Fluoride in tap water

Cardelia

Ashropshirelady wrote: »

This bit of history illustrates the fact that fluorides are dangerous in general and in particular highly damaging to the thyroid gland, a matter to which I shall return shortly. While it is unlikely that it will be disputed that fluorides are toxic - let us be reminded that they are Schedule 2 Poisons under the Poisons Act 1972, the matter in dispute is the level of toxicity attributable to given amounts; in today’s context the degree of damage caused by given concentrations in the water supply. While admitting its toxicity, proponents rely on the fact that it is diluted and therefore, it is claimed, unlikely to have deleterious effects.

I'll come back to the rest in a while, but I can't let the above go.

What "this bit of history" demonstrates is that the author hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

As has been stated several times already, the UK has areas where the natural level of fluoride in the groundwater is around 1 ppm, much less than the level found in those Argentinian/Indian communities mentioned. This has been the case for thousands of years. If anybody can find studies which show that UK residents who live in these areas are more likely to contract illnesses which are directly related to excessive fluoride intake, I'd be very interested to read them. But nobody has.

The author also doesn't know the difference between fluoride anions (the type found in drinking water) and organic fluorides (the type found in fluorotyrosine, sarin, prozac etc.) This leads to erroneous statements such as "fluorides are dangerous in general", "While it is unlikely that it will be disputed that fluorides are toxic" and "let us be reminded that they are Schedule 2 Poisons under the Poisons Act 1972," Inorganic fluorides might be consistent with those statements (I'd have to check), but since the author has brought in the issue of organic fluorides, the author is wrong to classify all fluorides in that way.

I'd also question the veracity of an article which doesn't cite any references after 1940! What's wrong with using a bit of up-to-date literature to back up your case?

Ben84

tbs624 wrote: »

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.

Far from ignoring the subject of source, the lengthy explanation about dissociation/hydrolysis of the compounds used to carry the fluoride was the explanation why it doesn't matter were the fluoride ions come from. The end product is the same no matter what the source.

A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, why does it matter where it comes from when they're all the same?

And why does it matter if the molecule that carries the fluoride is artificial? The resulting fluoride and silicon ions when it undergoes complete and rapid dissociation in water are 100% the same as natural ions.

They're no more dangerous to us than natural ones, and they're quite harmless to the environment.

I realise there are limits to how much fluoride we should consume, and health issues from regularly consuming too much, but I'm not accepting there is any difference between natural sources and artificial sources. We need to consider total daily intakes from all sources, not obsess over the origins of the fluoride when it makes no difference.

tbs624 wrote: »

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.

If you are fully understanding the situation here, and realise that all fluoride is the same and that we already consume quite a bit of it from many sources, why are you suggesting that consuming even the occasional bit of fluoridated water is something we would want to avoid? It makes no sense at all to avoid a glass of 1 ppm fluoridated water while out, but to happily drink or eat any one of the high fluoride foods or drinks on the USDA list without a thought when so many of them contain more fluoride than fluoridated tap water.

And what about people who live in areas with high natural fluoride, do you advise the same caution for them? And high fluoride foods, like grape juice that has about double the fluoride of tap water, the naturally high levels in sea food, and tea which is potentially four times the fluoride concentration of tap water (even if you made it with distilled water). What logic can you present for turning down a glass of fluoridated tap water that is about 1ppm if you are (presumably?) happy to drink a 2-4ppm fluoride cup of tea?

I can see the reasoning that avoiding consuming tap water with raised fluoride levels at home could over the longer term reduce your average fluoride intake, although I would not assume it means you're consuming less than someone who has fluoridated water. Someone who drinks a lot of tea and often eats seafood might still consume more fluoride than someone who has fluoridated water.

I'm not however following the idea that you need to completely avoid fluoridated tap water. It's just one of many sources of fluoride in our diets. Eating out or having the odd drink of fluoridated tap water elsewhere has no ability to significantly change your average fluoride intake when you consider the numbers and sources. The suggestion we need to avoid consuming all fluoridated water is scaremongering and totally disproportionate to the risk. In fact, there is no plausible risk to occasionally consuming it instead of other drinks/foods. If you believe fluoride at 1ppm is a dangerous level then a big selection of popular foods and drinks are naturally near or above this level, for example tea, coffee, grape juice and sea food.

tr3mor

Ashropshirelady wrote: »

Probably just a tad more qualifications than yourself. For your information Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield was not effectively struck off by the GMC.

Sounds like I struck a nerve. Are you married to him?

I'm not a medic, but then again neither are you if you're sucked in by this rubbish. I do count myself as logical, rational and interested in science though. And I do have a 1st class Maths and Computer Science degree from a very good university.

Ashropshirelady wrote: »

I think your time would be better spent educating yourself rather than resorting to personal remarks. You may think it sounds very clever.....buts its not.

Show me some actual evidence, rather than scaremongering articles with very suspect references.

Ben84

tbs624 wrote: »

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.

While we have yet to discover fluoride has any use in biological pathways, that does not mean it's incorporation in bones and teeth has no use or purpose. Or that it could not even be essential.

This study has found that fluoride increases bone density and strength significantly, with a resulting decrease in fracture risk.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h524841gv2353555/

Obviously you can still overdose on fluoride, just like anything else, then it's bad for you, but in the correct amounts it seems perfectly reasonable that it could be biologically useful.

This idea has been proposed many times before, and is not new. Fair enough if you want to question their findings, but to tell us the studies don't even exist is just wrong.

tbs624 wrote: »

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.

If I find it? Klaus Schwarz (who is given reference in the paragraph for the photo being described) is a well known name in biology. He discovered the biological significance of many trace elements and minerals, and has been published many times in journals.

Fair enough if you don't know who he is, but a lot people who read anything about biochemistry do. His name is hard to avoid, his experiments are referenced a fair bit and present evidence for the essential requirements of many minerals and elements. I immediately recognised the name.

It took approximately one minute to find everything published by Klaus Schwarz through the university's library search program, and a matter of seconds to filter them to find everything containing the word fluoride.

Schwarz, K. & Milne, D.B. 1972. Fluorine requirement for growth in the rat. Bioinorganic Chemistry., 1: 331-338

BernardM

Ben84 Why is it very, very dodgy. If you are looking for a credible, scientifically-based website dealing with the many issues surrounding the use of fluoride, this is an excellent website to go to.
They are keeping an updated section on all UK press coverage. http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England
And worldwide
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/ How can Ben84 call this database dodgy.

BernardM

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/video/video/72932/

Ben84

It's things like this graph that make me consider the fluoride action network in the category of scaremongering and misrepresenting:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/f-lead.html

Aside from a very unscientific scale being used here, and a concerning lack of actual figures, the LD50 data is not an appropriate way to make comparisons. The LD50 is not, and never has been intended as a linear scale on which you can line up everything in order of how 'toxic' it is. It just can't do that, but is often presented as doing this by carefully picking figures that correlate well to the idea it works this way.

Lead and arsenic were good choices for their part, but what about Adenine, sometimes known as vitamin B4?

Adenine is a vital molecule in biochemistry, it's one the bases on DNA strands, as well as RNA which helps replicate DNA, and it's part of the ATP/ADP molecule that stores and carries energy inside cells. It's vital to life.

It would if LD50 was a true measure of how toxic something is have a very high number. Remember that it's lower numbers that are more 'toxic' to use their interpretation, as this means it takes less to produce the LD50.

Using rats, Adenine has an LD50 of 227 mg/kg

(http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/AD/adenine.html)

Again with rats, arsenic has an LD50 of 753 mg/kg

(http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/AR/arsenic.html)


So, what is going on, you might wonder. The LD50 is simply the quantity needed to kill 50% of the test subjects. It has no context other than that. Arsenic is associated with poison because it's found in much greater concentrations, while the seemingly more toxic adenine is normally found in far, far smaller concentrations.

It's also important to note that despite being toxic in lower amounts, that in the correct amounts Adenine is not just harmless but vital to life. The idea that everything is either toxic or not, and that toxic things can only be toxic at whatever concentration is clearly not correct either.

It makes sense anyway. We all know that the correct dose of prescription medicine is healthy and cures a condition, but we don't assume that the healthiness of it scales up indefinitely and accept that taking the whole bottle at once would be a bad idea.

Very different effects at different concentrations allow all compounds from cyanide to pure water to range from harmless, even healthy to deadly. It might seem odd at first, but it's widely accepted that, to use arbitrary figures, that 10g of something can do you good, and 60g of the same stuff can kill you.

The LD50 is a difficult figure to explain because it isn't as simple and easy as it looks to understand anything useful from it. It needs a lot of context and is not a stand alone figure. It also tells us nothing useful about the material being tested at lower levels, at which it is likely to show very different effects.

RugbyPete

It DOES make a difference, in fact Im sensitive to it. After 27 years in a Fluoride area I know how dumb-down wooly headed and numb Ive become, nothing like the first years of my life.

I take KELP nowadays, its made a HELL of a lot of difference, so much so without realising it I've tackled things I wouldnt normally, become more receptive to positive thinking and Im a real busy person now (just cleared a garage FULL of stuff via ebay and freecycle).
Im not going to give you any link just get hold of Kelp by googling. It's a natural source of Iodine, which is crucial in your body (fluoride affects your body usage of this so much it is known to affect your IQ). Kelp helps flush upto 75% of Fluoride from the body from just one dose, and without expensive filters (no, brita cant help) its the next best thing.

Sodium Fluoride (the biproduct of the aluminium industry and a banned pesticide) is different to naturally occuring Fluoride ( high in a cup of tea).

Dont take my word for it, its cheap enough to try yourself, get 240 tablets for a fiver, take 2-4 a day for two weeks then taper off at one a day, you'll have a clearer head, believe me.

BernardM

It took approximately one minute to find everything published by Klaus Schwarz through the university's library search program, and a matter of seconds to filter them to find everything containing the word fluoride.

Schwarz, K. & Milne, D.B. 1972. Fluorine requirement for growth in the rat. Bioinorganic Chemistry., 1: 331-338

This study does not provide strong evidence that fluoride is an essential element either.
Concluded here Page 60.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/atsdr.fluor.toxprofile.2001.pdf

Ashropshirelady

tr3mor wrote: »

Sounds like I struck a nerve. Are you married to him?

I'm not a medic, but then again neither are you if you're sucked in by this rubbish. I do count myself as logical, rational and interested in science though. And I do have a 1st class Maths and Computer Science degree from a very good university.

Why don't you stick to the discussion instead of continually getting personal or is it that you only have a maths and computer science degree that you feel unable to offer a considered opinion

By the way ....who I am married to is none of your business.

RugbyPete.......have you considered taking an Iodine supplement instead of the Kelp? I take Iodine in water every day as it helps rid the body of heavy metals too.