Next Level BS #38: Water Fluoridation, The Facts, The Crazy, and the Reality

a reply to: Trihalo42

By the way, I used to work as a Wastewater Laboratory Analyst and a Class 3 Wastewater Operator, so I'm not Average Joe off the street. Because of those licenses, the EPA says I know what I'm talking about when it comes to water treatment, and they'd rather I didn't say anything at all.

Having taken the courses, you do understand that wastewater is different than treated water right? I have my Class 2 water treatment class 1 water distribution class 1 wastewater collection and class 1 wasterwater treatment. They are not the same thing. Who is "they"? I would rather you didn't either about water treatment (or wastewater for that matter) if you believe they are the same thing.

This first blog I address the complaints about a soapy taste and people claiming Fluoride has no taste. Now before I point this out, in the video he says that Sodium Fluoride isn't used anymore. Actually it's still used in small scale water systems, but that's just splitting hairs. There's 2 components to Sodium Fluoride. There's Sodium. And there's Fluoride. Guess which one we're very familiar with the taste of? Sodium sure doesn't taste like soap. Not even in Sodium Chloride or Sodium Bicarbonate.

I've never heard the "soapy taste" claim before. Fluoride does not affect the taste of the water, unless of course you have any study that shows it, not a PDF file about pesticide additives.

In this next one, I point out that the same Fluoridated water that's meant to strengthen people's teeth is also used to flush your toilet, among other non-teeth-related uses. I believe that taxpayers will ignore any "cost to benefit" explanations and just be generally offended that those tax dollars spent on Fluoridation are being flushed... unless your dog drinks out of your toilet a lot, in which case your dog's teeth might benefit.

Already covered ad nauseum, but HERE you go, very simple version.

This next one I try to illustrate that 1ppm is suggested by the EPA, the CDC suggests 2-4 ppm can start to show dental fluorosis, and the WHO shows that 10-25 ppm can lead to skeletal fluorosis. Since some people don't quite get how PPM comes into play and just think "Hey 10 is a bigger number than 1", I try to illustrate it with tiny graphs with little dots filled in.

Those little grids made up are there to cause fear. Being in the business, you should know how much more of a chemical you would have to add to a flow based system...but you aren't in the business, at least not in the right division. I work at the beginning, you work at the end.

And there's a post I made on slashdot.org about a Pubmed listing for a Fluoride spill affecting serum testosterone levels. Yes it's a "spill" and not just what comes out of your tap, but Fluoride having an effect on Testosterone levels should be taken seriously by any man.

So these people were exposed to just under 4.0 mg/L for who knows how long (it just says it is a polluted district which would probably mean the pollutant is still ongoing) and you bring it up against water fluoridation? The two are hardly comparable.

In conclusion, I believe you should stick to working with poo and pee as you don't seem to have a firm grasp on water treatment. Also, I'm having trouble finding any source where the EPA says because you are a qualified wastewater operator, that you are qualified in water treatment...can you please link for me so I can read it, I never realized they were interchangeable.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Water fluoridation conspiracies are the equivalent of anti vaxxers.

Nonsense science, no backing in reality, and absolutely no risks to the public.

The entire anti fluoridation movement, like the anti vaxxer movement, is based on urban myths.

No it's completely different. If we remove the science, health issues and focus on individual rights we see a major breakdown.

People have a choice whether or not to get vaccines, they have no choice when fluoride is put directly into their drinking, bathing and cooking water.

One completely over-rides individuals rights, and says that the government knows what is best for all people. This type of government is far from democracy.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: babybunnies
Water fluoridation conspiracies are the equivalent of anti vaxxers.

Nonsense science, no backing in reality, and absolutely no risks to the public.

The entire anti fluoridation movement, like the anti vaxxer movement, is based on urban myths.

No it's completely different. If we remove the science, health issues and focus on individual rights we see a major breakdown.

People have a choice whether or not to get vaccines, they have no choice when fluoride is put directly into their drinking, bathing and cooking water.

One completely over-rides individuals rights, and says that the government knows what is best for all people. This type of government is far from democracy.

What I got from their post was that there are major untruths and outright lies on the anti-fluoride side. No one has ever said that people shouldn't have a right to choose. What people have tried to show is that make sure you know what you are talking about, or at least research both sides, before making extraordinary claims.

This thread was never about the right to choose. Nor was any post.

Here in Calgary, Alberta we have an awesome mayor who took flouride out of the city drinking water.

a reply to: artistpoet
Fist off, I'm amazed this dead horse is still on the front page.

Please note that Chlorine has been replaced with Chloramine in many cities. Chloramine is a combination of Chlorine and Ammonia, the same two things we try hard to not mix when cleaning. It usually exists in 3 states depending on temp and pH, mono- di- and tri- Chloramine. The biggest issue many of us have is that it appears to trigger asthma effects in some people similar to nitrates and cases a reddening of the skin in some as well. This is likely a function of the ammonia/nitrogen component relating to methemoglobinemia.

Removal of Chloramine is a bit more challenging, as it has a boiling point near that of water, as opposed to plain Chlorine evaporating at near room temperatures. Usually the addition of ascorbic acid will do the trick. Ascorbic Acid is also used by water treatment facilities as a cheap method of removing Chlorine from treated water.

a reply to: SalientSkivvy

Seems to be going good.
Can't wait for the study to be released comparing Calgary to Edmonton for dental carries among children.

One more thing I wanted to add was about the dismissive attitude over Sodium Fluoride. Here's a few references from the CDC website.

www.cdc.gov...
(Last reviewed and updated July 10, 2013)
"...The most common fluoride compound used in mouth rinse is sodium fluoride..."

www.cdc.gov...
(FSA is short for Fluorosilicic Acid)

"Since the early 1950s, FSA has been the main additive used for water fluoridation in the United States. The favorable cost and high purity of FSA make it a popular additive. Sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride are dry additives that come from FSA".

"FSA can be partially neutralized by either table salt (sodium chloride) or caustic soda to get sodium fluorosilicate. If enough caustic soda is added to completely neutralize the fluorosilicate, the result is sodium fluoride. About 90% of the sodium fluoride used in the United States comes from FSA. Sodium fluoride is also produced by mixing caustic soda with hydrogen fluoride."

I wrote about it in my blog, if anyone's interested. trihalo42.tumblr.com...

originally posted by: Trihalo42
a reply to: artistpoet
Fist off, I'm amazed this dead horse is still on the front page.

Please note that Chlorine has been replaced with Chloramine in many cities. Chloramine is a combination of Chlorine and Ammonia, the same two things we try hard to not mix when cleaning. It usually exists in 3 states depending on temp and pH, mono- di- and tri- Chloramine. The biggest issue many of us have is that it appears to trigger asthma effects in some people similar to nitrates and cases a reddening of the skin in some as well. This is likely a function of the ammonia/nitrogen component relating to methemoglobinemia.

Removal of Chloramine is a bit more challenging, as it has a boiling point near that of water, as opposed to plain Chlorine evaporating at near room temperatures. Usually the addition of ascorbic acid will do the trick. Ascorbic Acid is also used by water treatment facilities as a cheap method of removing Chlorine from treated water.

Chloramines.
It has been used for close to 90 years, this isn't something new and every person reacts differently.
Water treatment facilities use Ascorbic Acid to remove chlorine from treated water? So they add chlorine, and then add another chemical to get rid of it? I know it is used for Manganese testing as it helps the oxidization process...but I have never seen it used as a part of water distribution or treatment.

a reply to: superman2012
Oh I'm loving the hate and hostility from you superman2012. You say that Wastewater has nothing to do with Water treatment, assuming that being in Wastewater I have no knowledge of Water treatment. And now you're unaware of why we add Chlorine and then remove it? You did say you had a Wastewater license of some sort didn't you?

Here's a little clip from a Wastewater manual in pdf form for you:

www.ragsdaleandassociates.com...

Ragsdale and Associates: Training Specialists, LLC 11-1

Dechlorination

"For years wastewater treatment plant effluents have been disinfected with chlorine. In some cases, excessive amounts of chlorine were used in an effort to meet new, or get around, ammonia removal requirements that were added to NPDES permits in the early 1980s. This resulted in total residual chlorine (TRC) concentrations in the effluent that far exceeded the levels needed to kill fecal coliform bacteria."

"The addition of these higher levels of chlorine proved to be hazardous to both plant life and fish in the receiving waters. Systems are now required to dechlorinate any chlorinated effluent before it is discharged into a receiving stream or lake. Sulfur chemicals are used to remove chlorine residuals."

All this tells me that you are on a Next Level of Bull#, and if you actually do have a certification in Wastewater or even in Collections, they should take it from you.

a reply to: superman2012

Take care of your teeth and eat healthy and you shouldn't have a problem. Its the toxic lifestyle most of us Westerners live that rots our teeth. Then we need more toxins to help.
Lol so silly.

I get my daily dose of fluoride from my toothpaste. I don't need to swallow that stuff.

originally posted by: Trihalo42
a reply to: superman2012
Oh I'm loving the hate and hostility from you superman2012. You say that Wastewater has nothing to do with Water treatment, assuming that being in Wastewater I have no knowledge of Water treatment. And now you're unaware of why we add Chlorine and then remove it? You did say you had a Wastewater license of some sort didn't you?

Here's a little clip from a Wastewater manual in pdf form for you:

www.ragsdaleandassociates.com...

Ragsdale and Associates: Training Specialists, LLC 11-1

Dechlorination

"For years wastewater treatment plant effluents have been disinfected with chlorine. In some cases, excessive amounts of chlorine were used in an effort to meet new, or get around, ammonia removal requirements that were added to NPDES permits in the early 1980s. This resulted in total residual chlorine (TRC) concentrations in the effluent that far exceeded the levels needed to kill fecal coliform bacteria."

"The addition of these higher levels of chlorine proved to be hazardous to both plant life and fish in the receiving waters. Systems are now required to dechlorinate any chlorinated effluent before it is discharged into a receiving stream or lake. Sulfur chemicals are used to remove chlorine residuals."

All this tells me that you are on a Next Level of Bull#, and if you actually do have a certification in Wastewater or even in Collections, they should take it from you.

No hate. I just have little patience for lies.
Perhaps you forgot your claim:

Ascorbic Acid is also used by water treatment facilities as a cheap method of removing Chlorine from treated water.

Had you qualified it by saying WASTEwater instead of saying it was used in water TREATMENT, then I would have asked why you are bringing it up in a thread about water fluoridation.

a reply to: SalientSkivvy

Ever wonder how much fluoride gets into your system from toothpaste? Check it out.
If this is about choice, I couldn't agree more. However, this thread wasn't about that.

a reply to: superman2012

I brought it up when someone mentioned in an earlier post about Chlorine in their tap water. Chlorination being side by side with Fluoridation in city water supplies. It's an off topic post, but I felt it needed being said.

Here's a quick reference to Ascorbic Acid being used in dechlorination. And you should know that dechlorination isn't much different between distribution or treatment. Dissolved Oxygen levels are EXTRMELY important in Wastewater treatment as it can result in anaerobic bacteria taking over and creating that septic sewage smell people call to complain about.

www.fs.fed.us...

VITAMIN C DECHLORINATION
"Vitamin C is a newer chemical method for neutralizing chlorine. Two forms of vitamin C, ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate, will neutralize chlorine. Neither is considered a hazardous chemical. First, vitamin C does not lower the dissolved oxygen as much as sulfur-based chemicals do. Second, vitamin C is not toxic to aquatic life at the levels used for dechlorinating water. Although ascorbic acid is mildly acidic and, in large doses, will lower the pH of the treated water, sodium ascorbate is neutral and will not affect the pH of the treated water or the receiving stream. Both forms of vitamin C are stable, with a shelf life of at least 1 year in a dry form if kept in a cool, dark place. Once it is placed in solution, however, vitamin C degrades in a day or two."

a reply to: Trihalo42

When we need to get rid of chlorinated water, we use Sodium Metabisulfite. Maybe for the home user they would use ascorbic acid, but not at any treatment plant I have been to.

I know all about anaerobic (unfortunately) as the lagoon in my town went anaerobic and the smell was horrible, more than the usual two times a year it turns. Stayed that way until they added an enzyme...lots of it.

a reply to: superman2012

"I have little patience for lies". That's just being overly judgmental, as the things I listed in my original post were about Fluoride concentrations and reports of a "soapy taste", my personal opinion on wasted tax dollars,... and claiming that showing PPM in graph form is me trying to create "fear" is just silly..., and I said that the study about SHBG and free T levels didn't directly relate to tap water, but they did have some relevance as the key chemical in question was Fluoride.

Fluoride has been officially declared to have an effect on endocrine systems. same as quite a few other chemicals we consume regularly.

But my first point about taste was focused on DOSE and Toxic Levels. In the report on pesticides, and the study, it was at a TOXIC level of Fluoride exposure that people began to experience a "soapy taste". My overall point being that over consumption of Fluoride containing products can have a cumulative effect. One of the symptoms thereof being a "soapy taste".

a reply to: superman2012

Our facility used a minimal of chemicals, as the City Council didn't much like spending money on a place they neither understood nor wanted to go near. Our treatment process was primarily biological, having aerated basins and gravity settlers. We used a plain old sand filter followed by a battery of UV lights to kill as much as possible. We stayed within permit for fecal coliform bacteria counts, ammonia, and such, so we didn't have to add in chlorination / dechlorination. Larger facilities in the area used Digesters and Trickle Filters, among other things, but our load was small enough to not need much more.

During my studies for my Lab Analyst license, we did cover quite a few things, including the "new" use of Ascorbic Acid in place of standard Sulfur compounds. The one that the average person may be most familiar with is Sodium Thiosulfate, which is used in fish tanks to remove any Chlorine from the water to keep from killing someone's goldfish and such. You can buy it at most pet supply stores.

But again, all that's about Chlorine and not Fluoride.

a reply to: superman2012

And a youtube video told you this? I forgot, it was on the Internet so it has to be true.how about a good 'ol fashion ats vote. It's kind of funny you are the only one still defending this and your buddy's left you hanging .

originally posted by: SkipperJohn
a reply to: superman2012

And a youtube video told you this? I forgot, it was on the Internet so it has to be true.how about a good 'ol fashion ats vote. It's kind of funny you are the only one still defending this and your buddy's left you hanging .

Youtube video showed me what? What I already know? Go check out my thread linked in the first page (I believe) read through it and do some independent research. Be open to other possibilities and you will see the lies. I have yet to see anything claimed by science and research on the pro side be shown as false...

originally posted by: Trihalo42
a reply to: superman2012

"I have little patience for lies". That's just being overly judgmental, as the things I listed in my original post were about Fluoride concentrations and reports of a "soapy taste", my personal opinion on wasted tax dollars,... and claiming that showing PPM in graph form is me trying to create "fear" is just silly..., and I said that the study about SHBG and free T levels didn't directly relate to tap water, but they did have some relevance as the key chemical in question was Fluoride.

Fluoride has been officially declared to have an effect on endocrine systems. same as quite a few other chemicals we consume regularly.

But my first point about taste was focused on DOSE and Toxic Levels. In the report on pesticides, and the study, it was at a TOXIC level of Fluoride exposure that people began to experience a "soapy taste". My overall point being that over consumption of Fluoride containing products can have a cumulative effect. One of the symptoms thereof being a "soapy taste".

Overly judgemental or just a plain old mistake on my part. I was wrong when I thought you were claiming that for water treatment, rather than using it on treated water when it is going to waste...that is on me and I apologize for that. I grow very tired of the same old lies being told by the anti-fluoride groups in hopes that they can make people afraid and join their growing group built on lies and bad science.
I am sorry that I lumped you in that group as well.
You are correct when saying that the studies have nothing to do with tap water, but wouldn't you agree that someone less educated than you would make that association? I mean, people have made the claim that fluoride causes heart disease based on a study. What they failed to read was that the "fluoride" was injected into the veins for a medical procedure.
Edit:
Speaking of crazy claims based on an internet meme...*looks down

Drinking fluoride for your teeth is like drinking sunscreen for your skin.