Refresh your driving skills and you could save on your auto insurance! Sign up for the AARP Smart Driver course.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
950
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

950 Views
Message 1031 of 1,356

Dr. Bill, I see we are back to playing your favorite game of whack-a-mole.  You bring something up, I ask for evidence of it.  You can’t provide evidence for what you said, and you move on.

 

Just to recap:  After I said that there was not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposed water fluoridation, you provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations.  You said, “Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  07-27-2018 11:56 AM

 

In response to that, I asked you:  “Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

 

No answer from Dr. Bill.  Time for Dr. Bill to move on to a new litany of weird stuff.  Maybe we could just agree that your statement was false so that we can move on to this irrelevant EPA / SDWA nonsense which Carrie Anne brought up.

 

Oh, before we do, just to speed things up, you know, maybe so we can whack 2 moles at once . . .

 

Dr. Sauerheber, you just made an incredible claim:  “the salmon industry was decimated in Sacramento when the city began fluoridation.”  07-27-2018 07:19 PM

 

Could you please provide some documentation of this?  A newspaper article?  A lawsuit from the Salmon industry?  Court documents?  Anything to substantiate this story?  (Sorry, a blog post from “Moms Against Fluoride” isn’t really documentation.  You know, I’m looking for something real.)  This sounds like Big News.  Did CBS cover it?

 

After we all agree on the validity of this claim, I will be happy to discuss the EPA, the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the NSF and water additives, and whatever you like.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
950
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
967
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

967 Views
Message 1032 of 1,356

David, Carie, Richard,

 

The discussion of EPA made me smile.  

David, Carie, Richard you are all correct regarding the SDWA.  I contacted EPA for an explaination of what they thought it ment.  EPA responded that SDWA "prohibited" EPA from requiring anything be added for the treatment or prevention of disease in humans or animals.

 

EPA keeps MCLG for fluoride artificially high, not protective, so local agencies can fluoridate.

 

However, local agencies think the EPA is correctly evaluating the toxicity of fluoride and rely on the EPA, but EPA is failing to protect the public.

 

I hope the courts require the EPA to follow their own proceedures and scientific evaluations, rather than roll over to politics.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
967
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
944
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

944 Views
Message 1033 of 1,356

The SDWA also stipulates that States can be no less restrictive. So it is also unlawful for any State government to require fluoridation. It is not legal to add into public water supplies any foodstuff, or drug, or nutrient, or any chemical substance for the purpose of treating humans. Period. Again, no one can require or mandate the addition of even a banana peel or vitamin C because this would be added for a purpose other than to sanitize the water. This includes fluoride which is not added to sanitize water. I am now in Alaska where the state capital Juneau does nor fluoridate its citizens. Nor does Ketchikan, Skagway, Fairbanks or obviously Hooper Bay. We passed through British Columbia which is now entirely free of the burden of fluoridation. I visited the salmon ranch in Juneau and they understand that the salmon industry was decimated in Sacramento when the city began fluoridation. Juneau respects the salmon population and will not fluoridate thankfully. Pressure to do so is always there but the hatchery supervisor said "if people want to protect their teeth why don't they do as I do and simply brush and keep their teeth clean? I said "exactly".

The FDA, not the EPA, is mandated with authority to regulate substances used to treat humans. The EPA has no staff with the authority to evaluate oral ingestibles used with the intent to treat human tissue. The EPA Office of Water has written this repeatedly. The current FDA staff are not anxious to get involved with fluoridation of people through drinking water but the ban petition remains intact and under review. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
944
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
937
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

937 Views
Message 1034 of 1,356

Carrie Anne has said, “Consequently, David (apparently recruited to this thread by the American Fluoridation Society (AFS) who realized they were outmatched) is the perfect foil.”  

‎07-27-2018 12:55 PM

 

 

“Carrie Anne,” I have every right to defend myself against slanderous lies.  For the record, what you said is a lie, or a libelous implication, or a deceptive statement . . however you want to characterize it. 

 

For the record, no one has recruited me, asked me, or suggested in any way that I should comment on this page in order to thwart the attempted hijacking of AARP policy (“Demand AARP Take Action”) by an extreme fringe minority. 

 

I will expect an apology or a recantation.   

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
937
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
932
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

932 Views
Message 1035 of 1,356

By the way, "Carrie Anne," how is your "Demand" that the AARP take action against community water fluoridation going?  I can understand why you are frustrated that some of the things you say are exposed for what they are.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
932
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
927
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

927 Views
Message 1036 of 1,356

Carrie Anne, thank you for answering my question.  And you are correct.  Dr. Sauerheber has also distorted the Safe Drinking Water Act the way you are now distorting it. 

 

Let’s look at what you said, and let’s look at what the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act actually says.

 

Your original quote:  “the SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people.”   Dr. Sauerheber said the same thing, no question about it.

 

This is what the Federal SDWA says:  “(11) No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”

 

And you are correct.  This statute is in the Federal SDWA.  What this means is that no Federal authority, in this case it would be the EPA which oversees community water fluoridation, can mandate, can require a State to . . in this case, add fluoride to benefit the health of its citizens.

 

So what.  This is a States’ Rights issue.  Why would you even bring this up, unless to muddy the waters and be deceptive in some way?  How is it relevant in any way?  Water fluoridation is not a violation of the SDWA, if that’s what you were implying.  States and local governments have every right to fluoridate water, and in most cases it is approved by a vote of the people.  Is that bad in some way?  What is the big conspiracy you are trying to imply? 

 

In that same comment, you also said, “ The FDA assumes no authority for 'water additives'”

 

Response:  Why would they?  The FDA has nothing to do with municipal water supplies.  That is within the jurisdiction of the EPA. 

 

Please take a moment and justify why you would include this deceptive comment which implies that because the FDA doesn't oversee water fluoridation, there must be something wrong with it.  Why would you even say that?  That would be like me saying NASA assumes no authority over ‘water additives.’

 

Not to be outrageous or abusive, but your tired, deceptive tactics are being exposed for what they are, and the truth is, you don’t like it, do you.

 

Please explain how the FDA not overseeing water additives to water supplies is relevant in some way.  If you are unable to explain it, I will have to conclude that your statement was not only irrelevant, but deceptive.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
927
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
948
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

948 Views
Message 1037 of 1,356

The topic of this thread is concerned with modern science, evolving medical opinion and morality with an emphasis on the health of senior citizens. 

 

The loophole in the SDWA language is that it is a national law. State laws should be as restrictive, but convoluted language have led to interpretations that result in judges ruling that even though municipal fluoridation schemes are clearly dangerous and ethically corrupt, they are legal. Several trial judges have recommended that legislators and regulatory agencies address fluoridation - and hence the politicization of science with astroturfers & lobbyists who focus on prestige, power & paychecks instead of public health. 

 

However, re David's tiresome attempt at distraction, repeating a question which has been asked and answered many times..... and even though Dr. Richard Sauerheber already addressed in this thread: 

 

 

  • (11) No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. SDWA potable: page 370 Section 1412 (2002)

 

  • Since first enacted in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has stated that “[n]o national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” -  SDWA (P.L. 93-523) 

 

Since the urls for  my two sources above (epw.senate.govcurrently result in 404 errors, here is a copy of the SDWA from 1996. Note the US government is still my source. See top of page 18 for this same exact language. 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT67528/pdf/CPRT-106SPRT67528.pdf 

 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful but legal: “Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.” - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988)

 

  • LEGAL ANALYSIS: Rita Barnett-Rose, Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Justifiable Public Health Benefit or Human Experimental Research Without Informed Consent?, 39 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 (2014).  http://works.bepress.com/rita_barnett/3/ 
    • EXCERPTThe cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D. 
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
948
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
916
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

916 Views
Message 1038 of 1,356

Dr. Bill, you say, "Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage."

 

Response:  Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.  

 

I hope you will not consider my asking for evidence of your comments to be outrageous either. 

 

Your comment:  "And you failed to comment on the evidence I presented.   What caused the decline in dental caries prior to fluoridation?"

 

Response:  Because when you are proven wrong, or questioned about something that you have said which is incorrect, you simply move on to something else with nothing being resolved.  It is like playing an infinite game of whack-a-mole with you . . we can do that until the end of time.  I would rather concentrate on things that you have already said, and resolve them before moving on.  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
916
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1055
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,055 Views
Message 1039 of 1,356

Carrie Anne, the comment that you posted on this date and time   07-12-2018 03:16 PM  said, “the SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people.” 

 

Please cite the specific statute in the Safe Drinking Water Act which stipulates this.  This is the second time I’m asking you for evidence to support your statement.

 

I’m not trying to disrupt the discussion.  I am simply trying to find out how and where you get your information.  If you can’t provide proof of your statements, I’ll be forced to conclude that you tend to push the limits of the truth for some agenda.

 

I hope you won't consider asking a question to be "outrageous or abusive."  Most normal people would not.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1055
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1053
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,053 Views
Message 1040 of 1,356

"... the political profluoridation stance has evolved in to a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues." - Dr. Edward Groth, III, Senior Scientist at Consumer Union, WHO/FAO Expert on Science and Ethics in Food Safety (1991)

 

Fluoridationists are trained to dismiss ethics, deny science, denigrate opposition, disrupt civil dialgoue and distract focus because they don't have evidence that stands up to scrutiny or anything resembling a risk assessement. Consequently, David (apparently recruited to this thread by the American Fluoridation Society (AFS) who realized they were outmatched) is the perfect foil. Since David does not have any scientific or medical credentials to protect, he can be as outrageous and abusive as he wants without bothering about scientific or historical facts and evidence. 

 

  1. Ethics: Using municipal water to mass medicate the population results in worsening the health of millions, plus there is no dose control. Fluoridation contributes to arthritis and other diseases in seniors. 

  2. Science: Fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a significant degree but does result in an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children, a lifelong impact which results in costly dental bills and is associated with increased learning disabilities, bone fractures and kidney disease. 

  3. Opposition: Over a dozen credible organizations oppose fluoridation as do thousands of scientists, dentists, doctors, lawyers and other professionals. Selectively citing Wiki and even worse the extremist 'Rational Wiki' or controversial 'Quack Watch' in an attempt to discredit credentialed opposition is slanderous and desperate. 

  4. Discussion: For three years, about 20 AARP members peacably participated in this thread amassing about 60 posts until the trolls attacked it in an effort to disappear that valid discussion from the web and hide coherent comments and personal testimony from AARP. 

  5. Rhetoric: All the claims about fluoridation being 'safe & effective' are smoke and mirrors. Besides from  being untrue, teeth aren't the issue. Fluoridation trolls are taught that instead of honestly discussing science they can't adequately address, to avoid those discussions by 'reframing' the conversation to an argument that emphasizes dental endorsements rather than evidence. In this way, their logical fallacies are more effective in influencing the uneducated who have been primed by toothpaste advertisements to believe the medical myth. It's a political ploy. 

  

SUMMARY:

Fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that benefits corporate financial health by forcing contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of the negative impact on individual consumers or on the environment.  

As an advocate for seniors, AARP should oppose fluoridation policy. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1053
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark