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

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3  4
Author: Subject: Water flouridation
Berrilium
Harmless
*




Posts: 46
Registered: 31-3-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 4-6-2012 at 09:31
Water flouridation


I was reading up about water flouridation, and like many things on the internet, a lot of it was scientifically innacurate and based on ignorant opinions.

What do you think, should it be stopped or is it done in such miniscule amounts that it is negligible?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hexavalent
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1564
Registered: 29-12-2011
Location: Wales, UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pericyclic

[*] posted on 4-6-2012 at 10:39


We did this ages ago in our chemistry class. Personally, I think not - giving what is essentially medicine to everyone without their permission is illegal (at least here in the UK) and removes the freedom of choice for the individual.

Despite this, I am aware of the health benefits and potential negative impacts - for example, I understand that it certainly reduces tooth decay, but what about the unknown risk of being at a higher risk of bone cancer?

This decision whether to add F- to water or not IMHO has to be considered by the individual, and they should have the final choice about what they take into their own bodies of their own accord.




"Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1594
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 4-6-2012 at 10:40


Not sure how much is true, but some food for thought.
"Instant tea, one of the most popular drinks in the United States, may be a source of harmful levels of fluoride... The researchers found that some regular strength preparations contain as much as 6.5 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, well over the 4 ppm maximum allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency." - 'Potentially harmful fluoride levels found in some instant tea'', Washington University School of Medicine, January 25, 2005."
"Despite repeated warnings that humans, particularly children, are currently receiving too much fluoride from their diets (see section V), fluoride pesticides continue to be added to the food supply under extremely lax regulations from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."
"Currently, the main fluoride pesticide used in the US is cryolite (sodium aluminum fluoride). The EPA currently allows up to 7 ppm of fluoride on over 30 fruits and vegetables treated with cryolite. This 7 ppm fluoride tolerance applies to: apricots, beets, blackberries, broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, citrus fruits, collards, cranberries, cucumbers, eggplants, grapes, kale, lettuce, melons, nectarines, peaches, peppers, plums, pumpkins, radishes, raspberries, squash, strawberries, tomatoes and turnip."
"A 2 ppm standard has also been established for potatoes, which are second to grapes for total cryolite usage."
"The EPA's standard of 7 ppm for fluoride residues is over 5 times greater than the standard set by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1933. In 1933, the USDA established the maximum level for fluoride residues on fruits and vegetables at 1.2 ppm, which was the same standard the USDA established for arsenic. While arsenic pesticides have since been phased out of use in the US, fluoride pesticides remain."
"In fact, the current tolerance levels for fluoride pesticides could become even higher - if the US EPA, under intense pressure from DOW Chemical, approves sulfuryl fluoride as a replacement fumigant for methyl bromide."
"If EPA approves sulfuryl fluoride (an indoor fumigant that has never before been used on food) as the replacement for methyl bromide, there will be a substantial increase in the fluoride contamination of the food supply."
"In a recent petition (February 15, 2002) to the EPA, DOW Chemical asked for extremely high fluoride tolerances on a wide number of common foods, including, 98 ppm for wheat germ, 40 ppm for wheat bran, 31 ppm for rice bran, 30 ppm for a variety of nuts, 28 ppm for corn meal, 26 ppm for corn flour, 25 ppm for millet grain, 25 ppm for wild rice grain, 25 ppm for sorghum grain, 25 ppm for wheat grain, and 17 ppm for oat grain!"
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-dangers/sources-of-flu...

One 400th of a pancake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXD_MV0-50Y&feature=relmf...
Continued
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2xtNtMvJc&feature=relmf...


"In rare cases improper implementation of water fluoridation can result in overfluoridation that causes outbreaks of acute fluoride poisoning, with symptoms that include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Three such outbreaks were reported in the U.S. between 1991 and 1998, caused by fluoride concentrations as high as 220 mg/L; in the 1992 Alaska outbreak, 262 people became ill and one person died.[59] In 2010, approximately 60 gallons of fluoride were released into the water supply in Asheboro, North Carolina in 90 minutes—an amount that was intended to be released in a 24-hour period.[60]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

Clinical Findings:
"Acute poisoning from inhalation of fluorine-containing gases or from ingestion of rodenticides or ascaricides containing fluoride is rare. Oral cleaning products present a danger to pets, especially dogs. The fatal dose of sodium fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg and toxic effects occur below 1 mg/kg. Fluoride (75-90% absorbed by 90 min) lowers serum calcium and magnesium. Clinically, gastroenteritis and cardiac (ventricular tachycardia and ECG abnormalities) and nervous signs may be followed within a few hours by collapse and death."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...

