Subject: Re: **** tape water: safe to drink ? ****

From: [email-masked] (Torsten Brinch)
Date: 8 May 1996 14:02:41 GMT

Oz wrote:

in response to:

: > Fluoridated products flood the market that didn't exist in the 
: >1940's.  

: Now I agree with you here. Most of them would be banned were they to be
: pesticides. Too toxic.

The fluorine atomes in the molecules of modern pesticides like trifluralin,
flusilazole or cyfluthrin were probably placed there to obtain
properties like persistence and high activiity towards target 
pests.

Flusilazole is a silicon based fungicide of the triazole family,
a group  of chemical structures which disrupt sterol synthesis
in fungi and plants. 

The general structure in this family is (sloppily) something like:

bulky ring(s)---2 carbon backbone--triazole ring
with Cl/F       

Some members from this family are prominent modern agricultural
fungicides (propiconazole, triadimenol and many more).
 
The structure now known as flusilazole has 2 fluorinated bulky
phenyl rings and was systematically selected from a range of modified or 
substituted molecules sharing the pattern:

ring(s) -- Si - C - triazole.

A structure with only 1 fluorphenyl -- and one with 3 of these groups 
had *both* less activity against fungi. The latter even *much* less. 

Some structures with *no* fluorine at all were tested and had activity as 
strong as flusilazol. They may have had other drawbacks (lack of
persistence, economically unattractive, or maybe the *aim* was
to make something out of fluorphenyl-gropus. I do not know.) 
Anyway: It was flusilazole, which went on for further testing.

All this just to say: there is no reason to believe that the attachment 
of a fluorine atom to a molecule *per se* increases the toxicity of 
that molecule. It is the structure of the molecule and it's metabolites, 
not the single atoms, generally speaking, which could have toxic effects.

A note. Our internal food procesing and life support system does not 
expect to encounter fluorine in molecules, so it is no wonder,
that fluoridated molecules exist, which indeed are toxic. 

A final note. An organic molecule, with fluorine in it, will of 
course sooner or (rather) later break down with the release 
of fluorine ion, it might even happen when ingested. 
The toxicity of the *fluorine ion* is well documented. 

--
Prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by Incapacity.
 
                                  (Proverbs of Hell: William Blake)

---

From: [email-masked] (Charles Demas)
Date: 9 May 1996 07:49:17 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Oz  <[email-masked]> wrote:
><Snip>
>Because fluorine is an atom, not a large and complex molecule. Immune
>responses are due to antibody production, and allergies to inappropriate
>immune responses. Immune responses are (I am pretty sure) keyed to
>molecular shape and banding sites. Since fluorine is an itty bitty atom
>I doubt very much indeed if any immune response to it could occur.
><Snip>

Does the fluoride that is used create free fluorine ions?  I think
not, these ions would quickly bind with metals to form salts, or 
replace clorine in other compounds.  So the fluorine atom must be 
part of larger compounds/molecules.  So how does the itty bitty atom
argument look now.  I know nothing about fluoridization, but your 
arguement on this point seemed specious to me; although other 
arguements seemed more compelling.  

This wasn't meant to be a flame, just a comment.

Chuck Demas  [email-masked]

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 15:50:08 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Torsten Brinch <[email-masked]
c.dk> writes
>properties like persistence and high activiity towards target 

Undoubtedly.

>a group  of chemical structures which disrupt sterol synthesis

Well, it is a fungicide, after all.

>fungicides (propiconazole, triadimenol and many more).

The very important triazole group. In Europe they are probably 
responsible for reducing grain prices by some 20%. Very useful.

It's worth noting that most do not contain fluorine. It is also worth 
noting that the LD50 for rats is 500-1000 mg/kg for flusilazole, and c 
1000mg/kg for triademefon. Essentially the same despite the Si in the 
flusilasole. So fluorine does not de facto increase the toxicity 
appreciably. This is not unexpected.
 
>not the single atoms, generally speaking, which could have toxic effects.

Agreed. Most do NOT contain fluorine. It is used to fine up the safety
and/or efficacity of a molecular group. 

>that fluoridated molecules exist, which indeed are toxic. 

It doesn't expect to find much in the way of any halogenated organic 
molecules. It is however pretty smart at detoxifying them in general.

>The toxicity of the *fluorine ion* is well documented. 

Which is where we came in. Also Cu, Se, Zn .......

which are important or essential for health, not to say survival, but
very toxic above a certain limit.

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 15:32:56 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Charles Demas
<[email-masked]> writes
>This wasn't meant to be a flame, just a comment.

It's nice to see another poster. Liven it up a bit!

I used the word fluorine atom in order to see if anyone was awake. I 
think this is the second time of posting.  :-)

If it's in solution it must be a fluorine ion. I don't think (am pretty 
sure) that immune responses are mounted against things as small as ions, 
or even simple molecules.

It could of course get integrated into a fluorine containing molecule, 
say instead of chlorine which might then produce an allergic response, 
but fluorine and chlorine are (as is typical of the top row of the 
periodic table) much more different than the differences further down, 
and (unlike say copper) not a strong binder to proteins at all. As a 
result I would be very surprised if it produced an *allergic* response 
at all.

Which is not to say that it isn't toxic, it is.

---

From: [email-masked] (Torsten Brinch)
Date: 8 May 1996 18:37:50 GMT

Oz wrote:

: >most of the foods we eat and 
: >beverages we drink are made with fluoridated water.  A can of coke 
: >can contain .5 milligrams fluoride.  

: Ok, half a litre at 1ppm is ... 0.5mg. Correct.

: >Grape juice has dangerously 
: >high levels of fluoride from fluoride containing pesticide residues. 

: Is this the case? I would be surprised if there were not a maximum and
: minimum daily recommended dose.

Recently extracted from a US EPA Pesticide Notice
adopting Cryolite (sodium aluminium fluoride) tolerances in potatoes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<..> Fluoride is ubiquitous and may be present at low levels 
in air, soils and in foodstuffs<..> as well as in drinking water. The 
atmospheric levels of fluoride and incidental dietary exposures to 
fluoride as a toothpaste additive or as a dental treatment contribute 
relatively little to the average level of dietary fluoride exposure and 
are not further considered in the exposure estimate <..>.

<..> EPA has established a Maximum Concentration 
Limit (MCL) at 4.0 mg/L [0.114 mg/kg/day] to protect against crippling 
skeletal fluorosis <..> a Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) 
at 2.0 mg/L [0.057 mg/kg/day] for cosmetic effects (objectionable 
dental fluorosis) which are not considered to be adverse health 
effects by the Surgeon General<..> In general, the health effects 
of fluoride include dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis.
<..> There exists no directly applicable scientific documentation 
of adverse medical effects at levels of fluoride below 
8 mg/L [0.23 mg/kg/day]. 

<..> Less than 0.4% of the U.S. population (on public water 
supplies) is exposed to greater than 2 mg/L fluoride [0.057 mg/kg/day] 
in the public water supply. <..> Dietary exposure estimates using 
reassessed tolerances including the subject proposed tolerance and 
regulation for potatoes and percent of crops treated are approximately 
0.029 mg/kg/day for the  U.S. population and 0.038 mg/kg/day for 
the highest exposed subgroup (females 20 years old and over).
Therefore, it can be concluded that levels of fluoride in/on food 
>from  the agricultural use of cryolite plus fluoride levels in U.S. 
drinking water supplies results in a daily dietary intake of fluoride 
of approximately 0.095 mg/kg/day. 

<..>This is less than the Maximum Concentration Limit (MCL) 
of 4.0 mg/L [0.114 mg/kg/day], a level which provides 
no known or anticipated adverse health effect 
as determined by the Surgeon General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kind regards,

Torsten Brinch
--
Dip him in the river who loves water.

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 07:29:22 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Torsten Brinch <[email-masked]
c.dk> writes
>as determined by the Surgeon General.

I am not entirely sure what Torsten is getting at here.

Is he saying that at 4ppm fluorosis becomes likely?
I note that 2ppm for tooth discolouration is very close indeed to this.
I note that 0.4% of the US population is exposed to greater than 2ppm
*in the public water supply*. Odd.

I would personally be concerned if my dietry intake was to within 83% of
the maximum safe level unless that level included appropriate safety
factors.

Why do they use cryolite in potatoes?

---

From: [email-masked] (Torsten Brinch)
Date: 12 May 1996 12:24:06 GMT

>skeletal fluorosis <..> 

>Is he saying that at 4ppm fluorosis becomes likely?

I was quoting, Oz. Butting in with some relevant data.

The 4 mg/L limit is to protect against *Crippling* *skeletal* fluorosis. 
The General surgeon has determined that effects like discoloration
of teeth and decreased bone density are not adverse effects.

>the maximum safe level unless that level included appropriate safety

I would too, Oz. 
The limits also strikes me as less than ludicrously safe.

Maybe the effects on man is so well known, that safety factors are moot.
By disregarding some effects (see above), the conclusion was, that there is 
no direct scientific evidence of adverse effects (arthralgias) 
in humans at levels below 8 mg/L fluoride in drinking water.
So maybe it could be said, that 4 mg/L represents a safety factor of 2 :)

>Why do they use cryolite in potatoes?

