Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 101 to 112 of 112

Thread: Fluoride

  1. #101
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default Re: Fluoride

    starting tomorrow, 1 Dec, fluoride goes into our drinking water. Some people have tanks installed, but as I live in a rented apartment, that is not possible. Can anyone suggest something simple to get rid of the fluoride, apart from buying bottled water? I do magnetise the tap water, but don't know if this will eliminate the fluoride. Suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks
    Eve

  2. #102
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Fluoride

    Quote eve View Post
    I do magnetise the tap water, but don't know if this will eliminate the fluoride. Suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks
    http://www.chem1.com/CQ/magwatscams.html

  3. #103
    snivelingchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana, United S
    Posts
    1,022

    Default Re: Fluoride

    Quote eve View Post
    starting tomorrow, 1 Dec, fluoride goes into our drinking water. Some people have tanks installed, but as I live in a rented apartment, that is not possible. Can anyone suggest something simple to get rid of the fluoride, apart from buying bottled water? I do magnetise the tap water, but don't know if this will eliminate the fluoride. Suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks
    You can install a fluoride water filter at your sink. It's a simple install and not too much money, unless you want it to filter out minerals too. Then you'd probably have to get an under the sink system for 2-3 times more.

  4. #104
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Fluoride

    Fluoride is a naturally occurring compound found in all drinking water on all continents and varies in concentration greatly by region. I know in at least many parts of North America, Africa, and Asia the naturally occurring concentration is as much as 400% or more that which the medical and dental industries agree is optimal for preventing tooth decay (without unnecessarily also introducing fluorosis) and hence is filtered away at the municipal level. I assume it may surprise many here that this removal of naturally occurring excess fluoride is actually considered part of "water fluoridation programs" because in truth scientists' objective is to optimize the level of fluoride in drinking water to generally .7 to 1.2 ppm (usually most focusing on 1 ppm, parts per million), by either addition or removal. Yes, the majority of communities add, not remove, fluoride but I thought some may find that interesting.

    Having researched water filtration I can tell you that the two most common filtering mediums used for removing fluoride specifically both at the municipal level and individual home level are bone char (also now euphemistically referred to as "natural charcoal" by many industries) and alumina. Bone char is obviously not considered vegan to most and aluminum based products that touch our food or water may be a concern to some, not that I'm passing any judgment, I'm just pointing it out again because I thought it might be of interest to some.

    Besides buying bottled water (which would need to be labeled as being "fluoride free", since many sources of ground/spring water contain fluoride in substantial concentrations naturally) or alternatively distilled water, other methods of fluoride removal for the home would include reverse osmosis and electro-dialysis. Although more costly than simple filtration methods they are considered the "gold standard", but I've never looked into them in detail since I'm glad my water contains fluoride, but I thought I'd pass on what I know since it was requested.

    This site provides some further info and links. Additional third party references to back any facts I've stated in this post are available upon request.

  5. #105
    snivelingchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana, United S
    Posts
    1,022

    Default Re: Fluoride

    .
    Last edited by snivelingchild; Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:26 AM. Reason: read something wrong

  6. #106
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default Re: Fluoride

    Dear, dear Mahk, we all know how much you believe that fluoride is good, but you really must allow that some people think differently. Not only that, but a few of the urls you've put in are downright rude to those whose opinions differ. Mind you, that is how things have been since the time when there were those who went against the majority opinion and stated that the world was round. Then there were a few humanitarians in the British parliament in the 1800s, who wanted animals to be protected by law. In particular the overworked and abused donkey came up for discussion. Ever after, whenever the humanitarians entered the halls for discussion, they were greeted by the majority with braying noises! Took a long time before there was much improvement in the treatment of hard-working animals. Something along these lines now with the climate change leaders - yes there are over a thousand "scientists" on the winning side, but there are plenty of others who disagree on the subject, and they are simply ridiculed as ignorant skeptics.

    In scanning one or two of the pages you drew attention to, that addressed the subject of magnetising, the writers could barely contain their contempt. Now I did start to stand a jug of water overnight on a magnet, because at the time I was living in Adelaide whose water is absolutely disgusting. I told the doc of my predicament and he recommended getting a magnet, standing a jug of water on a magnet over night then drinking from that jug the next day. I was then able to drink the water, and have been using the magnet for about 20 years.

    All I wanted was to hear if anybody had a view as to whether the magnet could get rid of the fluoride.

    snivelingchild, I appreciate your suggestion, and I'll make enquiries. Thank you.
    Eve

  7. #107
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Fluoride

    Quote eve View Post
    Dear, dear Mahk,...
    Dear, dear Eve, Don't blame me for the manner or tone of the author(s?) of the singular URL I provided, I had nothing to do with its creation, or any links found within that URL for Pete's sake :

    ...a few of the urls you've put in are downright rude to those whose opinions differ...[snip]...In scanning one or two of the pages you drew attention to that addressed the subject of magnetising,[, "pages"? I gave one link.] the writers could barely contain their contempt.
    You asked if anyone here had any info regarding if and how magnetized water might possibly have a changed content and without passing any judgments whatsoever, or making any comments, I passed along a single paged link which addressed the concept of magnetized water directly. I didn't write the URL. Sorry if it was not to your liking. If you don't like their conclusions or tone, that's fine, but don't take it out on me, take it out on them.

    Note, of the over 500,000 hits I found from the search term "magnetized water" using the google search engine, the very first one listed, which I believe means it's the most viewed worldwide, is the one I provided. Obviously I didn't have the time to read all half million of the other ones to find the most polite one.

  8. #108
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default Re: Fluoride

    Mahk, I notice that the url you posted, googled on 'magnetized water' had a sub-heading 'snake oil for suckers'. Perhaps you didn't read it after all. I just checked it out briefly, but prefer the googled 'magnetized water' when I got this one:
    http://www.drlam.com/opinion/magnetized_water.asp url -

    No, Mahk I don't blame you for what the authors wrote, but I wrongly assumed that you were recommending it. No hard feelings?
    Eve

  9. #109
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Fluoride

    Any further discussions regarding "magnetized water" should be in another thread, I'd think. Personally, I think it has very little to do with the fluoridation question in general and side tracks the main discussion, however information regarding how water content is possibly changed by magnets was specifically requested so I provided a link I thought both explained the topic quite accurately and even provided linked tutorials for people not fully familiar with the principals of magnetology. Anyone should feel free to start such a thread if they choose; but the general content of that link I already provided in post #102 concisely states my opinion on that matter [albeit in an arguably "rude" tone that I obviously have no control over] and I consider their scientific arguments to be sound.

    I apologize for any derailment of the original topic.

  10. #110
    Prawnil
    Guest

    Post Re: Fluoride

    PTC Harrison PhD, MRC Institute of Environment and Health, University of Leicester, 2005. Fluoride in water: a UK perspective, Journal of Fluorine Chemistry, Elsevier
    This Article is not available, as far as I know, without a ScienceDirect account (from this source at least), so this post is messy with quotations.

    Quote Mahk, "Vaccinations" p6
    There is no such thing as "people with adverse reactions to municipally fluoridated water", the category of people simply doesn't exist...

    Notice, everyone, how every single rebuttal to my above statement from other forum members I am about to receive will lack any citations* from any medical or dental peer-reviewed scientific or scholarly journals
    *Though so did your own initial statement above, which is a strong one. The 2005 multiple-study paper I'm quoting from describes the data in less certain terms:

    Quote PTC Harrison
    Information regarding the allergic potential of fluoride in drinking water is sparse. A paper by Spittle (B. Spittle, Fluoride 26 (1993), pp. 267–273.) concluded that some individuals exhibit an allergic/hypersensitivity reaction to fluoride, but reviews by NRC (NRC, Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, National Academy Press, 1993), NHMRC (The Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation, Report D6, NHMRC, 1991.) and Chalacombe S.J.(Commun. Dent. Health 13, 1996. pp. 69–71) all concluded that the studies undertaken do not support claims that fluoride is allergenic. They considered the weight of evidence to show that fluoride is unlikely to produce hypersensitivity or other immunological effects.

    There is no information on the immunotoxicity of fluoride.
    Contrast Inconclusivity/improbability with "There is no such thing...".
    --------------

    Quote Mahk
    ...even though we have been studying fluoride constantly, non-stop, for over a half century with almost 4000 individual published studies on record documenting its safety!
    This isn't untrue. Still, statements like these are equally important (all same paper):

    Quote PTC Harrison
    ...the evidence for an association between water fluoride level and the incidence of Down's syndrome is inconclusive, a conclusion reiterated by Whiting et al. [55] P. Whiting, M. McDonagh, J. Kleijnen, BMC Public Health, vol. 1, 2001, p. 6 (available at: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/1/6).
    Quote PTC Harrison
    ...Several other health outcomes have been postulated as being connected with elevated fluoride intake, including effects on the pineal gland, senile dementia, age at menarche, anaemia during pregnancy, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and primary degenerative dementia. Available information on these outcomes is limited and inconclusive [12] Medical Research Council, Working Group Report, Water Fluoridation and Health, Medical Research Council, London, 2002.
    --------------
    For the benefit of the thread as a source of information, this paper's general conlcusions are positive with respect to the safety of Fluoride at drinking water ppms:

    Kidney:
    ...Several large community-based epidemiological studies found no increased renal disease associated with long-term exposure to drinking water with fluoride concentrations of up to 8 mg L−1 [44] and [45].
    GI:
    ...Gastric irritation, by release of hydrogen fluoride in the stomach at high doses of fluoride intake, is plausible. However, it is unlikely that sufficient hydrogen fluoride will be released from the low concentrations of fluoride in drinking water in the UK to cause irritation in healthy individuals. It is possible that individuals who have an existing stomach disorder may be susceptible to irritation following ingestion of fluoridated water, but there is no published evidence for this.
    Cancer:
    ...available evidence suggests no link between water fluoridation and either cancer in general or any specific cancer type (including osteosarcoma, primary bone cancer); nonetheless, the MRC Working Group recommended an updated analysis of UK data on fluoridation and cancer rates. The evidence for any significant health effects of this type is considered to be weak, although the MRC Working Group recommended that the area be kept under review
    Bone Health:
    The possibility of an effect on the risk of hip fracture is the most important in public health terms. The available evidence on this suggests no effect, but cannot rule out the possibility of a small percentage change (either an increase or a decrease) in fractures. Research results currently available do not allow a useful estimate to be made of the impact of fluoridation on other bone disorders. However, the few studies that have been carried out do not suggest a problem.
    The paper concludes that there is no evidence for consequences for the thyroid or intelligence as a response to Fluoride at drinking-water ppm concentrations.
    I don't personally interpret these conclusions as reasons to fear ~1ppm concentrations of Fluoride in tap water. I don't, by any means, consider this to be a basis from which to describe skeptics as delusional.

    --------------
    This is an overkill post, but hopefully the fairly recent pieces of information are useful. I began the post with pedantry, primarily because I am confused as to how double-standards, mockery and sarcasm can achieve anything except an angry atmosphere in these threads that (surely?) exist to provide members with a place to dispassionately discuss particular issues.
    ("But I AM passionate about...health issue!". It isn't useful to bring it into a thread on an issue that relies on exchanging evidence, even if others don't play by the same calm rules! It will only cause trouble.)

  11. #111
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Fluoride

    Quote Prawnil View Post
    PTC Harrison PhD, MRC Institute of Environment and Health, University of Leicester, 2005. Fluoride in water: a UK perspective, Journal of Fluorine Chemistry, Elsevier *Though so did your own initial statement above, which is a strong one. The 2005 multiple-study paper I'm quoting from describes the data in less certain terms:



    Contrast Inconclusivity/improbability with "There is no such thing."
    Would you have been happier if I wrote "There is no evidence to support a conclusion that municipally fluoridated water alone causes any adverse reactions in any category of individuals other than a small, roughly 5-10 % of people who will develop very mild, cosmetic fluorosis, they may not even notice, but a dentist would, in the over fifty years of continual investigation fluoridated water has gone through" instead? Would that be more to your liking? I'm not sure I get your point. I never said we should stop any further investigations, I just said that the current 4000 or so studies conducted so far over the past half century plus have found no evidence against fluoride. If a study is "inconclusive" it means "it finds no evidence one way or another".

    From your quoted study's abstract:

    Although evidence continues to support the premise that fluoride in water helps protect children's teeth against caries, there are a number of potential adverse impacts, notably dental fluorosis (mottling of teeth). The situation is complicated by the fact that many individuals receive additional exposure to fluoride through the use of fluoride toothpaste, for example. [or they swallow it as we now know many children do]* Nonetheless, fluoridation of water continues to be generally regarded as a safe, simple and cost-effective public health measure to reach children most at risk and reduce the incidence of dental caries.

    *added by Mahk

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    *Though so did your own initial statement above, which is a strong one.
    However, in my previous post in that thread, page 5 #245, I provided a link to 358 separate references citing the safety and benefits of optimally fluoridated water:

    A) Here is a link to a list of 358 references including many scientific studies published in peer reviewed medical and dental journals [no blogs! ] of studies which support fluoridation as being a safe, effective, and inexpensive means in the fight against tooth decay: [scroll down to see pages #58 through #67 which list them of this PDF file]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CvC posted a link (in the vaccination thread) to a scare tactic page used by the unscrupulous anti fluoridation sites showing people with advanced moderate to sever fluorosis, which never occurs due to optimally fluoridated water intake, but rather is usually found in pocket communities of people who live in certain parts of Asia, India, and Africa, where the naturally occurring fluoride found in the soil, food, and water is in concentrations hundreds of times the pretty much universally agreed upon optimal amount (1 ppm) we add ( or sometimes remove, don't forget) here in the western world. The other group that gets advanced, visible fluorosis (although it's interestingly still really just a cosmetic thing, believe it or not; the teeth themselves are healthy and strong!) is people who swallow their toothpaste, mostly kids. Despite putting warning labels on toothpaste tubes we know that many children are still doing this to this day because their parents don't know to supervise their kids and explain this important concept. Of course making it taste like mint candy is a pretty stupid idea once you know this is a problem but what are they going to do? Make it taste bad to combat this? What if then kids refuse to brush?

    For people who would like to learn more about fluorosis through the eyes of doctors, dentists, and scientists, rather than the deceptive, half truth filled, original citation free, scaremonger tactics of the anti fluoridation sites with their use of shock photos, I recommend this FAQ page from the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.

    Or this from the Journal of the American Dental Association.

  12. #112

    Default Re: Fluoride

    Thanks Mahk for all the care you have taken in posting this.
    ..but what would they do with all the cows?..

Similar Threads

  1. Fluoride in "healthy" soya milk
    By veganvoo in forum VEGAN FOOD
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 31st, 2010, 10:43 PM
  2. Fluoride labeled poison: Tennessee to ban it first
    By Apple_Blossem in forum America
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jun 20th, 2007, 02:39 AM

Tags for this thread (If you see one or more tags below, click on them if you're looking for similar threads!)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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