Water and associated topics

Following a spirited discussion with Furor Teutonicus in the comments, while this week looks quiet workwise I thought I’d do some following up on said discussion regarding Fluoride and other environmental factors.

There’s also a meme out in the wilds of medialand, unsubstantiated by actual medical evidence, that in order to ‘stay healthy’ people should drink ‘eight glasses of water’ per day. Eight fluid ounces in each. Sixty four fluid ounces. Three and a bit pints. Influenced by this garbage, everywhere you go there are people in shops, offices, on the streets with their dinky little bottles of Peckham Spring which may well be sourced from the Public Water Supply.

As for what’s in that water, watch the video of what Dr David Kennedy has to say about Fluoride in the public water supply. Especially about not being able to get rid of fluoride salts with boiling, activated carbon filtration, ‘cold filtering’ or even ‘reverse osmosis’ (Unless it’s the high pressure variety, which is expensive). ‘Pure’? I should cocoa (Derisive snort).

As for my little ‘Peckham Spring’ jibe, well me darlings, you’d be amazed at how many companies source their supposedly ‘pure’ water straight from the same sources as the public supply. Not all of them, but not a tenth, or an eighth, but over a quarter of all that bottled water on the grocery and supermarket shelves, possibly more, is likely exactly the same as what comes out of your tap. And that’s even before doing the individual testing and number crunching on how much and what contains fluoride salts. There’s just no readily collectable evidence. But you can bet your boots that the companies making a fat buck off it aren’t telling. Never mind the allegations of how much bacterial contamination there is in the supposedly ‘pure’ bottled stuff. Even if your bottled water has ‘0% fat’ on the label. I mean, ‘low fat’ water? Who knew?

Now to the meat of the topic, which is what is actually in your water supply, and what, if any deleterious effects it might have. Or even the long term effects of sub-toxic dosage and the risks of removing those dosages.

According to this animal based study, there is no detectable cancer risk associated with prolonged low level exposure to fluoride salts, although some osteosclerosis was observed. Well, you might ask, what about the documented neurological effects? It’s true that in acute cases of fluoride poisoning, headache, tremors, muscle spasm, tetanic contractions, hyperactive reflexes, seizures, and muscle weakness can result. Acute toxicity levels are 5mg per kg of body weight, so for a seventy five kilo human you’d have to swallow over 375mg in one sitting to get very sick indeed, very quickly. There’s also a high probability that kind of dose would be fatal. Women, because the average UK female bodyweight is a tad over 70kg, would be most susceptible. For those under 60kg, the acute toxicity level kicks in much earlier. Especially if the immune system is depressed or simply busy with other matters.

Now if you’re one of these people sipping two litres of water a day under the delusion that this is ‘healthy’, up until May 2015 in fluoride using areas of the USA, you might be ingesting as much as 5mg of fluoride salts a day from water alone, or in the case of a 60kg woman, a sixtieth of an acute dosage. That’s without the fluoride salts in toothpaste and bathing water. More if dietary supplements like multivitamins are being regularly taken. For the sake of a hypothetical argument, let’s round up that daily dosage (with dietary supplements) to 8mg, which is only 2mg below the maximum permissible 10mg per day overall dose. So, not quite enough to bring on acute symptoms, but as any fule kno, small doses over long periods of time can result in significant ill effects. Mostly they fly below the radar, not flagging up any immediate concerns, but can exhibit long term consequences.

For most of us this isn’t a problem; we don’t chug anything like eight glasses a day. Nor should we. Too much flushing of the system raises another Cerberus head. Constantly flushing the salt out of ones body can lead to things like mild hyponatraemia (Low blood salt). Which carries yet another set of health risks. We need sodium. If our bodies didn’t need a specific amount of salt, we wouldn’t have developed kidneys. No matter that some people want to eliminate dietary salt altogether, which is not only stupid, it’s secure ward barking.

What has been suggested is, rather like repeatedly getting shitfaced while pregnant leads to foetal alcohol syndrome, excess ingestion of fluoridated water while pregnant may be associated with the uptick in cases of Autism and Attention Deficit Disorders in children. As yet, there are few reputable studies to indicate whether this is true or not. Other suggested causes of Autism have indicted certain household cleaning agents or low level infections during pregnancy and a whole heap of other potential agents.

What is proven is that low level doses of fluoride in the water supply are beneficial as far as teeth are concerned and getting rid of fluoridated water altogether is like refusing vaccination, cutting off your nose to spite your face. However, in light of emerging evidence, reducing the fluoride dosage from 1.5mg / litre to 0.7mg, (15 down to 7 parts per million) because of the toxic nature of fluoride salts, can be seen as a good move. Although your dentist might not be convinced. But then, it took a while to find out that your shiny silver looking mercury amalgam fillings could be poisonous.

Information Sources (amongst others).
U.S. Lowers Recommended Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water from 1.5mg / litre to 0.7 mg / litre. Web MD Monday, April 27, 2015.
UK fluoride levels remain at 1.5mg per litre. NHS web site.

14 thoughts on “Water and associated topics”

  1. “reducing the fluoride dosage from 1.5mg / litre to 0.7mg, (15 down to 7 parts per million)”. Those numbers are actually concentrations in water, not dosages, which are the amounts ingested per unit of bodyweight. The previous recommendation for nominal fluoride concentrations was a range of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L, not 1.5 mg/L. 1.5 mg/L and 0.7 mg/L are 1.5 ppm and 0.7 ppm, respectively, not 15 ppm and 7 ppm.


    1. In the UK the upper limit is 1.5, as were certain US and I quoted the amount per litre as stated in the source document. As for ‘dosage’, everything can be considered a dose as it refers to the amount ingested. The rest is just just semantics.


  2. “What is proven is that low level doses of fluoride in the water supply are beneficial as far as teeth are concerned”. Not so fast.
    There is no credible evidence that fluoridated water has ever prevented a single dental cavity. Here’s some quotes from the 2015 Cochrane review of artificial water fluoridation.
    p 2 “A total of 155 studies met the inclusion criteria; 107 studies provided sufficient data for quantitative synthesis.”
    p 2 “There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.
    There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels.
    No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review’s inclusion criteria.”
    p 3 “Researchers from the Cochrane Oral Health Group reviewed the evidence – up to 19 February 2015 – for the effect of water fluoridation. They identified 155 studies in which children receiving fluoridated water (either natural or artificial) were compared with those receiving water with very low or no fluoride. Twenty studies examined tooth decay, most of which (71%) were conducted prior to 1975. A further 135 studies examined dental fluorosis.”
    p 14 “Five studies were funded by research grants from research organisations, health authorities and government organisations, one study was funded in collaboration with members of the committee pro-fluoridation, while the other studies [on caries] did not state their funding sources.”
    p 17 “We judged that all the 20 studies included for the caries outcome (including disparities in caries) were at high risk of bias overall.”
    p 17 “We found all studies to be at high risk of bias for confounding. We considered confounding factors for this outcome to be sugar consumption/dietary habits, SES, ethnicity and the use of other fluoride sources.”
    p 28 “Whilst these [fluoridated] areas tend to have low to very low DMFT, there are many other parts of the world where fluoridated water is not widespread that also have low caries levels. Equally, there are areas with relatively high distribution of water fluoridation and moderate caries levels (e.g. Brazil).”
    p 30 “The quality of the evidence, when GRADE criteria are applied, is judged to be low.”


    1. Interesting. The public health reports I reviewed all indicated overall post fluoridation decreases in dental caries. Didn’t source any information from the Cochrane review. However, I still think, having done the reading on the original tests, agree that the 15 or even 12ppm is too high.

      As an aside; some folk reckon that even chlorination is a bad thing, but having seen what happens to folk who’ve picked up water borne parasites or infections I’m inclined to think that a little fluoride and chlorine in the water supply is no bad thing. So long as the concentrations are high enough to be effective, but low enough not to cause widespread harm. Everything can be a poison in too high concentrations, but otherwise poisonous substances can have clinical benefits when used appropriately.

      We live in an age of misinformation as well as information, and if you have any better and more honest sources than I, then I’d be delighted to know.


      1. Just because rates of dental caries have decreased after the introduction of forced-fluoridation does not mean that forced-fluoridation was the cause. There is a difference between correlation and causation. That is basic reasoning. You can find a short list of good sources of information on the homepage of my website.


  3. I don’t know about the rules other places and it could be wrong but I heard from someone that here in Denmark the bottled water you buy is marked as a food item and is therefor not under the same rules as tap water and therefore not as clean as the tap version.
    I must admit I seldom buy bottled water but that’s more from me being too cheap to buy half a liter of water for almost 2£ when I know I have it cheaper at home.


    1. My wife buys it. Me, I just refill the bottles, not because I’m cheap, but because in our area at least, the stuff out of the tap is fine. But having to label water ‘fat free’?


  4. Yes, I’ve only ever seen one case of Insipidus up close and personal, but that was post brain tumour removal which affected the pituitary gland. The bit about the thirst I can confirm. One litre every hour, on the hour. Insipidus patients have a very distinctive smell as I recall.

    Tell me Furor, do you get white spots on your teeth when living in a fluoridated supply area for any length of time?


    1. I assume you are referring to dental fluorosis, which is a developmental effect. Once the permanent teeth have erupted there is no further risk of dental fluorosis, but fluoride continues to accumulate in the body throughout life.


    2. I had a mad dentist when I was young who drilled milk teeth. But other than that no fillings for years. Then they put flouride in the water, and every few weeks I needed treatment. White spots I never noticed, and my dentist never mentioned such… but then, he was part of the “flouride plot.” He wouldn’t, would he?

      My diabetes is Nephrogenic. Which, as you will know, is kidney related. At the time it was virtually unknown in Britain.. Very few doctors had heard of it.

      There were five known cases, and my two Uncles, two nephews and myself were THEM.

      In Victorianm medicine it was known as “Drinking diabetes.” My great Grandfather had it.

      In Germany it is better known. Why that should be I do not know. More people? But you will hardly find a doctor, or even a nurse, nowdays that has NOT heard of it.

      Germany does NOT have flouride in the water, so…. (Getting back to teeth, after all the problems in the U.K, here I have had work done on roots, but nothing that can be atributed to calcium problems. Obviously annecdotal, but suddenly, moving to an area without Flouride, and the problem stops virtually over night… Hmmm.)


  5. Fluoride, schmuoride! Anyone daft enough to drink the best part of four pints of plain water a day deserves all they get – although I admit to liking a drop in my tea.


    1. Some peple do not get the choice but tio drink a reasonable amount of water. To me that is 15 to 20 liters per day.

      Any less, I get severly dehydrated.


  6. Fluoride Added to List of Chemicals That Cause ‘Brain Drain’ (Along with Mercury and Lead)

    In 2006, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants. This included unquestionable poisons like lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since then, they've documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants and have added them to the list of what are now 11 known industrial chemicals that harm brain development in human fetuses and infants.4 One of the recently added neurotoxicants is fluoride, and one of the study's authors has previously said:5
        "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain… The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."
    The debate over the dangers of fluoride has been ongoing for more than six decades, despite the fact that study after study has confirmed that fluoride is a dangerous, toxic poison that bio-accumulates in your body while being ineffective at preventing dental decay. So what exactly does fluoride do to your brain?
    There are 37 human studies linking fairly modest fluoride exposures with reduced intelligence (nine of these studies found lowered IQ at less than 3 ppm in the water) and 12 human studies linking fluoride with neurobehavioral deficits. There are also three human studies linking fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain development,6 and approximately 100 animal studies linking it to brain damage. This includes such effects as:7
    Reduction in nicotinic acetylcholine receptors  Damage to the hippocampus   Formation of beta-amyloid plaques (the classic brain abnormality in Alzheimer's disease)
    Reduction in lipid content  Damage to the Purkinje cells    Exacerbation of lesions induced by iodine deficiency
    Impaired antioxidant defense systems    Increased uptake of aluminum    Accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland.



  7. AS they started putting Flouride in the local water, I brought up the question, regarding their assumption that “in normal amounts it is harmless.”

    8 glasses per day?

    I have Doiabetes insipidus (Nephrogenic) I drink between 10 and 15 LITERS per day in winter and up to 20 LITERS per day in summer.

    Other dibetics (Insipidus, I and II) are the same, or similar.

    I asked,repeatedly what the side effects would be on so much water per day. ALL I got was the repeated mantra, “It is fine in normal amounts.”

    At NO point would they discuss the effects when it was NOT taken in “normal amounts.”

    There are also reports from places such as Harvard and John Hopkins, that flouride can produce effects similar to, or actual, ADHD, and a lethargy,similar as seen in users of cabnnabis, in babys and teenagers. (I will root out the links.)


Comments are closed.