Sciencemadness Discussion Board - F- From Tap Water? - Powered by XMB 1.9.11 (Debug Mode)

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 - 2-2-2013 at 18:51

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.

Vargouille - 2-2-2013 at 19:00

There are no papers showing any benefit of having the low amounts found in treated water.

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 - 2-2-2013 at 20:31

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.

Xenon1898 - 2-2-2013 at 20:33

[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.

chemrox - 2-2-2013 at 23:03

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]

unionised - 3-2-2013 at 02:50

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 - 3-2-2013 at 03:01

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17

Don't make me search for papers. Please don't make this thread run into conspiracy theories

"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...

unionised - 3-2-2013 at 03:39

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 - 3-2-2013 at 05:45

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 - 3-2-2013 at 07:36

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.

Vargouille - 3-2-2013 at 09:35

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 - 3-2-2013 at 12:26

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 - 3-2-2013 at 13:12

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.

unionised - 3-2-2013 at 14:03

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 - 3-2-2013 at 14:13

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.

blogfast25 - 3-2-2013 at 14:18

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 - 3-2-2013 at 14:25

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 - 3-2-2013 at 16:21

"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.

Vargouille - 3-2-2013 at 17:31

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 - 3-2-2013 at 17:31

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.

ElectroWin - 3-2-2013 at 18:02

in small amounts, at commercial purity, it's very likely more expensive to make anything than it is to buy it

IrC - 3-2-2013 at 18:26

Quote: Originally posted by Rich_Insane

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.

Your logic is completely absurd. Venus is a "place". Try living there. Better yet, you completely disregard millions of years of life adapting to the earth. Get that? We adapt to Earth, not the other way around. Humans are a perfect example. How can you possibly state "Earth is neither hostile nor nourishing to life"? Absolute crap. Earth is very much both at the same time and without the conditions the earth provides we could not possibly live. Might I suggest a condo on Mercury? Fluorine in Calcium Fluoride is bound up tighter than a tick on your ass. No way can you make any comparisons to the chemistry of water fluoridation nor the inherent toxicity or non toxicity of natural Fluorine using this compound.

blogfast25 - 4-2-2013 at 08:51

Unionized, You are comparing something nature has worked on chemically to something man made. Apples and oranges.

[...]

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.

As regards the first statement, it’s codswallop with a hint of the supernatural thrown in. Chemicals are chemicals are chemicals, ‘natural’ or not. H2S isn’t any less harmful if it comes out of a cow's behind or from FeS + an acid. It is what it is. Same with fluorides: harmful in large amounts, vital for life in the right amounts.

Re. the second fart shows typical irrational paranoia about Governments that’s so rife in a part of the political spectrum of a certain large country. ‘Governments’ treat water all the time so YOU can DRINK it. With CHEMICALS.

Nothing wrong with being sceptical but you are confusing your hysteria with scepticism… You’ve got form in that department.

[Edited on 4-2-2013 by blogfast25]

IrC - 4-2-2013 at 09:08

I do not agree. Many reactions in nature have complexities in subtle ways which are not the same as dumping poisonous industrial waste in the water.

One person can eat raw almonds and croak. Another likes them. The difference was different gut bacteria and the functioning of various enzymes where HCN is produced in the first person but not in the second. An analogy to be sure but appropriate and I can not see where you justify the UFO theory hysteria accusation. I thought it was you who brought up the term hyperbole. Pointless in any case you can go back to drinking whatever you wish now. I am not wasting more time on this. The owner of the TV can now resume his regular programming.

blogfast25 - 4-2-2013 at 09:14

In the next episode we’ll discuss chemtrails, Government sanctioned alien abductions, the ‘Gay agenda’ and how Big Government is trying to steal your guns.

elementcollector1 - 4-2-2013 at 09:19

In the next episode we’ll discuss chemtrails, Government sanctioned alien abductions, the ‘Gay agenda’ and how Big Government is trying to steal your guns.

Please, stay tuned! We're here for another 67,000 seasons, folks.

Rich_Insane - 4-2-2013 at 09:21

Quote:

You're missing the point of that post completely.

You insinuated earlier that fluoride is inherently a bad thing because it is man-made, or at least you suggest that natural products are somehow less dangerous to humanity. I'm trying to say that Earth is tailored specifically for human needs -- it behooves us to constantly adapt to the environment. You're trying to turn my own statement against me.

This is why we produce synthetic/artificial materials. In the case of fluoride, recall that fluoride strengthens enamel (formation of the inert fluoroapatite material). Due to high sugar-diets and globalization of food products, we are prone to a much higher incidence of dental carries. These, in turn, contribute to infection, which can sometimes be fatal. Humans no longer "adapt" by natural selection, at least not in the immediate future we will not. Humans constantly push the carrying capacity of Earth using technology and technological innovation. Thus is the dynamic nature of human "adaption." Millions of years of natural selection has produced a species that can piece together empirical data in order to produce practical devices/materials. Your logic is no different than those who assume cities as somehow un-natural in the sense that cities are not ecosystems (which is utterly false; the urban ecosystem is just as complex as the woodland ecosystem). I see that line of thinking as pretentious -- somehow assuming that things are "un-natural" and "natural" based on the progenitor of these objects. In reality, man-made objects are neither, because they are both a product of human means of production and a product of millions of years of neurological adaptions that have allowed for increased cognitive capacity.

Fluoride doesn't appear out of thin air, and can be found in elevated concentrations across the globe. Calcium fluoride is harmless, but it is an example of a fluoride salt that is found in relative abundance. Because of this, it is not outlandish to assume that other dissolved fluorides exist in the environment. As others have stated in this thread, fluoride concentrations do indeed appear increased in some so-called "clean" spring water. Likewise, elevated arsenic can be found in some areas.

Thus, fluoridation of water, as repeatedly stated in this thread, is not an inherent medical issue but an ethical issue: Does the government have any right to add fluoride to our water without our permission?

Well technically, in a capitalist society, water has become a commodity, the rights to which are given entirely to one firm or another. So if you object to fluoridated water, yet are in favor of a capitalist society, then you should respect the ownership of water sources and find your own source to drink from. Or use the almighty dollar/euro/whatever currency to purchase some bottled water.

Welcome to Capitalism.

The "most successful" economic system to date.

IrC - 4-2-2013 at 10:59

"You insinuated earlier that fluoride is inherently a bad thing because it is man-made, or at least you suggest that natural products are somehow less dangerous to humanity."

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.

"In the next episode we’ll discuss chemtrails, Government sanctioned alien abductions, the ‘Gay agenda’ and how Big Government is trying to steal your guns."

Oddly enough, at least one of those things is likely true. Besides if I were the first to trend this thread towards the conspiracy theory realm I would have been the one bringing up chemtrails or the one introducing the left vs right socialism vs capitalism issue.

"Well technically, in a capitalist society, water has become a commodity, the rights to which are given entirely to one firm or another. So if you object to fluoridated water, yet are in favor of a capitalist society, then you should respect the ownership of water sources and find your own source to drink from. Or use the almighty dollar/euro/whatever currency to purchase some bottled water.Welcome to Capitalism."

Truth is the water all belongs to the government now by concise and public EPA regulations, even if it is a well or spring on your own land. Even if that land has been in your family for 200 years. I am not making this up research it for yourself. Thus they do not listen to the people and they put whatever the hell they want to in your water. If in the interest of some government agency they will put one form or another of industrial waste spewing entity right on top of the water table feeding your private well so your answer of "getting your own water" is doomed to failure anyway.

It is not "welcome to capitalism" as you state but rather "Welcome to the 21st Century" (Schizoid Man).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6_B6zhENrQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century_Schizoid_Man

King Crimson - 21st Century Schizoid Man
In the Court of the Crimson King (1969)

"Cat's foot iron claw
Neurosurgeons scream for more
At paranoia's poison door.
Twenty first century schizoid man.

Blood rack barbed wire
Politicians' funeral pyre
Innocents raped with napalm fire
Twenty first century schizoid man.

Death seed blind man's greed
Poets' starving children bleed
Nothing he's got he really needs
Twenty first century schizoid man".

Hey Blog, you got me going on this conspiracy thing it's fun. I should post a better song for the way things are going today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jh49xDNbCg

"If you are going to make silly noises about "natural is good and man-made is bad, at least learn some facts.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chromate_mineralsChrome VI is natural too.I'm not a huge fan of swilling industrial waste, but I will happily match you in a snorting contest. I will inhale water with a few micrograms of industrial waste of your choice, if you snort the same mass of the perfectly natural (and therefore safe ) botulinum toxin."

Give me a break unionized I never espoused this claim to the level so many of you are saying. You exaggerate my words to the extreme and you know it.

If any one good thing comes out of this thread I hope it is Roscoe coming in and showing me how to post utube links where they come up with the pictures instead of a line of text.

Beyond that I see little use in this conversation. I should be allowed to state I prefer to drink natural water and this fact be accepted in lieu of the endless barrage of exaggerations and attacks for it you all seem to bent upon perpetuating.

[Edited on 2-4-2013 by IrC]

unionised - 4-2-2013 at 11:42

"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.

If you are going to make silly noises about "natural is good and man-made is bad, at least learn some facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chromate_minerals
Chrome VI is natural too.

I'm not a huge fan of swilling industrial waste, but I will happily match you in a snorting contest. I will inhale water with a few micrograms of industrial waste of your choice, if you snort the same mass of the perfectly natural (and therefore safe ) botulinum toxin.

Rich_Insane - 4-2-2013 at 14:02

Quote:

... 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.

The last few sentences suggest that the "natural stuff" is somehow superior to the water today. And look who's exaggerating here?

Quote:

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.

Water fluoridation didn't begin until the 1940's or 1950's. By then, there had been numerous locales where fluoride concentrations were elevated enough to discolor teeth. For thousands of years, humans have survived on water that is heavily contaminated with perfectly natural toxins -- arsenic, fluoride, heavy metals and whatnot. So while there is a serious ethical concern when considering the fluoridation of water (in fact, I believe individuals should have a choice whether they receive fluoridated tap water or not), there is no reason to demonize the poor halogen anion.

Nature does not have a "filtration system." Nature doesn't have anything that is built for humanity or built for life for the matter. Why? Because the planet is not conscious. Indeed, our species has evolved in extraordinarily perfect conditions for life, but Earth is by no means flawless. Nature produces toxins just as man produces toxins.

Quote:

Give me a break unionized I never espoused this claim to the level so many of you are saying. You exaggerate my words to the extreme and you know it. If any one good thing comes out of this thread I hope it is Roscoe coming in and showing me how to post utube links where they come up with the pictures instead of a line of text. Beyond that I see little use in this conversation. I should be allowed to state I prefer to drink natural water and this fact be accepted in lieu of the endless barrage of exaggerations and attacks for it you all seem to bent upon perpetuating.

Exaggerations. How ironic.

He's right though about something you can't seem to absorb: Just because spring water is "natural" does not mean that it is somehow better than so-called processed water. I object to unauthorized fluoridation of water

Quote:

Truth is the water all belongs to the government now by concise and public EPA regulations, even if it is a well or spring on your own land. Even if that land has been in your family for 200 years. I am not making this up research it for yourself. Thus they do not listen to the people and they put whatever the hell they want to in your water. If in the interest of some government agency they will put one form or another of industrial waste spewing entity right on top of the water table feeding your private well so your answer of "getting your own water" is doomed to failure anyway.

Taken directly from the EPA website:

"Fluoride is voluntarily added to some drinking water systems as a public health measure for reducing the incidence of cavities among the treated population. The decision to fluoridate a water supply is made by the State or local municipality, and is not mandated by EPA or any other Federal entity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides recommendations about the optimal levels of fluoride in drinking water in order to prevent tooth decay. "

The water "industry" is a monopoly that is controlled by municipal/state regulations. Indeed, a large portion of this monopoly is government-controlled, but it still represents the commoditization of essential resources by a distinct "owner"; This can be considered evidence of Lenin's proposed progression of Capitalism to Imperialism.

blogfast25 - 5-2-2013 at 13:43

Irc:

Perhaps I can interest you in a signed copy of Alex Jones’ new book: ‘The Great American Cull: How Big Government is Killing Americans with Psychotropic Fluorides in Drinking Water’?

There’s nothing to disagree with re. rich_insane’s assertions.

Funny how you never hear anything about Botilinum in those 'natural' yoghurts and stuff. Hmmm...

