Fluoride in tap water

weisses

Another conclusion, and again ... not from the tinfoil hat brigade

Exposure to Hexafluorosilicic acid and silicofluoride ions

When added to drinking water Hexafluorosilicic acid dissociates into free fluoride ions, it is now accepted that this reaction is not complete with the possibility of some silicofluoride compounds remaining present in drinking water.[27]

It is further now known that the numerous fluorosilicate species may be present in treated water after injection with Hexafluorosilicic acid. Alarmingly it is also acknowledged that current analytical methodologies are not yet available to accurately measure or quantify the level of residual fluorosilicates or fluorosilicon complexes that may be present in fluoridated water.

The U.S. EPA have separately concluded that “concentrations of hexafluorosilicic acid may be present in the gastrointestinal tract after consumption of fluoridated drinking water”.[28]

The existence of fluorosilicic acid compounds was also noted[29] by the EU
Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), when it published its ‘Opinion on critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water’ – 16 May 2011.

The National Research Council (NRC 2006, pp. 52-53) and Coplan et al. (2007)[30] have discussed the available information on the chemistry and toxicology of these compounds, especially at low pH (e.g., use of fluoridated water in beverages such as tea, soft drinks, or reconstituted fruit juices), when their dissociation to free fluoride ion is probably not complete and individuals are exposed to silicofluorides as a by-product of water fluoridation.

It is now hypothesized that incomplete dissociated SiF residues may re-associate both at intra-gastric pH and in the bladder which are low ph environments[31] (thereby exposing the consumer to toxic harm) and during food preparation (low pH soft drinks) producing SiF species including silicon tetrafluoride, (SiF4), a known toxin.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Another conclusion, and again ... not from the tinfoil hat brigade

Again it is just a possible mechanism of action unless you can link it to a disease or adverse effect at a concentration similar to ours it really makes no difference.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Again it is just a possible mechanism of action unless you can link it to a disease or adverse effect at a concentration similar to ours it really makes no difference.

Something interesting here

Experimental evidence has established the fact that there is also
specific influence of fluorides on certain enzymatic changes associated particularly with carbohydrates and fats. Thus, the results of a systematic study conducted by Kastle and Loevenhart on the effect of antiseptics on the reactions of pancreatic and liver extracts revealed an effect of most substances and also a particularly remarkable destructive action of NaF on the reaction of lipase...Dilutions of NaF as low as 1:15,000,000 [0.07 ppm] may inhibit the action of lipase on ethyl acetate as much as 50 per cent…Leake et al have obtained evidence that NaF inhibits the action of this enzyme in vivo.”

bobafettucine

weisses wrote: »

Another conclusion, and again ... not from the tinfoil hat brigade

That is from Declan Waugh's site and also written by him. In what way is it not from the tinfoil hat brigade?

The foundation of his argument is this statement.
"When added to drinking water Hexafluorosilicic acid dissociates into free fluoride ions, it is now accepted that this reaction is not complete with the possibility of some silicofluoride compounds remaining present in drinking water (27)"

The referenced paper (27) only found undissociated silicofluorides in water with a pH of less than 5 and a fluoride concentration of greater than 16ppm. Both of these conditions are controlled at the water treatment plant, and would not reach the levels required.

As has been the case with most of Waugh's arguments, this one is built on a foundation of quicksand.

bobafettucine

weisses wrote: »

Something interesting here

That quote is in relation to NaF, whereas Waugh's hypothesis is specifically about silicofluorides. Completely different things.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Something interesting here

Not really for similar reasons and if this is from Waugh again then it probably involves some twisting of the truth.

Really should just ignore Waugh's entire "report" not much credibility there. Unscientific is how Prof Whelton described it.

BlastedGlute

why is it in our water?

weisses

BlastedGlute wrote: »

why is it in our water?

Just read the thread ...

BlastedGlute

Is there any way to just answer that in a summary no?

bobafettucine

BlastedGlute wrote: »

why is it in our water?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+fluoride+added+to+water

Treora

BlastedGlute wrote: »

why is it in our water?

We had terrible teeth pre-1960s. Then several things happened together. Kennedy came and Irish teeth were photographed and placed in the international press. Irish people rightly panicked and legislated to fluoridate water. The evidence was correlation and that was enough during the era of leaded petrol and asbestos. Prof. O'Mullane was doing his primary degree and became a dogmatic believer in water fluoridation. At the same time fluoridated toothpaste entered the market. Everywhere, regardless of fluoridation levels saw the same improvement in oral health. (jh79 will bring up Northern Ireland at this point, has a love for the 6 counties; and will ignore Sweden saying that it is nothing like Ireland - more later).

During the next 20 years most countries decided that poor children who avoided drinking water, but who drank soft drinks were not seeing a benefit and it made no sense for all the people who brushed their teeth to drink the stuff.

O'Mullane worked hand in hand with FF and his new student Whelton (Unilever's behavioural dentist of the year 2011). Michael Martin got the batton as the main link between UCC dental and the government some years ago. He created the fluoridation forum so as to create 'expert group on fluoridation'. This is a well funded quango design to disuade, ridicule and destroy dissent. It is also a jobs for the boys shop, where by FF can ensure that they have a strong voice in academia, denistry and another feather in their Cork cap.

Anytime there is opposition, a forum is created which avoids asking the right questions (why is Sweden, a non-fluoridating country, so much better than Ireland) and the forum is filled with career fluoridationists.

Sweden went face to face with the WHO and demanded that they never wanted to be fluoridated. So in 2005 O'Mullane and Whelton signed off on saying that if you are Swedish you don't need to fluoridate your water. Great science! The real reason is that they educate their pre-schoolers to brush their teeth at a national level.

So today there is a weird money link where the Irish government pays the WHO, who pays Whelton (as does the state directly) to tell the Irish and other governments to fluoridate. She went to Saudi Arabia at the WHO's behest and they said no thanks 'we'd prefer to teeth our children to habitually brush' and their DMFT dropped by 30% is 5 years. She never talks of that trip, but it is googleable.

Why do have it still? Default bias, dogmatic views held by a vocal religious minority (yep religious), many careers and much money supporting it and the threat that if the government doubles back that the insurance claim would be astronomical. So you get such lucid people as jh79, bobafettucine, alastair and KingMob who will desperately use everytrick of rhethoric that they can google to undermine honest scientific debate on the matter. To which end, there is no clinical evidence in any peer reviewed journal that meets the alltrials.net criteria showing any benefit by water fluoridation in preventing dental decay.

And weisses is just a bit jaded from battling close minded people. It is just like those that objected to Prof Foster's claim that we have three types of optic nerve. Cones, rods and photo. All the academics booed him because they thought in 150 years of analysis that they could not have missed something. They were wrong, he was right and many a bruised ego was fired. Just another case of default bias.
Foster at TED

King Mob

Treora wrote: »

O'Mullane worked hand in hand with FF and his new student Whelton (Unilever's behavioural dentist of the year 2011).


Sweden went face to face with the WHO and demanded that they never wanted to be fluoridated. So in 2005 O'Mullane and Whelton signed off on saying that if you are Swedish you don't need to fluoridate your water. Great science! The real reason is that they educate their pre-schoolers to brush their teeth at a national level.

So today there is a weird money link where the Irish government pays the WHO, who pays Whelton (as does the state directly) to tell the Irish and other governments to fluoridate.

Treora can you please explain why you trust O'Mullane's opinion on Sweden, but reject all of her other conclusions based on her supposed bias?

If you are saying that it's good science just because it agrees with you, that's the same bias you're accusing others of.

Further it does not make sense with the rest of your conspiracy.
Why would she give Sweden a pass if she's in the pocket of the fluoridation conspiracy?

jh79

I'm confused about Unilevers role in this conspiracy? Surely the ceasing of water fluoridation would lead to an increase in demand for fluoridated dental products?
Sorry as King Mob pointed out your theory just doesn't add up.

King Mob

jh79 wrote: »

I'm confused about Unilevers role in this conspiracy? Surely the ceasing of water fluoridation would lead to an increase in demand for fluoridated dental products?

Doubly so as if we are to follow Sweden's example as Treroa wants, it would mean replacing fluoridation with government oral health programs, which would involve a lot of schools buying fluoridated toothpaste from companies like Unilever.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Doubly so as if we are to follow Sweden's example as Treroa wants, it would mean replacing fluoridation with government oral health programs, which would involve a lot of schools buying fluoridated toothpaste from companies like Unilever.

Where is the link between government oral health programs and loads of schools buying fluoridated toothpaste from companies like Unilever.

How did you conclude the scheme in Sweden is as you described above. ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Where is the link between government oral health programs and loads of schools buying fluoridated toothpaste from companies like Unilever.

How did you conclude the scheme in Sweden is as you described above. ?

http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/EURO/Sweden/Information-Relevant-to-Oral-Health-and-Care/Special-project-of-interest/An-oral-health-programme-/

How else would such a program work? How would such a program not result in the government still giving money to the companies supposedly behind fluoridation?

This is a side point however and has no baring on the question I asked.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/EURO/Sweden/Information-Relevant-to-Oral-Health-and-Care/Special-project-of-interest/An-oral-health-programme-/

This link is mostly about Caries prevalence in 3-year-old children living in a low socio-economic multicultural urban area in southern Sweden

King Mob wrote: »

How else would such a program work? How would such a program not result in the government still giving money to the companies supposedly behind fluoridation?

Your quote and following anwser does not answer my question about the conclusion you made,

King Mob wrote: »

it would mean replacing fluoridation with government oral health programs, which would involve a lot of schools buying fluoridated toothpaste from companies like Unilever

King Mob wrote: »

This is a side point however and has no baring on the question I asked.

Sorry ..where was the question in your post i quoted ? .. Your post was a reaction to JH79 confusion in Unilever's role in the conspiracy.

I understand your point but I am curious as in what particular information you used to reach your 2 conclusions in your post

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

This link is mostly about Caries prevalence in 3-year-old children living in a low socio-economic multicultural urban area in southern Sweden

Which involved the dentists demonstrating how to brush the toddlers teeth and advising continuing the practice.
This means more purchasing of fluoridated toothpaste made by companies like Unilever.
If Ireland were to install a system like this, but reaching the entire population, it would require the government to purchase those same products and promote using them regularly.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Which involved the dentists demonstrating how to brush the toddlers teeth and advising continuing the practice.
This means more purchasing of fluoridated toothpaste made by companies like Unilever.
If Ireland were to install a system like this, but reaching the entire population, it would require the government to purchase those same products and promote using them regularly.

But only in a low socio-economic multicultural urban area in southern Sweden,.

How can you use that as a template for situations in the rest of Sweden or even other countries like Ireland ?

And it was not done in schools either AFAIK, So why do you say a lot of schools would need to buy fluoridated toothpaste from companies like Unilever

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

But only in a low socio-economic multicultural urban area in southern Sweden,.

How can you use that as a template for situations in the rest of Sweden or even other countries like Ireland ?

And it was not done in schools either AFAIK, So why do you say a lot of schools would need to buy fluoridated toothpaste from companies like Unilever

I've explained this above.

Regardless of the specific details, any government program that promotes brushing with fluoridated toothpaste will result in the government spending money on those products as well as increasing the sales of these products.
This will be on top of the demand for products with the decrease in protection from water fluoridation as JH79 pointed out.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I've explained this above.

No you try to spin it from a link about Caries prevalence in 3-year-old children living in a low socio-economic multicultural urban area in southern Sweden, conducted in a shopping mall

To

A Nationwide implementation in Ireland which would involve a lot of schools buying fluoridated toothpaste from companies like Unilever

King Mob wrote: »

Regardless of the specific details, any government program that promotes brushing with fluoridated toothpaste will result in the government spending money on those products as well as increasing the sales of these products.
This will be on top of the demand for products with the decrease in protection from water fluoridation as JH79 pointed out.

