Strange Question! Fluoride

I have been prescribed fluoride toothpaste for a dental problem by my dentist. As with many prescribed items it comes with dire warnings, one being not to use with water that had fluoride added. Does anyone know if the cabin water on Cunard (QE) has been treated in this way?

I know I can use bottled water if necessary, but would just like to know!

I have been prescribed fluoride toothpaste for a dental problem by my dentist. As with many prescribed items it comes with dire warnings, one being not to use with water that had fluoride added. Does anyone know if the cabin water on Cunard (QE) has been treated in this way?

 

I know I can use bottled water if necessary, but would just like to know!

The only things added to ship's water are chlorine for sanitizing, and calcium carbonate to control the pH. Fluoridation is only used for dental health, and the ships don't really worry about that.

Ships take on water pierside in many ports. Most municipal water in the US has fluoride added but I have no idea about New York City in particular.

I have been prescribed fluoride toothpaste for a dental problem by my dentist. As with many prescribed items it comes with dire warnings, one being not to use with water that had fluoride added. Does anyone know if the cabin water on Cunard (QE) has been treated in this way?

 

I know I can use bottled water if necessary, but would just like to know!

Ship water is NOT fluoridated. The reason there is a warning label is to warn about too much fluoride intake. Ships do NOT take on water at ports by the way as some said. They have their own desalinization equipment on board.

The only things added to ship's water are chlorine for sanitizing, and calcium carbonate to control the pH. Fluoridation is only used for dental health, and the ships don't really worry about that.

Hi Chief,

Not a subject you see often on CC but it reminded me of early in my career sailing on a particularly "used" rust bucket. No desalinator, only tank water so we had whatever the various ports gave us. We did add copious amounts of Iron though....(rust).....:eek:

Ship water is NOT fluoridated. The reason there is a warning label is to warn about too much fluoride intake. Ships do NOT take on water at ports by the way as some said. They have their own desalinization equipment on board.

Yes, they have equipment to make freshwater from sea water but it's cheaper to load water in port when they can. I'll take a photo. I'm surprised you haven't seen the water hoses along most piers.

Ship water is NOT fluoridated. The reason there is a warning label is to warn about too much fluoride intake. Ships do NOT take on water at ports by the way as some said. They have their own desalinization equipment on board.

Yes, they have equipment to make freshwater from sea water but it's cheaper to load water in port when they can. I'll take a photo. I'm surprised you haven't seen the water hoses along most piers.

Not all ships take on municipal water, it all depends on the itinerary, the balance of sea time to port time, since they cannot make water within 12 miles of land. So, it could range from nothing taken for a TA (many sea days and no port days), to a percentage of the water used, to a full load as the Norwegian Sky does since she is at sea only about 16-18 hours on her 3-4 day itinerary.

And, no, it is not cheaper to bunker water from shore, opposed to making water from a flash evaporator. The reason for this is that the majority (90%) of the energy required to make the water is heat (the rest is electricity to run a couple of small pumps), and this heat is "free" since it comes from the cooling water of the diesel engines. If this heat was not used to make water, it is wasted by transferring it to sea water cooling and it goes into the sea. Even RO units are relatively cheap to operate, compared to water in some ports.

A further reason against bunkering water in port as your primary source of water (though ships like the Sky, with an extremely short amount of time at sea, do it) is that water bunkered from shore must be segregated from other water, and not used, until a coliform bacteria test is completed, and this takes 18 to 24 hours.

Any flouridation in municipal water would be diluted by the water made onboard.

I don't know about the economics or quantity but I've seen QM2 make connections to bunker fresh water in many Caribbean ports.

I don't know about the economics or quantity but I've seen QM2 make connections to bunker fresh water in many Caribbean ports.

Water taken in port must meet the WHO safe drinking water requirements, at a minimum, and there must be a testing report of the water source (at the hydrant actually used) within the last 30 days. Because of this, I'm a bit surprised that they take water in the Caribbean, not so much that the water isn't safe, but because of the cost of testing. Many cargo piers in the US provide water to ships, but do not qualify it as "potable", because they don't want to pay for monthly testing.

Just a bump with a comment that QM2 had two potable water hoses (blue, labeled as "potable") connected while in Barbados on Friday. The hoses were pressurized and so I believe they were taking on water.

It seems that the QM2 originally had three desalination plants, but a fourth was added during the 2016 refit. The potable water tanks each have a capacity of 3,830,000 litres (1,010,000 US gal), enough for more than three days of supply. If the engines are running on low load (when the ship is running at slow speed), or when it is in port, then the engine jacket cooling water temperature is insufficient to heat the seawater to run the desalination plants. In that situation steam from oil-fired boilers can be used to heat the sea water, but that is more expensive, so taking potable water on board from the shore can be cheaper than producing it on the ship. But I guess a decision is made for each shore stop as to whether it is optimal to use the on board stored water, whilst berthed, or buy in a supply.

It seems that the QM2 originally had three desalination plants, but a fourth was added during the 2016 refit. The potable water tanks each have a capacity of 3,830,000 litres (1,010,000 US gal), enough for more than three days of supply. If the engines are running on low load (when the ship is running at slow speed), or when it is in port, then the engine jacket cooling water temperature is insufficient to heat the seawater to run the desalination plants. In that situation steam from oil-fired boilers can be used to heat the sea water, but that is more expensive, so taking potable water on board from the shore can be cheaper than producing it on the ship. But I guess a decision is made for each shore stop as to whether it is optimal to use the on board stored water, whilst berthed, or buy in a supply.

Yes, spot on. However, realize that the oil-fired boiler is running most of the time anyway (particularly when slow steaming or in port) to provide heat for domestic hot water, steam for galleys and laundry, and to keep the fuel oil hot, so the amount of fuel burned to heat the evaporators is a marginal amount, not the primary consumption of fuel in the boilers. Additionally, you cannot make water while in port, or within 12 miles of shore.

And to give perspective, Miami charges $3USD/metric ton for potable water, while Barbados charges $6USD ($12BBD)/metric ton. And at typical municipal water pressure, two 2-1/2" water hoses will load about 1000 metric tons in a typical 8 hour port stay, so roughly one day's water for the QM.