is fluoride dangerous in tapwater and does boiling your water neutralize it

jma

endacl wrote: »

By the US. What's that got to do with the current status of fluoride in the EU.

You really should consider the details before you post...

You really should read and understand the posts you're commenting about before giving your 2cents worth.

Bumper234 said "I have yet to see it described as a medication (outside of these threads or some random guys report/blog."

I responded to that.

It has little to do with the status in the EU, but it has a lot to do with Fluoride, in case you missed that.

bumper234

jma wrote: »

Have a look here:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682727.html

On this page, it (Fluoride) is described as a medication, with warnings of side effects (which happens to include seizures), and also includes advisories to seek professional medical advice before taking Fluoride.

But on this page it's considered to be an additive

http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf

So who to trust?

A service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

or

The American dental association?

One of them must be lying right?

Gbear

Deleted User wrote: »

Once upon a time, the notion of the US government spying on everyone was laughed off as a conspiracy theory.

The veracity of any conspiracy theory is based on the evidence for it - not whether any other conspiracies have ever been proven correct.

There is no evidence that fluoride is damaging to health in the concentrations it's found at in Irish water. There's just no argument to be had about the dangers. There simply isn't any.

There is an argument that it shouldn't be the government's place to do that sort of thing but because there's no real downside it should be rather far down the list of priorities.
You're not necessarily wrong to oppose it in principle but there's just no real point in doing so, other than technical correctness.

jma

endacl wrote: »

By the US. What's that got to do with the current status of fluoride in the EU.

You really should consider the details before you post...

Here's one a bit closer to home:

“The European Court of Justice has defined fluoridation as a medication and has refused to sanction its implementation. Yet our government continues to impose fluoride on the population at a cost of €4.8 million per annum.”

Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/ban-fluoride-ireland-902100-May2013/

And also:

Fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods. That is the decision of the European Court of Justice, in a landmark case dealing with the classification and regulation of 'functional drinks' in member states of the European Community. (HLH Warenvertriebs and Orthica (Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03, C-316/03 and C-318/03) 9 June 2005)

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-211/03&language=en

bumper234

jma wrote: »

Here's one a bit closer to home:

“The European Court of Justice has defined fluoridation as a medication and has refused to sanction its implementation. Yet our government continues to impose fluoride on the population at a cost of €4.8 million per annum.”

Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/ban-fluoride-ireland-902100-May2013/

And also:

Fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods. That is the decision of the European Court of Justice, in a landmark case dealing with the classification and regulation of 'functional drinks' in member states of the European Community. (HLH Warenvertriebs and Orthica (Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03, C-316/03 and C-318/03) 9 June 2005)

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-211/03&language=en

But.

The National Health Service (NHS), UK, quoted a UK study which compared levels of tooth decay among very young children in areas where drinking water was not fluoridated to those living in areas where fluoridation occurred. The researchers found that there was 60% less tooth decay among the children living in the fluoridated water areas.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Fluoride/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Canadian Dental Association President Dr. Ron G. Smith described water fluoridation as one of the greatest preventative measure we have in the fight against dental decay. "There is clear evidence that fluoride helps natural tooth enamel remineralize and jurisdictions around the world support water fluoridation, as do we. It is important that everyone understands the facts and the benefits of fluoride."

http://www.cda-adc.ca/en/cda/media_room/news_releases/2011/01_10_11.asp

The Australian Department of Health and Ageing confirmed that according to the most up-to-date evidence, fluoride in the water system is safe and effective for people of all ages.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/currentissue-P12000014

So again i ask, Who is lying?

jma

bumper234 wrote: »

But.

The National Health Service (NHS), UK, quoted a UK study which compared levels of tooth decay among very young children in areas where drinking water was not fluoridated to those living in areas where fluoridation occurred. The researchers found that there was 60% less tooth decay among the children living in the fluoridated water areas.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Fluoride/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Canadian Dental Association President Dr. Ron G. Smith described water fluoridation as one of the greatest preventative measure we have in the fight against dental decay. "There is clear evidence that fluoride helps natural tooth enamel remineralize and jurisdictions around the world support water fluoridation, as do we. It is important that everyone understands the facts and the benefits of fluoride."

http://www.cda-adc.ca/en/cda/media_room/news_releases/2011/01_10_11.asp

The Australian Department of Health and Ageing confirmed that according to the most up-to-date evidence, fluoride in the water system is safe and effective for people of all ages.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/currentissue-P12000014

So again i ask, Who is lying?

It doesn't really matter who is lying. You're missing the point. We should be free to choose. You're not forced to take flu vaccines through your taps either, are you? Even though that might decrease the number of annual flu infections. (That's just an example; I don't want argue about whether or not that is physically or even theoretically possible).

So, there's a lot of conflicting views and evidence. So, why take the gamble. If you think your oral health will benefit from fluoride supplements, go the the pharmacy and buy some tablets. Simple as.

jh79

jma wrote: »

It doesn't really matter who is lying. You're missing the point. We should be free to choose. You're not forced to take flu vaccines through your taps either, are you? Even though that might decrease the number of annual flu infections. (That's just an example; I don't want argue about whether or not that is physically or even theoretically possible).

So, there's a lot of conflicting views and evidence. So, why take the gamble. If you think your oral health will benefit from fluoride supplements, go the the pharmacy and buy some tablets. Simple as.

Vaccines are medication, fluoride is a supplement. It is present in water anyways so it is added to supplement what is already present.

If fluoride is such a dangerous substance why aren't ye pressing for its complete removal from the water supply?

bumper234

jma wrote: »

It doesn't really matter who is lying. You're missing the point. We should be free to choose. You're not forced to take flu vaccines through your taps either, are you? Even though that might decrease the number of annual flu infections. (That's just an example; I don't want argue about whether or not that is physically or even theoretically possible).

So, there's a lot of conflicting views and evidence. So, why take the gamble. If you think your oral health will benefit from fluoride supplements, go the the pharmacy and buy some tablets. Simple as.

And if you feel that drinking tap water equates to forced medication then maybe you should just drink bottled water.

jma

jh79 wrote: »

Vaccines are medication, fluoride is a supplement. It is present in water anyways so it is added to supplement what is already present.

I know the difference, jh79. As said, I was just making an example. The reason for the comparison: vaccines are to prevent diseases, while fluoride is added to prevent dental caries, which is also considered a disease. They are different, yes.

Perhaps a better analogy: you aren't forced to take vitamin supplements through your tap water, even though certain vitamin or mineral supplements can be beneficial to your health - for example if you're a vegetarian, or if you don't eat much fruit or veg.

jh79 wrote: »

If fluoride is such a dangerous substance why aren't ye pressing for its complete removal from the water supply?

Naturally occurring fluoride is different from added fluoride.

Whatnuclearsub

Tap water is not doing the irish population any harm, if tap water could harm people you can be sure there would have been a court case by now! If they remove fluoride now, the only reason for it will be to save money.

jma

bumper234 wrote: »

And if you feel that drinking tap water equates to forced medication then maybe you should just drink bottled water.

First of all, I do drink bottled water.

Secondly, a lot of bottled water also contains added fluoride, and apparently, there's no regulation that forces companies to state the levels.

Thirdly, do you really think that's an acceptable alternative? If you do, you didn't consider that very well. Hint: it basically affects all Irish produce. We would also need to use bottled water for preparing food - at home and in restaurants, etc.

You might as well say that people should move to another country if they don't like it.

bumper234

jma wrote: »

First of all, I do drink bottled water.

Secondly, a lot of bottled water also contains added fluoride, and apparently, there's no regulation that forces companies to state the levels.

Thirdly, do you really think that's an acceptable alternative? If you do, you didn't consider that very well. Hint: it basically affects all Irish produce. We would also need to use bottled water for preparing food - at home and in restaurants, etc.

You might as well say that people should move to another country if they don't like it.

That would be my next suggestion. Adding fluoride to the water system is seen (by most) as a positive thing. Until it is proven to be harmful there is no need to remove 8t just because a small % of the population do not want it. What next? Ban all mobile phones because they MAY cause tumours to people who use them?

jh79

jma wrote: »

I know the difference, jh79. As said, I was just making an example. The reason for the comparison: vaccines are to prevent diseases, while fluoride is added to prevent dental caries, which is also considered a disease. They are different, yes.

Perhaps a better analogy: you aren't forced to take vitamin supplements through your tap water, even though certain vitamin or mineral supplements can be beneficial to your health - for example if you're a vegetarian, or if you don't eat much fruit or veg.



Naturally occurring fluoride is different from added fluoride.

It's not, F- is the same no matter where it comes from. That should be reason enough for you to question the crap you are reading on fluoride alert / girl against fluoride. A leaving cert chemistry student would not make that mistake yet it is stated as fact on those ridiculous websites. Surely if they are willing to mislead you on this point you would question the veracity of the other "facts" they spout.

jma

Whatnuclearsub wrote: »

Tap water is not doing the irish population any harm, if tap water could harm people you can be sure there would have been a court case by now! If they remove fluoride now, the only reason for it will be to save money.

What are you basing that on exactly? Have you considered fluorosis cases in Ireland?

Ireland has one of the world's highest cancer rates. In fact, it's the second highest worldwide. I'm not saying that that has anything to do with fluoride, but I am suspicious about it. They are even higher than N. Ireland. More than likely, there are actually a large number of factors, including lifestyle, but I personally wouldn't rule fluoride out completely. Again, this is my personal opinion - I have no facts linking the two, but as I said before, most studies on fluoridation are retrospective, so I'd be eager to see what effect removing fluoride will have down the road.

Also, have you read about Aisling FitzGibbon's story, and why she became an anti-fluoride activist?

jma

jh79 wrote: »

It's not, F- is the same no matter where it comes from. That should be reason enough for you to question the crap you are reading on fluoride alert / girl against fluoride. A leaving cert chemistry student would not make that mistake yet it is stated as fact on those ridiculous websites. Surely if they are willing to mislead you on this point you would question the veracity of the other "facts" they spout.

Get your facts straight. Naturally occurring fluoride is a lot less soluble than the added fluoride. Solubility is a key factor in toxicity. I suggest you do a bit more research on the subject.

jma

I'll try and give you a starting point, to help you out a bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluorosilicate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid

jh79

jma wrote: »

Get your facts straight. Naturally occurring fluoride is a lot less soluble than the added fluoride. Solubility is a key factor in toxicity. I suggest you do a bit more research on the subject.

If the fluoride concentration is measurable then it has already dissolved. Calcium fluoride is naturally occurring, Sodium fluoride is not. They dissociate at different rates but it is the final concentration that we are talking about. 0.7ppm of fluoride from which Calcium fluoride is the source has the same effect as 0.7ppm in which sodium fluoride is the source. Care to hazard a guess why these website aren't clear on this fact?

jh79

jma wrote: »

I'll try and give you a starting point, to help you out a bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluorosilicate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid[/QUOTE]

To break it down for you, the source of the fluoride is not important it is the final concentration of the fluoride ion.

runawaybishop

jma wrote: »

Ireland has one of the world's highest cancer rates. In fact, it's the second highest worldwide. I'm not saying that that has anything to do with fluoride, but I am suspicious about it. They are even higher than N. Ireland. More than likely, there are actually a large number of factors, including lifestyle, but I personally wouldn't rule fluoride out completely. Again, this is my personal opinion - I have no facts linking the two, but as I said before, most studies on fluoridation are retrospective, so I'd be eager to see what effect removing fluoride will have down the road.

We also have dogs. Now, I'm not saying that dogs cause cancer but i am suspicious of them. I wouldn't rule dogs out from causing cancer. I have no facts linking the two though, but I'm eager to see what removing dogs from the country does.

bumper234

runawaybishop wrote: »

We also have dogs. Now, I'm not saying that dogs cause cancer but i am suspicious of them. I wouldn't rule dogs out from causing cancer. I have no facts linking the two though, but I'm eager to see what removing dogs from the country does.

Cars....what about cars.

It's the emissions causing the cancers lets go back to horse and trap like them Amish lads. Or the cows maybe the methane causes it....lets get rid of the cows.

jh79

bumper234 wrote: »

Cars....what about cars.

It's the emissions causing the cancers lets go back to horse and trap like them Amish lads. Or the cows maybe the methane causes it....lets get rid of the cows.

Cows would probably get a pass because they are "natural", and something "natural" couldn't possibly be bad for you...;) right?

jma

jh79 wrote: »

If the fluoride concentration is measurable then it has already dissolved. Calcium fluoride is naturally occurring, Sodium fluoride is not. They dissociate at different rates but it is the final concentration that we are talking about. 0.7ppm of fluoride from which Calcium fluoride is the source has the same effect as 0.7ppm in which sodium fluoride is the source. Care to hazard a guess why these website aren't clear on this fact?

jh79 - This is irrelevant. They are two completely different compounds. You cannot say that they are the same because it's just not valid. The fact alone that CaF2 is accompanied by Calcium makes a difference. Ingesting 1ppm of H2SiF6 is about the same as ingesting 25ppm of CaF2. Also, it's between 0.8ppm and 1ppm that we're talking about. That is the prescribed concentration by law. I can only guess what the actual concentration is.

runawaybishop and bumber234 - you've both shown your intelligence here and your inability to have a mature conversation about a serious subject. Good on yee.

bumper234

jma wrote: »

jh79 - This is irrelevant. They are two completely different compounds. You cannot say that they are the same because it's just not valid. The fact alone that CaF2 is accompanied by Calcium makes a difference. Ingesting 1ppm of H2SiF6 is about the same as ingesting 25ppm of CaF2. Also, it's between 0.8ppm and 1ppm that we're talking about. That is the prescribed concentration by law. I can only guess what the actual concentration is.

runawaybishop and bumber234 - you've both shown your intelligence here and your inability to have a mature conversation about a serious subject. Good on yee.

Your'e quite welcome sir. Looking forward to your next link to some random blog.

jh79

jma wrote: »

jh79 - This is irrelevant. They are two completely different compounds. You cannot say that they are the same because it's just not valid. The fact alone that CaF2 is accompanied by Calcium makes a difference. Ingesting 1ppm of H2SiF6 is about the same as ingesting 25ppm of CaF2. Also, it's between 0.8ppm and 1ppm that we're talking about. That is the prescribed concentration by law. I can only guess what the actual concentration is.

runawaybishop and bumber234 - you've both shown your intelligence here and your inability to have a mature conversation about a serious subject. Good on yee.

Your missing the point, the fluoride concentration is the final concentration. The 0.8ppm - 1ppm includes fluoride from all sources. CaF2 is a solid I'd imagine it stays in the ground, a small proportion of this dissolves to contribute to the total fluoride concentration making the source of the fluoride irrelevant.

Robbo

jma wrote: »

Also, have you read about Aisling FitzGibbon's story, and why she became an anti-fluoride activist?

To promote a career in pseudo-science?

jma

bumper234 wrote: »

Your'e quite welcome sir. Looking forward to your next link to some random blog.

You must have misunderstood my comment. I wasn't thanking you. Since you're not really contributing anything, it would probably be best for everyone if you went and played somewhere else. Also, I don't recall posting any links to any random blogs.

bumper234

jma wrote: »

You must have misunderstood my comment. I wasn't thanking you. Since you're not really contributing anything, it would probably be best for everyone if you went and played somewhere else. Also, I don't recall posting any links to any random blogs.

That's right you couldn't even be arsed to post a link to it.:rolleyes:

jma wrote: »

Also, have you read about Aisling FitzGibbon's story, and why she became an anti-fluoride activist?

Also waiting for your source on this?

jma wrote: »

Ireland has one of the world's highest cancer rates.

RobFowl

This thread is killing me, keep looking for an excuse to close it :rolleyes:

bumper234

RobFowl wrote: »

This thread is killing me, keep looking for an excuse to close it :rolleyes:

Just merge it with the other 4 fluoride threads and be done with it lol. Get a fluoride containment thread going where we can all go round in circles to our hearts content

endacl

Robbo wrote: »

To promote a career in pseudo-science?

In fairness. She could be the next Gillian McKeith. Once she sends off the the SAE to the right diploma mill for the aul' doctorate.