Talk:Sodium monofluorophosphate

message: Phamacopoeial monographes for this chemical ...???  Usually, if a chimical is widely used for drug applications, it should appear in more than one pharmacopoeia--222.67.212.32 (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any other names used in ..... 

message: I removed a passage that linked to a WHO page (http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/expl/regions.html) because unless I am terribly mistaken, the CDC paper the WHO page links to (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm) says the exact opposite of that passage. The CDC paper clearly states that fluoridation can help reduce tooth decay in some cases. Someone who knows more about the subject may want to look into the other line referencing the WHO study. -- Syd (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  If you have read the WHO article and understand it, you should consider revising the text to reflect its content.  The problem that you corrected probably originated with editors convinced that the fluoridation of water is a conspiracy.  Such advocated tend to vandalize virtually any article that speaks non-negatively of the effects of fluoridation of drinking water.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not a veteran Wiki editor so I'm cautious about things, I'm aware of the paranoia but sodium monofluorophosphate doesn't have anything to do with water fluoridation. I want to stay very NPOV. On that note I am leery of the passage "[WHO says] the rate of dental decay in Fluoridated vs. Non-Fluoridated countries is "comparable."" because the paper explains that non-fluoridated countries have socialized medicine that can provide universal dental care, while fluoridation is recommended, and has benefits in, the USA and third world countries that do not have national dentistry. I'd like to delete that line but I want to take the high road, so I'm looking for backup. It is factual but out-of-context and rather off topic. I just don't want to see the water fluoridation debate spill into an article that is basically about toothpaste, so I'm conservative about my edits even though the WHO article is clear on the subject. That may not be very bold of me but I'm trying to get into the Wiki spirit of extreme NPOV. That said, a misquote about water fluoridation does seem very out of place in an article on toothpaste. If someone agrees I will remove it, and I'll support anyone else removing it, because it doesn't belong. (just the line about fluoridation). Syd (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO Study 

message: In layman's terms, what is the difference between sodium monofluorophosphate and sodium fluoride, as they relate to toothpaste?  Some toothpastes contain one, some toothpastes contain the other.  What are the reasons that a toothpaste manufacturer would choose one over the other, and are there any reasons why a consumer might want to choose a sodium monofluorophosphate toothpaste in favor of a sodium fluoride toothpaste, or vice versa? –64.185.132.215 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sodium monofluorophosphate can be thought of as a slow release form of fluoride.  It is less acutely toxic than NaF so probably easier to handle.  Its use is probably influenced by IP and tradition, etc that are associated with specific companies.  --Smokefoot (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sodium monofluorophosphate vs. sodium fluoride