Do you or your loved ones suspect a scam? Report it now to the AARP Fraud Watch Network.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
436
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

436 Views
Message 591 of 1,248

Dr. Chuck,

 

A couple good responses to your good questions on "legal" and "NSF."

 

I would agree with you, most US court cases have ruled in favor of fluoridation, but not all.  And certainly international courts have not been as good to fluoridation.  Few have wrestled and ruled on the science.

 

Those two issues of (A) courts and (B) NSF are too big to cover here, but I will add to other posts.

 

(A)    Courts generally support governments, so those harmed with excess fluoride have a higher standard to gain.    (Courts took years to rule against tobacco, long after science was firm.)

 

1.   As you may know, like a scientific study, courts try to focus on one variable and often it ends up to be a war of court terms rather than the benefits and risks of fluoride.  Only one case I know of, considered the science and that court ruled in favor of the science which is opposed to humans ingesting more fluoride. . . fluoridation.  On appeal the science was not reviewed.

 

2.   The EPA approved SF for a post-harvest fumigant with residual concentrations up to, for example, dried egg of 900 ppm, similar to toothpaste.  Most dried egg is fed to children and seniors in schools and retirement homes. . . the most vulnerable.  On petition, an administrative judge ruled against the EPA on all counts.  Seeing the serious loss, Dow Agro went around the EPA and had Congress approve SF as a post-harvest fumigant in the Farm Bill.  Doesn't mean SF is safe, just means money makes laws.  The politicians I talked to did not realize what they had signed.

 

3.   The court is currently reviewing fluoride in a TSCA suite.  We shall see how that plays out in a year or so.   The neurotoxicity of fluoride is central.

 

(B)  Regarding NSF.   Do not trust NSF to evaluate the safety or efficacy of fluoride ingestion.

1.  NSF is a private company and documentation is not available to the public.  We don't know how "honest" NSF presents their data.  And what we know is a concern.

 

2.  NSF had a rule that permitted contaminants in a product, limiting the contaminant to 10% of the EPA's MCL added to the water.   Sounds simple enough.  10% of EPA's 4 mg/L MCL for fluoride would be 0.4 ppm.   NSF would therefore permit fluoridation up to 0.4 ppm.  

 

So I called NSF and asked them about the rule.  They agreed and explained it to me as I have to you.  I then asked, "why NSF permitted fluoridation to 1.2 ppm when 10% of 4 ppm MCL is 0.4 mg/L?"   Long pause.  Finally, NSF said they would call me back and did not.  I called a week later and asked again.  The person I talked to said the 10% applies to contaminants in the product, not the product itself.

 

I asked, "if we called fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride by a different name such as lead or silicate or arsenic, would the dilution of the product be limited to 0.4 ppm of fluoride?"  NSF responded, "well yes."  

 

NSF makes no sense.  Change the name and the product cannot be added to the water at current concentrations?   Nothing about a name change will change the toxicity of the product.

 

Since then, NSF has made an exeption to fluoride.    And exceptions for fluoride are what we see with all agencies and fluoridationists, such as the EPA, CDC, FDA, and others.  The rules are written and changed not based on health and safety, but on politics and money.   When it comes to fluoride, NSF protects the fluoride manufacturers and those purchasing the fluoride.   Their decision is not based on science or health.  Their data is not open for public review.  

 

Do NOT rely on NSF for the health and safety of fluoridation.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
436
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
421
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

421 Views
Message 592 of 1,248

Well said Dr. Osmunsen.

When an EPA listed contaminant is added on purpose into water for some believed "useful" purpose, then the NSF ignores its own rules on contamianants and relabels it as a product. This is the same rationale the EPA's Rebecca Hamner used when she signed the ruling that fluosilicic acid, an EPA hazardous waste, could be relabeled a water additive IF someone were to want to purchase it for such a purpose.  Since then, fluosilicic acid hazardous waste has been used as a cheaper source material for fluoride than sodium fluoride used before. Then the EPA asked the private group the NSF to do the regulating work that the EPA should have done.

 

The first step toward accepting oppression and double-speak is to reject facts. To counter the bone fluoridation program that has spread across the country, it is necessary to believe in and to present the truth. Labeling a non-nutrient contaminant of water and blood as something that is useful to ingest, to elevate in the blood, is not truth--it is opppression. And when Federal agencies like the CDC and NSF change laws to accomodate it, that becomes a National mandate and an abrogation of truth where those who actually speak truth become re-labeled as extremists.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
421
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
421
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

421 Views
Message 593 of 1,248

Dr. Chuck,

 

A couple good responses to your good questions on "legal" and "NSF."

 

I would agree with you, most US court cases have ruled in favor of fluoridation, but not all.  And certainly international courts have not been as good to fluoridation.  But they have not wrestled and ruled on the science.

 

Those two issues of (A) courts and (B) NSF are too big to cover here, but I will touch on both with a few more points from others.

 

(A)    Courts generally support governments, so those harmed with excess fluoride have a higher standard to gain.  

 

1.   As you may know, like a scientific study, courts try to focus on one variable and often it ends up to be a war of court terms rather than the benefits and risks.  Only one case I know of, considered the science and that court ruled in favor of the science and opposed to fluoridation.  On appeal the science was not reviewed.

 

2.   The EPA approved SF for a post-harvest fumigant with residual concentrations up to, for example, dried egg of 900 ppm, similar to toothpaste.  Most dried egg is fed to children and seniors in schools and retirement homes. . . the most vulnerable.  On petition, an administrative judge ruled against the EPA on all counts.  Seeing the serious loss, Dow Agro went around the EPA and had Congress approve SF as a post-harvest fumigant.  Doesn't mean it is safe, just means money makes laws.  The politicians I talked to did not realize what they had signed.

 

3.   The court is currently reviewing fluoride in a TSCA suite.  We shall see how that plays out in a year or so. 

 

(B)  Regarding NSF.   

1.  NSF is a private company and documentation is not available to the public.  We don't know how "honest" NSF presents their data.

 

2.  NSF had a rule that permitted contaminants in a product, limiting the contaminant to 10% of the EPA's MCL added to the water.   Sounds simple enough.  10% of EPA's 4 mg/L MCL for fluoride would be 0.4 ppm.   NSF would therefore permit fluoridation up to 0.4 ppm.  

 

So I called NSF and asked them about the rule.  They agreed and explained it to me as I have to you.  I then asked why NSF permitted fluoridation to 1.2 ppm?   Silence.  They said they would call me back and did not.  I called a week later and asked again.  The person I talked to said the 10% applies to contaminants in the product, not the product itself.

 

I asked, "if we called fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride by a different name, would it be limited to 0.4 ppm?"  NSF responded, "well yes."

 

Since then, NSF has made an exeption to fluoride.    And exceptions for fluoride are what we see with all regulatory agencies, such as the EPA, CDC, FDA, and others.  The rules are written and changed not based on science alone, but on politics and money.   When it comes to fluoride, NSF protects the fluoride manufacturers and those purchasing the fluoride.   Their decision is not based on science or health.  Their data is not open for public review.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
421
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
418
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

418 Views
Message 594 of 1,248

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
418
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
417
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

417 Views
Message 595 of 1,248

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
417
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
401
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

401 Views
Message 596 of 1,248

“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
401
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
386
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

386 Views
Message 597 of 1,248
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
386
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
359
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

359 Views
Message 598 of 1,248
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
359
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
359
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

359 Views
Message 599 of 1,248

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
359
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
349
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

349 Views
Message 600 of 1,248
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
349
Views