Welcome to the Afibber’s Forum
Serving Afibbers worldwide since 1999
Moderated by Shannon and Carey
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Home
>
AFIBBERS FORUM
>
Topic
AFIBBERS FORUM
A forum for sharing experiences regarding atrial fibrillation and other atrial tachy-arrhythmias.
One of the cardinal rules in the advice we give specifically to afibbers, but one that is also prudent advice to everyone, is be sure to hydrate adequately as dehydration is detrimental to health. We should clarify that to state hydrate adequately with pure water. We need to understand what pure water is.
Many people rely on tap water from the local municipality. Others insist bottled water is healthier.
In a recent post, I suggested that perhaps as an unknown in the etiology of atrial fibrillation that makes it so common across a wide population group, may be something in the water. I wasnt making an idle comment, but rather was thinking back to an interview I heard on impurities in our municipal drinking water supply and how those can affect health. While Ill only touch on a few of the points discussed in the teleconference, I do not believe it is an obscure or absurd possibility.
As you know, my mission is to create awareness so we can all make informed choices. This post is another of those awareness missions.
This interview was titled, Fluoride Dangers do the benefits outweigh the risks? and was sponsored by Designs for Health.
About the speaker:
David Kennedy, DDS of San Diego, was a practicing dentist for 30 years and has turned now to working with researchers, doing lectures and participating in hearings about the dangers of fluoridated water and mercury toxicity. He is a nationally and internationally recognized lecturer on toxicology and restorative dentistry.
Dr. Kennedy is founder of Preventive Dental Health Association () and the Past President of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT), which was formed to review, support, and disseminate research on the suitability of materials and methodologies used in the dental practice. He has lectured to dentists, physicians and other health professionals all over the world on the subjects of preventive dental health, mercury toxicity, and fluoride. He is the author of the book How To Save Your Teeth with toxic free preventive dentistry that provides instruction and insight for both professionals and the layman on how to provide and receive toxic-free dentistry.
In this interview, Dr. Kennedy explained why fluoride has been scientifically proven to be harmful and discussed municipal drinking water, what toxic elements are found in it including the intentionally added fluoride and why we need to avoid drinking tap water. For me, it was quite a revelation since Im retired from the dental profession that emphasizes the importance of fluoride in drinking water, fluoride treatments, fluoridated toothpaste and supplemental fluoride for children in non-fluoridated areas.
While I knew of some of the risks of over-fluoridation, I was totally unaware of many other details Dr. Kennedy revealed in this August, 2006 interview.
Following are just a few of the many important and also disturbing facts about our drinking water and fluoride in general. Of particular interest to afibbers is the connection between fluoride and hypothyroidism.
We know hypothyroidism can contribute to afib symptoms. He says all fluoride compounds bind up iodine receptor sites in cells and in the thyroid gland and interfere with thyroid hormones. Iodine is critical to thyroid and heart function. Both hypothyroidism and cardiovascular disease are high on the epidemic list of health dysfunctions. According to the latest National Research Council report(1), the thyroid gland is more sensitive to the negative effects of fluoride than any other gland in the body. Deficiency of iodine makes the thyroid even more vulnerable. The pineal gland, responsible for producing melatonin, is affected quite negatively as well.
Hope you find this enlightening! Jackie
SUMMARY:
Toxic elements are commonly found in municipal tap water, especially in fluoridated communities. Yet, fluoride isnt the only element of concern. Arsenic is also prevalent along with cadmium, lead and radioactive isotopes. (This discussion does not address the use of aluminum to clarify water which also leaves aluminum residues in municipal water nor does it address arsenic toxicity other than the obvious.)
The fluoride added to most water supplies is a not what you may think it is but rather, a toxic byproduct from the mining industry which is considered hazardous waste with a disposal problem.
Fluoride enters and accumulates in the body from more sources than just tap water. Cumulative effects can lead to overdosing amounts of fluoride far beyond acceptable levels and are harmful long-term. Bottled liquids like fruit juice (unless organic) using tap water, most always contain fluoride; some much more than others. Tap water is used in restaurants, coffee houses, beverages, etc. Black and green tea is especially high in fluoride as is instant tea.
People doing physical exertions for work or heavy exercise, run marathons, will drink much more water and accumulate far more toxic elements including fluoride than most of the population.
Fluoride doesnt work for preventing tooth decay. Studies bear out this finding. Further, the FDA has never approved the use of fluoride for tooth decay.
Water filters may not remove fluoride; Reverse Osmosis doesnt remove fluoride100%; the remaining amount may still be too high.
Fluoride is used in pesticides. It is found in some prescription drugs like Prozac and Luvox and also with high dosages of Cipro.
Fluoride accumulation in bone is detrimental when it exceeds safe levels known to be far less than the allowed amount by US standards. World-wide in naturally fluoridated, high-level areas, crippling effects in the lumbar spine are well known.
Fluoride accumulations are shown to produce osteosarcomas, osteoporosis and osteofluorosis, brittle bones, lower back pain from fluoride deposits and crippling skeletal issues.
Fluoride binds iodine receptor sites. Iodine is essential to proper thyroid function.
Both hypo- and hyper-thyroid conditions are on the rise. Fluoride can cause both.
The take home message:
Hydrate well BUT be aware of what water you are consuming; even bottled waters coming from municipal water sources,purified and bottled are suspect. Also be aware of your daily total potential consumption of tap water from typically unsuspected sources such as, food, imported produce, powdered eggs in commercial bakery, green and black tea, restaurant coffee, water, soup. Use the best, purified water you can afford. Distilled or ionized water is free of toxic residues. Natural spring water or mineral water that does not contain high levels of natural fluoride is certainly acceptable.
Dr. Kennedy sums up fluoride this way:
Be aware it is a measurable poison that accumulates in the skeleton. There are multiple sources of exposure and there is one voluntary source and that is through our water supply. There is no logical reason why we should allow someone to add arsenic, lead, cadmium and fluoride to the public drinking water.
The Interview - Lets begin:
FLUORIDE ISNT THE ONLY HARMFUL ELEMENT FOUND IN MUNICIPAL WATER.
Q. What exactly is added to our drinking water?
A. It is not fluoride. There was a congressional investigation over the actual product added and the fluoridation chemical used in 91% of the US water supplies is a material called Hydrofluosalicic Acid that is water, sand, fluoride and is missing an electron so it is an acid. Twenty three per cent of that product is hydrofluosalic acid. This is a very strange and aggressive chemical it will eat through glass and concrete. It has to be transported in stainless steel tankers that have a one inch thick protective rubber lining or bladder. Those linings last only a year and are disposed of by packing into barrels that are then buried with calcium. It goes in the barrel like tire rubber and comes out as a crumbly powder in about a year.
So what goes into your water is not fluoride it is a by-product of the pollution scrubbers from the phosphate mining industry and it is contaminated with arsenic, lead, cadmium and many other chemicals including radioisotopes. The water company is being disingenuous when they say the arsenic level in the water is non-detect because if you measure the arsenic in the additive, 90% of the arsenic that is found in the water supply is coming from this elixir from the pollution scrubbers in the phosphate fertilizer industry. If you measure the measure the amount of arsenic in that and then divide by 180,000 which is the dilution ratio they use, you end up with enough arsenic about 1 part per billion to cause an additional cancer of the bladder and/or lung per one thousand water users. So even if you love fluoride in your water, who is going to say yes to having arsenic in their water and thats exactly what you get.
In three huge studies by Roger Masters (Professor Emeritus from Dartmouth), three different states showed that hydrofluosalicic acid does not behave like ordinary, natural fluoride. Studies also show that children in fluoridated communities had dramatic increases in blood levels of lead when they used hydrofluosalicic acid as the fluoride source. It did not show the same increased levels of lead in natural fluoride areas or in one small area using sodium fluoride. Because so few communities use sodium fluoride, the data was very small so it is not entirely conclusive that is true, but it does appear that in the control communities that did not have additives of fluoride of any kind and there was a doubling of numbers of children with high levels lead if they happened to be an ethnic minority of African American and Mexican American/Hispanic who had any other source of potential lead exposure had a 6 fold increase of lead level in black children and 4 fold increase in Hispanic children or 400% increase in children with actionable using 10 micrograms/dl of blood as action level. Because these studies were challenged, Dr. Masters redid the same studies with the National Institute of Health looking at over 450,000 children. There is a letter from the EPA saying that they were certain he was not correct. Dr. Kennedy points out that the flaw is that a letter from a bureaucrat does not trump peer-reviewed scientific literature. So thats the status we have now; a letter from the advocates challenging the validity and Dr. Masters repeated the 99 study with another quarter million children and the latest study agreed perfectly with the original study. Dr. Kennedy says: So even if you love fluoride, knowing this, you are still not going to say yes lets damage the children with high blood levels of lead.
Who came up with the idea to put fluoride in the water in the first place?
A. That would be Harold Hodge who is known as the Father of Toxicology and is implicated in the murder of 48 people by injections of plutonium, uranium, radioactive lead and other questionable experimental practices on humans during peacetime. He worked for the Atomic Energy Commission and the Manhattan Project and eventually the hydrofluosalicic acid came into being because it was a by-product of making the atomic bomb. Because where they get the uranium is from high-phosphate rock so in the process of extracting uranium, they end up with three by-products one is gypsum that goes into drywall in your home, one is phosphate that goes into fertilizer to make fruits and vegetables thirsty so they grow large and weigh more but have no taste and the latter, is fluoride which is extremely toxic and disposal is a problem. It was decided the best solution is to dilute it by putting it in the drinking water and set up a program to tell everybody that 1 part per million (ppm) is perfectly safe and good for teeth.
The problem is they had no research at all at that time to show that then; in fact, no research has ever shown it to be beneficial to teeth. This may be shocking, but it went to three different courts and the findings of the courts have never been overturned because there was no evidence of benefit and there was ample evidence of harm. In Texas, Indiana and Pennsylvania at the Supreme Court level in those states, it was determined that the state has a right to put a chemical in the water supply that causes adverse health effects if they deem it necessary under the Police Powers Act of The Constitution. Elected bodies have that right. They said the Court could not stop fluoridation because it was the act of an elected body. So the only way to stop fluoridation would be to make sure the people elected were seeking employment in another field.
Further in the story, there was a meeting among Harold Hodge, H.Trendley Dean - a dentist with the US Public Health Service (and known as the Father of Fluoridation), former head of the National Institute of Dental Research, General Grove who was the head of the Army and Stafford Warren who was head of the medical division of the bomb project. The minutes of that meeting are still classified, which begs the question, what could the dentist and the others and the head of the FDA all have to talk about that day? We dont know, but in few weeks later, all the dentists from the Public Health Service under Dr. Dean fanned out across the US to tell all the communities in the United States back in 46 that water fluoridation was very beneficial. There are no studies from 1946 so this is basically the start of The Big Lie.
Q. So one might ask whos making money on this?
A. The largest privately own corporation in the world is Cargill. They sell about 70% of the fluoridation chemicals being used, but they dont sell them to water suppliers; but rather to another company, Lucier, who sells the product to the water companies. So there is a layer or buffer between. They cant legally dump this in the ground or ocean or leak it in rivers, or even bury it at night so that makes it a hazardous waste problem that costs $1.60 a gallon to get rid of, but once they sell it, it becomes a product which can be transported and dispensed. So Cargill sells to Lucier who handles the transport and disposition of the product. So when people get angry over whats happening to the water supply and you have a child with high blood levels of lead or dental fluorosis and go to sue, if you ever get that far, you will end up against a corporate entity that basically is in paper only. You cant sue Cargill because Cargill didnt sell the product.
Thats the bad news about water fluoridation; and the worst news is that it doesnt work. You can check tooth decay data go to the WHO website and look at tooth decay worldwide, all of the modern countries -- Europe, US, Canada all the data is there and there has been a huge drop in tooth decay world-wide since the 40s and actually peaked in the middle of the Depression . so one could speculate that starvation had something to do with it and nutrition. By the end of WWII it had begun the downward trend which continues to this day. The trend downward was actually greater in the non-fluoridated areas of Europe than it was in the US, so if there was a benefit, it is no- existent in terms of the data that we (researchers) can put our fingers on.
Fluoride is not approved by the FDA to treat or prevent any disease of man or animal, it is not approved for tooth decay or porous bones. You can find doctors who are fanatical about prescribing fluoride to babies when they dont have fluoridated water but the liability is theirs because thats not an FDA-approved drug
Q. So the sludge added to our drinking water has never been approved by the FDA?
A. No two of the questions we were allowed to ask of Congressman Ken Calvert and it took almost 4 years to get a response from the FDA -
First question: Is fluoride, when used to prevent tooth decay, a drug subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration? They replied that any substance used to treat or prevent a disease in man or animal is a drug subject to regulation of the FDA.
Another question What substance intended to be ingested has the FDA approved? They said no such drug had been approved and there are no new applications on file.
It took 4 years to come up with that reply. They told the Congressman a little lie regarding the no new drug applications - which is technically correct, but in 1975, they allowed 35 different manufacturers of fluoride vitamins and tablets to voluntarily withdraw their new drug application so there are no new drug applications on file because we have rejected 35 since they said there was no evidence of benefit as prescribed or directed on the labeling so it is disingenuous to be telling the Congressman there is no new drug applications on file when they have already rejected 35.
Q. Recently the study came out about Australian children drinking bottled water and not getting their fluoride and cavities are increasing.
A. Studies of fluoridated communities like Boston since the sixties, the one in Australia was comparing two other fluoridated communities and they have a rampant tooth decay problem so their excuse is the children are drinking bottled water. But if you look at the data, the data show that the poor children are the ones with the cavities and do you think poor children are spending money on bottled water? They dont have any data to support that. Just like the letter from the EPA saying Dr. Masters was a bad scientist. Whenever research comes out that shows their favorite hazardous waste disposal program might be a flawed entity, then they come up with an apology that says oh, well, really thats not the case, its more like this
As an example .there is a man in NY who is a huge advocate for fluoride Kumar...who is the dental director for the State of NY. He went to the NY data on tooth decay - one of the cities that was fluoridated in 1945 was Newburg, NY- a fairly affluent community and a less affluent community, Kingston, was not fluoridated and if you just know the economics of tooth decay, poor children have more decay than rich kids so there should have been more cavities in Kingston than Newberg. Now, 50 years later, there is no difference whatsoever in tooth decay rates between the two communities because the Kingstonians have never allowed fluoride to be added. But there was a huge difference in the amount of dental fluorosis which is the first visible outward sign of fluoride overdose in children and Im glad we are getting to that issue because the National Academy of Science has put together for the first time since this issue began - a more or less balanced panel of people who are toxicologists, whove done research on fluoride, dentists, a risk assessment person for a private science organization, and Dr. Issacson who has done research on Alzheimers disease. These people were speaking at the conference I just attended in NY and what they were saying is that a baby is exposed to fluoride levels at birth, if it is on a bottle, that are known to cause thyroid suppression, damage to the pineal gland, early onset of puberty, alteration of skeletal bone structure, damage to the endocrine system, damage to the immune system at the levels that the infant is exposed to on a bottle so these are way above what the EPA has established as the base dose that harm will occur.
Dentists long believed that fluoride would inhibit dissolution of enamel and that in order to do that the fluoride had to be incorporated into the enamel during tooth development. We now know that this theory is incorrect. In the year 2000, the Journal of the American Dental Association published John Featherstones 20 year review of what weve learned regarding caries prevention. (The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention Featherstone, John M.Sc, Ph.D. JADA Vol. 131 pp.887-899 July 2000). He reported that enamel with fluoride levels as high as Crest toothpaste (1000 ppm) did not resist acid dissolution any better than enamel with the least amount of fluoride.
Q. So what are the safe levels and what is the MCLG?
A. MCLG - is what The National Academy of Science panel was charged to review and is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal not based in law or money but money aside -- what would be your goal for something in the water supply over a lifetime of use that would cause no detectable harm.
And for detectable harm, they consider one cancer in a million to be detectable harm. So the MCLG in the US is 4 ppm fluoride. However, my documentary in China showed that people that were crippled into poverty at 4 ppm - all the children had teeth that were the color of mahogany, brittle, with pieces missing; by the early twenties, they had kyphosis and restricted shoulder movement , by the 30s they were beginning to stoop forward. We went to one home where they had 8 ppm (natural) in the water and the woman was crippled in 16 years to the point where she was suffering from paralysis couldnt get off the bed, in total abject pain because the bone around the spinal cord encroaches on the cord and cuts off the enervation to the lower back first and then the limbs. Many people have dogs that have experienced that and they get those little carts for their hind quarters. This can be eliminated by stopping the dog food that uses ground bone meal. You can mitigate some of the damage by adding calcium magnesium vitamin C and put the dog on pure meat because there is no fluoride in meat.
You get fluoride from many sources, not just from the water supply. Unfortunately, the EPA has just approved a new pesticide rule with sulfurofluoride used for termite treatment but now its being used on food it leaves a residue of fluoride in the meat, vegetables and fruit and they are doing it on all imported fruits and vegetables. You can have a pristine organic garden in Argentina bringing in your beautiful blueberries in winter and they will fumigate it with the sulfurofluoride and levels can be high enough you can brush your teeth with it. Foods like powdered eggs have about 900 ppm fluoride when they get through. And people think they never eat powdered eggs, but they dont think about commercial breads, muffins etc.
The repository for a lifetime fluoride exposure is in your bones. If you take in 2 molecules of fluoride a day, one will be in your bones the day you die. So in a non-fluoridated community, you may get up to 200 parts per million in their bones. Studies in Montreal versus Toronto showed humans in 25 years are up to 2500 ppm fluoride in their bones. Toothpaste is 1000 ppm fluoride and the reason they recommend brushing with fluoride toothpaste is because the fluoride is so toxic it kills the decay-causing bacteria by rendering them unable to produce energy.
The same phenomenon apparently happens in bone. If you section bones and observe the more fluoride, the fewer viable cells, the larger the lacunae, and you end up with trabeculae and lacunae that have more space between them a open lacey effect which is a very toxic bone that has lost most of its vitality and thats why ingested fluoride is associated with hip fracture because there is no tensile strength in that boney area of the hip so it snaps off and you fall.
At 1 ppm fluoride, causes dental fluorosis, thyroid suppression, increased risk of hip fractures. Four studies published in JAMA showing prolonged exposure not one week or one month - and there are some studies showing an average around 7 years that didnt show an increase but if you throw all those out and say I want to see what happens after 25 years exposure, those universally show an increase in the elderly. Its like cigarettes no body says one will kill you, but repeated exposure over time is the risk factor of chronic low-dose exposure of poison. And the buildup will affect glands like the thyroid and the resulting disease conditions as a result of that dysfunction obesity we have a nation of people that are huge.
Who would take a screwdriver in your computer and wiggle it around until sparks flew; well, thats basically what you are doing when dosing people with a chemical for which you have absolutely no understanding of what its impact on human physiology is and what the overall effects are.
The original observation (not a study) on what fluoride does with teeth was in Colorado by a man named McKay who called it Colorado brown stain on teeth. Natural Fluoride is basically found in high concentrations in granite so the Rocky Mountains have eroded over the last few hundred million years, and formed the sediment basin to the East of the Rockies and this is the location of the Colorado brown stain. Its basically a band of high fluoride from Colorado into Kansas down into Oklahoma and reaches into Texas. I had an Uncle raised in Kansas and he had an enormous amount of cavities. McKay observed brown stain on the teeth, then Cox and Dean who surveyed the US - 200 cities and produced the famous Dean 21-City Study which said that dental fluorosis increased (indicating exposure to fluoride) and decrease in tooth decay. This was in the 1977 National Academys of Science Report, but thats a phony study. Dean surveyed 200 cities but if you let me survey 200 people and report on 21 then I can show you smoking can extend your longevity, but you are missing 90% of the data. Why would he do that? Well, because his boss was the former attorney for Alcoa Aluminum and one of the places he surveyed was Bauxite Arkansas which had 9 ppm and that wasnt natural fluoride, it was leaking out of the Bauxite mine and they contaminated the community water supply.
So when you go to look at the science, you have to separate science published by someone with an agenda vs science which is done with a broad-based, blinded fashion where the investigators did not know where the children came from - like looking at all of the United State which was done in 1987 when they looked at both natural and artificial fluoridation throughout the US, 84 different communities, that were randomized, the investigators were standardized in their diagnosis of both tooth decay and dental fluorosis and they showed there was absolutely no statistically significant difference between levels as low as .3 ppm, .7 ppm, 1 ppm and 1.2 ppm in the tooth decay.
They did show a linear relationship between the amount of dental fluorosis with the least at the .3 and most gradually increasing with the higher ppm numbers. At 1 ppm 66% of the children had at least one tooth with visibly scarred by excess fluoride. The science is abundantly clear on this. The problem is you get a lot of people who have an agenda that will take some non-science - a story still shows up Google Town without Tooth Decay which was put in there by people who had fluoride to get rid of and it was allegedly about a town in Texas that had no tooth decay. But there was also an affidavit from a dentist in that town who said Thats crazy there is lots of tooth decay here! It was just a story; today we call it an Internet Story. But this one was put out by the United States Government for the purpose of deceiving the American public. Great Book:
The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson it reads like a novel.
Chronic fluoride ingestion at doses as low as .3 ppm can lead to osteosarcoma, a rare type of bone cancer which has been diagnosed in children. A group of researchers from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females(2)
The results of a study performed in India found that patients with osteosarcoma, a rare type of bone cancer, showed 3 ½ times higher fluoride levels in their bones than non-cancer subjects. (3)
Q. What about Home Water Filters
A. Many people think they are filtering out fluoride and other undesirable elements from municipal tap water. A carbon filter does not work as fluoride ion does not attach to the carbon in the filter. An activated aluminum filter will work but you end up trading off high aluminum water for low fluoride water. Another filter they use in Thailand is bone char with calcium hydroxyapatite but the water ends up tasting like rotted meat.
Distillation or deionization is state of the art for eliminating these chemicals and is the only way to get it all out because you arent just dealing with fluoride also the arsenic, lead, cadmium. A good distiller costs about $500
But the trouble is, unless you never eat out or drink water outside your home, you cant avoid the tap water problem. Starbucks and all those places use carbon filters and they dont use RO. Reverse Osmosis is not a typical filter.
The RO salesman will tell you they can take 8 ppm fluoride and lower it to one so thats an 8:1 ratio so the normal mind thinks if you start with one you can get down much lower yet. But because the RO system works better with higher concentrations and when it gets down to the 1 ppm level, it has more difficulty in getting the fluoride out so a correct statement on RO systems would be that it lowers fluoride levels but it does not remove it. I have requested several water companies show me what it lowers to and they have not been willing to do so. When I ask if you start with one, what does it get down to and I dont get meaningful responses and they say, we dont know. So RO helps but it does not remove all fluoride.
Patients need to get off tap water and on to distilled water or a low-fluoride mineral water and beef up iodine intake.
The antidote to fluoride poisoning is calcium, magnesium, vitamin C and iodine and stop the exposure. But the problem is that the municipal water is used in restaurant foods, commercial beverages like tap water used in Coca Cola - you cant buy commercial products that dont contain fluoride.
FOOD SOURCES OF FLUORIDE
Covered under the MGCL section was the contamination of imported food with sulfurofluoride at the border.
So spending extra money to by fruits and vegetables out of season especially paying more for organic, is a waste because its all negated at the border, plus the amount of fluoride in that food is significant.
Most nutritionists are now advising to buy local produce during the growing season to cut down on the risk of excess pesticide use as well as extensive commercial chemical fertilizers.
TEA
Black and Green Teas are high fluoride. Black tea yields 4 ppm - black English tea - it intentionally uptakes fluoride into the leaf and stores it there and the botanists think it is a protective mechanism to keep pests from eating the leaves gives them a stomach ache.upset stomach, gastric upset is a symptom of fluoride overdose. All soils are high in fluoride - like the 13th most abundant mineral on the planet so you cant find a piece of ground that doesnt have fluoride in it but the vast majority of plants roots do not accept it. They exclude it because the fluoride would kill the plants. Thats one of the reasons we have fluoridation because the fertilizer companies have to take the fluoride out of the phosphate because it would kill the crops.
So English tea, black tea, green tea and chamomile tea even though its herbal. Other fruit teas and herbal teas will not have fluoride except that coming from the water used to make them. Organic or not the fluoride is there. So stopping green and black tea is appropriate. Actually green tea has more fluoride than black tea almost twice as high as black tea.
They only measured a few brands but they were running 7 8 ppm the worst ones are the instant teas, because of the desiccation involved in making it instant so it becomes much more concentrated. Anything reconstituted is going to have a higher concentration. If you boil water that has 1 ppm fluoride and you boil it until from a gallon to a pint, youll have 8 ppm. So thats the concentrating effect. The longer you boil, the higher the fluoride concentration in the residue thats why we think that Lipton Tea is so high.
White tea has not nearly as much fluoride as green or black because it is from very young leaves that have not yet had the chance to uptake much fluoride.
The water used to brew tea will raise the fluoride content a little more.
In the Journal of Fluoride -just about science but excellent they discussed a tea in India called Brick Tea that is really high in fluoride.
DENTAL SOURCES:
Toothpastes, mouth rinses, fluoride containing sealants in children
ENVIRONMENTAL SOURCES
Coal fired plants not only leak mercury, they leak a lot of fluoride and so do oil refineries when they break up the crude into usable oil and they use fluoride to break up the long hydrocarbons to do that so it is a very useful industrial chemical (modern living through chemistry) but also not good to be ingesting it and thats the point of our talk.
The End.
References:
(1) FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER 467 pp pdf file..
Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
Division on Earth and Life Studies
National Research Council of the National Academies - 2006 publication
John Doull, M.D., Ph.D., Chair
Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
[I have the full file. If you want to review it, just email me.]
Brief 4- page Review -
[dels.nas.edu]
(2) Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States).
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] Cancer Causes Control. 2006 May;17(4):421-8
(3) Low levels of p53 mutations in Indian patients with osteosarcoma and the correlation with fluoride levels in bone. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 2001;20(3):237-43. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
As recommended by the US National Research Council: The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States.
Fluoride & the Thyroid - US National Research Council (2006):
In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 223.
The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 224.
several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 197.
it is difficult to predict exactly what effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of fluoride exposure and under what circumstances.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 197.
Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations; similar effects on T4 and T3 are reported in experimental animals..
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 218.
In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 218.
The recent decline in iodine intake in the United States could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 218.
Intake of nutrients such as calcium and iodine often is not reported in studies of fluoride effects. The effects of fluoride on thyroid function, for instance, might depend on whether iodine intake is low, adequate, or high, or whether dietary selenium is adequate.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 222.
Fluoride & the Thyroid - Studies Available Online:
FULL TEXT - pdf: Bachinskii PP, et al. (1985) Action of the body fluorine of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients on the function of hypophyseal-thyroid the system. Probl Endokrinol (Mosk) 31(6):25-9.
FULL TEXT - html: Day TK, Powell-Jackson PR. (1972). Fluoride, Water Hardness, and Endemic Goitre. Lancet 1:1135-1138.
FULL TEXT - html: Steyn DG, et al. (1955). Endemic Goitre in the Union of South Africa and Some Neighbouring Territories. Union of South Africa. Department of Nutrition.
FULL TEXT - html: Wilson D. (1941). Fluorine in the aetiology of endemic goitre. Lancet Feb 15: 212-213.
Just a few of many very interesting links on this topic:
[www.actionpa.org]
[www.mercola.com]
[www.nofluoride.com]
[www.garynull.com]
Many people rely on tap water from the local municipality. Others insist bottled water is healthier.
In a recent post, I suggested that perhaps as an unknown in the etiology of atrial fibrillation that makes it so common across a wide population group, may be something in the water. I wasnt making an idle comment, but rather was thinking back to an interview I heard on impurities in our municipal drinking water supply and how those can affect health. While Ill only touch on a few of the points discussed in the teleconference, I do not believe it is an obscure or absurd possibility.
