Why are we dosing babies with fluoride

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Solubility of calcium fluoride (fluorite) in water is extremely low (15 mg/L at 18 °C) that corresponds to fluoride concentration of about 7mg/L. It is only about ten times more than the recommended range of concentrations in drinking water (0.5-1.0 mg/L). It would be technically difficult to reach the recommended values by adding fluorite to water on industrial scale. And there probably would be additional costs to the industry and environment.

Probably be cheaper to take the stuff out then huh? Because why stop at fluoride... They could add menthol to the water and cure a whole population of halitosis. Who the hell wants to pay for that? I mean when I go to the bar and have a few beers sure my breath stinks, but there is always a free mint in the urinal every time!

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

"What dose of fluoride do you recommend we give an infant?"

I say zero, but the ADA and a maker of water for infants say 0.7 ppm.
http://www.nurserywater.com/info/faq.php

I thought babies couldn't be given fluoride. Can I give my baby Nursery® Water if it has fluoride?

The American Dental Association (ADA) supports the level for optimally fluoridated water at 0.7 parts per million (ppm) as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).1,2​ The ADA recommends that if parents or caregivers are concerned about the fluoride level intake of their children, that baby formula can be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride. 2,3​

Nursery® Water has a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm or less. Consult with your pediatrician or dental professional if you have questions.

EDIT: Babies do not have teeth, why do they need fluoride? Even adolescents do not have permanent teeth. If they are going to lose their first set of teeth anyway then why use fluoride in a children's product?

 

[Trailspotter]

Probably be cheaper to take the stuff out then huh? Because why stop at fluoride... They could add menthol to the water and cure a whole population of halitosis. Who the hell wants to pay for that? I mean when I go to the bar and have a few beers sure my breath stinks, but there is always a free mint in the urinal every time!

I do not know what are you talking about and have no interest in debating it with you. I have just answered a specific question on basic chemistry.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Now for my favorite fluoride argument. Would you drink sunscreen to treat your skin? Probably not as it only works topically. Why would you drink fluoride to treat your teeth if fluoride only works topically? Why not just leave it in mouthwash and toothpaste and let people choose to buy it?

Also another good argument is... with the many many sources of fluoride are we really only getting .07 ppm? I mean what if i brush my teeth, drink some water, then get my teeth cleaned at the dentist. Did I just get too much fluoride in one day?

The last argument is that fluoride accumulates in your body. Anything that is a foreign substance and is accumulating in your body is a bad thing is it not?

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I do not know what are you talking about and have no interest in debating it with you. I have just answered a specific question on basic chemistry.

Well you cherry picked my reply. You commented on the second question, but did not comment on the first. You could have at least commented on the first question. Just saying "i dont know" in response to it at least shows that you are not avoiding the question.

As for what I am talking about.... you said it would cost MORE to add calcium fluoride than adding sodium fluoride. Ok.. that may be true. My point is... that it would cost LESS to add nothing at all if cost was such a concern. I doubt the cost of adding fluoride matters much to those who are adding it because it is tax payers money, not their money.

The companies that produce fluoride as a by-product industrial waste are supposed to PAY MONEY to have it disposed of because it is TOXIC.
Instead, they buddy up with the city council and dump the shit in our water and we have to pay THEM for it. THAT is why they don't use calcium fluoride, because it is not a waste product and they would actually have to produce/mine it specifically.

Why are we dosing babies with fluoride? It all boils down to money corruption. A big industry uses millions of dollars to pay off officials to get rid of toxic waste for them by adding it to the water supply. Simple. It's not a conspiracy if it's not done in secret.

 

[Trailspotter]

Well you cherry picked my reply. You commented on the second question, but did not comment on the first. You could have at least commented on the first question. Just saying "i dont know" in response to it at least shows that you are not avoiding the question.

As for what I am talking about.... you said it would cost MORE to add calcium fluoride than adding sodium fluoride. Ok.. that may be true. .

As I have said already, I answered a question from basic chemistry. Calcium fluoride is not used to fluoridate drinking water because it is practically insoluble.

For me fluoridation came too late to save my teeth from decay, but it has certainly benefited my children and children of my colleagues. The end.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

The end.

It is just the beginning, unfortunately.
Calcium Fluoride Goes Soluble
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i35/8535news12.html

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fluoride, as such, is never added to the water. Only silicofluorides (a hazardous waste containing many toxic pollutants) are used to artificially fluoridate water, and studies have proven that they do not effectively prevent tooth decay, they only delay it. Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 times more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Therefore, the effect on the entire body will be different.[/FONT]

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Calcium Fluoride Goes Soluble

Roesky described his group's progress in making CaF2​ derivatives that are soluble in organic solvents and, as a result, are potentially more useful for some applications...

Content from External Source

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Calcium Fluoride Goes Soluble

Roesky described his group's progress in making CaF2​ derivatives that are soluble in organic solvents and, as a result, are potentially more useful for some applications...

Content from External Source

Yep I may have spoken too soon on that one, as it does not list "water" specifically, but water IS organic, and it is a solvent... So I posted it nonetheless. Come to find out that water is not considered an "organic solvent". This is an idiom hehehe.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Either way, sodium fluoride is not being added to the water, silicofluorides are being added to the water. So we might want to re-evaluate the cost-benefit analysis.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Yep I may have spoken too soon on that one, as it does not list "water" specifically, but water IS organic, and it is a solvent...

Water is an inorganic solvent. Organic solvents contain carbon. Water molecules do not contain carbon.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Water is an inorganic solvent. Organic solvents contain carbon. Water molecules do not contain carbon.

I was not using the definition of organic as used in chemistry. I am not a chemist but I did look at the definition before you posted and I noticed that organic in chemistry means containing carbon, so you are right about that. Either way it does not answer the question about the cost-benefit of adding silicofluorides to the water supply.

Trailspotter said that because calcium fluoride is less soluble than sodium fluoride that the cost-benefit would be better using sodium fluoride. The only problem with this, is that we are not using sodium fluoride. We are using silicofluorides. Is there a benefit to using this toxic waste at ANY cost?

 

[Mick West]

I was not using the definition of organic as used in chemistry. I am not a chemist but I did look at the definition before you posted and I noticed that organic in chemistry means containing carbon, so you are right about that. Either way it does not answer the question about the cost-benefit of adding silicofluorides to the water supply.

Trailspotter said that because calcium fluoride is less soluble than sodium fluoride that the cost-benefit would be better using sodium fluoride. The only problem with this, is that we are not using sodium fluoride. We are using silicofluorides. Is there a benefit to using this toxic waste at ANY cost?

The benefit is that it adds fluoride ions to the water and it's cheaper than alternatives. The cost is that it's usually contaminated with other toxins, however since they are at a very low level (deemed safe) then it's an acceptable cost.

The debate would be to what degree they are sure it is actually safe.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

The benefit is that it adds fluoride ions to the water and it's cheaper than alternatives. The cost is that it's usually contaminated with other toxins, however since they are at a very low level (deemed safe) then it's an acceptable cost.

The debate would be to what degree they are sure it is actually safe.

The debate should be "Why are we allowing the addition of unregulated substances into our drinking water?" This stuff comes from all over the globe and the levels of contamination can vary greatly. Once it is actually regulated, then you can discuss the safety of the regulated allowable amounts... but by default... anything unregulated is riskier (less safe) than being regulated.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

We are using silicofluorides. Is there a benefit to using this toxic waste at ANY cost?

Please stop with the "toxic waste" rhetoric. Recycled plastic can be considered "toxic waste" and yet they make medical tubing from the stuff.

They typically add sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate at about 0.5 mg/L which can cost between $0.70 to $1.10 per person per year.

 

[Mick West]

Now for my favorite fluoride argument. Would you drink sunscreen to treat your skin? Probably not as it only works topically. Why would you drink fluoride to treat your teeth if fluoride only works topically? Why not just leave it in mouthwash and toothpaste and let people choose to buy it?

That's not a good argument. Adding sunscreen to the water supply does nothing. Adding fluoride to the water supply prevents tooth decay. So they are totally different things. I would drink sunscreen if it were non-toxic and drinking it prevented sunburn.

Now in addition to the upside of reducing tooth decay, there's a potential downside as you also end up drinking the fluoride and other contaminants. But they are all at safe levels that won't do any harm (or so the scientists tell us).

Why not leave it in toothpaste? Because poor people don't brush their teeth, and so end up needing more dental work. But that's more of a political/social issue than a scientific one.

 

[Mick West]

The debate should be "Why are we allowing the addition of unregulated substances into our drinking water?" This stuff comes from all over the globe and the levels of contamination can vary greatly. Once it is actually regulated, then you can discuss the safety of the regulated allowable amounts... but by default... anything unregulated is riskier (less safe) than being regulated.

It is regulated. You can't add it to water in a way that will raise toxin levels above EPA standards.

Do you think that adding an arbitrary amount of arsenic is actually allowed? No, the water that comes out of the tap still needs to have safe levels of arsenic. Now you might debate if those levels actually are safe, but you can't say it's not regulated.

 

[Trailspotter]

Trailspotter said that because calcium fluoride is less soluble than sodium fluoride that the cost-benefit would be better using sodium fluoride.

It's a lie. I did not say that and I did not mean that.

 

[Mick West]

Please stop with the "toxic waste" rhetoric. Recycled plastic can be considered "toxic waste" and yet they make medical tubing from the stuff.

Indeed. Sea salt is "toxic waste". A byproduct of the desalination industry, and contaminated with various toxic elements. Yet we sprinkle it on our food.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

It is regulated. You can't add it to water in a way that will raise toxin levels above EPA standards.

Do you think that adding an arbitrary amount of arsenic is actually allowed? No, the water that comes out of the tap still needs to have safe levels of arsenic. Now you might debate if those levels actually are safe, but you can't say it's not regulated.

Yes I can.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#2

EPA does not specifically regulate levels of “direct additives,” which are chemicals added to water in the course of treatment

 

[Trigger Hippie]

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm

EPA regulates fluoride in drinking water to protect public health. Fluoride may cause health problems if present in public or private water supplies in amounts greater than the drinking water standard set by EPA.

Content from External Source

And here's the full quote from the CDC

Although EPA does not specifically regulate levels of “direct additives,” which are chemicals added to water in the course of treatment, it does specify that the addition of chemicals as part of treatment should not exceed the MCL concentration for regulated substances.

Content from External Source

You seemed to have left out an important part.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm

EPA regulates fluoride in drinking water to protect public health. Fluoride may cause health problems if present in public or private water supplies in amounts greater than the drinking water standard set by EPA.

Content from External Source

And here's the full quote from the CDC

Although EPA does not specifically regulate levels of “direct additives,” which are chemicals added to water in the course of treatment, it does specify that the addition of chemicals as part of treatment should not exceed the MCL concentration for regulated substances.

Content from External Source

You seemed to have left out an important part.

Aside from the fact that "specify" does not mean "regulate"... effectively making their specification a SUGGESTION, it would seem that YOU left out an important part.

In 1979, EPA executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish and clarify areas of authority in controlling additives in drinking water. FDA has regulatory oversight on food additives, which includes bottled water, and EPA has regulatory oversight on direct additives in public drinking water supplies. Because of the decision to transfer the additives program to the private sector, EPA declared a moratorium in 1980 on issuing new advisory opinions on additives. EPA awarded a cooperative agreement to a group of nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations led by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) in 1985 to develop a new additives program. Three years later, EPA announced that the new National Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute (NSF/ANSI) Standard 60 was functioning.

private sector = self-regulation = no standard regulation. EPA can specify all they want, but this states they have NO AUTHORITY. They only issue advisory opinions on additives.

EDIT: I don't want to leave anything else out!
[h=2]NSF/ANSI Standard 60[/h]
http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/standards.asp?program=WaterDistributionSys

NSF Standards and the processes used to develop them conform to ANSI's requirements for voluntary consensus standards. The standards are copyrighted, but may be used by any organization or individual for the purpose of product/material evaluation, testing, and certification.

 

[Mick West]

Aside from the fact that "specify" does not mean "regulate"...

It quite clearly states that these are legally enforceable limits of contaminants in drinking water.

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs or primary standards) are legally enforceable standards that apply to public water systems. Primary standards protect public health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking water.

Content from External Source

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm

And most states and municipalities have even more stringent water quality standards.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

It quite clearly states that these are legally enforceable limits of contaminants in drinking water.

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs or primary standards) are legally enforceable standards that apply to public water systems. Primary standards protect public health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking water.

Content from External Source

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm

And most states and municipalities have even more stringent water quality standards.

That is dealing with contaminants, not direct additives. Again, it does not get any more clear than this... "EPA does not specifically regulate levels of “direct additives,” which are chemicals added to water in the course of treatment"

This is a definitive statement. All the other stuff is talking about contaminates and you are confused as to what they are referring to.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

private sector = self-regulation = no standard regulation. EPA can specify all they want, but this states they have NO AUTHORITY. They only issue advisory opinions on additives.

Water fluoridation is based on ANSI standard 60 which uses EPA MCL concentrations. The standard was developed by the NSF and is enforced by stated laws.

OK, where's the problem?

NSF Factsheet

Fluoride
NSF/ANSI Standard 60 requires, when available, that the US EPA regulated maximum contaminant level (MCL) be used to determine the acceptable level for a contaminant.

Content from External Source

Forty-seven states have laws or regulations requiring product compliance with Standard 60. NSF/ANSI standards 60 and 61 were developed by a consortium of associations, including NSF, AWWA, ANSI, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, and the Conference of State Health and Environmental Managers. Standards 60 and 61 are accepted by the EPA as the requirements for controlling potential harmful effects from products added to water for its treatment. These standards replaced the former EPA Additives Advisory Program.

Content from External Source

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

The problem is this:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/absurdity/

 

[Mick West]

That is dealing with contaminants, not direct additives. Again, it does not get any more clear than this... "EPA does not specifically regulate levels of “direct additives,” which are chemicals added to water in the course of treatment"

This is a definitive statement. All the other stuff is talking about contaminates and you are confused as to what they are referring to.

I'm not confused at all. The EPA regulates the levels of various substances in drinking water. That means it regulates the level in the water that comes out of the tap. So unless the additive is added after it comes out of the tap, then there's an effective limit to the level that can be added.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/basicinformation.cfm

EPA defines a water contaminant as any physical chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water. EPA sets legal limits on the levels of certain contaminants in drinking water.

Content from External Source

You can't just impose your own narrow interpretation on words in order to win points in debates. Again, this should not be a point-scoring high school debate, it should be about determining what is going on.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Now you might debate if those levels actually are safe

Failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

The problem is this:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/absurdity/

Hold on, we can discuss safety in a second.

The debate should be "Why are we allowing the addition of unregulated substances into our drinking water?" This stuff comes from all over the globe and the levels of contamination can vary greatly. Once it is actually regulated, then you can discuss the safety of the regulated allowable amounts... but by default... anything unregulated is riskier (less safe) than being regulated.

SD, you claimed that fluoridation was unregulated. In light of the posts above, can we agree that fluoridation is regulated and enforced by laws?

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Bottom line. There are hundreds if not thousands of reasons to not add fluoride to the water supply.
If your only reason to add it to the supply is the belief that it helps your teeth, then add it to your own water when it comes out of the tap...
If you believe something should be put into my water then you can see what happens if you try to slip me a micky. Pun intended.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Hold on, we can discuss safety in a second.



SD, you claimed that fluoridation was unregulated. In light of the posts above, can we agree that fluoridation is regulated and enforced by laws?

I have seen no documents on enforcement, nor any state regulations, however I do freely admit that there are probably some state regulations in place, however regulation requires a standard by which to regulate, otherwise it is dictation... and there is no Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.

 

[Mick West]

I have seen no documents on enforcement, nor any state regulations, however I do freely admit that there are probably some state regulations in place, however regulation requires a standard by which to regulate, otherwise it is dictation... and there is no Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.

But you'd agree that there is a legally enforcable MCL? You just think it's too high?

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Bottom line. There are hundreds if not thousands of reasons to not add fluoride to the water supply.
If your only reason to add it to the supply is the belief that it helps your teeth, then add it to your own water when it comes out of the tap...
If you believe something should be put into my water then you can see what happens if you try to slip me a micky. Pun intended.

I believe decisions regarding water fluoridation are made on a municipal level. If you don't want your water fluoridated then attend some council meetings and voice you concerns. You get one vote, same as everyone else in your community. Immature thinly veiled threats really don't help your case.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

But you'd agree that there is a legally enforcable MCL? You just think it's too high?

Legal probably, Lawful, definitely not.

I believe decisions regarding water fluoridation are made on a municipal level. If you don't want your water fluoridated then attend some council meetings and voice you concerns. You get one vote, same as everyone else in your community. Immature thinly veiled threats really don't help your case.

Or instead, I can try to avoid public tap water... and there was no threat, there was a warning. Much like your avatar. Someone holding a rifle is not a threat, it is a warning.

 

[Mick West]

Legal probably, Lawful, definitely not.

Back to definitions of words again:

Definition of LEGAL

1
: of or relating to law
2
a : deriving authority from or founded on law : de jure
b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : titular <a corporation is a legal but not a real person>
c : established by law; especially : statutory
3
: conforming to or permitted by law or established rules

Content from External Source

Definition of LAWFUL
1
a : being in harmony with the law <a lawful judgment>
b: constituted, authorized, or established by law :rightful<lawful institutions>

Content from External Source

Related to LEGAL
Synonyms:lawful

Content from External Source

So perhaps you could find some different words to explain what you are saying.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Yeah, like the subject of what we are discussing.

1) Fluoridation is UNETHICAL
2) Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY
3) Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE
4) Fluoridation is UNSAFE
5) Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE
6) Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE
7) Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED
8) Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE

You stated previously that this is not a high school debate and we are here to get the facts. Let's not focus on how I interpret certain words.
Just so you know though, there is a difference.

Legal V Lawful
http://www.fortruth.org/legal.html

 

[Charlie Primero]

1) Fluoridation is UNETHICAL
2) Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY
3) Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE
4) Fluoridation is UNSAFE
5) Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE
6) Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE
7) Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED
8) Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE

That about sums it up.

Never forget the you are different from debunkers. Debunkers do not care about ethics or morality. Their goal is to have fun. Very different from you. Always keep that in mind.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

That about sums it up.

Never forget the you are different from debunkers. Debunkers do not care about ethics or morality. Their goal is to have fun. Very different from you. Always keep that in mind.

FINE then....

1) Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY
2) Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE
3) Fluoridation is UNSAFE
4) Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE
5) Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE
6) Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED
7) Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE

P.S. Since it is no fun to lose a debate, I do not expect any more replies from the debunkers. They have lost this one.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

So if everyone is dosed with fluoride, how do they prevent EVERY young child from being dumbed down and affected. Obviously the old men who are conniving to dumb down the entire population will have to be replaced eventually, but everyone will be less intelligent and pacified. Makes no sense. Just like the chemtrail conspiracy, makes no sense they poison their own families AND THEMSELVES for that matter. They're ingesting fluoride too. Even if they drink bottled water, obviously if the corn flakes, beer and everything else is dosed with fluoride because it's made using water, they're going to ingest it also. Again makes no sense at all.

They have their own water sources, they are able to afford the most expensive filters, and they can afford detoxification programs. Make sense now?