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

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
413
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

413 Views
Message 371 of 1,425

Fluoride from saliva on fluoridated cities bathes teeth 24 jours a day, sll without any use. Fluoride from foods and beverages are also not near 500  ppm and ate not present on teeth 24 hours a day like saliva.

 Water fluoride is 0.7 ppm and also resides on teeth during swallowing and soon replaced with saliva.. So what? I try to eat foods devoid of fluoride to protect bone accumulation of fluoride which far more difficult in a forced fluoridated region. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
413
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
429
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

429 Views
Message 372 of 1,425

Virtually the entire state of Nebraska voted against fluoridation and that had nothing to do with me either. The cities of Portland, Wichita, Albuquerque, Prince George Canada, and on and on have done the same. Some people have rational brains and trake care of their fresh water supplies.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
429
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
402
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

402 Views
Message 373 of 1,425

Richard, you are being purposely obtuse. The study I referred to was with a model apatite system, not teeth but designed to answer the question of whether the very thin surface layer with high fluoride content could provide the correction required. They used the 500 ppm solution to create the surface layer in their model - but this surface layer in existing teeth has been recognised before.

You continue to refer back to the 0.016 ppm F in saliva from INGESTED F - freshly excreted saliva without any interaction with food and beverage. You purposely attempt to confuse the issue because you know very well I have been discussing saliva with fluoride, calcium and phosphate levels which are far higher because of exposure to beverage and food during eating. Also to F released from CaF2 reserves in the oral cavity.

Please stop attempting this confusion - which seems quite common from people trying to deny the science. Paul Connett got to the stage of arguing that when one drank water there was no way it made contact with saliva in the mouth!!

Yes, the level of salivary chemical species like fluoride, calcium and phosphate does decline quite rapidly - that is why research shows that drinking fluoridated water has a protective effect above and beyond the use of fluoridated toothpaste once or twice a day

I just hope you can reduce these deliberate attempts at diversion and confusion as they make good faith scientific exchange impossible.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
402
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
402
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

402 Views
Message 374 of 1,425

I am not "poor".  I am merely aware of the data from the text Fluoride the Aging Factor by biochemist John Yiamouyiannis. I do not dispute the data like fluoridationists do. It is valid and was used in several court cases to demonstrate that cities before fluoridation had diminishing cancer mortality at a much faster rate than after fluoridation began.. 

What else do you want me to say?  Denounce the data?

No thanks.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
402
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
394
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

394 Views
Message 375 of 1,425

Richard, your quote:  "All this to justify increased cancer mortality,"

 

Response:  While water fluoridation is increasing in this country,  https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/FSGrowth.htm

cancer mortality is declining.  https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2019.html

 

No doubt you will try to defend your comment, even in the face of reality.  Poor Richard.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
394
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
289
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

289 Views
Message 376 of 1,425

CarryAnne you express concern about people who "who deny science and denigrate opponents in an attempt to bully professionals, politicians & politics into compliance" And then you post a long list of claims related to scientific studies which would be interesting to discuss and discuss in a respectful way.

 

I am prepared to offer you full right of reply in an ongoing exchange of scientific opinion on all the claims you make here (they are far too extensive to discuss rationally in this forum). This could be done by alternating articles on my blog Open Parachute.

 

Paul Connett and I carried out such a good faith scientific exchange 5 years ago and covered these sort of claims in detail. it was well received by readers and is available as a pdf to download - Connett & Perrott (2014) The Fluoride Debate - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298124881_The_fluoride_debate

Would you agree to a similar exchange with me? I think this would overcome charges of science denial, denigration and bullying. And the formal scientific nature of the exchange will encourage it to be respectful.


Please let me know here if you are willing to participate in such a scientific exchange - and if so, some way of contacting you to make the arrangements.


Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
289
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
396
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

396 Views
Message 377 of 1,425

CarryAnne you express concern about people who "who deny science and denigrate opponents in an attempt to bully professionals, politicians & politics into compliance" And then you post a long list of claims related to scientific studies which would be interesting to discuss and discuss in a respectful way.

 

I am prepared to offer you full right of reply in an ongoing exchange of scientific opinion on all the claims you make here (they are far too extensive to discuss rationally in this forum). This could be done by alternating articles on my blog Open Parachute.

 

Paul Connett and I carried out such a good faith scientific exchange 5 years ago and covered these sort of claims in detail. it was well received by readers and is available as a pdf to download - Connett & Perrott (2014) The Fluoride Debate - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298124881_The_fluoride_debate

Would you agree to a similar exchange with me? I think this would overcome charges of science denial, denigration and bullying. And the formal scientific nature of the exchange will encourage it to be respectful.


Please let me know here if you are willing to participate in such a scientific exchange - and if so, some way of contacting you to make the arrangements.


Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
396
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
393
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

393 Views
Message 378 of 1,425

Really, Richard?  San Diego voted twice to end CWF?  I wonder if they were dishonestly influenced by people like you.  

 

You, for example, who have said in an email to me, " in 1988 EPA published in the Federal Register            that it terminated the  agreement  it  made  in  1979  (1979  MOU)  with  FDA  to  regulate water  additives.   This  was  effective  in terminating the1979 MOU (53 FR 25586-89 to be forwarded later)."   

 

That is your quote.  You were trying to say that nobody is in charge of Community Water Fluoridation in the United States.  

 

As evidence, you presented this document:  http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/53-FR-25586.pdf     

 

I invite any readers of this thread to fully read this document.  It is about the EPA outsourcing some of its responsibilities to NSF and the private sector, which was formalized in 1988.   It has nothing to do with ending a Memorandum of Understanding between the FDA and the EPA about the authority over water fluoridation in the U.S.

 

Since you have the unwaivering habit of never admitting you are wrong about anything, I'm sure you will stand behind your ludicrous statement.  

 

So, did you, personally, have anything to do with the San Diego vote?  If so, they were misled.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
393
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
391
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

391 Views
Message 379 of 1,425

Excuse me but we need more of Carry Anne, not less.

The city of San Diego voted in two separate elections -- yes, twice-- not to add fluoridation chemicals into our pbulic water supplies. Eating fluoride should be a choice, not a police-forced mandate. And yet all SanDiego is forced to make payments for water in their kitchen sinks that is fluoridated, regardless of whether you want it or not.

Yes I see the irony.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
391
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
426
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

426 Views
Message 380 of 1,425

Your article suggests that fluoride is a peripheral contaminant on the surface of teeth when it is applied at 500 ppm. This has nothing to do with water fluoridation at 0.7 ppm that produces 0.016 ppm fluoride in saliva bathing teeth topically.

Further, one would need to brush teeth with 500 ppm fluoride every 20 minutes to actually retain this effect. It would be more efficient to paint teeth with white paint.Atleast theprote4citon from acid erosion would last for a while.

All this to justify increased cancer mortality, increased thyroid impairment, lowered IQ, and permanent bone accumulation forming bone of altered crystal structure and poor quality.

Count me out. .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
426
Views