Fluoride in tap water

tbs624

Thanks Mech - it's always useful to hear of people’s experiences of RO systems. Does your system use a CTA or a TFC membrane?

The approx costs figure was an average from quotes obtained late last year to supply/fit a 5 stage system (I appreciate that some people would be able/happy to fit their own) & the filter costs ranged from around £65 in the first couple of years to £90 in the 3rd year. The water wastage figures also came from the companies who supply RO systems: apparently you can get a more expensive system that feeds the waste back through the system again but my understanding is that they tend to have higher maintenance costs.

For anyone who has a family their budget is probably going to be tighter than singles/ couples-only households and overall costs for usage would obviously be higher. It’s one thing choosing to run an RO system though , if you have the spare cash (and if you have your own property rather than rent), but IMO none of us should be obliged to buy one - & many can’t afford to- because we have little alternative if we don’t want to ingest an unnecessary substance that's added to our drinking water.

AFAIAA none of these systems can remove all of the fluoride - typically between 90-95%?

Toothsmith

tbs624 wrote: »

AFAIAA none of these systems can remove all of the fluoride - typically between 90-95%?

If that worries you then your completely stuffed already, as most the tapwater in the country already has natural levels above 0.05mg/l (which is 5% of the theraputic 1ppm dosage). I assume you're not filtering that yet?

tbs624

Thanks for raising that point TS, but as I said:

tbs624 wrote: »

IMO none of us should be obliged to buy one - & many can’t afford to- because we have little alternative if we don’t want to ingest an unnecessary substance that's added to our drinking water.

Will the Strategic Health Authority, with a bit of BDA support, like to pay for those us who do not want or need artificial fluoride to have RO filter systems ?

Will the water companies ? Nope, because they got an indemnity from the Government didn’t they? All costs/ damages/liabilities arising out water fluoridation are to be met by the Government (for that read all of us as taxpayers).

Sugar companies? Phosphate industry?

Of course not - the Government needs us to believe that there are benefits to us all having this stuff in the drinking water for them to push the plan through. ( I’m just waiting for a study that shows that the number of ASBOs needed will drop if everyone has fluoride, or that it will help with anti-terrorist measures…sorry, I digress…;))

Even if, when we sign the ”no thanks” paper , we were able pick up a free RO unit, and a guarantee of cover for all additional running costs it still leaves us with the fact that we’d be exposed to water fluoridation in the wider community from anywhere that didn’t have an RO system, and all food/drink production would be using the artificially fluoridated water…. school, University, workplace, hospital, pub (watery beer with added artificial fluoride-mmmm )….no getting away from it. And remember we are paying our water bills……..

Dentists (with the BDA et al) like to place great emphasis on the “social/health inequalities”, and combine this with the “suffering children” guilt trip to try to build support for water fluoridation. It’s not been proved that water fluoridation does much to affect those inequalities but IMO it’s really kind of offensive to not take into account that are other people who live on low incomes and in difficult circumstances but manage to look after their own/their kids teeth. They face the possibility of health problems and/or costs beyond their pocket because other people won’t cut down on sugary junk food, wield a toothbrush, or go to the dentist. Funny kind of social/health equality :undecided

tbs624

Missed this one earlier when scanning through recent posts:

Toothsmith wrote: »

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

I agree with you that there many substances being transported around the country that are potential hazards, either because of their reactions with air/water or because the stuff is in itself toxic.

Yes, chlorine is toxic and corrosive so why add to the hazard cocktail on our roads en route to water treatment works? ( and we did go over the differences between chlorination and fluoridation in terms of water supply)

Oxygen - no ecological damage or toxicological effects per se, no special protective equipment required and for any clothing impregnated with oxygen? Ventilate by walking in the open air for 2 mins.

Toothsmith wrote: »

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

……and flurosilicic acid is not vital in our diets.

Toothsmith wrote: »

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

Milk would pollute waterways but as far as I know it’s not a corrosive, and I’m unaware that symptoms of milk exposure would include a burning sensation, coughing, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache, nausea & vomiting. Nor could milk be described as extremely destructive to mucous membrane tissue and upper respiratory tract, eyes or skin. Inhalation of “milk vapours” wouldn’t result in spasm, bronchial inflammation/oedema of the larynx , chemical pneumonia and pulmonary oedema. You don’t need to wear acid-proof gloves & footwear, chemical safety glasses & breathing apparatus to deal with any spillage.

Toothsmith wrote: »

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

The tankers aren’t going to be carrying a 1.0ppm dilution, are they?

IMO Evil Dan was making a valid point because in addition to the ethical, legal and health issues of adding artifical fluoride to the water supplies there are wide reaching environmental issues: this stuff travelling on our roads to water companies, the effects not only of potential road spills but on the dilution flowing into the drains, groundwater and the wider environment, plus the risks to the health of water company workers , and that’s before we get to any health problems caused by ingesting the stuff once it’s in the drinking water?

Toothsmith

tbs624 wrote: »

Will the water companies ? Nope, because they got an indemnity from the Government didn’t they? All costs/ damages/liabilities arising out water fluoridation are to be met by the Government (for that read all of us as taxpayers).

This is a great one.

For years, the Government wouldn't indemnify the water companies, which is why nothing really has moved forwards with fluoridation since Birmingham.

And as the Government wouldn't indemnify the water companies, the Anti -F lobby used this as evidence of something being wrong with the process and that's why it must be stopped.

Now - as the evidence for it being a safe and effective public health measure is so convincing, the fact that the Government WILL indemnify the water companies is also evidence of some great conspiracy!

No pleasing some people!

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

.......For years, the Government wouldn't indemnify the water companies, which is why nothing really has moved forwards with fluoridation since Birmingham.

And as the Government wouldn't indemnify the water companies, the Anti -F lobby used this as evidence of something being wrong with the process and that's why it must be stopped.

The water companies have to look to their shareholders, as well as their paying customers, and potential costly claims arising from the health effects of artificial fluoridation of water are an issue. However,there was no great need for the companies to have indemnity because, until the recent alteration of the law, the decision on whether or not to artificially fluoridate rested with the water companies themselves and some of those within the water industry recognised that it is not their role to mass medicate the population, especially where there is public dissent ( there was, and there is)

Toothsmith wrote: »

Now - as the evidence for it being a safe and effective public health measure is so convincing, the fact that the Government WILL indemnify the water companies is also evidence of some great conspiracy!

Either way, it’ll be Joe/Joanna Public picking up the tab - if the water companies had covered it the costs would have gone on our bills, if the Government covers it, the costs go on our taxes….there are just so many ways to make everyone carry on paying up for an inefficiently -funded NHS and other people's lack of dental hygiene and over-use of junk food, aren't there?

The Government’s provision of an indemnity was the only way to persuade water companies that they had to follow instructions from quango-land , AKA the Strategic Health Authorities.

Cor blimey TS, I saw that shiny “safe and effective” mantra in there again…….:rolleyes:

Toothsmith

When I come across people who find interpreting the science a bit 'challenging' I find it best to repeat a simple message!

tbs624 wrote: »

Either way, it’ll be Joe/Joanna Public picking up the tab - if the water companies had covered it the costs would have gone on our bills, if the Government covers it, the costs go on our taxes….there are just so many ways to make everyone carry on paying up for an inefficiently -funded NHS and other people's lack of dental hygiene and over-use of junk food, aren't there?

How many bills have there been to pick up from the people of Birmingham?

Freedom of information act nowadays would make finding that figure simple to locate if anybody even thought there was anything there to find!

Why has the anti f lobby looked at that one? Maybe because it would be an easy-to-understand black and white fact. Not interpreting scientific data, which is pretty easy to misrepresent to a public untrained in the language of scientific papers.

Evil_Dan

Toothsmith wrote: »

When I come across people who find
Why has the anti f lobby looked at that one? Maybe because it would be an easy-to-understand black and white fact. Not interpreting scientific data, which is pretty easy to misrepresent to a public untrained in the language of scientific papers.

I take it that you assume that everybody has no experiance with any scientific papers, that has replied on here...?

I can't even reply to the second part, it's such an idiotic statment.

Evil_Dan

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"

GJ - are you delibrately trying to derail this?

That is such an inane statment - There is NO scope to swallow the mouse at all.

The toothpaste, as it is the mouth, could accidentally swallowed.

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

Yes, because that's to stop them being sued. An entirely different subject - its a food substance, and due to the rate of people suing over the most stupid things now, its none suprising.

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

Thats...

The point....?

If it still is damaged, then it could leak into the enviroment - its still the same product! And according to Cardelia, because it becomes safe once it comes into contact with water, there should be no issue with the water being collected of course...?

mech_2

tbs624 wrote: »

Thanks Mech - it's always useful to hear of people’s experiences of RO systems. Does your system use a CTA or a TFC membrane?

A TFC membrane. They cost about £30 and the maker advises replacement every 2-4 years depending on the input water quality.

The approx costs figure was an average from quotes obtained late last year to supply/fit a 5 stage system (I appreciate that some people would be able/happy to fit their own)

Honestly, it's dead easy to fit. They come with a self-cutting valve for connection to the water supply. No plumbing is required, you just tighten it up and reopen the valve and it's on. The rest of the installation was just doing up a couple of screws and drilling a couple of holes (for the little tap on the sink and for the waste pipe). No way would I pay someone 200 quid to do that.

Screwfix have a 5-stage pumped system for 270 quid inc VAT. That appears to include a membrane and the first set of filters.
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/35921/Plumbing/Water-Treatment/Pumped-Reverse-Osmosis-Water-Filter-System

Or for cheapness you could try Ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MWS-REVERSE-OSMOSIS-WATER-FILTER_W0QQitemZ310043780681QQihZ021QQcategoryZ20685QQcmdZViewItem

& the filter costs ranged from around £65 in the first couple of years to £90 in the 3rd year.

I suppose so, but I don't pay that much and my system seems to be pretty obsolete. Mine has 2 carbon filters and I can get them for £15 each. I think they're meant to be replaced every 6 months, but they seem to work fine after well over a year here. Maybe because I'm in a soft water area. If I replace the filters once a year and the membrane every three years that would be £40 a year, but I think I can do better than that. I decided to buy a TDS tester and if I just keep using the same filters and membrane until performance suffers measurably, then the tester will pay for itself fairly quickly and I'll start saving. I take the view that manufacturers always over-state the need for consumables in order to boost revenue (empty toner warnings on the printer when it still prints perfectly, ludicrous quantities of washing liquid advised on the side of the bottle etc).

For some systems you can find 3-years' supply of filters + membrane for £40 on ebay. Wish they did such a bulk-buy for my system...

In fact, looking at the prices now, I'm seriously thinking of scrapping my filter housing and replacing it with one I can get cheaper filters for.

The water wastage figures also came from the companies who supply RO systems: apparently you can get a more expensive system that feeds the waste back through the system again but my understanding is that they tend to have higher maintenance costs.

Well I don't know. It doesn't state it in the literature for mine. I'm going by random web searches here. Maybe it depends on mains water pressure if you have a non-pumped system (like mine). Could lower pressure result in a lower proportion of water getting through the membrane? I have good pressure here.

When I first got the RO system I had considered connecting the waste pipe to a water butt outside, or wacky ideas like rigging it up to the toilet cistern, but I decided it wasn't enough water to be worth it. And back before I decided I was a low user I wasn't on a water meter, so it wouldn't have affected my bill anyway.

For anyone who has a family their budget is probably going to be tighter than singles/ couples-only households and overall costs for usage would obviously be higher. It’s one thing choosing to run an RO system though , if you have the spare cash (and if you have your own property rather than rent), but IMO none of us should be obliged to buy one - & many can’t afford to- because we have little alternative if we don’t want to ingest an unnecessary substance that's added to our drinking water.

I don't dispute any of that. Of course you're right and an RO system is an additional cost. I'm just saying it isn't necessarily as bad as all that and it does have the side-benefit of removing any heavy metals etc.

AFAIAA none of these systems can remove all of the fluoride - typically between 90-95%?

That's plenty for me. Even if my water was fluoridated at 1ppm I'd be OK with that. There's probably more fluoride in my food anyway.

I didn't buy the system to remove fluoride.