Oops, I guess the foil wearers were right...

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Am I missing something?

Yep, the outer layer of your teeth

a reply to: Son of Will

Where are these 150 peer reviewed articles? And at what dosage are they talking about? High doses of anything is harmful. Low dosage of fluoride is not.

a reply to: VoidHawk

If you get it on your skin you wont know anything for about 12 hours, then it starts eating your bones!

That's interesting. It penetrates skin and other tissues and does nothing until it reaches bone. Oh wait, that's not true, is it?

Even small splashes of high-concentration hydrogen fluoride products on the skin can be fatal. Skin contact with hydrogen fluoride may not cause immediate pain or visible skin damage(signs of exposure).

Often, patients exposed to low concentrations of hydrogen fluoride on the skin do not show effects or experience pain immediately. And, severe pain at the exposure site may be the only symptom for several hours. Visible damage may not appear until 12 to 24 hours after the exposure.

Depending on the concentration of the chemical and the length of time of exposure, skin contact with hydrogen fluoride may cause severe pain at the point of contact; a rash; and deep, slow-healing burns. Severe pain can occur even if no burns can be seen.

www.bt.cdc.gov...

So yes, high concentrations are very dangerous. But the concentration used in dentistry (to help bonding of ceramic restorations, not as a treatment) are low. Even so, a gel is used in order to keep the application localized.

In this author’s opinion, while other alternatives do exist, they are less predictable, especially over the long term, when compared to HF-etched porcelain. Numerous in vitro studies clearly demonstrate that etching feldspathic-based porcelain with HF has the potential to significantly increase its bond strength to composite
resin.10-16 Dental porcelain generally consists of an amorphous glassy phase or matrix and a crystalline phase. Treating porcelain with HF tends to selectively dissolve the glassy matrix, resulting in a microscopically porous, high-energy, and microretentive surface12,17,18 (Figure 1).

www.drgaryalex.com...(final).pdf

That jelly was an acid!

No. It wasn't. Teeth are not routinely treated with hydroflouric acid.

So, was the person you were replying to having crowns worked on? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds more like something like this:
www.leeds.ac.uk...
But not in general use yet. Perhaps the person misunderstood his dentist. Perhaps it was nothing but a typical whitening gel (bleach). Whatever it was, it wasn't hydorflouric acid.

a reply to: Phage

Are "hydrogen fluoride" and Hydrofluoric acid the exact same thing?

Did you watch the vid I posted? They used it to etch away layers of the chip!

a reply to: Phage

Also!
I said

If you get it on your skin you wont know anything for about 12 hours, then it starts eating your bones!

You followed that with

Oh wait, that's not true, is it?

and posted this

Often, patients exposed to low concentrations of hydrogen fluoride on the skin do not show effects or experience pain immediately. And, severe pain at the exposure site may be the only symptom for several hours. Visible damage may not appear until 12 to 24 hours after the exposure.

So what part isn't true? Is it because your source used the word "maybe" ?

a reply to: VoidHawk

Are "hydrogen fluoride" and Hydrofluoric acid the exact same thing?

When hydrogen flouride (a gas) is dissolved in water it is hydroflouric acid, so yes.

The chemical formula of hydrofluoric acid is HF.

chemistry.about.com...

Did you watch the vid I posted? They used it to etch away layers of the chip!

Yes. I know. Just as it is used to etch ceramic dental work. It is not used as any sort of dental treatment. It is used to help adhesives bond caps (crowns) to teeth.

This topic is really fun to me.

For the lovers of mass medication and the believers that fluoride is the answer to tooth decay. Question:

Roughly 1940 is when the topic is first brought up by the aluminum manufacturers.

The idea of placing a highly toxic substance into the water would NEVER be something anyone, at any level, would do lightly. I would assume that there were numerous studies, published and peer reviewed, done by those without any vested interested. Considering the process was going to be dumping medicine without regard to who needs it or who doesn't, I would think those who had this idea of saving the world from tooth decay would study even harder, deeper and more long term before even suggesting the idea - right?

Go find them? Assuming one would need three to five years to determine the efficacy of mass medication with a highly toxic substance we can safely assume the studies date prior to 1940 and should be easily found. Find them for me.

Studies done AFTER the water was tainted do not count, as to "assume" the stuff would curb the horrifying plight of tooth decay to just try it is insane. The science guys on this site and others cry about how science is there for us - find the science done prior to the dumping suggestion. It is much easier to find the text of meeting describing the problems with getting rid of the waste.

Lastly. Soup, beer, juice, pasta, medicines, shower water, steamers, steam baths, humidifiers all add to your fluoride consumption. Everything with water in it probably has fluoride. Is vaporized fluoride in a steam bath good for your teeth?

To the science guys, while the dubious pre-1940's testing was done with swallowing water in small does averaging the human consumption of water, which at the time was probably a wee bit less, I assume they were none done with it in everything else. Right, tests were done considering every starbucks cup of coffee has fluoride in it, place your daily teeth brushing, plus your daily shower, plus your daily water, plus your daily soup. Dosage after dosage after dosage to save the world for tooth decay.

Lastly, Prozac is a fluoride derivative - interesting connection.

Raised on non-fluoridated well water and I don't have many health problems at all. But that's just me. I don't use fluoridated toothpaste though I'm certain that between food and other products somehow I'm being dosed with fluoride.

a reply to: crankyoldman

Roughly 1940 is when the topic is first brought up by the aluminum manufacturers.

Why? Flouride is used in small amounts to refine aluminum (and reused). Why would aluminum manufacturers have anything to do with artificial fluoridation of drinking water? Oh, you've bought into the lie that fluoride is a "waste product" of aluminum production . It isn't.

For each tonne of aluminum produced, the smelting process consumes, in addition to electrical energy, about 1.95 tonnes of alumina, 0.5 tonnes of anode coke, and small amounts of fluoride salts.

The small amount of fluoride is captured and recycled, used over and over again.

Since emissions of fluorine compounds, either as gases or dust, can harm the environment, these fumes are collected by hoods over modern cells. In a process called dry scrubbing, the fluorides bind to sandy alumina during intensive mixing. This fluoride-loaded alumina then goes to dust separators and to electrostatic dust filters, and finally back to the potline as feed material.

www.tms.org...

The idea of placing a highly toxic substance into the water would NEVER be something anyone, at any level, would do lightly. I would assume that there were numerous studies, published and peer reviewed, done by those without any vested interested.

Fluoride is not highly toxic. It is only at high concentrations that it can be hazardous. At lower concentrations it can be problematic with prolonged exposure (that's what the article in the OP is about, relatively high levels of natural fluoridation). It was suggested that fluoride would be an effective means of preventing tooth decay when it was found that in areas with natural fluoridation decay rates were lower. It was also found that high levels of natural fluoridation could cause fluorosis,

Studies done AFTER the water was tainted do not count, as to "assume" the stuff would curb the horrifying plight of tooth decay to just try it is insane.

What? Studies which show that artificial fluoridation is effective "don't count?" Why not?

Lastly, Prozac is a fluoride derivative - interesting connection.

A derivative? You mean because it contains the element fluoride it's a "derivative"? You think that because a chemical compound contains a particular element, that the effects are similar? You know that Prozac contains an organic compound of fluoride, right? You think that an inorganic compound would have the same effects?

Well, I am glad that I have well water and don't have to drink the city water around here. When I go to the store in town, most people are buying bottled water, saying the water really sucks there. They are not using the high priced water for anything but showering and the toilet.

It appears that there could be twenty five percent of the people doing that in the town. I know a lot of people there and most drink bottled water and some are even using bottled water to make their coffee and in cooking.

Now, you can't blame all of this on fluoride, but you can blame it on the city water system. They just dump more chemicals in to cover the smell and taste of the tannins in the water. Harmless tannins they say. I wasn't aware that they could be harmless in city water and not drinkable if they were in your well water.

a reply to: Phage


I was getting a "cleaning" done. She used a mini die grinder air tool and ground off all the "plaque" from my teeth. Then she applied the low concentrate acid death jelly to my teeth with no method and for no determined amount of time.
She said it would "restore" the enamel.

Do I have enamel now?

a reply to: Nechash

I was raised on well water for 18 years. Not one cavity in all those years. Two years living in Chicago and I had 4 cavities. Yes, I did brush my teeth. I came from a dentist family.

don't drink milk, don't eat sugar, don't eat bread.....and your teeth will be healthy regardless.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Then she applied the low concentrate acid death jelly to my teeth with no method and for no determined amount of time.

"Acid death jelly " is not applied to teeth for any reason. It is applied to ceramic dental reconstructions (crowns) so that the adhesive can bind to them.

The bonding of porcelain to the tooth surfaces is a multi-stage technique. It requires a variety of different reagents to optimize the bond to the porcelain and tooth. The internal surfaces of all the porcelain veneers were etched in the laboratory with hydrofluoric acid.

www.dentalaegis.com...

The hydrofluoric acid (HF) attacks the glassy phase of the ceramic material, dissolving the surface and exposing the silicate crystals in the matrix, while the silane coupling agents provide a chemical covalent bonding between the silica in the ceramic matrix20-22 and copolymerizes with the methacrylate groups through siloxane bonds.26,27 The authors' recommend acid-etching with 4% to 9.8% HF to create surface roughness and the application time depends on the crystalline content of the specific ceramic substrate.

www.dentistrytoday.info...

She said it would "restore" the enamel.

Ok, but did she say it was acid? Applying acid to restore enamel doesn't really make any sense, does it, since it's pretty common knowledge that acid dissolves it. Perhaps your treatment was with a fluoride veneer, not acid. That would make a bit more sense. You really didn't bother to find out something about what your dentist was going to do before she did it?

Do I have enamel now?

I don't know, but yes, you probably do. If not, you would be in a world of pain.
bioweb.uwlax.edu...

a reply to: VoidHawk

So what part isn't true? Is it because your source used the word "maybe" ?

The part about not knowing about it until it starts "eating your bones." If you got enough on you, at a high enough concentration to "eat your bones", you would know it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VoidHawk

So what part isn't true? Is it because your source used the word "maybe" ?

The part about not knowing about it until it starts "eating your bones." If you got enough on you, at a high enough concentration to "eat your bones", you would know it.

"If you got enough on you, at a high enough concentration"
Not really fair to suggest I was telling porkies.

In the vid they showed pictures of people who'd been in contact with it. Also talked about how the the medics would deal with it. Nasty stuff!

a reply to: VoidHawk

Not really fair to suggest I was telling porkies.

Here is what you said:

If you get it on your skin you wont know anything for about 12 hours, then it starts eating your bones!

Right, it burns through you skin and flesh to "eat your bones" and you wouln't know about it. Sure.

Yes, you may not know "immediately" that you got exposed. But you would know soon enough.

And, severe pain at the exposure site may be the only symptom for several hours. Visible damage may not appear until 12 to 24 hours after the exposure.

Nasty stuff!

Obviously. But it won't stealthily burn through skin and flesh to "eat your bones" and it is not used as a dental treatment.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VoidHawk

Not really fair to suggest I was telling porkies.

Here is what you said:

If you get it on your skin you wont know anything for about 12 hours, then it starts eating your bones!

Right, it burns through you skin and flesh to "eat your bones" and you wouln't know about it. Sure.

Yes, you may not know "immediately" that you got exposed. But you would know soon enough.

And, severe pain at the exposure site may be the only symptom for several hours. Visible damage may not appear until 12 to 24 hours after the exposure.

Nasty stuff!

Obviously. But it won't stealthily burn through skin and flesh to "eat your bones" and it is not used as a dental treatment.

I've just listened again to what they say in the vid
Quote
"Depending on the concentration, if you get it on you, you wont notice for 24 hours"
They then talk about it eating your bones.
They show a picture of someones hand and a finger thats had the bone dissolved, the finger is all wrinkled because it has no bone to keep its shape, but I can see some skin damage. Whether that skin damage would happen before the bone damage? I'll have to take your word for it. But having seen the picture of a finger with its skin still there but no bone!! well, it does seem it does more damage to the bone than the skin.

a reply to: VoidHawk

I've just listened again to what they say in the vid

A computer nerd. Not a disparagement, btw.

well, it does seem it does more damage to the bone than the skin.

Which damage happened first? Was it not painful? For hours?

But again, the point is, it is not a dental treatment. It is used on ceramic reconstructive pieces (crowns) before being placed in the mouth (or on existing dental work which needs to be repaired), in order to improve bonding. You fed Malbosia a bum steer.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Not really, I had my first cavity about 2 years after switching to city water.