Take the AARP Smart Driver course and you could save on auto insurance! Sign up today.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
841
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

841 Views
Message 1041 of 1,300

Again, Dr. Sauerheber, your quote:  “the Hooper Bay incident and its ongoing lawsuit. Of course it is relevant. We are taxed to pay for vast millions of dollars for equipment to help prevent a similar overfeed from acutely poisoning anyone thorughout the rest of the coutnry.”

 

Millions of dollars?  No.  I have pointed out that redundancies are mandated to prevent incidents like this.  Check it out.  That’s what I said.  So, what is necessary to prevent such an incident?  Two things (thus the redundancy).  A feed pump activates when the main pump energizes.  This is what existed in Hooper Bay.  However, to prevent an accidental over feed, for a few hundred dollars, a flow switch in inserted into the water line and will only “make” when there is water flow.  An additional paddle flow switch would have prevented the Hooper Bay incident, it would have only cost a few hundred dollars to install, and they are part of modern chemical feed equipment. 

 

How much fiction from you must I disprove before you will resort to telling the truth?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
841
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
837
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

837 Views
Message 1042 of 1,300

Yes the FDA has problems with how it acts on fluoride. First of all, there are many divergent opinions within the agency.  But Groth was given charge of fluoride labeling on bottled water many decades ago. The fact that the FDA will not label F levels on water or require it to be labeled and that Groth opposed the FDA requiring the F level be labeled, if a botter does so the FDA doesn't go out of its way and ban the bottler for doing so. I don't know another way to say it, there were people in the Agency who wanted to require labeling but Groth forbid that. How else can I explain this to you?

 

Erin Brockovich is now advocating for the halt of all water fluoridation in the United States. Her organization has no better path to win a lawsuit for chronic poisoning as anyone else has. When half the country feels that it is acceptable to have fluoride forced into peoples' blood, how does one convince a judge otherwise?  With lead in Flint, most people recognize that lead is a chronic poison so measuring blood levels was sufficient to accuse the water district of being the source and the suit could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, measuring fluoride in blood which could prove the water district was at fault for infusing it, you and most people and judges would laugh all day long, and say so what? Don't you want it there? The Brockovich group knows what suits have a chance and what won't and is instead pursuing the government to remove fluoride from being presumed to be a nutriltional requirement. That itself in some circles is also dififlcut to achieve since so many are duped into thinking that dental caries reduction is sufficient to declare fluoride is a nutritional requirement, which is absurd. Fluoride has no physiologic role or reason for being in human/mammalian blood. Between those who think F belongs beionjg added into blood, and those who don't, I know who the sane people are.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
837
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
916
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

916 Views
Message 1043 of 1,300

Wow!  Dr. Sauerheber you are something else.

 

Let me see if I’ve got this right.  First you say, “ “fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water . . “  The word “are” indicates the present tense, correct?

 

Now your story is that, “The FDA cannot order a label for fluoride on water . . “  Despite your garbled wording, I assume you mean that the FDA can’t regulate how bottle water distributers label their product?  This is very confusing. 

 

On one hand fluoride levels are forbidden from being listed on bottled water . . and on the other, they can’t be forbidden from labeling fluoride levels? 

 

Your quote:  “What do you want from me?”

 

Response: Please cite one successful lawsuit for health reasons because someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

How do you prove that?  I don’t know . . ask Erin Brockovich, she seems to have accomplished this.  Ask all the attorneys in Flint, Michigan.  They’re proving it.  Any other questions?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
916
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
907
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

907 Views
Message 1044 of 1,300

The study from Poland brings up a key point. The original corrlatiion by Dean that fluoride in water caused decreased dental decay was misinterpreted, as proven by the Ziegelbecker more thorough analylsis. But in addition, in any small sample that may have had fewer caries in children compared to children on similar diets in another sample, one needs to control for the fact that kids with dental fluorosis are embarrassed by the discoloration. It was called Colorado brwwn stain. And hence those kids were most likely brushing their teeth more often and longer, thinking that it was their own poor care of their teeth that caused the stains. This would need to be factored into any study deternining whether fliuoride ingestion had anything to do with caries reduction. In short, published studies in small samples claiming benefit are not worth much in spite of how nuerous they are. Animals studied in cages are the most reliable and proved beyond doubt that ingesting fluoride has zero effect on reducing spontaneous dental decay in mammals..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
907
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
904
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

904 Views
Message 1045 of 1,300

Nice try to avoid any significance of the Hooper Bay incident and its ongoing lawsuit. Of course it is relevant. We are taxed to pay for vast millions of dollars for equipment to help prevent a similar overfeed from acutely poisoning anyone thorughout the rest of the coutnry. And overfeeds do still occur with some regujarity anyway. It's entropy driven, and the tendency for concentrated chemicals to disperse, and most easily for those that are corrosive as are fluorides.

Moreover, chlorination doe not treat pepole. Chlorine is added to sterilize water that otherwise could contain dangerous microbes. If chlorination overfeeds were able to kill people by drinking their kitchen sink water, then we could do away with it and boil our own water if we had to. But fluoridation does not clean the water. It is exclusively added under the disproven belief that eating and drinking  fluoride somehow through an unknown mechanism decreases dental decay even though in saliva it is at 94,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste. And even though the level in blood lifelong cauases bone fluoridation to several thousand ppm, higher than in toothpaste which is a bone abnormality that eventually produces pain similar to arthritis. All who consume it accumulate bone fluoride. There are no exceptions.  Sorry.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
904
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
871
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

871 Views
Message 1046 of 1,300

 

In addition to the Gulags in the former Soviet Union, Stalin used to fluoridate East Germany, which was under the iron curtain before the wall went down in 1989. Since the wall went down, East Germany ceased water fluoridation, 16.11 million people, with the following results:

 

Abstract

In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt) and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed. This trend corresponded to the national caries decline and appeared to be a new population-wide phenomenon. Additional surveys (N=1017) carried out in the formerly-fluoridated towns of Spremberg (N=9042) and Zittau (N=6232) were carried out in order to support this unexpected epidemiological finding. Pupils from these towns, aged 8/9-, 12/13- and 15/16-years, have been examined repeatedly over the last 20 years using standardised caries-methodological procedures. While the data provided additional support for the established fact of a caries reduction brought about by the fluoridation of drinking water (48% on average), it has also provided further support for the contention that caries prevalence may continue to fall after the reduction of fluoride concentration in the water supply from about 1 ppm to below 0.2 ppm F. Caries levels for the 12-year-olds of both towns significantly decreased during the years 1993-96, following the cessation of water fluoridation. In Spremberg, DMFT fell from 2.36 to 1.45 (38.5%) and in Zittau from 2.47 to 1.96 (20.6%). These findings have therefore supported the previously observed change in the caries trend of Chemnitz and Plauen. The mean of 1.81 DMFT for the 12-year-olds, computed from data of the four towns, is the lowest observed in East Germany during the past 40 years. The causes for the changed caries trend were seen on the one hand in improvements in attitudes towards oral health behaviour and, on the other hand, to the broader availability and application of preventive measures (F-salt, F-toothpastes, fissure sealants etc.). There is, however, still no definitive explanation for the current pattern and further analysis of future caries trends in the formerly fluoridated towns would therefore seem to be necessary.

 

Reference Information:

Künzel, W., Fischer, T., Lorenz, R., Brühmann, S. (2000). Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dental Oral Epidemiology, 28(5):382-9. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028005382.x 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11014515/

or

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pubmed/11014515-decline-of-caries-prevalence-after-the-cessation-o...

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
871
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
816
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

816 Views
Message 1047 of 1,300

How does anyone attempt a lawsuit for chronic fluoride poisoining?  How do you prove beyond doubt that our particular case of arthritis is from bone fluoride alone?  Pull out a chunk of bone to assay it for fluoride?  How does one prove his IQ would have been higher if he had not been exposed to fluoride for long time periods?  He can't go back in time and udno it to see what his IQ would have been.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you. The absence of successful lawsuits proving chronic damage does not mean there is no chronic damage. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
816
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
821
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

821 Views
Message 1048 of 1,300

Both statements are true. Dr. Groth was the original FDA official in charge of deciding whether to allow fluoride labeling on water or not. And those are his words. He did not want to give the impression to the public that fluoride is a normal ingedient requried to be in water at any level.. The FDA recognizes intentionally aded fluoride as an unapproved drug and natural fluoride in water (often in bottled water) is unavoidable and thus not banned from being sold as long as it is 1 ppm or less. When Groth did not allow FDA to require fluoride labeling, it was for these reasons.

The fact that some bottlers do label it is not the FDA's fault or concern The FDA cannot order a label for fluoride on water because of Dr. Groth's work there. Nor does the FDA ban the sale of water that those bottlers choose to label for fluoride content.  If bottlers made a claim that the fluoride would reduce dental decay by ingestion, then the FDA would indeed ban the sale of such water. The  FDA is a stickler for false labeling.

What do you want from me?  I can't change the FDA.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
821
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
831
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

831 Views
Message 1049 of 1,300

Dr. Sauerheber, the following comments, from you, are classic you.  Can anyone take you seriously?

 

 “fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water,”  07-13-2018 04:58 AM

 

After I proved to you that you were lying, you changed your story to this”

 

“The FDA does not require labeling fluoride on bottled water--but the FDA also does not ban it.”   ‎07-13-2018 11:16 AM

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
831
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
840
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

840 Views
Message 1050 of 1,300

Dr. Sauerheber.  Your comments wreak of desperation.   I am pretty sure you can read, and I believe you are able to comprehend what you read.  Go back and review the comments between Carry Anne and myself.  You seem to enjoy blurring issues, so it appears I should be very specific.

 

There has never been one successful lawsuit, anywhere on Earth, because someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water even for as much as a lifetime.  Period.  This has nothing to do with the Safe Drinking Water Act.  It has nothing to do with a philosophical argument about “mass medication,” (and I’m certain there has ever been a successful lawsuit based on that either). 

 

I mean really, have you been reading these comments?  Carrie has been complaining about all her alleged ailments. . none of which have been proven in court.  And now you bring up the Hooper Bay incident?  Seriously?  I believe it was in the 1950s, is that correct?  There was a fluoride overfeed.  Well, Dr. Sauerheber, here’s a newsflash.  This is the 21st Century and redundancies are now mandated to prevent such an incident.  Your “Hooper Bay” reference is irrelevant.  Moreover, more people have been killed by chlorine, by a factor of thousands, which is also added to water to safeguard people. 

 

So, since you seem to want to wander off into irrelevant territories, allow me to be as specific as possible.  Please show me one successful lawsuit for health reasons, anywhere on the planet, because someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water, even by drinking it as much as a lifetime.  It has never been proven in court because it doesn't happen.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
840
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have you taken a memorable trip to a destination others should know about? Post a Trip Report


city skyline captured on tablet