Reply
Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

 

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

50,742 Views
1449
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
2,248 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
2,203 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

  • 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.
2,171 Views
16
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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?

 

2,224 Views
15
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

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

2,037 Views
14
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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. 

 

1
Kudos
6333
Views
0 Kudos
1,863 Views
13
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

David,

 

You make no sense.  

 

You promote, support, additional fluoride exposure and require an impossible moving target of evidence on every aspect.  

 

Science does not have absolute proof of gravity, able to explain exactly why.  Although we don't have absolute proof, I can assure you, I believe gravity exists.   Sometimes absolute proof is not possible and judgment is required.

 

Very simple, there are organizations/countries that endorse adding more fluoride to peoples' diet/lives.  And there are many organizations/countries that do not.  You refuse to accept evidence I provide, so you need to search for yourself.   I can't do your homework for you. Go to pubmed and search.  www.fluoridealert.org has the largest fluoride data base that I'm aware of.  CDC and ADA have their side.  Read both sides of the evidence, not just research which supports your bias.

 

I provided you evidence that the NHANES 2011-2012 reported 60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.  20% have moderate/severe.  That, in and of itself must be addressed.    

 

There is no logical, ethical or financial reason to give people fluoride more when they are getting too much.

 

If you want to know more about the various countries which do not support giving people too much fluoride, then contact the countries yourself.  Nothing I provide, quote, reference or say will change your mind.  So do your own investigation.  I have done thousands of hours of investigation and my professional judgment, based on all streams of evidence, is that many are ingesting too much fluoride and the best place to reduce exposure is a cessation of water fluoridation.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

1,971 Views
12
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, either admit that you were not telling the truth or provide evidence of what you said so that we may move on.

 

To recap:  

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. 

 

AGAIN: You said, as a statement of FACT, that all of these countries who do not fluoridate their water have scientific agencies who "have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  

 

Well do they or don't they?  If you say they do, you must be aware of these alleged studies conducted by these alleged scientific agencies.  Therefore, it shouldn't be that hard to provide links to these allegted studies which you claim exist.  

 

I'm not asking you to do my homework.  I'm asking you to do your own homework.  It's your story.  

1,980 Views
11
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

David,

 

97% of Europe is fluoridation free.  

 

You keep saying, " there is not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposes water fluoridation," and I keep responding the undisputed fact that most of Europe does not fluoridate their water.      

 

For example, take the very reputable Dutch Ministry of Health and Welfare and Courts:  

 

“. . . at present the addition of chemicals to drinking water is prohibited by law in the Netherlands. This law came into effect because it was widely perceived that drinking water should not be used as a vehicle for pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, fluoridation of drinking water would conflict with the freedom to choose for natural drinking water. This principle of freedom of choice is considered as an important basic principle in the Netherlands.”

SOURCE: 2007 – RIVM report 270091004/2007 for the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports

 

The link to the full report is at https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/270091004.pdf. The quote is on p. 59.

 

David. . . you seem to not be able to use judgment and keep saying the same thing.  No evidence appears adequate for you and instead you resort to personal attacks.  Please stop.  

 

Even if a person loves the public health intervention of adding fluoride to water, certainly the person should have concerns when most adolescents in the USA show signs of excess fluoride ingestion.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

0 Kudos
2,032 Views
9
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, you provided a list of 11 countries which you claimed banned water fluoridation because of scientific evidence produced by scientific organizations within each respective country.

07-21-2018 10:25 PM, & 07-27-2018 11:56 AM 

 

This is your exact quote, copy & pasted here:   “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.”  

 

You are saying that each of these countries’ scientific agencies have determined that community water fluoridation is neither safe, nor effective, and have rejected water fluoridation for these reasons.  Am I reading your comment correctly?  Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I was curious about that, so 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. 

 

In your comment below, you have provided the Dutch Ministry of Health’s statement on water fluoridation.  Correct?  Nothing in the Dutch statement supports your claim that water fluoridation is neither safe, nor effective.  Isn’t that correct?  This organization has rejected CWF based on the philosophical argument of “freedom of choice,” which I would be glad to debate with you after we finish with this. 

 

So, right off the bat, if this is the only example you can provide to support your story, we see that your comment was False.  You weren’t telling the truth.  There is nothing in the Dutch statement which says fluoridation is neither safe nor effective.

 

Hans Moolenburgh, a Dutch quack, convinced his government to end water fluoridation in 1976 using science from the Last Century.  I have seen his video.  In it he tries to prove that optimally fluoridated water causes gastro-intestinal problems in babies.  In it he says, ‘We know that it was the fluoridated water that caused the babies to cry because when we took the bottles away from them they stopped crying.’ (paraphrased), isn’t that correct?  And wasn’t Dutch scientist, Hans Moolenburgh involved in something called chanting cosmic sounds?  Is that correct?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4orQKFrUcsw  I guess he was a quack.

 

Nevertheless, you are correct, I was wrong.  There is One scientific organization in the world which has rejected water fluoridation.  (That still makes you a fringe group in the scientific community.)  The Dutch Ministry of Health was conned in 1976 by Cosmic Sound believer, Dr. Moolenburgh who used science from the last century to make his argument.  But the Dutch Ministry of Health has never stated that community water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective, and they have conducted no studies which suggests this. 

 

Your statement was false.  But I will give you one more opportunity to prove your statement before we end this.  For the last time: 

 

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   (BTW, the Dutch Ministry of Health never conducted a study proving CWF was neither safe nor effective.)

 

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. 

 

Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that chanting Cosmic Sounds will heal you?

2,050 Views
8
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

David,

 

There are several reasons not to add more fluoride to everyones' diet indiscriminately with uncontrolled dosage (people drink different amounts of F water, F rich food, F rich medication, etc.  

 

Much like whack a mole.   97% of Western Europe does not fluoridate public water, for various reasons depending on who you talk to in that country and not each country agrees on the most powerful issue or "mole" to whack.    

 

Whether one country finds one issue more convincing than another issue is very much like individuals.  My wife finds the contaminants in the fluoridation compounds to be unacceptable.  My mother finds freedom of choice most convincing.  My son-in-law finds the lack of efficacy most convincing, my one daughter finds the harm to animals is most concerning, my other daughter finds the harm to the developing brain as most concerning, a good friend is most concerned with chemically sensitive individuals, another friend is concerned with the adverse effects on the thyroid, and another friend has the most concern for the effects on the mitochondria, while another friend finds the evidence of fluoride causing cancer is of most concern.  

 

You know one of my top concerns. . . like the WHO . . . excess exposure.   Too many people are ingesting too much fluoride as reported by the NHANES 2011-2012, 20% moderate/severe fluorosis.  But the over riding issue for me is combining all streams of evidence. . . all the moles popping their heads up at one time is a huge concern.  

 

Compare fluoride with tobacco.  Not everyone gets lung cancer from smoking tobacco.  Smoking affects different people in different ways.  Some get more periodontal disease, some kidney, some cancer, etc.   Sort of like whack a mole.  Smoking does not cause a single disease, but increases risk for many disesaes.

 

Western science has really just started to get serious researching fluoride's effect on the developing brain.  We are in the infancy of research on the risks of excess fluoride. . .  especially , neurotoxicity; however, 3 to 5 reasonable studies come out every year and the mountain of evidence is crushing.  Most studies have been done in the last few years and, like a snowball, growing and growing.  The smoke is thick and in effect you keep yelling no evidence of fire.  Just give it time and fluoride will be as concerning as excess lead, tobacco, DDT, etc.   

 

Some want to have absolute certainty.  Reminds me of tobacco.  While taking pathology, each disease discussed by the professor mentioned the increased risk from tobacco and second hand tobacco smoke.   Cause is not a simple single effect.  Not everyone has the same sensitivities to fluoride.  A global perspective looking at all the moles is required.  Maybe we should stop whacking moles and find the reasons for so many.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

0 Kudos
2,064 Views
7
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

We have been commenting under a thread entitled:  “Fluoride – Demand AARP take action.” 

 

“Demand,” that sounds kind of pushy doesn’t it.  But is it?  I don’t think so.  Actually, this “demand” that is being made is quite mild by comparison when placed within the long history anti fluoridation behavior.  Here are a few examples of what I mean:  

 

In the City of Port Angeles, Washington, when a fluoridation vote came up in 2017, local businesses were threatened with being blacklisted if community water fluoridation (CWF) was reinstated.  This is from the news article:

 

“In the letter to Johnson, it (an anonymous flyer) begins with a typed out “Dear” and then has “OWNER H20” in handwriting.

“How much business can you afford to lose?” it asks.

“Are you ready to have your restaurant/hotel/store listed on a handout warning the public that your business serves, makes or treats food items with tainted water?””

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/port-angeles-businesses-get-letter-threatening-blacklisting-o...

 

And again, in a letter dated September 18, 2007, Attorney Robert E. Reeves threatened the National Kidney Foundation with a lawsuit if they did not remove their organization’s name from a list of organizations endorsing and supporting CWF.  The following is an excerpt from that letter: 

 

“NKF and responsible individuals which might include past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are named as defendants in anticipated legal action now in development.” . . . .

“Even if it is ultimately determined that neither NKF or any past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are liable criminally or for any tort such as negligent misrepresentation this could still be a major financial public relations disaster for NKF which is best handled now rather than later.” 

 

In response, the National Kidney Foundation chose to avoid the financial burden of defending itself against a frivolous lawsuit, a threatened “public relations disaster,” and removed its name from the ADA’s list of organizations which support water fluoridation.  However, the National Kidney Foundation in no way Opposes water fluoridation either.

 

And another example of this behavior, Mrs. Cathy Justus, is a Pagosa Springs, Colorado resident who claimed that her expensive horses & four dogs died as a result of drinking optimally fluoridated water.  (Never mind the fact that the water in Louisville, Kentucky is fluoridated, and the owners of very, very expensive racehorses there allow those horses to drink that water with no harm to them.)

 

In Mrs. Justus’ unbelievably long comment under a post by New Zealand scientist, Dr. Ken Perrott, who looked at the science involved in the Justus story, you will find this in her 15th paragraph:

 

Mrs. Justus wrote, “Our sole goal was to cease fluoridation and we told our municipality that if they did that we would not pursue a lawsuit.”

 

Moreover, according to her, “The public was ready to take them to taks (sic.) on this angle of personal choice and medical mal-practice if they didn’t cease fluoridation. Fluoridation was ceased just week later in 2005.”   https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/fluoridation-and-horses-another-myth/#comment-70349

 

Again, never mind that this “angle” has been brought before the Supreme Court 13 times, and 13 times the Supreme Court refused to review the arguments for lack of merit.  But she bullied, buffaloed and intimidated the City of Pagosa Springs, and they caved.

