Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
803
Views

Re: Fluoride is a drug when consumed for medical or dental purpose per FDA

803 Views
Message 621 of 1,425

By the way, "Carry Anne," this comment from you is also wrong:

 

"Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF. "

 

It was the EPA which outsourced some of its workload to NSF.  The FDA has nothing to do with community water distribution systems or anything that is added to its water.  Again - EPA.  FDA has nothing to do with NSF - Period.  That would be the EPA. 

http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-international-sustainability-standards-included-in-epa-recommendatio...

 

It must be a confusing world for you with all of these factual inaccuracies with which you try to impress the reader.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
803
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
808
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

808 Views
Message 622 of 1,425

Get some rest and let your false claims stand? In your dreams.

The Ketchikan hatchery is knowledgable about fluoride and salmon. And I've visited Sacramento many times and I stand by my posts on the problem.

Also Einstein was indeed wrong about time dilation. You always say you need links to prove a point. So check the links below to the articles published in Physics Essays and in Optick. If you don't believe the published studies then take it up with those two journals.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324511962_Characteristics_of_Light_Velocity_Massless_Energy...

 

and http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/147-12-richard-d-sauerheber-on-the-nature-of-light...

 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
808
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
805
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

805 Views
Message 623 of 1,425

Richard, your comment is so garbled and so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a response.  Get some rest.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
805
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
794
Views

Re: Fluoride is a drug when consumed for medical or dental purpose per FDA

794 Views
Message 624 of 1,425

"Carry Anne," I asked you to provide one example of any Federal Agency which considers optimally fluoridated water - what we are talking about here - a "drug," or a "medicine." 

 

You provided none.  

 

No Federal Agency considers optimally fluoridated water a drug.  

 

What you did was to provide evidence that people consider Fluoride itself is a drug.  So what.  Here is evidence that Oxygen is a drug:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688103/    or this, http://epmonthly.com/article/oxygen-is-a-drug-act-accordingly/  But no sane person considers optimally oxygenated air a drug.  

 

Again, please provide any example of any federal agency which calls optimally fluoridated water a drug or a medicine.  Again, the only people who do that are people like you who are attempting to generate paranoia.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
794
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
765
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

765 Views
Message 625 of 1,425

The ketchikan hatchery spokesman knew of the decimated salmon population that chronically persists for the last many years during the fluoridation of sacramento. There are no salmon hatching eggs by the discharge tube where the ciry dumps its fluoridated wastewater.

So where is the lie?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
765
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
758
Views

Fluoride is a drug when consumed for medical or dental purpose per FDA

758 Views
Message 626 of 1,425

Fluoridation is the dosing of municipal water with a drug that is harmful to millions of consumers.

 

Repeating: In 1995, the FDA wrote there was no consensus about fluoride as a nutrient, so "RDI should not be established for fluoride” plus in the case of consumption, FDA wrote fluoride is "regulated as drugs because of their intended use (to prevent disease) and, therefore are not subject to the food labeling regulations." https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-12-28/pdf/95-31197.pdf

FDA says fluoride may be listed as an ingredient in bottled water that "may" have dental benefit so long as that water is not marketed to infants. FDA  allows sale of prescriptions of fluoride as an "unapproved drug" which means it is not warranted by the FDA for safety or effectiveness. (Topical use of fluoride is handled separately.) 

 

Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and the EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF. 

 

So if the FDA won't allow fluoridated bottled water to be marketed to infants with claims of dental benefit and has all sorts of restrictions around other use, why should we believe fluoridationists who claim fluoridation is safe for babies and good for kids let alone safe for seniors who have been consuming it for decades and are suffering with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and kidney diseases known to be caused or worsened by fluoride? 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
758
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
743
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

743 Views
Message 627 of 1,425

"Carrie Anne" says, "Water workers are not my pharmacist. Political bodies are not my doctor.  . . .  Each individual has the right to make his or her own medical choices."

 

Folks, we are talking about optimally fluoridated water here.  There is not one Federal Agency that calls optimally fluoridated water a "drug," or a "medicine."  The only people who call optimally fluoridated water a "drug," are people like you who are trying to generate paranoia.  

 

Here's a label from a bottle of FDA regulated optimally fluoridated water.  https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2  It's FDA regulated because it's considered a "Food."  You won't see the word drug, or medicine anywhere  on it.  

 

Again, not one federal agency considers this product a drug.  If I am wrong, please show me which Federal Agency calls water with 0.7 ppm F a drug.  Your comments are a complete denial of reality.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
743
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
792
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

792 Views
Message 628 of 1,425

 

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
792
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
800
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

800 Views
Message 629 of 1,425

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
800
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
807
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

807 Views
Message 630 of 1,425

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
807
Views