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

jma

Jimoslimos wrote: »

You know what I call that, cherry-picking.

You can call it whatever you like. I couldn't care less, tbh.

jma

jh79 wrote: »

The water supply is routinely tested by analytical chemists; unless some strange natural event occurred the amount added would be the same each time, even if a mistake was made it would have to be monumental to be a health risk

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7322

jh79

jma wrote: »

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7322

Fluorosis is generally considereds just as cosmetic damage. Anyways 100 dentists is hardly a consensus why are their opinion more valid than the opinions of the majority of their colleagues?

The article says that our level is 3 times that of the north assuming similar type of source, irish levels would be 0.2ppm roughly without fluoridation. How do you propose to deal with that?

x112

RobFowl wrote: »

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

Delete the crap anyway.

locum-motion wrote: »

Irish water does not contain "loads of" flouride. It contains precisely the correct amount!

Flouride in water is one of the favourite 'conspiracy theory' subjects out there, so you can expect this thread to be locked pretty quickly. Before it is, though, let me just give you this piece of advice: don't pay any attention to any of the crap on the net saying that flouride in the water is a bad thing.

For all ages and health levels? I don't think so.

Also, the level 0.8ppm was the limit set for Calcium Flouride. It's Hexafluorosilicic Acid now, categorised as extremely Toxic. In ireland the poisons regulations Act 1982 lists alkali metal fluorides as poisons. By adding Hexafluorosilicic acid to water one is not only creating silicofluoride compounds but alkali metal fluorides compounds that are poisonous to public health.

SleepDoc wrote: »

It's a safe and effective way of helping to prevent dental decay.

Evidence to the contrary or gtfo.

Ha, you first!

endacl wrote: »

Ah yes. Google. The noted academic journal. Made a researcher out of everybody who could (nearly) spell...

Pop fluoride plus <anything> into the google machine. It'll find a match. It won't filter out the rubbish results though. You kinda have to know the subject to do that filtering yourself. A quick check for 'flouride bad breath' and google vomits out...

http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-Your-Toothpaste-the-Cause-of-Your-Bad-Breath?---Bad-Breath-Toothpaste-Information&id=3917475

I'm off over to CT's! They go batsh1t for this stuff!

Oh no. Wait. Checked out the author. He only writes about bad breath. Apparently everything causes it. Luckily it can be 'cured' by the shtuff he 'recommends'.... Ah, who cares! Ct'ers will love this one anyway...

Google rewards the user. That's why its successful. If it told people there was nothing of worth to find, people wouldn't use it. Try Google Scholar next time. It's ever-so-slightly less pointless for 'proper' research.

:rolleyes:

This is....just awful drivel. Don't know why it wasn't deleted.

SleepDoc wrote: »

Yawn. Nothing peer reviewed then?

And you Thanked it for some reason!?:pac:

Here you go if you want studies. Hopefully it'll keep you busy.

For everyone else theirs the summary. Looks at all the "studies" done over the first few decades on adding flouride, concludes alot of them are severely flawed/lacking and of piss poor quality and couldn't even be included in a review. After 50 years we built up very little real data until the last few years/decade.

Both the for and against crowds have used this report in pushing their view, ie it does as much harm as good.

The questions raised back then though in the studies were enough for Sweden, Holland, Germany, Denmark, France and others to drop treating water in the 70s. France recognised it as a enzyme poison.

endacl wrote: »

Well, they haven't yet defined it as a medication. Ireland can't be fined for breaking a rule that doesn't exist. Have you been at those freeman websites again? You do know they're a bit silly, don't you...?

What about a poison?

Whats this bold crap about?

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...

Bit silly this no?

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

A 15% drop in Caries for a 50% increase in flourisis as one Irish Dentist put it.

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.

"According to Roholm's toxicology research on fluorine intoxicationpertaining to various inorganic fluorides:

H2SiF6 (Fluorosilicic Acid) is 25 times MORE lethally toxic than CaF2 (Calcium Fluoride)
NaF (Sodium Fluoride) is 20 times MORE lethally toxic than CaF2 (Calcium Fluoride)
Na2SiF6 (Sodium Fluorosilicate) is 20 times MORE lethally toxic than CaF2 (Calcium Fluoride)
AlF3 (Aluminium Fluoride) is 8.3 times MORE lethally toxic than CaF2 (Calcium Fluoride)"
(By the way that last one is used as a pesticide called Cryolite which is used to spray crops and it is the sticky stuff on non organic imported grapes we buy in the supermarket.)

What the information on the toxicity of hydrofluorosilicic acid means is that :"1 ppm of hexafluorosilicic acid ingested orally is the equivalent of 25ppm calcium fluoride."

Although hydrofluorosilicic acid is more toxic than lead, and only slightly less toxic than arsenic, two very poisonous substances - a it is added to water at far greater allowable concentrations - even at NZ's rate of 1ppm (1000ppb)! Compare this with .015ppm (15ppb) for Lead and .010ppm (10ppb) for Arsenic.

In case you want to check the veracity of this data for yourselves:

http://water.epa.gov/drink/index.cfm

SpaceTime wrote: »

But my point is that whatever about the official dose, the authorities that are doing the dosing are usually incapable of getting basic things like road signage, road surfaces, planning laws etc even remotely right.

Several local authorities including one major city council managed to supply severely contaminated water i.e. with cryptosporidium.

+1

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'd rather trust Colgate or GSK to get my toothpaste right than some local authority tbh and I would rather a choice in the matter.

US warns over Chinese toothpaste

http://www.enviro.ie/Public%20Health%20Investigation%20of%20Epidemiological%20data%20on%20Disease%20and%20Mortality%20in%20Ireland%20related%20to%20Water%20Fluoridation_Waugh%20D_Febuary%202013%20Master.pdf

It is evident that in the few countries where water fluoridation still operates that the public health authorities who continue to promote this blunt and dangerous practice do so in a manner whereby they censor scientific information that is in any way
damaging to their continued support for such a policy.

This has not happened in
Europe where numerous scientific assessments have all found fluoridation to beunsafe, unlawful and a violation of human rights.

What is absolutely certain is that in the RoI the public health authorities have pursued a policy of medicating the population with fluoridation chemicals for half a century without undertaking any clinical trials, medical, toxicological, scientific or epidemiological studies to examine how exposure to such chemicals may be
impacting on the general health of the population. In the absence of any
scientific
data they continue to
believe that the policy is both safe and effective for all sectors of
society regardless of the age, nutritional requirements, medical status or
total dietary intake of fluoride of individuals.

Causal inference is not done directly from the epidemiological study results; instead, it is done via combining information from the epidemiological observations with findings from the detailed studies of
pathways such as the impact of EDCs,
risk of exposures as well as human and
animal studies.

http://www.enviro.ie/downloads.html

Not really a question if it's doing harm anymore. It is.

http://www.endirishwaterfluoridation.com/

jma

jh79 wrote: »

Fluorosis is generally considereds just as cosmetic damage. Anyways 100 dentists is hardly a consensus why are their opinion more valid than the opinions of the majority of their colleagues?

The article says that our level is 3 times that of the north assuming similar type of source, irish levels would be 0.2ppm roughly without fluoridation. How do you propose to deal with that?

So what you're saying is that because only 100 dentists have publicly voiced their concerns about fluoridation, it should be dismissed? I didn't say that their opinions are more valid, but you seem to be indicating that their concerns are less valid.

Fluorosis is permanent damage to the tooth enamel. It is a cosmetic problem, but it can cause psychological problems also. We know that F isn't just absorbed by the teeth. It's also absorbed by bone and accumulates in the pineal gland (Luke 2001). To the best of my knowledge, no study has ever been carried out to determine what effect this has in humans, but according to Michael Connett (2006), "Recent information on the role of the pineal organ in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, postmenopausal osteoporosis, cancer, and psychiatric disease."

A drop from 0.8 - 1ppm to 0.2ppm to me would seem like a nice step in the right direction. Also, if it is stated that the public drinking water shall not contain more than 1ppm of F, I'm guessing a system must exist that allows authorities to also remove F from the drinking water.

Do we know what the total average daily intake of F is for (a) infants and children, and (b) adults?

x112

jma wrote: »

Do we know what the total average daily intake of F is for (a) infants and children, and (b) adults?

In this one. pg28 for babies. 145 in this one. Post 2 looks comical now.
These reports are great.

8.0

INFANTS AND FLUORIDE

The proper approach to risk assessment in toxicology and the environment is
to identify the high risk groups in the community and to set safety standards
for daily doses with sufficient margin to protect them with a high degree of
certainty.

Based on clinical reports it may be concluded that if a young child,
under 6, ingests a fluoride dose in excess of 15 mg fluoride/kg death is likely to occur. Therefore, the probably toxic dose, which can be defined as the
threshold dose that could cause serious or life threatening systemic signs and symptoms and will need immediate emergency treatment is considered to be 5 mg fluoride/kg.
825
826


The adequate intake of fluoride for infants aged from 0-6 months, as defined
by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Institute of Medicine of the National
Academies, is 0.01mg/l.
827

It is an absolute certainty that all bottle-fed infants under 6 months of age bottle-fed with formula reconstituted from fluoridated water would exceed by multiples of 6-10 this recommended level. It is also evident,as noted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), that damage may not be evident until a later stage of development. The agency reported in their toxicological profile of fluorides
that children also have a longer remaining lifetime in which to express damage from over-exposure to such chemicals; this potential is particularly relevant to cancer.
828


Bottle-fed babies therefore can be described as a targeted risk. Yet astonishingly no warnings or recommendations are provided by the Health Service Executive (HSE) or the Food Safety Authority (FSA) to parents or healthcare professionals warning them of any health risks. Ireland unlike all other European countries (who don‘t practise water fluoridation) has one of the lowest levels of breastfeeding internationally and the lowest in Europe.

830

As a consequence the population of Ireland as a whole, over their lifetime, is
one of the most over-exposed to the chemical fluoride toxin in the world.

"Do no harm":rolleyes:




Results of samples taken from Water Tanks

I was wondering where the arsenic, lead and all these other goodies came from when I spotted that first.

Mixed in with the flouride.
http://www.carahealth.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=141&lang=en
http://www.enviro.ie/correspondence/Hexafluorosilicic%20Acid%20as%20an%20ingredident%20in%20Fluoridation%20of%20Drinking%20Water_WAUGH_2012.pdf

How is their even a debate whether this is OK FFS.

SpaceTime

All I know is that I have stripes of white and patches on my teeth and had very brittle enamel which my dentist put down to fluorosis.

I'm not too happy about it.

jh79

jma wrote: »

So what you're saying is that because only 100 dentists have publicly voiced their concerns about fluoridation, it should be dismissed? I didn't say that their opinions are more valid, but you seem to be indicating that their concerns are less valid.

Fluorosis is permanent damage to the tooth enamel. It is a cosmetic problem, but it can cause psychological problems also. We know that F isn't just absorbed by the teeth. It's also absorbed by bone and accumulates in the pineal gland (Luke 2001). To the best of my knowledge, no study has ever been carried out to determine what effect this has in humans, but according to Michael Connett (2006), "Recent information on the role of the pineal organ in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, postmenopausal osteoporosis, cancer, and psychiatric disease."

A drop from 0.8 - 1ppm to 0.2ppm to me would seem like a nice step in the right direction. Also, if it is stated that the public drinking water shall not contain more than 1ppm of F, I'm guessing a system must exist that allows authorities to also remove F from the drinking water.

Do we know what the total average daily intake of F is for (a) infants and children, and (b) adults?

Regarding the dentists, would the sensible thing not be to go with the opinions of the majority.

You still don't have a handle on the chemistry involved. The ppm level of fluoride can be controlled because the natural level generally remains constant therefore a known amount of NaF can be added to increase it to the desired level.

Why is it ok to draw a line in the sand at 0. 2ppm not 0.7ppm? What scientific data allowed you to come to this figure? How much has your risk of adverse effects dropped if this was the case? Given that toxicity is not seen until at least 4ppm and generally 10ppm I find it very suspicious that you are happy at a level of 0.2ppm but are campaigning against 0.7ppm.

By the way it has nothing to do with whether it is CaF2, NaF or Hexa....Acid they all produce the fluoride ion. You seem to have fallen into the trap that the natural level is healthier irrespective of the ppm involved.

jma

jh79 wrote: »

Regarding the dentists, would the sensible thing not be to go with the opinions of the majority.

That makes little sense. The majority of people used to believe the Earth was flat. Just because the majority believed it, it didn't make it so.

jh79 wrote: »

You still don't have a handle on the chemistry involved. The ppm level of fluoride can be controlled because the natural level generally remains constant therefore a known amount of NaF can be added to increase it to the desired level.

Why is it ok to draw a line in the sand at 0. 2ppm not 0.7ppm? What scientific data allowed you to come to this figure? How much has your risk of adverse effects dropped if this was the case? Given that toxicity is not seen until at least 4ppm and generally 10ppm I find it very suspicious that you are happy at a level of 0.2ppm but are campaigning against 0.7ppm.

By the way it has nothing to do with whether it is CaF2, NaF or Hexa....Acid they all produce the fluoride ion. You seem to have fallen into the trap that the natural level is healthier irrespective of the ppm involved.

What are you saying? That defluoridation isn't possible at source? You came up with the figure of 0.2ppm, not me. What I'm campaigning against is water fluoridation. What's so difficult to understand about that? I also think PPM is not as important as the total daily intake, which would have to be measured in mg/Kg.

jh79

jma wrote: »

That makes little sense. The majority of people used to believe the Earth was flat. Just because the majority believed it, it didn't make it so.



What are you saying? That defluoridation isn't possible at source? You came up with the figure of 0.2ppm, not me. What I'm campaigning against is water fluoridation. What's so difficult to understand about that? I also think PPM is not as important as the total daily intake, which would have to be measured in mg/Kg.

Defluoridation isn't possible at source, on an industrial scale anyways.

You're campaign would only result in a small decrease in the overall concentration of fluoride assuming our ground water is similar to the north. By decreasing the concentration by such an insignificant amount what do you hope to achieve?

From your research in this area what is a safe amount given that it will be present whether fluoridation is carried out or not?

ppm is the same as mg per litre.

I counter your flat earth analogy with evolution, some people believe in creationism the majority don't.

My difficulty with your campaigh against water fluoridation is that your haven't stated what you believe to be a safe conc given it is a naturally present in water to varying degrees. Whether fluoridation occurs or not isn't important, it's whether the level is safe.

Again the source is irrelevant, sodium fluoride calcium fluoride the end result is the same

jma

jh79 wrote: »

Defluoridation isn't possible at source, on an industrial scale anyways.

I know of reverse osmosis, and little of other techniques. I'll take your word on that for now.

jh79 wrote: »

You're campaign would only result in a small decrease in the overall concentration of fluoride assuming our ground water is similar to the north. By decreasing the concentration by such an insignificant amount what do you hope to achieve?

I hope to end water fluoridation. I know that just because calcium fluoride exists naturally, doesn't mean it's healthy. I still don't want hexafluorosilicic acid added to my drinking water, and I definitely don't want my 11-month old subjected to it. I read about a herbal defluoridation method that was recently discovered by Indian scientists. While I'm not up to speed yet, perhaps it might be a way to get rid of the remaining fluoride.

jh79 wrote: »

From your research in this area what is a safe amount given that it will be present whether fluoridation is carried out or not?

I think no (0ppm) fluoride is a safe amount.

jh79 wrote: »

ppm is the same as mg per litre.

It's not exactly the same thing, but yeah, in this scenario, it is practically the same. However, I said mg/Kg (of body weight), not mg/L or mg/Kg of tap water. I'm talking about all sources, not just directly from the tap.

jh79 wrote: »

I counter your flat earth analogy with evolution, some people believe in creationism the majority don't.

Sorry, but I don't see how that's relevant.

jh79 wrote: »

My difficulty with your campaigh against water fluoridation is that your haven't stated what you believe to be a safe conc given it is a naturally present in water to varying degrees. Whether fluoridation occurs or not isn't important, it's whether the level is safe.

jh79 wrote: »

Again the source is irrelevant, sodium fluoride calcium fluoride the end result is the same

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that.

jh79

I know of reverse osmosis, and little of other techniques. I'll take your word on that for now.

It involves pumping through filters at high pressure and wastes lots of water, not the most environmentally friendly option even in a home setting.


I hope to end water fluoridation. I know that just because calcium fluoride exists naturally, doesn't mean it's healthy. I still don't want hexafluorosilicic acid added to my drinking water, and I definitely don't want my 11-month old subjected to it. I read about a herbal defluoridation method that was recently discovered by Indian scientists. While I'm not up to speed yet, perhaps it might be a way to get rid of the remaining fluoride.

Again you are falling for the trap that hexafluorosilicic acid produces a more toxic fluoride , it doesn't.

I think no (0ppm) fluoride is a safe amount.

Pretty sure it is needed for healthy bone and enamel formation.



It's not exactly the same thing, but yeah, in this scenario, it is practically the same. However, I said mg/Kg (of body weight), not mg/L or mg/Kg of tap water. I'm talking about all sources, not just directly from the tap.

ppm is a unit of concentration no different from the others. Studies previously carried out, which you agreed in an earlier post did not show any significant link to adverse effects, would have accounted for all sources as the people involved ate food etc prepared from their fluoridated water supply.


We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that

You may disagree but it is a fact that fluoride from CaF2 is the same as fluoride from NaF.

Jimoslimos

jma wrote: »

I hope to end water fluoridation. I know that just because calcium fluoride exists naturally, doesn't mean it's healthy. I still don't want hexafluorosilicic acid added to my drinking water, and I definitely don't want my 11-month old subjected to it.

Appeal to emotion.

jma wrote: »

I read about a herbal defluoridation method that was recently discovered by Indian scientists. While I'm not up to speed yet, perhaps it might be a way to get rid of the remaining fluoride.

Yeah I also read about this amazing new homeopathic remedy for diseases caused by fluoride. It involves adding a tiny amount of fluor.....oh sh1t.

Your herbal defluoridation is bull.

jma wrote: »

I think no (0ppm) fluoride is a safe amount.

Good luck with that.

jma

jh79 wrote: »

It involves pumping through filters at high pressure and wastes lots of water, not the most environmentally friendly option even in a home setting.

jh79 wrote: »

Again you are falling for the trap that hexafluorosilicic acid produces a more toxic fluoride , it doesn't.

Hexafluorosilicic acid in itself is more toxic. I know it's all about the dose, but in my opinion, not enough evidence exists to label it safe for long-term exposure/ingestion.

jh79 wrote: »

Pretty sure it is needed for healthy bone and enamel formation.

It's not at all. Calcium is. We can have perfectly healthy bones and teeth without fluoride; it has no nutritional value.

jh79 wrote: »

ppm is a unit of concentration no different from the others. Studies previously carried out, which you agreed in an earlier post did not show any significant link to adverse effects, would have accounted for all sources as the people involved ate food etc prepared from their fluoridated water supply.

That's not completely correct. First of all, there have been adverse effects recorded, and secondly, there are lots of studies that conclude that further research is necessary to determine the effects of long-term exposure to fluoride. What I don't know is the exact amount that we are exposed to. I'm not talking about the studies/papers.

jma

I'm not going to respond to Jimoslimo's comments, but in case any one else is interested, this is the article I saw about herbal defluoridation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305100928.htm

jh79

Hexa....acid and NaF disociate quicker in water to give the fluoride ion therefore less is needed to get to 0.7ppm. It is the same as using double concentrate orange squash, the end result is the same.

By your logic if the government used calcium fluoride instead of the other two that would be ok but in reality the toxicity remains the same as long as the final fluoride conc is the same. Surely you can see this.

Nonoperational

This is really pushing the "health sciences" forum in my opinion.

No offence to some of the posters, but some of the posts have no scientific basis.

Vorsprung

Guys, just a friendly reminder that this is indeed the Health Sciences forum and not Conspiracy Theories.

As such, we have different expectations, so if you want to put forward a hypothesis, please link to a scientific article or article that references a journal article.

I'd be grateful if you can watch the tone of the "discussion" as well.

If it descends further into CTdom we'll happily shut this down.

Jimoslimos

jma wrote: »

I'm not going to respond to Jimoslimo's comments, but in case any one else is interested, this is the article I saw about herbal defluoridation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305100928.htm

Why I wonder would you not actually give some information on the actual title of that paper;

"Defluoridation of drinking water using metal embedded biocarbon technology"

instead of the misleading (but attractive to the alternative health quacks) "herbal" defluoridation? I'm well aware plants and even some bacteria can used as adsorbents, though generally these are for heavier toxic metals.

Is this even relevant for fluoride at Irish levels, which are well within the WHO guidelines? It's easy to make grand sweeping statements like "98% fluoride removed" without knowing the starting concentration

jma

jh79 wrote: »

Hexa....acid and NaF disociate quicker in water to give the fluoride ion therefore less is needed to get to 0.7ppm. It is the same as using double concentrate orange squash, the end result is the same.

By your logic if the government used calcium fluoride instead of the other two that would be ok but in reality the toxicity remains the same as long as the final fluoride conc is the same. Surely you can see this.

I'm pretty sure I get what you're saying. You're mainly talking about the fluoride ion. But I'm talking about the compounds that contain the F ion. Both compounds are very different. For one, the added fluoride is missing the Ca element, which is a recognised antidote to fluoride poisoning. It also introduces sodium and impurities. Even the WHO seem to have different guideline values for "natural fluoride" and for "added fluoride". Natural fluoride is not absorbed as well as added fluoride.

Unfortunately, a lot of public water supplies are not up to standard or have management issues, as can be seen below.

"Naturally elevated levels of fluoride are quite rare in Ireland and thus any exceedances reported are almost entirely due to public water supplies being dosed with fluoride at levels in excess of the legally permitted dose." (EPA, 2012)

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/drinking/RAL%20Q1%20of%202013.pdf
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/drinking/Drinking%20Water_web.pdf

Other sources:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/l-3/2.htm

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutfluoride.pdf
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/fluoride.pdf

jh79

jma wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I get what you're saying. You're mainly talking about the fluoride ion. But I'm talking about the compounds that contain the F ion. Both compounds are very different. For one, the added fluoride is missing the Ca element, which is a recognised antidote to fluoride poisoning. It also introduces sodium and impurities. Even the WHO seem to have different guideline values for "natural fluoride" and for "added fluoride". Natural fluoride is not absorbed as well as added fluoride.

Unfortunately, a lot of public water supplies are not up to standard or have management issues, as can be seen below.

"Naturally elevated levels of fluoride are quite rare in Ireland and thus any exceedances reported are almost entirely due to public water supplies being dosed with fluoride at levels in excess of the legally permitted dose." (EPA, 2012)

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/drinking/RAL%20Q1%20of%202013.pdf
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/drinking/Drinking%20Water_web.pdf

Other sources:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/l-3/2.htm

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutfluoride.pdf
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/fluoride.pdf

But Calcium Fluoride isn't present in the water supply, it has dissolved to release the fluoride ion. The same happens with sodium fluoride and fluorosilic acid, they dissolve to release the fluoride ion. There is no evidence that the other ions introduced by sodium fluoride or fluorosilic acid are harmful.

It is the removal of the fluoride ion that you and others are campaigning against. The idea that the source of the fluoride ion is important is pseudoscience used by certain websites to fool people into believing this is a genuine health issue.

Did you read the links you provided from the WHO? They confirm that there are no long term health risks associated with water fluoridated below 1.5 mg / L (1.5ppm).

RobFowl

This thread is going nowhere so I'm closing it for a day or so to let everyone cool off

RobFowl

OK reopening this but with a very low tolerance for further nonsense....

jma

I'd just like to make two last points...

I think we can all agree that the fluoride compound that's added to our water is known to be toxic. There are a number of factors that influence toxicity. Some of these include dosage, sex, health, weight, and age. While the concentration of fluoride that's added to our water supply is considered safe by various organisations like WHO, ADA, HSE, etc, the point is that no one can really determine or control the exact dose once it's added to the water, or completely rule out negative effects in individuals.

My last point isn't directly related to fluoridation, but it's an example of how something that's been labelled safe and healthy for years is now being linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer. Omega-3 supplements.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/omega-3-supplements-linked-to-prostate-cancer-236524.html

So, with this in mind, isn't it safer and more ethical to remove the fluoride from our drinking water, and let individuals make up their own minds?

jh79

jma wrote: »

I'd just like to make two last points...

I think we can all agree that the fluoride compound that's added to our water is known to be toxic. There are a number of factors that influence toxicity. Some of these include dosage, sex, health, weight, and age. While the concentration of fluoride that's added to our water supply is considered safe by various organisations like WHO, ADA, HSE, etc, the point is that no one can really determine or control the exact dose once it's added to the water, or completely rule out negative effects in individuals.

My last point isn't directly related to fluoridation, but it's an example of how something that's been labelled safe and healthy for years is now being linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer. Omega-3 supplements.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/omega-3-supplements-linked-to-prostate-cancer-236524.html

So, with this in mind, isn't it safer and more ethical to remove the fluoride from our drinking water, and let individuals make up their own minds?

The difference between this and omega 3 supplement s is that there has been research done. While generally considered to be of poor quality they do show that toxicity is only seen at pretty high levels. Ethics aside, I can't see any reason to stop fluoridation. Also unlike supplements such as omega 3 , fluoride has proven benefits.

jma

jh79 wrote: »

The difference between this and omega 3 supplement s is that there has been research done. While generally considered to be of poor quality they do show that toxicity is only seen at pretty high levels. Ethics aside, I can't see any reason to stop fluoridation. Also unlike supplements such as omega 3 , fluoride has proven benefits.

"Pretty high" is not a measurable dose. The upper limit of F concentration is said to be about 4 ppm. That means the amount added to our water is only about 4 times less than the upper "safe" threshold, which seems too small a margin to be effective in protecting individuals that may be vulnerable, including bottle-fed infants, people with impaired kidney function, people with an iodine deficiency, or even people that consume a larger amount of water, plus exposure from other, unknown sources.

The US National Research Council (2006) states that fractures seem to increase as fluoride is increased from 1 mg/L to 4 mg/L, suggesting a "continuous exposure-effect" dose-response relationship at these levels.

Within the recommended dose, no [adverse] effects [on the kidney] are expected, but chronic ingestion in excess of 12 mg/day are expected to cause adverse effects, and an intake that high is possible when fluoride levels are around 4 mg/L. Those with impaired kidney function are more susceptible to adverse effects.

National Research Council, 2006 - as cited by Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity#Chronic_toxicity

Fluoride's suppressive effect on the thyroid is more severe when iodine is deficient, and fluoride is associated with lower levels of iodine. Thyroid effects in humans were associated with fluoride levels 0.05–0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01–0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate. Its mechanisms and effects on the endocrine system remain unclear.

Strunecká A, Strunecký O, Patocka J (2002), National Research Council (2006) - as cited by Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity#Chronic_toxicity

What I'm still not clear on is the actual dose in mg/kg/day that's known to be harmful in an otherwise healthy adult, and exactly what concentration of F in the drinking water contributes towards that total dose. The following article seems to suggest a level of less than 1 mg of fluoride per kilogram in 16% of case patients.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199401133300203#t=articleTop

jh79

1 mg per kg would require an intake of roughly 120 litres of water for me.

jma

I did some more digging. The minimum dose of Fluoride known to cause symptoms of Fluoride toxicity is between 0.1 and 0.3 mg/Kg (Kenji Akiniwa 1997, Gessner et al. 1994). So, a child weighing 15 - 20 Kg would only need to consume 1.5 - 6 Litres of water containing 1 ppm Fluoride. And that's excluding all other sources of Fluoride, including toothpaste, which can have as much as ~1000ppm Fluoride, and which are sometimes marketed using child-appealing flavours.

Am I seeing this wrong?

jh79

jma wrote: »

I did some more digging. The minimum dose of Fluoride known to cause symptoms of Fluoride toxicity is between 0.1 and 0.3 mg/Kg (Kenji Akiniwa 1997, Gessner et al. 1994). So, a child weighing 15 - 20 Kg would only need to consume 1.5 - 6 Litres of water containing 1 ppm Fluoride. And that's excluding all other sources of Fluoride, including toothpaste, which can have as much as ~1000ppm Fluoride, and which are sometimes marketed using child-appealing flavours.

Am I seeing this wrong?

At 0.7ppm between 2 and 9 litres would be needed. Wouldn't signs of toxicity only be flourosis which is just staining of teeth. Would a 15 kg child be around 4 ? Would a 4 year old need any more than a litre?

jma

I was going by 1 ppm as stated here:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1965/en/si/0091.html

I just saw this, which is where I think you're probably getting the 0.7 ppm from:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/si/0042.html

Still, I think it leaves a small margin for error. Considering who the job of mixing is left to, especially in more rural areas, where there might be a lack of city or county council supervisors.

No, not just fluorosis. Fluorosis is a symptom of low-level chronic exposure. I'm talking about acute poisoning. Symptoms like nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, fatigue, numbness or tingling in face, and shortness of breath.

15Kg would be, on average, 2-5 years. 20 Kg would be, on average, 4-8 years. Depending on height, etc. I don't know how much water a 4 year old needs in a day. I'm guessing it depends on a few factors like how active, weather, temperature, etc. But keep in mind the other sources as well.