- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- AARP Rewards for Good archive
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Caregiving Forums
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
Re: Seawater & Sadism: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
Thank you, for giving the question so much thought.
So that's a "Yes." You have walked barefoot in the ocean . . And that's a "No." You didn't get hives on your feet, even though the ocean has twice the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water.
You bathe in optimally fluoridated water, you get hives. You walk in the ocean, you don't.
To rationalize this paradox you offer several reasons.
1.) You don't drink seawater. -- Irrelevant
2.) The "type" of fluoride is different in seawater. Hmm, That's odd. Any high school chemistry student should be able to tell you that a fluoride ion is the same as any other fluoride ion regardless of the source.
3.) "The mineral make up of seawater is quite high. We know that minerals including calcium and magnesium diminish the toxic impact of fluoride." -- Why don't you put calcium & magnesium in your bathwater if you're getting hives and you know this will help?
4.) "The fluoridation chemicals added to municipal water are highly polluted with other substances." -- Ah yes, Phillis Mullenix. This is from the study you cite: "Metal concentrations were analyzed in three hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS) and four sodium fluoride (NaF) samples .."
So, what she did was look at a whopping 7 samples total of fluoroscilicic acid & Sodium Fluoride, and I imagine this was supposed to be a comprehensive overview of every batch going into the hundreds of billions of gallons of water flowing throughout U.S. water distribution systems.
What she doesn't tell you, or you could figure it out for yourself, is that any contaminants which may exist in the raw products she tested, already in the parts per million, are diluted down even further when HFS & NaF are added to water at about 2 parts per million. So, in the end, you have parts per million of parts per million. The levels of contaminants in her study are so low in drinking water that they are below detection level. Astronomically lower than EPA guidelines.
Here's the part I like best. The ocean has far greater levels of every contaminant cited in the Mullenix study than you will find in your drinking water which has been fluoridated to the optimal level.
Are you sure you don't get hives on your feet when you walk on the beach?
5.) "Municipal water typically includes chlorine and often includes ammonia laced chloramine. The toxic impact of fluorides is multiplied when in the presence of chlorine and even more so with chloramine."
It's true, chloramines, which are a combination of organic material and chlorine, does give people hives. Public pool water, which can be chlorinated as high as 5 - 10 ppm Cl2, can contain very high levels of chloramines. And low levels of chloramines are used by some cities for water sanitization. This is because they last longer in the distribution system. I, personally, disagree with the practice.
You may be onto something there. I don't know enough about it to be sure, but you can easily find out if your city uses chloramines as a tool for water sanitization by asking. If they do not, I recommend that you stop urinating in your bathwater - if it's the chloramines.
6.) "Eczema and other rashes or skin lesions such as stomatitis are an accepted adverse reaction to fluoridethat have been noted as such in physician manuals and dental product inserts since at least 1950." -- Ah yes, Waldbott found cases of this stuff from the 1950s through the 1970s.
Is that what you mean when you say, "there is considerable emerging scientific evidence against fluoridation .?" Stuff from the 1960s that has never been repeated by anyone?
"I've previously offered a number of citations on these and don't need to repeat them again." -- And for some odd reason, nobody else can repeat Waldbotts results today either.
Carry Anne also says, "attacking any individual who reports any skin condition from fluoridated water . . . . . is sadistic."
Response: Of course they are. And in your mind the AARP is guilty of criminal acts if they don't submit to your demands. ("Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics.")
Of course they are, dear.
Personal Opinions replace the Scientific Consensus?
CarryAnne – You claim that you, "have answered every one of the questions posed by DavidF & RandyJ here and elswhere", and you "have been giving more thought to the specious distratction about seawater and fluoride provoked skin reactions"
If that is your claim, then all you have to do is copy/paste your specific answers (you are a master copy/paste artist) from "here and elsewhere" to the specific questions I just repeated. Once you do that, I will not be in jeopardy of misinterpreting your comments, and I'll re-ask my other specific questions I have net seen answered.
Your Feldman quote pretty much summarizes the anti-fluoride "evidence" as claims based on "information concerning specific reactions to fluoride, as seen in private practice, never reach publication"
Seawater & Sadism: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“Fluoride is capable of producing any number of symptoms. They include drowsiness, profound desire to sleep, dizziness, nasal congestion, sneezing, runny nose, sore throat, coughing, wheezing (asthma), chest pain, hives, and various intestinal symptoms. Most of the information concerning specific reactions to fluoride, as seen in private practice, never reach publication.” - Hobart Feldman, MD, American Board of Allergy and Immunology (1979)
Although I have answered every one of the questions posed by DavidF & RandyJ here and elswhere, I have been giving more thought to the specious distraction about seawater and fluoride provoked skin reactions and have expanded my answer to that question:
- I don't drink seawater.
- The type of fluoride in seawater is different from the types used to artifically fluoridate community tap water. (Sauerheber 2013)
- The mineral make up of seawater is quite high. We know that minerals including calcium and magnesium diminish the toxic impact of fluoride.
- The fluoridation chemicals added to municipal water are highly polluted with other substances. (Mullenix 2014)
- Municipal water typically includes chlorine and often includes ammonia laced chloramine. The toxic impact of fluorides is multiplied when in the presence of chlorine and even more so with chloramine. (Naidenko 2009)
- Eczema and other rashes or skin lesions such as stomatitis are an accepted adverse reaction to fluoride that have been noted as such in physician manuals and dental product inserts since at least 1950. Chizzola maculae is a fluoride-specifc autoimmune reaction, a type of hives that some women and children experience in the early stages of fluoride poisoning. I've previously offered a number of citations on these and don't need to repeat them again.
Consequently, attacking any individual who reports any skin condition from fluoridated water which has a totally different composition from seawater by distracting the conversation with comments about the ocean in an attempt to discredit either the science or the individual is a political deception. Insisting that senior citizens with psoriasis or other inflammatory skin conditions bathe in fluoridated water because of dental dogma is sadistic.
Re: Political Deceits & Ethics: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
These are good arguments, Carry Anne.
You say, "Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics."
Wow! Now in your "Demand" that AARP submit to your wishes, you threaten them with being guilty of "criminal" acts. This sounds vaguely familiar. The same tactic was used by anti-fluoride Attorney Robert Reeves in his extortion of the National Kidney Foundation, threatening them with a "Public Relations Disaster," even if they weren't guilty of anything.
"Individual Human Rights." Good argument. However, since there has never been one documented case of harm to any person who drinks optimally fluoridated water, no one is ever harmed by drinking it, you are literally arguing for the "right" to have poorer oral health. That is not rational. Moreover you are attempting to impose your irrational mindset upon those individuals who could truly benefit from this health initiative. That's not cool, man.
By the way, you never answered the question. You said your rashes are inflamed when you bathe in optimally fluoridated water. The question is, have you ever taken a walk along the beach at the ocean and walked in the water?
Since ocean water has twice the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, I'm wondering if your feet broke out in hives if you did.
Personal Opinions replace the Scientific Consensus?
CarryAnne - I am trying very hard to get your specific answers to specific questions precisely so I don’t misrepresent your views and come to a conclusion like “it seems like your personal opinions replace the Scientific Consensus” That’s how I would interpret your most recent tirade, but since you have not actually answered my questions, I will try again. I certainly don’t want to misrepresent your opinions.
~> Your continual reference to fluoridation as a “medical mandate” is irrelevant, and your claim that fluoridation is implemented “in order to protect prestige, power and paychecks” is unsupportable and libelous. I ask you – do you apply this accusation to every member of the organizations worldwide that publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation who have not publically disagreed with the consensus?
~> You have apparently stated you don’t believe in the concept of a Scientific Consensus as it relates to the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation. What exactly is your alternative? It seems from your statement, you believe that anything anyone with any level of training accepts as true is equally legitimate under the law (as long as it agrees with your beliefs), with no group of relevant experts needed to evaluate the evidence for quality, relevance, accuracy, etc. – correct me if I am wrong.
~> Who, exactly do you trust to evaluate this “emerging scientific evidence” and determine the “evolving medical opinion”? So far, as mentioned repeatedly, there have been no recognized science or health organizations that have recommended changing the scientific consensus – or whatever you believe replaces it – based on the most current evidence.
~> Do you accept application of Scientific Consensus to the evaluation and acceptability of conclusions in any other field of science or health – Climate change, vaccines, drinking water disinfection, etc.? If not, what exactly is your alternative?
~> Can you explain more clearly your apparent accusations of the ADA, EPA and ATA and their members as “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths"? (08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) & (07-25-2018 11:30 PM)
~> Do you believe those accusations are also accurate descriptions of all members of the 100+ organizations in the world who either publically recognize the benefits of CWF or have not publically spoken out against it?
Political Deceits & Ethics: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
Fluoridation is a medical mandate. Medical mandates are politics pretending to be science. Fluoridation forces contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of adverse individual or environmental impact in order to protect prestige, power and paychecks. The politicized narrative that supports fluoridation policy acts to suppress scientific evidence, silence medical opinions and stifle victim voices.
Consensus is not synonomous with majority, despite what those in the majority claim. Consensus is a political construct that means there are no substantial objections to a position. There are not only considerable professional, organizational and public substantial objections to the medical hypothesis of fluoride ingestion using municipal water as an appropriate dental treatment, there is considerable emerging scientific evidence against fluoridation policy that adds to the weight of the evidence that fluoridation damages the health of millions.
Similarly, a simple majority is nothing more than mob rule. The United States is a constitutional federal republic with a Bill of Rights that uses democratic principles which supposedly employs safeguards to protect minority rights and individual human rights.
Nevertheless, emerging scientific evidence, evolving medical opinion and voices of victims do not deter astroturfers or fluoride trolls who attempt to use political deceits and misrepresentation of fact in an attempt to intimidate people into ignoring the immorality and harmfulness of fluoridation policy, especially to vulnerable subgroups who include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies and young children, the elderly and those with chronic illness.
Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics.
"Adding fluoride to water to prevent cavities is as nonsensical as putting statins in water to lower cholesterol, Prozac to treat depression, or even aspirin to relieve headaches. Prescribing drugs isn’t one-size-fits-all. Virtually any can have harmful side effects, especially to vulnerable sub-populations like children, pregnant women and those who are medically fragile." - Rick North in "Water Fluoridation is an Emperor Without Clothes" (Lund Report, Sept 4, 2018)
Re: Nat'l Kidney Foundation Drops Fluoridation Endorsement
Just out of curiosity, where exactly do you get your information?
Oh . . wait a minute, I see the link at the bottom of your comment. "fluoride dangers blog spot." Got it.
Question: When exactly did you get your diploma from the University of Google, and what is that worth in the job market?
RandyJ, this is the part of Attorney Reeves' letter that I like the best:
(paraphrased) 'Even if it is determined that the National Kidney Foundation is not liable or guilty of anything, this could still be a Public Relations disaster for them.' https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2007-Letter-from-Attorney-Reeves-...
That sounds like a threat against innocent people to me.
Nat'l Kidney Foundation Bullied and Threatened Into Rewording Fluoridation Endorsement
651241 - This false claim has already been addressed by David 08-17-2018 09:44 PM.
In 2007, an attorney, Robert Reeves, sent the NKF an unconscionable letter threatening lawsuits against the then current and past members of the NKF Board of Directors, both collectively and against their personal assets, as well as against the NKF staﬀ, if NKF did not remove its name from the list of organizations which support ﬂuoridation. The NKF is a charitable organization which provides much needed services and activities on behalf of kidney patients. Rather than waste its limited resources and subjecting its Boards and staﬀ to protracted and expensive litigation ﬁghting an antiﬂuoridationist attorney with nothing to lose, the NKF prudently decided to simply remove its name from the list.
It is important to note that neither the NKF, nor any other credible organization in the world opposes ﬂuoridation, which the NKF would most certainly do if it deemed ﬂuoridation to be any danger to kidney patients.
Since Osmunson and CarryAnne are apparently not able or willing to answer the questions I have asked them several times, perhaps you could take a stab at answering a few of them
~> Q1 If the anti-F claims are actually supported by legitimate scientific evidence, why have you and the other fluoridation opponents (FOs) been completely unsuccessful for 70+ years in changing the scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health initiative?
~> Q2 What is your opinion of the importance of the scientific consensus in making science and health related decisions – both in general and specifically with respect to CWF?
~> Q3 If you don’t accept the scientific consensus as a legitimate representation of the majority position on relevant issues, what is your alternative explanation and terminology?
~> Q4 What is your explanation for the fact that virtually all the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF – and their members & representatives have not mutinied?
~> Q5 Do you accept as true CarryAnne’s representations of the ADA, EPA and ATA and their members as “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths"? (Demand -08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (D-08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (D-07-25-2018 11:30 PM) & (D-07-25-2018 11:30 PM) Do you believe those are accurate descriptions of all members of the 100+ organizations in the world who either publically recognize the benefits of CWF or have not publically spoken out against it?
~> Q6 Do you accept as true Dr. Osmunson’s Demand-07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim about the CDC, ADA and AAP, “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished. They do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists. Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust”?
If you accept Dr. Osmunson’s explanation, how would his additional claim “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation” be even remotely justifiable?
~> Q7 If the representatives of those health organizations that publically recognize the benefits of fluoridation have not publically denounced CWF, and they have completely ignored &/or misinterpreted the body of evidence you believe proves CWF to be a dangerous practice, and they have followed each other like lemmings, how can any of them possibly be considered the best in their field and experts in any other areas of their practices?
I, for one, find it impossible to imagine that a majority of scientists and health professionals who are committed to carefully evaluating understanding evidence and who are responsible for the health of citizens would ignore or dismiss the accusations of FOs without examining the evidence.
~> Q8 Do you believe Dr. Osmunson’s explanations apply to the other 100+ organizations that do not publically denounce fluoridation and their hundreds of thousands of representatives? These organizations include: The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), and so on…
Nat'l Kidney Foundation Drops Fluoridation Endorsement
The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of water fluoridation citing the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report indicating that all kidney patients, not just those on dialysis, are more susceptible to fluoride’s bone and teeth-damaging effects
The kidney-impaired retain more fluoride and risk skeletal fluorosis (an arthritic-type bone disease), fractures and severe enamel fluorosis, which may increase the risk of dental decay, reports the NRC.
The National Kidney Foundation’s (NKF) former fluoridation position statement also carried surprising cautions. The NKF advised monitoring children’s fluoride intake along with patients with chronic kidney impairment, those with excessive fluoride intake, and those with prolonged disease.
But NKF now admits, "exposure from food and beverages is difficult to monitor, since FDA food labels do not quantify fluoride content."
The NKF’s April 15, 2008 statement goes further: "Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure."
"There is consistent evidence that impairment of kidney function results in changes to the way in which fluoride is metabolized and eliminated from the body, resulting in an increased burden of fluoride," concludes Kidney Health Australia. in a paper NKF recommends reading
On June 20, 2008, it was reported that the ADA was forced to finally drop the NKF as a fluoridation supporter
However, even the ADA reports in its Fluoridation "Facts" booklet that "decreased fluoride removal may occur among persons with severely impaired kidney function who may not be on kidney dialysis."
Even the CDC has expressed concern about fluoride's adverse effects to those with impaired kidney funciton. http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2014/11/cdc-misleads-legislators-about.html
Re: The scientific consensus continues to support CWF
RandyJ asks BillO, "If you believe your interpretation of the “evidence” actually supports the conclusion that optimally fluoridated water is obviously and dangerously carcinogenic, why on earth are you presenting this devastating news and “evidence” on a public forum instead of demanding a meeting with members of the American Cancer Society, the Canadian Cancer Society (and other relevant expert organizations) to instruct them on your “correct way” to evaluate the evidence."
Response: Probably because it is easier to convince lay persons and a few conspiracy theorists who have graduated from the University of Google that controversy exists where there is no controversy, than it would be to convince knowledgeable people with legitimate scientific training.
Clinical Psychologists Barry Jacobs and Julie Mayer will answer your questions on how to cope with the major life change, anxiety, and sadness we are all facing these days. Ask a question now and tune in live on May 27, 3-5 p.m. ET.