Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[rs5526]

Fluorosis ends with the suffix osis because it is pathologic. It is only caused by fluoride Ingestion during childhood. Fluoridated water is one of, and usually the most significant, source of ingested fluoride that causes fluorosis. The systemic fluoride contaminant inhibits protein removal during teeth mineralization. It does so as an enzyme inhibitor. 

Notice however  that proving water fluoride, rather than some other fluoride source, is the cause would be disputed in court and, just as with mild bone fluorosis,  this interferes with lawsuits. 

I also  do this because evil flourishes when good people ignore the problem. U. S. kids are being fluoride poisoned, with fluorosis being the first visible sign. In adulthood the fluoride accumulation continues into bone, causing formation of permanent bone of poor quality, to varying degtees depending on total exposure. 

[rs5526]

Mild fluorosis due to fluoride Ingestion and moderate or severe fluorosis are abnormalities, with deficient enamel on teeth

Flluorosis of varying degree increases in incidence in all Fluoridated cities. There are no exceptions

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, your quotes, copy/pasted from your comments: 

“07-13-2018 03:58 PM

There are no lies in any of my posts. The FDA statements and actions are what they are.”

Of course there are.  Here is one of many examples in this thread alone.

“07-12-2018 03:46 PM

Furthermore, 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. “  End quote.

After I provided a link to a label of bottled water on which fluoride was listed at 0.77 ppm, you changed your story to this:

“07-13-2018 11:16 AM

The FDA does not require labeling fluoride on bottled water--but the FDA also does not ban it.“  End quote.

“The FDA statements and actions are what they are.”

Those aren’t FDA statements.  Those are YOUR statements alleging contradictory policy.  YOUR statements are false.

Please be kind enough to show me that somehow both of these contradictory statements, by you, are correct.  Please provide a links to FDA websites proving your statements are not lies.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber you say, “People on this site who preach fluoridation . . “

First of all, to be clear, I don’t “preach fluoridation.”  I preach against unwarranted scare mongering.

Second, in your comment below you simply use the phrase “dental fluorosis,” or, “dental enamel fluorosis” as if all degrees of fluorosis are the same.  You know that is not true, and this blurring of the different degrees of fluorosis is typical of scare-mongers.   

You know that the mild degrees of fluorosis improve the health of teeth, making them more resistant to decay, improving quality of life, while the more severe degrees of fluorosis, which are NOT associated with optimally fluoridated water, are detrimental to quality of life . . just as dental decay is detrimental to quality of life.  That in itself is a lie by deception.

I mean, isn’t it odd that someone who claims to be a knowledgeable scientist is so vague when describing degrees of the symptoms of fluoride ingestion. 

Third, and to the point of your comment below, you claim that a lawsuit for health reasons would be almost impossible to prove in court.  That is interesting.  All you would need to have a successful lawsuit for health reasons is one documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. 

Are you saying there has never been one documented case of harm to any human being from drinking optimally fluoridated water?  If there was . . you could win your lawsuit.

Speaking of lies, Sirpac says, “David, who is a troll, engages Dr. Sauerhaber into neverending distraction and falsification, because that is his job, . . “

Sirpac, no one is paying me to thwart the efforts of a few paranoia-generating scare mongers as they attempt to hijack a proven health initiative.  I do it because evil thrives when good people are silent.  But I appreciate you proving my point that most of you scare mongers don’t tell the truth.  Thank you.

[rs5526]

There are no lies in any of my posts. The FDA statements and actions are what they are.

As far as lawsuits for health effects of drinking fluoridated water, one that might have a chance of being proven would be hip replacement surgeries where the denigrated bone is assayed for fluoride. But physicisn don't order such tess. Period. Some patients have paid for them themselves at indsutrial analytical laboratories (non-clinical). But again, the suit would likely fail because people actually believe that fluoride belongs in bone and blood, when it doesn't.

Cigarette smoking many people tolerate genetically well, and bone fluoride can be tolerated by some to fairly high levels without necessarily developing pain, that others cannot tolerate. It took over 60 years of intense fighting to finally get cigarette makers to agree that smoking causes cancer in susceptible people even though others can tolerate it. And it would take just as long to convince fluoridationists that fluoridation of bone causes bone weakening and structural abnormality and in many cases bone pain. Lawsuits are not likely to go anywhere because fluoridationists would argue the exopsrue came from somewhere else, not the water. This is alreeady being done now with dental fluorosis. Water districts berate that dental enamel fluorosis is the fault of toothpaste makers since water fluoridation started first and toothpaste added to the total fluoride dose. But toothpaste makers blame water districts since toothpaste (by FDA guidelines) is "not to be swallowed or used in children undeer 6", while water fluoride is added with the specific intent to be swallowed. It is swallowed fluoride from both sources that casue dental fluorosis. So how does the lawsuit proceed on the premise that fluoride causes harm? Jeff Green avoided such impossible lawsuits under these ciricumstances (unlike more readily provable Chrojmim six) and used the law to force city councils to halt fluoridation.

People on this site who preach fluoridation believe that fluoride actually belongs in blood and bone. They are incorrect because fluoride is a contaminant of blood and bone. Of course hexavalent chromium that was measured in blood was key to winning the suit against PG&E. So what? It can be proven that F levels in blood of those living in fluoridated cities are higher than in nonfluoridated cities, but fluoride is not Cr which is recognized as not belonging in blood. So instead, Eein Brockovich is fighting to have fluoride removed from the list of ingredients thought to be part of a normal diet.

[sirpac271999]

While David engages Dr. Sauerhaber into neverending distraction and falsification, because that is his job, here is a relevant study regarding osteoporosis and fluoride ingestion:

Abstract

Carbonic anhydrase is a key enzyme for initiating the crystal nucleation, seen as “the central dark line” in the crystal structure in calcified hard tissues such as tooth enamel, dentin and bone. Both estrogen deficiency and fluoride exposure adversely affected the synthesis of this enzyme in the calcifying hard tissues. This led to the notion that fluoride exposure might increase the risk of developing osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Using ovariectomized rats, which represent an estrogen (Es)-deficient state, as an animal model of postmenopausal women, we examined the causal relationship between fluoride (F) exposure and risk of developing osteoporosis. Two groups of rats, an Es-deficient group and a non-Es-deficient group, were administered free drinking water containing F ions (1.0 mg/L). Two other groups, an Es-deficient group and a control-group, were administered tap water. Soft X-ray radiography demonstrated a significant increase of radiolucent areas in the calvaria of the combined Esdeficient plus F group compared to that in the other experimental groups. Electron microscopy revealed an increase of amorphous minerals in the radiolucent areas. Light microscopy demonstrated that combined effects evidently of Es-deficiency and administration of F caused deterioration of the rat tibia with a coarse pattern of trabecular architecture, suggesting that a decline in bone formation might be the primary cause of osteoporosis. Consequently, F exposure might accelerate osteoporotic changes in postmenopausal women even at a low dose.

Reference:

Kakei M, Yoshikawa M, Mishima H (2016) Fluoride Exposure May Accelerate the Osteoporotic Change in Postmenopausal Women: Animal Model of Fluoride-induced Osteoporosis. Adv Tech Biol Med 4:170. doi: 10.4172/2379-1764.1000170

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/fluoride-exposure-may-accelerate-the-osteoporotic-change-in-...

[DavidF928895]

Richard, your quote:  “When half the country feels that it is acceptable to have fluoride forced into peoples' blood, how does one convince a judge otherwise?”

Response:  First you find victims of this alleged poisoning.  Then you do it with facts and evidence.  Evidently you have neither . . that’s why there have been no successful lawsuits for health reasons because someone drinks optimally fluoridated water and was harmed. 

Any objective reader of this thread will see that you have been caught in lie after lie after lie.  This isn’t rocket science.  When Pacific Gas and Electric was sued because hexavalent chromium 6 was in drinking water, it was provable.  Fluoride poisoning from drinking optimally fluoridated water is not only not provable, it’s a fantasy.  That is why there has never been one successful lawsuit for health reasons because people drink optimally fluoridated water.  It has nothing to do with all your garbled spin.  Simply put, successful lawsuits don't happen because there is no harm from drinking it. Period.

[rs5526]

Excuse me, but the best way to not poison anyone with exogenous industrial fluoride is to not add it into their water supply. For those who insist on doing so, in the U.S. (I don't know where you work) large cities with vast volumes of water to 'fluoridate' use sophisticated electronic equipment that monitors the precise fluoride levels continuously in real time, to both prevent overfeeds and if one were to occur since it is still not fullproof, the sensors are designed to signal that an overfeed has occurred so that the public can be alerted to not drink the water until further notice.  The facility at Lake Skinner, CA for all of North San Diego County to fluoridate its masive volumes of water, this facility  cost vast amounts of money. The facility is surrounded with barbed wire fencing so terrorists don't access the flujosis acid tanks, it is constantly under both electornic surveillance and also is guarded with guards in real time, etc. A few hundred dollars might work in Hooper Bay, but not for cities with vast millions of people whose blood is to be fluoridated.

[DavidF928895]

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?

[rs5526]

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.