Take the AARP Smart Driver course and you could save on auto insurance! Sign up today.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
484
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

484 Views
Message 601 of 1,306

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
484
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
478
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

478 Views
Message 602 of 1,306
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.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
478
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
502
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

502 Views
Message 603 of 1,306

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
502
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
503
Views

Re: Major science and health organizations dismiss anti-F opinions

503 Views
Message 604 of 1,306

Randy, Randy, Randy,

 

You have put together several studies on Cyber-nook which support fluoridation but the bias is so strong as to be unbelieveable.  http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html

 

Your background in chemistry and biology is commendable.  However, even the first quotation of NTP 2018 is incomplete and biased.  The NTP study you reference did not report harm, true, but that is one of three major steps the NTP is taking.  What about the first and third phase of the review??????

 

Do not cherry pick science to prove a point.   Twisting and manipulating science and claiming it says something it does not, is not scientific.

 

I hope you did better teaching your students critical thinking than simply memorization.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
503
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
526
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

526 Views
Message 605 of 1,306
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.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
526
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
569
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

569 Views
Message 606 of 1,306

And by the way the 0.016 ppm fluoride level in saliva of consumers of 1 ppm fluoride water is a measurement published by the NRC that was also confirmed in,writing from NRC committee member Dr. K. Thiessen.

 This is indeed 96500 times less concentrated than in toothpaste at 1500 ppm. 

So how pray tell did this lead to the idea that  somehow my work is debunked? If you want to lash out about that, then do so with the NRC committee.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (1)
2
Kudos
569
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
612
Views

Rhetorical Deceits, Childish Acronyms & Obscenities?

612 Views
Message 607 of 1,306

CarryAnne – Interesting response.  If you are replying to my comment I noticed that you provided no answers to my very specific questions regarding your previous comments. 

 

Unlike fluoridation opponents (FOs) and other anti-science activists (ASAs), I try very hard not to take comments out of context.  As I demonstrated with your US Public Health Service quotes, FOs and ASAs extract and present any portion of a comment out context if it can be adjusted to fit their agenda.  BTW: You apparently accused me of claiming that you quoted Alex Jones &/or Mike Adams.  I have never made such an accusation – I simply stated that their organizations are among the few that oppose CWF, and their tactics and arguments are the same as those employed by FOs and other ASAs.  When did I use an “obscenity”, and what “rhetorical deceits” did I employ?  I simply asked several questions about comments you have made and pointed out where you had used an out-of-context deceitful quote.

 

I am trying to get straight answers in your words so I don’t misinterpret your position.

 

That is why I asked you very specific questions about very specific comments you have made about those who support community water fluoridation (CWF).  I will try again.

 

The fact is that over 100 major science and health organizations with hundreds of thousands of members continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF.  The members of those organizations have not initiated a revolution to stop that recognition. The questions reference this fact – if you dispute it, let me know.

 

  • Please clarify – do you believe all CWF supporters &/or those who do not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate, are “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”?  If not, which groups and supporters fall into which categories and why?
  • If your description above does not cover all CWF supporters then please explain why there continues to be such support if any of the alleged “evidence” proved that CWF was harmful to health. Why would the majority of scientists, dentists, MDs and other professionals around the world continue to support a public health measure that obviously (according to your claims) caused the type and degree of harm to their patients and fellow citizens you and other FOs allege? 
  • Do you accept that there is a 70+ year scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure? If not, please explain what the scientific consensus regarding CWF is and how it is determined.  If you don’t accept that there is a scientific consensus regarding fluoridation, please describe exactly what you would replace it with when deciding which mutually contradictory conclusions to believe regarding a complex scientific topic like pro- vs. anti-vaccination positions, for example.
  • How do you explain the fact that, if the alleged evidence provided by FOs in these comments (and elsewhere) has been even remotely presented accurately, FOs have been completely unable to change the scientific consensus for over 70 years.

 

Five quotes from FOs are not evidence of anything – that is precisely why understanding the scientific consensus is critical to understanding how best to interpret the existing body of evidence.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
612
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
611
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

611 Views
Message 608 of 1,306

And to be clear, CA AB733 does not mention ANY fluoride source, notthat you are free to choose form a list of three, nor that there are three, less, or more.  The discussion presented is meaningless since one cannot buy "fluoride". Fluoride is only always accompanied with its corresponding cation.  All soluble fluorides are listed poisons (all three of the NSF rubber stamped allowed source materials) on poisons registries, while calcium fluoride is not a listed poison because of its finite solubility. Ironically Nelson refused to accept the use of calcium fluoride because he felt the solubility would be too cumbersome to work with. Note: one country in South America that fluoridates uses calcium fluoride; and the original listed source materials for fluoridation by the CDC included calcium fluoride, but such records are getting harder to find in public now..

Ease to fluoridate first, long term safety last.

Again, AB733 is meaningless, vague, and deceptive in assuming that eating fluoride reduces caries and that mandating it by request of the CDC is somehow not in violation of the SDWA when it is. States can be no less restrictive than the SDWA, as stated in the original SDWA statutes approved by Congress.  But in today's world, who cares about laws?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
611
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
657
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

657 Views
Message 609 of 1,306

My work has never been "debunked" although fluoridationists certainly wish they could. The poisoning in Hooper Bay was due to a sodium fluoride water feed that corroded a pump valve. When did I ever say the same system is used in other public water systems? And yes fluoridationist blogs have attacked the analysis but failed. I never said that using calcium fluoride in soft water lacking calcium, rather than NaF, would make a significnat impact in lowering blood and urine fluoride levels from the consumed water. Instead, the fact is that if calcium fluoride had been used in Hooper Bay, no one would have died and none of the 300 people would have had to have been evacuated to distant hospitals for their severe GI pain.

The reason this is so is because the solubility of calcium fluoride is limited to about 8 ppm. No natural fluoride in fresh water, even in Turkey or India or China where severe bone fluorosis is endemic, could immediately kill with heart block because the water does not contain added industrial soluble fluorides. Natural fluoride is calcium fluoride that is always accompanied with plentiful calcium from other calcium salts. Blood fluoride levels cannot achieve lethal concentrations even when water is 8 ppm natural fluoride.

But NaF is a different matter with infinite solubility in water.This is why the corroded pump valve produced 100 ppm fluoride in the drinking water. The bizarre thing is that the Public Health Service refuses to accept ANY liability for the death and poisonings and instead blames the city for doing it, when the PHS made the city fluoridate in the first place! Hooper Bay now rightfully refuses fluoridation even though the PHS still requests that they do. I defend their rights to deny fluoridation and abhorr that it is being forced on cities around the country against their express will -- so are youi going to shoot me?

 

Everyone knows that there are three currently used starting materials rubber stamped by the NSF. So what? They are all fully solubile in water to high concentrations and are all manufactured with industrial processes that do not follow GMPs required by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act as recently upgraded to include all supplements used in the U.S.

The idea that fluoridation is merely adjusting "water properties" and thus is not a supplement or a drug is false. The express purpose of water fluoride infusions (Conshow vs Escondido, 2005) as testifed by CADPH official David Nelson is to elevate the fluoride level in blood to attempt to prevent dental caries. The purpose is not to adjust the natural conditions of the water. The purpose is to alter the water so that blood fluoride levels will rise.

Whole body fuoridation is a crime--especially whole body fluoridation of infants in the womb where the U.S FDA banned the sale of all flouride compounds intended to be sold for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S. This is all reviewed in the JEPH 2013 article. And yet there are vast numbers of pregnant U.S. women who consuime artificially fluoridated water in treated cities today, because current NSF personnel know nothing about nor care about the FDA ruling. NSF is a private money-making for-profit group. It is not a nonprofit governmental agency that is run by U.S. citizens through the voting will of the public.

 

"Debunk" this all you want, but such thoughts have no meaning.

And if yo want to debunk something, debunk the idea that blood fluoride somehow reduces caries when it doesn't. Even the CDC published research indicating that the effect of fluoridated water on caries (they believe occurs) is NOT mediated by systemic blood fluoride. Again, catch up with the truth because one day it will catch up to all.

The real problem is that infusing minute levels of a toxic material into public water supplies (which avoids acute toxicity through use of expensive electronic metered infusion systems in most U.S. water supplies today) fulfills the prediction of Buck (The Grim Truth about Water Fluoridation, 1960). He wrote that such a program would not be able to be proven as causing direct harm and thus those running such a program will not be stopped and chronic toxicity will prevail. I hold the view however that with enough time one day it could  be stopped. I don't give up on hope.

Again, CA AB733 does not have sufficient deetail to be meaningful. The purpose of blood fluoride is to lower caries (as stated underoath in court by one of the key authors of the law), but the CDC after that law was passed reported that blood fluoride does not lower caries.

And the use of calcium fluoride would prevent adverse acutely toxic overfeeds.   I can't change the facts.

I usually say I'm sorry, but with this crowd, I pass on that..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
657
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
668
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

668 Views
Message 610 of 1,306

Fluoridationists who use rhetorical deceits and come up with childish acronyms so as to use obscenities to describe those who campaign against the immoral use of municipal water systems to dose the population with an inflammatory drug aren't scientists. I suggest if winning is so important to them, rather than using social media as a tool to villify and victimize senior citizens and children, they should attend Friday night football games. 

 

From the lead investigator: “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous…" - Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

From an international leader in environmental poison research: “Adverse effects from fluoride additives to drinking water have not been fully considered in the past, and the new study from Mexico, along with substantial evidence from other countries, now shows that fluoride toxicity to brain development must be taken seriously.” -  Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

From the Director of the US National Toxicology Program: "There have been similar findings related to exposure to fluoride and IQ from children in China. So this observation or association has been reported before.” - Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

From a pediatrician who studies links between environmental exposures and health problems: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water” - Dr. Leonardo Trasande,  pediatrician & associate professor at New York University Langone Health on Bashash et al., Sept 2017

 

BTW: I have never quoted Alex Jones or Infowars for anything - ditto for Mike Adams. I prefer scientific evidence and professional opinion to entertainment. However, I can also recognize a put up job and never trust organizational endorsements until I verify their data. 

Philip R.N. Sutton is one of my fluoridation heroes. A statistician and dental researcher, he assumed the 1940s fluoridation trials were legitimate, until he did his due-diligence. His report  contains the following:

 

"...the evidence tendered in favor of fluoridation reveals two disturbing features. The first is that what must be essentially a statistical study does not appear to have been planned as such. The second is that even when sufficient information is presented, no comprehensive attempt at statistical evaluation has been considered." - Dr. Philip R.N. Sutton in “Fluoridation: Errors & Omissions in Experimental Trials” (2nd ed. 1960)

  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
668
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have you taken a memorable trip to a destination others should know about? Post a Trip Report


city skyline captured on tablet