Fluoride in tap water

A_fiend_for_life

What is the chemical being used to treat us through our water supply? is answered truthfully, disodium fluorosilicate should be the answer. Its formula? H2SiF6 To chemistry students,this will make sense as 2 atoms hydrogen, 1 atom silicon and 6 atoms fluorine. Any substance with as many as 6 atoms of fluorine will be dangerously toxic.

No sodium in that though.

BernardM

Should it be Na2SiF6

Toothsmith

I wasn't aware that counting the atoms of a particular substance in a molecule gave you an idea of how toxic it was?

As I don't KNOW that this is made up, I am prepared to be open minded about it until someone explains whether it is or isn't.

It would strike me though, that if you simply used LESS of it, you'd be fine.

But buy logical extension :-

HCN - a nice small molecule with three relatively harmless atoms, should be absolutely fine. Trouble is, it's a gas called Hydrogen Cyanide. Hmmmm?

Ben84

Toothsmith wrote: »

I wasn't aware that counting the atoms of a particular substance in a molecule gave you an idea of how toxic it was?

Counting the fluoride atoms doesn't mean anything.

Toothsmith wrote: »

As I don't KNOW that this is made up, I am prepared to be open minded about it until someone explains whether it is or isn't.

It would strike me though, that if you simply used LESS of it, you'd be fine.

The two commonly used compounds Na2SiF6 and H2SiF6 are simply carriers of the fluoride that split up in water to provide fluoride ions. Their structure is not important, and nor is the number of fluoride atoms in regard to issues such as toxicity.

Na2SiF6 splits up in to sodium (Na), silicon (Si) and fluoride (F). H2SiF6 does much the same thing. This is a very important feature to how fluoride works. For a start you're not actually ingesting this compound, just the ions from it, which are well documented to be harmless and can all be found naturally in the water in many place. The distinction being made between natural fluoride and added fluoride is not based in logical science. The ions are just the same, even if the source is different.

This splitting of the compounds also means the resulting concentration is based on fluoride ions in the water, not on the chemical structure of the source compound. If a source contains more fluoride less is used to achieve the intended ppm of fluoride ions.

I would accuse them of being deliberately deceptive in not mentioning the important fact that this compound disassociates in to ions, which invalidates the majority of their claims, but I don't actually think they realise it does this. They have given the formula of one compound and a jumbled up name of another as the same thing. Nobody with any kind of chemistry background would make such a basic mistake.

Cardelia

Toothsmith wrote: »

I wasn't aware that counting the atoms of a particular substance in a molecule gave you an idea of how toxic it was?

As I don't KNOW that this is made up, I am prepared to be open minded about it until someone explains whether it is or isn't.

It is made up. It's completely and utterly false. Just like so much of the "science" trotted out by the anti-fluoride brigade.

Just imagine though, if it was actually true, how much trouble Dupont would be in after discovering teflon?

Toothsmith

Thank you!

I would have fallen off my hippopotamus had there actually been any truth in it!

Toothsmith

Here's one to wind up the 'Lone Gunmen' though.

Southampton looks like it's about to put science over propaganda!

http://www.southamptonhealth.nhs.uk/news/news/profbio/

Ben84

BernardM wrote: »

http://safewatercampaign.blogspot.com/

They claim on this site that the EU have banned fluoride.

The EU has banned artificial fluoridation because of the risks to general health.

I would call this statement completely unambiguous. Unfortunately there is no reference of any type, and I found this claim very suspect. I attempted to verify it and found no more than a selection of other anti-fluoride sites stating the same without referencing their source.

So I emailed the site and asked for a source on this.

Their reply was very fast and polite. But it was concerning too. They don't believe the EU have banned fluoride, expressed surprise I was given this impression by their site and asked if this claim was actually on their site.

It's their site, they should know what is on it and be able to back it up with original sources. This information didn't type itself, someone wrote it.

He included some other general information about fluoride in the email, but also vaguely mentioned some EU countries have completely banned all fluoride containing products. I also suspect this is also not true and have asked for references on this too. I so far haven't been able to verify it independently.

I'm curious to see what further information is given on this, and if the claim that the EU have banned fluoridated water is removed from their site at any point soon.

In the meantime, why don't you email them and ask them about the alleged EU ban on fluoridated water and see for yourself?

A_fiend_for_life

Some science

I was trying to work out the structure of that molecule and what species it dissociates to taxes me a little bit I'm afraid.:o If anyone has any further info on that .

OK fluorine has an electronegetivity of 4 as far as I recall and the molecule has an octohedral structure. I get as far as SiF4 (tetrafunnysortofchloroform!?). Then there is further oxidation of the silicon atom - attraction to electron pairs?

So Na2SiF6 would dissociate to 2Na+ + SiF62-. I'm not sure it dissociates any more than that does it? Complete dissociation would suggest Si(OH)4 - precipitate(?) and no bio accumulation as far as I can see. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

A link on how to get superglue off Molymod sets would be useful.:p


Re the sites.

References - enough said.

Given that there are concerns about certain dose levels and links to health problems it is a shame the sites don't provide more info on the science.

The supposed support of various Local Government Authorities isn't backed up with names of local authorities only local authority associations etc. It gives the impression that the sites are trying to emphasise a large support network / public sector concern that doesn't exist unfortunately.

Any successful litigation for 1ppm?

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

Ribena Toothkind wasn't fizzy, or sugary.

You misunderstand my comment TS - the same company that produced Ribena TK also produces sugary fizzy drinks. A massive investment was made in the development of Ribena Toothkind by the parent company ( £millions IIRC ,) in an attempt to rehabilitate the Ribena brand after widespread criticism of its effect on children's teeth.

Toothsmith wrote: »

It was endorsed by the BDA, but that just got funds for the BDA, not 'dentistry'.

Please don’t be disingenuous - who are, and what is the purpose of, the BDA?

What was the actual benefit (financial or otherwise) to the BDA for that endorsement(since discontinued)? Have the figures been made public anywhere?

Toothsmith wrote: »

There was as much critisism of the BDA by dentists for this as there was from anywhere else.

The objection was to the term 'toothKIND'. It was certainly a whole lot less damaging than any other drink available, with the exceptions of water or milk.

I was at a BDA lecture in Birmingham several years ago when a Smithklein Beecham man was given a very hard time about the claims on Ribena toothkind - and if they intended to phase out all the rubbish Ribena to replace it entirely with the toothkind brand. They didn't.

Did any of the dentists also give the BDA a hard time too?

The advertising boys & girls must have gone out to celebrate after hooking the BDA into that endorsement because, for many parents, the very name Ribena (with sugar or with the toothkind badge) became lodged in their heads as meaning ok for kids teeth, such is the power of brand linking.

Were the BDA “gullible” and if so, why were they? It’s interesting that some dentists were only wise after the fact and much of the pressure on the ASA to bring the case came in fact from pressure from consumer groups and lobby groups such as Action & Information on Sugar.

You seem to be agreeing that the BDA got it wrong on that occasion and yes, you’re right that some dentists disagreed with them (including people like Dr Steve Creanor, Senior Lecturer in oral sciences at Glasgow University dental school).

Let’s keep looking at the BDA - would you agree that they seem to be keen on fluoride products in general, & that they endorse water fluoridation in particular? Many dentists also disagree with water fluoridation but if any of us, dentists or “civilians”, are to be asked to believe what the BDA says ( given the Toothkind fiasco et al) I’d like to know, say, how much in total the packages from companies who produce f products are worth per annum


See http://www.bda.org/events/

“Do you want to reach key decision makers in dentistry?
Sponsorship of an event is among the most effective methods of reaching your desired audience. As an event sponsor, you can benefit from the marketing power of the BDA brand, as well as our targeted direct mail and email marketing campaigns, and our website.”

Attending a BDA conference with its various seminars (many of which are badged up by and “supported” by the big-boy commercial firms) can provide dentists with up to 15 hours of verifiable CPD (continuing professional development) & “patient information materials and resources for the dental health team.” Those will all contain balanced information will they?

GSK, for example, not only promotes their fluoride products at BDA conferences and offers free samples to dentist surgeries, it also funds Talking Points for Dentistry” seminars across the country offering yet more “opportunity for CPD accreditation”? Will many dentists bite the hand that feeds them with those necessary CPD opportunities ?

I’d also like to know what lobbying the Govt has had from any companies with vested interests - let’s have the finances out there for public view, including income from taxes on their products. (Dual for those who have two divisions, one doing something that can cause dental decay & one offering something that then helps sorts the ensuing problems out.) We need to widen it out to look at the food/confectionery manufacturers too -because they can carry on pushing out their sugary junk while ever there is the F- wonder slurry in the water to counteract the damage done.

If we’re being asked to believe a scientific study, I’d like to know how much the uni has received in any dept from related company funding, I’d like to know how many company sponsored conferences and courses the academic writer has been on, I’d like to know their own personal starting point views. I’d like it to be utterly transparent who has commissioned specific reports.

I’d like a full break down of how & where the BFS or the NFIC get their funding, and why the NFIC uses the word independent so prominently as if it presents both sides to the debate, when clearly it does nothing of the sort

I’d like to see a legal requirement that all “patient info” has to be provided from both sides and that equal government funding is available for both sides to present their case.

You keep harping on about gullibility TS but the thing is that if you or I, or anyone else, is to make a informed decision we should be told whose funding is behind any piece of information put out as “fact”, so that we can see all see clearly where the vested interest lies. It kind of helps to puts things into a more interesting perspective, wouldn't you agree?

Btw a BBC news report on the Ribena case quotes an interesting comment by the judge - even "negligible risk" and "no substantial risk" were not "no risk". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1121749.stm)

Ditto for water fluoridation I’d say, regardless of the very basic issue of choice.