Hacker News Reader

Comment by SAI_Peregrinus | Hacker News Reader

The problem with many of these is that, as in everything else, the dose makes the poison. Fluoride is a perfect example: too little and your bones are weak & tooth decay sets in easily, too much and you get fluoridosis. Just the right amount (which is a reasonably large range) and you're healthy.

Maganese is the same, it's an essential trace nutrient for pretty much all living things, and you'll die without it, but too much will kill you.

The most dangerous agricultural pesticides are the neonicotinoids, and they're used in organic farming. They tend to decay quickly, so if the food is properly managed and they're not applied too late they won't be found in the food.

Now, not everything that is dangerous is necessary. There's no benefit from eating mercury, for example, but there are always safe exposure levels. Some compounds bio-accumulate, so the safe exposure levels have to be set for a lifetime. Most organic mercury compounds are of this sort, and due to their extreme toxicity the safe exposure levels are very low.

View on HN

Which organic certification are you referring to which allows the use of neonicotinoids? Looking through the Australian ones it doesn't appear any of them would allow the use of neonicotinoids[1] but I have the feeling I don't know enough about it to say so conclusively ...

[1]http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/about/contact/aco

Doesn't appear to be allowed per USDA regs either. Eventually we're going to pinpoint OP by a process of elimination.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f10...

If that fails, for a negative perspective, go to eCFR, chapter 7 Ag, part 205 USDA organic program, 205.602 "Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production" lists (i) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate). Which is probably close enough to OPs claim. Or for a positive perspective 205.601 "Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production" section (e) "As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control)" and that lists 10 allowable bug killers none of which seem to be neonicotinoids.

By negative and positive I don't mean some electrical thing but words like "can if you want" vs "no you will not". Either way (edited: Both ways...) no nicotinoids on USDA labeled produce in the USA.

State regs are only allowed to be stricter than fed. So "Thats OK in California but not Wisconsin" is outright a non-starter if its already forbidden by USDA.

Now if you mean in practice, like if a chemist ran tests on randomly purchased organic produce in the USA, I'd say hell yes you'll find it in organic produce. There's like 50 layers of middlemen and shippers in the food industry, you have a personal relationship with none of them (I buy beef from a family friend and bought vegetables from a great uncle who retired into being a gentleman farmer, that's "different" than driving to a local food store), and all of them have a huge financial interest in taking visually identical apples from "Chemical McWasteland's Industrial Farm" and putting them in boxes from "Sunshine Unicorn Organic Farm". How many layers of middlemen would make about a buck a pound or more by merely accidentally selling non-organic food as organic? And how corrupt is this country? In practice the primary effect of buying and eating organic produce is almost certainly feeling better while making corrupt individuals wealthier, even if theoretically health benefits could be available from organic produce.

So the TLDR is legally wrong in the USA at the fed level both by being specifically forbidden AND by not listed as permitted, yet is also probably right that if you buy an "organic" apple at a convenience store, it probably isn't due to corruption.

The problem of middlemen is a large part of why I am involved in a food coop. Our coop buys mostly from local farmers, and if you have any questions about how something was grown, they provide contact information for the farmers. I've spoken to the people who grow my onions and mushrooms in person.

I think lead is especially nasty in that even small doses have been shown to have proportionately damaging effects.

Do you think the Chinese toxic waste, aka "manufactured sodium fluoride and byproducts" that is put in public water supplies resembles anything like the calcium fluoride that the body needs?

I think you don't actually understand how ionic salts work in solution.

The key word in his sentence was "byproducts"

At which point he's free to show that the government is clearly using contaminated fluoridation equipment for the water. But that doesn't make water fluoridation a bad idea.

Conspiracy theorists need to pick one mechanism (and then actually find out about it).

No, the onus of proof is on the government that what they are doing to the water is good, or rather to provide a precise ingredients list of what they are adding to the water, where they are getting it from and how it is created... on a location-by-location basis, and at regular intervals. And that can be cross-checked by third parties if they should wish.

If there's a conspiracy, it's the one regarding what is supposedly good for my health and teeth. Who says I need "fluoride" delivered to me in this manner? Why can't I opt-in or at least have the information at-hand to make a decision as to whether I want to avoid tap water? Every water bill should have a precise ingredients list of the "product" being supplied. Why should water be different from any other thing I buy to drink.. especially in such large quantities, and as an ingredient indirectly in so many other foods I eat. It should be labelled as such.

And it will never be because the ingredients are toxic - the onus of proof is on the government to accurately label their product to prove me wrong (if that is their goal.) I can say anything I want, but I still don't need to prove or individually "find out" anything. I am not doing the tampering.

Just because you're too lazy to look up the wide body of literature on the benefits of water fluoridation, processes of water fluoridation, history and methodology...doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

But you know, guess what, you do have choices! It's called not using the municipal water supply and having it trucked in at great expense. Wouldn't be the first market where consumers are under-served due to lack of demand or apathy. I want HBO, but being in Australia can't get it.

Have you read the counter-arguments to fluoridation? And speaking of laziness, I would never sit myself in front of HBO.

Anyhow, the problem is informational I think right now. What's needed is accurate information on what's being added, where, and how much. Also, who's supplying it. I can read and believe as much as I want, from whatever source I want, but what's harder to dispute are real measurements. This sort of information should've been provided already, and the fact that in this day and age that this sort of information can't or won't be provided makes me wonder why not. In fact, in some respects I'd like to see these type of scientific measurements and ingredient lists provided BEFORE even ending fluoridation (which could serve to hide what has been added) and then people can be held accountable for what they have done in the name of science and health (or rather money and whatever other nefarious motive.)

If fluoridation is so great, then let me see measurements on what exactly is being added to the water, and then I can work out the right dose to help me with any teeth problems I MIGHT have otherwise... how is that being lazy?

If you are in the U.S., it is likely listed on the Consumer Confidence report that your municipal water supplier is required (by the EPA) to provide:

http://water.epa.gov/drink/local/

It's not monthly, but they aren't changing it all the time either.

Here's some examples of them:

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQuality...

http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtm...

Thanks. I looked at the Acton report: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/Documents/Water%20Quality%20... and it stated specifically that chlorine was being added (not fluoride.) Also, fluoride as 0.19 (before or after fluoridation?.. it wasn't specifically stated that it was being added, only that it was to help with teeth strength as a table note. NY was 1 ppm) But what I think is needed is precise analysis of ALL constituents of the actual fluoride additive used at the treatment plant. Some of those constituents could corrode pipes too (let alone one's body,) leading to further contamination. The people supplying the fluoride can provide that type of information, and it can be linked from those water websites without much effort.

Those numbers are all for treated water as it is supplied to the customers. That's the whole point. So after any treatment.

It's also not any great mystery how they are accomplishing it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Implementati...

I'm sure if you had specific concerns about one of the additives that a couple of phone calls would be sufficient to identify the treatment used for your water.

As groundwater courses over rocks, it picks up the compound Calcium Fluoride from those rocks. Once in the water, CaF releases a certain amount of fluoride ions into the water. These F ions are to what is commonly referred as being "naturally occurring fluoride".

The compound most frequently utilized to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is derived from naturally occurring phosphorite rock as a co-product of the process from which the other co-product, phosphoric acid, is derived.

Once HFA is added to water, the pH of that water (~7) causes the immediate and complete hydrolysis (dissociation) of the HFA. The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in water as a result of release from CaF, and trace contaminants in barely detectable, minuscule amounts that fall far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After this point HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is therefore of no concern, whatsoever.

EPA drinking water quality standards begin at the tap, as this is the water which is ingested and/or otherwise utilized. Water from the tap must meet the stringent Standard 60 certification requirements of the National Sanitary Foundation, as mandated by the EPA, or it is not allowed. Thus, whether additives come from the US, Mexico, China, or the moon, is irrelevant. If water in which these additives are incorporated does not meet NSF certification requirements at the tap, it is not allowed. It's as simple as that.

A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of whether the source compound is CaF, NaF, HFA, or any other. Elementary chemistry.

Fluoridated water easily meets all EPA mandated NSF certification requirements. A complete listing of the minuscule trace contaminants in fluoridated water, in their precise amounts is readily available to anyone, on the NSF website:

http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-c...

A complete listing of the contents of any local public water system are readily available to anyone from the annual water quality report of the utilities departments of the respective localities.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

From the PDF:

"NSF certifies three basic products in the fluoridation category: 1. Fluorosilicic Acid (aka Fluosilicic Acid or Hydrofluosilicic Acid) 2. Sodium Fluorosilicate (aka Sodium Silicofluoride) 3. Sodium Fluoride All three product types dissociate in water to form sodium, fluoride, and in the case of the first two, silicate ions."

"The NSF toxicology review for a water treatment product considers all chemical ingredients in the product, as well as the manufacturing process, processing aids, and other factors that have an impact on the chemicals attributable to the products present in the finished drinking water. The identified chemicals of interest are subsequently evaluated during testing of the product.... These tanker trucks, transfer terminals and rail cars are potential sources of contamination. Therefore, NSF also inspects, samples, tests, and certifies products at rail transfer and storage depots...... In summary, the majority of fluoridation products as a class, based on NSF test results, do not contribute measurable amounts of arsenic, lead, other heavy metals, or radionuclides to the drinking water."

"The identified chemicals of interest are subsequently evaluated during testing of the product. For example, fluosilicic acid is produced by adding sulfuric acid to phosphate ore."

In the table presented, the current chemicals tested for are: Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Radionuclides – alpha pCi/L, Radionuclides – beta mrem/yr, Selenium, Thallium.

What else is going to be in the phosphate ore that could come into the water? To me that test range looks too small. How pure is the sulfuric acid used to dissolve the phosphate? Also, what sort of byproducts are going to occur as the fluoride additives and sulfuric acid corrode their containers?

I don't live in the USA but these are the sort of questions I'd be asking, and as mentioned elsewhere, I'd want to see realtime and comprehensive information on the additives used - and alerts if something strange or unwanted is found. I think it's going to be more difficult to test tap water itself for such additives, so I'd suggest testing and displaying the actual additives before placed in the water - and from there it's going to be straightforward to determine concentrations. Personally, I wouldn't be accepting the NSF/ANSI Standard 60 as it currently stands... from how I perceive it. It was devised in 1988. This sort of extra testing would have to come on top of it, likely on a small scale by individual plants interested.

Finally, I would start thinking about testing air quality... not final air quality... but the actual additives used in chemtrails in a realtime manner, just like with water additives. You can argue about if chemtrails are real or not, I am just asking... "whatever is coming out the back of those planes... I want to know what it contains, because I am inhaling it."

Again, water at the tap is that which is ingested and otherwise utilized, thus the only water of relevance. This is why NSF Standard 60 certification requirements begin with water at the tap. It makes no difference what additives are used, the process by which these additives are produced, or the location from where they are obtained. If the water at the tap does not meet Standard 60 certification requirements, it is not allowed.

If you want to argue with the US EPA about its standards and procedures, feel free. I, personally, have survived just fine with them for 61 years.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

tl;dr - the bottleneck to alleviating brain toxins right now is informational

To me standard 60 is insufficient. I would be happy to pay for extra testing to my water, or rather the additives used. I think many people would.

While we're on the topic of toxins for brain, I would also be happy to know more about the emf generated by smart meters, cell phone towers, and wireless equipment. But mainly smart meters. If I had one installed, I'd want very accurate readings of what is being emitted and when. Also vaccines.

The message is simple: "government/corporation: feel free to do whatever you want to my air, food, water, emf spectrum and blood that you believe or purport to be in my best interests (you already do).... but I want to know precisely and accurately what it is you're doing, changing and adding to it. I can be driven to do this for no reason, any reason, false reasons or accurate reasons. And whatever reason that may be, you'll have to accept it because you are the one tampering with long-standing internal and external ecosytems to which mine (and others') body and mind have adapted over millenia."

From there, I would either want the choice to opt-out, and if I cannot or it is not possible, then I can look for legal, political or economic (boycott) routes to address the problems I find, which could include the need for even greater informational transparency than the ones being offered.

By all means, have your water tested right down to the subatomic level if you so desire.

Obsessive demands to search for problems in the absence of valid evidence that any exist, are an integral aspect of antifluoridationist tactics. However, it is not justification to deny entire populations the benefits of a valuable public health initiative such as water fluoridation.

You have just exemplified the true root of antifluoridationist objections dating back 69 years to the very beginning of the initiative. It is not based in science, but in ideological distrust of government and authority. Thus, no matter how much valid science is presented to antifluoridationists, as long as it does not agree with this ideology, as it never will, it will be rejected by them.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Who comes to HN and starts signing their name and credentials? Steven does.

Sure, why not? I stand fully behind all my statements and see no need to hide behind pseudonyms. If you have a problem with fully disclosing my perspective by posting my dental degree, as is customary with healthcare professionals when signing their names, then you should probably seek therapy for your inferiority complex. Anyone secure, and confident with the position they present, should have no problem with it.

Steven D.Slott, DDS

I think it's great that you're here and perfectly okay to mention your degree (in your profile).

However, even if you feel you've been unfairly treated, your own words won't garner you many friends.

If your goal is to counter "antifluoridationists posting blatant misinformation", then you're totally ineffective, possibly even helping them out by making your side look bad.

I'd suggest to conform to the rules (yeah, "guidelines") here at first and find out if it's really so bad.

Or as someone I highly value once said on Usenet: if you want to transcend something, you've got to show that you're really understanding it, in order to transcend it in a meaningful way. Otherwise people will assume ignorance instead of transcendence.

"Treated unfairly"? Those are your words, not mine. I've not noted anything of the kind, nor would it be of any consequence to me if I had.

Your transparent condescension is typical fare of antifluoridationists who attempt to substitute such nonsense for provision of facts and valid evidence. I am not out to "garner friends", nor do I have a "side". There are no "sides" to the issue of water fluoridation. There is simply the valid, peer-reviewed science which fully supports the initiative, and the "junk science" of antifluoridationists who have no understanding of the difference between the two.

I just correct the mounds of misinformation posted by antifluoridationists, such that intelligent readers of these, or any other such comment sections, will understand the fallacy of such arguments.

If you have anything of consequence in regard to fluoridation, I will certainly be glad to address it. Your personal philosophy and "suggestions" are entirely irrelevant.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Your message is plain stupid. In dfact, I'm for fluoridation of tap water, even though it's not legally allowed in Germany as of now.

You're putting up a strawman. At least you've rectified my perception of you. I take my "condescending" welcome to HN back.

Ah, yes, personal attacks in lieu of facts and evidence. Another characteristic of antifluoridationists.

If you were indeed enlightened enough to be in favor of fluoridation you would easily recognize that the information I have provided in regard to fluoridation, is factual and fully supported by peer-reviewed science. That you don't is very telling.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

I think the pertinent facts for you right now is the level of mercury that you have in your body that seem (or might be) clouding your perceptions, locking you into rigid thoughts and even filling you with false accusations.

Have you done any testing or mercury chelation? From my understanding, the mercury stays in the body for a very long time and is difficult to detect in typical tests for it. Are you running a mercury-free clinic?

"The mercury content in all biological material was significantly higher in the dental workers than in the control population (p<0.0001). The geometric mean and 90th percentile mercury concentrations in the urine samples from dentists were 1.7 and 7.3 micromol mol(-1) creatinine, respectively, with only one sample having a value at around the UK's Health and Safety Executive biological monitoring health guidance level of 20 micromol mol(-1) creatinine."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15204310

So my tip is to address the issue of mercury as it is a potent neurotoxin (it completely stops neuronal growth, and kills brains cells), and dentists have been huge perpetrators of the spread of this element into people's bodies and environment for a very long time. Wouldn't you agree? Don't you feel responsible for this?

Please feel free not to sign your name again, you can put it in your profile description.. why not give it a try? And I say go get yourself checked for a superiority complex (given you've said I have an inferiority complex.)

Your concern for my health is touching, but irrelevant to the issue of water fluoridation. Certainly anti-amalgam and anti-vaccination philosophies go hand-in-hand with the antifluoridationist mindset, but can be discussed elsewhere.

Do you have any facts, supported by valid scientific evidence to support your opposition to the public health initiative of water fluoridation?

Steven D. Slott, DDS

You seem to have confused Tomte with someone else upthread. Or do you believe that anyone who tells you something contrary to what you want to hear, on any subject, is an "antifluoridationist"?

I thought your arguments were quite good and convincing but it's a pity that you couldn't take some well-intended advice about local protocols (with the exception of adrianwaj's snide remark).

http://www.meatballwiki.org/wiki/UsAndThem

I think I understand what you're saying but I don't believe you need a 3x3 matrix for this. It's just "if you aren't for me (on everything), you're against me." But to give him the benefit of a doubt, maybe he just wasn't reading carefully.

Uh, no, I was saying he's troll-like and thus HN should stop feeding it.

Yeah, you were right.

Water fluoridation is an important public health initiative that prevents an enormous amount of extreme pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection in tens of millions of individuals. If any of you guys wish to discuss the issue, presenting facts supported by valid, scientific evidence, I will be glad to do so. If all you want to do is discuss "protocol" for an online comment section, you're just wasting time and space.

I simply correct the mounds of misinformation constantly posted online by those seeking to further their own, personal ideology at the expense of those who need our help the most, and for whom I have spent 3 decades advocating and providing much needed dental care. I have no interest in what you believe one way or another, your personal philosophies, or your opinions on how, or what one should post. HN is entirely free to not post my comments at any time, if deemed not to conform to whatever standards it wishes to impose.

Now, if anyone wishes to stay focused on the issue of water fluoridation, fine. If not then you are certainly free to continue whining about "protocols" amongst yourselves.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

That is a mean thing to say to a newcomer who wouldn't necessarily know that signing comments isn't customary here. Please don't be mean.

It is of no concern to me whether it is customary to post one's name, or not. I do not hide behind pseudonyms. Neither do I care whether people view my DDS as a positive, negative, or nothing. I post it as a matter of full disclosure of my perspective.

It is simply a matter of accountability. Antifluoridations flood the internet with patently false, misleading information, and an endless barrage of unsubstantiated claims, all while hiding behind pseudonyms. I make no claims of being an expert, and don't ask people to trust me on this issue. I simply urge them to trust the peer-reviewed science obtained from legitimate, authoritative sources, instead of junk found on antifluoridationist websites. I can provide evidence to support my claims and do not fear being held accountable to do so. Contrast this to antifluoridationists posting blatant misinformation for which they can provide no valid evidence, while hiding behind pseudonyms and insidiously attempting to steer readers to the filtered and edited nonsense on their biased little websites.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

The HN guidelines [0] ask you not to sign your comments. Your username is already on your comment, and people can click your username to see any further information you include. If it's directly relevant to the discussion at hand, you might say it once in the form "source: I'm a [whatever]", but please don't repeat it. Otherwise, it's just clutter.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

And, adding to 'lotharbot: in case you're feeling stung by this rather superficial and perhaps confusing subthread: we don't have a lot of input from dentists here, and it's very cool to have one commenting. We very much appreciate the injection of new expertise!

Just put what you'd put in your signature into your profile instead. :P

Welcome to the site!

If HN does not approve of my comments, it is certainly free not to post them. However, I do not hide behind pseudonyms.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Good comments.

You can edit your profile to put information there that you would normally put in your signature. For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=wglb for mine.

I think you mean 'subject to further studies, we think that .... x and y levels of these substances are safe'.

> Fluoride is a perfect example: too little and your bones are weak

As far as I know there is zero biological requirement for fluoride. Fluoride can help mask systemic problems like mineral deficiency that lead to tooth decay, but nobody has ever had a cavity due to fluoride deficiency.

Same argument for shoes? Nobody ever hurt their foot because of shoe deficiency; it was the thorn that did it.

I think its disingenuous to ignore the obvious benefits of hardening enamel, regardless of other health issues in our population.

Shoes don't present a risk to health and intelligence. And shoes aren't a band aid for a serious underlying health problem. Tooth decay is not a natural consequence of sugar consumption or a lack of fluoride. Ever hear the expression "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth?" It alludes to the fact that tooth decay is a clear sign of serious deficiencies. That fluoride substitution reactions can mask the symptom is interesting but probably not a great public health approach.

To be pedantic, you can argue that shoes do all that. Soft weak feet and vitamin D deficiency are issues exacerbated by shoes. Many shoes are designed solely as band aids for foot problems.

And helping teeth stay healthy in the presence of deficiencies is NOT a public health problem; no doctor is looking at your teeth like he looks at a horse, to diagnose your health. Yet tooth problems lead to diet problems lead to more health problems.

Fluoride is easily arguably a public health benefit, because it Mitigates symptoms of other issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com