 

The mayor of an Australian city was injured when an anti-fluoridationist slammed a car door on her head.  https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/mayor-shaken-by-alleged-assault-after-fluoride-spa/2680776/

 

And again, the Chief Medical Officer in Lismore, Australia was threatened with Sarin gas by an anti-fluoridation group. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-12/fluoride-threat/4953898

 

And this:  Blogger Peter Tierney wrote an opinion piece about a South Australian anti-fluoridationist who sat as a Member of the Legislative Council, Ann Bressington.  Ms. Bressington used her high position to incite death threats against Federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek by posting a Wanted Poster with bullet holes which read “Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.”  https://reasonablehank.com/2013/03/05/bressingtonville-just-like-the-movie-ghost/

 

First let me say that in this era of mass killings, this kind of behavior is not only unacceptable, it is irresponsible and it should be criminally punished. 

 

Let me also say that this particularDemand,” this thread under which I am commenting, that the AARP get on board the anti-fluoride train doesn’t even come close, by comparison, to some of the dangerous examples of unhinged thinking and actions of other anti-fluoridationists, which, I’m guessing have been brought about by extreme paranoia, a tendency toward conspiracy theories, and “Google Research.”   

 

On the other hand, this thread is just another, milder expression of the same mindset.  After all, I have been accused of “stalking” simply because I have had the audacity to question the comments of some of these “experts.”  In my opinion, this sort of paranoia is exacerbated by the blatant scare-mongering which has become a specialty of the Fluoride Action Network, or Fluoridealert.   

 

Apparently, readers of these threads are encouraged to accept everything that is being written by these “experts” without questioning a thing.  Does that really sound like an honest way to Demand the AARP to do anything? 

0 Kudos
2,096 Views
5
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

David,

 

You did an interesting cut and paste.  But you did not carefully examine each item.  Now go back and carefully read the primary research and both sides.  Remember, in a "court" hearing, both sides present their case for the jury to make a judgment decision.  The same holds true for evidence based health care.  Both or all sides need to be carefully evaluated.

 

For about 25 years after dental school, I promoted water fluoridation because I did not spend the time to evaluate both sides.  I even had fluoride added to my bottled water at the office and I spoke up on behalf of fluoridation with cities.  Finally I started to look at the primary research for myself instead of blind belief in the CDC/ADA.  

 

I worked with Port Angeles on their vote to stop fluoridation.  Unfortunately, one or two anonymous people opposed to fluoridation were being harmed and quite hostile.  Although I disagree and we all spread the word to stop that kind of action, one or two spoiled our professional well ballanced presentations.   On the other hand, those promoting fluoridation have done far worse. . . stripping dentists of their licenses to practice dentistry for not following tradition.  But hostile acts are about people, not a way to evaluate facts and scientific evidence. 

 

I don't know about Robert Reeves.  Maybe he was fighting for a client.  Clearly the National Kidney Foundation looked at the science and did not feel they could support fluoridation in a court of law.   Fluoride is hard on fragile kidneys.   Sometimes courts are necessary and I have been told by more than one fluoridationist to take it to court.  We are taking the EPA to court.

 

You bring up another good example of Cathy Justus.  You need to see the video, read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut and paste.  One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.  You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?

 

You gave some other illustrations of unacceptable behavior and I agree with you.  But I have not carefully looked at the facts of each case.  None of those illustrations have anything to do with science.  

 

Does a person doing a bad act prove that fluoridation is safe and effect?  Does a person slamming a door on someone's hand prove that 60% are not getting too much fluoride?  No.   

 

Your comments are about people, not science.    

 

One study I read, and I don't have time to look it up, was explaining a new drug treatment for cancer and a trial for treatment, which looked promising.  In passing, the authors explained they had given the test animals fluoride to cause cancer so they could test the drug on cancer diseased animals.  

 

For someone to suggest fluoride does not cause cancer is seriously flawed because they have not read the studies for themselves.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

2,308 Views
4
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill,

 

In my previous comment, I provided a few of the many examples of anti-water fluoridation folks who had threatened & bullied people and organizations.  My feeling is that the mindset behind this extreme behavior is brought about by a tendency toward conspiracy theories and some paranoia which has undoubtedly been exacerbated by the energizing Fluoride Action Network.  I, myself, have been called a “stalker” in these threads simply because I have the audacity to question some of the things which have been written here.

 

Among that list of bullies was one Cathy Justus, of Pagosa Springs, Colorado, who claimed that her horse and 4 dogs were killed by drinking optimally fluoridated water.  She buffaloed the City with the threat of lawsuits and they were indeed intimidated by her.  Your response to that example jumped out at me.  Here it is prefaced by my original comment: 

 

DavidF “Mrs. Cathy Justus, is a Pagosa Springs, Colorado resident who claimed that her expensive horses & four dogs died as a result of drinking optimally fluoridated water.  (Never mind the fact that the water in Louisville, Kentucky is fluoridated, and the owners of very, very expensive racehorses there allow those horses to drink that water with no harm to them.) . . .

“Again, never mind that this “angle” has been brought before the Supreme Court 13 times, and 13 times the Supreme Court refused to review the arguments for lack of merit.  But she bullied, buffaloed and intimidated the City of Pagosa Springs, and they caved.”  (08-17-2018 09:44 PM)

 

Response from BillO:  “You bring up another good example of Cathy Justus.  You need to see the video, read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut and paste.  One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.  You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?”  (08-17-2018 11:11 PM)

 

I would like to respond to each point in that comment.  “You need to see the video,”

Response:  I’ve seen the video.  That is why I question the fact that for some reason Mrs. Justus’ dogs died from drinking optimally fluoridated water . . yet in almost every major city in the U.S. (except Portland) dog owners are raising healthy happy pets who drink fluoridated water every day.  That seemed odd to me.

 

“. . read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut & paste.”

Response:  Which vet report?  Mrs. Justus went through a multitude of vets before she finally found somebody who told her it was fluoride in the water.  Do you mean that vet report, or the other, more conventional reports that she skipped over?

 

(And this was the best part) BillO:  “One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.”

Response:  Elevation??  Thank you!  You just invalidated the work of your fellow anti-fluoridationist, Dr. Richard Sauerheber, who claimed that optimally fluoridated water was responsible for problems with racehorses in Los Angeles which has an elevation of 285 feet.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286955679_Racehorse_breakdowns_and_artificially_fluoridated...   

 

Dr. Sauerheber must be wrong since Louisville has an elevation of 466 feet, higher than Los Angeles, and horses are not harmed in Louisville.  So they can’t possibly be harmed in Los Angeles, since according to you, “fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.”  Maybe you should “read the research” of your fellow anti-fluoridationists . . that way you won’t trip all over yourselves and contradict one another like you just did here.

 

One more thing about your response to those examples of anti-fluoride bullying.  You said, “Your comments are about people, not science.” 

Response:  That’s not exactly right.  While my comments are about the people behind your agenda.  My comments are also about the mindset of people who misrepresent and manipulate the science. 

 

For example, in another AARP thread on this same topic, Dr. Limebeck admitted that he photographed a picture of iron-stained teeth of a patient who had never drank optimally fluoridated water in his life.  The picture was featured in an article by Michael Connett on the Fluoride Action Network, and diagnosed as “Mild Dental Fluorosis.” 

 

Now, to be sure, Mild DF can be associated with optimally fluoridated water.  But as Kumar demonstrated, these teeth are healthier as they are more resistant to decay.  They are characterized by barely noticeable white spots which are usually dried and put under special lighting for the condition to even be photographed.  Mild dental fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.  Dental decay diminishes quality of life.

 

So, the implication of Dr. Limebeck’s photo of iron-stained teeth which had never touched optimally fluoridated water is, ‘this is what happens when you drink this stuff.’  For Dr. Limebeck to use this photo as an example of Mild DF is deceptive any way you look at it.  So, Dr. Bill, my comments were about the science, and the misrepresentation of it.

 

Oh, before I forget, you also asked, “You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?”

 

Well, I really shouldn’t, since you said, “. .  you need to search for yourself.   I can't do your homework for you.” (‎08-14-2018 12:30 AM)  But I won’t play your game.  Since my comments are verifiable, here you go:

 

J Public Health Dent. 1986 Fall;46(4):188-98.

Antifluoridationists persist: the constitutional basis for fluoridation.

Block, LE

 

Alkire v. Cashman, cert. denied, 414 US 858 (Ohio 1973)

 

Birnel v. Town of Fircrest, 335 P.2d 819 (Wash. 1959), appeal dismissed, 361 U.S. 10 (1959), reh'g. denied, 361 U.S. 904 (1959);

 

Chapman v. City of Shreveport, 74 So. 2d 142 (La. 1954), appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 892 (1954),

 

City of Canton v. Whitman, 337 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 1975), appeal dismissed, 425 U.S. 956 (1976);

 

De Aryan v. Butler, 260 P.2d 98 (D. Cal. 1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1012 (1954);

 

Dowell v. City of Tulsa, 273 P.2d 859 (Okla. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 912 (1955);

 

Kraus v. City of Cleveland, 116 N.E.2d 779 (Ohio Com. P1. 1953), aff'd, 127 N.E.2d 609 (Ohio 1955), appeal dismissed, 351 U.S. 935 (1956);

 

Mary Bellassai et al v. James McAvoy et al (Ohio, 1982), cert. denied, 459 US 971 (1982)

 

Minnesota State Bd. of Health v. City of Brainerd, 241 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976), appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803 (1976);

 

Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531 (Sup. Ct. 1965), aff'd, 24 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y.A.D. 1965), aff'd, 218 N.E.2d 339 (N.Y. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1026 (1967);

 

Readey v. St. Louis County Water Co., 352 S.W.2d 622 (Mo. 1961), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 371 U.S. 8 (1962), reh'g denied, 371 U.S. 906 (1962);

 

Safe Water Foundation of Texas v. City of Houston, 661 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983), appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 801 (1984);

 

Schuringa v. City of Chicago, 198 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 964 (1965)

 

Now, Dr. Bill, this is the Last Time I am going to do your homework for you.

0 Kudos
2,189 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

David,

I missed an important point in my last post which you raised.  

 

Indeed, this thread demands that AARP take action on fluoride because AARP is a perfect arbitor or facilitator of this controversial issue.   There are many top notch scientists who are members of AARP.  Certainly, some of these scientists would volunteer to evaluate the various issues on fluoridation.  AARP could hold a forum, discussions, evaluation of research, promote a white paper, and carefully have scientists review fluoride exposure, dosage, safety, efficacy and jurisdiction, bringing all sides to the table. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

2,352 Views
2
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

Bill,

 

Leading health and medical organizations around the world endorse community water fluoridation as effective and safe for everyone.

 

A few examples of endorsements come from:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics

2. American Dental Association

3. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

4. Mayo Clinic

5. American Academy of Family Physicians

6. World Health Organization

 

Not a single credibly recognized organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation.  Not one.

 

It is a pipe dream to think that the AARP would take a stand opposing credibly recognized scientific and health organizations.  As a dentist yourself, you know that this will never happen.  

 

AARP is a credibly recognized advocate for our country's aging like myself.  Why would they recommend stopping community water fluoridation for the very population that benefits greatly from it's cavity fighting natural mineral, fluoride?  

 

As we age we tend to get receeding gums.  The softer surfaces of our roots become exposed.  As a dentist, you know that these surfaces get cavities far greater and easier than the harder enamel of the crowns of our teeth.  And as a dentist you know that these are the most difficult fillings for us to place and to retain in place because of their being mostly on the multi-rooted molars.  Many times this results in tooth loss for our aging population.

 

To suggest that AARP recommend harming our population because a handful of boisterous opponents wish it so is to show disrespect for our families, including yours.

 

Thank you AARP for allowing this thread which shows what lengths people with a conspiratorial position will go to to create a false fear in our aging population.  

 

Johnny

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

 

2,249 Views
1
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Dr. Johnson,

 

You hit on several important topics and sound like an echo of David. . . or is it the other way?

 

You have failed to address over exposure.  Just because a little might be good, does not mean more is just as good or even safe.  Many are ingesting too much fluoride. 

 

You are correct about the aging process and more root caries, although my geriatric patients seldom have root caries, it is a problem, especially for those with poor diets.  

 

Here is the serious flaw in your theory.  Fluoride has some topical benefit like toothpaste, not systemic. Fluoridated water has too short of a contact time and too dilute to have topical benefit. There are no prospective randomized controlled trials, good science, supporting your theory for dilute short contact topical or "ingested" fluoride.  If 0.7 ppm fluoride concentration had topical benefit, makes no sense to give people 1,500 parts per million topical.  And if my memory is correct, drop down to below 500 ppm fluoride in toothpaste and the benefit drops off.  A significant topical benefit from fluoridated water makes no scientific sense and is not backed by research.   

 

Fluoride ingestion with intent to prevent caries is not FDA approved because the science is still incomplete. . . and the studies could be done and probably have.  But they don't show benefit. 

 

97% of Western Europe is fluoridation free and your comment echoing David that there is not a single credible organization opposed to fluoridation is simply wrong, and you know it. . . . unless the definition of "incredible" requires that they support fluoridation.  Then you have a catch 22, circular logic.

 

And you go back to endorsements.  Endorsements are not science.  But lets look at some of those "credible" organizations you raise.

 

1.  Please provide a link to each of those organizations and the references to the primary research supporting their position.  Then we can discuss their science.

 

2.  The American Dental  Association testified in court that they owe no duty to protect the public.  Seriously Johnny, the ADA exists to protect its members, dentists, not the public.  For example, the ADA support mercury fillings which are illegal due to toxicity for me to throw in the trash or dump in the sewer or send in the mail.   What about the human mouth makes them safe?  Nothing.  Tradition is more important than public safety.  Even the mercury filling manufacturers have greater warnings than the ADA.   We cannot trust the ADA to protect patients, they protect dentists. 

 

3.   The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.  CDC does not determine the dosage, efficacy or safety of any substance used to prevent disease.

 

4.  WHO is clear that a determination must first be made whether there is inadequate fluoride in a community before more is recommended.  As of 2011-2012 we had 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis and 20% with moderate/severe. . . far too much fluoride.  Certainly more should not be administered when so many show a biomarker of excess exposure.

 

Now to the AARP.

 

If you had science on your side, you would welcome a scientific debate, discussion, forum, review and white paper.  Seniors get too much fluoride with medications, their kidneys are often compromised, their bones brittle.   Why add more to their diet?   If you want topical, I will not argue.  But swallowing the fluoride harms seniors and does not help their teeth.

 

No conspiracy, Johnny.  Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.

 

My mentor reminded me, "50% of what we know in health care is wrong, but we do not know which 50%.  Always be a humble student of science, we are wrong and need to find out where."

 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

 

 

2,195 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill,

 

Your analogy of “whack-a-mole,” which I raised, is a little off, although I appreciate your efforts to manipulate the concept so it somehow works for you.  The idea of whack-a-mole is that a mole pops his head out of a hole, someone tries to “whack” the mole before he ducks down and reappears from another hole. 

 

In the original analogy, the issues themselves are the holes.  So, you raise the issue of “Freedom of Choice” not to drink fluoridated water.  I whack your argument with the fact that you never had a freedom of choice because you live on Planet Earth, and on Earth all drinking water has some degree of fluoride in it.  You have been drinking fluoridated water for your entire life.  There is no “Freedom of Choice” on Earth in regards to drinking fluoridated water.  You are a child of the Earth. You will drink water with fluoride in it.

