| Pages:
1
2
3
..
5 |
Xenon1898
Harmless
Posts: 49
Registered: 19-1-2013
Location: United States
Member Is Offline
Mood: Researching
|
|
F- From Tap Water?
So, at least in some places, the government adds flourine compounds to the water to take care of our teeth for us (how awfully nice of them). An
activated carbon filter is effective at capturing halogens. So... any ideas on how a home chemist could save their water filters and later extract
useful compounds out of them, such as fluorine, chlorine, etc.? Wet chemistry? Electrolysis? I imagine you couldn't get alot, but it would be
better to use a free resource that you were discarding than say trying to extract NaF out of toothpaste or something - not economically viable.
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”
-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
kristofvagyok
National Hazard
Posts: 659
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
According to wiki the suggested fluoride content of tap water is 0,5-1mg/l. So if you want to get 1g of fluoride than you have to boil down, extract
and purify 1000liter of tap water.
Waste of time, power and everything. Get some from ebay.
I have a blog where I post my pictures from my work: http://labphoto.tumblr.com/
-Pictures from chemistry, check it out(:
"You can’t become a chemist and expect to live forever." |
|
|
Vargouille
Hazard to Others
Posts: 380
Registered: 16-4-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I second Kristof. The sheer amount of work that it would take to get even a small amount of a pure fluoride salt is astounding. It's probably a better
idea to buy the fluoride itself.
|
|
|
chemrox
International Hazard
Posts: 2961
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline
Mood: LaGrangian
|
|
It is fluoride not fluorine. You should know the difference. Fluoride is a lot harder to get rid of. It takes an expensive filtration system, like
reverse osmosis to purify fluoridated water. There are no papers showing any benefit of having the low amounts found in treated water. There are,
however, real concerns about any mount of the most electronegative ion in the whole damned table. Drink bottled water. On the other hand nearly pure
water even with fluoride in it can be used in place of distilled water for organic chemistry.
edited to remove shameless name dropping. Edited again to fix a grammar issue.
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by chemrox]
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by chemrox]
"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by chemrox  | It is fluoride not fluorine. You should know the difference. Fluoride is a lot harder to get rid of. It takes an expensive filtration system, like
reverse osmosis to purify fluoridated water. There are no papers showing any benefit of having the low amounts found in treated
water. There are, however, real concerns about any mount of the most electronegative ion in the whole damned table. Drink bottled water.
On the other hand nearly pure water even with fluoride in it can be used in place of distilled water for organic chemistry.
edited to remove shameless name dropping. Edited again to fix a grammar issue.
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by chemrox]
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by chemrox] |
Bullshit. It's been shown to elevate the resistance to cavities. Also, only areas with much higher natural fluoride content have been connected to
slightly detrimental effects on the body.
Don't make me search for papers. You should know better. Fluoride content varies throughout the world and water fluoridation is more of an ethical
issue than a medical one.
Bottled spring water contains pretty much everything tap water does, unless you're drinking fancy paranoia-driven expensive demineralized water which
lacks the things our body really needs on daily basis.
Please don't make this thread run into conspiracy theories.
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by Endimion17]
|
|
|
elementcollector1
International Hazard
Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Molten
|
|
I believe I already proved why no one should care about 'deadly fluoride' on a different forum a while back, please don't make me post that math
again.
Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
|
|
|
Vargouille
Hazard to Others
Posts: 380
Registered: 16-4-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I could have sworn I linked you to the papers that did. Twice. Maybe third time's the charm, ey?
Systematic review of water fluoridation.
Water fluoridation
Anyway, back on topic: the capturing of fluoride by activated carbon is very slight. This article states that only 4.7 mg fluoride is found per kilogram of activated charcoal after 10 L of tap water had passed through it, and that
after 8 L had been passed through, it stopped reducing the fluoride concentration, so that route is pretty soundly closed.
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The simplest way would be to add a very small quantity of calcium citrate to the water, and let it sit. The calcium should bind with to the fluoride
ions resulting in insoluble CaF2. This alone would almost completely erradicate any suspected negative effects caused by the fluoride. However, if it
is still desired one could then easily filter out the particulate matter with any ordinary water filter. Calcium citrate is commonly sold as a mineral
supplement, and is also sometimes added to orange juice to "fortify" it with added calcium.
I'm not saying let's go kill all the stupid people...I'm just saying lets remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.
|
|
|
Xenon1898
Harmless
Posts: 49
Registered: 19-1-2013
Location: United States
Member Is Offline
Mood: Researching
|
|
[rquote=273486&tid=23255&author=Vargouille
Anyway, back on topic: the capturing of fluoride by activated carbon is very slight. This article states that only 4.7 mg fluoride is found per kilogram of activated charcoal after 10 L of tap water had passed through it, and that
after 8 L had been passed through, it stopped reducing the fluoride concentration, so that route is pretty soundly closed.
[/rquote]
Thank you. Considering the carbon filter would saturate to maximum holding capacity so quickly it certainly doesn't look like it's worth pursuing.
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”
-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
chemrox
International Hazard
Posts: 2961
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline
Mood: LaGrangian
|
|
You didn't send them to me but thanks I seem to stand corrected. On the other hand both of these cites are medical review pubs. There's no showing
of peer reviewed scientific papers among them. I.e. they're almost anecdotal. Doctors and dentists get fairly passionate about their beliefs
religious or otherwise. I still think fluoride toothpaste would be a better deal and if they don't want to brush let 'em lose their teeth. Protecting
the young from folly is not worth my health.
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by chemrox]
"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5123
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by chemrox | You didn't send them to me but thanks I seem to stand corrected. On the other hand both of these cites are medical review pubs. There's no showing
of peer reviewed scientific papers among them. I.e. they're almost anecdotal. Doctors and dentists get fairly passionate about their beliefs
religious or otherwise. I still think fluoride toothpaste would be a better deal and if they don't want to brush let 'em lose their teeth. Protecting
the young from folly is not worth my health.
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by chemrox] |
That would be valid if there was a threat to your health.
Anders,
The solubility of calcium fluoride in water is of the order of 15 ppm, the amount of fluoride added to water is of the order of 1 ppm.
The addition of calcium citrate isn't going to precipitate any CaF2 from tap water
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"This past summer, Harvard University released a report after reviewing 27 studies of children in China exposed to fluoride. It concluded the higher
the fluoride exposure, the lower the child’s IQ."
Actually I think you should search for the papers. In fact since you hate conspiracy's I think I'll link an article from a real conspiracy site. In it
are many links to real scientific studies. I think you should disprove each of them. Or quit talking like there can be no other opinion than yours.
By the way chemrox don't just drink any bottled water. Most is merely poorly filtered tap water. I only use bottled spring water.
http://www.infowars.com/government-and-top-university-studie...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5123
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Do you know why they did the study in China?
It's because the levels of fluoride in water there are very high.*
We know that fluoride is toxic at high concentrations but those data are not relevant to the question of water fluoridation.
So, the next question is why would someone be citing a study which they know, or should know, has no relation to the issue?
Is it because they didn't understand the original work, or was it a deliberate attempt to mislead?
One thing we ought to be sure about is that it can't be that they simply didn't read the original work- after all, these are people who urge us " I
think you should search for the papers.".
If you do that you find that it's entirely plausible that the effect is due to poverty rather than fluoride.**
* From the report here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/
"Opportunities for epidemiological studies depend on the existence of comparable population groups exposed to different levels of fluoride from
drinking water. Such circumstances are difficult to find in many industrialized countries, because fluoride concentrations in community water are
usually no higher than 1 mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay. Multiple
epidemiological studies of developmental fluoride neurotoxicity were conducted in China because of the high fluoride concentrations that are
substantially above 1 mg/L in well water in many rural communities"
** "Information on the child’s sex and parental education were not reported in > 80% of the studies, and only 7% of the studies reported
household income. These variables were therefore not included in the models."
|
|
|
Vargouille
Hazard to Others
Posts: 380
Registered: 16-4-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by chemrox | | On the other hand both of these cites are medical review pubs. There's no showing of peer reviewed scientific papers among them. I.e. they're almost
anecdotal. |
I agree that there's a difference between medical reviewed publications and reviewed publications in other sections of science, but it is false to
claim that these papers are "anecdotal".
BMJ, the publisher of "Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation", has this page on its peer-review process.
EAPD, the publisher of "Water Fluoridation", has the following line on its page on guidelines for authors:
| Quote: | | All manuscripts are subject to editorial and scientific review. |
This means, at the very least, that the paper is looked at to see if the conclusions follow from the data. If you mean to imply that that process
produces papers that are "almost anecdotal", you are mistaken.
|
|
|
chemrox
International Hazard
Posts: 2961
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline
Mood: LaGrangian
|
|
I don't want to go around nad around with this becaue my original statement was wrong, articles exist. From one of the reviews you cited, "the
studies included in the reviews were generally of moderate to low quality." The review sounds like every fluoridation advocacy statement we read in
the media. They appear to be a lot like the anti-marijuana articles published under the Reagan administration in the US. These were subsequently
discredited. There's an agenda to fulfill which compromises any claim of objectivity in both. But as I said the articles do exist whatever their
worth so I will leave it that and leave you any parting shots you care to launch.
"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
|
|
|
Vargouille
Hazard to Others
Posts: 380
Registered: 16-4-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
True, the articles concerning fluoridation are imperfect. This is common among many studies of water fluoridation, and even the first study meant to
test it failed because its control city adopted fluoridation. The point to be taken away from this is that there is a prima facie case to be made for
the advantages for fluoridation, as well as for the disadvantages, among which there have been allegations of loss of the structural integrity of bone
among the elderly in addition to the dental fluorosis. The former is a known consequence of fluoride poisoning, the latter a known consequence of
water fluoridation. It is not yet known if the former is a specific consequence of water fluoridation. A better study should be carried out,
across all age and socioeconomic groups so that the specific dose-determined dangers of fluoride can be determined. Once that is made, the debate can
be ended once and for all. One can only hope that it will.
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Just because studies can not find any ill effects correlated with low levels of fluoride still does not mean it is a good idea. Just as with exposure
to radiation, there may be no actual threshold below which it has no biological effects. In other words, the less fluoride the better.
I use a non-fluoride toothpaste to minimize exposure, but every few days I use a regular fluoride toothpaste, and am sure to rinse my mouth thoroughly
with water.
Another problem with adding fluoride to the water is that it is often added in the form of sodium hexafluorosilicate, a cheap industrial byproduct.
Lead hexafluorosilicate is one of the more soluble salts of lead, and this can greatly increase the concentration of lead in drinking water in places
where old lead water pipes are still used. Furthermore, there is the question of whether breathing the vapors from hexafluorosilicate containing water
is potentially harmful, since it could deposit microparticles of silica in the lungs (which will stay there forever and potentially cause low level
inflammation for the rest of ones life). Even though it is in very small ppm ammounts, when one considers that some people drink and cook with water
to which hexafluorosilicate has been added for their entire life, one wonders what the accumulated lifetime inhalation of hexafluorosilicate is in the
lungs.
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Hydrofluorosilicic acid, Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Hexafluorosilicate. I find it astounding anyone claiming to be knowledgeable chemists are defending
putting this poisonous crap into drinking water. I barely tolerate taking a shower in this evil brew and don't even make ice cubes unless it is
composed of spring water. You know, the natural stuff filtered far better by nature which humanity survived on for thousands of years. Far better than
the cauldrons of industrial waste containing witches brew called public water systems. You are debating over amounts and calling it safe if it is a
little less poisonous than the pure sludge leftover from nuclear fuel processing. Give me a break.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5123
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | Hydrofluorosilicic acid, Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Hexafluorosilicate. I find it astounding anyone claiming to be knowledgeable chemists are defending
putting this poisonous crap into drinking water. I barely tolerate taking a shower in this evil brew and don't even make ice cubes unless it is
composed of spring water. You know, the natural stuff filtered far better by nature which humanity survived on for thousands of years. Far better than
the cauldrons of industrial waste containing witches brew called public water systems. You are debating over amounts and calling it safe if it is a
little less poisonous than the pure sludge leftover from nuclear fuel processing. Give me a break.
|
Natural spring water like the stuff where my aunt grew up?
With fluoride levels so high she has the classic "mottled teeth" effect.
Well, she's nearly 80 and in good health, so it's clearly not that toxic.
What I can't believe is someone describing a review article in the BMJ as "almost anecdotal".
In the meantime, if Anders would learn about solubility and make up his mind about flourosilicate it would help.
Lead fluorosilicate is very soluble, but it's not the most soluble compound that you can make with the ions available that matters: it's the least
soluble.
So, if (as is quite common) there's carbonate present then the lead is more likely to precipitate as carbonate that somehow magically dissolve as
fluorosilicate.
There's pretty much always going to be chloride present. Lead chloride is soluble enough to be a toxic hazard.
All of this sidesteps the fact that the solution to lead contamination is to stop using lead pipes.
Then he needs to get to grips with the behaviour of fluorosilicate in the lung (it's not clear how a lot is going to get there but we can gloss over
that).
If it's going to decompose to give silica then it's going to do that anyway- in which case it won't matter that the F was added as fluorosilicate. If
that's the case then this " a cheap industrial by product." is just an attempt to bad mouth it.
Anyway, to answer one point " one wonders what the accumulated lifetime inhalation of hexafluorosilicate is in the lungs." Since most salts of
fluorosilicate are very soluble, the most likely answer is that any which is inhaled is excreted again fairly soon. So none will accumulate.
Did you not realise that?
|
|
|
elementcollector1
International Hazard
Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Molten
|
|
Agh, fine, I'll do math.
...
Or I'll just use the magical copy+paste! 
Original source used: http://m.naturalnews...C_fluoride.html\
-According to source, the U.S. has either 1.2 mg or 0.7 mg/L of fluoride ions dissolved in potable water.
-The lethal dose for fluoride is 5-10g, with gastrointestinal distress occuring at 0.2-0.3g [Src: http://en.wikipedia....uoride_toxicity]
So, if 1.2 mg of fluoride were dissolved in, a person would have to drink 167 to 250 liters of fluoridated water to feel gastrointestinal effects, and
4,167 to 8333 liters of fluoridated water to die from fluoride poisoning.
So, let's assume you drink 3 liters a day, and that the poisonous fluoride does not leave the body (which it typically does through urine). It would
take you 56-83 days of drinking 3 liters per day to suffer from gastrointestinal poisoning, and 1389-2778 days for the fluoride levels to reach the
lethal limit.
In short, sure, fluoride is toxic. The big problem for the fluoride activists is that there is not nearly enough of it to do all that much damage from
groundwater alone, so higher-potency sources must be involved.
Feel free to check over my math, because I would hate to slip on some calculation and find the results above entirely wrong.
Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised | Since most salts of fluorosilicate are very soluble, the most likely answer is that any which is inhaled is excreted again fairly soon. So none will
accumulate.
Did you not realise that? |
Except that the fluorosilicate ion is not a perfect complex and does undergo dissociation, as pointed out in another thread and experimentally
verified by woelen (using (NH4)2SiF6). Ingesting or inhaling fluorosilicates must be quite bad for you, especially the lungs... 
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | Hydrofluorosilicic acid, Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Hexafluorosilicate. I find it astounding anyone claiming to be knowledgeable chemists are defending
putting this poisonous crap into drinking water. I barely tolerate taking a shower in this evil brew and don't even make ice cubes unless it is
composed of spring water. You know, the natural stuff filtered far better by nature which humanity survived on for thousands of years. Far better than
the cauldrons of industrial waste containing witches brew called public water systems. You are debating over amounts and calling it safe if it is a
little less poisonous than the pure sludge leftover from nuclear fuel processing. Give me a break.
|
Perhaps you're unaware that fluorine is a vital element? We literally need small amounts of in our daily intake or we get ill. Too much of it and we
get even more ill: a narrow window.
Your one before last sentence is such ludicrous hyperbole that it isn't worth refuting...
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"Natural spring water like the stuff where my aunt grew up? With fluoride levels so high she has the classic "mottled teeth" effect. Well, she's
nearly 80 and in good health, so it's clearly not that toxic."
Unionized, You are comparing something nature has worked on chemically to something man made. Apples and oranges. Nor do you state an analysis to show
proper comparison to your aunt's natural VS processed water. There are differences chemically and all of you know it. Also, none of these arguments
give consideration to long term effects on a microscopic scale of micro quantities either. Not even the earths natural filtration can handle
everything. Evidenced by my losing someone dear to me from leukemia, who grew up drinking well water in an area now known as a 'cancer cluster' from
PCB's and Benzine in the groundwater. Not one of you defending these man made additions to our water have total understanding of astoundingly complex
life processes and how they are affected by the addition of these chemicals. If you claim you do I will state right here you are lying. No one of you,
nor group of you, nor the combined total of all human knowledge can claim you do.
Bloggieboy, you have my permission to swill up all the industrial waste you desire. Just do not work in government writing regulations forcing this
stuff down the throats of me and my family. Fluorine you say. Hey, Chromium is good for the body also. Right from natural sources. Was that naturally
produced III or man made VI? Inquiring minds need to know. If it takes hyperbole to get the point across so be it. I see that as useful.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
Vargouille
Hazard to Others
Posts: 380
Registered: 16-4-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Naturalistic fallacy? In my ScienceMadness?
The addition of fluorosilicic acid to water supplies produces an effect largely equivalent to natural fluoride composition, because of the hydrolysis
of fluorosilicate to silicon dioxide and fluoride. Even if it didn't, that wouldn't support the assumption that all forms of industrial "waste" are
harmful. For example, the byproduct of the Pidgeon process is silicon dioxide. This silicon dioxide is not inherently toxic for its being man-made. Of
course, there are some very harmful industrial wastes, I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that the generalization is not valid. Nor is the
implicit statement that natural products are innately healthier than synthetic products particularly valid. After all, you would hardly claim
tetrodotoxin is safer than cubane.
Moreover, I don't need to understand all of physiology to know that a distinction exists between compounds whose toxicity exhibit a threshold below
which it is not detrimental to health and those which do not. It has not been proven as of yet that the old adage "the dose makes the poison" does not
apply to fluoride. For the time being, the argument against water fluoridation strikes me as primarily an ethical one.
[Edited on 4-2-2013 by Vargouille]
|
|
|
Rich_Insane
Hazard to Others
Posts: 371
Registered: 24-4-2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Member Is Offline
Mood: alive
|
|
Man made is not equivalent to inherently harmful. Nature produces hundreds if not thousands of toxicologically relevant compounds. The planet Earth
does not "care" about humanity. The planet Earth is neither hostile nor nourishing to life. It's just a place. Fluorides are found in the environment
with a relatively high abundance -- especially in the form of calcium fluoride.
You can't expect this planet to be specifically tailored for the human species.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
..
5 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
