Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[KenP315323]

Sorry skanen144, I missed this comment before. I have now answered your question about the location of the comment about rarity.

I am not speculating about what the authors intended - just drawing conclusions from the information they provided. The XRD pattern identifies the crystalline species present but not the composition. It especially would not identify the relative amounts of OH, Cl and F in the structure (although a fine structure analysis might go part way). The Chloro form is most common but one would expect a reasonable amount of OH in the real-life pyromorphite - and some F if any is present in solution.

But it would be completely unreasonable to attribute the XRD peak to just one pure end member analogue, and even more unreasonable to attribute it to a pure end member F analogue.

You are welcome to "stand by" your statement - no skin off my nose. I am just saying it is not warranted by the evidence. And I really have no interest in chasing up the authors - where would I have time to live if I followed up every vague statement in reports.

I am not sure what the whole point if this pointing to pyromorphite scales after phosphate treatment is, anyway.

[DavidF928895]

Richard, I'm just going to come out and say this.  Either you are being purposely untruthful, or you lack the ability to comprehend the written word.

You write:   "Here in America we have the safe drinkng water act that prohibits 1) requiring the addition of anything - harmless or not - into water other than to sanitize the water" 

Let's do this again, because proving you wrong is just too easy.  WHERE IN THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT DOES IT SAY THAT?

(P.S.  Maybe if you say it enough, it might become true.)

[KenP315323]

skanen144 inTable 2.8, page 28.

In the real world, of course, the pyromorphite will be a chlorohydroxy analogue, with some F if there is any available for incorporation, rather than a pure end member.

That is why the chemical analyses are so important. XRD won't provide that information.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill, your quote:  

"David,

We have probably been far to scientific and intellectual.  

You have built your faith and trust like a religious fanatic."

Response:  Bill, I completely agree that belief should not be based on faith alone.  Evidence is required. 

You said, "Can you guess what chemical they used to CAUSE the cancer to test their drug?

You guessed it.  SODIUM FLUORIDE."  ‎02-19-2019 11:57 AM

So, rather than just taking your word for it, like a religious fanatic would, please provide some evidence to support your comment.  I think KenP has asked you 3 or 4 times for a reference.  Is there some reason you can't answer his simple question - that you support your own statement with evidence?

And it is interesting that you compare people who just believe things without evidence to religious fanatics because right after you made your comment, with no supporting evidence, Sirpac said,

"Wow! Thank you for this insight, Dr. Osmunson!
Sodium fluoride, and probably other fluorides as well, are the chosen means to cause artificial cancer in test animals."   02-19-2019 01:05 PM

Are you saying Sirpac is like a religious fanatic?

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Richard, could you tell me how many samples of fluosilicic acid Phyllis Mullenix tested?  I am curious how comprehensive her analysis was.

[skanen144]

Ken P.,

Still referring to pages C-104 to C-111 of https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf

Your comment, “ I also note that the report describes fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common."

end your comment

Where in the report is this statement?

[BillO538145]

David,

We have probably been far to scientific and intellectual.  

You have built your faith and trust like a religious fanatic.  

What dosage of fluoride is optimal for reducing dental caries?

What dosage of fluoride are people ingesting?

Very simple questions for the foundation of fluoride supplementation.

Hierarchical evidence is a house of cards.  Answer those two questions and the house of cards falls over.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[rs5526]

Phyllis Mullenix and others have analyzed samples of fluosilicic acid for toxic metal content and for radioactive nuclides, etc.  and their presence is significant. Here in America we have the safe drinkng water act that prohibits 1) requiring the addition of anything - harmless or not - into water other than to sanitize the water and 2) adding anything into water that is an EPA listed contaminant above its Maximum contaminant level MCL  So the fluosilicic acid additions are illegal. 1) They are endorsed and requested by the CDC.

Fluoridationists argue this legal because the final diluted level for arsenic and lead would be below the MCL of 15 ppb each from the preparations after dilution. But the problem is that some cities already have arsenic and lead contaminant issues near the EPA MCL. Fluoridation then puts that over the top and would be illegal even for those critics, but they ignore it anyway, In Carlsbad the EPA limit for lead was exceedced after fluoridation mostly because of the silicic acid that leaches lead from oxidized lead plumbing fixtures. The city said: too bad, it's not our fault because the lead leaving the water district is below the MCL. So it's your fault.

So fluoridationists have never had any intention of actually following our safe water laws.

The Toxic Substance Control Act forbids intentionally adding ANY toxic material into water supplies at ANY concentration (other than the exceptions made in the SDWA for agents that sanitize the water). This prohibits anyone from concluding the SDWA allows them to 'fill er up" with arsenic and lead as long as the final level is below the EPA MCL.

But fluoridationists don't care about following water laws or their intent. In fact, late additions were inserted into the SDWA to allow exceptions for fluoridation that were never part of the original statutes approved by Congress. Fluoridationists will not follow any law if it means they would need to give up fluoridation. They have their agenda and erroenous belief system, and that is that.

[DavidF928895]

aka "Carrie Anne" writes:  "I agree this AARP forum is not the place for a scientific debate. This is the place for American seniors to discuss their health issues & concerns in a 'safe environment in easy to understand language' and to engage with AARP as to the policy and advocacy these American seniors would like to see AARP pursue with our U.S. government." 

(Timestamp ‎02-19-2019 06:42 PM)

Response:  aka "Carrie Anne," please point out to me in the rules of this forum where that particular guideline is written.  

You're not making stuff up again are you?

[DavidF928895]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is pure fiction:

"In reading the articles, I came on one where a pharmaceutical company was testing their cancer TREATMENT drug on live animals.   The drug showed promise in curing the cancer.

"Of interest to me was how they caused cancer in their test animals.   After all, finding a hundred cancer animals of the same age and cancer would be rather difficult with many many hundreds of thousands of animals or millions to find the cancers to test.  Imagine raising all those animals and simply testing each animal for cancer, the stage and kind of cancer.   An unimaginably massive and cost prohibitive task.

"So the pharmaceutical companies CAUSE cancer in the animals.   That's right.  They cause the cancer so they can test the new cancer drug.  Not so human, but at least they get the cancer animals to test in a predictible timely manner.

"Can you guess what chemical they used to CAUSE the cancer to test their drug?

"You guessed it.  SODIUM FLUORIDE."

If anybody wants to prove me wrong, now's the time.