bottled water - fluoride

Given that the water supply contains fluoride, you'll want to avoid all fruit and vegetables watered from the main supply.

expatoz wrote: »

thanks for the info, sorry to admit but most of the vegetables and fruit i eat seem to be grown on the continent, my doctor is reducing my medication and i have to drink large quantities of water to flush my system,

even if fluoride isn't added during the treatment of water is naturally occurring in the water table, heck its even airborne in some parts of the world.

check out the below

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/naturalhazards/en/index2.html

expatoz wrote: »

does anyone know which bottled water brands available in ireland that don't contain fluoride, i'd like to purge myself of it but can't find any definitive answer anywhere

Purge yourself of fluoride? You know it has benefits for preventing tooth decay right? The body contains all kinds of trace minerals and elements, you can't just selectively "purge" yourself of one by any simple method...

RoRo979 wrote: »

might say some controversial things so just shut me down if im wrong.

afaik is there no sodium flouride and calcium flouride. The latter being the healthier(less toxic) one while the former being commonly found in water supplies .

Couldnt agree more with this, BPA-free plastic bottles i believe is a step in the right direction.

Both produce the same fluoride so no difference between the two.

jh79 wrote: »

Both produce the same fluoride so no difference between the two.

both "produce", are they not 2 different source minerals?

jh79 wrote: »

NaF + H20 = Na+ and F-

CaF2 + H20 = Ca2+ and F-

Calcium, Sodium and Fluoride are all good for you at levels found in water.

but when mixed with chemtrails and vaccinations it produces a very volatile hormone that causes the paranoia gland in the brain to expand and become over active leading to a large increase in verbal diarrhoea

futureisgreen wrote: »

I heard that the reverse ormosis system takes everything out of the water - good and the bad. Really don't agree with fluoride being added to the water supply. I always just use a charcoal based filter for my drinking water.

Reverse osmosis does take everything out of the water. Water is for hydration not to boost our mineral intake. All our mineral intake comes from food.

Blacktie. wrote: »

Doesn't removing all minerals make water basically leach your entire body of minerals?

That's news to me but I'd be interested to hear more. Have u any links to studies?

In the last century fluoride was studied to have a beneficial effect when dosed in controlled amounts in water for the dental health of the human population. Too little – no effect, too much – (fairly harmless – aesthetic) mottling of dental enamel.

A Colorado dentist back in the early 1920's spent some time studying the beneficial effects of naturally occurring fluoride in local water sources close to his practice. Those patients on one side of his district drinking from naturally fluoridated water were found to have much less dental cavities than another group of patients drinking from water without any naturally occurring fluoride.

Another 20 years worth of trials ensued that spread across the U.S. up until the 1950's when it was finally declared fluoride in levels 0.6mg/l to 1.5mg/l were beneficial to teeth and harmless to health overall, and from this study the trial rolled out world wide for decades to come.

The option for any U.S. state or any country world wide to use fluoridated water or their regional and local sanitary authorities to adopt its use, was always purely a matter of choice put to local vote, never an enforced government programme.

The same century-long parallel findings for the benefits of chlorination, show a positive health benefit, where not using chlorination would have certainly guaranteed mass typhoid and cholera epidemics.

Concentrations for fluoride were proven to be beneficial in at least 0.6 mg/l and up to 1.5 mg/l of water – the current ongoing and decades long proven safe WHO World Health Organisation and EU standards.

Levels in excess of 4 mg/l were always generally suggested to be detrimental. Ireland is unique in that it has set the lowest limits in Europe at an upper goal of 0.8 mg/l. Ireland has not exceeded 1.5 mg/l in any water testing samples in the last decade (many other European countries have), and within 99.8% compliance to the more strict 1 mg/l level.

Ireland’s dental health in a finite study of 2% of the population (12 year olds) shows at least a 50% reduction in teeth decay since the 1980′s and a very close match in dental health to larger economies such as Spain, France and Italy. Even when Ireland was fluoridating at its highest levels in the 1980′s, Denmark (no fluoridation) had a 200% higher level of teeth decay in the same age group study than Ireland, maybe a bit like Shane McGowan !

When fluoridated toothpastes came out in the 1970′s, many European countries previously using water fluoridation opted for the turbocharged levels in tooth paste as more effective – the levels are a thousand times higher in toothpaste than in tap water.

The larger economies such as UK, Germany and Denmark had more rotten teeth than Ireland in the 1980′s, but having focused on fluoridation in toothpastes and better dental care became easily accessible as their economies grew, they now nudge slightly ahead of Ireland.

The simplest and encouraging approach to the matter is that the best of Ireland’s scientists have served us well in keeping fluoride within the strictest and lowest concentrations for decades, also with the advent of point of use filtration and bottled water, any consumer can choose not to drink water with low safe fluoride levels, or choose to continue using fluoridated water but still with complete flexibility as it is not an enforced personal choice.

Surely if fluoride was a highly toxic poison, toothpaste would be banned (with its thousand times stronger fluoride concentration). Really it is all about accurate figures, indeed Arsenic, Chromium, Nickel, Vanadium and Manganese are all potent toxic carcinogenic poisonous heavy metals … in excess. However they are all found in trace levels as minerals as part of our food diet and instead of killing us they all carry out vital functions within our bodies when consumed at optimum levels in diets.

Fluoride has always been restricted to low levels but at the same time based on milligrammes per litre concentrations, mg/L, by the WHO and EU.

Anything really toxic in water is measured in 1000 times safer measurement standards in microgrammes per litre, ug/L such as Lead, Arsenic, etc.

The fluoridation debate has become a political football of late by lobby groups using emotive and sometimes breathtakingly corrupt science.

If better dental care and better toothpastes mean we need to rely less on water based fluorides or reduce levels further, and anti-fluoride lobbyists shout louder, then surely politicians might start looking at potential votes, or if European legislation or the respected scientists of the WHO at some point do not regard fluoride in water as nicely as they see its role in toothpaste or as chlorination performs its job in water, then fluoride (in water) might have its day.

Blacktie. wrote: »

Doesn't removing all minerals make water basically leach your entire body of minerals?

This is a red herring spawned by the web's wildest water quacks, and is massively diametrically opposed to actual facts.

Over 99% of humans in Ireland probably 99.9% or more I am sure eat enough food, and from which they get all the basic minerals, 100% of their needs.

By actually drinking pure water free of any embellishments, provides the body with the ultimate hydration and allows food to provide its minerals.

The body does the rest.

If you drank pharma or nuclear or medical grade ultra pure water, and barrels of it, well a few litres a day, it would be perfectly fine water, as long as you eat food.

Millions of Americans have been drinking distilled water from table top distillers for generations, with zero outcomes of any issues.


When water enters your mouth, even in its purest form, the saliva in your mouth immediately brings the water back up to higher TDS total dissolved solids content.

Water's passage down your throat picks up more bodily fluids, and so pure water entering means nothing by the time it reaches the stomach.


The chances evolution over millions of years missing this trick and many more employed by the body's vastly complicated abilities of homeostasis is nil.

When millions of our ancestors over tens of thousands of years drank rain water and the surface waters provided by rain in lakes and streams, evolution never said ...

"hold on ... that rain water with no minerals is going to leach every calcium molecule out of your skeletons and you are all going to flop to the floor in a mass of liquified jelly, and I can't do anything about it".

Instead evolution knew rain water was not able to dissolve skeletons anyway (maybe get a bucket of rainwater and some bones and try it in your back yard ?) , and to make sure the body's homeostasis regarding perfect balance was in place, it probably suggested to mankind at some point to go and get some food, say cereals, milk, bread, cheese, etc, and in the process pile a whole load of minerals into human's bodies.

Instead of checking out quack water sites, check out ... www.chem1.com or ... www.mayoclinic.com

Dtp1979 wrote: »

Reverse osmosis does take everything out of the water. Water is for hydration not to boost our mineral intake. All our mineral intake comes from food.

You are close Dtp but not the whole story ...

Only high powered commercial RO systems followed by mixed bed DI ion exchange systems that polish every last molecule out of water can make water super pure or "ultra pure". Very tasty too with a nip of Robinsons.

Your average domestic RO only really does general mineral removal at 95% for things such as sodium and calcium and magnesium, etc.

