Not everyone is getting their fluoride. Something must be done!

Out of the Box said:
Tigersoap said:
Out of the Box said:
What I find peculiar, is that water fluoridation is not practiced in Austria, China, the Czech Republic, Iceland, India, Italy, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, or Switzerland. What reason could there be for the pressure you fluorise the water in North-America but not in Europe?!?

I don't know either but it's mainly used in toothpastes in Belgium for example.

It is actually used in almost all toothpastes. I assume that's no different in other countries, right?


When I first arrived in France I was gobsmacked with the fluoride content of most toothpastes sold here. It is twice the level commonly found in the same multi-national commercial toothpastes sold in the states. Then there was the discovery of fluoridated table salt... with the fluoride additive touted as a big plus selling point.

I finally found a couple of brands of unfluoridated toothpastes here. One is made in France (Brand name: Email Diamant) and another which I prefer, made in in Germany (Brand name: Weleda - Gel Dentifrice Vegetal). I have only been able to find the Weleda brand sold in the pharmacies and it is the only one of a large line of flavors (like Tom's) that is not fluoridated.
 
Rabelais said:
I finally found a couple of brands of unfluoridated toothpastes here. One is made in France (Brand name: Email Diamant) and another which I prefer, made in in Germany (Brand name: Weleda - Gel Dentifrice Vegetal). I have only been able to find the Weleda brand sold in the pharmacies and it is the only one of a large line of flavors (like Tom's) that is not fluoridated.

You can also find some bio clay-based tootpastes (fluoride free) in bio shops. My two favourite brands are "Ciel d'Azur" and "Cattier".
 
Mac said:
I try to keep in mind total fluoride intake. Tea, especially green tea contains fluoride. Plus many other environmental sources.
I don't drink municipal water (fluoridation is mandatory here. :O) or use a fluoride containing tooth paste. Those of us who enjoy tea are getting plenty fluoride.
Good article regarding total intake etc.
_http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/fluoride.html

Mac

As someone who used to drink at least 2 cups of tea per day, the discovery of its high fluoride content dismayed me. So starting 18 months ago, I've cut right back to one cup of tea per WEEK. I have heard that the fluoride they add to water is much worse than naturally occurring fluoride since it's more easily absorbed by the body (the water I drink is unfluoridated). However I don't necessarily buy into this so I've followed the precautionary principle. I'd love someone to tell me otherwise, though with the research I've done I don't think any kind of fluoride is good for you.
 
It seems that fluoride isn't the only problem, at least, according to the following info:

_http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-17956139-details/Toothpaste+cancer+alert/article.do

Toothpaste cancer alert
By Mark Prigg Science Correspondent And Rebecca Lawrence, Evening Standard Last updated at 00:00am on 15.04.05

Dozens of toothpastes sold at supermarkets are at the centre of a cancer alert today.

Anti-bacterial cleaning products, including dishwashing liquid and handwash, are also affected.

Researchers have discovered that triclosan, a chemical in the products, can react with water to produce chloroform gas. If inhaled in large enough quantities, chloroform can cause depression, liver problems and, in some cases, cancer.

An Evening Standard investigation found dozens of products on supermarket shelves containing the chemical, from brand names including Colgate, Aquafresh, Dentyl and Sensodyne.

Marks& Spencer confirmed today it was removing products containing triclosan from all its stores and has been working with Greenpeace to develop alternative products.

Asda said it was investigating the problem and would be urgently talking to its suppliers.

Giles Watson, a toxicology expert at wildlife charity WWF, warned that the long-term effects of exposure to chloroform were still unknown and advised consumers to check the bottles before buying products.

"These products produce low levels of chloroform, but that adds up over time. The amount of gas formed is very low but I think the key thing is that we just don't know what the effects are. However, manufacturers do have to list triclosan on their ingredients, so if consumers are worried the best advice is to avoid products with the chemical."

A Tesco spokesman said: "We do not use triclosan in any of our own-brand products, apart from one anti-bacterial handwash, which is being reformulated, and our toothpaste. We believe that triclosan is a very effective ingredient in toothpaste as it helps fight gum disease and improve overall oral care."

The Department of Trade and Industry said use of triclosan was tightly controlled under EU laws brought in last year, but that they were under constant review.

Researchers in the US found that the chlorine added to water in Britain reacted with triclosan to produce chloroform-gas. They found that it was possible for the chloroform produced when soap containing the chemical mixes with chlorinated water to be absorbed through the skin or inhaled.

Professor Peter Vikesland, of Virginia Tech University, who carried out the research, said: "This is the first work that we know of that suggests that consumer products, such as antimicrobial soap, can produce significant quantities of chloroform." He has called for governments around the world to regulate the chemical more closely.

_http://www.amritaesential.com/triclosan.jsp

Why is triclosan dangerous for health?

Triclosan reacts with chlorinated water to produce massive amounts of chloroform gas, which is classified by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) as a probable human carcinogen, or substance causing cancer. Moreover, as triclosan flows down drains, it makes its way into:

- Surface waters and sewage treatment plants

- The bile of fish,

- Breast milk.

While triclosan contaminates numerous products, researchers particularly focused on dish soaps. Conducting follow-up testing that closely mirrored typical dishwashing habits and conditions, researchers found that triclosan reacted with free chlorine to generate more than 50 parts per billion (ppb) of chloroform in the dishwater.

According to researchers, when combined with the other trihalomethanes in the water, the additional chloroform could easily drive the concentration of total trihalomethanes to 80 ppb, which is EPA's maximum allowable amount, or higher. (If any bromide is present in the water, the level of trihalomethanes produced during dishwashing is likely to increase even more.)

Research also suggested that the reaction of triclosan with chlorine could produce highly chlorinated dioxins in the presence of sunlight.

_http://www.ewg.org/node/26701

Taken together, many studies now demonstrate that triclosan is certainly not the safe and healthy bacteria-fighting hand soap ingredient we once might have assumed.

>Triclosan: Toxic to people and the environment

CDC research on a broad cross-section of the population detected triclosan in the urine of 75% of 2,517 Americans (Calafat 2007). Higher levels of triclosan were typically found in higher income participants. An earlier study spearheaded by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine found triclosan in the urine of 61% of 90 girls age 6 to 8 (Wolff 2007).

Triclosan tends to bioaccumulate (Samsøe-Petersen 2003), or become more concentrated in the fatty tissues of humans and other animals. As a result, this chemical has been detected in human breast milk, and in blood samples as well (Adolfsson-Erici 2002; TNO 2005; Allmyr 2006a,b; Dayan 2007). Higher levels of triclosan in blood and breast milk are linked to use of body care products containing triclosan (Allmyr 2006b).

Lab studies link triclosan to cancer, developmental defects, and liver and inhalation toxicity. A secret study by Colgate scientists revealed exposure to low levels of triclosan caused liver tumors in mice (See 1996). Colgate refuses to release this study to EPA for evaluation, though it provided it to FDA in order to ensure it could add triclosan to toothpaste and other oral care products. Based on the study summary alone, and using a controversial assumption about the way this type of liver tumor forms in mice, EPA classified triclosan as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” (EPA 2008). This decision flows in part from EPA’s lack of regulatory authority to demand release of Colgate’s findings, a clear indication of the need for reform of the U.S. system of chemical health protections.

EPA does have access to several other lab animal studies linking triclosan to a variety of health effects. A study linking low level maternal triclosan exposure in mice to health effects in offspring, including irregular skull development and decreased fetal weight, provides evidence that triclosan may be a developmental toxicant (MRID 43817501: citation missing from EPA 2008b). Another mouse study, involving exposures to low levels of triclosan for 28 days, documented its toxic effects on the liver (Trutter 1993). While EPA summarizes the results of these studies in its documents, the Agency seems to ignore them when assessing the risks associated with this pesticide. In contrast, EPA acknowledges the substantial inhalation risk associated with triclosan, revealed by a 21-day rat study that found signs of toxicity at all levels of exposure (MRID 0087996: citation missing from EPA 2008b).

> Triclosan may affect the thyroid and other hormone systems

A study of frogs shows that this pesticide perturbs a fundamental thyroid hormone signaling mechanism that is nearly identical to that of humans. Low levels of triclosan, in combination with thyroid hormones, triggered accelerated transformation of tadpoles into frogs (Veldhoen 2006). Triclosan, in concentrations under 1 part per billion commonly measured in U.S. streams, interfered with the timing of expression of thyroid-regulated genes that are crucial in a frog’s early development. Thyroid hormones are critical for normal growth and development of humans as well; the developing brain of a child is particularly vulnerable to damage caused by disruption of the thyroid system.

Triclosan may also disrupt other critical hormone systems. A recent lab study found the chemical to exert both estrogenic and androgenic effects on human breast cancer cells (Gee 2008). Studies of fish suggest that triclosan may have weak androgenic (Foran 2000) or anti-estrogenic effects (Matsumura 2005), while a metabolite of triclosan may have estrogenic effects (Ishibashi 2004).

> Triclosan contaminates streams and is toxic to wildlife

Scientists recently found trace levels of triclosan in 58% of 85 streams located throughout the U.S. (Kolpin 2002), the likely result of its presence in discharges of treated wastewater. The pesticide has also been detected in several aquatic species (Remberger 2002; Adolfsson-Erici 2002). The amount of triclosan in wastewater is estimated to be as much as 3 to 5 milligrams per person per day from residences alone (McAvoy 2002); in addition, substantial discharges are expected from laundries, hair salons, medical facilities, and other sites. Optimized water treatment can remove up to 95% of triclosan (Samsøe-Petersen 2003); however, EWG research confirms that some triclosan persists despite treatment and enters receiving waters (EWG/EBMUD 2007).

Triclosan is acutely toxic to several different types of aquatic life (e.g. Samsøe-Petersen 2003; Orvos 2002; Ishibashi 2004; Dussault 2008). Algae have proved to be the most sensitive organisms, but fish and invertebrates also experience adverse impacts following acute or chronic exposures to low levels of triclosan. An investigation of one algal species revealed genotoxic effects that warrant further study (Ciniglia 2005).

> Triclosan forms other dangerous compounds

Studies indicate that in surface waters, triclosan can interact with sunlight and microbes to form methyl triclosan, a chemical that may bioacummulate in wildlife and humans (Adolfsson-Erici 2002; Lindstrom 2002). A recent European study found methyl triclosan in fish, especially concentrated in fatty tissue (Balmer 2004). Few studies have probed the toxicological effects of methyl triclosan, but a recent publication reveals that the transformation product triggers acute toxic effects in the marine bacterium Vibrio fischeri at levels significantly lower than does triclosan (Farré 2008).

Triclosan also can degrade into a form of dioxin, a class of chemicals linked to a broad range of toxicities including cancer (Lores 2005). The Canadian government limits the levels of dioxins allowed as impurities in personal care products that contain triclosan. New research shows that triclosan in tap water can react with residual chlorine from standard water disinfecting procedures to form a variety of chlorinated byproducts at low levels, including chloroform, a suspected human carcinogen (Fiss 2007).

> Triclosan: One of many contaminants

Triclosan is just one of thousands of industrial chemicals in use in the U.S. today. As a pesticide, triclosan is subject to more stringent health and safety standards than many other industrial chemicals. Yet, as EPA’s flawed risk assessment makes clear, a few additional requirements do not necessarily result in chemical safety. Instead, what's needed is a new, comprehensive U.S. chemicals policy that truly protects children and other vulnerable populations from harm.

And from this forum:

post from Charles:

- all that decreases the immune response (few examples: lack of silver, lack of decent sleep, exposure to radiation, chronic stress, triclosan, dioxin, antibiotics, any sort of vaccination as such, thymerosal, alumina, fluor, lots of chlorinated and fluorinated “organic” molecules like found in 70 to 80 percent of our classic medication, and on and on and on).

this post from Justin:

The information about triclosan, here http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxiclink.html, is interesting because in the US this chemical is widely used in toothpastes, soaps, and is one of the major chemicals that makes products "antibacterial"

According to this post from Charles, the tooth paste Dentoblan or Perblan don't contain triclosan:

I am very happy with Dentoblan or Perblan (store chain Carrefour in France and Belgium)

- NO fluor
- No aspartam
- No alumina salts
- No triclosan

Lastly, this site shows a list of products that contain triclosan:

_http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/household/brands?tbl=chem&id=95
 
Queensland Auatralia is just about to get fluoride whether they like it or not

The legislation clraley stated that there would have to be a referendum so they changrd the legislation to suit their own needs

Fluoride fuss won't wash, says Bligh


Sue Lappeman
06Dec07
THERE will be no referendum, no discussions, no debate -- the Gold Coast will have fluoride introduced into its water supply from next year.
Premier Anna Bligh yesterday ignored decades of superstitions about the health impacts of fluoride by announcing her Government would legislate to force councils to introduce the controversial additive.
Fluoride will be put into the water supply at Molendinar and Mudgeeraba plants by the end of 2008 and will be gradually rolled out across the State until 80 per cent of Queenslanders will be drinking fluoridated water within two years and 95 per cent by 2012.
Ms Bligh said fluoridated water had been proven to reduce tooth decay by up to 40 per cent and dismissed the fears from those opposed to fluoride as old superstitions.
"It is time to stop being superstitious and to look at the science. It is compelling evidence that fluoride works," she said. "All of the nonsense about fluoride making you glow in the dark belongs to the Queensland of the last century.
"This is a modern state, this is a state based on science, this is a state where we are going to put children first."
She said Queensland was the only state without fluoride in its water and its children had the worst teeth in the country.
Queensland six-year-olds have nearly 30 per cent more decay in their baby teeth than the national average with a similar result in their permanent teeth by age 12.
In Townsville, where fluoride has been in drinking water since the 1960s, the dental health of children was 60 per cent better than children in the southeast.
"We have been too shy of this issue in the past, it is time for us to act," said Ms Bligh.
"There is no evidence anywhere in Australia, where we have had fluoride for 30 and 40 years, to demonstrate that there is any health problem or poses any sort of risk."
The Government offered $6 million to councils to introduce fluoride themselves but after two years no council had taken up the offer.
It will now provide $35 million to pay for the capital costs of the introduction and will require councils to contribute to the operating costs, estimated to add up to about $1.50 a year per person.
"This is a nominal cost when compared to what families could save in dental bills," said Ms Bligh.
Legislation would be introduced into Parliament next year to force councils to comply, she said.
Health Minister Stephen Robertson said the $35 million was a great investment of taxpayers' money.
"Queenslanders have the worst oral health of any of the states in Australia and the very simple reason for it is that, unlike every other state and territory in this country, we don't fluoridate our water supplies," he said.
Fluoridation involves a small amount of fluoride being added to top up the natural levels already in the water.
This equates to between 0.6 and 0.9 parts of fluoride per million parts of water -- roughly one drop in a bathtub of water.
 
This article is almost a year old, so I guess the fluoride has already been shoved down their throats, so to speak.

Andy and Lyn said:
The Government offered $6 million to councils to introduce fluoride themselves but after two years no council had taken up the offer.

The usual suspects I see.
 
Although using reverse osmosis or distilled water for drinking and a fluoride-free toothpaste lessens a person's fluoride intake, unfortunately, dermal absorption through showering and bathing may be the primary means of fluoride intake. Awhile back, I recall hearing that roughly 2/3 of fluoride absorbed in a person's body is through showering and bathing (assuming the person is serviced by a water system that fluoridates their water). I've briefly looked into this topic and it appears there's not a whole lot of research about chemical contaminant absorption through the skin, at least not for fluoride specifically.

George Glasser, an American investigative journalist, did some research into fluoride and among his conclusions and findings on the dangers of fluoride are that the EPA themselves found that more chemical contaminants are absorbed through the skin than through ingestion. He also mentions a University of Pittsburgh study containing the same general conclusion and an early 1980s study by Brown, Bishop and Rowan that showed an average of 64 percent of the total dose of waterborne contaminants is absorbed through the skin.

Logically, it makes sense that a person will get more fluoride through the skin than through ingestion. The skin is the largest organ of the body. Also, of all the more common anions, fluoride is the smallest. As a side note, this also can make fluoride particularly dangerous: Having worked in a laboratory setting with many acids such as hydrochloric, sulphuric, various oxyacids, etc., I was most worried about hydrofluoric acid. If spilled on the skin, the other acids will give a chemical burn and react with the skin. Hydrofluoric acid burns may not be noticed on the skin but will eventually be felt in the bones where it would attack the calcium.

What can be done? Obviously, the best option is to live where the water service provider does not fluoridate the water. (You can contact your water system or check the consumer confidence report. A public water system is required by regulations to provide an annual consumer confidence report to customers of their water system. These reports give an overview of water treatment, average contaminant concentrations and any violations the system has had such as exceeding a contaminant level.) If the water system does fluoridate the water, a fluoride filter for the shower can be used. Last time I checked, the good ones were pretty pricey. I'm not sure of other cheaper alternatives. Water fluoridation is not very effective with hard water since the fluoride will precipitate out but I don't know of any reverse water softeners.
 
Out of the Box said:
What I find peculiar, is that water fluoridation is not practiced in Austria, China... Bulgaria., What reason could there be for the pressure you fluorise the water in North-America but not in Europe?!?
I dont know about the rest of the EU but here in Bulgaria they started fluoridation of the water. Not long there was a scandal with fluoridated milk in the Kingergadens.
 
It looks like the fluoride plot is about to kick off in England:

_http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/27/fluoridation-southampton-health
 
[quote author=slavronin 22 Nov 08] Water fluoridation is not very effective with hard water since the fluoride will precipitate out [/quote]

This may be a little late, but what do you mean by 'precipitate out'?

[quote author=Inti today] It looks like the fluoride plot is about to kick off in England [/quote]

As far as I remember, certain city councils have been flouridating their water since the mid-'80s, especially in the Midlands.
 
bedower said:
[quote author=slavronin 22 Nov 08] Water fluoridation is not very effective with hard water since the fluoride will precipitate out

This may be a little late, but what do you mean by 'precipitate out'?


[/quote]

Well, your question may be a little late but my response is really late! My apologies. I'm not exactly forum savvy.

To answer your question, if you are still wondering, precipitating out is a result of changes to the water chemistry such that a soluble chemical no longer remains soluble, i.e. it becomes insoluble - a precipitate. This is similar to scale formation in fixtures such as sinks or bathtubs as a result of chemistry changes in the water.
 
I learned recently (from listening to the interview with Dr. Pete Peterson on Project Camelot) that Skate Liver Oil in combination with Cod Liver Oil helps to dissolve the calcification of the Pineal gland which results from long-term exposure to fluoride. That's information I had been seeking for a very long time. Here's a website where hard-to-find Skate Oil can be purchased:

_http://www.greenpasture.org/community/
 
Does anyone happen to know anything about stannous fluoride? The reason I ask is because I consistently refuse sodium fluoride treatment for my daughter at her pediatric dentist, and the dentist thinks that I am well-meaning but ultimately misguided and naive, and is trying anything she can to find a way to get fluoride into my daughter's mouth on a regular basis. On the last visit, she asked if I would accept stannous fluoride -- I did an internet search, and found out that it is a byproduct of tin production (in the same way, I imagine, that sodium fluoride is a byproduct of aluminum production), so I am sure it is no good, but I haven't been able to find any specific information on side effects of the sort that is common for sodium fluoride. If anyone can point me toward some information on stannous fluoride and its impact on health so that I can discuss it at the next dental appointment, I would appreciate it!
 
Shijing said:
Does anyone happen to know anything about stannous fluoride? The reason I ask is because I consistently refuse sodium fluoride treatment for my daughter at her pediatric dentist, and the dentist thinks that I am well-meaning but ultimately misguided and naive, and is trying anything she can to find a way to get fluoride into my daughter's mouth on a regular basis. On the last visit, she asked if I would accept stannous fluoride -- I did an internet search, and found out that it is a byproduct of tin production (in the same way, I imagine, that sodium fluoride is a byproduct of aluminum production), so I am sure it is no good, but I haven't been able to find any specific information on side effects of the sort that is common for sodium fluoride. If anyone can point me toward some information on stannous fluoride and its impact on health so that I can discuss it at the next dental appointment, I would appreciate it!

I found the following FWIW:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/allergy/topical.html

"Scratches were made to the depth of the upper dermis on the abdomen of rabbits. The scratches were covered by patch tests for 18 hours with solutions of stannous fluoride or stannous chloride. Both these substances produced a destructive reaction with intraepidermal polymorphonuclear leukocyte pustules occurring on each side of the scratch. Stannous fluoride was destructive at lower concentrations than stannous chloride. When these substances were patch tested over non-traumatized tissue, no tissue damage occurred... We believe that the metals and halogens that produce pustule along the scratch are damaging the body's defenses against the mediators of inflammation and are therefore exaggerating the early cellular phase of inflammation... Dentrifices (toothpastes) are not made for prolonged contact with tissue; however, even brief exposure might influence preexisting oral pathology. Further clinical observations on the effects of fluoride dentrifices on oral inflammation are indicated."
SOURCE: Stone OJ, Willis CJ. (1968). The effect of stannous fluoride and stannous chloride on inflammation. Toxicology of Applied Pharmacology 13: 332-8.

I did a search in that page (fluoridealert.org) and the following came up:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/allergy/mellette-1983.html

Fluorides have well-established ability to cause and aggravate inflammation. Stone and Willis (8, 9) have demonstrated an increased inflammatory response when stannous fluoride is placed on previously damaged skin, and Douglas (10) has observed a stomatitis secondary to fluorides that was aggravated by the slightest trauma.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/allergy/mellette-1976.html

Stone and Willis (6,7) have shown that sodium fluoride and stannous fluoride in concentrations equal to those found in dentrifices are pro-inflammatory when applied in patch-test form to previously damaged skin, while patch testing over nontraumatized areas produced no inflammation. (7) Our hypothesis is that patients with PD have a receding minimal or preclinical perioral inflammation with mild dermal edema. We postulate that this inflammation is multifactorial and might include hand to mouth activity, subtle female premenstrual tissue edema, minimal acne, rosacea, seborrheic dermatitis, ultraviolet light exposure, or other mild inflammatory stimuli. In this setting, we feel fluoride dentrifices may act topically as a pro-inflammatory agent potentiating and perpetuating a chronic perioral inflammatory dermatosis.

We have initiated a double-blind, cross-over study in which we will use identical toothpastes except that one will contain stannous fluoride. In spite of the clinical impressions and other historical inferences, we think it prudent to refrain from drawing absolute conclusions until out study is complete.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom