Fluoride in tap water

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

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.

I think you read what you wanted to read- see response to Cardelia.

If you don't recognise the wider environmental implications of using fluorosilicic acid in our water supplies, which has to be transported to the water treatment works, then clearly you haven't examined all the "pros and cons" of the issue , despite claiming to have done so.

Topical application as a targeted measure is the most effective form of fluoride treatment for those individuals who have tooth decay. It's available now to those who need/want it, as is a toothbrush, some toothpaste, and a low-sugar diet.

Indeed, as you yourself said:

Toothsmith wrote: »

....How often a kid brushes their teeth is not the most important factor in whether a kid gets cavities or not.

The key is diet.

Good toothbrushing with a toothpaste containing a theraputic amount of fluoride has been shown to be an effective preventative measure. (Vastly superior to brushing with low on fluoride free toothpastes) But the key is to have no more than 3 or 4 sugar/acid attacks on the teeth each day.

It' s not therapeutic to treat those who don't want or need treatment, without their consent, simply because a minority of children are failed by their parents and the NHS dental system. The govt/NHS wants a cheap solution, but in so many ways water fluoridation comes at great cost and is quite simply unacceptable.

Cardelia

tbs624 wrote: »

Cardelia - I’ll make allowances for the juvenile tone within the majority of your response posts, and see if I can help you.

Well, to paraphrase Toothsmith...

Either emotive juvenile language is OK or it isn't.

If it's OK for you, it's OK for me.

If it's not OK, then stop using it.

I'm not disputing the hazards ascribed to H2SiF6. The procedures BPA used when handling it were entirely sensible. Any large-scale chemical spill will have associated hazards and risks and it will need special precautions to deal with it. That doesn't change the fact that the major hazard of that incident was the risk of explosion due to sodium chlorite in close proximity to an acid. Perhaps I should have highlighted "the hazard was considered to be much reduced" part of my above quote because that's what I was referring to, not the fire service temporarily standing down.

If H2SiF6 wasn't added to drinking water, it would still have industrial applications: I believe you listed a few of them further up the thread. How would you propose we get this useful compound to people who need it? That's right, by road, rail and sea. Through populated areas if needs be. H2SiF6 is far from the most toxic compound you can get, there are many, many more which have far more harmful effects on people, on materials, on the environment in general. It's possible to have chemicals which are classed as WMDs delivered to addresses in central London, that's how common it is to ship hazardous chemicals through populated areas. Oh, and as an example, here's a substance which is highly polluting to the environment but is transported in huge volumes all over the country:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2149856.stm

Here's another spill of a hazardous chemical:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/west-gate-reopens-after-acid-spill-20080731-3no3.html

This, too, is shipped all over the world, through towns and cities containing millions of people. Both in its pure form and, more commonly, as an ingredient in perhaps the most famous beverage in the world. But I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the hazards associated with coca cola.

If there were to be a road tanker spill, say after an RTA, then the local area would need to be evacuated and those special emergency procedures would have to be in place. We won’t dwell on what happens if the people in other vehicles are exposed to this chemical. Anyone dealing with a spillage of this particular chemical has to be equipped with breathing apparatus, chemical eye protection/face shield, rubber boots, rubber gloves, acid-proof protective clothing. It is illegal to dump the stuff at sea, and spillages must not be allowed to drain into waterways or sewers. Substances used to clear spillages have to be properly collected & disposed of appropriately.

Yes. That's all true. However, don't for one minute think that it's exclusive to H2SiF6. Many large-scale chemical spills have to be treated in exactly the same way. For example, there was a big nitric acid spill in Denver a while back. The case was reported in Environmental Progress, 2006, 4, 212-216. You'll note the protective equipment which was needed for workers to clean up the spill, identical to the above.

Hazardous chemicals are transported across the country, on large scales, on a daily basis. If you're trying to make the point that we shouldn't fluoridate water because it involves transporting large amounts of hazardous substances through populated areas, then that's quite frankly ridiculous. We clean water by transporting large amounts of hazardous chemicals through populated areas, are you suggesting we shouldn't do that either?

BernardM

Ben84 wrote: »

That's a big assumption. We haven't been talking about conventional medicine and I haven't presented any opinion on it yet.

Presenting the situation as conventional science vs. alternative science is a misleading angle. It creates the idea of 'alternative science' as if it were a logical or solid concept. It is not.

Proper science excludes nothing reasonable. By reasonable I mean something that can be proven, for example the effectiveness of a medical treatment.

Most of the treatments and medical beliefs that are calling themselves alternative medicine fall well within the scope of regular science, they have just been disproved (or in some cases never believed at all), or their logic found to be ill fitting with modern beliefs, so they have taken up a new name as refuge. Unfortunately, the only refuge from objective and analytical reason, such as that found in good modern scientific studies, is to be less reasonable. It's an alternative, perhaps, but not a good one.

Anyone who suggests an alternative to reason should be considered with suspicion.

In many cases they continue to produce, advertise and sell alternative therapies despite overwhelming evidence against their effectiveness. Finding themselves on the fridge of science and largely disbelieved by the scientific community, they tend to pick fights with them in the hope of discrediting them somehow. Promoting distrust of science in general also helps keep their customers returning to buy their alternatives.

Dozens more dangerous drugs come on the market every year.
You truly take your life in your hands when you choose to use a prescription drug. Even though the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) mandate when it was created was to protect consumers from unsafe or ineffective drugs, it now appears to do the opposite: to protect the big drug companies from having to prove their drugs safe and effective before they are released to the public.

The diabetes drug Avandia is just one case in point among many. Research published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine showed that people who take Avandia have a much higher risk of a heart attack. Instead of withdrawing the drug from the market, the FDA added a warning label to it. This in spite of the fact that a drug safety officer at the FDA estimated that Avandia had caused up to 205,000 heart attacks and strokes, all expensive and debilitating, some fatal.

Deaths caused by improperly prescribed prescription drugs are now the third leading cause of death in the U.S. So-called adverse events reported to the FDA have skyrocketed. An adverse event is defined by the FDA as one resulting in death, a birth defect, disability, hospitalization or requiring intervention to prevent harm. Believe it or not, doctors and hospitals are not required to report adverse events to the FDA, so only a fraction of them are reported.

In truth, virtually all of the health problems for which we are prescribed prescription drugs can be more safely and effectively solved with changes in lifestyle such as better diet, exercise, stopping smoking and stress management, and natural remedies such as nutritional supplements and herbs.
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

Hugbubble

I haven't time to read all of this thread (although I can guess at the content/ tone of most of it), I just wanted to say that you gotta love the anti-fluoride crew & their ability to twist any argument (indeed, twist the facts) to fit their belief.

MrsBartolozzi

This argument sounds a little like the argument smokers use when they want to partake of their chemicals “I should be allowed to, it’s my choice, it’s legal”, but what about those who do not wish to partake. It is easy to say well, don’t smoke then, but when the chemicals are being put into the air the non-smoker does not properly have that choice.
The same holds true for the fluoridation of water. “I want fluoride” says one group who shouts the loudest, so ALL our water is medicated and the rest have no choice. Will reverse osmosis water filters be subsidised for those unwilling to have personal choice removed from them?
This is not about whether adding artificial levels of fluoride to water is effective, or harmful, it is purely about a person’s ability to choose what they do or do not put into their body.
I don’t see why it is your choice what I put in mine.

Cardelia

MrsBartolozzi wrote: »

This argument sounds a little like the argument smokers use when they want to partake of their chemicals “I should be allowed to, it’s my choice, it’s legal”, but what about those who do not wish to partake. It is easy to say well, don’t smoke then, but when the chemicals are being put into the air the non-smoker does not properly have that choice.
The same holds true for the fluoridation of water. “I want fluoride” says one group who shouts the loudest, so ALL our water is medicated and the rest have no choice. Will reverse osmosis water filters be subsidised for those unwilling to have personal choice removed from them?
This is not about whether adding artificial levels of fluoride to water is effective, or harmful, it is purely about a person’s ability to choose what they do or do not put into their body.
I don’t see why it is your choice what I put in mine.

Well, some people have clearly tried to make it about the effectiveness and harmfulness (or not) of fluoride, hence the thread length.

However. If you're against the mass medication of the population on principle, then I presume you don't eat bread. Because the flour used to make it has a few compulsory additives in it: this has been the case since 1963 (the Bread and Flour Regulations Act 1963 (Amended 1974)).

http://www.fabflour.co.uk/content/1/64/fortification.html

As you can see, there is a legal requirement to add things like calcium carbonate, vitamins, iron etc. And that's in all flour, so unless you mill your own, any flour you buy has to contain government-promoted additives. Now, I don't have a problem with this, just as I don't have a problem with fluoride being added to my water. But you obviously wish to retain complete control over what goes into your body, so I presume you'll be boycotting all flour-containing products until the government change the law on compulsory additives?

ETA: Margarine is another substance which has compulsory additives. Since 1967 (Margarine Regulations 1967), margarine must have vitamins A and D in it, by law.

Ben84

BernardM wrote: »

Dozens more dangerous drugs come on the market every year.
You truly take your life in your hands when you choose to use a prescription drug. Even though the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) mandate when it was created was to protect consumers from unsafe or ineffective drugs, it now appears to do the opposite: to protect the big drug companies from having to prove their drugs safe and effective before they are released to the public.

The diabetes drug Avandia is just one case in point among many. Research published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine showed that people who take Avandia have a much higher risk of a heart attack. Instead of withdrawing the drug from the market, the FDA added a warning label to it. This in spite of the fact that a drug safety officer at the FDA estimated that Avandia had caused up to 205,000 heart attacks and strokes, all expensive and debilitating, some fatal.

Deaths caused by improperly prescribed prescription drugs are now the third leading cause of death in the U.S. So-called adverse events reported to the FDA have skyrocketed. An adverse event is defined by the FDA as one resulting in death, a birth defect, disability, hospitalization or requiring intervention to prevent harm. Believe it or not, doctors and hospitals are not required to report adverse events to the FDA, so only a fraction of them are reported.

In truth, virtually all of the health problems for which we are prescribed prescription drugs can be more safely and effectively solved with changes in lifestyle such as better diet, exercise, stopping smoking and stress management, and natural remedies such as nutritional supplements and herbs.
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

This is a large diversion from the topic so I'm reluctant to delve in to the issues here too much. It originally came up in discussion because one of the sites talking extensively about fluoride was a commercial alternative health site, and when considering sources I do take the format they're in in to account, which is why I mentioned my dislike of alternative health products.

It was relevant in a connected way, but this site is as far as I can tell entirely unrelated to either issue.

It's just a collection of carefully picked nasty data on medical treatments. You could easily cherry pick some nasty data on air plane accidents and scare people with that, despite air travel being the safest way to travel. Safer even than walking. There is simply no balance here, the millions of people who take medicines that work well for them and which improve their health have been left out because these stats don't create the picture they want you to see.

Hugbubble

MrsBartolozzi wrote: »

so ALL our water is medicated

Actually very little of the UK water supply is "medicated"

BernardM

Cardelia wrote: »

Well, some people have clearly tried to make it about the effectiveness and harmfulness (or not) of fluoride, hence the thread length.

However. If you're against the mass medication of the population on principle, then I presume you don't eat bread. Because the flour used to make it has a few compulsory additives in it: this has been the case since 1963 (the Bread and Flour Regulations Act 1963 (Amended 1974)).

http://www.fabflour.co.uk/content/1/64/fortification.html

As you can see, there is a legal requirement to add things like calcium carbonate, vitamins, iron etc. And that's in all flour, so unless you mill your own, any flour you buy has to contain government-promoted additives. Now, I don't have a problem with this, just as I don't have a problem with fluoride being added to my water. But you obviously wish to retain complete control over what goes into your body, so I presume you'll be boycotting all flour-containing products until the government change the law on compulsory additives?

ETA: Margarine is another substance which has compulsory additives. Since 1967 (Margarine Regulations 1967), margarine must have vitamins A and D in it, by law.

What a poor argument that is. Not everyone eats refined bread. Why boycott a food that is having back some of the nutrients that were lost through refining in the first place.

BernardM

Hugbubble wrote: »

Actually very little of the UK water supply is "medicated"

Actually its contaminated or poisoned. Not just by Fluoride.
Our whole planet is contaminated by thousands of man made chemicals that have never been properly researched before being exposed to us.