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

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
708
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

708 Views
Message 501 of 1,294

Rich's quote:  "But additives are substances used specifically to sanitize water"

 

Response:  Wrong!  Where do you get that?  For the 5th time now, there are many additives to drinking water which have nothing to do with purifying or sanitizing it.  

 

Please explain why you think why a water additive must have something to do with purification.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
708
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
697
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

697 Views
Message 502 of 1,294

PhD Richard's quote:  "Water fluoridation has nothing to do with the 4 ppm MCL of the EPA for natural fluoride contamination of water.  Water fluoridation uses 0.7 ppm in water supplies with less than 0.7 ppm.

Thus, the EPA deos not regulate water fluoridationn, as evident in your own statement that the EPA farmed that out to the NSF."

 

Response:  You said that no one is responsible for water fluoridation.  Wrong.  The EPA allows 4 ppm F in drinking water.  The target for optimally fluoridated water, i.e., water fluoridation, is 0.7 ppm.  Therefore, if someone was harmed because they drank water with 0.7 ppm F, the EPA would be liable because it has set the MCL at almost 5 times that level.  

 

Since people are not harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water, no one has been able to sue the EPA for legitimate health reasons.  

 

The EPA is responsible for its own limit of 4 ppm.  Are you beginning to understand?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
697
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
690
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

690 Views
Message 503 of 1,294

RS:  "Also the water purification agent claim is on insert sheets includced with the purchase by water districts of the fluosilicic acid, which is a relabeled hazardous waste.  It is included witrh the MSDS sheets."

 

 

 

Here's an MSDS (now called SDS) for fluorosilicic acid https://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924083  Care to show me anything that labels it a "water purifier?"

 

Not on the MSDS?  You must have gotten that information from somewhere.  Please provide evidence that anybody has ever called fluoride a "water purifier."

 

Your story is that you've seen this?  Show it to us.  

 

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
690
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
691
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

691 Views
Message 504 of 1,294

And it appears you agree, that the NSF 10% rule is not applied to the fluoride contaminant as long as fluoride is used on purpose because then it is considered an "additive."  But additives are substances used specifically to sanitize water -- the term does not apply to any subsatnce infused to treat humans. Substances that treat human tissue are not water "additives" because adidtives are to purify water, and to maintian the normal chemistry of the nation's water supplies, including adjusting the pH (especially after the pH has been lowered un-naturally with fluosilicic acid infusions).

That is the whole point. The rule for contaminants (of which fluoride in water is) is not used when fluoride is infused into water intentionally because it is then re-considered to be, and re-labeled as, an "additive." 

Again, where's the beef with whaat I have said?.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
691
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
680
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

680 Views
Message 505 of 1,294

Water fluoridation has nothing to do with the 4 ppm MCL of the EPA for natural fluoride contamination of water.  Water fluoridation uses 0.7 ppm in water supplies with less than 0.7 ppm.

Thus, the EPA deos not regulate water fluoridationn, as evident in your own statement that the EPA farmed that out to the NSF.

So what's the beef?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
680
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
669
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

669 Views
Message 506 of 1,294

There are no links to forward. The NSF charges money to purchase the 320 page report. it is no avialable online to the public. 

Also the water purification agent claim is on insert sheets includced with the purchase by water districts of the fluosilicic acid, which is a relabeled hazardous waste.  It is included witrh the MSDS sheets.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
669
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
671
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

671 Views
Message 507 of 1,294

"Words are but wind." - Italian proverb 

 

”The plausibility of the bladder as a target for fluoride is supported by the tendency of hydrogen fluoride (HF) to form under physiologically acid conditions, such as found in urine. Hydrogen fluoride is caustic and might increase the potential for cellular damage, including genotoxicity." - 2006 NRC on Fluoride in Drinking Water, page 330

 

Asbestos was thought so great that not only did we stuff our school buildings full of it, we wove it into kids' pajamas. We did this at the recommendation of the same folks who at the same time were promoting fluoridation. It's the hard data that is meaningful, and we have plenty of data that the chemicals we use to fluoridate our waters convert to HF in our bodies where it is even more toxic than HFSA, FSA or NaF. 

