Content starts here
CLOSE ×

Search

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

โ€œThe evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelmingโ€ฆ fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.โ€ - 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 arenโ€™t. 

 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that โ€œoptimally fluoridatedโ€ 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 โ€œoptimal levelโ€ 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. (โ€œOptimal levelsโ€ worsen kidney function๐Ÿ˜ž 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.๐Ÿ˜ž 
    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 changes๐Ÿ˜ž 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 โ€œoptimallyโ€ 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: โ€œIt 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.โ€ - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veteransโ€™ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. Except: โ€œAs 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.โ€ 
  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! 

355,753 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

โ€œThe only reason we were able to get Kumarโ€™s emails is because heโ€™s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.โ€ - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kidsโ€™ IQs, Emails Revealโ€ by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

19,929 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

โ€œYour brain doesnโ€™t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesnโ€™t need fluoride. Your bones donโ€™t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.โ€ - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 โ€œThe controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nationโ€™s drinking water.โ€ - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

View solution in original post

18,673 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldnโ€™t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

10,350 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemierโ€™s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

 

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

 

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

 

Really? 

 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

 

 

View solution in original post

6,228 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

CarryAnne - you say:

"I have read all the studies I've referenced and have both the training and intelligence to understand them."

Great. Then you should be capable of discussing the science related to the Bashash et al (2018) study you cited and made claims about. Yet you refused to. Why is that? Surely you can understand that it is logical for me to assume that whichever of the claims you make and citations you use that I respond to the response will be the same.

In other words, you refuse to discuss the science. You wish only to make your own claims and will not enter into a discussion of them.

Might I suggest that your refusal to interact with a discussion partner and use of long lists of claim and citations which you refuse to discuss is actually a "Propaganda technique?"

As for "ad hominem attacks" - isn't that what you did with me when I entered the discussion here - attempting to suggest I was hiding my identity, had no right to participate in the discussion and had been involved in research on "pesticides" and "development of high fluoride fertilisers." The last claim was an outright porkie and you later apologised for it.

You clearly are not interested in an uncensored good-faith scientific exchange - yet you continue even now to make claims and link to citations. Claims and citations we know from experience you will refuse to discuss.

Under your own definition aren't you just employing a "propaganda technique" - on a forum which is meant for discussion, not propaganda?

5,588 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Thank you Sirpac for your comments.

Yes the fight is endless. Just mentioning the  F word brings on massive ridicule and a  collapse on ones professional standing from many. Its amazing how judgmental people can be when they think they know something and you don't.

But i can't stand allowing my students or anyone for that  matter to be lied to.

So onward.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,303 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Whoever made the stock claim advertisement that fluorotic, thin enamel teeth are resistant to decay, ive already addressed that. Kumar routinely claims the means in his observations are significantly different when the error bars overlap. That is slop. There is no credible evidence that thinning one's enamel helps fight caries. Again you can't cage humans to control their candy rating and brushing habits.

Sorry

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,167 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Fluoride leaching lead has a history in other cities as well as Sandy, Utah

7BBD01AD-7279-4420-AC07-8C8872C2C937.png

 

D6349C24-6281-4EBB-BA6F-9EB0158A39B7.png

 

4,732 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Skanen, I took the liberty of looking into the Tacoma water quality history.  

 

This is from a pamphlet they distributed to the public:  

 

"We conducted a Corrosion Control Optimization Study  and found we needed to add a chemical, like sodium hydroxide, which raises the pH of our water from its natural 7.0 to a less corrosive 7.5, to help control lead and copper corrosion. We built a corrosion control plant to accomplish this and operations began in the spring of 1997." 

"Another round of water samples were taken and tested in October 1997. Test results showed we reduced the levels of lead and copper in our water to half of previous levels."  https://www.mytpu.org/tacomawater/water-quality/corrosion-control-lead.htm

 

So they are saying lead and copper levels went down after the initial rounds of sampling in 1992.  And they implimented a corrosion control program.  

