Reply
Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

 

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

63,081 Views
1473
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Well, Richard, I see your comments have evolved from: 

 

"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"  

 

to

 

" No Federal agency can force anyone to accept fluoride in their water and yet the CDC  endorses this and works together with the EPA to arrange for cities to do so and even urges and allows some States to mandate it"

 

Well, that's progress I guess.  By the way, States have their own Safe Drinking Water Acts.  As long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA they can be as strict as they want, and they can do whatever they want.  Saying the EPA "allows" some states to mandate it is like saying NASA "allows" people to drive 55 mph.  The EPA is irrelevant to what states do with their own SDWAs as long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA.  

 

If you have a problem with what your state does, take it up with your state.  The Federal Government and the EPA have nothing to do with it.  

 

Enough for today, Richard

Bronze Conversationalist

What hogwash.  Yes the EPA in writing denies they have authority to regulate fluoridation because that is correct--they don't. But in reality the EPA is fully involved. The EPA produces videos and handbooks on how to fluoridate to water districts. They oversee and instruct districts when they first set up the fluoridaitonsystems. All this is done to ensure cities will not accidentally exced the MCL. But when LA finished fluoridiating for the first time when public outrcy was troublesome, the water district head stated on public TV news that the EPA is in charge of the system setup and has assured us that it is safe.

Don't tell me the EPA has nothing to do with fluoridation. The EPA also published their analyses of fluosilicic acid to prove the point that HF is minimal in the product water leaving the fluoridation system. But the EPA reported only HF levels down to pH 5, not to the pH of the acidic stomach at 2 where all fluoride is protonated to HF. This leaves the district with the impresion that you are not consuming HF, backed up by EPA data, when you actually are. 

EPA is the best organization we have for keeping our environment normal but everyone makes mistakes, same with the CDC. And a key mistake now is the bone fluoridation program the CDC endorses and even requests and in CA CDC officials demanded, and the EPA that assists its enaction. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, once again you've proven that you can't comprehend the written word . . and you are arguing defensively for no reason.

 

"What hogwash. Yes the EPA in writing denies they have authority to regulate fluoridation because that is correct--they don't. But in reality the EPA is fully involved."

 

Response:  Yes, I know the EPA is involved with water fluoridation.  It oversees the program on the Federal level.  I said the EPA has nothing to do with your state mandating CWF.

 

Read this again, read it slowly, and take time to digest it.  You've just wasted everybody's time by arguing against something I never said.  

 

My quote:  "By the way, States have their own Safe Drinking Water Acts.  As long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA they can be as strict as they want, and they can do whatever they want.  Saying the EPA "allows" some states to mandate it is like saying NASA "allows" people to drive 55 mph.  The EPA is irrelevant to what states do with their own SDWAs as long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA."

 

Again - The EPA is not involved with your state mandating CWF.  That is what I said.  I can't discuss something with someone who is overly defensive and who can't read.

Bronze Conversationalist

I know full well how to read. 

And I'm not the only one who states that the EPA should regulate fluoride infusions into public water supplies. The FDA ruled on the fluoridation ban petition that 1) fluoride has never been approved for ingestion by the FDA and 2) as a toxic substance at any concentration the EPA needs to regulate its addition into public water supplies under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

(But the EPA refuses with the excuse that the FDA needs to regulate it because it is added for purported therapeutic purpose). 

Neither the FDA nor the EPA want to take responsibility for the scam or to challenge the CDC.

So if you think I can't read, perhaps you should also correct the FDA.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Trusted Contributor

Thank you Dr. Sauerheber, Dr. Osmunson, CarryAnne, and others for holding down the fort against the fluoridation demons. Despite the noise these demons generate, claiming 'legal and scientific justification for fluoridation', I find the statements of DavidF, RandyJ and KenP on this thread without any rational basis in law, ethics, or science. It appears they are here just to squash the voice of reason, morality, ethics, and science to create confusion and cacophony in the minds of average readers, who might not know that fluoridation does not have any valid empirical basis and it is completely unethical and immoral at best!

Any fluoride (i.e. fluorine compound), and especially the artificial fluorine compounds added to the water supply, are designated as water contaminants by the EPA, based on empirical evidence of harm. In addition to multiple other harms, as noted in the previous responses, fluoride(s) are enzyme poisons in any amount. Regardless of common practice, or contorted interpretations of legal language, the political endorsement of fluoridation as 'beneficial' is scientifically and ethically corrupt. 

Empirical evidence and government reports substantiate that fluoridation is harmful to many consumers, including members of my family in ways that are validated by multiple recent empirical studies that I have personally read. My family is financially able to take measures to avoid this municipal polluted water, however many are not as fortunate. Consequently, the intentional addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies in order to 'treat people' is an act of intentional poisoning, with malice aforethough, because it is a knowing practice of dumping industrial waste into the public water supplies to dilute pollution, using people as filters. 

I can only hope that these demons of fluoridation, who have overwhelmed this AARP forum to confuse the readers with rhetoric will be unmasked. In the meantime, I support any efforts by the AARP, or anyone else with basic moral understanding and ethics, to end the intentional poisoning of the people in America. 
 

Regular Contributor

The EPA sets Maximum Contaminant Levels.  The states are individually in charge of their own water systems, including fluoridation.  Some states mandate fluoridation as a standard for water systems, generally with a threshold population.   The CDC has opinions re public health policy but sets none with repsect to fluoridation.   That's just the way it is.  

Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck, we agree.

 

EPA sets MCL, MCLG.  States in charge of their water systems.  CDC has opinions.  

 

So all government agencies push jurisdiction onto others.  

 

States say they simply follow CDC and EPA.  

 

EPA does not regulate the addition of the fluoride fluoride, just the contaminant levels. . . "fluoridation is not their jurisdiction."

 

CDC recommends but does not evaluate dosage or risk of the fluoride contaminant.

 

NO Government agency takes responsibility for evaluating dosage, exposure, benefit along with risk of the fluoride contaminant.  

 

Maybe you could give a clear crisp explaination with good quality science, prospective randomized controlled trials on why water purveyors contaminate the pubic water?

 

And second question, what dosage of fluoride reduces dental caries without risk?   I'm not asking for concentrations, I'm asking for research on dosage (total exposure) of both benefit and risk.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

To claim that the EPA is irrelevant in a State's decision to fluoridate, sometimes by mandate, is deceptive. It was Rebecca Hamner, chief of the EPA in the 1980's, who first wrote the memo that a great way to get rid of the hazardous waste fluosilicic acid disposal problem was to relabel the material as a water additive for water districts who want to purchase it to add to water.After that cities and States began using this acid waste instead of sodium fluoride because it was assumed to be approved and endorsed by the EPA..

Every 30 tons of industrial fluosilicic acid plus caustic soda added into a city's water supply yields 10 tons of sodium ion, 10 tons of o-silicic acid, and 10 tons of fluoride, none of which belong in pristine fresh clean drinking water. The EPA is fully responsible for this.   

The EPA is deep into the fluoridation fiasco and should now save face and injunction fluoridation as I have asked them but they don't want to upset the CDC.

So on goes the madness of this bone fluoridation program perpetrated on innocent people., all while the EPA now hides and says they can't require it so it is totally the city's decision whether to do so or not, as though the EPA has had nothing to do with anything regarding a State's decision to mandate fluoridation..Must be nice to be the big cheese so that when you.mess up you just declare your own innocence and irrelevance. 

And you bet I'm angry. This nonsense has been going on since 1945 in some places and since 2007 in L.A. in spite of please to the FDA and EPA to overrule the CDC's endorsement of a program they cannot require.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

You have your opinion and i have mine. Its,a free country..

The SDWA states that States can be no less restrictive so i disagree with your interpretation. If a state mandates what the Act prohibits mandating, then the State is, not abiding by the Act. 

And when the Federal EPA allows States to apply a mandate for fluoridating people then they are not abiding by the Act and are complicit. Your comment about NASA is laughable.  The EPA, again, is involved in fluoridstion. NASA does not regulate driving speeds.

And if you dont want to discuss it with me then dont.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

As usual, it is sheer insanity to talk with a fluoridationist about fluoridation.

Again, of course i never said, nor would anyine, that 3 samples are reprentative of all samples used in fluoridation .that someone complained about. I merely said that phyllis tested 3 samples.

Maybe you should get some sleep

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

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?

Conversationalist

skanen144 - Did you miss my recent reply?

