Fluoride In The Water

[Chinahand]

Fluoride and fluorosilicates – The technical bit

 

Now we start to get into interesting areas - and ones again where the antis seem to be selective in there reporting.

 

First of all I have to declare I am not in any shape or form a chemist - I hated the subject, dropped it straight after O level and it has remained a mystery to me ever since - slightly regretfully actually, as I've come to realize you need a good grounding in chemistry to understand modern biology and I believe this will be one of the main areas medicine etc will advance in the next 50 years - I would be very happy if my kids were biochemists!

 

But my ignorance doesn't particularly trouble me - heck I'm ignorant of dentistry, fluoride and epidemeological studies, but at least I understand the statistics etc. My ignorance isn't relevent - science rests on evidence and expert research.

 

So what have the experts been studying with regard to fluorosilicates etc.

 

Well, the antis go on and on about the establishment ignoring them, so I was rather surprised to read that both Sodium Hexafluorosilicate and Fluorosilicic Acid were nominated to be researched by the US National Toxicology Program in 2001 due to complaints that these products hadn't been tested but were used widely in fluoridation. This produced a huge report examining the state of the art of these chemicals.

 

This massive amount of work has not found any evidence sufficient to cause concern.

 

Two main issues raised was incomplete dissociation of the chemicals and impurities. On these areas the reports were clear in accepting the safety of fluoridation.

 

The NSF was asked to study contaminents - this is an independent, non government organization dedicated to safety testing - what did they find on contaminents?

 

Summary

In summary, the majority of fluoridation products as a class, based on NSF test results, do not add measurable amounts of arsenic, lead, other heavy metals, or radionuclide contamination to drinking water.

 

Go and look at this report - produced by a world class reputable, independent organization. The contaniment levels are simply not relevent.

 

And fluorosilicates?

 

In water, the compound readily dissociates to sodium ions and hexafluorosilicate ions. At the pH of drinking water (6.5-8.5) and at the concentration usually used for fluoridation (1 mg fluoride/L), essentially 100% of sodium hexafluorosilicate dissociates to fluoride ions and hydrated silica (Crosby, 1969; Urbansky and Schock, 2000)

...

the hexafluorosilicate remaining in drinking water is estimated to be <<1 parts per trillion (Urbansky and Schock, 2000).

 

At << 1 part per trillion any ill effects will be swamped thousands fold by other chemicals that exist in tap water without concern and are routinely dealt with via contaminate limits.

 

The dissociation issue links directly into the Darmouth results which Incandesent raises and any connection between lead intake and fluorosilicates. Masters and Coplan raised the risks of fluorosilicates and lead. There claims haven't been ignored, or suppressed. They've become a part of science with ever more sophisticated research and evidence being brought to bear on this issue.

 

Urbansky and Schock reviewed Masters and Coplan's work in a paper called Can Fluoridation Affect Water Lead Levels and Lead Neurotoxicity? Does that title sound like they are hiding the issues?!! And what do they find?

 

Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantifiable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bioaccumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(II) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fluorosilicates under drinking water conditions.

 

...

 

Masters and Coplan assert without any field data or simple calculation, that slow dissociation of silicofluoride in distribution systems can increase acidity and increase lead release. However, to the contrary, the concepts of chemical equilibria are well-established and measured equilibrium constants are sufficiently accurate and precise to show that fluoride and fluorosilicate essentially do not affect the solubility distribution of lead(II) species under potable water conditions.

 

These issues aren't surpressed, hidden or distorted: they are active areas of science. Science that has been subject to regular review at the highest level.

 

The conclusions are that the claims made about fluorides are vastly exagerated - by about a trillion fold in the case of fluorosilicates!!!

 

I am perfectly happy that this is an ongoing area of research. IF compelling evidence is found I am certain it will be reported - it was with asbestos, thalimanide etc etc. But the epidemological evidence is far larger and simpler to collect than for asbestos for example. And pure and simply the evidence is not there.

 

Critiques and nuances continue to be raised and scientifically examined, but without altering the conclusion that fluoridation is safe and effective.

[Chinahand]

On the subject of integrity in science, you do not appear to be alone chinahand.

 

 

Integrity in Science.

 

Etc etc

 

Well at least I can agree with Incandesent on this: integrity in science is vital. I may be inaccurate or wrong in what I report. I apologise if I am and I have tried as much as possible to only post information from peer reviewed research or from such respected bodies as the World Health Organization or the Medical Research Council etc. I do not feel that my inaccuracies are relevent. The expert bodies responsible for looking after our health accept the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation. And their opinion is not static, but based on good ongoing research.

 

To make their arguments stick the anti-mob has to claim that there is a huge conspiracy to surpress the integrity of fluoride research. The Medical Research Council has to be willfully ignorant, the Food and Drug Administration corrupt, the Environmental Protection Agency dishonest and the World Health Organization made up of numpties.

 

All I have done in these posts is go to the science. I don't see corruption and distortion - quite the opposite I see open debate where controversey - such as lead levels etc - are examined and their effects weighed.

 

Science is eternal and massively self correcting. Of course mistakes are made, but those mistakes are then critiqued and re-examined.

 

With fluoridation I see this process occuring in spades – and nothing has changed my view that fluoridation is safe. I will admit that there is a valid debate about whether it should be 1.0ppm or 0.8ppm, but that is a vastly different calibre of debate than the "we are all going to be poisoned" response of the antis.

[Doric]

Sorry to but in on the thread, which is normally excellent, but I have not been reading much of it or posting because I am following and concentrating on the Samantha Nancy thread. Plus it's TT.

 

I'll come back to you with what I think. That is the good thing about computer chatting because you can wait a bit and think before you say something.

[ballaughbiker]

you can wait a bit and think before you say something

[Lonan3]

Well at least I can agree with Incandesent on this: integrity in science is vital. I may be inaccurate or wrong in what I report. I apologise if I am and I have tried as much as possible to only post information from peer reviewed research or from such respected bodies as the World Health Organization or the Medical Research Council etc. I do not feel that my inaccuracies are relevent. The expert bodies responsible for looking after our health accept the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation. And their opinion is not static, but based on good ongoing research.

 

To make their arguments stick the anti-mob has to claim that there is a huge conspiracy to surpress the integrity of fluoride research. The Medical Research Council has to be willfully ignorant, the Food and Drug Administration corrupt, the Environmental Protection Agency dishonest and the World Health Organization made up of numpties.

 

All I have done in these posts is go to the science. I don't see corruption and distortion - quite the opposite I see open debate where controversey - such as lead levels etc - are examined and their effects weighed.

 

Science is eternal and massively self correcting. Of course mistakes are made, but those mistakes are then critiqued and re-examined.

 

With fluoridation I see this process occuring in spades – and nothing has changed my view that fluoridation is safe. I will admit that there is a valid debate about whether it should be 1.0ppm or 0.8ppm, but that is a vastly different calibre of debate than the "we are all going to be poisoned" response of the antis.

 

I'm happy to concede to your greater knowledge on the subject, to your greater understanding of the subject, and to your integrity.

But I still don't want the bloody stuff added to my drinking/bathing water!

If I - or my family - want, or need, any kind of medication, we will consult our GP or a pharmacist.

The thought of government-approved mass medication is anathema to me - and ought to be so to anyone who values the right to make decisions for themselves.

[The Voice of Reason]

I think there's a great opportunity being missed here. Put the stuff in the water and BINGO - "The Isle of Flouride". Think of all the free publicity Everyone is a winner (apart from those with teeth if some posters are to be believed)

[Lonan3]

I think there's a great opportunity being missed here. Put the stuff in the water and BINGO - "The Isle of Flouride". Think of all the free publicity Everyone is a winner (apart from those with teeth if some posters are to be believed)

Freedom To Fluoridate?

[Polar Bear]

I think adding Flouride to the water is a good idea. I can't see anything wrong with the Health Services (who don't know a thing about my disposition to cancer, kidney stones, bone disease etc. through taking in Flouride) prescribing it for me everyday. I would also be happy for them to add tranquillisers, vitamins, antibiotics, contraceptives, laxatives or anything else to my water supply - as I'm sure only they know what is best for me.

 

I'd also like them to add Bromide to school water supplies (which might help cut down on some of these teenage pregancies).

 

 

Keeping your dick in your trousers works too.

[zephyr]

I don't care whether my teeth turn green by adding flouride, what I want to know is, will flouridation affect my psoriosis. I have crap skin as it is, so I don't need another chemical to make it worse.

 

Can I take the water company to task and get bottled, or distilled water through my mains because I suffer from this illness?

 

Are they making allowances for skin disorders?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I have been able to smell bleach in the (Hot) water for ages. I'm sure it's not doing me any good at all.

[Tugger]

I haven't the strength to read the whole thread, or the knowledge to come to a conclusion on my own, but my dentist said that it might make a tiny fraction of a difference to the population as a whole, but for the most part kids don't drink water any more, so there's not a huge point in fluoridating.

 

Although I suppose you might think "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" he didn't really seem to give a hoot one way or the other.

[manxy]

I think Fluoridate is a great word to anagram

 

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?a...date&t=1000

 

Try it

[Polaris]

I think Fluoridate is a great word to anagram

 

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?a...date&t=1000

 

Try it

Fluoridate is a misnomer as the chemical Chinahand wants to mass-medicate us all with is an acid (fluorosilicic) and not a fluoride. Shurely Chinahand and his co mass-medicators should be talking about fluoroacidulation (anagram that).

 

NO is another great word. Sadly, our Oriental friend has great difficulty understanding what it means. I'd anagram the word NO but the wordsmith.org site is down at the moment.

[VinnieK]

Fluoridate is a misnomer as the chemical Chinahand wants to mass-medicate us all with is an acid (fluorosilicic) and not a fluoride.

 

Does it contain fluorine? Yes, it's one of the principal sources of it, so surely it's a fluoride (that it's an acid is neither here nor there)

 

Sadly, our oriental friend has great difficulty understanding what it means.

 

"Oriental friend"? You're an idiot.

[Polaris]

Fluoridate is a misnomer as the chemical Chinahand wants to mass-medicate us all with is an acid (fluorosilicic) and not a fluoride.

Does it contain fluorine? Yes, it's one of the principal sources of it, so surely it's a fluoride (that it's an acid is neither here nor there)

 

"Oriental friend"? You're an idiot.

Well, I guess it takes an idiot to think he/she knows an idiot.

 

No slight was intended by my use of "Oriental friend".

 

You've shown you have a great grasp of chemistry. Next time I'm looking for a non-stick frying pan should I ask for one coated with that well known fluoride - polytetrafluoroethylene?

[VinnieK]

Well, I guess it takes an idiot to think he/she knows an idiot.

 

No, you're just an idiot, that's why you think a response along the lines of "I know you are, but what am I?" is awesome. That and the shrill displays of rampant stupidity such as claiming that all those speaking in favour of fluoride are guilty of assault. Compared to that your condescending use of a sepia tinted and, as far as I know, erroneous form of address as "oriental friend" kind of pales.

 

You've shown you have a great grasp of chemistry. Next time I'm looking for a non-stick frying pan should I ask for one coated with that well known fluoride - polytetrafluoroethylene?

 

How about instead of having a chemistry test that goes nowhere, you actually back up your statement with an argument? Or even better yet, explain why what we call it has any relevance to the discussion instead of just trying to scare people by overly emphasising that the source of fluorine in this case is an acid.

 

The biscuit has well indeed been taken. I hereby change my position to one in favour of fluoridation for the following reasons:

 

1. The hope of seeing this numpty trying to get me charged with assault.

2. The thought of the rest of the nutcases who've brought the anti-fluoride cause into disrepute falling into a haze of paranoia and rage everytime they want a drink or a bath.