Fluoride in tap water

Cardelia

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

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.

When you're looking at the behaviour of a compound in solution, there are many things to consider. Electronegativity values are just one of those things, and in this case it's not the most important factor. If SiO2 was soluble in water then hexafluorosilicate compounds would not undergo hydrolysis to any significant extent. Indeed, if you acidify the water solution then you can influence the degree of hydrolysis because the formation of SiO2 is somewhat inhibited in acidic media.

The reason for hydrolysis can be tracked back to GCSE chemistry and Le Chatelier's Principle. If you have the equilibrium

SiF62- <==> Si(OH)4

in water, but the equilibrium lies a long way to the left (which is what you'd expect based on bond strengths and electronegativities) then theory states that the degree of hydrolysis will be negligible. And this is exactly what you get, mainly because the Si-F bond is so stable - there will be something like 99.999% SiF62- and 0.001% Si(OH)4.* However, Si(OH)4 decomposes to silicate very easily and this removes all the Si(OH)4 from solution. In order to restore the equilibrium, another 0.001% of SiF62- is hydrolysed to Si(OH)4, whereupon it immediately decomposes to silicate. Then you get more hydrolysis to Si(OH)4 which decomposes to silicate so you get more hydrolysis... this goes on and on until all the SiF62- is consumed. It sounds like a slow process on paper but in reality it's quick enough so that no SiF62- gets anywhere near the tap from which you get drinking water. And that was proved in the above paper.

* = I don't know the exact figures, this is for example only

Cardelia

Samanthas wrote: »

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

They haven't banned the compound fluoride. They have just chosen not to put it in their water supply. Instead, they put it in other places. For example, table salt. And I believe some countries fluoridate their milk supply.

moggylover

Cardelia wrote: »

They haven't banned the compound fluoride. They have just chosen not to put it in their water supply. Instead, they put it in other places. For example, table salt. And I believe some countries fluoridate their milk supply.

Furthermore, one can get fluoride drops for babies and young children should you live in a non-fluoride area where tooth decay is high.

I for one would rather suffer a little discolouration (although I grew up in an area where the water was treated with fluoride and did not suffer this) than the mouthfuls of dreadful teeth that one sees around here. My own DS2 grew one back molar with such soft enamel that it lasted no more than 18 months from growth through to the time it was removed - not because it was rotting - but because the enamel was crumbling off! He is now on fluoride drops to try to make sure that no more teeth grow through like that - although I do acknowledge that this may have been a one off, my dentist confirmed that it is a problem seldom seen in areas with fluoride in the water, unless there are underlying health problems.

At 50, I still have every one of the teeth I grew - and no fillings. They are not a good white and never have been, and I did not have braces so they are not as perfectly straight as they could be:o - however, the purpose of teeth is to serve us and allow us to chew our food and hopefully to cause as little pain and problem as possible whilst doing this. They are not there just for decoration, and "perfect" teetch to me mean ones fit for the purpose, not media-conscious cosmetically pretty. I for one would much prefer to see fluoride added to water and less of it in toothpaste (which would then reduce the likelihood of discolouration) and my kids having teeth as durable as my own, and not the crumbly, soft and problematic ones that so many have in this area even when scrupulous hygene and good diet is observed.

Toothsmith

lillyandlolas wrote: »

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 .

If you're so 'in between' why didn't you quote the WHOLE paragraph (my emphasis in bold)

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.” However, the authors noted a number of limitations with the study and indicated that “[f]urther research is required to confirm or refute” the findings. In a letter to the editor in the same issue,4 the research project’s principal investigator stated that preliminary findings from the second set of cases did not appear to replicate the results of the first set (on which Bassin’s analysis was based). Readers were cautioned “not to over-interpret the results” and to wait for the results of the full study.5

The article you cut and pasted part of can be read in full here.

http://www.library.nhs.uk/oralhealth/viewresource.aspx?resid=269770

A_fiend_for_life

Cardelia wrote: »

* = I don't know the exact figures, this is for example only

Not necessary. That makes as reasonable sense to me without seeking out more concrete numbers.

It was the low solubility that got me but I can certainly see that precipitation would keep driving the reaction to the right.

It would be nice if the antif could respond on the chemistry though.:p

A_fiend_for_life

This has probably been posted before and is more stable than the wikipedia entry that appears to have been hijacked as an anti-fluoridation soap box.

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html

tbs624

Cardelia wrote: »

They haven't banned the compound fluoride. They have just chosen not to put it in their water supply. Instead, they put it in other places. For example, table salt. And I believe some countries fluoridate their milk supply.

We covered this on waaay back in the thread Cardelia. Of those many countries that don't fluoridate the water some -not all- offer it as an additive in salt etc but the point there is ,as stated previously, the non-f salt is still available for those who don't want to ingest added fluoride. Slap it in the water and there is no option for those who neither want nor need it.

Just a reminder that France, Denmark, Finland, Sweden , Holland, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, Iceland, Norway, 90% of Spain et al either have never fluoridated their water supply or ,where they have done in the past, they have now discontinued the practice.

tbs624

moggylover wrote: »

Furthermore, one can get fluoride drops for babies and young children should you live in a non-fluoride area where tooth decay is high.

If I had a dentist who promoted the use of fluoride drops for babies & very young children I’d be looking elsewhere for my dental care. Tooth decay is “high” when people eat the wrong “foods”(ie,highly processed sugary rubbish) , when they fail to maintain basic dental hygiene and when they don’t have regular dentistry provision - not because the local water supply is lacking in added fluoride. There is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency.

moggylover wrote: »

I for one would rather suffer a little discolouration (although I grew up in an area where the water was treated with fluoride and did not suffer this) than the mouthfuls of dreadful teeth that one sees around here.

Let’s remember that what we are talking about here is not merely a cosmetic issue - fluorosis is evidence of toxicity within the body.

It was reported in 2005 that over 100 dentists raised concerns after it was shown that the Republic of Ireland (fluoridated since 1960s) had 3 times more fluorosis than N Ireland (not fluoridated).

Please explain why you think it acceptable that other kids should be exposed to risk in order to treat a minority who can be treated by other means?

moggylover wrote: »

My own DS2 grew one back molar with such soft enamel that it lasted no more than 18 months from growth through to the time it was removed - not because it was rotting - but because the enamel was crumbling off! He is now on fluoride drops to try to make sure that no more teeth grow through like that - although I do acknowledge that this may have been a one off, my dentist confirmed that it is a problem seldom seen in areas with fluoride in the water, unless there are underlying health problems.

Was your son a prem baby? Was he ill during infancy, particularly with fever? Did he ever have to take a particular antibiotic liquid ? Was he bottle fed or breast fed? Any trauma to the jaw or teeth? Any family genetic disorders? If what you are talking about is hypoplasia of the tooth enamel there are likely to be plenty of potential causes that are absolutely nothing to do with not having artificially fluoridated water.

As you say, your son is now being treated by the use of drops and that treatment does not have to involve others being needlessly subjected to the same treatment.

moggylover wrote: »

At 50, I still have every one of the teeth I grew - and no fillings. They are not a good white and never have been, and I did not have braces so they are not as perfectly straight as they could be - however, the purpose of teeth is to serve us and allow us to chew our food and hopefully to cause as little pain and problem as possible whilst doing this. They are not there just for decoration, and "perfect" teetch to me mean ones fit for the purpose, not media-conscious cosmetically pretty. I for one would much prefer to see fluoride added to water and less of it in toothpaste (which would then reduce the likelihood of discolouration) and my kids having teeth as durable as my own, and not the crumbly, soft and problematic ones that so many have in this area even when scrupulous hygene and good diet is observed.

Equally there are many who would prefer not to have fluoride added to their water supplies, not least because they, or a member of their family, may have their own pre-existing health difficulties. If you were, say, a renal patient or someone who had thyroid problems, you would no doubt prefer that people stick with their fluoride drops and toothpaste or just ditch the sugar & the fizzy pop & clean their kids’ teeth.

There are many others who object strongly to the very basic principle of being effectively dosed up by a substance (that they neither want nor need) being added to everyone’s drinking water, with no consideration given to the amount of fluoride to which each of us as individuals is already exposed.

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for someone he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some people say that it can reduce tooth decay in children." (Dr Peter Mansfield, Templegarth Trust. )

Most studies show that the most effective form of fluoride treatment for those who want/need it is as a topical measure: that option is available to you & your son now and does not involve the rest of us having to drink artificially fluoridated water.

tbs624

Cardelia wrote: »

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

As Cardelia is the “science graduate” who has, several times in this thread, demonstrated an inability to read & understand research papers, has misquoted and misinterpreted, does s/he think that those professionals such as chemistry professor Dr. Paul Connett (New York), medically-qualified toxico-pathologist Professor Vyvyan Howard (Ulster) , forensic ecologist Doug Cross, Head of Preventive Dentistry Dr Hardy Limeback (Toronto) , Emeritus Professor of Chemistry AW Burgstahler (Kansas) pharmacologist & toxicologist Dr Phyllis J Mullenix et al have all got it wrong on the risks of water fluoridation?

Let’s also have a look back at that open letter from Professor Sheldon, following errors in the interpretation of the York Review: (that’s Prof Sheldon MSc MSc DSc FmedSci, - just in case Cardelia may think his scientific background & quals might not be appropriate justification for him to make comment on the issues)

“……statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, British Medical Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors:

1. Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%, is far from "massive".

2. The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as "just a cosmetic issue".

3. The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.

4. There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.

5. The review could come to no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation or whether there are different effects between natural or artificial fluoridation.

6. Probably because of the rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious and less conclusive than in most previous reviews.

7. The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definitive evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation. (my highlighting)

As I mentioned in a previous post the York Review did not include animal studies - had they done so, the result would probably have been even less in favour of endorsing the implementation of water fluoridation.

That’s only, what, 60+ years on from the original US experimentations……and they still can’t definitively show that water fluoridation is “safe and effective”? There is a reason for that - it quite simply isn’t and those who believe otherwise, and/or seek to discount the vested interests behind the fluoridation question, are the gullible ones

Go back through the annals of science and medicine and count the number of times we’ve heard “safe & effective”, “negligible risk” only for that to be subsequently shown to be untrue. The key difference of course, with most of those, was that not everyone was subjected to “the treatment” - slap it in the drinking water (for which we all have to pay the bills) and we'll have no option.

If anyone wants extra fluoride because theycan’t be bothered to see that their kids cut down on sugar consumption, or that they clean their teeth and get to a dentist regularly, then they can have it available now - via drops, varnishes, toothpastes, mouthwashes, milk, salt etc : I, and many others, don’t want it or need it in our drinking water supplies.

tbs624

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

This has probably been posted before and is more stable than the wikipedia entry that appears to have been hijacked as an anti-fluoridation soap box.

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html

:rotfl:As stable as the Titanic.

Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in most water supplies. Fluoridation is the adjustment of the natural fluoride concentration to about one part of fluoride to one million parts of water

Barely started the article and they’re off. Silicofluorides do not appear naturally - using the terms “adjusting/topping up” is a deliberate ploy to misrepresent.

Although fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay, the scare tactics of misguided poisonmongers have deprived many communities of its benefits.

The pro-f lies continue - see the York Review.

One such test was conducted in the neighboring cities of Newburgh and Kingston, New York. First, the children in both cities were examined by dentists and physicians; then fluoride was added to Newburgh's water supply.

Such a wholly misleading gentle journo-speak description of the reality: for anyone who wants to know more about this one , read Bryson’s “The Fluoride Deception”.

Too much fluoride can cause dental fluorosis, which, in its mildest form, causes small, white, virtually invisible opaque areas on teeth. In severe form, fluorosis results in brownish mottling. However, dental fluorosis is not caused by artificial fluoridation, because the levels are kept low enough to avoid this effect.

How many times do we need to mention that fluorosis is not just some random pattern that appears on the teeth - it is evidence of systemic toxicity. The latter sentence there seems to be totally at odds with what the York Review found, and we’re back to the fact that there is no allowance made for individual levels of fluoride intake from all sources, nor for any potential effects of error made at the water plants.

