Refresh your driving skills and you could save on your auto insurance! Sign up for the AARP Smart Driver course.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1189
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

1,189 Views
Message 191 of 1,355

Randy,

 

Focus on the facts, the science, rather than shooting arrows in other people's backs such as Carry Anne.

 

She brings some very good evidence which has not been refuted.  

 

Focus on facts.  Present your scientific research, prospective randomized controlled trials rather than consensus of those without jurisdiction.

 

For example, Dr. Chuck and I agree the EPA regulates the fluoride contaminant in water.  Do you agree?

 

We agree the CDC promotes increasing the fluoride concentration in public water but does not evaluate the risks.

 

We agree local water purveyors decide whether to fluoridation or not.  

 

Do you know of any water district that has reviewed both sides of the scientific literature by unbiased competent scientists and chosen to add more contaminant to their water?  What scientific evidence do they provide for dosage, efficacy and safety for all individuals?

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1189
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1143
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,143 Views
Message 192 of 1,355

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

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1143
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1181
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,181 Views
Message 193 of 1,355

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1181
Views
Highlighted
Silver Conversationalist
5
Kudos
1204
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,204 Views
Message 194 of 1,355

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. 
 

Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
1204
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1188
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,188 Views
Message 195 of 1,355

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.  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1188
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1157
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,157 Views
Message 196 of 1,355

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1157
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1136
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,136 Views
Message 197 of 1,355

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1136
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
968
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

968 Views
Message 198 of 1,355

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
968
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
976
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

976 Views
Message 199 of 1,355

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
976
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
970
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

970 Views
Message 200 of 1,355

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
970
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark