Fluoride in drinking water.

reply to post by PtolemyII


You failed to prove that it is toxic in the little concentration that the MAC is. If they wanted to really poison people using fluoride, why would they take it out of raw water when the MAC is too high? For that matter, why even have a MAC? I understand the knee jerk reaction to something you don't understand when it sounds scary (I've done it too) but know when to give up.

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Philippines

 

It was just an analogous comparison, it wasn't meant to be a direct correlation between the two.

I understand, thanks for your participation =)

What I question is what else is in the tap water besides fluoride? Perhaps it is the distraction?

It would have to be quite the coordinated conspiracy. You would have to fool the operators of the treatment plant, or have a chemical company along with many people in on it to package, make, distribute, etc. I work in a water plant. I can assure you that nothing nefarious goes on there as the regulations are quite stringent.

I'm not so sure about that. And I don't think there is anyone involved at the treatment plants that can do anything about it. Since you let me know where you work, can you get a photo of the MSDS on the bag of fluoride used for treatment please? =D

One of my friends told me about the prevalence of antibiotics, hormones, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the water treatment plants and wherever its final destination may be after that. Can current water treatment technology filter out those things listed above? I am researching more, but here is a start of the issue, I'm finding science papers as well, they do exist.

AP: 41 Million Americans Drink Water Contaminated With Antibiotics, Anti-Convulsants, Mood Stabilizers, And Sex Hormones

weird...been drinking tap water all my life, nothing wrong with me. I have had a couple of friends though who get wierded when I bust out a glass and fill it up with TAP, they say "OMG!!!11 you drinkn faucet water?? then they go an grab a bottled water."

reply to post by Philippines


Sorry I can't, we don't add fluoride.

When I am in a water plant that does though, I will take a pic of the packaging for you. It might be a couple of months though so you will have to be patient.

One of my friends told me about the prevalence of antibiotics, hormones, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the water treatment plants and wherever its final destination may be after that. Can current water treatment technology filter out those things listed above? I am researching more, but here is a start of the issue, I'm finding science papers as well, they do exist.

In small quantities in the raw water? Or after treatment? What kind of treatment plant is allowing these through? Just a greensand, sand, cartridge, or a membrane system? There are many variants to these listed as well. What is the MAC for the area and are they taking everything out?

For example:

My treatment plant is an RO plant.
In the water after it has gone through a membrane, there is

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Philippines

 

Sorry I can't, we don't add fluoride.

When I am in a water plant that does though, I will take a pic of the packaging for you. It might be a couple of months though so you will have to be patient.

One of my friends told me about the prevalence of antibiotics, hormones, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the water treatment plants and wherever its final destination may be after that. Can current water treatment technology filter out those things listed above? I am researching more, but here is a start of the issue, I'm finding science papers as well, they do exist.

In small quantities in the raw water? Or after treatment? What kind of treatment plant is allowing these through? Just a greensand, sand, cartridge, or a membrane system? There are many variants to these listed as well. What is the MAC for the area and are they taking everything out?

For example:

My treatment plant is an RO plant.
In the water after it has gone through a membrane, there is

reply to post by Philippines

So to get this straight, your regions water source is from an aquifer below a river. It sounds natural, and perhaps the natural filtration process from the river to the aquifer removes a lot of contaminants.

No, it is a river below ground. Hatfield Valley Aquifer

If people consume a lot of pharmaceuticals like antibiotics, hormones, and other pharma chemicals, and then it leaves their systems in the toilet - where does that waste water end up? Back in your treatment plant?

In our case, it goes to a sewage station. All the sewer pipes connect to a central location which is pipe out to a lagoon. This is a large pond like area that the sewage goes to, to be eaten by microbes in the first stage. after settling there and decomposing it then goes to a second stage where more of the same happens. Then it goes to a third stage and sits there until spring and fall when it is released back into the environment. We test upstream of the lagoon release point, at the lagoon release point, and downstream of the release point. All the testing goes to a third party lab where the results are sent to the Ministry of Environment officer of the area(we can only release on his/her say so) and then the results are sent back to us. To aid in the breakdown of the "waste", an enzyme is released, kind of like a living bacteria (like yogurt, gross) that will eat the waste. All elements added to the waster treatment process must be natural or able to be broken down naturally.

Does the treatment plant where you work analyze for antibiotics, hormones, and other chemicals in the water? If so, can it treat that water through reverse osmosis, or do those substances stay in the water?

No we do not analyze for antibiotics, or hormones specifically, but there is a wide range of expensive and thorough tests that we must do according to our permit to operate. A full list of them would take quite some time to type out:
everything from Boron to Selenium to Fluoride to Iron, pH, Nitrates, Sulfates, etc.

RO Membranes from the EPA:

“Reverse osmosis has been identified by EPA as a “best available technology” (BAT) and Small System Compliance Technology (SSCT) for uranium, radium, gross alpha, and beta particles and photon emitters. It can remove up to 99 percent of these radionuclides, as well as many other contaminants (e.g., arsenic, nitrate, and microbial contaminants). Reverse osmosis units can be automated and compact making them appropriate for small systems.

Link

There's a lot I don't understand here, but thanks for your time and subject matter experience on this

There's a lot I still don't understand about it as well, but, I will always be learning about this as they come up with new tech and better testing. Thanks!

the "fluoride" they put into the drinking water is not solely fluoride. It is hydrofluorosilic acid, a by product of phosphate mining. It costs more for companies such as Cargill to dispose of it safely than to sell it, as it is hazardous. At small portions, the standard 1 part-per-million, it does not create immediate health results. But it also does not digest through the system, as it sticks to the bones, teeth, etc. But this stuff does have the ability to dissolve concrete. You can look up the studies, bones with a higher availability to this hydofulorosilic acid, or "fluoride" does result in higher bone mass, but decrease in bone density. Fat kids can attest that they truly are big boned, but having a huge oak tree in mass, but is rotting throughout, does not mean it is healthy.

Is it not a wonder why we are the only large, influential country that continues to fluoridate our water? While all others have banned it? Business is more important than health here. if it can be sold for profit, at the risk of health, that will be picked over disposing it in a fashion that is more expensive.

I mean FFS, it has a skull and crossbones on the label of the package!

Originally posted by Tenacious8
I mean FFS, it has a skull and crossbones on the label of the package!

So does bleach and that is a lower concentration then what is put in your drinking water...what's your point?

I think I'm starting to understand why people fear this, they don't understand it.

The belief that fluoridation began as a “communist plot” was pervasive throughout much of the early far-right opposition to fluoridation. This should not surprise many who are familiar with the Red Scare of the ‘forties and ‘fifties; when fears of communist infiltration where rampant. In The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America’s Longest Running Political Melodrama, authors R. Allan Freeze and Jay H. Lehr make the following observation:

“One can also identify a historical time line associated with these objections, wherein each issue mirrors the tenor of its times. In the 1950s, wary citizens worried about communist plots. The 1960s saw a growth in concern over military–industrial conspiracies. The 1970s placed fluoridation in an environmental context. The issues of the 1980s and 1990s reflected societal obsessions with personal health, beauty, and aging. Even the diseases targeted by anti-fluoridation forces reflect the fears of the day, as early concerns over Down’s syndrome gave way to anxiety over heart disease, then cancer, and now AIDS.”

However, while new conspiracy theories and arguments have popped up over the decades, this belief still persists to some extent in the echo-chambers of the online anti-fluoridation community. Yet, this belief is little more than a myth based on the flimsiest of evidence. Even Paul Connett, who heads up the Fluoride Action Network, a major anti-fluoridation organization, and co-author of The Case Against Fluoride, has said,

“The historical evidence for this assertion is extremely weak. It is sad that the U.S. media has done such a bad job of educating the public on this issue that it is so easy for crazy ideas to fill the vacuum.”

Link

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by Tenacious8
I mean FFS, it has a skull and crossbones on the label of the package!

So does bleach and that is a lower concentration then what is put in your drinking water...what's your point?

Really, you're going to use bleach as an example in this topic? Haha I was expecting a chlorine example as it would make more sense. Anyways haha

My point is:

Go to your hometown website for the water treatment plant. Look up the reason for fluoridating the water supply. It will say something along the lines of, "to protect children's teeth from decay." Now how would a chemical with a skull and crossbones be needed so badly to protect children's teeth? Is there a direct bacteria of sorts coming from the water supply that will rot everyone's teeth?? If so, fluoride would not be the chemical that would kill the bacteria, chlorine would be better. You can look at it however you want, but you are being given "fluoride" even of you want it or not. Research the effects of too much fluoride. Something so excessive like this that sticks to your bones and does not digest is not good. Provide me a better example rather than presenting a chemical that sounds toxic, like the consumption of bleach, with another the pertains to the topic of fluoride and the amount that will persist in your body.

Originally posted by Tenacious8
I mean FFS, it has a skull and crossbones on the label of the package!

Salt is toxic, yet people eat it every day.

Originally posted by Tenacious8

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by Tenacious8
I mean FFS, it has a skull and crossbones on the label of the package!

So does bleach and that is a lower concentration then what is put in your drinking water...what's your point?

Really, you're going to use bleach as an example in this topic? Haha I was expecting a chlorine example as it would make more sense. Anyways haha

My point is:

Go to your hometown website for the water treatment plant. Look up the reason for fluoridating the water supply. It will say something along the lines of, "to protect children's teeth from decay." Now how would a chemical with a skull and crossbones be needed so badly to protect children's teeth? Is there a direct bacteria of sorts coming from the water supply that will rot everyone's teeth?? If so, fluoride would not be the chemical that would kill the bacteria, chlorine would be better. You can look at it however you want, but you are being given "fluoride" even of you want it or not. Research the effects of too much fluoride. Something so excessive like this that sticks to your bones and does not digest is not good. Provide me a better example rather than presenting a chemical that sounds toxic, like the consumption of bleach, with another the pertains to the topic of fluoride and the amount that will persist in your body.

Yes bleach:

Chlorine is the basis for the most commonly used bleaches, for example, the solution of sodium hypochlorite, which is so ubiquitous that many people just call it "bleach", and calcium hypochlorite, the major compound in "bleaching powder".

What do you think the "chlorine" is that we use to disinfect the water? Sodium Hypochlorite either a 12% or 16% solution. Calcium hypochlorite is used to shock pools or used to clean an open air anthracite coal filter.

I go to my local water plant everyday. I work there. You obviously know nothing about how sodium hypochlorite works or how tooth decay works.

Now that we have you caught up, does my example now make sense to you?

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by Tenacious8
I mean FFS, it has a skull and crossbones on the label of the package!

Salt is toxic, yet people eat it every day.

Salt is toxic? You can suffer from salt deficiency, which is why people eat it every day, not to mention how boring food would be without salt.

I can't say I season my food with fluoride ever

reply to post by Philippines

I can't say I season my food with fluoride ever

Wouldn't hurt you if you did. Unless you overdid it, of course.

Sodium Chloride:

Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans:
Causes adverse reproductive effects in humans (fetotoxicity, abortion, ) by intraplacental route. High intake of sodium chloride, whether from occupational exposure or in the diet, may increase risk of TOXEMIA OF PREGNANCY in susceptible women (Bishop, 1978). Hypertonic sodium chloride solutions have been used to induce abortion in late pregnancy by direct infusion into the uterus (Brown et al, 1972), but this route of administration is not relevant to occupational exposures. May cause adverse reproductive effects and birth defects in animals, particularly rats and mice (fetotoxicity, abortion, musculoskeletal abnormalities, and maternal effects (effects on ovaries, fallopian tubes) by oral, intraperitoneal, intraplacental, intrauterine,
parenteral, and subcutaneous routes. While sodium chloride has been used as a negative control n some reproductive studies, it has also been used as an example that almost any chemical can cause birth defects in experimental animals if studied under the right conditions (Nishimura & Miyamoto, 1969). In experimental animals, sodium chloride has caused delayed effects on newborns, has been fetotoxic, and has caused birth defects and abortions in rats and mice (RTECS, 1997). May affect genetic material (mutagenic)
Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans:
Acute Potential Health Effects: Skin: May cause skin irritation. Eyes: Causes eye irritation. Ingestion: Ingestion of large quantities can irritate the stomach (as in overuse of salt tablets) with nausea and vomiting. May affect behavior (muscle spasicity/contraction, somnolence), sense organs, metabolism, and cardiovascular system. Continued exposure may produce dehydration, internal organ congestion, and coma. Inhalation: Material is irritating to mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract.

www.sciencelab.com...
Too much of anything is a bad idea. Salt. Fluoride. Chlorine. Even water.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by Tenacious8
I mean FFS, it has a skull and crossbones on the label of the package!

Salt is toxic, yet people eat it every day.

Salt is toxic?

Yep. You didn't know this? Google 'salt poisoning' some time.

You can suffer from salt deficiency, which is why people eat it every day, not to mention how boring food would be without salt.

Nevertheless, it can kill you because it's toxic.

I can't say I season my food with fluoride ever

Of course not. Fluoride isn't a condiment; it's also tasteless and odourless, so why would you season your food wth it? That makes no sense at all.

Ok, of course anything in too much is not good.

Try going a month without any salt (sodium fluoride), and try going a month without fluoride like the kind in toothpaste and water.

Does the human body need salt to survive? Does the human body need fluoride to survive?

I can (and did earlier in the thread) look at the MSDS of both. Which looks more dangerous on the MSDS? The human body is resilient to many substances and moderation is key, but people don't season your food with fluoride like you would table salt, the analogy doesn't make sense.

reply to post by Philippines

Does the human body need fluoride to survive?

No. But it does help teeth stay healthy and unhealthy teeth can be a real problem. So why should a municipality care about people's teeth? Why should they care about heart attacks and strokes? Why should they care about smoking and it's effects? The reason is because health issues affect the entire community.

The human body is resilient to many substances and moderation is key, but people don't season your food with fluoride like you would table salt, the analogy doesn't make sense.

It isn't an analogy. It's a way of pointing out that there are many things which humans are exposed to (including natural flouride) which can be harmful in sufficient concentrations and harmless at low concentrations.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

Does the human body need fluoride to survive?

No. But it does help teeth stay healthy and unhealthy teeth can be a real problem. So why should a municipality care about people's teeth? Why should they care about heart attacks and strokes? Why should they care about smoking and it's effects? The reason is because health issues affect the entire community.

The human body is resilient to many substances and moderation is key, but people don't season your food with fluoride like you would table salt, the analogy doesn't make sense.

It isn't an analogy. It's a way of pointing out that there are many things which humans are exposed to (including natural flouride) which can be harmful in sufficient concentrations and harmless at low concentrations.

edit on 6/11/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

So if fluoride is in most commonly bought toothpaste, why the need to fluoridate water? People don't need to ingest it to survive

reply to post by Philippines

So if fluoride is in most commonly bought toothpaste, why the need to fluoridate water?

Because not everyone takes good care of their teeth (especially children). It has been shown that in areas with fluoridated water, decay rates decline. It works and it does no harm.

The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27% (95%CI: 19%–34%). These findings suggest that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages.

jdr.sagepub.com...

Comparisons of communities where water is fluoridated and communities where water remains unfluoridated show a reduced prevalence of dental caries in the range of 18-40 % when fluoridation is used (4). A recent study established the rate of caries reduction at 25 % (23). It is postulated that this estimate is more conservative than those reported in the past because the general population now enjoys the benefits of fluoride from other sources,
such as fluoride-enriched toothpaste and vitamin supplements.

www.inspq.qc.ca...

People don't need to ingest it to survive

Right. You don't need two legs to survive either. People can survive heart attack and stroke too. It is a public health concern. Unhealthy teeth are a public health concern. Tooth decay can have serious health consequences. Will you die without fluoride? Not as a direct result of it, no. But abscesses and jaw infections can be quite...troublesome.
www.nlm.nih.gov...