As you know, my mission is to create awareness so we can all make informed choices. This post is another of those awareness missions.
This interview was titled, Fluoride Dangers do the benefits outweigh the risks? and was sponsored by Designs for Health.
About the speaker:
David Kennedy, DDS of San Diego, was a practicing dentist for 30 years and has turned now to working with researchers, doing lectures and participating in hearings about the dangers of fluoridated water and mercury toxicity. He is a nationally and internationally recognized lecturer on toxicology and restorative dentistry.
Dr. Kennedy is founder of Preventive Dental Health Association (
In this interview, Dr. Kennedy explained why fluoride has been scientifically proven to be harmful and discussed municipal drinking water, what toxic elements are found in it including the intentionally added fluoride and why we need to avoid drinking tap water. For me, it was quite a revelation since Im retired from the dental profession that emphasizes the importance of fluoride in drinking water, fluoride treatments, fluoridated toothpaste and supplemental fluoride for children in non-fluoridated areas.
While I knew of some of the risks of over-fluoridation, I was totally unaware of many other details Dr. Kennedy revealed in this August, 2006 interview.
Following are just a few of the many important and also disturbing facts about our drinking water and fluoride in general. Of particular interest to afibbers is the connection between fluoride and hypothyroidism.
We know hypothyroidism can contribute to afib symptoms. He says all fluoride compounds bind up iodine receptor sites in cells and in the thyroid gland and interfere with thyroid hormones. Iodine is critical to thyroid and heart function. Both hypothyroidism and cardiovascular disease are high on the epidemic list of health dysfunctions. According to the latest National Research Council report(1), the thyroid gland is more sensitive to the negative effects of fluoride than any other gland in the body. Deficiency of iodine makes the thyroid even more vulnerable. The pineal gland, responsible for producing melatonin, is affected quite negatively as well.
Hope you find this enlightening! Jackie
SUMMARY:
Toxic elements are commonly found in municipal tap water, especially in fluoridated communities. Yet, fluoride isnt the only element of concern. Arsenic is also prevalent along with cadmium, lead and radioactive isotopes. (This discussion does not address the use of aluminum to clarify water which also leaves aluminum residues in municipal water nor does it address arsenic toxicity other than the obvious.)
The fluoride added to most water supplies is a not what you may think it is but rather, a toxic byproduct from the mining industry which is considered hazardous waste with a disposal problem.
Fluoride enters and accumulates in the body from more sources than just tap water. Cumulative effects can lead to overdosing amounts of fluoride far beyond acceptable levels and are harmful long-term. Bottled liquids like fruit juice (unless organic) using tap water, most always contain fluoride; some much more than others. Tap water is used in restaurants, coffee houses, beverages, etc. Black and green tea is especially high in fluoride as is instant tea.
People doing physical exertions for work or heavy exercise, run marathons, will drink much more water and accumulate far more toxic elements including fluoride than most of the population.
Fluoride doesnt work for preventing tooth decay. Studies bear out this finding. Further, the FDA has never approved the use of fluoride for tooth decay.
Water filters may not remove fluoride; Reverse Osmosis doesnt remove fluoride100%; the remaining amount may still be too high.
Fluoride is used in pesticides. It is found in some prescription drugs like Prozac and Luvox and also with high dosages of Cipro.
Fluoride accumulation in bone is detrimental when it exceeds safe levels known to be far less than the allowed amount by US standards. World-wide in naturally fluoridated, high-level areas, crippling effects in the lumbar spine are well known.
Fluoride accumulations are shown to produce osteosarcomas, osteoporosis and osteofluorosis, brittle bones, lower back pain from fluoride deposits and crippling skeletal issues.
Fluoride binds iodine receptor sites. Iodine is essential to proper thyroid function.
Both hypo- and hyper-thyroid conditions are on the rise. Fluoride can cause both.
The take home message:
Hydrate well BUT be aware of what water you are consuming; even bottled waters coming from municipal water sources,purified and bottled are suspect. Also be aware of your daily total potential consumption of tap water from typically unsuspected sources such as, food, imported produce, powdered eggs in commercial bakery, green and black tea, restaurant coffee, water, soup. Use the best, purified water you can afford. Distilled or ionized water is free of toxic residues. Natural spring water or mineral water that does not contain high levels of natural fluoride is certainly acceptable.
Dr. Kennedy sums up fluoride this way:
Be aware it is a measurable poison that accumulates in the skeleton. There are multiple sources of exposure and there is one voluntary source and that is through our water supply. There is no logical reason why we should allow someone to add arsenic, lead, cadmium and fluoride to the public drinking water.
The Interview - Lets begin:
FLUORIDE ISNT THE ONLY HARMFUL ELEMENT FOUND IN MUNICIPAL WATER.
Q. What exactly is added to our drinking water?
A. It is not fluoride. There was a congressional investigation over the actual product added and the fluoridation chemical used in 91% of the US water supplies is a material called Hydrofluosalicic Acid that is water, sand, fluoride and is missing an electron so it is an acid. Twenty three per cent of that product is hydrofluosalic acid. This is a very strange and aggressive chemical it will eat through glass and concrete. It has to be transported in stainless steel tankers that have a one inch thick protective rubber lining or bladder. Those linings last only a year and are disposed of by packing into barrels that are then buried with calcium. It goes in the barrel like tire rubber and comes out as a crumbly powder in about a year.
So what goes into your water is not fluoride it is a by-product of the pollution scrubbers from the phosphate mining industry and it is contaminated with arsenic, lead, cadmium and many other chemicals including radioisotopes. The water company is being disingenuous when they say the arsenic level in the water is non-detect because if you measure the arsenic in the additive, 90% of the arsenic that is found in the water supply is coming from this elixir from the pollution scrubbers in the phosphate fertilizer industry. If you measure the measure the amount of arsenic in that and then divide by 180,000 which is the dilution ratio they use, you end up with enough arsenic about 1 part per billion to cause an additional cancer of the bladder and/or lung per one thousand water users. So even if you love fluoride in your water, who is going to say yes to having arsenic in their water and thats exactly what you get.
In three huge studies by Roger Masters (Professor Emeritus from Dartmouth), three different states showed that hydrofluosalicic acid does not behave like ordinary, natural fluoride. Studies also show that children in fluoridated communities had dramatic increases in blood levels of lead when they used hydrofluosalicic acid as the fluoride source. It did not show the same increased levels of lead in natural fluoride areas or in one small area using sodium fluoride. Because so few communities use sodium fluoride, the data was very small so it is not entirely conclusive that is true, but it does appear that in the control communities that did not have additives of fluoride of any kind and there was a doubling of numbers of children with high levels lead if they happened to be an ethnic minority of African American and Mexican American/Hispanic who had any other source of potential lead exposure had a 6 fold increase of lead level in black children and 4 fold increase in Hispanic children or 400% increase in children with actionable using 10 micrograms/dl of blood as action level. Because these studies were challenged, Dr. Masters redid the same studies with the National Institute of Health looking at over 450,000 children. There is a letter from the EPA saying that they were certain he was not correct. Dr. Kennedy points out that the flaw is that a letter from a bureaucrat does not trump peer-reviewed scientific literature. So thats the status we have now; a letter from the advocates challenging the validity and Dr. Masters repeated the 99 study with another quarter million children and the latest study agreed perfectly with the original study. Dr. Kennedy says: So even if you love fluoride, knowing this, you are still not going to say yes lets damage the children with high blood levels of lead.
Who came up with the idea to put fluoride in the water in the first place?
A. That would be Harold Hodge who is known as the Father of Toxicology and is implicated in the murder of 48 people by injections of plutonium, uranium, radioactive lead and other questionable experimental practices on humans during peacetime. He worked for the Atomic Energy Commission and the Manhattan Project and eventually the hydrofluosalicic acid came into being because it was a by-product of making the atomic bomb. Because where they get the uranium is from high-phosphate rock so in the process of extracting uranium, they end up with three by-products one is gypsum that goes into drywall in your home, one is phosphate that goes into fertilizer to make fruits and vegetables thirsty so they grow large and weigh more but have no taste and the latter, is fluoride which is extremely toxic and disposal is a problem. It was decided the best solution is to dilute it by putting it in the drinking water and set up a program to tell everybody that 1 part per million (ppm) is perfectly safe and good for teeth.
The problem is they had no research at all at that time to show that then; in fact, no research has ever shown it to be beneficial to teeth. This may be shocking, but it went to three different courts and the findings of the courts have never been overturned because there was no evidence of benefit and there was ample evidence of harm. In Texas, Indiana and Pennsylvania at the Supreme Court level in those states, it was determined that the state has a right to put a chemical in the water supply that causes adverse health effects if they deem it necessary under the Police Powers Act of The Constitution. Elected bodies have that right. They said the Court could not stop fluoridation because it was the act of an elected body. So the only way to stop fluoridation would be to make sure the people elected were seeking employment in another field.
Further in the story, there was a meeting among Harold Hodge, H.Trendley Dean - a dentist with the US Public Health Service (and known as the Father of Fluoridation), former head of the National Institute of Dental Research, General Grove who was the head of the Army and Stafford Warren who was head of the medical division of the bomb project. The minutes of that meeting are still classified, which begs the question, what could the dentist and the others and the head of the FDA all have to talk about that day? We dont know, but in few weeks later, all the dentists from the Public Health Service under Dr. Dean fanned out across the US to tell all the communities in the United States back in 46 that water fluoridation was very beneficial. There are no studies from 1946 so this is basically the start of The Big Lie.
