Well, maybe not for nitrogen oxide as far at the bond between the nitrogen and the oxygen, where the valence bond is actually the between the two nitrogen atoms I think..
Whereas with H2O, the oxygen shares a valence bond with two hydrogen atoms.
Posted on 11/22/2002 7:33:34 PM PST by FormerLurker
As far as sodium fluoride (NaF), the atomic weight of sodium is 23, and the atomic weight of fluorine is 19, so the proportion for sodium to sodium fluoride is 23 Na/42 NaF, so the amount of sodium in 1 mg of sodium fluoride is 0.55 mgfluorine.
It's been 15 years since I studied chemistry, but my recollection is that adding one mole of NaFl and one mole of CaCl to a sufficient quantity of water would have the exact same effect as adding one mole of CaFl and one mole of NaCl. If, of those four compounds, CaFl is the least soluble, then that would be the first substance to precipitate out.
While this suggests that injesting CaFl and NaFl will likely have similar effects (since the amounts of both Ca+ and Na+ from other sources far outweigh those associated with F-), it also points to three sources of likely biological significance of fluoride:
Perhaps, though oddly nobody in this thread has distinguished between topical application of fluoride to dental surfaces versus systemic injestion of same. I would not be at all surprised if the former is good and the latter bad, and for the same reasons.
For example, it has been stated that calcium fluoride is not very soluble in water. While it's been ages since I've taken chemistry, my recollection is that it is less soluble in acid than some other calcium compounds, some of which may be present in teeth.
If this is the case, applying topical fluoride to the teeth may cause some of the calcium compounds there to turn into calcium fluoride which would in turn be more resistant to decay than the normal tooth enamel (somewhat analagous to bluing firearms).
If this is how fluoride works, however, then consuming it into one's bloodstream would not have this desired effect: the proper 'construction' of fluoride-constructed teeth requires that the calcium compounds be dissolved in the blood long enough to get where they're going, and only once there should they be treated with fluoride. Attempting to treat teeth with fluoride via systemic injestion would be like trying to create blued firearms by mixing the bluing compounds with molten iron before casting or forging. The amount of bluing compound normally required to blue a firearm would likely be ineffective when mixed in with all the metal, and if one did use enough to 'blue' all of the metal that went into a gun the effect would be disastrous.
My personal belief is that fluoride, applied topically, is a good thing but fluoride in drinking water is of questionable value at best; I certainly don't see any way it could operate in the same was as topical applications.
It may well be that fluoride is like arsenic in that some is necessary, but the amount needed is so small that, generally speaking, the less the better.
I totally agree. However, there IS no nutritional aspect of fluoride. The theory of a nutrional value of arsenic is dubious.
Uh, no, just hydrogen oxide or hydrogen hydroxide depending upon your point of view (actually, both terms are someone insightful in that hydrogen-almost-anything is an acid while almost-anything-hydroxide is a base; hydrogen hydroxide balances the properties of acids and bases).
The use of a quantitative prefixes in certain compounds is generally only done for cations which have multiple valence states. Al2O3 is not "di-aluminum tri-oxide", but rather just "aluminum oxide". In cases where anions have multiple valence states, the name of the valence state is used in describing the anion; FeO is "ferrous oxide" while Fe2O3 is "ferric oxide". N2O is "nitrous oxide", "NO" is "nitric oxide", and NO2 is "nitrogen dioxide".
In many cases, it has been shown that INGESTING fluorides result not only in dental fluorosis, but in skeletal fluorosis as well. That is in addition to neurological disorders, cancer, osteoperosis, and hip fractures. However, with topical application to dental surfaces, there MIGHT be some SLIGHT benefit as far as hardening, if you ignore the fact that it makes teeth more brittle and subject to cracks and chipping. Of course, at the levels used for topical applications, any ingestion would be very bad, as in potentially lethal for a small child swallowing fluoride gel during a fluoride treatment. Of course, at a near lethal dose (lethal if ALL or MOST of it is swallowed), it wreaks a lot of damage neurologically if ANY of it is swallowed.
Looking at it as a valence bonded molecule, would you still call it an oxide?
I don't know anything about any political leanings at www.webelements.com, but here's what it says about arsenic:
Arsenic, despite its poisonous reputation, may be a necessary ultratrace element for humans. It is a necessary ultratrace element for red algae, chickens, rats, goats, and pigs. A deficiency results in inhibited growth.To be sure, the amount of arsenic that is needed is apt to be less than what people are going to get in any normal environment; I don't see any value in people supplementing their arsenic intake under anything resembling normal circumstances.
The view given there on Fluoride differs from that given here:
Fluorine as fluoride (F-) is probably an essential element for humans and certainly is for some molluscs. In some areas, fluoride ion is added to drinking water (in very low concentrations) since it renders tooth enamel relatively immune to bacteriological attack. It does this by replacing the OH group of hydroxyapatite with fluoride. In other areas, fluoride is not added to water, despite the benefits, as a consequence of protests from civil rights activists who object to the addition of anything to water.Nice to have a statement of the supposed useful biological effect. On the other hand, I also noticed this:
Metal fluorides are very toxic. Organic fluorides are generally much less toxic and are often quite harmlessInto which of those categories would NaF fall?
Are not the oxides of nitrogen also valence bonded?
The use of a quantitative prefixes in certain compounds is generally only done for cations which have multiple valence states.
Ever hear of Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Certainly not organic.
The goal of fluoride isn't to harden teeth (protecting them from mechanical wear), but rather to protect them from bateriological or chemical decay. As to whether it makes teeth harder, softer, more or less brittle, I have no idea.
Of course, at the levels used for topical applications, any ingestion would be very bad, as in potentially lethal for a small child swallowing fluoride gel during a fluoride treatment. Of course, at a near lethal dose (lethal if ALL or MOST of it is swallowed), it wreaks a lot of damage neurologically if ANY of it is swallowed.
Given that children grow out of their first set of teeth, protecting them is of limitted value if doing so imposes other health consequences. Once people get older and have their permanent teeth, however, it would seem that the value of topical fluoride would increase while the risk (since people would be more disiplined and less apt to swallow it) would decrease.
To be sure, it may be that the topical fluoride products are more dangerous than people are letting on, but that should not prevent prudent people from using them safely. After all, there are many products in this world that are even more dangerous than fluoride toothpaste and yet most people manage to use them safely.
Yes, though as I've stated, common practice does not involve quantitative prefixes on anions.
BTW, oxygen itself is much nastier stuff than water. Indeed, inhaled water only causes problems biologically if it exists in such quantity as to displace oxygen, or if it is at an unsuitable temperature (e.g. steam). By contrast, oxygen at normal temperatures can have severe biological effects if inhaled at even twice normal concentrations [unless a person's lungs are in such poor shape that such atmospheric concentrations are needed to yield a normal blood-oxygen level].
hydrogen (I) oxide, aka dihydrogen oxide, aka dihydrogen monoxide, aka water
hydrogen (I) oxide, aka dihydrogen oxide, aka dihydrogen monoxide, aka water
In any event, speaking of oxygen, atomic oxygen is deadly, where molecular oxygen is the stuff we breath. Funny how chemicals can behave in strange ways with the slightest thing differant about them...
I don't think it prudent to take a risk with the application of a highly toxic substance orally just to protect teeth from germs, if it even actually does, which is a dubious claim to begin with...
I'd not seen that page before. I would think, pedantically, that the density of water at 4°C should be described as "1000. m³" rather than "1000 m³", since the latter value is only claimed accurate to one significant figure and I think the value given is in fact accurate to more than that (probably at least to 1000.000 I would guess).
Well, maybe not for nitrogen oxide as far at the bond between the nitrogen and the oxygen, where the valence bond is actually the between the two nitrogen atoms I think..
Whereas with H2O, the oxygen shares a valence bond with two hydrogen atoms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.