces_bacterial_adhesion_to_teeth.html, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130501112855.htm because I also see that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence talks about guide lines for new information.

I am really trying to be productive here since I am volunteering my time.Hardkhora (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How fluoride works is not "social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information" and the quote and argument are irrelevant. Please acknowledge that.Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned several things could you be more clear please?Hardkhora (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

there is only one place where you quoted that bit of MEDRS, to justify using non-medical-journals as a source. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I didn't get that was what you were talking about. What you are quoting is one piece of the whole topic, that sentence on its own is out of context. The section talks about the press its pros and cons. The whole quote is "Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." The aforementioned is to point out where the press excels. The section also points out that outlets such as Scientific American are not usually a good source on their own, which is why I went to the source, and you've told me the source is not good enough for chemistry information because it is also related to medical information, which I noted before how I can see this but disagree. The whole point of this to me is that I find the information about how fluoride can act to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth relevant when talking about mechanisms of cavity prevention. I also was trying to point out in the some of the reliable sources it is state that not all of the mechanisms are understood and there isn't a consensus on all the ways that fluoride prevents cavities but there is consensus that fluoride does prevent cavities, which is why I wanted dot include this mechanism information: “one of the mechanisms in cavity prevention with fluoride is when fluoride can act to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth.” (updated it a bit to be a little more vague) To deal with what you said a little more “How fluoride works is not "social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information" and the quote and argument are irrelevant. Please acknowledge that.” I think that I covered the first part but to be clear do you mean my argument to include the information or Scientific America? I can agree it is not the best source if I were trying to argue that all previous information is wrong, but to use it as a starting point to include new information that is not contradictory I don’t agree. I also looked at their source as well because it seemed relevant to where the information might be coming from. Hardkhora (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

so, i'm done. popular press is not OK source for actual health related information. wait for a MEDRS compliant review. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

please take away from this: a single primary source is not a reliable source for anything health related. reports about the study in the popular press do not count as secondary sources for anything health related. again MEDRS says "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. For a short time afterwards, the findings will be so new that they will not be reflected in any review articles or other secondary sources..... they should be entirely omitted" Really you are beating a dead horse - flogging it. This is a classic case of an original primary study getting picked up by the popular press. This is not life or death information, please just be patient and see what the scientific community does with it. It is baffling that you are being so intense about this! Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm intense with this, we are just having a conversation. The point I keep trying to make is that this is information for the process and not related to the health factor of fluoride. "Really you are beating a dead horse - flogging it" This is how I feel as well, but from the opposite position on this topic at hand. I did learn something from this. I learned a lot more about fluoride than I had originally intended. I think this has gone one for longer than we both hoped because we haven't settled it. My point I keep trying to make and you have tried to explain, but it hasn't seemed directly related to my point is this: I want to include some relevant information, and I don't see why I can't if it is posted in its context. I have always understood Wikipedia to include information that is valid and in context, which is why I get the source guide line when making big claims, but the only information I'm talking about is that a new understanding was discovered, not proven or found to expel all previous ideas. Fluoride is a known ant-cavity agent, and the information “one of the mechanisms in cavity prevention with fluoride is when fluoride can act to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth.” is only describing what is already known. If I go onto other pages and look at chemistry with known results but the mechanism isn't fully understood or known, I can find information easily about what those mechanism might be.Hardkhora (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The content you want to add is about biology, a field in which primary sources are notoriously unreliable. You have not addressed that at all. You keep describing the finding of this paper as though it has something to do with reality (something was "discovered"; "one of the mechanisms in cavity prevention with fluoride is when fluoride can act to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth."), when the reality is, that we don't know yet if this finding is real. Really - only something like 20% of original studies that are published in the biology literature end up being replicable. Do you not know that? Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Now it seems we're getting somewhere. You’re thinking of this as a biology matter, while I'm looking at it as a chemistry matter since it is describing the bonding to F. "You have not addressed that at all." You keep saying this or something close to it at least, when you don't actually respond to all my points, you are coming off as very aggressive to me. “You keep describing the finding of this paper as though it has something to do with reality (something was "discovered"; "one of the mechanisms in cavity prevention with fluoride is when fluoride can act to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth."), when the reality is, that we don't know yet if this finding is real. Really - only something like 20% of original studies that are published in the biology literature end up being replicable. Do you not know that?” I am not aware of the actual statistic, but in science things are not proven they are only shown to be wrong after they have been proposed, and such I don’t get the reality comment most recently. I don’t think going into a conversation about what is reality is very productive. If you do mean reality as in the construct of provable, then so far the evidence is this is a provable point. If that seems different then what you’re talking about please explain further. I was going to say before I read your most recent post that last night was thinking more about what you said earlier when you mentioned F as an antimicrobial agent, and that is couldn’t this be placed in with that information as a proposed mechanism for how F can behave as an antimicrobial agent? It seems that would fit in better with what you proposed earlier. I’m happy with that middle ground. My point that I made last time and that you didn’t address was: “I want to include some relevant information, and I don't see why I can't if it is posted in its context. I have always understood Wikipedia to include information that is valid and in context, which is why I get the source guide line when making big claims, but the only information I'm talking about is that a new understanding was discovered, not proven or found to expel all previous ideas.” I wrote a little more than that but that is the main reason behind my “fever” as you take it.Hardkhora (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am fine with most anything in a reliable secondary source. On the "reality" thing: we are not sure if findings described in the primary sources are real or not (in other words, if other studies will replicate them and they will become accepted as part of the story, or if they will turn out to be yet another unreplicable set of findings that lead no where); that is pretty much the definition of "not reliable" and that is the reason why we base content on secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

“I am fine with most anything in a reliable secondary source.” Okay, I’ll make the changes and then you can review it. Oh, and sorry it took so long to reply. Had some issues with Internet access. For the "reality" conversation: I get what you mean when you say something is real or not, I thought of real or not in terms of weather it is, or is not something that happened, and in the sense of the sources they claim it is, so it is real to me, but I get the difference. I agree, we don’t know if the findings are repeatable until they are repeated. Although, if something hasn’t been duplicated or for some reason can’t because it is theoretical in nature, then talking about it doesn’t take away from the story because as a theory it can not have been proven incorrect, such as evolution or climate change, both of which have held up so far, and obviously Evolution a lot longer than climate change. The theory of relativity was around and used for a long time before it could be duplicated in an experiment and that didn’t mean it was unreliable. Even before years of scrutiny it was valid to look at if you were gathering models of the universe. If I were going to study something I would want to know current theories, such as what I’ve been saying we should include. I’m not talking about including creationism on an evolution page, because from a science prospective either creationism is wrong or it can’t be proven incorrect because it involves God, so it can’t be a theory. And if we included what I’ve been talking about and later we find it incorrect we, correct the information on Wiki, like you would for any scientific finding or study. I don’t think Wiki should be dictating what an acceptable theory is, but the real point of this is that I’m talking about the science behind the medicine and not medicine, it is a fine line but there is a difference.Hardkhora (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I made the change it was rejected but I have to say if "grammer is poor" fixing it is better than removing it because it wasn't so bad as a few small fixes wouldn't have done it. Same thing if it is in the "wrong" section, moving it to the correct section would be constructive rather than destructive by just removing it. I would apperciate the help if you would next time. I'm holding off for now because I'm just going to do a little more research on all the mechanisms and then add that because it seems talking about them one at a time isn't being constructive for you. I'll update when I'm ready to post.Hardkhora (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You added information about speculation about the possible antibacterial effects of fluoride. It does not belong in the toxicology section (in this sense, it is discussing toxicology to humans, not to bacteria); it also does not belong in the application section as it is not a known application of fluoride. In short, I don't think the material belongs in this article as written, as it is speculation about a possible effect. Yobol (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I put it in toxicology because it doesn't always refer to just humans. It wasn't speculation, it talks about the proposed mechanism of Fluoride for its anticavity affects, if you read through the literature that I mentioned a few times above there isn't a consensus on the mechanism that is the reason for Fluorides anticavity affects, rather some known ideas. The effect is not speculation, fluoride does prevent cavities, the cause of that mechanism with Fluoride that prevention is the point of the conversation, and in all probability there are a few mechanisms that add up to fluoride’s usefulness in healthy teeth. I get the feeling we don't agree that all of the mechanism(s) for flouride's affects are agreed on, no?Hardkhora (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, you want to discuss this as part of its mechanism for fluoridation of teeth? Then this is probably the wrong place to put that sort of information. Water fluoridation or fluoride therapy would be better places for it. We would also have to place it in context of what more supported mechanisms would be. Yobol (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sort of, sorry if that confused you, that me explain that again. I want to talk about the chemistry of how fluoride is used, since it is stated that it is used in cavity prevention. I want to talk about it the same way you would for biochemical reagent or toxicology, so maybe it would be better discused under chemical properties? It seems a little out of place there but I thought I'd mention that as an idea. The point would be state what it is used for and how from a chemistry prespective since you're on the Fluoride page.Hardkhora (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we discuss in small detail what it is used for here (for dental health); details probably belong on one of the daughter articles I note above. Note that we don't discuss any mechanisms of how it is used for dental health here. Yobol (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you miss understood what I wrote. I'm not talking about "any mechanisms of how it is used for dental health" Maybe an analogy will help. If we were talking about Band-Aids, I'm describing how they work not how to use them. One mechanism of how they work in this analogy is if describing how they work is how they stick to the skin but on a page about the chemical used that lets them stick to skin.The details I'm describing of the chemistry are in line with what is presented in biochemical reagent or toxicology.Hardkhora (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

basta basta. i just went and found a very recent review on MOA of flouride (which is a very medical thing, as it is all for all drugs (and yes flouride, when marketed for preventing cavities, is regulated as a drug). The recent review is here: http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v214/n4/full/sj.bdj.2013.162.html I incorporated it into Fluoride_therapy#Mechanism - it makes it quite clear that unlike what hardkhora has been saying here, the MOA has been very well studied, and antimicrobial/anti-biofilm activity is not the key way it works. there is not a lot more to say on this. more pursuit of this is just WP:IDHT. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow what basta basta is, would you tell me? I looked at the review you mentioned. I do like the addtion you made to Fluoride_therapy#Mechanism. I never claimed that the mechanims or method of action were not stuided, please don't put words in my mouth. "antimicrobial/anti-biofilm activity" in relation to the most important role is what my first source was saying yet, and I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear but after more research it seems by the second source standards that it is not the primary, but I also adjusted the information that I wanted to add to reflect this. I also looked up http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24308397, and a direct quote from that says: "In spite of extensive literature on the antimicrobial effects of fluoride on oral microflora, today there is very little consensus that the anticaries effect of fluoride is related to inhibition of oral bacteria." I finished recently going through several sources and believe I have a more comprehisive record of fluoride's MOA and such. I want to review it a little more, and then I'll post it as a bold edit and we can go from there. I think we've come to some agreement but I don't believe this is a WP:IDHT but rather this conversation has continued to evolve and progress.Hardkhora (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

in one of your earlier (far too long) posts you wrote " because like I said this is one source but I can find countless sources that project or hypothosis the mechinsism for cavity prevent. The idea is that some combintion of efects are preventing tooth decay but it seems like a lot of data but not a lot of conclusion on the main cause." what is pretty clear is that you didn't do the key step in working on wikipedia, which is find the most recent reviews in the biomedical literature and read them. i did, and they all make it clear that there has been a ton of studies done and that there is a clear consensus around the MOA for fluoride, and it is not about activity on bacteria - instead, it is by reducing the rate of enamel demineralization and increasing the rate of remineralization. Saying "there is little consensus that the anticaries effect of fluoride is related to inhibition of oral bacteria" is unclear at best and nonsense at worst - there is consensus that the main effect is not about bacteria. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow what basta basta is, would you tell me? Regardless of the lengths of my posts, I respond to the responses on what I post and communicate what my thoughts are in my posts. I do try to keep them short but we keep talking about several things at once. Transversely, while you feel my posts might be too long, I sometimes feel the responses are too short to fully respond to my points, so we should agree to disagree on this, no? Lets just try to come to some consensus by compromising at some point. In my last post, where I used a reference to show support that in science we don’t know all the reasons for fluorides effects, but we do know probably (probability is the same as possibility to be clear) the main majority. To your point about sources, I didn’t read all of the current reviews when I started, yes but because I did not know there were special guidelines that would apply to this. I thought of this as a chemistry matter, as I’ve stated before, and I still do but I’m showing good faith by following the idea of using sources that confirm to medical source standards. I didn’t know until these conversations that medical matters have such different guidelines, because if you notice through talking with you I had missed some points the first time I read through the guidelines, I make mistakes, sorry. More on topic, as I had mentioned, I realized after looking at more research that the consensus about the main MOA hasn’t been seen as the antimicrobial action. As for the consensus I mentioned, let me try to explain it to you since you say it is unclear at best or at worst it is nonsense, the whole quote is talking about the idea that while we know a lot about the antimicrobial effects of fluoride there is not consensus fluoride is related to antimicrobial effects in oral bacteria. And I’m back to what I was last talking about, which is that I’m trying to explain in a more comprehensive way fluoride's MOA, or how the process works for cavity prevention. If you recall I did change what I wanted to post several times but you keep taking it out of context, or at least that is how I see it. At one point I stripped it very much down, because I was just trying to convey the information, which you later added to the Fluoride therapy page. Some context to what I’m trying to add to Wikipedia, is when studying organic chemistry, for example you learn the mechanisms for reactions or at least you learn how they might work. What I wanted when I came to the fluoride page after learning more about it was hoping there would be something on how it works, and your addition to the Fluoride therapy page is more what I was looking for, but after going through more papers it also doesn’t explain the process as well as it could, and I don’t mean going on for pages and pages like some of the literature does. You seem really bent on trying to find one thing I say and pointing out if there is a logic flaw in it, rather than conversate about this thinking maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly or you miss understood, which might explain why I have on several cases have not been getting full responses, not to say the last few responses aren’t full responses. I finished yesterday going through several sources and believe I have a both good sources and good information to add. I still want to review more, and then I'll post it as a bold edit and we can go from there. Please have a little patients.Hardkhora (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

To interject into your conversation. It is admirable but perhaps unrealistic to aim for a molecular MOA for fluoride. Biological interactions are infinitely more complex than organic chem and at ca 1 ppm and a naked ion, F^- probably does many things at once. The good news is that, in aggregate and despite the chemical promiscuity of small ions, trace amounts are beneficial to dental health, at least if you believe the US's CDC. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC

User:Hardkhora if you want responses from me at least, please write clear, short messages. if you want to make several points, you could perhaps break your message into separately signed bullets. i have focused my responses to you on actual content proposals you have made, as i did above. (btw i did not add any content from you in the fluoride therapy article - that was content based on the source.)Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

[[User:Smokefoot] I agree that the biological interactions are complex, but not infinitely, an any case my aim is something more of a summary rather than the indepth detail that you can find in actual reviews, journals, and textbooks.Hardkhora (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

[[User:Jytdog] I'll try the bullet approach next time. As for the content you added, I did not mean from me literally, but in the sense that our conversation spured it.Hardkhora (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I added content but after looking it over it seemed over the scope of the flouride page so I just linked it to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_therapy#MechanismHardkhora (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

¶ I inserted a cross-ref for stannous fluoride because I am a busybody and I thought it was probably what many readers really were looking for. And yes, I'd like some discussion of the downside of fluoride (including toxicity) - with some specifics about whether this is possible with what's used in toothpaste and municipal water supplies. Sussmanbern (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Link to The Lancet/CNN

I posted this link http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/14/health/chemicals-children-brains/ and it was quickly removed, with the comment that the Lancet article was discussed and not felt to be appropriate. Could someone clarify when it was discussed, and who felt it to be inappropriate? I can't find the discussion in the Talk section and the article only came out a few days ago. Thanks.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.155.6 (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you posted it External Links in this dif. See section above Talk:Fluoride/Archive_2#fluoride_as_a_.22Newly_recognised_developmental_neurotoxicant.22 - the CNN story is about the Lancet article discussed there. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:89.100.155.6 You'll need a more scientific source when talking about health information, see my conversation above. Even when using their source sometimes they'll still reject your work. Take your time and look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS, news sources will usually be rejected for medical information/advice. I'd dig a little deeper and maybe you can come up with something because I haven't come accross anything that makes such claims that is from a science journal reivew.Hardkhora (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

what is needed is a secondary source (a review published in a biomedical journal) as per MEDRS, yes. we are not a science news site. i have looked and this work is too new to have been discussed in a review yet.Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Safety

User:Smokefoot, would it not be advisable to keep under the safety section such lines as: "Due to incompatibilities, it is recommended to keep fluoride salts away from acids." We could make them more concise but such simple safety information seems relevant under such a section, no?Hardkhora (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

i thought the changes were great and took away content was too "instruction manual"-like as per WP:NOTHOWTO. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought some of it was context, safety is something of a how to though. The wording could be changed and maybe that would make it seem less like a "manual"? Something like: Fluoride salts are very reactive with acids.Hardkhora (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

that's what it says now.Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I see it there now, but now I'm confused because I see two safety sections, is that supposed to be like that since one is about the intake of fluoride?Hardkhora (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

