Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1046
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,046 Views
Message 1021 of 1,444

Doctor Sauerheber . . . .

 

Your quote:  “ it appears to be fluoride discharges that were the final straw that caused the huge salmon collapse in Sacramento, does not need water fluoride measurements in order to be made. We already know the narrow river with the city's discharge pipe in its center releases mass quantities of 1 ppm fluoride since 2010, which was soon followed by the collapse.”

 

Response:  “We already know . . ?”  How do we know the discharge line puts out effluent at 1 ppm?  Has it ever been measured?  How could a city that keeps 0.7 ppm F in its drinking water discharge water with 1 ppm?

 

Moreover, we know that there is partial removal of fluoride from solid waste.  And we also know infiltration from storm water runoff further dilutes that already reduced level of effluent fluoride.  So, please explain how “We already know” anything about it.  All we have is your word for it, and that falls apart when the statement is scrutinized. 

 

Ok, let’s assume that salmon are affected at 0.3 ppm F.  What is the background level for fluoride in the Sacramento River?  You wouldn’t need to break any Trespass laws to determine that.  Do you even know?  The discussion can’t even begin until we know that. 

 

But as I pointed out in an earlier comment, Limnologist, Joe Carroll calculated discharge into the Columbia River, and its effect on that river, where this exact argument was previously replayed.  He calculated that discharge affected fluoride levels by 0.000004 ppm F (or 4 one millionths of a part per million).  https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf  In other words, using your figure of 0.3 ppm for a harmful effect on salmon, the background fluoride level would have to already be 2.999996 ppm F for salmon to be affected.

 

What was the background level for fluoride in the Sacramento River again?  Do you even know?  I must say, I find it odd that someone who calls himself a scientist would expect anybody to believe anything with absolutely ZERO evidence of anything, other than your word.

 

Mr. Carroll did his work on the Columbia River.  Where is your work?

 

What is the amount of discharge released?  What is the flow of the river at the point of discharge?  We need to know these things.  On one hand you say the river is so narrow you could throw a stone across it, on the other hand you say you would need a boat and a year to collect and do analysis on all the samples required.  (The way you initially described the point of discharge, I would have thought you could have done it with a pair of waders.) 

 

Your quote:  “But I did present myself to the personnel at the facility. I delivered published information on fluoridation to them. It was at an armed gate where I was not permitted to enter. . . . “

 

I don’t get it.  What were you trying to accomplish?  I thought you were attempting, “a similar thing at Lake Skinner 30 miles North of me.”  Similar to collecting river water samples . . that’s what we were talking about, right?  It’s nice that you knocked on the door first, but you didn’t need to supply them with any published information.  A public lake is public domain, unless it is surrounded by private property.  Why would you have to get near their caustic death containers? 

 

And, despite your talent for gish galloping, ok, let’s go, your quote:  “The SDWA prohibits such a requirement for a substance being placed into water since it does not sanitize or purlify water.”

 

Response, again, the SDWA does require certain substances to be added to water which do not sanitize of purify it.  As I pointed out before, in populations greater than 50,000, corrosion control additives are required.  Corrosion control additives do not sanitize or purify water.  Your statement is false.  (See 141.81, (a), (1)  https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/141.81 )

 

So that was incorrect. 

 

And this business about the FDA & the EPA which you and I have discussed ad nauseam is insane.  In a nutshell, you argue that a 1979 agreement between the EPA & the FDA, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which established EPA jurisdiction over water fluoridation was dissolved in 1985.  As proof of this dissolution of the agreement, you have provided a document which involved nothing more than the EPA’s declaration that it would outsource some of its workload to the Private Sector, and specifically to NSF. 

 

You also claimed to have some private correspondence from some law firm which supported your claim. 

 

So, when you say, “The FDA also says the EPA is in charge. In reality, no agency has accepted responsilbity of liablity for any damage from fluoridation--environmental, dental, or health related,” it is just insane.  There is no other word. 

 

The EPA oversees water fluoridation in the U.S.  States enforce EPA policy.  So, for example, in Michigan, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for enforcing EPA guidelines.  A municipality could not, for example, pump 20 ppm F into its water supply without the MDEQ holding it liable and enforcing certain rules, which would include prompt notification of its water consumers. 

 

This notion that you are trying to imply, that this is just a helter-skelter operation, nobody’s in charge, nobody cares, nobody enforces anything, speaks for itself.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1046
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1026
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,026 Views
Message 1022 of 1,444

But I did present myself to the personnel at the facility. I delivered published information on fluoridation to them. It was at an armed gate where I was not permitted to enter. The guard took the materials reluctantly to officials inside. After that I merely stood outside the fenced facilty on public property on the side of a public highway, to look at the lake and facility where I used to camp as a child, to see the massive fluoridation and caustic soda tanks surrounded by large buffer zone acreage, and the security guards zoomed around to watch, even though I had presented myself at the front gate. 

There is no possilbilty of getting the city of Los Angeles to change its views about fluoridation by studying the environmental impacts of their facility at Lake Skinner or any of the other treatment plants. As i said, the horse ranch moved out because of the toxic storage facility right next to the ranch and the city of Los Angeles could care less. I've presented materials to the Water District board and have written to them since 2007 but all the comments are ignored, never responded to other than "the EPA is responsible for fluoridation safety."   But the EPA is not, and has written that the FDA is responsible for regulating fluoridation (and this includes the views of the EPA underling CalEPA)..

The FDA also says the EPA is in charge. In reality, no agency has accepted responsilbity of liablity for any damage from fluoridation--environmental, dental, or health related. This is because these agencies know fiull well that it is illegal to require and to enforce fluoridation. The SDWA prohibits such a requirement for a substance being placed into water since it does not sanitize or purlify water.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1026
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1015
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,015 Views
Message 1023 of 1,444

The statement, that it appears to be fluoride discharges that were the final straw that caused the huge salmon collapse in Sacramento, does not need water fluoride measurements in order to be made. We already know the narrow river with the city's discharge pipe in its center releases mass quantities of 1 ppm fluoride since 2010, which was soon followed by the collapse. 

I accept the data that levels as low as 0.3 ppm begin to narcotize salmon signififcantly. The 0.5 mentioned in these posts is able to narcotize all salmon. CalEPA will not do such testing and yet I am blamed for not somehow proving the assertion with such measurements. i have three fluoride ion specific electrodes that have been heavtily used over the years and are not operable. I don't own a boat and Sacramento is a 10 hr drive from here. But most important, fluoridation should be banned because of what it does to innocent human beings, both young and old. The ban does not depend on spending a year proving beyond any doubt that salmon are also being harmed. it took sweven years to indicate beyond reasonable doubt that racehorses in L.A. were being harmed by fluoridated water. And as noticed the policy of fluoridation is not and will not be altered because of this fact. And neither will a proven fact that salmon are harmed, whre we already know this beyond reasonable doubt. Salmon sense of chemical detection of metal ions and all components in the steram where they were imprinted is far beyond the capability of chemical instrumentation. it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that salmon know full well that the river after having fluoride discharges with its contaminant metals is not the same water as that in which they were spawned and imprinted. Imprtinting is an exquisite method used by salmon that takes many months for their brain to know the exact chemical composition of their own personal stream so that they will recognize it and only it after their journey out to sea. This biologic capablity is far behyond our abililty to fully describe. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1015
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
964
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

964 Views
Message 1024 of 1,444

Carry Anne, 

 

With all due respect, trying to get readers of a thread to "click" away from comments which question your fringe position doesn't exactly give that position any credibility.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
964
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
938
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

938 Views
Message 1025 of 1,444

RS:  "Fluoridation facilities are highly police-protected. Just standing near the area looking at it caused two security guards in separate vehicles to stop and view my every move. Fluoridation has long been a police-state action that is assumed to be a case-closed, non-debatable position, and anyone questioning it is viewed as some sort of fringe lunatic. And officials at CalEPA have no desire to be so labeled."

 

Response:  Given the history of bullying, and sometimes violent behavior of this fringe anti-fluoride faction with whom you have associated yourself (see my comment timestamped 08-17-2018 09:44 PM), I don't blame any facility for taking precautionary measures for the protection of its property, and possibly the environment.  

 

This has nothing to do with a "police-state action" but rather it sounds like a common sense approach for the protection of what could be highly dangerous materials if they were to be blown up by some maniac with a bomb. 

 

Perhaps if you were to let someone at the treatment facility know what you were doing instead of lurking around covertly and looking suspicious, things might go a little easier.  After all, isn't this common practice?  

 

I doubt that the California Environmental Protection Agency has any concerns about being labled "fringe lunatics" given its history of strict strict environmental stuardship and taking on any industry which threatens that environment.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
938
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
878
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

878 Views
Message 1026 of 1,444

Astroturfers and social media trolls overwhelm online conversations with comments that emphasize denigrating opponents, dismissing ethics, denying science and distracting the conversation away from the topic at hand in order to advance their agenda. 

 

Fluoridation is an immoral medical mandate that forces contaminated product into bodies of convenient consumers regardless of impact on individuals in vulnerable populations who include senior citizens and many with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid or kidney disease. Substantial modern science also validates that fluoride consumption contributes to  learning disabilities in children and to dementia, brittle bones, diabetes and kidney disease in seniors. And yes, fluoridation policy also damages the environment. Click here to see a dozen references to those environmental harm items alread posted on this forum thread. 

 

To read three years of comments in support of an AARP resolution against fluoridation many with hyperlinks to modern science that were posted before the fluoride lobbyists descended on this thread in June, click here and then use the PREVIOUS button to flip through the pages. 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
878
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
909
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

909 Views
Message 1027 of 1,444

Dr. Sauerheber,

 

I am amazed that a guy who has the ability to out think Einstein can't figure out a way to take simple fluoride samples from a river.  You can purchase a new Fluoride ISE probe from USA Blue Book for under $500.  And since you seem to be hell bent on proving that municipal discharge with under 0.7 ppm F is somehow harmful to the environment, I would think this would be a necessary tool.  Since you claimed affiliation with UCSD when discussing the issue with Dr. Ken Perrott under his Open Parachute article, "Fluoridation and horses – another myth"

 perhaps UCSD can fund your research.  

 

I'm hearing a lot of excuses about why you can't prove CWF harmed the salmon industry in the San Diego River, but I'm not seeing any solutions.  So far, all we have is your word, and absolutely ZERO science, to support this interesting claim of yours.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
909
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
948
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

948 Views
Message 1028 of 1,444

I don't publish in the journal of GE, and yes it is low caliber, but does contain some decent articles. My two articles on the topic were pubslished in "mainstream" journals -- Optics, which is published by Elsevier publishing in the Netherlands, and Physics Essays published in Canada.

But you need to realize that the truth of a finding is not determined by the journal, good or poor, in which it is printed. It is in the data and its proper analysis.

Many people claim that time dilation has been confirmed experimentally but it has not been confirmed by reliable experiment. The GPS time differences you mention, like so many others who claim it confirms time dilates due to motion, is most easily explained by the fact that orbiting satellites send a signal along a dilfferent distance path than a received signal from a location on earth. This is because the detector position is on the earth's surface, not the center of the orbit that the satellite follows.around the earth. Of course it takes a different time for EM radiation to travel two diffrent path lengths. This has nothing to do with the dilation of absolute time. Time doesn't have a brain to decide to slow down because an object moves, or speed back up when it stops moving. You may want to read the textbook published by the former Chairman of the Stanford Physics Dept. Arther Otis called Light Velocity and Relativity (Burckel and Asso. Yonkers on Hudson, NY, 1960). This thorough refutation of time dilation was published at the time the Physics text by Beiser came out promoting time dilation theory, but colleges decided to use the Beiser text because it contained other useful information that was good..

I have no access to areas along the Sacramento River near the discharge pipe, to do the sampling necessary to meet needs for absolute proof of harm to salmon. I would have to use vacation time or take time off work and travel there and rent a boat for access to that area, etc. Also my fluoride electrode is currently in need of repair and such studies are all done on my own private funds. And more than likely, attempting to sample the river near the discharge pipe without auuthorization would get me arrested.

I attempted a similar thing at Lake Skinner 30 miles North of me. The area I found is under camera and armed guard surveillance and is protected with barbed-wire-topped fencing, and anyone near it gets pulled over for loitering or potential trespassing. The horse ranch across the street from the fluoride tanks moved out because of the facility. Fluoridation facilities are highly police-protected. Just standing near the area looking at it caused two security guards in separate vehicles to stop and view my every move. Fluoridation has long been a police-state action that is assumed to be a case-closed, non-debatable position, and anyone questioning it is viewed as some sort of fringe lunatic. And officials at CalEPA have no desire to be so labeled.   

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
948
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
919
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

919 Views
Message 1029 of 1,444

Sorry to keep harping on this, but what you've said in your comment, about time and motion, is entirely new to me.  At your suggestion, ("simplly read the journal of Galilean Electrodynamics where time dilation is repeatedly and routinely proven to be false.") I took a look for it.  I found this review of the periodical itself: 

 

" So let’s say you’ve got a theory. You have decided you cannot keep quiet any longer — you have to expose why Einstein was wrong. (In particular, you think he ties his shoes bass-ackwards.) But no one in the establishment will listen to you, despite your advanced degree in personal finance and that you own a calculator. So how are you going to get your ninety-four page article accepted in the mainstream? . . . 

 

"Just like our friends over at Autodynamics, who founded a society to advance their own theory, the folks at Galilean Electrodynamics founded a journal to publish articles for their friends, and presumably for anyone else who can’t get their theories published in mainstream journals. Cobble together some papers, publish them in your latest journal, and presto biz markie, you can now claim that you’ve been “published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”." 

 

The Journal gets bad marks for "Terrible English," "All science is Wrong," "Irritated, Emotional Language," "One Extremely Long & Ugly Webpage," and "Completely New Definitions."  http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=298

 

I will say this for you, Doctor, your science is consistant.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
919
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
909
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

909 Views
Message 1030 of 1,444

Dr. Sauerheber, we're a little off topic here, but I find your position on Relativity, interesting, to say the least.  If nothing more, you've given me an excuse to take a second look at the original experiment of the 1970s.  

 

I see that the theory behind the original experiment has been applied time and time again.  All results were consistant with Einstien's predictions.  In 2005 gravitational time dilation was measured from the top of Mt. Rainer over the course of a weekend using HP 5071A cesium beam clocks.  In 2016 the experiment was repeated from the top of Mt. Lemmon.  The results were consistant, and predicted. 

 

In 2010, more precise instrumation allowed time dilation to be measured at speeds below 36 kilometers per hour.  At that speed, velocity time dilation was measured at 10 to the negative 16th power level. 

 

That being possible, I also see that gravitational and velocity effects are incorporated into global positioning systems that we use today. 

 

I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but since the theory has been applied to various experimentation, results have been predicted and confirmed again and again and again, which is what we like to see in science, and the fact that we take advantage of a practical application of that theory to assist modern technology, which I use every day, I have no problem accepting the theory as fact.  In fact, I don't consider it a theory as long as my GPS doesn't get me lost.  

 

By the way, have you considered measuring fluoride levels in a grid pattern upstream and downstream of effluent discharge in the Sacramento River to prove your theory?  CalEPA would, of course, have to confirm the results.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
909
Views