 

The mole gets whacked, but pops his head out from another hole.  You raise the issue of contaminants.  I point out that a person would have to drink 2 liters of water per day for 2451 lifetimes to have a one-in-a-million chance of having an ill health effect from any arsenic, or any other contaminant, as a result of fluoridation.  (You may see my math and comments here): https://www.facebook.com/fluoridewater/posts/915319835173028?__xts__[0]=68.ARD5Cjwr7uOe5lLRT8zSN6qug... ),

and Dr. Ken Perrrott of New Zealand points out that source water often has more background contaminants than the miniscule amount which would be added by fluoridation (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/chemophobic-scaremongering-much-ado-about-absolutely-... )  . . Moreover, he points out the amount added is so infinitesimally, astronomically small . . well, I direct you to my math for that one. 

 

The mole gets whacked again but pops his head up here:  Dr. Bill says, “You know one of my top concerns. . . like the WHO . . . excess exposure.”  I point out that the WHO is indeed concerned about excess exposure, in places like India, where drinking water can have 33 times the optimal level of fluoride, . . or China, where atmospheric fluoride is 100 times the amount in the United States; neither of which has anything to do with community water fluoridation.  Moreover, the World Health Organization supports community water fluoridation.

 

The mole gets whacked but raises his head out of the “harm to animals” hole.  I will discuss Cathy Justus, her claim of fluoridated water killing her horses, and will provide a link to Dr. Perrott’s discussion of the issue in my next comment.  (Well, here are Perrott’s comments on the issue.  More discussion of Cathy Justus in the following comment:  https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/fluoridation-and-horses-another-myth/

 

The mole now pops out of the IQ hole.  You all bring up the Harvard Study, a Review of non-peer reviewed Asian studies study (where environmental fluoride is extremely high), and other studies which had not been undertaken in areas where community water fluoridation is practiced, and therefore I point out these have nothing to do with community water fluoridation.

 

I point out that the Broadbent Study (2015) which concluded “findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic.”    Aggeborn & Ohman (2016) & the Barberio Study (2017) all suggesting that optimally fluoridated water does not have a negative effect on IQ.  But you don’t like those studies.

 

And on and on and on it goes.  It is an endless game of “whack-a-mole” and when it is over I ask the mole to provide one documented case of any human being who was ever harmed in any way from drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.  .  .  .  Silence .  .  .  the mole’s head pops out from the “Freedom of Choice” hole.

 

 And it begins again.  

 

This is baseless scare-mongering, plain and simple.  But what motivation would you have to push a scare-mongering agenda?  Let’s look at some facts.

 

It is a fact that the Fluoride Action Network, the energy behind this scare-mongering, is part of Mercola’s Health Liberty conglomerate.  (And please, correct me if any of these things are wrong.)

 

It is a fact that Mercola makes millions of dollars every year selling expensive Alternative Health products as well as expensive fluoride free toothpaste . . really expensive in home water filter systems . . fluoride de tox, fluoride free oral health care, you know, stuff that people would want to buy if they were afraid of fluoride.

 

It is a fact that Mercola has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for unethical sales behavior.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#FDA_warning_letters

 

It is a fact that Mercola funnels money to the Fluoride Action Network through the nonprofit American Environmental Health Studies Project. https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

 

And it is a fact that the more paranoia the Fluoride Action Network generates about fluoride and strictly regulated safe tap water, the more stuff Mercola sells.

 

Is any of that incorrect?  If not, then please connect the dots.

0
Kudos
5033
Views
0 Kudos
2,013 Views
0
Report
Reply
Moderator
Moderator

Hey everyone,

AARP welcomes robust debate.

 

This is a gentle reminder to please remember to post according to the AARP community guidelines.

 

https://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

 

0 Kudos
2,030 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
2,185 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

2,195 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
2,370 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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. 

2,182 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

"Many municipal water sources inject fluorine (at 1 ppm) as an additive to prevent tooth decay. Use of this water for irrigation can result in toxicity symptoms on sensitive plants."  - in Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook (2018) “Fluorine Toxicity in Plants” by J.W. Pscheidt, Extension Plant Pathology Specialist, OSU 

 

This thread is about establishing a foundation of evidence that fluoridation is dangerous to senior citizen health - we have done that. Although fluoridation does not provide significant benefit to teeth and instead has damaged the teeth of over half of American teens (Wiener et al. 2018), it wouldn't matter if fluoride consumption was beneficial to teeth when it also damages kidney, thyroid, bone and gut health in many consumers. 

 

Environmental impact is just more evidence of harm, which stresses that fluoridation opposition should be about actual evidence and modern science rather than rhetoric and political campaiging.

 

Speaking of political campaigning, the first item on David's list is by Howard Pollick. Mr. Pollick is one of two persons identified by the ADA as its official pro-fluoridation spokespersons. Since you are so concerned about funding, David, you should know Pollick is known in some quarters as the 'million dollar dentist' because of his activities.

 

Despite his bias, Pollick was unable to prevent the inclusion of language in a large 2003 California Head Start study on cavities and ethnicity that noted that fluoridation had no impact on cavity experience among these low-income high risk children. However, FOIA requests revealed that while wordsmithing the ADA infant formula statment in 2010, Pollick witheld that information and instead suggested using circular reasoning and endorsement to justify CDC pro-fluoridation policy and to downplay the evidence of damage. 

 

Bottom line: We can argue science all day, but the evidence is that fluoridation is harmful to many consumers and some aquatic species, consequently adding it to water supplies is immoral and unsustainable. That is why AARP and other professional organizations should oppose fluoridation. Buy it for a buck a gallon if you want to drink it and don't believe toothpaste is enough, but don't subject the general population and the planet to this poisonous policy. 

2,064 Views
3
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Carrie Anne,

 

You say, "Since you are so concerned about funding, David, you should know Pollick is known in some quarters as the 'million dollar dentist' because of his activities."

 

Yes, I am concerned with funding.  Please provide some evidence that Dr. Pollick is compromised in some way because of funding.  I have already shown that the Fluoride Action Network takes money from Mercola, an unethical company that has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for its behavior.  So I would be interested in seeing proof of what you've said.

 

 

 

Nothing's been proven here other than some anecdotal stories.  Please tell me about your symptoms so that we may discuss them in detail and attempt to ascertain the accuracy of your claims.

2,057 Views
2
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Whack a Mole.

 

David, I no longer have time to simply argue with a believer.  Sort of like trying to change the Pope's belief in the virgin birth.  Religious freedom is important and I will not try to stop you from your belief in selected organizations which have no jurisdiction over fluoride exposure.

 

In closing, fluoridation is very much like Whack a Mole because there are many, many factors to consider.  Judgment must be used and bias affects judgment.  In summary:

 

1.   I do not hear dispute that 20% of adolescents with moderate/severe dental fluorosis is too much.  Excess exposure in and of itself is reason to reduce exposure. 

 

The most logical place to reduce excess exposure is a cessation of fluoridation.  Other sources have benefit, such as pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, medications, toothpaste, manufacturing, etc. 

 

2.  The organizations you rely on do not have primary evidence for how much fluoride in the tooth reduces tooth decay.  We don't know how much is effective.

 

3.  Over 50 human studies are reporting harm from fluoride to the developing brain and many tissues appear to also be harmed. . . at very low dosages.   Bones, pineal gland, teeth, nerves, mitochondria, and more. 

 

Take the evidence and use judgment.  With other sources available, why treat everyone even if they don't have teeth, have chemical sensitivities or ingesting too much fluoride from other places. 

 

The primary evidence is compelling, enough so that HHS even lowered the concentration of fluoride in water.  Was not enough, but a good start and clearly indicates excess exposure.

 

Perhaps I could suggest some science courses which might give you a greater appreciation for factual evidence rather than a simple belief system.

 

Fluoridation is not an evidence based public health intervention.

 

Cheers,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

2,082 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Just so we are clear here, Dr. Bill, you appear to be bowing out of this discussion when you are pressed to present evidence supporting one of your claims. 

 

To recap: 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.”  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. 

 

Moreover, this comment which you just made is factually incorrect and you know it:  “The primary evidence is compelling, enough so that HHS even lowered the concentration of fluoride in water.”

 

In response to that false statement I will factually say that 0.7 ppm is currently the target range.  It has been refined from 0.7 – 1.2 ppm to the more narrow range.  0.7 ppm was always part of that target, as it has been since the early 1960s.  It is a target, that is all.  It is not enforceable.  The maximum contaminant Level has not been lowered.  The secondary MCL hasn’t been lowered. You know these things.  And yet you deceptively imply that now the HHS is worried about fluoride over-exposure. 

 

Due to more sophisticated monitoring equipment available with today’s technology, a more refined target is possible.  And yet you try to imply that this is part of some sort of conspiracy.

 

We can discuss everything else you’ve brought up in your last comment (whack-a-mole), but what we see here is someone who touts evidence based conclusions, yet when pressed for evidence of his own statements chooses to bow out and make excuses. 

 

I think the AARP, as well as any other objective reader, can easily distinguish truth from falsehood in this discussion.

 

But the bottom line here is that you are part of a fringe outfit trying to con the AARP into supporting your agenda, for whatever purposes; and when your own statements are scrutinized Carrie Anne becomes defensive and alleges that those who dare to ask for evidence of what you are saying are trolls.

 

2,297 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

“Due regard is to be given to the interconnection between human beings and other forms of life, to the importance of appropriate access and utilization of biological and genetic resources, to respect for traditional knowledge and to the role of human beings in the protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity.”  - UNESCO documents on Bioethics;  Protection of the Environment, the Biosphere and Biodiversity, Article 17 (2005)

 

“... a fluoride concentration as low as 0.5 mg F-/l can adversely affect invertebrates and fishes, safe levels below this fluoride/l concentration are recommended in order to protect freshwater animals from fluoride pollution.” - JA Camargo inFluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review” (2003) 

 

Purpose: This thread is intended to provide evidence why AARP should take a position against fluoridation as harmful - particularly to their constiuency, senior citizens. 

Method: Provide personal testimony, modern science and evidence of harm that supports an AARP policy statement in opposition to fluoridation policy. 

 

Approximately 20 AARP members contributed  about 60 comments in support of such an action over a period of three years.  Then on June 27, 2018, a team comprised of three founding members of a fluoridation advocacy group swarmed this thread, overwhelming it in days with rhetoric and vitriol. 

 

Evidence of environmental harm from fluoride is on topic. Although not as specific to senior citizen health, scientific evidence of harm to pets, animals, fish, plants and the ecosystem is of concern to seniors who wish to leave a healthy world for their descendents. The AARP would be totally justified in including concerns about the environment in any resolution they craft in opposition to fluoridation policy. 

 

Here are just a dozen modern references relevant to environmental harm caused by fluoridation policy. I included two studies authored by Dr. Sauerheber who David has personally attacked with ad hominem smears on this thread: 

 

  1. Mullenix PJ. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2014 Apr-Jun;20(2):157-66.  

  2. Camargo, J.A. 2003. Fluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review. Chemosphere, 50:251-264. 

  3. Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook (2018) “Fluorine Toxicity in Plants” by J.W. Pscheidt, Extension Plant Pathology Specialist, OSU. 

