Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3    5
Author: Subject: F- From Tap Water?
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1600
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 6-2-2013 at 19:37


"Soluble fluoride compounds, such as sodium fluoride and sodium silico-fluoride, are completely absorbed in the gut [2, 3]. Less soluble compounds, including calcium fluoride and fluorapatite (bone meal) are partially absorbed; as much as two-thirds of ingested fluorapatite is present in feces [4]."
http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v7/n3/abs/ki197519a.html


"Some of this extra fluoride comes from the fluoridated water used to manufacture dog food. Most, however, is from the "bone meal" and various meat byproducts that are added to dog food - anything from "chicken byproduct meal" to "beef and bone meal."
"Combined fluoride exposure from both food and water can easily range into unsafe territory. Routine exposure, like eating the same food every day, can predispose dogs to a variety of health problems: weakened bones, hormonal and behavior problems, and even bone cancer."
http://www.enviroblog.org/2009/07/is-there-too-much-fluoride...


In 1963, Dow stated that:
“Under no conditions should sulphuryl fluoride be used on raw agricultural food commodities, or on foods, feeds or medicinals destined for human or animal consumption.” (Bond 1984) (emphasis added)."
http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/sf_exposure/
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Xenon1898
Harmless
*




Posts: 49
Registered: 19-1-2013
Location: United States
Member Is Offline

Mood: Researching

[*] posted on 6-2-2013 at 20:19


Quote: Originally posted by ElectroWin  
in small amounts, at commercial purity, it's very likely more expensive to make anything than it is to buy it


...um... for fear of swinging this discussion back to the original topic....

I agree that most chemicals are cheaper to buy than make. This topic was an attempt to brainstorm ideas for one source of flouride/flourine that could be accumulated instead of thrown away, then one day getting around to extracting that source. If a typical filter doesn't accumulate much then this source is worthless. I am just trying to squirrel away ideas for chemicals that may one day be banned out right (this list is growing) or when it may be worth it financially one day.




“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”

-Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1600
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 6-2-2013 at 21:23


The other day I was rinsing off some pretty purple fluorite crystal clusters, some ~2.5 cm cubes fused together and noticed a sulfur smell. Anyway here's some tidbits I came across.
"Fluorite is the most popular mineral for mineral collectors in the world, second only to quartz. Every mineral collection owned by even the newest and youngest of mineral collectors must have a specimen of fluorite. Fluorite is by far one of the most beautiful and interesting minerals available on the mineral markets."
http://www.galleries.com/Fluorite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfqLRLw6TIE



[Edited on 7-2-2013 by Morgan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 7-2-2013 at 01:05


Quote: Originally posted by Xenon1898  
...um... for fear of swinging this discussion back to the original topic....

I am just trying to squirrel away ideas for chemicals that may one day be banned out right (this list is growing) or when it may be worth it financially one day.


I have thought about the subject a lot in the last few years. I have to say you need to read the two threads linked below. Very good place for ideas. Also, study the threads (some are at top in their sections - sticky's) concerning synthesizing various chemicals. Some over 40 pages but worth your time to study.

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=412

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=3254





"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4976
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-2-2013 at 04:23


Quote: Originally posted by IrC  


Way too generic there. If you go back you will see I named the specific chemicals they are putting in water which I object to.

[Edited on 2-4-2013 by IrC]


Indeed, you did.: specifically

"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."

Now, the problem with that is that natural spring water (like where my aunt grew up) contains more fluoride than fluoridated water.
So, you are claiming that "natural" water is safer even though it contains more of the stuff you are complaining about.
Then you went on to pretend that Cr(VI) is unnatural.
Specifically you said "Hey, Chromium is good for the body also. Right from natural sources. Was that naturally produced III or man made VI? "

And, re "Justify calling me nuts for merely stating I would not drink water with Fluorine added to it. "
No, that's the point. You get called nuts because you say things that are ridiculous.
One example would be your insistence that "natural is good". Another example would be that you think anyone called you nuts because of the water you drink. Nobody did.
So, it's not really name-calling, it's valid observation.
It's also clear that, since Blogfast got the impression that you are nuts a while back (as he said he did) then it can't be due to something recent like your ideas about fluoride. Did you not realise that?
You didn't? I guess you must be nuts then.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1600
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-2-2013 at 06:41


Fluoride and bone disease in uremia
"Total fluoride ingestion is estimated at 3 to 5 mg/day for healthy indoor workers in communities with fluoridated drinking water [5]. Fluoridated water generally contains 53 moles (1 part per million or 1 mg/liter) of fluoride."
http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v7/n3/abs/ki197519a.html

If you were an outdoor laborer, some iced tea would be refreshing. Snack on some raisins, maybe have a few glasses of wine at the end of a stressful day.

Skeletal fluorosis from brewed tea.
Izuora K, Twombly JG, Whitford GM, Demertzis J, Pacifici R, Whyte MP.
Source
Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine,Emory University, School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 3032, USA.
"Camellia sinensis, can contain substantial amounts of F(-). Exposure to 20 mg F(-) per day for 20 yr of adult life is expected to cause symptomatic SF. High F(-) levels stimulate osteoblasts and enhance bone apposition but substitute for OH(-) groups in hydroxyapatite crystals and thereby result in skeletal fragility and perhaps lead to secondary hyperparathyroidism. Beginning in 2005, we showed that daily consumption of 1-2 gallons of instant tea made from this plant can lead to SF."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21593111

I listened to this and then looked at this guy's bio. I suppose he's biting off more than he can chew in other areas of medicine but for this segment there's not much to quibble with, some but I would welcome any comments after you view this. At the end I almost closed out the video but a few other tidbits are brought up so wait till it ends completely. Some very good details to ponder no matter what side of the fence you are on. Again, this isn't a perfect presentation, but I really thought he made some good points, even saying some nice things about fluorine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIAeHrP2GxI#t=19m38s

[Edited on 7-2-2013 by Morgan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 10543
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Online

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-2-2013 at 06:56


"Beginning in 2005, we showed that daily consumption of 1-2 gallons of instant tea made from this plant can lead to SF." "

1 -2 gallons... (note also the cautious caveat 'can')

Now can anyone show me a demonstrable case of fluorosis caused by drinking fluorinated water? From using fluorinated toothpaste? If not kindly put up or shut up.

This is a typical case of irrational fears based on an invisible bogeyman, with some vaguely ideological anti-statism thrown in. The rest is fluff.

[Edited on 7-2-2013 by blogfast25]




View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4976
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-2-2013 at 07:57


"Skeletal fluorosis from brewed tea.
Izuora K, Twombly JG, Whitford GM, Demertzis J, Pacifici R, Whyte MP.
Source
Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine,Emory University, School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 3032, USA.
"Camellia sinensis, can contain substantial amounts of F(-). Exposure to 20 mg F(-) per day for 20 yr of adult life is expected to cause symptomatic SF. High F(-) levels stimulate osteoblasts and enhance bone apposition but substitute for OH(-) groups in hydroxyapatite crystals and thereby result in skeletal fragility and perhaps lead to secondary hyperparathyroidism. Beginning in 2005, we showed that daily consumption of 1-2 gallons of instant tea made from this plant can lead to SF.""

Well, that's nearly an answer to the OP. Don't try to extract fluoride from tap water there's very little there.
Extract it from tea instead because it's a much more concentrated source.

I'd still just buy the stuff on ebay.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 10543
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Online

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-2-2013 at 09:57


At the current price of tea, fluorides extracted from it would probably cost as much as gold, in raw materials alone.



View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4976
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-2-2013 at 10:39


Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
At the current price of tea, fluorides extracted from it would probably cost as much as gold, in raw materials alone.

True, but at least it would be on-topic.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 7-2-2013 at 17:03


Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
At the current price of tea, fluorides extracted from it would probably cost as much as gold, in raw materials alone.

True, but at least it would be on-topic.


Yes, something you have trouble with while jumping in to attack and insult me, while defending someone else's insults. "So, you are claiming that "natural" water is safer even though it contains more of the stuff you are complaining about."

No, quit blowing the claims of others out of proportion. I said paraphrasing, I do not believe people should be forced by mandate to have man made chemicals put in their bodies, and that I prefer things from nature. You are the one jumping to conclusions drawing opinions from extreme examples. I asked you to state assays of your aunts water and your tap water so we can compare in a scientific way. Without this data you are merely spewing opinion. You have no scientific credentials made evident to anyone so if you are going to call me nuts I suggest you quote studies actually done by credentialed authorities. Also you should include opposing studies by equally credentialed sources so we can make fair assessments of the available data. Otherwise your opinion means nothing to me. My point is adding these chemicals is a bad idea when long term studies of harm not immediately apparent is not done, nor well understood. Who is to say 2 generations from now cancers will not occur which otherwise would not have. People are not being given a choice by mandate these chemicals are being forced on them. And for what reason? Because someone may not brush their teeth? If people are too lazy or too ignorant to care for themselves is not justification in my mind for the entire population to be forced to drink such harsh chemicals. You are defending the indefensible without providing valid scientific data to back your position up, and resorting to names and insinuations to me for being in disagreement.

I am not going to waste more time talking to you on this subject, as that really would be, 'nuts'.





"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
elementcollector1
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline

Mood: Molten

[*] posted on 7-2-2013 at 17:15


Well, that was a whole lot of vitriol.
Anyway, IrC, if you prefer things from nature, then have a spoonful of some villaumite, or fluorspar. They're all-natural, and I'm sure you'll love them.
The problems with your argument that we shouldn't be forcing fluoride on the poor civilians is that
a) Local, not federal or even state, legislation decides whether fluoride should be put into water
b) Fluoride tends to leave the body readily
c) Even if it didn't, at the levels in water the national standard is set, a person would have to drink over 800 liters to feel anything, and by then they'd be long dead from water toxicity.

So, IrC, what scientific credentials do *you* have? After all, one must have an extensive set of credentials to have an opinion, especially on the Internet.




Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1600
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-2-2013 at 19:22


Recall outdoor workers, athletes, and diabetics are often drinking more water than others. People with kidney disease, as well as a few percent of the population more sensitive to fluorides might also be more vulnerable. If you want to buy sodium fluoride tablets, you need a prescription. But it's OK to put it in water at 4 ppm and then they decided not too long ago that that level was too high. And yet it wouldn't be that difficult to triple that number if you ate the wrong foods and drank twice as much water along with beverages that contain fluorides.
Yesterday there was a documentary on football injuries, and some of the panel were former players with concerns of painful complications from playing football, head injuries included. Some other players I have seen in the past wished they never played the pain was so bad. And just like this boxing is also coming under scrutiny. I once watched a spliced clip of several boxers who died in the ring or shortly after from being hit in the head. You just have to wonder how smart it is to promote these activities, because someone is getting hurt, damaged for the rest of their lives, literally losing the use of their brain. So many things in life are disguised, look how long it's taken for someone to even begin to care. So when you're old, maybe a lifetime of fluoride accumulation will matter, if you're taking in double or triple the norm or someone with a health problem. Maybe you could have had a better ending.

Kidneys - Not everyone is alike.
"Approximately 50% of the fluoride ingested each day is excreted in the urine although it may be as low as 10–20% or as high as 60–70%, depending on several factors
including age and urinary pH. Among the halogens, the excretion of fluoride by the kidneys is unusually rapid. Its renal
clearance from plasma typically ranges from 25–50 ml/min which is several orders of magnitude higher than that of other halogens. The clearance of fluoride is positively related to tubular fluid pH indicating that reabsorption from the renal tubules occurs as the highly diffusible and permeating molecule, HF. Thus, factors that influence urinary pH will also affect the excretion of fluoride. Such factors include the composition of the diet, certain metabolic or respiratory disorders, alkalinizing or acidifying drugs and residence at high altitude."
http://www.sso.ch/doc/doc_download.cfm?uuid=9553230ED9D9424C...

"The reason for the limited transfer of F from plasma to breast milk is unknown. It has been suggested that the physiological plasma-milk barrier actively protects the newborn from the toxic effects of F (Ekstrand et al, 1981). Cow’s milk, like human milk, contains low levels of F (0.017 mg/L) even when F is added to the cow’s food or drinking water (McClure, 1949). Breast-fed infants (or infants bottle-fed with cow’s milk) are in negative F-balance: more F is excreted in the urine than is ingested in the diet. During the period of breast feeding, F (deposited in foetal bone during pregnancy) is mobilized and released into the extracellular fluids and subsequently excreted into urine. Therefore, early human development has always occurred in a virtually F-free milieu even in the high-F areas: a phenomenon which lasts until the age of weaning and the introduction of solid foods."
"In contrast, the F-intake to bottle-fed infants living in fluoridated areas depends upon the [F] of. a) the water used to reconstitute the feed; b) the powdered formula-feed itself. Bottle-fed infants in fluoridated areas can receive 1.1 mg F from day 1: 150-200 times more F per day than breast-fed infants, i.e., 1100 vs. 5-10 j.tg/day (Ekstrand, 1989). The normal pharmacokinetics of F during infancy is reversed. Bottle-fed infants in fluoridated areas retain more than 50% of the ingested F-dose in the mineralizing tissues (Ekstrand et al, 1984; 1994)."

Of possible interest
"By old age, the pineal gland has readily accumulated F and its F/Ca ratio is higher than bone."
Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11275672


[Edited on 8-2-2013 by Morgan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
condennnsa
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 217
Registered: 20-4-2010
Location: Romania
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 8-2-2013 at 02:48


good news for Australia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFBtK1otx1E
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 10543
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Online

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 8-2-2013 at 05:38


Quote: Originally posted by condennnsa  
good news for Australia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFBtK1otx1E


condennsa:

Alex Jones.

Why do I have the feeling that ANYTHING with the word 'liberty' in it would have your approval? Presumably that would also include the 'liberty' to do demonstrably harmful things, as long as those 'liberty hating regulators and assorted do gooders' keep their mits of that kind of 'freedom'? When people keep cracking on about 'tyranny', 'Hollywood' etc the only thing they 'achieve' is to diminish the meaning of the word 'tyranny'. You woudn't recognise a real case of oppression if it came crawling out your nose.

Yous is essentially an uninformed, ideological stance. Libertarians, you've gotta love'm: couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery.


[Edited on 8-2-2013 by blogfast25]




View user's profile View All Posts By User
condennnsa
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 217
Registered: 20-4-2010
Location: Romania
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 8-2-2013 at 06:26


blogfast, did you watch the video? it has nothing to do with tyranny .
but i guess you associated mr jones' channel with ranting about tyranny, which is normal, as he does talk about it a lot.

Jones doesn;t even talk in the video, it's one of his employees, then there's an interview with an actual chemist who's opposed to fluoridation. and my opinion is that both of them make very good points.

