I'm glad my little posting is stirring the pot a bit. I am not espousing any particular position. I just want to get an intelligent discussion going.
Responses to my original posting on fluoride have fallen into several categories:
1. Private mail thanking me for posting it. 2. Pro-fluoride public mail: a) blanket ridicule of anti-fluoridation b) guilt by association c) appeal to authority d) counter-arguments 1. irrelevant 2. valid a) substantiated b) unsubstantiated
I will identify each type, but only respond to counter-arguments.
> I'm sorry, I guess you really believe the tripe. The claims are > blatantly false (e.g. no studies have ever shown a benefit) or > exaggerated (fluoride is harmful). (Anything is harmful if the dose is > too high - oxygen is the most toxic of all, and is known to cause > cancer). At least they don't still claim it's a communist plot.
blanket ridicule of anti-fluoridation
guilt by association
irrelevant counter-arguments: The article reports many studies dealing with harmful effects of low doses. [29/32/34/35/48-50/58/59/101/102/104/105]
> (*large groan added to heavy sigh*) > More from the "Purity of Essence" brigade.
guilt by association
>> I was dismayed to see so many people discussing fluoride with only scant >> mention of any possible down side. > Because all the studies that have tried to show down sides have > been poorly done or inconclusive (which is also true for those > who have tried to show up sides, but I digress).
Cite specifics. And if you believe that the proponent's studies are poorly done or inconclusive, that is also something that the readers of misc.kids should hear. There are two questions: Does the dietary addition of fluoride significantly reduce tooth decay? Does the dietary addition of fluoride lead to significant health risks?
>> Fluoride is an industrial waste product. > False. Fluoride is simply the ion of fluorine (F-). Since it is the > most electro-negative element, it reacts with almost every organic > and inorganic substance. Thus, it can be quite dangerous. However, > the ion is a different matter.
I think what they meant to say is that fluorine is an industrial waste product. Presumably some of the waste fluorine is dissolved, yielding fluoride.
>>DO YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT FLUORIDE IS POISONOUS? >> Yes. As little as one-tenth of an ounce will lead to death. > A little analysis gives the following results: : > This is well above the 4-7ppm limit place on fluoridated water as > well as the cited 1000ppm in toothpaste. They're making a mountain > out of a molehill.
I agree with this. The fact that enough flouride is poisonous is irrelevant.
>> HASN'T THE BURK-YIAMOUYIANNIS STUDY BEEN REFUTED BY "CONSUMER REPORTS"? [56] >> No. The misrepresentations, distortions, half-truths, and untruths >> published in _Consumer Reports_ have already been answered [57] and have >> resulted in an $8,000,000 libel suit against Consumers Union. > A libel suit they are sure to lose. Consumers Union is VERY good in > it's methodology when doing tests.
I agree with this one, too.
>> Yes. People on poor diets and in poor helth are more susceptible to >> fluoride poisoning. [72/73] > This is a strange thing to conclude considering that the under- > privileged and undernourished don't eat/drink/consume much of > anything, let alone fluoridated material. How can they be hurt > most if they are the ones who are least consuming. That is, > I drink a few glasses of water every day. I believe the water in > Albuquerque is fluoridated. A UU will not drink as much water > as me. How are they going to be more affected by it?
Read the studies. 72 is J. AM. DENT. ASSN. 44:156 (1952). 73 is J. AM. DENT. ASSN. 65:608 (1962).
>> According to N.C. Cons of the New York State Bureau of Dental Health, and >> oters, topical fluoride as applied by dentists is practically ineffective in >> reducing tooth decay. [99/100] > I'm gonna have to see the study on this one to believe it.
:
[99] J. AM. DENT. ASSN. 80:777 (1970) [100] J. ORAL THERAP. PHARMACOL. 3:17 (1966)
> I think it was in William Goldman's book, _Brothers,_ that dealt with > killing a person using toothpaste. The problem is that a person will > vomit the contents of the stomach before enough toothpaste is > consumed...and not because of the fluoride but because of the other > ingredients.
You're citing a novel as evidence???
> "It's all a conspiracy to destroy our Purity of Essence!" > Yeah...right. I get the feeling...no, I KNOW that the legal pro- > fession would have a field day if all of their claims about how > fluoride is killing so many people were true. While the ADA and > the USPHS are, indeed, bureaucratic groups, they would not deny > something so OBVIOUSLY true (if it were true). Conspiracy theories > are almost always false. >Of course< they would. Such organizations have done so many times before.
Look at the suppression of homeopathy, the blind advocacy of mass vaccination, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, the suppression of Hoxsey, the massive rise in unwarranted caesarean births, the position of the FDA that RDA's of vitamins represent optimal daily doses, etc. There are countless examples in medicine, science, and business of deliberate or unintentional suppression of the truth by either organizations or uncoordinated individuals.
(Please don't respond to disagree with any of the items I listed; at least not yet. Let's have one war at a time.)
> What about the liquid baby vitamins (Poly-Vi-Flor)?? My pediatrician > prescribes them for my (now) 11 month old, and every body else's ped > that I know of prescribes them for their kids.....The obvious concern > here is that if no real benefit (for developing teeth) has been proven > while a myriad of dangers exist, why are so many peds prescribing the > infant vitamins with flouride??!!
Doctors do a lot of things that are unproven or harmful. They used to use blood-letting and induced mercury or lead poisoning as curatives. More recently, we have DES, Thalidomide, X-rays for acne, Dalcon shields, the use of Terramycin in treating respiratory conditions in premature babies, discouragement of breast-feeding, unwarranted use of forceps, and the irradiation of tonsils, lymph nodes, and the thymus gland. Practices still under debate are pediatric vaccination, fluoridation, chemo-therapy, and allopathic treatment.
> Oh, yeah, one really wants to watch the sodium intake, especially > if there is a history of heart trouble in the family. I think > most fluoridated toothpastes now use stannous fluoride, unless > P&G has a lock on it's use.
Many of them have sodium fluoride. Read your labels.
> For a full refutation of the material, I refer you to sci.skeptic, > where this was also posted. These people lost their suit. And if any > of these claims were even remotely possible, don't you think that the > lawyers would be busy making money from claims?
An interesting variation of an appeal to authority. Lawyers instead of doctors. BTW, there have been (successful) suits, as my article cited, e.g., Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View (Nov. 16, 1978). (Sorry they don't give a full legal citation, but they offer a report of the case for $3.)
> In addition the "article" never mentioned that the *natural* levels of > flouridation in many areas far exceeds 1ppm. One might conclude that the > profitable end-goal of this bunk is to launch a scam de-flouridation > industry. :-)
Irrelevant, if true, in of itself. If fluoridation is hazardous, how does the existence of a natural hazard in some locations justify imposing that hazard on others?
> Just what is the National Health Federation? Anybody heard of them? And how is > John Yiamouyiannis qualified to speak on the subject? Is his Ph.D. in biology or chemistry and is it
lub...@apollo.HP.COM (David Lubkin) writes: >From: kasso...@minerva.crd.ge.com (David Kassover) >Message-ID: <11...@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> >Date: 17 Sep 90 18:45 GMT >> Oh, yeah, one really wants to watch the sodium intake, especially >> if there is a history of heart trouble in the family. I think >> most fluoridated toothpastes now use stannous fluoride, unless >> P&G has a lock on it's use. >Many of them have sodium fluoride. Read your labels.
Crest switched from stannous fluoride to sodium fluoride several years ago (some time in the early eighties--I only know from reading the labels; I never heard any explanation of why). As far as I know, all major brands use sodium fluoride, with the exception of Colgate, which uses "MFP" (sodium monofluorophosphate?). Last time I saw a label, that's what it said, but I don't know if it's still the same.
The only documentation I can offer is the labels themselves.
On my citing William Goldman on killing a person with toothpaste isn't a reasonable thing to do, I received a reply of "your citing a novel?"
Yes. William Goldman is a good author who researches his material for accuracy before writing it (except in _The Princess Bride,_ which he didn't write in the first place ;-) If he writes that killing a person with toothpast is unfeasible, I believe him. Having read the ingredients list of a tube of toothpaste, it's not inconceivable.
-- Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
In article <1...@dalek.UUCP> s...@dalek.UUCP (Seth J. Bradley) writes:
>One response to the anti-fluoridation people I've never seen refuted:
[though it's easy. Witness... :-]
>1. "Natural" water sources, such as uncontaminated mountain streams, >have substantial fluoride levels.
This one is NATURAL fluoride. It is good for your health.
>2. Water processing plants remove most of the naturally ocurring >fuoride as part of the purification process.
