“H2SiF6, which can be obtained from other industrial processes. One can hardly call it a waste product if it is of commercial value” simply renaming a product for use in another area doesn’t change what it is. The other industrial processes are, making steel, making Aluminium, refining uranium to a higher fissile state, yes lots but that doesn’t imply they are safe. They will be unfiltered and loaded with other toxic byproducts. And if this is the saviour of all teeth then answer me this “why do 98% of the Western World not fluoridate their water with HFA?” I’ll be eager to hear your answer.
1 Like
Yes your guess at the connection is correct, the effect on the GI system is well established, everybody will have differing sensitivities to the the toxic effects of the Fluoride ion. Yours was bad enough to make it self known to you in a most unpleasant way. Go to Google Scholar and search large amount of peer reviewed paper on the subject. If it starts to come back check the Spring water supplier hasn’t started adding it or check the foods/drinks as they can be made with fluoridated water, which usually has the water heated during the process thus concentrating the amount of Fluoride F ion in the mixture.
1 Like
Thanks to all those commenting on this thread, it’s interesting to read about the behaviour and decisions that lead consumers to choose either tap or bottled water.
@matts, thanks also for the contributions to the discussion so far. We welcome the chance for friendly debate on the Community. I’m jumping in as CHOICE has made some comment on the issue of fluoride in water and toothpaste before, based on the experts we have contacted.
From the article:
The Australian Dental Association recommends tap water as the primary choice of drink for everyone. The chair of its Oral Health Committee, Peter Alldritt, says “it’s the most hydrating beverage there is, free of sugar and acid, and [where] it contains fluoride, [it] reduces the risk of tooth decay”.
We can see this in effect in QLD, where much of the state does not have fluoride added to water. Other states in Australia have had the chemical added for between 30-50 years. The result has been a higher prevalence of tooth decay (PDF).
I also wanted to address the claim above on the Canadian University study. From the NCBI, “These findings suggest that fluoridation of drinking water has no impact, neither beneficial nor deleterious, on the risk of hip fracture.” The Arthritis Foundation has also mentioned that the right level dose can strengthen bones.
The ‘right level’ dose seems to be the key phrase here, as while there is a current scientific consensus on the safety of low amounts of fluoride, there are concerns about exposure to higher levels of fluoride. “Our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment.” The study from the Harvard School of Public Health focused on populations in China, where the exposure to fluoride in water can vary, and some tap water can contain over 10mg/L of fluoride. This raises questions about the long-term impact of fluoride and the impact to those with a particular sensitivity.
Of course, any mineral can be dangerous in high amounts. Our bodies need zinc and magnesium, but the effects of an overdose of these minerals can also be serious. Other conditions, such as kidney health can be also factors to consider. In Australia, reported fluoride rates typically vary between 0.6 and 1.1mg/L. So, considering the fluoride in some foods, the amount in water, and other products like toothpaste, it seems unlikely that we would consumer enough fluoride to be dangerous.
Feel free to add your perspectives, we’re always interested to hear about your personal experiences.
3 Likes
Here is a link to a lot of peer reviewed journals about the effect of fluoride on Bone Density and Bone Strength that seems to show that fluoride to strengthen bones does not have a great outcome:
Also Wiki article on Fluorosis:
From the WebMD site comes this:
From The Fluoride debate website http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question18.html comes this (there is the ADA response above this response:
"Opposition’s Response
Yes. The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) links hip fractures and fluoridation in four different issues since 1990. Studies published in the Journal in August 1992, specifically states that their objective was to “test the effect of water fluoridated to 1 ppm on the incidence of hip fractures.” Their study demonstrated a link between hip fractures in the elderly and water fluoridated at 1 ppm, the so-called ‘optimal dose.’ “Hip fractures, (according to the report) are the second most common cause for admission (of elderly) to nursing homes accounting for approximately 60,000 admissions per year.”
“Each year in the U.S. about 250,000 people over age 65 suffer hip fractures and 25% die within three months.” (Chemical & Engineering News, July 30, 1990.)
" … we recently reported the ecological association of discharge rates for hip fracture and water fluoride levels in 39 county districts in England. … there appears to be a positive association between fluoride levels of county water supplies and fracture discharge rates. This ecologic association is consistent with a recently published study and others in progress." (Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) July 24, 1991.)
“We found a … significant increase in the risk of hip fracture in both men and women exposed to artificial fluoridation at 1 ppm, suggesting that low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly.” (Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Aug. 12, 1992.)
“Thus, adjusting for major individual risk factors, this study suggests a deleterious effect of fluorine in drinking water on the risk of hip fractures, even for moderate concentrations of fluorine, and no effect on other kinds of fractures.” (See 18-1: “Fluoride and Hip Fracture,” JAMA, Vol. 273, No. 10, March 8, 1995, and “Hip Fracture Rates are Much Higher in People Residing in Fluoridated Communities” - chart).
“More recently, attention has shifted to lower dosages of fluoride, such as found in fluoridated water. There are now at least eight studies that showed an increase of hip fracture incidence in fluoridated compared to unfluoridated communities. They are summarized here.” (See 18-2: “Brief Account of the Fluoridation/Hip Fracture Problem,” by John R. Lee, M. D., June 30, 1995, for details on these eight studies).
" … many studies (demonstrate) adverse effects to bone caused by fluoride at levels to which the majority of the U.S. population are exposed. … the (Environmental Protection) Agency needs to take immediate action to prevent further injury from occurring to our aging population that result in fluoride induced hip fractures." (William Marcus, Ph.D., EPA scientist, statement to EPA Office of Drinking Water, July 29, 1991.)
“Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population long before they reach old age.” (Robert J. Carton, Ph.D., former EPA scientist.)
“A review of recent scientific literature reveals a consistent pattern of evidence-hip fractures, skeletal fluorosis, the effect of fluoride on bone structure, fluoride levels in bones and osteosarcomas-pointing to the existence of causal mechanisms by which fluoride damages bones. … and that there is negligible benefit from ingesting fluoride …” (See 18-3: “New Evidence on Fluoridation,” by Mark Diesendorf, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney; John Colquhoun, Department of Education, University of Auckland, Auckland; Bruce J. Spittle, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin; Douglas N. Everingham, Former Federal Minister for Health, Canberra; and Frederic w. Clutterbuck, Medical Practitioner, Queensland).
Women in high fluoride communities have much earlier and much worse osteoporosis than in low fluoride communities. There was “no protective effect (on bone mass or fracture) with higher fluoride” but more fractures were reported. (American Journal of Nutrition, 44:889-98, 1986.)
Dr. Saul Genuth, director of the radioimmunoassay laboratory at Cleveland’s Mt. Sinai Hospital, said he “regretfully joined in the endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee’s unanimous opinion that fluoride has yet to prove its worth in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.” (See 18-4: “FDA Committee Spurns Fluoride,” in Medical World News, Nov. 13, 1989)."
Fluoride’s benefit for teeth is topical application, that is putting it in direct contact with teeth, not the ingestion of Fluoride which does not get into teeth enamel other than when it passes through the oral cavity. The only time ingestion may have a benefit is when very young children ingest fluoride when developing their teeth but Fluoride in this case can have undesirable neuro developmental effects. See this website for a look at the problems that may occur:
http://www.healthychild.org/the-fluoride-conundrum-is-fluoride-safe-for-kids/
3 Likes
@grahroll Without any inference on your sources, one of the great problems of the internet is the proliferation of sites that have pro or con agendas and pretend to be legitimate, unbiased scientific or medical sources of information but are far from it.
Ascertaining which sources are trustworthy, which are conspiracy sites, and so on is near impossible without a lot of checking, that is sometimes very difficult or ends as a he says she says and one gets to take a side. And so it goes 
3 Likes
I agree but even if there are pro and con sites many of the articles referred to in the links from my previous post are from reputable Universities and scientists.
The fluoride you drink does not improve your chances of avoiding cavities once it has passed the mouth, it indeed has an effect while in the oral cavity. The fluoride compounds replace lost minerals in the enamel (which is not a growing structure) and once it has passed this area it has no further effect on the enamel. But it does end up in your bones, well about 50% of it does and it is accumulative. And as we use toothpaste and mouthwashes with fluoride compounds this adds additional fluoride consumption over a day that goes beyond the <= 1ppm in the water supply.
I was in particular responding to the two areas in the quote from Brendan that 1) NCBI states that fluoridation appeared to have no effect either way on hip fractures (a lot of studies are showing an adverse effect) and 2) that fluoride ingestion increased bone strength (again most studies show an increase in BMD but no beneficial effect in strength and in many cases a detrimental effect).
Fluoride in water supplies has been an emotive issue with strong feelings on both sides but I do try to read the studies rather than the commentaries.
2 Likes
@grahroll, I trust my introductory statement [quote=“TheBBG, post:47, topic:6814”]
Without any inference on your sources,
[/quote]
was sufficient to show I was not trying to impute your sources. My purpose was that the internet has become a great swamp of highly credible and extraordinarily incredible sources of information and alternative information as well as rubbish, and it can be a bit of work to separate them, especially the first two categories.
I made the comment in this thread only because there was a bit of to and fro in the discussion.
1 Like
Thanks @grahroll, I enjoyed reading those links. There is certainly a lot of conflicting information out there, so perhaps it could be a good one for CHOICE to discuss further.
I also note that the mineral content can change from town to town, although standard tap water should meet the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG). In this case, in a hypothetical perfect situation (and at the risk of getting pedantic), does anyone have thoughts on the optimal mineral content of water?
I note some comments above on distilled water, but I also found plenty of contradictory information on this type of water as well.
1 Like
Hi Brendan,
The optimum mineral content of water is a tricky one as it would be dependent on the type of minerals present and their impact on colour, odour or taste (as well as ones health).
For example, reticulated water in Roma (Qld) principally comes from the ground, where the underlying strata is slightly high in sulphur. Its form is hydrogen sulfide and in low concentrations gives the water a distinctive odour but doesn’t overly influence its taste. In coastal areas, slightly higher concentrations of sulphur may be present in the form of sulfates which have no odour or limited impact on taste.
Likewise for metals, some in low concentrations or different forms don’t impact on colour or taste but can be a negative to taste, quality or colour at higher concentrations. Different forms can affect the qualitative quality of water diffrently.
The information from the NHMRC on fluoride is also useful.
Fluoride is also a trace element, like iron, iodine, copper, zinc, chromium, selenium, manganese and molybdenum, and is found in enzymes, hormones and cells in the body. Fluoride is well recognised for its role in forming bones and teeth and its uptake occurs even if one doesn’t consume fluoridated water. See the NHMRC weblink.
If anyone has worked in a laboratory and tried distilled or deionised water, one would realise it is unpalatable. It dries ones mouth out and after drinking, one’s mouth feels thirstier than ever. Saliva also seems to disappears for a short time after consuming. Distilled (with no or very limited ions present) water is not the answer unless one places salts/ions in it to make it palatable. Any replacment salts would have contaminates which woukd defeat the original reason of consuming the distilled water.
3 Likes
Thanks @phb, very interesting reading. As a point of interest, I found this article on the best tasting tap water in Australia:
Water Provider
Orange City Council New South Wales
Richmond Shire Council Queensland
AllWater South Australia
TasWater Tasmania
Goulburn Valley Wate Victoria
1 Like
I didn’t take it as any attack 
I have always appreciated your input to our discussions. But I felt it was worth responding to point out my posts were in fact about those 2 items Brendan put in his post and that I try to bring high quality references to the table…
And I still agree with your statement as it has become a veritable minefield on the internet in trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Thank you again for your kind response.
2 Likes
Getting back to the original question - I think we need more education for people to understand the safety of their tap water and the “doubtful” claims of bottled water. Along the lines of the move from plastic bags to “bring your own bag” perhaps we should encourage refillable containers and water refill stations. In Qld, bars have to provide free water for patrons (unfortunately that is usually in a disposable cup); promoting water outlets for cafes, bus stops, servos etc to refill your bottle will reduce discarded plastic bottles.
I was in charge of water for a couple of towns in Qld. The main objection to fluoridation by Councils was the cost; given that more than half the water went on lawns and the rest in showers, laundry, toilets, evaporative air conditioners etc. Less than 1% was used around human consumption, even less was ingested. Being a country area, most people drank tank water, despite having tap water connected. The tap water already had more than half the fluoride level requested by the Qld Govt, so I got an exemption on topping up. The water came from deep bores.
Old, un-maintained tanks were the source of contaminated water and sickness, so Council did a free water test for anyone who requested it. Most older tanks failed due to the build up of faeces, rotting leaves, dead animals, insect larvae and discolouration from suspended solids. People returning on dialysis had to get a full water analysis before they could use their water and news travels fast in small towns. People bought bottled water because the town supply had a “taste” but still complied with Aust Drinking Water Standards, the tank water was suspect and there was a “trust” that bottled water was somehow superior in safety and quality to the two sources available to them. Our failure as a water provider perhaps?
3 Likes
Thanks for sharing this perspective @zackarii, you’ve raised some interesting points especially about old some of the issues with old tanks.
Talking about refillable stations, I’ve noticed that a lot beaches and parks in Sydney have filtered drinking water stations which has saved me a few times.
3 Likes
I remember reading a few years ago that tap water unlike most bottled water contains fluoride that most bottled waters don’t. I always usually prefer tap water for that reason and its nor costing me a fortune, At least with local water from out dams you are guaranteed that it has come from australia. When they say spring water who knows if it has really come from that place it could easily be made up to trick people. I trust the tap water because it has been cleaned and tested for quality and also as i say it has fluoride for dental reasons. My way is to use tap water where possible.
2 Likes
Me too! The only thing that gets bottled water in my house is my bamboo plant!
1 Like
Very interesting, especially the point about 1/3 of bottled water in the US being tap water!
1 Like
I have paper here that if you think I injesting a Class 8 toxic industrial waste, yes I have emails from WA Water Corp stating they use this instead of Sodium Fluoride. Best you read this paper before you comment on HFA consumption as a tooth decay preventive, the side bar to using fluoride is it’s antibacterial effects, Dozens of laboratory studies have found that fluoride may contribute to the formation of cancers of the bone, thyroid and liver.
Fluoride is the active toxic ingredient in a number of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. In the U.S., people have died, and many have become sick, when faltering fluoridation equipment has pumped excess fluoride into the water. Poor nutrition, prevalent in low-income communities, exacerbates the toxic effects of fluorides. The elderly and those with cardiovascular and kidney problems are also more susceptible to fluoride toxicity. Unfortunately it is also an enzyme killer, a Noble Prize (…Dr. Hugo Theorell, winner of the 1958 Nobel prize for his work on enzymes…) was given out for this very discovery, human enzymes that is…best you look that up and it’s effects on the human body, especially the human body but don’t expect to find actual human tests because it kills the subjects, it’s https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/,
In addition a Senior Scientist with the USA EPA Water division ad tis to say amongst other issues with Fluoride… “Fluoride is sold as a descaling agent – when added to city water, it releases all the gunk that had been clinging to the pipes for decades, imparting rotten taste to the water.
Dr. J. William Hirzy, Vice President of the Union of Scientists and Professionals at EPA Headquarters has called upon Congress to issue a moratorium on fluoridation. He states: “…we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. The toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits are so small – if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments.” Hirzy calls for “an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertiliser industry.””
Matt, this is scare mongering.
Here are some facts.
Other compounds which are class 8 products include acids in concentrated forms, which are used in food processing industry to make things like pickles and manage product pHs for storage longevity. Concentrated forms of food acids can lead to death if injected, if not severe burns to the mouth and digestive tract. At low concentrations, like that when mixed during food manufacturing, they are very safe. Fluoride is no different.
It is also worth noting that copper suphur, phosphorous, sulfur etc are the active ingredient of many pesticides, however, humans consume these and are needed for good health.
I suggest that you read information from the American Cancer Society and also peer reviewed research papers which can substiantiate or dismiss this claim often made on the internet from those which don’t support fluoridation of water. One must also differentiate claims made from research on high levels or fluoride exposure through to research on low levels used in water supplies (or which occur naturally in foods or water).
There are also many papers about lethal doses of fluoride, like that you have provided. Research on lethal doses is undertaken with a wide range of compounds. Such assessments are carried out on animals, to see what the toxicity symptoms look like, what the safe levels of exposure for humans.
Many products used day to day could be classed as byproducts of industrial processes. Many of these products are used in food industry (fertilisers, food additives in manufacturing) and other in industries where products are used in the home, schools, hospitals and work places. Such occurs to reduce the amount of waste or byproducts which are not used. They also have a value. This is very important when we live on a planet with finite resources.
In industry terms it is called resource recovery as the byproducts from such processes have an embodied value. An very simple example is the byproduct of chicken husbandry is chicken manure which is used on farms as a fertilizer source. The chicken manure could be seen as an waste from industrial chicken farming (and not used at all for any purpose as a result) or a valuable product which should be used appropriately. I would prefer it would be used as the later, even though it does have limitations and risks.
6 Likes
A recent report. Possibly more sinister than just chemicals…
8 Likes
