Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 86

Thread: Water Fluoridation: The Myth vs. The Facts

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,208

    Water Fluoridation: The Myth vs. The Facts

    Water fluoridation was mentioned in the Joe Stack thread and several members appear to be misinformed on the subject.
    So, having spent the greater part of 2008-09 researching the subject, I thought I should be the one to start a new thread on the subject.

    Granted, the 'fluoride' debate seems to always go the way of the 'God' debates: either you believe the facts or, you believe the fiction but, at least with fluoride, I have witnessed a few conversions to the truth.

    Where to begin?

    Who knows what the chemical is that is fed to municipal water systems and where it comes from?
    'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

    "10 to 1 that in usual fashion, a post which breaks down an issue to its core will be completely ignored by the opposition as they go on discussing irrelevant minutia." - Archangel

    'It's not rational to judge something in the present on actions people took a thousand years ago.' - jyoshu

    'I AM your god, damit! And you will love me or, I will kill you dead.'

  2. #2
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandycane View Post
    Water fluoridation was mentioned in the Joe Stack thread and several members appear to be misinformed on the subject.
    So, having spent the greater part of 2008-09 researching the subject, I thought I should be the one to start a new thread on the subject.

    Granted, the 'fluoride' debate seems to always go the way of the 'God' debates: either you believe the facts or, you believe the fiction but, at least with fluoride, I have witnessed a few conversions to the truth.

    Where to begin?

    Who knows what the chemical is that is fed to municipal water systems and where it comes from?
    NaF, Na2SiF6 and H2SiF6. They are co-products from the manufacture of fertilizers.
    And let me warn you. I'm a chemist that has been working with these compounds for over 20 years, so I'm very familiar with all of them. I've even been responsible for approving sources for these materials for my company.
    Last edited by JPSartre12; 02-23-2010 at 01:15 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    NaF, Na2SiF6 and H2SiF6. They are co-products from the manufacture of fertilizers.
    And let me warn you. I'm a chemist that has been working with these compounds for over 20 years, so I'm very familiar with all of them. I've even been responsible for approving sources for these materials for my company.
    Woo-hoo! This is going to be better than I anticipated! ...and we're both obsessive/compulsive!? What fun!

    Correct answer...almost.
    They are not what I would call 'co-products'. I suppose because they have found a use for the chemical, it could be called a co-product - even though it is really a toxic waste by-product.

    As I'm sure you know there is a difference between pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride and the toxic waste by-product known as sodium silicofluoride.
    The former is used by the dental profession and in dental products, the latter is fed into the water supply.
    'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

    "10 to 1 that in usual fashion, a post which breaks down an issue to its core will be completely ignored by the opposition as they go on discussing irrelevant minutia." - Archangel

    'It's not rational to judge something in the present on actions people took a thousand years ago.' - jyoshu

    'I AM your god, damit! And you will love me or, I will kill you dead.'

  4. #4
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandycane View Post
    Woo-hoo! This is going to be better than I anticipated! ...and we're both obsessive/compulsive!? What fun!

    Correct answer...almost.
    They are not what I would call 'co-products'. I suppose because they have found a use for the chemical, it could be called a co-product - even though it is really a toxic waste by-product.

    As I'm sure you know there is a difference between pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride and the toxic waste by-product known as sodium silicofluoride.
    The former is used by the dental profession and in dental products, the latter is fed into the water supply.
    If I take salt water and subject it to hydrolysis, is the chlorine produced a co-product with the sodium hydroxide or is it a toxic waste by-product?

    Both are sold to companies for use in a variety of chemical products, including plastics, cleaners and a host of other uses.

    The main constituent of phosphate ore is the mineral fluorapatite, Ca 3 (PO4 ) 2 . CaF2. It is dissolved in sulfuric acid to generate phosphoric acid as well as HF. The HF is reacted with silica to form fluosilicic acid and sold to many industries, including municipal water supplies. The phosphoric acid is neutralized with ammonia or potassium to produce fertilizer.

    H2SiF6 dissociates in water according to the following reaction: H2SiF6(aq) + 4H2O(l) = 6HF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq)

    NaSiF6 behaves the same way. So, at the CDC's recommended level of ~1ppm. there is no toxic sodium fluosilicate present. It's all been dissociated into SiO2, F- and Na+ ions.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    If I take salt water and subject it to hydrolysis, is the chlorine produced a co-product with the sodium hydroxide or is it a toxic waste by-product?

    Both are sold to companies for use in a variety of chemical products, including plastics, cleaners and a host of other uses.

    The main constituent of phosphate ore is the mineral fluorapatite, Ca 3 (PO4 ) 2 . CaF2. It is dissolved in sulfuric acid to generate phosphoric acid as well as HF. The HF is reacted with silica to form fluosilicic acid and sold to many industries, including municipal water supplies. The phosphoric acid is neutralized with ammonia or potassium to produce fertilizer.

    H2SiF6 dissociates in water according to the following reaction: H2SiF6(aq) + 4H2O(l) = 6HF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq)

    NaSiF6 behaves the same way. So, at the CDC's recommended level of ~1ppm. there is no toxic sodium fluosilicate present. It's all been dissociated into SiO2, F- and Na+ ions.
    I'm not a chemist.
    This is what is fed into the water system: KC Industries - SODIUM FLUOROSILICATE
    http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...NINOURWATE.jpg

    I personally spoke to the sales manager of KC Industries and he told me that they get the bags of silicofluoride from the fertilizer plant (owned by Cargil) and then they mix in the soduim (from Cargil) and ship that directly to the water plants.
    Last edited by Sandycane; 02-23-2010 at 02:53 PM.
    'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

    "10 to 1 that in usual fashion, a post which breaks down an issue to its core will be completely ignored by the opposition as they go on discussing irrelevant minutia." - Archangel

    'It's not rational to judge something in the present on actions people took a thousand years ago.' - jyoshu

    'I AM your god, damit! And you will love me or, I will kill you dead.'

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,208
    '1. Although virtually all studies of fluoridation have continued to use NaF, over 90% of Americans drinking fluoridated are exposed to supplies treated with SiF.

    2. Although it is claimed that SiF is completely dissociated after injection in water supplies, this assumption is inconsistent with published research and is highly unlikely under the actual conditions of water treatment.'
    Dartmouth University Study (Sept '99) links fluoridation with high lead levels in children.

    So, apparently, it depends on whose research you believe as to whether or, not your statement is true.

    Fact is:
    The chemical that is fed into the water supply is NOT the pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride that is used in dentists offices.

    Have you ever been to the dentist and heard him/her say, 'rinse and swallow'?
    NO, it's, 'rinse and spit' because they know that fluoride ingestion is harmful.
    'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

    "10 to 1 that in usual fashion, a post which breaks down an issue to its core will be completely ignored by the opposition as they go on discussing irrelevant minutia." - Archangel

    'It's not rational to judge something in the present on actions people took a thousand years ago.' - jyoshu

    'I AM your god, damit! And you will love me or, I will kill you dead.'

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandycane View Post
    Have you ever been to the dentist and heard him/her say, 'rinse and swallow'?
    NO, it's, 'rinse and spit' because they know that fluoride ingestion is harmful.
    Uh yeah...that's usually because you are washing out the prophy paste that they cleaned your teeth with.

    I guess you just completely skipped over JP's post. Shame, I thought it was quite informative.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    I don't really believe the hype about fluoride toxicity, although it has some impact on calcium absorbtion and therefore is likely to be responsible for at least a mathematically small number of fractures and probably deaths, this number could, from a cold utilitarian perspective be considered a minor loss, and virtually impossible to detect statistically.

    That said, from a dental perspective, it seems a bit like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail.

    As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, the tooth benefits of fluoride come from direct contact with teeth, it isn't something you can get any benefit out of ingesting.

    So it would seem obvious to focus fluoride treatment on things that go onto your teeth (toothpaste, mouthwash), not on water which has some limited tooth contact before it goes down your throat.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Uh yeah...that's usually because you are washing out the prophy paste that they cleaned your teeth with.

    I guess you just completely skipped over JP's post. Shame, I thought it was quite informative.
    No, I didn't skip over it but, I didn't quite understand it either.

    And, no, the reason they tell you to not swallow is because of the fluoride.
    Ever read a tube of toothpaste? You should.

    So, what is your opinion on water fluoridation?
    Are you happy about being force-fed a toxic chemical that causes all sorts of physical damage to the body?
    'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

    "10 to 1 that in usual fashion, a post which breaks down an issue to its core will be completely ignored by the opposition as they go on discussing irrelevant minutia." - Archangel

    'It's not rational to judge something in the present on actions people took a thousand years ago.' - jyoshu

    'I AM your god, damit! And you will love me or, I will kill you dead.'

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    I don't really believe the hype about fluoride toxicity, although it has some impact on calcium absorbtion and therefore is likely to be responsible for at least a mathematically small number of fractures and probably deaths, this number could, from a cold utilitarian perspective be considered a minor loss, and virtually impossible to detect statistically.

    That said, from a dental perspective, it seems a bit like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail.

    As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, the tooth benefits of fluoride come from direct contact with teeth, it isn't something you can get any benefit out of ingesting.

    So it would seem obvious to focus fluoride treatment on things that go onto your teeth (toothpaste, mouthwash), not on water which has some limited tooth contact before it goes down your throat.
    There has been extensive research on the harmful effects of ingesting fluoride. Everything from hypothyroidism to bone cancer. It's all out there if you are interested.

    I agree 100% with the rest of your reply.
    Yes, there has been some evidence showing topical application of sodium fluoride strengthens the tooth enamel but, again, there are other studies that show it actually weakens the tooth's internal structure. I suppose that research paid for by the Mellon Institute or P & G would find it beneficial and the research done by independent, unbiased scientists found it harmful.

    If you look at an x-ray of someone with fluoride intoxication, it is clear just how much damage fluoride does to the skeletal system.

    Another fact: Approximately 1% of the water that is piped into a home is actually consumed - the rest goes down the drain to your septic tank, the sewer system or, into your yard.

    Since the EPA has branded this product as being highly toxic and prohibits the fertilizer industry from releasing it into the environment, how is it okay for them to do it indirectly by selling it to water departments???
    'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

    "10 to 1 that in usual fashion, a post which breaks down an issue to its core will be completely ignored by the opposition as they go on discussing irrelevant minutia." - Archangel

    'It's not rational to judge something in the present on actions people took a thousand years ago.' - jyoshu

    'I AM your god, damit! And you will love me or, I will kill you dead.'

  11. #11
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandycane View Post
    '1. Although virtually all studies of fluoridation have continued to use NaF, over 90% of Americans drinking fluoridated are exposed to supplies treated with SiF.

    2. Although it is claimed that SiF is completely dissociated after injection in water supplies, this assumption is inconsistent with published research and is highly unlikely under the actual conditions of water treatment.'
    Dartmouth University Study (Sept '99) links fluoridation with high lead levels in children.

    So, apparently, it depends on whose research you believe as to whether or, not your statement is true.

    Fact is:
    The chemical that is fed into the water supply is NOT the pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride that is used in dentists offices.

    Have you ever been to the dentist and heard him/her say, 'rinse and swallow'?
    NO, it's, 'rinse and spit' because they know that fluoride ingestion is harmful.
    There's a great deal of info on this topic out there.
    Water Fluoridation and the Environment: Current Perspective in the United States
    HOWARD F. POLLICK, BDS, MPH
    ........

    Although 25% of the utilities reported using NaF, this corresponds to only 9.2% of the U.S. population drinking fluoride-supplemented tap water. The ease in handling NaF rather than fluorosilicates accounts for the disproportionate use of NaF by utilities serving smaller populations. On the other hand, the cost savings in using fluorosilicates result in large systems using those additives instead. The reduced cost of large volume offsets the costs associated with handling concentrated stocks of the fluorosilicates, which require accommodations similar to hydrochloric acid, which is sometimes used to adjust pH. In acidic solution, the dissociation and hydrolysis of fluorosilicic acid, which occurs upon dilution, is given by eq 1. In drinking water, pH is adjusted with the addition of base (e.g., NaOH, NaHCO3). H2SiF6(aq) + 4H2O(l) = 6HF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq) (eq1).34
    While there may be evidence of toxicity of these substances when workers involved in their production are not protected, there is no credible evidence of toxicity when they are diluted for use in fluoridated water. Fluorosilicic acid is diluted with water from an initial aqueous concentration of about 23–24% by about 1:250,000–1:300,000 when used for fluoridating
    water.36 This produces the final concentration of between 0.7–1.2 mg/L, the specific level set according to CDC guidelines.37
    Concerns have been raised about arsenic and lead in fluorosilicic-acid–treated water.38,39 However, there is no credible evidence that this is of concern.40 Urbansky and Schock add:
    The vast preponderance of the lead(II) in nearly all tap waters originates from the plumbing materials located between the water distribution mains and the end of the faucet used by the consumer.
    Arsenic and lead may be present at minute undetectable concentrations, well below all current (50 ppb) and proposed (10 ppb) EPA standards. Following dilution with water, the calculated range of arsenic concentrations in the finished water contributed by fluorosilicic acid feed is 0.10 to 0.24 μg/L (parts per billion, ppb).36 The analytic detection limit for arsenic is 2 μg/L, so the amount added by the fluorosilicic acid would not be detected.36 In Fort Collins, the concentration of lead in the source waters was below the detection limit for lead in the department’s laboratory of 1.0 μg/liter (ppb). Because lead levels are below the detection limits both before and after the addition of fluorosilicic acid, the actual changes in lead concentrations were not measurable.36
    ....
    CONCLUSION
    Scientific evidence supports the fluoridation of public water supplies as safe for the environment and beneficial to people. Reports at the local, national, and international levels have continued to support this most important public health measure. There appears to be no concern about the environmental aspects of water fluoridation among those experts who have investigated the matter. Furthermore, since the chemicals used for water fluoridation are co-products of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers, and the raw material used is a natural resource (rocks excavated for their mineral content), water fluoridation could accurately be described as environmentally friendly, as it maximizes the use made of these natural resources, and reduces waste.
    http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/pdf/pollick.pdf

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,208
    Yes, there is a lot of information out there on this...
    ...trouble is, there are basically two sides: the government agencies and those who support them, the dental and medical professions and, on the other side, everyone else.

    The article you posted, I didn't need to read once I saw CDC in the link. They have absolutely no credibility. Neither does the FDA, the USDA, the EPA (well, maybe a little when they aren't being bullied by the White House OMB).

    Don't you know that top-level members of big business run these agencies?
    Please.

    As for the ADA, all members are prohibited from publicly speaking against anything the ADA promotes (it's in their by-laws).

    Since you have a scientific mind, read this book:
    Fluorine Intoxication, Kaj Roholm, 1937 Copenhagen

    Nearly every research paper I came across made reference to this book but, it was not to be found anywhere on the internet. I had my local library find me a copy (took several months) and it being a research book I couldn't renew it.
    So, I did the only logical thing - I photographed every page, compiled it into pdf and posted it on the internet.

    Be sure to check out the black & white plates.

    I also compiled nearly all of my research documents and uploaded them also to Scribd. Titled: Fluoride: The Ultimate Cluster Flux. (several of them).

    I know it would be very time consuming (took me more than a year to collect them) but, I would like to know your opinion on these documents.

    You have got to look at the BIG picture: Why are they really doing it and Who is to profit?
    'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

    "10 to 1 that in usual fashion, a post which breaks down an issue to its core will be completely ignored by the opposition as they go on discussing irrelevant minutia." - Archangel

    'It's not rational to judge something in the present on actions people took a thousand years ago.' - jyoshu

    'I AM your god, damit! And you will love me or, I will kill you dead.'

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,870
    When my son was a baby my wife and I bought some flouride drops that were recommended by our dentist.
    We subsequently found out that we were in an area that put flouride in the water and that the drops plus the water and flouride our toothpaste was far more than the recommended amount to be ingested.
    My sons is now 25 years old with no fillings and teeth that are incredibly strong..
    Richard Dawkins quote..
    .'I dont think its a very important question whether Jesus existed. Some historians.. MOST historians think he did.
    I dont really care, precisely because its petty. Maybe I've alluded to the possibilty that some historians think Jesus never existed. I take that back Jesus existed........

  14. #14
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandycane View Post
    Yes, there is a lot of information out there on this...
    ...trouble is, there are basically two sides: the government agencies and those who support them, the dental and medical professions and, on the other side, everyone else.

    The article you posted, I didn't need to read once I saw CDC in the link. They have absolutely no credibility. Neither does the FDA, the USDA, the EPA (well, maybe a little when they aren't being bullied by the White House OMB).

    Don't you know that top-level members of big business run these agencies?
    Please.

    As for the ADA, all members are prohibited from publicly speaking against anything the ADA promotes (it's in their by-laws).

    Since you have a scientific mind, read this book:
    Fluorine Intoxication, Kaj Roholm, 1937 Copenhagen

    Nearly every research paper I came across made reference to this book but, it was not to be found anywhere on the internet. I had my local library find me a copy (took several months) and it being a research book I couldn't renew it.
    So, I did the only logical thing - I photographed every page, compiled it into pdf and posted it on the internet.

    Be sure to check out the black & white plates.

    I also compiled nearly all of my research documents and uploaded them also to Scribd. Titled: Fluoride: The Ultimate Cluster Flux. (several of them).

    I know it would be very time consuming (took me more than a year to collect them) but, I would like to know your opinion on these documents.

    You have got to look at the BIG picture: Why are they really doing it and Who is to profit?
    I'll take a look at it and get back to you.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    When my son was a baby my wife and I bought some flouride drops that were recommended by our dentist.
    We subsequently found out that we were in an area that put flouride in the water and that the drops plus the water and flouride our toothpaste was far more than the recommended amount to be ingested.
    My sons is now 25 years old with no fillings and teeth that are incredibly strong..
    That's great your son has no fillings but, what do you mean by 'teeth that are incredibly strong.'?

    Fluoride Exposure During Infancy:

    In contrast to recommendations adopted in the 1950s, fluoride supplementation is no longer recommended for newborn children. This includes both fluoride in drops, and fluoride in drinking water.

    Not only is fluoride ingestion during infancy unnecessary, it can also be harmful - as suggested by a mounting body of evidence linking fluoride exposure during the first year of life with the development of dental fluorosis.

    Because of the risk for dental fluorosis, and the lack of demonstrable benefit from ingesting fluoride before teeth erupt, the American Dental Association - and a growing number of dental researchers - recommend that children under 12 months of age should not consume fluoridated water while babies under 6 months of age should not receive any fluoride drops or pills.
    Fluoride Warnings for Infants
    'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

    "10 to 1 that in usual fashion, a post which breaks down an issue to its core will be completely ignored by the opposition as they go on discussing irrelevant minutia." - Archangel

    'It's not rational to judge something in the present on actions people took a thousand years ago.' - jyoshu

    'I AM your god, damit! And you will love me or, I will kill you dead.'

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •