Credit freezes are free under a federal law that just went into effect. Learn how to protect your credit.

Reply
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
314
Views

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

314 Views
Message 21 of 598

BillO - FOs invent irrelevant distractions

 

The benefits of adding disinfectants to treat drinking water outweigh risks of ingesting residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (DBPs) even though, according to anti-F “logic”, there is no “dose control” (07-27-2018 12:55 PM) and “there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety” (08-21-2018 01:14 PM) for ingesting sodium hypochlorite, chloroform and other DBPs, and, as far as I am aware, “There are no prospective randomized controlled trials, good science, supporting your theory for [the safety of]  dilute, short contact topical or ‘ingested’ [chloroform and DBPs]” (08-19-2018 02:18 AM).  Then there is no control for the "amount of DBPs [ingested] from other sources.” (09-15-2018 09:14 AM). 

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/204/report/F

 

If you accept the consensus that disinfection is a safe and effective process to protect the health of citizens and the "DOSE" of residual disinfectants and DBPs is sufficiently regulated, it is difficult to understand how you can dismiss the consensus on CWF.  Fluoride ions actually have a health benefit while there are no health benefits (only risks) from ingesting DBPs.

 

Dr. Slott already addressed (07-01-2018 01:09 PM) your previous post of this recycled anti-F claim: “The intake, or dose, of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water is very strictly controlled.  For every one liter of such water consumed, 0.7 mg fluoride is ingested.  The average water consumption of adults is 2-4 liters per day.  Ten liters is roughly 2.5 gallons.  If you know of anyone ingesting 2.5 gallons of water on a daily basis you should caution him/her  about the dangers of water toxicity.  No public health initiative is expected to account for extreme behaviors such as this.”

Prior to attaining the daily limit of  fluoride intake from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with that from all other normal sources, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.  When the amount of a substance which can be ingested falls below the level of adverse effects for that substance, then dose is not a concern in regard to adverse effects.  Presumably you understand this as you seem to have no problem with any “uncontrolled” dose of chlorine, ammonia, or any of the other substances routinely added to public water supplies.”

 

This is just another of your distractions and arm-waving tactics to try and divert attention from the fact that you have no logical explanation for why fluoridation opponents have been unable to change the scientific consensus for over 70 years or why over 100 recognized and respected (except by anti-science activists) science and health organizations (and their hundreds of thousands of representatives) that continue to publically recognize the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation for protecting public health. 

 

You also have no rational explanation for the fact that fluoridation opponents have no support for their paranoid opinions besides INFOWARS: Alex Jones, "I grew up in Dallas, Texas, drinking sodium fluoridated water. All the scientific studies show my IQ has been reduced by at least 20 points.", Natural News: Mike Adams, and a handful of alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations you listed as opposing CWF

 

Oh, and you still have not answered my questions about your libelous claims, “CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.” and "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." and

"I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation." and

"Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion."

 

Do you apply those critiques to the other 100+ organizations and their members who support CWF and don't accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate?

 

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
314
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
312
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

312 Views
Message 22 of 598

Chuck,

 

May I make a suggestion. 

 

When in contact with scientists, fluoridationists do not make sense when they talk about 0.7 ppm of fluoride in water.  No sense at all.

 

You see, fluoridationists don't understand the difference between dosage and concentration, or perhaps they desire to confuse the public.

 

Do your home work and talk about the range of dosages humans ingest at all ages and all quantities of water consumed.  

 

Then add the amount of fluoride from other sources.

 

Then determine whether the supplementation of fluoride in water is still safe for all people or just half or 90th percentage of the population.  How many people harmed is acceptable to fluoridationists?

 

Your endorsements don't make sense either.  What about the many organizations which do not support or endorse supplementing fluoride through public water to all people without their consent?

 

Cherry picking your evidence is a glaring admission of a house of cards.

 

Bill 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
312
Views
Highlighted
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
327
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

327 Views
Message 23 of 598

Johnny,

I responded to your request regarding the NTP study, but still have not received your promised response to my concerns of your slander, defamation, and diagnosis of dental caries.

 

You asked, why has FAN not responded to the NTP animal study?  

 

1.   There are many animal studies, NTP's was just one.

 

2.  There are many individuals in FAN and many of us have responded to the animal study.  I just did in my last email and have in other places.  

 

3.  The NTP study is just one of many animal studies and, like all, had limitations.  It is just one phase of the NTP review.  The NTP study has minimal significance because it was only filling in a gap in the existing animal research, not a definitive comprehensive study, nor as significant as all the other animal studies or human studies.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Bill 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
327
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
314
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

314 Views
Message 24 of 598

Johnny,

I responded to your request regarding the NTP study, but still have not received your promised response to my concerns of your slander, defamation, and diagnosis of dental caries.

 

You asked, why has FAN not responded to the NTP animal study?  

 

1.   There are many animal studies, NTP's was just one.

 

2.  There are many individuals in FAN and many of us have responded to the animal study.  I just did in my last email and have in other places.  

 

3.  The NTP study is just one of many animal studies and, like all, had limitations.  Because it is just one phase of the NTP review.  The NTP study has minimal significance because it was only filling in a gap in the existing animal research, not a definitive comprehensive study, nor as significant as all the other animal studies or human studies.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Bill 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
314
Views
Info Seeker
0
Kudos
274
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

274 Views
Message 25 of 598

You seek to pose isolated factoids that are unimportant to the public health decision.  I suspect that at the concentration of 0.7 ppm the fluoride and hydrogen atoms are completely dissociated but it really is utterly irrelevant whether undissociated molecules of HF exist there or not.

 

Here is a convenient place to read what the many restigious scientific and prefessional organizations advocating fluoridation have to say, in their own words.  For reader's convenience I've attached a small sample.  These quotations well reflect the scientific consensus supporting fluoridation.

http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/

2013 Organizations Recognizing Fluoridation in their Own Words.jpg

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
274
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
308
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

308 Views
Message 26 of 598

People who oppose fluoridation are in complete agreement with the scientific consensus. The consensus indicates that half of all ingested fluoride is assimilated into the bloodstream after conversion to hydrofluoric acid HF in the acidic stomach. And that of all the retained fluoride in man, 95% is retained in bone where fluoroapatite has a different crystal structure than normal hydroxyapatite.

The idea spread here that fluoridation opponents are not following this mainstream science is ridiculous. 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
308
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
352
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

352 Views
Message 27 of 598

I don't think the animals in the NTP study developed significant dental fluorosis. so Ithe exposure was not as high as what is happening to the fluoridated human population. We now  have nearly 70% of kids developing fluorosis.in the US,  Studies that don't develop the same blood fluoride level as seen in man and studies of short duration are insufficient to claim that lifelong fluoridation is harmless.

And if any study in animals finds significant harm, fluoride promotets will not halt fluoridation anyway. We already have massive proof of harm in research animals from fluoridated water, and yet fluoridation continues. 

 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
352
Views
Gold Conversationalist
2
Kudos
343
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

343 Views
Message 28 of 598

You say this informtion is priceless. . . well maybe you can give me some of your Delta Dental money????

 

NTP Study. Johnny, you are only looking at one phase of the NTP review.

 

 I asked NTP to review the evidence on fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity.  NTP agreed.  The review usually takes 2 or 3 years. 

 

The first phase is a review of current animal literature.  The result reported a “moderate” confidence of developmental neurotoxicity from fluoride.    Actually, that is quite strong and raises serious concerns but not definitive.

 

The second phase of the NTP review was an animal study to fill in weak areas of current research. NTP failed to fully appreciate that rats are 5 to 10 times less sensitive to fluoride than humans.  And NTP chose a strain of rat which is least sensitive.  And NTP failed to give the rats fluoride during the most sensitive early part of life when the brain is developing.  In other words, the study had little chance of finding developmental neurotoxicity.   For more details ask.

 

The third phase of the NTP review are the human studies.  In emails with Linda Birnbaum at NTP, she said the final report would be out at the end of 2017, then Spring of 2018 and this summer she said the report would be out by the end of this year because they were waiting for the results of another human study.  

 

With a “moderate” result for animals and if there is a “moderate” for humans, that will result in a determination that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant.   In just a couple months we should know more.   

 

Of course you can cherry pick just the data which you like, or you can be inclusive.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
343
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
334
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

334 Views
Message 29 of 598

William,

 

I'll wait on your NTP response.  This should be priceless.  

 

Warmest persoanl regards,

 

Johnny

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
334
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
327
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

327 Views
Message 30 of 598

tooth with caries jpeg.jpg

 

Johnny,

 

The picture above is the picture you suggest evidence based dentistry would do a sealant instead of a filling. 

 

Please provide your evidence, RTC study.  But of course there are no such studies.  At least find one clinical practicing dentist who agrees with you that a sealant on this tooth would stop the caries.

 

Bill

 

I'll get at your question on NTP this evening. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
327
Views