[Edited on 5-2-2013 by blogfast25]

IrC - 5-2-2013 at 17:45

Irc:

Perhaps I can interest you in a signed copy of Alex Jones’ new book: ‘The Great American Cull: How Big Government is Killing Americans with Psychotropic Fluorides in Drinking Water’?

There’s nothing to disagree with re. rich_insane’s assertions.

Funny how you never hear anything about Botilinum in those 'natural' yoghurts and stuff. Hmmm...

[Edited on 5-2-2013 by blogfast25]

You really are starting to worry me. Myself I would never go looking for a copy of that book nor would I be so infatuated with Jones that I would wish a signed copy of it. Very scary if you ask me. All of your arguments are flawed. You cannot justify putting poison in water by pointing out poison things in nature. If none of you see that what the hell are you wasting money on an education for? Just because Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks is no justification for you doing the same. Yet this is precisely what many of you are doing. Go back to the story about the spring water so fluoridated by nature his aunts teeth are mottled. This indicates reason to put it in even more water supplies? Your Clostridium is in honey and dirt as well. Cyanide is in Cherries, Almonds, Apricots, Rhubarb, and so on. Should this then justify putting it in things not normally containing it? I do not think so. Myself I prefer to drink the safest water I can, nor do I make a habit out of looking for danger in anything I do. Just common sense. You people can drink whatever you wish it makes no difference to me. I don't have to live with it. Yet in a large number of posts many of you are opposing my opinion and promoting fluorine in water by pointing to other bad things. The logic is so flawed it boggles the mind. By the way offering the book is nothing more than a thinly veiled character attack against me for holding the position I do since so much Jones has to say consists of off the deep end conspiracy theories. You are starting to tread in the realm of "argumentum ad hominem". I will point out however if we were under attack from aliens it would not be less true just because a kook was telling me about it.

elementcollector1 - 5-2-2013 at 17:59

Have we proved fluoride is poisonous yet? I think we've proved just the opposite. Fluoride still has no toxicological effects, and besides, what do you think the big, bad (local) government(s) are doing by putting fluoride in water? Maybe... helping your teeth through better establishment of the fluoroapatite layer that protect them through regulated limits in our water supply?
My point is, who cares? Why is fluoride suddenly such a horrible thing?

Rich_Insane - 5-2-2013 at 21:21

Quote:

Have we proved fluoride is poisonous yet? I think we've proved just the opposite. Fluoride still has no toxicological effects, and besides, what do you think the big, bad (local) government(s) are doing by putting fluoride in water? Maybe... helping your teeth through better establishment of the fluoroapatite layer that protect them through regulated limits in our water supply? My point is, who cares? Why is fluoride suddenly such a horrible thing?

It's not true that fluoride has no toxic effects -- fluoride is more toxic than other halides. But at the dose normally added to water, it is not nearly as toxic as other compounds found in water. It's all a cost-benefit analysis. I personally would prefer NaF as a fluoride source rather than hexafluorosilicate, but fluoride itself isn't inherently toxic a the EPA mandated maximum limit.

If you take so much of a problem with fluoride, then leave the fluoridated tap water to those who really don't care and find your own water source to drink from.

IrC - 5-2-2013 at 21:41

Quote: Originally posted by Rich_Insane

If you take so much of a problem with fluoride, then leave the fluoridated tap water to those who really don't care and find your own water source to drink from.

If you had actually read my posts you would already know I do not drink tap water. Only spring water for over 40 years now. I have every bit as much right to say it should not be in the water as you have to say it is so what really is your problem anyway.

unionised - 6-2-2013 at 07:07

Incidentally, can someone tell me when, and where the epidemic was?

I seem to have missed it.
I mean the epidemic of diseases that started when they started fluoridating the water supply.
What? There wasn't one?
However not?
It's obvious that if they start putting toxic levels of stuff in the water then there will be a whole bunch of people suddenly poisoned.
Where are they?

elementcollector1 - 6-2-2013 at 09:11

Incidentally, can someone tell me when, and where the epidemic was?

I seem to have missed it.
I mean the epidemic of diseases that started when they started fluoridating the water supply.
What? There wasn't one?
However not?
It's obvious that if they start putting toxic levels of stuff in the water then there will be a whole bunch of people suddenly poisoned.
Where are they?

