There's always more to discover with an AARP membership! Check out your member benefits.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
407
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

407 Views
Message 541 of 1,248

My friend Jeff Gren organized the suit. And I live in the outskirts of Escondido

 Yes you can read the verdict 5bat caused the city tovf lyorifat it's citizens. 

And just like I said, this,was the appealed case. The original case ruled against whole  body fluoridation of citizens because the intelligent judge agreed that the city water district  had no rights to alter the bodily chemistry of anyone. The purpose for whole body fluoridation is to adjust the composition of systemic fluid with a contaminant that is not a component of normal human blood

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
407
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
405
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

405 Views
Message 542 of 1,248
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
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
405
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
395
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

395 Views
Message 543 of 1,248

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
395
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
389
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

389 Views
Message 544 of 1,248
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
389
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
415
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

415 Views
Message 545 of 1,248

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
415
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
415
Views

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

415 Views
Message 546 of 1,248

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
415
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
438
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

438 Views
Message 547 of 1,248
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
438
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
482
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

482 Views
Message 548 of 1,248

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
482
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
524
Views

Rhetorical Deceits, Childish Acronyms & Obscenities?

524 Views
Message 549 of 1,248

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
524
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
523
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

523 Views
Message 550 of 1,248

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
523
Views