U.S. says there is too much fluoride in water

[neohguy]

;D


www.ohio.com/news/break_news/113070584.html

[Deleted]

I wouldn't be surprised. I remember reading that fluoride is the most ingested drug on the planet. And because municipal, fluoride-enriched water is used in the processing of so much of our food, that we are probable getting more than the recommended amounts.

[Deleted]

Makes you wonder if there is some truth in the Conspiracy Theory regarding the dumbing down of the American People.
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011508_fluoride_horror.htm
www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=0&id=17791
Not to mention the Lithium being added to the water supply:
current.com/entertainment/comedy/91703082_dr-on-adding-lithium-to-water-supply-very-interesting-concept.htm
Seems to me that adding a psychotropic drug to the public water supply could be a bit risky but hey what do I know.

[verrip1]

I've been drinking water for years, and it hasn't made me high yet.

[Deleted]

Jan 7, 2011 12:15:36 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

I've been drinking water for years, and it hasn't made me high yet.

Really? you should come down here, the water's GREAT! There's a reason we've got a well!

[verrip1]

Aha! I get it. You put your well downstream from the pot patch!

[neohguy]

Jan 7, 2011 12:08:48 GMT -5 @technojunkie said:

Makes you wonder if there is some truth in the Conspiracy Theory regarding the dumbing down of the American People.
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011508_fluoride_horror.htm
www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=0&id=17791
Not to mention the Lithium being added to the water supply:
current.com/entertainment/comedy/91703082_dr-on-adding-lithium-to-water-supply-very-interesting-concept.htm
Seems to me that adding a psychotropic drug to the public water supply could be a bit risky but hey what do I know.

There have been a couple of articles recently that document pharmaceuticals in the drinking water in some cities. It is more prevalent in areas that recycle human waste and return it to the drinking source. Think Great Lakes).

[Miss Tequila]

Christ, wait until Virgil sees this...we will never stop hearing, "I told you so"

[Bluerobin]

This is why I only drink Scotch!

[973beachbum]

There have been a couple of articles recently that document pharmaceuticals in the drinking water in some cities. It is more prevalent in areas that recycle human waste and return it to the drinking source. Think Great Lakes).

I had heard it was from people flushing their left over meds down the toilet. Then the flushed meds go to a sewage treatment plant or a septic system. Eventually it put the end product back into the ground and into the aquifer that supply our drinking water.

Virgil can comment on the rest.

[Sum Dum Gai]

This is why people drank so much beer back in the day. It was a low tech way to somewhat purify their untreated water. Course nowadays people call the police when you hand your child a cold one. Hypocrites.

[Deleted]

Jan 7, 2011 20:59:35 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

There have been a couple of articles recently that document pharmaceuticals in the drinking water in some cities. It is more prevalent in areas that recycle human waste and return it to the drinking source. Think Great Lakes).

I had heard it was from people flushing their left over meds down the toilet. Then the flushed meds go to a sewage treatment plant or a septic system. Eventually it put the end product back into the ground and into the aquifer that supply our drinking water.

Virgil can comment on the rest.

This site portrays the meds come from the human waste (not from flushing pills)... I'd kind of rather think it were the flushing of the pills if I have to actually think about the water being recycled.

www.cleanwateraction.org/programinitiative/fighting-drugs-drinking-water

[verrip1]

Many meds have to be given in doses in excess of what the body will absorb. If the doctor gave a lesser dose, it wouldn't get the job done. The pharmaceutical industry has known of this for many years and has somehow managed to keep EPA off their backs. Part of the problem in regulating them is that the amounts of these meds in wastewaters are exceedingly small, therefore hard to test for.

Of course, the EPA is between a rock and a hard place if they ever get serious about regulating them. You see, EPA's whole premise in regulating is to identify the point sources of a chemical, and require that the point source stop or abate the discharge. In this case, the point sources are tens of millions of individual citizens with health issues; particularly older people who may get lots of meds. What is EPA gonna do? Have them poop into bags and have somebody pick them up? Pee through a Britta filter? I don't think so.

[Deleted]

There is a small town outside of Austin Tx that has large percentage of natural fluoride (much more than normal drinking water). The only problem that I have ever heard the people having is that they have very hard teeth (IF they get a cavity it's very hard to drill the cavity out).

[ktunes]

i like a little water in my fluoride

[ummboutthat]

when we fill...put water in the tub - our water is blue!

[TD2K]

We had a referendum a few years ago about adding fluoride to the water supply, definitely brought out the conspiracy folks, it failed by a small margin.

I'm getting jaded about the latest 'medical advice' when it seems in a few years they flip flop. Eggs were bad for you, now they are good. Saturated fats were bad, use hydrogenated fats. Opps, go back to saturated fats.

[neohguy]

Jan 7, 2011 23:17:21 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

[b]Many meds have to be given in doses in excess of what the body will absorb. If the doctor gave a lesser dose, it wouldn't get the job done.

[/b] The pharmaceutical industry has known of this for many years and has somehow managed to keep EPA off their backs. Part of the problem in regulating them is that the amounts of these meds in wastewaters are exceedingly small, therefore hard to test for.

Of course, the EPA is between a rock and a hard place if they ever get serious about regulating them. You see, EPA's whole premise in regulating is to identify the point sources of a chemical, and require that the point source stop or abate the discharge. In this case, the point sources are tens of millions of individual citizens with health issues; particularly older people who may get lots of meds. What is EPA gonna do? Have them poop into bags and have somebody pick them up? Pee through a Britta filter? I don't think so.[/quote]

That's true. Soldiers who were taking penicillin during WWII would drink their own urine when the medicine was in short supply.

[TD2K]

I can see some problems if I got a prescription for that today. "So and so is taking what you need, go over and collect their urine and take 3x a day"

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2011 13:41:28 GMT -5 TD2K said:

We had a referendum a few years ago about adding fluoride to the water supply, definitely brought out the conspiracy folks, it failed by a small margin.

I'm getting jaded about the latest 'medical advice' when it seems in a few years they flip flop. Eggs were bad for you, now they are good. Saturated fats were bad, use hydrogenated fats. Opps, go back to saturated fats.

Yeah, I agree, but it is hard to argue against the benefits of fluoride.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'll save the "I told you so" for the instant after SBS charges in and reminds us (for the 38th time) that the CDC has declared fluoride to be one of the greatest health achievements in the 20th century.

Given their handling of H1N1, DDT, Thalidomide, asbestos, etc., perhaps by "greatest" they mean "least disastrous".

You're dirt poor, eat McDonalds 7 days a week, and never brush your teeth? Congrats. You have fewer cavities.

You do brush your teeth and eat properly? Sucks to be you. Here. Take our helpful pamphlet: "Turning 55: Low Bone Density, Osteoporosis and YOU".

[verrip1]

Except that EPA lowered the level because of mild discoloration, not decreased bone density or osteoporosis. Apparently, EPA does not find that the old limit on fluoride concentrations in drinking water causes that, just additional discoloration.

[Virgil Showlion]

Except that EPA lowered the level because of mild discoloration, not decreased bone density or osteoporosis.

Based on 6- and 9-month scientific studies.

The trouble with fluoride is that there is considerable evidence that it accumulates, making it virtually immune to mainstream scientific studies. This isn't the CDC's "fault". However, it's worth acknowledging that cumulative pathogens are, with precious few exceptions, beyond the scope of the modern scientific method.

Sample sizes, confounding factors, uncontrolled variables, and subject monitoring costs explode for studies as short as one year, while research funding and university patience diminish equally quickly.

[verrip1]

Not true. EPA and some state regulatory agencies have specifically gone after bioaccumulative effects. What makes you think it's hard or non-mainstream to look at food chains to determine bioaccumulation? It was done decades ago with mercury. Also with PCBs, dioxins and other heavy metals. Started in Japan in the mid to late 1960s as I recall.

I can well believe that any studies on fluoride would find that its bioaccumulation would be not very significant. As the smallest of the VIIA nonmetals, it is fully soluble in aqueous solution. It forms an ionic solubility equilibrium with magnesium and calcium, but the reaction is easily driven. It does not readily form covalent bonds with organic compounds. Even with silicon, its covalent insolubility is strong, but the SiFx and SiFxOy ions can be driven in solubility with Ca and Mg. Its ionic bonds with heavier metals including tin are stronger than the Ca/Mg bonding, but less so than most fluorinated organics. Therefore its basic chemistry argues against a tendency to bioaccumulate.

If there were some sort of bioaccumulation of fluoride, it could easily be found by fluoride analysis of muscle tissue. A third year biochemistry student could perform it in lab. There's nothing preventing any such testing. There is certainly a contingent of anti-fluoride persons who could have it done if they wanted to have such testing performed.

You used the term 'pathogen'. See Wiki. Pathogen refers to infectious agents. Are you suggesting that fluoride exposure is due to infectious agents?

<Edit for not using the negative where appropriate.>

[neohguy]

I think fluoridated water was a great idea but I also agree with Virgil. Continuing research and dosage monitoring is important because we don't know for sure what the long term side effects might be. Arsenic is also used for water purification in my area of the world occasionally. The dosage is closely monitored.
Fluoridated toothpaste is available at a reasonable price in the developed world. Would brushing with this type of toothpaste eliminate the need for ingesting fluoridated water? I don't know the answer.
There was an article on NPR last week that said fluoride levels used to be lower in the southern states because people drank more water because of the heat and humidity. The use of central ac and air conditioned vehicles has made water consumption about the same for north and south but many purification plants did not change the fluoride dosage.

[verrip1]

I see. I break down the faulty anti-fluoridation 'science', and the response is that there aren't enough studies. Sheesh! Of course I never expected to change the minds of the zealots, just to disprove some outlandish statements that were posted.

[neohguy]

Jan 9, 2011 13:26:21 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

I see. I break down the faulty anti-fluoridation 'science', and the response is that there aren't enough studies. Sheesh! Of course I never expected to change the minds of the zealots, just to disprove some outlandish statements that were posted.

Some of the statements seem outlandish to me too verrip but I think the warnings from the fringe crowd should be heeded somewhat. They tend to often be the canaries in the coal mine. I certainly don't believe that corporations and regulating agencies have our interests at heart and I think that we should slow down, and think a little, instead of next quarters dividend statement being a national priority.
The US is looking at adjusting fluoride dosage and requiring more stringent monitoring. Apparently something concerned them enough to decide that further studies were required.

[kinetickid]

Jan 7, 2011 12:15:36 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

I've been drinking water for years, and it hasn't made me high yet.

Moi non plus.