|
What's the best Water Filter that also removes Fluoride content? I've read disturbing things on Facebook about water available to public in the Eastern United States. Although I've drank similar water through my life, I'm willing to try a water filtration solution and see if it improves quality of life. I drink a lot of water because I try to avoid caffeinated beverages and drinks with lots of sugar.
I feel like if I drink drinks with too much sugar or caffeinated drinks, especially carbonated, sugary, caffeinated drinks, that the quality of my life suffers. I fall asleep more easily after crashing or something, and it's tough to tell the order of events. My thoughts are a little more spastic, somehow.
So, price isn't a big factor. I'm just looking to find a 'dependable' / reliable water filter that will improve the taste and health with the water I enjoy.
Google product reviews are yet to lead me astray, and yet, TeamLiquid may have more sound advice. Suggestions appreciated!
 
|
Don't forget to avoid toothpaste. That stuff is scary.
Also, be careful with drinking water. Even filtered, it contains potentially lethal levels of dihydrogen monoxide. http://www.dhmo.org for more info.
|
I... I drink water from the tap... It... it tastes pretty good...
|
Rofl you got straight into it guys?
|
Well, he's on the right track, there's all sorts of risks associated with most water available, not the least of which is the excessive level of DHMO. It's able to kill in fairly small doses in it's pure form, is highly corrosive, found in ALL water available on the market, it's used by the military as a performance enhancer, it's used in several torture techniques...
I have yet to learn of a filter for it, though.
|
Actually there have been some real studies which have suggested that Floride added to the drinking water may result in slightly higher levels of childhood bone cancer. Of course nothing has ever been proven conclusively.
Though the irony of Failsafe being concerned about putting dangrous chemicals into his body is too great.
|
Did you know that you can die of dihydrogen monoxide poisoning if you consume too much of it? A few people already have.
To the OP: If you actually listen to rumors on Facebook, then nothing can save you.
|
You can't filter out ions in water. Also The amount of Fluoride in your water is not only completely harmless but also actually good for your teeth.
|
On May 26 2012 03:17 FryBender wrote:
You can't filter out ions in water. Also The amount of Fluoride in your water is not only completely harmless but also actually good for your teeth.
Actually, you can. Ever heard of ion exchangers? They're pretty common.
|
United States42689 Posts
I heard a rumour that one time someone took a lethal dose of fluoride and then died. That shit is dangerous.
|
If even a small fraction of the world's yearly fluoride production fell on you, it would kill you very quickly
|
Dihydrogen monoxide = H2O = water.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence.
|
If you ingested 0.00001% of the world's supply of dihydrogen monoxide, it would kill you very quickly.
Edit:
On May 26 2012 03:43 superbarnie wrote:
Dihydrogen monoxide = H2O = water.
Shhhh.. Some secrets are best left untold.
|
On May 26 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:
I heard a rumour that one time someone took a lethal dose of fluoride and then died. That shit is dangerous.
Actually it can be. Sodium Floride which is sometimes used as an additive by smaller companies has an LD50 of 52mgs/kilogram, meaning for a 200 kilogram person injesting a dose of 10 grams could be fatal. Sodium fluorosilicate is a bit higher at 70mg/kilogram. Though levels of water floridation are usually only around 1mg per liter. The US west coast has ground water with naturally occurring water with higher concentrations above FDA reccomended safe limits that can in some cases lead to tooth discoloration, which one may want to remove.
Still though, I'm not a fan of our government putting extra chemicals in our water that are unrelated to the safety of the drinking water; even if it's "in my best interest". I can make up my own mind about what's best for me thank you.
|
Try to filter all the water you consume through a siff for example to remove any possible remnants of copper and iron etc that the water may have gathered through the pipes before getting to you. Next, boil your water to remove most common bacteria from it. Let it cool off if you prefer to drink your water cold, but beware, leaving it outside to cool can infect it with deadly germs or even scorpions and spiders. If you cool it off too much it may turn solid, leaving the chance for suffocation.
|
United States42689 Posts
On May 26 2012 03:46 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:
I heard a rumour that one time someone took a lethal dose of fluoride and then died. That shit is dangerous. Actually it can be. Sodium Floride which is sometimes used as an additive by smaller companies has an LD50 of 52mgs/kilogram, meaning for a 200 kilogram person injesting a dose of 10 grams could be fatal. Sodium fluorosilicate is a bit higher at 70mg/kilogram. Though levels of water floridation are usually only around 1mg per liter. The US west coast has ground water with naturally occurring water with higher concentrations above FDA reccomended safe limits that can in some cases lead to tooth discoloration, which one may want to remove. Still though, I'm not a fan of our government putting extra chemicals in our water that are unrelated to the safety of the drinking water; even if it's "in my best interest". I can make up my own mind about what's best for me thank you.
10 grams could be fatal. 1mg per litre. Hmm... How thirsty are we?
The fact that this topic exists at all is evidence that the average person is in fact very poorly equipped to make up their own mind about what is good for them.
|
So, since the dentists use fluoride treatments on children, does that mean there's actually a conspiracy? Guys, we're onto something here, thanks to failsafe. We should totally go digging, and warn the world to stay away from the evil corporate dentists, they're actually a front for the CIA!
By the way, superbarnie, we're all glad you passed high school chemistry, but don't ruin the fun.
|
On May 26 2012 03:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 03:46 TheToast wrote:On May 26 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:
I heard a rumour that one time someone took a lethal dose of fluoride and then died. That shit is dangerous. Actually it can be. Sodium Floride which is sometimes used as an additive by smaller companies has an LD50 of 52mgs/kilogram, meaning for a 200 kilogram person injesting a dose of 10 grams could be fatal. Sodium fluorosilicate is a bit higher at 70mg/kilogram. Though levels of water floridation are usually only around 1mg per liter. The US west coast has ground water with naturally occurring water with higher concentrations above FDA reccomended safe limits that can in some cases lead to tooth discoloration, which one may want to remove. Still though, I'm not a fan of our government putting extra chemicals in our water that are unrelated to the safety of the drinking water; even if it's "in my best interest". I can make up my own mind about what's best for me thank you. 10 grams could be fatal. 1mg per litre. Hmm... How thirsty are we? The fact that this topic exists at all is evidence that the average person is in fact very poorly equipped to make up their own mind about what is good for them.
Well I meant it can be dangerous if you were to eat it plain, haha.
The really big irony here is Failsafe has admitted in the past to regularly doing PCPs and other drugs which can cause nuerological damage in addition to containing any number of nasty chemicals from processing; yet he's worried about the Floride in his drinking water. Logic is apparently not his strong suit.
|
Toxicity is a funny thing. Something that can be bad in massive amounts can be just fine in small amounts.
|
On May 26 2012 02:41 Failsafe wrote:
I've read disturbing things on Facebook about water available to public in the Eastern United States.
who needs wikipedia anymore?
|
I drink tap water and it works well, but have heard of people not drinking tap water because of the chemicals in it. For example people with skin conditions sometimes stop drinking it because it can make it worse.
|
I've always just trusted my tap water to be safe to drink. I don't think any amount of chemicals dissolved in it would pass through regulations if it weren't safe to drink. I don't think a filter is a bad idea though. It might stop some things, but even then, I don't think those things would make as big an impact as you might think.
|
regulations on tap water are more stringent than regulations on bottled water. it is known.
|
Yeah, why wouldn't you trust your tap water, mine comes from a lake called "Pee lake" in Norwegian :o
|
I love my tap water, it's really hard, and you can just taste all the minerals. And the cereal boxes talk about all those minerals being essential, so my water must be great for me!
|
On May 26 2012 04:57 marttorn wrote:
Yeah, why wouldn't you trust your tap water, mine comes from a lake called "Pee lake" in Norwegian :o
Dude, that's nothing, there's a lake near here named shitpond and I've swam in it.
|
one of the most trolled blogs on tl.
|
On May 26 2012 05:30 Paljas wrote:
one of the most trolled blogs on tl.
This one has maybe 10% of the trolling that this had.
The difference? That one, he trolled himself. This one, he at least had the common courtesy to get other people to do it.
|
On May 26 2012 05:02 JingleHell wrote:
I love my tap water, it's really hard, and you can just taste all the minerals. And the cereal boxes talk about all those minerals being essential, so my water must be great for me!
Man sometimes when I drink my daily dose of super duper mineral rich healthy water I can just feel the fizzling bubbling fluid of life sizzling in my mouth and having chemical reactions with my saliva. Needless to say I've died quite a few times already.
|
On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence.
That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride?
|
On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride?
There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that?
|
On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride?
Japan
Currently less than 1% of Japan has community water fluoridation. Dental disease in Japan is very severe compared to the United States.
|
On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that?
Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you?
In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it.
|
On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride?
That's due more to the ethical and moral issue behind putting additives into the public drinking water for reasons other than ensuring the safety of the drinking water. Specifically, that you're removing an individual's right to choose whether or not they want to consume that health additive.
Chill's arguing about the lack of conclusive scientific evidence linking water floridation to any specific health issues; and that if there were regulators would not allow it.
Granted, the anti-floridation people do bring up some interesting things. For starters, the fact that the main source of Floride, Fluorosilicic acid, is actually a by product of Fertilizer manufacturing that would otherwise be costly to disspose of safely if not dumped into our drinking water. Of course no evidence of wrong doing or illicit influence has ever been shown. There have also been a few studies that have suggested a link between water Floridation and and increased risk of childhood bone cancer; though none of these links have ever been proven conclusively.
Though without evidence, claims are just claims. And there is hard scientific evidence that clearly links water floridation with a significant decrease in childhood cavities. Though the moral and ethical issues of dumping chemicals into the water supply for the "public good" are still up for debate.
|
On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it.
It's generally banned due to religion.
Also, don't attack critical thinking skills without evidence, especially when someone is pretty blatantly just having fun. It shows a deficiency in your own to allow a bias like that.
If someone laid out evidence, that I could understand, that was actually 100% undeniable, I'd pretty clearly agree with it. What I don't do, however, is follow the herd mentality. If I did, I'd be utterly insane from trying to keep up with what's unhealthy for me today, and why it will actually be the miracle cure tomorrow. In other words, until the risks outweigh the benefits, I'll deal with it.
|
On May 26 2012 06:16 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it. It's generally banned due to religion. Also, don't attack critical thinking skills without evidence, especially when someone is pretty blatantly just having fun. It shows a deficiency in your own to allow a bias like that. If someone laid out evidence, that I could understand, that was actually 100% undeniable, I'd pretty clearly agree with it. What I don't do, however, is follow the herd mentality. If I did, I'd be utterly insane from trying to keep up with what's unhealthy for me today, and why it will actually be the miracle cure tomorrow. In other words, until the risks outweigh the benefits, I'll deal with it.
I by no means meant to insult you, I was just saying that you were defending one side fairly fiercely. I don't know if fluoride in tap water is bad myself, there's a few factors arguing for it, but also some huge things arguing against it. Personally I'm just glad my country did decide to ban it, so I have nothing to potentially worry about.
|
On May 26 2012 06:23 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:16 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it. It's generally banned due to religion. Also, don't attack critical thinking skills without evidence, especially when someone is pretty blatantly just having fun. It shows a deficiency in your own to allow a bias like that. If someone laid out evidence, that I could understand, that was actually 100% undeniable, I'd pretty clearly agree with it. What I don't do, however, is follow the herd mentality. If I did, I'd be utterly insane from trying to keep up with what's unhealthy for me today, and why it will actually be the miracle cure tomorrow. In other words, until the risks outweigh the benefits, I'll deal with it. I by no means meant to insult you, I was just saying that you were defending one side fairly fiercely. I don't know if fluoride in tap water is bad myself, there's a few factors arguing for it, but also some huge things arguing against it. Personally I'm just glad my country did decide to ban it, so I have nothing to potentially worry about.
probably shouldn't brush your teeth with common toothpastes either.
|
On May 26 2012 03:18 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 03:17 FryBender wrote:
You can't filter out ions in water. Also The amount of Fluoride in your water is not only completely harmless but also actually good for your teeth. Actually, you can. Ever heard of ion exchangers? They're pretty common.
Good point. But I was thinking of an actual physical filter that would prevent any amount of fluoride of getting to your water. I doubt there is a simple ion excange resing out there that would actually filter out the fluoride at the minuscule levels that it is added to our water.
|
On May 26 2012 06:23 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:16 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it. It's generally banned due to religion. Also, don't attack critical thinking skills without evidence, especially when someone is pretty blatantly just having fun. It shows a deficiency in your own to allow a bias like that. If someone laid out evidence, that I could understand, that was actually 100% undeniable, I'd pretty clearly agree with it. What I don't do, however, is follow the herd mentality. If I did, I'd be utterly insane from trying to keep up with what's unhealthy for me today, and why it will actually be the miracle cure tomorrow. In other words, until the risks outweigh the benefits, I'll deal with it. I by no means meant to insult you, I was just saying that you were defending one side fairly fiercely. I don't know if fluoride in tap water is bad myself, there's a few factors arguing for it, but also some huge things arguing against it. Personally I'm just glad my country did decide to ban it, so I have nothing to potentially worry about.
Yes, relating pornography to chemicals in the water is clearly a staunch defense of a point in an argument.
And as has been mentioned, avoid dental hygiene in general if you're worried about fluoride. If it REALLY came down to having to choose consciously, dying quickly of cancer vs a miserable life with dental issues, I'd take the shorter chunk of pain. And I say that having nearly died of an illness that can be terminal when unchecked, that can lead to cancer, not just tongue in cheek.
|
On May 26 2012 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:23 solidbebe wrote:On May 26 2012 06:16 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it. It's generally banned due to religion. Also, don't attack critical thinking skills without evidence, especially when someone is pretty blatantly just having fun. It shows a deficiency in your own to allow a bias like that. If someone laid out evidence, that I could understand, that was actually 100% undeniable, I'd pretty clearly agree with it. What I don't do, however, is follow the herd mentality. If I did, I'd be utterly insane from trying to keep up with what's unhealthy for me today, and why it will actually be the miracle cure tomorrow. In other words, until the risks outweigh the benefits, I'll deal with it. I by no means meant to insult you, I was just saying that you were defending one side fairly fiercely. I don't know if fluoride in tap water is bad myself, there's a few factors arguing for it, but also some huge things arguing against it. Personally I'm just glad my country did decide to ban it, so I have nothing to potentially worry about. probably shouldn't brush your teeth with common toothpastes either.
I know of that, but since you don't ingest that much toothpaste anyway I'm okay with that. Like I said I don't actually know if it is/would be bad for you. Fluoride is a mineral tho and just like any other mineral ingesting too much is bad, but that is kinda the definition of too much, and how much is too much? I wouldn't know. Why I'm against fluoride in tap water though is because the decision is made for you by people that know 'what is good for you'. I just don't like that whole practice.
|
On May 26 2012 06:29 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 26 2012 06:23 solidbebe wrote:On May 26 2012 06:16 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it. It's generally banned due to religion. Also, don't attack critical thinking skills without evidence, especially when someone is pretty blatantly just having fun. It shows a deficiency in your own to allow a bias like that. If someone laid out evidence, that I could understand, that was actually 100% undeniable, I'd pretty clearly agree with it. What I don't do, however, is follow the herd mentality. If I did, I'd be utterly insane from trying to keep up with what's unhealthy for me today, and why it will actually be the miracle cure tomorrow. In other words, until the risks outweigh the benefits, I'll deal with it. I by no means meant to insult you, I was just saying that you were defending one side fairly fiercely. I don't know if fluoride in tap water is bad myself, there's a few factors arguing for it, but also some huge things arguing against it. Personally I'm just glad my country did decide to ban it, so I have nothing to potentially worry about. probably shouldn't brush your teeth with common toothpastes either. I know of that, but since you don't ingest that much toothpaste anyway I'm okay with that. Like I said I don't actually know if it is/would be bad for you. Fluoride is a mineral tho and just like any other mineral ingesting too much is bad, but that is kinda the definition of too much, and how much is too much? I wouldn't know. Why I'm against fluoride in tap water though is because the decision is made for you by people that know 'what is good for you'. I just don't like that whole practice.
Oh, by the way, if I don't respond again for a while, it's because I'm heading out to the Red Bull thing.
|
|
|
On May 26 2012 02:41 Failsafe wrote:
What's the best Water Filter that also removes Fluoride content? I've read disturbing things on Facebook about water available to public in the Eastern United States. Although I've drank similar water through my life, I'm willing to try a water filtration solution and see if it improves quality of life. I drink a lot of water because I try to avoid caffeinated beverages and drinks with lots of sugar.
I feel like if I drink drinks with too much sugar or caffeinated drinks, especially carbonated, sugary, caffeinated drinks, that the quality of my life suffers. I fall asleep more easily after crashing or something, and it's tough to tell the order of events. My thoughts are a little more spastic, somehow.
So, price isn't a big factor. I'm just looking to find a 'dependable' / reliable water filter that will improve the taste and health with the water I enjoy.
Google product reviews are yet to lead me astray, and yet, TeamLiquid may have more sound advice. Suggestions appreciated!
Finally, I can put my engineering degree to use!
You're going to need a heavy-duty filtration unit to remove fluoride. Typical filters such as Brita use activated carbon to improve color and taste while the filter itself removes a good deal of suspended solids. Keep in mind that where water is concerned there is suspended solids and dissolved solids. A suspended solid is, say, a chunk of calcium a couple microns in thick. A dissolved solid is chemically dissociated in the water (such as landfill leachate).
I remember learning in my environmental engineering courses that fluorine is added to the water at the behest of politically active dentists. The regulation results are found here (http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm).
If you're THAT concerned then you need to either move to a city where waste water treatment plants do not add fluorine (Baton Rouge, where I currently live, does not (at least according to my dentist)) OR purchase a REALLY good filtration unit. For something like this I'd recommend reverse osmosis, though there would be high energy costs associated with its use. I suppose distillation could also work, but I'm having a hard time thinking off the top of my head if an ion exchanger (like a water softener) exists for fluorine......and after a two minute internet search I find that activated alumina works as an adsorbent, but the residence time isn't short. The problem with the alumina is the need to "recharge" through treatment with NaOH and H2SO4 which are not only extremely nasty for the environment but also regulated. I wouldn't really worry about getting sued since it's been established that one person isn't a point source, but maybe a household is.....
Anywho, it's going to be expensive and inconvenient to remove the fluoride. If it's just drinking water you're concerned about then you should consider drinking well water.
|
^ Actually there's a number of companies that sell home reverse osmosis filters, my parents have one. They're not terribly expensive, and the maintenenance is fairly minimal.
|
On May 26 2012 06:48 Servius_Fulvius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 02:41 Failsafe wrote:
What's the best Water Filter that also removes Fluoride content? I've read disturbing things on Facebook about water available to public in the Eastern United States. Although I've drank similar water through my life, I'm willing to try a water filtration solution and see if it improves quality of life. I drink a lot of water because I try to avoid caffeinated beverages and drinks with lots of sugar.
I feel like if I drink drinks with too much sugar or caffeinated drinks, especially carbonated, sugary, caffeinated drinks, that the quality of my life suffers. I fall asleep more easily after crashing or something, and it's tough to tell the order of events. My thoughts are a little more spastic, somehow.
So, price isn't a big factor. I'm just looking to find a 'dependable' / reliable water filter that will improve the taste and health with the water I enjoy.
Google product reviews are yet to lead me astray, and yet, TeamLiquid may have more sound advice. Suggestions appreciated! Finally, I can put my engineering degree to use! You're going to need a heavy-duty filtration unit to remove fluoride. Typical filters such as Brita use activated carbon to improve color and taste while the filter itself removes a good deal of suspended solids. Keep in mind that where water is concerned there is suspended solids and dissolved solids. A suspended solid is, say, a chunk of calcium a couple microns in thick. A dissolved solid is chemically dissociated in the water (such as landfill leachate). I remember learning in my environmental engineering courses that fluorine is added to the water at the behest of politically active dentists. The regulation results are found here (http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm). If you're THAT concerned then you need to either move to a city where waste water treatment plants do not add fluorine (Baton Rouge, where I currently live, does not (at least according to my dentist)) OR purchase a REALLY good filtration unit. For something like this I'd recommend reverse osmosis, though there would be high energy costs associated with its use. I suppose distillation could also work, but I'm having a hard time thinking off the top of my head if an ion exchanger (like a water softener) exists for fluorine......and after a two minute internet search I find that activated alumina works, but the residence time isn't short. The problem with the alumina is the need to "recharge" through treatment with NaOH and H2SO4 which are not only extremely nasty for the environment but also regulated. I wouldn't really worry about getting sued since it's been established that one person isn't a point source, but maybe a household is..... Anywho, it's going to be expensive and inconvenient to remove the fluoride. If it's just drinking water you're concerned about then you should consider drinking well water.
Correct me if I'm wrong here since water chemistry is by no means my strong suit but reverse osmosis can only filter out ions that are larger then water. Fluoride is the smallest ion known to man (smaller then H+ since hydronium ions are actually H30+) therefore there is no way that you can filter out Fluoride. Therefore unless proven wrong I stand by my original statement that no filters could filter out fluoride. Distillation is the only way to go.
|
On May 26 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:48 Servius_Fulvius wrote:On May 26 2012 02:41 Failsafe wrote:
What's the best Water Filter that also removes Fluoride content? I've read disturbing things on Facebook about water available to public in the Eastern United States. Although I've drank similar water through my life, I'm willing to try a water filtration solution and see if it improves quality of life. I drink a lot of water because I try to avoid caffeinated beverages and drinks with lots of sugar.
I feel like if I drink drinks with too much sugar or caffeinated drinks, especially carbonated, sugary, caffeinated drinks, that the quality of my life suffers. I fall asleep more easily after crashing or something, and it's tough to tell the order of events. My thoughts are a little more spastic, somehow.
So, price isn't a big factor. I'm just looking to find a 'dependable' / reliable water filter that will improve the taste and health with the water I enjoy.
Google product reviews are yet to lead me astray, and yet, TeamLiquid may have more sound advice. Suggestions appreciated! Finally, I can put my engineering degree to use! You're going to need a heavy-duty filtration unit to remove fluoride. Typical filters such as Brita use activated carbon to improve color and taste while the filter itself removes a good deal of suspended solids. Keep in mind that where water is concerned there is suspended solids and dissolved solids. A suspended solid is, say, a chunk of calcium a couple microns in thick. A dissolved solid is chemically dissociated in the water (such as landfill leachate). I remember learning in my environmental engineering courses that fluorine is added to the water at the behest of politically active dentists. The regulation results are found here (http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm). If you're THAT concerned then you need to either move to a city where waste water treatment plants do not add fluorine (Baton Rouge, where I currently live, does not (at least according to my dentist)) OR purchase a REALLY good filtration unit. For something like this I'd recommend reverse osmosis, though there would be high energy costs associated with its use. I suppose distillation could also work, but I'm having a hard time thinking off the top of my head if an ion exchanger (like a water softener) exists for fluorine......and after a two minute internet search I find that activated alumina works, but the residence time isn't short. The problem with the alumina is the need to "recharge" through treatment with NaOH and H2SO4 which are not only extremely nasty for the environment but also regulated. I wouldn't really worry about getting sued since it's been established that one person isn't a point source, but maybe a household is..... Anywho, it's going to be expensive and inconvenient to remove the fluoride. If it's just drinking water you're concerned about then you should consider drinking well water. Correct me if I'm wrong here since water chemistry is by no means my strong suit but reverse osmosis can only filter out ions that are larger then water. Fluoride is the smallest ion known to man (smaller then H+ since hydronium ions are actually H30+) therefore there is no way that you can filter out Fluoride. Therefore unless proven wrong I stand by my original statement that no filters could filter out fluoride. Distillation is the only way to go.
But you're not adding Floride Ions to the water. Water Floridation is accomplished by adding either Sodium Floride (the stuff from your toothpaste) or Fluorosilicic acid or it's derivative Sodium fluorosilicate; both of which are by-products of Fertilizer manufacturing. The latter two are in fact darn big compounds.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
On May 26 2012 02:41 Failsafe wrote:
What's the best Water Filter that also removes Fluoride content? I've read disturbing things on Facebook about water available to public in the Eastern United States. Although I've drank similar water through my life, I'm willing to try a water filtration solution and see if it improves quality of life.
I drink normal tap water and my precious bodily fluids are intact.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 26 2012 07:05 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:On May 26 2012 06:48 Servius_Fulvius wrote:On May 26 2012 02:41 Failsafe wrote:
What's the best Water Filter that also removes Fluoride content? I've read disturbing things on Facebook about water available to public in the Eastern United States. Although I've drank similar water through my life, I'm willing to try a water filtration solution and see if it improves quality of life. I drink a lot of water because I try to avoid caffeinated beverages and drinks with lots of sugar.
I feel like if I drink drinks with too much sugar or caffeinated drinks, especially carbonated, sugary, caffeinated drinks, that the quality of my life suffers. I fall asleep more easily after crashing or something, and it's tough to tell the order of events. My thoughts are a little more spastic, somehow.
So, price isn't a big factor. I'm just looking to find a 'dependable' / reliable water filter that will improve the taste and health with the water I enjoy.
Google product reviews are yet to lead me astray, and yet, TeamLiquid may have more sound advice. Suggestions appreciated! Finally, I can put my engineering degree to use! You're going to need a heavy-duty filtration unit to remove fluoride. Typical filters such as Brita use activated carbon to improve color and taste while the filter itself removes a good deal of suspended solids. Keep in mind that where water is concerned there is suspended solids and dissolved solids. A suspended solid is, say, a chunk of calcium a couple microns in thick. A dissolved solid is chemically dissociated in the water (such as landfill leachate). I remember learning in my environmental engineering courses that fluorine is added to the water at the behest of politically active dentists. The regulation results are found here (http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm). If you're THAT concerned then you need to either move to a city where waste water treatment plants do not add fluorine (Baton Rouge, where I currently live, does not (at least according to my dentist)) OR purchase a REALLY good filtration unit. For something like this I'd recommend reverse osmosis, though there would be high energy costs associated with its use. I suppose distillation could also work, but I'm having a hard time thinking off the top of my head if an ion exchanger (like a water softener) exists for fluorine......and after a two minute internet search I find that activated alumina works, but the residence time isn't short. The problem with the alumina is the need to "recharge" through treatment with NaOH and H2SO4 which are not only extremely nasty for the environment but also regulated. I wouldn't really worry about getting sued since it's been established that one person isn't a point source, but maybe a household is..... Anywho, it's going to be expensive and inconvenient to remove the fluoride. If it's just drinking water you're concerned about then you should consider drinking well water. Correct me if I'm wrong here since water chemistry is by no means my strong suit but reverse osmosis can only filter out ions that are larger then water. Fluoride is the smallest ion known to man (smaller then H+ since hydronium ions are actually H30+) therefore there is no way that you can filter out Fluoride. Therefore unless proven wrong I stand by my original statement that no filters could filter out fluoride. Distillation is the only way to go. But you're not adding Floride Ions to the water. Water Floridation is accomplished by adding either Sodium Floride (the stuff from your toothpaste) or Fluorosilicic acid or it's derivative Sodium fluorosilicate; both of which are by-products of Fertilizer manufacturing. The latter two are in fact darn big compounds.
And in water all of these things disociate into a fluoride ions and it's counterion (for fluorosilicate the process is a little more complex but in the end you still simply get a F-) which is what the OP is so afraid of in the first place.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On May 26 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:48 Servius_Fulvius wrote:On May 26 2012 02:41 Failsafe wrote:
What's the best Water Filter that also removes Fluoride content? I've read disturbing things on Facebook about water available to public in the Eastern United States. Although I've drank similar water through my life, I'm willing to try a water filtration solution and see if it improves quality of life. I drink a lot of water because I try to avoid caffeinated beverages and drinks with lots of sugar.
I feel like if I drink drinks with too much sugar or caffeinated drinks, especially carbonated, sugary, caffeinated drinks, that the quality of my life suffers. I fall asleep more easily after crashing or something, and it's tough to tell the order of events. My thoughts are a little more spastic, somehow.
So, price isn't a big factor. I'm just looking to find a 'dependable' / reliable water filter that will improve the taste and health with the water I enjoy.
Google product reviews are yet to lead me astray, and yet, TeamLiquid may have more sound advice. Suggestions appreciated! Finally, I can put my engineering degree to use! You're going to need a heavy-duty filtration unit to remove fluoride. Typical filters such as Brita use activated carbon to improve color and taste while the filter itself removes a good deal of suspended solids. Keep in mind that where water is concerned there is suspended solids and dissolved solids. A suspended solid is, say, a chunk of calcium a couple microns in thick. A dissolved solid is chemically dissociated in the water (such as landfill leachate). I remember learning in my environmental engineering courses that fluorine is added to the water at the behest of politically active dentists. The regulation results are found here (http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm). If you're THAT concerned then you need to either move to a city where waste water treatment plants do not add fluorine (Baton Rouge, where I currently live, does not (at least according to my dentist)) OR purchase a REALLY good filtration unit. For something like this I'd recommend reverse osmosis, though there would be high energy costs associated with its use. I suppose distillation could also work, but I'm having a hard time thinking off the top of my head if an ion exchanger (like a water softener) exists for fluorine......and after a two minute internet search I find that activated alumina works, but the residence time isn't short. The problem with the alumina is the need to "recharge" through treatment with NaOH and H2SO4 which are not only extremely nasty for the environment but also regulated. I wouldn't really worry about getting sued since it's been established that one person isn't a point source, but maybe a household is..... Anywho, it's going to be expensive and inconvenient to remove the fluoride. If it's just drinking water you're concerned about then you should consider drinking well water. Correct me if I'm wrong here since water chemistry is by no means my strong suit but reverse osmosis can only filter out ions that are larger then water. Fluoride is the smallest ion known to man (smaller then H+ since hydronium ions are actually H30+) therefore there is no way that you can filter out Fluoride. Therefore unless proven wrong I stand by my original statement that no filters could filter out fluoride. Distillation is the only way to go.
You might be right about not being able to use a physical filter for fluoride ions. However you could use a chemical that would create a precipitate with the flouride, for example silver chloride.
|
On May 26 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:48 Servius_Fulvius wrote:On May 26 2012 02:41 Failsafe wrote:
What's the best Water Filter that also removes Fluoride content? I've read disturbing things on Facebook about water available to public in the Eastern United States. Although I've drank similar water through my life, I'm willing to try a water filtration solution and see if it improves quality of life. I drink a lot of water because I try to avoid caffeinated beverages and drinks with lots of sugar.
I feel like if I drink drinks with too much sugar or caffeinated drinks, especially carbonated, sugary, caffeinated drinks, that the quality of my life suffers. I fall asleep more easily after crashing or something, and it's tough to tell the order of events. My thoughts are a little more spastic, somehow.
So, price isn't a big factor. I'm just looking to find a 'dependable' / reliable water filter that will improve the taste and health with the water I enjoy.
Google product reviews are yet to lead me astray, and yet, TeamLiquid may have more sound advice. Suggestions appreciated! Finally, I can put my engineering degree to use! You're going to need a heavy-duty filtration unit to remove fluoride. Typical filters such as Brita use activated carbon to improve color and taste while the filter itself removes a good deal of suspended solids. Keep in mind that where water is concerned there is suspended solids and dissolved solids. A suspended solid is, say, a chunk of calcium a couple microns in thick. A dissolved solid is chemically dissociated in the water (such as landfill leachate). I remember learning in my environmental engineering courses that fluorine is added to the water at the behest of politically active dentists. The regulation results are found here (http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm). If you're THAT concerned then you need to either move to a city where waste water treatment plants do not add fluorine (Baton Rouge, where I currently live, does not (at least according to my dentist)) OR purchase a REALLY good filtration unit. For something like this I'd recommend reverse osmosis, though there would be high energy costs associated with its use. I suppose distillation could also work, but I'm having a hard time thinking off the top of my head if an ion exchanger (like a water softener) exists for fluorine......and after a two minute internet search I find that activated alumina works, but the residence time isn't short. The problem with the alumina is the need to "recharge" through treatment with NaOH and H2SO4 which are not only extremely nasty for the environment but also regulated. I wouldn't really worry about getting sued since it's been established that one person isn't a point source, but maybe a household is..... Anywho, it's going to be expensive and inconvenient to remove the fluoride. If it's just drinking water you're concerned about then you should consider drinking well water. Correct me if I'm wrong here since water chemistry is by no means my strong suit but reverse osmosis can only filter out ions that are larger then water. Fluoride is the smallest ion known to man (smaller then H+ since hydronium ions are actually H30+) therefore there is no way that you can filter out Fluoride. Therefore unless proven wrong I stand by my original statement that no filters could filter out fluoride. Distillation is the only way to go.
Fluorine is the smallest ELEMENT of the periodic table. We're talking about the fluoride ION. When you add electron density to an element you add more negative charge which shields the other ions from the nucleus. This increases the ionic radius: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atomic_&_ionic_radii.svg
Literally every single scientific article I can find says that fluoride is removed through RO. Here's one from the University of Nebraska (See Table 1): http://elkhorn.unl.edu/epublic/live/g1490/build/g1490.pdf
Let's assume that you are correct and fluoride passes through RO with water. This would mean another membrane is necessary to remove the fluoride and exclude the water.
I'm also going to edit a mistake on my last post. I said activated alumina was an ion exchanger when it's definitely an adsorbent :3
Edit: Here's something from scientific literature: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160412083900879
I know you can't read the article, but the results in the abstract are proof enough for me.
Edit2: I've been looking through the literature and found some interesting correlations. First of all, using an ion exchange resin would reduce the amount of fluoride, but this would be at the expense of whatever else was put into the water. Strong acid resins (Amberlyst, Nafion, etc.) would likely raise the pH to an unhealthy level. Cellulose acetate was one material that kept popping up and I'm sure fluoride can exchange with acetate given the right conditions (if it's soluble). Also, one article analyzed the reject stream and found four times the amount of CaF2. This is insoluble and likely reacts more due to the higher pressure. It could be that the filter isn't the main mechanism, rather, the pressure and availability of reacting cations along with ion exchange. When you put it that way RO "technically" removes the fluoride, but physical filtration isn't the primary cause. I'm in agreement that fluoride is smaller than the hydronium ion, so I would assume the reactive forces are stronger than mass transport.
|
On May 26 2012 06:51 TheToast wrote:
^ Actually there's a number of companies that sell home reverse osmosis filters, my parents have one. They're not terribly expensive, and the maintenenance is fairly minimal.
Really? That's cool! You need a large pressure gradient to run RO, so this is where the energy costs exists. I was consulting with a paper company a few years ago and we recommended a wastewater filter over an RO unit because of the HUGE energy costs. I'd still be skeptical about how well it works and it's longevity, though.
|
I wish someone could invent a time machine and go back in time to tell high school me to do better in Chemistry because you can troll better on Teamliquid.
That said apparently this blog eventually stopped trolling and started discussing water filtration. TheToast is really bored. 
|
On May 26 2012 07:37 Servius_Fulvius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:51 TheToast wrote:
^ Actually there's a number of companies that sell home reverse osmosis filters, my parents have one. They're not terribly expensive, and the maintenenance is fairly minimal. Really? That's cool! You need a large pressure gradient to run RO, so this is where the energy costs exists. I was consulting with a paper company a few years ago and we recommended a wastewater filter over an RO unit because of the HUGE energy costs. I'd still be skeptical about how well it works and it's longevity, though.
It's actually a very small unit that slowly fills a holding tank under the sink, and pressure inside the holding tank forces the water out a separate faucet near the sink. It works really well, and filter maintenance is pretty infrequent. But the amount of water we're talking about here is minimal, as in at most a few gallons per day. So very different from an industrial scale system.
If you're interested there's more information on the specific system here: http://www.culligansoftwaterexperts.com/promo/good-water-machine.php
I think the offer higher end versions as well.
|
On May 26 2012 06:48 Servius_Fulvius wrote:
I remember learning in my environmental engineering courses that fluorine is added to the water at the behest of politically active dentists. The regulation results are found here (http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm).
I'm glad you're one of the people who chose to actually post something helpful instead of making fun of the guy like most other people .
It looks like there are two standards set forth by the EPA - the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). The first is enforced, but the second is recommended and can be enforced if states wish to do so. The MCLG, and its realistic counterpart based on existing technologies - the MCL, sets the concentration of fluorine at 4.0 mg/L. But the SMCL is set at 2.0 mg/L - mainly to prevent negative cosmetic or aesthetic effects (tooth discolouration, taste, colour...).
From the quoted website:
EPA recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require systems to comply. However, states may choose to adopt them as enforceable standards. Tooth discoloration and/or pitting is caused by excess fluoride exposures during the formative period prior to eruption of the teeth in children.
So it looks like in adults current fluorination levels aren't a big deal, its just kids that need a higher standard than normal. Although I think you bring up a good point in general about water filtration for other impurities and trying to drink healthier in general. I'm sure tap water is good enough to drink, but who says you can't make it healthier? Maybe it would be best to stick with a Brita water filter for now as its supposed to remove lead content and some chlorine byproducts, which have some studies show leads to a higher risk of certain cancers.
Here's what Health Canada has to say on chlorine as a reference - it looks like they recommend people use activated carbon filters to remove chlorine and its byproducts, so Brita would seem like a good consumer-friendly option! (Chlorine is used to kill bacteria in the pipes as they travel to your home, so overall its much more beneficial to your health to have that in the water. Its just not needed once it comes out of your faucet!)
|
On May 26 2012 10:44 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:48 Servius_Fulvius wrote:
I remember learning in my environmental engineering courses that fluorine is added to the water at the behest of politically active dentists. The regulation results are found here (http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm).
I'm glad you're one of the people who chose to actually post something helpful instead of making fun of the guy like most other people . It looks like there are two standards set forth by the EPA - the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). The first is enforced, but the second is recommended and can be enforced if states wish to do so. The MCLG, and its realistic counterpart based on existing technologies - the MCL, sets the concentration of fluorine at 4.0 mg/L. But the SMCL is set at 2.0 mg/L - mainly to prevent negative cosmetic or aesthetic effects (tooth discolouration, taste, colour...). From the quoted website: Show nested quote +EPA recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require systems to comply. However, states may choose to adopt them as enforceable standards. Tooth discoloration and/or pitting is caused by excess fluoride exposures during the formative period prior to eruption of the teeth in children. So it looks like in adults current fluorination levels aren't a big deal, its just kids that need a higher standard than normal. Although I think you bring up a good point in general about water filtration for other impurities and trying to drink healthier in general. I'm sure tap water is good enough to drink, but who says you can't make it healthier? Maybe it would be best to stick with a Brita water filter for now as its supposed to remove lead content and some chlorine byproducts, which have some studies show leads to a higher risk of certain cancers. Here's what Health Canada has to say on chlorine as a reference - it looks like they recommend people use activated carbon filters to remove chlorine and its byproducts, so Brita would seem like a good consumer-friendly option! (Chlorine is used to kill bacteria in the pipes as they travel to your home, so overall its much more beneficial to your health to have that in the water. Its just not needed once it comes out of your faucet!)
Brita is a nice option for anyone who wants to raise the quality of their water, even if it's just a little bit. I mentioned before, but I get a kick out of the looks in people's faces when you tell them what Brita doesn't remove. I swear, some people seem to believe it's a magical purification unit!
I'm also curious about toothpaste. It's been proven that excess medications make their way into the water supply where they slowly build up. I'm curious if the toothpaste we spit down the drain undergoes the same process. We're talking small concentrations, but I'm curious if they build up anywhere or if they just react with other minerals.
I'm also half convinced the OP is a troll given all the troll responses, but hey, it's the internet!
|
On May 26 2012 03:49 Ahzz wrote:
Try to filter all the water you consume through a siff for example to remove any possible remnants of copper and iron etc that the water may have gathered through the pipes before getting to you. Next, boil your water to remove most common bacteria from it. Let it cool off if you prefer to drink your water cold, but beware, leaving it outside to cool can infect it with deadly germs or even scorpions and spiders. If you cool it off too much it may turn solid, leaving the chance for suffocation.
Rofl Some ppl still do just that.
Rather buy this
www.shoprite.com/pd/Poland-Spring/Water-Jug-5-Gallon/640-fl-oz/075720503568/
19 liters for 13$. Im sure theres cheaper offbrand water for twice as little money. That should satisfy you for couple weeks, unless you drink nonstop. Changing water filters given they dont even filter everything out, then boiling is probably costly too and time consuming.
|
My personal theory is that if you avoid these insignificant amounts of chemicals your immune system be compromised. Essentially, these everyday chemicals we eat, drink, breathe helps us build our general defense against other shit in general.
|
United States42689 Posts
On May 26 2012 12:34 Zariel wrote:
My personal theory is that if you avoid these insignificant amounts of chemicals your immune system be compromised. Essentially, these everyday chemicals we eat, drink, breathe helps us build our general defense against other shit in general.
I personally rub myself with bullets daily, it's like a vaccine against gunshot wounds. My immune system is in some way involved.
|
On May 26 2012 12:34 Zariel wrote:
My personal theory is that if you avoid these insignificant amounts of chemicals your immune system be compromised. Essentially, these everyday chemicals we eat, drink, breathe helps us build our general defense against other shit in general.
Please explain the bio mechanics of this, or at least how you envision that it works.
|
On May 26 2012 13:39 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 12:34 Zariel wrote:
My personal theory is that if you avoid these insignificant amounts of chemicals your immune system be compromised. Essentially, these everyday chemicals we eat, drink, breathe helps us build our general defense against other shit in general. Please explain the bio mechanics of this, or at least how you envision that it works.
Well this is how I envision it:
With vaccines, if you inject a dormant/dead/weak version of a virus, your immune system learns to fight it by producing antibodies.
With cyanide, if you inject a small/minuscule/insignificant amount of it, you die.
+ Show Spoiler +Every comment becomes funnier when it ends with "you die."
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it.
I said it's good to be skeptical. It's bad to decide that you don't trust one thing for no objective reason and go against it. That's how people get hurt from deciding not to trust vaccines, etc.
|
On May 26 2012 14:17 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it. I said it's good to be skeptical. It's bad to decide that you don't trust one thing for no objective reason and go against it. That's how people get hurt from deciding not to trust vaccines, etc.
I agree with that, I don't personally go against it either. It's hard to know which side of the argument (fluoride in tap water is bad for you) is right because they both make a good case ( in my opinion). Maybe one better than the other, but it basically just leaves the question unresolved for me.
|
On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence.
His reason to doubt them is pretty fair in my opinion. They have been telling us to eat the wrong diet for the past 3 decades and look where that brought us.Stores filled with foods containing to much sugar in them and obese people on the streets.
|
Distillation remains the de facto standard for purity. It costs more to operate, so it depends on how pure you want your water.
Word of warning: Purified water tastes horrible.
Something to consider: If water tastes horrible, what are the chances it's healthy to drink?
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm glad I'm not the only one whose first thought turned to Dr Strangelove and the General with an obsession over his precious bodily fluids.
Isn't paranoia a recorded side-effect of narcotics like PCP?
|
On May 26 2012 20:04 Warble wrote:Distillation remains the de facto standard for purity. It costs more to operate, so it depends on how pure you want your water. Word of warning: Purified water tastes horrible. Something to consider: If water tastes horrible, what are the chances it's healthy to drink? + Show Spoiler +
I'm glad I'm not the only one whose first thought turned to Dr Strangelove and the General with an obsession over his precious bodily fluids.
Isn't paranoia a recorded side-effect of narcotics like PCP?
Someone worried about potentially harmful chemicals in his drinking water is suffering from paranoia?
|
+ Show Spoiler +I find it funny how noone in the thread actually answered OPs question and instead pulled his intentions into ridiculousness.
If someone asks you for the way to the church and you know it, are you gonna answer: 'Why do you believe in god, it's nonsense cause etc. etc.'?
Go for a ion exchanger would be my guess.
For the effects of Fluoride, you will have to search in medical research databases.
You wanna try it out on yourself, drink imported mineral water for a while, prolly cheaper than a water filter..
I think Fluoride's ok in toothpaste, superfluous in tap water.
Edit:
On May 26 2012 21:00 Cokefreak wrote:Check the guy's thread before this to get an idea why he is being trolled so hard 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/slUs3.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
On May 26 2012 20:53 Cattivik wrote:
I find it funny how noone in the thread actually answered OPs question and instead pulled his intentions into ridiculousness.
If someone asks you for the way to the church and you know it, are you gonna answer: 'Why do you believe in god, it's nonsense cause etc. etc.'?
Go for a ion exchanger would be my guess.
For the effects of Fluoride, you will have to search in medical research databases.
You wanna try it out on yourself, drink imported mineral water for a while, prolly cheaper than a water filter..
I think Fluoride's ok in toothpaste, superfluous in tap water.
Check the guy's thread before this to get an idea why he is being trolled so hard
|
On May 26 2012 13:39 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 12:34 Zariel wrote:
My personal theory is that if you avoid these insignificant amounts of chemicals your immune system be compromised. Essentially, these everyday chemicals we eat, drink, breathe helps us build our general defense against other shit in general. Please explain the bio mechanics of this, or at least how you envision that it works.
He's half correct. The human body is constantly exposed to the environment, and has to distinguish between pathogenic and non-pathogenic, also known as tolerance. If the body isn't constantly exposed to non-pathogenic stuff, then it might overreact to something innocuous. This is one of the hypotheses of how allergies develop.
Note that the body almost only reacts to larger macromolecules like proteins and saccharides, not to ions and small molecules.
|
On May 26 2012 18:33 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 14:17 Chill wrote:On May 26 2012 06:11 solidbebe wrote:On May 26 2012 06:07 JingleHell wrote:On May 26 2012 06:03 Dr_Strange wrote:On May 26 2012 03:43 Chill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and seeking real information. But if you decide that you don't trust the thousands of scientists, regulators and engineers that control your tap water, you have to decide that you don't trust the FDA to regulate your food; you don't trust electrical regulators to protect you from harmful signals; and the list goes on and on.
It's a pretty bold move to stop believing in the people who are trying to protect you without doing due diligence. That is why Japan, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries have banned flouride? There are also countries which have banned pornography. Is it inherently bad for you? I mean aside from making your eyes fall out, and growing hair on your palms and all that? Did they ban pornography because they thought it has bad effects on society ( m/b mental issues?) or because it's physically not good for you? In any case though. there's problaby good reason some countries have banned fluoride in tap water, I appreciate your trust in the government and the thousands of people working on national safety (which they should be appreciated for) but I'm getting the feeling that even if someon laid out 100% undeniable proof that fluoride in tap water is bad afore you, you would still deny it. I said it's good to be skeptical. It's bad to decide that you don't trust one thing for no objective reason and go against it. That's how people get hurt from deciding not to trust vaccines, etc. I agree with that, I don't personally go against it either. It's hard to know which side of the argument (fluoride in tap water is bad for you) is right because they both make a good case ( in my opinion). Maybe one better than the other, but it basically just leaves the question unresolved for me.
How does one make a 'good case' without a shred of scientific evidence or a single studying conclusively showing that there is a link between water fluoridation and health effects?? While one study has suggested a link between increased risk of childhood bone cancer and water fluoridation, though there were extenuating variables that even the study author admitted could have effected the results. More on that study here. Though fluoride still has been shown to accumulate in bones of children, and persist for most of adult life as of yet, there is still no conclusive evidence of a link between the two. A number of studies have conclusively linked fluoride in the water to a reduction in cavities however, in some cases as high as 20% less cavities in children.
As I said before, there are moral and ethical issues with water fluoridation, but these have to do with the implications of adding a health additive into the water supply without people's consent. If you can add fluoride, why not vitamin C? Or why not preventative vaccines? There's a real question over whether the government should be able to have that kind of influence on our lives. Water fluoridation has never been conclusively shown to have any ill effects though.
I personally don't like the idea of my government putting health additives into the water supply, it is in my opinion a gross infringement of personal liberty. I should be allowed to decide what health supplements are good for me, and decide what chemicals I do and don't want to put into my body. Health realities in the 1950s were very different than today, dental hygiene products are extremely cheap, and most dentists offer surface apply fluoride treatments for children. I'd be 100% in favor of removing added fluoride from water. (naturally occurring fluoride is okay since it's been shown to be safe)
-edit:
On May 26 2012 20:53 Cattivik wrote:
I find it funny how noone in the thread actually answered OPs question and instead pulled his intentions into ridiculousness.
If someone asks you for the way to the church and you know it, are you gonna answer: 'Why do you believe in god, it's nonsense cause etc. etc.'?
Go for a ion exchanger would be my guess.
For the effects of Fluoride, you will have to search in medical research databases.
You wanna try it out on yourself, drink imported mineral water for a while, prolly cheaper than a water filter..
I think Fluoride's ok in toothpaste, superfluous in tap water.
It's because the OP is a known user of some nasty drugs, he's admitted to regularly using PCPs. So it's just really fucking ironic that he's so concerned about the health effects of fluoride when, you know, he's regularly inhaling poisons.
|
Another thing to consider is that if a study uses a 5% significance level, then if you conduct 20 studies, you expect one study to have a significant conclusion - even though the real effect is nil.
Add in the effects of biases and it's a fun time for everybody.
Consider how heavily fluoridation has been studied, the proportion of significant conclusions to non-significant conclusions, the interests of the publishers...
As for people having the right to make their own choices, that's where things get tricky.
What if most people choose to exercise that right by delegating the choice to the government? If we take into account studies on the costs of choice over the past couple of decades, then this delegation can be seen as a rational decision. The delegation minimises the costs of choice and improves the chances of the best decision being made.
Considering that the government is honest about the fact it fluoridises the water supply (as opposed to concealing that fact), and the availability of bottled water, it seems that people who choose not to delegate still have the personal liberty to choose not to drink fluoridised water.
We can make the argument that it's unfair that those who don't trust fluoridisation must bear the cost of choice by paying more for bottled water, and compare this to the alternative where the water supply is not fluoridised and those who choose to delegate their decision to the government can instead choose to buy bottled fluoridised water. (We're assuming that the delegation is in regards to deciding whether or not fluoridisation is beneficial, so the government refusing to fluoridise based on other factors amounts to the government passing responsibility for making the decision back.) What this amounts to, however, is that the cost of choice is still there, but is now imposed on a different party. So the alternative of not fluoridising the water supply is not superior in this regard.
Another, more central, concern with that argument is that it also amounts to the anti-fluoridisers imposing their preference on others in the same manner that pro-fluoridisers are currently imposing their preference on others. Some might say that non-fluoridisation should be the default option, but I believe that the use of a "default" argument for any decision is fallacious. Someone using the "default" argument to impose their choice on others does not change the fact that they are imposing their preference on others - they are simply using the argument to justify that imposition. This is no different to pro-fluoridisers using their current arguments to justify the choice of fluoridising the water supply - they too are simply using an argument to justify their imposition.
And the pro-fluoridisers could also say that fluoridisation should be the default, and cite things such as the greater good, the choice of the majority to delegate, etc.
Thus we can see that a "default" argument is simply an assertion that one value if of higher priority than others. For someone who believes that minimal government intervention is more important than the majority's choice to delegate, their "default" will be that personal liberty prevails. For someone who believes that the majority's choice to delegate is more important than minimising government intervention, their "default" will be that the majority's choice prevails.
Hence there use of a "default" argument is simply a mask for an assertion of personal values.
So out of the two decisions, to fluoridise or not to fluoridise, either decision will violate result in one party imposing their preference on the other.
This means that the personal liberty argument cannot be used in this case because either outcome results in one party imposing their preference on the other, and thus violating personal liberty. This unusual contradiction indicates that something has gone wrong in the discussion somewhere.
So how do we reconcile this?
I believe it's because the meaning of personal liberty has been broadened too much. The way I would propose is to depict the situation differently:
The government is providing a service in the form of a water supply. If the government didn't provide this service, a private enterprise would. Therefore, in this capacity, the government is no different to a business. They provide this service in a manner which best satisfies their stakeholders. And they decided that fluoridisation is the best way to fulfil this role.
Compare this with a more neutral example. The government provides emergency services in hospitals. Some people might prefer that the government provide more services, while others might prefer that the government provided fewer services (i.e. no emergency services at all). Although the government isn't satisfying their preferences, we wouldn't reasonably consider either party's personal liberties to be violated. (The party who would prefer no emergency services at all may believe that their being forced to pay taxes that would fund such a service to be a violation...but unless you are one of those people, your values would differ to theirs, and you might not see this violation as a big deal.)
Where the possibility of violating personal liberties arises is if the government removed people's right to use alternative services - if they forced everybody to accept a fluoridised water supply. This could arise from them banning domestic water filtration and bottled water, or requiring those supplies to provide only fluoridised water.
Summary:
Both pro- and anti-fluoridisation results in the costs of choice being imposed on some parties, and they simply change the parties who bear that cost.
Whichever party gets their way, they are effectively imposing their preference on the other party. Based on the definition of personal liberties that has been used, this indicates that either outcome would violate personal liberties.
This can be reconciled by viewing the government-funded water supply as a service, equivalent to a private enterprise, and services are tailored to the needs of stakeholders without being seen as violating other people's personal liberties. So long as the government does not use its law-making powers to make it impractical or illegal for people to access non-fluoridised water supplies elsewhere, people can choose not to consume fluoridised water, and so their personal liberties are not violated.
|
Seriously these reverse osmosis systems look comical
|
On May 26 2012 14:01 Mobius_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 13:39 TheToast wrote:On May 26 2012 12:34 Zariel wrote:
My personal theory is that if you avoid these insignificant amounts of chemicals your immune system be compromised. Essentially, these everyday chemicals we eat, drink, breathe helps us build our general defense against other shit in general. Please explain the bio mechanics of this, or at least how you envision that it works. Well this is how I envision it: With vaccines, if you inject a dormant/dead/weak version of a virus, your immune system learns to fight it by producing antibodies. With cyanide, if you inject a small/minuscule/insignificant amount of it, you die. + Show Spoiler +Every comment becomes funnier when it ends with "you die."
Not true. Apple seeds have minuscule level of cyanide. At worst you'd get a bad stomach ache if you injest one.
|
Failsafe must be mihai, too troll
|
|
|
On May 29 2012 16:26 Primadog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 14:01 Mobius_1 wrote:On May 26 2012 13:39 TheToast wrote:On May 26 2012 12:34 Zariel wrote:
My personal theory is that if you avoid these insignificant amounts of chemicals your immune system be compromised. Essentially, these everyday chemicals we eat, drink, breathe helps us build our general defense against other shit in general. Please explain the bio mechanics of this, or at least how you envision that it works. Well this is how I envision it: With vaccines, if you inject a dormant/dead/weak version of a virus, your immune system learns to fight it by producing antibodies. With cyanide, if you inject a small/minuscule/insignificant amount of it, you die. + Show Spoiler +Every comment becomes funnier when it ends with "you die." Not true. Apple seeds have minuscule level of cyanide. At worst you'd get a bad stomach ache if you injest one.
Nah not with one, you'd need to eat a good handful. I'd say if you wanted to overdose on apple seeds, a bucket would do.
|
Ok, here's how it works. Flouride prevents iodine absorption by the thyroid, hence there's a risk of inflamed thyroid and all that other bad stuff but that's besides the point. If the thyroid gland doesn't function properly, flouride passes straight through and accumulates in the pineal gland. That's where it stays, calcifying the the gland that is responsible for producing melatonin. Without enough melatonin, what happens is that we experience less and less REM sleep and spend most of our sleep time in NREM sleep. Results? Fatigue, general laziness, lack of interest in most things, dampened sense of perception, etc. Extreme cases? Speech impediment (it becomes hard to keep your thoughts ahead of your words), dampened ability to problem solve, increasing difficulty to be innovative, etc.
It's not some conspiracy, it's true. I'm a qualified dietitian, so i would know.
|
On June 02 2012 21:01 GhostLink wrote:
Ok, here's how it works. Flouride prevents iodine absorption by the thyroid, hence there's a risk of inflamed thyroid and all that other bad stuff but that's besides the point. If the thyroid gland doesn't function properly, flouride passes straight through and accumulates in the pineal gland. That's where it stays, calcifying the the gland that is responsible for producing melatonin. Without enough melatonin, what happens is that we experience less and less REM sleep and spend most of our sleep time in NREM sleep. Results? Fatigue, general laziness, lack of interest in most things, dampened sense of perception, etc. Extreme cases? Speech impediment (it becomes hard to keep your thoughts ahead of your words), dampened ability to problem solve, increasing difficulty to be innovative, etc.
It's not some conspiracy, it's true. I'm a qualified dietitian, so i would know.
Do you have any actual evidence or even remotely credible sources for this?
|
To be fair, a lot of american tap water tastes pretty gross. I'm happy to live in British Columbia, fucking amazing tap water.
|
On May 26 2012 20:04 Warble wrote:Distillation remains the de facto standard for purity. It costs more to operate, so it depends on how pure you want your water. Word of warning: Purified water tastes horrible. Something to consider: If water tastes horrible, what are the chances it's healthy to drink? + Show Spoiler +
I'm glad I'm not the only one whose first thought turned to Dr Strangelove and the General with an obsession over his precious bodily fluids.
Isn't paranoia a recorded side-effect of narcotics like PCP?
Drinking only distilled water is very bad for you. It essentially flushes out all the Calcium, Sodium and Magnesium ions that you get from ordinary tap water. If you aren't receiving another source of minerals you can get dehydrated pretty quickly due lack of electrolytes.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
If you're concerned about potential toxicity of tap water, I suggest serial dilution of it
citation: some guy in greece
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
