Talk:Water fluoridation controversy

1990 end date for fluoridation in East Germany: reason?

I notice that the article lists 1990 as the end date for water fluoridation in East Germany. Was that date due merely to the termination of the DDR as a legal entity upon unification with the BRD; was it due to the DDR's adoption, upon unification, of the BRD policy of non-fluoridation; or did the DDR abandon fluoridation pre-unification, and if the last, did it do so under the influence of the USSR, which abandoned fluoridation in the same year?

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2024

Removal of the recent edit which adds the text "now-debunked". The text has been added to the article is not be beneficial, for a controversial topic like this adding text like "now-debunked" is not helpful and can inflame the topic. The suggested text lacks proper citations or references to reputable sources. In Wikipedia, verifiability and reliable sourcing are essential. Without credible sources to support the claims made in the text. The article already provides historical context by mentioning the conspiracy theories from the 1950s and 1960s, which have been discredited. The topic of water fluoridation is controversial, and any additions to the article should be handled with care. Adding potentially controversial statements without solid references is not ideal. If this is to remain, I belive a more considered edit should be performed to highlight this point, but for now I belive the edit should be reverted.

Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s, now-debunked conspiracy theorists claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine American public health. In recent years, water fluoridation has become a prevalent health and political issue in many countries, resulting in some countries and communities discontinuing its use while others have expanded it.

Original text bellow:

Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s, conspiracy theorists claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine American public health. In recent years, water fluoridation has become a prevalent health and political issue in many countries, resulting in some countries and communities discontinuing its use while others have expanded it. 146.200.136.91 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As correctly observed, this is not an uncontroversial edit, and as such the "edit request" procedure does not apply here. PianoDan (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to add information from The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson

Hi everyone,

I think that the findings in Christopher Bryson's book The Fluoride Deception should be given more attention. According to this, journalist Christopher Bryson, who worked for the BBC and The Guardian, and another journalist, both on assignment with the Christian Science Monitor, conducted an in-depth investigation on supposed connections between fluoridation of public water supplies and the Manhattan Project that Bryson eventually turned into book-length exposé. As far as I understand, The Fluoride Deception claims that (to oversimplify) the need to deal with fluoride compound-containing runoff/waste from industrial projects, including the Manhattan Project, led to efforts to reclassify fluoride — which was challenging to filter out of the water for some reason — as medically or dentally beneficial. They also found industry-controlled studies showing harmful effects of fluoridation, that they say were deliberately not published.

Bryson also claims, according to this — which derives some of its information from a blacklisted site, fluoridealert.org — that "industrial interests, concerned about liabilities from fluoride pollution and health effects on workers, played a significant role in the early promotion of fluoridation" and that the fluoride used for fluoridation is from industrial waste. (Assuming that low-level fluoride is indeed mildly beneficial for dental health, the fact that its use and subsequent disposal were, at one point or another, industrially necessary is merely a fortunate coincidence.)

In other words, Bryson indicts the Left's boogeyman (the military-industrial complex) rather than the Right's (the world Communist plot). I think this observation deserves more attention; it's also notable in of itself that this is a horseshoe issue. Yet, this article only has a major section for the right-wing conspiracy theory. That may or may not be a balanced way to faithfully reflect the controversy. I would just point out that, most likely, the conspiracy theory based off of The Fluoride Deception is arguably more grounded in fact.

Bryson's book is already listed as citation 45, but it contains additional notable information about the controversy that I did not find in this article (nor in the water fluoridation article) which I would suggest for inclusion.

Full disclosure: I found out about this from r/conspiracy. But still, it might be surprising for many Wikipedia readers that such a reasonably high-quality source, as Bryson's book seems to be, is cited by conspiracy theorists but neither it nor its core claims are referenced in Wikipedia at all. While fluoridealert.org is not a valid source, the book itself is, as far as I understand (assuming it says what they say it says).

If this has already been brought to your attention, I'd love to know why it was decided not to include it.

Respectfully,

... RecentlyZealous (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It reads like a conspiracy. Three quotes from the Intro:

• “The plot (to add fluoride to toothpaste and drinking water) includes … Hiroshima atomic bomb..”
• “Twists and turns of the fluoride story are propelled by nothing less than the often grim requirements of accumulating power…”
• “… fluoride was systematically removed from public association with ill health by … U.S. military and big corporations”--Smokefoot (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a poor souce. I've trimmed it (with some other unreliable/undue stuff). For WP:BMI we need WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, why do you say this is a poor source? Sorry if I'm showing my ignorance of the rules for good sources. For example, had his article been published in the Christian Science Monitor, as it originally was apparently going to be, it could be counted as a source, right? But since CSM declined to print it (while others publishers did), it can't be? Is that correct?

Also, how is it determined that this article or suggested portion of this article is or isn't WP:BMI as opposed (biomedical/health-related) public policy controversy. Arguably, this source/information touches more on the non-WP:BMI categories of information such as Beliefs, Medical Ethics, History, Society and Culture, etc. rather than Health Effects, Medical Decisions, etc. RecentlyZealous (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Some claims are WP:BMI, some not. As to sources, the WP:BESTSOURCES tend to be WP:SECONDARY sources from recognized authorities in the field, published by high-quality publishers. They must be WP:FRIND. Bryson's book was actually reviewed in Nature – doi:10.1038/434275a – and it seems it mixes some solid reportage with dangerous misinformation and scientific incompetence. For the basic science, Wikipedia would use the underlying literature rather than a questionable book by a reporter/TV producer. Bon courage (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. A partial rebuttal, if I may:

- Book-length journalism pieces by prominent reporters, used as sources elsewhere, often use colorful language suggestive of conspiracy theories. This is not traditionally understand to detract from the credibility of their claims. Many exposes (e.g. those of Erin Brockovich, the Watergate reporters, the Miami Herald on the Epstein affair, etc.) use such language and even claim (actual) conspiracies.

- In this case, the reporter/investigator is otherwise as credible as any of the above, based on his credentials in his biography. I didn't do an extensive search, but as far as I can tell, his factual claims regarding fluoride waste from industrial processes have not been publicly contradicted.

- The first quote you listed, including the preceding sentence, is "Yet the story of how fluoride was added to our toothpaste and drinking water is an extraordinary, almost fantastic tale. The plot includes some of the most spectacular events in human affairs—the explosion of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, for example." In this context, I think most readers would read "plot" to refer to the "story" referred to in the preceding sentence, not the presumed "plot" to improve the public image of fluoride, implement water fluoridation, etc.

I'm wondering what you would think about including something like this: "The 1997 book The Fluoride Deception by investigative journalist Christopher Bryson claims that ... [1 sentence summary of the claims].[citation]. [Optional:] The claims regarding [specific subject] have been disputed by... "? RecentlyZealous (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless some secondary source is commenting on those claims, why? If the rest of the world is ignoring Bryson's claims Wikipedia needs to also. Bon courage (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I am simply voicing my opinion as a professional chemist. Yes, Bryson has a fine resume as an investigative reporter. But now he is doing investigation of chemistry, and he is out of his depth. Why link Hiroshima to the fluoride controversy? What does it mean to say that fluoride is "muscular"? Listen, I predict that this book will be admitted into Wikipedia. The fluoride dispute is over, fluoridation won. Water fluoridation is fading slowly, but fluoride is pervasive in toothpastes. What I want to see from the Brysons and supporters is some commentary on fluoride from a top-level dentistry textbook, the kind of text used at highly ranked dental schools. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. We really don't want to be using sources that confuse fluoride and fluorine. Bon courage (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr.

I've readded RFK Jr. as he's been nominated to Secretary of Health. Darrelljon (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

...in one country where 95% of the world's population don't live. He is regarded as a nutter even by half the people in that country. He is NOT representative of the issue. I have reverted your addition. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

He may not be credible but isn't it a matter of notability? Darrelljon (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a global article. Kennedy's thoughts are irrelevant to most of the globe. Please avoid US-centrism. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr is American appointed to high office in America but that doesn't demonstrate non-notability or US centrism. He's headline news today in BBC, Guardian and Sky. An article here even says he will impact global health https://theconversation.com/if-trump-puts-rfk-jr-in-charge-of-health-get-ready-for-a-distorted-reality-where-global-health-suffers-243152 Darrelljon (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

If you look carefully, that's what the headline says, but the article doesn't really make that case. It describes some idiotic things he has said and done in he past. then just makes generalised speculation about what might happen in future. Nothing specific. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverted as RFK Jr. is notable on this article. Darrelljon (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Oppose adding the photograph without article changes: Adding a third opinion here, in my read of things it's not completely unreasonable for the article to mention RFK Jr. as a powerful advocate for the conspiratorial perspective here, but: He certainly shouldn't be featured in the lead section as things currently stand, that is US-centrism on a global issue. He isn't mentioned once in the article—if he's a notable advocate for this and his advocacy is significant enough to be included in this article, some work should be done to reflect that in content before inclusion of a picture could be justified. In my opinion, having a photo of him included near well-sourced content about his impact on the subject of the article would be just fine, but there's no reason to feature his photo in the article as it currently stands, and I don't think there's any reason to have him in the lead unless and until significant, noted, well-sourced major events change that. I also think enriching the article with a few more illustrations would decrease the impact of one photo of RFK Jr. being added and alleviate any potential WP:UNDUE concerns around the picture. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)