Take control of your brain health with Staying Sharp! Try it today.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
317
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

317 Views
Message 801 of 1,448

Richard, your statement:

 

"The city council in San Diego and the Metropolitan Water District Board in Los Angeles all used the same rationale to overturn the voting will of the public. It was stated that the CA State Board of Health under request from the U.S  Centers for Disease Control requested the aciton. The U.S. CDC is indeed a Federal or National agency."

 

Response:  Even if what you say is true, none of this is a violation of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.  Again, here is the statute which you are using:

 

 “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.

 

The U.S. Center for Disease Control has nothing to do with "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations."  We have already gone over this.  The Statute in question is a reference Safe Drinking Water Act itself (national primary drinking water regulation) and The CDC has nothing to do with the SDWA.  

 

There is nothing illegal going on in your story.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
317
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
327
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

327 Views
Message 802 of 1,448

I was sent a direct email from the CA Dept. of Health officer who demanded that MWD fluoridate the L.A. basin. His  name is D. Nelson who is now retired. When he was unable to answer splecific questions, he wrote "Richard, I do what the CDC tells  me to do".

 

The U.S. CDC and associated figureheads, the U.S. Surgeons General, regularly declare fluoride to be a top public health achievement and request that waters in the U.S. be infused with fluoride.  CDC officials recognize that it is illegal for them to require it (SDWA) so their official wording is very careful so as to maintain deniabilitly of any liability or responsilbity for requesting it. 

If one doesn't understand that the CDC is responsible for various States mandating fluoridation because of their official request, then that person is stuck at square one with a long way to go.

 

The CDC requests National fluoridation which is an action that cannot be required by any Federal Agency and at the same time refuses to accept liability or the resonsibility for fluoridation and its adverse effects, including but not limited to widespread dental fluorosis in teens.  .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
327
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
312
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

312 Views
Message 803 of 1,448

"Carry Anne", your quote:  

 

"DavidF is consistent, isn’t he? Like a two year old. His intent is to bury meaningful comments and intimidate people into silence. Truth doesn’t matter to fluoride trolls. 

 

As to harm, which has been asked and answered repeatedly, here’re two presentations at Otago University in New Zealand that include evidence of harm and testimony to harm."

 

Response:  My intent isn't to bury meaningful comments.  I am simply asking questions here.  When the answers look suspiciously . . incorrect, then I will press further.  I am not burying anything.  How could I?

 

As to harm, here you responded here by posting 70 minutes of video.  In one video, audience members were literally wearing tin foil hats.  On another occasion, you presented an affidavit which proved nothing, and we won't dwell on the shortcomings of that "evidence of harm" here.  On another occasion you posted a link to "Moms Against Fluoridation" in which anecdotal stories were told by individual writers.  At the top of that website was a disclaimer from "Moms" in which they took no responsibility for the validity of any stories on their site.

 

It seems to me, "Carry Anne," that if community water fluoridation was as dangerous as you seem to be saying, there would certainly be more direct and easier avenues of presenting all this evidence of harm, than by posting 70 minutes of video in which one of the speakers is talking to an audience wearing tin foil hats. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
312
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
307
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

307 Views
Message 804 of 1,448

Wrong.

The city council in San Diego and the Metropolitan Water District Board in Los Angeles all used the same rationale to overturn the voting will of the public. It was stated that the CA State Board of Health under request from the U.S  Centers for Disease Control requested the aciton. The U.S. CDC is indeed a Federal or National agency.

We need the whole story, not a portion thereof that suits a special interest...

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
307
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
322
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

322 Views
Message 805 of 1,448

Richard Sauerheber,  this is your statement:

 

"I described the truth before. I will try again.

San Diego voted twice against fluoridation. The city council forced fluoridation anyway on the population which is illegal since no additive other than for sanitation can be required (SDWA)."

 

Response:  That is incorrect. 

 

This is the statute from the SDWA to which you refer, is it not?:

 

  “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

 

But you say:  "The city council forced fluoridation anyway on the population which is illegal since no additive other than for sanitation can be required (SDWA)."

 

The city council of San Diego is not a "national primary drinking water regulation "   A city council is not a national anything.  The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act does not make the scenario you have described "illegal," because that statute is a reference to the Federal government.  

 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
322
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
339
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

339 Views
Message 806 of 1,448

This is inane. Comparing USP standards for drugs with the private organization NSF Standard 60 is elevating a private criminal enterprise to the statuure of drugs regulated by the Federal FDA.

USP regulations for drugs are applied only for substances that are FDA approved or allowed, and by definition are manufactured under well-controlled conditions that are completely sanitary, knowing that the intent from the outset is for eventual human ingestion.

The NSF is a private organization that rubber stamps fluosilicic acid hazardous waste as being an acceptable "water purification agent", as claimed on their inserts with the material. The hazarodus waste silicon tetrafluoride gas scrubbers at fertilizer plants is NOT prepared using the Good Manufacturing Practices required for drugs under USP regulations by the FDA. The fluosilicic acid chemical material contains radioactive elements, and many substances that are not yet even identified because the starting materials are contaminated fluoride-rich rock. USP drugs are synthesized de novo from sterile materials of known purity in controlled laboratories with strict GMP procedures. 

 

And by the way, since when must a population be forcerd against their will to ingest a substance that is not necessary for human nutrition, as stated here even from a fluoride promoter?  San Diego citizens know the truth and voted against fluoridation twice. And yet the city is fluoridated anyway. What un-American, anti-Democratic nonsense that amounts to oppression and an unlawful operation.. Fluoridation of peoples' bones is a scam that some have come to believe is actually somehow useful, when it is useless, harmful, and illegal..

I have an acuaintance who consumes fluoridated water and eats soups, etcd. made with it in Escondido which ha been fljuoridated since 2005 without Federal monitoring of effectiveness, bone accumulation, urine levels, or any other health measure. Now he had to have a knee replaced. There is no way to prove that fluoridation caused the knee joint pain but please understand that consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water that is not particularly hard for 13 years is known to accumulate fluoride in bone to about 2,000 ppm on average. This level of accumulation has caused bone pain in many individuals as listed and described in the NRC 2006 report. But can he successfully litigate the city for this damage to his bone that fluoridation of bone causes? Of course not. How does he prove that he drank city water all these years?How does he prove he did not over-use fluoride toothpaste all these years, etc.?

There is no legal recourse for him. He lives with a phoney knee and that's that, al lwhile fluoridation gets a free pass and a claim that it is some useful mineral. A pretty sick joke becaue no one I know is laughing..

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
339
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
347
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

347 Views
Message 807 of 1,448

It is interesting to see how the fluoridationists have modified their language in the past few years. Whereas they had steadfastedly insisted fluoride was a nutrient, a mineral, and essential - in fact, claiming dental disaster and deformed teeth if children didn't consume it (see Myths & Manpiluation 2015), they are now choosing their words more carefully.

 

Chuck Haynie says fluoride is "generally believed to be of benefit" and admits that the fluoridation chemicals we use are contaminated with arsenic and other poisons but calls them "micro-contaminants" and are perfectly acceptable because of a stamp from NSF.  Erin Brockovich describes NSF as having a 'corrupt pay to play' business model.

 

Independent analysis of samples of fluoridation chemicals sold to communities have found alarming levels of contamination that demonstrate the testing criteria is not protective (Mullenix 2014). In fact, Erin B. has said, "Regulatory gaps are lobbyist created Grand Canyons designed to cheat the system.

  

Let me make this clear. No "micro" amount of this poison or the tramp contaminants that accompany each and batch of fluoride is necessary or even beneficial to teeth or any other part of body, bone and brain. 

 

Expert in Nutrition: “Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.” - European Food Safety Authority on DRV  (2013)

 

DHHS: “No essential function for fluoride has been proven in humans.” - The Report of the Department of Health and Social Subjects, No. 41, Dietary Reference Values, Chapter 36 on fluoride (HMSO 1996)

 

Textbook: “Fluoride has not been shown to be required for normal growth or reproduction in animals or humans consuming an otherwise adequate diet, nor for any specific biological function or mechanism.” - Applied Chemistry - 2nd edition by Wm. R. Stine (1994)

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
347
Views
Moderator
1
Kudos
346
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

346 Views
Message 808 of 1,448

Hello everyone,


We are a community of people with diverse beliefs, opinions and backgrounds, so please be respectful and refrain from making hateful and/or incendiary comments. You are free to express your opinions, but you must do so in a way that respects the opinions of others.

 



Thank you for your cooperation in making the AARP Community a safe and welcoming place for all.
http://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
346
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
348
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

348 Views
Message 809 of 1,448
Not all nutrients are essential. I didn't claim F- to be an essential nutrient.

Although you disagree, fluoride ions are generally believed to be of benefit to teeth and the skeletal system (see especially Li et al 2001) and therefore should and is considered a mineral nutrient.

The pharmacy (USP) standards would not specifically guarantee purity as does Standard 60 which water additives must meet. USP has only a global total maximum for heavy metals, Std 60 specific standards for each. Additionally, the USP standard demands no independent monitoring or quality assurance testing. Actual testing of fluoridated water shows no evidence of detectable changes in the levels of regulated micro-contaminants. Arsenic has been specifically analyzed. The incremental intake of arsenic from fluoridation is a minuscule fraction (2/1000) of normal dietary arsenic. (see Peterson et al 2015 and Dietary Reference Intakes 2001).

There are also physical granularity standards in the NSF/ANSI water additive regulations which protect water utility workers that USP doesn't cover.

see: https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/wfadditives.htm



Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
348
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
355
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

355 Views
Message 810 of 1,448

David and All Fluoride Lovers,

 

Please explain why this does not alarm you?  

Are Canadian women the problem?

Is the fluoridation at 0.7 ppm the problem?

Are American women safe because we have never seriously measured their fluoride urine concentration?   Do you feel that because we have not measured, we are safe?  Burry our heads in the sand and we are safe?

 

Oh, you say, "trust the experts."   Well, what do your experts say?  

 

See Bashish. . . these levels of fluoride in the urine also show lower IQ for children.   Is your position that teeth are more important than brains?

 

Please explain.

 

NHANES 2010 2011 reported 60% dental fluorosis for adolescents...too much fluoride.

 

Till et all, Oct. 10 2018, (see below) "Creatinine-adjusted MUF values (mean±SD; milligrams per liter) were almost two times higher for pregnant women living in fluoridated regions (0.87±0.50) compared with nonfluoridated regions (0.46±0.34; p<0.001)."

 

  

 

"Abstract

Background:

Fluoride exposures have not been established for pregnant women who live in regions with and without community water fluoridation.

Objective:

Our aim was to measure urinary fluoride levels during pregnancy. We also assessed the contribution of drinking-water and tea consumption habits to maternal urinary fluoride (MUF) concentrations and evaluated the impact of various dilution correction standards, including adjustment for urinary creatinine and specific gravity (SG).

Methods:

We measured MUF concentrations in spot samples collected in each trimester of pregnancy from 1,566 pregnant women in the Maternal–Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals cohort. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to assess variability in MUF concentrations across pregnancy. We used regression analyses to estimate associations between MUF levels, tea consumption, and water fluoride concentrations as measured by water treatment plants.

Results:

Creatinine-adjusted MUF values (mean±SD; milligrams per liter) were almost two times higher for pregnant women living in fluoridated regions (0.87±0.50) compared with nonfluoridated regions (0.46±0.34; p<0.001). MUF values tended to increase over the course of pregnancy using both unadjusted values and adjusted values. Reproducibility of the unadjusted and adjusted MUF values was modest (ICCrange=0.370.40). The municipal water fluoride level was positively associated with creatinine-adjusted MUF (B=0.52, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.57), accounting for 24% of the variance after controlling for covariates. Higher MUF concentrations correlated with numbers of cups of black (r=0.310.32 but not green tea (r=0.040.06). Urinary creatinine and SG correction methods were highly correlated (r=0.91) and were interchangeable in models examining predictors of MUF.

Conclusion:

Community water fluoridation is a major source of fluoride exposure for pregnant women living in Canada. Urinary dilution correction with creatinine and SG were shown to be interchangeable for our sample of pregnant women. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3546

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
355
Views