 

This is the Tacoma 2014 Water Quality Report.  https://www.mytpu.org/file_viewer.aspx?id=57666

 

If you look under the heading "Regulated at the Treatment Plant" you will see that Tacoma still fluoridates its water.  Analysis showed fluoride from 0.71 ppm to 2.03 ppm.  (Those numbers are a little deceptive.  Sampling for this report is is taken  once annually, directly after additives are injected into the line, before mixing and dilution have taken place.  So unless a sampler back-flushes water for an extended period of time, you are unlikely to see numbers that are reflective of what is going on in the distribution system.)

 

Anyway, I also see, under the heading "Regulated at the Consumer's Tap" that lead samples easily complied with the EPA's Action Level.  

 

In 2014 they are still sampling from the same sites.  They are still fluoridating their water.  The underlined implication that the author of your letter was making was dismissed.  And they are not in exceedance of the AL.   They are practicing corrosion control, which they would normally be doing now anyway because this is a population of greater than 50,000.

 

It's interesting that you found this letter, but I would question the motives of someone who would go to the trouble of digging up something as irrelevant as this, which possibly only relfected the non-experienced opinion of a water operator.  

 

After all, in 1992, these were the first two rounds of lead and copper sampling the city carried out.  By coincidence they stopped fluoridating between rounds.  The lead levels naturally decreased a little bit, and the author of your letter was suggesting that one event (lack of fluoridation) led to the second (lower lead levels).  He had never seen 2 consecutive lead & copper before and that was his natural conclusion.

 

 

5,175 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

skanen, that is interesting.   Not so much the newspaper article (A reporter may have gotten information from someone with an axe to grind.)  But more so the letter. 

 

The Tacoma letter references daily pH analysis at the water plant.  Since you were able to obtain this letter, could you also please provide that data (pH) pre and post fluoridation.   Any alkalinity pre and post fluoridation (which can be found on the city's required annual Partial Chemistry analysis) would also be interesting to see.  

 

The EPA's National Primary Drinking Water regulations for lead and copper testing in the United States were initiated in May of 1991.  Start dates for monitoring were January, 1992 for systems larger than 50,000; July, 1992 for systems serving 3300 - 50,000; and July, 1993 for systems serving a population smaller than 3300.  This letter, dated 1992, is describing data from the second round of sampling.  Large systems were required to monitor during 2 consecutive 6 month periods.  So this tells me we are looking at information from a large system.

 

This is the part that may be relavent here.  From the beginning of this program until January, 2019, priority was given to "Tier 1 Sites."  These were single family homes which had lead and copper plumbing that were installed after 1982.  Why 1982?  Because after ten years, copper plumbing with lead solder will develop a patina, a coating that, depending on the chemistry of the water, will protect it from leaching and corrosion.  And sampling began in 1992.

 

The idea was to take samples from the worst possible case scenarios so the highest examples of water contamination could be found.  New plumbing puts more lead into drinking water than old plumbing.  And, as an example of moronic rules, the 1982 rule stayed in effect for the past 30 years, until this year.  So, in effect, distribution systems were able to sample from post 1982 plumbing which would not have given an accurate picture of any water contamination from new plumbing. 

 

Anyway, the point here is that lead levels will naturally go down over time.  Also, I find it odd that corrosion control wouldn't have been implimented, if it already wasn't.  It looks like they had some pretty high levels.  The SDWA stipulates that distribution systems serving more than 50,000 shall use corrosion control methods.  (Perhaps this a recent amendment.)

 

So, this system was monitoring exactly the same sample pool for the first two rounds.  Lead levels would have naturally gone down a little bit.  Can you also provide data from more recent sampling rounds?   Can you provide a recent water quality report?  And can you tell me if the city currently fluoridates its water?  

 

The author of the letter also says, "This latest testing gives us some limited insight as to the amount of chemical adjustment that may be necessary."

 

If they are talking about fluoride, I would love to see those records.  This also implies they were planning to resume fluoridation.  If they are talking about corrosion control, that would make more sense . . although he is saying it in the context of fluoridation.   It's a little vague.  And the fact that he underlines the part about fluoridation tells me he is trying to make a point.  

 

Interesting.  

 

 

5,188 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

It's hard to believe the same people who claim others are deceptive are themsleevs most devious. Fluoridationists refuse to accept that fluoridationof people could do anything bad and it must be predefined as only good for you, so they even discount the effects of fluoride that accumulates in bone in all consumers.

After 20 years of consuming 1 ppm F water the bone concentration might reach about 2,000 mg/kg. This is even higher than the fluoride concentration in fluoridated toothpaste. And in a place where it does not belong, a contaminant that weakens bone (CDC, ATSDR, 2003).  Unbelievably, with a straight face fluoridationists argue that this has no clinical significance. But levels this high can in some peple cause bone pain suffiicent to cause bone replacement surgery. Others do not have that type of pain (due to diffeences in bone innervation or other factors?) but all have an abnormally formed microcrystal structure where fluoride exchanges for hydroxide. There is no biochemical hormone that is deisgned to resorb fluoridated bone. PTH is designed to resorb normal bone to release calcium in times of calcium dietary deficiency which is necessary to support physiologic functions, thee most critical of which is mediating excittation and contraction in the beating heart. Every time the heart contracts it is because extracellular calcium rushes into the cell after electrical excitation to activate contractile fibrils, and when it is pumped back out the heart relaxes. Lub- dub occurs because of calcium in and calcium out.  Fluoridation of bone compromises the ability of a person to sustain the beating heart in times of calcium deficiency. This is a clinically signficant problem and fluoridatioisnts will never admit or even believe it or ever bother to study it because fluoride is predefined as being good for you.

Here we have fliuen suj;lins who cloaim that flien has beenon the rise and Cancer mortality as been argued here to be unbaffected by fluoride ingestion. because fluoridation has been on the rise at the time cancer has been in decline. Hogwash. Fluoridaiton is not increasing. Many cities across the country in the last many years have halted fluoridation. Further, the HHS requested in 2011 that fluoride levels be reduced from 1 to 0.7 ppm in water because of the endemic of dental enamel hypoplasia fluorosis due to fluoride poisonoing in U.S. teens. So fluoridation has not be "increasing" during the time canccer has been in decline which has been happenbiunbg sinece tge nud 1960'. Fluoride ingestion in fact has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to minmize the decline.

Do fluoridaitonists believe this? Of course not. That is not possible because all such discoveries are discounted for any possible reason they think they have found because fluoride is pre-defined as being good for you.

Get the picture now?.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,787 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The exact SDWA quote is written in the article I published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490 in 2013 on page 9.

If you refuse to read the Act then just go there to see the legal, Congressionally approved statement..

 

But is this the same guy who also claimed I said that all the salmon in the Sacramento River were killed by fluoride discharges?

And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?

If it is the same guy then hopefully all will see that discussion is pointless and he just wants to twist what is said to make it ludicrous so he can have the luxury of attacking and then saying I am the one who needs some sleep. 

Incredible, no?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,775 Views
16
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, here we go again.

 

The exact provision to which you are referring is this:  โ€œNo National primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking waterโ€   Correct?  

 

You had said, " "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"  

 

Now look at the provision.  "โ€œNo National primary drinking water regulation . . "  That is a reference to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act itself. 

 

" . . may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking waterโ€   This means that the SDWA may not mandate (require), may not insist upon, may not enforce or demand that (in this case we are talking about) fluoride be added to drinking water. 

 

It doesn't say water fluoridation is prohibited.  It just says it may not be mandated by a Federal authority toward a local or state level.  That's about as clear as it gets.

 

Your inability to admit when you are wrong amazes even me.  I am using the English language.  Are you using something different?  

 

Your quote:  "But is this the same guy who also claimed I said that all the salmon in the Sacramento River were killed by fluoride discharges?"

 

Response:  That's right.  And when you pointed out my mistatement I apologized and corrected myself.  The fact that you would exploit a mistatement that was admitted, apologized, and corrected by me says a lot about your character.  

 

But you did say CWF was responsible for the collapse of the Salmon industry in the Sacramento River, with absolutely no evidence to support it.  You don't know fluoride levels in the river pre or post effluent discharge.  You've never taken temperature measurements of the river.  You don't know what the daily discharge of effluent is, and you don't know the flow of the river itself.  

 

Would you care to contradict any of that?  Moreover, there are no environmentalists who have reached that conclusion or agree with you.  You came up with the idea yourself with no evidence to support it.

 

And finally, your quote:  "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"

 

Let's review.  You had said, "Phyllis Mullenix and others have analyzed samples of fluosilicic acid . . "  โ€Ž02-20-2019 11:12 AM

 

Knowing the answer to the question, I asked you, "Dr. Richard, could you tell me how many samples of fluosilicic acid Phyllis Mullenix tested?  I am curious how comprehensive her analysis was."  02-20-2019 01:31 PM

 

Your resonse was, "Mullenix examined in detail three different samples of fluosilicic acid."

 

Yeah, I knew that.  That's why I asked it.  So I said, "Three Whole Samples?  I'm sure that must be representative of the millions of tons produced worldwide."  โ€Ž02-20-2019 02:58 PM

 

And from that exchange, you came up with, "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"

 

I never implied that.  In fact I implied just the opposite.  The little Mullenix study, with only 3 samples tested, should in no way be considered comprehensive or representative of the product used in CWF.  But you go around citing it as if it were the Bible.  (The way you read things, from that you'll probably accuse me of misquoting the Bible.)

 

Maybe I should ask you for an apology . . Nah, nevermind.  The ability to apologize or admit when you are wrong is way beyond you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4,700 Views
15
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

wow.

1. What I said in plain English is what the statute means. Apologize? for what?  The CDC requests fluoridation of the country and their staff has intimidated many States into absolute mandating fluoridation as a police power.

2. The Sacramento River discharge tube is municipal water during a drought having the same 1 ppm fluoride that was added in the first place. It doesn't disappear and it is the entire citie's water supply and in fact increases somewhat in concentration because of evaporation. So what? And again to emphasize, a salmon collapse is not dead salmon, it is a gross diminishing of egg laying and spawning so that the following years the expected population is decimated. It still is going on in the Sacramento tributary where the discharge tube is, while other tributaries are gaining some ground (likely becaue the salmon that would have returned to the affected tributary do not recognize the fluoridated water and must adjust to spawn in adjoining areas).

3.The comment about 3 samples being representative of all is of course stupid and that is why I never made such a claim. I was asked how many she used and I answered. So what? Many preparations of fluosilciic acid hazardous waste are far more contraminated than those she tested, especially the materials shipped here from China, as I stated. If you are confused, I really have a hard time caring, because by your own admission  you asked the question when you already knew the answer (3). So you try to trap people who oppose fluoridation so that you can denounce them? Again, you sarcastically made it clear that of course 3 samples are not representative of all (as though I had thought this?) and you want me to apologize?  For what , the truth? In your dreams.

No wonder Dr. Osmunsen blocked your correspondence.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,745 Views
14
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

By the way, Dr. Richard, you write, "No wonder Dr. Osmunsen blocked your correspondence."

 

Response:  Hmmm . . this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  In fact, I don't recall ever corresponding with him.  You may be recalling - and misremembering - a comment by KenP in which he said he was blocked by Dr. Bill on social media.  

 

 

4,757 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard: 

 

1.)  " What I said in plain English is what the statute means."

 

Response:  No it doesn't.  You said, "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"  

 

The provision reads:  "โ€œNo National primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking waterโ€ 

 

"Prohibits" is not the same thing as "No . . regulation may require."  Prohibits means you can't do it.  No regulation may require means the Federal government can't make you do it.  Anyone who can comprehend the written word knows this.    

 

Am I done humiliating you with this, or do you want to continue?  

 

2.)  This is priceless:  "The Sacramento River discharge tube is municipal water during a drought having the same 1 ppm fluoride that was added in the first place. It doesn't disappear and it is the entire citie's (sic.) water supply and in fact increases somewhat in concentration because of evaporation."

 

Response:  First of all, no actual fluoride levels were measured in the river pre or post discharge.  Is that correct?  

 

In the second place, did it ever occur to you that sanitary sewer systems are not waterproof?  That's right.  There is such a thing as water infiltration which will dilute sewage.  Manhole covers are not water proof.  Simply looking at flow rates during rainy days and comparing them to flow rates during dry times will confirm this.

 

Did you do that?  No, of course not.  Can you tell me how much effluent is discharged into the Sacramento River?   No, you can't.  Can you tell me what the flow and temperatures of the river is pre and post discharge.  No, you can't.  

 

Your quote:  "It doesn't disappear and it is the entire citie's (sic.) water supply and in fact increases somewhat in concentration because of evaporation."

 

Response:  Evaporation?  In a closed sewer system?  Ok.  How much?  Were any "evaporation" measurements taken anywhere?  No, they were not.  You just made it up to justify your story.

 

You are a one-of-a-kind scientist who believes no evidence is required to make up a theory and spout off about it as though it were fact.  

 

Am I going to continue to humiliate you about this or are we done? 

 

3.)  Your quote:  "3.The comment about 3 samples being representative of all is of course stupid and that is why I never made such a claim."  

 

Response:  I never said you did.  Please show me where I said you made this claim.  Nevertheless, you said, "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"    That was a lie.  You can apologize to me about that.

 

"Straw Man --  an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."  

 

Your quote:  ". So you try to trap people who oppose fluoridation so that you can denounce them?"

 

Response:  I'm not trying to "trap" anyone.  You're making up theories about salmon that nobody else believes in, with absolutely no evidence.  You're misreading a simple provision in the SDWA and spewing out your misrepresentation of it as though it were truth.  And you're putting words in my mouth so that you can try to look like some kind of victim here.  I don't need to try to trap you.  Your own words are doing that for you.

4,731 Views
12
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

1. That no national requirement may be made means that it is prohibited to make the requirement. The CDC is prohibited from making the requirement for a national fluoridation program. .Period. And States can be no less restrictive but yet are highly influenced by the CDC to make it a mandate requirement. We have gone over this before. And remember that the intent of the SDWA was to prevent the spread of water fluoridation that began in 1945 (Graham and Morin).

2. The fluoride content of the River before fluoridation is well known and published by water engineers. (typically about 0.2 ppm). I have no interest in spending my life up North to study the problem. I already know that 0.3 ppm fluoride diminishes salmon spawning and that the tributary with the fluoridated water discharge pipe is where the collapse continues.  I never said this is a fact. Facts are absolute and incontrovertible. I have never proven this. Again where do you get this stuff you make up to trap someone?

.3.  I don't know who made the intimation on this site that I implied that 3 samples would represent many. Search the threads and find him if you want.. It's irrelevant who.  But that was the context of the question I answered.when I was asked (by whoever) how many were tested. .I told the truth-3.  So what?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,139 Views
11
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, give it up.

 

"That no national requirement may be made means that it is prohibited to make the requirement. The CDC is prohibited from making the requirement for a national fluoridation program. Period."

 

Response:  And the CDC doesn't require that anybody fluoridates its water.  Period.

 

"And States can be no less restrictive but yet are highly influenced by the CDC to make it a mandate requirement. "

 

Response:  First of all, before you veer off into a gish gallop swamp, water fluoridation is not prohibited by the SDWA.  Period.  Can we move on? 

 

As to the rest of your comment, you, yourself, are trying to highly influence the population.  So what.  I respect your 1st Amendment right, even though I don't agree with what you are saying.  The CDC provides factual data.  Period.  If you don't agree with reality, that's on you.  If Ebola breaks out in this country, you want the CDC there.  

 

What exactly is your problem?  You don't like it that data that the CDC puts out steps on the toes of your agenda?  Find a new country to live in where the CDC doesn't exist.  Contrary to what you say, no laws are being broken.  Period.  

 

"And remember that the intent of the SDWA was to prevent the spread of water fluoridation that began in 1945 (Graham and Morin)."

 

Response:  No it wasn't.  Yes, we've gone over this before.  Graham and Morin wrote a book with a footnote.  Who were they?  I don't remember.  I think one was a lawyer and one was a dentist.  Is that correct?  But the footnote didn't even say that.  It was another misunderstood passage by you.  Show us the footnote and remind us all of the quote.  

 

Regarding the salmon, your quote:  " I never said this is a fact. Facts are absolute and incontrovertible. I have never proven this. Again where do you get this stuff you make up to trap someone?"

 

Response:  Wow!

 

Your quote:  " I don't know who made the intimation on this site that I implied that 3 samples would represent many. Search the threads and find him if you want.. It's irrelevant who."

 

Response:  I already did.  You will see each comment in the exchange marked with a Timestamp.  And the answer is - You.  You said it right here:   "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"  โ€Ž02-20-2019 07:20 PM

 

"It's irrlelvant who??"  If it's irrelevant who, why did you make such a big deal about it.  

 

Richard, get some rest and we'll do this again tomorrow.

5,128 Views
10
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I have no clue what your point is about the 3 samples. If you don't care and I don't care, then what is your complaint and your rationale for continuing to call me a liar? I answered the question --3 - and that was that. What of it?

You interpretation of the Graham and Morin quote is incorrect. There were no proviksions in the original SDWA that allowed for fluoridation, but it was written to allow for sanitizing chemicals.

Basically the TSCA prohibited adding any poisonous substances into water, and the SDWA made allowances for sanitizing chemicals. and that's about it. 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-- yes, absolute requiring it. The States are to be no less restrictive, and yet CA mandates--absolutely requires-- ciities fluoridate. This violates the law..If you interpret the wording to support fluoridation then you are not understanbding the total intent of the SDWA. 

The current paragraph in the Act now were not part of the original SDWA.

 

Arguing that it is just fine to dump industrial, useless, harmful fluoride into water where salmon normally spawn is nuts and you are not someone I want to disucss anything with. I do so out of necessity, not because I want to.

Recall when the miners in CA started using cyanides to refine gold in the Nothern CA rivers and fish were being killed off. My conclusion was that the cyanide was kiiling the fish but I cannot prove that beyond any doubt with experimentation or direct measurement so that i could prove it is an absolute fact. But so what?

The theory that it was what killed the fish is a solid one. And now it is banned from being used in CA and good riddance.  But adding fluoride into the river where salmon spawn, knowing full well salmon are sensitive to fluoride above 0.3 ppm, does not need to be investigated to absolute proof beyond any doubt, just like with cyanide. It is immoral to continue adding toxic waste into the river where salmopn normally spawn.

Get some sleep yourself. I don't follow your orders. I'm still at work on my lunch break.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,980 Views
9
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

4,801 Views
8
Report
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.
4,761 Views
7
Report
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.

4,753 Views
6
Report
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.
4,882 Views
3
Report
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. 
 

4,881 Views
0
Report
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.  

4,874 Views
1
Report
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

4,831 Views
0
Report
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.
4,909 Views
0
Report
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.
4,758 Views
0
Report
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.
4,387 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Spoiler
 

KenP.

 

So the words โ€œrareโ€ and โ€œcommonโ€ are based on your interpretation and not actually in the report? They are only as you say โ€œdescribedโ€ and you should not put them in quotes, these words are your interpretation based on your assumption of the authorsโ€™ 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, fluoridationโ€™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 doesnโ€™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, โ€œ 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?

4,316 Views
3
Report
Conversationalist

skanen144 - Did you miss my recent reply?

The words โ€œrareโ€ and โ€œcommonโ€ 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.

6,104 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Did you get my reply to this - I cannot find it and have trouble getting around this site.
0 Kudos
4,372 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
4,323 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, โ€œ 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?

4,088 Views
1
Report
cancel
Showing results forย 
Showย ย onlyย  | Search instead forย 
Did you mean:ย 
Users
Need to Know

NEW: AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays! This week, achieve a top score in Atari Asteroidsยฎ and you could win $100! Learn More.

AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays

More From AARP