Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Yamato

Fluoridating our Drinking Water

338 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

TheDarkerSide

Maybe some people prefer to drink water from a plastic bottle made with polycarbonates that include bisphenol-a (BPA) with all the health risks associated with it.

Not me, just give me my clean treated tap water in my own glass thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Exposure to bisphenol A in the workplace and environment are well below the safe levels established by government agencies worldwide. In addition, consumer products derived from bisphenol A that come in contact with foods or beverages are safe for their intended uses and are strictly regulated by government agencies worldwid

http://www.bisphenol-a.org/human/index.html?gclid=COXqorTi7MICFSwLMgodVmAAeg

further plastic bottles and other plastics used for food have a special coating to keep this gas out of the food. plastic bottles are poorly coated and only good for one use. even then it isn't rat poison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

Exposure to bisphenol A in the workplace and environment are well below the safe levels established by government agencies worldwide. In addition, consumer products derived from bisphenol A that come in contact with foods or beverages are safe for their intended uses and are strictly regulated by government agencies worldwid

http://www.bisphenol...CFSwLMgodVmAAeg

further plastic bottles and other plastics used for food have a special coating to keep this gas out of the food. plastic bottles are poorly coated and only good for one use. even then it isn't rat poison.

So you are ok with the government saying the plastic is ok, but not ok with the government saying the fluoride in the water is ok. Makes perfect sense to me!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheDarkerSide

Exposure to bisphenol A in the workplace and environment are well below the safe levels established by government agencies worldwide. In addition, consumer products derived from bisphenol A that come in contact with foods or beverages are safe for their intended uses and are strictly regulated by government agencies worldwid

http://www.bisphenol-a.org/human/index.html?gclid=COXqorTi7MICFSwLMgodVmAAeg

further plastic bottles and other plastics used for food have a special coating to keep this gas out of the food. plastic bottles are poorly coated and only good for one use. even then it isn't rat poison.

So leaching never occurs? And companies never phased out babies bottles and feeding products made of polycarbonate.based on research that showed it does indeed leach. Companies don't do this without good cause or concern. Special coatings have been known to leak.

This was taken from. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/bpa1.htm

BPA is a difficult substance to nail down; it doesn't behave like a typical toxin. While other chemicals labeled as toxic have clear-cut impacts (asbestos exposure leads to cancer, lead poisoning causes reduced mental capacity), BPA is sneakier. Rather than harm the body outright, BPA is an endocrine disruptor. It changes the way our body's hormones function, mimicking our own natural hormones -- in this case, estrogen.

Estrogen can alter the behavior of more than 200 genes, which control the growth and repair of nearly every organ and tissue in the body [source: Environmental Working Group]. Among other things, estrogen affects fetal development, cell structure and the onset of puberty, and your body's cells are highly sensitive to even tiny changes in estrogen levels.

Studies show that doses of BPA between 2 and 20 micrograms per kilogram of body weight alter the reproductive system of male mice.

Babies fed canned formula heated in a polycarbonate bottle may consume that amount in just one day [source: Neimark]. So while some early toxicity studies done on BPA determined that high doses were safe, it's important to remember that BPA doesn't behave like your average toxin. Scientists aren't sure why, but high amounts of BPA don't always seem to affect genes the same way low doses do. It sounds counterintuitive, but with BPA, it turns out that less is actually more [source:

Sorry I have never posted a link before so not quite sure how it is done.

So by your reckoning it's ok for people to get poisoned from plastic. But must be putting their health at risk by drinking from a tap which has properly treated, sanitised fresh water. Your logic has no logic.

Edited by TheDarkerSide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheDarkerSide

Danielost

you're link provides studies which were done over a decade ago as far as I can tell.

Try this one.

Oh and why you are it, please also decide if today is one of the days that your going to trust your government to be keeping your food and water safe. Or is today one of them days when your full of mistrust of what they are doing to your food and water. Quite clearly you change your mind more often than my British weather.

http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/radiation-chemicals-and-breast-cancer/bisphenol-a.html

Edited by TheDarkerSide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

So you are ok with the government saying the plastic is ok, but not ok with the government saying the fluoride in the water is ok. Makes perfect sense to me!

plastic is protected. the floride the use in drinking water is used as rat poison.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Danielost

you're link provides studies which were done over a decade ago as far as I can tell.

Try this one.

Oh and why you are it, please also decide if today is one of the days that your going to trust your government to be keeping your food and water safe. Or is today the day when your full of mistrust of what they are doing to your food and water. Quite clearly you change your mind more often than my British weather.

http://www.breastcan...isphenol-a.html

from your link.

. . Over 500 tons of BPA are released into the U.S. environment annually, according to an estimate by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2012). Significant levels of BPA have been measured in ambient air (Matsumoto, 2005), house dust (Rudel, 2003), and river and drinking water(Rodriguez-Mozaz, 2005)

it looks like your getting both poisons in your tap water and more bpa than i am from the plastic bottles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

plastic is ptoyecyed. the floride the use in drinking water is used as rat poison.

Before anyone starts, he meant to type 'protected'. His fingers aren't what they used to be.

Other than that, I don't agree with him.

Resume. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Before anyone starts, he meant to type 'protected'. His fingers aren't what they used to be.

Other than that, I don't agree with him.

Resume. :)

so do you agree with his link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I only read the first 6 pages, so maybe this has already come up, but is tap water fluoride actually useful to adults? I thought it was there mainly for kids. We don't have fluoridated water where I live, so our dentist told us to just use a fluoridated toothpaste for our kids, which seems to make sense to me. It's going right on the teeth.

Myself, I don't see the need, other then to blanket protect the community for something they should be doing for themselves. Just another example of nanny state in my opinion.

Also, don't the dentists still fluoridate teeth during yearly cleanings? Is that not enough? Or, is it again to protect those people who don't go to the dentist? People who are going to have rotting teeth anyway.

I also read something about people wanting to only drink "pure" water. Actually distilled water can be bad for you. I've read that it actually leeches minerals OUT of your system, where mineralized water provides minerals to your body. Usually the danger in water is from the organics in it. finely filtered water is probably healthier for you then distilled water.

http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com/drinking-distilled-water.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

so do you agree with his link.

Which link? There's been a few of them.

Edited by Likely Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

plastic is protected. the floride the use in drinking water is used as rat poison.

Are you still pushing the "rat poison" angle? Toxicity is a matter of concentration. I thought this was posted on page 1 or 2.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheDarkerSide

from your link.

. . Over 500 tons of BPA are released into the U.S. environment annually, according to an estimate by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2012). Significant levels of BPA have been measured in ambient air (Matsumoto, 2005), house dust (Rudel, 2003), and river and drinking water(Rodriguez-Mozaz, 2005)

it looks like your getting both poisons in your tap water and more bpa than i am from the plastic bottles.

From said link

Chemicals related to breast cancer also make their way into lakes, streams and groundwater systems. Of particular concern are pesticides from agricultural and home use, dioxins and pharmaceutical hormones that make their way down household drains.

Where on earth does your bottled water come from? Mars? So all the bottled water in the world comes from fresh stocks with absolutely no contaminates. Don't try and twist this around. You are part of the problem. You quoted earlier that your life is not more important than someone else's. Yet buying into bottled water because you have a problem with trusting your government when it adds fluoride for its health benefits, is just moving a minor problem along. Thus because of your inability to see how shallow your argument is you now use bottled water.

Your now Bottled water is helping to cause the rise in the plastics poison. Lets not think about the pollution created to our planet just making said plastic bottle. And remembering what you said that it can only be used once. What happens to that plastic bottle once you have satisfied your thirst? You add it to the tons of it already sitting in landfill and in our oceans poisoning our wildlife. Don't duck it! Accept it!

Come on now! Your doing way more bad than good.

Edited by TheDarkerSide
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing

Wow this topic has become a total mess...

We have people talking about rat poison,bpa,and some people being to damn dumb to just brush their teeth properly...WTF happened :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol

the floride the use in drinking water is used as rat poison.

So is Warfarin.

That might save your life one day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malaria_Kidd

Staying with Yamato's topic........

So is Prozac, and that might save your life for many days. Until you quit taking it cold turkey! Dr. Peter Breggin says antipsychotic drugs are prescribed in multiples to U.S. troops suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder! :blush:

Dr. Breggin also acts as a medical expert in criminal, malpractice and product liability cases. He has been involved in landmark cases on behalf of patient rights in regard to antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs. :td:

Fluoride metered into the drinking water WAS first used by stalin's commie minions to pacify captives in their cold and scary Siberian gulags. Then the natzis did the same thing in their horrible concentration camps! :devil:One would wonder what ppm was chosen to keep riots at bay.

Paul Connett Phd - the politics and science of water fluoridation

The Bizarre History of Fluoride - documentary pics

Fluoride is bad for you - A quick demo

Edited by Malaria_Kidd
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

So leaching never occurs? And companies never phased out babies bottles and feeding products made of polycarbonate.based on research that showed it does indeed leach. Companies don't do this without good cause or concern. Special coatings have been known to leak.

This was taken from. http://science.howst...cience/bpa1.htm

BPA is a difficult substance to nail down; it doesn't behave like a typical toxin. While other chemicals labeled as toxic have clear-cut impacts (asbestos exposure leads to cancer, lead poisoning causes reduced mental capacity), BPA is sneakier. Rather than harm the body outright, BPA is an endocrine disruptor. It changes the way our body's hormones function, mimicking our own natural hormones -- in this case, estrogen.

Estrogen can alter the behavior of more than 200 genes, which control the growth and repair of nearly every organ and tissue in the body [source: Environmental Working Group]. Among other things, estrogen affects fetal development, cell structure and the onset of puberty, and your body's cells are highly sensitive to even tiny changes in estrogen levels.

Studies show that doses of BPA between 2 and 20 micrograms per kilogram of body weight alter the reproductive system of male mice.

Babies fed canned formula heated in a polycarbonate bottle may consume that amount in just one day [source: Neimark]. So while some early toxicity studies done on BPA determined that high doses were safe, it's important to remember that BPA doesn't behave like your average toxin. Scientists aren't sure why, but high amounts of BPA don't always seem to affect genes the same way low doses do. It sounds counterintuitive, but with BPA, it turns out that less is actually more [source:

Sorry I have never posted a link before so not quite sure how it is done.

So by your reckoning it's ok for people to get poisoned from plastic. But must be putting their health at risk by drinking from a tap which has properly treated, sanitised fresh water. Your logic has no logic.

people getting poisoned by using plastic does not endanger others so that they can be safe or have good teeth with out brushing. because, their too lazy to brush. you will note i have said nothing bad about the fluoride in tooth paste or mouth wash. the only reason to put it in drinking water, is because people are to lazy to brush, or to make sure their kids brush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Are you still pushing the "rat poison" angle? Toxicity is a matter of concentration. I thought this was posted on page 1 or 2.

the concentration of a toxin is dangers to people depending on their weight and age. besides the rat poison just became part of the discussion. i know because i brought it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Common household salt (and it was quite clear that was being referred to) is Sodium ChloriDe.

If the salt that you buy from the supermarket consists of anything else, then you should rightly complain.

Sodium ChloriDe (NaCl) is necessary for our health. It ISN'T the same, in any meaningful way as CHLORINE. Chlorine is a very dangerous and poisonous gas. But the ChloriDe ions in salt do NOT behave in any way like ChloriNe.

Can you not compare that to FluoriDe? Here, let me help you with that...

Sodium FluoriDe is necessary for our dental health (not as much is required as NaCl, of course..). It ISN'T the same, in any meaningful way as FLUORINE. Fluorine is also a very dangerous and poisonous gas. But the FluoriDe ions in NaF do NOT behave in any way like FluoriNe.

This stuff is really, really basic chemistry. A class that perhaps you snored your way thru?

Here it is again:

4. What is the chemical compound for salt?

The answer is NaCl (Sodium chloriDe). Just as common household salt has nothing in common with ChloriNe gas in terms of toxicity, Sodium Fluoride has nothing in common with Fluorine in terms of toxicity.

Don't worry, Yam, some folks here are getting it.

Here it is again:

5. Does sodium chloride share any of the properties of elemental chlorine, the very poisonous gas?

The answer (that Yamato and Daniel desperately want to avoid) is NO, of course it doesn't. Just as Sodium Fluoride doesn't share any of the properties of elemental Fluorine gas.

Sure - it is 0.8 ppm. Given that we know that the normal range for fluoridation is .6 to 1.0 ppm, why do you ask?

I'm interested to see you provide some logic and maths and peer -reviewed science to follow through along this interesting path, so over to you.

Common household salt (and it was quite clear that was being referred to) is Sodium ChloriDe.

If the salt that you buy from the supermarket consists of anything else, then you should rightly complain.

Sodium ChloriDe (NaCl) is necessary for our health. It ISN'T the same, in any meaningful way as CHLORINE. Chlorine is a very dangerous and poisonous gas. But the ChloriDe ions in salt do NOT behave in any way like ChloriNe.

Can you not compare that to FluoriDe? Here, let me help you with that...

Sodium FluoriDe is necessary for our dental health (not as much is required as NaCl, of course..). It ISN'T the same, in any meaningful way as FLUORINE. Fluorine is also a very dangerous and poisonous gas. But the FluoriDe ions in NaF do NOT behave in any way like FluoriNe.

This stuff is really, really basic chemistry. A class that perhaps you snored your way thru?

Here it is again:

4. What is the chemical compound for salt?

The answer is NaCl (Sodium chloriDe). Just as common household salt has nothing in common with ChloriNe gas in terms of toxicity, Sodium Fluoride has nothing in common with Fluorine in terms of toxicity.

Don't worry, Yam, some folks here are getting it.

Here it is again:

5. Does sodium chloride share any of the properties of elemental chlorine, the very poisonous gas?

The answer (that Yamato and Daniel desperately want to avoid) is NO, of course it doesn't. Just as Sodium Fluoride doesn't share any of the properties of elemental Fluorine gas.

Sure - it is 0.8 ppm. Given that we know that the normal range for fluoridation is .6 to 1.0 ppm, why do you ask?

I'm interested to see you provide some logic and maths and peer -reviewed science to follow through along this interesting path, so over to you.

Daniel got his letters wrong and you're still kicking the horse. Path to where? Strawman alley? If you'd like to have a discussion about how elements have different properties that's fine. That's not the discussion here. If you don't like the topic, go find a topic that you like. But don't hijack this one with irrelevant and sloppy chemistry.

There's no hero or villain Chloride without the hero or villain Chlorine.

5. Does sodium chloride share any of the properties of elemental chlorine, the very poisonous gas?

You'd have to think that I'm daniel to be asking me this. I think it's leaning towards incorrect to say that table salt is poisonous. Probably for the same reason you don't think that Fluoride in the water is poisonous. It's within an acceptable range. But this discussion is in view of other research which suggests that the health problems can happen at 1 ppm.

As much as fluorine has nothing to do with this discussion, neither does chlorine or chloride. So to keep talking about it knowing it's different, and therefore knowing it's different than THIS topic, isn't a productive use of your time. Why wouldn't you want better data on the health risks from too much salt in your diet? Or more studies on fluoride and the brain? Why this obstinance for the status quo when there is conflicting data here?

I'm asking questions because I don't know the answers. You seem to be asking questions that you know the answers to. If you know the answers to any of my questions, please be a good Joe and answer them. You've only answered one, and I asked you three times. Feel free to knock out any of my questions throughout this thread directed at whoever. Meanwhile, do you have a source for that 0.8 ppm statistic or are you just giving someone (who?) the benefit of the doubt based on what, exactly?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Daniel got his letters wrong and you're still kicking the horse. Path to where? Strawman alley? If you'd like to have a discussion about how elements have different properties that's fine. That's not the discussion here. If you don't like the topic, go find a topic that you like. But don't hijack this one with irrelevant and sloppy chemistry.

There's no hero or villain Chloride without the hero or villain Chlorine.

You'd have to think that I'm daniel to be asking me this. I think it's leaning towards incorrect to say that table salt is poisonous. Probably for the same reason you don't think that Fluoride in the water is poisonous. It's within an acceptable range. But this discussion is in view of other research which suggests that the health problems can happen at 1 ppm.

As much as fluorine has nothing to do with this discussion, neither does chlorine or chloride. So to keep talking about it knowing it's different, and therefore knowing it's different than THIS topic, isn't a productive use of your time. Why wouldn't you want better data on the health risks from too much salt in your diet? Or more studies on fluoride and the brain? Why this obstinance for the status quo when there is conflicting data here?

I'm asking questions because I don't know the answers. You seem to be asking questions that you know the answers to. If you know the answers to any of my questions, please be a good Joe and answer them. You've only answered one, and I asked you three times. Feel free to knock out any of my questions throughout this thread directed at whoever. Meanwhile, do you have a source for that 0.8 ppm statistic or are you just giving someone (who?) the benefit of the doubt based on what, exactly?

the link at the top of this page, has the amount of fluoride that we are getting. which is about 6 millimeters per day. toxic level is 8 millimeters per day. how ever this was raised in the 80's effectively doubling the safe amount before that decade. also i would thank you not to call me stupid just because you disagree with me. i don't do that to you or anyone else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

That, Malaria Kidd, is exactly the sort of non-specific handwaving and ill-informed scaremongering that tinfoilers feed on..

If you do NOT, then you are simply scaremongering and trying to mislead this forum.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black. First water from condensation is bad cause it will grow all kinds of bad crap if you leave it stagnant (Duh). Oh plus there might be metals in it from the condenser. But the pipes that bring you tap water wont hurt you at all right? My goodness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B

I only read the first 6 pages, so maybe this has already come up, but is tap water fluoride actually useful to adults? I thought it was there mainly for kids. We don't have fluoridated water where I live, so our dentist told us to just use a fluoridated toothpaste for our kids, which seems to make sense to me. It's going right on the teeth.

Myself, I don't see the need, other then to blanket protect the community for something they should be doing for themselves. Just another example of nanny state in my opinion.

Also, don't the dentists still fluoridate teeth during yearly cleanings? Is that not enough? Or, is it again to protect those people who don't go to the dentist? People who are going to have rotting teeth anyway...

I don't see fluoridating water as a case of nanny state intervention. The problem is that people with rotting teeth become a burden to the state in terms of healthcare. It's cheaper for the government to fluoridate water and prevent cavities than to provide health care for those people who don't look after their teeth.

So if the government doesn't want to fluoridate the water but still wants to avoid increased healthcare costs due to poor dental hygiene, what is it supposed to do? Send around the teeth inspectors to check people are brushing? Isn't that a little more nanny-state-ish than fluoridating the water? Okay, I wasn't being serious, but can you provide an alternative that keeps a government's costs down without being even more nanny-state-ish than water fluoridation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

People with decayed teeth are a burden to the government? Wow!

I guess people with halitosis and body odor are also burdens?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

I don't see fluoridating water as a case of nanny state intervention. The problem is that people with rotting teeth become a burden to the state in terms of healthcare. It's cheaper for the government to fluoridate water and prevent cavities than to provide health care for those people who don't look after their teeth.

So if the government doesn't want to fluoridate the water but still wants to avoid increased healthcare costs due to poor dental hygiene, what is it supposed to do? Send around the teeth inspectors to check people are brushing? Isn't that a little more nanny-state-ish than fluoridating the water? Okay, I wasn't being serious, but can you provide an alternative that keeps a government's costs down without being even more nanny-state-ish than water fluoridation?

the only people that the government covers for dental care are those under 21, mostly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

the link at the top of this page, has the amount of fluoride that we are getting. which is about 6 millimeters per day. toxic level is 8 millimeters per day. how ever this was raised in the 80's effectively doubling the safe amount before that decade. also i would thank you not to call me stupid just because you disagree with me. i don't do that to you or anyone else.

I wouldn't call you stupid daniel. I acknowledge you don't call other posters stupid as well. I don't even know what I disagree with you about that's worth mentioning. I'm sorry you had to go through what you just went through on my thread.

My conclusion is indeterminate. I think I know enough to know that I need to know more. I have no confidence in what someone tells me is a healthy dose of daily Fluoride in my water. People who just swallow whatever the EPA or the ABC tell them to aren't who I want in the lab testing it either. None of that self-gratuitous posturing and ad hominem from other posters has changed my mind, that's for sure. What a losing tack for any discussion. The posters I'll affectionately name the Science Monopolists are fun to pacify at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.