Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

2

Comments

  • #52
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭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?


  • #53
    jma
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭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.


  • #54
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #55
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭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.


  • #56
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,576 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #57
    jma
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭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.


  • #58
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #59
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,668 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


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


  • #60
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭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 :D


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,387 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #62
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,512 ✭✭✭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 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 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 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 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: 22,387 ✭✭✭✭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: 9,512 ✭✭✭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 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
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭jh79


    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 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: 9,088 ✭✭✭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 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 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
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭jh79


    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: 9,088 ✭✭✭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
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭jh79


    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 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: 9,088 ✭✭✭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
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭jh79


    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 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
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭jh79


    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: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


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


  • #88
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭jh79


    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: 8,295 ✭✭✭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
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭jh79


    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.


  • #92
    jma
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭jma


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    You know what I call that, cherry-picking.

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


  • #93
    jma
    Registered Users 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.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7322


  • #94
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭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?


  • #95
    x112
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭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.:confused:

    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/


  • #96
    jma
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    x112
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭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.


  • #98
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭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.


  • #99
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭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.


  • #100
    jma
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭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.


  • #101
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement