Are you a caregiver? Tell us how you plan your getaway with loved ones for a chance to enter a weekly prize drawing.

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
271
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

271 Views
Message 11 of 360

Dr. Bill,

 

Just so we are clear here, I haven’t been making any claims.  If you can find something in my comments which you feel is factually incorrect, please bring it to my attention and I will be more than happy to defend it . . unlike yourself.

 

These people, yourself included, are “Demanding” that the AARP take action against community fluoridation.  In your efforts, you all have made some pretty astonishing claims. 

 

I have simply been asking you to supply evidence of some of your claims, which I find, frankly, unbelievable.  You are the ones making the “Demands” here.  And you’re the ones who are trying to make the case to support your “Demand.”  

 

You are the one who is supposed to be the expert.  You’re the Doctor.  I’m not here to answer your questions.  I’m here ask you for evidence of some things I’m reading from you that I just don’t believe.  Frankly, and this is just my opinion, I believe you have been trying to hood-wink the AARP to get them to support your fringe position. 

 

 You can distract and raise other issues all you want, but the bottom line is, I believe you are making false claims and I am offering you the opportunity to support your stories with evidence. On the other hand, if you can defend some of your odd claims with valid evidence, that would be great. 

 

When we left off:  After I stated, factually, that there is not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposes water fluoridation, you provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations. 

 

In defense of your list, 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.”  End quote.  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

 

I also asked you for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in your list. 

 

I will have to go back and review other claims you had made which you refused to defend, but for now, let’s stay focused and just concentrate on this one. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
271
Views
Gold Conversationalist
2
Kudos
324
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

324 Views
Message 12 of 360

David,

 

Try resonding without personal attacks.  Would be more readable, credible and scientific.

 

I have been busy and not had a chance to read all the postings here.  Would you be so kind as to repost your response to my questions:

 

1.     How do we know when people are ingesting too much fluoride?  With 60% of adolescents showing signs of dental fluorosis, 20% with moderate/severe, when should my public health profession reduce exposure?

 

2.     What concentration of fluoride in the tooth shows lower dental caries?

 

3.    Over 50 human studies, several at low levels of fluoride in water, and over 200 animal studies report developmental neurotoxicity/neurotoxicity of fluoride.  What evidence refutes those studies?

 

When it comes to "safety," prospective randomized controlled trials are not ethical.  For example, there are no high quality studies measuring the effects of jumping off a 10 story building.  Would simply not be ethical.  My point, in case you miss it, safety studies are more complex and judgment must be used.  

 

With so many ingesting too much fluoride, the developmental neurotoxicity studies become alarming.

 

4.  High quality prospective randomized controled trials on efficacy of fluoride ingestion can be done.  What primary high quality studies can you provide which demonstrate efficacy.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
324
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
359
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

359 Views
Message 13 of 360

RS:  “I am a chemist, a scientist, not a used car salesman..”

Response:  Good, then you should know how to do math.

 

RS:  “ It is not possible to prove that the F discharges caused the collapse that happened after the discharges began.”

Response:  Sure it is.  First determine the flow of the Sacramento River when the salmon industry collapsed.  Then determine effluent discharge per day.  Joe Carroll used a fluoride level of 0.6 ppm F for effluent, and I think that’s fair.  He was quite right that partial removal from solid waste would have lowered the level.  Moreover, he didn’t account for storm water and other run off infiltration, which would have lowered it more.  We know that salmon are sensitive to 0.5 ppm F.  From that, it is a simple math calculation. 

 

So when you say it is not possible to prove that the F discharges caused the collapse of the salmon industry, my response would be that Failure of Simple Arithmetic should be an Embarrassment!

 

You’ve got a theory that can be proven or disproven with a simple math calculation.  Math doesn’t lie.  Used car salesmen lie.

 

We don’t see math and science from you, we see excuses:  “It is not possible to prove that the F discharges caused the collapse that happened after the discharges began.”  And you say you are a chemist?

  

One more thing:

" Pollution from farms and urban areas took a heavy toll on the river's environment, and heavy irrigation withdrawals sometimes resulted in massive fish kills.  Since 1960, when the big pumps at the head of the California Aquaduct in the Delta began their operation, the pattern of water flow in the Delta has been changed considerably leaving the fish confused as to where to go, resulting in many generations dying off because they have not been able to find their way upstream. In 2004, only 200,000 fish were reported to return to the Sacramento; in 2008, a disastrous low of 39,000.

 

"In 1999, five hydroelectric dams on Battle Creek, a major tributary of the Sacramento River, were removed to allow better passage of the fish. Three other dams along the creek were fitted with fish ladders. The river is considered one of the best salmon habitats in the watershed because of its relatively cold water and the availability of ideal habitat such as gravel bars"

 

“By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the government blamed crashing fish populations on overfishing, especially off the Northern California and Oregon coast, which lie directly adjacent to the migration paths of Sacramento River salmon. This has resulted in a ban on coastal salmon fishing for several years since 2002.  The Red Bluff Diversion Dam, although not a large dam and equipped with fish passage facilities, also presents a major barrier. Because of inadequate design, roughly 25–40% of the incoming fish get blocked by the dam each year. The dam has also become a "favorite spot" for predatory fish to congregate, feasting on the salmon that get trapped both above and below the dam.  As of 2010, the salmon run has shown slight signs of improvement, probably because of that year's greater precipitation.”

 

So, as of 2010, the salmon population began to rebound.  Did fluoridation decrease in 2010?

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
359
Views
Gold Conversationalist
3
Kudos
371
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

371 Views
Message 14 of 360

Excuse me but the entire tower bridge across the sacramento river in the city and the banked shore lines is only 700 feet long. Have you ever been to Sacramento? Have you seen the massive discharge pipe that dumps wastewater into the river just south of town?

There exist people in government who are unable to protect our rivers from discharged wastewater but who know full well it is insane and immoral to use a river as a waste dump. The colorado River south of Laughlin has a similar problem where city wastewater is discharged directly into it. I disagree with the practice and so do some people on the Colorado River board but no one can do anything  about it. The city of needles just has to deal with it. One can see the river water quality deteriorate and no one skis there. soap suds line the river banks downstream of  the discharge pipe. Dumping F into the waste pipe would simply add to the problem. CA is not  MI. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
371
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
331
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

331 Views
Message 15 of 360

I'm boarding the ship now in Alaska and will be unavailable for some time. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
331
Views
Gold Conversationalist
5
Kudos
299
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

299 Views
Message 16 of 360
  • I am a chemist, a scientist, not a used car salesman.. No scientist knows everything, including me. It is not possible to prove that the F discharges caused the collapse that happened after the discharges began. I'm not God. One possibility is it was a coincidence, but the explanation that F was not involved and instead it was a drought is not reasonable And is unproven as well, for example Droughts  are not permanent and yet he salmon industry has  been devastated there since F discharges began. It is possible that salmon could return to normal strength some year in the future when imprinting for the few left might reestablish to the new conditions. I don't know. But all past droughts did nor eliminate the industry because they are not always present. If the drought were that had the reduced water flow volume  would concentrate the F level even higher. All this is not provable and i have mad my deduction. There was no drought of such an unusual extent to cause the total longstanding collapse. I've presented the information to the state fisheries management officials  that is my civic duty to do. You or anyone else who promotes the wonder substance fluoride that somehow helps teeth enamel, the hardest substance in the human body, and yet after swallowing somehow at the same time  cannot harm ie adversely affect any other tissue in the body, cN argue what you wish. 
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
299
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
304
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

304 Views
Message 17 of 360

Dr. Sauerheber, 

 

`1.)  You have made a claim with which every expert who has looked at the situation disagrees.  Environmental experts have determined that drought hurt the salmon industry in Sacramento.  No environmental expert has ever claimed that municipal effluent has had any impact on Sacramento salmon.  What exactly are your qualifications?

 

2.)  Your comment below implies that there is zero flow in the Sacramento river, and that municipal effluent is jetted across a non-flowing river, creating this barrier you claim exists.

 

3.)  Have you bothered to do any calculations to support your far fetched theory?  For example, in my comment below you will see that Mr. Carroll has determined that the flow of the Columbia River is 200,000 cubic feet per second.  a.)  What is the flow rate of the Sacramento River?  And please provide documentation of your answer as Mr. Carroll did.  b.)  What was the municipal effluent discharge of South Sacramento when you claimed this happened?  Again, provide documentation of your answer.  

 

4.)  According to Mr. Carroll's calculations, an average discharge of optimally fluoridated water at 900,000 per day into a river flowing at 200,000 cfs, creates an environmental impact of 4 one-millionths of a part per million.  With a background fluoride level of 0.1 - 0.2 parts per million F, and salmon being sensitive at 0.5 ppm, we see that the impact was not even 1 one-hundred-thousandths of a part per million.  Moreover, Mr. Carroll's calculations may have been high, since he didn't account storm water run-off and other non-municipal infliltration which must be included into effluent discharge.

 

Have you done the math?  So far, all we've seen from you is some far fetched theory that supports your anti-fluoride agenda that no other expert agrees with.  And we have your word, with no documentation, that all these things happened silmultaniously.  

 

Perhaps you ascribe to the theory that if you say something enough, people will begin to believe it.  Sorry, math doesn't lie and science doesn't work that way.  Used car salesmen work that way.

 

5.)  One more thing.  I took the liberty of taking a look at the Sacramento River which you claim "is barely a stone throw wide."  According to Wikipedia, "The Sacramento River is the principal river of Northern California and is the largest river in California."  

