Fluoride Out of Water

Why do you want to??

I was reading about my bamboo plant, and the info said that bamboo's don't like fluroide. They said that letting a glass of water sit for 24 hours or so will allow the fluoride to disperse to the atmosphere....

So I guess you could put water in a barrel and let it sit before drinking....

There are formulated solutions you can add to your water for removing several additives from the plant. Check out your local pet shop for water treatment solutions.

These are used to balance out aquarium water. or you could purchase RO/DI water at around $1.00 pg.

Maximo

You certainly don't want to put drinking-water through a standard ion-exchange water-softener - that substitutes sodium for some of the original calcium, which is definitely not that good for you.
Unless you have a either have a specific medical condition (hypothyroid?) that means you should avoid fluorides, or you live in an area with excessively high concentration of naturally-occurring fluorides**, there is no reason to avoid them as additives in the water; in fact, the amount of fluoride you absorb from swallowing the residue of a standard toothpaste is likely to just as significant as what is deliberately added by your water provider.
**You'll easily see this - nearly all the local youth have heavily mottled teeth.

Having said that, if you really need to reduce your fluoride intake (and you can afford it), the least-bad way is probably to seek out a good source of bottled water with a medium-to-high calcium content. Next best is the Sri-Lankan brick. (I'm not a fan of domestic RO for drinking water - in practice, more bacteriological problems are created through inadequate installation or maintenance than any supposed benefit would justify).
(Oh, and don't drink tea)

Hi Physicist,

Thanks for recommending Sri Lankan bricks! I might start a business exporting bricks to the US!! (at a discount to CR4 members)

Actually in certain areas of Sri Lanka kidney prevalence of disease is extraordinarily high and a lot of research is being done by health authorities to find out the reason. Such areas happen to be where Fluoride levels are high obvious from the heavily mottled teeth in youth as you rightly said. So naturally Fluoride also has become a suspect factor, other factors been high levels of hardness, traces of pesticides & fertilizer and traces of Cadmium in fresh water fish.

Why are you so unkind to tea? Not like coffee, it is supposed to be so good to heart. I drink about 6 cups a day.

I believe you are referring to chlorine in 24Hrs?

Not too smart either. Unless you live in a zone of high natural fluoride the trace added to water is not toxic.

Water is toxic to rats, hold a rat uner water and it will die, so will you....why drinki it at all.

There is a fringe group of easily led fools who listen to some late night talk shows and read dumbass web sites and come to the conclusion that fluoride is 'rat poison'.

Well how many are smokers and inhaler 'insect poison'...Nicotine.

These same people do not like vaccinations, so they let their kids risk nasty deseases.

So again, why do you want to remove the fluoride? Any valid reason or are you one of the above?

If you did some research, wich I know must be impossible in America these days, you would see that fluoride is suspect in alot of medical problems. If you did some simple research on Google you'll find that it is linked to cancer,osteoperosis,tooth decay,weak joints,and also it fucks with your brain. So those are some pretty legitimate reasons to me don't you think?

It's certainly linked to tooth decay - in the quantities proposed for use it reduces it.

The quantities at which the other effects have been observed are ridiculously high multiples of the levels proposed - increase almost any nutrient by the same multiplier and it would kill you in no-time-flat.

I agree and if people would do a little further digging they would find that the world heads not only knew about it causing all these problems but insisted that the fluoride be put in many things including food and water for population control as sad as that is. I found that out when looking at agenda 21.

If people looked a little further they wouldn't be gullible enough to believe every unsupported conspiracy theory.

The only "Agenda 21"s that I know of that deserve any credence are the UN action plan and the Baha'i group in the UK. Neither of those groups support this nonsense about small quantities of Fluoride being dangerous.

The search engine finds other web-sites under that heading; some of them simply lie; - whitewraithe claim:
"we have compared children's blood lead levels in communities using SiF treated water with communities using sodium fluoride or with non-fluoridated water. In three separate samples, totalling over 400,000 children, SiF treated municipal water is ALWAYS significantly associated with increased blood lead levels in children". In fact, the work they cite was undertaken by the authorities that were adding the fluorides.
However, there is a genuine underlay - people with poor diets and that are subject to toxic metals in their environments do appear to absorb "statistically significantly higher levels" of these toxins where the water has been fluoridated on specific ways. It is worth being aware that "statistically significant" does not mean dangerous - only that the effects were measurable. Even so, some authorities modified their fluoridation procedures to reduce the effects.

Yes, there may be a low-level additional problem - but only for those who live in an old and unmaintained house and have a poor diet that is low in calcium, where the adverse effects may be somewhat aggravated. But, no, it is not a conspiracy as some claim.

okay just so you understand it is no longer a unsupported conspiracy theorys on this subject they have been laid to rest, now it is a published. The UN funded commission on global government came together in 1996 and released their final report a book called Our Global Neighborhood which actually states that they knew about it even in 1996. Now our world has changed from that point yes but the agenda probably has not. Also you are most likely not reading the whole thing considering if your resource is the internet alone. The book which was released that you can only find in certain places and they have a bridged version online. This book is titled earth summit Agenda 21. I found a man even took 30 name brand bottles of water and tested them for fluoride in them and guess what he found. He found only one didn't have fluoride (Crystal Geyser). Five of them had higher fluoride then tap water and 10 of them stated they didn't have fluoride in them.

Fluoride IS dangerous. It is the only government issued medication that civilians are forced to take without a prescription because "it's good for your teeth"... WTF? Think about it. Fluoride actually has long term damaging effects to your teeth and your body. Dentists will tell you that discoloration (like random white spots in your teeth) is from too much fluoride in your diet. Do some research... it's not just a harmful additive... It is a means to keep us medicated because it damages your nervous system... and don't forget to drink your 8 glasses a day! It is the best way to permanently affect a population... introduce toxins into their water source. Wake up!

total BS, only a fool believes that. It is true that high fluoride areas can discolor teeth....but their matrix is so hard they noticed that these mottled teeth had near zero cavitiies.

they add fkuoride at such a low rate that it has zero nerve or other toxic quaalities.

I see you hide? ashamed to let people know the fool you are?

Why am I so nice to you? It is fools like you that convince some weak minded people not to have fluroride or vaccinations or nuclear power...

Maybe there are such low concentrations of Fluoride to harm our teeth, however I have been told by officials that they believe it to help your teeth. So obviously there is some confusion about all of this.

I myself find it interesting that Germany of WWII used Fluoride as a truth agent. That is fact. The rumor that the government is introducing us to fluoride throughout our life to give us cleaner teeth may not be fact. But this is still something to look into.

"Don't blindly follow the masses off the cliff, question everything"

Drinking water is the main source of fluoride in the body. The WHO states that 0.2-1.0 ppm Fluoride in drinking water is desireable to prevent tooth decay, with a 1.5 ppm max guideline. Excessive fluoride in drinking water over a long time can result in fluorosis, a serious and painful decay of bone matter.

In some areas of Kenya and North Tanzania and other areas where volcanic activity allows fluoride salts to penetrate the aquifers there are fluoride contents as high as 25 ppm in the water used for drinking. This is not by choice, but when there is no other water source it is a very real problem. There are 2 very cost effective physico-chemical approaches to remove fluoride from drinking water being studied for use in those areas. This is in addition to the more costly methods being used in developed countries.

Hi Aqua Doc

In this forum we like to share the knowledge we have with each other.

You say "There are 2 very cost effective physico-chemical approaches to remove fluoride from drinking water"

Why can't you be more open and tell everyone what those approaches are. As I mentioned elsewhere here in sri Lanka we do have a serious problem with unusually high kidney failures. Fluoride also is currently being considered as one of the possible contributory factors.

By revealing what you know you may be helping to save the life of some unfortunate people who cannot afford the luxury of more costlier systems.

A lot of countries ceased using fluoride because the damage is greater than whatever protection it adds to teeth. Read... and learn...

So instead of removing it from water, why not tell the ones who add it not to add it?

A lot of fools reacted badly. The benefits are unassailable. I take it you believe in creationism?

Aurizon: You wrote:

"A lot of fools reacted badly. The benefits are unassailable. I take it you believe in creationism? "

Yes but where are all the fossil evidence of evolution? There should be incredibly vast amounts of all kinds of different variants of Transition Man (TMAN) ? Where are all the 6 legged humanoids, the 3 headed mutants, the 10 eyed models, etc etc. All they can point to is a few pathetic examples of very questionable tranistionablity. The fact is that if you know anything about evolution its about mutating to create new slghtly different species each time. In order for this to happen it takes much time perhaps trillions of years, and it requires massive mutations of all kinds and varieties. But we see almost nothing compared to what it should be for Tman, sure you see dinosaurs and other fossils but where are their transistion specie fossil evidences? They are almost non-existent on earth relative to what they should be for natural evolution to occur. Dem bones dem bones .. wheres all dem bones hiding?

If they on the other hand man evolved only on earth and in one 'magic' straight line mutation to, in one jump. to man with only one transition state in between, that in itself would truly be a miracle in itself! But of course we don't believe in "miracles" do we unless its the miracle of science? The miracles of yesterday are the accepted laws of physics today. The miracles of today are the standard fare of tommorrow.

The fallacy is for us being egocentric is to assume (ass u and me) that we are the center of the universe and the origin of the species? But that is flagrant and foolish arrogance on the part of man.

The reality is that if you took all the matter in the universe and put it in one big mass, earth would only be less than a speck of dust in comparison. That puts it in perspective and explains that man evolved somewhere else than earth which then makes the idea of seeding more believable. Maybe this can be true that Evolution to where man is today occurred somewhere else and that we are just a 'created' clone of that evolution! God could be just a space traveler who happened to decide to make this area of the universe their garden spot !

I think the jury is out on flouride and what is truly safe and what is truly harmful. But the idea that the govt should require everyone to partake of it by putting it in the water is not really fair play is it?

well, creation and creationism is just mumbo jumbo started by the predecessors of L Ron Hubbard and are inventions of man so others can live free on the work of others.

There are all manner of intermediary forms, but only successful forms will have enough preserved in the fossil record to have a chance of us finding one today since we cannot use x rays on large masses of rock with fossils in and we only see thiose few exposed by the elements.

As for three legged etc, bilateral symetry came early, so we will not find three legged very often.

2,4,6,8 all the way up to millipedes, all bilateral.

trilateral and multilateral symetries are more common in the plant world, but very rare in animals.

Fluoride:- It is cheaper to have all take it and the few who want to avoid it take special measures at their expense.

What you say is true in the long run but also you forget it takes perhaps trillions of years so there should be massive fossil evidences of the many mutant varieities. So there should be many many many that we should have found already. But we don't find them.. they are missing?

Ok.. maybe 3 leged is not the most prevalent but where are all the 4, 6, 8, etc varieties.. they are missing?

We would only expect there ever to have been significant numbers of the successful mutations; given that we only find a very small proportion of the original fossils, it is no surprise that we find very few oddities - the most we usually see are two-headed animals and the like, and these are not actually mutations.

There is evidence of intermediate stages in the evolution in the fossil record of many animals other than man - but not for all. Does this mean you accept the theory of evolution for some animals but not for all? If so, do you believe that a proportion of animals (including man) were not part of a more general evolution, or we can assume that we have simply not seen the record?

In this respect, I think it worth remembering that the theory is that evolutionary changes can be beneficial, neutral, adverse, or that they can be mixed blessings dependent on the environment. Beneficial changes will establish rapidly, near-neutral ones will provide a long-term intermingling. Those that are mixed blessings can establish very rapidly where there is a sudden change in the environment; this can be quite local, meaning that intermediate stages only appear in a small region - and this region may not be suitable for the production of fossils. Even when evidence may eventually be found, this is one illustration of why the absence of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of absence

Speaking of flouride in the water, What about all the aluminum in your soft drinks and beer? I know little about this but : There are those who "say" that after as little as 10 years of this "aluminum leaching into your drinks" that it causes liver/gall bladder out of control problems which can cause intestinal disorders (They are saying liver signals for too much or too little bile from gall bladder which is dumped into digestive system creating the disorders). ? Anyone else heard similar stories, I'd like to know the truth about this.

Physicist writes:

"We would only expect there ever to have been significant numbers of the successful mutations; given that we only find a very small proportion of the original fossils, it is no surprise that we find very few oddities - the most we usually see are two-headed animals and the like, and these are not actually mutations."

So you are saying then that with only the slightest surviving mutation that man evolved to this wonderful state we have now from the absolute ape to completely evolved man in one leap? That in itself is a miracle. But since you probably don't believe in miracles that leaves you with a statistical impossibility. Evolution only occurs thru mutations, I think we can agree on that. But to leap from one completely evolved species to one much much higher in one bound is not statistically possible. This is called Leap Theory Evolution takes faith in the unknown for this to happen. Since religion involves faith now you are practicing a religion.

On the other hand, would you expect us to believe that this Leap Evolution without the necessary massive abundance of fossil evidence only occurred on earth? But put mans arrogance in perspective we must know that according to experts in space and universe that if the earth were put next to all the matter in the universe , the earth be much much less than a speck of dust (invisible to the naked eye). Does this help? We must not, can not, presume that we are the origin of any species or any origin of life in the universe. WE are blessed with a garden spot but not the origin by any measure.

Physicist writes; "There is evidence of intermediate stages in the evolution in the fossil record of many animals other than man - but not for all. Does this mean you accept the theory of evolution for some animals but not for all? If so, do you believe that a proportion of animals (including man) were not part of a more general evolution, or we can assume that we have simply not seen the record? "

If earth is indeed a very very small splinter off of some huge "big bang" type of mudball, of course there might be some evidence but wouldn't it need to be not so much, if that were true? The facts are that man evolved from animal life form to the higher level we have today but not on earth, and further that since a highly evolved man can now manipulate DNA that we are too a result of those manipulations. Yeah !

There is no other logical answer for the almost complete lack of the massive fossil evidence that would have to be here for us to have normal evolution involving billions of survivable specie over millions of years. Where are all those bones? The almost complete void of TMEN actually strengthens the creationism belief. (Perhaps some incredible super brilliant person(s) did come here and did create a playground in 6 days (if we can fly I think the cave men would believe we were supernatural also) and as a graceful gesture cloned themselves which leads to us (yeah,, CREATED Your great ancestors ) . . The more science progresses the more logical the miracles of the legend and bible seem. Science is actually helping mans understanding of how olden day miracles could occur. The definition of miracle should be defined as something that man would not believe could happen but does happen thru the miracle of science and mastery of the laws of nature. IE If I were to light a match in the year 10000, BC they would all fall down and worship me. Get the idea?

Finally what about a TMAN (long long ago in a galaxy far far away who had perhaps 4 arms (Pop sci just had a picture of a 8 limbed fetus just last week) ? Wouldn't the 4 armed man be able to fight better and survive better in a primordial environment? Wheres the bones? Wouldn't a man who had 4 legs and 2 arms be much better at running and so survive better? Where are those bones? Finally in the last stage of evolution the intelligence began to be more important and more survivable over the physically more able types and here came man as we know him today, Only this happened not on earth, but from some place else. Because they can manipulate the very essence of life truly we are still far behind these "Super Men " from another place in ability and education but not necessarily in appearance.

Do you suppose that perhaps they had a NASA and after so many generations they decided to "Seed" the rest of the universe? I would say yes, that would be logical to insure survival of a great evolution . But of course that would take high science indeed to travel that far and do those kinds of things which to an objective observer would resemble Leap Evolution!

WE are but less than a speck of dust in the eyes of the universe yet we have the arrogance of a Super Nova !

Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

It is difficult to make a case against what appears to be wilful overinterpretation. I didn't say it had happened rapidly - but most major changes originate within a limited region where conditions are as/more favourable to each changed state as/than they are to the original. In the case of man (and I believe more than half of all other species changes) we have not (yet??) found the fossil record; if fossils were formed in the region where these changes occurred there is a chance that we may find them, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'd also like to place two of your statements together, so that anyone who missed your delicious irony can appreciate it: "man evolved to this wonderful state we have now", & "put man's arrogance in perspective". Mankind is unique on this planet only in the level of technology he has developed, and that is not very different in kind to what is achieved by birds or chimpanzees.

