Fluoride In The Water

[Chinahand]

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

Polaris - I presume you do not understand chemistry and so do not understand this:

H2SiF6(aq) + 4 H2O . 6 HF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq) (1)

Na2SiF6(aq) + 4 H2O . 4 HF(aq) + 2 NaF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq) (2)

NaF . Na+(aq) + F–(aq) (3)

 

You could try reading this. There are more than one way of skinning a particular cat - in all these cases the end result is a fluoride ion.

 

The link also deals with any of your claims about incomplete dissociation. While this one deals with contamenents.

 

If your argument is that these reports have been forged, or evidence has been surpressed we are not going to get anywhere - but then again as you say even discussing this subject is an assault I doubt if a rational debate is possible.

[monasqueen]

I don't care what the chemical formula may be.

 

I just don't want MY water contaminated with it (or even with any other "contamenents" (sic))

[jimbms]

I don't care what the chemical formula may be.

 

I just don't want MY water contaminated with it (or even with any other "contamenents" (sic))

I'm with you on that, but just to add I just don't want forced medication in MY water.

[Chinahand]

Just a simple question to all the "it's poison" hysterics - do you drink tea? It is pretty close to being optimially fluoridated.

 

Link

 

Tea plants accumulate fluoride in their leaves. ... [F]luoride levels in green, oolong, and black teas are generally comparable to those recommended for the prevention of dental caries (cavities). Thus, daily consumption of up to one liter of green, oolong, or black tea would be unlikely to result in fluoride intakes higher than those recommended for dental health.

 

The Linus Pauling Institute Micronutrient Research for Optimum Health also has an informative page on fluoride.

 

The fluoride content of most foods is low (less than 0.05 mg/100 grams). Rich sources of fluoride include tea, which concentrates fluoride in its leaves, and marine fish that are consumed with their bones (e.g., sardines). Foods made with mechanically separated (boned) chicken, such as canned meats, hot dogs, and infant foods, also add fluoride to the diet (28). In addition, certain fruit juices, particularly grape juices, often have relatively high fluoride concentrations (29). Foods generally contribute only 0.3-0.6 mg of the daily intake of fluoride. An adult male residing in a community with fluoridated water has an intake range from 1-3 mg/day. Intake is less than 1 mg/day in non-fluoridated areas (2). The table below provides a range of fluoride content for a few fluoride-rich foods (5).

 

Food Serving Fluoride (mg)

 

Tea 100 ml (3.5 fluid ounces) 0.1-0.6 Fluoride (mg)

Grape juice 100 ml (3.5 fluid ounces) 0.02-0.28 Fluoride (mg)

Canned sardines (with bones) 100 g (3.5 ounces) 0.2-0.4 Fluoride (mg)

Fish (without bones) 100 g (3.5 ounces) 0.01-0.17 Fluoride (mg)

Chicken 100g (3.5 ounces) 0.06-0.10 Fluoride (mg)

[jimbms]

Chinahand: no matter how much shite you spout about what contains what, it is about choice and if people chose not to have it forced upon them then they should not have it, you have chosen to embrace forced medication that does not mean we all have to

[emma]

Just a simple question to all the "it's poison" hysterics - do you drink tea? It is pretty close to being optimially fluoridated.

 

Don't tend to drink tea.... however, again, we can choose! Its all down to choice... this whole agruement is about choice, not the "poison" side of it. I currently choose to drink water from my tap... Flouride it, and I'll probably choose not to drink it.... Go figure!

[Hermes]

I'm with Chinahand against the 'Poison Hysterics' - Next they'll even be claiming that the Chlorine already added to our tapwater has been associated with an increased incidence of birth defects in babies*. Or something stupid like that ;-)

 

About the whole tea thing - Calcium in milk will chelate any fluoride present in the tea, which means it binds it making it unavailable to the teeth etc. Most people take milk in tea. Naturally incorporated fluorides have an entirely different bioavailablity to refined man-made or man-administered ones, anyway.

 

Poison or medicine - it doesn't matter: I have the right to choose, particularly if we are talking about a medicine.

 

*Google it.

[Chinahand]

In this entire debate I have always said that it is a valid, but not indisputable, argument for people to say on concience they are against the mass introduction of fluoride. My main beef is with the distortions and scare mongering. The idea that discussing this is an assault because I'm putting people in fear is ludicrous - in fear of what. Is drinking tea a fearful occupation!

 

When it comes to mass fluoridation I believe I have two counter arguments - firstly there are benefits - it is not the case that putting things in water is necesarrily wrong - there are genuine benefits that have to be considered. We legislate chlorine in water, seat belts and radiation levels from mobile phones etc on the basis that forcing everybody to accept them is worthwhile because the benefits outweigh the risks.

 

The second argument is a moral one - do I have a right of veto over something which will have negligible ill effects on myself, but measurable improvements for others. I take that argument seriously and it makes me feel that legislators should look more to the costs/benefits argument and look at this at a technical level and not at the moral level of choice.

 

The moral argument is contested - right of choice vrs right of veto - therefore I will judge this on the net benefits. And the more I read about the net benefits the more I am convinced the likes of Polaris, Incandesent and Saveourwater are massively exagerating the issue.

 

In Emma's case I am genuinely confused - are you going to stop drinking tap water just out of principle and for no other reason? When I figure that I get a very confused result. You would put yourself to massive inconvenience (and cost) for no obvious benefit, just because - erm, what?

[monasqueen]

I am sure that in properly controlled conditions, flouride may be safe, however for the small number of people who may benefit, surely the expense is not justified - not just the cost of the additive, but the cost of monitoring it.

 

There are always errors - lots of hospital patients have been killed by overdoses applied in error. You only have to google Camelford water to find all manner of stories about water pollution that affected the population of a Cornish village in 1988. This was an accident. How are we to be sure that flouride will not accidentally be applied in excess?

 

On occasion, chlorine levels are increased in the water, and it tastes vile as a consequence.

 

I have lived in quite a few areas in the UK, and to date, have not found any water that tastes better that that which I (currently) get out of the tap here. I have had tap water that even tasted vile after being made into strong coffee, and that forced me to use bottled water for brew-ups, at great expense.

 

Yes, there will always be scare-mongering when it comes to having things like this forced on you.

 

I just can't see how it can be cost-effective when it is only a small minority of people who would allegedly benefit - and hose people probably already make use of flouride toothpaste.

 

Leave it out!

[Polaris]

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…shrill displays of rampant stupidity such as claiming that all those speaking in favour of fluoride are guilty of assault…your condescending use of a sepia tinted…

Bushey’s ale tint actually.

 

…erroneous form of address as "oriental friend" kind of pales.

You are hilarious!

 

How about instead of having a chemistry test that goes nowhere,…

Talk to the Chinahand about that.

 

you actually back up your statement with an argument?

What like you’ve just written you mean?

 

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.

Er, because IT IS an acid and that is one of those things called a fact.

 

The biscuit has well indeed been taken.

Mmmm a McVities digestive. I’ll dip it in my pint of Bushey’s ale.

 

I hereby

big annoucement coming…

 

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.

Chinahand’s loss is our gain.

 

With regard to your desire to be arrested for assault, just post a message with your personal details and a statement to the effect that you would like to see the Manx population administered with fluorosilicic acid (oops! I said again) via our water supply without our individual, informed consent and that you accept full liability for any subsequent harm caused i.e. dental fluorosis minimum. Upload an image of your signed statement with your signature and name in capitals clearly visible and I am sure it will get due consideration.

 

Oh yes, and it takes a numpty idiot to think he knows one (assuming you're a he of course).

[Alias]

Don't let them put acids anywhere my amino blocks!

[Chinahand]

I'm with Chinahand against the 'Poison Hysterics' - Next they'll even be claiming that the Chlorine already added to our tapwater has been associated with an increased incidence of birth defects in babies*. Or something stupid like that ;-)

*Google it.

We legislate chlorine in water, seat belts and radiation levels from mobile phones etc on the basis that forcing everybody to accept them is worthwhile because the benefits outweigh the risks.

 

Risks and benefits. The risks of chlorine aren't particularly new - see this research from 2001 and the 157 related articles

 

This article from Feb 2008 puts it in context for England and Wales - newspaper headlines vrs science research.

 

CONCLUSION: In this large national study we found little evidence for a relationship between THM concentrations in drinking water and risk of congenital anomalies.

[jimbms]

I'm with Chinahand against the 'Poison Hysterics' - Next they'll even be claiming that the Chlorine already added to our tapwater has been associated with an increased incidence of birth defects in babies*. Or something stupid like that ;-)

*Google it.

We legislate chlorine in water, seat belts and radiation levels from mobile phones etc on the basis that forcing everybody to accept them is worthwhile because the benefits outweigh the risks.

 

Risks and benefits. The risks of chlorine aren't particularly new - see this research from 2001 and the 157 related articles

 

This article from Feb 2008 puts it in context for England and Wales - newspaper headlines vrs science research.

 

CONCLUSION: In this large national study we found little evidence for a relationship between THM concentrations in drinking water and risk of congenital anomalies.

I take it you did'nt watch the news this morning about the officeal UK govt research into chlorine in water and health

[Miss Take]

blah

 

Polaris - I don't really understand why you're banging on about it being an acid. What is your issue with that, specifically, apart from scaremongering?

[Chinahand]

I take it you did'nt watch the news this morning about the officeal UK govt research into chlorine in water and health

I think you'll find it was the university of birmingham doing research in Taiwan - it's follow up, continuing, research on a known risk which does not outweigh the benefits. I am certain you'll find "anti-chlorine" web sites screaming this and other research in a very similar way to the anti-fluoride mob do.

 

The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), which acts as the guardian of water quality on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said its own research had been unable to confirm such a link.

 

"Obviously we will review this research, engage our health expert colleagues, and look to see if it means we

need to do anything more," said Principal inspector Sue Pennison.

 

"But there's no reason for people to be worried."

 

"Chlorination is reliable and has been used for centuries. The only reason diseases like cholera and typhoid are not in our water supply is because of chlorination."