yikes fixed that Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, I was just checking first since the page is under heavy edits right now.Hardkhora (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose merging the Fluoride toxicity article into this parent article. Both articles are short enough and this is the logical place for that information. To avoid two different discussions, let's keep it all here. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Makes sense to me, I'm for it.Hardkhora (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia-Chem does have a tradition of establishing articles on poisoning but mainly for chemical agents with high acute toxicity, such as arsenic poisoning and cyanide poisoning. I also think that an article "Fluoride toxicity" placed undue weight on on an extraordinarily rare occurrence in an acute sense. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fluoride has a fair amount of room to grow, but if you merge all the information from fluoride toxicity into it, it would be overwhelmed. Fluoride's toxicity is well-known and well-researched (more than, say, cobalt poisoning or tin poisoning), and given fluoride's wide and recognizable usage it is a highly notable topic. Toxicity articles are quite common if you look at the template. I expect that the effect of the merge would be that the toxicity information would in effect be trimmed substantially. Sad to say as it borders on assuming bad faith, but I suspect political reasons motivate the merge; political beliefs aren't a good reason to remove well-documented, reliable, secondarily-sourced information. There is enormous amount of arcane chemical or genetic detail in Wikipedia which is of much less general encyclopedic interest than the content on that page. II | (t - c) 04:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• The proposal is a merge, not removal of ANY information or sources. We would also have more eyes on the content there. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Now that you mention it, I've taken a look at the article and see many violations of MEDRS, with a huge dependence on primary sources. The article does need to be simplified, but that shouldn't have any effect on the basic message or direction of the article.. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose merging this article with Fluoride as well. Toxicity is quite a bit topic. Agree? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. for the above reasons. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The toxicity article is overly reliant on nonMEDRS compliant sources (as are many articles ruined by advocacy) Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Defer pending cleanup of the toxicity article. Merge or not, its content is problematic as BullRangifer and Jytdog note. Either it must be fixed to remain as stand-alone, or it must be fixed prior to or after merger. As it stands, the depth and size of the toxicity article seems like it would be too much for the non-short parent article. However, once it's pruned to comply with guidelines and policies, it may wind up short enough to merge, or else may find enough remaining content with specific cites to support its stand-alone nature. DMacks (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• That makes sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment If there is a merge, i suggest to keep the sub-section from FT intact, since it is more readable. If there isn't a merge this article should focus on the chemical properties and the safety part should be reduced, so that readers can relay on 1 place rather than to read two articles, when interested in health effects. prokaryotes (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I second that that, it is a good compromise, if a compromise is necessary. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fluoride toxicity is too long to be merged into Fluoride. Rōnin (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Defer pending cleanup of the toxicity article. WP:Weight issues might be addressed by clean up.
• Defer symmetry-wise, there's a fluoride therapy article, and there are other "X" and "X-poisoning" splits as well. I lean toward oppose, but defer.

Estimated daily intake table

The table is misleading, since it generalizes natural occurring fluoride compounds with various artificially created. prokaryotes (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

What's your point? I'm not sure I understand you. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe im wrong but different forms of fluoride compounds are compared in that table, generalized under the umbrella term fluoride. I'm not sure if this is technically correct. Maybe there could be a distinction to better reflect that. this is relevant since different compounds appear to have different effects. prokaryotes (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is misleading, because it says fluoride content, which it shows in grams. I checked the source and they seem to imply that it is just the amount of fluoride with no reference to state of fluoride, ie calcium fluoride. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were implying was the misleading bit. "this is relevant since different compounds appear to have different effects." from something I posted on the Fluoride therapy: "Fluoride can be delivered by many chemical methods (sodium fluoride, stannous fluoride, amine fluoride, monofluorophosphate, and more). The performance differences between them have been shown to be less in variable then the variation on behavior individuals show when it comes to brushing, using fluoride products, and post use behavior. Often the chemical form of fluoride is driven by compatibility with the other elements mixed with, price, and such."

References

-- Hardkhora (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fruit Juice; Cryolite

One study found 42% of fruit juice products contain levels of fluoride in excess of 1.0 ppm. This can contribute a significant source of dietary fluoride . AVF discusses wine and says that Cryolite is the source.

Cereals

R. H. Ophaug, et al, found that cereals contain fluoride ranging from 0.39 to 3.84 ppm among different geographical locations . Further, “the use of fluoridated water during the processing of infant cereals significantly increases the fluoride content of these foods (1).”

A study published in The Science of the Total Enviromnent found that cereals processed in fluoridated regions contain 4—12ppm of fluoride.

Cereal and juice products should be mentioned.

References

Xkit (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Effects on IQ and cognitive function

Some authors are saying that accepted levels of fluoride from drinking water and toothpaste affects brain function in children and perhaps even adults.