 

I must say, Dr. Sauerheber, if "the largest river in California" is barely a stone throw wide, California must have some pretty tiny rivers.  I'll need to see those calculations and that documentation supporting it.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
304
Views
Gold Conversationalist
5
Kudos
301
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

301 Views
Message 18 of 360

The F concentration from the discharge point is not diluted. Salmon cannot navigate through it. In the Sacramento River which is barely a stone throw wide, the discharge tube emits its plume across the river. This presents a chemical barrier to salmon that navigate only to a specific spawn site with  a known, imprinted chemical composition. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
301
Views
Highlighted
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
323
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

323 Views
Message 19 of 360

Dr. Sauerheber, in response to your undocumented, unproven claim that water fluoridation caused the destruction of the salmon industry in Sacramento (which was attributed to drought) allow me to first cite passages from your last comment: 

 

“There is no proof that 1 ppm water, discharged into a river where salmon spawn, is harmless.”

Response:  There is no proof it is harmful.  You are the one who made the outlandish claim disagreeing with the official version of events.  The burden of proof is on you.

 

“ 1) 0.3 ppm in controlled studies in soft water proved it narcotizes salmon  to prevent upstream chemo-location. 2) The second fact is the disastrous salmon collapse in sacramento occurred for the first  run after Sacramento began fluoridation. The deduction that fluoride water discharges (where F is the size of a water molecule and cannot be filtered by water treatments that sanitize waste water prior to discharge) at 1 ppm into the River caused the subsequent collapse is reasonable.”

 

Response:  Yes, it would be reasonable if there were no water in the Sacramento river to begin with.  However, there is water in rivers where salmon dwell. 

 

This nonsensical issue came up in Oregon, and Limnologist, Joe Carroll of Water Quality Consulting actually did the calculation/math on this for the Hood River, where the issue was raised in the face of rationality.  You may view his entire letter here:  https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf

 

Salient points made in his letter to the Hood River News: “Fluoride background levels in the Columbia River, based on NOAA Fisheries peer reviewed articles from the 1980’s, were established in the 0.2 ppm (parts per million) range. Corps of Engineer water quality sampling completed in 1999 established fluoride background levels for Columbia River waters near The Dalles Dam to be around 0.1 ppm. The earlier NOAA Fisheries articles found Salmon to be sensitive to 0.5 ppm F . .”

 

“The resulting fluoride concentration associated with the normal Hood River water usage and subsequent release into the Columbia River is approximately 0.000004 ppm.  (note:  This equals 4 parts per million of a part per million) This is based on a daily waste effluent of 900,000 gallons per day, an average Columbia River flow of 200,000 cfs (cubic feet per second), and assuming a reduction in the fluoride concentrations from 1 ppm to 0.6 ppm due to partial removal by the solid waste.”

 

Moreover, “The river background fluoride levels are expected to be in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 ppm so how could an additional 0.000004 ppm result in any effect on the biological communities?”

 

To simplify his comments, background fluoride in the river was 0.1-0.2 ppm F.  Water fluoridation effluent added 0.000004 ppm.  Salmon are sensitive to fluoride at 0.5 ppm.  The resulting fluoride in the river after fluoridation, then, was 0.100004 - 0.2000004 ppm.  Fluoride levels hadn’t even been raised a 1/1000th part per million and were still well below salmon sensitivities.  Salmon are not affected in any way because of community water fluoridation. 

 

You are free to believe anything you want, but your ideas do not stand up to the math or the science, or rationality.  There is no evidence that the salmon industry was harmed by community water fluoridation in Sacramento.  You were unable to provide any evidence of such harm when asked for it.  And any intelligent moderator from the AARP can see your comments for what they are. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
323
Views
Gold Conversationalist
6
Kudos
534
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

534 Views
Message 20 of 360

In my opimion the burden of proof for administrationering a drug or supplement into the public water supply is on the supplier, not the consumer. There is no proof that 1 ppm water, discharged into a river where salmon spawn, is harmless. The reason I argue the sacramento collapse was due to fluoridation is because of two facts 1) 0.3 ppm in controlled studies in soft water proved it narcotizes salmon  to prevent upstream chemo-location. 2) The second fact is the disastrous salmon collapse in sacramento occurred for the first  run after Sacramento began fluoridation. The deduction that fluoride water discharges (where F is the size of a water molecule and cannot be filtered by water treatments that sanitize waste water prior to discharge) at 1 ppm into the River caused the subsequent collapse is reasonable.

Anyone else is free to not believe, but no one can claim proof that fluoridation had no involvement in what  happened. There is no such proof. 

It requires digging into city records to find the details of how/when fluoridation began. 

 Unannounced to the public, the south section of the city began fluoridation in 2010. The collapse occurred after that, when there was no nusual drought. Then  later the rest of the city began fluoridating  which was announced to the public. 

I am not going to relocate the city records documents simply because someone demands it. The 

deduction stands, and fluoridation was a mistake for vast reasons far beyond environmental issues. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
534
Views