Dogs and grapes.
http://dogtorj.com/appetizers/medical-conditions-f-k/grape-p...



[Edited on 4-6-2012 by Morgan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hexavalent
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1564
Registered: 29-12-2011
Location: Wales, UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pericyclic

[*] posted on 4-6-2012 at 10:54


Just a collection of images used by protesters against water fluoridation . . .I love the clear bias in them and the references to 'Used by Nazis . . . '















Also (for some reason, these ones didn't like the [img][/img] code. . .

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Lv_FYcLXA6w/Te9smX6X-PI/AAAAAAAAJP...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZOwnzvDYQ40/TUGx_56qWnI/AAAAAAAABi...

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/8661722/homepage/name/609913?ty...

[Edited on 4-6-2012 by Hexavalent]




"Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
View user's profile View All Posts By User
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 4-6-2012 at 11:07


I see the Full Employment for Unethical Dentists faction is raising its snaggletoothed head again.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1594
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 4-6-2012 at 18:27


Government Recommends Lower Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water
http://www.care2.com/causes/government-recommends-lower-fluo...

"In March, 2006, the National Academy of Sciences released a report recommending that the EPA lower its maximum standard for fluoride in drinking water to below 4 milligrams. The report warned severe fluorosis could occur at 2 milligrams. Also, a majority of the report's authors said a lifetime of drinking water with fluoride at 4 milligrams or higher could raise the risk of broken bones."
http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_b9ef926e-1afe-11e...

Harmful Fluoride Levels Found in Instant Iced Tea
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145423,00.html

[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Twospoons
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1209
Registered: 26-7-2004
Location: Middle Earth
Member Is Offline

Mood: A trace of hope...

[*] posted on 4-6-2012 at 19:11


I wonder how many smokers there are in the anti-fluoride brigade?
I have a mate who tells me about various 'health' things from time to time (not all bogus), and in the back of my mind I'm screaming " ARRGH! Forget the magic potions and take that damn cigar out of your mouth!"




Helicopter: "helico" -> spiral, "pter" -> with wings
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1594
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 05:32


Kryocide® Advisory on Use of Cryolite to Control Insects on Grapes
http://www.fluoridealert.org/kryocide.htm

"California grape growers use cryolite to control two insects that can devastate vineyards. Researchers from California State University in Fresno conducted a 5 year study (1990-1994) on vineyards throughout the San Joaquin Valley. They found that "[m]ultiple applications of Cryolite during the growing season significantly increase fluoride in wines." Notably they found fluoride levels between 3 - 6 ppm in Zinfandel, Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon, Chenin Blanc, Thompson Seedless, Barbera, Muscat Candi, Ruby Cabernet; and levels between 6 - <9 ppm in French Colombard and Zinfandel. They noted "that fluoride levels in wine produced from grapes not treated with Cryolite can range from 0.1 to 1.6 ppm, depending upon location and variety (Ostrom)." At 6 ppm one glass of wine (175 ml) would have delivered as much fluoride as about a liter of optimally fluoridated water!"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride.htm

"Since it is common practice to use fluoride-containing insecticide in growing grapes, it is believed that contamination of these juices is occurring. Washing of grape skins produced appreciable quantities of fluoride. Given that increasing numbers of people are consuming beverages instead of water, fluoride supplementation should not be based solely upon the concentration of the drinking water, but should also consider the amount of different beverages consumed and their fluoride content."
http://www.fluoridealert.org/stannard-1991.aspx

I have a small dog weighing about 7 pounds. Looks like toxic effects could occur with as little as 4 mg according to the Merck Manual.
"Oral cleaning products present a danger to pets, especially dogs. The fatal dose of sodium fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg and toxic effects occur below 1 mg/kg. Fluoride (75-90% absorbed by 90 min) lowers serum calcium and magnesium. Clinically, gastroenteritis and cardiac (ventricular tachycardia and ECG abnormalities) and nervous signs may be followed within a few hours by collapse and death."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...

I wonder if farmers ever use more pesticides than they are allowed or estimate incorrectly as they crop dust or othewise?
I see a lot of nice grapes in the commissary where I live, some from South America.
http://dogtorj.com/appetizers/medical-conditions-f-k/grape-p...

Just for the heck of it, you might want to read about the dirty dozen.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-safe/dirty-d...


[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Adas
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 711
Registered: 21-9-2011
Location: Slovakia
Member Is Offline

Mood: Sensitive to shock and friction

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 06:22


Fluorides are toxic and neurotoxic, I have read about it many times. I Don't like the idea of fluorides in tap water and toothpastes. In toothpastes, there is concentration of around 1450 ppm, which is a lot, IMO.

Sure, that most people don't experience any problems, but it doesn't mean it's harmless. Why add toxins to water/toothpaste?

I think people may have healthy teeth even without fluorides, as the hygiene increased in recent years.




Rest In Pieces!
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
weiming1998
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 616
Registered: 13-1-2012
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: Amphoteric

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 06:42


In my opinion, it totally depends on the area. In areas where fluoride levels are low, I believe water fluoridation should be implemented because, as you can find on a billion websites, it increases your teeth's resistance to acids, etc. In places where the water fluoride levels are already sufficiently enough for dental health (unlike what the fluoride conspiracy theorists states, fluorides actually do exist naturally in water) , no, fluoride should not be implemented because higher doses can cause weaker bones. In areas where fluoride levels are especially high, fluoride-removal techniques (ion exchange resins, reverse osmosis, etc) should be used to remove the excess fluoride. The amount of fluoride put in water should not be universal because it depends on the area so much.

But I totally disagree with the conspiracy theories about fluoride and mind control. There is totally no evidence apart from anti-fluoride websites dedicated to attacking water fluoridation and random speculations/conspiracy theories. That is not science. There is no direct evidence whatsoever that fluorides are used by Nazis to control Jews in concentration camps, nor is there evidence of fluoride affecting the brain (at least not now), or any other organ other than bones at low doses (yes, I know high doses causes calcium to precipitate out of blood, etc) Finally, the claim of NaF being rat poison is ridiculous to the extreme. Firstly, why don't you use something like KCN (LD50 about 5mg/kg), which is also very cheap, than something like NaF which has an LD50 of something like 80mg/kg? Secondly, those conspiracy theorists don't realize that NaF, or any other fluorides, are not 100% accumulative. It also does not poison you when they are in your bones, because it bonds with the bones to form insoluble compounds like fluroapatite, which isn't absorbed at all by your body. The vast majority of fluoride goes to your bones, unless taken in a very large dose over a short amount of time. In higher doses, weaker bones and dental fluorosis can occur, but that probably won't happen if fluoride levels are controlled properly.

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




Posts: 1594
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 07:30


'According to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), "Fresh or unprocessed foods available in the U.S. have fluoride concentrations that generally range from 0.02 to 2.00 ppm. Marine fish that are consumed with bones and bone meal supplements have been shown to be a rich source of fluoride in human food…The bones of some land-based animals also contain high levels of fluoride (DHHS, p 10)."

"In our view, the current tolerance level of 7 ppm is high. The tolerances proposed in 1997 (Table 2) are exceedingly high and EPA has not made a final decision on them. What is extremely disturbing is that the proposed increases were not based on any new toxicological or health considerations but simply on the calculations by the cryolite pesticide producers of what residues were left after typical spraying operations! Instead of proposing different spraying strategies the EPA came back and proposed increasing the tolerance level. In other words the EPA is adjusting its toxicological analysis to fit industry's needs, not to protect the public health or the environment. Moroever, out of the 95 references cited in EPA's 155 page report for these tolerances, only 2 were published in the open literature. Of the two published reports, one was a 1975 paper on toxicity of chemicals to Honey Bees, and the second was the intensely controversial 1990 National Toxicology Program (NTP) report on fluoride's carcinogencity. The majority of the unpublished papers were submitted by the producers of cryolite pesticides (US EPA, 1996)."

"Another concern with organic gardening and farming is the use of bone meal, which is allowed for use in the National Organic Standards under EPA's List 4 Inerts. This meal is prepared mainly from the bones of farm animals. Fluoride concentrates in the bones of all mammals and we can expect concentrations to be in the 1000 ppm plus range."

"A recent analysis of the Canadian food basket indicates that a typical North American diet delivers about 1.8 mg of fluoride per day (Dabeka, 1995). This is nearly twice the amount of fluoride one would receive from drinking one liter of fluoridated water. Some of this fluoride we can do little about, but the one source we should not have to contend with is that introduced by organic farmers. When we pay extra money to avoid pesticides, we don't expect to get doses of an extremely toxic pesticide! Thus, even though these new National Organic Standards permit organic farmers to use bone meal and sodium fluoride, we urge them not to do so. We also urge them to avoid the use of powdered phosphate rock. We urge readers to make their voices heard on this issue. In the future, we will be looking for labels which say "organic" and "fluoride free".
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/flouride.cfm

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




Posts: 1594
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 08:18


"Most published reports show 1 to 5 milligrams of fluoride per liter of black tea, but a new study shows that number could be as high as 9 milligrams."
"Whitford discovered that the fluoride concentration in black tea had long been underestimated when he began analyzing data from four patients with advanced skeletal fluorosis, a disease caused by excessive fluoride consumption and characterized by joint and bone pain and damage. While it is extremely rare in the United States, the common link between these four patients was their tea consumption -- each person drank 1 to 2 gallons of tea daily for the past 10 to 30 years."
"Most published studies about black tea traditionally have used a method of measuring fluoride that doesn't account for the amount that combines with aluminum to form insoluble aluminum fluoride, which is not detected by the fluoride electrode. Whitford compared that method with a diffusion method, which breaks the aluminum-fluoride bond so that all fluoride in the tea samples can be extracted and measured."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100714104059.ht...

"Tea plants accumulate fluoride in their leaves. In general, the oldest tea leaves contain the most fluoride (9). Most high quality teas are made from the bud or the first two to four leaves—the youngest leaves on the plant. Brick tea, a lower quality tea, is made from the oldest tea leaves and is often very high in fluoride. Symptoms of fluoride excess (i.e., dental and skeletal fluorosis) have been observed in Tibetan children and adults who consume large amounts of brick tea (10, 11)."
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/tea/

"Instant tea brands in the United States have recently come under scrutiny after a woman developed bone fluorosis, following her daily drinking regimen of 1-2 gallons of instant ice tea. Recent testing published in The American Journal of Medicine (Jan 2005) show that Fluoride levels of several instant tea drinks from American brands including Lipton and Arizona range from 1.0-6.5 ppm (WebMD, 2005)."
http://toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Fluoride+Content+in+T...



[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4967
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 09:18


It's always fascinating to see all this stuff about fluorides.
But they don't actually add fluoride to the water. The add fluorosilicates.
Now the moral issues about mass medication are still valid, but it does rather suggest that these people simply don't know what they are talking about.

Also, there are places in the world where the natural levels of fluoride in water are high.
And we know what the effect of those high levels of fluoride are. The symptom that occurs at slightly elevated levels is mottled teeth. The next symptom id bone damage.
We know that you get those effects if the levels are high.
But those places don't have notable problems with cancer apathy lowered IQ or even Nazism so we know that those associations presented by the "anti fluoridation" groups are not actually supported ( or to be less polite: they are lies).
View user's profile View All Posts By User
mr.crow
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 884
Registered: 9-9-2009
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: 0xFF

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 10:17


What the fuck? This thread is completely bullshit



Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Berrilium
Harmless
*




Posts: 46
Registered: 31-3-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 10:21


Quote: Originally posted by mr.crow  
What the fuck? This thread is completely bullshit
Why so?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hexavalent
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1564
Registered: 29-12-2011
Location: Wales, UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pericyclic

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 10:26


I disagree mr.crow . . .there is only one thing in this thread that demands the title 'bullshit', and that is your post.

This thread is related to chemistry and affects the average Joe pretty much daily . . .there is a constant war between the addition of fluoride or not, and the effects of either side, both positive and negative. It involves science and has deep relations to the outside world, it is not just a small matter in a laboratory. Perhaps this should have been in Whimsy, but it offers the people - the chemists - of Sciencemadness an opportunity to express their opinions on it based on what they understand and appreciate of it. As my grandmother always used to say, 'If you've got nothing nice to say, then don't say it at all'.




"Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
View user's profile View All Posts By User
mr.crow
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 884
Registered: 9-9-2009
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: 0xFF

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 10:28


Quote: Originally posted by Berrilium  
Quote: Originally posted by mr.crow  
What the fuck? This thread is completely bullshit
Why so?


There are tons of regurgitated links someone saved up. Propaganda pictures and conspiracy theories. Vague political ideas about personal choice. No one even quoted Dr Strangelove, how disappointing.

I think your question is still valid, however.




Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hexavalent
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1564
Registered: 29-12-2011
Location: Wales, UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pericyclic

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 10:33


[rquote]There are tons of regurgitated links someone saved up. Propaganda pictures and conspiracy theories. Vague political ideas about personal choice.[/rquote]

I felt as though we were just discussing the opinions of different people and how they are conveyed through these media, e.g. the pictures and political ideas. We are analysing what we know to be true against what may be true against what the public are TOLD is true, discussing what different things actually mean before we all come to our own decision and relating our scientific knowledge and understanding to it. Or enhanced knowledge gives us an advantage in this type of situation; we can recognise the facts more easily and distinguish bias; but, as I said, akin to yourself, ultimately it is a personal decision about what we take into our bodies.

[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Hexavalent]




"Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
View user's profile View All Posts By User
mr.crow
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 884
Registered: 9-9-2009
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: 0xFF

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 10:43


Ouch, I have been thoroughly rebuked. I still don't consider it a very scientific answer to fluoridation but that's just an opinion



Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Berrilium
Harmless
*




Posts: 46
Registered: 31-3-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 10:45


My idea for posting this topic was that it could generate and accumulate a wide variety of scientifically valid opinions and ideas, not just merely the opinions of the ignorant.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1594
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 11:50


It's interesting that 5mg/kg of NaF is lethal to dogs according to the Merck Vet Manual, a fairly respectable source, as little as 20mg could be lethal to my little dog, and yet a similar fluoride we drink in our water we ingest about 2mg per day if you include food sources such as animal products and the plants that get treated with fluorides. Can it really be good for babies, small children, and pets?

Fipronil is another fluoro-pesticide used on potatoes and many other crops in 70 countries, as well as on dogs to treat fleas. My sister's dog became very sick after applying a dose to her dog's neck.
"Researchers fed dogs 0.2 mg/kg/day fipronil (length unknown) and observed no adverse effects. In the same study, researchers
observed clinical signs of neurotoxicity at 2.0 mg/kg/day.2"

"Fipronil-sulfone, the primary biological metabolite of fipronil, is reported to be twenty times more active at mammalian
chloride channels than at insect chloride channels.10 Fipronil-sulfone is reportedly six times more potent in blocking vertebrate
GABA-gated chloride channels than fipronil, but demonstrates similar toxicity to the parent compound in mammals.8"

"Fipronil-desulfinyl, the primary environmental metabolite (photoproduct)of fipronil, is 9-10 times more active at the mammalian chloride channel than the parent compound, reducing the selectivity between insects and humans when exposed to this
metabolite.8,11"
And look at all the other creatures it kills. This source from a college I attended. So let's just load up on all these "safe" pesticides. Maybe some are synergistic. You can have it injected under your house for termite control too. I declined to renue my termite policy last week.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/fiptech.pdf

"In 2009, China banned fipronil products, citing toxicity to bees, insect resistance in pests such as the rice stem borer (Chilo suppressalis) and whitebacked planthopper (Sogatella furcifera), and the replacement use of DuPont’s chlorantraniliprole. Exceptions were made for applications in hygiene, seed-coating agents and exports — which could only be produced by manufacturers that make fipronil technical. All other existing registration and production certificates for pesticide formulation containing fipronil were nullified."
http://www.farmchemicalsinternational.com/cropprotection/pro...

Colony collapse disorder
"Fipronil is one of the main chemical causes blamed for the spread of colony collapse disorder among bees. It has been found by the Minutes-Association for Technical Coordination Fund in France that even at very low nonlethal doses for bees, the pesticide still impairs their ability to locate their hive, resulting in large numbers of forager bees lost with every pollen-finding expedition.[13]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fipronil

http://agproducts.basf.us/products/regent-insecticide.html

My little dog.JPG - 104kB


[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1594
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 12:35


New York Times article
"This week's twin fluoride restrictions reflect "a growing consensus that Americans are exposed to too much fluoride," EWG senior vice president for research, Jane Houlihan, said today. "It raises the concern that, for many decades now, the public has been overexposed."

"The gradual EPA removal of sulfuryl fluoride allowances will be subject to public comment before taking effect and include a three-year head start for significantly affected industries such as the cocoa and walnuts sectors."

"Estimating that the pesticide is applied to 100 percent of cocoa crops, EPA warned in its proposed phaseout that "cocoa imports (which in 2009 were valued at approximately $1.2 billion) would be lost due to either destruction or refusal of shipments by warehouse operators" unless businesses can develop a viable alternative to sulfuryl fluoride for cocoa fumigation."
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/11/11greenwire-epa-prop...

Types of Fluoride
http://fluoridedetective.com/types-of-fluoride/

[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1594
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 13:02


The three additives are:
"Fluorosilicic acid: a water-based solution used by most water fluoridation programs in the United States. Fluorosilicic acid is also referred to as hydrofluorosilicate, FSA, or HFS.
Sodium fluorosilicate: a dry additive, dissolved into a solution before being added to water.
Sodium fluoride: a dry additive, typically used in small water systems, dissolved into a solution before being added to water."

"The studies that examined potential health effects from sodium fluoride additives in drinking water should also apply to FSA because of the same disassociation results."
"WA-grade sodium fluoride is preferred over USP-grade sodium fluoride for use in water treatment facilities because the granular AWWA product is less likely to result in dusting exposure of water plant operators than the more powder-like USP-grade sodium fluoride."

"FSA can be partially neutralized by either table salt (sodium chloride) or caustic soda to get sodium fluorosilicate. If enough caustic soda is added to neutralize the fluorosilicate completely, it results in sodium fluoride. Sodium fluoride is also produced by mixing caustic soda with hydrogen fluoride, although approximately 90% of the sodium fluoride used in the United States comes from FSA."
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfad...

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




Posts: 1594
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 13:59


"The EPA classifies it in the most acutely toxic category of pesticides: a restricted use pesticide (1) which means that food products and packaging must be removed from warehouses before they can be fumigated. No food contact allowed. Makes sense, right?"

"Well all this changed in 2004. Since 2004 sulfuryl fluoride has become widely used ON foods. (I bet Dow Chemical lobbyists earned a fat bonus on this.)"

"Now EPA allows these fumigations to create fluoride residues of up to 70 ppm fluoride “in or on” all processed foods (except specified foods) and 130 ppm “in or on” wheat!"

"All cocoa beans are fumigated, not just a few times yearly like some food products (9). All cocoa beans – yes, the same ones that all of our domestic chocolate items are made of. And with cocoa beans, it’s not just one fumigation: They get zapped once in the country of origin and once in the U.S.A."

"How much fluoride ends up in cocoa beans?"
"I don’t know. I can’t find that information – but until I do, I’m cutting back on my dark chocolate intake – a lot."

http://fluoridedetective.com/fluoride-facts/sulfuryl-fluorid...

[Edited on 5-6-2012 by Morgan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Mailinmypocket
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1351
Registered: 12-5-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-6-2012 at 15:08


Quote: Originally posted by Hexavalent  
I disagree mr.crow . . .there is only one thing in this thread that demands the title 'bullshit', and that is your post.

This thread is related to chemistry and affects the average Joe pretty much daily . . .there is a constant war between the addition of fluoride or not, and the effects of either side, both positive and negative. It involves science and has deep relations to the outside world, it is not just a small matter in a laboratory. Perhaps this should have been in Whimsy, but it offers the people - the chemists - of Sciencemadness an opportunity to express their opinions on it based on what they understand and appreciate of it. As my grandmother always used to say, 'If you've got nothing nice to say, then don't say it at all'.


That's funny, my grandmother constantly told me the same thing! Although to be honest sometimes one should speak their mind without sugar coating it to please everyone!

Thus thread started out interesting but now it seems to just be a collage of articles and no actual scientific discussion
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3  4

  Go To Top