Although domestic RO does toxins like heavy metals, chlorine, bacteria up around 99.9% to 100%.

Because domestic RO systems do leave a significant level of mineral content, say from your average 400 ppm of hard water in Galway, it would leave 20 ppm of mineral content, about the same as Volvic and a higher level than many other bottled spring waters, and commercially produced RO processed bottled waters, ... RO systems can't be labelled as pure water, certainly not ultra pure water, as much as they would want to.


One company tried doing the zero TDS RO, post polished mixed DI cartridge approach, pushing all the "super pure" credentials and charging thousands of euros for what were fairly basic RO systems, but the axe came down hard with documentary makers going a bit off script and comparing pure water like the kind of thing chucked in batteries, a bit irresponsible by RTE but they have not repeated their mistakes since.

But many folk since jumped on the ... "Sure all water should have goodness and vitality that is the life and spirit of water for sure, and won't all your bones fall out of yer *rse if ye drank that demon pure water" ... band wagon.

Kind of makes me want to put my head in a vice or bash it savagely against cast iron or hardened steel plate when I hear dat sort o' thing.

iora_rua wrote: »

In reply to JH79 ... I do think that water treatment has moved on a fair bit since that report/review was compiled - I'm quite happy with my osmosis system, considering the grotty water we could be ingesting due to high iron, manganese and 'whatever yer havin' yerself' due to living near forestry plantation. The treated water tastes very pleasant, compared to the fluoridated water in the big smoke up the road Just get yourself a reliable company to do the installation and get the system serviced every year. And don't anyone go on to me about having to pay water charges ...

I'm pro fluoridation, don't understand why anyone would want an RO system.

aah yes wrote: »

Okay say in times of storms and flooding, water treatment plants are stressed and water tannins get in to the water supply chain (yellow/brown coloured water) along with a few other excess organics, so chlorination is tweaked up a little to react to micro-biological risk, but by mixing high levels of the two you end up with THM's or trihalomethanes which are carcinogenic !

RO systems remove all those things mentioned, tannins / chlorination / trihalomethanes / micro-organisms

no other filters are quite as effective against that particular problem set



Say you have hard water with scum on your tea, or the opposite - softened water but with mild sodium which you do not want infants to drink ?

RO systems deal with the hardness issue and scum also the sodium issue

no other filters are quite as effective against both these wee niggles



Say you have a well and have tested for either nitrates, nitrates, aluminium, lead, nickel, arsenic, or a range of other specifics that a large treatment plant can't fully eradicate and needs a little help ?

RO systems deal with all the issues mentioned spectacularly.

no other filters are in any way effective against this spectrum of water problems.



Say something phenomenal occurs that pollutes a local water source or a private well such as a petroleum leak, with PAH, poly aromatic hydrocarbons present in the water, the lowest water limit set for a toxin at 5 ug/l - 5 microgrammes per litre, or pesticides are detected or herbicides, or hormones or a new list of 50 chemicals never previously tested in finite quantiies but now a problem ...

RO systems deal with all the issues mentioned spectacularly.

no other filters are in any way effective against this spectrum of water problems.

Perceived water probelms!

All the above require long term exposure to have any adverse effects giving me plenty of time to change my mind if such a situation occurs.

jh79 wrote: »

Perceived water probelms!

All the above require long term exposure to have any adverse effects giving me plenty of time to change my mind if such a situation occurs.

All actual water problems I see regularly.

Also I think you forgot about micro-organisms, very much short term.

Many people don't think to fully test well water and often no tests have been undertaken on wells decades old.

In the case of areas like Westport, Murrisk, Louiseberg near Croke Patrick mountain in Mayo, the private wells often contain arsenic levels over 20 times their safe potable levels.

Some long standing wells only get full scrutiny decades after being bored and those with levels of 200 ug/L arsenic where 10 ug/L or less ideally less than 5 ug/L (zero the ideal), would have been used for years without knowing underlying heavy metals exposure.

Even if well users did not drink the water just in case, they still would have been bathing in these high levels of arsenic exposed water, and skin absorption of arsenic at these levels, would be like drinking similar water with unsafe levels above the current EU and WHO safe limits.