Content starts here
CLOSE ×

Search

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

 

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

355,799 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

19,975 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

View solution in original post

18,719 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

10,396 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

 

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

 

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

 

Really? 

 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

 

 

View solution in original post

6,274 Views
1
Report
Regular Contributor

There are about 45 water additive, many of which have functions other than sanitizing the water.

The operation of water plants, including the regulation of water additives, falls principally to state regulations. The EPA defines the maximum allowable concentrations for contaminants. It is specifically the responsibility of water systems to determine the mineral content of their product.

Again, I believe if you think there is a legal mandate to disallow community water fluoridation you should pursue that theory in a court of law. I utterly disagree that there is lawlessness in the United States. Your position on national law and fluoridation has simply not been upheld. Any decisions against fluoridation have been reversed on appeal.
0 Kudos
5,386 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Of course. There are corrosion inhibitors for example that minimize metal ions in water. And aluminum salts that remove solid  contaminants, etc.

But there is ony one chemical added for the purpose of treating people, human tissue,  and that is fluoride.

 

It is illegal to add therapeutics into public water. It is even illegal to add foods into public water. Please get some understanding.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
5,361 Views
3
Report
Regular Contributor

Notwithstanding your view, the courts have ruled time and time again that fluoride is a normal mineral constituent present to some degree in most water sources, that optimizing the fluoride concentration is within the proper powers of governments, that the regulation of fluoride used for fluoridation as water additives is legal and sufficient, and that the practice is not mass medication.

Here is a database of court cases: http://fluidlaw.org/

Presumably the parties in at least some of these many cases were aware of relevant federal and state laws.

0 Kudos
5,319 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The Coshow vs Escondido case was ruled correctly by the judge. The verdict was on that fluoridation alters the bodily composition of humans. That is a fact.  In all fluoridated cities blood and urine fluoride levels in consumers are  elevated compared to before fluoridation. We now know from published, stidies that dental fluorosis is increased in incidence in,all fluoridated cities --there are no exceptions. the problem is judges,who dont understand,and believe the CDC that  fluorodatupn is harmless except it alters teeth and such a judge overruled the case appealed by fluoridation advocates.

The truth being suppressed in courts is nothing new.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,323 Views
1
Report
Regular Contributor

Escondido's fluoridation program prevailed in the case you cite.

Specifically: " However, the right to be free from forced medication is not a fundamental constitutional right in the context of adding fluoride or other chemicals to public drinking water.   City's use of HFSA to fluoridate its drinking water does not force Coshow to do anything. " This is but a small part of the judge's ruling in about the forced medication theory under which Coshow sued the city.

It beats me how fluoridation opponents choose to make claims so at odds to reality.

Here's the decision if anyone wishes to read it all

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1492563.html
0 Kudos
5,318 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“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)

 

 

 

3,884 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
3,802 Views
12
Report
Regular Contributor

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."
3,830 Views
11
Report
Conversationalist

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  

0 Kudos
3,890 Views
9
Report
Conversationalist

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  

0 Kudos
3,904 Views
7
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

 

 

0 Kudos
3,784 Views
6
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

 

 

 

3,723 Views
5
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

0 Kudos
3,642 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
3,671 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

0 Kudos
3,659 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Everyone knows that the FDA does not regulate water fluoridation. They are mandated to do so (because it is used as a drug or supplement) but they don't, and they assume the EPA does (becaue fluoride is an EPA regulated contaminant in water).

Neither the EPA nor the FDA actually regulates fluoridation. No Federal Agency does.

No Agency (including the private  NSF) is now measuring the fluoride levels in blood or urine of people in fluoridated cities. No Agency is monitoring bone disease incidence in fluoridated cities, including hip, knee, and elbow replacement surgeries. No Agency is monitoring the incidence of infant mortality in fluoridated cities. No Agency enforces Good Manufacturing Practices from fertilizer plant waste that is required under law for any substance used for human ingestion. 

Everyone should know the FDA is responsible, and everyone should also know the FDA does nothing to regulate the intentional discharge of fluosilicic acid  materials obtained from fertilizer industrial scrubbers that is discharged into public water supplies for the purpose of treating human tissue without FDA approval. What is so difficult to understand? 

No one wants to take resonsibility or accept any liability for the insane act known as "fluoridation".  Who wants to pay for the millions of U.S. teens that have dental fluorosis? Who wants to make the inane claim that fluoridation of bone to thousands of ppm, which alters the crystal structure and forms bone of poor quality, somehow has nothing to do with the increased incidence of bone fractures and bone replacement surgeries in the  U.S.? Who wants to claim that although infant mortality was reduced in Chile when Dr. Schatz convinced Pres. Allende to halt fluoridation of poor neighborhoods, that poor neighborhoods in the U.S. are somehow magically immune to the effects of whole body fluoridation of infants in the womb?

Of course the FDA AND EPA are negligent in their duty. This is not a news flash.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,355 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, I really have to wonder what is in this for you.  Either you are completely out of touch with reality, or you are purposely trying to make a relatively simple, easy to understand issue, confusing as hell.

 

Your quote:  "Neither the EPA nor the FDA actually regulates fluoridation. No Federal Agency does."

 

Resonse:  Not exactly true.  The FDA has nothing to do with water fluoridation because optimally fluoridated water is not considered a "drug" by any Federal Agency.  

 

There is no Federal Agency which considers water with 1 ppm F in it a "drug."  Wrap your head around that.  Either water with 1 ppm F isn't a drug, or there is some massive conspiracy of silence between all U.S. Federal Agencies.  Which is it?

 

Optimally fluoridated water is no more a drug than bread fortified with folic acid, . . . than milk with Vitamin D added, . . . . than cereal fortified with vitamins.  Sometimes people put stuff in stuff we consume for our own good.  

 

Now, is this a massive conspiracy between all U.S. Federal Agencies, or is optimally fluoridated water really not a drug?

 

 

0 Kudos
3,357 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
0 Kudos
3,637 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
0 Kudos
3,636 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
3,452 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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)

 

 

3,381 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“It seems like the goal is to disprove the communities' concerns rather than actually trying to prove exposures.” - ATSDR scientist in testimony to Congress on Regulatory Agency Fraud (2009)

 

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. 

 

As to FDA position, “fluoride supplements that may contribute significantly to the total daily dietary intake of fluoride of persons consuming them are regulated as drugs because of their intended use (to prevent disease) and, therefore are not subject to the food labeling regulations." Also that  "the primary sources of dietary fluoride are beyond the purview of nutrition labeling regulations.” https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-12-28/pdf/95-31197.pdf

 

FDA does allow fluoride to be listed as an “ingredient” on bottled water, not as a nutrient. It also allows language on bottled water that fluoride “may” prevent cavities based on “authoritative statements” which are nothing more than endorsements of policy, but only so long as that statement is not used on any infant water. The FDA has nothing to do with water additives and the EPA really doesn’t want anything to do with them either, given their behavior. Fluoridation is a political decision made at the state or municipal level and the EPA contaminant levels are political.  

3,283 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"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. 

 

 

0 Kudos
3,346 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

CarryAnne,

 

If anyone missed your last post, please read it below.

 

How many places in Federal and state laws, poison laws, pesticide laws, FD&C Act, SDWA, clear statements from the FDA and EPA, FOI requests, US Pharmacopia, and all other health regulatory agencies is needed to convince a person fluoride is defined as a drug and to be regulated as a drug when marketed with the intent to prevent disease.  

 

Also note, the concentration, dosage, efficacy, risks, are not part of whether a substance is regulated by the FDA.  The key is "INTENT" of use.  Even a placebo needs FDA approval.

 

And the FDA does not go looking for violators (usually), the FDA learned early on that they could not keep up with all the new drugs and claims as policemen.  So the law requires manufacturers to gain FDA approval before marketing.   The burden is on the manufacturers, not the FDA or the consumer.  

 

Who are the final manufacturers of fluoridated water?  You got it.  Cities and water districts, the fluoridated water purveyors.   Government agencies are slow to have regulatory action against other government agencies. 

 

The only organizations considering fluoride a nutrient or mineral and not a drug, are frustrated nutritionists, fluoride pushers, and those looking to appease their financial donars.

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride, 60% of adolescents show signs of toxic overdose.  Studies show serious harm from overdose of fluoride.

 

The best place to reduce overdose for the public at large is to stop fluoridation.  Give people the choice.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

3,294 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

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

3,372 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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). 

The city of LA did the same thing. The response from city officials is the CA state health department under the CDC requested fluoridation. (As though the CDC is the ultimate governmental authority on the subject). 

The CADPH official who requested LA fluoridate told me that he does what  the CDC tells him to do.

So fluoridationists don't have their facts straight.

Forced fluoridation is illegal and the SDWA was written to halt its spread (Graham and Morin). But their blind spot won't let them believe it.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,284 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

0 Kudos
3,356 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
3,361 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
3,340 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

0 Kudos
3,350 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Need to Know

NEW: AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays! This week, achieve a top score in Atari Centipede® and you could win $100! Learn More.

AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays

More From AARP