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

jh79

jma wrote: »

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.

If you look at the margin of error in terms of grams given the scale involved in a treatment plant it would require a massive oversight on someones part. An unlikely and easily flagged event I would say. Working with chemicals at a large scale makes thing easier. An extra kilo might only be a small shift in ppm levels when dealing in tonnes of water.

jma

jh79 wrote: »

If you look at the margin of error in terms of grams given the scale involved in a treatment plant it would require a massive oversight on someones part. An unlikely and easily flagged event I would say. Working with chemicals at a large scale makes thing easier. An extra kilo might only be a small shift in ppm levels when dealing in tonnes of water.

It's a lot easier than you think, actually. Your theory is sound, but it doesn't work like that in practise. At least not in rural areas. Not sure about the bigger cities where chlorine and fluoride might be added directly at the city's treatment plant. People in this area have been told on more than one occasion not to drink the tap water because too much chlorine was accidentally added to the water supply.

jh79

jma wrote: »

It's a lot easier than you think, actually. Your theory is sound, but it doesn't work like that in practise. At least not in rural areas. Not sure about the bigger cities where chlorine and fluoride might be added directly at the city's treatment plant. People in this area have been told on more than one occasion not to drink the tap water because too much chlorine was accidentally added to the water supply.

Would the same protocol that applies for when too much chlorine is added accidentally apply with flouride. Could they not tell the locals if an error was made. Remember that the research that shows toxicity at 10ppm etc was based on long term levels of exposure. A one off event wouldn't be that serious even at 10ppm if people were informed within a short period of time.

Kurtosis

jma wrote: »

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

Sorry for commenting on something that's not on topic but it's worth clarifying that the study mentioned above does not show that omega 3 supplements cause prostate cancer. This is an observational study, so there may be other confounding factors that lead to higher risk of cancer in those with higher omega 3 blood concentrations, and it is not possible to determine whether the high omega 3 levels or the prostate cancer occurred first and without this temporal relationship it is not possible to attribute causation. This is a case of the media twisting a study to produce a big news story. The following link goes into further analysis of this study for anyone interested: http://examine.com/blog/fish-oil-and-your-prostate/

jma

I wouldn't exactly call it a protocol, and I'm not sure if the same would apply with fluoride. Chlorine has a strong smell and can stain the water. It's not that easy to conceal an "overdose", or whatever you want to call it. Having said that, it has also happened several times where it was clearly evident that too much chlorine had been added, but no one was told about it. The last time this happened that I know of was last year, in August 2012. It also used to be common practise for the people charged with mixing the local water supplies to add a double-dose - for example, if they were going on holiday etc. In fairness, I'd be surprised if this was still done today, but that's how it used to be, maybe 10-15 years ago.

I'm not sure what the 10ppm is referring to, but my comments above about acute poisoning weren't based on long term research or exposure. They were partially based on an article from the New England Journal of Medicine published in 1994. It was previously linked to from this thread. It's a study based on a fluoride-related incident that happened in Alaska in 1992. Another reference I used was a paper called "Re-examination of acute toxicity of fluoride" by K. Akiniwa, published in 1997.

jh79

jma wrote: »

I wouldn't exactly call it a protocol, and I'm not sure if the same would apply with fluoride. Chlorine has a strong smell and can stain the water. It's not that easy to conceal an "overdose", or whatever you want to call it. Having said that, it has also happened several times where it was clearly evident that too much chlorine had been added, but no one was told about it. The last time this happened that I know of was last year, in August 2012. It also used to be common practise for the people charged with mixing the local water supplies to add a double-dose - for example, if they were going on holiday etc. In fairness, I'd be surprised if this was still done today, but that's how it used to be, maybe 10-15 years ago.

I'm not sure what the 10ppm is referring to, but my comments above about acute poisoning weren't based on long term research or exposure. They were partially based on an article from the New England Journal of Medicine published in 1994. It was previously linked to from this thread. It's a study based on a fluoride-related incident that happened in Alaska in 1992. Another reference I used was a paper called "Re-examination of acute toxicity of fluoride" by K. Akiniwa, published in 1997.

In the 50 years since fluoridation began in Ireland has an event like this occurred? Neither of us know how the EPA monitor private and group schemes or what regulations are in place but to suggest that fluoridation should be stopped because you don't trust a person / organisation you have little real knowledge about is a bit much.

jh79

That Alaskan incident involved up to 260mg /L , over a year supply in one go . Stock control would prevent an event like this.

jma

We're drifting away again. Whether or not it has happened shouldn't have much relevance, and the point is not so much that it could happen, as it is that it did happen in another part of the world, and even though it was sad and tragic that life was lost, it gave people the opportunity to study the effects of what happened. Conclusions of said study were that a very small dose of fluoride (0.3mg/Kg) can have significant adverse effects on the human body.

And if you honestly think my desire to stop fluoridation is wholly based on my personal mistrust in an individual or organisation, then you've obviously misunderstood. This only escalated from our discussion about margin of error. Otherwise, I think it's bad form of you to use this to make statements that attempt to discredit or discount my previous points and/or views.

jh79

I didn't mean it was your only reason but you did suggest it was another reason why you believed fluoridation should end. My apologies.


Back on topic even at 0.3 that would require a massive in take of water that really isn't realistically gonna happen. I would guess my total water intake including from food is about 4 litres. That is about 3 mg of fluoride per day and according to wiki I would excrete 40% of that. If fluoridation ceased I could consume 1.5 mg if our ground wayer is similar to the north where 0.3ppm is seen without fluoridation both well below the 25mg my weight would require to meet the 0.3mg/kg limit.

Jumboman

I read somewhere that the nazis and the communists added fluoride to the water to control their populations.

RobFowl

Jumboman wrote: »

I read somewhere that the nazis and the communists added fluoride to the water to control their populations.

And I think we're finally done now....