She who must be obeyed decreed that we had to have a drinking water filter
tap by the main one - that was 8 months ago.
When I bought it I also bought a spare cartridge ("Spun wound polypropylene
over activated carbon core"). Advice plastered all over the bumph that came
with it demands it be changed at 6 monthly intervals and this is backed up
by several letters and phone calls from the supplier pestering to sell
Now the flow through the filter appears to me to be just as it was when
first installed - and there are no complaints about the taste / smell /
colour of the water - and presumeably given that the capacity of the
element is finite it's life will greatly depend on volume of water and
concentration of contaminates which must widely vary from any 'norm'.
Surely end of life of these elements will be indicated by a reduced flow
rate through the filter or a lack of ability to remove smells etc- or am I
missing something here ?
If the chlorine smell came back or everyone was complaining of the taste I'd
pop the spare element in straight away but at the moment I'm feeling that
perhaps the endpoint is more determined by the suppliers cash flow issues
than the actual element !
Anyone got any experience of the longevity of these filters?
That is true - or more to the point that would probably indicate that
the filter is past the end of its life. You really need to change it
just before then! ;-)
Some of the filters include a metering capability that alerts you after
a preset amount of water has been passed through it - that makes it
pretty easy. If yours does not then I suppose you could try and monitor
the water useage through it for a few days to work out an average usage
per day. Then (if the manufacturer gives a quantity of water that each
filter can handle) calculate a number of months it will take you to use
I don't think that can happen. In order to desorb stuff off the
carbon, you'd have to change the conditions which initially led
to the stuff being a_d_sorbed in the first place.
All that will happen is that the carbon will no longer have the
capacity to adsorb your chlorine/other crap, and will be
Mmm. I don't see the connection, frankly. Unles you have spent a few
years drinking both sorts of water, and one made you ill, and one did
not, how can you tell?
Or its it the opposite of IMM 'its scientific sounding, so it must be
right' but in youir case 'its scienctific fact, so it must be wrong'
Bear in mind that chlorine was intrioduced to water, without consulting
anyone, to eliminate cholera from the poor, because mainly, it didn't
Let's say that drinking fluoride is a requirement of NHS dental
You want choice, we can give you choice...
No. Fluoride is highly toxic. I don't want it in my water and I NEVER
use toothpaste containing fluoride. My dentist doesn't use it either.
It causes inumerable problems. See fluoride.org.uk and many other
references on the net.
I believe that there may be some chance of appealling to the European
Court if the government force fluoride upon us forced "medication" is
seen as a breech of human rights.
Everything is toxic at the right dose. Oxygen is pretty toxic at
high concentrations. Water will kill you if you drink enough of it.
As with anything, there are risks and benefits. If the benefits
outweigh the risks, we do it. If not, we don't.
I'm not going to go into the detail here, because I can't be
bothered - google will tell you all you need to know. The site
you name above is the biggest pile of crap I've read this week
(I read a lot of crap).
Nonsense. Fluorine compounds are cumulative poisons and build up in
the teeth and bones over the years weakening both. That is totally
different to the poisoning effects of oxygen.
If you research the so-called benefits you will find they are very
much disputed. Fluoridation, where it is done, is done out of
ignorance or for political reasons.
The site may be crap in terms of it's organisation - but it references
many other sources - google will turn up plenty of information about
the harmful effects of fluoride and you can find details of studies
which show zero benefit from fluoridation of water supplies.
Like most paranoid conspiracy theorists, you are mixing up two
totally different questions:
[a] Does fluoridation have any benefits?
[b] Is the presence of low concentrations of fluoride in
drinking water harmful.
As far as [a] is concerned, it appears the answer is 'probably
yes, at least for young people'.
As for [b], there is no credible evidence which suggests that
this is true.
The fact that there are conditions known as dental fluorosis and
skeletal fluorosis should suggest that fluorine compounds do
accumulate in the body.
Although the following paper is found on an anti-fluoridation website,
it was first published in the journal of the International Society for
Fluoride Research. I don't claim the research or the paper to be
brilliant...it was simply the first thing I could find. It makes
interesting reading however.
You could also read this article about fluoride buildup in bones. It's
written by a journalist but quotes a Canadian doctor (who is
pro-fluoride in toothpaste) as saying "What we're finding indicates a
trend: Torontonians have double the fluoride levels in their hip bones
compared to Montreal, where water is not fluoridated."
Grunff, I really think you are out of date on this. "Everbody" knows
that fluoride is good for your teeth and an all round good thing.
Politicians like to tap into this widespread feel-good factor.
Unfortunately, as with many other things, what everybody "knows" often
turns out to be uncertain. I'm not saying that fluoride is
_definitely_ ineffective or damaging but the scientific jury is still
out. In any case, why waste money adding it to water, especially as
only about 1% will be drunk, the rest getting dumped in the
environment? In the form of toothpaste it is carefully targetted to
the teeth, and comes with the added advantages of regular brushing!
Specifically for a ref for a cumulative effect of F-, reference 1 below
(including abstract, with emphasis of relevent text) is a review, but
its in a respected journal.
In any case, although acute toxicity _should_ be of little concern, at
least seven incidents of acute fluoride poisoning related to
fluoridation of the water supply were officially reported in the USA
between 1974 and 1992, resulting in 655 cases and 2 deaths so it is not
totally without risk. The minimum toxic doses were estimated to be as
low as 0.2-0.8 mg per kg of body weight in children which is not
fantastically far off the 1mg/day target intake via fluoridated water.
The incidents were caused by accidents, such as pump faults, which can
be expected to recur (Ref 2 below).
Young and unborn children are a particularly vulnerable group to whom
any benefit of fluoride may be outweighed by harmful effects, for
example on brain development (Ref 3), and for whom minimum toxic doses
are likely to be even lower. We simply don't know.
Refs 4-7 address the damage (physical and psychological) done by dental
and bone fluorosis.
I agree that the originally posted site is pretty gruesome, but you
might want to use www.fluoridealert.org/york.htm as a starting point.
Better still, read the University of York's highly respected review of
fluoridation at <http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm . The
'executive summary' is that there simply haven't _been_ any
good-quality studies of the effects of fluoridation. i.e.
Scientifically, we _do not know_. To quote them:
Sorry for such a long post,
1: Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2002;13(2):155-70.
Dental fluorosis: chemistry and biology.
Aoba T, Fejerskov O.
The Nippon Dental University, Department of Pathology, 1-9-20 Fujimi,
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102, Japan. firstname.lastname@example.org
This review aims at discussing the pathogenesis of enamel fluorosis in
relation to a putative linkage among ameloblastic activities, secreted
enamel matrix proteins and multiple proteases, growing enamel crystals,
and fluid composition, including calcium and fluoride ions. Fluoride is
the most important caries-preventive agent in dentistry. In the last
two decades, increasing fluoride exposure in various forms and vehicles
is most likely the explanation for an increase in the prevalence of
mild-to-moderate forms of dental fluorosis in many communities, not the
least in those in which controlled water fluoridation has been
**START MY EMPHASIS**
The effects of fluoride on enamel formation causing dental fluorosis in
man are cumulative, rather than requiring a specific threshold dose,
depending on the total fluoride intake from all sources and the
duration of fluoride exposure.
***END MY EMPHASIS
Enamel mineralization is highly sensitive to free fluoride ions, which
uniquely promote the hydrolysis of acidic precursors such as
octacalcium phosphate and precipitation of fluoridated apatite
crystals. Once fluoride is incorporated into enamel crystals, the ion
likely affects the subsequent mineralization process by reducing the
solubility of the mineral and thereby modulating the ionic composition
in the fluid surrounding the mineral. In the light of evidence obtained
in human and animal studies, it is now most likely that enamel
hypomineralization in fluorotic teeth is due predominantly to the
aberrant effects of excess fluoride on the rates at which matrix
proteins break down and/or the rates at which the by-products from this
degradation are withdrawn from the maturing enamel. Any interference
with enamel matrix removal could yield retarding effects on the
accompanying crystal growth through the maturation stages, resulting in
different magnitudes of enamel porosity at the time of tooth eruption.
Currently, there is no direct proof that fluoride at micromolar levels
affects proliferation and differentiation of enamel organ cells.
Fluoride does not seem to affect the production and secretion of enamel
matrix proteins and proteases within the dose range causing dental
fluorosis in man. Most likely, the fluoride uptake interferes,
indirectly, with the protease activities by decreasing free Ca(2+)
concentration in the mineralizing milieu. The Ca(2+)-mediated
regulation of protease activities is consistent with the in situ
observations that (a) enzymatic cleavages of the amelogenins take place
only at slow rates through the secretory phase with the limited calcium
transport and that, (b) under normal amelogenesis, the amelogenin
degradation appears to be accelerated during the transitional and early
maturation stages with the increased calcium transport. Since the
predominant cariostatic effect of fluoride is not due to its uptake by
the enamel during tooth development, it is possible to obtain extensive
caries reduction without a concomitant risk of dental fluorosis.
Further efforts and research are needed to settle the currently
uncertain issues, e.g., the incidence, prevalence, and causes of dental
or skeletal fluorosis in relation to all sources of fluoride and the
appropriate dose levels and timing of fluoride exposure for prevention
and control of dental fluorosis and caries.
2. Akiniwa, K. Fluoride 30(2) 89-104, 1997
3. Lu, Y. et al. Fluoride 33(2) 74-78, 2000
4. Tabari ED et al Brit Dental J 189, 216-20, 2000
5. McDonagh MS et al Brit Med J 321, 855-9, 2000
6. Collins MA & Zebrowitz LA J Appl Social Psychol 25, 129-163, 1995
7. Lee, JR Fluoride 26(4) 274-277, 1993
Replace nospame with yahoo to reply
Unsolicited commercial email will incur a $100 processing fee
This is (to my mind) becoming a more and more common problem in many
fields. Very little actual research or work is done so that the few
original bits of real research that do get done are processed to death
and pushed in all directions by people with exes to grind.
For example (not research as such, but similar) weather forecasting
here in the UK relies on *fewer* live inputs from weather observation
points and tries to compensate by using more computing power.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.