Fluoride in tap water
Options
Comments
-
Differs from fluoride being added.At the concentrations found in tap water, fluoride is harmless. People who get worked up about this conveniently forget (or just don't know in the first place) that fluoride occurs naturally in tap water anyway.It's just not an issue for me and I don't believe there's any scientific evidence which proves fluoride, at the concentration found in tap water, is harmful in any way shape or form.
That's great and I respect your right to espouse an opinion that differs to mine. However, the rights of you and those who have similar views to you, do not negate the rights of the rest of us who want to be able to drink water that has not had fluoride (as an industrial waste product) or any other Government-promoted additives popped in there. You after all have the option of getting your fluoride elsewhere.
For those who have posted about ppm and safety - let's remember what happened with Camelford's water supplies a few years back?
And if nothing else worries you, ask yourself why the water companies are insisting that the Government indemnifies them against claims under either civil or criminal law before they'd agree to go ahead with adding fluoride to the water.0 -
Does it? How? If you read the rest of my paragraph (which I note you deliberately decided not to quote) you'll see that the natural level of fluoride in some areas is higher than the artifical level of fluoride in others. Do those areas (for example, Hartlepool, Uttoxeter) record significantly higher levels of health problems caused by the presence of naturally occurring fluoride in the water?Differs from fluoride being added.
Yes, sodium hexafluorosilicate is a byproduct (note: not waste) from industrial processes. So what? This kind of language is just scaremongering and serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever. In fact, it detracts from the actual debate because you distract people who don't know any better through the use of negative language. It's a shameful tactic at the best of times (also see the Hitler lie further up the thread - 5 minutes on google will tell you that's a complete fabrication).That's great and I respect your right to espouse an opinion that differs to mine. However, the rights of you and those who have similar views to you, do not negate the rights of the rest of us who want to be able to drink water that has not had fluoride (as an industrial waste product) or any other Government-promoted additives popped in there. You after all have the option of getting your fluoride elsewhere.
And if you truly want water free of government-promoted additives, I trust you'll be starting a campaign to dechlorinate our drinking water supply?
If you're referring to this incident:For those who have posted about ppm and safety - let's remember what happened with Camelford's water supplies a few years back?
http://www.irwinmitchell.com/RecentWork/Camelford-Water-Pollution.htm
then I don't see what that has to do with this debate. Perhaps you could explain why high concentrations of aluminium sulfate contamination is relevant to a discussion about fluoride at low concentrations?0 -
Does it? How? If you read the rest of my paragraph (which I note you deliberately decided not to quote) you'll see that the natural level of fluoride in some areas is higher than the artifical level of fluoride in others. Do those areas (for example, Hartlepool, Uttoxeter) record significantly higher levels of health problems caused by the presence of naturally occurring fluoride in the water?
This is getting rather like the argument over the siting of nuclear power stations !
Q: Why aren't there any nuclear power stations in much of Scotland and Devon/Cornwall ?
A: Because the natural radiation from the local granite would swamp the monitoring equipment looking for leaks from the reactor !0 -
...... If you read the rest of my paragraph (which I note you deliberately decided not to quote)....
Let’s not get huffy about who picks up on the bit of our own posts that we view as the most precious. The tone of your response leads me to think that maybe you struggle with the idea that someone may not agree with your personal viewpoint?
I enjoyed your use of the phrase “shameful tactic”- not least because there is much that is shameful in the stream of pro-fluoridation propagandaThis kind of language is just scaremongering and serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever. In fact, it detracts from the actual debate because you distract people who don't know any better through the use of negative language. It's a shameful tactic at the best of timesAnd if you truly want water free of government-promoted additives, I trust you'll be starting a campaign to dechlorinate our drinking water supply?
Your comments about chlorination are a standard riposte whenever anyone says that they do not support fluoridation of the water supply. You will of course know that originally the addition of chlorine was to prevent the transmission of water-borne diseases, to kill bacteria, ie it was a treatment of the water to prevent the tranmission of communicable disease in the population.
Water fluoridation, however you want to dress it up, is a form of mass medication for dental caries occurring in a specific section of the population: an attempt to cheaply address the problems in areas of poverty that are created by poor dental education and hygiene, inadequate provision of NHS dentistry, and over-consumption of sugary food and drink. Rotting teeth are not infectious and can be successfully prevented by other measures. Fluoride is readily available in toothpaste, in chewing gums, in drops, in mouthwashes - the option is there, for you, and for anyone else who wants to use fluoride. IMO the focus should be on appropriate targeted dental care and support , with people being educated to stop feeding their children rubbish, to clean their teeth properly and to see a dentist on a regular basis. It’s interesting that AFAIAA Tate & Lyle, and the Sugar Bureau, both support the use of fluoride - bit like a brewery promoting drugs for cirrhosis?
The York report concluded that from the best evidence available, fluoridation of the water increased the proportion of children without tooth decay by just 15% - and then we see in the BMJ a report that maintains that at a fluoride level of 1 ppm, an estimated 12.5% of exposed people would have fluorosis( mottling of the teeth - evidence of the potential toxic effects of fluoride) “that they would find aesthetically concerning” , so it looks like some may benefit but at personal cost to the dental and/or general health of others. There have been no randomised trials, and there is no way of controlling the fluoride dosage because each individual’s consumption of fluoride from all sources is unknown, and there is no consensus of opinion on the safety issues. The bottom line is though that we should all have choice in the way we meet our dental/health care needs. Mass medication on the basis of the very limited knowledge currently available is a poor decision, and once the principle is enshrined, what else may an unelected Strategic Health Authority decide should be administered, with Government backing, to the whole population without full consent?f you're referring to this incident:
http://www.irwinmitchell.com/RecentWork/Camelford-Water-Pollution.htm
then I don't see what that has to do with this debate. Perhaps you could explain why high concentrations of aluminium sulfate contamination is relevant to a discussion about fluoride at low concentrations?
The comment on Camelford was to illustrate that mistakes are made with additives at water treatment plants, that the water authority assured the local people that the water was safe, when clearly it was not, and finally the authorities tried to show that subsequent health problems were not real, but down to anxiety. (That will be why the water company subsequently was fined, had to pay costs and also pay out compensation.) Different substance , yes, but same potential for ghastly human error. No wonder they all want an indemnity for fluoridation.
Finally, you would like fluoride - you have it available, I would prefer my water without fluoride and I currently have that available. That seems good to me:it’s called choice.
0 -
You'll see from my previous posts I work within the water filter industry.
It's about choice.
People mention Birmingham with regards to Fluoride. In truth the reports from the Pro and Antis are all very convincing BUT one thing you cannot do is shoot someone down because they choose not to want to drink something by force. Fluoride might be tasteless and might be invisible, but I wouldn't dream of forcing someone who drinks tea without sugar to put the stuff in because I believe it's the way it should be drank....
The Pro fluoridation group will never (ever) win this argument in my mind because frankly it is more about nanny state pandering than it is about the actual issue itself. It would probably be cheaper to give every kid in a deprived area a new toothbrush at school every month (and a tube of toothpaste) with NHS funding, than this debate, the legal arguments, parliament time etc will eventually cost. No doubt dentists would consider that to be of more benefit, and frankly the issue then falls back to choice (you have to remember whilst most people brush their teeth some don't use fluoridated toothpaste by choice as well!).
In answer to the OPs question though - you have two choices.
Fluoride can be removed with Reverse Osmosis - which is obviously a bulky-ish piece of kit and it will set you back something like £150 for the initial kit.
You CAN remove fluoride with activated carbon but only the Alumina activated coatings. It is something we do, but to avoid getting shot down for spam I'll give you a generic link about the material below. Note that there is no filter jug we know of that removes Fluoride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_alumina0 -
I don't remember putting my personal viewpoint on this website. For the record, I'm neither pro- nor anti-fluoridation because I don't believe the issue has been proved either way. There's some evidence which shows that fluoride is beneficial and there's certainly evidence which shows that fluoride at high concentrations is harmful, but is there any evidence which shows fluoride at low concentrations is harmful?The tone of your response leads me to think that maybe you struggle with the idea that someone may not agree with your personal viewpoint?
I realise I'm starting to sound like Jeremy Paxman, but is there any evidence that areas of the UK which have high levels of naturally occurring fluoride have more health problems due to fluoride than areas of the UK which have low levels of naturally occurring fluoride? You've dodged the point three times already where a simple yes/no answer will suffice.
Chlorination is also a form of mass medication. Medication takes many forms; some (such as vaccines) are applied to prevent the spread of diseases and water chlorination does come under this category. You can call it water treatment if you like (it's not wrong to do so), but it is also a form of medication. But I trust you're not against it?Your comments about chlorination are a standard riposte whenever anyone says that they do not support fluoridation of the water supply. You will of course know that originally the addition of chlorine was to prevent the transmission of water-borne diseases, to kill bacteria, ie it was a treatment of the water to prevent the tranmission of communicable disease in the population.
The same argument you're using about Camelford (human error leading to high concentrations of harmful chemicals) also applies to chlorination as well as fluoridation. What happens if human error releases a large concentration of chlorine into the water supply? As you put it yourself: "different substance, yes, but same potential for ghastly human error." Are you going to campaign against the addition of chlorine to the water supply because of potential future human error? If not, why are you trying to use this argument against fluoridation?
No, you don't. Fluoride occurs naturally in tap water across the UK, so you may have water with low concentrations of fluoride but you don't have fluoride-free water. Even water filters such as activated alumina or processes such as reverse osmosis will not remove all the fluoride from water. It will get rid of most of the fluoride, but not all.I would prefer my water without fluoride and I currently have that available.0 -
That last point is technically true, but then it is true of many other contaminents - if you did a full chemical analysis of water it contains traces of lots of things (arsenic, mercury etc) you'd not want to drink.
Fluoride occurs in low levels naturally - but is important to realise the proportion/scale when you look at this. If for example, the underlying level of fluoride in the light blue areas is 0.2 parts per million and in an artifically fluoridated area that rises to 1.5ppm it is a signifcant increase on the natural level of 750%.
Therefore whilst the poster above may believe they are fluoride free and technically they are probably wrong, the assumption that the level is significantly smaller and therefore acceptable is probably understandable.
http://www.dwi.gov.uk/consumer/concerns/fluoridemaps.pdf
RO removes 95% plus of fluoride - Therefore anything under 1ppm is going to be reduced to levels of 0.05ppm or even less.
As I said, choice is the key here - other options for artificial fluoridation exist (some countries add it to table salt and the like), but frankly brushing your teeth is really the best option - and to be honest that can involve using fluoridated or non-fluoridated toothpastes (and again is down to choice).
It boils down to education. One thing I have to say against fluoridation is it will never replace good oral hygeine or regular visits to the dentist - if you live where I do then this can be upto a 60 mile trip each way (and I don't live in the middle of nowhere I assure you). It's about getting the basics right, but this rings true of a nanny state cost saving operation frankly, and I can understand why people have concerns.0 -
Artificial levels of fluoride vary depending on region, but the optimum artificial level is around 1 ppm:Therefore whilst the poster above may believe they are fluoride free and technically they are probably wrong, the assumption that the level is significantly smaller and therefore acceptable is probably understandable.
http://www.dentalhealthwestmidlands.nhs.uk/
Assuming the "natural" level is 0.2 ppm (light blue in the map) the natural level is 20% of the artificial level. Is that enough of a difference to go from "fluoride = bad" to "it's not worth bothering with"? To me, that's not a significant difference. It's certainly not enough of a difference to say "technically" they are probably wrong - they are wrong. This is assuming no filtration system is in place - if it was, I'd have to agree with you because 0.01 ppm to 1 ppm is a big difference. But not everyone has a filtration system.
Fluoridation is not a replacement for proper oral care, of course not. However, the areas where fluoridation is likely to be most effective are areas where a significant proportion of the population are poorly educated about and/or don't care about oral hygiene. You could spend millions on handing out free toothbrushes and toothpaste to kids, but if their parents won't make them brush their teeth then it's not going to get anywhere. As for educating the parents... well, good luck is all I can say.It boils down to education. One thing I have to say against fluoridation is it will never replace good oral hygeine or regular visits to the dentist - if you live where I do then this can be upto a 60 mile trip each way (and I don't live in the middle of nowhere I assure you). It's about getting the basics right, but this rings true of a nanny state cost saving operation frankly, and I can understand why people have concerns.
PS - 0.2 to 1.5 is a 650% increase, not a 750% increase. Sorry, but the maths nerd in me can't let it go...0 -
And yet, looking back..........I don't remember putting my personal viewpoint on this website.At the concentrations found in tap water, fluoride is harmless. People who get worked up about this conveniently forget (or just don't know in the first place) that fluoride occurs naturally in tap water anyway. In some areas the natural concentration of fluoride is higher than the artificially topped up concentrations of fluoride but are there any problems? No.
As with all things in life, too much of it is bad for you. But to ingest enough fluoride from tap water to cause a problem, you'd need to drink so much water you'd probably die of hyponatremia first. It's just not an issue for me and I don't believe there's any scientific evidence which proves fluoride, at the concentration found in tap water, is harmful in any way shape or form.