  4. Karina Caballero-Gallardo, Jesus Olivero-Verbel and Jennifer L. Freeman. (2016) Toxicogenomics to Evaluate Endocrine Disrupting Effects of Environmental Chemicals Using the Zebrafish Model. Current Genomics. 17:6. 515-527.

  5. Jianjie C Wenjuan X, Jinling C, Jie S, Ruhui J, Meiyan L. Fluoride caused thyroid endocrine disruption in male zebrafish (Danio rerio). Aquat Toxicology. 2016 Feb;171:48-58.

  6. AW Burgstahler, RF Freeman, PNJacobs. Toxic effects of silicofluoridated water in chinchillas, caimans, alligators, and rats held in captivity. Research report. Fluoride 41(1)83–88 January-March 2008. 

  7. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts. Neurotoxicology. 2007  Sep;28(5):1023-31. 

  8. Richard G Foulkes & Anne C Anderson. Research Review: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada. Fluoride Vol.27 No.4 220-226 1994. 

  9. Kausik M and Sumit N. Fluoride Contamination on Aquatic organisms and human body at Purulia and Bankura District of West Bengal, India. Bull. Env. Pharmacology. Life Sci., Vol 4 [7] June 2015: 112-114. 

  10. Sauerheber R. Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2013:439490.  

  11. Sauerheber R. Disabled Horses: Racehorse Breakdown and Artificially Fluoridated Water in Los Angeles. Fluoride 46(4)170–179 October-December 2013. 

  12. Kalisinska E, et al. Fluoride Concentrations in the Pineal Gland, Brain and Bone of Goosander (Mergus Merganser) and Its Prey in Odra River Estuary in Poland. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 36 (2014): 1063–1077.

 

Many environmental groups quietly oppose fluoridation policy. 

2008 Position Against Fluoridation of Sierra Club: 

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water

2,092 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Carrie Anne,

 

In response to your interesting take on my comments, you seem frustrated that I am asking for evidence of some pretty far-fetched things that are being said here.

 

Dr. Sauerheber said that the practice of community water fluoridation caused the collapse of the salmon industry in Sacramento.  Are you seriously saying that it is an offense for anyone to ask for evidence of things Dr. Sauerheber says?

 

After looking, I have found no evidence to support this story.  Am I not allowed to ask for any evidence he may have which supports his story?

 

Regarding Dr. Bill, after I presented the fact that there was not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposed water fluoridation, he provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations.  He 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 him:  “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 him for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in Dr. Bill's list.

 

I thought you guys were all about evidence.  It appears you only want to discuss cherry-picked evidence which supports your agenda. 

 

Regarding Salmon in Sacramento, the only thing you provided which even remotely comes close defending Dr. Sauerheber’s story was this:  Richard G Foulkes & Anne C Anderson. Research Review: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada. Fluoride Vol.27 No.4 220-226 1994. 

 

This appeared in the anti-fluoride magazine “Fluoride” in 1994.  Moreover . . .

 

1.)  It is irrelevant to anything that ever allegedly happened in Sacramento.  Drought appears to be the cause of the Salmon collapse there. 

 

2.)  When I look into this issue with more scrutiny, I see there has never been one case, not even one, in which any community maintaining the minute optimal level of fluoride of 0.7 ppm in its drinking water has had any measurable effect on any waterway due to its discharge. 

 

In light of this fact, I am well within my rights to ask Dr. Sauerheber for evidence supporting his story.  He did mention the factual event of an industrial accident in Oregon, which had nothing to do with community water fluoridation. 

 

By the way, regarding this subject, you may be interested in the following:

 

Water Fluoridation and the Environment:  Current Perspective in the United States

Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:343-350.  HF Pollick

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/pdf/pollick.pdf

 

The Puyallup Tribe Certified the application for discharge of fluoridated waste water into the Puyallup River.  Surely no people are move reverentially protective of Salmon.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/0/596179085f928d9b88256c5d00587fc7/$FILE/WA0039578%20FS.PDF

 

Am J Public Health. 1990 Oct;80(10):1230-5. Evaluating the impact of municipal water fluoridation on the aquatic environment.  Osterman JW.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2400035

 

2005 Letter by Limnologist Joe Carroll re Hood River, OR fluoride wastewater

http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf

 

Criticism of Damkaer and Dey - North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:154-162, 1989.  Evidence for Fluoride Effects on Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, 1982-1986

The Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health, Chairman: Dr Seamus O’Hickey, May 2012

Appraisal of "HUMAN TOXICITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF WATER FLUORIDATION"  (author Mr. Declan Waugh).  Section 4b.

http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/documents/Appraisal_of_Waugh_report_May_2012.pdf

 

Blog comment by EPA staff to citizen concern re fluoride discharges.  http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/synthetic-female-hormones-in-sewage-are-toxic-to-male-fish-over-gen...

 

"Fluoride at high levels can be toxic to fish and wildlife. It also occurs naturally in groundwater and surface water. Some streams have naturally high levels of fluoride in the water, and the toxicty also depends on the species of the fish, temperature, and the water chemistry. EPA does include fluoride levels in discharge permits when appropriate and has standards for fluoride to protect human health and the environment."

2,070 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

 

 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,747 Views
2
Report
Reply