I don't consider my self libertarian i actually don't quite know what that means, but i see that word a lot on the internet. :)
Yes I am uninformed,, i never claimed to be informed. compared to all the knowledge in the world I know 0% as a limit. but for example compared to others my age in my country, i consider myself informed.
But on this forum i am in the bottom section, i say that sincerely, i am often dumbfounded by the sheer level of knowledge of many members here , especially of course in the realm of chemistry. you're one of those by the way..

ideological stance? i give you my word I have no fetish for liberty

And i would recognize tyranny as we only got out of it for 23 years. though i only lived in it for the first 2 years of my life, i heard a lot about it from others.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Metacelsus
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2509
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Boston, MA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble

[*] posted on 8-2-2013 at 10:19


Politics aside, if you REALLY want to extract fluoride from a common source, try toothpaste, not tap water.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 10543
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Online

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 8-2-2013 at 12:24


Noted, condennnsa. Ta.



View user's profile View All Posts By User
Xenon1898
Harmless
*




Posts: 49
Registered: 19-1-2013
Location: United States
Member Is Offline

Mood: Researching

biggrin.gif posted on 8-2-2013 at 13:15


My fluridated toothpaste contains only 0.5% NaF, so I think the suggestion to extract F from acid quality fluorite containing 98% F makes alot more sense. That is one of those mineral ores worth paying the shipping for to perform such an extraction... especially if I was only going for 99% purity anyway :D

It is useful to observe government trends as tending toward more or less freedom, this will indicate trending toward liberty, or tyranny. Whether we are at full 100% oppression is not the point, the trend in that direction is the point. The important thing often missed is that with freedom needs to be allowed individual responsibility as well. Much better to have the individual or at least local community choice whether or not to do something than have it forced on you, even if it is someone else's beilief it is good for you, whether or not it is good for you. The trend we have today is tending toward less freedoms and less individual responsibility. The trend toward banning chemical compounds is a noteworthy indicator, the canary in the mine. We know we are in trouble when they start banning whole classes of compounds, such all oxidizers, all organic solvents, etc.

What would be wrong with simply providing the available information to the public about fluoride and letting individuals decide if they want to use fluoride toothpaste or not? I was a little dissapointed when I learned that my home water filter probably doesn't take out much of the flouride. I am not worried about the toxicity, I am worried about someone else imposing their decision of what is for my own good, and providing me with no choice, making me pay for it with my own taxes. Argue whether or not it is a net benefit until you are blue in the face, what's wrong with letting people decide for themselves?




“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”

-Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 10543
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Online

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 8-2-2013 at 14:31


Quote: Originally posted by Xenon1898  
Argue whether or not it is a net benefit until you are blue in the face, what's wrong with letting people decide for themselves?


There's nothing wrong with that but there's also the argument in favour of the greater good. We also have mandatory vaccination against certain viral diseases. Would you argue that the individual should choose whether or not to vaccinate their children? It's very easy to drive the argument about individual freedom to absurd heights. In any society there is such a thing as the 'common good'.

If you don't accept that [at the level of a state], you end up living in gated communities where either a 'council of elders' or some majority will decide what's allowed and what's not, what should be done and what not.

Whether we like it or not, Homo Sapiens is a social species.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
Xenon1898
Harmless
*




Posts: 49
Registered: 19-1-2013
Location: United States
Member Is Offline

Mood: Researching

[*] posted on 8-2-2013 at 14:49


Yes blog, I agree with you completely. It will always be a big compromise. I am simply very strongly in favor of more individual responsibility and more freedom, rather than less freedom and the state taking care of more of people's needs, when people have individual needs. I think there needs to be a balance, I am unhappy with the trending imbalance of individual freedoms across the globe. It will always be an imperfect compromise. For example the knee-jerk trend toward banning chemicals might stop a few drugs being made, but it isn't going to make the small percentage of bad people good. It will however have, what are hopefully unintended, negative consequences on society, such as squashing budding interests in chemistry, and pointless chemophobia in greater society.

Imagine a world where only large corporations make everything people need, the average person has no idea how anything is made, perfumes, food, building materials, paint, etc.. A world where kids are all sitting in chemistry class watching videos of other people experimenting instead of doing it themselves so the school can avoid the liability from chemophobic parents freaking out, missing out on the smells, the little mistakes, not really learning as much. Oh wait, that sounds strangely familiar.....




“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”

-Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4976
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 9-2-2013 at 05:22


Can we, at least, nail the one about athletes and outdoor workers who drink a lot of water.
It's because they sweat a lot.
Guess what, the (very soluble) fluoride ion is excreted in sweat so these people are not at elevated "risk".

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I6RwOKkPX28C&pg=PA92&...

Wouldn't it have been better if you had looked at the facts before posting about outdoor workers and athletes?

There is a valid discussion about the relative merits of individual and state responsibility: but it has little or nothing to do with the case of fluorides where there is no evidence of harm.
Sure, if you soak tea in water you can get high fluoride concentrations- well then don't.
Sure, at high doses, fluorides are toxic: so is water.

As I said before, show me the epidemic or accept that there isn't one.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 10543
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Online

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 9-2-2013 at 09:50


In Britain there’s the infamous case of a doctor who claimed to have found a link between the MMR combination vaccine and autism in children. Despite scant evidence for his case the doctor got quite a following and vile accusations against the government where the order of the day.

The doctor later fully recanted, stating he no longer believed his research (which appeared to be totally honest) showed any link. The followers concluded he had been ‘leaned on’ and that there was a ‘cover up’. Today a few leading nutters are still campaigning against the MMR vaccine.

In the absence of expertise or real knowledge many people still prefer rhubarb.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1600
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 9-2-2013 at 12:11


"Can we, at least, nail the one about athletes and outdoor workers who drink a lot of water."

As long as there are no diabetic athletes or outdoor workers with bad kidneys or metabolic diseases I guess not. Oh but wait, I forgot to read all the facts. Intuitively it would seem the more you take in, the more you might be concerned, for a variety of reasons. I think a good way to look at it is that the body is like a new house, but as with everything little things start to go wrong, seemingly insignificant but over time all the collective insults from nature start to add up. And like the boxer or football player manifesting a hit/illness later in life, it's all about how you played the game. Not everyone is alike.

The McClure study 1945,
Both studies were compromised by the small number of subjects."

Page 7
"In tropical climates during prolonged exercise, the
excretion of fluoride in sweat is about a tenth of a
milligram. This values is quite small compared to 2
mg uptake from diet and a milligram of fluoride
excreted by urine."
http://student.ahc.umn.edu/dental/2012/5302/2009-L6-3Apr.pdf

Tidbits from the above link.
"The absorption of F taken on a fasting stomach was about 100%. Taken with milk decreased absorption to about 70%, and 60% with calcium-rich breakfast. The decreased absorption is caused by the binding of fluoride with certain positive ions, esp Al, Mg, Ca. In this case, the fecal excretion of fluoride increases. The ability of calcium to reduce the absorption of F is the basis for treating acute F toxicity by giving calcium-containing solution."
"This experiment, rats were given Cimetidine to inhibit gastric acid secretion or Pentagastrin to stimulate gastric acid secretion. The bioavailability of fluoride in the Pentagastrin group was 65-97%, comparing to 66% in the Cimetidine group. This study indicates that the permeation of fluoride through the gastric mucosa is pH dependent. The higher acidity of stomach content increases the absorption of fluoride. The reason is because HF is the dominate form at low pH."
"Fluoride is absorbed as HF, which is an uncharged molecule and can readily pass through biological membranes. Research has shown that 40% of oral dose of fluoride is absorbed from the stomach."
"In case of acute fluoride poisoning, to promote the
renal excretion of fluoride by increasing urinary flow
rate will be effective only if the method also increases
urinary pH."
"Factors that influence urinary pH affect the excretion of
fluoride. For example, the composition of diet, certain
drugs, and some metabolic diseases. Interestingly, a
vegetarian diet promotes more alkaline urine and hence
more fluoride excretion."
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4976
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 9-2-2013 at 12:31


Still waiting for news of the epidemic.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3    5

  Go To Top