 

Interesting read: HF becomes FSA but easily converts back: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch08/final/c08s07.pdf

 

Even in the human body: https://www.nap.edu/read/12741/chapter/6 Screen Shot 2018-10-30 at 3.00.59 PM.png

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
671
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
666
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

666 Views
Message 508 of 1,294

Richard, your quote:  "I know it musst be difficult for a fluoridation promoter to understand, because no one actually wants to find out that they are harming, rather than helping, people.  But for the benefit of the country please try harder to understand. 

NSF standard 60 allows the final concentation of EPA contaminants in water at only 10% of their MCL. But 10% of the fluoride MCL's of 2 - 4 ppm in water would be 0.2 - 0.4 ppm. Fluoridation is conducted at 0.7 - 1 ppm, so NSF had little choice but to re-describe the fluoride contaminant (which it is) as a "water additive" (which it is not, since it does not purify water) that would then be allowed."

 

First of all, I don't know that I'm a "fluoridation promoter."  I consider myself more of an anti-scare mongerer.

 

I asked the fluoridation engineer at the CDC about the point you are making.  First of all, nowhere in the SDWA does it say that all water additives must only purify water.  There are many additives which are NSF approved which treat other additives.  There are additives which adjust pH.  --  My point here is that a legal expert you are not.

 

Anyway, Kip Duchon at the CDC explained that the NSF rule you cited does not apply to the additive itself.  I know you already know this, because you have already said this in a previous comment.  

 

Your quote:  "And since when is a Nation's entire water supply supposed to be controlled by a private organization anyway? Answer: when the EPA does not want to regulate a contaminant because it is believed at low concentrations to be a therapeutic treatment that is endorsed by the Federal CDC, then the private organization the NSF is asked to take charge of certification of the EPA hazardous waste source material. Avoiding liability is of paramount importance to Federal agencies, so when an Agency is expected to take charge of an issue with which they have no expertise, then it is farmed out."

 

Wow!  It must be scarey in your world.  First of all, EPA takes responsibility for water fluoridation.  For the 4th time now, EPA allows 4 ppm F in drinking water.  If anyone were to be harmed by drinking water with 1 ppm F, that would be EPA's fault.  And guess what.  People sue the EPA all the time.  

 

In the second place, the "nation's entire water supply" isn't controlled by a private organization.  You are talking about NSF?  EPA has outsourced some of its workload to NSF, an independent not-for-profit organization which is made up experts in many fields.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
666
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
665
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

665 Views
Message 509 of 1,294

Richard, this is your entire quote.  You said, "The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste as a water purifying agent pass inspection and to gain favor with skeptics so that it appears legal to add into water."  ‎10-30-2018 10:50 AM

 

Response:  Ok, I had to read this a few times to understand what you were saying.  Your grammer is a bit muddled.  You are the one calling fluorosilicic acid a "hazardous waste."  (The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste as a water purifying agent . ."  It would have been more understandable if you had said, "The NSF lables fluorosilicic acid, which is a hazardous waste, a water purifying agent."  You needed some comas for clarity.)

 

That's a lie too.  The NSF doesn't label fluorosilicic acid as a water purifying agent (because it is not a water purifying agent - not every water additive is for the purpose of making water clean.  We've already gone over this.), to gain favor with skeptics or for any other reason.  Please provide the link which supports that "untruth."

 

Falsus in UnoFalsus in Omnibus

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
665
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
685
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

685 Views
Message 510 of 1,294

I know it musst be difficult for a fluoridation promoter to understand, because no one actually wants to find out that they are harming, rather than helping, people.  But for the benefit of the country please try harder to understand. 

NSF standard 60 allows the final concentation of EPA contaminants in water at only 10% of their MCL. But 10% of the fluoride MCL's of 2 - 4 ppm in water would be 0.2 - 0.4 ppm. Fluoridation is conducted at 0.7 - 1 ppm, so NSF had little choice but to re-describe the fluoride contaminant (which it is) as a "water additive" (which it is not, since it does not purify water) that would then be allowed.

And since when is a Nation's entire water supply supposed to be controlled by a private organization anyway? Answer: when the EPA does not want to regulate a contaminant because it is believed at low concentrations to be a therapeutic treatment that is endorsed by the Federal CDC, then the private organization the NSF is asked to take charge of certification of the EPA hazardous waste source material. Avoiding liability is of paramount importance to Federal agencies, so when an Agency is expected to take charge of an issue with which they have no expertise, then it is farmed out. Understand better? 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (2)
2
Kudos
685
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