| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1705
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by unionised  | 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. |
Chloramine + Lead Pipes + Fluoride = Contaminated tap water
"The lead pollution crisis of the Washington, D.C. water supply - and the culprit that caused it, the water disinfection chemical chloramine - is a
powerful example of how things can go terribly wrong when water quality problems are considered and tackled in isolation."
"As described by Duke researchers, chloramine-induced lead leaching might be lessened by the addition of anticorrosivity agents during the water
treatment process. Is that sufficient for protection of public health? We really don't know! Chloramine itself has been associated with severe
respiratory toxicity and skin sensitivity. Overall, despite ongoing research, water treatment chemistry is still insufficiently understood by
scientists and specific water quality outcomes depend on the particular chemical interactions found in each water treatment and distribution system."
"Here comes a second unpleasant "surprise" for those in lead-piped locations: fluorosilicates have a unique affinity for lead. In fact, lead
fluorosilicate is one of the most water-soluble forms of lead. In fact, fluorosilicic acid has been used as a solvent for lead and other heavy metals
in metallurgy. In industrial applications, chemical engineers rely on this acid to remove surface lead from leaded-brass machine parts."
Don't you just love chemistry
"In research published in the scientific journal Neurotoxicology, researchers found that the mixture of the two chemicals: disinfectant (whether
chlorine or chloramine) with fluorosilicic acid has a drastically increased potency, leaching amazingly high quantities of lead."
http://www.enviroblog.org/2009/07/recipe-for-a-toxic-brew-le...
[Edited on 13-6-2012 by Morgan]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"Chloramine + Lead Pipes + Fluoride = Contaminated tap water"
No, not really.
What you would get is the very insoluble mixed fluoride/ chloride of lead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matlockite
or
http://www.galleries.com/Fiedlerite
depending on the pH.
You still haven't sussed out the difference between fluorosilicate and fluoride yet have you?
Incidentally, the fact that lead fluorosilicate is soluble proves the very opposite of the assertion " fluorosilicates have a unique affinity for
lead".
Chlorides do have such an affinity and, if you mix a solution of , for example lead fluorosilicate with sodium chloride you will get a precipitate of
the rather less soluble lead chloride.
In any event, people shouldn't be drinking water that has run through lead pipes.
Why is it that you keep citing pages that talk rubbish?
[Edited on 13-6-12 by unionised]
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1705
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Reader comments
"THREE CHEERS FOR EWG!!! However, I believe the statement: "Here comes a second unpleasant 'surprise' for those in lead-piped locations:
fluorosilicates have a unique affinity for lead." could be misleading."
"Marc Edwards' 2004 testimony on DC water lead problems did not exonerate new homes constructed with plastic service lines and copper interior
plumbing joined with lead-free solder. Seriously high lead water levels were found in new homes where the only source of lead would have been
so-called "lead-free" brass water meters and/or chrome-plated brass faucets. In fact, so-called lead-free brass can have as much as 8% lead in it."
"The term “chloramine” as applied to drinking water disinfection needs to be explained."
(1) It is a general word applicable to products created by combining chlorine with ammonia under unspecified conditions;
(2) The ammonia can be in liquid form such as ammonium hydroxide or as a dry gas;
(3) The chlorine can be a dry gas or as aqueous liquid hypochlorite (“bleach”) or as a dry solid such as calcium or sodium hypochlorite;
(4) Whatever the sources of ammonia and chlorine may be, aqueous reaction product “chloramine” may have one, two, or three chlorine atoms bound
to nitrogen...designated respectively “mono-chloramine” “di-chloramine” and “tri-chloramine”;
(5) Under some conditions an organic substance present may react to form some species of organic chloramine;
(6) The desired drinking water disinfectant chloramine is primarily mono-chloramine with a small amount of di-chloramine present;
(7) However this is not purchased from a supplier as a well-defined product, it is produced in the water plant generally by adding ammonia to water
already chlorinated to some concentration level that may vary in concentration at the point and time of ammonia injection;
(8) It is not impossible that excess ammonia is injected.
How this affects extraction of lead from brass plumbing fixtures:
(9) Lead in "lead-free" brass is not distributed as a solute in copper, it is present in nodules;
(10) This in itself could foster galvanic corrosion;
(11) However, excess ammonia from production of chloramine could attack the copper in
brass thereby exposing lead nodules to fluosilicic acid derivative corrosion.
http://www.enviroblog.org/2009/07/recipe-for-a-toxic-brew-le...
"To enhance the machinability of brass, lead is often added in concentrations of around 2%. Since lead has a lower melting point than the other
constituents of the brass, it tends to migrate towards the grain boundaries in the form of globules as it cools from casting. The pattern the globules
form on the surface of the brass increases the available lead surface area which in turn affects the degree of leaching. In addition, cutting
operations can smear the lead globules over the surface. These effects can lead to significant lead leaching from brasses of comparatively low lead
content.[8]"
"In October 1999 the California State Attorney General sued 13 key manufacturers and distributors over lead content. In laboratory tests, state
researchers found the average brass key, new or old, exceeded the California Proposition 65 limits by an average factor of 19, assuming handling twice
a day.[10] In April 2001 manufacturers agreed to reduce lead content to 1.5%, or face a requirement to warn consumers about lead content. Keys plated
with other metals are not affected by the settlement, and may continue to use brass alloys with higher percentage of lead content.[11][12]"
"Also in California, lead-free materials must be used for "each component that comes into contact with the wetted surface of pipes and pipe fittings,
plumbing fittings and fixtures." On January 1, 2010, the maximum amount of lead in "lead-free brass" in California was reduced from 4% to 0.25% lead.
The common practice of using pipes for electrical grounding is discouraged, as it accelerates lead corrosion.[13][14]"
|
|
|
ChemistryGhost
Hazard to Others
Posts: 113
Registered: 5-7-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: Supercooled 
|
|
Fluoride occurs naturally in sea water at less than 1 part per million, but it's balanced by 1 part per million of boron. Boron and fluoride bonds to
form boron trifluoride. Boron has been shown in studies to prevent and reverse skeletal fluorosis. Boron and tamarind help with the excretion of
fluoride from the bones and body. Levels far exceeding 1 or 2 parts per million combined with lack of boron intake and poor health choices is what is
terrible. There are mind controlling agents much more powerful than fluoride. Agents which are not implemented due to the lack of awareness and sheer
effectiveness of them. Dehydration is far more dangerous. Even with so many "mind numbing agents" in food and water, we are still capable of so much
intellectually. It's just that people far underestimante their own brain capacities and this, the self intellectual doubt and not giving it 115%, is
the thing that leads to unquestionable stupidity. There are people who don't even remotely try being smarter. Dehydration is harmful, as is
overhydration. If you're so worried about fluoride, take 3mg boron daily, have some tamarind juice, get distilled water, and make a petition to have
fluoride reduced significantly or banned. But unless you have the money, it's drink their kool-aid or die of dehydration. Mmm.. artheritis 50 years
later. Fluoride is good for teeth, however, and makes them more acid resistent. Just don't ingest it. Don't forget to brush!  
Here's a study on fluoride and IQ http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/idUS127920+24-Jul-...
Personally, although I'm still smarter that the average joe, I have noticed my intellect decline significantly. Fluoride and other toxins are
partially to blame. I will not give up! The last thing anyone should do is completely give up intellectually.
Fluorocarbons are safe. Fluorine forms very strong bonds to carbon.
Hydrogen fluoride eats glass. 
[Edited on 28-10-2012 by ChemistryGhost]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" ~Einstein
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
" Boron and fluoride bonds to form boron trifluoride. "
Nope.
"Boron trifluoride reacts with water to give boric acid and fluoroboric acid." from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron_trifluoride
(I presume I don't need to cite a source fo the presence of water in the sea.)
"There are mind controlling agents much more powerful than fluoride"
For example, any that actually work.
" Even with so many "mind numbing agents" in food and water, we are still capable of so much intellectually. I"
Apart from alcohol and a few other things like it taken deliberately for their effect on the brain, what mind numbing agents are present in food and
water?
"Fluorocarbons are safe. Fluorine forms very strong bonds to carbon"
Yes and no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluoroisobutene
|
|
|
Vargouille
Hazard to Others
Posts: 380
Registered: 16-4-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Here is the actual study done by the Harvard students on the relationship between high [F-] and IQ. Note the number of caveats stated.
[Edited on 28-10-2012 by Vargouille]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks for that. It's always good to look at the original data.
Perhaps the most important thing to learn from looking at the paper is that the biggest difference in IQ found in any of the studies they looked at
was just 1%.
The overall best estimate was 0.5%
|
|
|
ChemistryGhost
Hazard to Others
Posts: 113
Registered: 5-7-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: Supercooled
|
|
Oh well, live and learn. I can't speak of the mind control agents that actually work. It's pretty difficult to synthesize them. It's out of reach for
most amateur chemists. However, someone in a pharmaceutical lab can create them if they obtain the reactants and are smart enough.
