What is the scientific basis for your remarks? Without any basis, we might as well be talking about faked moon landings.
For example, if you say that all fluorocarbons are unstable, then what about Goretex?
Goretex is made of "stretched polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape". So should we all avoid wearing Goretex clothing? My question is serious. Should we stop wearing it, or continue to wear it? Have you personally stopped wearing it? If so, why? Based on a gut hunch? An overly broad application of a "principle"? Where do you draw the line...and why?
Getting back to science for a moment, I searched on the stability of fluorocarbon bonds and got this:
"Fluorocarbons, sometimes referred to as perfluorocarbons, are organofluorine compounds that contain only carbon and fluorine bonded together in strong carbon–fluorine bonds. Fluoroalkanes that contain only single bonds are more chemically and thermally stable than alkanes. However, fluorocarbons with double bonds (fluoroalkenes) and especially triple bonds (fluoroalkynes) are more reactive than their corresponding hydrocarbons." Source]
The Cliff Notes version of the above paragraph is that they found fluorocarbons with single bonds were MORE stable than hydrocarbons of the same type. They also point out that double and triple bonds destabilize fluorocarbons (just as they do any hydrocarbon they are in).
In short, the results summarized above are entirely consistent with the most basic principles of chemistry. i.e. It strengthens the case for fluorocarbons being MORE stable than regular hydrocarbons. The MD50 figures I published in the past for hydrocarbons (and fluorocarbons) are at "suffocation" levels -- in other words, you die from breathing hydro/fluorocarbon when it replaces too much of the vital oxygen in your lungs, NOT when it breaks down in any way.
I don't mind imagining that fluorocarbons are unstable and deadly. But I have zero facts to back that up with. And so, for now, for me and I would think virtually all scientists, fluorocarbons (of the type used as refrigerants) are inert and a non-issue.
- - - - -
LET'S GET BACK TO BASICS
Basic chemistry says that fluorine is more toxic than lead and almost as toxic as arsenic. Yet we avoid lead and arsenic, while force-feeding fluoride to everyone. That is a basic problem that everyone can understand and rally around.
We don't need to go looking down side roads in the futile attempt to find something worse than this.
Yet this FluoridePoisoning list at times seems to specialize in distractions. Some months back we got sidetracked with how much arsenic was in a tanker truck of HF. It turned out the amount of arsenic was miniscule...and was always irrelevant in the first place. The authorities are doing a great job of poisoning us with almost pure fluoride. We don't need to look for some petty secondary crime. Yet some of us do, and regularly.
- - - - -
Another absurd hook many of us bite on is some simple, cheap and easy way to remove fluorine from water. Do we take this approach when it comes to radioactive waste? If we found out some nuclear reactor was next door, would we just install some "really good" filters on our furnace? Of course not.
Part of the reason fluoridation continues is human gullibility. A salesman comes along with a "new filtration process" that supposedly removes fluoride and we are all ears. The recent loon even sent me a private email about his product.
Clearly, many of us want to believe the pitch, and so the bigger scam continues. If I was on the pro-fluoridation side, I would be very happy with how easily turned and confused many on this list are. Everything is working perfectly for them. We are confused and at each other's throats.
Personally I prefer the water truck approach to drinking water. A big bottled water truck pulling up to my house once a month is a pretty good advertiser of what I think of the tap water. And it leads to questions and discussions.
- - - - -
Given that this list is about Fluoride Poisoning in general, it makes sense for us to inform ourselves and share with others any examples of Fluoride Poisoning beyond the obvious source of fluoridated water.
Fluorinated table salt is something that everyone on Earth should be aware of, and avoid. And is probably one of the easiest to avoid, and boycott -- "Do you use fluorinated table salt in your restaurant? Yes? Bye."
Sulfuryl fluoride as a preservative that no one has to account for is super sickening. At least fluoridation can hide behind its big lie. SF2, as the "best" poison for the job, should at least be documented as to when it is used, how much residue there is and have some federal guidelines surrounding it.
Fluorinated pharmaceuticals are nasty, but then pharmaceuticals by themselves are sufficiently nasty that total avoidance is merely a reasonable precaution.
- - - - -
In case it is not obvious, what I am saying is that we need to stick with proven articles and basic facts. Otherwise we will all float away on magic carpets. Then again, maybe some of us are armchair quarterbacks, thinking we are doing something of value when we randomly cheer someone else on from our couch. If so, we should start a fantasy league.
P.S. Getting back to Goretex for a second...if it was unstable, your clothes would spontaneously disintegrate with time. Has this happened to anyone? Me neither.
[Two people responded to my post, and my responses to them are below:]
Floyd, this is about the only support group in the world for people who suffer, and that IS the correct term, from the effects of exposure to fluoride and fluorinated drugs and chemicals made ubiquitous and unavoidable exactly because of scientific bias like yours against finding any fault with fluorocarbons.
You are making the point I made, Aliss. I was the one saying this list is a Fluoride Poisoning list and we should be talking about every Fluoride containing thing that is capable of poisoning us.
My "bias" is that I favor chemical (and this includes the biological interactions of chemicals) principles over guesses. I need a _reason_ before I point out a flaw. Without a reason I might as well just shout on a street corner.
Chemically stable does NOT mean metabolically or physiologically harmless.
True. But what it does mean is that if there are side effects, they are not caused by fluorine atoms floating around and bonding with other atoms, but rather by some other mechanism. Then it is a matter of determining what that other mechanism is (see an example below Re: PFOA), how severe it is and how best to avoid or minimize it.
Chemically stable fluorocarbons can and do act as cell membrane receptor toxins and endocrine disruptors.
Evidence? Links? I can find them for compounds that also contain things like oxygen atoms (see below). But so far, for purely fluorocarbons, I have not seen any evidence that they are bad for fleshy living things. If and when that appears I will be the first to raise a red flag. For now that flag is folded and tucked away.
Molecular biology does exist as a field of scientific study.
...As a matter of fact I also can't tolerate Goretex or any fabric or carpeting with fluorinated flame retardants or stain resistance treatment.
Goretex is not the same as a fabric treated with a flame retardant.
If you read the wiki on Scotchgard and the one on PFOA you will see why these chemicals are biologically active (leading to them changing the formula over the years).
The biological activity relates to elements other than fluorine or carbon. Specifically, in the case of PFOA it is the oxygen (the atom that makes the PFOA an Acid) that makes it biologically persistent.
This is due to a chemistry basic: like attracts like. Oxygen is polar and our bodies are full of polar molecules (mostly in our body's water molecules). Gore-Tex, on the other hand, is a non-polar molecule that repels polar molecules like water by definition.
My point is if this list is to be more than a weepy wet shoulder to cry on then we need to be more precise and scientific about what we claim is falling from the sky.
Recently we lost a battle because we made an issue out of non-fluorine contaminants...that we were wrong about. They weren't the problem but we tried to make them the problem.
Similarly, on at least 3 levels, it is impossible for refrigerants to be the problem -- (1) they are 3 times heavier than air, therefore it is not physically possible to breath them unless we go to the lowest point in our house, lie face down on the floor and breath in that position, (2) they are stable AND non-polar molecules so the biological interaction is probably zero, (3) there is a vanishingly small amount of this "leaking out" in the first place -- pretty hard to be poisoned by something that doesn't exist.
Statistical method has its excellent place. Individual learned-the-hard-way stringent observation has its place too.
Provided we label these two accordingly, they do indeed have their place. For example, in my YouTube video on fluoridation, I make a point that distillation did not work for me when I tried it with my own distillation equipment at home. I did not say that distillation doesn't work period. But what I indirectly say is that it might not work with some equipment...and do you really want to take the chance?
Also, at the end of my distiller's cycle, there was no liquid in the bottom. So where did the hydrogen fluoride go? Either into my "purified" water, or the air. Judging by what happened to my body when I drank it, I say the former, but in the latter case I breathed it. In either case, distillation sounds like it is worse than useless. But note how I don't say that in the video. I am conservative in how I word my caution.
If we want to be listened to, best we be conservative rather than radical/fringe/extremist. As I've already mentioned, fluoridation has no leg to stand on in even the most conservative analysis. Same for fluoro fumigants, fluoridated table salt and biologically active fluoropharamceuticals.
If we manage to to halt the majority of the poisoning, we will also have gained a substantial following. It will become "cool" to be anti-fluoride. And this in turn will lead to honest scientific studies that will lead to halting additional sources of fluoride poisoning. But it won't all happen at once, and it sure won't happen if we howl at the moon.
(We can all think of many toxicants that statistical method and peer-review insisted, for decades, were safe.)
While four out of five doctors smoked Camels, we already had ample evidence, both empirical and with our own relatives, co-workers and family, that smoking was bad for us. Smoking declined long before Philip Morris was held accountable.
We can choose to avoid fluoridated tap water while we wait for the rest of the world to catch up.
But when we say it is bad, we better have some basic reasons for saying so, or we will be made into laughing stocks and, more importantly, set our cause BACK.
It takes discipline to only mention the most serious and egregious fluorine poisons.
I am glad of this group because it sometimes seems to provide common ground for both resources' contributions, in mutual support. You sound excellently aware of the toxicity of some kinds of fluoride exposures. Did you come by that awareness exclusively through statistical method? (If so, how did you sift through all the "scientific controversy" to arrive on one side?)
I don't think there is scientific controversy when it comes to fluorine containing compounds. I think there is a massive media bias, because the media is controlled by the very people who stand to gain the most by slowly poisoning the 99%. I also think the power of the elite is such that they can and do blacklist scientists and professionals who try to speak out against it. But that doesn't make the subject controversial, or complicated.
Have you never had also any personal experiences that internalized the information for you -- that made bodily-clear to you which side of the controversy was actually worthwhile?
If I understand your question, I think the closest I have come, by way of personal experience, is noticing the effect on my body of showering in fluoridated water, and in drinking supposedly purified distilled water.
Nonetheless, I do NOT make that the central point of what I have to say. The opposite if anything. I am at my most conservative when talking about my own situation. As should we all be.
If you've ever had such experiences, you already know that not everyone's bodies give loud warnings about the same exposure
I agree with this. Hence the name of my article is "Fluoride: An Invisible Killer". This is what makes the element so insidious -- it is nearly undetectable, and even when we detect symptoms we learn that it is added to so many things that we have to hunt down numerous sources of the poison to truly be free of it.
, or (if they do) use exactly the same signals to do so, and a whole lot of people don't yet recognize their bodies' signals at all (or haven't learned disciplines for correlating them with particular toxicants/exposures); they have further to journey in this cumulative-systemic- fluorosis adventure before the connection becomes clear to them;
and meanwhile, some factions of the scientific community will go on passionately supporting their unawareness for as long as possible, many probably in all good conscience, self-persuaded of the same kinds of exclusively-statistical-method arguments as you're giving below.
First of all, no matter how "passionately" anyone supports, or attacks, fluoride (or anything else), it comes down to basic principles in the end. Approaching this, or any other subject, with common sense will lead to the truth. Not everyone is capable of this. We have to be patient, and stick to the most solid points, to eventually convince a large enough percentage of the population to effect change.
Second, my methods are not statistical. Not sure why you label them as such. They are based on the most core aspects of chemistry. Chemical bedrock.
Statistics are useful until you realize "Gee, I never tested for that". A chemical basic such as "Like attracts like", leading to the reason why Gore-Tex repels water being different to how Scotchgard works, is irrefutable. In statistical terms it would be called a 100% certainty. Just as it is a 100% certainty that fluorine is a poison, and that it is more toxic than lead -- providing reason enough for us to stop adding it to our water supply.
Would you seriously say you've never had bodily experience (from fluoride exposure in any form) that would give you room to credit (or at least respect) Aliss', and others' experience
So, if I've had AN experience, I must credit or at least respect ALL OTHER experiences? Wowser.
I have mentioned my two experiences above. Both produced an obvious physically visible result, in me. Still, in terms of statistical certainty I would only say "probably".
That is how we have to be, if we want to be heard...by others beyond the 350 members of this list anyway.
, and the possibility that we're engaging in stringent observation-disciplines around it (whether or not they're the same disciplines you're familiar with)?
Is just that...a POSSIBILITY. If we fail to mention that, we are doing our fellow man a disservice. Something some of us clearly have no problem doing. How compassionless.
-- disciplines that have kept us alive much longer and more happily than waiting for the statistical body-count, alone, would have done?
You are doing good advertising (making what you know available to others who may be ready for it) with the monthly arrival of the water truck. Why shouldn't Aliss and others of us do the same (in this group, of all places)?
Because misinformation is not information.
Because saying something is a fact without backing it up is fear mongering.
Because doing either of these WEAKENS our side.
Because I care about the veracity of the posts made to this forum.
1,500,000 baby names