Fluoride In Water Latest Volcano Health Concern

It’s long been known that fluoride is a serious threat to health, causing many to question it’s being added to municipal water systems. Advocates of fluoride in water routinely dismiss those voicing concerns as conspiracy theorists, but how are they going to spin this: scientists are warning that the volcanic ash now settling over Europe contains naturally-high levels of fluoride that may contaminate water supplies and threaten the health of livestock and people. Reported by AFP:

REYKJAVIK — The fallout of volcanic ash over parts of Iceland could jeopardise the safety of drinking water, health authorities warned Friday, but said the greatest health risk was to livestock.

“It is important to prevent the ash from reaching water supplies, both for public and animal health reasons and for safe milk production,” Halldor Runolfsson of the Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority told AFP.

His colleague Guthjon Gunnarsson said the agency was evaluating the quality of drinking water, which was mostly protected because it came from under ground.

“Here in Iceland the (drinking) water is mostly groundwater so it is rather difficult for ash to heavily pollute it,” he said.

But Runolfsson said the blast — which covered large areas in a thin layer of volcanic ash — mostly posed a health risk to Livestock because the ash contained high levels of fluoride.

“Farmers are advised to keep their livestock indoors,” he said. “Intake of fluoride is known to cause problems in bones and teeth, Especially in growing animals. The ash can also … cause problems in (animal’s) respiratory and digestive systems,” he said.

“We are first and foremost looking at the quantity of the fluoride,” Gunnarsson said…

[continues at AFP]

, , ,

  • tonyajondolar

    ANY….any compound in too high a concentration can be harmful and/or fatal. However, compounds in appropriate doses can actually be beneficial. Take for instance Sodium…it is vital for proper muscle function…in appropriate amounts. Too much and it causes blood pressure concerns amoungst many others. Hmmm….one could say this about Fluoride. This naturally occuring compound in appropriate amounts it can actually make bones and teeth strong…stronger in fact than in it's abscence. But yes, in large quantities it can cause problems. So whoever posted this article about Fluoride in general being harmful should maybe do a little more research from reputable sources and express the facts. This person probably thinks it is safe to smoke weed as it is “natural”. Or eat 'shrooms….they are natural too. go figure

    • FergalR

      Did you even read it? Maybe you should smoke some weed? Might chill you out a bit.

    • noners

      lolz weed and shrooms harmful? Gtfo inogoranoob.

    • 5by5

      Too high a concentration is problematic, you are correct. The problem is that our current system only regulates minimum amounts, while never taking into account aggregate toxicity. It may be fine in whatever micro concentration they've indicated, but when ingested repeatedly over decades, the amounts are no longer “micro”.

      Additionally, you are incorrect on two other matters.

      First, the fluoride in our water system is NOT “naturally occurring”. Rather it is the chemical byproduct from fertilizer manufacturing. The entire reason the stuff in is our water is because a rep from that industry was placed in charge of regulating water safety, and he took the opportunity to develop a way for his former industry to dispose of their industrial waste into our water supply, rather than having to pay for safe disposal.

      Second, in-depth studies, the latest of which came in 2000, have proven conclusively that fluoride in our water does exactly squat to prevent tooth decay. Most decay is produced by micro-fissures in the tooth, and fluoride has no impact on this.

      Moreover, excess fluoridation actually WEAKENS bone, it does not strengthen it.

      • Edmond

        5by5: I am sorry to say, but it is you that is incorrect in many things. Your too literal and do not look at the greater picture.

        Even mercury is metabolized by the body, and so is Fluoride – more slowly than most substances, but it is still expelled. Unless you have had an extreme dosage, your aggregate levels of Fluoride should not reach lethal levels.

        Fluoride does naturally occur in ground water, sometimes in greater amounts than the 1 part per million that is recommended in drinking water. Is this true in all ground water? No. Is this true in most ground water? Yes.

        All processes like that of the fertilizer industry that you have mentioned produce byproducts from a reaction. Plants produce sugars during photosynthesis, which results in a waste product called oxygen. Just because it is waste from one process does not make it inherently a bad thing.

        Lastly, Fluoride does not weaken bones. What it does is make them less malleable (harder), causing them to more easily shatter if the Fluoride levels are too high in the bone’s structure. The total absence of Fluoride does just the opposite. It leaves the bones too malleable leading to different types of injuries.

        The lesson here is finding the balance between the two extremes, too much and too little.

        • 5by5

          Wrong.

          To repeat myself, CDC's own study in 2000 revealed that 90% of tooth decay comes from fissures in the tooth's surface that aren't responsive to fluoride anyways, and that if it's taken in significant dosage, it can cause skeletal fluorosis (basically bone weakness/fractures).

          The California Code of Regulations lists 39 fluoride compounds classified as hazardous wastes. The Lucier Chemical Industry Ltd's own study from 1990 revealed in their content specs for hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6 – a the particular type of fluoride product often put into our water), that “A typical batch of commercial grade fluoridation product is 24% hydrofluorosilicic acid and 76% waste water which contains varying amounts of heavy metals.” Also used are Sodium Fluoride (NaF), Sodium Fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6), and Calcium Fluoride (CaF2).

          Silicofluorides also have other effects when ingested. A Dartmouth Foundation for Neuroscience and Society study of 280,000 children in Massachusetts revealed that the inclusion of silicofluorides like Sodium Fluorosilicate that are widely used in water fluoridation treatment throughout the country, significantly increased the children's absorption of lead. Children in communities that used that particular type of fluoridation were over twice as likely to have dangerous levels of lead in their blood. Lead is of course linked with learning disabilities, but it also increases hyperactivity, and the likelihood of other drug abuse. A separate survey of 151,000 children in New York collected from data obtained by the New York State Department of Children's Health from 1994-1998 revealed the same thing – kids with blood lead poisoning.

          The largest study on tooth decay ever conducted in America was performed by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987. It found no significant reduction in decay rates in children surveyed in 84 cities.

          A Chemical and Engineering News abstract of a Brain Research Study from 1998 revealed that test animals treated with the same amounts of fluoridation as is used commercially in our water supply, suffered neural injury and increased deposits of B-amyloid protein in the brain, something which is characteristic of humans suffering from Alzheimer's Disease. Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67, No. 19 reported, the New York State Department of Health's 1989 study showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh's kids actually have a HIGHER rate of tooth decay (63.2%) than un-fluoridated Kingston (41.7%) does.

          Even if the parts per billion are low in any particular test sample, the fact is that ingesting the stuff over many years could create an aggregate toxicity that outweighs the seemingly small trace amounts permitted under the regulations. What may be a trace amount over the span of a couple months becomes a huge impact on your body systems when ingested repeatedly for 20-30 years.

          So if adding it to the water it doesn't provide any health benefits, and if there are no safety standards for its inclusion in the water as was revealed in April 1998 by the EPA Director of the Office of Science and Technology, then why does this stuff continue to get added to the water?

          Because corporations simply want to avoid the disposal fees associated with proper remediation of what is in fact a toxic waste byproduct of manufacturing fertilizers.

          According to federal regulations, if a fluoridation substance is given away, it is classified as a hazardous waste, requiring remediation and proper disposal. BUT, if it is sold for transportation costs or a token fee, it is considered a “product”.

          So when companies like Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., or Cargill Fertilizer were required to control the environmental emissions of fluorine-containing vapors, they then, rather than properly disposing of the stuff, decided that they had to find a new market for the recovered fluorine, and “Voila!” you got their fluoride by-products in your water being spun as “healthy”.

          • Edmond

            Mind you, I am not some Fluoride advocate, but you are very biased and only pick data that supports your argument. You also, for example, only look at fissures in teeth as evidence of tooth decay. What about pits? What about smooth surface area on teeth?

            You’re also dead set on thinking that all the Fluoride produced is put into our drinking water. Do you know how many other applications there are for Fluorine? Thousands of items from your LCD screens to your frying pan to the electricity running the computer you are using.

            “Because corporations simply want to avoid the disposal fees associated with proper remediation of what is in fact a toxic waste byproduct of manufacturing fertilizers.”  this statement is simply an attempt to cause fear in the uneducated, give rise to conspiracy theory, and based on your own prejudice.

            Yes, your argument is great, but as I said before, you’re too literal and do not look at the greater picture. Are Fluoride levels in the environment alarming? Yes. Is Fluorine one of the most reactive elements on the Periodic Chart? Yes. Does it have the ability to be deadly toxic? Yes. Has using Fluorine and Fluoridic Compounds significantly advanced humanity? Yes.

  • Edmond

    The information in this report is wrong. The volcano is releasing Fluorine not Fluoride. Really, there is no conspiracy at all within the scientific community. The problem lies with the general public’s inability to understand the difference between the two. More people need to take chemistry classes.

    • FergalR

      No; you're wrong. The problem lies with ignoramuses who blindly trust scientific dogma and criticize whose who rightly question it.

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

      • Edmond

        You missed the point entirely. Fluoride is a completely different substance than Fluorine. It would be like saying Hydrogen Peroxide is the same as water. If you think that is Scientific Dogma, then go ahead and down a bottle and we will see how fast you get rushed to the hospital. Fluorine is what is being released from the Volcano in Ireland, not Fluoride.

        • FergalR

          I didn't miss the point. Molecular Fluorine is a highly reactive substance which readily forms fluorides in the presence of just about any other element. Doubtful that much of it would form the even more toxic types of fluoride by-products of industrial processes which are used to “improve” drinking water. Why don't you down a bottle of fluoride? The people who pump it into your drinking water supply have to wear hazmat suits when they're doing it.

      • Edmond

        P.S. Have you even read your Wikipedia listing for Lysenkoism? It states: The word is derived from a set of political and social campaigns in science and agriculture by the director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and his followers, which began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964.

        That was ENDED IN 1964!!!

        • FergalR

          Lysenkoism is alive and well.

          The excitotoxin aspartame is legally added to our food supplies. Baby bottles are still being manufactured with bisphenol-A which is also regularly sprayed on the inside of food and beverage cans because nothing tastes better than hormone disruption.

          Meanwhile the climatological elite expect us to believe that their computer models know how the atmosphere will evolve over the course of a century even though the same supercomputers can't predict the weather four day in advance. Their latest theory? Somewhere between half and 80% of the heat they “know” must be there has somehow skillfully evaded their satellite and buoy sensors and is hiding under the oceans. Anyone who doesn't agree with this bullshit is labelled a conspiracy theorist or likened to a Holocaust denier.

          Lysenkoism didn't end in 1964.

          • Edmond

            What you are describing in not a result of Lysenkoism, it is a result of the self interested corporatist elitists that prefer to make a profit over that of caring for the general public’s welfare.

            I avoid all artificial sweeteners including corn syrup. I avoid chemical additives and taste enhancers like MSG. I stay away from certain plastics. And my water supply does not have fluoride in it.

            Carbon dioxide levels are rising in the atmosphere daily beyond anything that we have seen in centuries and glaciers are melting around the world at record pace. These items are not in dispute. Just because science hasn’t figured out all of everything, doesn’t mean that global warming should be discredited as of yet.

            The article above is still wrong. Fluorine gas is being released from the volcano, not Fluoride. If the Fluorine reacts with Hydrogen or other elements to form Fluoridic compounds afterwards, then that is afterwards.

          • GoodDoktorBad

            It didn't begin there either, just the latest jargon for “politically enhanced science”.

  • GoodDoktorBad

    It seems pretty simple, does pure water sound like a good idea?
    Does gingerly tossing stuff in containers marked with skull and crossbones (flourine) into the water supply, even remotely sound like a good idea to you? There are already enough contaminates in the water (just through incidental, industrial sources). Gee, can we get away with adding more vile crap?

    Man tries to improve on “nature”, but usually suceeds in screwing things up, overall.
    Clean water doesn't need “improvement”, we do…..

    • drewbles

      “Does gingerly tossing stuff in containers marked with skull and crossbones (flourine) into the water supply, even remotely sound like a good idea to you?”

      I'm no proponent of homeopathy, but at least it proves that infintesimal doses of toxins are not harmful to the body. You eat and drink minute amounts of toxic substances every day of your life, and you breath it in too. Every time someone farts, you've got micro-shits on your tongue.

      So drop the fearmongering and use your brain.

      • GoodDoktorBad

        Poisons are everywhere, obviously. My only point is why add more to the cocktail?
        Drinking water is very important, again obviously.
        Maybe you don't get it, tolerance for micro-shits on your toungue does not make shit more tasty, at least not for me. Just because I have caustic acid in my stomach, does not make me think licking battery acid is OK.
        As I said before: “There are already enough contaminates in the water (just through incidental, industrial sources).” Again, my only point, why add more unnecessary crap?

        I don't recall telling anyone to “be afraid”, although I obviously seem to have triggered some fear based anger in you, judging by your propensity for tossing insults and sarcasm my way….
        I guess you're too cool for me…..

        • drewbles

          How on earth did I insult you? By using the word fearmongering, or by using the word shit?

          • GoodDoktorBad

            “Use your brain” to figure it out….

    • Edmond

      @GoodDoktorBad: Here is the wrench to your argument; natural water supplies usually contain a natural amount of Fluoride and other dissolved substances and minerals. The water that comes from your tap is not natural. It is processed by man to remove, as much as possible, the substances naturally found in water. This water from nature comes from rivers, lakes, ground reserves, etc. So what is “clean water?” water that comes directly from these sources or the water that has been processed by man?

      A 1992 census found that, for U.S. public water supply systems reporting the type of compound used, 63% of the population received water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid, 28% with sodium fluorosilicate, and 9% with sodium fluoride.

  • Anonymous

    It didn’t begin there either, just the latest jargon for “politically enhanced science”.

21