"But not on earth". It would have taken significant technology to get us here in our present somewhat cognisant form. That makes this explanation unnecessarily complex. It also raises the question as to how and why the record become obscured. Did we bring the other higher (but non-technological) species with us? And if we evolved elsewhere, does this mean that the other species that share more than 90% of our genetic make-up are also imported from that extra-terrestrial region? (And then, how come that there is fossil record of changes between some of those species)

"There is no other logical answer". Look at the levels of species evolution in the Galapagos islands and in other isolated areas - we have creatures that are clearly closely related to creatures whose behaviour and form is completely different. BTW, I don't believe you will find much fossil record of most of that evolution either - there was just too much other life around eating the dead flesh and old bones.

P.S. Please mark this comment as off-thread. I forgot, but can't do it on re-editing.

When you find the massive missing bones then we'll be agreed, until then its very very shakey considering the planet earth is nothing relative to the size of the rest of the universes total mass. We like to think we are the origin of life but do you really believe that if there were billions of earths that could support life that we are the only one that did?

Should we believe that we and our time of living is the oldest and most evolved?

Should we believe that mutations went in only a straight line from ape to man with no variations? Thats more of a miracle rather than the necessary huge numbers of random mutations which is what evolution means. The Leap Theory says that its was either miracle (statistically impossible) or by some other mechanism (other seeding) that this leap from completely evolved ape to completely evolved man happened "without" the necessary massive numbers of mutations (and if not so where are the bones that are necessary?).

Again, it makes perfect sense that the 4 legged 4 armed humanoid mutant would be much more survivable in a primordial situation than we bipeds. I think we could agree on that. But since we do not find these types of fossils we must allow for that discrepancy.

evolution has widely varying rates and occure very slowly in large animals, but quickly in bacteria. It has to do with generation time. we have 70 years, a germ has 20 minutes.

of all the animals of all kinds there is a trillionth of a trillionth of one percent found as fossil bones.

remember the world has an animal load of 200 billion animals with an average age of 3 years for the last 50 million years. so every year 66 billion dies and 66 billion are born.

Now larger animals live longer, mice and shrews 1 year, so you see how few of anything is preserved. Most small animals are not preserved well at all.

As for life, we are isolated by the light speed barrier. cloesest bright start 4 light years away at 186,000 miles a second. If we travelled at 100 miles a second = 8000 years of one way travel to get there. Only generational ships or robots could make it...if either survived. These same factors face any living explorer race on another planet. Someone 10,000 light years away faces an immense problem.

Given the large numbers and the high rate of planet formation there are probably other life forms out there. Smart ones?? beats me.

There may also be some very smart ones who have visited usm but due to good anthroplogy do not interfere or wan to be seen heard. We can also get found tomorrow by a bunch of intergalactic meat packers who find us just the right size to can and ship home, like sardines.

Quiet, be very quiet...

Listen-

Evolutionary mutations happen within a species. This is idea of transition man that you have is not quite correct. If a mutation occurs that is a connection between two types of things, then that mutation has to produce a viable characteristic that is then passed on through the mating process. This idea of the 6 legged people that you have is absurd within the context of the idea of evolution.

You see.

Darwin's theory of evolution and Darwin's theory on the the evolution of our species are two different ideas. Evolution happens. Just open your eyes and watch children grow. Evolution happens within a species. We can see that with our eyes right now; however, something like a 3 person might happen, but it has to be within the context of the design of our species, and the more radical the mutation, the less likely that it will occur.

Btw... When is the last time you heard of a 3 legged person having sex?

And regarding that, the number of legs a person has is most likely not going to be due to something that can be passed on genetically, and even if it was something that could be passed on genetically, when is the last time you heard of a 3 legged person having sex?

Educate yourself. Please do not pass your ignorance on to children.

That is evolution.

And about flouride....

google "calcification of the pineal gland"

and put pure silver in your water. a ring or a coin or something.

mmmmm......I note the aggressive tone ...........why so irate? Surely the point is people should be able to choose whether or not they drink fluoride instead of it being forced upon us....I welcome the opinions of the people you call weak minded.....there should be more people questioning.....and less who just submit to the 'official line' and reports written by people funded by the government and big Pharmaceutical companies.......

yes, voters allways vote for fluoride. Once they see the benefits on the teeth of their youth, and now on their seniors who have drunk fluoridated water their whole life they are happy.

Ever see the mouths of people in the 30's who grew up in a zero fluoride area?

Notice how the market for dentures has waned?

Are you part of the denture lobby?

yes, that is indeed what is done. It turns out to be more cost effective to follow the wishes of the majority and allow the few people who want their kids to suffer from tooth loss to go their own way to find fluoride free sources.

In addition, there is no involvement at all by big pharma, as sodium fluoride is a common royalty free chemical and the government actually saves money due to lower medical costs.

When I was growing up in Torono we had a school board dentist who inspected teeth twice a year with a mobile unit (no x-rays) to grow brush consciousness and other tooth care issues innthe kids. Then fluoridation came in and three years later they stopped the dentists as the number of cavities found had dropped by more than 80%.

In fact, there was a crisis in the profession in the 60's and 70's as flouridation spread and fewer dentists were trained since the work load had falen so enormously

I sort of suspect big pharma and big denta to be behind this move to get rid of fluoride as the loss of fluoride would result in a quadrupling of cavities and dental work comcommitant with that.

that is the whole problem with water fluoridation!! Its the bait and switch!! they tell you fluoride is good for you, and it is! but fluoride in our water, is not naturally occurring. It is hydrofluosilicic acid, a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry primarily, and also from some aluminum plants! you said yourself "sodium fluoride is a common royalty free chemical" yep because its industrial waste!!!

The fluoride is working on you!

don't you realize that over time flouride gets stored in your body. and over time it will make a difference and it will have effects on your brain, bones, and overall health. look up what has been proven by medical officials about the actual effects to see for yourself. so again small amounts at a time but eventually massive amounts will stay there.

Yes, a low PPM amount of fluoride just happens to get drawn into the enamel matrix, thus making bacterial attack far less. Prior to fluoride , (1930's)there was a huge and thriving false teeth industry and large numbers of people had upper and lower dentures. Dentists noted that some areas had few false teeth and fewer cavities and could support far fewer dentists/ Looking deeper and studying the trace elements allowed them to zero in on fluoride. Fluoride is a mobile ionic species. Unless trapped into the enamel matrix it does not accumulate (unless you eat loads). If you eat loads it over deposits in the enamel, making mottles, so they actually remove natural fluoride from their water in those areas. It does also strengthen bone. There is a large and active web lobby effort covertly funded by he dental associations to get rid of fluoride to employ more dentists etc. This is much like the anti-vaccination mob of fools. Can you imagine what would happen if we had no vaccines? 30% of our kids dead or harmed by the 10 major childhood diseases. If we had no fluoride from a young age 30% or so adults would hit retirement with most teeth gone and the rest of us would have spent billions of tooth repair and there is the pain to consider. By the way, why are you on an engineers web if you are so unwilling to be rational.

...Actually, he's completely right.

There is a report you can read from a Russian test in introducing substances into the water supply to test their reactions. When Fluoride was introduced, they saw people were less violent (Which, by the way, large amounts of Fluoride are in modern-day anti-depressants.)

And also, ingesting fluoride in the first 6 months of a child's life can cause a permanent 20 point loss in IQ.

Get your own facts straight before you call someone out just because you think he's a conspiracy theorist. You're the one who is a fool.

Can you provide a reference to original material on the Russion test?

The only even semi-serious study that claims such an effect that I managed to identify was a comparison of populations in two regions in China. One of these has very low levels of CaF in the water, the other has CaF levels sufficient to cause a high occurrence rate of pathological levels of dental fluorosis. The regions were thought to be "otherwise similar", but it is worth bearing in mind that there is an association between naturally-occurring dissolved fluoride and dissolved lead. Nevertheless, even though these high levels were obviously ingested from birth onwards, the measured IQ difference between the regions was 4-points, well short of the 20 points you claim. So far as I know, the authors of the Chinese study did not claim that this was sufficient to be seen as evidence that CaF in water had an effect on IQ - merely that further studies of detailed differences between the regions would be appropriate.

Regarding the use of Fluoride in behaviour-modifying drugs: to the best of my knowledge the Fluoride ion is not the active ingredient, but a delivery agent that is regarded as relatively benign.

Of course I to would expect CaF to be harmful at high doses - and the level at which harm occurs will be much lower than for (say) common salt.

Chlorine, (a disolved gas), from municpal water systems will disburse if the water is let exposed to the air.

Fluoride is a disolved salt, and will remain unless chemically removed.

Floride is a halogen gas, as is chlorine.... It is not a salt!!!!

Floride is a halogen gas, as is chlorine.... It is not a salt!!!!

Incorrect. Fluorine (F₂) is a halogen gas. Fluoride (F^-) is an ion that forms salts. Common' inventorman, this is first-semester chemistry!

A salt is obtained by displacing the hydrogen of an acid by a metal.....This too, is first semester chemistry, as I taught it fifty years ago.

Sorry,I stand corrected..... I mis- read the expression,"floride" and replied accordingly.

A salt is obtained by displacing the hydrogen of an acid by a metal.....This too, is first semester chemistry, as I taught it fifty years ago.

I just saw your message (#45). I'm glad we agree now. When I point out mistakes, I don't intend to knit-pick or impress people with my self-proclaimed brilliance. Noticing errors comes as a reflex to me after years of grading chemistry exams, and in case any students read these posts, I would like them to get it straight.

Hi everybody,

This discussion seems to be getting hot,

As someone said some people who do not know much make comments. But we who read comments should be able to filter out what is BS and absorb facts and .....aurizon, please calm down...

According to what I know and what i have heard Fluoride in excess is bad in certain quantity is helpful (It is like all other things). I cannot remember the exact recommended maximum but will try to search my database and revert later.

If in excess it causes decolorization of teeth and also it is a one of the factors suspected of causing extraordinary high kidney failure rates in some parts of Sri Lanka, that is where I live.

We have found a simple remedy.. filter water through a simple filter vessel filled with pieces of newly burnt clay bricks. Every 6 months bricks have to be changed. This trick helps eliminate one factor.

Of course RO is ideal but in a country where average monthly salary is around US$100 how many can afford to spend $ 150-200 on a small RO.

I am doing my bit by setting up small-medium size RO units in community centers but it is not enough. So in very rural areas we recommend these simple filters with the help of kind donors.

Back to technology..leaving out water in the open will not help Fluoride to evaporate as someone rightly pointed out.

I grew up in an area with a high contents of natural fluoride in the water (for the first 15 years at least). Except for a few whiter spots and tooth that I broke my teeth are exceptionally strong (I am now almost 64). Cavities are very rare and dental visits are very irregular. The last time I had to visit a dentist when I had an accident and had a front teeth moved in, I was told that my previous visit was more than 5 years ago. The dentist had to trim the top of the tooth but could not find a cavity anywhere.

My mother is 94 now (with mostly own teeth) and drives her own car and my Granny did 104.

I have read a medical report that the body only uses the amount of fluoride that is required (the rest is discarded).

I think your fears about fluoride is unfounded. Rather seek other causes like bad lifestyles etc for poor health.

Hello Hendrik

You must be a lucky guy. How about other youth in the area? Were there any significant discoloured/disfigured teeth? By the way when you say high contents of natural fluoride how much do you mean? How were the calcium and Mg levels in the area?

Answers to my question may solve some mysterious happenings in my country Sri Lanka(at least it will help to exclude one factor)

Hi Sisira

When I left there almost 50 years ago nobody knew about fluoride. It was only in 1970 when I visited a dentist to fix a crown (broken by accident) that he had a look at my teeth and said that I must be from that area. (He did a thesis on fluoride or Florine) I think everybody there had good teeth. I will find out about the concentration and let you know.

I will have to check facts first but I believe the area is on top of the 350km radius rim caused by the Vredefort impact. There is gold but about 6-7 km deep. There is a sealed prospect hole on the farm. with signs that the concentration of calcium is high. (visible thick white crystals at the screw joint). I remember a bit of heat as well. The area is criss crossed with Dyke's and sills (dolorite I think). In some places sulfur were also present. There were also kimberlite on the farm (40 km to to the nearest diamond pipe). About Calcium and magnesium - I think it may have been dolomitic as well. I will investigate and let you know.

I stay in a dolomitic area at present but all the calcium and magnesium in the water does not help my wifes osteoporosis.

I

when flouride occurs naturally it is most likely fluorine not fluoride there is a difference fluoride man made fluorine natural or maybe im an idiot call it what you want to fluoride is a byproduct from makeing fertilizer these fertilizer manufacturers could not legally dump fluoride anywhere in our enviroment still unsure as to what they do with all that fluoride call me what you want i have seen with my own eyes

fluorine never occurs in the free unreacted state. It occurs as compounds in rocks etc.

The amount of fluoride consumed in water fluoridation is a minuscule fraction of the flouride used in industry.

Fluoride need not be dumped from the fertilizer business, they sell it to users (that include water fluoridation)

I place you in that loony fringe who feel immunization is bad, and who believe in all manner of medications bought on the internet, and you also believe in room temperature fusion and oher scams the net had empowered over the past 10 years.

So take your fluoride free rotten infected teeth and keep them. Not for me nor will I inflict your loony scams on my kids.

To my mind the ad-hominem element here in no way enhances your position.

I admit to letting the illegitimi corborundi

It seems to me that you have been misinformed.

Fluorine is an the most chemically reactive of the elements, and is classified as an oxidant. That means that in nature fluorine gas will react rapidly almost any metal or compound (except fluorine compounds, of course). This will include salts and other oxidised materials - even where this results in the release of other oxidants (including chlorine and oxygen). Therefore, in nature fluorine is almost universally found as a constituent of minerals, known as fluorides.
N.B. ther natural materials that contain chemically reacted fluorine include hydrocarbons such as oil or natural gas, but the concentrations of such organofluorines are extremely low.

Strictly speaking, you would be correct to say that fluorine is commonly found in nature - but un-reacted fluorine and fluorine gas (=fluorine reacted with fluorine) are not.

You can find more (at present mostly reliable) information on fluorine and its compounds in the linked article and its references

Fluorine -- maximum content allowed in drinking Water is 0.7 mg/litre =0.7 ppm

Flourides are salts of Calcium ,Magnesium etc and are the most difficult to remove.Excess Fluoride builds up in body --bones/teeth--and cause problems.Google !

Flouride deficiency is another crisis--as science says --a minimum so much is needed .

Yours Truly solves it through ElectroCoagulation for his own/others' Deflouridization.

EC removes bulk of poisons down to safe levels.EC is a versatile no-chemicals - added

electrolytic process.

The body scavenges F+ ions and they are incorporated in tooth enamel and bone increasing strength and reducing caries ot tooth enamel. This is well known. About about 6 PPM in water the teeth show a little cosmetic mottling, but are still strong.

Here is a comparison of cows fed various levels of flourine. Note that in those cows fed 50 ppm of florine suffered very deleterious effects.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/65/2/293.pdf

lower levels, 20 ppm or less had no physiological effect. ABove 20 progressively more damage occurs.

humand and cattle will behave similarly here, so .7 ppm looks very safe to me.

the LD-50 in humans is ORL-HMN LDLO:71 MG/KG

71 milligrams per kilogram, so a 100 Kilo human sample would require 7.1 grams orally ingested to kill 50% of them.

Not very toxic.

In rats the LD-50 is ORL-RAT LD50:52 MG/KG so a 1/2 kilo rat needs 26 milligrams.

again, not very toxic compared to Sodium Cyanide

ORL-RAT LD50: 3.7 MG/KG about 15 times as toxic.

strychnine is about the same

However these are very safe compared to organic poisons like tetrodotoxin where the

LD50 for the mouse is 10 nanograms.

organic nerv poisons are similar

yes let it sit in a non sealed container - like one would for aquariums etc

preferably in the sun and the UV light will accelerate the Fluorine , chlorine ions to form gas and escape the solution ;-)

Change the chemical composition from 2(H2O) + 2(NaF) => 2(NaOH) + F2?
Fortunately, the probability of this noxious outcome failing to recombine before the fluorine is given off is pretty slim.

thank you! for your correction-- one should not extrapolate the chemistry of chlorine to fluorine: albeit,

they are related.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2b21n4H5bX8C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=fluorine+remediation&source=web&ots=XY1ApKCEWQ&sig=Knl07KjwxzPLbAPCKtJVoM_Kz18

With regard to the clay pot info - it appears that Si plays a potable role:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid

browsing Wikipedia - there is a wealth of others who have already initiated this discussion in more detail for a longer period of time

search : fluorosis, fluoride, HF, etc..

that being said i give Svengali #3 and ffej #10 my good answer votes

thanks to all - i have learned much this AM

cbs

I agree with what posts ##3 and 10 say, but #10 has nothing to do with answering the question; also I would caution against drinking the product of either of the methods suggested in # 3 - ion exchange means you will end up increasing your sodium intake (not a good idea); distilled water contains no minerals, so makes it susceptible to the uptake of everything - in addition to lacking calcium salts (heart attacks, bone diseases and cancers are all more prevalent in soft-water areas, even where there is no lead piping and relatively low levels of toxins can be identified in the water).

Change the chemical composition from 2(H2O) + 2(NaF) => 2(NaOH) + F2?

Fortunately, the probability of this noxious outcome failing to recombine before the fluorine is given off is pretty slim.

Given that fluorine (F₂) is the most oxidizing element of all, fluoride (F^-) will not be even slightly oxidized by water as you suggest. And the reaction your wrote is not balanced -- you lost two hydrogen atoms, so you would probably need to write hydrogen gas (H₂) as a product, which makes the reaction even less likely.

The unbalanced reaction was the lesser mistake. I pointed it out since I teach college chemistry and I think such mistakes should not go uncorrected. But even after balancing the reaction equation, it still won't work. Fluorine (F₂) is the most electronegative element in the entire periodic table, making fluoride ion (F^-) one of most stable ions that exist -- much to stable to be oxidized to fluorine in the way suggested. Three ways are known to oxidize fluoride ion: radiolysis (nuclear radiation), electrolysis, or some rather exotic chemistry. Call my reply pedantic wood if you want, but I always thought that speculation should be tempered by known science. Any threat resulting from fluoridated water would come from fluoride salts, fluoro-organic derivatives, or hydrogen fluoride (HF), not from F₂.

The point well stated..

Someone may say you combine CO2 and H20 to make petroleum products, theoretically possible (may be) but practically impossible.

Absolutely no doubt that Fluoride ion to F2 will not happen for all practical considerations.

Maybe you missed the question mark at the end of the equation? I was making exactly that point - and adding that even if UV caused conversion of fluoride ions they would immediately reconvert. For what it is worth, UV at > 3-eV is capable of triggering the required reaction, albeit at a low occurrence rate (because it requires closely spaced fluorine ions to be excited coincidentally by two such photons). Sorry about the missing H2 on the RHS.

Maybe the sarcasm was not obvious enough for the pundits of CR4.

You can't boil fluoride ions out of water. Two "easy" solutions might be: Precipitate the F ion via added silver ions; or use an ion exchange resin beads to remove F, Cl etc ions from the water. Has someone been playing with your mind about the evils of fluoridation? Talk to your dentist.

Quite!

Some more ways of forming a precipitate. Solubility products in a table to hand:

• CaF₂↓ 3.45e-11
• PbF₂↓ 3.30e-8
• MgF₂↓ (18degC) 7.10e-9
• MgF₂↓ (25degC) 5.16e-11

Units are mol²/litre².

Scum, isn't it? [Hee hee!]

Would you drink the beverage that had been de-fluorided using the silver or the lead? (or for that matter been through an ion-exchange resin unless you could vouch for the post-treatment?)

Fyz

Working on DI and Ultra High Purity water for the semiconductor industry; the removal of salts was of the highest priority. It also led to lots of myth and lore in the break-room.

It is said that the water was so free of minerals - that if consumed, less than 1 gallon would extract the minerals from the body and kill the consumer. I know for a fact that if you use UHP water to brew a pot of coffee that you will not want to ever drink regular coffee again - or at least that's my position.

Now. How did a flouride conversation turn into a crea vs evo discussion?

So, has anybody ever heard of Ron Paul? Now there is a man worthing paying attention to.

Yes, I agree, myths about UHP water are designed to reduce tech use.

As for Paul, I had a pet squirrel once and do you know where he stored his nuts?

Yes, in a nut case.

That is what I think of Paul, a good place for a squirrel to store his nuts.

In his rantings he does have a few gems though

Yes, I agree, myths about UHP water are designed to reduce tech use.

I suspect that in fact you actually know very little of the matter. As I certainly never said that the myths were designed to reduce 'tech' use. So you are in fact not agreeing with me. You are stating your own fact and agreeing with no one.

It's ok Aurizon. I get a bit full of my self from time to time too. Luckily there is always someone there to help me live the humble life that I yearn for. As opposed to the arrogant self serving rhetoric of the terminally intelligent.

As for Mr Paul: I don't believe I've heard him 'rant'. I am certain that 'nut case' is a bit bold of a statement. I suppose you have given an equal amount of time to Mr. Paul in your decision making process. You have actually listened to or reflected on the voting record of the senator. As opposed to sitting around watching CNN reading PM and claiming to 'know' something about the decision makers of the free world. Oh what's that? Just another bunch of mumbo jumbo? Oh I see. Well your mind is made up. Hope it 's not contagious.

cr3

I have worked in both the organic chemical industry and pharmaceuticals. In both of these they use denatured ethanol. Some processes have no approved denaturant, esp in pharmaceuticals, so they use anhydrous ethanol or wet ethanol (distilled to eutectic)..

To avoid employee use it is called denatured xyz ethanol, as there are many denatured ethanols with various numbers, or hydroxyethane (anhydrous).

This is usually enough, but there are always a few smart people, so it is also counted and locked up.

By extension, I presumed that an ultrapure water may well be consumed by employees in coffee, tea, or straight and/or taken home. If it is costly to make it = a waste. Thus the stories. After all look at the huge bottled water and filter indystry that shows the demand.

As for Paul, I have looked at what he says, and I find much of it rational. However I find a fair amounf ot it to be generally unpalatable to be, and I suspect to most Americans. Thus I doubt he will get much traction the further he goes from his home state.

There is a potential ambiguity in what you wrote, which could be dangerous (you might say serve the thieving ******** right). You say (correctly) that some things called "denatured xyz" ethanol are harmless.

But I think it should be emphasised that most "denatured abc ethanols" do contain poisonous additives (often methyl alcohol, but sometimes even nastier - depending on application).

So would you cite one reference to your bold statement re: Mr. Paul?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/190108Agenda.htm

http://www.24hgold.com/viewarticle.aspx?langue=en&articleid=166609_Gold__Peace_and_Prosperity__book__Mises_org_Ron_Paul&contributor=Ron+Paul&lastpublishingyear=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKjhNa6PGLk&eurl=http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2008/110108Iran.htm

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U36JQO2&show_article=1

http://infowars.net/articles/december2007/151207Beck.htm

_{http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/190108Agenda.htm}

In that link Senator Paul suggests that we should return to a gold standard as the basis of our monetary system. The blasphemer.

(on a side note, Alex Jones is an Austinite whom I have had the pleasure of meeting to discuss the Waco tragedy with. You'll find his name closely associated with the site you referenced)

_{http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U36JQO2&show_article=1}

This article also suggests the gold standard as does the one prior. Hmmmmmm.

_{http://infowars.net/articles/december2007/151207Beck.htm}

That link has nothing about Senator Paul. It does reference him. Further it by Glenn Beck, A TV personality on CNN. CNN has censored political debates to exclude Mr. Paul and is further accused of wrong doing by parties not even associated with Senator Paul. So I say nope. Nada.

Well I followed your links. Will you reciprocate? I'll post 2 semi-randomly.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/259/the-family-education-freedom-act/

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/06/01/stop-dreaming

I am not saying that anyone should vote for Ron Paul. I am saying that everyone should at least listen. Then vote.

Regards to my northern neighbor. And neighbors of the world.

cr3

Take one part of 'the good old days', add 1/2 part of 'barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen', mix well, chop fine and sautee with mushrooms with 'when men were men' oil and wrap in the gold standard...serves 300 milllion

The idea to use a diminishing resource, like gold, as a currency backing is a joke.

When I hear that, it makes all the other processes he brings forth suspect.

The current process of creating the same money as mans labor/goods/services create every time period and then adding this amount to the money supply is the only valid way of creating a valid proxy for the fact that a man wakes up each day and has 8 or more hours to work and gets an average amount for this. Some get more, some gets less = carrot to strive for.

They call this 'fiat' money, as if it was conjured up from nothing. Well, nazi Germany did just that, printed paper money with no correlation to man hours/other goods/services and so there was uncontrollable inflation and the cash ceased to represent a days work. People reverted to hording, and flea marketing and barter systems, as they did in the USSR when their ruble became worthless.

So what is Paul going to do when the last gold is gone? lots of gold in sea water? in dreams. The gold in sea water is not enough to pump the average gallon up a 1 foot potential hill. If it was worth $25,000/ounce all the gravyards would be dug up and street assaults for teeth by pliers gangs would be common...lot of fun that. Of course we sould go to stainless steel teeth. And of course at $25,000/ounce that might justify seawater extraction = stable long term price for gold if you piled up enough to back every Razbuznick of earth with it's full value.

So these things tell me that Paul will never attract a big base. If he got rid of the gold and the other stuff he would seem more ratiomal to many.

Your example of the hyperinflation of Nazi Germany is, in my opinion, exactly the opposite of the gold standard design.

Please note other hyperinflation scenarios suchas Mexico 1988(?)

You say using a precious metal standard is a joke. How so? Enlighten me other than some nonsensical mushroom recipe.

I thnk I know what you are trying to say. It seems like it my be something you heard or read and made sense but that you aren't quite sure of it all.

Fiat money - I encourage you to develope o greater understanding of what is exactly 'fiat' from an economics perspective, not a labor perspective.

Seawater ectraction? Why did you mention that?

So did you follow the links? Shame shame. I followed yours.

Anyway. I have enjoyed the dialogue. Good luck to you, and the status quo.

cr3

fiat money is money that is worth what we say it is because we say it.

As population grows faster than the gold supply in time we are subject to a limitation. So no more money can be printed as there is no more gold.

Gold has only industrial and jewellery values in reality. To me found gold is something I turn into cash. I can then buy stuff or hoard it. I would not hoard gole as it is not liquid. If I wanted to go out and buy some fish and chips, could I have a salt shaker full of gild dust and the maker a little scale? I think not.

So gold has no value as a backing for currency. We just used to use it, and other metals.

The only reaslistic valu for a fiat currency is the goverments will to print only that which is demanded by the various M series measures of money. If they print too much inflation.

If we had a fixed population and a fixed amount of gold and no other use for gold than as money, it could work,.

I heard from a man who works at REI in Seattle that if you let water sit for 24 hours the chlorine will be gone. I don't know if it's the same for fluoride.