Comparing the pros and cons of fluoride removal
by filtration (ion-exchange resin) or by
precipitation (addition of soluble calcium salt)
In order to remove fluorides from water, you need a filter with an ion-exchange resin. But how do you know if it does the job and when it is time to replace / reactivate it?
Ion-exchange resins can be overloaded by other ions, which are plentiful in water and either harmless or considerably less toxic than fluorides.
Ion-exchange filtration systems are very expensive, but there is no easy way to check their effectiveness, in particular, to determine if the ion-exchange bed needs reactivation.
When the resin is fresh, it would do the job, no question, but what happens six months down the road? Do you unload another few hundred dollars or do you trust the manufacturer's recommendation that it can be used for 2 years (or whatever they claim)?
Let's not forget that mineral content in water is very much different from region to region. In some areas you cannot soap up your hands, it is so hard, in other areas you need to stay in a shower an extra several minutes, as you feel "soapy", the water is so soft.
And so the extra ions in regions with hard water may well be "clogging" the ion-exchange resin and make it loose its capacity sooner.
But how can you find out when it is time to replace the filter?
In industrial / laboratory settings they go by the prescribed maintenance schedule. A few hundred dollars is a small change for them. Plus it is a deductable business expense.
But who can afford all that for his household?
Don't get me wrong, ion-exchange resin DOES REMOVE fluorides, but for how long can you hope to use it?
A couple of assay tests would buy you another such filter, so that is definitely out of the question.
And no matter how good is an ion-exchange filter, the active ingredient would inevitably begin to lose its capacity with use.
Let's imagine that a new filter was taking out 90 percent of fluorides, which means that instead of "optimally fluoridated" water with 1ppm you were getting 0.1 ppm of rat poison.
But what happens 3 months down the road? six month? a year?
At which point you would make a decision to replace your expensive machine (or a cartridge)?
And on top of that, in addition to the quality of ion-exchange resin, its ability to remove fluorides, we cannot disregard the limitations of the "mechanical arrangements" to ensure maxium contact of water with ion-exchange granules.
This is a very serious problem and the best illustration I can think of is the fact that bacteria and viruses pass just fine through a table-top carbon filter, since there is plenty of "space" between individual granules.
Another thing to consider is the fact that each individual ion-exchange granule would be "aging" at the surface, since the molecules at the surface will be affected by the chemical reaction with fluorides.
And here the manufacturer's specs can be twisted by saying that "this filter has enough ion-exchange material to remove X amount of fluorides".
And so, when the material on the perifery of each granule gets "clogged", whatever is left inside becomes as good as useless.
It is essentially the same with bones. Transformation of hydroxiapatite into fluoroapatite is taking place in areas, which are adjacent to the blood vessels, which are a part of the "biological matrix" of a bone.
So in terms of pure weight, only a few percent of a bone mass could have undergone this pathological transformation, and yet a person would be debilitated with chronic fatigue, since his calcium exchange would be severely compromised.
I still believe that even the best filter of this kind does not offer the same protection as a simple addition of soluble calcium salt. Tea leaves, for example, contain plenty of fluorides. And so if someone prepares tea with a fluoride-free water, he would still end up ingesting whatever came with those tea leaves.
But addition of soluble calcium salt would do the trick for both ingredients - water plus whatever was added to it.
Wines contain fluorides, often very substantial amounts. Is anyone ready to forego wines and all social occasions it comes with?
But addition of soluble calcium salt would do the trick perfectly.
Beer, soft drinks and reconstituted juices would contain fluories, if they are prepared with fluoridated water.
You cannot run those drinks through a filter, but you can add soluble calcium salt and be perfectly safe.
Plus how about eating out? Here you have been served a glass of water with your food in a restaurant, or a bowl of soup; what do you do with it?
I never touch water that is served in restaurants, just as I avoid drinking anything when at other people's places. I always carry my own water.
If I have no choice, but to drink water at other people's places, I pour a solution of calcium acetate into it. I carry a small flask with me at all times.
I believe that the least expensive and safe way to filter drinking water is to use "reverse osmosis" to remove bacteria and viruses.
Then run that water through a carbon filter, maybe more than once, which can be done by buying 2-3 table-top filters. And then add soluble calcium salt, as described on the page Simple and easy way to neutralize fluorides
Here is a rather remarkable example of how misleading can be the claims of those who claim they know. I copied this information from one website, which had an article on the subject of water filters.
Reverse Osmosis Filtration
This is used to purify several types of bottled water (not all), so some bottled waters are unfluoridated. Reverse osmosis systems are generally unaffordable for personal use.
Any book on laboratory chemistry would tell you that "reverse osmosis" removes only about 10% of ionized impurities. And yet it is claimed on that website that it is different!
Besides, a "reverse osmosis" cartridge, which can be attached to a tap is only about 120-150 US. So it is perfectly affordable for household use!
I find it rather amazing that those who sell so-called "reverse osmosis" filters, claim that this process removes fluorides! Apparently they are able to get away with this claim because so far nobody sued them for misrepresentation.
I still believe that reverse osmosis is something every household should have, but not to do the impossible, namely to remove fluorides, but simply to remove bacteria and viruses. As for fluorides, add soluble calcium salt.
Another big thing in business of water filtration systems is a claim that they "take a worry off your mind" by filtering water for the "whole house".
There is a company in the greater Toronto area, which supplies water filtration systems, they seem to emphasize in their ads that their system filters everything, including water for the toilet.
In their radio ads one member of the family expresses dismay that dog is drinking from the toilet. Another member answers - "do not worry, it is filtered!"
It is hard for me to believe that a reasonable person would be wasting his money filtering water for the toilet tank or for laundry!
I also doubt that filtering can be good at such volumes! And I certainly doubt they are using "reverse osmosis" filters, as those are far too slow to be used for the "whole house".
Stationary "reverse osmosis" filtration systems have an accumulation tank, which is being gradully filled "while you sleep".
I know one person who had such a system installed underneath his kitchen sink, but he never assayed the water, apparently he believed what he was told by that company.
The tank is closed, you cannot open it and wash it. There is an inlet opening and an outlet.
With this regard, a simple question begs to be answered - if you use the same tank for 10 years (changing filters as required), would something grow inside?
And so I stick to my opinion that the most effective and the least expensive way to remove fluorides is to add soluble calcium salt.
There is a whole page on this site, which explans how to do it:
Neutralize fluorides
This eBook is available from IDLoser.com