- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Thank you, Dr. Sauerheber. I took the liberty of looking up Salmon Fishing in Sacramento. I am always grateful when something causes me to add to my knowledge.
There is a salmon industry in Sacramento. Who knew . . It took a hit in 2003 because of drought: "the return of drought-ravaged winter-run Salmon hit rock bottom this summer and that is likely a precursor of what to expect in the months to come, when commercial fall-run salmon are fished."
I'll still want to see that documentation I asked for which proves this was caused by water fluoridation.
Woa!! – Hold on there! One thing at a time. We’re not talking about racehorses here . . whatever that has to do with anything.
So, after you made the incredible claim that water fluoridation was responsible for the collapse of the Salmon industry in Sacramento, I asked you for some documentation, a newspaper article, anything to show this actually happened. . . Correct?
Instead of providing any documentation, you are now saying, “The Sacramento disappearance was not described as being caused by F because the advertised start of fluoridation was a year after the collapse.”
The advertised start of fluoridation was a year after the collapse of the salmon industry.
Nevertheless, you believe water fluoridation killed all the salmon in Sacramento because, “ . . detailed records indicate south sacramento was fluoridated the year before the collapse and the rest of the city followed suit a year later. .”
Response: Aside from accusing you of jumping to conclusions, because as Dr. Bill has already said, “Caution: just because two events happen, does not mean they are related.” ( 07-26-2018 12:57 PM ), I would also have to point out that you provided ZERO documentation of what you are saying.
Let’s see what you’ve got. Show me documentation of exactly when Fluoridation began in Sacramento, or as you say, South Sacramento. I haven’t looked at any maps yet, but let’s assume there is a river in South Sacramento. Show me documentation that a salmon industry existed there, documentation of when it collapsed, and documentation of when fluoridation began in that city.
Also, it would be great if you could show me fluoride levels in river water before and after the collapse of the salmon industry in Sacramento.
This stuff should be easy for you to provide, since, according to you, it seems to be common knowledge. You said, “I visited the salmon ranch in Juneau and they understand that the salmon industry was decimated in Sacramento when the city began fluoridation.” End quote.
So, let’s see what you’ve got that led you to this incredible conclusion.
Newspapers in sacramento covered the collapse heavily. The salmon industry collapsed on the Sacramento River in a manner similar to the published collapse in the 1970s on the Columbia River when an aluminum factory stupidly discharged its F waste into the river elevating the F level to a mere but significant 0.3 ppm. The experiments done at the university of Oregon proved that this F level in soft water narcotizes Salmon and they cannot navigate upriver to spawn. This resulted from observations at the John Jay dam. The Sacramento disappearance was not described as being caused by F because the advertised start of fluoridation was a year after the collapse. But detailed records indicate south sacramento was fluoridated the year before the collapse and the rest of the city followed suit a year later. . Salmon detect minute changes in mineral content of the water and only return to the particular stream they recognize from imprinting when they spawned.
The effects of F water on racehorse breakdowns is also ignored by F proponents. One city mayor said "who cares if horses might he harmed by fluoride water, we don't have horses in the city."
So salmon collapses likewise dont end fluoridation. But Juneau so far has escaped it. I visited the salmon hatchery to give them information to try to help them continue to use clean pristine water at the hatchery and not to succomb to fluoridation.
Dr. Bill, I’d like to take the liberty of whacking one more mole in your last comment if I may.
You said, “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.”
Just to be clear, you are saying that based on the Maximum Contaminant Level for fluoride, which we agree is 4 parts per million. You are saying this is not protective, because local agencies, the people who fluoridate water, believe they can take fluoride levels to dangerously high levels. Is that correct?
Then you must also know that the Secondary Limit for fluoride is 2 parts per million. And you must also know that if 2 parts per million is exceeded by anyone adding fluoride to water, then corrective action must be taken. Do we agree on this?
So, right away, we know that no one who is adding fluoride is taking up to the MCL. Correct?
And you must also know that anyone who adds fluoride to water must sample and perform analysis from several points in the distribution system (the number depending upon the population) On A Daily Basis.
And you must also know that anyone who does not fluoridate water is only required to sample for fluoride once per year. Do we agree on these things? Feel free to dispute anything you disagree with.
So, with that in mind, you must know that the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that all owners of community water systems must supply Water Reports, or Community Confidence Reports, to customers detailing analysis results. These Reports are available for all to see on the Internet.
Here’s my point. You are claiming that the MCL of 4 ppm F endangers the public, when the fact is that when the secondary limit of 2 is exceeded, corrective action must be taken. So right away, your fear mongering is baseless.
But let’s go farther.
Feel free to go online, check out some of these Water Reports from communities who fluoridate their water, and show me ONE water report from last year in which the average of 1.5 is exceeded. I’d like to know if 1.5 was exceeded at all by any of them.
A community near my home, Petoskey, Michigan doesn’t fluoridate its water. They sample for fluoride once per year, and their average is a little higher than 1.5 ppm. I live right outside Boyne City, Michigan which fluoridates its water. They send out monthly fluoridation reports from all their wells, and they actually under fluoridate (although I’m not sure why).
My point is that your fear mongering about public safety is just that, baseless fear mongering. Go ahead, show me one community which fluoridates it’s water and is exceeding 1.5 ppm. Those water reports are out there. We can all see them. Here is Boyne City’s http://www.cityofboynecity.com/water-quality-reports-253/
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.