The fluoride naturally found in water is calcium fluoride (CaF2 ) as fluorine has a strong affinity to calcium. When water is artificially fluoridated sodium fluoride (NaF), sodium silicofluoride or hydrofluosilic acid is added. Because calcium bonds relatively strongly with the fluoride ion, the fluoride ions are much less available than in the artificially-produced fluoride. The artificial compounds are more toxic because they are more soluble in water and the fluoride dissociates from the compound. In the body this fluoride becomes the "most exclusive bone seeking element, owing to its affinity for calcium phosphate". Studies have shown that the lethal dose of NaF is approximately 50 times smaller than that of CaF2 (naturally-occurring fluoride).1
This sounds great to someone who doesn't know chemistry, but it is absolute bunk.
When you put a chemical into water, it dissociates into its constituent ions, fine, we argee with that.
Depending on what affinity the cation has for the anion, the amounts of free ions will reach a certain concentration in the water. So what we have here is that, in one case we add compunds to the water to bring the flouride ion concentration to the proper level (.8 to 1 ppm). In natural conditions, we have ground water seeping through rocks and dissolving them on the way to the aquifer. In that case we have those fluoride bearing rocks giving off their fluoride ions, eventually reaching a concentration dependent upon the compounds in the rock.
But once the fluoride ion gets into the water, it doesn't matter where it came from. The level of fluoride is the measure of the FREE FLUORIDE IONS, not the fluoride still held in compound. All the differences in affinity means is that you need to add more of one compound to get a certain concentration than another.
I doubt you'd find ONE reputable scientist that agrees with you.
Linus Pauling.
It is a NUTRIENT numnuts.
So chlorine isn't dangerous in large amounts?
IOW, things can't be both good for you in small amounts and bad for you in large amounts?
And FINALLY, you pick an area that DOES have naturally occuring fluoride in water.
Yes. That is my entire point. There are areas in the country that have high levels of flouride, and always have. Yet you can't show increased rates of disease in those areas.
BTW, here is a good link to the New Hampshire DES. It states specifically that the fluoride is naturally occurring.
As already stated, naturally occuring fluoride does NOT dissolve as readily as artifical fluorides, and it is 50 times less toxic. It is also EXCRETED more readily as it IS less soluable.
You are really missing the boat here. Once dissolved in water, there is NO DIFFERENCE between fluoride ions taken from different compounds. None.
And I apologize for calling you a liar. You probably aren't lying, just very, very confused.
No, it'd be the other way around actually.
Listen, anyone can go look this stuff up in any chemistry book. Anyone who KNOWS chemistry will see through your arguments.
Obviously, if anyone did a Google search on calcium fluoride, they'd see what the facts are in relation to that. If you want to say there's no such thing, or that it falls apart in water where it is no longer calcium fluoride, there isn't much use in pursuing this, as you will just continue to make stuff up as you go.
If you want to say up is down and left is right, well, there isn't any point in discussing this any furthur. I really have more important things to do.
Good day.