Simple fluoride question

[kageki]

No, but you made a point of mentioning that europe doesn't fluoridate their water (you said ban, but it's a political thing). You also mentioned time and again how toxic sodium fluoride was. I then told you that many countries around the world put sodium or potassium fluoride in their salt to give the population their fluoride. Of course, like so many things, you didn't know that.

So now you are stuck with supporting the europeans putting toxic sodium fluoride in their salt.



And you've suddenly forgotten sodium fluoride.

I wonder why?



Is there a reason after 11 pages you are suddenly bringing that fact up now?

Salt fluoridation would seem to fall in the same category as water fluoridation.

http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/S3722.htm

If inhaled or swallowed, this compound can cause fluoride poisoning. Early symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and weakness. Later effects include central nervous system effects, cardiovascular effects and death

 

[kageki]

Umm. I have no idea how this helps your argument in any way, shape or form. You claimed that "If something is toxic then it's toxic. Why would the amount matter? It's still toxic isn't it?" How do you reconcile that statement with an article that notes Iodine is both necessary and toxic?

Which is wrong? Your statement about what toxicity means or the Wikipedia article?

It's both right? Meaning it's not by definition just toxic. Compare that with something that is only considered toxic.

Same thing with water right? Do you call water toxic even though there is such thing as water poisoning? No you don't.

So answer this:

Is water toxic?

 

[Mr.D]

Is water toxic?

Colloquially speaking: No.

Pedantically speaking: Depends on the context.

Now let's look at the Wikipedia article on Calcium Fluoride: "Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility."

And consider that when Sodium Fluoride is used to fluoridate water, it is used in concentrations similar to "naturally" fluoridated water.

Now combine it all with the fact that "ions are ions are ions" and the fact that both Sodium and Calcium ions are very common in water.

Can you see why your "But it (NaF) is a toxic compound" argument is falling on deaf ears here?

 

[kageki]

Colloquially speaking: No.

Pedantically speaking: Depends on the context.

Now let's look at the Wikipedia article on Calcium Fluoride: "Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility."

And consider that when Sodium Fluoride is used to fluoridate water, it is used in concentrations similar to "naturally" fluoridated water.

Now combine it all with the fact that "ions are ions are ions" and the fact that both Sodium and Calcium ions are very common in water.

Can you see why your "But it (NaF) is a toxic compound" argument is falling on deaf ears here?

Different solubility? What about in the case of fluoridated salt or tablets?

Silicofluorides seems to be what is commonly used today for water fluoridation.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=15

Another issue of controversy is the safety of the chemicals used to fluoridate water. The most commonly used additives are silicofluorides, not the fluoride salts used in dental products (such as sodium fluoride and stannous fluoride).

 

[Tomblvd]

Salt fluoridation would seem to fall in the same category as water fluoridation.

So if sodium fluoride is dangerous, why do some european countries put it in salt?

 

[kageki]

So if sodium fluoride is dangerous, why do some european countries put it in salt?

Good question. I would be against it as well.

 

[Tomblvd]

Good question. I would be against it as well.

Don't you have that backward? Shouldn't you find the answer to your "good question" before you pronounce you are against it?

For dozens and dozens of posts you have talked about sodium fluoride as a tremendously dangerous substance, you then try an appeal to authority (weakly) by telling us "the europeans" (undoubtedly more enlightened) largely don't allow fluoridated water. But when it's then pointed out that many countries allow, or mandate that same, toxic sodium fluoride in its salt, you declare yourself still against it, without a though as to why.

Steer yourself away from the anti-fluoridation websites, the go learn some chemistry, biology, toxicology (hint: "the dose is the poison", repeat that to yourself a hundred times) and then maybe this stuff will start making sense to you.

 

[kageki]

Don't you have that backward? Shouldn't you find the answer to your "good question" before you pronounce you are against it?

For dozens and dozens of posts you have talked about sodium fluoride as a tremendously dangerous substance, you then try an appeal to authority (weakly) by telling us "the europeans" (undoubtedly more enlightened) largely don't allow fluoridated water. But when it's then pointed out that many countries allow, or mandate that same, toxic sodium fluoride in its salt, you declare yourself still against it, without a though as to why.

Steer yourself away from the anti-fluoridation websites, the go learn some chemistry, biology, toxicology (hint: "the dose is the poison", repeat that to yourself a hundred times) and then maybe this stuff will start making sense to you.

I have and the reasoning is exactly the same for salt fluoridation and water fluoridation.

Do me a favor and quote from the NRC report to support your position.

 

[Tomblvd]

I have and the reasoning is exactly the same for salt fluoridation and water fluoridation.

No, you used as "reasoning" against water fluoridation the fact that many european countries don't do it. I then pointed out that instead of water fluoridation they give their fluoride in salt. One doesn't follow from the other.

You don't have any "reasoning", just hand waving.

 

[kageki]

No, you used as "reasoning" against water fluoridation the fact that many european countries don't do it. I then pointed out that instead of water fluoridation they give their fluoride in salt. One doesn't follow from the other.

You don't have any "reasoning", just hand waving.

I will take back that "reasoning" then.

 

[Tomblvd]

I will take back that "reasoning" then.

And with it, most of your argument.

So what is your point?

 

[sackett]

Sweet reason -- okay, salty reason

... many european countries ... give their fluoride in salt....

In many Euopean countries, tap water is for washing your hands and, occasionally, your feet. They would never (ew!) drink the stuff!

That's why God made wine.

 

[sackett]

You fellahs may not know this, but Gageki appears on a variety of craaaaazy threads. I can recall him denying the Holocaust, and other gibbon-cage tricks. Don't waste too much effort on him.

Used to be, fluoridation was a commie plot. Those were simpler times.

 

[kageki]

And with it, most of your argument.

So what is your point?

Not really. The "reasoning" is not the crux of the argument.

Salt or water fluoridation is still both not good.

 

[Tomblvd]

Not really. The "reasoning" is not the crux of the argument.

Salt or water fluoridation is still both not good.

You can keep repeating that like Dorothy tapping her ruby slippers together; "There's no place like home, there's no place like home.....", but it isn't going to land you in Kansas anytime soon. You need evidence, specifically that fluoride at the recommended levels, is systemically dangerous to human health.

 

[kageki]

You can keep repeating that like Dorothy tapping her ruby slippers together; "There's no place like home, there's no place like home.....", but it isn't going to land you in Kansas anytime soon. You need evidence, specifically that fluoride at the recommended levels, is systemically dangerous to human health.

Again the evidence and everything is laid out in the NRC report.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/conference/2006/thiessen.htm

THIESSEN: I think it's important to know that our committee unanimously said that the existing regulatory limits for fluoride in drinking water are not protective. We did that on the basis of health effects that have long been associated with fluoride: dental effects and skeletal effects.

We also pointed out a number of areas where there are, or seem to be, adverse health effects that have not historically been associated with fluoride or at least not in the mainstream literature -- the government agency literature and such. And we said these need to be looked at, that some of these could be important for Americans even at the regular drinking water levels, even without approaching the limits.

...

CONNETT: And when you looked at the doses that were associated with the effects on the thyroid in iodine deficient and non-iodine deficient individuals how did they compare with the doses that many Americans would receive?

THIESSEN: Many Americans are getting fluoride exposures in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially if there's an iodine deficiency. We're talking average levels of fluoride exposure of around 0.03 milligrams-per-kilogram per day for adults in the US. That's average. Many are above that, many are below that. And the levels of fluoride exposure at which one sees thyroid effects in some individuals -- not everybody -- with an iodine deficiency are right around that same range.

CONNETT: So there's an overlap there?

THIESSEN: There's an overlap there.

CONNETT: Now with water fluoridation, it's a policy where we sort of are treating everyone with the same general dose, or concentration, of fluoride. What would be your response to the notion that we can treat everyone in the population -- or assume that everyone in the population is going to respond the same -- to the same dose of fluoride?

THIESSEN: Doesn't matter what contaminant you're dealing with, to expect the same response for everybody is silly. It's not taking into account dietary variability, it’s not taking into account variability of water consumption, it’s not taking into account genetic susceptibility to possible effects of whatever contaminant you're dealing with.

CONNETT: And is there evidence to suggest that individuals respond differently to fluoride? Are some people more susceptible to fluoride?

THIESSEN: There is evidence, from a variety of sources, that individuals respond differently to fluoride exposure. It depends on what endpoint you're looking at, but certainly there are differences in nutritional aspects between individuals -- those who are getting adequate supplies of nutrition generally and certain elements in particular. There are also genetic variants within the population. Different genetic forms of an enzyme may respond differently. That's certainly there. There's also -- individuals vary widely in their exposure, because they have different sources of exposure. Their water intake varies so widely, that sort of thing. I would expect for just about anything to see a wide range of population response.

CONNETT: So do you have any concerns about water fluoridation and if so what would those concerns be?

THIESSEN: Speaking as a scientist, based on the information I have looked at, we're dealing with uncontrolled and unmonitored exposures to an agent that is known to have adverse effects on humans. I have no problem with it being in the list of drugs and people having it with a prescription, as with any others, if there's a doctor -- or appropriate medical professional -- monitoring the exposure and the side effects and whether its effective.

 

[Tomblvd]

Again the evidence and everything is laid out in the NRC report.

Where?

 

[kageki]

Where?

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8436gov1.html

NRC panel member Kathleen M. Thiessen, senior scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc., Center for Risk Analysis, presented clear evidence that water with about 1 mg/L of fluoride or more presents potential risks to the thyroid gland.

...

The apparent benefit of water fluoridation, reduced tooth decay, may simply be a function of delayed tooth eruption, Limeback said. It is well-known that permanent teeth take longer to erupt in children who drink fluoridated water, he observed. Studies comparing decay rates in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities usually assess the mean number of decayed, missing, and filled surfaces (DMFS) in permanent teeth of 12-year-old children. For example, a study conducted in 1990 found that 12-year-old children in fluoridated areas of the U.S. had a mean DMFS score of 2.46, while those in nonfluoridated areas had a score of 2.97 ( J. Dental Res. 1990, 69 Special Issue, 723). However, "if you control for delayed tooth eruption, the study shows no benefit," Limeback said. "Take fluoride out of the water supply, and use the money spent for fluoridation to promote better public health."

...

Connett described how EPA derived the maximum limit of 4 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water in 1985, and how it later used the same assumptions in calculating residue limits for sulfuryl fluoride. When EPA set the 4 mg/L limit for water, it assumed that adults consume 2 L of water per day, he said. It also assumed that chronic exposure to fluoride causes only one adverse health effect, which is crippling skeletal fluorosis. It then derived a "safe" intake of 8 mg of fluoride per day from occupational studies showing that ingestion of 20 mg of fluoride per day over 20 years is the lowest dose that can cause crippling skeletal fluorosis. EPA applied a safety factor of 2.5 to this 20 mg to calculate the safe maximum intake.

Even though about 10% of children who drink water with a fluoride level of 4 mg/L develop severe dental fluorosis, which makes their teeth subject to decay, EPA decided this was a cosmetic effect, Connett said. And all other potential health effects of fluoride-on the brain, kidney, and thyroid gland, for example-were ignored, he explained.

So even the arrival of the recommended level is based on assumptions and denial. Flawed science.

If fluoride is so good for you, why stop at fluoride? Why not put vitamin c in our water for instance?

 

[Tomblvd]

So even the arrival of the recommended level is based on assumptions and denial. Flawed science.

You said specifically that the evidence that fluoride at the recommended levels is dangerous is"is laid out in the NRC report", now all you have given me are very equivocal quotes from individual scientists. Please show me in the NRC report", where it says what you allege. Because even your "experts" don't say fluoride at the current levels it toxic.

If you want to get into a quote war, I've got hundreds supporting fluoridation.

 

[Mr.D]

Silicofluorides seems to be what is commonly used today for water fluoridation.

And Sodium Fluoride vs. Calcium Fluoride was the topic at hand.

Are you or are you not willing to concede that your "natural" vs. "industrial" argument is without merit?