Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

135

Comments

  • #62
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,536 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    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.

    I read somewhere that my post was serious and 100% accurate. I cant find a source, or back up what i said. But i believe it to be true.

    Seriously, your "feelings" are not fact and your sources are shaky and uncited.


  • #63
    jma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭jma


    jh79 wrote: »
    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.

    I think you're missing the point. CaF2 is an insoluble compound. It naturally contributes to the amount of fluoride in the drinking water, yes. And yes, the ppm of F is the final concentration. But that still doesn't change the fact that the two are completely different compounds and react differently in the body. We've danced around this subject before, and I don't care to do it again.


  • #64
    jma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭jma


    bumper234 wrote: »
    That's right you couldn't even be arsed to post a link to it.:rolleyes:

    That's right. You have zero interest anyway; am I right? So why bother making the effort? The way I see it is, if you are interested, you'll either look into it or you'll ask in a mature fashion.
    bumper234 wrote: »
    Also waiting for your source on this?
    Originally Posted by jma viewpost.gif

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

    I have numerous sources. Here are some of them:
    http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_statistics/cancer_frequency.php
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops


  • #65
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    jma wrote: »
    I think you're missing the point. CaF2 is an insoluble compound. It naturally contributes to the amount of fluoride in the drinking water, yes. And yes, the ppm of F is the final concentration. But that still doesn't change the fact that the two are completely different compounds and react differently in the body. We've danced around this subject before, and I don't care to do it again.
    Ah so it's not F- you have the problem with then!


  • #66
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    jma wrote: »
    I have numerous sources. Here are some of them:
    http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_statistics/cancer_frequency.php
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops
    Did you even bother to read those articles?
    The Guardian wrote:
    WCRF state that the highest rates have been noted in 'high-income countries' and put this down to a variety of reasons; "This is likely to be partly because high-income countries are better at diagnosing and recording new cases of cancer. But a large part of the reason is also that high-income countries tend to have higher levels of obesity and alcohol consumption, and lower levels of physical activity."
    Even when it was the better diagnostic tests, high obesity/alcohol consumption and low exercise I knew it was the fluoride.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    jma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭jma


    Robbo wrote: »
    To promote a career in pseudo-science?

    No. I was on about why she started it all in the first place. To summarise, she had suffered from depression. She eventually consulted anutritionist in the UK who suggested cutting out fluoridated water. At that time, she wasn't aware of fluoride or fluoridation, but she stopped drinking tap water, and the depression and other issues she was having disappeared.

    This is according to Aisling herself. I realise that this isn't scientific evidence and that it's not enough to draw any conclusions about the safety or effects of fluoride on the human body, but it is interesting, isn't it? Probably not so much if you don't suffer from depression, but if I was, I'd definitely want to know about it and explore it further.


  • #68
    jma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭jma


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Did you even bother to read those articles?

    Even when it was the better diagnostic tests, high obesity/alcohol consumption and low exercise I knew it was the fluoride.:rolleyes:

    As I said,
    More than likely, there are actually a large number of factors, including lifestyle


  • #69
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    I think she in fact may have uncovered the single and heretofore unidentified the core cause of depression there all right. A little bit of fluoride in an awful lot of water!

    Lets see, anecdotal evidence, and a sample size of ...


  • #70
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,536 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    jma wrote: »
    No. I was on about why she started it all in the first place. To summarise, she had suffered from depression. She eventually consulted anutritionist in the UK who suggested cutting out fluoridated water. At that time, she wasn't aware of fluoride or fluoridation, but she stopped drinking tap water, and the depression and other issues she was having disappeared.

    This is according to Aisling herself. I realise that this isn't scientific evidence and that it's not enough to draw any conclusions about the safety or effects of fluoride on the human body, but it is interesting, isn't it? Probably not so much if you don't suffer from depression, but if I was, I'd definitely want to know about it and explore it further.

    Ah here, this is just farcical now.


  • #71
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    jma wrote: »
    No. I was on about why she started it all in the first place. To summarise, she had suffered from depression. She eventually consulted anutritionist in the UK who suggested cutting out fluoridated water. At that time, she wasn't aware of fluoride or fluoridation, but she stopped drinking tap water, and the depression and other issues she was having disappeared.

    This is according to Aisling herself. I realise that this isn't scientific evidence and that it's not enough to draw any conclusions about the safety or effects of fluoride on the human body, but it is interesting, isn't it? Probably not so much if you don't suffer from depression, but if I was, I'd definitely want to know about it and explore it further.

    So circumstantial (at best) evidence is all you have? And he says i bring nothing to the debate :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    jma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭jma


    What's actually the problem? What I was saying was that I didn't think it was right to say that water fluoridation is harmless. Maybe it is harmless to some, or maybe it's harmless to most people. But as already established, there is conflicting research. And fact is that some people have been adversely affected by fluoride, even if it's only fluorosis. So, my point of view is that fluoride should not be added to the public water supply. People who want to continue taking fluoride can easily do so, at their own free will. Everyone can make their own choice. Do you disagree with this?


  • #73
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    jma wrote: »
    What's actually the problem? What I was saying was that I didn't think it was right to say that water fluoridation is harmless. Maybe it is harmless to some, or maybe it's harmless to most people. But as already established, there is conflicting research. And fact is that some people have been adversely affected by fluoride, even if it's only fluorosis. So, my point of view is that fluoride should not be added to the public water supply. People who want to continue taking fluoride can easily do so, at their own free will. Everyone can make their own choice. Do you disagree with this?

    Easier to give the masses who want fluoride\do not care about it access through the water supply than pandering to a few conspiracy theorists who will believe any old tosh they read.


  • #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jma wrote: »
    I think you're missing the point. CaF2 is an insoluble compound. It naturally contributes to the amount of fluoride in the drinking water, yes. And yes, the ppm of F is the final concentration. But that still doesn't change the fact that the two are completely different compounds and react differently in the body. We've danced around this subject before, and I don't care to do it again.

    You really need to decide what it is exactly you are against. Is it Fluoride, calcium fluoride, Sodium Fluoride or the Hexafluorosilic acid? Assuming it is the fluoride, the three compound s are all sources of fluoride of varying degrees of efficiency, if the final concentration is the same the toxicity is the same, a point you can't seem to grasp. This is a fact any chemist will verify.

    Calcium fluoride is not very soluble but it does release fluoride, what makes this fluoride safer?


  • #75
    jma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭jma


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Easier to give the masses who want fluoride\do not care about it access through the water supply than pandering to a few conspiracy theorists who will believe any old tosh they read.

    You seem to be the one going on about conspiracies here. What exactly have you contributed besides sarcastic remarks?


  • #76
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    jh79 wrote: »
    Cows would probably get a pass because they are "natural", and something "natural" couldn't possibly be bad for you...;) right?

    Loads of natural things are horrendously toxic. Just because something's naturally occurring doesn't mean it's good for you. Uranium, lead or mercury for example aren't something you'd particularly want to include as a food supplement but they're naturally occurring.

    My issues with fluoridation are twofold :

    1) Lack of choice in the matter as it's in the drinking water. With fluoridated salt, one can choose non-flouridated salt or not use salt. It's very difficult to not use tap water.

    2) Control of dosage. This is being carried out by local authorities who struggle to come up with the formula for pothole filling, not trained pharmacists.
    I get worried when I consider that some water authorities here have managed to allow situations to occur where supplies have become contaminated with what basically amounts to sewage / farm effluent. These are the same people we're trusting to measure dosing of fluoride ?!

    Dental health in Ireland's not all that great and certainly not as good as many parts of Northern Europe, so I think we might be better off spending those few million on some dental programmes rather than chemicals to add to the water.
    I mean, surely everyone uses a tooth brush + toothpaste at this stage. It's hardly necessary to include 'free mouthwash' in the water supply.


  • #77
    jma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭jma


    jh79 wrote: »
    You really need to decide what it is exactly you are against. Is it Fluoride, calcium fluoride, Sodium Fluoride or the Hexafluorosilic acid? Assuming it is the fluoride, the three compound s are all sources of fluoride of varying degrees of efficiency, if the final concentration is the same the toxicity is the same, a point you can't seem to grasp. This is a fact any chemist will verify.

    Calcium fluoride is not very soluble but it does release fluoride, what makes this fluoride safer?

    I know what I'm against, but arguing or expressing my points of view here is a waste of time. I've done a lot of research into it and I have a lot of reputable sources on the subject. I've had many interesting discussions with people on both sides of the fence, as well as people who are neutral. But discussions on the subject here always take a negative turn, so all I'd like to say is that I'm for the freedom of choice, and that means ending fluoridation.


  • #78
    jma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭jma


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Loads of natural things are horrendously toxic. Just because something's naturally occurring doesn't mean it's good for you. Uranium, lead or mercury for example aren't something you'd particularly want to include as a food supplement but they're naturally occurring.

    My issues with fluoridation are twofold :

    1) Lack of choice in the matter as it's in the drinking water. With fluoridated salt, one can choose non-flouridated salt or not use salt. It's very difficult to not use tap water.

    2) Control of dosage. This is being carried out by local authorities who struggle to come up with the formula for pothole filling, not trained pharmacists.
    I get worried when I consider that some water authorities here have managed to allow situations to occur where supplies have become contaminated with what basically amounts to sewage / farm effluent. These are the same people we're trusting to measure dosing of fluoride ?!

    Dental health in Ireland's not all that great and certainly not as good as many parts of Northern Europe, so I think we might be better off spending those few million on some dental programmes rather than chemicals to add to the water.
    I mean, surely everyone uses a tooth brush + toothpaste at this stage. It's hardly necessary to include 'free mouthwash' in the water supply.

    I completely agree with this. Thank you!


  • #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jma wrote: »
    I know what I'm against, but arguing or expressing my points of view here is a waste of time. I've done a lot of research into it and I have a lot of reputable sources on the subject. I've had many interesting discussions with people on both sides of the fence, as well as people who are neutral. But discussions on the subject here always take a negative turn, so all I'd like to say is that I'm for the freedom of choice, and that means ending fluoridation.

    The point is that the websites you are getting your info from mislead people as can be seen with the fallacy that two types of fluoride exist. The discussion has not turned negative, it is a science forum so certain standards are expected. Fluoride alert / girl agaisnt fluoride either misrepresent research or make vague statement such as "natural" fluoride to fool people into believimg they have a rational scientific basis for their campaign.

    So why does the girl agaisnt fluoride not want to remove the fluoride that is from calcium fluoride given it has thw same toxicity as that from sodium fluoride?


  • #80
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Fluoride from any source in the wrong doses is quite nasty.

    For example in parts of india water from deep bore wells can cause serious skeletal fluorosis, but it's massively higher doses than found in tap water that's fluoridated.

    You can also get it from drinking certain type of tea in large volumes.

    Or from volcanic ash - it has been an issue in Iceland more so for grazing cattle than for humans.

    So, basically it's down to concentrations not down to the source. It's potentially very harmful if you get too much of it, but those doses are hugely higher than what you're exposed to in tap water.

    That doesn't mean that I agree with the practice though.

    There is an example of one incident where a flouride dosing system went wrong :
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199401133300203


  • #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Fluoride from any source in the wrong doses is quite nasty.

    For example in parts of india water from deep bore wells can cause serious skeletal fluorosis, but it's massively higher doses than found in tap water that's fluoridated.

    You can also get it from drinking certain type of tea in large volumes.

    Or from volcanic ash - it has been an issue in Iceland more so for grazing cattle than for humans.

    So, basically it's down to concentrations not down to the source. It's potentially very harmful if you get too much of it, but those doses are hugely higher than what you're exposed to in tap water.

    That doesn't mean that I agree with the practice though.

    There is an example of one incident where a flouride dosing system went wrong :
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199401133300203

    Well jma doesn't seem to get this. The main point is the dose isn't wrong in the irish case.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    jma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭jma


    jh79 wrote: »
    The point is that the websites you are getting your info from mislead people as can be seen with the fallacy that two types of fluoride exist. The discussion has not turned negative, it is a science forum so certain standards are expected. Fluoride alert / girl agaisnt fluoride either misrepresent research or make vague statement such as "natural" fluoride to fool people into believimg they have a rational scientific basis for their campaign.

    So why does the girl agaisnt fluoride not want to remove the fluoride that is from calcium fluoride given it has thw same toxicity as that from sodium fluoride?

    We obviously have different definitions of "negative". With the sarcastic comments and the topic mod looking for an excuse to close down the thread, I call that negative. As I said, I have many reputable sources. While I took an interest, I do not consider "Girl Against Fluoride" a reputable source. I spend very little time on fluoridealert.org, but I do find it useful because they do sometimes reference sources, news articles, etc. I'm well aware that there are plenty of misleading sources for information.

    I know very little about the Girl Against Fluoride apart from what I've said, so I cannot answer your question about calcium fluoride.


  • #83
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    jh79 wrote: »
    Well jma doesn't seem to get this. The main point is the dose isn't wrong in the irish case.

    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.

    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.


  • #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    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.

    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


  • #85
    jma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭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.southernstar.ie/News/Minister-using-erroneous-data-for-flouride-exposure-warns-West-Cork-scientist-05062013.htm


  • #86
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jma wrote: »
    http://www.southernstar.ie/News/Minister-using-erroneous-data-for-flouride-exposure-warns-West-Cork-scientist-05062013.htm

    That link doesn't say the data from testing the water supply was wrong.


  • #87
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    That article would suggest to me that we should moderate our tea intake.


  • #88
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    What is Waugh motivation in all this, he is qualofied enoigh to know better, did the irish movement pay him to commision them reports or has he shares in filters?


  • #89
    saabsaab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    There is no valid reason to continue fluoridation in the public supply. Most backing it are using information from many years ago. As to removing it boiling may concentrate it. Only option I see is to use reverse osmosis filter.


  • #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    saabsaab wrote: »
    There is no valid reason to continue fluoridation in the public supply. Most backing it are using information from many years ago. As to removing it boiling may concentrate it. Only option I see is to use reverse osmosis filter.

    You must have a very powerful kettle, even if 10% of the vol was lost you would still only have a new conc of 0.707 ppm approx.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    jma wrote: »
    We obviously have different definitions of "negative". With the sarcastic comments and the topic mod looking for an excuse to close down the thread, I call that negative. As I said, I have many reputable sources. While I took an interest, I do not consider "Girl Against Fluoride" a reputable source. I spend very little time on fluoridealert.org, but I do find it useful because they do sometimes reference sources, news articles, etc. I'm well aware that there are plenty of misleading sources for information.

    I know very little about the Girl Against Fluoride apart from what I've said, so I cannot answer your question about calcium fluoride.
    You know what I call that, cherry-picking.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement