/sci/ - Science & Math

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-354546/Having-shower-cause-brain-damage.html

>>7002354
Well flouride is a neurotoxin, but I don't know if they levels are high enough. I have seen those calcified pineal gland images though. It is a thing.

>>7002448
>>7002468

Stop.

>>7002523
>But they do not take into account inhalation of steam vapour while showering, warn US scientists.
>scientists.

Staaahp putting science in my /sci/ just staaahp.

>>7003613
wait what?
Holy shit this is actually bad for you

>>7003950

That was satire.

>>7002448
>dailymail
stopped reading

>>7004023
is it?

i lost sleep once .when i woke up again i had brain damag

BAN FLUROID

>>7004063

My post was sarcasm. The person who I replied to however, was upto something else.

>>7004117
WHAT IS ME!!?!?

>/sci/ being good little citizens as always, never questioning things and laughing about anyone who does

The fluoride we need is calcium fluoride, which is in normal water, plants and meat in usually exactly the quantity we need. If the government or toothpaste producers would want to do us good, they would use calcium fluoride, however it's more expensive, so they use sodium fluoride

Sodium flouride is not stable in the presence of calcium, so the flouride bonds with the calcium, forming calcium fluoride, and leaving sodium. These products aren't a problem at all, sodium stays in the body and calcium fluoride is either further used or goes straight out of the body. But that calcium the fluoride bonded to was from our body, it was supposed to go somewhere, for example teeth or our brain. So it's missing now somewhere. And that's the problem with sodium fluoride.

Why it's put into so much stuff is easy to answer, it's industrial waste and difficult to dispose of correctly.

>>7004164
Also sodium fluoride isn't even found in nature, because of it's instability and reaction with calcium, and now it's being dumped into tap water and it poisons our whole damn ecosystem, because like 95% of that sodium fluoride never reaches a human body.

>>7004164
>>7004174

Is Sodium Flouride more or less absorbable in the lungs during showers than Calcium Flouride would be?

>>7004151

What are you trying to say?

>>7004189
I thought I posted something, but anon says it was him!!!

>>7002354
The fluoride solution slowly works its way under your skin and into your brain. Since fluorine has an affinity for aluminum it tends to cause a build up of aluminum particles in the area around your skull. Not unlike having a sort of hat under your skin. Over time the constant exposure to fluorine gradually turns you into a conspiracy theorist.

>>7004164
It would be a problem if sodium flouride was ingested in high enough amounts to deplete calcium. But it's not, which is why it doesn't cause calcium depletion. You retards should learn the golden rule of toxicology before you start spouting off what you've read on some crank site..

>>7004215
at least it protects against alien brainscans

>>7004230

Do you have figures for what the toxic level for sodium flouride in steam is, perhaps a maximum time of exposure before levels increase too high? No, you don't? Well the crank site quotes "US scientists" who might just have processed that data.

But I could be wrong. Maybe you've done the exact same and can enlighten us all?

>>7002354
You would probably have the same level of irritation as from casual exposure to other household toxins.

>>7004772

Isn't flouride a silent toxin though?

>>7004183
They're ionic salts with relatively high solubility in water. The fluoride ion that is being donated to the solution is going to be present either way, regardless of what cation is donating the fluoride. I would like to point out that calcium is able to donate twice as many fluorides for the same amount of substance, although they most likely account for this when doing water purification, using only half as much calcium fluoride.

Or in plebeian speak: about the same, don't worry about it.

Different anon. Know about ionic salts, not pleb, just not informed. When the pineal gland calcifies, it is encased in calcium, magnesium and fluoride. So wouldn't calcium fluoride be worse for you?
>>7004798
see
>>7004302
Take out the sodium part of fluoride. What are stats?

Lets discuss the poincare conjecture
>wow nice
>such beautiful
Lets talk about a relevant everyday subject
>GTFO pleb
>go to /x/ tinfoil
>your source sucks
>lol biology is not science
>I'm a real SCIENTIST I only know pure math

>>7004817
Not very likely from showering, don't worry about it.

>>7002354
This is why you take cold, short showers dingus.

>>7004832

>>7004798
>>7004817
>>7004832

The part that I'm curious about is how much flouride is allegedly absorbed by the lungs. If a person drinks a whole gallon of flouridated water then it's a given that all of the flouride has a chance to go through body tissue. So roughly all of it.

But when someone is showering the 10 or 15 minute contact pediod with water is just a relatively brief one where all the salts in water would have to diffuse their way into the skin and epithelial tissues and alveoli. A person isn't using their lungs to drink in 15 gallons of water and then urinating it out. The amount of water that actually gets absorbed by the body in volume would be a few teaspoons worth. However, salts are very reactive and would move to a better solution instantly. I just don't know how those scientists did their work and it's bugging me.

>>7004834

This is distressing to those of us who are used to longer, steamier ones and have built up hours and hours worth of contact.

>>7004927
>This is distressing to those of us who are used to longer, steamier ones and have built up hours and hours worth of contact.

What is your distress going to solve now?
Only thing you can do if you're worried is take shorter colder showers ffs.

>>7005058

I want to know if there's a rational reason for this distress. And also, how much of the volume of water during a shower actually has the effect of transferring the ion over? Obviously if you drink flouridated water 100% of the water goes all the way through your system. But that is not the case with showering, is it?

You would have to drink 200 liters of fluoridated water per day to see a measurable effect. Don't worry about it.

>inb4 i'm sheeple and/or an illuminati agent

>>7004302
Considering WHY flouride is toxic, I seriously doubt that ingesting it through steam makes absolutely any difference in how much of it is absorbed or how toxic it is. Drinking a toxic amount is the same as sniffing a toxic amount. Even if you ingested all the flouride in the water from steam, it would still not be nearly enough to have a deleterious effect. The sentence you quoted is vague and unsupported by anything. We do not know who they mean by US scientists or why they are worried. Maybe you can find some actual research on this? Until then just shut the fuck up, because you are clearly the kind of person who will get hysterical over something they know nothing about.

>>7005610
HOW MUCH IS FUCKING TOXIC?
WHY DOES NO ONE HAVE THIS SOURCE?
JUST TELL US HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH TO BE TOXIC AND MATH CAN BE DONE

>>7005658

Why are you asking 4chan for information you could just look up?

>>7005658

>HOW MUCH IS FUCKING TOXIC?
I honestly don't know but I've heard that 2 PPM is getting close and 4 PPM is over the threshold.

>WHY DOES NO ONE HAVE THIS SOURCE?
I don't know. Most people ITT seem to be just shitposting(poltards gonna pol?)

>JUST TELL US HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH TO BE TOXIC AND MATH CAN BE DONE

You can't just do math for this like you can with drinking water. Lets say you have two premises, one that 4PPM(of calcium or sodium fouride? I don't even know which one or if it makes a difference). is bad and that the source of contact is ingestion ie drinking water. Now you know exactly how much went in and you can then perhaps relate it to bodymass.

But with steam, you have to know not only the volume of water vaporized but the proportion of salts in steam that end up being absorbed by various points of contact.

You think this is just a rithmatic problem?

>>7002354
maybe nocebo?

>>7002354
You're inhaling chlorine... what do you think?
You're inhaling THE REASON why you should call poison control if you swallow your toothpaste.
What do you think the effects will be?

>>7002354
That "steam" you observe (one could argue that the use of the word here is technically correct but seriously misguided) is a combination of:
1) the refraction that occurs when a nonlinear temperature gradient exists throughout a transparent medium (i.e. the air in the shower isn't all the same temperature)
2) small water droplets in the air causing refraction
3) the condensation of water vapour on solid particles in the air.

You don't actually get a huge amount of water vapour in the air. It's not like when you're boiling a kettle and there's a constant source of essentially pure gaseous H2O coming up from the stove. You're at most getting to the saturation point of normal air.

What happens to the fluoride/chloride? It stays in the liquid water. Some of that is aerosol droplets, but mostly it goes off your skin and down the drain.

>>7002468
> calcified pineal glands
Never been shown to have anything to do with fluoride.

Fluoridation is the most or maybe second most studied issue in public health. Decades of research, millions of subjects, thousands of studies... overwhelming consensus is that it is safe.

Here, you can read everything that PubMed has to say about it. You're going to find a lot of studies showing that rats don't respond well to fluoride, and one amusing one that shows that buffalo practically thrive on it.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=pineal+gland+fluoride

>>7004215
> slowclap.gif

That was really clever.

>>7005876
> calcified pineal glands
>Never been shown to have anything to do with fluoride.
Then why is fluoride one of the elements the pineal gland is calcified with?

The debate on fluoride is completely bizarre. Somehow the burden of proof has fallen on those who wish to remove it from our water. The skeptic crowd in particular is remarkable hypocritical on this.

The burden of proof should be on those who wish to justify add fluoride to the water. They need to provide valid evidence that the reduction of dental cavities outweighs the potential neurotoxic effects by a significant amount.

But somehow the debate has been reversed and the skeptic crowd demands that we provide examples of neurotoxicity from public water fluoride.

It's completely backwards

>tl;dr adding fluoride to water needs to be justified. not adding fluoride to water requires no evidence, therefore by default we should not add fluoride to water until significant evidence is provided to the contrary

>>7005875
>You're inhaling THE REASON why you should call poison control if you swallow your toothpaste.
>>7005876
>overwhelming consensus is that it is safe.

>>7005658
Generally, using a typical amount of water, you'll start to see significant dental fluorosis around 5 ppm. Skeletal fluorosis occurs to a small (medically insignificant) extent in some people at this level if they're eating foods that were all grown locally and so on. Mostly you'll see this in Nepal, India, or China.. and even there it's mostly because of people burning coal/inhaling coal dust.

For comparison, North American water supplies are typically fluoridated up to 0.7-1.2 ppm, something like that. Your body actively removes CaF, so you need to ingest it faster than the body can remove it over a prolonged period. So you'd need to spend many years passing about 5 times as much water through your body as you are right now to see much of anything happen.

Most reports of people suffering serious skeletal problems were involved in industrial or volcanic HF exposures.

I used to eat that fluoride paste that the dentist gives people with really bad teeth, like consume it by the bottle full, and I have a couple tiny patches of white on my teeth. If you don't at least have teeth that are blotchy as fuck, then you're not suffering any ill effects.

>>7005889
Correlation is not causation. Calcium accrues in the pineal gland essentially independently of fluoride exposure.

>>7005899
Sorry, I will clarify.

Overwhelming consensus among people who know what the fuck they're talking about is that it is safe.

If you actually contact a poison control centre or doctor to say that you swallowed your toothpaste, they will mock you and tell you not to call again. Later, they'll relate the story in the lunch room, and a good laugh will be had by all.

>>7005891
but we already add flouride to the water

the burden of proof is on the people demanding we make a change, if fluoride is safe there is no need to change anything, only if the people saying it is safe are wrong and it turns out to really be toxic, is there a need to stop fluoridating water.

>>7005891
> burden of proof
There is plenty of proof, both that it is safe for consumption at the levels to which we fluoridate and that it is (highly!) effective at reducing the incidence of dental caries.

You can't blithely talk about "potential neurotoxic effects." That's a logical fallacy. There are toxic effects or there are not. (Hint: all evidence suggests that there are not.) You can't spend your life running from boogeymen, or you'll never do anything.

So why is the burden of proof now on those who wish to remove fluoride? For the same reason that you need a lot of proof to make a claim that 1+1=3. We've seen that 1+1=2, verified it with our own eyes countless times, and therefore require some extraordinary evidence to convince us that it is otherwise.

>>7005904
>Your body actively removes CaF
>actively

[citation needed]

>>7005925
>If you actually contact a poison control centre or doctor to say that you swallowed your toothpaste, they will mock you and tell you not to call again.

What exactly is the reason for labelling toothpaste a poison then, what is the ingredient and what is the concentration of such ingredient?

>>7005908
Yes, but does fluoride accrue independently of fluoride exposure? I think not.
>>7006228
literally fluoride.
>>7005961
>i don't know how to use the term logical fallacy.

>>7006224
Calcium metabolism is a whole topic in itself, but just as an example mechanism, with the possible exception of meningeal concretions (which may even have some function), parathyroid hormone breaks down calcium deposits. The calcium gets used in various places, and the fluoride mostly gets shunted off to the kidneys via various elements of the renal system. PTH is produced mostly as a response to low serum calcium levels, extracting stored calcium (mostly from bone but also from other tissues including the pineal sands), and therefore is produced cyclically throughout the day. But also, PTH production is stimulated by blood phosphate levels, so if a fluoride ion reacts with bound calcium phosphate in the pineal, the released phosphate will then go on to stimulate production of parathyroid hormone, which goes back and breaks down the calcium fluoride.

This is why calcium fluoride needs to be coninually replenished through fluoride ingestion in order for it to accumulate. Mind you, there are other anions that contribute to pineal calcification, so even if you removed all the fluoride from your system, you'd still get concretions in there.

It's even been hypothesized that pineal calcification is an evolutionary adaptation that allows survival when dietary calcium is insufficient for very long periods. But it also serves to reduce the production of certain sex hormones over time, and probably some other stuff. Evolution is good about being multipurposed.

>>7006228
Probably because people launch lawsuits over the dumbest shit. Note that it's not labelled a poison. There's no poison symbol on there; no MSDS comes with the box.

>>7006288
>Yes, but does fluoride accrue independently of fluoride exposure? I think not.

Tap water is not the only source of fluoride. In fact there are large parts of the world where the groundwater has more flouride than is ever added to it by the illuminati.

>literally fluoride.

Dosage.

>logical fallacy

It's a burden of proof fallacy. You can say literally anything has "potential neurotoxic effects," but it's meaningless unless you give a valid reason why you might suspect that to be the case.

>>7006288

>>7006306
>Tap water is not the only source of fluoride. In fact there are large parts of the world where the groundwater has more flouride than is ever added to it by the illuminati.

What is the difference between calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride?

>>7006321

One has calcium, the other has sodium.

Dear /sci/,
I own a well. What steps should I take to supplement my well water due to the lack of fluoride, birth control hormones, chlorine and other substances that towns do poorly at filtering or add?

>>7006321
Once they're dissolved in water? Nothing whatsoever. F- is F-, and who gives a fuck about the cations?

>>7006333
The difference being calcium fluoride is a mineral known as fluorite and and ranks 0r0b0y on the NFPA704; safe.
And sodium fluoride ranks 0r3b0y
The 3 in blue means "Short exposure could cause serious temporary or moderate residual injury" and gives the example of chlorine.
Sodium fluoride is the one they put in our drinking water and toothpaste.

>>7006301
>parathyroid hormone breaks down calcium deposits

Do you happen to know which particular salts of calcium pth is capable of breaking down, as in can you mention the other ionic bond of said salts because I was under the impression that Calcium Flouride could only be excreted through a process of simple diffusion.
>so if a fluoride ion reacts with bound calcium phosphate in the pineal, the released phosphate will then go on to stimulate production of parathyroid hormone, which goes back and breaks down the calcium fluoride.

Is this simple deduction on your part or has it been demonstrated, also are there any lab chemical reactions which can Unbind the Flouride from Calcium and bind it to another positive ion resulting in a new salt? I ask this because Fl is one of the halides and I recall that it's bonding is strongest amone the halides so it would replace Chlorine, Bromine and Iodine due to it's higher affinity for negative ions.

>It's even been hypothesized that pineal calcification is an evolutionary adaptation

I'm not really concerned with pineal calcification here although that might be another issue with health ramifications. I'm just concerned with how easily the body can detoxify Fl salts from the time that they surge after a shower or a litre of orange juice for example(upto 8 PPM there)

>Note that it's not labelled a poison. There's no poison symbol on there; no MSDS comes with the box.

So you're not really sure if Calcium Flouride itself is the cause of the poison control center warning on toothpaste. It could be anything else.

>>7006306
>You can say literally anything has "potential neurotoxic effects," but it's meaningless unless you give a valid reason why you might suspect that to be the case.

Isn't it used as rat poison or something like that? I'd say that's cause for suspicion. And if 5 PPM is considered bad and acknowledged as so by Chinese health authorities isn't that enough reason to be concerned and examine why?

>>7006450
>So you're not really sure if Calcium Flouride itself is the cause of the poison control center warning on toothpaste. It could be anything else.
It's not
>>7006345
They put sodium fluoride in toothpaste.

>>7005544
Well lets see distress is usually to protest the host organism so it would be rational if this distress was aimed at protecting you so... Yeah it might be rational.

>>7006550

Protect you mean. Yes, I'm the anon who originally said I was distressed and yes it's to protect myself from possible harmful effects of a substance I don't want to be force fed.

I wanted to confirm that there is indeed a rational reason which can be articulated ITT and backed up by reliable [citations]. My gut feeling tells me at best it's "not necessary" because I've seen studies where adding flouride made absolutely no difference in the incidence of cavities(this was a comparison between two cities in canada I believe).

>>7006571
That's cool and all but getting a reverse osmosis filter and drinking water from it is probably going to be cheaper, quicker, and more effective than convincing your state or principality to ban fluoride in their water.

We (westerners) would kill every second born son if only for 'public safety' but hell if you're taking our tobacco, alcohol, or cola drinks.

>>7006592

I already buy purified water for drinking sometimes but I just want to get to the bottom of this new flouride shower thing. You can't reverse osmosis fast running water. Hence I just want to know how MUCH flouride I'm taking in with every five minutes of a shower. Kind of ironic how being cheap is healthy in this case.

>>7006335

You probably have more fluoride than is in tap water, plus heavy metals, etc.

>>7006614
So I lived with a guy one year who would bathe with just a large bowl of RO'd water and soap for this exact reason.

It's possible mate just depends how dedicated you are.

>>7006344
>Once they're dissolved in water? Nothing whatsoever. F- is F-, and who gives a fuck about the cations?

Yup.

>>7006624

Must have been one hell of a large bowl. But what also matters is how much of that flouride actually gets absorbed during brief skin contact. When you drink it obviously 100% of the flouride has to be detoxed but the amount might be so small with cold showers that it might not be worth it.

If the water itself is 2 PPM max and you bathe with say 10 gallons then only about one cup is going to be left on your body exterior/ and hair after the session. With perhaps between one to two teaspoons worth absorbed into the skin.

But the question is, how much of a flouride magnet are the lungs and skin during a shower. Nobody has addressed that.

>>7006643
Because nobody. Fucking. Cares.

Also a more interesting one would be the cooking of rice/pasta/soups/anything where you reduce down a large quantity of boiled water.

>>7006678

It obviously multiplies the concentration of heavy metals and Flouride by the inverted fraction of how much water is left of that initially large quantity.

More interesting than that would be whether or not leaving a gallon jar of tapwater out for 12 hours and then pouring the top 3/4 of it into another jar would purify it. It would for sure evaporate all the chlorine in tapwater but if Calcium Flouride and other junk is denser than pure H2o then the bad stuff might sink to the very bottom. Or at least some of it beyond the median concentration.

>>7006728
Yes I know it's obvious I'm just saying I'm not sure if this is counted in the daily fluoride intake measures because they -might- just take the mass of water ingested multiplied by the supposed fluoride content of that quantity of water ignoring any concentration by cooking and so on.

I don't know many people who would count toward your daily water intake the two litres that evaporated off your soup if you know what i mean.

>>7006746

The food that I cook has very little evaporation. Once I get myself better organised I'm only going to cook with distilled water. And my /diy/ /sci/ project once I get a house will be to build a solar powered distiller just using parabollic mirrors and magnifying glasses. It should all fit in an attic fairly easily and clean water for free. I'm surprised people aren't doing this already.

>>7006760
your problem is probably a connectome disorder like schizophrenia and scrubbing tiny amounts of fluoride out of your water will not repair your damaged brain :(

>>7006499
To add to this. The amount of fluoride in a pea sized amount of toothpaste is equivalent to an 8 oz bottle of water.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/07/warning-never-swallow-regular-toothpaste.aspx

>>7006765
do you know what is a lot worse for your brain? the inflammation caused by tooth decay, so much so that the best leading indicator of neurodegenerative disease after loss of sense of smell is tooth loss.

>>7006763
>anyone who likes the sweet taste of clean water and cares about their health is a schizo, especially if I can't counter their points in a calm /sci/entific manner

Back to http://boards.4chan.org/pol with you.

>>7006765

I wonder if the person ITT who claimed to eat entire tubes of toothpaste waskidding or serious. Some anons are claiming toothpaste isn't toxic at all.

>>7006450
> I was under the impression that Calcium Flouride could only be excreted through a process of simple diffusion.
Not sure where you got that impression, but no. Ten seconds of Google will find you what you seek.

> lab chemical reactions which can Unbind the Flouride from Calcium and bind it to another positive ion resulting in a new salt?
I don't think you understand what's going on here. Simply tossing CaF2 into water will cause it to dissociate, up until equilibrium is obtained. But your body continually moves fluid through itself, and free fluoride ions are removed from the bloodstream in the kidneys (and are also being bound by some organic molecules), so it never really stops being removed.

> Also, it's "fluoride," not "flouride." Pronounced like "floo-ride."

> So you're not really sure if Calcium Flouride itself is the cause of the poison control center warning on toothpaste.
Oh, I'm sure it is, but I'm equally sure that it's mostly there to stave off frivolous lawsuits, and maybe in certain locales to meet some strange bureaucratic requirements regarding medicinal ingredients. You might note that not all brands of toothpaste carry this disclaimer. There are many different forms of fluoride that go into toothpaste, by the way. One of them has tin in it. A heavy metal! Oh no, run for the hills!

You can eat an entire tube of toothpaste and suffer no ill effects. You could eat two or three. The other stuff in there will cause you problems long before the fluoride level is significant. Unless you are under a year old, maybe... I suppose in that case it would be good to seek medical help.

> rat poison
Yes, and so is beer. Rats are not people and are particularly sensitive to fluoride.

>>7006571
>I've seen studies where adding flouride made absolutely no difference in the incidence of cavities
> this was a comparison between two cities in canada I believe
So you saw one study. And that, somehow, invalidates the entire literature on the subject?

>>7006765
>mercola.com
Are you fucking kidding me?

>>7006728
> denser
Yup, you said it.

Jesus fuck, the level of scientific illiteracy on /sci/.... I'm going back to /tg/, where at least they acknowledge they're talking fantasy....

>>7006746
You think that the people who spend their lives working on this, thousands of hours each multiplied by hundreds of people... you think that they didn't think of this very simple thing that you thought of after ten seconds of considering the subject?

That is a tremendous level of narcissism.

>>7006781
OK. So it's ok, to drink fluoride in water all day every day, but not safe to eat as toothpaste. I can spit out tooth paste. I don't have a problem with modern dental hygiene. I use toothpaste. But why should it go in the water as well, if i can't eat tooth paste? Why doesn't toothpaste have a "hey, if you eat this, it's cool, just drink a bunch of water it's fluoridated too, you'll be fine " label? Why is it "Yo, call poison control now. *crossbones* "?

>>7006819
is there literature where it made a difference?
A study of equivalent nature?

>>7006819

There's more than one study that shows flouride does nothing good for teeth. Most of the claims of flouride benefiting dental health are of the nature "oh look, 50 years of flouridation and everyone's teeth look so much better now and we have fewer cavities". Which is ridiculous because during the last 50 years the amount of flossing, early detection and generally better nutrition is likely what improved dental health rather than flouridation.

Also, there's more than one study that shows that increased flouridation comes with decreased IQs of the population. In fact flouride has been shown to make bone and teeth worse rather than healthier. http://www.opb.org/news/series/fluoride/the-fluoride-debate-will-voters-be-blinded-by-the-science/

So no, I didn't just see one study and decide to invalidate the entire literature on the subject. Also, there's plenty of literature on the subject that recommends against flouridation.

>>7004215
Kek

There is no way in hell that fluoride ions can vaporize with the steam. It's not going to happen. It'll stay dissolved in the water. A very small percentage of it actually evaporates at the temperature of a shower, anyway, so it's not going to get saturated and precipitate out fluorides. It seems like a lot of steam because a) it builds up in a closed room and b) gases are WAY less dense than liquids.

>>7006824
> denser
>Yup, you said it.

Yes I did say it. A molecule of Sodium Flouride is going to be heavier than a molecule of Dihidrogen Monoxide. A gallon of water with lets say 10 PPM of Sodium Flouride will be heavier(denser) than a gallon of water without such. Saltier water WILL sink to the bottom of a glass of once evenly distributed NaCl and the water on top will become less salty.

Anyway this is a hypothesis. What exactly do you find wrong with the logic here? Heavier, denser particles do sink to the bottom. Heck, even colder water(which is denser) than warmer water sinks to the bottom in lakes. Colder air sinks to the bottom in large buildings because it's denser.

Maybe you do belong in /tg/ or /pol/ or wherever you usually find like minded people.

scholar.google.com son

>>7006854

That sounds reasonable, anon. And it's good news. We do know that when we boil water for cooking unfortunately the flouride and other heavy metals in water don't vanish but rather become even more concentrated.

So the steam from a hot shower would probably not carry even the regular ppm concentration of flouride in it.

>>7006858
> can't into solutions

>>7006877

So? Isn't a solution of Sodium Chloride OR Sodium Flouride going to be denser than the same water with nothing added? Yes, or no?

>>7006835
Because in this way, the small amount of fluoride introduced into your mouth when you eat/drink continally remineralizes your tooth enamel.

It also helps protect those who can't afford toothpaste or don't otherwise have good oral hygiene, which in turn drastically reduces pressures on the medical system. In terms of dollars spent, it's the most efficient public health initiative known.

>>7006839
About 50 years' worth of them. Someone above used the term "scientific consensus." I'd say it's more like "overwhelming scientific consensus."

>>7006843
>Most of the claims of flouride benefiting dental health are of the nature
No. You clearly haven't read any of the literature. Just... just try, okay? Try not to be a total idiot, do your reading like a responsible fucking adult, not the Mercola tin hat bullshit, but the actual peer-reviewed epidemiological studies. Get a review article even, I don't care. Just don't go around spouting bullshit that's so simultaneously idiotic and easy to check so that you can remain blissfully ignorant save some shred of your ego by making others the same.

>>7006881
Just think about what a solution is. What properties does it have?
> Hint: do ions move freely about a solution? What are the relative strengths of the electric field interactions versus the gravitational field?

What concentration of salts are you trying to dissolve in these solutions, anyway? Would you ever be able to tell the difference between a pure water solution and one with a couple ppm of dissolved ions using density?
> hint: very small drop of water = 0.1 mg. 1 ppm NaF in 1 L of solution = 0.0001 mg.

And finally, not really relevant but a fun thing to think about and discover: do all solutes, when added to a solvent increase the density of the whole?
> Hint: no.

>>7006898
>Mercola tin hat bullshit

I haven't quoted Mercola. I quoted Harvard studies. Is that respectable enough for you? I mean you've indicated that you love to be led by the nose and can't dare to think away from "peer consensus" and when it comes time to debate you're throwing around words like tin foil and schizophrenia(some other anon). Here's the twisted ironly, the harvard studies actually indicate flouride CAUSES an increase in schizophrenic tendencies if it's administered during early neurological development.

>>7006898
problems in India at .5ppm
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10643380600678112#.VLSyPSvF-uI
america at >~1ppm
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water
just sayin.

>>7006906

Alright just tell me one thing. If I leave tapwater in a gallon jug overnight would all the dissolved salts remain evently distributed throughout the solution or would SOME tend to sink to the bottom or even rise to the top?


How about if I put tapwater in a very, very heavy centrifugal cycle, would all solutes remain evenly distributed?

I really don't know the answer but I suspect no. They'd stratify. The reason behind all this theorizing is a way to clean out the lead, flouride, copper, iron and whatever else from tapwater IF POSSIBLE just by letting it sit for 12-48 hours and then pouring the top three quarters off and discarding the rest. We already know most if not all the chlorine will be gone.

>>7006918

>>7005875
>what is dosage

>>7006935

condenser.jpg with illegible content. What are you trying to say? I don't want to setup a lab at home and if I did I'd just distill the tapwater but without much equipment, or rather without any equipment, I was just curious if letting a gallon sit for 48 hours might be helpful.

Skimmed this thread. Whoever's flipping the fuck out, here's some back of the envelope calculations with worst case / generous stats.
A 10 minute shower with 4 gallons of water per minute (water.usgs) would use 40 gallons of fluoridated water. 40 gallons of 1.0 PPM fluoride (1 mg/L)
water would outgas about 1 and a fucking half grams of fluoride if ALL of it comes out of solution and NONE makes its way right back down the drain.
Acute fluoride toxicity is between 0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg body mass (fluoride alert and others) or anywhere between 8 to 25 grams for a 180 lb manchild. Again, if ALL of it outgasses, gets into your lungs, and then into your blood.
But here's the thing. It's been a while since I've messed with solubility and temperature, but fluoride still has a solubility equilibrium with 40 C shower water (105 F) at 4.4 g F / 100 g water. Again, back of the envelope calculations/guestimations, and unless I'm fucking up somewhere, that equilibrium is 44 stable GRAMS of sodium fluoride per liter of water. I'd hazard that a higher concentration of sodium would bump that up because of whatever-fuck-law that is, but there's a lot of shit dissolved in water so I can't say for sure. The point is that if water fluoridation is set for .007 g fluoride per liter of water, then that looks stable as fuck to me. If you want to get that out of your water, you're going to have to sequentially distill it. I hope the body of this post makes you realize how unnecessary this would be.

Feel free to bitch me out if I've made any glaring mistakes. I caught a few while posting.

>>7007031
Didn't add this to above because it was a long post. No. That's not how solutions work. If you're going to worry about something, stop driving, haul ass to somewhere else if you smell cigarette smoke, replace all sugar intake with carbs and reduce carb intake in general, and get your 30 minutes cardio every day. All of those will be a thousand times more relevant to your health than the presence of fluoride or trace elements in your drinking water.

>>7007062
>40 gallons of 1.0 PPM fluoride (1 mg/L)
>water would outgas about 1 and a fucking half grams of fluoride if ALL of it comes out of solution and NONE makes its way right back down the drain.

Alright so how much of it would realistically come out? Let's say 0.1% of the water turns to vapor and also steam in the case of a hot shower. Even in the steam the concentration of sodium flouride would be equal to or more likely less than 1 PPM?

>Acute fluoride toxicity is between 0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg body mass (fluoride alert and others) or anywhere between 8 to 25 grams for a 180 lb manchild

That's nice but nobody is worried about acute toxicity here, just chronic toxicity and that too due to buildups causes mostly by injesting tapwater, soda pop and packaged juices.

Having said that though, your 180 lb manchild is not getting bottlefed this dosage evenly over his full bodyweight. In fact, the contact points are epithelial tissues in the upper respiratory tract along with the alveoli in the lungs as well as the total surface area of the skin. Tiny, tiny proportion of that 180 lb mass in your calculations. Not sure if it makes a difference but since you mentioned acute toxicity, you gotta take into account the actual flesh that experiences the sudden and brief surge before it becomes dissipated through diffusion slowly.

As far as it being a contribution to a chronic buildup I'm not even sure if theres enough mass of flouride transferred either, correct me if I'm wrong.

>>7007067

Yeah I wasn't sure but had to check. However, it is good to let tapwater sit out for a couple of hours because that does get rid of the chlorine you know. Sadly during showers I think it's the chlorine that might be messing with you rather than the flourine because it doesn't have time to evaporate from the tapwater.

>>7007072
Pedantry that water vapor is being produced, not steam. And in general, I have no clue, man. The amount of gaseous fluoride involves offgassing and finding out the concentration of it in the water vapor. Can water vapor have solutes? I don't know. A take-away would be that a lot of fluoride is obviously still dissolved in the shower water that goes down your drain. That lowers the 1.5 g figure by a huge value, depending on how much stays dissolved. And yes, children risk a higher exposure to Fluoride than adults, hence the constant warning not to swallow tooth paste.

For the second part, I've been under the impression that fluoride dissolves easily into the blood and attacks calcium in bones and elsewhere. The "tiny tiny proportion" bit doesn't apply if that's the case. And anyways, bones are living structures. They digest and rebuild themselves over time. I just tried reading about fluoride metabolism and excretion, but I don't have the medical knowledge to make good use of it. I also haven't found anything on fluoride absorption through the lungs.

No real substantive comment to give on letting water sit out. Had a roommate that did that, always struck me as a silly thing to do. It's a good way to catch yeast if you want to make bread, though.

>>7007082

My point was that -hopefully- a much smaller dose of flouride is passed during a shower than by even drinking a glass of water. Think about this, when you drink a gallon of tapwater a day then 100% of the salts in that water have to go in and through your body. You cannot avoid them.

When you shower with 40 gallons, only about one tablespoon's worth of actual water will be soaked up by your skin, hair and lungs. There's that to consider too. The temporary contact with the surfaces of the body might not be as toxic as you'd think. I'm not sure how those so called scientists in the OP came up with the idea. I wish I had the search engine skills to backtrace them right to their peer reviewed article.

>>7007088
I wasn't ignoring your pont. I was trying to address what I could with what I know. The issue of dealing with the salts is on the medical side of things, where I'm really weak. But from what I read (http://ec.europa . eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/l-3/2.htm) it looks like the body is equipped to filter fluoride from the blood. A higher fluoride intake (0.1 mg/L compared to 1 mg/L) seems to result in a higher concentration lingering in the blood, as if it has an equilibrium between intake and excretion. That doesn't look like accumulation to me, like a heavy metal might.
I'm going to have to dig deeper to find out what that means for bones and teeth. I didn't see what proportion is excreted vs what accumulates there, and I don't know the effects if any of small amounts of fluoride.

If you're OP, then I think you just answered your original question with
>-hopefully- a much smaller dose of flouride is passed during a shower than by even drinking a glass of water

>>7007088
I'm off for the night. I'll try to check in again tomorrow if this thread's still going. Enjoy the home made bread with a glass of resalinated distilled water. Also, if it bothers you this much and I haven't convinced you to be a bit skeptical of anti-fluoride ways of thinking, look into moving somewhere with well water and a low fluoride concentration. I grew up in a place just like that in Oregon and I have the fucked up teeth to prove it.

>>7007093

I'm not OP but yes I think I did answer the question. Still have my doubts though about what exactly those "US scientists" were trying to warn people about and it's merits.

>>7007109

>Enjoy the home made bread with a glass of resalinated distilled water.

Funny you mentioned that, I've seen breads that proudly proclaim "no bromide" which is another halide. I'd done a little searching on that and it turns out that they used to bake bread with iodine rather than bromide back in the day. Evidently there's people concerned about bromide in mass marketed bread too.

>>7006918
> If I leave tapwater in a gallon jug overnight would all the dissolved salts remain evently distributed throughout the solution or would SOME tend to sink to the bottom or even rise to the top?
Dissolved ions will remain evenly distributed throughout the solution. The Gibbs energy is minimized in this way and is orders of magnitude more important than gravity. A centrifuge will not help.

This is high school level chemistry we're talking here. You should know this.

>>7007082
>Can water vapor have solutes? I don't know
No, it can not. Which is why the difference between water vapour and steam is not pedantry.

>>7002448
>dailymail
Into the trash it goes

>>7006910
Did you actually read the study you're quoting? Because it doesn't say anything of the sort....

>>7004215
Nice

>>7004302
Im American and I took a shower once, does that make me a scientist?

>>7007737
>No, it can not. Which is why the difference between water vapour and steam is not pedantry.

First of all, hot showers have plenty of steam. And secondly the wate vapor in showers is different from the natural evaporation from the top of a body of water. This is also the [cold] water "vapor" we're talking about here, you know, like from a showerhead?

>>7007745

Fine, then the Harvard study HINTS that flouride intake during early childhood and pregnancy MIGHT contribute to schizophrenia because flouride PERHAPS could be considered a neurotoxin in previously categorized as SAFE concentrations because the CORRELATIVE data they've gathered supports the HYPOTHESIS that increased low level flouridation below ACUTE toxicity is part of the CAUSITIVE factors behind an increase in environmentally induced nerve damage aka autism aka low IQ.

So yeah, there's no wrapup summation that clearly says "hey retards the water treatment is not only fucking up people's bones and teeth but also making kids grow up dumber". That was only my conclusion. Guilty as charged.

>>7007893
Anon who first posted about WV/steam here again. Good afternooon fuckers. Afaik, gaseous water is technically known as both steam and water vapor, but either at one point in time or in less technical circles, the difference is that steam (colorless, transparent) can only really exist above 100 C at typical sea level pressure. Water vapor, or myriad drops of condensed high temperature water (foggy, translucent) can't exist above 100 C and will cloud up a bathroom during a shower. If you have a shower that makes "plenty of steam," then stop and go get your burns treated.

>>7007949

I'm not sure what your point is but in my experience hot showers produce more "fog" leading me to believe that part of the fog is actual steam. The whole of the fog is probably a lot colder than 100C judging by the lack of burns most people escape with after a hot shower.

I'm only interested in how much solute this fog carries though, as probably most of the thread's readers are too.

>>7007893
>environmentally induced nerve damage aka autism aka low IQ.
These things aren't equivalent at all.

>>7007987

Neurotoxins don't cause degeneration in nerve tissue, especially during childhood? Autism, schizophrenia and low IQ are not diagnoses that corroborate with stunted brain growth?

>>7008000
No, he's trying to make it seem like you implied Low IQ is the same thing as autism, instead of refuting your central point.

>>7008009
what central point? A Harvard epidemiology study with as many confounds as there are environmental contaminants in the regions studied?

>>7008026
I love how you replied to me and not him.
>inb4 implying you were getting around to it.

>>7002354

I take cold showers.

>>7002354
>mfw my water supply is not floruidated

>>7008313
wow, the guy never responded.

>>7011566
what is there to be said? He's a conspiracy theorist. You can spout correlation doesn't equal causation until you're blue in the face and it will never make a difference.

>>7004302
The toxic exposure of NaF in humans is on the order of a couple grams. The average concentration of NaF in tap water in the United States is around 0.7 mg/L or ppm.


In the case of liquid water, you'd need to ingest 1430 L of water to build up a total dose of one gram of NaF. Your body can filter out and excrete NaF via urination and defecation at an optimal rate of about 8 mg per day. Which means absolute slowest rate of drink/breathing in these cases that would allow you to build up the level of NaF in your system to a one gram dose would be about 12 liters of water a day for 120 days.

Alternatively in the case of steam, water vapor has a density of 0.6 g/L and your lungs have a volume of about five liters... so assuming the absolute worst case scenario (pure water vapor, no air mixed in) and assuming perfect transmission into the bloodstream you'd take in about 2 μg of NaF with each breath. So you'd need about half a million breaths to build up the same one gram dose. Assuming on average you breathe about 20,000 times a day so and factoring in the same excretion rate it'd take breathing in pure water vapor for a solid month to build up a potentially toxic dose of NaF


In the former case you'd die of overhydration after the first few days, in the latter case you'd probably die from pneumonia within the first week or so. In short - the water in your water will kill you long before any of the other shit in your water.

>>7011566

I think you were correct. He doesn't want to argue the central points but still decided to nitpick around minor non issues.

>>7011679
>It's a wild wacky tinfoily conspiracy theory when you don't agree with me
>I've got the real causation understood and demonstrable but you've just got a weak correlation even though we have similar sets of data.

>>7002354
Shower steam is pure, distilled water. The minerals remain dissolved in the liquid which goes down your drain.

>>7011735
Shower steam is an aerosol.

>>7011716
based estimation bro

>>7011735
>>7011743

Aerosol or not, haven't you guys noticed that the hotter a shower is, the foggier it is around the shower? In fact cold showers hardly have a fog compared to hot ones.

>>7011725
your Harvard study demonstrates a correlation that has to overcome several dozen major confounds before you could start entertaining causation. Do you understand that?

>>7012113
Different anon.
You do understand people have cited other studies ITT right?

>>7011716
12 liters = 3 gallons
Fuck.
I have this gallon jug I keep with me all day. Easily 4 a day.
One when I wake up.
Usually drink a gallon while I work out.
One over the course of the day
One with dinner.
Am I fucked?

>>7012113

Where's your causative proof, do you have loads and loads of double blind studies conducted on lab animals that prove flouridation prevents tooth decay? Because it's already been established that overflouridation clearly causes bone and tooth damage.

Flouride isn't regarded as an essential nutrient either. You see manganese, copper, iron and calcium in supplent tablets. You don't see Flouride, Lead, Barium or Aluminum there along with it's RDA. How come?

>>7012334
I'm fucked aren't I?
I sweat a lot when I work out.
Lift for 45 minutes.
Run for 1 hour.
Can I get rid of excess fluoride via sweat?

>>7012521
>Can I get rid of excess fluoride via sweat?

I don't know, probably not. If you consume such massive amounts of water just switch to distilled water for at least most of or as much of or even all of what you drink. Might want to get some decent mineral tablets(stuff that your body is actually proven to need such as potassium, magnesium and iodine) since those get depleted a lot with excercise.

From what I've gathered ITT the showers don't add much Flouride or even chlorine to the body and the real culprit is drinking water.

>>7012593
If I switch to distilled water I'll just leach all my nutrients. Drinking distilled water solely isn't good for you. Or so I'm told

>>7002354
>fluoride molecules
WAT

>>7012621
Not nutrients but sodium and potassium ions, wich would make you effectively dehydrated. So yeah don't drink distilled water or sea water. You need to wrink something with ion force close to the one in the body so you have the same osmic pressure for teh tissues.

>>7012389
Do you have a source for the tooth damage with fluorine?

>>7012621

Like I mentioned in my post, get some decent mineral tabs to put in the distilled water. Heck maybe even some of that potassium iodide salt from Morton's it's really cheap and has potassium, sodium and even a little bit of iodine in it. There's your osmotic pressure balance that >>7012680 was suggesting.

>>7012682

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

>Many well-known sources of fluoride may contribute to overexposure including dentifrice/fluoridated mouthrinse (which young children may swallow), bottled waters which are not tested for their fluoride content, inappropriate use of fluoride supplements, ingestion of foods especially imported from other countries, and public water fluoridation

> It is also more likely to occur in areas where the drinking water has a fluoride content greater than 1 ppm (part per million)

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

>Common causes of fluorosis include inhalation of fluoride dusts/fumes by workers in industry, use of coal as an indoor fuel source (a common practice in China), consumption of fluoride from drinking water (naturally occurring levels of fluoride in excess of the CDC-recommended safe levels[1]), and consumption of fluoride from drinking tea,[2] particularly brick tea.

>As of now, there are no established treatments for skeletal fluorosis patients.[15] However, it is reversible in some cases, depending on the progression of the disease. If fluorine intake is stopped, the fluorine existing in bone structures will deplete and be excreted via urine. However, it is a very slow process to eliminate the fluorine from the body completely.

>>7002354
This is why I quit bathing. Remind me to start a thread on the merits of trepanning too.

> "The levels set by the EU are safe for individuals who choose to shower."
Feels good be yurop

>>7013161
Everytime i fucking see this pic i get incredible lust for some dirty trap. Why the fuck are mentally unstable individuals only in America?

>>7013539

And what would those levels be anon, how did they determine safetly levels? From this thread it seems that it's a hundred times safer to shower in 15 gallons than it is to drink one gallon. So how much did the EU set the level at?

>>7013712
Its in the article, 0.05 mg in Europe as to tenfold that 0.5 mg in the US.

>>7013754

Noice. Although the consensus ITT seems to be that there's hardly any transfer of Flouride during showers anyway. Wish I could find the original study though just to see how they did their estimation.