Fluoride in tap water

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

The problem with people like the Anti-fluoride groups isthat they work like the Nazi propaganda machines (How's that for nice emotive language use?).

As you can see with the posts above, they just flood out soooo much 'information' that it's impossible to go through it item by item and point out the inaccuracies/lies/misinformation.

There is no way you can check out every single reference. It's often hard to trace them back to any original source.

But then again, it's like the Nazi rule of propaganda :- if you tell a lie often enough, people come to accept it as the truth.

What was it you said earlier in the thread - something about people using "Hitler/Nazi" in their arguments? :

Toothsmith wrote: »

If you are engaged in a debate, then the first person to invoke the name of Hitler, or, the first person to use the phrase "Thin end of the wedge" automatically looses!

I think it should be applied on MSE!

Anyway - propaganda/deception:

Let’s look at where the real propaganda is TS - there on the pro-F side and what a total imbalance in funding there is.

In the UK the good old BFS is government-funded and its role is to promote water fluoridation, whether or not we want it in the drinking water that we all pay for.

Let’s go back to an early BFS mission statement (mid 1980s) :

"Now Fluoridation should constantly be brought to the attention of the Public whose awareness can be increased by getting toothpaste manufacturers to continue to give prominence to the word “Fluoride” on their packages and in their advertisements.

The society host exert continuous pressure on government nationally and locally, and demand fluoridation.

It must become known to and respected by Politicians by briefing them, setting up Parliamentary questions, distributing material to all MP's, liaising with all Party Workers, and coordinating pressure from Dentists

It must mobilise support of opinion formers by getting influential persons to join the Society, persuade the TUC and the CBI, academics and educators to support Fluoridation; brief dentists to speak to Rotary Clubs, Bound Tables, Inner Wheels, Women's Institutes, and Mothers' Unions. Liaise with Civil Servants, establish support groups, rebutt opposition, commission opinion surveys, publicise and hold conferences, and establish a Public Relations programme.

Publicising Fluoridation in the Press and media should be planned. Their interest can be maintained through regular briefings, working lunches, and good stories.

Specialist feature writers should be encouraged to promote fluoridation. Doctors are very influential in allaying doubts about fluoride, therefore information should he sent to them or included with articles in their Journals. The Society should establish its presence in Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Manchester, and Newcastle to promote Fluoridation, monitor and combat anti-fluoridation activity, and distribute packages of information to decision makers.

Representatives should be invited (expenses paid) to participate in discussions to promote Fluoridation. Information should be provided for teachers, school children, and students. Debates in Parliament on Fluoridation should be closely monitored. The estimated cost of implementing the foregoing, including salaries is £x.

The society must exert continuous pressure on government nationally and locally and demand fluoridation"

Its current website may have somewhat "gentler phrasing" but I think we can get the picture.

Now let's whizz across to Manchester University - to the National Fluoride Information Centre that claims to offer “independent” advice on all things F word. Sorry if I seem a bit cynical but it seems to be under the management of one Prof Robin Davies - Colgate Oral Pharmaceutical' s chappie, oh and surprise, it too has Government funding. ( I mentioned their one-sided glossy leaflets way back in this thread). Remind us again what Colgate Palmolive sell?

Now where were we? Oh yes, still on water fluoridation and propaganda - is it true TS that the BASCD dmft index doesn’t allow for data on fluorosis?

That’s dental fluorosis, the mottling of tooth enamel as in what the York Review found 48% of the population have where there is water fluoridation, with 1 in 8 having it to the extent that it would be “aesthetically concerning “ ( fluoride at a 1ppm dilution). Here’s the money bit as we’re on MSE - lifetime of veneers/cosmetic dentistry required there and of course you get to pay private charges for those.

Let’s also mention (again) that fluorosis is of course more than just some marks on your teeth "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity." That was Baroness Hayman, on behalf of our good old Govt (Hansard, 20th April 1999) Maybe the propaganda machine slipped up a bit there, letting that one past……


In the midst of all this very well-funded pro-F propaganda , let’s see a clear Govt statement that tells us all the truth about where the chemicals for water fluoridation in the UK will come from, rather than this anodyne talk of “topping up” of naturally occurring substances.

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

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

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

The planned local consultations that we are supposed to get - they should be impartial, yes?

Alan Johnson, back in Feb this year, stated unequivocally that it is the government’s policy that water should be fluoridated - so much for any demonstration of commitment to choice because firm guidance has been given to SHA on the structuring of local consultations .

