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! 

63,076 Views
1473
Report
Conversationalist

Yes, Richard, sometimes the majority does not prevail. That is wrong, but it happens. It happened in my city when the council ignored a referendum and several opinion polls they had commissioned to follow the non-scientific claims of an ideologically motivated group - with help from the Connett crowd.

But, sometimes democracy has to be fought for. That is what happened in our community and the people, in the end, won.

But local body politics is pathetic. Driven by all sorts of egos, commercial interests, and political infighting.

I think we have discussed the issue of the fluoride concentration of saliva. You ignore completely that this is determined by things like the F content of food and beverages or water - directly. As well as by regular toothbrushing.

You are relying on a figure for freshly excreted saliva and ignoring completely the direct effects of food, beverage, and toothpaste.

As for dental fluorosis of concern. Research shows this to be due to ingested fluoride, mainly from toothpaste and not from fluoridated water.

Trusted Contributor

Ken – Thank you for all of your recent comments highlighting the tactics of anti-science activists and requesting they stop their Gish galloping and actually discuss the “evidence” they claim to have instead of copy-pasting snippets of anti-science propaganda. I appreciate your continuing exposure of the way

I agree, in principle, with your statement, “my attitude to democratic processes … is simply a matter of democracy for resolution of differences based on values or ethical issues.” I don’t see any good alternative to a democracy, where citizens at least have some oversight over those who govern them – only extremely bad options like anarchy, monarchy, a totalitarian dictatorship, etc. where citizens have no control or oversight. However, the democratic process has significant limitations when the citizens (&/or the government officials they have elected) make their ethical or value based decisions and cast their votes on important issues based on complex scientific evidence they do not understand.

The democratic process is compromised even further when it is hijacked by anti-science activists who claim to have legitimate evidence supporting their anti-consensus beliefs.   However, they do not use this alleged “evidence” and work within the scientific community to change the consensus – they go directly to the public and try to hijack the democratic process by using a variety of disingenuous tactics to scare well-meaning citizens into accepting their beliefs and voting for their agendas.

As you have patiently pointed out in your comments, if the anti-science activists would agree to actually discuss the strengths and weakness of all the available evidence fairly and in context, members of the public would have a fair chance at understanding some of the science underlying their decisions and actually making informed decisions. Of course if they actually understood the scientific evidence, the majority of citizens would reach the same conclusions as the overwhelming majority of scientists and health professionals in the world who do understand the science and continue to accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing dental decay and protecting health.

Anti-science activists have yet to come up with a rational explanation for why virtually all major science and health organizations in the world continue to publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation (CWF) and no such organizations accept the anti-science alternatives as legitimate. The detailed explanations I have seen from CarryAnne and Bill Osmunson (referenced below) are nothing more than personal opinions designed to spread distrust of mainstream science and health organizations. However, they clearly highlight the disdain for the science and health communities exhibited by anti-science activists.

Neither CarryAnne nor Bill Osmunson has answered my questions asking each of them whether their descriptions of the EPA, ADA, CDC and AAP apply only to those specific organizations referenced or whether they would also accuse members of the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the Australian Department of Health, The New Zealand Ministry of Health, Health Canada, and all the other 100+ organizations that support CWF of “willful blindness”, of being “morally corrupt” and “ignorant”, of acting to knowingly and willingly “ protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions”, that they “don't think for themselves or review the research” and “They do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists”. These are libelous accusations, but they have not provided a logical, rational reason why there is nearly universal support of CWF in the science and health communities and no such support for the anti-science beliefs.

Bottom Line: Anti-science activists do not play by the rules of impartial, fair-minded scientific discourse – they can’t. They have taken advantage of the fact that “a lie can travel halfway around the world – particularly when powered by fabricated fear – while the truth is still putting on its shoes”

 

The comments below highlight how anti-science activists attempt to discredit mainstream scientific and health organizations so their opinions might be seen to have some legitimacy. The links might not lead to the exact page, but they should land close to the time/date noted.

 

Example of CarryAnne’s assessment of the ADA and EPA:

(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt

and ”vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions

and ”Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group

(08-19-2018 01:05 PM)  “I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [big bucks earned from treating dental fluorosis]. Most are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks

(07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates

(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.
You provided a link to a 2016 “petition” to the American Thyroid Association prepared by anti-F activist, KSpencer, that exposes the anti-F tactics. The petition “suggests” the ATA “Publish a position statement opposing the practice of community water fluoridation…” and provides a not-so-subtile suggestion of potential consequences of ignoring the petition, “In closing, given the fluoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontarioand other anticipated American lawsuits yet to be filed, we suggest that the ATA leadership and directors should be prepared to demonstrate their scientific integrity and professional ethics. We suggest the ATA speak for themselves…

 

Example of Bill Osmunson’s assessment of the CDC, ADA and AAP

(08-19-2018 02:18 AM) “The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.