On the Internet. They seem to be quite angry about their dental fluorosis. Never a word about their symptoms, though...

blogfast25 - 6-2-2013 at 10:01

You miss the point here: it's all a cover up! Text books being changed to tell us that industrial waste, oooopsie, I meant small amounts of fluoride, are beneficial, the EPA and CDCs being sworn to secrecy etc etc. Mean time people are dying like flies and dumped in mass graves under the cover of darkness. Obama isn't just a Cohohohomunist, you know?

Irc: you're nuts. But I got that impression quite a while back.

condennnsa - 6-2-2013 at 12:23

well i m sleepy so soon to bed but ill just add my to cents. Irc is right

they put F in water and claim its for teeth haha ... sounds infantile

like saying that oh my god a lot of people have got flu in the us.
let's put antibiotic in the tap water.

water is water not medicine.

somebody was asking if fluoride was established to be toxic?!
why would you ask that if you're on the web already? wikipedia lists it as toxic , with an ld50 of 52-200 mg/kg in rats

a lot of people recommend bottled water. i don't trust that stuff jack.
i remember there was a scandal where one of these companies making bottle water was caught selling straight tap water hahah?
and a lot bottled water contains fluoride at about the same concentration as US fluoridated water, openly written on the label.

In my country water isn't fluoridated to my knowledge, I do drink tap water, althogh i don;'t like it ; it smells and tastes like chlorine from the disinfection, i believe they do that in the US with O3 , right?

you want best water make distilled water by yourself, that way you make sure you get the best water.

Endimion17 - 6-2-2013 at 12:54

well i m sleepy so soon to bed but ill just add my to cents. Irc is right

they put F in water and claim its for teeth haha ... sounds infantile

like saying that oh my god a lot of people have got flu in the us.
let's put antibiotic in the tap water.

water is water not medicine.

somebody was asking if fluoride was established to be toxic?!
why would you ask that if you're on the web already? wikipedia lists it as toxic , with an ld50 of 52-200 mg/kg in rats

a lot of people recommend bottled water. i don't trust that stuff jack.
i remember there was a scandal where one of these companies making bottle water was caught selling straight tap water hahah?
and a lot bottled water contains fluoride at about the same concentration as US fluoridated water, openly written on the label.

In my country water isn't fluoridated to my knowledge, I do drink tap water, althogh i don;'t like it ; it smells and tastes like chlorine from the disinfection, i believe they do that in the US with O3 , right?

you want best water make distilled water by yourself, that way you make sure you get the best water.

No, it's not infantile. It's called a public health action and it's helping to decrease the statistical probability of cavities which would climb because the modern society uses way more carbohydrates than before. Just like vaccines are used to lower the probability of one getting sick, plus lowering the chances of epidemic via herd immunity.

Your comparison with antibiotics is ignorant. They don't prevent nor treat influenza because it's a viral disease.
Even if they did have an effect, it would take absolutely HUGE amounts of antibiotics to treat the population. The side effects would be disastrous in the true sense of the word disaster.

I live where the amount of fluoride in water is roughly 0.1 ppm because the ground is basically karst and Ca2+ liberated from calcium hydrogencarbonate captures some of the fluoride anions. In other places without karst the amount is higher. It's benign. Everyone brushes their teeth using fluoride toothpastes, and small children use fluoride prophylaxis in the form of NaF pills and gel fluoridization. There's no dental fluorosis and we're not having an epidemic of retarded children.

Bottled water is an expensive marketing scam for fancy people. If your tap water is fine for drinking, you don't need bottled water.
It shouldn't smell like chlorine all the time. There should be only a hint of "freshness" in it. Chlorine in water is harmless, but chloramines aren't, and their concentration is too high when when you chlorinate too filthy water without previous treatment, which means that the water company is not doing its job as it should.

Drinking distilled water all the time is a great way for purging the minerals out of your body. But then again, if you knew some biology (and you don't), you'd know why it's not a healthy habit.

condennnsa - 6-2-2013 at 13:17

yes, i am ignorant but to be honest i was thinking of the common cold when I was writing my post, but I didn't know that the flu was viral . interesting

I was just trying to put out that if people are sick you don't put medicine in the water ... simple.

You don't have an epidemic of retarded children, but americans sure do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGs6oMaB5H0

and the distilled water argument i've heard ad nauseam amd it's bogus,
minerals in the water are such a tiny amount of the minerals the body ingests it's insignificant, It's the Food. but I agree that I don't know biology. I really don't. never knew much of anything

but boy do i agree with you for calling bottled water for what it is.

[Edited on 6-2-2013 by condennnsa]

Endimion17 - 6-2-2013 at 13:31

yes, i am ignorant but to be honest i was thinking of the common cold when I was writing my post, but I didn't know that the flu was viral . interesting

I was just trying to put out that if people are sick you don't put medicine in the water ... simple.

You don't have an epidemic of retarded children, but americans sure do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGs6oMaB5H0

and the distilled water argument i've heard ad nauseam amd it's bogus,
minerals in the water are such a tiny amount of the minerals the body ingests it's insignificant, It's the Food. but I agree that I don't know biology. I really don't. never knew much of anything

but boy do i agree with you for calling bottled water for what it is.

[Edited on 6-2-2013 by condennnsa]

The problem with distilled water is not in the fact we don't receive our daily mineral requirements solely via drinking water.
It's the fact distilled water is completely hypotonic. There's nothing inside unless you count in small amounts of dissolved gases.
Relying on distilled water as main water intake will require dumping out more ions from the body. It's not a habit that will kill you or make you sick, but it's additional job for the body osmotic systems. There's simply no need for it.

Of course, I'm talking about homemade distilled water.
Industrial distilled water, on the other hand, often contains traces of chemicals that are too dangerous, so having a habit of drinking it could be bad for you in the long terms.
That's why pharmaceutical laboratories and factories use "pharma grade purified water" for mixing medicines.

blogfast25 - 6-2-2013 at 14:35

I was just trying to put out that if people are sick you don't put medicine in the water ... simple.

[Edited on 6-2-2013 by condennnsa]

Except of course that unnecessary tooth decay was RIFE before fluorination of drinking water and the advent of fluorinated toothpaste and tablets like 'Zimafluor'. It's a PREVENTATIVE measure: you can't solve tooth decay RETROACTIVELY, except with ineffective fillings and dentures.

chemrox - 6-2-2013 at 18:27

I don't share the concept that I'm obligated to sacrifice, or possible risk my health because there are children whose parents don't bother to educate themselves about dental hygiene and tooth decay. I have yet to see a good quality paper that shows any actual value from fluoridation. It scares me. I have lived in places where the water is undrinkable from hex chrome and chlorinated methanes. Why take really could water and add something that to say the least is controversial for the sake of some nanny agenda. Our society is being overtaken by school marms and their eunuch consorts.

IrC - 6-2-2013 at 18:44

Irc: you're nuts. But I got that impression quite a while back.

Justify calling me nuts for merely stating I would not drink water with Fluorine added to it. Seems to me this is merely a personal preference which I have every right to hold concerning what I put in my body. Every right to state as well. You can drink your piss for all I care it 'neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg' to quote Jefferson. Was it Plato who said so long ago when the person you debate resorts to name calling they have lost the debate. I know it was one of those old Greek guys. Who by the way never added Fluorine to their water either.

Morgan - 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/

Xenon1898 - 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.

Morgan - 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]

IrC - 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

unionised - 7-2-2013 at 04:23

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.

Morgan - 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]

blogfast25 - 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]

unionised - 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.

blogfast25 - 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.

unionised - 7-2-2013 at 10:39

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.

IrC - 7-2-2013 at 17:03

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'.

elementcollector1 - 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.

Morgan - 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]

condennnsa - 8-2-2013 at 02:48

good news for Australia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFBtK1otx1E

blogfast25 - 8-2-2013 at 05:38

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]

condennnsa - 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.

Metacelsus - 8-2-2013 at 10:19

Politics aside, if you REALLY want to extract fluoride from a common source, try toothpaste, not tap water.

blogfast25 - 8-2-2013 at 12:24

Noted, condennnsa. Ta.

Xenon1898 - 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

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?

blogfast25 - 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.

Xenon1898 - 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.....

unionised - 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.

blogfast25 - 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.

Morgan - 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."

unionised - 9-2-2013 at 12:31

Still waiting for news of the epidemic.

blogfast25 - 9-2-2013 at 13:52