Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
919
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

919 Views
Message 651 of 1,448

 

RS:  " For readers who know I don't lie, that is sufficient for them."

 

Response:  You are a guy who claims to be a scientist.  You claimed that the people in Alaska are fully aware that water fluoridation was responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in the Sacramento River. 

 

You said this with no evidence, no supporting documentation, no studies, no environmentalists agree with that claim, no fluoride levels were measured in the river, no fluoride levels were measured in the fish.

 

When push came to shove, and I pressed you for any supporting evidence, in the end it came down to the fact that you believed it to be true, therefore it was true.

 

I don't know what your definition of "scientist" is, but it clearly doesn't have anything to do with science, since science depends upon facts and evidence, not personal beliefs.  

 

By the way, you are also a guy who claims that Einstein got it wrong about time dilation, and you got it right.  

 

Sure, your readers really get you.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
919
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
927
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

927 Views
Message 652 of 1,448

Well said Carry Anne.  Why fluoridation promoters cannot understand the SDWA is mind-boggling. Thinking that fluoride is added to affect the quality of the water is nonsensical. Fluoride is added specifically to treat humans and has nothing to do with altering either the purity of, the pH of, the natural chemistry of pristine fresh drinking water, or the sterility or general potability of water that the SDWA is intended to protect. Maintaining the natural chemistry of our nation's water supply, when there are peple bull-headedly intent on fluoridating the world, has proven to be an unbelievable nightmare because such people do not understand the meaning of the SDWA.. 

 

Additives are allowed and in many cases necessary to attempt to normalize as best as possible the natural chemistry of the Nation's water supplies. But additives are not materials added to treat humans. The distinction is clear. The SDWA prohibits any national requirement for any such materials since they have no business being added and labeled as additives as though they purify, sanitize, re-normalize the chemsitry of, etc. the water. 

Fluoride is not an additive. It is infused for its presumed effect on teeth (but has no such significant effect), and sadly it indeed does irreversibly affect bone.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
927
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
934
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

934 Views
Message 653 of 1,448

I'm not the only one with typos. By "deos" I assume you mean does? But no big deal.

 

The fact that the EPA long ago decided that 4 ppm natural fluoride in water should not be consumed at all ! (to avoid stage III serious skeletal fluorosis with lifeling consumption) and that 2 ppm natural fluoride in water requires a warning to avoid drinking it (to prevent severe teeth disfigurement wlith chronic drinking during childhood) is not an endorsement or even an allowance of intentional infusion of fluoride into water as in fluoridation. The MCL does not provide a license to "fill 'er up" by the intentional infusion into water of any fluoride level up to 2 ppm. 

 

The EPA has no physicians or toxicologists or pharmacologists or any staff who have any ability or authority to determine how much more fluoride anyone can ingest above that which is already ingested before water is "fluoridated." The Agency has no personnel who can or who do monitor blood levels of fluoride in those treated consumers or ability to monitor bone fluoride levels in consumers or to categorize or keep track of other systemic effects that fluoride is known to cause. In short, the EPA does not regulate water fluoridation and refuses in fact to do so.

Fluoridation today is the intentional infusion of industrial fluosilicic acid hazardous waste into public drinking water supplies for the express purpose of elevating blood fluoride levels in consumers, where it is presumed to have some sort of dental caries preventive effect for which there is no known mechanism to explain.

 

The EPA does not regulate, endorse, require, monitor, or have any authority whatsoever over the intentional fluoridation of human beings through treating the water supply at 0.7 ppm or any other level of fluoride under 2 ppm. The EPA Office of Water routinely writes that EPA is not responsible for monitoring and does not endorse or request water fluoridation.  

 

The U.S Congress gives authority for the regulation of all supplements and materials proposed to be ingested by Americans to the U.S Food and Drug Administration, not the EPA -- period. The fact that the FDA has not banned it is irrelevant. The FDA has ruled many times against fluoridation by ruling that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug and banning the sale of all fluoride compounds intended for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S.

 

The water purification claim was on an insert for one of the suppliers of fluosilicic acid sold to a water district. For readers who know I don't lie, that is sufficient for them. For those who would disbelieve whatever I say anyway, I don't owe you any outside material proof.  I don't know if I kept a copy in my records or not. So what? I know what I saw..

There is one water worker (Escondido) who actually believes that fluoride is a food!. He loses no sleep whatsoever over the whole body fluoridation of all consumers in the city. Longterm bone fluoridation issues? He not only doesn't care, he imagines it must be good for you. I don't have a link to that because there is no link to that. So? 

Again,the EPA does not regulate the infusion of foods, supplements, or decay preventive dentifrice substances into public water supplies. The mission of the EPA is to regulate contaminants from natural sources and from accidental spills, etc.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
934
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
901
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

901 Views
Message 654 of 1,448

The better word choice is potable

 

Water additives should have the purpose of making the water potable, not of medicating the consumer. That is clearly the intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the mission of water workers. 
 

  • Water workers are not my pharmacist. 
  • Political bodies are not my doctor. 
  • Neighbors are not the boss of me. 

 

Each individual has the right to make his or her own medical choices. Fluoride is added to water with the intention of having a medical outcome. Water is consumed because it is necessary to live. I have the right not to have a drug added to my water, especially when I know that it is a substance that causes illness in me and members of my family. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
901
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
875
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

875 Views
Message 655 of 1,448

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
875
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
864
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

864 Views
Message 656 of 1,448

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
864
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
858
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

858 Views
Message 657 of 1,448

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
858
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
868
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

868 Views
Message 658 of 1,448

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
868
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
857
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

857 Views
Message 659 of 1,448

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
857
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
854
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

854 Views
Message 660 of 1,448

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
854
Views