Talk:Fluoride toxicity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fluoride poisoning

---

• It seems obvious that this page was created in order to argue against public fluoridation of drinking water - a topic of debate in some parts of the U.S., and perhaps elsewhere. I took all that out, leaving virtually nothing, because Wikipedia is not a debate forum (or, at least, it shouldn't be). Please edit this to be an encyclopedia article, using facts, not surmizes, and trying to be NPOV. DavidWBrooks 21:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • David is INCORRECT. This article was created SOLELY because somebody asked me today about this issue and I searched for it in Wikipedia and did not find proper answers. So I decided to create the article and will work on it in the coming days. Whoever wants to contribute, feel free to do so.--AAAAA 23:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I changed the redirect by Rhobyte because I think this topic "Fluoride poisoning" deserves a separate article from the "Water fluoridation". I might move some info from the Water Fluoridation article to this one. --AAAAA 23:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I changed it back. This article contains a single sentence of information, and any discussion of fluoride poisoning is well within the scope of Water fluoridation and Fluoride. Rhobite 00:44, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for my over-hasty statements. The original article read to me as if it was meant to become an anti-fluoridation argument; I certainly shouldn't attribute motive to others. - DavidWBrooks 01:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's my reading of the initial article as well. Water fluoridation also needs some help. Perhaps we need four separate articles:

• Fluoride should be about fluoride (d'oh).
• Water fluoridation should be about the techniques and history, not focussed purely on the debate as it is currently.
• A separate article is IMO merited on the debate, containing all three headed sections of the current Water fluoridation article.
• Fluoride poisoning should be about the currently accepted medical and scientific opinions, with attributed mention of any held in dispute by particular causes and movements.

Comments? Andrewa 05:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • I agree 100% with with Andrewa. Also, whoever reads this, please start colaborating with the article. Any help will be appreciated.--AAAAA 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. It will be regrettable to split up Water fluoridation, but with the arguments on policy you will never be able to add anything else. Also I'd like to note that fluoride, which you correctly note should be about fluoride chemistry, currently has very little of that. I t would probably also be a good idea to interlink them (like This article is about X. See Y for discussion on ...) to discourage topical spillover. Securiger 02:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SB: I agree with the 4-way split.

I also think the fluoride poisoning article has merit; fluoride poisoning may occur from many causes other than fluoridation. There are also some villages in India full of crippling skeletal fluorosis cases that demand some kind of article all by themselves.

I do have an issue, though.

Fluoridation is widely regarded as safe and scientific by the US(even if there are dissents), but is widely regarded as unsafe and unscientific by most of the world (i.e. only 1% of europe fluoridates, Japan and China ban it, etc). There are a dozen or so medicine/chemistry nobel prize winners who oppose fluoridation as unsafe, and none who support it.

I'm however having difficulty having the people accept that the USA's scientific claims are often POV and shouldn't be mistaken for a worldwide widely accepted scientific NPOV. Despite the fact some 'vitamin dictionnaries' from the US and Canada claim "fluoride deficiency" causes teeth damage! The fact is you will not find Hypofluoremia(fluoride deficiency) in Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary simply because, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as human Fluoride Deficiency. [1]

If it's not possible to get a deficiency of it, therefore the non-debate articles will have to mention it's a medication.

I intend to make a very short mention (1 phrase) of the opposing views of Europe, Asia, Japan, etc. as part of some of the non-debate articles(as well as mention the status as a medication), with a link to the debate article. I think the non-debate fluoridation article needs to mention those two points to remain NPOV; the view of fluoride as a supplement and the illusion of worldwide scientific agreement are too strong to be left ignored.

The rest of the debate should be in the debate article, though.

(I have a habit of announcing changes in the talk pages before actually modifying the article - to avoid edit wars; I notice that others often just modify the article. Is one or the other practice better?)

• Please DO add or correct whatever you like. For me: THE BIGGER THE BETTER. If you can, include A LOT of information. I personally like big articles. Small articles you can find anywhere on the internet.

Well I tend to pre-announce major changes if they directly oppose something someone else has done, make less controversial major changes straight away but often with an added explanation on the talk pages, and just do minor changes straight away. My subjective impression is that it does help avoid edit wars.

Anyway, if by "non-debate fluoridation article" you mean this page (fluoride poisoning), then I really hope you'll reconsider. This article should not be about fluoridation at all, it should be about the toxicology of fluoride ions. There is no debate on the subject; it is a well studied, well understood subject and there is no need for any POVness as long as everyone just sticks to the facts. If you start bringing the fluoridation debate in here, it is bound to spill over and turn this article into a mess as well. Just link to this one from water fluoridation; you will be able to point out that fluoride is indeed quite poisonous, they will point out that the dose makes the poison, and so on. Securiger 02:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Organofluorine compounds

"Organofluorine compounds do not contain soluble fluoride and thus are not toxic because of fluorine. Organofluorines include many kinds of compounds such as Teflon and fluoxetine." These lines need immediate citation or removal, otherwise it's just one-sided opinion. Also, what about when organofluorines(particularly Teflon) are heated? Doesn't that free the fluoride or at least produce vapors (possibly toxic?)? Wiki is not a debate forum, but it should at least explain that the topic is currently debated and list both view points, with appropriate studies and research cited on both sides. This of course should be presented in a neutral, balanced and unbiased way, but it still needs to present them. Presenting only one side of the issue at hand is, in itself, biased. It should be the individual's decision to decide which parts they agree with until the issue is wholly resolved. ♠♣VashTexan (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)♥♦

There are no "sides", "bias" or even "argument" with respect to this fact. Fluoride poisoning cannot be caused by materials that release no fluoride ions when ingested, whether or not they contain fluorine. There's no way around this; you can't have fluoride poisoning without fluoride. For example, fluorine-containing drugs aren't heated before ingestion, and do not release fluoride when metabolized. (Quite the contrary, the problems caused by organofluorine drugs are that they are too stable.) PTFE does not release fluorides (there are chemical reasons for this), and fluorides are not volatile. Perhaps you're thinking about the issues with that PTFE is known to release degradation products above 260 C. The vapors are less toxic than those given by ordinary cooking oils, and they aren't fluorides in the sense of fluoride poisoning. To compare, highest actually useful temperatures in cooking are around 200-230 C, above which foods begin to scorch and smoke on the pan. (see PTFE#Safety) It is generally very difficult to get organofluorines to react at all, even with the most reactive reagents known. --Vuo (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This Article Is Too Blunt; It Needs To Be More Euphemistic and Roundabout by way of Medical Jargon

"In high concentrations, soluble fluoride salts are mildly toxic: 5-10 grams of sodium fluoride are required to kill most adult humans; a lethal dose is approximately 70 mg per kilogram of body mass"

This first sentence should read: "In VERY high concentrations, soluble fluoride salts CAN BE mildly toxic: 5-10 grams of sodium fluoride WOULD BE required to INDUCE MORTALITY IN most adult humans; A DOSE EXCEEDING 70 mg per kilogram of body mass CAN POTENTIALLY INDUCE MORTALITY"

The beauty of scientific euphemism is that, when something is politically unpopular yet true, the 'expert' gets to have his cake and eat it too. If, some years down the road, fluorides (re)gain worldwide recognition as poisons and are banned from human consumption (as has already happened in Belgium and elsewhere), the 'experts' whose positions are reflected in sentences such as the one above have the comfort of having TECHNICALLY spoken the truth. In the meantime, however, those same 'experts' are free of blame for criminal understatements about the toxicity of chemicals they are responsible for explaining to the world, because those understatements were made by way of SCIENTIFIC JARGON, which it is the 'scientists prerogative to use for understatement or overstatement as he sees fit.

I can only wish that criminally misleading articles like this could not exist on Wikipedia. It could be left to other websites to explain the issue; it could be left to the pharma-giants and their cronies in government medical organizations to criminally understate politically-incorrect truths - at least they have an excuse; their salaries and even careers depend on the understatements. But Wikipedia is just too popular; it needs to be brought into the fold, else people would be 'misled' into 'hysteria' by 'non-scientists' preaching 'pseudoscience' and detracting from the proliferation of perfectly 'safe and effective' substances which just so happen to be 'healthy for our economy' as well.

Zinbielnov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.170.203 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the forum to discuss the issue in general. Offhand, I can't think of any use of fluoride salts that involves eating them in amounts capable of causing acute fluoride poisoning. --Vuo (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning organofluoride in lede?

There has been and may be some back and forth on the mentioning organofluorine compounds in the lede. Many readers will not understand that "organofluorides" (sufficiently pervasive jargon that it is a wikipedia redirect) do not release fluoride ions and thus are are not subject to the concerns raised in this article. Often, article ledes indicate potential areas of confusion to guide the non-specialised reader.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your concern, but, IMHO, it is not helpful to "violate" WP:lead to this end. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a definition issue. When people have something that contains fluorine, they might look up 'fluorine' and end up on this page. However, the toxicity of organofluorines is entirely compound-dependent and not related to fluoride release. (The exception is when fluoride is explicitly a leaving group as in carbonyl fluoride.) --Vuo (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vuo, that while the three of us might have specialist knowledge, the mention of organofluoride compounds is logical. In a perfect world, readers would have advanced appeciation of the difference between fluoride salts and the (usually) rock-like C-F bond. Rather than getting into a revert battle, we could ask for others' opinions.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that I am raising a definition issue. It is a policy issue. -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they should be mentioned in the lead. The section under possible sources is the place to clarify this, and it does a decent job. It looks like the last sentence in that section should clarify that those chemicals do not release fluoride. It might also be appropriate to mention that these chemicals may have various different toxicities arising from their own chemical properties. II | (t - c) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename page

It seems logical to rename the page Fluoride toxicity instead of Fluoride poisoning. Poisoning has the POV of acute toxicity but this page also addresses chronic toxicity. Therefore, it seems appropriate to rename the page with the more general Fluoride toxicity to be inclusive off all aspects addressed. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. II | (t - c) 19:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree too; I didn't realize this discussion was ongoing, when I remarked the same over there. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could split the article in two: one dealing with long-term effects of exposure above recommended level, and another article dealing with acute poisoning. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with rename. Broader title is more accurate.YobMod 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Glaring Inconsistency

At the very end when they talk about the definitive paper, they describe it as being about fluoriNe - not fluoriDe. Either this is a typo or the paper is completely irrelevant to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PurrfectPeach (talk • contribs) 04:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference in this case. Read the review referenced. --vuo (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The journal "Fuoride" is not recognized by PubMed

PubMed, an archive overseen by the US National Institutes of Health, archives thousands of biomedical and related journal citations and abstracts, regardless of nationality: "Participation in PMC is open to any life sciences journal that meets NLM's standards for the archive. A journal must qualify on two levels: the scientific quality of the publication and the technical quality of its digital files." The journal "Fluoride" is not recognized by PubMed and one wonders if citations to this journal are therefore credible sources.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrections please

Thanks for your attention to the facts of this subject and apparent willingness to get to the bottom of this issue.

Could I request some small additional changes to this page - all located at head of article.

1. "Fluoride is taken out of circulation by the body and trace amounts bound in bone" is incorrect and should say "Fluoride is taken out of circulation by the body and stored in bone" because the levels in affected bone are not 'trace' amounts but can be quite large ('000's ppm).

2. "The only generally accepted adverse effect of low concentration water fluoridation at this time is dental fluorosis" - should add "and skeletal fluorosis".

3. "Fluoride in small amount is beneficial to teeth see Fluoride therapy". This stamement is incorrect because it implies that consumed fluoride is beneficial when it is now generally accepted (in scientific terms) that fluoride is not safe to consume but can/might benefit teeth when applied topically. Could you please amend this statement to say "Fluoride is presumed to be beneficial to teeth when applied to the tooth surface" or similar.

Thanks LisaChris 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

---

The IQ lowering effects of fluoride should be included in "Fluoride Toxicity".

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104912

Citation: Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P 2012. Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environ Health Perspect :-. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104912

Received: 30 December 2011; Accepted: 20 July 2012; Online: 20 July 2012

Fluoride isn't a nutrient. In 1979 the FDA required the deletion of all government references previously classifying fluoride as "essential or probably essential", (Federal Register, March 16, 1979, page 16006). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Tox data on sodium fluoride

Here is some published data the toxicity of sodium fluoride, which is representative of other soluble fluoride salts.

• From Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry "the lethal dose for a 70-kg human is estimated to be 5 – 10 g of sodium fluoride [168]." 168 refers to "H. C. Hodge, F. A. Smith in J. H. Simons (ed.): Fluorine Chemistry, vol. 4, Academic Press, New York 1965.
• Sax Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials (ISBN: 9780471701347) has an article on NaF doi:10.1002/0471701343.sdp22673, which lists about 20 studies spanning 1920's-1985. The studies from 1980 are:
  • Merck Index; an Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals. 11 (1989), 1361: oral-human LDLo:71 mg/kg (abbreviations = ?).
  • Farm Chemicals Handbook (Meister Publishing, Willoughy, OH) 1989, C264: unr-man LDLo:75 mg/kg (abbreviations = ?))
  • IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. (World Health Organization, Internation Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France) 27 (1982), 237: ivn-mus LD50:50,830 (not sure what this means, intervenous something)
  • Mutation Research 139 (1984), 193: dns-hmn:fbr 100 mg/L (abbreviations = ?)
  • Shika Gakuho Journal of Dentistry. 80 (1980), 1519. orl-mus LD50:57 mg/kg (abbreviations = ?)
  • Water Research 14 (1980), 1613. dnr-bcs 86 mg/L (abbreviations = ?)

A few years ago an editor named User:Itub (now pretty retired from Wiki) reported on some talk page about fluoride toxicity in response to some strangeness from conspiracy theorists on this topic. I need to relocate that discussion.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to post studies by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, Dr. Dean Burk, and Dr. A. K. Shusheela (of India)... unless Wikipedia has a political agenda. They are three experts on fluoride compounds that you have ignored. There are many other studies as well, documenting the toxicity of fluoride. In fact, there are over 500 peer-reviewed studies showing the adverse effects of fluoride compounds on the human body...many on PubMed also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fluoride Action Network is an unlikely source for usefully convincing information. It is presided over by retired prof who had a very thin scholarly record and haled from non-research institution, and his son - how embarrrasing Dr. Phyllis Mullenix - who is featured at the FAN site - has no scholarly appointment that I could find. High level scholars are unlikely to allow association for the FAN group, which is not prestigious in a scholarly style. Dean Burk died a long time ago, having been discredited for advocating laetrile, which is now known to be quackery. If there is a conspiracy for fluoridation, you will get nowhere (that is the nature of successful conspiracies) and if FAN is a collection of conspiracy theorists, you're unlikely to have traction in Wikipedia. So either way, I dont see the point of your messages. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't get my information from the FAN site. But if they happen to acknowledge a pertinent study, I see no reason to discredit it simply due to it being acknowledged by the FAN website. Discrediting someone as simply a "retired" professor you clearly disapprove of doesn't mean every study he may mention has been discredited. This mindset sounds very biased to me. Dr. Phyllis Mullenix has studies published on PubMed (i.e. PMID 16350475 & PMID 7760776). Her studies have also been mentioned in the (2006) National Research Council's Report on Fluoridation (NRC). Have you read "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA Standards"? You can find it at: www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html This report was paid for by the CDC. It is free to read online. Strange that Dr. Mullenix' studies meet the qualifications for PubMed and the 2006 National Research Council's Report on Fluoridation but don't qualify for Wikipedia. Dr. Dean Burk was a biochemist and retired chief chemist at the U.S National Cancer Institute. I am unable to find where he was discredited due to studies on fluoride, or its link to cancer in the cities he studied. Laetrile and fluoride are two different subjects.

Have you also debunked and discredited "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA Standards"? I believe it was also mentioned on the FAN website but was actually bought and paid for by the CDC. Just because the FAN website acknowledges it does not discredit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Fluoride has been repeatedly shown to lower the IQ's of children in several studies. Doesn't this deserve at least a slight mention under "Fluoride Toxicity"? See the latest Harvard study: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104912 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Diagnosis and treatment?

Could someone maybe add some information on the testing and treatment procedures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.97.208 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Chronic Toxicity

The following qualifies as weasel-words: "chronic ingestion in excess of 12 mg/day are expected to cause adverse effects, and an intake that high is possible when fluoride levels are around 4 mg/L.". Almost looks as if the author first naively figured the only measurement of F was in aqueous solution (he indicates that it is measured in a concentration of Liters), and then made the error of Denying the antecedent.

However, what is written is meaningless and misleading; it fits the bill of Weasel Words and should be removed. 67.169.93.56 (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Xkit

It's in the source given. Also, I don't see any weasel words or formal fallacies. If you're interested, you could review the sourced text and suggest a change more in line with the source or explain why the source is not correct. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That part of the wikipedia entry has a mistake, but that mistake isn't stated in the source, which is wrong in another way.

The source's mistake is that of quantifying the maximum total F intake solely upon water consumption. But the article page's author seems to have also misread their misstatement:

"However, people living in an area where the drinking water contains fluoride at 4 mg/L who consume 2-3 L of water per day will ingest as much as 12 mg fluoride per day on a chronic basis "

"As much as 12 mg per day" ... Total, or from water alone? A glaring oversight.

Is water the only source of fluoride? Is the fluoride levels from other sources completely negligible? (Other sources include tea, processed foods, foods cooked with fluoridated water (potatoes, pasta, grains), leafy vegetables watered with fluoridated water, produce sprayed with cryolite, machine-processed meats, dental products, fluoride treatments, and fluoride pills (yes they still exist))).

The second mistake of the wikipedia article (mentioned earlier) is not based on the source.

(and I'm sure somebody'll come and call "reading" "original research").67.169.93.56 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you be able to suggest another paraphrasing of the content which, in your judgement, better reflects the original source? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I would limit it to: "Adverse effects on the kidney. Within the recommended dose, no effects are expected, but chronic ingestion in excess of 12 mg/day are expected to cause adverse effects." Because total daily fluoride consumption depends on many factors. Total fluoride intake cannot be precisely calculated from F concentration of water alone. What do you think?67.169.93.56 (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone research and state who is in charge of doing lab work on each individuals fluoride levels in areas that fluoridate tap water? Fluoride levels in the human body cannot be determined by counting cavities. It requires lab analysis of blood, urine, hair, nails, bone, etc. "Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the TOTAL fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries prevention." (Fluorides and Oral Health, WHO, 1994). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)