The antifluoridationists' ("antis") basic technique is the big lie. ……………The trick is to keep repeating them—because if something is said often enough, people tend to think there must be some truth to it.

Funny that - the pro-f lobby think if they keep saying “safe and effective” and “it’s for the children” over and over again, then everyone will simply accept their word on water fluoridation.

Although recent studies show less difference than there used to be in decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, the benefit is still substantial

Perhaps they use a different interpretation of the word “substantial” to that accepted by the rest of the world ? And let's also remember the differences in fluorosis levels and which way those go.

The aim of anti "documents" is to create the illusion of scientific controversy. Often they quote statements that are out of date or out of context”

This from a journo’s article that quotes from 70/80 year old studies?????

Quotes from obscure or hard-to-locate journals are often used. Another favored tactic is to misquote a profluoridation scientist, knowing that even if the scientist protests, the reply will not reach all those who read the original

And isn’t that exactly what happened with the York Review? The results were oft misquoted by the pro-F side to such an extent that the Review Panel Chairman felt compelled to issue a statement to address the “errors” of the BDA, BMA et al (see earlier in the thread)

There are, of course, a few dentists and physicians who oppose fluoridation. Some of them object to fluoridation as a form of government intrusion, even though they know it is safe and effective.

Wahey - there it is again! The unproven S & E mantra. The thing is that so many of the relevant professionals who oppose fluoridation state their position on their professional experience & the available evidence to date - none of which shows any such clear safety and effectiveness. Water fluoridation as a form of unwelcome “govt intrusion” may be an added factor in their opposition but I’ve yet to hear as the sole cause of objection from any one who has a scientific/medical background.

Calling fluoride a "chemical" (rather than a nutrient) can strike fear in the minds of many Americans who fear we are already too "chemicalized.

Now here in the UK the Drinking Water Inspectorate calls disodium hexafluorosilicate and hexafluorosilicic acid “ chemicals”.

Calling fluoride a” nutrient” seems like a fine example of “quackery” per se to me - this pro-f lot seem to be hoisting themselves higher and higher on their own petard

Fluoride is also called "artificial" and "a pollutant..."

That’ll be because fluorosilicic acid (used for water fluoridation) * is* artificial and a pollutant.

Suggesting alternatives is another common tactic

Cor blimey, is that right? That’ll be because the alternatives are already available and are equitable. In any other sphere it’s known as constructive criticism.

…the antis are dealing from a stacked deck. First, the people who need fluoridation the most—the children—do not vote….

It’s for the "ickle children” - now who is being emotive? Of course they don’t vote but their parents do, same as those from families who don’t need or want water fluoridation.

it is not difficult to confuse voters by flooding the community with scare propaganda. Average citizens do not have the educational background to sort out claim and counterclaim or to judge which "authorities" to believe.

What patronising twaddle: we’re all too thick to understand? This one can work both ways but obviously only matters to the writers if the pro-f lobby are the ones whose propaganda is not believed.

In some communities that allow repeated referendums on the same subject, fluoridation has been in and out, and in and out again. When this happens, not only do children suffer, but taxpayers are saddled with the cost of the referendums.

Do you know, maybe we should stop having any form of election or decision-making process that involves Joe and Joanna Public - they’re just so fickle, aren’t they, and it costs money to check things through with them.

Children do not suffer because of a lack of water fluoridation - they suffer because of too much sugar in their diet and poor dental care/provision. The taxpayers get lumbered with the costs, financially & healthwise, of the failure of successive governments to properly address the baseline causes of dental decay & to target proper care directly where it is needed. Water fluoridation is a cheap shot that treats everyone regardless of whether they want or need it.

It is supported by libraries full of articles that document its safety and effectiveness”

There’s the false S & E mantra again - and, yep, so many such documents that the York Review just couldn’t find them.

Thanks to a Fiend for Life for providing such a good example of the rubbish that is readily spouted by the pro-water-fluoridation lobby. I needed a :laugh:.