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

 

Reply
Conversationalist
4
Kudos
937
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

937 Views
Message 871 of 1,355

On fluoride and salmon, the abstract of a paper in the 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’ by David Damkaer and Dougas Dey of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Center reads:

Abstract.—There is evidence that fluoride from an aluminium plant near John Day Dam had a significant negative effect on passage time and survival of adult Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. at the dam. In 1982, fluoride concentrations of 0.3-0.5 mg/L were recorded at the dam. These concentrations were probably representative of fluoride levels at the dam in earlier years as well, based on the aluminium plant's fluoride discharge records since 1971. From 1980 to 1982, the time (>150 h) required for upstream migrants to pass John Day Dam and the mortality (>50%) of migrants between Bonneville and McNary dams (below and above John Day Dam) were unacceptably high. Bioassay experiments on the behaviour of upstream migrating adult salmon suggested that fluoride concentrations of about 0.5 mg/L would adversely affect migration. Subsequent experiments suggested that 0.2 mg F/L was at or below the threshold for fluoride sensitivity of chinook salmon O. tshawytscha and below the threshold for fluoride sensitivity of coho salmon O. kisutch. Beginning in 1983 and continuing through 1986, fluoride discharges from the aluminium plant were greatly reduced and there was a corresponding drop in fluoride concentrations in the river. Concurrently, fish passage delays and inter-dam losses of adult salmon decreased to acceptable levels (28 h and <5%, respectively).       

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
937
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
922
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

922 Views
Message 872 of 1,355

I did not say I hated lawsuits. I said my folks didn't believe that is the way to  settle things but many people do and that is their right. 

James Deal is not t a criminal. So answering his questions is not wrong. 

Sorry to burst your bubble but I find James to be intelligent and very good at organic gardening and he believes we need to stop putting wastewater into our rivers and other things I also believe in.

Again this has nothing to do with the holocaust. 

My credentials from UCSD I cannot change so I don't see the problem. The chemistry department told me I can publish what I want under the  UCSD banner which acknowledges  where I was taught, both undergrad and grad degrees and the school of medicine. 

I've published math articles and physics articles (and on fluoride toxicology while collaborating with Dr. Benson there)  

. I am classified staff at Palomar College and am a private group teacher. Unpublished letters I write list UCSD as where my degrees are from. So? 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
922
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
921
Views

Re: Ethical Nonexistence of "Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action"

921 Views
Message 873 of 1,355

Carry Anne, thank you for your repetetive and exhaustive quotes.  They never get old do they.  And in only 34 minutes you managed to catch my comment and write all that.  Impressive.  You must sit on this site like a hen sitting on eggs.  More power to you in your attempt to "Demand" that the AARP adapt your fringe position.  

 

Your quote:  

 

"DavidF insultingly uses Josef Mengele's claim that as a scientist he wasn't responsible for the horrific twin experiments he conducted in Nazi concentration camps as a metaphor in a attack of Dr. Sauerheber's response to DavidF's earlier taunt. Dr. Sauerheber said that as a scientist, he focuses on answering questions rather than on lawsuits - that faulty analogy is beyond the pale, even for DavidF and his team of fluoride-trolls."

 

Response:  I'll answer that.  Aside from your inability to read ("uses Josef Mengele's claim that as a scientist he wasn't responsible for the horrific twin experiments he conducted in Nazi concentration camps" - Where did I say that?)  Dr. Sauerheber said, before he edited it, (and the AARP moderator can look at his edits) that he learned the ethics of not suing people from his parents.  He basically said that his aversion to lawsuits was part of his value system.  Yet I see him all over "Fluoride Class Action," a website dedicated to lawsuits.  

 

This tells me that he, as a self-proclaimed scientist, doesn't care about the ethics of those with whom he aligns himself.  He's just there to answer questions at their bidding, even though it might violate his value system.

 

So, if he doesn't care about the ethics of those with whom he aligns himself, he can align himself with anybody, as long as they ask the questions that he "is expected to answer."  

 

He says he hates lawsuits, but he is posted all over a class action lawsuit webpage.  I am opposed to the Nazi Party, and I would never allow anything I have written to be used by them.  But apparantly he would.  He said, "Scientists are supposed to and are expected to answer questions and that is what I have done for Deal and many others who seek to find answers.”

 

Now, Carry Anne, your defense of this guy, who falsely claims affiliation with a university simply because he graduated from there, and who doesn't care about the ethics of those who use his work, says more about you and your desperation to convince the AARP to align themselves with your fringe, scare-mongering position than it does about those so-called "fluoride-trolls" who see you for what you are and call you out for what you are. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
921
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
916
Views

Ethical Violations: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

916 Views
Message 874 of 1,355

“In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)

 

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)

 

Fluoridation was conceived as a human experiment in the 1940s. It has never been proven efficacious, effective or safe. Yet, in spite of dozens of human studies and hundreds of laboratory experiments documenting low dose harm to vulnerable populations which include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies & young children, the elderly and any with chronic illness like kidney, thyroid, autoimmune or endocrine diseases, fluordidationists insist 'we need more study' before stopping this fluoridation experiment - even when the studies document neurotoxic harm to babies in the womb (Bashash et al. 2017; Thomas et al. 2018)  

 

  • Fluoridation is a human rights violation. It is a bioethical wrong that denies individual medical consent and causes harms to millions of vulnerable consumers which is the exact reason why  AARP should write a resolution in opposition to fluoridation policy

 

DavidF insultingly uses Josef Mengele's claim that as a scientist he wasn't responsible for the horrific twin experiments he conducted in Nazi concentration camps as a metaphor in a attack of Dr. Sauerheber's response to DavidF's earlier taunt. Dr. Sauerheber said that as a scientist, he focuses on answering questions rather than on lawsuits - that faulty analogy is beyond the pale

 

Quotes2017.jpg

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
916
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
886
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

886 Views
Message 875 of 1,355

RS:  “I don't work for James Deal and never have, so the extrapolations you claim are not correct.”

 

And:  “My interaction with Deal is the same as my interaction with this AARP site and with anyone else who asks me for information. Scientists are supposed to and are expected to answer questions and that is what I have done for Deal and many others who seek to find answers.”

 

Response:  I never said you did work for him.  But you certainly contribute to his Fluoride Class Action website.  And for somebody who says he is fundamentally opposed to lawsuits, I find this very strange. 

 

Let me try to provide an example to illustrate what I am saying.  Josef Mengele was a scientist who did research on twins.  He was, as you said, “supposed to and are expected to answer questions.”  He had no problem supplying those answers to the people for whom he worked. 

 

You say you are fundamentally opposed to lawsuits, but you contribute to the Class Action website.  That’s fine.  You are saying that as a scientist you simply answer questions, post papers on his website, even papers about Relativity, because you don’t care about his ethics, you are simply answering questions.  If that’s the case, you wouldn’t have minded working alongside Dr. Mengele, because you don’t care about politics or ethics, or who uses your work, or for what purpose. 

 

I think you aren’t fundamentally opposed to lawsuits.  Either that or you’re one of the biggest hypocrites I’ve ever encountered.  How much money did you say Deal has collected from gullible clients that you spend your time frightening?  And how many lawsuits has he won for them? 

 

RS:  “Also I don't teach at UCSD and only am afifliated with the campus now through the alumni association.” 

 

Response:  They don’t pay you anything, do they.  You offer tutorial services, but you are not listed with the Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services. 

 

But you are affiliated with them because you graduated from UCSD.  In that case, I must be affiliated with Central Michigan University, because I graduated from there.  Am I also affiliated with my high school?  I’ve never heard of a scholar listing as an affiliation a university from which he graduated, have you?  If so, please provide an example of one.  Does UCSD know that you claim to be affiliated with them on your scholarly work? 

 

RS:  “So I have spent most of my free time the last 11 years petitioning the FDA to ban fluoridation for the country. The peitition is still under review (submitted 2011).  The Agency now is divided on whether they should ban it or simply leave it as is . . “

 

Response:  That is a complete lie.  As you know, the FDA has no jurisdiction over water fluoridation, other than fluoridated bottled water.  As you also know, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was agreed upon between the EPA & the FDA in 1979 which placed water fluoridation under the jurisdiction of the EPA. 

 

You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. 

 

RS:  “The oxygen levels in the; Colorado River downstream of Laughlin that discharges sterilized city wastewater directly into the river are substantially lower because of the discharges.”

 

Response:  Then doesn’t it make sense that oxygen levels downstream of the Sacramento discharge point would also be lowered?  And wouldn’t this also affect salmon returns, since salmon & trout require high levels of dissolved oxygen?  But you say you have looked at all factors and it must be fluoride  .  .  .  Ah, but then you can’t frighten people into giving money to a lawyer who says he will sue BOD loading into rivers, can you. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
886
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
855
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

855 Views
Message 876 of 1,355

The oxygen levels in the; Colorado River downstream of Laughlin that discharges sterilized city wastewater directly into the river are substantially lower because of the discharges. But the EPA ruled that since there is no clear level at which a minimum has been set that whatever the level measures at the Mexico border, that is the level that the EPA will recognize as the allowed level.

This twisted thinhking course does not consider the role oxygen deficiency plays in controlling the flora and fauna in the river. My complaints to the Colorado River Board were overturned because an agreeemnt withLaughlin had already been made before I found the emissions were accumulaitng soap suds along the banks below the discharge pipe.  So studying a situation and describing the truth don't usually make a hill of beans difference to political systems that are already pre-decided. Laughlin continues to discharge into the river even though water skiing is dead south of the pipe, and Sacramento continues to discharge fluoridated waste water regardless of the fact that salmon are highly sensitive to fluoride. Whatever the oxygen levels have been in the river, fluoride waste on top of that has its own contribution to the poor health of the river.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
855
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
793
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

793 Views
Message 877 of 1,355

I don't work for James Deal and never have, so the extrapolations you claim are not correct.  Also I don't teach at UCSD and only am afifliated with the campus now through the alumni association. My direct collaborative work with Dr. Benson at UCSD ended when he passed away last year. I teach at Palomar and have students who are swamped with work. Interest and desire are far different than actually carrying out a project especially when the racehorse 7 year study that was published has not caused the city of L.A. to even consider halting fluoridation. A city mayor in Australia who supports fluoridation of people was given the study and remarked that "we don't have horses in our town so who cares?"

This is not "defeatist" as earlier claimed. It is simplly pragmatic. The reasons to halt fluoridation that are proven without doubt are already compelling and need to be described. We don't need more proof of harm for fluoridation promoters to ignore.

My interaction with Deal is the same as my interaction with this AARP site and with anyone else who asks me for information. Scientists are supposed to and are expected to answer questions and that is what I have done for Deal and many others who seek to find answers. 

One impact that was successful (which is very rare in the fluoridation industry) was to place the racehorse artricle on file at the Rancho Santa Fe Water District since this town has a horse population as high as the population of people. They know how to take care of horses there. The District officials told me they have no interest in fluoridation because most all their customers own horses.  Since this city operates the water treatment plant in the region, this spares from fluoridation all cities downline including Fairbanks Ranch, Solana Beach, Cardiff, old Encinitas, and Leucadia. Furthermore, one of my chemisry student's father is the chief breeder of horses for Los Alamitos. When he read the paper the word got out to the racing office at the track and soon after track officials halted purchasing L.A. city fluoridaed water and they only rely on well water. 

But victories like this are otherwise relatively nonexistent. So I have spent most of my free time the last 11 years petitioning the FDA to ban fluoridation for the country. The peitition is still under review (submitted 2011).  The Agency now is divided on whether they should ban it or simply leave it as is where fluoride infusions were already ruled as being an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. The FDA stands by that ruling, so getting the Agency to go farther than that is difficult (and certainly a time-stealing endeavor).  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
793
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
779
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

779 Views
Message 878 of 1,355

You say, "My deduction on salmon recognizes drought and other causes of salmon effects before fluoridation of course, but also that fluoride is one of the most potent causes because the fish only  lay eggs in water that chemically matches that where they themselves were spawned."

 

Response:  Great.  What's the dissolved oxygen level in that effluent, and what kind of BOD are they loading into that river?  Has anyone ever sampled for the new and emerging contaminant PFAS?  That would certainly have an effect on the chemical makeup of any waterway.

 

Richard, I had asked the question:  "Your hypothesis does nothing beyond supporting an agenda that helps Natural/Alternative Health people sell stuff, and Class Action Lawyers stir up potential clients for frivolous lawsuits.  Would you know anything about that?"

 

You responded by saying, "I don't believe in lawsuits and suing people. I was taught that by my parents."

 

Fair enough.  But it's no secret, and you've never made a secret of the fact, that you've done work for an attorney who runs a website called "Fluoride Class Action."  In fact, there's an entire page dedicated just to you https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/category/dr-sauerheber .   I mean, this is no secret.  This information is out there in the public domain.  

 

And this begs the question, how is it that someone whose very values are against the idea of lawsuits, has an entire section dedicated to him, for the entire world to see, on a website dedicated to a class action lawsuit against water fluoridation?  

 

By the way, has attorney James Deal actually won any lawsuits against anyone because of water fluoridation, or is he simply in the business of collecting money from potential clients?  

 

These are just questions.  I find it curious.  Fluoride Class Action isn't your website.  You just contribute to it.    

 

You also said, "I also don't own an oximeter or a boat. So you are probably talking to the wrong person."

 

Surely the University of California in San Diego has a boat and an D.O. probe.  The chemistry department, where you claim affiliation, surely has student interns just waiting for something to measure.  If I were in your position with a theory, but no empirical evidence to support it, I'd round up some students in a heartbeat, get some measurements and make some calculations.   

 

Is there any reason why you couldn't do that?

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
779
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
711
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

711 Views
Message 879 of 1,355

I don't believe in lawsuits and suing people. I was taught that by my parents. I also don't own an oximeter or a boat. So you are probably talking to the wrong person.

With the avocado leaf blight issue, saline is the chief known cause and there is no doubt the sodium from caustic soda used in fluoridation elevated the level above tolerable limits. There was no lawsuit against the city. It was proof that was undeniable and the conscience of city hall that led to an RO pipe dedicated without sodium and fluoride for the ranchers.

My deduction on salmon recognizes drought and other causes of salmon effects before fluoridation of course, but also that fluoride is one of the most potent causes because the fish only  lay eggs in water that chemically matches that where they themselves were spawned. So after the drought effects subsided and returns remain depressed anyway, fluoridation is the chief suspect.

The real question is why are city councils so easily convinced that fluoridation does no harm when it does harm bones, and yet also that it somehow hardens enamel, already the hardest substance in man when fuoride is absent from it? Propaganda is a dangerous thing. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
711
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
718
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

718 Views
Message 880 of 1,355

Again, regarding this quote:  "If anyone is bent on claiming that fluoride has no effect on salmon in the fluoridated main channel, then go there and find salmon laying eggs near the discharge pipe.  I am sorry to say you are not going to find them."

 

Response:  That may be true, but to say that it is because of the minute amount of fluoride, which you have never measured, is absurd.  Can you tell me what the BOD levels in Sacramento effluent are?  Can you tell me what oxygen levels are in the effluent?  Are you aware that trout & salmon require at least 7-10 ppm O2?  Can you tell me anything about what is in that discharged effluent?  

 

If I were an environmentalist, I would take a good look at those oxygen levels.  From there I would take a good look at that effluent to see what kind of BOD they are putting in that river.  But before any of that, I would need some solid evidence that the discharge itself has anything to do with smaller salmon numbers.  I see that those salmon returns were dropping to extremely low levels as far back as the early 1990s, well before fluoridation began.  

 

Your hypothesis does nothing beyond supporting an agenda that helps Natural/Alternative Health people sell stuff, and Class Action Lawyers stir up potential clients for frivolous lawsuits.  Would you know anything about that?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
718
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

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


multiple white question marks with center red question mark