Propose to use.
As an *insecticide powder on raw potato*, resulting in residues of
fluoride (note: as cryolite, much less bioavailable than dissolved
fluorine ion) of 2 ppm in raw potato and 22 ppm in 
potato waste for feedstuff.

--
The best wine is the oldest, the best water the newest.

---

From: [email-masked] (Corinna Nalbach)
Date: 12 May 1996 09:17:00 GMT

I am new to this group and just picked this news up ...

Recently they made an analysis on tap water and mineral water (soda) here in Germany 
and found out that many mineral waters are much unhealthier than the tap water.  The 
tap water has to fulfil high requirements here in Germany, I don't know if it is in 
other countries the same. 

They also made tests on the taste of those waters and the tap water ranked on the first 
places. 

--
Corinna

_________________________________________________________________
Corinna Nalbach		      e-mail: [email-masked]                            
PGP-Key available on request	     Mime- and NeXT-Mail welcome!

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 08:18:44 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Torsten Brinch <[email-masked]
c.dk> writes

>From  some figures emailed to me by Torsten, it is clear that fluoride 
toxicity varies 'rather widely' between species. From one trial he 
quotes on mice, and balancing up here and there it would look as if the 
8 mg/kg/day for *total* intake before *clinical disease* sets in is 
somewhere about right. Since the 2ppm indicates tooth discolouration, 
which to me at least indicates a slight abnormality at least, I would 
have thought that 1ppm ought to be a maximum level from all sources.

Personally I am surprised that the FDC would allow cryolite as an 
insecticide since the people applying the product are likely to be 
significantly at risk as well. 

This small difference between 'enough' and 'too much' is not atypical of 
many trace elements, selenium being a well known example. Copper licks 
for cattle on deficient pasture contain enough copper to kill sheep and 
must be handled carefully where mixed stocking occurs.

I still think that the sale of fluorided toothpaste and drops should be 
banned and I am not very happy about cryolite as an insecticide either. 
Unlike conventional pesticides that degrade to vanishingly low levels 
relatively quickly, fluoride can be rather persistent in soils and never 
degrades in the normal sense of the word. The usual 100+ fold safety 
margin below the NOEL is clearly being broken here.

However, I am still happy about fluoride in drinking water.

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 20:49:56 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Corinna Nalbach
<[email-masked]> writes
>They also made tests on the taste of those waters and the tap water ranked on 

Could you give examples of what you mean?

---

From: [email-masked] (Corinna Nalbach)
Date: 15 May 1996 20:09:08 GMT

>  Could you give examples of what you mean?
Hu? Examples of what I mean? Can YOU give ME examples of what you mean.
Sorry, but I really don't understand what you want to know ... 

--
Corinna

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 17:21:43 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Oz
<[email-masked]> writes
>>tap water has to fulfil high requirements here in Germany, I don't know if it 
>is 
>>in 

Like what is unhealthy about mineral waters as against tap water?

I wouldn't disagree about the taste. Particularly when we used to get
our water untreated (except for occasional chloridation) direct from a
borehole deep in the chalk it beat any water anywhere.

---

From: [email-masked] (Carol S. Kopf)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 19:49:02

In article <[email-masked]> Oz wrote:
 article <[email-masked]>, Torsten Brinch 
<[email-masked]

>However, I am still happy about fluoride in drinking water.

Well I'm happy you're happy!

Came across some information in Draft for public comment 
"Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen fluoride, and 
Fluorine(F)" 12/16/91.  "fertilization with superphosphates added 
8-20 kg/hectare of fluoride to soil."  "Man made sources (of 
fluoride) are primarily fertilizers, particularly super phosphates, 
and industrial releases."

The 4/93 final Toxicological Profile (I don't have it yet - but do 
have a few pages) says:  "Existing data indicate that subsets of 
the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of 
fluoride and its compounds.  These populations include the elderly, 
people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, 
and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems."

Enjoy your fluoridated water.

Cheers!

Carol S. Kopf

---

From: [email-masked] (Corinna Nalbach)
Date: 17 May 1996 20:31:59 GMT

>  Like what is unhealthy about mineral waters as against tap water?
Some mineral waters contain enormous amounts of arsenic .. that's all I remember.  But 
I am really sorry but I can't remember what else was unhealthier about mineral waters 
as against tap water.
 
>  borehole deep in the chalk it beat any water anywhere.
I used to drink mineral water for years, but since about a quarter year I drink tap
water which I enrich with CO2. At first it tasted stange (but I guess this was more a 
psychological effect, because I knew that I was drinking TAP water), but now I got 
completely used
to it. It's just the same as if you change your mineral water. Each tastes a bit 
different.

--
Corinna