There's always more to explore with your AARP membership. Explore your member benefits today.
Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
538
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

538 Views
Message 281 of 861

MuddledMottled.jpg

 

Fluoridation does not prevent cavities but does cause dental fluorosis, but even if that wasn't the case... it is still immoral mass medication that doses municipal water with a contaminated product that causes or worsens disease and disability in many consumers. 

 

Moreover, fluoridation chemicals are harmful to the environment. There is nothing more to say about it. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
538
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
503
Views

More Irrelevant Distractions

503 Views
Message 282 of 861

rs – No one is questioning the scientific fact that fluoride ions, dissociated from whatever the source (natural minerals, fluoridation chemicals or foods) are absorbed in the GI tract.  What on earth is your point? That nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with the questions I asked BillO. 

 

You have also continued to dodge my questions about your understanding of CarryAnne’s libelous descriptions of fluoridation supporters as, “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths" and BillO’s derogatory descriptions as, “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

 

Do you agree with these claims about several of the organizations that publically recognize the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation (CWF), and do you apply those descriptions to all organizations that support CWF and their members?

 

It is noted that you and other anti-science activists (ASAs) like Mike Adams (Natural News) and Alex Jones (INFOWARS) make claims like “The problem with advertisements from the ADA and dental officials at the CDC and others is that these are not trained scientists

 

The problem with that claim – as has been pointed out repeatedly – is that there are only a relatively few outlier trained “scientists” and “health professionals” who have dogged personal beliefs and severe fluorine paranoia which require them to dismiss the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

 

There are many ASAs who believe vaccinations are dangerous and should be banned – or who believe they have seen or been abducted by aliens – or that the world is ruled by a reptilian elite – and the list goes on….  Should they all be believed because they have strong personal biases and beliefs?

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/how-spot-reptilians-runing-us-government/354496...

 

Stop with the distractions and explain why you believe (and provide conclusive proof) that all scientists who do not recognize the opinions of ASAs are “not trained scientists who actually do controlled experiments using the scientific method”?  Also, as requested in the past, explain the fact that if the anti-F opinions about the allegedly obvious and dangerous health effects of CWF were even remotely legitimate, the overwhelming majority of scientists and health professionals continue to accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective – as evidenced by the fact that all major, recognized science and health organizations in the world accept that consensus.  Then explain why only Natural News, INFOWARS, and a few other alternative health organizations reject the scientific consensus. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
503
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
511
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

511 Views
Message 283 of 861

No. Even fluoride at 0.7 ppm is fully converted to HF at pH 2. This is the means by which fluoride gains entry into the blood from the acidic stomach. If it were the charged ion, very little  would be able to penetrate the stomach lining. 

After HF (which is hydrophobic and able to penetrate any lipid membrane) enters  the blood at pH 7.3, it of course  is reionized to the fee fluoride ion. This is indeed how ingested   fluoride accumulates in bone. 

This is scientific fact  (and consensus)  

The problem with advertisements from the ADA and dental officials at the CDC  and others is that these ar not trained scientists who actually do controlled experiments  using the scientific method. These groups merely interpret data from published materials that are usually not sufficiently controlled because humans cannot be placed in cages to control diets, hygiene, etc to make proper judgments on whether eating fluoride affects caries. Controlled animal studies prove caries are not  affected by fluoridated water use, all while dental fluorosis incidence is elevated. This confirms human studies that were more objectively done by Ziegelbecker, and by Teotia, and by Yiamouyianns. 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
511
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
552
Views

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

552 Views
Message 284 of 861

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
552
Views
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
552
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

552 Views
Message 285 of 861

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
552
Views
Highlighted
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
572
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

572 Views
Message 286 of 861

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
572
Views
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
565
Views

Re: IAOMT is a highly respected Professional Dental Academy

565 Views
Message 287 of 861

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
565
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
519
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

519 Views
Message 288 of 861

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
519
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
550
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

550 Views
Message 289 of 861

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
550
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
597
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

597 Views
Message 290 of 861

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
597
Views