From travel insurance to fraud protection, AARP has you covered. Take a closer look at your member benefits.

 

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
439
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

439 Views
Message 701 of 1,355

Sue to what end?  When people presume fluoride is a mineral nutrient, the case is lost before you begin.

Two court cases were tried with much detail already and concluded that fluoridated water consumption increases the incicdence of cancer mortaltiy. But a higher PA court overruled the decision to halt fluoridation because, ironically, it was ruled that "no one has a right to tell anyone else what to drink"  This thought meant to that judge that the people had no right to tell the water district to stop putting fluoride in the water. But such thoughts should mean that no water district has the right to force fluoride into anyone's water. Again, when people imagine that fluoride is harmlesss mineral or even a "nutrient" added at levels far below that already in toothpaste, then the case is incorrectly lost before it even begins.

 

Everyone has to drink water to remain alive. So the choice for many in fluoridated cities where well drilling is not allowed is to either be harmed chronically with a bone fluoridation program in the water that is supplied to you, or be harmed acutely by not drinking the fluoridated water supplied to you. This false choice should not exist. The U.N. declaration of human rightrs guarantees that all persons have rights to access to fresh drinking water (i.e. without added bone altering agents or unnecessary chemicals).

This is simply too difficult for fluoridation promoters to grasp.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
439
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
438
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

438 Views
Message 702 of 1,355

Please. NSF's Standard 60 prohibits adding into water any substance recognized as an EPA contaminant to a level higher than 10% of its EPA MCL. The MCL and MCLG for fluoride are 4 and 2 ppm and 10% of 4 is 0.4 ppm, and yet NSF certifies fluosilicic acid for the treatment of water to 0.7-1 ppm fluoride. NSF doesn't even follow its own regulations.

 

Nor does NSF have any legal authority to regulate drugs or supplements sold for human ingestion in the first place. NSF personnell have no clue about official GMPs (good mahufacturing practices) required for all synthetic substances to be taken internally by humans.  Fluosilicic acid form sulfuric acid dissolved rock that produces hazardous wastre siicon tetrafluoride that is then scrubbed as an aqueous solution and relabeled suddenly not a hazardous waste but instead a water purification agent is not made under sanitary controlled conditions as required by law. Period.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
438
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
417
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

417 Views
Message 703 of 1,355

“While four out of five dentists may be enough to pick a gum, all should agree before we force-medicate the public.” - Judge Peter Vallone, Jr., former Chair of the NYC Public Safety Committee (2012)

 

First, it shouldn't matter a whit if it is legal if it has been proved harmful, but there is money involved. Fluoridation has been ruled harmful but legal under 'police powers' using rational basis in courts of last resort. Judges and legal academics have suggested that fluoridation needs to be settled at the legislative level. Specifically judges and legal scholars have written:

"By [fluoridating the water] the municipal authorities...arrogate to themselves the sole right to decide what medicine is good for the health of the water consumers, and thereby the municipal water system becomes a direct conduit for the transportation of medicine from the apothecary's pestle to the patient, without the latter's consent. Thus will the people be deprived of a very important part of their constitutional liberty under our republican form of government and the police state will be substituted for the police power of the state." - Justice Donworth, dissenting opinion  in KAUL vs. CITY OF CHEHALIS before Supreme Court of Washington (1954) 

”That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies… may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in

man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." - Judge Anthony Farris, District Court, Houston, TX (May 24, 1982)

 

“Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.” - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988)

 

”My decision regarding the fluoridation of the public water  supply, made during my tenure as a trial judge almost twenty years ago, was on appeal, purely a jurisdictional issue...That the practice is deleterious is more and more accepted -- its utility doubted." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

 

"Over the course of five months (in 1978), the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

 

"Marginal benefit in exchange for significant risk is the sine qua non of gross disproportionality…the stronger the scientific evidence of risk of harm, the greater the gross disproportionality.” - Nader R. Hasan, esq. (2014)

 

The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D.  (2014)

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
417
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
402
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

402 Views
Message 704 of 1,355
Both USP and NSF are independent non-governmental organizations well established as reliably enforcing standards for drugs, products and systems. There are many similarities and nothing whatsoever to suggest either is asleep at the wheel with respect to the public's safety as you apparently believe. As private organizations both own their respective logos used to identify certification America trusts both for good reason.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
402
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
376
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

376 Views
Message 705 of 1,355
This is simply mistaken, there is no such law. . My challenge remains . . if you believe this is the law go to court and have it inforced. The last time I checked, courts are obligated to follow whatever the law actually is and if any disagrees, the decision can be appealed.

100% of the time such actions in the US have lost.

Here are some quotations from the decision which currently governs the matter in Oregon: (Baer v City of Bend).

"the fluoridation measure passes the test of reasonableness."

(fluoridation is) "no more practicing medicine or dentistry or manufacturing, preparing, compounding or selling a drug, than a mother would be who furnishes her children a well-balanced diet."

"But the liberty secured by the Constitution ..does not import an absolute right in each person to be ..wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good."

"Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy."

"Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
376
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
376
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

376 Views
Message 706 of 1,355

Any American who forces the ingestion of a substance by treating the nation's water supplies is in violation of the SDWA, not just Federal employees. All americans are obligated to follow the law.

 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
376
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
366
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

366 Views
Message 707 of 1,355
Every federal agency including the CDC is obligated to abide by the SDWA. The CDC has everything to do with the law. That is precisely why they use the word recpmmend instead of require for fluoridation. Water districts that bow to CDC demands are not free of the law either and know full well that the cdc has no rights to force districts to comply.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
366
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
300
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

300 Views
Message 708 of 1,355

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
300
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
310
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

310 Views
Message 709 of 1,355

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
310
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
297
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

297 Views
Message 710 of 1,355

"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
297
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