(08-19-2018 07:15 PM) “CDC, ADA and proponents of fluoridation think fluoride is a magic element unaffected by other chemicals, everyone benefits and everyone needs more and no one is at risk. That kind of simplistic thinking might be good for first grade, but not science.

(07-09-2018 09:09 PM) the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.

and “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation. None reviewed the science.

and “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations [CDC, ADA, AAP] has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the publicThey are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists. 

and “They were silent because they never looked at the science.”,

and “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“,

and "Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion."

 

Of course, the same arguments could be made, with far better credibility, to explain the endorsements and support of the anti-F opinions by the few alternative health organizations that regularly support various anti-science agendas.

 

In addition to vilifying the scientific and health communities, as noted, another common tactic of anti-science activists is to extract out-of-context content from studies in an effort to manufacture “evidence” they believe will support their inflexible, extremely biased interpretation of issues. The tactic: Extracting out of context content from published papers, which may appear to support their position, when the actual when the actual study design or conclusions don’t. anti-science activists not only cherry pick the studies they believe support their opinions (whether the study has anything to do with optimally fluoridated water or not), they cherry pick and present specific sentences out-of-context or cite studies completely irrelevant to in ongoing efforts to frighten the public.

 

CarryAnne provides a perfect example of this tactic as discussed by Ken’s references to her non-stop quoting of content without any attempt at context or discussing obvious issues. For example, she posted a quote from the US Public Health Service on 09-13-2018 03:44 PM & 08-27-2018 07:12 PM .

 

This provides an excellent example to expose and highlight the disingenuous, fear-mongering tactic regularly employed by anti-science activists to peddle their propaganda. It also helps explain how anti-science activists can come up with what appear to be long lists of references that appear to support their anti-science opinions – yet those opinions are dismissed by the majority of relevant scientists.

 

In this example, her quote included everything in the paragraph from the US Public Health Service review EXCEPT the last two sentences, which she conveniently scrubbed out – and which actually support the scientific consensus that fluoridation does not cause adverse health effects. Here is the actual quote in context.

Some existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems. [the sentences left out] For most of these populations, there are very limited data to support or refute increased susceptibility to fluoride. Additionally, there are no data to suggest that exposure to typical fluoride drinking water levels would result in adverse effects in these potentially susceptible populations.” (Page 162-163)

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf

 

This example also clearly demonstrates why anti-science activists have not been able to change any relevant scientific consensus. Unlike members of the public –– most of whom don’t have the training and experience to track each anti-claim to its source and understand the context –– actual scientists and health professionals can identify the erroneous claims of anti-science activists for what they are – “carefully adjusted (or fabricated) evidence” employed in their fear-mongering campaigns.

Randy Johnson
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

When you use the phrase "anti-science" I presume you are refering to fluoridationists.

 

Why those supporting fluoride would avoid all the science and cherry pick just what supports themselves  . . . makes no sense and no good science.

 

Fluoridationists refuse to talk about dosage, and dosage is the foundation of pharmacology.

 

Fluoridationists cherry pick the people and studies to do the reviews and fail to be inclusive of all science.

 

Fluoridationists violate ethical research.

 

Fluoridationists violate freedom of choice.

 

Indeed, fluoridationists are anti-science, anti-ethics, and anti-health.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Trusted Contributor

 

No, Bill, you presume wrong - but then, in the world of anti-science activism, presumption is equivalent to proven facts.  When I use the phrase “anti-science activists” I am referring specifically to you, CarryAnne and the other activists who continually distort science in an attempt to hijack the democratic process.

 

Another anti-science activist asked in a recent exchange how an educated professional scientist who held views contrary to the scientific consensus could suddenly morph overnight into an anti-science activist.

 

My answer applies to your comments by describing the difference between legitimate scientists and health care professionals who have strongly-held views different from the scientific consensus and those who have morphed into anti-science activists.

 

The first fact is that scientists who hold views different from the scientific consensus are precisely those individuals who are responsible for the evolution of science from trial and error experimentation of humans many thousands of years ago to the society we have today where the lives of most citizens of the world depend on an accurate, scientific understanding of the natural world and the adjustments to that world in areas of health care, agriculture, technology, etc. made possible by that understanding. 

 

Without those pro-science activists we would live in a completely different world.  Both pro- and anti-science activists have very strong beliefs that their interpretation of the existing scientific evidence is accurate – even though those beliefs differ from the consensus of the majority of relevant experts.

 

However, there are several important characteristics that differentiate pro-science activists from anti-science activists.

 

  • 1)     
    A)  The beliefs of legitimate scientists – including pro-science activists – are modifiable and depend on the evidence.  Again, that principle that a scientific consensus will change with sufficient, legitimate, reproducible evidence is the foundation of all scientific progress.
    B)  The beliefs of anti-science activists are inflexible, and the selection and interpretation of evidence is controlled by those beliefs.

 

  • 2)     
    A)  The evidence of pro-science activists that conflicts with an accepted scientific consensus is discussed within the relevant scientific community with other experts, and the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals. 
    ~> It is the responsibility of the scientist(s) challenging the consensus to produce and defend relevant, legitimate, reproducible, properly interpreted evidence from well-conducted experiments or observations.  
    ~> If the evidence is legitimate and convincing, the consensus will change – that is the only way science works.  If not, again it is the responsibility of the challengers to either provide better, more convincing arguments or evidence to the scientific community so the consensus will change. 
    ~> Pro-science activists will keep fighting within the scientific community to change the consensus until they either succeed with better evidence &/or better interpretations or they will continue to fail.
    B)  The “evidence” of anti-science activists that conflicts with an accepted scientific consensus has been presented to the experts in the relevant communities, and it has not been of sufficient quality or reproducibility to convince those experts to modify the consensus. 
    ~> At this point, anti-science activists abandon the scientific processes of trying to change the relevant scientific consensus.  They take their “evidence” directly into public forums to try and hijack the democratic process. 
    ~> The goal of the anti-science activists is to convince intelligent, caring, well-intentioned members of the public that their anti-science selection and interpretation of the evidence is legitimate, that mainstream science and health organizations (and their members) can’t be trusted to care for or protect their health, that they should join the fight to end a science-based public health measure like community water fluoridation, vaccination – or other agenda topic.
    ~> These anti-science activists have abandoned scientific protocol, and their goal is to promote their agenda by employing whatever tactics have been proven by scam-artists throughout the ages to be effective at modifying public opinion.  Three of the main anti-science tactics, exemplified by your comments and those of CarryAnne, Richard Sauerheber and a few others, are:
    1) Disingenuous distortion, misrepresentation and fabrication of the available evidence when presented to the public in hopes that most citizens will not have the training, experience, time or inclination to track the references (or opinions) to their source and personally evaluate the studies, reviews or opinions.  Those distortions of evidence as it relates to fluoridation can be found on Ken’s blog, https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/, as well as on the websites of major health organizations and others that support fluoridation.
    2) Fear sells.  If members of the public can be motivated by successful fear-mongering tactics of presenting false and exaggerated claims, scam artists can be extremely successful in peddling their con.  Which statement is most likely to capture the public’s attention?  Fluoride is a poison that reduces IQ and causes cancer --- or --- Fluoride reduces the risk of dental decay in communities with optimally fluoridated water.
    3) Casting doubt on the scientific and health communities.  To effectively sell the “Fear Factor” it helps for anti-science activists to claim that scientists and health care professionals who support the scientific consensus: “don't think for themselves or review the research”, are “all puppets of each other” “do not protect the publicThey are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists”, “are either ignorant or willfully blind” are “morally corrupt … doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions”.  Do these accusations sound familiar?

 

So, Bill, if you are convinced you have legitimate scientific evidence to support your position, why are you not spending your valuable time presenting your “evidence” to the relevant experts in an all-out effort to change the scientific consensus?  Why are you trying to change public opinion instead of the consensus of scientists who can change policy?  I can only think of a couple of answers…

 

For that matter, would you please describe your interpretation of the scientific consensus, and since you have indicated a disinclination in the past to admit the concept of a scientific consensus is real or relevant, please describe any alternative you might have for how scientists and members of the public should determine the most accurate interpretation of decades of very complex scientific evidence?

 

You have provided your opinion of members of the CDC, ADA, and AAP as I highlighted earlier – as has CarryAnne.  Do you apply those same descriptions to all the members of the World Health Organization and the other 100+ organizations that continue to publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation or do you have other explanations?  I have asked this question a number of times without response.

