Fluoride in tap water

geordie_joe

Evil_Dan wrote: »

If fluoride is SO safe for the body, why do fluoridated toothpastes carry a warning telling you to seek medical help if you swallow any of the toothpaste?

I bought a computer mouse a couple of weeks ago. On the box was a warning telling me to seek medical help if I swallowed the mouse and before I could use the mouse I had to remove a sticker that was over the light. On that sticker word the words "Harmful if swallowed"

I also have a packet of Brazil nuts in front of me that says "Warning: This package may contain nuts"

Evil_Dan wrote: »

When fluoride is transported, and if it's container becomes damaged, a huge area has to be evacuated, the road resurfaced, as it damages the road surface (just think what it could do to your insides that... mm, melty), it cannot be allowed to be washed into any water supply, and any water that is used to clean it up must be collected, and not be washed away.

Yes but the stuff in the tanker is a lot more concentrated than the stuff that comes out of the tap.

Toothsmith

Evil_Dan wrote: »

and a lovely thing for you.

When fluoride is transported, and if it's container becomes damaged, a huge area has to be evacuated, the road resurfaced, as it damages the road surface (just think what it could do to your insides that... mm, melty), it cannot be allowed to be washed into any water supply, and any water that is used to clean it up must be collected, and not be washed away.

Chlorine is just the same, oh and Oxygen would cause a stir if a tanker containing it crashed as well.

Sodium and Potassium are tricky to transport, but vital in our diets.

If a tanker containing milk crashes, then it's important not to let it seep into the water courses nearby.

If a tanker carying water with 1ppm fluoride in it crashed, it would cause less problems than the tanker carrying milk.

Cardelia

tbs624 wrote: »

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, however I , and many others, think that they do, since sodium fluorosilicate is a registered Class II Poison and, as a complex derivative of HF, fluorosilicic acid would also come under that registration. These substances are neither tested nor registered as food additives nor medicinal products. Yes, hydrochloric acid is found in the human body, but I’d welcome clarification of what it is that you are saying? Please would you also cite your evidence for tests on sodium fluoride and confirm for which uses it is held to be safe?

Na2SiF6 and H2SiF6 are decomposed by water. It doesn't matter if those compounds are class II poisons or not - when they're added to water, they decompose and become something else. So you're not actually giving the poisons to human beings, you're giving the decomposition product to human beings. Those are the compounds which need to be tested for safety. You can test the fluorosilicates if you like, but there's no point because you're not actually giving fluorosilicates to human beings.

Consider shellfish. If you eat them raw, the bacteria in them are quite likely to make you sick. However, once you cook the shellfish, you kill the bacteria and the shellfish becomes safe to eat. The process of cooking shellfish changes its properties and turns it from something harmful into something which won't harm you. So you wouldn't ban all shellfish because in its raw state it makes you ill, you would say that shellfish must be cooked thoroughly before eating.

Your words (and your highlighting):

Water fluoridation has not been proved to be either safe or effective : however, topical application of fluoride may be helpful for those who have poor diets and inadequate dental care and is readily available.

Part of the York report conclusion (my highlighting):

The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities. This evidence on benefits and harms needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, costs and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation.All of these issues fell outside the scope of this review.

I don't see how I can make it any plainer for you? The York report had 5 objectives. It found sufficient strong evidence to make a confident statement about one of those objectives, namely that fluoride has a beneficial effect on the reduction of caries (first bold part). It did not find sufficient strong evidence to make confident statements about any of the other 4 objectives (second bold part). This isn't me misquoting or taking anything out of context, it's you who can't see what's right in front of your eyes.

They say that fluoride is beneficial because there is sufficient evidence of sufficient quality to do so. They do not say it is safe, but they do not say it is unsafe either, because there is no strong evidence either way. That is what the York report found, it's not my opinion or interpretation, it's fact.

The review cannot be said to show that fluoride had no beneficial nor detrimental effects

Your words. Your highlighting. That's why I called you a liar - you pulled me up for (mis)stating that the York report showed fluoridation has no beneficial (or detrimental) effects and now you're trying to say that the York report showed fluoridation has no beneficial effects. You can't have it both ways.

mech_2

Strewth! Is this discussion still going?

geordie_joe wrote: »

I bought a computer mouse a couple of weeks ago. On the box was a warning telling me to seek medical help if I swallowed the mouse and before I could use the mouse I had to remove a sticker that was over the light. On that sticker word the words "Harmful if swallowed"

Presumably you are now going to argue that swallowing a computer mouse is not harmful?

geordie_joe wrote: »

I also have a packet of Brazil nuts in front of me that says "Warning: This package may contain nuts"

That could be useful information if you happened to know brazil nuts are seeds.

geordie_joe wrote: »

Yes but the stuff in the tanker is a lot more concentrated than the stuff that comes out of the tap.

I thought you said it would be dumped in water courses as pollution if not added to water? Clearly this shows you were wrong.

geordie_joe

mech wrote: »

Presumably you are now going to argue that swallowing a computer mouse is not harmful?

No, I'm going to argue that there is not a person on this earth that would be capable of swallowing this mouse. Therefore the warning is pointless. They put warnings on everything now, just in case someone does something they are not meant to do then sues the company because it didn't warn them not to do that.

mech wrote: »

That could be useful information if you happened to know brazil nuts are seeds.

You buy a bag of Brazil nuts, shelled in a transparent bag and you consider the words "Warning: This package may contain nuts" to be useful!

I only bought the bag because I could see it contained nothing but nuts!

mech wrote: »

I thought you said it would be dumped in water courses as pollution if not added to water? Clearly this shows you were wrong.

No it doesn't!

Toothsmith

mech wrote: »

Presumably you are now going to argue that swallowing a computer mouse is not harmful?

I don't think there have been any studies that show it is.

But then, there are no studies to show that swallowing a computer mouse is safe either!

Moggles_2

Originally Posted by geordie joe
They've got the stuff and have to get rid of it some way.

Exactly, but who are they? Most is imported from the USA. Disposal is their problem, not ours.

In recent years more North American cities have abandoned water fluoridation than have adopted the practice. It's no wonder Florida's fertiliser producers are keen to find new markets for a by-product that's no longer wanted at home.

Poor dental health is a complex public health issue. The root causes are poor nutrition and inadequate dental hygiene. Yet, the Government goes for a sticking plaster approach. IMO, most politicians seem more concerned with being seen to be doing something, than tackling the causes.

Meanwhile, American industry has always supported the practice, because it results in payment for a by-product that would otherwise have to be disposed of.
The food industry too can go on churning out highly-refined, sugary snacks & drinks with impunity. As for the bottled water industry? Well, it's laughing, isn't it? Their business positively thrives on consumer distrust of tapwater.

None of the above strikes me as either green or ethical.

Fluoride is already available in tablet form for those who think it's beneficial, but no medication (with its attendant side effects) should be foisted compulsorily on an entire nation, IMO. If you, geordie joe, suffered from impaired liver or kidney function, diabetes mellitus or thyroid disorder, all of which are fairly prevalent throughout the UK, you might think it more than a touch unjust that your health was compromised by water fluoridation, because of someone else’s lack of concern for their offspring’s teeth.

tbs624

Cardelia wrote: »

Consider shellfish. .....!!

and shellfish become contaminated from ….ah….. polluted water………. I think I’ll not get into that one, bit of a variation on a theme.:D

Anyhow, Cardelia - thanks for your response. It appears that you don’t seem to understand the difference between data and evidence, muddle what’s a review and what’s a study, like to misquote and misinterpret, and then …yawn…persist in being seriously rude as your way of disagreeing with anyone else’s viewpoint. (I’m wondering - a Desmond or a Thora?)

For Objective 1, defects of the selected studies included a lack of appropriate analysis, and the lack of any measure of variance for the estimates of decay presented. It was estimated that a median of six people would need to receive fluoridated water for one extra person to be free of caries. You still appear to be trying to be distort things and present your personal interpretation as fact - let’s check that highlighting that you applied:

Cardelia wrote: »

Part of the York report conclusion (my highlighting):
“The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities. This evidence on benefits and harms needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, costs and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. All of these issues fell outside the scope of this review.

Now let’s take that first sentence again but this time in its entirety, and now with the balance of its contextual paragraph. The Review highlighted fluorosis (est. prevalence 48% at 1.0 ppm) which is physical evidence of the toxic effects of fluoride on the human body, and the rest of the quoted paragraph is pretty self-explanatory.

Cardelia wrote: »

I don't see how I can make it any plainer for you?

Ditto.

The Review presented a summary of the findings of the studies available at the time, that fitted their criteria, but let’s mention here that AFAIAA none of the 214 studies included in the Review (out of 3,231) reached the highest quality grade of research, all animal and toxicological studies were excluded, and the issue of total fluoride intake from all sources was ignored. A less than overwhelming set of figures for the perceived benefit of any substance, especially in isolation of regard for that substance’s full capacity for harm, can hardly be held up as an unequivocal proving of efficacy.

If you wish to view water fluoridation as safe & efficient you are of course welcome to do so, I however do not agree with you. My disagreement with your view does not prevent you or anyone else having access to readily available fluoride through other sources (or indeed to a low sugar diet, a toothbrush and a dentist) - your disagreement with mine contrarily seeks to deprive me of having my drinking water supplies remain unadulterated with artificial fluoride that I neither want nor need. Therein lies the difference.

tbs624

Just so we can link back on the money saving theme here: in this thread people have suggested that anyone who doesn’t want fluoride in the water which we all pay for should use bottled water, sink their own borehole, or use a reverse osmosis filter. Bearing in mind that even if you could take up these options, you’d not want to eat or drink anywhere else, because the state-fluoridated water will be used in everything and if your kids go to school they’ll get fluoridated water there.

Bottled water - it’s expensive, many people don’t like drinking fluid that’s been stored in plastic bottles, some bottled water has fluoride in it, there’d be lots more plastic for the environment and it’s heavy to carry back from the shops.

A borehole ….. well, that could cost you in the region of £8/10 K & requires a min. depth of 50m, pipework, cables and a submersible pump.

A RO filter will set you back around £400-500 plus you have the maintenance costs, replacement filters, seals etc, but here’s an added cost, to you personally if you have a water meter, and to the environment generally because we’re supposed to conserve water: the RO filter will flush away up to four- fifths of the water that goes through it, so you’ll literally see your money ( ie the water that you’re paying for) going down the drain.

Now if you’re on a tight budget or a low income (but somehow you still manage to steer your kids away from sugary rubbish in their diet and you not only supervise their tooth cleaning but also get them along to the dentist a couple of times a year for check ups) and you’d really rather not have artificial fluoride in your drinking water, then you might feel more than a little unhappy to find out that you’ll be facing a stark choice. It’ s either drink the artificially-fluoridated water that you and your family don’t want and don’t need, or somehow find the money for these extra costs on top of your standard water bills. How much have your utility bills increased over the past couple of years? So in addition to your health concerns you now have extra money worries and there’s maybe a couple more spanners in the works - the flat that you bought has no land or you live in a city terrace with a tiny back yard or you’re a tenant and your LL won’t agree you to sinking a borehole nor to plumb your RO filter in and you're on a short term tenancy with little security of tenure, so even if s/he did agree you may not have the benefit for long ......


Don't worry though because it's apparently all for the greater good ...;)

mech_2

tbs624 wrote: »

A RO filter will set you back around £400-500 plus you have the maintenance costs, replacement filters, seals etc, but here’s an added cost, to you personally if you have a water meter, and to the environment generally because we’re supposed to conserve water: the RO filter will flush away up to four- fifths of the water that goes through it, so you’ll literally see your money ( ie the water that you’re paying for) going down the drain.

I think I ought to speak up for reverse osmosis water filters here. Mine certainly didn't cost that much - it was around £250 and the filters need replacing so rarely its annual running costs are similar to a filter jug. My current membrane has been in there for about 3 years, but I don't replace it as often as the instructions advise because it still seems to work perfectly. It's only a 3-stage system, but a TDS meter with a resolution of 0.01ppm reads zero on the filtered water.

The water wastage is minimal. The wastage is more typically 2 parts in 3, but the filter is only used for drinking water and cooking, and as a total proportion of water usage those uses are tiny. If I use 3 litres of drinking water a day, 6 go down the drain due to the filter. I am on a water meter and an extra 6 litres/day will cost me an extra £4.78 a year. My average water usage last year was 85 litres a day. The national average is something like 125 litres/day. I think a dripping tap early last year used more than the filter did all year.

I didn't get a RO filter to remove fluoride (there is currently no fluoride added to the water here anyway), I got it to remove heavy metals, nitrites, oestrogenic pollutants, chlorine, etc etc. And to make the water taste better. Which it does. A lot.