Tap water...

[chemadict]

Ok ok, ok, so I just watched a video thats said theres chlorine in most tap water, so, is this true? if it is, the amount in tap water is harmful or not, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPKE9phMGSg, there

[John Cuthber]

That's an advert for a product that only sells based on what can politely be described as hype (or, more accurately described as lies).

 

Of course the amount of chlorine in water isn't toxic.

There are (largely theoretical) risks associated with chlorination of water- mainly to do with the production of chemicals like trichloromethane in the water.

It's true that trichloromethane is known to cause cancer- if you ingest enough of it.

But the amounts formed are tiny.

 

On the other hand, cholera (one of the better known water borne diseases) kills a lot of people if you don't disinfect the water supply.

[Amaton]

Ok ok, ok, so I just watched a video thats said theres chlorine in most tap water, so, is this true? if it is, the amount in tap water is harmful or not, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPKE9phMGSg, there

 

In my opinion, it's best to ignore any such claim made by a company wanting to sell its product. When science is involved in advertising, the propaganda method tends to be fear, and that's when truth becomes of secondary to negligible priority.

 

You should cross-check the claim with information from a reliable (scientific) source, though this particular topic may not be so well documented. At best for something... Water chlorination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Iota]

Chlorine isn't too much to worry about in your water, it's necessary being there and not a great risk. However, what is an unnecessary risk, on the other hand- is the fluoride added to water, if your in most parts of the US and select parts of the UK. Supposedly to prevent tooth decay.

[John Cuthber]

FFS! Can we stop promoting the "fluoride in water is..." conspiracy theories please?

This is mean to be a science site.

[Iota]

FFS! Can we stop promoting the "fluoride in water is..." conspiracy theories please?

This is mean to be a science site.

 

... simply stating that fluoridation of water is an 'unnecessary risk' is a conspiracy?

Edited October 27, 2013 by Iota

[John Cuthber]

Tacitly, yes.

If there was not some sort of conspiracy to do it then why would they bother?

Some group has to be "conspiring" to do this.

 

Also there's little if any real evidence of a risk and the benefits are well documented.

There are moral questions about involuntary mass medication- but the decision to fluoridate water should (at least in a democracy) have been made by the people through their representatives.

[Strange]

 

... simply stating that fluoridation of water is an 'unnecessary risk' is a conspiracy?

 

Sounds like it. Especially when followed by the, frankly bizarre, "supposedly to prevent tooth decay."

[Iota]

Tacitly, yes.

If there was not some sort of conspiracy to do it then why would they bother?

Some group has to be "conspiring" to do this.

 

Because I don't recognise the benefits of fluoridating water, doesn't only possibly imply a conspiracy. It implies in this case that I don't recognise the reasons given by those who are for it as adequate.

 

 

 

There are moral questions about involuntary mass medication- but the decision to fluoridate water should (at least in a democracy) have been made by the people through their representatives.

 

Hence, my main grounds for disapproval. The US didn't go about it in a democratic manner, nor do some European countries in their efforts to fluoridate table salt. There can be no democratic means by which a government can mass-medicate its population, unless everyone agrees. It should always be optional, never made unavoidable.

 

 

 

Also there's little if any real evidence of a risk and the benefits are well documented.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf

 

40.7% of adolescents had dental fluorosis in 1999-2004 USA.

 

Skeletal fluorosis is also well documented (though not with the amount added to water supplies by governments, such as USA. It is caused by fluoride intake).

 

Also, just because the risk is small, or because a consequential risk hasn't currently been recognised as having occurred due to deliberate fluoridating of water, doesn't mean a risk isn't there. That's especially important to consider when the benefit of an action such as water fluoridating isn't all that necessary for the masses who are being medicated, and can be avoided without there being substantial or any real consequences. Hence, the risk is unnecessary, as well as being unjustified ethically.

 

Sounds like it. Especially when followed by the, frankly bizarre, "supposedly to prevent tooth decay."

 

Alright fine. I can concede that. I said that because I found it 'bizarre' that the reason given for the move is to raise the dental health of the population, by reaching those poorer areas. How many people can't afford toothpaste, how about a raised awareness scheme through education and advertising? Why the jump to this costly, 'let's fluoridate everybody's water scheme!'?

 

I don't see that rationale as being equivalent to the unscientific conspiracy theory class as John categorised it.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Iota

[John Cuthber]

"Skeletal fluorosis is also well documented (though not with the amount added to water supplies by governments, such as USA. It is caused by fluoride intake)."

So, it's not relevant.

 

" How many people can't afford toothpaste,"

How many brush their teeth as often as they drink water?

So, it's not really relevant either.

 

"Also, just because the risk is small, or because a consequential risk hasn't currently been recognised as having occurred due to deliberate fluoridating of water, doesn't mean a risk isn't there. "

If a lot of people have put a lot of effort into finding that risk, but have failed it is evidence that the risk isn't there.

 

Also, you can't have it both ways.

The fluoride doesn't know how it gets into the body.

If you accept that it works when applied as toothpaste then you ought to accept that it works in the water supply.

Do you not know how they found out about the effect of fluoride on caries?

It's because they found that people in areas with relatively high fluoride levels suffered from less tooth decay.

 

So, there's no question that it works- the benefits are real.

And there's no real evidence of harm.

So the risk benefit analysis is pretty clear.

So someone who says " I don't recognise the benefits of fluoridating water" is ignoring the science.

Which is why I can class it as "unscientific conspiracy theory "

And, re. "The US didn't go about it in a democratic manner,"

Stand for election.

[Iota]

"Skeletal fluorosis is also well documented (though not with the amount added to water supplies by governments, such as USA. It is caused by fluoride intake)."

So, it's not relevant.

 

I don't want to undermine your knowledge over mine, because yours is superior to mine by miles. But wow, very poor logic there. You're clearly fighting against fear mongering hype, which I recognise, because all too often it takes authority over fact and rational thinking in the minds of most people when it comes to issues like this. But you're in the wrong, the way you're trying to go about it here.

 

How many brush their teeth as often as they drink water?

So, it's not really relevant either.

 

I don't see that brushing and drinking water are equal in function or effectiveness in terms of dental care. Because people don't brush regular enough, doesn't mean everyone should therefore be subjected to taking fluoride unavoidably through their fundamental water supply.

 

 

 

If a lot of people have put a lot of effort into finding that risk, but have failed it is evidence that the risk isn't there.

 

I wholly disagree. It's evidence that a risk has yet to be known, not that one doesn't exist.

 

 

 

If you accept that it works when applied as toothpaste then you ought to accept that it works in the water supply.

 

I do, but to the extent that it's necessary, on top of brushing; necessary to the extent you force it on the masses, is very questionable. Both ethically, and scientifically.

 

 

 

And there's no real evidence of harm.

 

I consider dental fluorosis a form of harm, and don't consider the small benefits to a small proportion of the population adequate justification for mass-medication. I agree with the EU on this one.

 

 

 

So someone who says " I don't recognise the benefits of fluoridating water" is ignoring the science.

 

Yet you know in the context from which you quoted me, I meant the putative 'additional benefits' over just using brushing/flossing/other existing dental products which are used voluntarily by people, as opposed to unavoidably pushed upon people. Not that I don't recognise the tooth decay preventing properties of fluoridated water intake.

 

 

 

Stand for election.

 

Is there really any need to be facetious?

Edited October 27, 2013 by Iota

[John Cuthber]

Nobody is disputing the fact that fluoride has toxic effects in high doses, However, those doses do not occur via fluoridation, so those effects are irrelevant to the current discussion.

After all, 10 litres of water would probably kill you- are you going to ban it?

 

 

"I wholly disagree. It's evidence that a risk has yet to be known, not that one doesn't exist."

How do you sleep at night, knowing there's a risk that your room has a tiger in it?

Do you worry about that risk or do you dismiss it because, if there were one, you would know about it by now?

Well, it's the same with fluoride in water. The risk must be small or non-existent.

 

"I consider dental fluorosis a form of harm"

So do I. It affected my aunt who grew up in an area where the natural fluoride levels were high.

She has mottled teeth.

However, since they don't add enough fluoride to drinking water to cause fluorosis, that objection is also irrelevant.

 

"Not that I don't recognise the tooth decay preventing properties of fluoridated water intake."

Please yourself, but you are ignoring the science.

 

Who is being facetious?

If you think politics is letting you down, join a party that agrees with your views and campaign for it, or stand for election.

Good luck standing on a ticket that says "I don't believe evidence".

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

As far as I can tell, the OP mentioned chlorination, not fluoridation. Please stick to the topic.

 

Edit: there was a post made after I posted this mod note. I have split it into the trash.

[chemadict]

Interesting, so chlorine helps killing bacteria in the water, and the amount of chlorine in the water is not toxic....
Edit: deleted extra line which is the same as the 1st line

Edited October 28, 2013 by chemadict

[John Cuthber]

Is it true that Tap Water is bad to our body?

No.

Or, at least, very probably no.

[CharonY]

Depends a bit on location and the water standards, though. If agencies such as EPA are there and enforce water standards, the water should be safe (or warnings will be issued if there are problems). This is not necessarily true for all countries. A worst issues with chlorination is usually the taste, which can be handled with a simple filter. It should also be noted that not all water sources are necessarily chlorinated (it depends on contamination risks, but is probably done more often than not).

If one wanted to be really paranoid one should be wary of contamination of drinking water with unregulated chemicals released by industrial and agricultural activities.

[John Cuthber]

It's unusual that anyone takes the trouble to pipe water to a tap without cleaning it up but it's possible.

However given that the person asking the question has access to a computer, I'm betting that they are not stuck in the middle of nowhere.

On the other hand, access to a computer and the web exposes people to all sorts of hogwash about "dangerous" impurities in the water.

"Water safe to drink!"

isn't going to sell as much advertising as

"Water not safe to drink!"

Edited November 11, 2013 by John Cuthber