Q. So one might ask whos making money on this?
A. The largest privately own corporation in the world is Cargill. They sell about 70% of the fluoridation chemicals being used, but they dont sell them to water suppliers; but rather to another company, Lucier, who sells the product to the water companies. So there is a layer or buffer between. They cant legally dump this in the ground or ocean or leak it in rivers, or even bury it at night so that makes it a hazardous waste problem that costs $1.60 a gallon to get rid of, but once they sell it, it becomes a product which can be transported and dispensed. So Cargill sells to Lucier who handles the transport and disposition of the product. So when people get angry over whats happening to the water supply and you have a child with high blood levels of lead or dental fluorosis and go to sue, if you ever get that far, you will end up against a corporate entity that basically is in paper only. You cant sue Cargill because Cargill didnt sell the product.
Thats the bad news about water fluoridation; and the worst news is that it doesnt work. You can check tooth decay data go to the WHO website and look at tooth decay worldwide, all of the modern countries -- Europe, US, Canada all the data is there and there has been a huge drop in tooth decay world-wide since the 40s and actually peaked in the middle of the Depression . so one could speculate that starvation had something to do with it and nutrition. By the end of WWII it had begun the downward trend which continues to this day. The trend downward was actually greater in the non-fluoridated areas of Europe than it was in the US, so if there was a benefit, it is no- existent in terms of the data that we (researchers) can put our fingers on.
Fluoride is not approved by the FDA to treat or prevent any disease of man or animal, it is not approved for tooth decay or porous bones. You can find doctors who are fanatical about prescribing fluoride to babies when they dont have fluoridated water but the liability is theirs because thats not an FDA-approved drug
Q. So the sludge added to our drinking water has never been approved by the FDA?
A. No two of the questions we were allowed to ask of Congressman Ken Calvert and it took almost 4 years to get a response from the FDA -
First question: Is fluoride, when used to prevent tooth decay, a drug subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration? They replied that any substance used to treat or prevent a disease in man or animal is a drug subject to regulation of the FDA.
Another question What substance intended to be ingested has the FDA approved? They said no such drug had been approved and there are no new applications on file.
It took 4 years to come up with that reply. They told the Congressman a little lie regarding the no new drug applications - which is technically correct, but in 1975, they allowed 35 different manufacturers of fluoride vitamins and tablets to voluntarily withdraw their new drug application so there are no new drug applications on file because we have rejected 35 since they said there was no evidence of benefit as prescribed or directed on the labeling so it is disingenuous to be telling the Congressman there is no new drug applications on file when they have already rejected 35.
Q. Recently the study came out about Australian children drinking bottled water and not getting their fluoride and cavities are increasing.
A. Studies of fluoridated communities like Boston since the sixties, the one in Australia was comparing two other fluoridated communities and they have a rampant tooth decay problem so their excuse is the children are drinking bottled water. But if you look at the data, the data show that the poor children are the ones with the cavities and do you think poor children are spending money on bottled water? They dont have any data to support that. Just like the letter from the EPA saying Dr. Masters was a bad scientist. Whenever research comes out that shows their favorite hazardous waste disposal program might be a flawed entity, then they come up with an apology that says oh, well, really thats not the case, its more like this
As an example .there is a man in NY who is a huge advocate for fluoride Kumar...who is the dental director for the State of NY. He went to the NY data on tooth decay - one of the cities that was fluoridated in 1945 was Newburg, NY- a fairly affluent community and a less affluent community, Kingston, was not fluoridated and if you just know the economics of tooth decay, poor children have more decay than rich kids so there should have been more cavities in Kingston than Newberg. Now, 50 years later, there is no difference whatsoever in tooth decay rates between the two communities because the Kingstonians have never allowed fluoride to be added. But there was a huge difference in the amount of dental fluorosis which is the first visible outward sign of fluoride overdose in children and Im glad we are getting to that issue because the National Academy of Science has put together for the first time since this issue began - a more or less balanced panel of people who are toxicologists, whove done research on fluoride, dentists, a risk assessment person for a private science organization, and Dr. Issacson who has done research on Alzheimers disease. These people were speaking at the conference I just attended in NY and what they were saying is that a baby is exposed to fluoride levels at birth, if it is on a bottle, that are known to cause thyroid suppression, damage to the pineal gland, early onset of puberty, alteration of skeletal bone structure, damage to the endocrine system, damage to the immune system at the levels that the infant is exposed to on a bottle so these are way above what the EPA has established as the base dose that harm will occur.
Dentists long believed that fluoride would inhibit dissolution of enamel and that in order to do that the fluoride had to be incorporated into the enamel during tooth development. We now know that this theory is incorrect. In the year 2000, the Journal of the American Dental Association published John Featherstones 20 year review of what weve learned regarding caries prevention. (The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention Featherstone, John M.Sc, Ph.D. JADA Vol. 131 pp.887-899 July 2000). He reported that enamel with fluoride levels as high as Crest toothpaste (1000 ppm) did not resist acid dissolution any better than enamel with the least amount of fluoride.
Q. So what are the safe levels and what is the MCLG?
A. MCLG - is what The National Academy of Science panel was charged to review and is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal not based in law or money but money aside -- what would be your goal for something in the water supply over a lifetime of use that would cause no detectable harm.
And for detectable harm, they consider one cancer in a million to be detectable harm. So the MCLG in the US is 4 ppm fluoride. However, my documentary in China showed that people that were crippled into poverty at 4 ppm - all the children had teeth that were the color of mahogany, brittle, with pieces missing; by the early twenties, they had kyphosis and restricted shoulder movement , by the 30s they were beginning to stoop forward. We went to one home where they had 8 ppm (natural) in the water and the woman was crippled in 16 years to the point where she was suffering from paralysis couldnt get off the bed, in total abject pain because the bone around the spinal cord encroaches on the cord and cuts off the enervation to the lower back first and then the limbs. Many people have dogs that have experienced that and they get those little carts for their hind quarters. This can be eliminated by stopping the dog food that uses ground bone meal. You can mitigate some of the damage by adding calcium magnesium vitamin C and put the dog on pure meat because there is no fluoride in meat.
You get fluoride from many sources, not just from the water supply. Unfortunately, the EPA has just approved a new pesticide rule with sulfurofluoride used for termite treatment but now its being used on food it leaves a residue of fluoride in the meat, vegetables and fruit and they are doing it on all imported fruits and vegetables. You can have a pristine organic garden in Argentina bringing in your beautiful blueberries in winter and they will fumigate it with the sulfurofluoride and levels can be high enough you can brush your teeth with it. Foods like powdered eggs have about 900 ppm fluoride when they get through. And people think they never eat powdered eggs, but they dont think about commercial breads, muffins etc.
The repository for a lifetime fluoride exposure is in your bones. If you take in 2 molecules of fluoride a day, one will be in your bones the day you die. So in a non-fluoridated community, you may get up to 200 parts per million in their bones. Studies in Montreal versus Toronto showed humans in 25 years are up to 2500 ppm fluoride in their bones. Toothpaste is 1000 ppm fluoride and the reason they recommend brushing with fluoride toothpaste is because the fluoride is so toxic it kills the decay-causing bacteria by rendering them unable to produce energy.
The same phenomenon apparently happens in bone. If you section bones and observe the more fluoride, the fewer viable cells, the larger the lacunae, and you end up with trabeculae and lacunae that have more space between them a open lacey effect which is a very toxic bone that has lost most of its vitality and thats why ingested fluoride is associated with hip fracture because there is no tensile strength in that boney area of the hip so it snaps off and you fall.
At 1 ppm fluoride, causes dental fluorosis, thyroid suppression, increased risk of hip fractures. Four studies published in JAMA showing prolonged exposure not one week or one month - and there are some studies showing an average around 7 years that didnt show an increase but if you throw all those out and say I want to see what happens after 25 years exposure, those universally show an increase in the elderly. Its like cigarettes no body says one will kill you, but repeated exposure over time is the risk factor of chronic low-dose exposure of poison. And the buildup will affect glands like the thyroid and the resulting disease conditions as a result of that dysfunction obesity we have a nation of people that are huge.
Who would take a screwdriver in your computer and wiggle it around until sparks flew; well, thats basically what you are doing when dosing people with a chemical for which you have absolutely no understanding of what its impact on human physiology is and what the overall effects are.
The original observation (not a study) on what fluoride does with teeth was in Colorado by a man named McKay who called it Colorado brown stain on teeth. Natural Fluoride is basically found in high concentrations in granite so the Rocky Mountains have eroded over the last few hundred million years, and formed the sediment basin to the East of the Rockies and this is the location of the Colorado brown stain. Its basically a band of high fluoride from Colorado into Kansas down into Oklahoma and reaches into Texas. I had an Uncle raised in Kansas and he had an enormous amount of cavities. McKay observed brown stain on the teeth, then Cox and Dean who surveyed the US - 200 cities and produced the famous Dean 21-City Study which said that dental fluorosis increased (indicating exposure to fluoride) and decrease in tooth decay. This was in the 1977 National Academys of Science Report, but thats a phony study. Dean surveyed 200 cities but if you let me survey 200 people and report on 21 then I can show you smoking can extend your longevity, but you are missing 90% of the data. Why would he do that? Well, because his boss was the former attorney for Alcoa Aluminum and one of the places he surveyed was Bauxite Arkansas which had 9 ppm and that wasnt natural fluoride, it was leaking out of the Bauxite mine and they contaminated the community water supply.
So when you go to look at the science, you have to separate science published by someone with an agenda vs science which is done with a broad-based, blinded fashion where the investigators did not know where the children came from - like looking at all of the United State which was done in 1987 when they looked at both natural and artificial fluoridation throughout the US, 84 different communities, that were randomized, the investigators were standardized in their diagnosis of both tooth decay and dental fluorosis and they showed there was absolutely no statistically significant difference between levels as low as .3 ppm, .7 ppm, 1 ppm and 1.2 ppm in the tooth decay.
They did show a linear relationship between the amount of dental fluorosis with the least at the .3 and most gradually increasing with the higher ppm numbers. At 1 ppm 66% of the children had at least one tooth with visibly scarred by excess fluoride. The science is abundantly clear on this. The problem is you get a lot of people who have an agenda that will take some non-science - a story still shows up Google Town without Tooth Decay which was put in there by people who had fluoride to get rid of and it was allegedly about a town in Texas that had no tooth decay. But there was also an affidavit from a dentist in that town who said Thats crazy there is lots of tooth decay here! It was just a story; today we call it an Internet Story. But this one was put out by the United States Government for the purpose of deceiving the American public. Great Book:
The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson it reads like a novel.
Chronic fluoride ingestion at doses as low as .3 ppm can lead to osteosarcoma, a rare type of bone cancer which has been diagnosed in children. A group of researchers from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females(2)
The results of a study performed in India found that patients with osteosarcoma, a rare type of bone cancer, showed 3 ½ times higher fluoride levels in their bones than non-cancer subjects. (3)
Q. What about Home Water Filters
A. Many people think they are filtering out fluoride and other undesirable elements from municipal tap water. A carbon filter does not work as fluoride ion does not attach to the carbon in the filter. An activated aluminum filter will work but you end up trading off high aluminum water for low fluoride water. Another filter they use in Thailand is bone char with calcium hydroxyapatite but the water ends up tasting like rotted meat.
Distillation or deionization is state of the art for eliminating these chemicals and is the only way to get it all out because you arent just dealing with fluoride also the arsenic, lead, cadmium. A good distiller costs about $500
But the trouble is, unless you never eat out or drink water outside your home, you cant avoid the tap water problem. Starbucks and all those places use carbon filters and they dont use RO. Reverse Osmosis is not a typical filter.
The RO salesman will tell you they can take 8 ppm fluoride and lower it to one so thats an 8:1 ratio so the normal mind thinks if you start with one you can get down much lower yet. But because the RO system works better with higher concentrations and when it gets down to the 1 ppm level, it has more difficulty in getting the fluoride out so a correct statement on RO systems would be that it lowers fluoride levels but it does not remove it. I have requested several water companies show me what it lowers to and they have not been willing to do so. When I ask if you start with one, what does it get down to and I dont get meaningful responses and they say, we dont know. So RO helps but it does not remove all fluoride.
Patients need to get off tap water and on to distilled water or a low-fluoride mineral water and beef up iodine intake.
The antidote to fluoride poisoning is calcium, magnesium, vitamin C and iodine and stop the exposure. But the problem is that the municipal water is used in restaurant foods, commercial beverages like tap water used in Coca Cola - you cant buy commercial products that dont contain fluoride.
FOOD SOURCES OF FLUORIDE
Covered under the MGCL section was the contamination of imported food with sulfurofluoride at the border.
So spending extra money to by fruits and vegetables out of season especially paying more for organic, is a waste because its all negated at the border, plus the amount of fluoride in that food is significant.
Most nutritionists are now advising to buy local produce during the growing season to cut down on the risk of excess pesticide use as well as extensive commercial chemical fertilizers.
TEA
Black and Green Teas are high fluoride. Black tea yields 4 ppm - black English tea - it intentionally uptakes fluoride into the leaf and stores it there and the botanists think it is a protective mechanism to keep pests from eating the leaves gives them a stomach ache.upset stomach, gastric upset is a symptom of fluoride overdose. All soils are high in fluoride - like the 13th most abundant mineral on the planet so you cant find a piece of ground that doesnt have fluoride in it but the vast majority of plants roots do not accept it. They exclude it because the fluoride would kill the plants. Thats one of the reasons we have fluoridation because the fertilizer companies have to take the fluoride out of the phosphate because it would kill the crops.
So English tea, black tea, green tea and chamomile tea even though its herbal. Other fruit teas and herbal teas will not have fluoride except that coming from the water used to make them. Organic or not the fluoride is there. So stopping green and black tea is appropriate. Actually green tea has more fluoride than black tea almost twice as high as black tea.
They only measured a few brands but they were running 7 8 ppm the worst ones are the instant teas, because of the desiccation involved in making it instant so it becomes much more concentrated. Anything reconstituted is going to have a higher concentration. If you boil water that has 1 ppm fluoride and you boil it until from a gallon to a pint, youll have 8 ppm. So thats the concentrating effect. The longer you boil, the higher the fluoride concentration in the residue thats why we think that Lipton Tea is so high.
White tea has not nearly as much fluoride as green or black because it is from very young leaves that have not yet had the chance to uptake much fluoride.
The water used to brew tea will raise the fluoride content a little more.
In the Journal of Fluoride -just about science but excellent they discussed a tea in India called Brick Tea that is really high in fluoride.
DENTAL SOURCES:
Toothpastes, mouth rinses, fluoride containing sealants in children
ENVIRONMENTAL SOURCES
Coal fired plants not only leak mercury, they leak a lot of fluoride and so do oil refineries when they break up the crude into usable oil and they use fluoride to break up the long hydrocarbons to do that so it is a very useful industrial chemical (modern living through chemistry) but also not good to be ingesting it and thats the point of our talk.
The End.
References:
(1) FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER 467 pp pdf file..
Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
Division on Earth and Life Studies
National Research Council of the National Academies - 2006 publication
John Doull, M.D., Ph.D., Chair
Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
[I have the full file. If you want to review it, just email me.]
Brief 4- page Review -
[dels.nas.edu]
(2) Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States).
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] Cancer Causes Control. 2006 May;17(4):421-8
(3) Low levels of p53 mutations in Indian patients with osteosarcoma and the correlation with fluoride levels in bone. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 2001;20(3):237-43. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
As recommended by the US National Research Council: The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States.
Fluoride & the Thyroid - US National Research Council (2006):
In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 223.
The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 224.
several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 197.
it is difficult to predict exactly what effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of fluoride exposure and under what circumstances.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 197.
Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations; similar effects on T4 and T3 are reported in experimental animals..
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 218.
In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 218.
The recent decline in iodine intake in the United States could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 218.
Intake of nutrients such as calcium and iodine often is not reported in studies of fluoride effects. The effects of fluoride on thyroid function, for instance, might depend on whether iodine intake is low, adequate, or high, or whether dietary selenium is adequate.
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 222.
Fluoride & the Thyroid - Studies Available Online:
FULL TEXT - pdf: Bachinskii PP, et al. (1985) Action of the body fluorine of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients on the function of hypophyseal-thyroid the system. Probl Endokrinol (Mosk) 31(6):25-9.
FULL TEXT - html: Day TK, Powell-Jackson PR. (1972). Fluoride, Water Hardness, and Endemic Goitre. Lancet 1:1135-1138.
FULL TEXT - html: Steyn DG, et al. (1955). Endemic Goitre in the Union of South Africa and Some Neighbouring Territories. Union of South Africa. Department of Nutrition.
FULL TEXT - html: Wilson D. (1941). Fluorine in the aetiology of endemic goitre. Lancet Feb 15: 212-213.
Just a few of many very interesting links on this topic:
[www.actionpa.org]
[www.mercola.com]
[www.nofluoride.com]
[www.garynull.com]
Wow Jackie! Well, now I don't know what to do. I make sure I drink 1/2 of my weight in water daily. Water is my drink of choice and I have LSV8 sometimes and once in awhile pure pineapple juice. I don't do hot decaf peppermint tea in the summer. Thought I was doing so well. Now it looks as if distilled water is what is the best and that is about $1.00 a gallon which I would drink in two days. This means I need to look at where I get my drinking water. I only drink the filtered water from my fridge and this says that is not as good. Well, back to the decision board.
Question? My son has a deep Artesian well and the water taste wonderful. I drink several glasses when I go up to their property in the woods. It has been tested by the water people and it passed all test. I wonder how safe I would be to fill my jugs at their pump once a week. Better than what I am doing now, I guess. Sharon
Question? My son has a deep Artesian well and the water taste wonderful. I drink several glasses when I go up to their property in the woods. It has been tested by the water people and it passed all test. I wonder how safe I would be to fill my jugs at their pump once a week. Better than what I am doing now, I guess. Sharon
Sharon,
Relying solely on distilled water or water from a reverse osmosis unit is actually not that great an idea either. Both types of water are acidic (bad for the teeth) and totally devoid of the electrolytes (especially magnesium) so important to afibbers. So if you want to drink distilled water - I would not recommend water from a reverse osmosis unit - it would be wise to neutralize it first (1/4 TUMS per liter should do the job) and then add some trace minerals like ConcenTrace. If your son's artesian well has been tested and is free of contaminants like arsenic I would go for that - sounds like a wonderful source.
Hans
Relying solely on distilled water or water from a reverse osmosis unit is actually not that great an idea either. Both types of water are acidic (bad for the teeth) and totally devoid of the electrolytes (especially magnesium) so important to afibbers. So if you want to drink distilled water - I would not recommend water from a reverse osmosis unit - it would be wise to neutralize it first (1/4 TUMS per liter should do the job) and then add some trace minerals like ConcenTrace. If your son's artesian well has been tested and is free of contaminants like arsenic I would go for that - sounds like a wonderful source.
Hans
Thanks Hans. If I am taking magnesium, would I still need to treat distilled water with the Tums? My best friend has the reverse osmosis system and thinks she is getting the best water. She would be disappointed to hear this.
My son lives in the country and has to depend on well water. Florida is full of artesian water sources and you can drill down until you go through the lime right into the supply of water. I was raised on well water and loved it. When you drill for a well you still have to comply and have the water tested, if it test for anything bad, you won't be able to use it and will have to drill again in another location. Most of the artesian wells are pure. It sure taste good.
I will check everything out. Thanks again. Sharon
My son lives in the country and has to depend on well water. Florida is full of artesian water sources and you can drill down until you go through the lime right into the supply of water. I was raised on well water and loved it. When you drill for a well you still have to comply and have the water tested, if it test for anything bad, you won't be able to use it and will have to drill again in another location. Most of the artesian wells are pure. It sure taste good.
I will check everything out. Thanks again. Sharon
Replacing electrolytes, particularly if you are exercising, should be high on the list when re-hydrating. So we certainly need water with the good bits in 
Since we get an awful lot of our water requirement from the food we eat how much control do we really have over this?
P.S. Sharon I assume you were exaggerating when you said you drink 1/2 your weight in water but too much water can be a bad thing. Like so many things we've got to figure out where the middle ground is, too much or too little will both cause problems. I think the 2 litres I suspect you are aiming at is a bit of a myth - 2 litres from ALL sources, including food, is the origin of this number. Obviously exercise / temperature / humidity stick a big wobble on the graph of what is required day to day.
--
James D
Since we get an awful lot of our water requirement from the food we eat how much control do we really have over this?
P.S. Sharon I assume you were exaggerating when you said you drink 1/2 your weight in water
but too much water can be a bad thing. Like so many things we've got to figure out where the middle ground is, too much or too little will both cause problems. I think the 2 litres I suspect you are aiming at is a bit of a myth - 2 litres from ALL sources, including food, is the origin of this number. Obviously exercise / temperature / humidity stick a big wobble on the graph of what is required day to day.--
James D
James D, I weigh 117 pounds, so that is only 58 ounces of water a day. I drink 8 ounces in the morning upon waking as this really wakes me up and energizes me. Mid morning I drink 16 ounces. The rest of the day I spread the balance and drink it all before I go to bed.
As I said water is my drink of choice. I understand that some water comes from our foods, but that is if you can eat them in their natural stages. I can't eat raw vegetables which have a good water content because of digestive issues. I can eat fruit, but sparingly because of the sugar content. When I have something in the melon family, I cut out some of my water.
I can say the side benefit of drinking water is that my skin feels better and I do too. I have no swelling around my eyes in the morning as I always had before drinking water. I believe because I spread out the water, I am doing okay and not flushing out electrolytes. I think it is unwise to drink a large amount of water at one time and I never do that, I always spread it out over about 12-14 hours.
If anyone can show me that what I am doing is harmful I will listen, but might not change because I think it is more beneficial for me than harmful.
Sharon
As I said water is my drink of choice. I understand that some water comes from our foods, but that is if you can eat them in their natural stages. I can't eat raw vegetables which have a good water content because of digestive issues. I can eat fruit, but sparingly because of the sugar content. When I have something in the melon family, I cut out some of my water.
I can say the side benefit of drinking water is that my skin feels better and I do too. I have no swelling around my eyes in the morning as I always had before drinking water. I believe because I spread out the water, I am doing okay and not flushing out electrolytes. I think it is unwise to drink a large amount of water at one time and I never do that, I always spread it out over about 12-14 hours.
If anyone can show me that what I am doing is harmful I will listen, but might not change because I think it is more beneficial for me than harmful.
Sharon
Hans - thanks - this was on my mind as well, but I didn't want to turn a long post into a longer one to discuss why distilled water isn't a good choice.
The first thing anyone needs to do with municipal tap water is determine if it is fluoridated, what form of fluoride they use as the additive. In a nearby community here, they use sodium fluoride - which while it may not be at safe proportions - at least does not contain the other toxic contaminants like arsenic, lead, cadmium etc.
I'm fortunate in that I've had spring water for over 30 years. We have it tested to be sure there are no contaminants.
Other areas are not so fortunate and in the West, there are areas with very high levels of natural fluoride that are as damaging as when fluoride is added.
Jackie
The first thing anyone needs to do with municipal tap water is determine if it is fluoridated, what form of fluoride they use as the additive. In a nearby community here, they use sodium fluoride - which while it may not be at safe proportions - at least does not contain the other toxic contaminants like arsenic, lead, cadmium etc.
I'm fortunate in that I've had spring water for over 30 years. We have it tested to be sure there are no contaminants.
Other areas are not so fortunate and in the West, there are areas with very high levels of natural fluoride that are as damaging as when fluoride is added.
Jackie
Hans,
To make my morning cup of tea, I buy water from a large grocery store chain (Publix) that is purifed by reverse osmosis. I tested it today with my fresh water aquarium test kit, and it turned out to be a ph of 7, which is, or course, neutral, not acidic, nor alkaline.
Maybe there is some variance in reverse osmosis machines?
Marian
To make my morning cup of tea, I buy water from a large grocery store chain (Publix) that is purifed by reverse osmosis. I tested it today with my fresh water aquarium test kit, and it turned out to be a ph of 7, which is, or course, neutral, not acidic, nor alkaline.
Maybe there is some variance in reverse osmosis machines?
Marian
Hi Sharon, 58 lbs of water is about 26 litres!
If I've done my sums right you're drinking about 1.7 litres a day (and no doubt you'll be a getting a little more from food so you will be somewhere near 2 litre ball park).
My requirements, and I assume everyone elses, vary enormously depending on what I'm doing (I can easily go up to about 1 litre an hour if I'm working outside on a hot day)
--
James D
If I've done my sums right you're drinking about 1.7 litres a day (and no doubt you'll be a getting a little more from food so you will be somewhere near 2 litre ball park).
My requirements, and I assume everyone elses, vary enormously depending on what I'm doing (I can easily go up to about 1 litre an hour if I'm working outside on a hot day)
--
James D
Hi Marian,
earlier up the thread Sharon wrote:
I appreciate that Sharon may have switched from pounds to ounces but she clearly doesn't (and shouldn't!) drink half her weight in water every day. Sorry if I'm being picky but I think specifying units is pretty important here.
They may be a simple formula that says to calculate the fluid ounces of water divide your weight in pounds by two but that's a long way away from saying drinking half you weight in water every day.
Also, I'm trying to stress that I don't agree with any such formula or the idea that anyone should drink a constant amount of water every day - this is definitely a VERY wobbly graph.
Anyone trying to drink half their weight in water is heading for trouble on day one. I don't think anyone drinking 58 ounces of water a day will be in too much trouble but equally I think there will be some days when this amount is too much and other days when it's nowhere near enough.
--
James D
earlier up the thread Sharon wrote:
Quote
I make sure I drink 1/2 of my weight in water daily
I appreciate that Sharon may have switched from pounds to ounces but she clearly doesn't (and shouldn't!) drink half her weight in water every day. Sorry if I'm being picky but I think specifying units is pretty important here.
They may be a simple formula that says to calculate the fluid ounces of water divide your weight in pounds by two but that's a long way away from saying drinking half you weight in water every day.
Also, I'm trying to stress that I don't agree with any such formula or the idea that anyone should drink a constant amount of water every day - this is definitely a VERY wobbly graph.
Anyone trying to drink half their weight in water is heading for trouble on day one. I don't think anyone drinking 58 ounces of water a day will be in too much trouble but equally I think there will be some days when this amount is too much and other days when it's nowhere near enough.
--
James D
"They may be a simple formula that says to calculate the fluid ounces of water divide your weight in pounds by two"
James,
Here is one reference for that formula:
[stason.org]
"The optimum amount of water you should drink depends on your body weight. The fatter you are, the more you need to drink. Take one-half of the amount of your weight in pounds and convert that to ounces and that is how many ounces you should be drinking. Thus, if you weigh 128 pounds, you should be drinking 64 ounces a day. If you weigh 300 pounds, you need to drink 150 ounces a day. You can't just categorize any liquid consumption as being adequate to meet the recommended amount-- for example, coffee is a diuretic and causes you to lose water, so you wouldn't want to try meeting your daily water requirements with large quantities of that."
However, I surely agree that one size does not fit all when it comes to water intake. There are so many other factors that enter into the equation, such as ejection fraction, kidney function, and ambient temperature to name a few.
Marian
James,
Here is one reference for that formula:
[stason.org]
"The optimum amount of water you should drink depends on your body weight. The fatter you are, the more you need to drink. Take one-half of the amount of your weight in pounds and convert that to ounces and that is how many ounces you should be drinking. Thus, if you weigh 128 pounds, you should be drinking 64 ounces a day. If you weigh 300 pounds, you need to drink 150 ounces a day. You can't just categorize any liquid consumption as being adequate to meet the recommended amount-- for example, coffee is a diuretic and causes you to lose water, so you wouldn't want to try meeting your daily water requirements with large quantities of that."
However, I surely agree that one size does not fit all when it comes to water intake. There are so many other factors that enter into the equation, such as ejection fraction, kidney function, and ambient temperature to name a few.
Marian
Marian,
Yes, I am sure there are variations in reverse osmosis (RO) systems. The pH of the water coming out of the system depends largely on the amount of carbon dioxide in the feed water - however, for a simple RO system the pH would usually be about 6.5-6.8. If the water you purchase has a pH of 7.0 then it is likely that the supermarket where you buy it has post-treatment that increases the pH. Unfortunately, this may lead to an increase in sodium ions in the water. Also, some volatile organic substances can pass through the membranes as can some bacteria. All these problems (except the lack of minerals) can be solved by adding pre-treatment aeration (to remove CO2), post-treatment pH adjustment, carbon filtration to remove volatile organic substances and ultraviolet light sterilization or ozone treatment to kill bacteria. So, while it is possible to produce acceptable drinking water (except for lack of minerals) by RO most home-units would not have the added equipment to do so.
The optimum pH for drinking water is 7.2-7.4 closely matching that of blood serum (7.35-7.45).
Hans
Yes, I am sure there are variations in reverse osmosis (RO) systems. The pH of the water coming out of the system depends largely on the amount of carbon dioxide in the feed water - however, for a simple RO system the pH would usually be about 6.5-6.8. If the water you purchase has a pH of 7.0 then it is likely that the supermarket where you buy it has post-treatment that increases the pH. Unfortunately, this may lead to an increase in sodium ions in the water. Also, some volatile organic substances can pass through the membranes as can some bacteria. All these problems (except the lack of minerals) can be solved by adding pre-treatment aeration (to remove CO2), post-treatment pH adjustment, carbon filtration to remove volatile organic substances and ultraviolet light sterilization or ozone treatment to kill bacteria. So, while it is possible to produce acceptable drinking water (except for lack of minerals) by RO most home-units would not have the added equipment to do so.
The optimum pH for drinking water is 7.2-7.4 closely matching that of blood serum (7.35-7.45).
Hans
James,
I certainly agree that our water requirements can vary depending on the activity we are engaged in. However, there is some indication that afibbers who have been successful in eliminating afib generally has a higher than normal water intake. As part of the research for my first book I evaluated, in detail, the diet of three afibbers who had vanquished "the beast". Their average daily water intake ranged between 3.5 and 4.0 liters a day (98-112 ounces (UK) or 119-136 ounces (US) ) of which at least 1 liter (28 or 34 oz respectively) came from pure drinking water.
Other interesting observations from that diet evaluation:
A potassium:sodium ratio of 3:1 or higher or about twice the normal ratio.
A daily magnesium intake of more than twice the RDA.
A calcium:magnesium ratio of about 1.5 or about half the normal ratio.
Hans
I certainly agree that our water requirements can vary depending on the activity we are engaged in. However, there is some indication that afibbers who have been successful in eliminating afib generally has a higher than normal water intake. As part of the research for my first book I evaluated, in detail, the diet of three afibbers who had vanquished "the beast". Their average daily water intake ranged between 3.5 and 4.0 liters a day (98-112 ounces (UK) or 119-136 ounces (US) ) of which at least 1 liter (28 or 34 oz respectively) came from pure drinking water.
Other interesting observations from that diet evaluation:
A potassium:sodium ratio of 3:1 or higher or about twice the normal ratio.
A daily magnesium intake of more than twice the RDA.
A calcium:magnesium ratio of about 1.5 or about half the normal ratio.
Hans
James, I am sorry. I see what you mean about how I worded my first post on drinking 1/2 of my body weight in water a day. I meant to say I drink 1/2 of my body weight converted to ounces in water. My eyeballs would be floating if I drank that many lbs of water.
Can you even measure water by the pound? Aren't liquids usually by the ounce? I probably had that in mind when I wrote it. Oh well, it doesn't matter. I truly believe my regime with water has been one of the components of many things that has kept me out of afib for over a year now.
James, you said, "I don't think anyone drinking 58 ounces of water a day will be in too much trouble but equally I think there will be some days when this amount is too much and other days when it's nowhere near enough." I think I clarified that with my statement "When I have something in the melon family, I cut out some of my water." I also very rarely drink any other liquids except water, if I do I add that substance as part of my ounces and decrease my water accordingly.
This formula seems to work for me. I have healthy kidneys and because I spread the intake of water out over the day, I don't think I am over tasking my body. I am aware that drinking that much water, doesn't work for everyone. But sharing what works for us is what we do, then leave it up to the individual to make their own choices.
Sorry about the lbs and oz, certainly didn't mean to confuse or alarm anyone. Thanks for your concern James. Sharon
Can you even measure water by the pound? Aren't liquids usually by the ounce? I probably had that in mind when I wrote it. Oh well, it doesn't matter. I truly believe my regime with water has been one of the components of many things that has kept me out of afib for over a year now.
James, you said, "I don't think anyone drinking 58 ounces of water a day will be in too much trouble but equally I think there will be some days when this amount is too much and other days when it's nowhere near enough." I think I clarified that with my statement "When I have something in the melon family, I cut out some of my water." I also very rarely drink any other liquids except water, if I do I add that substance as part of my ounces and decrease my water accordingly.
This formula seems to work for me. I have healthy kidneys and because I spread the intake of water out over the day, I don't think I am over tasking my body. I am aware that drinking that much water, doesn't work for everyone. But sharing what works for us is what we do, then leave it up to the individual to make their own choices.
Sorry about the lbs and oz, certainly didn't mean to confuse or alarm anyone. Thanks for your concern James. Sharon
Hi Sharon, you asked
>Aren't liquids usually measured in ounces?
That all depends which country you live in (and which ounce you use) and how old you are Even though I'm in the UK I've never used ounces (or fluid ounces) but am comfortable with both pints/ half pints / litres and millilitres. (and just to be confusing I'm much happier saying I weigh 13 stone 10 than saying I weigh 192 pounds or 87kg even though I'm much more comfortable cooking in grams!)
It'd be nice if all the world used SI units but I suspect that's a long way off. The easy conversion I remember from school is 1 litre of water is 1kg so yes you certainly can measure liquids either by volume or mass. (and I'd bet the US fluid ounce has it's origins in weight even though it's a volume)
I think it's worth bearing in mind that this site is read globally so many will use kg and litres instead of pounds and fluid ounces and just to make it harder some folk don't have English as their first language ( which is why I raised the issue in the first place when I read your comment about how much fluid you drank)
Just to emphasise my point on how much water intake varies, today I went swimming - that's added about 1.5 litres (50 US ounces) to my intake. So using the simple formula of my weight in lbs (192) over 2 I've introduced about a 50% discrepancy in the formula that recommends I should be on 96 ounces a day! That must mean, at least in my opinion, the formula is not very good and any general recommendation is always going to require a large caveat about how variable water requirements are.
I hope our friends in the metric world will forgive us for not getting this sorted (the UK could have done it in 1971 but missed a trick or two!)
--
James D (just over 2 yards or 18.5 hands tall ;~)
>Aren't liquids usually measured in ounces?
That all depends which country you live in (and which ounce you use) and how old you are
Even though I'm in the UK I've never used ounces (or fluid ounces) but am comfortable with both pints/ half pints / litres and millilitres. (and just to be confusing I'm much happier saying I weigh 13 stone 10 than saying I weigh 192 pounds or 87kg even though I'm much more comfortable cooking in grams!) It'd be nice if all the world used SI units but I suspect that's a long way off. The easy conversion I remember from school is 1 litre of water is 1kg so yes you certainly can measure liquids either by volume or mass. (and I'd bet the US fluid ounce has it's origins in weight even though it's a volume)
I think it's worth bearing in mind that this site is read globally so many will use kg and litres instead of pounds and fluid ounces and just to make it harder some folk don't have English as their first language ( which is why I raised the issue in the first place when I read your comment about how much fluid you drank)
Just to emphasise my point on how much water intake varies, today I went swimming - that's added about 1.5 litres (50 US ounces) to my intake. So using the simple formula of my weight in lbs (192) over 2 I've introduced about a 50% discrepancy in the formula that recommends I should be on 96 ounces a day! That must mean, at least in my opinion, the formula is not very good and any general recommendation is always going to require a large caveat about how variable water requirements are.
I hope our friends in the metric world will forgive us for not getting this sorted
(the UK could have done it in 1971 but missed a trick or two!)--
James D (just over 2 yards or 18.5 hands tall ;~)
Jamesd, you said, "Just to emphasise my point on how much water intake varies, today I went swimming - that's added about 1.5 litres (50 US ounces) to my intake."
James, the first thing I learned about swimming many years ago was to keep my mouth closed...your might try that, it would help your intake of water...just kidding...but then again how could you take in 50 ounces of water by swimming????
As for talking in everyone's native tongue...at my age...think I will have to pass and just talk plain old southern girl language and hope everyone can understand. I will try to be careful with ounces and pounds too. In England doesn't pounds indicate money?? Oh my goodness...I am eating money now..okay I am just having fun, need to get off here before I go completely bonkers.
To all my friends, raise an ounce, kg or litres glass of your drink of choice and I will see you later. Sharon
James, the first thing I learned about swimming many years ago was to keep my mouth closed...your might try that, it would help your intake of water...just kidding...but then again how could you take in 50 ounces of water by swimming????
As for talking in everyone's native tongue...at my age...think I will have to pass and just talk plain old southern girl language and hope everyone can understand. I will try to be careful with ounces and pounds too. In England doesn't pounds indicate money?? Oh my goodness...I am eating money now..okay I am just having fun, need to get off here before I go completely bonkers.
To all my friends, raise an ounce, kg or litres glass of your drink of choice and I will see you later. Sharon
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.