From travel insurance to fraud protection, AARP has you covered. Take a closer look at your member benefits.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
754
Views

Fluoridation picks pockets & breaks bones

754 Views
Message 411 of 1,355

“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” - Thomas  Jefferson

 

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” - Thomas  Jefferson

 

Multiple judges have ruled that fluoridation is injurious, that the evidence proves it harms many consumers and contributes to cancer but is legal under the law which gives jurisdiction to the legislature with administrative police powers. Judges have advised that under current law, it is up to the legisilature to deal with fluoridation. Consequently, fluoridation has become a political game, and we all know the power of money and marketing in politics.  

 

It's not just ethics and evidence that are lost in the politicization of fluoridation, it's the very concept of our Republican Democracy that was designed to protect constitutional and individual human rights of all the people. Civil Rights and Suffergette were manifestations of that principle, hard fought as they were. However, the banning of public smoking in order to protect the health of the most vulnerable among us from harm caused by the pollution of a shared resource by 2nd hand smoke is the most accurate analogy.

 

Per the 2nd Jeffersonian quote above, fluoridation causes billions of dollars in increased health expenses for millions of us in addition to actually breaking the bones of many of us with arthritis & osteoporosis or other bone disease caused or aggravated by chronic fluoride exposure.  Government has a a clear duty to end fluoridation as fluoridation literally breaks bones and picks pockets. 

 

Fluoridationists can't win with medical, scientific, or ethical arguments - so they prefer politics which is riddled with lies. As a last resort, they claim the courts have found fluoridation safe - another one of the fluoridationists' deceits. 

 

  • This is why it is important that organizations such as the Children's Health Defense Team with its emphasis on environmental risks and government failure to do its duty make a public statement like they did on January 9, 2019.
  • This is why it is important for AARP to demonstrate similar professional integrity by issuing a resolution against fluoridation policy per call to action in Open Letter signed by 8 professional organizations published on GreenMed on October 26, 2018.

 

See quotes below from a few of the judges who heard fluoridation cases: 

 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful: ”That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies… may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." - Judge Anthony Farris, District Court, Houston, TX (May 24, 1982)

 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful: ”My decision regarding the fluoridation of the public water  supply, made during my tenure as a trial judge almost twenty years ago, was on appeal, purely a jurisdictional issue...That the practice is deleterious is more and more accepted -- its utility doubted." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

 

Trial Judge who found CWF unconstitutional: “By [fluoridating the water] the municipal authorities... arrogate to themselves the sole right to decide what medicine is good for the health of the water consumers, and thereby the municipal water system becomes a direct conduit for the transportation of medicine from the apothecary's pestle to the patient, without the latter's consent. Thus will the people be deprived of a very important part of their constitutional liberty under our republican form of government and the police state will be substituted for the police power of the state." - Justice Donworth, dissenting opinion  in KAUL vs. CITY OF CHEHALIS before Supreme Court of Washington (1954) 

 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful:  "Over the course of five months (in 1978), the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful: “Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.” - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988)

 

 It may be legal and it may be political, but there is nothing ethical, scientific or democratic about adding this poison to municipal water.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
754
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
774
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

774 Views
Message 412 of 1,355
If you believe the law is on your side bring a suit. The law is exactly what the judges say it is and so far the judges have ruled that adjusting fluoride ion concentration to be that associated with optimal oral health is a proper exercise of powers which Cities and Water Districts enjoy.

I invite you to bring a case if you believe otherwise.

Chuck
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
774
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
772
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

772 Views
Message 413 of 1,355

Dr. Chuck,

 

Science is factual, data, not endorsements.

 

You keep looking for endorsements and who is on which "team."   

 

Look at the facts, the data, rather than the people.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
772
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
764
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

764 Views
Message 414 of 1,355

Dr. Johnny,

 

You are puzzled that I can't wrap my head around the safety of fluoridation.  

 

And I'm puzzled that you can't wrap your head around excess fluoride exposure.

 

If water fluoridation were the only source of fluoride exposure, I would not be so concerned.  

 

8 years ago NHANES reported 20% of adolescents had moderate/severe.  Two other National surveys have been done and dental fluorosis recorded, but not released.  All other data from these newer surveys have been released but not fluorosis.  I don't know why fluorosis data is being withheld, do you?  

 

Hundreds of thousands, millions are showing signs of excess fluoride exposure.  Where do you recommend a decrease in fluoride expsure?  

 

Toothpaste?  Topical has some benefit and is FDA approved.

Fluoride antibiotics?  Save lives

Fluoride pesticides? Reduces waste

Fluoride post-harvest fumigants?  Preservative

Fluoride from mechanically deboned meat?  Reduces processing cost. . . .

Fluoride in manufacturing?  I'm not sure that would be a significant reduction in exposure.

Fluoride in water?  Serves no other purpose than alleged caries reduction.  

 

HHS/PHS reduced fluoridation concentration because too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  

 

Yes, too much fluoride and many are still ingesting too much fluoride based on fluorosis and urine, serum, and bone fluoride concentrations. 

 

What source of fluoride do you recommend we reduce to reduce excess exposure?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
764
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
747
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

747 Views
Message 415 of 1,355

That is correct. So what is your point?

San Diego held democratic elections and they are ignored by fluoridationists.

And the 7 pages of mostly dental officials praising fluoride ingestion are plagued with false statements and none of the sections are referenced.

The Mayo Clnic writer is wrong because fluorine as an element, F2,  does not exist in nature. Fluoride compounds do, but that does not include NaF or H2SiF6.

The opening claim is that fluoride remineralizes teeth. This is a common false notion. Normal teeth enamel contains no fluoride and is a hard crystalline form of hydroxyapatite. And also fluoride does not incorporate into enamel topically or systemically because enamel is too hard. One can force fluoride in by applying HF hydrofluoric acid, acidulated fluoride gels for example, which dissolves enamel and forms an abnormal structure and is not something to be desired. Bone hydroxyapatite of course is a different crystal form and readily incorporates fluoride in exchange for hydroxide when fluoridated water is consumed.

And the late Linus Pauling stopped promoting fluoridation and advocated vitamin D, which increases calcium absorption, for preventing tooth decay. Calcium builds strong teeth, not fluoride. (I was fortunate to have a chemustry class at UCSD from Pauling). So this 7 page list of undocumented claims is far out of date.

Other errors are so numerous that who would want to read all the corrections?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
747
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
765
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

765 Views
Message 416 of 1,355
It's called a democratic society, Rich. Democracy.........Not like the party affiliation
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
765
Views
Highlighted
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
764
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

764 Views
Message 417 of 1,355
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
764
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
761
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

761 Views
Message 418 of 1,355

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
761
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
760
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

760 Views
Message 419 of 1,355

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
760
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
794
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

794 Views
Message 420 of 1,355

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
794
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