Fluoride

[jos1]

How can fluoride be removed from tap water? My local council seem to intend to put this into our water against many objections. It is said that children have too many fizzy drinks; so why can't the manufacturers put it in then we have a free choice?

[MrXLA]

I'm not sure F- can be removed from tap water
I think your suggestion regarding carbonated drinks has some merit (then again they are erosive and many contain sugar so perhaps the benefit would be negligible)
I agree that people should have a free choice about what is or isn't added to their local water supply
That said why do you object to F- being added?

[MrXLA]

Whatever reasons you have its worth noting that F- IS present naturally and added in parts of the UK and therefore it would be worthwhile you finding out where before drinking tap water in other locations throughout the UK

[Ethel]

Yep - it's been in the tap water for years in the West Midlands, and is commonly added to the drinking water in many other countries, including Australia, USA, South Africa, Brazil, Canada....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridatio n

It's not just fizzy drinks that causes problems - fresh fruit decays the tooth enamel and of course sugary foods and juices typically given to babies.

However, it can't be removed from water that it has been added to.

[Panic Button]

I grew up in a fluoridated area, and I'm in my late forties now.

It did me no harm, and probably benefitted my teeth.

Many foods have nutrients added to them for health reasons. Do you object to them aswell?

How about seat belt wearing, and motorcycles wearing helmets. Do you object to those intrusions?

[teag1rl]

Flouridation is mass medication and I do not agree with it.
Sorry jos1, but you seem to be stuck with it.

[MrsT]

You could boil the water and condense the steam using a distilling technique. Fluoride boils at a much higher temperature than water so you could separate it that way.

[sophie_1003]

I was wondering, is there such a thing as an allergy to flouride, if so what do these people do if it has been added to their tap water?

[MrXLA]

I'm not sure if you can be allergic to F-, however its found naturally in certain areas in any case so I suppose that argument is academic
I don't disagree with the right to choose, personally I don't care whether F- is added to drinking water or not.
The greatest benefit it to people who are of a low socio-economic status with high risk of dental caries 'decay' and therefore my family and I are would have negligible benefit from its addition to our water (I should point out that I'm not afraid of its addition either since there are no risks to health at its proposed concentration and I have in the past lived in a fluoridated area)
However there are millions of people in the UK that it would benefit, it would prevent the pain and angst caused by gross caries in young children for a large number of families and lower the number of GAs carried out to remove teeth in young children, which I feel is unacceptable and an unnecessary risk
Perhaps this as a parting statement to ponder..
- children have died under GA having grotty teeth removed
- no one has ever died as a result of drinking F- containing drinking water
- F- does reduce dental decay (thats why its in toothpaste!!)

[MrXLA]

The authors main point seemed to be about choice, I believe we are very fortunate to live in a 'free' society and I agree in our right to choose.
As I I've stated above I personally don't care whether F- is added to my local water supply, I've lived in an F- area before where I was born and didn't feel the need to move or stay on the basis of it being present.

But perhaps with this particular issue we're all missing the point, is the issue really about F- in the water or is it that people feel they can't choose?
- If its about choice then fair enough..or is it?
- there are several very good reasons (based on decades of good quality randomised controlled trials, evidence based medicine and population studies) supporting F- addition to water
- the only objections come from people who either fall into the category of '..right to choose' but who actually don't have any argument against F- itself
- and from those that could possibly be assigned to a group entitled '..against the addition of F- to drinking water simply because...' (this group cannot usually be reasoned with since they are either arguing for arguing sake or are incapable of making a non-biased appraisal of scientific studies) an extension of this group is those that use non reputable sources to make counter arguments, and even though they use 'scientific' sources that are 'dubious' at best the media and sadly a significant proportion of the general public seem more comfortable accepting these sources than 'true' scientific studies

[MrXLA]

**NB - science itself only ever attempts to 'disprove' an idea/concept/theory/'law' etc...

- Typically if I'm for or against something its after deliberating the pros and cons and coming down on one side after weighing up the evidence, effects etc..., perhaps I'm naive in believing the rest of society thinks in this manner.

The issue over F- is somewhat perplexing to me because its almost unique in offering benefits to a large group of our population at a relatively low cost with no disadvantages.
The argument is amusing because proponents of F- in water couldn't wish for a greater amount of evidence to support its use but fail to realise they are arguing with people who's main objection is 'right to choose' even though the latter group could surely only choose to add F- if given the choice

[Ice.Maiden]

Flouride, even in small does, is poisonous if ingested over a period of time. Apart from the debate of whether it's right to mass-medicate without seeking peoples' permission or not - how do we know that such additives aren't contributing to the mass of depressed & stressed people - or even making people nasty?
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3307

[MrXLA]

ICEMAIDEN I could go into a lengthy debate, highlighting the inaccuracies and pseudoscience spouted in the article you have linked to (and I'm NOT against the green party).
However you have illustrated very well the sort of person I'm referring to in my above posts and therefore it would be fruitless to attempt an argument with you on any intellectual level.
Quantity is the issue with toxicity, most of the items at the supermarket will kill you if consumed in high enough doses including table salt.
I'll leave you with this however imagine:
- You could read countless non-biased scientific articles on the safety of F- in drinking water
- Or imagine if you could actually visit or even live in a population that has had F- in their drinking water for decades and has long term studies, right here in the UK!!

Well..You DON'T have to imagine because its already a reality...

[dnadisco]

Organic farmers in fluoridated areas must remove fluoride additives from their water before using it on their crops,so it must be possible.

[Elizabeth22]

Calcium flouride occurs naturally, whereas the type added to drinking water, toothpaste etc. is sodium flouride which is a by-product of industry e.g. aluminium production. Sodium flouride has a bio-cumulative effect on the body; it is toxic to the human body. The idea of flouridation began when in the development of the atomic bomb in the USA huge amounts of sodium flouride were needed in the process but the downside was it leeched into the surrounding water supply of the nearby communities and so studies were set up to investigate the effects on the populations. Sodium fluoride side effects appear over time e.g. dental flourosis, arthritis, mental retardation etc...How it affects you depends on how well your immune system is working.