Thus destroying much of the beneficial properties of NATURAL water.
>3. Fluoridation is simply a means of replacing lost fluoride. Treatment >plants routinely add back lost minerals and no one objects to that >practice.
They add ARTIFICIAL, cancer-giving, chemicals. As is well-known.
You compare natural products with their poisonous industrial counterparts as if they were the same. You can't fool us with your rhetorical tricks. You really deserve to be drowned in ARTIFICIAL water.
In article <1...@dalek.UUCP> s...@dalek.UUCP (Seth J. Bradley) writes:
>One response to the anti-fluoridation people I've never seen refuted:
>1. "Natural" water sources, such as uncontaminated mountain streams, >have substantial fluoride levels.
>2. Water processing plants remove most of the naturally ocurring >fuoride as part of the purification process.
>3. Fluoridation is simply a means of replacing lost fluoride. Treatment >plants routinely add back lost minerals and no one objects to that >practice.
>Any takers?
Irrelevant. The fact that something is "natural" has nothing to do with whether it is safe or not. "Natural" building materials may be high in radon.
The key questions are whether 1-4 ppm fluoride provides a significant health benefit and whether it provides a significant health risk.
In article <1990Sep26.012552.16...@ariel.unm.edu> bev...@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes: >On my citing William Goldman on killing a person with toothpaste >isn't a reasonable thing to do, I received a reply of "your >citing a novel?"
>Yes. William Goldman is a good author who researches his material >for accuracy before writing it (except in _The Princess Bride,_ >which he didn't write in the first place ;-) If he writes that >killing a person with toothpast is unfeasible, I believe him. >Having read the ingredients list of a tube of toothpaste, it's >not inconceivable.
Not that the risks of eating toothpaste are a central point of our discussion, but I'm sorry. I'm citing journals like Environmental Fluoride, JAMA, J. Dent. Res., and Nature, and you're citing a novel? I don't care how much confidence you have in Goldman.
But even supposing it's true that it is not reasonable to kill an adult with toothpaste, that doesn't say anything about Yiamouyiannis's claim:
While most children will not consume an entire tube of toothpaste, it must be realized that toxic reactions occur before a lethal dose is obtained. In this context, it is important to note that children 4-6 years of age consume 25-33% of the toothpaste put on their toothbrush. [103]
In article <4d0b6366.20...@apollo.HP.COM> lub...@apollo.COM (David Lubkin) writes: >Not that the risks of eating toothpaste are a central point of our >discussion, but I'm sorry. I'm citing journals like Environmental Fluoride, >JAMA, J. Dent. Res., and Nature, and you're citing a novel? I don't care >how much confidence you have in Goldman.
Fine. I'll write to Goldman and get his references. Happy?
>But even supposing it's true that it is not reasonable to kill an adult with >toothpaste, that doesn't say anything about Yiamouyiannis's claim: > While most children will not consume an entire tube of toothpaste, it > must be realized that toxic reactions occur before a lethal dose is > obtained. In this context, it is important to note that children 4-6 > years of age consume 25-33% of the toothpaste put on their toothbrush.
What are the toxic effects and are they related to the fluoride or anything else in the toothpaste? To kill a person with toothpaste, the effects are NOT because of an overdose of fluoride but because of the other ingredients.
So why hasn't anybody yelled about the saccharine in toothpaste? It's a known carcinogen. Could it be that the cancer scare of saccharine is overblown? Those that say that it causes cancer in laboratory rats neglect the fact that one would have to consume 70 sticks of gum every day for years before any effect would be seen.
I see a similar case for fluoride.
-- Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
In article <4d0b6366.20...@apollo.HP.COM>, lub...@apollo.HP.COM (David
Lubkin) writes: > Not that the risks of eating toothpaste are a central point of our > discussion, but I'm sorry. I'm citing journals like Environmental Fluoride, > JAMA, J. Dent. Res., and Nature, and you're citing a novel? I don't care > how much confidence you have in Goldman.
Mr. Lubkin is "citing" these journals? I had the impression that Mr. Lubkin is citing one specific tract put out by a dedicated anti-fluoride advocate - whose interpretation and accuracy are open to speculation. This is quite different from citing articles read first hand.
If Mr. Lubkin HAS read all of the mentioned articles, I extend my apologies to him, and my congratulations for having plodded through JAMA, J. Dent. Res., and (my favorite) the Swedish Dental Times, which was mentioned in another posting. Not many American engineers bother to read Swedish medical journals!
In article <4d0b6366.20...@apollo.HP.COM> lub...@apollo.COM (David Lubkin) writes: > obtained. In this context, it is important to note that children 4-6 > years of age consume 25-33% of the toothpaste put on their toothbrush. > [103]
Sounds like a conservative estimate to me. My children (aged 1.5 and ~4) consume 80-90% of the toothpaste I put on their toothbrushes. But my 18 month old son remove the caps off the toothpaste tube (BTY, off of "childproof" pill bottles too) and will "mainline" the toothpaste given half a chance!
We need to keep fluorINE (F2) a highly reactive and corrosive gas distinct from fluorIDE (F-) the ion which results from the oxidation of fluorine. Fluorine is so corrosive it can oxidize oxygen (and turns into fluoride as a result).
I suspect that a topical application of fluoride is of no value because it is washed, brushed, or worn off rather easily. It is not incorporated into the tooth. Fluorine in the water (or vitamins) goes into the blood stream and becomes incorportated into teeth as they are produced. This is the reason hehind fluoridating water and having children drink it.
The reason they may have stopped using stannous fluoride in toothpaste is a concern over potential heavy metal (tin) poisonning.
I am not an advocate of fluoridation. I just present these points to help guide the discussion.
Actually, I am more concerned about eating food which has been in contact with plastics, esp polystyrene. Styrene monomer is really nasty stuff.
Bill Gripp -- +---------+---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- | THE | | BANK OF | Bill Gripp | NEW |
In article <1990Sep28.181624.3...@bony1.uucp> bi...@bony1.uucp (Bill W.
Gripp) writes: > The reason they may have stopped using stannous fluoride in toothpaste > is a concern over potential heavy metal (tin) poisonning.
Tin isn't particularly poisonous. For this reason, it has been used a lot in containers for things that people consume, from the old tin-plated steel cans called "tin cans" to toothpaste tubes to lead-free solder for water pipes.
Eric Pepke INTERNET: pe...@gw.scri.fsu.edu Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET: pepke@fsu Florida State University SPAN: scri::pepke Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 BITNET: pepke@fsu
Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions. Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
In article <DLBRES10.90Sep27155...@pc.usl.edu> dlbre...@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes: >In article <1990Sep26.012552.16...@ariel.unm.edu> bev...@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes: >M>Yes. William Goldman is a good author who researches his material >M>for accuracy before writing it >Isn't this also the guy who wrote _Marathon Man_ about the evil >sadistic escaped Nazi death camp dentist?
Yes, that's him. A friend tells me "Don't go by the movie, it's not as good."
_Brothers_ is the sequel to _Marathon Man_ so you might want to read it if you read _MM._ I am warned by the same friend that since Goldman tends to put sadistic characters in his novels, be on notice that _Brothers_ tends to shine in this respect.
And the reference to _Brothers_ was incorrect in my earlier posting. It was _The Color of Light._ The main character researched the question "Is it possible to kill a man by forcing him to swallow an entire tube of toothpaste." The answer came back, "Yes, but it would be hard to hide the evidence." Nothing more was said.
Please forgive my memory lapses.
-- Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
>> obtained. In this context, it is important to note that children 4-6 >> years of age consume 25-33% of the toothpaste put on their toothbrush. >> [103]
How can "they" tell? Radioactive tracers in the toothpaste? -- Daniel R. Levy * uunet!tellab5!mtcchi!levy * These views not on behalf of MTC so far as I can remember, there is not one | ... THEREFORE BE AS SHREWD AS word in the gospels in praise of intelligence.| SERPENTS [SEE GEN. 3] AND HARM- -- bertrand russell [berkeley unix fortune] | LESS AS DOVES -- JC [MT. 10:16]
In article <6...@lifia.imag.fr> p...@lifia.UUCP (Philippe Schnoebelen) writes: >In article <1...@dalek.UUCP> s...@dalek.UUCP (Seth J. Bradley) writes: >>One response to the anti-fluoridation people I've never seen refuted:
>[though it's easy. Witness... :-]
>>1. "Natural" water sources, such as uncontaminated mountain streams, >>have substantial fluoride levels.
>This one is NATURAL fluoride. It is good for your health.
>>2. Water processing plants remove most of the naturally ocurring >>fuoride as part of the purification process. [ ... ] >They add ARTIFICIAL, cancer-giving, chemicals. As is well-known.
>You compare natural products with their poisonous industrial counterparts >as if they were the same. You can't fool us with your rhetorical tricks. >You really deserve to be drowned in ARTIFICIAL water.
>--Philippe :-)
I'm sorry, but somebone's going to have to explain to me the difference between a NATURAL chemical and an ARTIFICIAL chemical.
It reminds me of all the crap one hears about SEA SALT (NaCl, with some Iodine added for a reason I've forgotten) versus NORMAL, AVERAGE, RUN-OF-THE-MILL, EVERYDAY TABLE-SALT (NaCl, with some Iodine added for a reason I've forgotten).
(For the un-initiated, NaCl stands for Sodium-Chloride, the chemical name for what is usually known as table salt.)
Then there's esoteric, expensive Vitamin C from ROSE HIPS (ascorbic acid) vs. everyday, cheap Vitamin C from SOME FACTORY IN DETROIT (ascorbic acid).
(Well, gee, I must admit, "rose hips" sure does sound better! But, nevertheless, it's still the same identical thing.)
Oh, while we're at it, let's not forget how we can be drowned in ARTIFICIAL WATER (H2O plus miscellaneous trace elements) versus NATURAL WATER (H2O plus miscellaneous trace elements)
Unless you can tell me this difference, the argument of whether the chemical is natural or artificial has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's good for me or bad for me.
A chemical is a chemical. It's "quantity of naturalness" as measured by some typical health-food fanatic is totally irrelevant. -- =======================Standard Disclaimers Apply======================= "We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no | Alvin longer in service. Please check the value of pi, | "the Chipmunk" or pray to your local diety for assistance." | Sylvain
In article <NELSON.90Oct7055...@image.clarkson.edu> nel...@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NEL...@CLUTX.BITNET) writes:
>In article <1...@dalek.UUCP> s...@dalek.UUCP (Seth J. Bradley) writes:
> One response to the anti-fluoridation people I've never seen refuted:
> 1. "Natural" water sources, such as uncontaminated mountain streams, > have substantial fluoride levels.
>If it has substantial fluoride levels, then it's not uncontaminated, is it?
Sure, its contaminated in the same way that anything except ultra-purified distilled water is. I don't think that I made myself clear earlier. Fluoride is a naturally ocurring compound. It was in the water before the first man walked upon the earth. Fluorine occurs in many types of mineral deposits ( fuorite, cryolite, phosphate rock) and tends to get into the water supply. Water processing tends to remove the fluoride, so its added back, along with a wide variety of minerals. Do you complain about the minerals being added? If you want to worry about what's in your water, worry about contamination by industrial toxins. They are FAR, FAR more likely to be hazardous! -- Seth J. Bradley Path: {uunet}!iwarp.intel.com!dalek!sjb
Alvin Sylvain writes asking why iodine is put into table salt.
Sort of for the same reason that they put fluoride into the water. The makers of salt at some point came to the realization on their own or were coerced (I don't know which) that hypothyroidism is a problem. Since many Americans use table salt frequently, they could put it in their salt and nobody would notice any difference in taste.
However, it IS possible to buy salt without iodine in it. While I personally don't understand the anti-fluoride brigade, I do think that it should be possible to have non-fluoridated water pumped into your house without having to pay extra for it and without hassle.
-- Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
In article <152...@felix.UUCP> asylv...@felix.UUCP (Alvin E. Sylvain) writes:
I'm sorry, but somebone's going to have to explain to me the difference between a NATURAL chemical and an ARTIFICIAL chemical.
It reminds me of all the crap one hears about SEA SALT (NaCl, with some Iodine added for a reason I've forgotten) versus NORMAL, AVERAGE, RUN-OF-THE-MILL, EVERYDAY TABLE-SALT (NaCl, with some Iodine added for a reason I've forgotten).
While most of the examples you give are indeed examples of adding the word `natural' and doubling the price, there is a large difference between sea salt and normal table salt. Sea salt tends to contain many other things besides sodium chloride, I think potassium chloride is a major one. Basically, if you take sea water and evaporate it off what is left contains many minerals besides `salt'.
It does taste _very_ different, which is not to say better. I use nothing else, my flat mate wont go near it.
My favorite ``natural'' snake oil is a certain famous french mineral water which is so heavily processed that it looses it's carbonisation. Since they can sell it for more if it fizzes they carbonate it just before they bottle it. However, in order to be able to stick `naturally sparkling'' on the label they save the CO2 they extract from it and reintroduce it at the end. It makes all the difference, this ``natural'' CO2 :-)
BTW, what would count as ``artificial'' CO2? Would it have to be built from the quarks up?
In article <1990Oct6.204509.17...@ariel.unm.edu>, bev...@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes... >Alvin Sylvain writes asking why iodine is put into table salt.
>Sort of for the same reason that they put fluoride into the water. >The makers of salt at some point came to the realization on their >own or were coerced (I don't know which) that hypothyroidism is >a problem. Since many Americans use table salt frequently, they >could put it in their salt and nobody would notice any difference >in taste.
Actually, if I recall correctly from Margaret Visser's (sp.?) marvelous book "Much depends on dinner", iodine in salt is put in to cut down on absorption of moisture, so the salt cellars don't clog. That's why whichever brand of salt it is - Morton's? - has as its slogan "Iodized salt. When it rains, it pours"
----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Helen Johnston | Josquin is master of the notes, which must | | Caltech Astronomy Dept. | express what he desires; other composers | | h...@deimos.caltech.edu | must do what the notes dictate | | | - Martin Luther | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
[this was Philippe ...] In article <152...@felix.UUCP> asylv...@felix.UUCP (Alvin E. Sylvain) writes:
>In article <6...@lifia.imag.fr> p...@lifia.UUCP (Philippe Schnoebelen) writes: >>In article <1...@dalek.UUCP> s...@dalek.UUCP (Seth J. Bradley) writes: [...] >>>1. "Natural" water sources, such as uncontaminated mountain streams, >>>have substantial fluoride levels. [...] >>This one is NATURAL fluoride. It is good for your health. [...] >>as if they were the same. You can't fool us with your rhetorical tricks. >>You really deserve to be drowned in ARTIFICIAL water.
>>--Philippe :-)
^^^ uh oh ... ... |
[this was me ...]
>I'm sorry, but somebone's going to have to explain to me the difference >between a NATURAL chemical and an ARTIFICIAL chemical. [...] >A chemical is a chemical. It's "quantity of naturalness" as measured >by some typical health-food fanatic is totally irrelevant.
My apologies to Philippe and to everyone else for not noticing the "smiley face" ... his sarcasm was so horribly accurate, I thought he really was serious!
Open mouth ... insert foot ... good thing this is NATURAL leather! -- =======================Standard Disclaimers Apply======================= "We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no | Alvin longer in service. Please check the value of pi, | "the Chipmunk" or pray to your local diety for assistance." | Sylvain
In article <1990Oct7.225131.26...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> h...@deimos.caltech.edu writes: >In article <1990Oct6.204509.17...@ariel.unm.edu>, bev...@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes... >>The makers of salt at some point came to the realization on their >>own or were coerced (I don't know which) that hypothyroidism is >>a problem. >Actually, if I recall correctly from Margaret Visser's (sp.?) marvelous >book "Much depends on dinner", iodine in salt is put in to cut down on >absorption of moisture, so the salt cellars don't clog. That's why >whichever brand of salt it is - Morton's? - has as its slogan >"Iodized salt. When it rains, it pours"
Morton (of Morton-Thiokol fame) also makes non-iodized salt. And the phrase is simply "When it rains, it pours." Our container of Morton salt has that slogan on it and it does not contain iodide.
That the iodide was added for dietary considerations is evident from the packaging: "This salt contains iodine. A necessary nutrient." On their popcorn salt, which does not contain iodide, it says "This salt does not supply iodide. A necessary nutrient."
The free flowing-ness of the salt is due to sodium silicoaluminate.
-- Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
In article <1990Oct7.225131.26...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> h...@deimos.caltech.edu writes: > Actually, if I recall correctly from Margaret Visser's (sp.?) marvelous > book "Much depends on dinner", iodine in salt is put in to cut down on > absorption of moisture, so the salt cellars don't clog. That's why > whichever brand of salt it is - Morton's? - has as its slogan > "Iodized salt. When it rains, it pours"
Some countries, such as New Zealand, have very low levels of iodine as a trace element naturally occuring in the soil. For this reason, we accept the addition of iodine to table salt as an important way to boost levels to avoid ill health. -- Paul Gillingwater, p...@actrix.co.nz
|