Teaching young children the basics of proper Dental care isn't that bad i think

This program was carried out in addition to the regular activities of the Public Dental Service. The long-term effects of the program as well the cost-effectiveness will be evaluated at the age of 5-years

The swedes have different reasons to do these kind of programs ... Using that program to make your point regarding the Irish situation is not a valid one

jh79

Treora's conspiracy theory still doesn't make sense , who gains from fluoridation in Ireland, Why would Unilever encourage Whelton to promote fluoridation?

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

Surely the ceasing of water fluoridation would lead to an increase in demand for fluoridated dental products?

Why? We buy 9 tubes when we need 2, but the money from the expert group on fluoridation alone could be redirected to educate people via an internet campaign on how and how much to use.

Treora

King Mob wrote: »

Treora can you please explain why you trust O'Mullane's opinion on Sweden, but reject all of her other conclusions based on her supposed bias?

O'Mullhane is a guy and he was requested by the Swedish government via the WHO to sign the 2005 report.

Treora

King Mob wrote: »

How else would such a program work? How would such a program not result in the government still giving money to the companies supposedly behind fluoridation?

Governments don't give any money to companies. Companies profit from consumers. Companies just don't want the brand of 'fluoride' to be damaged.

Treora

King Mob wrote: »

it would mean replacing fluoridation with government oral health programs, which would involve a lot of schools buying fluoridated toothpaste

Crackers, how did you make it this long by seeing everything arse backwards.

Swedish schools only give instructions. Children bring in their brushes and have a state certified video to watch and copy. Teachers are trained by a local authority oral hygienist that tours all the local schools. As for cost, do you know how much a state saves by reducing DMFT by .1 in its population. Prevention through training is better that cure or ineffective water fluoridation.

Children still brush under parental supervision. And children at the age of 4 should probably not be using fluoridated toothpaste.

Treora

King Mob wrote: »

Which involved the dentists demonstrating how to brush the toddlers teeth and advising continuing the practice.
This means more purchasing of fluoridated toothpaste made by companies like Unilever.

Arse backwards as usual. This misperception has be answered above.

Treora

King Mob wrote: »

Regardless of the specific details, any government program that promotes brushing with fluoridated toothpaste will result in the government spending money on those products as well as increasing the sales of these products.
This will be on top of the demand for products with the decrease in protection from water fluoridation as JH79 pointed out.

Again wrong and dealt with.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

Treora's conspiracy theory still doesn't make sense , who gains from fluoridation in Ireland, Why would Unilever encourage Whelton to promote fluoridation?

1) career fluoridationists and the state claims authority, both who could loose out if fluoridation is stopped and then questioned as to why it started in the first place

2) toothpaste is a choice and has proven to work, but if you stop one then people might irrationally misassoicate topical application with consumption. People in the USA are irrational and law suits for things like hot coffee cups have started for less. Any weakness in the fluoridation world view might infect the toothpaste industry. Legally they are covered as they place legal health warnings on toothpaste in the USA as opposed to directions in Ireland.

King Mob

Treora wrote: »

O'Mullhane is a guy and he was requested by the Swedish government via the WHO to sign the 2005 report.

Ok, so why would he do that? Isn't he in the pocket of the companies who want to keep fluoridation? Isn't the WHO since they also advocate fluoridation?

And if he had to be asked, possibly coerced into signing off on the report, how could it be good science?

Swedish schools only give instructions. Children bring in their brushes and have a state certified video to watch and copy. Teachers are trained by a local authority oral hygienist that tours all the local schools. As for cost, do you know how much a state saves by reducing DMFT by .1 in its population. Prevention through training is better that cure or ineffective water fluoridation.

So the government is paying for the hygienists, who will need supplies for these demonstrations. Which will include fluoridated toothpaste.
This means the government will be buying a lot of Fluoridated toothpaste, which is made by companies like Unilever.
The government will also be promoting habitual brushing, which will increase sales of the same products by consumers if the programme is to have the effect you want it to have.

So why are Unilever behind the conspiracy to prevent this?