People take some of these legal poisons deliberately and think it's ok. While some of the illegal research chemicals produce less damge. Alcohol is
such a dangerous drug in my opinion. Most of you have plenty of years of experience in organic chemistry. I only recently discovered it and taken an
interest.
Being astonished by the hidden wonders of the world.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" ~Einstein
|
|
|
chemrox
International Hazard
Posts: 2961
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline
Mood: LaGrangian
|
|
Water fluoridation has never been shown to improve anyone's dental health. My doctor has deep misgivings about it as do I. Cui bono? Fluorides are
byproducts of aluminum processing. Also in Portland Oregon the departing Water Commissioner is now pushing for it. We think he has a job waiting in
bottled water sales.
"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
|
|
|
Vargouille
Hazard to Others
Posts: 380
Registered: 16-4-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes, it has.
Water Fluoridation.
Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation
|
|
|
feacetech
Hazard to Others
Posts: 163
Registered: 12-2-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
HFA (H2SiF6) for water flouridation can come from the wet scrubing of super phosphate manufacture fumes
Depending on local laws and regulations this can be added to water with out any further processing apart from concentrating in the scrubber vessel and
redilution prior to sale
It contains a number of contaminants
Amorphous Silica (Can be very fine um, nm size)
Iodine
Phophate (some process limits for example are max 1000 mg P/kg)
The liquid is a nasty brown stuff that etches glass and stains everything with a red brown idodine colour
Some places require it to be filted to remove the idoine (legislative requirement) others will purchase it as is.
Yum
|
|
|
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
|
|
I've always been amazed how this forum, against all odds, attracts all kinds of oddballs. Crackpots, racial supremacists, religious nutcases... geez.
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1705
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
For those that enjoy PET bottled water or PET bottled anything I guess, you get extra antimony. No telling what contaminants the cheaper brands of
bottled water have and when you think about all the various contaminants, you can't help but wonder how they possibly interact and add up. Recall the
chloramine/hydrofluorosilicic acid combo leaching lead from brass fittings.
"Antimony leaches from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles into liquids.[80] While levels observed for bottled water are below drinking water
guidelines,[81] fruit juice concentrates (for which no guidelines are established) produced in the UK were found to contain up to 44.7 µg/L of
antimony, well above the EU limits for tap water of 5 µg/L."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony
Contamination of Canadian and European bottled waters with antimony from PET containers.
"Natural water from Ontario bottled in polypropylene contained only 8.2 +/- 0.9 ng l(-1). Comparison of three German brands of water available in both
glass bottles and PET containers showed that waters bottled in PET contained up to 30 times more Sb."
"As an independent check of the hypothesis that Sb is leaching from PET, the pristine groundwater from Canada (containing 2.2 +/- 1.2 ng l(-1) Sb) was
collected from the source using PET bottles from Germany: this water contained 50 +/- 17 ng l(-1) Sb (n = 2) after only 37 days, even though it was
stored in the refrigerator, and 566 ng l(-1) after six months storage at room temperature."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16470261
"The final "contaminant candidate list," released today, comes after an evaluation of about 7,500 chemicals and microbes. The EPA regulates more than
90 contaminants in drinking water already, setting maximum contaminant levels that water agencies must test for."
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/09/epa_...
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by ChemistryGhost |
Oh well, live and learn.
It's pretty difficult to synthesize them. It's out of reach for most amateur chemists. However, someone in a pharmaceutical lab can create them if
they obtain the reactants and are smart enough.
|
Have you learned that you will be asked to back up assertions like that with evidence?
As far as I'm aware, "mind control drugs" only exist in bad sci fi and conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Cost Benefit Analysis
Costs:
1. Potential poison especially to infants and small animals
2. Possible cancer causing agent.
Benefits
1. Reputed dental/tooth decay benefits. However, no recent large studies have be able to confirm this claim.
2. Adds profits to a narrow business segment (Chemical industry), sellers of bottled water and any resulting disease/deaths also promotes a narrow
pay-for-service private health business segment. Governments sponsoring/paying health services should be less inclined to go along.
3. Lobbying dollars paid to local politicians.
Conclusion:
So, now I understand. Government officials, especially with large private health providers and benefiting business interests offering lobbying dollars
are supportive, while consumers facing the potential of dying, sick infants and animals are, understandably, less inclined.
[EDIT] Any side 'benefit' of retarding/making your population more docile may be attractive to countries with large income inequality.
