Fluoride in tap water

Toothsmith

Oh my goodness . One has to be soo careful.

Thinking about it now - on one of my pictures, the 'Terrys' factory in York can clearly be seen in one corner!

It will be off the wall this morning.

Toothsmith

I don't believe I've ever argued with any of your mass medication arguments.

Weighing up the pros and cons, if I had a vote, I would probably vote 'for'. But that would be just one vote.

I would happily debate the for/against on the mass medication argument, and accept the result if the vote went against fluoridation.

What I really object to though, is the argument being distorted by lies about 'poisons' and 'waste products' and people either deliberately, or through ignorance, just spouting rubbish.

Fluoride does have an RDA - I think it's abour 3.5mg/day.

From that point of view, it is much closer to a nutrient than a poison is it not?

http://www.acu-cell.com/fcl.html#TXTANC7D3921E3A353840

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

Oh my goodness . One has to be soo careful.

Thinking about it now - on one of my pictures, the 'Terrys' factory in York can clearly be seen in one corner!

It will be off the wall this morning.

You'll no doubt know that Terry's no longer occupy that fine Grade II Listed Building, which does have a rather nice clock tower ( housed a water tank originally). Terry’s production got shifted to Eastern Europe IIRC: they’re owned by Kraft Foods, purveyors of cookies, chocs, biscuits etc. (Still KF do have a section that promotes “healthy lifestyle programs”.) Keep the picture up, nice architecture, - just get your DA to put a “bad sugary stuff all gone” sticker on it

Do you also have a picture of the somewhat less attractive sugar beet factory in York (also now closed)? It used to produce some 150,000 tonnes of sugar pa: British Sugar are however busy at their East Anglian plant, working on biofuels apparently. No wonder the Government wants to “keep them sweet”.

Let’s now leave aside your personal choice of surgery wall hangings, because we can both recognise that it’s not relevant. The real point is that dental surgeries do offer patient info leaflets sponsored by a sweetie firm whilst sectors of the dental profession apparently remain oblivious to, or are aware of yet deny, the insidious back-scratching that exists between the sugar-related industries and the push for mass fluoridation. Their marketing people must be really pleased.

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

I don't believe I've ever argued with any of your mass medication arguments.

Weighing up the pros and cons, if I had a vote, I would probably vote 'for'. But that would be just one vote

Your posts in this thread don't, to me, seem indicative of someone who *has* fully weighed up the cons, or indeed looked at them all in any great depth.

Toothsmith wrote: »

IWhat I really object to though, is the argument being distorted by lies about 'poisons' and 'waste products' and people either deliberately, or through ignorance, just spouting rubbish.

There’s that telling one-sidedness again.

Description of water fluoridation as having been proved “safe & effective” - deliberate, through ignorance or just spouting rubbish?

The BDA and the BMA misrepresenting major reviews - deliberate, through ignorance or just spouting rubbish?

Reliance on studies from the same era when it was believed that cigarettes & asbestos did no-one any harm - deliberate, ignorance or rubbish?

Whether or not you recognise it fluorosilicic acid originates as waste from the fertiliser production industry - it is put to other uses so then becomes labelled as a “by-product”, labelling which makes some people feel happier (usually the pro-f lobby). Commercial concern and disposal safety issues dictated that uses should be found for it and indeed it is used elsewhere - tanning animal skins, glass etching, electroplating etc. That does not stop it being a waste product of the original process.

If you'd rather believe the "we saw how strong these people's stained teeth were and thought we must let everyone share their good fortune in being able to ingest the wonder product" line and keep a happy picture of pharma grade products in your head you are of course free to so and, as I said before, also feel free to imbibe/ingest as much as you would personally like to. It shouldn't mean that the rest of us have to join in, via our drinking water.


Have you tried getting a clear and unequivocal answer from any Govt dept on exactly where and how fluorosilic acid for use in water fluoridation is produced? The stuff that is currently tipped into the water supplies in the minority of areas in the UK that have fluoridation - is it UK sourced or does it come in from other countries?

A sugar-free prize for the first person to get a clear and unequivocal non -politico-bull-waste-product answer from the govt..

How many gallons of the stuff will be on our roads on its way to the water treatment works?

There are wider-reaching environmental issues around water fluoridation - see further backinthis thread. Here ’s a link to a materials data safety sheet http://www.pelchem.com/pdf/H2SiF6-MSDS.pdf

You can read here about a shipment of fluorosilicic acid apparently coming from Spain en route to Ireland:note that the Bristol Port Authority designated it a Major Incident. http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dutch-navigator%20synopsis.pdf

Toothsmith wrote: »

Fluoride does have an RDA - I think it's abour 3.5mg/day.

From that point of view, it is much closer to a nutrient than a poison is it not?

http://www.acu-cell.com/fcl.html#TXTANC7D3921E3A353840

I like the “spiritual guidance & healing” slot on the site TS: do you think I’m in need of some?
There’s also a helpful bit on suicide and euthanasia.

I ‘d like to mention a quote from the link though:

Fluoride & Chloride: Both elements share left / right-sided cell receptors and are consideredessential to human health* - although there is still controversy among some authorities in regard tothe essentiality of fluoride and its value in human nutrition.

*By whom is fluoride considered essential to human health ? There is not one single properly referenced source for his assertions (any of them, on any page, other than some biblical ones in the spiritual bit)

You slated another poster, Bernard, for the links he offered and yet who is this Ronald Roth, Acu-sell , sorry Acu-cell, dispenser of “sound” nutritional advice and spiritual guidance?

He is not, as far as I can deduce a medical doctor, despite using Dr as a prefix on one page but the letters d.acu suggest that he may be an acupuncturist. No papers published in the usual libraries.

I’m surprised A fiend for Life hasn’t popped back in to let you know that, amazingly, Acu-Cell Analysis is listed as dubious under his “duckwatch” sources.

Fluoride is not a nutrient and there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency.

Toothsmith

Where does it say what that ship was carrying?

tbs624

Sorry TS - that link was an extract,and you're right, it doesn't confirm what was on board . Couldn't access my bookmark for the full thing earlier but here it is: http://ncsp.tamu.edu/reports/MAIB/dft_masafety_507695.pdf.

You'll find the confirmation that fluorosilicic acid was part of the load in that report. Page 8 on the Port Authority's emergency prep makes for interesting reading, as does page 17, and the photos & corrosion reports in later sections.

Toothsmith

So fluorosilicic acid, and sodium chlorite had been stored next to each other, and the cargo had shifted and been damaged!

Hardly surprising a major incident was declared!!

Adds nothing to the argument about the effects of fluoride in theraputic doses to water though.

Cardelia

tbs624 wrote: »

Sorry TS - that link was an extract,and you're right, it doesn't confirm what was on board . Couldn't access my bookmark for the full thing earlier but here it is: http://ncsp.tamu.edu/reports/MAIB/dft_masafety_507695.pdf.

You'll find the confirmation that fluorosilicic acid was part of the load in that report. Page 8 on the Port Authority's emergency prep makes for interesting reading, as does page 17, and the photos & corrosion reports in later sections.

You're right, it does make interesting reading. I like this bit:

Once this container had been removed from the vessel, the hazard was considered to be much reduced and, at 1600, the fire service stood down.

The only problem for you is that this paragraph is referring to a container of sodium chlorite, aka bleach. That was considered to be the greatest hazard in the hold, mainly because of the risk of explosion when in contact with acid (which is mentioned on page 18, I believe). You'll note the generic term 'acid' which could be referring to any acid (nitric, sulfuric, phosphoric etc.) so it wasn't the fact that the other container specifically contained H2SiF6, it was the acidic nature of the compound. Hence BPA declared a major incident because of the risk of explosion, not the presence of H2SiF6.

The hazard data on H2SiF6 - so what? We've already established that this substance does not exist in drinking water so I'm not sure why you're continuing to refer to it.

BernardM

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.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/belgiumfluorideban.htm

BernardM

How many dentists in the UK actually opposed to flouridation.
http://www.smilesofbellevue.com/index.html
http://www.smilesofbellevue.com/flouride-effects.html