Fluoride and other "toxin" fallacies

[Eos of the Eons]

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.




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.

So, in layman's terms I can say Fluoride and Chloride just don't exist in a gaseous state? Being in the forms they are, not only are they essential to our body's system in various ways, but it takes a whole lot more than we can usually ingest at one time or per day to exist in us in a "toxic" way to our bodies, let alone present a danger to us neurologically, right?

Bryson and other fearmongers still call it a neurotoxin though. That is like calling table salt a neurotoxin IMO.

And Bryson wrote an ENTIRE book on the topic... complete with conspiracy nut theories. He misuses the term Fluoride the entire time, using it to make it sound like nuclear waste is added to our water and toothpaste just to make money and poison us mercilessly, it's a huge huge strawman, and I agree... completely irresponsible. It's a big fearmonger bunch of BS, the whole book (IMHO)... heh.

 

[zenotter]

Well, I had been wondering about a connection but don't believe I actually said it affects my condition. Possibility and reality are two different worlds for me. I didn't do my science experiment based on how my conditions affected me. After I skimmed through the book at the local bookstore, I was curious to see if brushing without fluoride made any difference. I was surprised with having no cavities since then, but I've also upped my calcium intake and am eating different foods and I'm sure that has more to do with my tooth/overall health. I did recently learn about the connection between tendency toward cavities and Sjogren's but that is a direct cause of dry mouth/lack of saliva, not water additives.

The hook for me was flipping through pages and reading about an accident that happened in a small area and everyone affected developing autoimmune-type diseases not long after. Now I've read A LOT about many autoimmune-type diseases but had never heard of this study, so naturally was intrigued.

The little "uh, you should research the science 'cos this don't sound right" bell kept dinging over several chapters, and when I commented on your post I was hoping that someone was familiar enough with the book (or author, hey!) to say yay or nay on good science, and why. Of course, in retrospect I should've gone through what I'd read and clearly outlined examples in the first place instead of using the broad "sciencey stuff" term, but I'll blame that on fibro fogginess.

I do wish the author didn't use fluorine and fluoride interchangeably. I think that's where a lot of my confusion came from, and I could only term it as the difference between air form and water form due to lack of understanding where he was going. Now I get that he's trying to make a case of "fluorine products = bad so fluoride = bad." It's been awhile since I've taken any science classes but it's nice to know that some things sank in and are still rattling around enough to sound off warning bells.

"All My Elements" would be a hoot. This should totally happen.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you for the clarification zenotter, and for coming to this discussion. I wish you wellness in any way you can get it, because you have a lot to deal with.

 

[Madalch]

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.

There is no such thing as fluoride gas. Ionic fluorides are solids at room temperature (sodium fluoride, potassium fluoride are water-soluble, calcium fluoride is not- it forms the mineral fluorite). Compounds containing fluorine bonded to a non-metal are molecular fluorides, and can be solids, liquids or gases of varying reactivity (carbon tetrafluoride and sulphur hexafluoride are very unreactive gases, phosphorus pentafluoride and chlorine trifluoride are extremely reactive and thus extremely toxic).

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.

That pretty much sums it up- I refer to it as the rabid weasel of the periodic table. It wants that last electron, and doesn't care who it takes it from. Once it's got that last electron (forming a fluoride ion), it's pretty satisfied and doesn't want to do anything else.

 

[zenotter]

Thanks Eos of the Eons. Thanks everyone else. I'm sure the comprehension would have been easier if he had only illustrated the compounds and gases and effects via polygamous rabid weasels on periodic tables with noble gas farts.

 

[catsmate]

Radiation's good for you.

Is this supposed to mean something? Or are you just dropping random non-sequiturs?

 

[catsmate]

Is there really such a thing as fluoride gas?

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.

Well Hydrogen Fluoride is a gas at room temperature; it dissolves readily in water to produce hydrofluoric acid. Quite a lot of the metal fluorides are volatile (a fact used in a number of industrial processes) and some other fluorides are also gases at RTP, e.g. SeF₆. IF₇

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.

Exactly. His "science" is nonsense. It's like comparing the dangers of metallic sodium and chlorine gas to table salt.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Is this supposed to mean something? Or are you just dropping random non-sequiturs?

If I may interpret, JihadJane is suggesting that of course flourine is bad, and that to suggest otherwise or in any way minimise the danger (which she considers likely in the previous posts) makes as much sense as radiation hormesis.

At the considerable threat of thread drift, I suggest http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/05/radiation-hormesis.html as a rather eye-popping starting point. It seems to be an honest analysis, but its conclusions are so clear and so extreme that I'm really dubious about them.

Like, "Radioactivity, up to 50mSv, is good for us."

But read it for yourself.

 

[fuelair]

Is this supposed to mean something? Or are you just dropping random non-sequiturs?

Technically, JJ is quite correct on this point - without radiation, we could not see, plants couldn't grow and, actually, we would never have developed or even began. The keys are what kind of radiation and how much radiation.

 

[pgwenthold]

Is there really such a thing as fluoride gas?

Yes, there is "such a thing," (kind of) but it's not something that is all that relevant. It is possible to have gaseous molecules of NaF or LiF or KF or whatever version of the salt you want. However, the charge transfer isn't quite as extensive as you normally think of for salts like Na+F-. A quick calc puts the charge on Na as 0.86 in NaF. It's smaller in LiF.

 

[zenotter]

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).

Well, based on the book, I did an experiment to see if brushing without fluoridated toothpaste made any difference. (I found a brand at Whole Foods that didn't contain fluoride, so used that plus used just the toothbrush and water.) Neither seemed to make any difference for me since I've been cavity free this whole time. I've been back to using fluoridated toothpaste with whitening power for some months, and should've responded sooner about that. [Update: I see I had already responded. How lovely it is to have brain farts on a brain foggy day.]

The thing with the Sjogren's causing cavities is due to the lack of saliva, which protects the teeth. I had no idea my mouth's been as dry as a cat's tongue since forever! I'm pretty sure the act of brushing does more than anything else, but I'm all for fluoridated toothpaste, and the hyperfluoridated toothpaste my dentist recommended for me is intended to protect my teeth a bit more since I have very little saliva to begin with. Just wanted to clarify that.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Cool

Hm, I suppose I can't count on your support for my experiment to villify table salt then? I mean, there's bleach in table salt... eeeeeek!!!!! The guvment is trying to kill us allllll!!!

(same kind of idiotic logic as the antifluoride crew uses against fluoride, but hey... it works for them).

 

[quarky]

Lye (sodium hydroxide) and hydrochloric acid are rather disgusting compounds.
In the correct mix, they will rearrange into 2 compounds we can't live without.

Pure hydrogen is not good for you at all. It explodes easily. It is very 'anxious', unlike #2 (helium).
Hydrogen hydroxide, otoh, is quite lovely and expansive as it gets hotter then 100c at standard pressure. It is used in nuclear reactors to spin turbines. Also in fossil fuel power plants.
As a solid, it helps polar bears to walk on top of the ocean.

 

[elgarak]

Lye (sodium hydroxide) and hydrochloric acid are rather disgusting compounds.
In the correct mix, they will rearrange into 2 compounds we can't live without.

Pure hydrogen is not good for you at all. It explodes easily. It is very 'anxious', unlike #2 (helium).
Hydrogen hydroxide, otoh, is quite lovely and expansive as it gets hotter then 100c at standard pressure. It is used in nuclear reactors to spin turbines. Also in fossil fuel power plants.
As a solid, it helps polar bears to walk on top of the ocean.

I guess you mean dihydrogen monoxide.

Evil stuff. The most used substance in the chemical industry. Kills thousands of people each year.

 

[quarky]

I guess you mean dihydrogen monoxide.

Evil stuff. The most used substance in the chemical industry. Kills thousands of people each year.

Well sure...you don't want to inhale the stuff in its liquid state.
Or throw it at other kids in its solid state. (You could poke out an eye, according to my mom.)

 

[Tomblvd]

www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/10/31/fluoride-the-manhattan-project-declassified-government-documents/

I have a delightful facebook skeptic friend who has fallen for the fallacies at the link above. I don't have time to address all of them, and all the issues about doses and toxicity, etc. But she seems willing to learn if anyone else want to give it a shot.

I will invite her here, as she may already be a member.

Having scanned the first page of your link, it seems the author missed a very important fact concerning fluoride.

It is the 13th most common element on earth and is naturally occurring in many water supplies in the U.S. and the world, some areas are many times higher than recommended. Yet in these communities, we see no increase in any diseases.

Fluoride was discovered to prevent cavities when a Colorado dentist, Dr. Frederick McKay, around 1900 noticed that children who suffered from a condition called "Colorado Brown Stain", now known as (severe) Dental Fluorosis, had markedly fewer cavaties than other kids. They also had no other physical problems. It is now known that the population in many areas of the foothills regions of the Rockies (and other areas) were drinking water heavily dosed with fluoride natural to the area. Yet no diseases were found.

The author makes it sound like nobody consumed fluoride prior to the 1950s.