The words “rare” and “common” are not based on my interpretation - they are actually in the report? On page 28, Table 2.8.


 

You will need to look the table up yourself - the pdf will not allow me to copy it.

I also wrote about the real world nature of such compoiuns=ds where pure end member analogues would be very unlikely and how this makes analytical analysis important for identity - the XRD only determines the crystalline form.

Conversationalist

Did you get my reply to this - I cannot find it and have trouble getting around this site.
0 Kudos
1,401 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

KenP, are you referring to this?

 

"02-20-2019 01:49 PM

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."

 

and

 

"02-20-2019 02:05 PM

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."

0 Kudos
1,352 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

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?

Conversationalist

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.

0 Kudos
1,157 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Please. God most certainly did Create the universe.

And claiming this is false and lumping it in with being opposed to the bone fluoridation program endorsed by the CDC is pretty bizarre.

No I wish I did not have to speak with you.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

So now that we see who this person is, notice that the references he provides on fluoride appear to be most all self published opinion papers without peer review and not published in an actual scientific journal. Putting actual publications that have been peer reviewed on researchgate is OK.to enhance visibillty as long as permission is granted from the publisher. However those that have not been published are commonly opinion pieces .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

Richard, do you use Researchgate?

I, like many scientists, find it very useful as a storage place for my publications. I can't find pdfs of all of them but have managed to put papers from as far back as the 60s and 70s. I find people actually do download them and read them and it really saves me responding to reprint requests.

I am aware copyright could be a problem - but have only ever had one of paper removed for this reason (Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits) because of a journal's actions. I suspect journals worry far less about older papers.

I guess most of what I have put on Researchagte is peer-reviewed - but it is also handy to place pre-publication articles or even just ideas. The journal which published Bashash et al (2017) no longer allows critiques so I put my critique on Researchgate (Predictive accuracy of a model for child IQ based on maternal prenatal urinary fluoride concentratio...). Similarly my critique of Hirzy and Connett's work *(Does drinking water fluoride influence IQ? A critique of Hirzy et al. (2016) and CRITIQUE OF A RISK ANALYSIS AIMED AT ESTABLISHING A SAFE DAILY DOSE OF FLUORIDE FOR CHILDREN).- the Journal Fluoride was not going to publish my critique and turned somersaults to avoid that.

Yes, I realise some people like Geoff Pain use the ability to just put anything on Researchgate as attempting to present their material as "published." As I always say - "reader beware."

Finally, I have a lot of experience as a peer reviewer and of being peer-reviewed and have no illusions about the process. Peer review is never a guarantee of quality and it is up to the reader to make their own assessment of a paper by reading it and considering the data and discussions.

0 Kudos
933 Views
8
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

So my point has been made. I don't refer to critiques as publications. They are comments and opinions about publications.  And of course peer review is not necessarily enough to weed out junk, but it is the best we have at attempting to do so.


Anyone who calls himself a scientist and yet endorses the infusion of industrial fluoride into other people to purposely alter their bodily chemistry and then to tell them that it's for their own good is not anyone I would ever work with. Sorry.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

Richard, you say " I don't refer to critiques as publications.."
That is weird. Publications are documents that are published. When it comes to scientific journals this usually involves peer review.

Anyway, when it comes to discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a published study it is inevitable that critiques will serve a purpose. Of course, it is up to the reader to approach the critiques in the same way they approach the original paper, intelligently and critically.

I have a thing about this - peer review is not limited to the publication process - it occurs pre-publication and post-publication. That is why it annoys me when a  journal does not accept critiques. That interferes with the whole peer review process.

0 Kudos
963 Views
6
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

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.)

Bronze Conversationalist

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.
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Bronze Conversationalist

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

0 Kudos
1,209 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

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-...

Conversationalist

I apologize if I misintrepetted the content in the link you provided that said your experience is in "soil fertility, fertilizers and chemistry" to include pesticides, but it is hard to determine how I wouldn't assume you work with fertilizers since that's what you listed in your profile. 

 

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.

Sharing some science with some discussion is helpful for that purpose, but the AARP forum is not a scientific conference and domination by a few is not in keeping with the 'community' intent of this platform. 

 

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 6.31.09 PM.png

 

Bronze Conversationalist

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?

0 Kudos
1,132 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

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