Flouride In Water

ed110220

tbs624 wrote: »

:rotfl: So Leif still cannot answer the questions asked of him/her in post 40 ..



But then we can see that s/he much prefers waffle and generalisation, as evidenced in the reply to Torry Quine....

I have no idea who Leif is, but his opinion is very orthodox so it's no great surprise that it's similar to mine, because it is pretty much the standard scientific one. You might as well suggest that everyone who believes in evolution or plate tectonics or that smoking causes cancer is related ;-)

I would be much more suspicious of two people holding fringe opinions being connected.

bitemebankers

I've no interest in debating the merits of fluoride in tapwater. However, if your local water company adds it, or the levels in your local water a naturally high and you want to remove it, there are two reliable methods.

One method is to use a water distiller, designed specifically for purifying drinking water, like this one:

http://www.steamdistiller.com/servlet/the-385/water-distiller-glass-collection/Detail

These ARE available in the UK too but I can't find a link right now. The other option is to use a Reverse Osmosis (RO) filter which you can buy from any good aquatics store. RO filters are relatively cheap and simple to use but waste a fair amount of water though so may prove expensive if you're on a meter (you can still use the waste water for washing and cleaning though).

It's also possible to use an ion-exchange resin filter as someone suggested upthread, but it's extremely inefficient and would work out very expensive indeed. Also, tap water filters like Brita etc. won't work at all. Neither will boiling the water or leaving it to stand for a while.

tbs624

brook2jack wrote: »

All of these references will have people who disagree , especially as some suggest that fluoride is probably an essential nutrient in small doses

and again

brook2jack wrote: »

This is part of the reason some researchers think fluoride may be an essential nutrient and it is universally acknowledged to be necessary/ essential for bone and tooth formation
.

My bolding. Such "thinking" dates back to the 50s/60s and it does not become the truth because you say it twice.

Fluoride is not a nutrient.

"Fluoride is not an essential element for human growth and development..."
Source: European Commission 2011. Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water. Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER).

“Fluoride is not in any natural human metabolic pathway.”
Source: Cheng KK, Chalmers I, Sheldon TA. Adding fluoride to water supplies. BMJ 2007

tbs624

ed110220 wrote: »

I have no idea who Leif is, but his opinion is very orthodox so it's no great surprise that it's similar to mine, because it is pretty much the standard scientific one. You might as well suggest that everyone who believes in evolution or plate tectonics or that smoking causes cancer is related ;-)

I would be much more suspicious of two people holding fringe opinions being connected.

Perhaps *both* of you should look back and note that there is a after the original comment.....to assist you, in an internet forum this emoticon tends to denote a non serious comment.

I love orthodox "thinkers" who can't grasp the basics, although you're perhaps half way there as you've used an emoticon yourself in the part quoted........:D

tbs624

bitemebankers wrote: »

I've no interest in debating the merits of fluoride in tapwater. However, if your local water company adds it, or the levels in your local water a naturally high and you want to remove it, there are two reliable methods.

One method is to use a water distiller, designed specifically for purifying drinking water, like this one:

http://www.steamdistiller.com/servlet/the-385/water-distiller-glass-collection/Detail

These ARE available in the UK too but I can't find a link right now. The other option is to use a Reverse Osmosis (RO) filter which you can buy from any good aquatics store. RO filters are relatively cheap and simple to use but waste a fair amount of water though so may prove expensive if you're on a meter (you can still use the waste water for washing and cleaning though).

It's also possible to use an ion-exchange resin filter as someone suggested upthread, but it's extremely inefficient and would work out very expensive indeed. Also, tap water filters like Brita etc. won't work at all. Neither will boiling the water or leaving it to stand for a while.

There are some further posts discussing the merits of different filtering systems in the original Fluoride Thread here on MSE

ed110220

Science isn't about "truth" it's about evidence. If you want truth, chose a religion.

If you have some startling new finding on the harmfulness of fluoride in the amounts that are currently believed to be safe or beneficial, write a paper and submit it to Nature or the appropriate medical journal. If it's accepted, I'll change my mind.

Leif

tbs624 wrote: »

:rotfl: So Leif still cannot answer the questions asked of him/her in post 40 ..

But then we can see that s/he much prefers waffle and generalisation, as evidenced in the reply to Torry Quine....

I take it from that that you cannot read. I do indeed take the orthodox scientific view as indicated by the other poster, who is not related to me.

Regarding the following rhetoric:

"s/he much prefers waffle and generalisation, as evidenced in the reply to Torry Quine...."

It is a shame you cannot highlight what I said that in your view was wrong. Torry Quine was talking nonsense c.f. allergy and sensitivity. To define an allergy as something extreme and a sensitivity as something mild is absurd, and ill informed. An allergy merely means that a substance triggers an allergic reaction, which can be no more than a slight reddening of an area of skin, or a bit of sneezing, or at the other extreme, death. I suffer from hayfever, which at one time meant I had extreme difficulty breathing, and seeing, as my throat and tissues around my eyes swelled. These days it amounts to no more than a sneeze or two. Dieticians are not experts on health. Perhaps you would like to make a specific point, rather than a waffling generalisation, to use your crude and offensive terminology?

And if you had an ounce of initiative you would have been able to find that 'Leif' is a common forename in Scandinavian countries.

For an appropriate response to some of the nonsense in this thread, see post #15.

Leif

tbs624 wrote: »

Perhaps *both* of you should look back and note that there is a after the original comment.....to assist you, in an internet forum this emoticon tends to denote a non serious comment.

I love orthodox "thinkers" who can't grasp the basics, although you're perhaps half way there as you've used an emoticon yourself in the part quoted........:D

Your posts are full of carp (sic). You have not made one single specific point. All you have done is post personal abuse. And no I don't apologise for the first sentence, I don't like your aggressive posts, which use general phrases such as 'who can't grasp the basics', but there is not one single specific argument. Is there an actual point you were trying to make which was relevant to the thread? Or were you just getting off on abusing two other posters? :mad::mad:

tbs624

Leif wrote: »

I take it from that that you cannot read. I do indeed take the orthodox scientific view as indicated by the other poster, who is not related to me.

Regarding the following rhetoric:

"s/he much prefers waffle and generalisation, as evidenced in the reply to Torry Quine...."

It is a shame you cannot highlight what I said that in your view was wrong.

It would indeed be a shame but it *was* clearly highlighted, as in the part from your earlier post that I re-quoted, and which appears in in green. Does that perhaps make your own first comment, bolded above, seem ironic?

The point was that you appeared to be criticising Torry Quine's reliance on "someone with letters after their name" and yet seeking to back up your own views by the purely anecdotal comment "I know a fair few people who died, or nearly died, after misdiagnosis by a doctor."

Leif wrote: »

And if you had an ounce of initiative you would have been able to find that 'Leif' is a common forename in Scandinavian countries.

How strange. There is no comment about your chosen "user name" in any of my posts.

tbs624

ed110220 wrote: »

Science isn't about "truth" it's about evidence. If you want truth, chose a religion.

There is clear evidence which says that fluoride is *not* a nutrient

ed110220 wrote: »

If you have some startling new finding on the harmfulness of fluoride in the amounts that are currently believed to be safe or beneficial, write a paper and submit it to Nature or the appropriate medical journal. If it's accepted, I'll change my mind.

My bolding. If you, and others, want extra fluoride you can of course personally have it by the bucketload without meaning that the rest of us have to imbibe alongside you: the point is that many of us absolutely do not want to have our drinking water supply adulterated.

Those who want to address tooth decay should, quite simply, cut down on the sugary food and drink and clean their teeth properly using whichever fluoridated toothpaste/mouthwash they choose: if they want/ think they "need" a further top-up they can swallow the currently available fluoride drops.

Perhaps the makers of the US based brown fizzy liquid that is guzzled by so many sugar addicts could add fluoride to their brew? Ditto the makers of the blackcurrant stuff that gets put into baby bottles/toddler cups?

The other downside of excess sugar intake is, of course, obesity. Should the whole nation be dosed up with say, Orlistat, to help those people too?