Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Water purity testing in Waterford?
Options
Comments
-
changeling wrote: »That info was from a scientific peer reviewed paper on effects of flouridation on enzymes, and you are saying it is ''all very vague'' LOL
You are drinking unprocessed, industrial waste-product from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry
good luck to you it's a complete waste of time trying to educate some people
It doesn't specify whether the experiments were carried out on a cellular level or full animal. The devil is in the detail. But you know that so being vague suits. Link to the entire paper?
Industrial waste is not by default toxic, it just isn't the desired product. You have to judge each chemical entity on its own merits. Generalisations like this show a complete lack of understanding of chemistry.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I see the topic of mobile phone most radiation, wifi hotspots and EMF is being ignored. Where's your choice with these issues?
Lets not forget the WHO did a report on issues with wifi hotspots being a danger,
This is laughable coming from a mod who should realise that not only are these way off topic but to be using it as a counterargument is vacuous and shows complete lack of thought on the evidence presented here.
0 -
-
-
Here is a link to the full paper mentioned in bold
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/089203629400070T#
The last paragraph says her results in theory would be relevant to cases where intake was of water in the 5-10ppm range. The rats were given fluoride in large doses.
Effects of fluoride on the tissue oxidative stress and apoptosis in rats: Biochemical assays supported by IR spectroscopy data:
The mechanism underlying the toxicity of fluoride still remains unknown. To investigate the effects of different doses of fluoride on blood and tissue oxidative stress and apoptosis, we exposed male rats to three doses of fluoride (10, 50 and 100 ppm in drinking water) for a period of 10 weeks. The results suggested that exposure to 10 ppm fluoride significantly increased the level of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in blood accompanied by a decrease in glutathione (GSH) level. No evidences of oxidative stress in soft tissues were seen. Fluoride (10 ppm) also decreased GSH/GSSG ratio significantly. Contrary to expectation, 50 and 100 ppm fluoride exposure did not produce a more pronounced toxicity in the soft tissues. However, we observed a significantly elevated concentration of ROS and depleted GSH level in blood. Exposure to fluoride did not produce any sign of apoptosis. To support our above mentioned biochemical observations and to suggest possible mechanism of action of fluoride, IR spectra of brain tissues were recorded. The results of these spectra indicated significant shift in the characteristic peak of –OH group in animals exposed to 10 ppm fluoride however at higher doses, the shift was minimal. It can thus be concluded that fluoride-induced toxicity is mediated through oxidative stress particularly at a comparatively lower level of exposure however at the higher doses the mode of action still unclear and needs further investigation.
The fact that there are still so many unknowns around flouride toxicity and that so many question marks surrounding the health issues exist regarding this practice is enough for me to want it stopped.
And what scientific experiment can ever show conclusively that their results can be written in stone? Surely the fact that there is so much evidence pointing towards its ill effects should be enough for anyone to not want it in your tap water? 0 -
changeling wrote: »Effects of fluoride on the tissue oxidative stress and apoptosis in rats: Biochemical assays supported by IR spectroscopy data:
The mechanism underlying the toxicity of fluoride still remains unknown. To investigate the effects of different doses of fluoride on blood and tissue oxidative stress and apoptosis, we exposed male rats to three doses of fluoride (10, 50 and 100 ppm in drinking water) for a period of 10 weeks. The results suggested that exposure to 10 ppm fluoride significantly increased the level of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in blood accompanied by a decrease in glutathione (GSH) level. No evidences of oxidative stress in soft tissues were seen. Fluoride (10 ppm) also decreased GSH/GSSG ratio significantly. Contrary to expectation, 50 and 100 ppm fluoride exposure did not produce a more pronounced toxicity in the soft tissues. However, we observed a significantly elevated concentration of ROS and depleted GSH level in blood. Exposure to fluoride did not produce any sign of apoptosis. To support our above mentioned biochemical observations and to suggest possible mechanism of action of fluoride, IR spectra of brain tissues were recorded. The results of these spectra indicated significant shift in the characteristic peak of –OH group in animals exposed to 10 ppm fluoride however at higher doses, the shift was minimal. It can thus be concluded that fluoride-induced toxicity is mediated through oxidative stress particularly at a comparatively lower level of exposure however at the higher doses the mode of action still unclear and needs further investigation.
The fact that there are still so many unknowns around flouride toxicity and that so many question marks surrounding the health issues exist regarding this practice is enough for me to want it stopped.
And what scientific experiment can ever show conclusively that their results can be written in stone? Surely the fact that there is so much evidence pointing towards its ill effects should be enough for anyone to not want it in your tap water?
If you were to apply that logic universally everything would be considered a risk. We set limits on concentration based on all substances natural or otherwise on what we know about their toxicity. In the case of fluoride 5-10ppm seems to be universally agreed even by papers you have linked
as a dangerous level, so it seems illogical to be worried about 1ppm levels.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 26401
changeling wrote: »This is laughable coming from a mod who should realise that not only are these way off topic but to be using it as a counterargument is vacuous and shows complete lack of thought on the evidence presented here.
You know what, you're right it was slightly off-topic but then it was a way of showing how something could be considered dangerous but then is also ignored by people,
But then this thread has long gone off topic for the Waterford forum and for a long long time its not had anything to do with Waterford.
This would be far better suited to another forum at this stage as it has no relevance specifically to Waterford anymore.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement