Prepare to Care: A Resource Guide for Families was developed by AARP to help make the job more manageable. Here’s how to obtain a free copy.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
339
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

339 Views
Message 581 of 1,248

Billo says:

 

"By now you should be starting to understand the complexity of fluoridation jurisdiction."

 

Response:  Not really.  There is nothing complex about it unless, like you, one is conspiracy-theory oriented.  I have the same complete understanding of the "complexeties" now, as I did before you tried to enlighten me.   But I thank you for your condescending remark.  

 

Since I've shown that both you and Dr. S have made blatantly false statements, your "complexeties" are wasted on someone who has both feet in reality.

 

Be Careful, Dr. Bill!  According to "Carry Anne":

 

"discussions about the FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility is a red herring:"

 

I can say from personal experience, I wouldn't want to be on her bad side if I were you.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
339
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
344
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

344 Views
Message 582 of 1,248

David,

 

By now you should be starting to understand the complexity of fluoridation jurisdiction.  All agencies try to hide from their responsibility.  Local water districts tend to rely on the CDC and EPA.  However, CDC does not determine the safety of fluoridation and legal counsel for the EPA in effect put jurisdiction with the FDA.  However, legal counsel for the FDA in effect put jurisdiction of fluoridation onto the EPA.

 

No Federal agency accepts jurisdiction for determining the dosage, safety and efficacy of adding fluoride to public water with the intent to prevent dental caries. 

 

That is one reason HHS stepped in and the parties agreed to have the PHS recommend 0.7 ppm of fluoride in water.  A compromise, but a serious admission that too many were ingesting too much fluoride for many years.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
344
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
312
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

312 Views
Message 583 of 1,248

Dr. Chuck,

 

I agree with you that we should trust agencies as "reliable;" however, I am certain when it comes to fluoride and fluoridation, we MUST verify the statements and agencies positions.   Trust but verify.

 

I briefly touched on sulfuryl fluoride, a post-harvest fumigant called Profume by Dow and here is more which directly applies to the EPA's MCLG and fluoridation. 

 

As you may know, SF Profume, a post-harvest fumigant was introduced a few years back.  We don't like bugs in our food and we don't want to throw away bug infested foods.  You can read the history at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/19/2011-917/sulfuryl-fluoride-proposed-order-granti...

 

We objected to the EPA's permitting additional fluoride in foods in large part because too many are ingesting too much even without additional fluoride. The case went to an administrative review judge.  Please read the decision at http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/sf-nov.2006.pdf


So much information in that decision which should be carefully reviewed and understood.   The judge was not kind to the EPA. . . and neither should we when it comes to fluoride.

 

Summarizing the judge:

 

“EPA agrees that aggregate exposure to fluoride . . . does not meet the safety standard in FFDCA section 408.”

 

Too much fluoride.

 

 “The fluoride MCLG is not protective of the effects of fluoride on teeth and bones;”

 

Very important to consider, MCLG refers to the fluoride concentration in water. 

 

"The fluoride MCLG is not protective of other neurotoxic, endocrine, and renal effects of fluoride;

 

EPA has not adequately protected children;

 

EPA cannot determine the safety of sulfuryl fluoride and fluoride in the absence of a developmental neurotoxicity study;

 

EPA has underestimated exposure to fluoride; and



  EPA has committed procedural errors in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq"

 

 However, Congress overrode the EPA Judge and has permitted sulfuryl fluoride on foods.

 

We should not blindly trust the EPA until they correct the gross errors.  Even with the judge telling the EPA they are not protecting the public the MCLG still remains unchanged. 

 

Politics trumps science.

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  A reduction in exposure must start with a cessation of water fluoridation.  At least Profume provides a very useful function, killing bugs and preserving food.  Water fluoridation does not provide any benefit to the water. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
312
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
322
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

322 Views
Message 584 of 1,248

"Carry Anne" says:

 

"FDA recalls drugs all the time, so discussions about the FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility is a red herring"

 

Response:  Then you should tell your friends, Drs. Osmunson & Sauerheber, to stop bringing up this red herring by making blatantly false claims about them.  

 

By the way, since the FDA has nothing to do with water fluoridation, your comment, "FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility," is itself a red herring.

 

That would be like me saying, "Discussions about NASA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility . . "

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
322
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
314
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

314 Views
Message 585 of 1,248

FDA recalls drugs all the time, so discussions about the FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility is a red herring:  https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528 

 

Banning fluoride would be more appropriately compared to these historical events:

  1. Removing asbestos from school buildings. Asbestos use began in the 1940s, same time as fluoridation. 
  2. Removing lead from gasoline. It took over 40 years of protests for that to happen. 
  3. Establishing public smoking bans to protect the most vulnerable among us from ill effects. Again, took decades in the face of fierce resistance from tobacco stakeholders who insisted  that there was no harm.

2018.10.09_AirWater.jpgAir-Water Analogy

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
314
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
319
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

319 Views
Message 586 of 1,248

Billo,  your comments defy belief.

 

Quote:  "My suggestion is to contact EPA and ask them for a copy. . . I did the research for myself and no longer have a copy readily accessable."

 

First of all, you are saying that you no longer have a copy of their reply?  Yet, for some reason you have the FOIA identification number?  You saved that, but not the actual reply?  

 

If you weren't going to save the reply, why did you go to the trouble of obtaining it in the first place?

 

Now, after I have searched the entire catalogue of EPA FOIA Requests using the identification you provided, you are telling me to contact them directly.   What are they going to do if not search the entire catalogue of FIOA requests.  More likely they would simply direct me to the website that they have already provided, so that they wouldn't have to waste their time with questions such as these. 

 

They would direct me to a website that I have already used to search for FOIA Requests.  So, when I went to "Search Existing FIOA Requests,"  there was no evidence to support anything you said.  I invite any readers of this thread to look at the EPA sites I have looked at.  I list them in this comment:  Timestamp 10-17-2018 07:56 PM.  .  . 

 

My conclusion is that you were untruthful about your claim that the EPA ever said:  “The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

 

Surely something of this importance would be readily available on an EPA website.

 

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
319
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
317
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

317 Views
Message 587 of 1,248

Dr. Sauerheber, get your facts right.  You just said:

 

"When I wrote to the EPA, asking them to place an injuctiuon on fluoridaiton by water districts, the EPA Office of Water replied in writing that the EPA does not endorse or request or regulate water fluoridation--that is the responsibility of the FDA. "

 

The FDA has nothing to do with community water fluoridation.  This is the FDA reply when asked about water fluoridation:

 

"Please know, the FDA does not regulate the quality of water, including water fluoridation, as this is regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). You may find information on their website about water purification processes,

http://water.epa.gov/drink/standardsriskmanagement.cfm and fluoride in drinking water,

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm.

The EPA Office of Water may also be contacted directly by mail at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water (4100T)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Best regards,

Drug Information Specialist, LK |Division of Drug Information

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research |Food and Drug Administration"

 

Mr. Daniel Ryan in New Zealand asked these questions to both the EPA and the FDA.  His exchanges can be found here.  http://msof.nz/infomation/is-fluoride-a-drug-or-medicine-epa-and-fda-reply-to-our-questions/

 

They completely contradict your stories, and unlike you, he has presented the exchanges in full.  His conclusion was that neither the FDA nor the EPA will classify optimally fluoridated water as a "drug."

 

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
317
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
347
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

347 Views
Message 588 of 1,248

When I wrote to the EPA, asking them to place an injuctiuon on fluoridaiton by water districts, the EPA Office of Water replied in writing that the EPA does not endorse or request or regulate water fluoridation--that is the responsibility of the FDA. So my response was about that sent to Dr. Osmunsen.

 

Although these statements are correct (since the EPA regulates accidentally spilled and naturally present contaminants in water, not materials added intentionally for some putative health purpose) nevertheless the EPA could place an injunction since an NPDES permit is required by any entity to intentionally discharge EPA contaminants into public water supplies.

.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes the EPA  works with water districts for the purpose of helping them set up fluoridation equipiment so as to help ensure the systems don't allow water to exeed 2-4 ppm fluoride. 

Pretty wierd, no?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
347
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
335
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

335 Views
Message 589 of 1,248

David,

 

Thank you for doing homework and looking.  

 

My suggestion is to contact EPA and ask them for a copy.

 

I did the research for myself and no longer have a copy readily accessable.  And if I did, you would probably say I faked it.  So. . . contacting the EPA yourself is the best way to get a copy from them.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
335
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
340
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

340 Views
Message 590 of 1,248

Dr. Bill,

 

In your comment, timestamp 0-13-2018 02:37 PM, you said:

 

"For clarity, I asked the EPA and EPA in a FOIA request responded,

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10"

 

That seemed odd to me, since Freedom of Information Act Requests are designed to make undisclosed or hidden documents available to the public.  FIOA Requests are not intended to provide clarity on existing laws.  

 

So I went to this EPA / FIOA Website:  https://www.epa.gov/foia

 

On the right-hand side of the page is this column:  "Resources for FOIA Requests," and the Fourth Item in that column is "Search Existing FIOA Requests."  

 

I clicked that link and was redirected to this page:  https://www.foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home

 

Unable to find any reference to your FIOAR on any of the 3 search engines on that page, I then went to this Advanced Search Page:  https://www.foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/search/advancedSearch

 

In that search engine I searched by Requester's Name, your name "Osmunson."  No results found.  Then I tried Bill Osmunson.  .  .  No Bill Osmunson.  Then I tried Dr. Bill Osmunson. . . No matches.  Then I tried Dr. William Osmunson.  Nothing.  

 

Then I tried looking under Search Criteria: Tracking Number.   I copy/pasted  HQ-FOI-01418-10.  No Results Found.  Then FOI-1418-10.  Then 01418-10.  Nothing.  Nothing.  No Results Found.  

 

Dr. Bill, perhaps you could tell me the date of this request of yours, and perhaps you could tell me the "Received Date,"  the "Perfected Date," the "Due Date,"  or the "Closing Date" of your alleged FIOA Request so that I could search by any of those criteria.  

 

That shouldn't be too difficult for you.  

 

And Thank You in advance of your normally prompt response.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
340
Views