That looks very like a personal viewpoint to me……[FONT="][/FONT]
Somewhat delusional, I thinkI realise I'm starting to sound like Jeremy Paxman, ....
I haven’t dodged anything. Your current question is a different one from the one contained in your first post, when you asked a question that you perhaps see as central to the argument, and at the same time you gave your own answer, ie one that you believe to be correct……....but is there any evidence that areas of the UK which have high levels of naturally occurring fluoride have more health problems due to fluoride than areas of the UK which have low levels of naturally occurring fluoride? You've dodged the point three times already where a simple yes/no answer will suffice.
Commenting on related issues & sharing one’s own thoughts on the topic, rather than joining in on another poster’s rhetorical musings, does not IMO constitute dodging an issue, it’s more that in any discussion each and everyone of us will view some points as more central to the argument than others . Thus, you may see the issue as a simple “prove it’s harmful or shut up” , whereas I see it more as “ this can be dealt with by targeted health care & education and its ethically wrong to medicate the whole of the general population without their consent because of a lifestyle health issue affecting a small proportion of the community”In some areas the natural concentration of fluoride is higher than the artificially topped up concentrations of fluoride but are there any problems? No.
On the topic of chlorination:
Gosh, thanks.You can call it water treatment if you like (it's not wrong to do so)
There were several issues I was raising there:
1. the local population were assured that their drinking water was safe - it wasn’t. We could diversify into all sorts of areas here where the Government/Health Authorities have declared specific things safe for the population, and subsequently have been found to be, at best, misguided.
2. those who argue that it’s all fine because fluoridation will only ever be at a low concentration ( which still hasn’t been proved to be safe) like to ignore the risk from human error and Camelford was an example of the danger of that.
3. the key difference between chlorination and fluoride is that we are talking about something that helped to prevent death, compared to looking for a solution to something that is non life- threatening & is easily treatable in other ways - there was a proven benefit to the whole population in preventing the transmission of water-borne disease.. costs, benefits, …..
Yes, my penultimate sentence should have included the word added - however the key issue IMO, the question of choice, remains unaltered.
I think at this point we probably need to agree to disagree, as we clearly have opposing viewpoints and neither will be able to convince the other.
0 -
Just to add more to the mix, there is a big difference between natural 'fluoride' and artificially added 'fluoride'. I don't think this has been touched on, so apologies if it has.
I use the quotes because these are not the same thing.
The naturally occurring fluoride, which is present in various degrees in different parts of the county, is calcium fluoride which leaches from soil. This has an LD50 value of around 4,250 mg/kg.
(LD50 is the amount of a material, given all at once, which causes the death of 50% of a group of test subjects (presumably animals))
The artificially added fluoride compounds are synthesized fluorides such as sodium fluoride or fluosilicic acid. Our friend, sodium fluorosilicate (a common source of tap-water fluoride) has an LD50 of 125 mg/kg.
As an aside, we see that arsenic has an LD50 of 763.
So it would seem that comparing natural fluoride levels versus artificial fluoride levels is a bit of a red herring. Natural fluoride is about as toxic as common salt. Artificial fluoride is more toxic than arsenic.
I'd like to be mistaken. I hope I am. But to put this stuff in the water and say 'oh, but the concentrations are very low - don't worry your little head', is a bit rash. I wouldn't like any arsenic in the water, but in the same concentrations as fluoride, it would seem to be safer.
I'm becoming less keen on this stuff the more I read about it. If there are any biochemists reading, perhaps they could shed some light on how ingesting random(*) amounts of fluoride over a lifetime is completely without any risk whatsoever.
(*) It is random - nobody can predict how much tap water is drunk by a person. They may drink nothing but tap water, or hardly any.
I've also read that the Republic of Ireland (which I think has been totally fluorided since the '50s) has a problem with dental fluorosis. Unfortunately, dental fluorosis is a manifestation of toxicity.
A common source of artificial fluoride is a by-product of the fertiliser industry. A cynical observer may conclude that fluoridation is a convenient method of dumping industrial effluent.
But I digress. I think the real issue here is that the public should not be subject to mass medication through the water supply.
I use fluoride, but I apply it topically. I use a small amount of toothpaste when I brush my teeth. Used topically, it binds beneficially with the tooth enamel. But I would rather not ingest this stuff. This is precisely what would happen if it was added to my water supply. I don't want that.
:::Edited to fix howling spelling mistakes (the ones I could find anyway) and to add a bit.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards