• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple fluoride question

Disbelief said:
Your whole argument hinges on fluoridation of the water causing numerous problems. You have yet to prove that the fluoride we get from water builds up to any type of toxic level and that we actually retain it. You have not shown what the average intake by water is. Now, if the normal person gets 2 ppm per day though water, yet gets 10 ppm (completely made up stats since WR is not backing a claim) per day through brushing their teeth, why are you going after the little fish? Campaigning against fluoride in toothpaste
would be more useful than going after fluoride in water.

As for "reaching", I am trying to better understand your reasoning. If you do not want to be asked questions, don't post on a public forum.
Click to expand...

Nobody is forcing people to eat their toothpaste.
 
Tomblvd said:
If you get into the "dueling studies" debate, it'll get you nowhere. Ironically, it is the fact that fluoride has been so intensely studied that gives them some shred of hope. Obviously there is no way every study is going to go the right way.

I've found that merely pointing out that a non-trivial amount of the water supply in the world is naturally fluoridated makes the most sense. People who like to tell you how dangerouse fluoride is find it almost incomprehensible that it is the 13th (?) most common element on the planet, and that people have been drinking it since the very beginning with no ill effects.
Click to expand...


Fluorine would be the element not fluoride. And lead and mercury are also common, lets put them in the water, oh..but in small amounts.

So you say the fact that study after study shows it is dangerous that gives us hope? Funny.

And there have been ill effects. Dental fluorosis, osteoporosis, and low IQ are all prevalent in Colorado and Texas, the areas with the most naturally occurring fluoride.

Just show me one study that shows ingesting is beneficial.
 
Wecome back WR,

I've noticed a couple of things about your posts and am curious.

You repeatedly say that ingested fluoride is unhealthy, but I can't find (maybe my google skills aren't quite up to it) anywhere where you explicitly say that topical fluoride promotes dental health.

I also note that your arguments have been clinical and financial. I don't see any claims of "mind control" or such.

So; for the record, do you believe that topical fluoride is "good?"

and, do you or do you not agree with the radical anti-fluoridationists who claim that fluoridiation is a knowingly and deliberately nefarious (as opposed to a negative consequence of a different motive - ie. 'I want to make money, and don't really care about the consequences')?

Depending on your answers, I may have a followup question.
 
Without Rights said:
Fluorine would be the element not fluoride. And lead and mercury are also common, lets put them in the water, oh..but in small amounts.
Click to expand...

When put into water fluorine dissociates into fluoride ions. That is simple chemistry.

And the point you keep ignoring is that fluoride, lead and mercury are all present in drinking water. And you cannot prove that fluoride at the proper levels is dangerous.


And there have been ill effects. Dental fluorosis, osteoporosis, and low IQ are all prevalent in Colorado and Texas, the areas with the most naturally occurring fluoride.
Click to expand...

Links please?

Just show me one study that shows ingesting is beneficial.
Click to expand...

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm

It's a meta analysis including hundreds of studies.
 
Tomblvd said:
What do you say to all those people who have naturally occurring fluoride in their water? There are many areas in the US, specifically western foothills and southeast, that have naturally high levels of fluoride. But these areas show no increase in disease or illness.
Click to expand...

To set the record straight on this matter, natural fluoride and the fluoride they put in the water is different.

Natural fluoride is called calcium fluoride and the other is called sodium fluoride.


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

"Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is analogous to BaSO4, where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_poisoning

"Sodium fluoride is classed as toxic by both inhalation (of dusts or aerosols) and ingestion.[8] In high enough doses, it has been shown to affect the heart and circulatory system, and the lethal dose for a 70 kg human is estimated at 5–10 g.[5]"
 
Edx said:
One question about flouride that bugs me is WHY its in the water at all? Whats the reason? Im sure Im missing something but surely its not some idea that they are somehow trying to help us care for our teeth? Please tell me theres some sensible reason!
Click to expand...

Don't bother debating with people about this, here. They'll just toss you into the pit, and make Dr.Strangelove references, thread after thread, as if they're coming up with something original. The reality is, the science behind water fluoridation is old, and outdated.. and new, more specific studies are needed, but evidence is growing that fluoride ingestion, over prolonged period of time, is not good for various parts of the body - especially bone matter.. Also, the ADA recently came out against using fluoridated water in baby formula or if you're a nursing mother.. the National Kidney Foundation also pulled it's support of "medicating" the water supply, very recently. There's also conflicting evidence of it's benefits as certain populations have shown a decrease in dental caries *after* the cessation of water fluoridation.

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteD...tikelNr=16565&Ausgabe=225463&ProduktNr=224219

This doesn't even begin to touch on the ethical argument of "medicating the water" supply with a substance that the body does not need. There is no such thing as having a fluoride deficiency.

Yes, that's right, stay out of my precious bodily fluids.. They are precious... precious...

..precious....
 
Last edited:
What's this thread doing still here?

Shouldn't it have been put out of our misery long ago?

Rolfe.
 
Mr.D said:
So Gangularis,

Do you agree with Kageki or not?

Is there a difference between "natural" fluoride and the "fluoride they put in the water"?
Click to expand...

There is a difference as in different fluoride compounds as I specified earlier. Now it does get a little complicated, but I will try to present the facts as I have found as it has been a source of confusion for myself as well.

Different kinds of fluoride

As has been explained by others, there are different kinds of fluoride such as pharmaceutical grade and industrial grade (or rather waste).

What's important to understand is that there are indeed different kinds of fluoride COMPOUNDS. What is confusing is that any number of the fluoride compounds can simply be called fluoride. Natural, pharmaceutical or industrial grade fluoride can all be called fluoride although they are different fluoride compounds. Further adding to the confusion is that fluoride in it's purest form is the fluoride ION. Fluoride COMPOUNDS will dissociate into fluoride IONS and it is the fluoride ion that is the main subject of study although the different fluoride compounds have radically different effects. Lastly the dissociation of fluoride compounds depends on various factors.

To summarize the different fluoride compounds:

Calcium fluoride (naturally occurring)
Sodium fluoride (pharmaceutical grade, used in toothpaste)
Hydrofluosilicic Acid (industrial grade, waste and pollutant that is used for water fluoridation)

Note that the industrial grade fluoride has a variety of names:

Hexafluorosilicic acid
Hydrofluorosilic acid
Fluorosilicic acid
Fluosilicic acid
Silicofluoride

NRC report on natural fluoride, not artificial

First of all the report by the NRC: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, can be read in it's entirety online for free here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571#toc

Relevant portion:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=14

Fluoride may be found in drinking water as a natural contaminant or as an additive intended to provide public health protection from dental caries (artificial water fluoridation). EPA’s drinking water standards are restrictions on the amount of naturally occurring fluoride allowed in public water systems, and are not recommendations about the practice of water fluoridation. Recommendations for water fluoridation were established by the U.S. Public Health Service, and different considerations were factored into how those guidelines were established.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=21

Unless otherwise noted, the term fluoride is used in this report to refer to the inorganic, ionic form. Most of the nonepidemiologic studies reviewed involved exposure to a specified fluoride compound, usually sodium fluoride.
Click to expand...

It turns out they have never done studies on artificial water fluoridation using silicofluorides and that the standards are different. So yes there is a difference.
 
kageki said:
There is a difference as in different fluoride compounds as I specified earlier. Now it does get a little complicated, but I will try to present the facts as I have found as it has been a source of confusion for myself as well.
Click to expand...

kageki said:
fluoride compounds. Further adding to the confusion is that fluoride in it's purest form is the fluoride ION. Fluoride COMPOUNDS will dissociate into fluoride IONS and it is the fluoride ion that is the main subject of study
Click to expand...

Please explain to me in sufficient detail so a layperson could understand:

1) At the level of 0.5 to 2ppm fluoride, what's the difference between Calcium Fluoride and Sodium Flouride?

2) And while we're at it, using the Wikipedia quotes you used in post 338, can you calculate the amount of room temperature water a 70kg person would have to consume for a fatal dosage for both Calcium Fluoride and Sodium Fluoride at maximum concentration?
 
Mr.D said:
Please explain to me in sufficient detail so a layperson could understand:

1) At the level of 0.5 to 2ppm fluoride, what's the difference between Calcium Fluoride and Sodium Flouride?

2) And while we're at it, using the Wikipedia quotes you used in post 338, can you calculate the amount of room temperature water a 70kg person would have to consume for a fatal dosage for both Calcium Fluoride and Sodium Fluoride at maximum concentration?
Click to expand...

First of all I am a layperson and read it myself. So can you.

Second of all, as noted, the standards are different for natural vs artifical.

The range shouldn't matter, but the difference is that sodium fluoride is basically more toxic as calcium neutralizes fluoride. The crux of the argument is that the compound will dissociate completely in water and that is how they argue that it doesn't matter what fluoride compound is used. However this is not entirely true.

You also need to consider that a "natural" source could be industrial pollution from a nearby factory.

I haven't the slightest idea how to calculate a fatal dose and the question is pointless. What people like you are trying to say is that you might get lower IQ or have thyroid problems, but since it's not fatal it's ok.

Please actually read any of the material before you pose the same, pointless questions again. You do realize the current standards are set not on fatal dose, but the most severe form of skeletal fluorosis right? You do realize most of Europe opposes fluoridation right?
 
kageki said:
First of all I am a layperson and read it myself. So can you.

Second of all, as noted, the standards are different for natural vs artifical.
Click to expand...

I'm going to take this as an admission that you don't actually understand what you've quoted.

kageki said:
You also need to consider that a "natural" source could be industrial pollution from a nearby factory.
Click to expand...

So would you or would you not have a problem with humans purposefully introducing X ppm of Calcium Fluoride into drinking water? Do you advocate filtering out Fluoride where it is 'naturally' over X ppm? (where X is some number generally considered safe by pro-fluoridationists)?

kageki said:
I haven't the slightest idea how to calculate a fatal dose and the question is pointless.
Click to expand...

The question is not pointless. The question gets at the heart of what "toxic" means.

kageki said:
What people like you are trying to say is that you might get lower IQ or have thyroid problems, but since it's not fatal it's ok.
Click to expand...

"People like me?" Now that's funny considering what my opinion is.

kageki said:
You do realize the current standards are set not on fatal dose, but the most severe form of skeletal fluorosis right?
Click to expand...

Which goes back to your post 286 which references a Wikipedia article that says "Symptomatic skeletal fluorosis is almost unknown in the U.S." Weird, since 1 ppm vs 4 ppm of Fluoride is the only known difference between China and the US.
 
Mr.D said:
I'm going to take this as an admission that you don't actually understand what you've quoted.



So would you or would you not have a problem with humans purposefully introducing X ppm of Calcium Fluoride into drinking water? Do you advocate filtering out Fluoride where it is 'naturally' over X ppm? (where X is some number generally considered safe by pro-fluoridationists)?



The question is not pointless. The question gets at the heart of what "toxic" means.



"People like me?" Now that's funny considering what my opinion is.



Which goes back to your post 286 which references a Wikipedia article that says "Symptomatic skeletal fluorosis is almost unknown in the U.S." Weird, since 1 ppm vs 4 ppm of Fluoride is the only known difference between China and the US.
Click to expand...

I'm going to keep this simple because you are all over the place and I don't even know the point you are trying to make.

No I don't feel we should purposefully add calcium fluoride either because the NRC report is based on fluoride ions. The EPA is saying we should filter out fluoride where it is naturally over x ppm.

Toxic and lethal are two different words.

Before you go further. Have you even taken a glance at the NRC report?
 
kageki said:
I'm going to keep this simple because you are all over the place ...
Click to expand...

Very well. One thing at a time - keep it simple.

kageki said:
No I don't feel we should purposefully add calcium fluoride either because the NRC report is based on fluoride ions.
Click to expand...

And yet you explicitly differentiate between 'natural' and artificial fluoride.

What's the difference between 'natural' fluoride ions and 'industrial' fluoride ions?
 
Last edited:
Mr.D said:
Very well. One thing at a time - keep it simple.



And yet you explicitly differentiate between 'natural' and artificial fluoride.

What's the difference between 'natural' fluoride ions and 'industrial' fluoride ions?
Click to expand...

There is no difference between fluoride ions. There is a difference between fluoride compounds.

In the words of Thomas Reeves, the CDC's water engineer responsible for overseeing the US fluoridation program:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/ifin-230.htm

"Finally, it is sometimes alleged that the fluoride from natural sources, like calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added "artificially", such as from the fluoride chemicals presently used. There is no difference."
Click to expand...

I disagree with that conclusion, but hopefully you get the point. I am not making stuff up. I am reporting what I have read.

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question03.html

Since you didn't respond to my last question, I take it you haven't even read a word of the NRC report. I have.
 
Still focusing on the one thing at a time...

kageki said:
There is no difference between fluoride ions. There is a difference between fluoride compounds.
Click to expand...

So what would the difference be between pure water with pure Sodium Fluoride added to it to a concentration of 1ppm Fluoride and pure water with pure Calcium Fluoride added to it to a concentration of 1ppm Fluoride?

How does that translate to a difference in municipal water supplies, where there is typically already Calcium and or Sodium in solution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom