| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17  | | Quote: Originally posted by Morgan | I hadn't thought about it but there's this other source of fluorides, probably not good for your brain. Forgive me for posting a conspiracy theory,
but it has something true I think and that is big pharm sure sells a lot of potentially harmful drugs that later turn out to be taken off the market.
"This article may be hard for some to swallow (pun intended) however, those who have studied the subject will find it well worth reading, Fluoride
compounds are a the darling of the drug industry. Hence one can find many drugs rife with fluorides. These include SSRI's (selective serotonin
re-uptake inhibitors) all the way to some cholesterol drugs such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa to Lipitor. It appears that the judicial use of this
toxin can have many effects all the way from Stupidity...docility to even aggression..."
http://www.mdjunction.com/forums/anxiety-disorders-discussio... |
Then you don't know how pharmaceutics work. You seem to imply that these drugs are just some concoctions few people make up in a lab and then they're
put out on the market as a one giant live trial test that makes tons of money for repeating the whole process with another concoction. You couldn't be
more wrong.
Yeah, there are issues with some drugs, there are bad cases, but to condemn it? Ridiculous.
BTW it's fluorine compounds, not fluoride compounds. The very fact that you can't differentiate those two things doesn't help you at
all. Being a member of SM implies that you know the difference.
Fluorine compounds are used because fluorine is similar to chlorine, but not identical. Drugs often take advantage od similar electronic configuration
of atoms. After all, that's why arsenic is very poisonous though similar to phosphorus.
I'll strip the fancy words - you actually said something like: "The conspirators put fluoride in out water and(!!!!11!11!) use the same thing to make
money by selling drugs that make us stupid just like their water".
Do you know how stupid that is? It not only sounds stupid, it is stupid.
America is lethargic not because of the water, but because of other, sociological issues. You're being entertained for several decades. That's the
problem.
As I've said, the rest of the world uses fluorides and fluorine compounds, too, and there are even areas with much higher fluoride content in drinking
water. |
I don't think you understood my post. I don't agree that people are putting fluorides in water to make us dumb or that drug companies are doing the
same thing. I posted "their" view and mentioned a lot of drugs turn out to have harmful effects later down the road. You don't have to look very far
to see that. And with that thought, it might be that fluorides in water might be causing some harm.
"While it is unlikely that it will be disputed that fluorides are toxic - let us be reminded that they are Schedule 2 Poisons under the Poisons Act
1972, the matter in dispute is the level of toxicity attributable to given amounts; in today's context the degree of damage caused by given
concentrations in the water supply. While admitting its toxicity, proponents rely on the fact that it is diluted and therefore, it is claimed,
unlikely to have deleterious effects."
The body can only eliminate half
"Moreover, fluorides are cumulative and build up steadily with ingestion of fluoride from all sources, which include not just water but the air we
breathe and the food we eat. The use of fluoride toothpaste in dental hygiene and the coating of teeth are further sources of substantial levels of
fluoride intake. The body can only eliminate half of the total intake, which means that the older you are the more fluoride will have accumulated in
your body. Inevitably this means the ageing population is particularly targeted. And even worse for the very young there is a major element of risk in
baby formula made with fluoridated water. The extreme sensitivity of the very young to fluoride toxicity makes this unacceptable. Since there are so
many sources of fluoride in our everyday living, it will prove impossible to maintain an average level of 1ppm as is suggested."
Here's some other points of view.
The Effects Of Fluoride On
The Thyroid Gland
By Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield MBBS LRCP MRCS
Medical Advisor to Thyroid UK
9-9-4
http://www.rense.com/general57/FLUR.HTM
[Edited on 9-6-2012 by Morgan]
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Another excerpt.
"What concerns me so deeply is that in concentrations as low as 1ppm, fluorides damage the thyroid system on 4 levels."
1. The enzyme manufacture of thyroid hormones within the thyroid gland itself. The process by which iodine is attached to the amino acid tyrosine and
converted to the two significant thyroid hormones, thyroxine (T4) and liothyronine (T3), is slowed.
2. The stimulation of certain G proteins from the toxic effect of fluoride (whose function is to govern uptake of substances into each of the cells of
the body), has the effect of switching off the uptake into the cell of the active thyroid hormone.
3. The thyroid control mechanism is compromised. The thyroid stimulating hormone output from the pituitary gland is inhibited by fluoride, thus
reducing thyroid output of thyroid hormones.
4. Fluoride competes for the receptor sites on the thyroid gland which respond to the thyroid stimulating hormone; so that less of this hormone
reaches the thyroid gland and so less thyroid hormone is manufactured.
These damaging effects, all of which occur with small concentrations of fluoride, have obvious and easily identifiable effects on thyroid status. The
running down of thyroid hormone means a slow slide into hypothyroidism. Already the incidence of hypothyroidism is increasing as a result of other
environmental toxins and pollutions together with wide spread nutritional deficiencies.
http://www.rense.com/general57/FLUR.HTM
|
|
|
Panache
International Hazard
Posts: 1290
Registered: 18-10-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Instead of being my deliverance, she had a resemblance to a Kat named Frankenstein
|
|
i read very little of this thread, and none of the links, however in this company i am expert to comment......on anything.
Public health is your bone of contention here, try not having enough to eat and see if you have time to whine ah i meant discuss ah analysis, no it
was whining (watson fawkes was correct in his ever humorous derisive commentary) about fluoride in water.
One of the chemicals in my collection is a nice bottle of sodium fluorosilicate, the chemical used here to achieve the health outcomes associated with
fluoridation of water. notably the merck bottle has a poison logo on it carried by other poisons like.... dimethyl mercury.
i thinks this is saying something that the health experts have missed.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Morgan | | Quote: Originally posted by unionised |
Among the reasons are the fact that they don't add fluoride to water supplies and that the assertion that fluoride causes the asserted problems is
demonstrably false .
BTW, if that looks familiar, it's because I pointed it out earlier.
|
I see you live in the UK. |
It's not as if my presence in the UK is a secret: why mention it?
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Morgan | | I don't think you understood my post. I don't agree that people are putting fluorides in water to make us dumb or that drug companies are doing the
same thing. I posted "their" view and mentioned a lot of drugs turn out to have harmful effects later down the road. You don't have to look very far
to see that. And with that thought, it might be that fluorides in water might be causing some harm. |
You should note that when posting stuff, especially after a thread flood.
I'm not saying water fluoridation is benign, though I don't see the direct health issue. This is more of an ethical issue. I don't see the
need for it, because other countries work with chlorine and it's ok.
| Quote: | | "Moreover, fluorides are cumulative and build up steadily with ingestion of fluoride from all sources, which include not just water but the air we
breathe and the food we eat. The use of fluoride toothpaste in dental hygiene and the coating of teeth are further sources of substantial levels of
fluoride intake. The body can only eliminate half of the total intake, which means that the older you are the more fluoride will have accumulated in
your body. Inevitably this means the ageing population is particularly targeted. And even worse for the very young there is a major element of risk in
baby formula made with fluoridated water. The extreme sensitivity of the very young to fluoride toxicity makes this unacceptable. Since there are so
many sources of fluoride in our everyday living, it will prove impossible to maintain an average level of 1ppm as is suggested."
|
The benefits of early dental profilaxis seems to be a lot greater. Kids' teeth rot quite faster. Imagine if early gel/pill fluoridization and
toothpaste was absent. You know what would happen? You'd get a nation of redneck jaws in quarter of a century, i.e. the stuff we had before
profilaxis. Bad teeth lead to problems with internal organs. More cardiac sicknesses, for example. Imagine adding them to the existing cardiovascular
problems modern society has today, because everyone just stuffs their mouth with excessive amounts of food. It would be interesting to see American
disgusting healthcare system trying to cope with that.
To sum it all up, topical teeth fluoridization and occasionally early fluoride pill profilaxis is a modern staple.
Water fluoridization is not neccessary.
Linking a webpage notoriously known for its piles of rubbish doesn't help you trying to prove your point. I'd stick to PubMed, just to avoid appearing
like a nutter.
| Quote: Originally posted by Morgan | Another excerpt.
"What concerns me so deeply is that in concentrations as low as 1ppm, fluorides damage the thyroid system on 4 levels."
1. The enzyme manufacture of thyroid hormones within the thyroid gland itself. The process by which iodine is attached to the amino acid tyrosine and
converted to the two significant thyroid hormones, thyroxine (T4) and liothyronine (T3), is slowed.
2. The stimulation of certain G proteins from the toxic effect of fluoride (whose function is to govern uptake of substances into each of the cells of
the body), has the effect of switching off the uptake into the cell of the active thyroid hormone.
3. The thyroid control mechanism is compromised. The thyroid stimulating hormone output from the pituitary gland is inhibited by fluoride, thus
reducing thyroid output of thyroid hormones.
4. Fluoride competes for the receptor sites on the thyroid gland which respond to the thyroid stimulating hormone; so that less of this hormone
reaches the thyroid gland and so less thyroid hormone is manufactured.
These damaging effects, all of which occur with small concentrations of fluoride, have obvious and easily identifiable effects on thyroid status. The
running down of thyroid hormone means a slow slide into hypothyroidism. Already the incidence of hypothyroidism is increasing as a result of other
environmental toxins and pollutions together with wide spread nutritional deficiencies.
http://www.rense.com/general57/FLUR.HTM |
Concentration where? In the drinking water? In the thyroid cellular fluid? Bones?
Normal water fluoride levels in my country are around 0.1 ppm, but there are areas with elevated concentrations. 1 ppm is ten times our usual
concentration, and that might have adverse effects, I agree.
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised | | Quote: Originally posted by Morgan | | Quote: Originally posted by unionised |
Among the reasons are the fact that they don't add fluoride to water supplies and that the assertion that fluoride causes the asserted problems is
demonstrably false .
BTW, if that looks familiar, it's because I pointed it out earlier.
|
I see you live in the UK. |
It's not as if my presence in the UK is a secret: why mention it?
|
Maybe where you live they don't put fluoride in the water but many places in the US do.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17 | | I can't really believe the whole USA is depleted of F<sup>-</sup> so that it has to be put in everyone's water. Can someone explain this
to me? |
That is indeed true. Not a lot of fluoride in ordinary water supplies in the USA. The water supply
tends to be rainwater-catch reservoirs, rather than underground aquifers. There's not much opportunity to pick up minerals in many places.
In addition, the USA has no national health care, so office-based fluoride gel treatments are not standard. Nor is there a regulatory requirement that
all toothpastes be fluoridated, and there are plenty of non-fluoridated ones on the market. Finally, there's no particular public education on the
need to take personal action for fluoridation of one's own or one's children's teeth.
All this means that in areas of the USA that don't use fluoridated municipal water, caries rates go up by 2x, 3x, 4x sorts of numbers. These effects
differentially hit the poor and less-educated, as well.
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The last thing I want is to seem like is a nutter. I've had to use sources that were less than perfect but on the other hand what the government tells
you isn't always 100% correct either.
Let's put some basics up that we might agree on.
Fluoride was reduced because they said we were gettting enough/too much from foods, toothpastes, etc. This after they had allowable limits of 4mg per
liter. Recall the Merck Vet Manual says 5mg of NaF per kilo is lethal to dogs. Does anybody know if dogs are more sensitive to fluorides? Or certain
breeds?
Fluorides accumulate in the body.
The Merck Manual states fluoride works by being a direct cellular poison.
No one can say how much fluoride someone is getting because various foods are high in fluoride and some people drink extra water from the norm. Wine
can have 2mg per liter - fluoride is used as a pesticide on grapes and other crops.
People on dialysis might have a hard time ridding fluoride from their diet.
Children might proportionately get more fluoride.
Fluoride is a Schedule 2 poison.
Your body stores a fair portion of it every day.
The main fluoride used in the US probably collects a lot of gunk with it from pipes on the way to your house, recall the spill that ate through the
road and hazmat people came out to clean it up. The Sierra Club said NaF would be better because of arsenic and lead the former is said to collect,
however small.
These thyroid tidbits are concerning whether proven or not because only small amounts of iodine/thyroid hormones have dramatic affects. As people get
older they have much more fluoride in their body.
"There is a daunting amount of research studies showing that the widely acclaimed benefits on fluoride dental health are more imagined than real. My
main concern however, is the effect of sustained fluoride intake on general health. Again, there is a huge body of research literature on this
subject, freely available and in the public domain."
"The process by which iodine is attached to the amino acid tyrosine and converted to the two significant thyroid hormones, thyroxine (T4) and
liothyronine (T3), is slowed."
http://www.rense.com/general57/FLUR.HTM
"While researching influences on the thyroid gland, we were astounded by the large number of fluoride citations. We were confronted with long lists of
articles, from scientists around the world, reporting in medical journals about the harmful effects of fluoride."
"We then did a review of the history of thyroid treatment, which showed that fluoride had previously been used by the medical profession to
deliberately slow down overactive thyroid glands. It is no longer used for that purpose, only because now there are stronger anti-thyroid drugs [like
Tapazole and PTU]."
"For instance, we came across a 1958 study by Galletti and Joyet, published in the prestigious Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. The
paper was titled, “Effect of Fluorine on Thyroidal Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism.” These scientists showed that fluoride in the range of
2-5 mg. per day (what people now ingest in a fluoridated area) was enough to slow down thyroid function."
http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoridec...
Aren't these things enough to raise concerns? I think it's sad.
[Edited on 9-6-2012 by Morgan]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Meanwhile back in reality (and even in the US) they add fluorosilicate to the water supply rather than fluoride.
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Aside from the lead connection, concerns are raised as to whether silicofluorides might have different effects on the body than sodium fluorides, and
silicofluorides have not been rigorously tested for safety.[25]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
"Therefore, the Sierra Club believes that communities should have the option to reject mandatory fluoridation of their water supplies."
"To protect sensitive populations, and because safer strategies and methods for preventing tooth decay are now available, we recommend that these
safer alternatives be made available and promoted. If fluoride is added to municipal water supplies, sodium fluoride rather than flourosilicate
compounds should be used because the latter has a greater risk of being contaminated with such heavy metals as lead and arsenic."
http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/water_fluorida...
Recall there are 3 fluorides used in the US.
"Community water systems in the United States use one of three additives for water fluoridation. Decisions on which additive to use are based on cost
of product, product-handling requirements, space availability, and equipment."
The three additives are:
Fluorosilicic acid: a water-based solution used by most water fluoridation programs in the United States. Fluorosilicic acid is also referred to as
hydrofluorosilicate, FSA, or HFS.
Sodium fluorosilicate: a dry additive, dissolved into a solution before being added to water.
Sodium fluoride: a dry additive, typically used in small water systems, dissolved into a solution before being added to water.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfad...
"Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.[12] About 70–90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed into the blood,
where it distributes throughout the body. In infants 80–90% of absorbed fluoride is retained, with the rest excreted, mostly via urine; in adults
about 60% is retained. About 99% of retained fluoride is stored in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich areas, where excess quantities can cause
fluorosis.[48] Drinking water is typically the largest source of fluoride.[12] In many industrialized countries swallowed toothpaste is the main
source of fluoride exposure in unfluoridated communities.[49] Other sources include dental products other than toothpaste; air pollution from
fluoride-containing coal or from phosphate fertilizers; trona, used to tenderize meat in Tanzania; and tea leaves, particularly the tea bricks favored
in parts of China. High fluoride levels have been found in other foods, including barley, cassava, corn, rice, taro, yams, and fish protein
concentrate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
[Edited on 9-6-2012 by Morgan]
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Look the chemical industry wants to be a growth industry. Fluoride makes an excellent rat poison, but there aren't enough of rats (at least in USA,
but perhaps I wrong on this) to make this happen. Lowing the toxic levels of fungicides helps a little even if it does poison the fruit and we can't
export it (we have this problem also with our diary products where guidelines has been greatly raised by the EPA at the request of Industry also).
Now China (and even Canada for dairy) is not accepting our bogus guidelines. Has the world gone mad for not promoting Industry profits over concerns
of the health of its people and the well being of the planet based on some country's unbiased science? Thank god for good old crony capitalism in the
USA where your lobbyists will get you what you can afford to buy!
I also recall reading that the reputed benefits of fluoride in drinking water with respect to tooth decay may be completely unfounded. But if the USA
can make money by selling rat poison to add to drinking water, that's a good thing, isn't it?
[Edited on 10-6-2012 by AJKOER]
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Tidbits from both sides.
Question 3.
Is there a difference in the effectiveness between naturally occurring fluoridated water at optimal fluoride levels and water that has fluoride added
to reach the optimal level?
ADA's Fluoridation Facts Long Answer
"Fluoride is present in water as "ions" or electrically charged atoms.27 These ions are the same whether acquired by water as it seeps through rocks
and sand or added to the water supply under carefully controlled conditions. When fluoride is added under controlled conditions to fluoride-deficient
water, the dental benefits are the same as those obtained from naturally fluoridated water. Fluoridation is merely a supplementation of the naturally
occurring fluoride present in all drinking water sources."
"Some individuals mistakenly use the term "artificial fluoridation" to imply that the process of water fluoridation is unnatural and that it delivers
a foreign substance into a water supply when, in fact, all water sources contain some fluoride. Community water fluoridation is a natural way to
improve oral health.28"
Opposition's Response
"The claim that fluoridation is one of 'nature's experiments' is not valid because the salts put into the water supply, sodium fluoride or
silicofluorides, are industrial products never found in natural water or in organisms. They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to be
used as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the form commonly found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for
such uses." — Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question03.html
"Sodium fluoride, stannous fluoride and sodium monofluorophosphate are fluoride-containing compounds approved by the FDA for anti-cavity toothpaste.
Each is synthesized from hydrofluoric acid, which is derived from the mineral fluorite (calcium fluoride) through a chemical reaction with sulfuric
acid."
http://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/68431.aspx
"As of the late 1990s, five billion kilograms were mined annually."
"Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is analogous to BaSO4,
where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
Uh, no one drinks water any more, don't you know.
What cabal is responsible for pushing totally hidden from view solanine and acrylamide on the populace? Is the real purpose of fluoridation
to brainwash you into accepting these? Are there flies in your eyes?
Got my only cavity at 35 or so...the tooth had a defect on eruption that was noted long before, but in 1980 a dentist told me it would never develop
into a cavity. OMFG THE DENTISTS ARE LYING TOO
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Morgan needs to learn some chemistry.
For example, the fluoride ion doesn't know or care if it was introduced as the sodium or calcium salt so this bit ". Calcium fluoride, on the other
hand, which is the form commonly found in natural waters, " is meaningless, and so are the conclusions drawn from it.
He also needs to learn some toxicology. Everything is toxic, including water.
So saying "fluorides are toxic" doesn't mean anything, unless you talk about the dose.
In fact the effects of low and moderate levels of fluoride are well known.
Plenty of people grow up in areas where the natural fluoride levels are much higher than any produced by fluoridation schemes.
My Aunt is one of them. As a consequence, she has mottled teeth.
Lets be clear about what that means.
She has definite symptoms that prove that she was exposed to higher levels of fluoride that are added to water supplies.
And yet she is perfectly healthy in other respects.
The first symptom of chronic fluoride exposure is mottled teeth.
If you keep the exposure below the level where that effect occurs, you will not get any other symptoms.
You may be wondering if I read the article about thyroid effects.
I did.
Here's the paper
http://www.slweb.org/galletti.html
It turns out that people with overactive thyroids are affected differently by low level fluoride exposure.
Here's what it actually says.
"Previous studies on animals and human beings did not demonstrate any significant and reproducible alterations of thyroidal function due to small
doses of fluorine which did not exceed a daily intake of 2.0 mg (approximately the doses used for prophylaxis of dental caries)"
and
"Since the hyperfunctioning thyroid is a more sensitive structure than the normal gland, we studied the effect of fluorine on patients with
hyperthyroidism"
In this group they sometimes found an improvement due to the presence of fluoride.
"In 6 of the 15 patients studied, the symptoms of hyperthyroidism were relieved and both the BMR and the plasma PBI concentration fell to normal
levels"
And, remember that these people (because of a pre-existing condition) are more sensitive to fluoride.
It would have less effect on the rest of us and, in particular it would have much less effect on the people with under performing thyroids (on whom
the effect might be deleterious.
You see what happens here.
If you actually go to the real literature and read it and see what it actually says, it certainly does not condemn fluoridation.
It might even be thought of as recommending it as being beneficial, not just because of its effect on tooth decay, but also on hyperthyroidism.
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER | Look the chemical industry wants to be a growth industry. Fluoride makes an excellent rat poison, but there aren't enough of rats (at least in USA,
but perhaps I wrong on this) to make this happen. Lowing the toxic levels of fungicides helps a little even if it does poison the fruit and we can't
export it (we have this problem also with our diary products where guidelines has been greatly raised by the EPA at the request of Industry also).
Now China (and even Canada for dairy) is not accepting our bogus guidelines. Has the world gone mad for not promoting Industry profits over concerns
of the health of its people and the well being of the planet based on some country's unbiased science? Thank god for good old crony capitalism in the
USA where your lobbyists will get you what you can afford to buy!
I also recall reading that the reputed benefits of fluoride in drinking water with respect to tooth decay may be completely unfounded. But if the USA
can make money by selling rat poison to add to drinking water, that's a good thing, isn't it?
[Edited on 10-6-2012 by AJKOER] |
This stuff is in most cosmetic products, and sometimes it's even added to food.
You call yourself a chemist? Pffffff, LOL.
|
|
|
weiming1998
National Hazard
Posts: 616
Registered: 13-1-2012
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Amphoteric
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised | Morgan needs to learn some chemistry.
For example, the fluoride ion doesn't know or care if it was introduced as the sodium or calcium salt so this bit ". Calcium fluoride, on the other
hand, which is the form commonly found in natural waters, " is meaningless, and so are the conclusions drawn from it.
He also needs to learn some toxicology. Everything is toxic, including water.
So saying "fluorides are toxic" doesn't mean anything, unless you talk about the dose.
In fact the effects of low and moderate levels of fluoride are well known.
Plenty of people grow up in areas where the natural fluoride levels are much higher than any produced by fluoridation schemes.
My Aunt is one of them. As a consequence, she has mottled teeth.
Lets be clear about what that means.
She has definite symptoms that prove that she was exposed to higher levels of fluoride that are added to water supplies.
And yet she is perfectly healthy in other respects.
The first symptom of chronic fluoride exposure is mottled teeth.
If you keep the exposure below the level where that effect occurs, you will not get any other symptoms.
You may be wondering if I read the article about thyroid effects.
I did.
Here's the paper
http://www.slweb.org/galletti.html
It turns out that people with overactive thyroids are affected differently by low level fluoride exposure.
Here's what it actually says.
"Previous studies on animals and human beings did not demonstrate any significant and reproducible alterations of thyroidal function due to small
doses of fluorine which did not exceed a daily intake of 2.0 mg (approximately the doses used for prophylaxis of dental caries)"
and
"Since the hyperfunctioning thyroid is a more sensitive structure than the normal gland, we studied the effect of fluorine on patients with
hyperthyroidism"
In this group they sometimes found an improvement due to the presence of fluoride.
"In 6 of the 15 patients studied, the symptoms of hyperthyroidism were relieved and both the BMR and the plasma PBI concentration fell to normal
levels"
And, remember that these people (because of a pre-existing condition) are more sensitive to fluoride.
It would have less effect on the rest of us and, in particular it would have much less effect on the people with under performing thyroids (on whom
the effect might be deleterious.
You see what happens here.
If you actually go to the real literature and read it and see what it actually says, it certainly does not condemn fluoridation.
It might even be thought of as recommending it as being beneficial, not just because of its effect on tooth decay, but also on hyperthyroidism.
|
Exactly. Also, I'd like to elaborate on a few points:
1, Traces of NaF/fluorosilicates do exist in natural water supplies. NaF, in particular, even exists as mineral deposits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villiaumite)
2, CaF2 is nowhere near the insolubility of BaSO4. You are about a couple orders of magnitude off. To see if CaF2 will really leach into the water
supplies, I can do a simple calculation. According to Wikipedia, CaF2 has a solubility of 0.0016 g/100 mL (20 °C). So a saturated solution of CaF in
water is about 0.0016% CaF2, which roughly boils down to 16ppm, 8 times higher than the levels of fluorides in fluoridated water. Where there are
deposits of CaF2 near/in rivers, it can dissolve a small amount that is ingested by both animals and humans without ill effects. As CaF2 is an ionic
compound and water is a polar solvent, the dissolved CaF2 is in the form of F- and Ca2+ ions, exactly like the F- ions artificially added.
3, I see a lot of people comparing fluorides to rat poison, including on this thread. That is horribly, horribly wrong. NaF/fluorosilicates have an
LD50 on mice and rats at about 100mg/kg. That means 10mg for a 100g rat. Might not seem a lot, but to get a rat to eat 10mg of it in bait, you have to
use a lot of it. Besides, the route for fluoride poisoning is not like mercury or lead poisoning, where it slowly accumulates in your blood and
brains, and gradually affects your body. Chronic fluoride poisoning affects almost entirely bones and teeth. Only acute poisoning has any sort of
effect on liver, brain, blood, etc. That is because the fluoride ion mostly accumulates, but does so in the bones because of its strong affinity for
calcium, forming complexes that does not dissolve nor gets absorbed into any other part of the body. Less than 1% goes anywhere other than bones.
Thus, you have to ingest a certain amount of fluoride (higher than in fluoridated water) in a limited amount of time before other adverse effects
starts to occur. Chronic poisoning does affect other organs to some extent, however the dose taken daily have to be higher than in normal fluoridated
water supplies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity
4, Peoples, get in your heads that if the molecule is the same, it does NOT matter whether it comes from a forest or a factory!
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
1.Villiaumite is a RARE halide mineral composed of sodium fluoride, NaF. It is very soluble in water and some specimens fluoresce under long and short
wave ultraviolet light. It has a Mohs hardness of 2.5 and is usually red, pink, or orange in color. It is toxic to humans and should be handled with
care.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villiaumite
"They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to be used as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the
form COMMONLY found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses." — Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question03.html
— Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.
2, CaF2 is nowhere near the insolubility of BaSO4. You are about a couple orders of magnitude off.
"Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is ANALOGOUS to BaSO4,
where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative."
3, I see a lot of people comparing fluorides to rat poison, including on this thread. That is horribly, horribly wrong. NaF/fluorosilicates have an
LD50 on mice and rats at about 100mg/kg. That means 10mg for a 100g rat. Might not seem a lot, but to get a rat to eat 10mg of it in bait, you have to
use a lot of it.
A small 100 gram tube of toothpaste containing 500mg NaF has enough fluoride to kill my less than 4kg dog 25 times over according to the Merck
Veterinary Manual. Just twice the rat dose of 10mg. Rats are hardly little creatures.
"Oral cleaning products present a danger to pets, especially dogs. The fatal dose of sodium fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg and toxic effects occur below 1
mg/kg. Fluoride (75-90% absorbed by 90 min) lowers serum calcium and magnesium. Clinically, gastroenteritis and cardiac (ventricular tachycardia and
ECG abnormalities) and nervous signs may be followed within a few hours by collapse and death."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...
This is an article from the Environmental Working Group, a public health advocacy organization, who also had an article in my latest USAA magazine of
the 12 foods that you want to buy organic because of high pesticide levels which by the way includes natural fluoride pesticides as with grapes.
Recall Europe won't buy our wines with over 2mg per liter fluoride.
Dog Food Contaminated with Levels of Fluoride Above EPA's Legal Limit for Humans
“Due to a failed regulatory system and suspect practices by some in the pet food industry, countless dogs may be ingesting excessive fluoride that
could put them at risk,” Olga Naidenko, Ph.D, lead researcher of the EWG-sponsored study, said."
"An average dog who drinks adequate water daily would be exposed to 0.05 to 0.1 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight, depending on the
dog's weight and water consumption. But those dogs who eat food high in fluoride, day in and day out, may be exposed to unsafe levels of fluoride."
http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food/new...
I wonder if the villi could be considered like delicate corals and you add the wrong kind of water to the tank? This guy might not have it all right,
but some facets seem plausible.
"Acute fluoride poisoning will first result in severe damage to the intestinal lining, causing acute villous atrophy of the small intestine, the same
lesion found in celiac disease and other food intolerance). It is clear that the adaptive viruses in our villi don’t like fluoride at this level and
can cause the villi to quickly shrink away in order to prevent further absorption of this potentially lethal toxin. As much as we don’t like the
symptoms associated with this intestinal process (nausea, diarrhea, cramping, gas), it is a protective mechanism designed to prevent more
life-threatening reactions to this toxin, such as kidney failure. But if the exposure is overwhelming, the blood levels can rapidly rise and more
serious signs can occur."
http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food/new...
Lastly ...
"So saying "fluorides are toxic" doesn't mean anything, unless you talk about the dose."
That's a good point. When you mention NaF/fluorosilcates and rats I was curious if the 10 mg lethal dose was from NaF or one of the fluorosiicates
because the data would, as you say, be meaningless unless you talk about dose.
[Edited on 10-6-2012 by Morgan]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is ANALOGOUS to BaSO4,
where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative."
It's not a good analogy. BaSO4 has such a low solubility that it's essentially harmless.
However CaF2 is soluble enough (just) that a solution of it would be toxic.
The comparison of fluoride in toothpaste with rat poison is a bit silly too.
Sure toothpaste with 1400 ppm of fluoride in it would be toxic if you (or your dog) ate lots.
But fluoridated water contains about a thousand times less.
Can you see the dog making its way through 20 tubes of toothpaste?
If so then you should look after it better.
This too is irrelevant
"Dog Food Contaminated with Levels of Fluoride Above EPA's Legal Limit for Humans"
Sure, we know that lots of it is toxic. That's why there are rules about how much of it is tolerated in food.
If people break the law then that's their fault and it has nothing to do with fluoridated water has it?
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised | "Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is ANALOGOUS to BaSO4,
where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative."
It's not a good analogy. BaSO4 has such a low solubility that it's essentially harmless.
However CaF2 is soluble enough (just) that a solution of it would be toxic.
The comparison of fluoride in toothpaste with rat poison is a bit silly too.
Sure toothpaste with 1400 ppm of fluoride in it would be toxic if you (or your dog) ate lots.
But fluoridated water contains about a thousand times less.
Can you see the dog making its way through 20 tubes of toothpaste?
If so then you should look after it better.
This too is irrelevant
"Dog Food Contaminated with Levels of Fluoride Above EPA's Legal Limit for Humans"
Sure, we know that lots of it is toxic. That's why there are rules about how much of it is tolerated in food.
If people break the law then that's their fault and it has nothing to do with fluoridated water has it?
|
Let's do some simple math. Dog dies at 20mg NaF. Tube of toothpaste contains 500mg NaF. So it's not 20 tubes of toothpaste she, my 4kg small dog would
have to eat. The tube has enough sodium fluoride to kill her 25 times over, one tube of toothpaste.
"A 100-g tube of fluoride toothpaste may contain 75-500 mg of sodium fluoride, depending on the brand." (A family size tube is even larger than the
100 g tube)
"Oral cleaning products present a danger to pets, especially dogs. The fatal dose of sodium fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg and toxic effects occur below 1
mg/kg."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...
[Edited on 10-6-2012 by Morgan]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Did you miss the point deliberately, or were you not paying attention?
The water has about a thousand times less fluoride in it.
So, even if something is 50 fold overkill then, if you dilute it 1000 fold it becomes 20 fold shy of being lethal.
Anyway, just in case you missed it again.
The water has about a thousand times less fluoride in it than the toothpaste.
You seem to think you are posting in a thread about toxicity of household products to pets.
The thread is about fluoridation of water.
And the important issue there is that The water has about a thousand times less fluoride in it than the toothpaste.
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I do not think adding flouride to water is a good idea. Most of this fluorine will be ingested rather than forming a protective coat on the teeth.
While high fluoride levels in well water are natural in a few places in the world, with few obvious human effects, this does not mean that it is a
good thing. Often in the USA, much of the fluoride added to water is actually in the form of sodium hexafluorosilicic acid, since it is a cheaper
byproduct from industry. Not that it is relevent here, but at much high concentrations, hexafluorosilicic acid solutions can give off fumes that can
lead to silicosis in the lungs with long term exposure. Whether long-term ingestion of NaSiF6 could have any potential affect on the lungs, even if
not clinically significant, is more doubtful. Adding fluoride to water has a very different cost-benefit ratio than brushing teeth with fluoride.
Some dentists have recommended only brushing one's teeth twice a week with flouride toothpaste, being sure to rinse all the toothpaste out afterwards,
while using a non-fluoride toothpaste the other times. "Ayurvedic" toothpaste is very popular in India, and has been proven to reduce gum disease and
prevent cavities. Brushing ones teeth with a paste of baking soda is also effective. I think it is completely ridiculous to suppose that brushing ones
teeth with fluoride is a necessary thing. The best thing you can do for your teeth is to eat more whole grains and vegetables, and avoid sugary foods.
Brush your teeth after drinking milk. The sugar in fruits does not contribute to the growth of bacteria in the same way that refined sugar (sucrose or
glucose) does, but the higher acidity can be corrosive. Be sure to rinse your mouth out with water after eating acidic fruits such as oranges, or
brush with baking soda.
Adding chloramine to water is not a particularly good idea either. Goldfish will die after one or two days in chloramine-treated water, unless the
chloramine is first neutralized with thiosulfate. Chloramine partially hydrolyses to hypochlorous acid, and this can react with organic compounds to
form chlorinated carcinogens.
|
|
|
weiming1998
National Hazard
Posts: 616
Registered: 13-1-2012
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Amphoteric
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Morgan | 1.Villiaumite is a RARE halide mineral composed of sodium fluoride, NaF. It is very soluble in water and some specimens fluoresce under long and short
wave ultraviolet light. It has a Mohs hardness of 2.5 and is usually red, pink, or orange in color. It is toxic to humans and should be handled with
care.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villiaumite
"They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to be used as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the
form COMMONLY found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses." — Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question03.html
— Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.
2, CaF2 is nowhere near the insolubility of BaSO4. You are about a couple orders of magnitude off.
"Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is ANALOGOUS to BaSO4,
where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative."
3, I see a lot of people comparing fluorides to rat poison, including on this thread. That is horribly, horribly wrong. NaF/fluorosilicates have an
LD50 on mice and rats at about 100mg/kg. That means 10mg for a 100g rat. Might not seem a lot, but to get a rat to eat 10mg of it in bait, you have to
use a lot of it.
A small 100 gram tube of toothpaste containing 500mg NaF has enough fluoride to kill my less than 4kg dog 25 times over according to the Merck
Veterinary Manual. Just twice the rat dose of 10mg. Rats are hardly little creatures.
"Oral cleaning products present a danger to pets, especially dogs. The fatal dose of sodium fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg and toxic effects occur below 1
mg/kg. Fluoride (75-90% absorbed by 90 min) lowers serum calcium and magnesium. Clinically, gastroenteritis and cardiac (ventricular tachycardia and
ECG abnormalities) and nervous signs may be followed within a few hours by collapse and death."
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211...
This is an article from the Environmental Working Group, a public health advocacy organization, who also had an article in my latest USAA magazine of
the 12 foods that you want to buy organic because of high pesticide levels which by the way includes natural fluoride pesticides as with grapes.
Recall Europe won't buy our wines with over 2mg per liter fluoride.
Dog Food Contaminated with Levels of Fluoride Above EPA's Legal Limit for Humans
“Due to a failed regulatory system and suspect practices by some in the pet food industry, countless dogs may be ingesting excessive fluoride that
could put them at risk,” Olga Naidenko, Ph.D, lead researcher of the EWG-sponsored study, said."
"An average dog who drinks adequate water daily would be exposed to 0.05 to 0.1 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight, depending on the
dog's weight and water consumption. But those dogs who eat food high in fluoride, day in and day out, may be exposed to unsafe levels of fluoride."
http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food/new...
I wonder if the villi could be considered like delicate corals and you add the wrong kind of water to the tank? This guy might not have it all right,
but some facets seem plausible.
"Acute fluoride poisoning will first result in severe damage to the intestinal lining, causing acute villous atrophy of the small intestine, the same
lesion found in celiac disease and other food intolerance). It is clear that the adaptive viruses in our villi don’t like fluoride at this level and
can cause the villi to quickly shrink away in order to prevent further absorption of this potentially lethal toxin. As much as we don’t like the
symptoms associated with this intestinal process (nausea, diarrhea, cramping, gas), it is a protective mechanism designed to prevent more
life-threatening reactions to this toxin, such as kidney failure. But if the exposure is overwhelming, the blood levels can rapidly rise and more
serious signs can occur."
http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food/new...
Lastly ...
"So saying "fluorides are toxic" doesn't mean anything, unless you talk about the dose."
That's a good point. When you mention NaF/fluorosilcates and rats I was curious if the 10 mg lethal dose was from NaF or one of the fluorosiicates
because the data would, as you say, be meaningless unless you talk about dose.
[Edited on 10-6-2012 by Morgan] |
The responses to your response:
1, The reason why the mineral form of NaF is so rare is that it is soluble in water. Thus, it can only exist in very dry places. Even if it is rare,
it debunks the claims that NaF doesn't exist in nature.
2, Have you read my calculation on CaF2? A saturated solution can achieve a concentration of 16ppm CaF2. Rivers aren't always saturated with CaF2, but
in places where deposits of it are near, the concentration of fluorides can naturally get over 2ppm, the amount in government-controlled fluoridated
water.
3, Say an average man drinks 3L of water a day. He'd be taking 6mg of fluoride from water a day. 6mg is nowhere near the amount needed for acute
poisoning, and by the time the man accumulates enough to have any sort of liver /brain poisoning, it would have already been long gone from the blood
and are in the bones, where it can't be absorbed by the body. A 4kg dog would drink far less water than an average man, and the amount taken would be
even less.
This is off topic, but eating organic food does not stop pesticides from poisoning you. Because you can still use pesticides in organic farming, just
"natural" ones, which can be just as harmful as synthetic ones. Because of the use of manure as fertilizer, the food is more likely to be contaminated
with various bacteria. Also, planting organic crops takes a larger amount of land than non-organic because of nutrient density, again not doing a
favour to the environment.
[Edited on 11-6-2012 by weiming1998]
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
When the author says the flouride commonly found in nature is CaF2 and that those "other" fluorides including NaF are not natural I think he stretches
it a bit but he may be right that the vast majority of natural fluoride in the water is from CaF2. Did you see how much fluorite/fluorspar is mined
each year? I can't find anything from a geologic source or what parts of the world may be different but it would be nice to know.
Natural occurrence
"Many fluoride minerals are known, but of paramount commercial importance are fluorite and fluorapatite.[5]Fluoride is usually found naturally in low
concentration in drinking water and foods. The concentration in seawater averages 1.3 parts per million (ppm). Fresh water supplies generally contain
between 0.01–0.3 ppm, whereas the ocean contains between 1.2 and 1.5 ppm.[9] In some locations, the fresh water contains dangerously high levels of
fluoride, leading to serious health problems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride
I wonder about the most commonly used flouride, hexafluorosilicic acid, for fluoridation in the US. Could any of it be reacting with the chlorine or
chloramine in water?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramine
The solubility calculation of 16ppm CaF2 from the previous post seems close to something I came across of 8 ppm. I don't know if temperature or other
dissolved minerals would greatly affect that or not but anyway the two are fairly close.
If we look at toxicity of NaF it seems people can tolerate more than dogs. Recall dogs depart at 5-10mg NaF per kg according to the Merck Manual. It
looks like NaF is lethal to dogs over people by a factor of 6?
"Soluble fluoride salts, of which sodium fluoride is the most common, are mildly toxic but have resulted in both accidental and suicidal deaths from
acute poisoning.[5] While the minimum fatal dose in humans is not known, the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is
equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight).[28][29][30]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride
If about half the fluoride you eat gets taken up by your body of say 6 mg per day, by the time someone reaches 80 years of age he will have
accumulated 87.6 grams. Recall "Fluoride binds to Ca2+, Mg2+, and Mn2+, acting as a direct cellular poison (including bacterial cells, hence its use
in dental hygiene)." (Merck Veterinary Manual)
Nobody really knows how much fluoride they get because of the combined ambiguous intake from food, air, and water. In some parts of China the water
has very little fluoride while the coal they use constitutes the greatest source - from air.
"Because indoor fluoride from combustion of coal is easily absorbed in stored food and because food consumption is a main source of fluoride exposure,
it is necessary to reduce airborne fluoride and food contamination to prevent serious fluorosis in China."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533102/
[Edited on 11-6-2012 by Morgan]
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland | I do not think adding flouride to water is a good idea. Most of this fluorine will be ingested rather than forming a protective coat on the teeth.
While high fluoride levels in well water are natural in a few places in the world, with few obvious human effects, this does not mean that it is a
good thing. Often in the USA, much of the fluoride added to water is actually in the form of sodium hexafluorosilicic acid, since it is a cheaper
byproduct from industry. Not that it is relevent here, but at much high concentrations, hexafluorosilicic acid solutions can give off fumes that can
lead to silicosis in the lungs with long term exposure. Whether long-term ingestion of NaSiF6 could have any potential affect on the lungs, even if
not clinically significant, is more doubtful. Adding fluoride to water has a very different cost-benefit ratio than brushing teeth with fluoride.
Some dentists have recommended only brushing one's teeth twice a week with flouride toothpaste, being sure to rinse all the toothpaste out afterwards,
while using a non-fluoride toothpaste the other times. "Ayurvedic" toothpaste is very popular in India, and has been proven to reduce gum disease and
prevent cavities. Brushing ones teeth with a paste of baking soda is also effective. I think it is completely ridiculous to suppose that brushing ones
teeth with fluoride is a necessary thing. The best thing you can do for your teeth is to eat more whole grains and vegetables, and avoid sugary foods.
Brush your teeth after drinking milk. The sugar in fruits does not contribute to the growth of bacteria in the same way that refined sugar (sucrose or
glucose) does, but the higher acidity can be corrosive. Be sure to rinse your mouth out with water after eating acidic fruits such as oranges, or
brush with baking soda.
Adding chloramine to water is not a particularly good idea either. Goldfish will die after one or two days in chloramine-treated water, unless the
chloramine is first neutralized with thiosulfate. Chloramine partially hydrolyses to hypochlorous acid, and this can react with organic compounds to
form chlorinated carcinogens. |
"There is also evidence that exposure to chloramine can contribute to respiratory problems, including asthma, among swimmers.[7] Respiratory problems
related to chloramine exposure are common and prevalent among competitive swimmers.[8]"
"Chloramine use, together with chlorine dioxide, ozone, and ultraviolet, have been described as public health concerns and an example of the outcome
of poorly implemented environmental regulation.[citation needed] These methods of disinfection decrease the formation of regulated byproducts such as
alkyl chloroforms, which has led to their widespread adoption. However, they can increase the formation of a number of less regulated cytotoxic and
genotoxic byproducts, some of which pose greater health risks than the regulated chemicals,[9] causing such diseases as cancer, kidney disease,
thyroid damage,[10] and birth defects.[11]"
"Boiling the water for 20 minutes will remove chloramine and ammonia. Additionally, many foods and drinks rapidly neutralize chloramine without the
necessity of boiling (e.g., tea, coffee, chicken stock, orange juice, etc.). SFPUC determined that 1000 mg of Vitamin C (tablets purchased in a
grocery store, crushed and mixed in with the bath water) remove chloramine completely in a medium size bathtub without significantly depressing pH.
Shower attachments containing Vitamin C can be purchased on the Internet, as well as effervescent Vitamin C bath tablets. [12]"
"Many animals are sensitive to chloramine and it must be removed from water given to many animals in zoos. Aquarium owners remove the chloramine from
their tap water because it is toxic to fish. Aging the water for a few days removes chlorine but not the more stable chloramine, which can be
neutralised using products available at pet stores."
"Chloramine must also be removed from the water prior to use in kidney dialysis machines, as it would come in contact with the bloodstream across a
permeable membrane."
"US EPA regulations limit chloramine concentration to 4 parts per million (ppm). A typical target level in US public water supplies is 3 ppm. In order
to meet EPA regulated limits on halogenated disinfection by-products, many utilities are switching from chlorination to chloramination. While
chloramination produces fewer total halogenated disinfection by-products, it produces greater concentrations of unregulated iodinated disinfection
by-products and N-nitrosodimethylamine.[16][17] Both iodinated disinfection by-products and N-nitrosodimethylamine have been shown to be
genotoxic.[17]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramine
Amazon.com review
VITASHOWER SF-1 (Vitamin C Shower Filter)
I work in the water industry and dont like showering in chlorine so I installed the vitashower and performed an analysis using my Hach Colorimeter.
This is a device used worldwide to test Chlorine levels in water. The water coming into my house tested at 2.2 PPM (parts per million) of Chloramines.
This is a fairly normal range for most water utilities. On both hot and cold water the Vitashower reduced it to 1.3 PPM. This is roughly a 40%
reduction of Chlorine. So there you have it: 40% reduction out of the box!! Plus it is very cheap plastic and appears to be cracking as many others
have reported. Although it is cheap you get what you pay for. It works a little bit!!
[Edited on 12-6-2012 by Morgan]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
According to this
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/PublicationsCata...
world CaF2 production is about 5 million tons per year.
Who cares?
We all know that fluoride occurs naturally in water and that lots of it is bad for you.
So what?
There's certainly no obvious pathway for a reaction between chloramines and fluorosilicate.
Again, we know fluorides are toxic in large doses. So what?
"If about half the fluoride you eat gets taken up by your body of say 6 mg per day, by the time someone reaches 80 years of age he will have
accumulated 87.6 grams. "
and if it doesn't, it wont. In any event, it would be buried in among roughly 10Kg of bone.
So what? It's not really a big problem there.
So that's a whole lot of essentially hot air. Most of it doesn't really relate to fluoridation of water.
And I presume the stuff about chloramines is a mistake. Surely you meant to post that in a separate thread because it's got nothing to do with this
one.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
