Talk:Water fluoridation controversy

Chemical and Nuclear Industries

The Fluoridation general article has more on this topic, though still not enough. The fact that fluorides and fluoride waste products are integral to centrifuge processing of uranium and plutonium, and that fluorides in concentrated form are some of the most toxic substances on Earth are relevant. You must dilute them and spread them out to make them more cost effective to contain/handle. It is the entire basis for the modern anti-fluoridation movement. 1) that most improvements to dental health in countries are unconnected to fluoride. 2) that most benefits to fluoride that are substantiated by the evidence derive from topical use. 3) that it was the nuclear and chemicals industry that funded early biased, even fraudulent research and marketing of fluoridation... a clear conflict-of interest and collusion. 4) that whacko right-wing anti-commie conspiracies generally are not trusted by the public regardless. Yet, only the Jack D. Ripper-style straw man meme is mentioned anywhere here. That was always fringe, and holds even less sway now. Only the Birchers still hold to discredited notion. I hardly think citing sociologist is relevant. Soft sciences attempting to evaluate the hard sciences is laughable. - Reticuli

constant ingestion

In the safety section, an editor added the word, "constant" to the beginning of this sentence, "Constant ingestion of high levels of fluoride can cause adverse effects including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones; the WHO has a guideline of 1.5 mg/L." A. I do not see the word constant in the cited reference. B. The statement is illogical, because nobody constantly consumes anything. We must pause to sleep, breathe, etc. The word "constant" should be removed from the beginning of the sentence. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A friend has been edit warring to replace the offending word without substantial comment. Please do not add inappropriate content to Wikipedia without consensus. Thank you. Petergkeyes (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Health and Human Services Reference

A fellow editor removed a reference from the United States Health and Human Services. This - "Dosage cannot be controlled, and infants, the elderly, people with calcium and magnesium deficiencies, and people with impaired renal clearance are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride. Was changed to this - "...but those organizations and individuals opposed raise concerns that the intake is not easily controlled, and that children, small individuals, and others may be more susceptible to health problems." The second statement is vague, cumbersome, and unreferenced. I say the first statement is far more encyclopedic, and should return. Petergkeyes (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

why I removed a sentence fragment

"At the recommended concentration of 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L (0.7 for hot climate, 1.2 in cool climates) the only apparent side-effect appears to be dental fluorosis..." I removed this sentence fragment for a couple of reasons. It does not state who recommends this concentration. But even if it did, concentration in community water supplies is not a controllable dose that allows for any generalizations to be made about side effects, or the lack thereof. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS

The National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 Environmental Protection Agency represents the professional employees at the headquarters offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More about Who they are can be seen at their site and following is the link to that. http://nteu280.org/nteu280-description.htm

Whose Mission Statement is: Working to Protect the Health and safety of the American People This mission statement can be seen at at their website is: http://nteu280.org/

The EPA Union has a section about fluoride that have opposing views about water fluoridation.Hereherer (talk)

The views that the EPA Union has about water fluoridation need to be a part of the opposition to water fluoridation article.Hereherer (talk)

This information makes the article a more informative article.Hereherer (talk) Hereherer (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC). 

I have added a link to the external links section of the opposition to water fluoridation article with information about the EPA Union. The opposition to water fluoridation article mentions the EPA Union in the Statements against section but the link does not link to the EPA Unions site. The link links to the EPA site which is not correct site for the EPA Union's site.

The link to the EPA Union in the Statements against section needs to be corrected to so that it links to the EPA Unions website and not the regular EPA site so that it is correct. I am going to fix that link to make the article a better article. Hereherer (talk)

Further Reading Section

In order to improve the opposition to water fluoridation article's further reading section, I have added the following books.

• [Fluoride Fatigue. Fluoride poisoning: is fluoride in your drinking water—and from other sources—making you sick? Revised 3rd printing. Dunedin, New Zealand: Paua Press Ltd; 2008. ISBN 978-0-473-13092-3]

• [Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death by Barry Groves Publisher: Newleaf (June 2002) ISBN 978-0717132744]

• [Fluoride the Aging Factor: How to Recognize and Avoid the Devastating Effects of Fluoride by John Yiamouyiannis Publisher: Newleaf (June 2002) ISBN 978-0913571033]

• [The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson Publisher:Seven Stories Press(2004) ISBN 978-1583225264]

All these books are relevant to the opposition to water fluoridation article. These books make the further reading section better and improve the article opposition to water fluoridation.71.90.171.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC).Hereherer (talk)

User Ckatz why are you deleting books from the further reading section? You are vandalizing the further reading section doing that.Hereherer (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)--Hereherer (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

None of these books is a reliable source; nor are any of them notable. They merely rehash the same old claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The books are books about opposition to water fluoridation and are good books.Hereherer (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because you do not like the books is not reason to not include the books OrangeMike. The books are in fact very good books and I do not agree with your comments about them.Hereherer (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The public can decide after reading the books if they are good literature or not. Deleting the books from the further reading section does not improve the article.05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlourideBandit (talk • contribs) — FluorideBandit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These are not books about the opposition to fluoridation, they are books opposing fluoridation. They contribute nothing to this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OrangeMike you just deleted the Books. without discussion and that is not helping the articleHereherer (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Note FYI, FluorideBandit is a confirmed sockpuppet of Hereherer. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The books cover all aspects of water fluoridation and are excellent books for the opposition to water fluoridation article.Hereherer (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been warned repeatedly about such behaviour; resuming it immediately upon return from your block is not conducive to collaborative editing practices. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

On an aside, the new links added aren't actually about "Opposition to Water Fluoridation". Would like to invite the adding editor to give the reasons why they are applicable to the article - rather than just to water fluoridation in general per WP:PRIMARY. Shot info (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Links removed yet again, unless Hereherer can establish consensus here to include them. Interested parties should note the user's extended history of edit warring to add links here, the resultant block, and the use of sockpuppets to pursue the same goal. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Conspiracy Theory section

The article is about opposition to water fluoridation and not conspiracy theories.I think that the conspiracy theories section currently in the opposition to water fluoridation article needs to be in a new article separate from the opposition to water fluoridation article. Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the actual opposition to water fluoridation and the article would be improved if the conspiracy theories section was removed.

It can only be a conspiracy if they were doing it secretly but they are not. They do it with the consent of the voters representatives. Our elected officials vote to add the hazardous waste from China, Mexico and Florida to our drinking water. Since the generators of hydrofluosilicic acid contribute large sums to the dentists non-profit and the legislators themselves this is what happens when government serve industry and not the people. Not really a conspiracy is it?

The conspiracy theory section should be removed.Hereherer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

No. There doesn't have to be conspiracy in order to have a conspiracy theory. As the article shows, there are conspiracy theorists who oppose flouridation simply because they believe the theory. This is important.--76.120.66.57 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to water fluoridation is about the scientific opposition to water fluoridation and not conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories that oppose water fluoridation should be in a another article where those theories can be discussed. MIxing the two topics in to one article does not improve the quality of the article.Hereherer (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One person's science can be another person's conspiracy, I found it very helpful when reading the article to have various ideas in one place and presenting this to a class of students. Cordyceps (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

People are showing their ignorance here. A "Conspiracy Theory" is not a "crazy fringe theory", despite the general cultural stigma attached to the phrase. A "Conspiracy Theory" explains how Julius Caesar was murdered, how Adolf Hitler came into power, and multiple other events throughout history. It is simply a theoretical explanation, which involves some kind of conspiracy.

In this case, some of the opposition theories involve a conspiracy to mass medicate citizens without informed consent, to do illegal scientific research and such, which are all clearly conspiracy theories, and completely relaven to this subject. The "Conspiracy Theories" section should remain, although it should be retitled, "Opposition Theories", or something to that effect as we have clearly shown the social stigma attached to the "Conspiracy Theory" phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.246.23 (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. NW (Talk) 20:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Opposition to water fluoridation → Water fluoridation controversy — (No opinion - simply formatting and posting per existing discussion. Ckatz^chat_spy 20:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Other articles on medical controveries have names that contain the word "controversy" or "controversies", for example, Aspartame controversy, Controversies in autism, Dental amalgam controversy, MMR vaccine controversy, Thiomersal controversy, Vaccine controversy. This article is the only one whose name says "Opposition to" instead of "controversy". The article should be renamed to Water fluoridation controversy. This is not only for consistency, but also for a more neutral point of view: saying "opposition to" in the title suggests a focus on only one side of the controversy, which is less neutral than saying "controversy". Eubulides (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Those opposing fluoridation have opposing views that are entirely opposite from those who promote water fluoridation. Opposition is the correct term to describe the opposition to water fluoridation article. The opposition to water fluoridation article can be portrayed in a neutral point of view if those who promote water fluoridation would stop attempts to sabotage the article. Hereherer (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Eubulides Shot info (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Eubulides. The comments from Hereherer suggest that the move is appropriate since we aim for an article that gives an overview of the controversy, vs an article that takes a stand (i.e. a blog). The nature of the controversy is shifting also on several levels. For example, advocacy for fluoridation of public waters may be diminished since fluoride is delivered in so many modalities now (dental gels, fluoride-toothpastes, fluoridated salt, etc.).--Smokefoot (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Hereherer is a conspiracy theorist single purpose account and was blocked over a month ago for (among other things) his obscenity-laced vandalisms of accounts of people he claimed were pro-fluoridation lackies. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Eubulides. Petergkeyes (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Change title to "Water fluoridation controversy". QuackGuru (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussions from July 2008 and August 2008. There might be at least one more discussion. --83.43.253.56 (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The title is clearly not neutral. The text is also a problem that needs a lot of work. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The title is not neutral and should be changed. I raised the issue at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Adamlankford (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I made a request to move the article but it was mysteriously reverted. I thought there was this thing called consensus to move the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see your confusion. What you did was to rewrite the lead sentence, not request a move. Typically, the lead is left in sync with the article title until such time as the article is actually moved to the new location. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've formatted and filed notice of the discussion. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I see you are claiming there was confusion when there was no confusion. My edit summary was a request to change the title. Getting the article ready for a page move is appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not claiming any such thing, simply letting you know that you had not properly filed a move request. Nothing more, nothing less. (Placing a note in an edit summary and rewriting the lead is not the same thing, especially for a controversial topic.) Anyway, moot point, as I've filed the notice. Give it a few days for more eyes, then it will be moved. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see consensus for the page move. It have been more than a few days. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to standard naming. Verbal chat 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support move per other examples given above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not a neutral title as currently written. Adamlankford (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support move. Quality of page should improve dramatically with more neutral title. Petergkeyes (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support move to neutral title. QuackGuru (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Information on conspiracy theories citing corporate collusion

A friend of mine once mentioned that she believed that water fluoridation was somehow linked to the aluminum/bauxite industry. If anyone has any links, information, or references to such collusion between the government and said industry--or, more likely, links, information, or references to the conspiracy theory--could they be added to the conspiracy theory section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.164.9 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

E.g. here's a link that mentions such a conspiracy, but both its style and content immediately mark it as unreliable, at least in my eyes: http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.164.9 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation to Check Neutrality of Page

I also feel that it may be appropriate to put a semi-protect on it once neutrality has been established. This topic is targeted by conspiracy theorist and under-informed people. Adamlankford (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole text is very under-informed. This article is obviously written by persons who are opposed to opinions and research that oppose fluoride in the USA water supply. Fluoride is a top 10 household toxin according to Time Magazine April 2010. Warning labels on toothpaste tell you not to swallow the poisonous substance so why would it be safe to drink. Fluoride works topically and is available in foods that we eat, toothpaste, dentist do applications, and other sources. There is a danger of consuming too much Fluoride so it's a waste of money to pay for it to be added to water. There are consumers who do not want to drink Fluoride tainted water but have no choice. Good teeth come from good nutrition. When the dentists and others tell children that candy is bad for their teeth it makes sense that the nutritional value of sugar compared to the 4 food groups is obviously bad for the teeth. A little common sense is needed here and some self defense against toxic poisoning. The context of the supposedly opposition needs to have the articles at the bottom of the page moved to the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.30.136 (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional external links for your consideration:

My input under the discussion tab on the Water Fluoridation entry was deleted for containing "copyrighted material" which I quoted and for which I provided links to the source material which I quoted. I'm proud to have participated in the discussion that led to the creation of this sub-page. I would like to provide a few additional external links if that is acceptable. There is no reason to omit the following links: http://www.slweb.org/fluoridation.html ; http://www.nofluoride.com/ ; http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/ 9chambers (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 9chambers (John Chalos)

Broad consensus for Safety section name

This controversial change renamed the section. But there is broad consensus for many articles to name such sections simply as Safety. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Adverse Effects

This page needs a section entitled Adverse Effects. I propose changing the name of the "safety" section to "adverse effects." The section is more about the potential for harm than it is about "safety." "Adverse effects" is more germane to the topic than the relative safety of the practice. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Adverse effects" is non-neutral whereas "safety" is neutral and in line with the other section titles . It is a generic title that does not imply either positive or negative effects. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bryson Conspiracy Theory

Surely the book by Chris Bryson merits mention somewhere on this page. The entire volume of investigative journalism painstakingly details a compelling conspiracy theory about water fluoridation. The deleting party complained, "no personal claims especially without background information..." but that statement is without merit. The conspiracy is thoroughly alleged, and the book is replete with background information. If the conspiracy theory section is the wrong place to mention this book, please suggest a better place on Wikipedia. (DISCLAIMER - I am in no way affiliated with the marketing of this product! I simply believe it to be inherently relevant.)Petergkeyes (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious why Bryson (who is he and why should his opinion be any more notable than say, well, mine?) has articulated a view of fluoridation which largely clashes with say this article? Wikipedia isn't a a grab all of irrelevant information by random people? Shot info (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bryson is an award winning investigative journalist. It is not that his book clashes with the history wiki. Bryson states facts that do not appear in the sanitized history. It is likely that the history wiki would be improved by including information from Bryson within. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bryson's opinion is relevant because he researched and wrote one of the most comprehensive books stating the case against water fluoridation. Unless you've also written one of the most well-known books on the topic, then your opinion would not be more notable than his.--TerrierHockey (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As with everything on Wikipedia, we need sources to include something. In this case, we need a (independent) reliable source about Bryson that explains his importance to this controversy before we can even consider adding info about him. Pre-emptive: no, book reivews don't count. Yobol (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"most well-known books" - one thing that Wikipedia has taught me is that when an editor says this - it's highly likely that there isn't a source to back it up... While I personally don't care if it's in or out - I'm just finding that there seems to be no evidence to back up this particular dotpoint of opinion. As I said above, Wikipedia isn't a mirror. Shot info (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Should not be included. The book is about fluoridation, not the controversy. It could be that it is part of the controversy, but we would need sources that explain its impact on the controversy. TFD (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Poppycock. The Fluoride Deception is about the conspiracy between industry and government science and health officers to promote the practice of water fluoridation despite known hazards. The book is all about how and why fluoridation is controversial. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sources to explain it's impact, without them it just becomes a random person with a random book. Shot info (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A book by a known investigative journalist published by an independent publisher may always be used as a source. There is nothing that requires a citation that explains its impact on the controversy. It is a reporting on the topic. If the book were self-published, then of course you'd have an argument, but it isn't. Don't create imaginary requirements where no such requirements exist, TFD and Shot info. Yworo (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"a known investigative journalist" - 2nd time I've seen this and haven't seen any proof that said "known investigative journalist" is 1. Known, 2. An investigative journalist. Hence the reason I question the the WP:WEIGHT source. That's all - in particular when there are various editors who don't seem to have read the book in question making comments above. Shot info (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Also "an independent publisher" is a meaninglessly broad term; it may mean a solid reliable publisher, or self-publication by "Cranks-R-Us Press: We Dare To Publish The Truth Despite The Little Men In Our Heads!" --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, I've looked at the publisher site and the publisher looks legit, not a POD or self-publishing company. I think the burden is really on you to show otherwise. Yworo (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, I've also looked at the publisher site and find the publishers creditials irrelevant. So far you and no other editor can prove that this particular reference needs to be included per WEIGHT. And like anything in WP, the onus is on the editor adding the info to prove otherwise. Frankly I'm surprised that you cannot prove your own words - namely "A book by a known investigative journalist". Shot info (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you find the publisher's credentials irrelevant, then you don't really understand WP:RS. Editors are not required to do original research on the authors of books. Being published by a reliable publisher who can be assumed to have vetted the material is sufficient. Your claim that the burden is on the editor is completely bogus. The burden is on the editor to provide a citation to a reliable source. That's it. If someone says the source is unreliable, the burden is on them to prove that it's not reliable, not the other way around. So prove it. Yworo (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the publisher provides his credentials, here. Reporter for BCC World Service, NPR, and the Atlanta Constitution. Part of a team which won two investigative reporting awards. So, unless you think the publisher is unreliable, their bio needs to be taken at face value. So again, what makes you think the publisher is unreliable? Yworo (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the publisher also publishes Noam Chomsky and their books are reviewed in The New York Review of Books. Not a fly-by-night or self-publishing company. Your objections to this book are completely uncalled for. They appear to simply be bullying of an editor with whom you don't agree. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo - are you actually participating in the same discussion as everybody else here - it isn't a matter of a RS - its a matter of WEIGHT and whether or not this random author should be given the time to have his views incorporated into the article. This is what is being discussed. Shot info (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

At anyrate, perhaps you would care to comment on the section immediately below about the Fluoride Action Network? Shot info (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fluoride Alert

Is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Editors should start to redirect references to the actual source that FA is mirroring. If that cannot be done, then alternative references should be sourced. Shot info (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence of the water fluoridation controversy article.

The second sentence of the water fluoridation article reads.

" The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation, although some continental states fluoridate salt."

Salt fluoridation is not the same thing as water fluoridation and should not be included in the article much less the second sentence. This article is about the water fluoridation controversy and not salt fluoridation. (5007a (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

Salt fluoridation needs it's own page on Wikipedia as it is has nothing to do with water fluoridation at all. (5007a (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

WP:SOFIXIT Shot info (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fluoridation controversy article deletion

Water fluoridation controversy

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hertz1888 (talk | contribs) at 10:31, 15 November 2010. It may differ significantly from the current revision.(5007a (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

Excessive content removed, replaced with history link. The undiscussed, unreferenced changes were reverted because they lacked reputable sources and were full of opinion and speculation. The poster is welcome to discuss them here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Shortening the section title. My edits consisted only of formatting fixes, without regard to content, and are immaterial to any discussion that may ensue here. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove: A Continuity Transcript

The following is a continuity transcript form the movie Dr. Strangelove.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Information about Harold Hodge who was instrumental in the fluoridation of water.

Harold Hodge Oxford Journals Toxicological Sciences

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/2/157.full

(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Find Target Reference Article about Harold Hodge

http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Harold%20Hodge/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain Ckatz why the external link to Harold Hodge was removed by you on the water fluoridation article. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

The source should be used as a reference if applicable; we generally shy away from simply adding more items to external links sections. Furthermore, the EL section already has a link to the Open Directory Project, a good location for links. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to contact you but could not put a message on your talk page so I undid the deletion you did as the only way that I could initiate contact with you. (----)(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for establishing communication here Chatz on the issue regarding the Harold Hodge External link. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

The reference section is for the purpose for referencing information in the Water Fluoridation Controversy article itself is it not. The Water Fluoridation Controversy article currently does not mention Harold Hodge so I I did not put it in the reference section and chose the external links section instead. Most people do not know about Harold Hodge's influence with water fluroidation and I was just attempting to make that information available.

It would possible to add information about Harold Hodge to the article however I do think that someone would just delete it so I did not attempt that. I will make an attempt to add a section about Harold Hodge to the water fluoridation article but think that that information will be censored rapidly. I understand why you would want to keep the external links section clear but in the case of this subject it is hard to get any communication as we have been attempting to do so for over 60 years and have to overcome communist propaganda in the process.

I will make an attempt to include Harold Hodge in the Water fluoridation article shortly so that it references to the Oxford Journal Harold Hodge article. Thank you. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

All I was trying to do was figure out how to write this without all the little boxes and now this Wiki image is on here too. I do not know what is going on here. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Agree with Ckatz that the material he/she removed (including this material on Hodge) is not appropriate for the external links section. It would be better to provide WP:RS that shows his role in the controversy and place it in the text of the article. Yobol (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is better to use ELs to reference text where appropriate, instead of building a long list at the end of the article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference 16

This reference can now be found at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm 128.250.5.247 (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Updated, thanks!Yobol (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Precautionary principle text

I recently adjusted the summary of the "precautionary principle" section under the Ethics subsection to better reflect, IMO, the content of the journal article that is referenced. My problems with the text at that time (and current text as my changes were reverted):

• the referenced article is clearly not a review of the water fluoridation literature as to its safety and efficacy; the article is primarily a editorial (or "commentary" as the authors put it) on the application of the precautionary principle, with a small "case example" of how it could be applied to the idea of water fluoridation - and our text needs to reflect that (and currently does not); as an editorial, we need to make sure we attribute the positions to the authors of the article rather than use Wikipedia's voice
• our current text lists the examples produced in the referenced journal article as to how fluoridation might be dangerous without the noted caveats that referenced article listed including that the CDC and ADA support its use as efficacious and safe which is a clear UNDUE violation
• our current list of possible harm is also not placed in the context of the article - the authors are obviously using the list of studies that show possible harm to justify their discussion of the precautionary principle as it related to water fluoridation - the "ethics" discussion comes not from the "unethical" use of water fluoridation due to the possible danger from as illustrated in the list as is implied by the way our text currently reads, but using the studies of possible harm to justify the application of the precautionary principle; we have to make sure we place these studies in this proper context as the authors place it
• the listing of possible harm in our current article also implies that this was the main thrust of the journal article (clearly not true) and ignores the policy conclusions that the authors came to (i.e. not that fluoridation is not safe - as implied by our current text - but that we need to do further study)

Further comments appreciated.Yobol (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

the tl;dr version of my text above: our current text is basically cherry picking items out of the article without placing the discussion in proper context, clearly violating NPOV. Yobol (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The essense of the argument in the paper is that while there is no evidence that the consumption of fluoride is harmful, it might be and therefore we should avoid fluoridation. The paper says, "While often criticized as antiscientific, the precautionary principle represents a challenge to scientists and public health professionals...."[1]

Academic papers are considered reliable sources for facts and the opinions of their authors. However, when deciding whether to present those opinions in articles we must determine their notablity. We need to show that other scientists have given credence to the views expressed (which is unlikely) or that the anti-fluoridation movement has adopted this paper. Otherwise we are fanning the controversy rather than reporting it.

I would recommend removing the article unless notability can be established in third party sources.

TFD (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the authors of the editorial do not say fluoridation should be avoided, just that if the precautionary principle is applied then further study and more communication is necessary. Of course, anti-fluoridation activists (and our current text) seem to imply otherwise, which is even more reason we need to adjust the text.

Your point about how much weight it is to be given due to how it is viewed in the academic literature is well-taken though; it appears to have been cited only twice since its publication so it hasn't been completely ignored. I think one or two sentences in this article might be a proper weight for it, though it should focus mostly on application of the precautionary principle, rather focusing on safety or efficacy studies as it does now. Yobol (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

But isn't the precautionary principle applicable to anything? TFD (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I was thinking something along the lines of this diff, perhaps shortened for weight purposes. Yobol (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My worries as to WP:Weight here go the other way. The title of this article is Water fluoridation controversy, after all. I don't see any need at all to keep this sourced content away from readers. If the length is shortened, that's ok, but going on about precautionary principle won't do at all. Rather, list the worries themselves, they're sourced and have everything to do with both the topic and its weighting. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that the journal article we are using as a source is about the precautionary principle. Discussion about water fluoridation is less than 1 page of the 10 pages of the journal article, with most of that trying to justify the use of the principle with the list of studies we're using now. The journal article is not a comprehensive review of the fluoridation literature, and using it to justify our current text is really inappropriate, as it ignores the context the the authors of the journal article put the information in (thus likely violation OR and POV. If we're not going to discuss the precautionary principle , I agree with TFD that this is an inappropriate article and the entire section should be removed. Yobol (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think the article is inappropriate, take it to WP:AFD, don't remove verifiable content. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The journal article is inappropriate for the content it is citing - no one said anything about the WP article. WP:V is not the only policies we use, our content needs to follow WP:NPOV and WP:OR as well, and we need to change the text if it does not follow them. Yobol (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, thanks. I still don't understand why you think the source is inappropriate. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the information is being taken out of context? Either we alter the information to put it in the proper perspective, or we shouldn't use the information at all. Yobol (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't read the article but going by how it's sourced, I don't see how it's out of context. Rather, they seem to have cited this verifiable information as an example and it does have bearing on the controversy, which is the topic of this article. I'm thinking that at the pith of this, perhaps you, all in your good faith, don't like (or agree with) the content. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how could you possibly know if the material is taken out of context if you haven't read the source itself? May I suggest, all in my good faith, that you read the article and discuss it rather than try to project motives on to me that aren't there? Yobol (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the article? Are you talking about the source or the WP article? As for your motives, yes, it's true, so far, I don't think you agree with what the source says about the topic. Likewise, so far, I see no context worries. Please keep in mind, I do think you're trying to help. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, read the source. You seemed to have said you have not read the source/reference for the section we're discussing. I am wondering how you could know if there is a context problem if you haven't read the source. And please, comment on the content, not on the contributor. Yobol (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was able to find the executive summary here. I see no context worries. The citation to the article text is reliable and wholly verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That isn't an "executive summary", that is an editorial by Richard G Foulkes, a well known anti-fluoride activist in a completely different journal, Fluoride, which isn't even MEDLINE registered (i.e. it isn't a reliable source). Again, material can meet WP:V and fail WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You have not addressed these problems (which isn't surprising, as you haven't even read the source in question). Yobol (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I would think that source should be cited too. Meanwhile, have you read the source which is now cited in the WP article? If so, if you want me to read it, a means to do so would be welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We should be citing an editorial from a well known anti-flouride activist in a well known anti-fluroide journal that isn't generally considered a reliable source? What?

And yes, I already read the source. That is why I edited the WP article to begin with, it did not meet NPOV. It would seem to me that it would be wise to actually read the source before commenting on it. Yobol (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would say a well known anti-fluroide activist is highly citable in an article called Water fluoridation controversy. As I said, the citation in the article as it stands looks ok to me. Please don't remove verifiable content from the article. If you can give me a means through which I can read the cited source, I'll be happy to do so and comment further. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are once again ignoring the issues of WP:NPOV. While the citation in the article "looks ok" to you, it is hard to place much weight on such opinions when you haven't even read the source that is being discussed and can mistake an editorial in a completely different journal by a different author as an "executive summary". I see no further point in wasting any more of anyone's time discussing this until you've read it. I get my access to the journal through my work; I believe most libraries will have an interlibrary loan program that would be able to get a copy of the source for you.Yobol (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you don't seem to like what the source says and owing to your own lack of neutrality on the topic, wish to remove verifiable content from the article text. This is nothing more than a content dispute. Input from other editors is welcome and I think the only thing to do is wait for that. Meanwhile, please don't remove verifiable content from the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And as I said, the material fails NPOV. Your objections based on nothing more than your own perception of my motivations, rather than actually reading the content of the source, is duely noted. I would welcome further input (from editors who have read the source) on how to improve my changes, which I have already implemented. Yobol (talk)

You asked me to comment here and I have done. You can try to edit war over this, but in time, the sources will have sway. I do think your edits are wholly PoV driven. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you to comment on the content, not on your perception on my motivation. I again ask you to please refrain from commenting on me and to stick with the content. Yobol (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have now raised the issue at the NPOV noticeboard here.Yobol (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WP has lots of articles about controversies, about global warming, evolution, 911, Barack Obama's birth certificate, the JFK murder. The general approach is to present the topic as it is described in reliable sources, not to copy every article that questions conventional thought. If this article has not been reported by third parties then I do not see its notability. TFD (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean the source? The source need not be notable, only verifiable and reliable. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RS do not need to be notable in order to use them as a source for facts. However when we report opinions expressed in reliable sources they must be notable. See WP:WEIGHT: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." TFD (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

These are not "tiny minorities." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that? TFD (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, do you think the source should meet MEDRS? I attempted to shorten the text while removing the bulleted text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• (Coming here from WT:MED, where a request for input was posted) Having looked at the article in question, I tend to agree with Yobol's reading of it. The article is primarily about the difficulties in applying the precautionary principle to matters of public health, and in integrating the principle with evidence-based practice. Fluoride is mentioned as one case study, but fluoride-specific material occupies a relatively small portion of the total content of the article. Looking at the content of the article as a whole, it seems improper to use it to editorially argue for the removal of fluoride, as I'm a bit concerned that this diff does. That said, I think both versions give excess weight to this article, which should probably be covered in one short sentence (e.g. "Some authors have placed the fluoride debate in the context of the precautionary principle.")

  I'm a little concerned that Gwen is edit-warring over this source. If you haven't read a paper, it seems like a bad editing practice to repeatedly revert someone who has read the paper. I appreciate that these papers can be hard to come by, but most libraries can help you obtain a copy - at least, that's been my experience. Certainly it seems preferable to using an "executive summary" of the paper (from an anti-fluoride website) as the basis for edit-warring with someone who's read the actual paper. But that's a meta-issue. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(Also coming from WT:MED) I note the general caution notices at the head of this talkpage which editors should be observing. The edit war should be stopped immediately.

The general reliability level of sources for this WP article seems rather sad. Certainly there are available high quality wp:MEDRS sources easily identifiable, eg by querying http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=fluoridation%20controversy%20review from PubMed. I'm particularly disturbed to find a political party's talking points from 2003 being mistreated as evidence of something other than the position of that party in the debate at that time. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now with more eyes here, I was actually wondering if this article is necessary; Water fluoridation is a featured article, and frankly, does each sectionbetter than this one (safety, efficacy, even ethics). Is this article really necessary now - it seems much more a POV fork than when it was created back in 2005. (As an aside, if you're worried about sourcing in this article, I wouldn't look at dental amalgam controversy...) Yobol (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I see it as a legitimate topic. Books like The fluoride wars could serve as a model for how the article might be presented. TFD (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a legitimate topic, but perhaps we need to better define the scope. There is so much overlap from the parent article, it would probably be best to define its boundaries to avoid that overlap - perhaps rename as "politics of water fluoridation"? That way things like "efficacy" and "safety" don't need to be repeated here.Yobol (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

CDC recommends using water with no fluoride for infants

See the section. What type of water does CDC recommend for mixing infant formula?

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1(Zxoxm (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

The title of this section is incorrect. "CDC will continue to assess the science regarding the use of fluoride in preventing tooth decay while limiting dental fluorosis, and will modify its recommendations as warranted. CDC believes that community water fluoridation is safe and healthy and promotes its use for people of all ages." Yobol (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Section reads as follows directly from the above CDC site.

"What type of water does CDC recommend for mixing infant formula?

Parents should follow the advice of the formula manufacturer and their child’s doctor for the type of water appropriate for the formula they are using. Parents and caregivers of infants fed primarily with formula from concentrate who are concerned about the effect that mixing their infant’s formula with fluoridated water may have in developing dental fluorosis can lessen this exposure by mixing formula with low fluoride water most or all of the time. This may be tap water, if the public water system is not fluoridated (check with your local water utility). If tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride (0.7 mg/L or higher), a parent may consider using a low-fluoride alternative water source. Bottled water known to be low in fluoride is labeled as purified, deionized, demineralized, distilled, or prepared by reverse osmosis. Most grocery stores sell these types of low-fluoride water. Ready to feed (no-mix) infant formula typically has little fluoride and may be preferred for use at least some of the time." -http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1(

The CDC says to use a alternative low fluoride water source if the tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride. (Zxoxm (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

You seem to have missed the part where this advice is only for those parents "who are concerned about the effect that mixing their infant's formula with fluoridated water may have in dental fluorosis." The CDC itself has not changed its recommendations and believe fluoridated water is safe. Yobol (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The CDC article is contradictory on the water fluoridation topic. The CDC can not just come out and say that fluoridation is not helping because that would be the end of the water fluoridation program. The CDC has to sit on both sides of the fence and has no credibility. (Zxoxm (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

CDC chart showing disproportionate harm to African Americans from fluoridated water

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm

Blacks Disproportionately Harmed by Fluorides and Fluoridated Water http://iaomt.com/news/archive.asp?intReleaseID=249&month=10&year=2007 (Zxoxm (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? Yobol (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to improve the article but the governmental co conspirators and industry co conspirators involved in the water fluoridation conspiracy are at the height of their corruption now and will make every attempt to hide the truth so I chose to update the talk page instead. (Zxoxm (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

There might be something useful in that CDC Surveillance article, but it would help if you'd be more explicit about what you think it might be, rather than simply assuming there's a conspiracy afoot here.LeadSongDog come howl! 23:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Water fluoridation is the pinnacle of all conspiracies and noting will ever compare to it. Water fluoridation is such a awful conspiracy with such devastation in store that it's kind of fun to it witness it unfold on the populations really. (Zxoxm (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

Pub Med article Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

http://iaomt.com/news/archive.asp?intReleaseID=252&month=11&year=2007 (Zxoxm (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

I think you mean PMID 17697714. It's an interesting primary source, but not terribly useful. In any case all it really shows is that lead doesn't belong in new plumbing fixtures. We've known that for quite a while, and there are better sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ADA Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intake for Infants and Young Children

Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intake for Infants and Young Children

http://www.ada.org/1767.aspx (Zxoxm (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

The Original Notice sent out by the ADA on November 9, 2006 about Interim Guidance on Reconstituted Infant Formula

http://fluoridealert.org/ada.egram.pdf (Zxoxm (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

Vermont Health Department infant fluoride warning article http://www.fluoridealert.org/media/2006n.html

Do a search for the following terms to find more articles about this. ada warning not to give infants fluoridated water (Zxoxm (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

2006 NRC section

The three panel members of the 2006 NRC report who opposed water fluoridation are Dr. Robert Isaacson, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen and Dr. Hardy Limeback. The NRC Chair Dr. John Doull also voiced opposition to water fluoridation.

Here is the reference

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/index.html

The report "should be a wake-up call." - Dr. Robert Isaacson, NRC Panel Member.

“The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored. What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.” - Dr. John Doull , NRC Panel Chair

"l personally feel that the NRC report is relevant to many aspects of the water fluoridation debate... [T]he report discusses the wide range of drinking water intake among members of the population, which means that groups with different fluoride concentrations in their drinking water may still have overlapping distributions of individual fluoride exposure. ln other words, the range of individual fluoride exposures at 1 mg/L will overlap the range of individual exposures at 2 mg/L or even 4 mg/L. Thus, even without consideration of differences in individual susceptibility to various effects, the margin of safety between 1 and 4 mg/L is very low." - Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NRC Panel Member.

"In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation." - Dr. Hardy Limeback, NRC Panel Member.

I was trying to do the edit the article as requested correctly and require some assistance to do it correctly. (Zxoxm (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC))

Hello there, I reverted your edit. Please refrain to using academic titles in-text. It might help to share your addition here first, so that we can assist you with the correct formating and the likes. Chartinael (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think if you read Limeback's comments, he opines that water fluoridation is no longer justified because people are obtaining sufficient fluoride from other sources, such as toothpaste and gels applied by dentists. The Fluoride Action Network is probably best viewed as fringe, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with their stands. It is led by Paul Connett, a retired professor from a small college and his son, and the board is not well populated by luminaries. The article cited by Thiessen mentioned above appeared in the journal Fluoride, which is not recognized by PubMed, which accredits journals on their scientific objectivity. So it is probably a good idea to avoid citing that journal because it lacks credibility. Of course if one thinks that water fluoridation is a conspiracy, there is not much to discuss. --Smokefoot (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The following is quoted from the Fluoride Action Networks about page. http://www.fluoridealert.org/about-fan.htm "About the Fluoride Action Network (F.A.N.)

The Fluoride Action Network is an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures.

Along with providing comprehensive and up-to-date information on fluoride issues to citizens, scientists, and policymakers alike, FAN remains vigilant in monitoring government agency actions that may impact the public's exposure to fluoride. FAN's work has been cited by national media outlets including Wall Street Journal, TIME Magazine, National Public Radio, Chicago Tribune, Prevention Magazine, and Scientific American, among others." (Zxoxm (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

William Marcus

William Marcus was the Senior Science Advisor for the EPA's office of water in 1990. Marcus was fired for reporting that fluoride causes cancer then sued and won his job back. This is information about that story.

Marcus v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 92-TSC-5 (Sec'y Feb. 7, 1994) http://www.kkc.com/files/92tsc05c.htm

US EPA Office of the Water Internal Memo May 1, 1990 http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/ntp/marcus-memo.html

Interview with William Marcus http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/ntp/marcus-interview.html

Statement of William Marcus of the EPA Union before the Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water (See the Cancer Bioassay Findings for the information about William Marcus http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/629FINAL.htm

William Marcus was the first EPA employee to obtain protection under the environmental whistleblower statutes when he was fired from EPA for pointing out that fluoride causes cancer. http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=860&Itemid=108

The Washington Post December 9, 1992 Article: EPA Told to Reinstate Whistle-Blower http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1038666.html (Zxoxm (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC))