• 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.

Fluoride and other "toxin" fallacies

Short but necessary for non-chemists. Fluoride has very different properties from fluoine be caUSE IT HAS ONE MORE ELECTRON THAN FLUORINE. It gets that extra electron from whatever it combines with and it combines witha lot of things and chemical properties come from the number of electrons in the outer orbital of an element. Fluorine is VERY active because it has seven electrons in it's outer orbital and it really (yes, I know fluorine has no wants or needs, but it works as a quick idea base, so hush up) wants to have 8 so it will take or accept an electron from anything that will give one up.

Once it does , it is so muche happier and calmer because it's outer shell is full like all those lazy elements next door in Group 8 (or 18 depending on your Periodic Table) (Group 18 is the Noble Gasses and they don't want anything to do with the other elements - they don't need no stinkin' electrons, they have all they need. They won't lone a friend even one either. Antisocial buggers they are!!)
 
In the site you linked to, the symptom cited as evidence of flouride exposure was dyspnea. That's also a symptom of sulphur dioxide exposure, so it's no surprise that SO2 was implicated. The blood levels of flourine (12 to 25 times normal) are presumably Not A Good Thing, but there is no evidence given or study cited to indicate that such levels are toxic, or at least not overwhelmingly so. I'm inclined to agree with ehcks, that under those conditions all sorts of crap was hanging around, and to blame all problems on flourine is not justified. Living in a steel town in the 40's and 50's was not a healthy way to spend your time.

And you might try http://www.buzzle.com/articles/fluoride-poisoning.html

You'll notice that breathing problems are not normally associated with flourine poisoning, even by inhalation, which rather reduces Sadtler's credibility, leading expert or not.

And speaking from near-personal experience (my brother once damaged himself with hydroflouric acid, and the symptoms didn't show up for a while), I'm inclined to doubt that exposure to flourine in non-lethal doses shows up as lung irritation.

Just FWIW.
 
I'm sure fluoride gas isn't a concern for a lot of people, but I used to do some planning for bioterrorism preparedness exercises and don't have access to the resouces I used then. (Btw, anhydrous ammonia drills got boring. Food poisoning thousands of people at a sporting event is not boring.) I live in a smoggy area with nearby cement and coal plants, and am a huge fan of clean air. If there's any feasibility to fluoride toxicity outside of water, I'd like to see it addressed by more scientists.
 
zenotter said:
Yes, he addresses the differences at the beginning, and uses the compound names when available but otherwise says fluoride for the element and it's multiple manifestations as that usage is approved per the US National Academy of Sciences. It still is a bit confusing though.

He talks about hydrofluoric acid as a vapor and as a catalyst in oil refining, and how it was found to be not safe at any level in dilute and anhydrous form. The lab that did the research essentially sold the ADA on fluoridating water, to make that story short. I'm only concerned with airborne toxicity, as it's been said to cause lung hemorrhaging and kidney and liver failure, plus animal deaths at 19 ppm.
Click to expand...
Hydrofluoric acid is indeed that nasty, but, his problem if he is implying what you seem to say he is is they do not use HF to fluoridate water - if they did, people everywhere they use fluoridated water would be dying very painfully. They use neither the elemental form nor the acid form - they use a metal fluoride (i.e. a salt) (probably Tin Fluouride/Stannous Fluoride). The metal fluoride reacts with minerals in (mostly in/on your teeth) to create (in a simple chemical reaction) a different fluoride in your teeth that makes them more resistant to bacterial attack and pitting. It's like the idiocy about Splenda - An H is replaced on the sugar molecule with a Cl. Chlorine as an element or an acid is really nasty stuff, but Chlorine is fine as part of a compound like Splenda (no poisoning,etc,) or an ionic compound like table salt or the falsely named NO-SALT (which is a salt, just not the very specific NaCl) ( generally it is KCl or KI). Hope this helps.:)
 
Last edited:
Ah, so it's what I'd suspected - not the end all be all absolute probable cause of a huge poisoning thing. That's essentially what I was looking for. I'm still iffy about the whole conspiracy / Manhattan Project everything (mainly because I hate conspiracy crap) but I put more stock in science than in people so *shrug*. Thanks all for the easy science explanations - it's been awhile since I was in chemistry, physics, etc. :)
 
Yes, that does help a lot. That was the assumption I'd made about how water is fluoridated but in looking back, that part being close to the end of a chapter next to a chapter beginning on a more historical military note is interesting. I like Splenda too - I prefer turbinado or regular cane sugar, but Splenda's fine. :)

I did do a small science experiment with not using fluoride toothpaste for some months. I have a tendency toward cavities because of Sjogren's Syndrome but was pleasantly surprised to have no cavities at each visit since starting that. Of course, I'm also better with calcium intake and drinking less soda so can't say fluoride really made any difference...
 
zenotter said:
I'm only concerned with airborne toxicity, as it's been said to cause lung hemorrhaging and kidney and liver failure, plus animal deaths at 19 ppm.
Click to expand...

19 ppm for what duration?

Try http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=689&page=77

You'll notice no-observed-effect for rats, mice, guinea pigs and rabbits of 49 to 70 ppm for 15 minutes, and 60 minutes for 28 to 38 ppm. These were not, apparently, long-term studies.
 
fuelair said:
Short but necessary for non-chemists. Fluoride has very different properties from fluoine be caUSE IT HAS ONE MORE ELECTRON THAN FLUORINE. It gets that extra electron from whatever it combines with and it combines witha lot of things and chemical properties come from the number of electrons in the outer orbital of an element. Fluorine is VERY active because it has seven electrons in it's outer orbital and it really (yes, I know fluorine has no wants or needs, but it works as a quick idea base, so hush up) wants to have 8 so it will take or accept an electron from anything that will give one up.

Once it does , it is so muche happier and calmer because it's outer shell is full like all those lazy elements next door in Group 8 (or 18 depending on your Periodic Table) (Group 18 is the Noble Gasses and they don't want anything to do with the other elements - they don't need no stinkin' electrons, they have all they need. They won't lone a friend even one either. Antisocial buggers they are!!)
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered writing a novel based on the Periodic Table, or perhaps a soap opera ("All My Elements")?
 
I can't find it in the book now but am positive no duration was mentioned. I'm also thinking the animal(s) were not specified either. I'll look for it some other time - must crash soon. Thanks again everyone.
 
Fluoride is fairly benign. Hydrofluoric acid and fluorine gas are horrific poisons.

Fluoride was once given off as a pollutant by aluminum smelters (where one dissolves aluminum oxide in a mixture of molten cryolite (Na3AlF6) and calcium fluoride. Modern smelters don't do this, as it was enough to kill a lot of trees in the area.
 
I find it dissapointing that the book author makes obvious mistakes. It is not like salt in water becomes dangerous gas and kills lungs etc. either. I don't think the journalist knows his chemistry at all. Hope I have more time to read/contribute tomorrow...
 
zenotter said:
I'm sure fluoride gas isn't a concern for a lot of people, but I used to do some planning for bioterrorism preparedness exercises and don't have access to the resouces I used then. (Btw, anhydrous ammonia drills got boring. Food poisoning thousands of people at a sporting event is not boring.) I live in a smoggy area with nearby cement and coal plants, and am a huge fan of clean air. If there's any feasibility to fluoride toxicity outside of water, I'd like to see it addressed by more scientists.
Click to expand...
Is there really such a thing as fluoride gas? Do you still feel that fluoride in toothpaste and water affect you adversely? You claimed on facebook that you are better now that you are avoiding toothpaste. As well why would a dentist tell you to use hyperfluoridated toothpaste to avoid cavities as an adult?
 
fuelair said:
Short but necessary for non-chemists. Fluoride has very different properties from fluoine be caUSE IT HAS ONE MORE ELECTRON THAN FLUORINE. It gets that extra electron from whatever it combines with and it combines witha lot of things and chemical properties come from the number of electrons in the outer orbital of an element. Fluorine is VERY active because it has seven electrons in it's outer orbital and it really (yes, I know fluorine has no wants or needs, but it works as a quick idea base, so hush up) wants to have 8 so it will take or accept an electron from anything that will give one up.

Once it does , it is so muche happier and calmer because it's outer shell is full like all those lazy elements next door in Group 8 (or 18 depending on your Periodic Table) (Group 18 is the Noble Gasses and they don't want anything to do with the other elements - they don't need no stinkin' electrons, they have all they need. They won't lone a friend even one either. Antisocial buggers they are!!)
Click to expand...

Bolding mine. These are the kind of chemicals that give other chemicals a bad name and the kind of chemicals they wish they knew in college.
 
The reason this thread was started was because she claimed, based on the information she got in the book written by Christopher Bryson, that fluoride made her condition worse. This condition often results in more cavities, so her doctor told her to use a highly fluoridated toothpaste because of that. She went against the dentist's recommendations because she feels fluoride makes her condition worse.

Based on what she posted on facebook after coming here, I feel she has confirmed her bias rather than learned about the differences between fluoride and things like fluorine. I am not sure this is true, but that is why I am asking the questions.

I feel, based on science and chemistry, that Bryson's book is a huge strawman, plus conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.

I also feel fluoride, based on the chemistry of fluoride, cannot make her condition worse. I don't care to speculate why her teeth are actually better after she stopped intake of fluoride (although I cannot confirm how much fluoride she gets from water or her diet).
 
RISK FOR DENTAL CARIES

Populations believed to be at increased risk for dental caries are those with low socioeconomic status (SES) or low levels of parental education, those who do not seek regular dental care, and those without dental insurance or access to dental services (45--47). Persons can be at high risk for dental caries even if they do not have these recognized factors. Individual factors that possibly increase risk include active dental caries; a history of high caries in older siblings or caregivers; root surfaces exposed by gingival recession; high levels of infection with cariogenic bacteria; impaired ability to maintain oral hygiene; malformed enamel or dentin; reduced salivary flow because of medications, radiation treatment, or disease; low salivary buffering capacity (i.e., decreased ability of saliva to neutralize acids); and the wearing of space maintainers, orthodontic appliances, or dental prostheses. Risk can increase if any of these factors are combined with dietary practices conducive to dental caries (i.e., frequent consumption of refined carbohydrates). Risk decreases with adequate exposure to fluoride (44,45).
Risk for dental caries and caries experience* exists on a continuum, with each person at risk to some extent; 85% of U.S. adults have experienced tooth decay (48). Caries risk can vary over time --- perhaps numerous times during a person's lifetime --- as risk factors change. Because caries prediction is an inexact, developing science, risk is dichotomized as low and high in this report. If these two categories of risk were applied to the U.S. population, most persons would be classified as low risk at any given time.
Click to expand...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

Dental cavities
(...)
Prevention
Oral hygiene is necessary to prevent cavities. This consists of regular professional cleaning (every 6 months), brushing at least twice a day, and flossing at least daily.
(...)
Chewy, sticky foods (such as dried fruit or candy) are best if eaten as part of a meal rather than as a snack. If possible, brush the teeth or rinse the mouth with water after eating these foods. Minimize snacking, which creates a constant supply of acid in the mouth. Avoid constant sipping of sugary drinks or frequent sucking on candy and mints.
(...)
It has been demonstrated that people who ingest fluoride in their drinking water or by fluoride supplements have fewer dental caries. Fluoride ingested when the teeth are developing is incorporated into the structure of the enamel and protects it against the action of acids.
Click to expand...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002050/
 
Yes, she knows all that, however... but may still believe Fluoride is harmful to her condition as well.

Hence... is there such a thing as Fluoride being converted to gas from water or toothpaste? And would that be harmful? (I feel, based on chemistry, this is not so)
 
zenotter said:
I'm sure fluoride gas isn't a concern for a lot of people...
Click to expand...

Is there even such a thing as fluoride gas? Fluorine is a gas, but everything I've read leads me to believe that fluoride compounds are solids that can be dissolved in water, but not gases.



Eos of the Eons said:
Hence... is there such a thing as Fluoride being converted to gas from water or toothpaste?
Click to expand...
In layman's terms, here's the deal. If you think of atoms as having wants and needs, a fluorine atom really really really wants to be joined into a molecule. If you have just fluorine atoms, they will pair up with each other, so the fluorine chemical will be a diatomic (two atoms) gas. But the fluorine atoms are not that happy with just each other - they desperately want to mate up with something else.

That's why the gas is so dangerous - it will react with just about anything it comes into contact with. A molecule in your body won't be able to do its normal function if a fluorine atom has glommed onto it.

But this is also why compounds that contain fluorine are mostly benign - the fluorine atoms have already glommed onto something else, and it's really hard to break them off. That's why stannous fluoride in toothpaste or city water won't spontaneously be turned into fluorine gas.

Chlorine is pretty much the same, BTW.

That article by Bryson was very irresponsible, referring to fluorine gas with the name "fluoride" gas. They are extremely different - pretty much opposite in danger, because of how the fluorine atom so desperately needs to cling to a different atom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom