We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Fluoride in tap water
Options
Comments
-
Another victory gives hope for the "anti-F lobby".
http://www.toxicteeth.org/
http://www.toxicteeth.org/We%20Win%20June%202008.pdf0 -
I already have to use fluoride-free toothpaste, as it gives me mouth ulcers. My dentist tells me that I should get enough from drinking tea (and beer apparently, but I'm not planning on making that a major contribution to my dental health regime).
So I'll be interested to see whether I will react to the change in the water and have to invest in an upgraded water filter, or whether the dose will be sufficiently low not to cause me a problem.0 -
:rotfl: :rotfl: the side issue is the designation of the title of 'doctor' to different qualifications, but bless, you go ahead and miss the point!You appear to be the one lack manners madam. And as such your opinion of what looks rude is of no concern to me.
What I have posted is correct and there is a very big difference between typing in all caps and highlighting individual words to emphasize a key point. If you are unable to understand the difference then frankly I don't think you are in a position to be passing judgement on me. So kindly keep your personal attacks to yourself.
In addition madam how pray tell is it a 'side issue' if people entirely UNQUALIFIED² to pass judgement on matters of toxins and their effect on human health is the driving force behind adding a known toxin to our water supply?
A dentist is only a dentist and their opinion on the dangers of fluoridation is no more worthy than that of any other unqualified person. No matter how distorted and inflated the BDA³ and its members views on their own abilities may be.
Footnotes
² I thought twice about capitalising that word out of concern for your delicate constitution. But as in my absence you choose to bang on about my heinous crime not once but twice and in addition insult me personally - I felt it would be churlish of me to disappoint.
³Dear God.. I capitalised BDA as well!:eek: Oh the shame.........
(using 'madam' at me and calling others rude....... loving it!):happyhear0 -
Here's something new and interesting. I'm going to leave the claims that fluoride is dangerous, artificial and not present in nature alone for a moment. A lot has been presented and found to disprove these.
However, another major claim against fluoride is that there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency. I got thinking about this today. Fluoride is so abundant in our environment, and always has been. It's also very reactive, which makes it potentially biologically useful. It seems strange to me that we would consume it and our bodies not use it in any way. Why would evolution ignore fluoride all this time. A similar ion, chloride has loads of biological uses.
I'm going to investigate this subject further, try to find the original study, but I found the following link interesting:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/N/Nutrition.html#fluoride
It seems fluoride might be doing something useful after all. I also suspect that the tendency of fluoride to collect in teeth and bones is important too, and that we might in fact suffer from a lack of it and not just from an excess of it.
I'm not convinced we actually need more fluoride in out diets, but I strongly doubt the claims that fluoride is entirely useless, and I know for a fact it is naturally abundant, not some kind of new toxic substance.0 -
I already have to use fluoride-free toothpaste, as it gives me mouth ulcers. My dentist tells me that I should get enough from drinking tea (and beer apparently, but I'm not planning on making that a major contribution to my dental health regime).
So I'll be interested to see whether I will react to the change in the water and have to invest in an upgraded water filter, or whether the dose will be sufficiently low not to cause me a problem.
Hopefully you won't have a problem. Having looked through the USDA database of fluoride containing foods and drinks, many common things that you are likely to already be consuming such as tea, wine and coffee contain more fluoride than fluoridated tap water.
The problem with toothpaste may be that it can contain up to 1,500 ppm fluoride, compared to 1 ppm in tap water, and perhaps 1-3 ppm in other beverages.
Anyone who has a serious fluoride sensitivity that would be affected by the relatively low levels in tap water would already struggle a lot with everyday foods and drinks.0 -
Here's something new and interesting. I'm going to leave the claims that fluoride is dangerous, artificial and not present in nature alone for a moment. A lot has been presented and found to disprove these.
There you again Ben - incorrectly & unscientifically summarising what you *think* it is that other people are saying.However, another major claim against fluoride is that there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency. I got thinking about this today. Fluoride is so abundant in our environment, and always has been. It's also very reactive, which makes it potentially biologically useful. It seems strange to me that we would consume it and our bodies not use it in any way. Why would evolution ignore fluoride all this time. A similar ion, chloride has loads of biological uses.
I'm going to investigate this subject further, try to find the original study, but I found the following link interesting:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/N/Nutrition.html#fluoride
It seems fluoride might be doing something useful after all. I also suspect that the tendency of fluoride to collect in teeth and bones is important too, and that we might in fact suffer from a lack of it and not just from an excess of it.
You're absolutely right that fluoride's effect on teeth and bones is cumulative, but no study has ever indicated that this is a good thing or that it is safe.Remember that even our pro-water fluoridation government has admitted that dental fluorosis is indicative of toxicity in the body ( you can find the report in Hansard)
As for the site you mention, we're back there again, Ben: despite having criticised others for the paucity of their sources you then use a biology teacher's personal webpages as a credible source of information? Anyone with a scientific background should know better that to mention a study but then fail to cite it properly, however, at least Mr Kimball (PhD) clearly states "I am not a medical doctor so am not qualified to give medical advice" . You do, however, say you will search for the original study - please share when /if you find it. Do you not think that if there were such a reliable result from any studies then the pro-water-F lobby would have been trumpeting it all these years?
You may also like to look at studies showing fluoride to be an endocrine disrupter - you haven't commented on the effects of F for those with thyroid conditions, or those who are renal patients, for example. We know that fluoride delays the eruption of children's teeth - a factor which wasn't taken into account when comparing dmft indices in some studies.
Even if you, or an SHA, *were* convinced, that does not negate the rights of those who are not and who don't want it via the drinking water supplies for which they have to pay.If you wanted extra F in your diet please go ahead - via high F content foods or via drops, tablets, guzzling a bit of mouthwash , swallowing some more toothpaste, but I and many others do not want to join in, least of all via the water supply. Again, despite having commented on F in foodstuffs yourself, you are avoiding the importance of the fact that people's individual food & drink consumption varies, their physical size differs, they may or may not live in a warmer climate or do a physical job so would be likely to consume more water, & their exposure to fluoride from all other sources all mean that there * is * no "one size fits all" dosage that can be safely administered via the public water supply. Remember that less than 6% of the world population is exposed to water fluoridation schemes.I'm not convinced we actually need more fluoride in out diets, but I strongly doubt the claims that fluoride is entirely useless....
AFAIAA no-one has said that it is "some kind of new toxic substance." nor that it (F) is not present naturally. However, there is insufficient evidence that water fluoridation is beneficial to anyone, nor without harmful side effects & , as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, what goes into the water supplies for these schemes is categorically not some pharma grade product - I did offer a sugar-free prize to the first person to get an unequivocal written Govt dept answer on the source . Look at the whole chemical picture...and I know for a fact it is naturally abundant, not some kind of new toxic substance.
The fact is that people make choices for themselves/for their families on whether they will eat sugary rubbish and/or clean their teeth, visit their own dentist or a community clinic, governments make choices on whether they will educate people on diet/health issues & provide appropriately targeted dental care, and whether they will deal with food manufacturers who churn out highly processed poor quality (but high profit) food, the consumption of which has a detrimental effect on the population's health & costs the NHS millions.
Government failures, and a lack of personal responsibility by a minority of parents, should not mean that the whole population has to be subject to a form of mass medication. This is especially the case when the proposals for water fluoridation schemes are not only about belatedly trying to provide a quick cheap fix for appalling Govt inadequacies in NHS dental provision, but are also closely tied to big business profit, environmental difficulties with the disposal of waste/co/by products from fertiliser industries, and profits/taxes/employment prospects within both the fertiliser and "food" industries.0 -
I think you have forgotten some of your earlier comments tbs624. This is post 171, page nine. You told us that fluoride was unnatural. I have no doubt from reading your earlier posts that you were not aware that fluoride occurs naturally, you did not know that the compounds used in the water dissociate in to ions, and did not know that fluoride is present in many foods and drinks already.Please stop peddling the fallacy that what will be used to pollute our drinking water supplies is something benign and natural. Neither sodium fluorosilicate nor fluorosilicic acid have been tested and passed as safe for human consumption, in any country.
Your general misunderstanding of what fluoride is, what it does and where it comes from is well documented though most of this thread. On page ten you're suggesting we might want to avoid eating out in areas with fluoridated water to avoid it. Fluoride naturally occurs, you'd have to move to the moon to avoid it.
Page 10 you seem completely unaware that the sea is naturally full of fluoride ions:
On page 15, post 292 there is more:and shellfish become contaminated from ….ah….. polluted water……….
We had already covered dissociation of ions by this point, which happens to be a major scientific concept. You're just ignoring it.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
Si and F ions are naturally abundant, and always have been. If you'd done any background research you would know that.That’ll be because fluorosilicic acid (used for water fluoridation) * is* artificial and a pollutant.
My objection has nothing to do with anyone who opposes adding fluoride to the water, I'm actually agreeing with this point. My objection is with people making up pseudo science and crazy claims about fluoride.
As for quality of links being used, while you're considering the last one I mentioned, would also please consider and tell us your opinion about:
http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/fluoridemain.html
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
http://www.toxicteeth.org/
And I could list many more. All of these sites have three things in common. They've been repeatedly linked to in this thread. They're all very, very dodgy as reliable sources. And, you have failed to say one single thing about them or their suspect content so far. Seems strange that you'd overlook them if quality of sources is so important to you.
Or, perhaps you actually think they're good sources!? :eek:0 -
Read again Ben - you’ve quoted what I said but, despite doing so, have then made your own inaccurate interpretation of the actual words. Check :I think you have forgotten some of your earlier comments tbs624. This is post 171, page nine. You told us that fluoride was unnatural.Please stop peddling the fallacy that what will be used to pollute our drinking water supplies is something benign and natural. Neither sodium fluorosilicate nor fluorosilicic acid have been tested and passed as safe for human consumption, in any country.Not sure how you interpreted that that is saying “fluoride is unnatural”?
For someone who professes to like a bit of science you make a lot of assumptions. The fact that fluoride occurs naturally and that other food/drinks contain fluoride is acknowledged by those who oppose water fluoridation schemes, myself included. It’s documented in just about every major anti-water F website, its listed on WHO info etc and of course the pro-F lobby highlight it. The very fact that fluoride is present elsewhere adds to the argument that it is a nonsense to suggest that we need more of the stuff via the water supplies.I have no doubt from reading your earlier posts that you were not aware that fluoride occurs naturally, you did not know that the compounds used in the water dissociate in to ions, and did not know that fluoride is present in many foods and drinks already.
No , once again your general misunderstanding of the point means that you draw an incorrect conclusion of your own. On page 10Your general misunderstanding of what fluoride is, what it does and where it comes from is well documented though most of this thread. On page ten you're suggesting we might want to avoid eating out in areas with fluoridated water to avoid it. Fluoride naturally occurs, you'd have to move to the moon to avoid it.
Note the phrase “state fluoridated water”. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough for you that the discussion is about fluoride being added to the water supplies.Just so we can link back on the money saving theme here: in this thread people have suggested that anyone who doesn’t want fluoride in the water which we all pay for should use bottled water, sink their own borehole, or use a reverse osmosis filter. Bearing in mind that even if you could take up these options, you’d not want to eat or drink anywhere else, because the state-fluoridated water will be used in everything and if your kids go to school they’ll get fluoridated water there.
Page 10 you seem completely unaware that the sea is naturally full of fluoride ions:
Once again, you are incorrectly taking your own interpretation and running with it. I’ll try to help you out. Adding unnecessary substances to the water supply is a form of pollution - there is also a clear link between pollution in general and contaminated shellfish. Weak joke about pollution -sorry you didn’t get it. There was even an emoticon there- perhaps that passed you by, or maybe not, as you chose not to include the full sentence when you quoted?and shellfish become contaminated from ….ah….. polluted water………. I think I’ll not get into that one, bit of a variation on a theme.:D
Look at the full sentence. I’m ignoring nothing.On page 15, post 292 there is more:Quote:We had already covered dissociation of ions by this point, which happens to be a major scientific concept. You're just ignoring it.
Barely started the article and they’re off. Silicofluorides do not appear naturally - using the terms “adjusting/topping up” is a deliberate ploy to misrepresenttbs624 wrote:That’ll be because fluorosilicic acid (used for water fluoridation) * is* artificial and a pollutant.
That doesn't alter the fact that fluorosilicic acid is artificial and a pollutant, and that *this* is what will be added to our water supplies. My view is that you repeatedly ignore the issue of the source of fluorosilic acid, the wider environmental issues and the politics at play. As someone who professes to have a thorough knowledge of chemistry, please describe the process within the phosphate fertiliser industry and what other contaminants are likely to be present.Si and F ions are naturally abundant, and always have been. If you'd done any background research you would know that.
My objection is to posters making a sweeping generalisation and presenting their own incorrect interpretations of what others say as fact. As for crazy claims , what about this one?My objection has nothing to do with anyone who opposes adding fluoride to the water, I'm actually agreeing with this point. My objection is with people making up pseudo science and crazy claims about fluoride.
Anyone who has researched the arguments for and against water fluoridation will know that the fluoride debate has very much to do with those issues, and that proper diet, dental hygiene and adequate access to dental care is also extremely effective at reducing dental decay. An additional point worth making again is that fluoride is apparently at its most effective when used topically. ( Available at a chemist/dentist near you now)Also, fluoride has nothing to do with sugar consumption, lifestyle or diet. It is effective at reducing tooth decay regardless of all these factorsAs for quality of links being used, while you're considering the last one I mentioned, would also please consider and tell us your opinion about:[FONT="]
[/FONT]http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.c...oridemain.html
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
http://www.toxicteeth.org/
And I could list many more. All of these sites have three things in common. They've been repeatedly linked to in this thread.
One poster has mentioned toxicteeth twice and vhopkins once - IIRC the other mentions were in respond posts, so “ repeatedly linked to” is a bit of an exaggeration on your part.
I find the content of many of these sites “interesting” but it doesn’t follow that I would view them as a reliable primary source of information. Do expand on your own opinion though , specifically on the Fluoride Action Network site which , unlike that of your biology teacher bloke, does at least properly reference the scientific studies it mentions. My own link to FANs site was to the content of a letter from Prof Sheldon, Chair of the York Review - easily verifiable elsewhere for any doubter. Please give specific examples of perceived "dodginess"They're all very, very dodgy as reliable sources.
Surely the point is that it seemed important to you when you first challenged other posters Ben? Just as you criticise others for not picking up what you’d like them to pick up whilst picking and choosing what you yourself will ignore?..And, you have failed to say one single thing about them or their suspect content so far. Seems strange that you'd overlook them if quality of sources is so important to you.
I highlighted your choice of website because:1. you have previously criticised the internet sources quoted by specific other posters and then hypocritically offered up a poor example yourselfI’ve already made the point further back in the thread that websites for either side of the water F argument can be suspect. I would especially include the pro F sites that fail to openly declare where their funding comes from and/or those that belch out specific government/BDA flowery terms to a population whom they clearly view as gullible enough to believe them, presenting just one side of the argument whilst calling themselves “independent”. As for DEFRA, who state on their website that water fluoridation “began in the 1960s"............. but then DEFRA do have a bit of “previous” for bovine manure, don’t they?
2. you have made frequent declarations of how the science must stand up but then highlight a biology teachers reference to a vague unnamed study about the growth rate of a couple of rats and a possible benefit being attributed to fluoride? (love to know more this study, not least about how they totally excluded fluoride btw)
Do pop back with the rat study info: it would be fascinating to cross link that one with growth studies in the populations of countries/areas that have very high levels of naturally occuring fluoride.
0 -
Artificial? Yes, undoubtedly. But a pollutant? I'm sorry, that's not a fact, it's your opinion. And I would question how a substance which doesn't exist in drinking water can even be called a pollutant. On that note, I've comprehensively addressed the point about what happens to H2SiF6 in water. Any claims you wish to make about the toxicity of this compound are irrelevant because we do not ingest this compound.That doesn't alter the fact that fluorosilicic acid is artificial and a pollutant, and that *this* is what will be added to our water supplies. My view is that you repeatedly ignore the issue of the source of fluorosilic acid, the wider environmental issues and the politics at play. As someone who professes to have a thorough knowledge of chemistry, please describe the process within the phosphate fertiliser industry and what other contaminants are likely to be present.
I've also already addressed your environmental concerns about transporting the chemical through populated areas. We do this with plenty of chemicals which are more toxic than H2SiF6. Some of which are already taken to water treatment plants - liquid chlorine, for example. That's classed as a weapon of mass destruction yet the government require that it be shipped to water treatment plants and put in the water supply.
Finally, it's not that we have ignored the source of the H2SiF6, and the associated politics, it's just that I (at least) have no time for nutjob conspiracy theories.
Your reply (post 25) "Cynical? Okay, I can cope with that label - count me injinnan_tonix wrote:A cynical observer may conclude that fluoridation is a convenient method of dumping industrial effluent.
"
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of the H2SiF6 which is produced is then required in the aluminium refining industry. It also has plenty of other uses, both industrial and scientific. H2SiF6 is a convenient source of fluoride, nothing more. There wouldn't be a great big pile of waste H2SiF6 if fluoridation was suddenly stopped, it would simply be used elsewhere. So to say (or even imply) that the phosphate manufacturers have a great need to dispose of this chemical is misguided at best. The phosphate manufacturers already sell the stuff to other companies, so where's the motivation for putting it in the water supply?0 -
:rolleyes:Yawn .......................
I know we shouldn't feed the trolls but haven't you a paper round to do or some homework to be getting on with.....................................
I'm sorry that my posts aren't up there with the maturity of your psuedo-science conspiracy theories.
:money:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards