Medicare open enrollment ends Dec. 7! Get the information you need from AARP’s Medicare resource center.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
619
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

619 Views
Message 311 of 1,448

Richard says, "And when pray tell did I make such a claim about 3 samples? "

 

Um, right here:  "Mullenix examined in detail three different samples of fluosilicic acid."  ‎02-20-2019 02:26 PM

 

Get some sleep, Richard.  This is too easy.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
619
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
610
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

610 Views
Message 312 of 1,448

Richard, 

 

"No national requirement can be made for any substance to add into public drinking water other than to sanitize the water."

 

I know it is difficult for you, but this is not a prohibition.  All it says is that a Federal mandate cannot be enforced locally or upon states.  Anyone who can read can see that.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
610
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
618
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

618 Views
Message 313 of 1,448

Are you serious? You've never read the SDWA statement? Why are we even in this conversation then?

 

No national requirement can be made for any substance to add into public drinking water other than to sanitize the water. 

 

The TSCA states the same thing only without the exception for sanitizing chemicals such as chlorine.

 

Where have you been?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
618
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
624
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

624 Views
Message 314 of 1,448

And when pray tell did I make such a claim about 3 samples? And 3 is better than none.

The radioactive materials added have toxicity that is more related to how long the exposure is during the life of an individual whose bones can irreversibly trap and hold it.So no one has the right to intentionally add the garbage into peoples' drinking water in the first place..

There are no known MCLs for combinations of all these congtaminants ingestwed at the same timwe. The alloed leverl for arsenic is 15 ppb and for lead is 15 ppb, but these are from studies on the toxic effects (mainly cancer) produced separately when the other is absent. Both arsenic and lead bind protein sulfhydryls and the presence of both together at 15 ppb each has not been evaluated. No studies, don't add anything that contains them both.

And the samples from China I suspect are far more contaminated since China does not fluoridate their own people. They sell their garbage piles to the U.S. water distrricts who willingly do that.it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
624
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
628
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

628 Views
Message 315 of 1,448

the point is that fluoridation is not the operation that somehow magically only decreases teeth caries while having no effect whatsoever on people or plumbing parts or anyting else, like fluoridationists claim. One water district official argued that the quality of rhe watrer is totally intact and unaffected by fluoride. I merely said if that is the case then why bother to add it?  He quit his job within a week.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
628
Views
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
628
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

628 Views
Message 316 of 1,448
Spoiler
 

KenP.

 

So the words “rare” and “common” are based on your interpretation and not actually in the report? They are only as you say “described” and you should not put them in quotes, these words are your interpretation based on your assumption of the authors’ mistakes.

 

Why did you quote them as if they were in the report that clearly labeled compounds of fluoride as if to disprove that fluoride is involved in the lead corrosion process.

 

There are 10,000 data points of lead results from lead service lines (LSL) taken as part of this project from the same site in triplicate, from known LSL, repeatable sampling controlled by computer and analyzed at the same lab on site with identical techniques. Careful analysis of this excellent data shows temperature and pH have the greatest impact on lead levels. Addition of HFSA lowers the pH as seen in Sandy, Flint, in DC. (HFSA has acidity comparable to battery acid) To counter lower pH caused by industrial fluoridation chemicals, tons of caustic are added all over the country to neutralize the high acidity of HFSA to prevent increased lead leaching from LSL. After this study I linked,  DC started adding more caustic to control lead release as I recommended in my Inspector General Report on this study. The expense of this caustic should be included in the total cost of CWF.

 

Fluoride levels in the lead pipes were secretly varied during this experiment but since temperature and pH were the greatest contibuting variables, fluoridation’s contribution could be only be seen in sections of the data when F was varied and temperature and pH were having limited effect. Even if EPA doesn’t want to admit it, this project demonstrates HFSA increases lead leaching from LSL. It would be very easy to control variables and test this hypothesis directly but since EPA/CDC does not want this information, they will not set up experimentation to easily and conclusively document this.

 

I posted:

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?

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
628
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
574
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

574 Views
Message 317 of 1,448

Richard,  

 

Three Whole Samples?  I'm sure that must be representative of the millions of tons produced worldwide.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
574
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
572
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

572 Views
Message 318 of 1,448

Mullenix examined in detail three different samples of fluosilicic acid.

The study is published at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090869/

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
572
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
568
Views

Re: Cancer and fluoride

568 Views
Message 319 of 1,448

Have those here even read the CA OEHHA report on fluoride and cancer below?

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwj1pO-x-8rgAhVIj54KHV7sC1k...

 

A key finidng is that fluoride transforms (converts normal cells to cancer cells) mammalian tissue cultures. The NRC 2006 Report tried to dismiss these data by claiming it has no relevance to humans. The CA review stated that the effrect has been confirmed repeatedly and that there is no evidence to justify the claim that it is irrelevant to humans..

Knowing how difficult it is to control humans in cages, and that it is not possible to study the possible carcinogenic potential of fluoide over lifelong time periods, to determine whether fluoride is carcinogenic or not, the serious effect proven in cultured mamalian cells is far too troubling to be laughed off. .

The Yiamouyiannis data was considered in the report and also in the CDC ATSDR full report 2003. No one can disprove it though many have tried, where fluoride inhibitis the immune system in fighting cancer and increases cancer morlality when it is present.

Get the crap out of our water..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
568
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
570
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

570 Views
Message 320 of 1,448

I can not see the relevance of Mullenix's fluorosilicic acid paper anyway. It had nothing new in it - analyses of this compound are made and reported all the time as part of the required certification of purity. Her paper just seemed to be pointless except for getting something under the belt - and providing something for the religious anti-fluoride brigade which likes to have a limited selection of ideologically approved papers to use.

I have looked at many such analyses for New Zealand and Australia. Comparing our data with hers I would say the fluorosilicic acid used in New Zealand and Australia has a lower heavy metal content - the purity is probably a result of separation if the volatile heavy metal fluorides during manufacture of superphosphate.

The real critical thing is what the heavy metal concentrations mean when diluted into the final drinking water and how does this result compare with the heavy metal contaminants already present in the pure source water.

My calculations indicate, for New Zealand, the fluoridating chemical contributes less than 1% of the heaving metal contaminants in drinking water - the over 99% comes from the source water.


https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/chemophobic-scaremongering-much-ado-about-absolutely-...

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
570
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season