So what supplement should I buy and take to hedge against this risk?
CleanWater™
Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states
81–90 of 119 posts
Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states
#82Nice, an article that links to sources in the prrimary scientific literature! Let's see, the link text says "potent immunotoxicants", that's probably a study about the effects of PFAS on the immune system. But no, it's actually some meaningless bullshit about evolution and doesn't even mention the word "fluor" once. Given that, the term "toxic" is unjustified (it appears that if PFOA is toxic, then so are fatty acids…
Your misunderstanding starts where you're considering the linked article a "primary source". Even though it's at harvard.edu, it's not a peer-reviewed "primary source".
Given that the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence, the conclusion and causation you imply with "given that" is wrong.
You're also awfully quick to call stuff you don't understand "bullshit".
Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states
#83While drinking water is generally extremely safe in the US, especially compared to many other countries of the world. I still install three stage, under the counter filtration systems for any kitchen tap water. Minimal costs, and at the very least prevents the water from tasting like a pool.
Exactly! Everyone's always so worried about fluoride in drinking water, with little justification and without giving a thought to all the chlorine which is often present in far greater concentrations and, in certain conditions, can react with other organic and inorganic compounds to form all sorts of nasties. Get a good filter for your drinking water and most of these concerns vanish. Plus you'll save a fortune on bo…
>Get a good filter for your drinking water and most of these concerns vanish. Plus you'll save a fortune on bottled water.
We do that. But it's worth noting that your comment implies that a filter will remove fluoride.
Reverse osmosis will remove fluoride. A Brita filter will not. At least the last time I checked.
Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states
#84Why isn't the state of our water supply a national emergency? In the long term this will affect far more people than whatever terrorist scare Trump is currently worried about.
The short answer: Republicans. They want less regulation and have been trying for decades to gut the EPA. They will finally get their chance.
It wasn't an emergency in the last 8 years either. Disregard for the environment is bipartisan.
Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states
#85This article is about heavily fluorinated organic compounds -- molecules with a carbon skeleton and all or most of the hydrogen atoms replaced by fluorine. These are not the ionic fluorine compounds that protect teeth against decay (and that cause acute toxicity in case of over-consumption). Why are these compounds hazardous? - Harmful biological effects in the human body, like hormone-mimic activity. - Low molecular…
The article doesn't mention whether or not these compounds are removed by using a filter (like a Brita filter).
I know Brita filters don't remove fluoride normally, but these compounds sound organic, which activated carbon usually does remove. Any idea whether standard filters remove this?
Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares? The same people are arguing the government should stop geo-engineering with HAARP and chemtrails. They're detached from reality. They'll use a study on sock production volumes in Honduras causing earthquakes in India.
> Who cares? They vote, so I care.
And they vote in shockingly large numbers, for example enough to get anti-vaxxers (who I think of as having a lot of overlap with fluoride conspiracy people) seriously considered for cabinet-level positions in the US.
Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares? The same people are arguing the government should stop geo-engineering with HAARP and chemtrails. They're detached from reality. They'll use a study on sock production volumes in Honduras causing earthquakes in India.
> Who cares? They vote, so I care.
Indeed. The time for apathy is over. When people have bad arguments and bad evidence, you need to say something.
Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states
#88had at least one water sample that measured at or above the EPA safety limit of 70 parts per trillion (ng/L) Just for reference, here are the EPA safety limits for other chemicals....[1] Cyanide - 200,000 ng/L Lead - 15,000 ng/L Mercury - 2,000 ng/L Benzene - 5,000 ng/L Glyphosate - 700,000 ng/L PCBs - 500 ng/L [1] https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-re...
Not really related, but even as a scientist I really don't understand how ng/L == parts-per-trillion. I know that's a correct conversion, but it doesn't doesn't make much sense. I guess that's why part-per notation are called pseudo-units. A more substantive comment: Some of these are particularly scary, especially if you have a job where you're potentially exposed. For example, for benzene has a pretty strong odor,…
Not sure why parent comment put it in parts-per-trillion since I always see it in mg/L.
Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states
#89This article is about heavily fluorinated organic compounds -- molecules with a carbon skeleton and all or most of the hydrogen atoms replaced by fluorine. These are not the ionic fluorine compounds that protect teeth against decay (and that cause acute toxicity in case of over-consumption). Why are these compounds hazardous? - Harmful biological effects in the human body, like hormone-mimic activity. - Low molecular…
Why weren't the risks better known before? I'm sorry, but the truth here is that DuPont knew for decades and hid those results from the public. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-06/dupont-lo...
Maybe I should have headed that "why weren't the risks obvious at the beginning?". According to the lawsuit DuPont had discovered the risks of perfluorooctanoic acid exposure by 1961. Industrial production of perfluorooctanoic acid began in 1947. Had it been a simple acutely hazardous chemical that killed rats hours after you fed them a few milligrams, the risks wouldn't have taken a decade+ to surface. I'm not trying to excuse DuPont's duplicity after they did discover problems, rather explaining why these sorts of chronic hazards are not necessarily known the first time somebody writes up a Material Safety Data Sheet.
Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nevertheless, this study will be added to the arsenal of those seeking to end municipal fluoridation.
Who cares? The same people are arguing the government should stop geo-engineering with HAARP and chemtrails. They're detached from reality. They'll use a study on sock production volumes in Honduras causing earthquakes in India.
I care because those people succeed at defeating fluoridation efforts; for example, the 2013 effort in Portland, OR[1]
[1] http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/05/portlan...