[Edited on 8-11-2012 by AJKOER]
|
|
|
elementcollector1
International Hazard
Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Molten
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER | Cost Benefit Analysis
Costs:
1. Potential poison especially to infants and small animals
2. Possible cancer causing agent.
Benefits
1. Reputed dental/tooth decay benefits. However, no recent large studies have be able to confirm this claim.
2. Adds profits to a narrow business segment (Chemical industry) and any resulting disease/deaths also promotes a narrow private health business
segment. Governments sponsoring/paying health services should be less inclined to go along.
3. Lobbying dollars paid to local politicians.
Conclusion:
So, now I understand. Government officials, especially with large private health providers, and Chemical companies supplying flouride related
products, are supportive while consumers with dying, sick infants and animals are, understandably, less inclined. |
Allow me to direct you here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70317-flouride/
And, in turn, here: http://www.ada.org/4045.aspx
I don't think there is a conspiracy here, because if there was a conspiracy, the government (the big, bad, unspeakably evil government) would use less
detectable agents than fluoride for 'mind control' (which is likely to not be real).
Now, if the government seriously wanted mind control, they should probably experiment with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii
Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
|
|
|
chemrox
International Hazard
Posts: 2961
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline
Mood: LaGrangian
|
|
There has been no paper ever published that showed any benefit from fluoridation of water at the concentrations used in municipal systems. On the
other hand during my first college chemistry course along with a concurrent biology class, I became increasing alarmed about being forced to ingest
any quantity of it. It's interesting that a retiring water commissioner is pushing for it in a city where the voters have rejected it three times. I
wonder if he's joining a water bottling company after retirement?
"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
|
|
|
Vargouille
Hazard to Others
Posts: 380
Registered: 16-4-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes, there has.
Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation
Water Fluoridation
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2750
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I don't see the point of arguing this. Well water (and every other source of water in the world) contains a number of dissolved minerals and many
other contaminants, if you measure it carefully enough. There have been many places in the US with levels of F- from < 0.01 to higher than 10 ppm
due to natural leaching of fluoride salts into water. Plus many other elements and compounds. People who have drank water with 1-10 ppm of F- most
of their life were observed to have fewer cavities decades ago, but at levels of 5-10 and greater, other side effects were seen. But most
municipalities have F- levels of not more than 1 ppm, which is not very high compared to many natural sources.
I would say overall that there is not overwhelming evidence that F- is really hugely beneficial, but also that there is little evidence that it is
hurting anyone. Remember, people lived with fluoride in the water in many communities for hundreds of years before it was added. If you don't like
it, it is not that hard to avoid or remove. I don't know that many people who drink much of tap water anyway, many drink bottled water, filtered
water, canned or bottled beverages, etc. If you drink a lot of tap water and are worried, just buy a simple ion exchange type filter, it will remove
many other things as well.
If you already have lead in the pipes or water supply, then fluoride should not be your main concern. Even that can be lowered with a simple
filtration fit. There are plenty of much larger sources of risk to your health that are orders of magnitude higher than fluoride, like idiots
texting-while-driving, driving drunk, excess drinking, or smoking.
"214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children
without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without
caries was -5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25)
teeth. A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to
21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning.
CONCLUSIONS:
The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear
evidence of other potential adverse effects."
BMJ. 2000 Oct 7;321(7265):855-9.
Systematic review of water fluoridation.
McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, Sutton AJ, Chestnutt I, Cooper J, Misso K, Bradley M, Treasure E, Kleijnen J.
|
|
|
ChemistryGhost
Hazard to Others
Posts: 113
Registered: 5-7-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: Supercooled
|
|
Fluoride is not as helpful or as harmful as initially thought. I guess water can be purified via distillation and made free of most environmental
gases by dissolving krypton. Maybe even krypton under pressure. Could you imagine nearly chemically pure kryptonated water? It might be very expensive
and fancy. I wish they would have that! "20$ hydrogen oxide (H2O, Water). Now
noble-ated with krypton. We now carry argonated and neonized water" It's a
cool funny thought!
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" ~Einstein
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
elementcollector1
International Hazard
Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Molten
|
|
My thoughts exactly. This discussion is ridiculous, and neither side has managed to prove anything to the other. Anti-fluoride is still claiming
there's no proof that fluoride's good for you, with a host of other side-arguments, and pro-fluoride really doesn't care because a few ppm of F- in
your water really shouldn't hurt you by biological, toxicological and mental standards. Again, this is four pages of back-and-forth, sometimes with
the same exact citations. Why are we arguing about this again?
Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