I said somewhere way back in the thread that I doubted that any consultation would be a balanced and open one, and that questions would be worded in a misleading way to produce the answers that both the Govt and the pro-F lobby want.

Funny that you should mention Southampton, where that very lack of balance can be seen in practice: the PCT and the SHA have been roundly accused of using one-sided pro -F presentations, by concerned local residents. The local MP for New Forest East also asked questions in Parliament about what he saw as an abuse of public money by both bodies.

And then there was the attempt earlier in the year to sanction the addition of the F-wonderslurry into the Isle of Man’s drinking water. Now, how interesting that the Isle of Man DHSS Public Health Directorate pays the FIS 500 quid a year as one of their corporate members and the Directorate’s Consultant in Public Health, Dr Paul Emerson, was until recently a personal member. Any possible bias there?

Big congratulations, however, to the Manx residents and those amongst their Ministers who could see through the pro-F bias because, in June 2008, the Manx Parliament rejected water fluoridation plans for the island.

http://www.manxradio.com/readNEwsItem.aspx?id=22772

Greater Manchester is another target for fluoridation , but Bolton MP David Crausby polled his local constituents and over 95% of respondents objected to water fluoridation. He said " I don't argue against the health benefits, I argue simply on the right for individuals to decide what medication they have.” Pendle Councillors have voted against water fluoridation in their area and have said they will back local residents campaigning against it.
Marvellous.:T

Toothsmith

I do love your view of the BDA! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

The BDA is basically a 'trade union' for dentists - and really not a very good one at that!

Compare dentistry on the NHS with what the Doctors contracts look like! Does it look like the BDA is listened to by anybody? Even the minister with responsibility for dentistry always finds some other 'diary engagement' when it comes to addressing the BDA conferences!

If it really were some all-powerful shadowy influence, I might even join it!!

Cardelia

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

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.

The mechanism still isn't fully understood, but the end product of hydrolysis is fluoride ions and hydrated silica.

Although the Si-F bond is one of the strongest known covalent bonds, there is some dissociation of the Si-F bonds in the presence of water. Essentially*, in solution this creates an equilibrium between SiF62- and Si(OH)4. However, the latter formally loses water and precipitates as silica: this precipitation is what drives the equilibrium towards the complete hydrolysis of SiF62-.

Environ Sci. Technol. 2006 Apr 15; 2572-7

There's a paper here which studies the hydrolysis of the SiF62- anion in water. At the pH of drinking water, hydrolysis is complete and they could detect no SiF62- in water. So all the arguments about the use of hexafluorosilicate being a waste product, a toxin etc. are invalid because this compound does not exist in drinking water.

* = this is a bit of a simplification

BernardM

What was it you said earlier in the thread - something about people using "Hitler/Nazi" in their arguments?

If you are engaged in a debate, then the first person to invoke the name of Hitler, or, the first person to use the phrase "Thin end of the wedge" automatically looses!
:laugh:

gingerandrubarb

We all know their are some who believe everything they are told and others who are a little sceptical -i for one am an in betweener i take time to research before deciding what is best for my family . . . .

*Here's a quote from the NHS library website *

In May 2006, Bassin et al published an analysis as a retrospective case control study (103 case; 215 matched controls) in Cancer Causes and Control.3 The paper analysed data from a 15-year research project conducted by the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. It concluded that there was “an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) among males but not consistently for females.”

So although we are getting better dental hygiene shouldnt they just tell us all how to brush our own teeth instead of opening us up to more risk and the rates of cancer are now an epidemic just like the plague and Aids where in the past ! Not everything the government and the nhs say are 100% true after all they have been proven wrong with treatments such as the vioxx injection and prozac .

gingerandrubarb

Only 10% of the UK are affected by fluoridated water with the west midlands being one of the main areas and only 60% of the Usa are affected if it was so GOOD for everyone why not add it to all areas -Seems they pick and choose who to risk more than others .

A_fiend_for_life

Cardelia wrote: »

The mechanism still isn't fully understood, but the end product of hydrolysis is fluoride ions and hydrated silica.

Although the Si-F bond is one of the strongest known covalent bonds, there is some dissociation of the Si-F bonds in the presence of water. Essentially*, in solution this creates an equilibrium between SiF62- and Si(OH)4. However, the latter formally loses water and precipitates as silica: this precipitation is what drives the equilibrium towards the complete hydrolysis of SiF62-.

Environ Sci. Technol. 2006 Apr 15; 2572-7

There's a paper here which studies the hydrolysis of the SiF62- anion in water. At the pH of drinking water, hydrolysis is complete and they could detect no SiF62- in water. So all the arguments about the use of hexafluorosilicate being a waste product, a toxin etc. are invalid because this compound does not exist in drinking water.

* = this is a bit of a simplification

Thanks for your response - I am still thinking about this so hence my delay in responding.:o

Re the last sentence above on disodium hexafluorosilicate being a 'waste product'; doesn't rub anyway, its an emotive phrase - some of my food is grown in 'waste products'.:j

The Si - F bond is pretty stable I would expect but the fact that it can be reduced to Si - OH bonds in water kind of surprises me, somehow I'd have expected the Si-F bond to be pretty stable in water too. But then I don't know the numbers.:o (I can check the Pauling's values for that though)

I've found info that the solubility of Na2SiF6 is approx 6g / mol (sounds quite a low solubility to me). For a bond that tends towards covalent rather than ionic I would expect the it wouldn't reduce so easily in water.

The hydrolysis of Si - OH bonds to [Si - O - Si] yes but the precursor reduction not so sure. Wish I'd kept my chemistry books now.:p

It seems to me the argument should revolve around what chemical species are found in human tissues associated with fluoridation induced conditions / diseases. After all disodium hexafluorosilicate is supposed to be bio-accumulative but where are the numbers on these chemicals being found in tissues?

If the eq drives to the right with the reduction of silicon and its precipitation to silicates I can't see there being a problem with fluoridation.

Has the anti F group got a response on the chemistry?
Has the anti F group got a response on what species are bio-accumulative?

Samanthas_2

Cardelia wrote: »

At the concentrations found in tap water, fluoride is harmless. People who get worked up about this conveniently forget (or just don't know in the first place) that fluoride occurs naturally in tap water anyway. In some areas the natural concentration of fluoride is higher than the artificially topped up concentrations of fluoride but are there any problems? No.

As with all things in life, too much of it is bad for you. But to ingest enough fluoride from tap water to cause a problem, you'd need to drink so much water you'd probably die of hyponatremia first. It's just not an issue for me and I don't believe there's any scientific evidence which proves fluoride, at the concentration found in tap water, is harmful in any way shape or form.

>>>
Why have a lot of European Governments banned it plus mothers with babies are warned on the milk formula package to avoid it?

Samantha

Samanthas_2

Toothsmith wrote: »

There is no good evidence at all that fluoride in the water at 1ppm does anything detremental to bones at all, and 70% of the USA's water supply, and 60% of Australia's water has been fluoridated for a long time.

Birmingham has been fluoridated for over 40 years, with nothing remarkable happening medically at all, apart from 50% less dental decay than comparable areas of (non fluoridated) Manchester.

Now that it's been there for so long, results are also showing that it has a benefit to the elderly population as well as the more well known benefits to the children.

VISIBLE dental fluorosis mostly occurs after long term over ingestion of toothpaste, not when the water supply is fluoridated, although traces of fluorosis picked up under a good light and with magnification DO increase when water is fluoridated to 1ppm.

It is certainly true that more teeth are lost to gum disease than decay, but that doesn't mean that decay doesn't account for very many. Teeth lost to decay affects children who have little control over what their parents feed them.

Gum disease affects older people who have neglected their teeth for decades when they had the power to do something about it.

>>>>>

Dear John,

Thank you for your interest in our products.

Following our phone conversation yesterday, please find below the links re the SWFL (fluoride reduction filter).

http://www.simplywater.com/water-filters/fluoride-water-filter-system-SWFL.html

http://www.simplywater.com/water-filters/SWFL-performance.html#C3

Please note that the SWFL cannot work on its own. It must be used in conjunction with SWS1 or SWSS.

The SWS1 and the SWSS are point-of-use (point-of-consumption) systems, therefore they come with their own dedicated tap for filtered water. For more details on these and other water filtration systems, please click on http://www.simplywater.com/water-filters/water-filtration-systems.html.

The SWS1 can be purchased online at www.simplywater.ie (deliveries to the Republic of Ireland only).
All other filter systems, replacements, and parts can be purchased over the phone/ by fax / email, and payment can be made by cheque, laser or credit card.
Alternatively, they can be collected from our office.
If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Their website for UK is https://www.simplywater.com
They were Nation Pure Water Association (UK) recommended
apparently you can have fluoride urine tests done if you collect your urine for 24hours and send them 2 samples by post with a cheque
http://www.npwa.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=80
Is this a Scam what you guys think?



Simply Water Ltd.,
Environment House,
Brighton Green,
Dublin 6, Ireland.
Tel.: 00353 1 492 0414
Fax: 00353 1 492 0712