AARP and the photographers of Magnum Photos look at older people living in new ways around the world in A New Age.

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
770
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

770 Views
Message 431 of 1,370
It's called a democratic society, Rich. Democracy.........Not like the party affiliation
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
770
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
769
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

769 Views
Message 432 of 1,370
I note you cite some obscure person in New Zealand. On the other side are just over 140 prestigious organizations and societies going on record that fluoridation prevents cavities, is important and is safe. America's Pediatricians have a convenient reference where many of these statements can be read: http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
769
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
767
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

767 Views
Message 433 of 1,370

And to think that there are people who actually believe that fluoridation is a democratic procedure is absolutely moronic.  The city of San Diego voted twice, --two separate elections over a multi-year period -- against fluoridation and later also passed city ordinance section 67 that prohibts the addition of fluoridation chemicals into our water supplies. And yet when money was placed in front of the city council, all that was ignored and fluoridation was forced on the city anyway in 2011.

Democratic voting most often is opposed to fluoridation as long as a fair campiagn is conducted that includes actual data.  And yet this bone fluoridation program is actually mandated in many states including CA where there was no State wide public vote at all.

Democratic? You've got to be joking.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
767
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
766
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

766 Views
Message 434 of 1,370

Absolute horse puckey. Most of the fluoride in the bloodstream of consumers in fluoridated communities is from fluoridated water consumption. The rest is from foods and toothpastes, etc. (NRC 2006).  Dental fluorosis increases in incidence in every fluoridated city. There are no exceptions. This is old  news.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
766
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
796
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

796 Views
Message 435 of 1,370

Hi Bill,

 

Historic data is what you are referring to.  But humor me for a moment.

 

To say that conclusions are cherry picking is quite humorous.  The 2006 NRC looked back at 10 years of literature on fluorides when they evaluated the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG).

 

The Committee considered three toxicity end points for which there were sufficient relevant data for assessing the adequacy of the MCLG (4 mg/L) for fluoride to protect public health:

1. severe enamel fluorosis

2. skeletal fluorosis

3. bone fractures.

(NRC Report, page 346)

 

Conclusions:

1. ONLY adverse health effects at 4mg/L of fluoride in water was severe enamel fluorosis.  No other organs, neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, carcinogenicity, endocrine.....nothing!  This is a level 6 times higher than water fluoridation, 0.7ppm

 

2.  At 2mg/L, severe dental fluorosis was virtually zero.

 

US Community Preventive Services Task Force: (2013)

Community water fluoridation does not cause severe dental fluorosis.

 

It baffles me that you still can't wrap your head around the fact that severe dental fluorosis isn't caused by community water fluoridation.  But that's ok.  I've backed up my material with references that opponents use frequently to cherry pick from, the 2006 NRC Review.

 

Thanks for the exchange, Bill.  Have to go defend another community under attack from the opponents of community water fluoridation.

 

Johnny

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
796
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
792
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

792 Views
Message 436 of 1,370

Thanks carryanne. Indeed , the safe drinking water act was written specifically to halt the  spread of artificial fluoridation of peoples' drinking water. Fluoride promoters not only deny this, they misinterpret the law the way they want. And the CDC dentists who assume it is useful and somehow harmless promote it, knowing it cannot be legally required.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
792
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
765
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

765 Views
Message 437 of 1,370

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson (1787)

 

This is about individual human rights and medical science, not a simplistic majority rule interpretation of democracy. Individual biological integrity is a fundamental principle of law. Yet, fluoridationists politicized community fluoridation policy in an effort to confuse and deceive the public. My neighbor should not have the right to add a known enzyme poison to municipal drinking water - the water I drink and in which I bathe because they believe it might  'prevent cavities' in some poor kid who doesn't brush his teeth when that substance threatens my thyroid, compromises my kidney and inflames my gut.

 

That there are very profitable business plans behind fluoridation practice and fluoridation promotion which fund the political campaigns to fluoridate is immaterial to ethics and evidence of harm. 

 

”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

 

”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

 

 ”The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”  - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 3 (2005)

 

Since first enacted in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has stated that “[n]o national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” -  Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523)

 

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
765
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
755
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

755 Views
Message 438 of 1,370

In the cited link notice on page 5 that states "these data are preliminary". Of course they are preliminary because humans cannot be controlled, as animals can in cages, for variables such as sugar consumption, brushing habits, etc. In short the data have no reliable meaning, as has always been the case with fluoridation-promoting literature.

It is immoral to approve infusing a non-nutrient substance into water to treat humans, especially as for fluoridation, without double blind controlled studies AFTER conducting well-controlled animal studies. The fluoridation of Grand Rapids MI and Newburgh NY took place in 1945 without EITHER of these pre-conditions. It later became a government sponsored program and the case has been closed since then. But now we have controlled animal studies that prove fluoridated water does not reduce the incidence of spontaneous dental decay. For ingestible substances, the purpose of human studies is to confirm a positive outcome from animal studies. But we don't have a positive outcome from animal studies--they are negative, so the idea that human studies need to be done to prove that the decision to fluoridate in 1945 was correct is simply preposterous.

In fact, we have the Ziegelbecker epidemiologic data indicating that decay is not affected significantly even up to 6 ppm fluoride in water.

Meranwhile, there is no blood fluoride concentration low enough to prevent incorporation into bone in a pathologic process that, if continued lifelong and one lives long eough, leads to bone pain and other adverse consequences.

Don't fluoridate peoples' bones. The cited reference admits that "more studies are needed" on the accumulation of fluoride from fluoridated water into bone. What the authors don't appear to realize is that we have massive amounts of scientific data already on this problem and it is not good. Bone fluorosis symptoms are known to develop in some individuals at bone fluorde levels as low as 1,500-1,700 mg/kg. And this level, comparable to the concentration of fluoride in toothpaste but in bone where it does not belong, is reached typically after about 20 years consuming fluoridated water.

Get rid of it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
755
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
769
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

769 Views
Message 439 of 1,370

Dr. Johnny,

 

Your data is historic.  The 2011-2012 NHANES reports about 2% of adolescents with SEVERE dental fluorosis, at the time 2% would be several hundred thousand adolescents and with time that will grow to millions of people in the USA.

 

When fluoridation started the public was assured the mildest form of fluorosis would not exceed 10% or maybe 15% of the population.  We are looking at 60% and don't have the more recent numbers from NHANES surveys.  

 

And severe dental fluorosis is an adverse risk, NRC 2006.

 

Johnny, read the NRC 2006, especially the section by Thiessen on exposure, not just cherry picking the conclusions.

 

Based just on the public health iatrogenic epidemic of dental fluorosis, we need to reduce fluoride exposure.

 

Then look at urine fluoride concentrations, much too high.  The same in the USA/Canada as reported with lower IQ.  

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride from too many sources.   Total exposure must be considered, not just one source.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Proud advocate for less toxic fluoride in our water.  

Attacking the fake facts, not individuals. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
769
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
785
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

785 Views
Message 440 of 1,370

Hi CA,

Stick to the topic. Systematic Reviews conducted by Credibly Recognized Scientific Panels. 

 

Per 2006 NRC Panel: “At 4mg/L of fluoride in water, no health issues whatsoever except severe dental fluorosis. At 2mg/L severe dental fluorosis was virtually zero”. That included ALL HEALTH ISSUES. 

 

Per U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force:  

”Although bone fractures and skeletal fluorosis have been associated with lifetime exposure to higher naturally-occurring fluoride concentrations (e.g. 4 mg/L), no association has been observed at levels used for CWF. The broader literature speculates about harms associated with higher levels of fluoride in water (e.g., cancer, lowered intelligence, endocrine dysfunction). Research evidence, however, does not demonstrate that CWF results in any unwanted health effects other than dental fluorosis. While harms have been proposed, most have no biological plausibility or insufficient evidence to draw conclusions”

https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Oral-Health-Caries-Community-Water-Fluo...

 

Please read the conclusions of these documents. Don’t cherry pick tidbits from the entire reports. The 2006 NRC Committee all signed off on the conclusions above, including Dr. Hardy Limeback. 

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

 

Proud President of the American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit organization of healthcare professionals who do not accept a penny for our work. We are funded by a grant to travel to communities to defend, protect, and initiate water fluoridation based on the overwhelming body of 70+ years of evidence and Systematic Reviews which continue to demonstrate water fluoridation is effective and safe. That company is Delta Dental Foundation of California. 

 

We will NEVER let you and your group invoke fear and scare tactics to mislead the public into thinking water fluoridation is harmful in any way. It is a public heath initiative that benefits the entire public. All public policies exist for the the entire community and cannot be tailored to the whims of a few people who do not want it. We live in a democratic society, not one in chaos. The greater good is what this country is built on. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
785
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark