Fluoride - do you trust the scientists?

riven wrote:

Flouride was added to water but its benifits have never been proven.

That's putting it very mildly. Fluoride's toxicity has been known for a long time, but the medical establishment of the western world is in denial about it. It's the most mind-boggling case of abdication of responsibility.

A few individuals are standing up for the truth. One is Ireland's most highly qualified toxicologist, Prof Vyvyan Howard from the University of Ulster, Coleraine. He gives his views in this video:
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=JqMmoQgnXnA

Quote :

In its elementally isolated (pure) form, fluorine is a poisonous, pale, yellowish brown gas, with chemical formula F2. Like other halogens, molecular fluorine is highly dangerous; it causes severe chemical burns on contact with skin.

Quote :

Fluorides are compounds that combine fluorine with some positively charged counterpart. They often consist of crystalline ionic salts. Fluorine compounds with metals are among the most stable of salts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flourine

So which compounds are we drinking? Flouride is a salt then?

Problem is that all the negatives are so ineffable. I entirely respect soubresauts opinions on this, and we've discussed it at length on the CLR

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/this-loony-issue-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-fluoridation-and-the-irish-greens/

but I just can't help feeling that it's not much of an issue in the greater scheme of things. Yes, it may cause some small damage. Yes, the beneficial aspects may be over-rated, although compare and contrast the situation between the South and the North for an example of what an unfluoridated system results in, but it's been in operation so long and the negatives just don't seem great enough to outweigh a marginal positive benefit. I think cactus flowers point about antibiotics gets to the heart of this. If we were starting out again I doubt fluoride would be used again...

One small thought. That got 79 responses at a time when the CLR had many many fewer visitors than today whereas other issues of perhaps greater daily impact might sometimes get a few dozen max, and sometimes few or none.

Yes but you could also argue that oxygen is toxic and we should not breath it. Forget about toxicity that is not the point. The stuff has never been proven to have a benifit.

A9. sodium hexafluorosilicate is what is used, handy biproduct from strip mining metal recovery (no joke). In water it will dissociate.

riven wrote:

Yes but you could also argue that oxygen is toxic and we should not breath it. Forget about toxicity that is not the point. The stuff has never been proven to have a benifit.

Oxygen?? Oh please. When you know about the toxicity of fluoride, it's hard to forget about it. In the Republic of Ireland anyway.

Quote :

A9. sodium hexafluorosilicate is what is used, handy biproduct from strip mining metal recovery (no joke). In water it will dissociate.

It's not exactly sodium hexafluorosilicate they use; it's the chemically similar hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6), aka hexafluorosilicic acid. Most of it dissociates in water (giving fluoride ions, etc.), though not 100% (yet another point on which the fluoride lobby is lying). Anyway, you don't want it in your water; it's just about the most dangerous chemical known to science.

WorldbyStorm wrote:

Problem is that all the negatives are so ineffable.

You amaze me sometimes, WbS. Your dismissive attitude makes no sense. The negatives of fluoridation have been known for a long time, especially since Danish medical researcher Kaj Roholm wrote the bible on fluoride toxicology in the late 1930s.

Some of the negatives are listed here:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

I could give you 50 more...

Quote :

I entirely respect soubresauts opinions on this, and we've discussed it at length on the CLR,
but I just can't help feeling that it's not much of an issue in the greater scheme of things.

Perhaps... if you could leave your feelings out of it, and look at the facts...

Quote :

Yes, it may cause some small damage.

Yes, if it's the very young, the very old, those with fluoride allergy or sensitivity, those with kidney disease, thyroid problems, etc., that suffer the damage, it's really only small damage, in the greater scheme of things.

Quote :

Yes, the beneficial aspects may be over-rated, although compare and contrast the situation between the South and the North for an example of what an unfluoridated system results in...

Do you see a big difference between South and North? Do tell us, or point us to the evidence...

Quote :

... but it's been in operation so long and the negatives just don't seem great enough to outweigh a marginal positive benefit.

What do you know about the "marginal positive benefit"?

Quote :

I think cactus flowers point about antibiotics gets to the heart of this. If we were starting out again I doubt fluoride would be used again...

And you don't want to start out again? You don't want to improve things?

The less of anything added to water the better. In my area, aluminium is added by the barrelload to improve its bright and sparkling appearance and due to dodgy equipment, shaky hands or a sticky calculator, the levels are often many times higher than the proper dose. This may solve our fluoride problem as well: we will all be too demented to worry about it.

cactus flower wrote:

The less of anything added to water the better. In my area, aluminium is added by the barrelload to improve its bright and sparkling appearance and due to dodgy equipment, shaky hands or a sticky calculator, the levels are often many times higher than the proper dose. This may solve our fluoride problem as well: we will all be too demented to worry about it.

It kinda worries me that there's stuff in water I'm not sure should be there. My teeth will be ok - there are good cheap dentists now in Hungary, the UK and Claregalway.

Does a Britta® filter unit take out the flouride does anyone know? And if damage has already been done to me mentally am I too late?

cactus flower wrote:

In my area, aluminium is added by the barrelload to improve its bright and sparkling appearance and due to dodgy equipment, shaky hands or a sticky calculator, the levels are often many times higher than the proper dose.

Flocculation treatment of water with aluminium sulphate may remove some impurities from the water, but there are better ways of doing that. Anyway, it's done primarily for the sake of industries that want crystal-clear water, and not for people's health. It does of course leave nasty aluminium compounds in the water.

And then there is the combination of aluminium and fluoride... very worrying indeed. See, for example:
http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html
http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/AL/AL.htm
http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Dental/Fluoride/fluoride12.htm with notes here:
http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Dental/Fluoride/fluoride_Endnotes.htm

Auditor #9 wrote:

Does a Britta® filter unit take out the flouride does anyone know? And if damage has already been done to me mentally am I too late?

A Brita filter doesn't take out the fluoride. The F- ion is so small it passes through.

I'm not aware of any remedy for the brain damage, but it doesn't show, around here anyway.

Since fluoride is a cumulative poison, it would be a good idea to eliminate it as much as possible...

I only use water for cooking - I drink bottled water normally.

There's no way to get the stuff out of the water then? And really, has there been cases of people with severe brain damage from drinking flouride? What do they, gulp, end up like?

Auditor #9 wrote:

I only use water for cooking - I drink bottled water normally.

You can ingest a lot of fluoridated water from your food...

Note that all the big Irish breweries except Dundalk use fluoridated water. So your beer is probably fluoridated too.

Quote :

There's no way to get the stuff out of the water then?

You need a distillation machine or a reverse osmosis filter, both rather expensive.

Quote :

And really, has there been cases of people with severe brain damage from drinking flouride? What do they, gulp, end up like?

Fluoride affects us in all sorts of ways. Fluoride poisoning is usually misdiagnosed.

Read all about it:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/

There seems to be a strong lobby against it if you google and so on. Is there any chance of the lobby achieving its goal?

Are there many countries with notable stances against fluoride?

Auditor #9 wrote:

There seems to be a strong lobby against it if you google and so on. Is there any chance of the lobby achieving its goal?

It's really down to the politicians, since the medical profession has closed ranks (see no evil, etc... almost total silence). And you know what politicians are like. For example, our esteemed Minister for the Environment:
http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/greens_in_govt_would_stop_water_fluoridation

Quote :

Are there many countries with notable stances against fluoride?

Europe -- see:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm#appendix2

There is no fluoridation of water in Russia, China, India...

Without wanting to distract from fluoride, I am probably even more concerned about the aluminium. But perhaps that's the dementia setting in.

Quote :

The possibility that aluminum exposure might be an etiological factor in Alzheimer's disease (AD) was raised by Klatzo et al. (1965) and Terry and Pena (1965) on observing neurofibrillar degeneration in rabbits following exposure of the central nervous system to aluminum salts. Aluminum exposure has been linked for some time to other health effects, especially osteomalacia (OM) (Ward et al. 1978) and encephalopathy (Alfrey et al. 1976) in patients on dialysis or total parenteral nutrition (TPN) (Klein et al. 1982a,1982b). Several epidemiological studies have provided evidence with respect to a possible link between aluminum in drinking water and dementia (Anonymous 1992). Recently, the case has been made that the evidence is strong enough to indicate that a major reduction in aluminum exposure would significantly reduce the prevalence of AD and that public policy measures to achieve this end, including guidelines and standards for the reduction of aluminum in drinking water, should be undertaken (McLachlan et al. 199 lb). The justification was based on animal and human evidence of aluminum neurotoxicity, aluminum accumulation in AD-affected brains, epidemiological studies, and some evidence of slowed progression of AD when treating patients with chelating agents. Although the general topic of aluminum and health has been extensively reviewed (e.g., Gitelman 1989), a comprehensive review that does so within the context of aluminum in drinking water is not available.

http://www.portaec.net/local/aluminum_smelter/health_effects_of_aluminum.html

Adding it to water for mainly cosmetic reasons does not seem sensible.

soubresauts wrote:

riven wrote:

Yes but you could also argue that oxygen is toxic and we should not breath it. Forget about toxicity that is not the point. The stuff has never been proven to have a benifit.

Oxygen?? Oh please. When you know about the toxicity of fluoride, it's hard to forget about it. In the Republic of Ireland anyway.

Quote :

A9. sodium hexafluorosilicate is what is used, handy biproduct from strip mining metal recovery (no joke). In water it will dissociate.

It's not exactly sodium hexafluorosilicate they use; it's the chemically similar hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6), aka hexafluorosilicic acid. Most of it dissociates in water (giving fluoride ions, etc.), though not 100% (yet another point on which the fluoride lobby is lying). Anyway, you don't want it in your water; it's just about the most dangerous chemical known to science.

WorldbyStorm wrote:

Problem is that all the negatives are so ineffable.

You amaze me sometimes, WbS. Your dismissive attitude makes no sense. The negatives of fluoridation have been known for a long time, especially since Danish medical researcher Kaj Roholm wrote the bible on fluoride toxicology in the late 1930s.

Some of the negatives are listed here:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

I could give you 50 more...

Quote :

I entirely respect soubresauts opinions on this, and we've discussed it at length on the CLR,
but I just can't help feeling that it's not much of an issue in the greater scheme of things.

Perhaps... if you could leave your feelings out of it, and look at the facts...

Quote :

Yes, it may cause some small damage.

Yes, if it's the very young, the very old, those with fluoride allergy or sensitivity, those with kidney disease, thyroid problems, etc., that suffer the damage, it's really only small damage, in the greater scheme of things.

Quote :

Yes, the beneficial aspects may be over-rated, although compare and contrast the situation between the South and the North for an example of what an unfluoridated system results in...

Do you see a big difference between South and North? Do tell us, or point us to the evidence...

Quote :

... but it's been in operation so long and the negatives just don't seem great enough to outweigh a marginal positive benefit.

What do you know about the "marginal positive benefit"?

Quote :

I think cactus flowers point about antibiotics gets to the heart of this. If we were starting out again I doubt fluoride would be used again...

And you don't want to start out again? You don't want to improve things?

I amaze myself sometimes, but very rarely these days . Look, you and I, we've been around the reekin on this one. You raise serious points, but none that are conclusive. This year Scientific American covered the story in a manner very slightly sympathetic to the concerns you raise, but even they couldn't find clear evidence of the utterly malign effects that you propose above which leads me to think that either the risk is nominal or overstated. I'm not denying there is a risk, again as cactus flower says, adding stuff isn't great on principle. The only area that I find is entirely compelling is the libertarian one, and even there... I'll be honest I just think this is an issue of minor concern with very limited health impacts if at all. I wouldn't lose a moments sleep if fluoridation was stopped or continued.

And with in fairness I think I do know a bit about the area, not least because of your very persuasive lobbying on behalf of the issue which made me reconsider it.

WorldbyStorm wrote:

You raise serious points, but none that are conclusive.

When does it become conclusive? Medical science is never absolute.

I offer you 100 good reasons for stopping fluoridation. You haven't offered any good reasons for keeping it going.

You don't think there is a conclusive reason (for keeping it), do you? Do you think there is even one good reason for keeping it?

I know you "can't get exercised about it", but can you understand that many other people do get exercised about it? Can you conceive that the fluoridation law might be unconstitutional, and that it might be a violation of our human rights?

Surely, and the way is open in both cases for it to be dealt with. I wouldn't have a problem with that either.

As for a reason for fluoridation. Not to be glib, but less tooth decay which equals less pain. Pure and simple. The NI/RoI figures are pretty conclusive to me. I'm 42, I'm fortunate that I don't have any fear of dentistry although it's an unpleasant and uncomfortable experience. But anything that assists in minimising contact with dentistry is, in my book, a good thing. Again I'm not immune to issues relating to toxicity, I have a very young child myself and its something that I'd be naturally questioning of. But where's the evidence? It's been extant over 40 yrs in the RoI with zero evidence of negative effects and clear evidence of a good effect.

I understand the argument that goes people should look after their dental care for themselves, but I also understand the argument that parents shouldn't give in to peer pressure at Christmas in relation to children's gifts. Great in the abstract, somewhat less so in the concrete.

I'd also point out that I've entirely happily hosted posts at your behest re Fluoridation referendums, and would gladly do so again any time, so it's not that I'm antagonistic to your viewpoint, just not convinced of its malignity. And to be honest in all our discussions you've yet to provide any evidence that indicates that bar in limited cases of fluorosis (a cosmetic issue, and one which is less injurious than dental caries) there are any observable issue relating to mortality or chronic illness from the use of fluoridation in our water supplies.

As ever, on this topic we'll have to agree to disagree...

1. The benifits of Fl in water has not been proven so it should be stopped.
2. To remove Fl ions you will require a reverse osmosis unit. Using a distillation type strategy would be far too expensive.

cactus flower wrote:

Would you know who the current suppliers are, and the costs of fluoridisation annually?

The current supplier seems to be Chemifloc in Shannon, but you can't really be sure. The "health" authorities have switched suppliers at various times without informing the public. For most of the 44 years of Irish fluoridation, the fluoride used was untreated toxic waste from phosphate fertilizer factories.

I don't know the costs, and the fluoride is a relatively insignificant cost, even though 99.9% of it doesn't go to its target -- into the mouths of Irish children.

The true costs are immeasurable, and no one is measuring. Effectively, no one is responsible.

It's a bit like poverty in Ireland: no one cares, except for a small number of people whose voice is rarely heard.

And it's the poor who suffer most from fluoridation. They can't afford the dentistry they need, they can't afford bottled water, their bad diets mean they're affected much more by fluoride's toxicity, and so on.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering if WorldbyStorm can come up with any evidence (reports or science) to support his views... He obviously believes that fluoridation "works", but why does he believe it?

soubresauts wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Would you know who the current suppliers are, and the costs of fluoridisation annually?

The current supplier seems to be Chemifloc in Shannon, but you can't really be sure. The "health" authorities have switched suppliers at various times without informing the public. For most of the 44 years of Irish fluoridation, the fluoride used was untreated toxic waste from phosphate fertilizer factories.

I don't know the costs, and the fluoride is a relatively insignificant cost, even though 99.9% of it doesn't go to its target -- into the mouths of Irish children.

The true costs are immeasurable, and no one is measuring. Effectively, no one is responsible.

It's a bit like poverty in Ireland: no one cares, except for a small number of people whose voice is rarely heard.

And it's the poor who suffer most from fluoridation. They can't afford the dentistry they need, they can't afford bottled water, their bad diets mean they're affected much more by fluoride's toxicity, and so on.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering if WorldbyStorm can come up with any evidence (reports or science) to support his views... He obviously believes that fluoridation "works", but why does he believe it?

I passed a shiny new white tanker with "Aquafloc" on the side last week, heading north on the N8. It said non-toxic on the back. I wonder would this by my aluminium?

http://www.fps.net.au/resources/pdfs/msds/AQUACHLOR%20AQUAFLOC.pdf

Kathy Sinnott is right.

from Soubresauts' link above

Quote :

Toxic fluoride compounds are known to affect many other parts of the body including bones, teeth, thyroid as well as the developing brain. The excuse that it helps teeth should be questioned when nearly four in ten Irish teenagers have dental fluorosis -- permanent damage to the tooth enamel -- and this is three times that of their counterparts in unfluoridated Northern Ireland.

Have extreme tests and studies been done on animals using fluoride - giving them 100 times the dosage that we are consuming, just to see what the effects are?

Yes, all sorts of animal tests have been done. The results are simply ignored by the medical establishment.

To get an idea of what goes on, see the references to "animal" here:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

In Adare you get extra aluminium as well as fluoride, and it's alarming. The ignorance of Limerick County Council is mind-boggling. See this news release by environmental group Voice.

Quote :

The boil-water notice issued on 5th December 2008 by Limerick County Council to 2,000 people on the public water supply in Adare, Co Limerick is highly misleading, according to leading UK Forensic Ecologist, Doug Cross.

No, aluminium wouldn't be something you'd boil out of water I'd imagine. How did they know that it needed to be .. boiled i.e. how did they detect the aluminium in the first instance - routine tests or something ?

And who looks after these things - Councils or the EPA or a wider European body ?

Al is a metal (sorry ) so there are numerous ways of testing. You could test based on pH using other reactants or you could boil the water off though this will not distinguish Al but will show you all potential nasties.! there are more ways.