Dr. Mercola cites articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx many studies].

Is he wrong?

Or should we add to the article mention of possible effects on IQ and possibly other more subtle effects on cognitive function? Xkorro (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a neuro study at Fluoride toxicity prokaryotes (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the matter is mentioned at Fluoride toxicity#Brain. Extremely high levels do seem to be detrimental, but not normal levels. (See Paracelsus: "The dose makes the poison.")

As far as Mercola goes, you couldn't have picked a more unreliable source of medical information, including as a source here, although Mike Adams of NaturalNews is right up there. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Paracelsus believed like cures like: a poison in the body would be cured by a similar poison. And so it was that he would go on to introduce Iatrochemistry, a process using antimony, lead, mercury, and the like to cure disease. This he took apparently from medieval alchemy.

And so I find it strange, Brangifer, that you use Paracelsus to support water fluoridation while at the same time condeming Mercola and taking an unrelated stab at Mike Adams of NaturalNews.

Xkit (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

fluoride, is considered to be a micronutrient for human health necessary

The article states “fluoride, is considered to be a micronutrient for human health necessary”. However the WHO reference that is given to support it, instead states:—

essentiality has not been demonstrated unequivocally, and no data indicating the minimum nutritional requirement are available

The article's claim is the opposite of what the reference says. This contradiction is undesirable; either the reference needs to change or the claim that wants to be supported needs to change.

The NRC, in 1974, had claimed fluoride to be a nutrient, but more recently admitted than an essential role for fluoride in human growth studies had not been confirmed, and because a physiological mechanism by which fluoride would influence growth had not been demonstrated.

So it seems that the claim that wants to be supported needs to change.

Fluoride is not considered to be a micronutrient for human health and is not necessary. Xkit (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay

This statement is still unsupported by credible science. Who removed the discussion of that? Xkit (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That statement is supported by the very best kind of evidence we have in 'science'... the meta analysis/systematic review... see The York Report (2000) https://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/CRD_Reports/crdreport18.pdf or perhaps Worthington, H. (2003). The evidence base for topical fluorides. Community Dental Health, 20, 74-6

What sort of evidence would you like to see? Egs332 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Toxicity with no dosing

this content adds content about toxicity with no context about dosing, which is just nonsense and ignores the basic law of toxicity, The dose makes the poison, as I noted in my first edit note when i reverted this. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 April 2016

please add the gold lock thing that shows the article to be locked on the top of the article 198.52.13.15 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 03:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 April 2016

In the section Fluoride #Structure, penultimate sentence, create the wikilink [[Trigonal pyramidal molecular geometry|trigonal pyramidal-shaped]], please. This builds the web and is utterly uncontroversial.--RexxS (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC) RexxS (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• support, but change the section title to "Crystal structure", or "Crystal structures" or "Crystal structures of fluoride salts". Fluoride is a charged state of a single atom, and the section is not describing that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. 64.251.52.27 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Added Dietary recommendations

Added section Dietary Recommendations with values for U.S. and European Union, including government set safe upper limits. The US and EU both recognize fluoride as an essential nutrient. However, neither felt that there was sufficient information to identify an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) or Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), so instead designated recommendation as "Adequate Intake." This is in effect a placeholder designation - based primarily on what people actually consume via food and beverages (including water). In time, the expectation is that nutrients 'graduate' to having EARs and RDAs. An example is vitamin D, which went from AI in 1997 to EAR and RDA in 2010.

Both groups also set a fluoride UL, which is the upper limit for safety, above which adverse effects may occur. The difference between recommended and too much is not large, but this is not unique. For calcium, older adults are advised to consume at least 1300 mg/day but less than 2000 mg/day. David notMD (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fluoride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://jada.ada.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9818575
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203111150/http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/MWF/index.asp to http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/MWF/Index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Further Studies @ Pub Med and Vet Med

I do not know how to report this page, but it does not take into account more recent studies, like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28077305 or http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/usal/research/urate_urolithiasis.cfm . I do not think this article is as factual as it should be. No one ever proved 'safety' over whole lifetimes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night1Candi (talk • contribs) 03:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A definitive answer to that would require a control group who weren't exposed to it throughout their lifetimes - seeing as fluoride is present in virtually all food and water it's hard to see how that could be done. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What is meant?

"The fatal period ranges from 5 min to 12 hours". Moriori (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

pharmacokinetics/excretion

I just skimmed the article and didn't notice any info re. the excretion of fluoride. If there isn't any, info about it should be added. Phantom in ca (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)