Secret camera footage of fluoride facility in Austin

[Karlos]

I don't have time for a proper post yet, but I'm pretty much on the fence when it comes to adding (sources of) fluoride (ions) to water.

Since someone mentioned science and nobody seems to have bothered presenting it, the science behind it is quite simple. A type of calcium hydroxyapatite (a mineral composed of calcium phosphate in which not all of the hydrogen ions associated with the phosphoric acid component are replaced by calcium) is a major component of bones and teeth. It's also fairly easily attacked by acids since phosphoric acid is weak (yes, it is; we are talking about phosphoric acid in solution in water, not the neat stuff which is quite nasty) and so a range of acids produced by the action of bacteria on sugars can result in the demineralisation of your teeth. A problem compounded by the fact that they tend to live in film colonies on the surface of your teeth and thus the concentration of said acids can be very high immediately in the vicinity of the tooth.

One of the "fluorides" in toothpaste is calcium fluorophosphate. This slots quite neatly into the mineral component of your teeth and is much more acid resistant. Secondly, traces of the fluoride ion will result in the deposition of calcium "fluoroapatite" as part of the remineralisation process of your teeth that normally occurs once the (mild) alkalinity of your mouth is restored some time after eating. It's also a lot faster to deposit than calcium hydroxyapatite and so you end up with a more acid-resistant enamel than you would otherwise have in the absence of fluoride during the remineralisation process.

That's the basic science for "fluoride helps prevent tooth decay". When I get time, I'll get into my opinions about it, but for now, work beckons...

 

[the_leander]

Since someone mentioned science and nobody seems to have bothered presenting it, the science behind it is quite simple. <snip>

Lol wut?

The BMA link I pointed to had many links to scientific papers covering virtually all aspects of fluoridation!

Thanks for the chemistry breakdown though.

 

[Karlos]

Lol wut?

The BMA link I pointed to had many links to scientific papers covering virtually all aspects of fluoridation!

Thanks for the chemistry breakdown though.

Welcome

Over the years, I've found that the problem with just posting links, especially technical/scientific is that most people don't bother to read them (and especially any further links from said location) and thus won't take on board the information within them unless it's broken down and presented directly and even then, you risk the TL;DR response.

It's far easier to take on board that nasty chemicals are nasty and even moreso when they come from other nasty chemical processes. With next to no science at all, the video in the original post hammers that home. Of course, almost all industrial scale chemical processes are nasty and the raw chemicals they produce are rarely nice things. And yes, lots of very useful chemicals are waste products from the production of other chemicals.

Additionally, said video neglects totally to mention what happens to said nasty chemicals when they are diluted to great extent in water. Phosphoric acid, (which I mentioned earlier) destroyed one of the quayside loading areas in my home town as a kid. When neat, it's very nasty stuff indeed, made using process that typically involve other nasty things. Yet, dissolved in water it's a comparatively weak acid (in the Bronstead definition of the word) that any cola afficionado drinks all the time.

Likewise, "hexafluorosicilic acid" - which, unlike phosphoric acid, does not exist as an isolated substance, only in solutionr has a tendency to break down, particularly in even mildly alkaline conditions to produce fluoride ions, the silicon crashing out as silicon dioxide. You aren't ever drinking the category 4 hazard chemical that's used and described in the video. you are consuming the fluoride ions it's decomposition in excess water results in. Which, of course, in high enough concentrations are certainly toxic, but the fact is that many natural water sources contain higher concentrations of fluoride ions than typical fluoridation processes introduce.

All said and done, however, objections to the lack of choice and dosage control are certainly valid in my opinion. Topical application of fluoride, such as fluoride containing toothpaste and mouthwash and appropriate education in how and when to use them seems a more sensible idea than just dosing everybody whether they want it or not. Particularly when you consider that the long term (by which I mean multi-generational) health effects of exposure to most substances, let alone fluoride ions (which again is known to be biologically active and toxic in sufficient quantities) is not well understood. We do know, however, that non fluoridated water is generally pretty safe as long as you don't breathe it.

 

[the_leander]

Welcome

Over the years, I've found that the problem with just posting links, especially technical/scientific is that most people don't bother to read them (and especially any further links from said location) and thus won't take on board the information within them unless it's broken down and presented directly and even then, you risk the TL;DR response.

True enough. Funny thing was it had a nice breakdown that effectively said "Yes, this might in some cases discolour teeth, but that's about all it'll do."

Meh.

It's far easier to take on board that nasty chemicals are nasty and even moreso when they come from other nasty chemical processes. With next to no science at all, the video in the original post hammers that home. Of course, almost all industrial scale chemical processes are nasty and the raw chemicals they produce are rarely nice things. And yes, lots of very useful chemicals are waste products from the production of other chemicals.

Additionally, said video neglects totally to mention what happens to said nasty chemicals when they are diluted to great extent in water. Phosphoric acid, (which I mentioned earlier) destroyed one of the quayside loading areas in my home town as a kid. When neat, it's very nasty stuff indeed, made using process that typically involve other nasty things. Yet, dissolved in water it's a comparatively weak acid (in the Bronstead definition of the word) that any cola afficionado drinks all the time.

Likewise, "hexafluorosicilic acid" - which, unlike phosphoric acid, does not exist as an isolated substance, only in solutionr has a tendency to break down, particularly in even mildly alkaline conditions to produce fluoride ions, the silicon crashing out as silicon dioxide. You aren't ever drinking the category 4 hazard chemical that's used and described in the video. you are consuming the fluoride ions it's decomposition in excess water results in. Which, of course, in high enough concentrations are certainly toxic, but the fact is that many natural water sources contain higher concentrations of fluoride ions than typical fluoridation processes introduce.

Yeah, the shock site red pointed to did a similar trick in trying to conflate exceptionally high doses with what a person might routinely be exposed to naturally. Much like the guy I debated some years back who deliberately tried to do the same with constant references to fluorine gas.

All said and done, however, objections to the lack of choice and dosage control are certainly valid in my opinion.

Unfortunately as you've pointed out, in many places fluoride occurs naturally in the water supply, so even if all water companies stopped fluoridating water tomorrow, many people still wouldn't have a choice. Then again, with the advent of water filters like brita and (in the case of my grandmother a similar system built into the cold water tap) there is the option of taking out any number of additives from the standard supply and that's not even going into the whole bottled water industry.

Topical application of fluoride, such as fluoride containing toothpaste and mouthwash and appropriate education in how and when to use them seems a more sensible idea than just dosing everybody whether they want it or not.

My secondary school left fully 1/3rd of my year group functionally illiterate. Given that they can't even get the basics down, coupled with serious doubts that the media would be of much use given the complete hash they routinely make of reporting anything like this, this is one thing I edge toward putting it in, based on the available evidence. Dunning Kruger effect notwithstanding.

Particularly when you consider that the long term (by which I mean multi-generational) health effects of exposure to most substances, let alone fluoride ions (which again is known to be biologically active and toxic in sufficient quantities) is not well understood. We do know, however, that non fluoridated water is generally pretty safe as long as you don't breathe it.

Surely simply collecting statistics of people living in areas where there is naturally occurring fluoride within the water and whose family have lived there over generations - checking over their medical records would be able to provide no end of data relating to potential issues?

 

[faethor]

Red, I said science. Whilst you might feel linking to youtube vids bolsters your case, it really, really doesn't.

This seems to be a problem with 'believers' that I run into with an ever increasing frequency on the internet. Guys just because person X says it's so on your favorite news source doesn't mean it's true. Has that 'journalist' backed up the research? And have they provided you the sources so you can see the quality and review of the studies?

For example, we saw this recently on the identification of particles that were detected at traveling faster than light. Really what happened here is the research group said - we need help identifying errors. The internets globbed onto the part about Einstein being broken and pressed that as the truth. In fact, the research has not been peer reviewed. The study has not been duplicated. (CERN will likely duplicate in about 1/2 a year.) Coorelating experiments have not been conducted. We simply have 1 experiment that at best make FTL particles are interesting as a postulate. The mainstream news makes it seem this is a give and soon we'll travel across the universe before we leave. Sorry guys that's a truly bad bet at this juncture.

 

[faethor]

@Karlos,

I'll be the poor devil's counter argument -- but Homopathy teaches us less is more. Clearly if we wave the flouride over the water the water will remember. Then you drink the water you'll die from so much over flouridation.

@the_leander

there is the option of taking out any number of additives from the standard supply and that's not even going into the whole bottled water industry.

Bottled water must meet drinkability requirements and nothing beyond that. Much is not filtered but simply poured from the tap and bottled. They'd get the similar flouridation levels.

As for taste it appears that's one largely dictated on preception. I should have kept links for these. Tests switching tap water for bottled and putting the bottled in a glass results in people picking tap water in the pretty package as the best testing. Marketing preception does indeed greatly influence consumer choice. Similar things have been seen with wines, too.

 

[Karlos]

An interesting anecdotal observation. I grew up in a region where there was a natural concentration of fluoride in the water slightly over the typical target dose of 1ppm and never had any tooth decay trouble. After 15 years of living in a region with non-fluoridated water, I got my first tooth problem...

Of course, this was a complete coincidence. As it happens, not even fluoridated water can protect your teeth from the side effects of chewing on small stones

 

[the_leander]

Of course, this was a complete coincidence. As it happens, not even fluoridated water can protect your teeth from the side effects of chewing on small stones

Not even going to ask

 

[Dammy]

An interesting anecdotal observation. I grew up in a region where there was a natural concentration of fluoride in the water slightly over the typical target dose of 1ppm and never had any tooth decay trouble. After 15 years of living in a region without non-fluoridated water, I got my first tooth problem...

Of course, this was a complete coincidence. As it happens, not even fluoridated water can protect your teeth from the side effects of chewing on small stones

How much of Europe is without Sodium Fluoride added to the water supply? Is the typical toothpaste sold in Europe with or without some fluoride compound? In the US, you have to go hunting to find any toothpaste that is without fluoride (some Dr.s in the US consider it a neurotoxin) and typically will pay significantly more for it.

IMO, it's up to the individual to take responsibility of washing their teeth on a regular schedule or pay for more dental services. As far as children are concerned, that's up to their parents to look after their children's health which would include dental health.

 

[Karlos]

I can't speak for the rest of Europe, in the UK about 10% of the population receive fluoride in their water, either naturally or as the result of fluoridation. Fluoride containing toothpastes and mouthwashes tend to advertise the fact that they contain the stuff and the concentration is always listed in the ingredients (at least in all the toothpastes I've bought).

 

[Karlos]

(some Dr.s in the US consider it a neurotoxin)

So is pure water, if you consume enough of it.

 

[the_leander]

IIRC Arm and Hammer toothpaste doesn't have fluoride in it - instead it uses baking soda, or at least the basic one does.

Most supermarkets stock it and I know that there are some others, especially ones aimed at young children that either have significantly lower amounts or none at all in.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

All said and done, however, objections to the lack of choice and dosage control are certainly valid in my opinion. Topical application of fluoride, such as fluoride containing toothpaste and mouthwash and appropriate education in how and when to use them seems a more sensible idea than just dosing everybody whether they want it or not.

Plus, think of the fish. Topical application means that you get the fluoride only where it does good and you don't end up showering it down the drain and flushing it down the toilet and watering your veggies with it. A few grams where it's needed is better than tons added to the general environment for no good reason (except that it helps aluminum smelters get rid of a waste product that they would otherwise have to pay to dispose of).

 

[the_leander]

Plus, think of the fish. Topical application means that you get the fluoride only where it does good and you don't end up showering it down the drain and flushing it down the toilet and watering your veggies with it.

Unless you're swallowing your toothpaste, you're doing very little to help any of the above.

And if you are swallowing your toothpaste, I have some really bad news for you...

 

[redrumloa]

Unless you're swallowing your toothpaste, you're doing very little to help any of the above.

And if you are swallowing your toothpaste, I have some really bad news for you...

ZOOM right over your head! Flouride is in TAP WATER. When I take a shower, it goes down the drain. When I flush, it does too. When I water my fruit and vegetable garden, it goes into the soil and the plants.

 

[the_leander]

ZOOM right over your head!

I've been patient so far with you red, enough now. I was well aware of what he was talking about thanks. Unless he is swallowing all that ebul fluoride, it'll still be re-entering the water cycle.

This place seriously needs less politics. I know I won't be posting any more on here.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Unless he is swallowing all that ebul fluoride, it'll still be re-entering the water cycle.

Even IF swallowing it will return to the water cycle at some point. However, it will be in much smaller quantities and twice a day - an amount of fluoride that goes down the drain anyway whether or not there is tons of fluoride added to the city water supply. Only a small percentage of the city water supply is actually drunk by human beings. It's a ridiculous way to treat teeth.

 

[the_leander]

It's a ridiculous way to treat teeth.

And yet, the British Dental Association still recommends it, as does the BMA.

Either way, my last post in political threads on this site. Expect me to spam this place with everything I can along non political lines from this point onwards, seriously - this place needs re jigging.

 

[redrumloa]

Even IF swallowing it will return to the water cycle at some point. However, it will be in much smaller quantities and twice a day - an amount of fluoride that goes down the drain anyway whether or not there is tons of fluoride added to the city water supply. Only a small percentage of the city water supply is actually drunk by human beings. It's a ridiculous way to treat teeth.

Not to mention HVAC cooling towers. The majority of cooling towers using potable water. Cooling towers can use thousands of gallons of water a day, multiple this by many thousands of commercial office building around the country. Cooling towers work through evaporation leaving sediment at the bottom of the tower. This sediment eventually gets flushed out and back into the city water supply.

 

[Dammy]

I can't speak for the rest of Europe, in the UK about 10% of the population receive fluoride in their water, either naturally or as the result of fluoridation. Fluoride containing toothpastes and mouthwashes tend to advertise the fact that they contain the stuff and the concentration is always listed in the ingredients (at least in all the toothpastes I've bought).

So is there a greater dental issues going on in the 90% that isn't getting Sodium Fluoride vs the 10% that is?