 

Do you have any explanations for why only a small handful (about 6?) of alternative health organizations along with various conspiracy groups like INFOWARS [Alex Jones] and Natural News [Mike Adams] support the anti-science, anti-Fluoridation opinions?  I have also asked this question without response.

 

In specific response to your ‎02-28-2019 12:24 AM comment: 
~> The overwhelming evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation

~> The “dosage” of fluoride is controlled in the same manner as the safe “dose” of all chemicals/elements in treated drinking water – by the amount of water it is possible to drink without harm.  Fluoride ions, unlike many of the other regulated chemicals in water, have been demonstrated by over 70 years of research to be safe and effective at reducing dental decay at about 0.7 ppm.

~> Why do anti-science activists listen to and select/interpret the evidence of only other anti-science activists and ignore any evidence they do not agree with?  That “evidence” has been demonstrated to be flawed over and over.

~> Explain and provide proof for your claim, “Fluoridationists violate ethical research”.

~> Fluoridation is no more a violation of freedom of choice than are any other water treatment processes or seat-belt laws, etc.  Anyone who dislikes ingesting fluoride ions – or any other residual contaminants – in drinking water are free to find other water sources or remove any contaminants they choose not to ingest.

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
2,085 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Reading through the post on what distinguishes science from anti-science is pretty generic and non specific.  People opposed to fluoridation based on facts are not spreading fear and distortion but rather explain the truth, plain and simple.  The initial misunderstanding by Dean in a study demonstrating a correlation of water fluoride and tooth decay in a few midWest cities has misled many. Correlation does not prove causation and in fact more thorough examinations of the effect of fluoride water consumption on caries has demonstrated in detail its lack of effectiveness, while being very effective at increasing the incidence of dental fluorosis enamel deficiency. Teotia and Teotia and Ziegelbecker and Yiamouyiannis are scientists who have studied the phenomenon in detail in man. And most importantly, the scientific experiments on mammals that are well controlled and definitive all demonstrate that eating/drinking fluoride have no impact whatsoever on dental caries incidence. These are the unarguable scientific facts proven in three separate labs, two in the U.S. and one in the U.K. There are no scientific controlled mammalian experiments demonstrating the opposite..

.Is describing these facts spreading fear, where fear mongering "sell"s? Of course not. Facts are immutable, they never change, period. One can eat fluoride all day long and it will not correct a single dental cavity because the scientific data prove it. And by scientific data I mean those experiments that have controls. If the Broadbent study has no controls,how can anyone refer to it as being scientific? You can't.

And the experiments with mammals by Varner and by Reddy and by Mullenix and others clearly prove that fluoride ingestion causes brain degeneration at blood fluoride levels common in consumers of fluoridated drinking water.. 

I go with the actual data, the science gleaned from controlled prospective experiments using the scientific method. I do not support distortion of the truth.

And referring to fluoride as though it were a nutrient is the ultimate distortion of fact. Fluoride has no physiologic function of any kind in the human system. It is a contaminant and mostly accumulates in bone where it does not belong and changes the crystal structure of bone which is bone of poor quality. There is no way to escape these truths

.

 I explain this to the general public as well as government agencies and other scientists because everyone needs to know the truth about what they ingest into their system. Everyone needs to drink water to live, so why would I withhold the truth from anyone? Doing so would be criminal. And distorting the truth to force innocent people to consume a worhless substance is mistaken..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Yes. An Associated Press article came out last week stating that the CDC now claims that kids are using too much toohtpaste because of the endemic of dental fluorosis. So the followers of the CDC also accept this. But yes water fluoridation began causing dental fluorosis long before fluoride toothpaste was ever invented. The original correlation that attempted to claim fluoride in water reduces caries was in the 1930's where substantial dental fluorosis was observed in communites with fluoride at 1 ppm in water. Toohtpaste with fluoride was not available until the 1950's.

The CDC has a mission to protect the Surgeon General's claim that fluoride ingestion is safe and effective, so obvsiouly it must be that toohtpaste be blamed for what is mostly done by water fluoride..But both now are involved in causing the high incidence of fluorosis enamel hypoplasia.

 

The bizarre thing is that there is no credible well controlled evidence in man or animals proving that fluoridation even works to lower dental caries. And yet vast effort and funds are put into fluoridating the country. Pretty disgusting and when this is called out, all you will get from fluoridationists is that you are somehow the 'scaremonger.' 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

"Sticks and stones...." 

          "Repeating a lie doesn't make it true." 

 

The controlled dose study in the 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste documented coppery brown staining and and thin enamel in some of those children. (Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - A Progress Report. Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. Dental Digest. August 1956.)

 

The 1962 govt memo from the first fluoridation trial city documented a disproportionate dental fluorosis impact well in excess of what predicted, again from before fluoridated toothpastes, i.e. 15% white v. 35% black children. This is why fluoridation policy is an environmental justice issue and opposed by many human rights activists. 

 

“When studying any matter, ask yourself two things: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, or what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed.

Look only and solely at what are the facts.”

-  Bertrand Arthur William Russell, logician and Nobel laureate on evidence and data analysis (1959)

Feltman 1956Feltman 1956

 

1962 Memo1962 Memo

Conversationalist

CarryAnne - you should take your own advice - "Repeating a lie doesn't make it true." 

You make unwarranted claims and provide citations which often do not support them. That is simply propaganda.

Now, if you were actually willing to enter into good faith, uncensored, open exchange of the science of your claims and citations that would be different. But I think you are aware of that and your demonstrated refusal to enter into a normal human exchange indicates you are very aware you are simply in the propaganda business - truth is your last concern.

Naturally, people have built up immunity to propaganda like this. We can recognise fake news when we see it.


Bronze Conversationalist

And F has no physiologic role in urine or blood and is in urine because the kidneys,are eliminating a toxic waste from the system. Unfortunately fluoride accumulates in bone before the kidneys can eliminate it all.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

”No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." —Albert Einstein

 

Fluoridation has been proved dangerous by hundreds (perhaps a thousand or more) studies, even those at low dose concentrations. Additionally, toxicology guidelines dictate that the animal studies that find damage at 10, 50, and 100 mg/L are sufficient to ban fluoridation as unsafe for vulnerable sub-populations. Since those guidelines are not followed, it seems U.S. EPA scientists are correct when they claim fluoride is a 'politically protected pollutant.' 

 

  • Fluoridation policy is a reckless public harm policy, that is particularly dangerous to the very young, those in fragile health and senior citizens. Fluoridation policy is scientifically and ethically corrupt. 

 

"We applied EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al.\4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.
"

- From NTEU Chapter 280 statement, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Water Fluoridation” (May 1, 1999)

Conversationalist

CarryAnne - you claim "Fluoridation has been proved dangerous by hundreds (perhaps a thousand or more) studies."

Considering the subject under discussion and normal use of the word I am assuming you mean community water fluoridation.

Could you please cite a couple of these hundreds/thousands of studies?

I am aware of several studies investigating harmful effects from community water fluoridation - the New Zeland, Candian and Swedish studies are examples. None of these showed any evidence of harm -quite the contrary.

So I am curious what hundreds and thousands of studies on community water fluoridation you have picked up and I have missed.

And since when have resolutions at union meetings become a substitute for real science?

Conversationalist

“Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable.” - David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, in “Doubt Is Their Product” (2008)

 

I am happy to engage in a good faith scientific discussion, but that isn't possible with the troop of fluoride trolls who have overwhelmed this site with rhetorical deceits and attempts to bait opponents into endless bickering in order to create a fog of doubt in the minds of decision makers. For whatever reasons, their goals are to puff themselves up with perceptions of personal power and preserve profitable policies instead of protect public health. I've encountered them already in othe venues. Click here and here for my recent AARP responses. I also like SIRPAC's recent entry on this topic. 

 

Also, debating prenatal studies and diagnoses of dental fluorosis in children isn't particulary on topic for an AARP forum and agricultural scientist KenP's dismissal of Bashash et al. 2017 isn't really worth the effort. For the record, that was the first of three reports published by a multi-million dollar NIH sponsored research project conducted by reknowned experts at world class U.S. and Canadian research universities such as the very pro-fluoride University of Michigan and Harvard School of Public Health, as well as the University of Toronto, McGill University, Indiana University School of Dentistry, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine. All three reports documented significant and sobering neurological damage from low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride

 

If KenP, who I still maintain has no business on the AARP site where his purpose is to disrupt conversations with vitriol, rather look to universities in his homeland of New Zealand, I suggest the two Sept 2018 presentations by Irish scientists at Otago University are breathtaking. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regular Contributor

KenP challenged ‘r3sponse’ to prove that the Victoria water board and related health authority have taken the drastic measure of disqualifying any peer reviewed science during water fluoridation reviews that do anything but shower praise on dental outcomes of water fluoridation. I’ll let ‘r3sponse’ answer that but that is exactly what happens in New Zealand with its Ministry of Health.
When a National Fluoride Information Service was established under contract between the Ministry and a district health board at a cost of around NZD1.25 million the contract had the laudable aim of maintaining an objective and credible viewpoint when reviewing literature and framing communications on water fluoridation (Service Specification, clause 2.3) yet in that same clause there was a requirement that the contractor would “not act in any way that may contradict or be inconsistent with Ministry policy on water fluoridation or with the MoH publication ‘Good Oral Health for All, For Life” both of which unequivocally advocate fluoridation. There was no room for the widest range of peer reviewed fluoride science.
KenP also asserts that New Zealand data from ‘Our Oral Health: Key findings of the 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey’ clearly support fluoridation - but they don’t. The survey itself states that it was not designed as an in-depth water fluoridation study (see ‘Our Oral Health’, XXV)
Also, for 5-year-olds, Figure 3 on page 28 of that survey shows only marginal differences between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas from 2003 to 2009.
Over the whole six-year time period the figure shows that the prevalence of dental decay rates declined in non-fluoridated areas while the prevalence of dental decay rates increased in fluoridated areas with an acceleration of those trends between 2007 and 2009. At the end of the time period the difference in the mean for (dmft) was ~0.3.
The oft quoted 40 per cent fluoridation induced reduction in caries prevalence coming from ‘Our oral health’ report is derived from an extremely small sample over 16 age groups – 519 from fluoridated areas and 468 from non-fluoridated.
However, it is interesting to note from an Official Information Act disclosure of that data that at ages 16 and 17, of the 52 fluoridated children surveyed the average decayed, missing or filled teeth dmft was 2.46 and of the 55 non-fluoridated children the average dmft was lower at 2.39.
Irrespective of growing and well-researched concern about fluoride as a neurotoxin there is ample evidence that fluoridating community water supplies is an uneconomic way of improving the oral health of a population.
In its recently released ‘Oral Health Improvement Plan’ the Scottish Government states that although water fluoridation could make a positive contribution to improvements in oral health, the practicalities of implementing it determines that alternative solutions are more achievable.
The latest oral health statistics from the New Zealand school dental service for 12-year-olds (2017) show a small difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated cohorts.
The 27,822 children fluoridated were 68.91 per cent caries free with a mean of 0.65 dmft and the 21,405 non-fluoridated children 63.08 per cent caries free with a mean of 0.83 dmft. That is a 5.8% difference in caries free and with dmft the difference is less than one fifth of a tooth.
Attempting to close that small gap by adding a neurotoxin to community water supplies where dosage control from drinking the water is virtually impossible is nuts.
A far less costly, more effective and proven approach is expenditure on individual treatment, persistent early childhood and primary (elementary) school oral health education and ongoing publicity on the bad health consequences of excessive sugar consumption.
All public health authorities should be taking serious note of this month’s paper in the American Journal of Public Health, ‘Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption 3 Years After the Berkeley, California, Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax’, which has determined that consumption of sugary drinks in Berkeley's diverse and low-income neighbourhoods dropped precipitously in 2015, just months after the city levied the nation's first soda tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.
The study, which is the first to document the long-term impacts of a soda tax on drinking habits in the United States, provides strong evidence that soda taxes are an effective tool for encouraging healthier drinking habits, with the potential to reduce sugar-linked diseases like diabetes, heart disease and tooth decay.
In KenP’s own country an Otago dental school masters thesis supports the positive outcomes of Scotland’s Childsmile programme.
Gertrude Clark’s 2017 thesis, ‘Supervised tooth brushing in Northland’, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Community Dentistry, concluded that the aim of the study, which was to improve the oral health of Northland children, had proved successful.
Her programme has been the first large-scale, fully evaluated supervised tooth brushing programme to be set up and run successfully in New Zealand. It showed improved caries outcomes at one year for children involved in a supervised tooth brushing programme and reinforced the need for policy to consider this approach to improve children’s oral health in communities that experience high caries and poor oral health. It was also the first study in the world to show that an overall improvement in oral health related quality of life can occur in children who take part in a supervised tooth brushing programme.
In commenting on the Cochrane Collaboration report, Trevor Sheldon, who chaired the advisory group for York Review 2000 says that if fluoridation were to be submitted anew for approval today nobody would even think about it due to the shoddy evidence of effectiveness and obvious downside of fluorosis.
He also said that when a public health intervention is applied to everybody, the burden of evidence to know that people are likely to benefit and not to be harmed is much higher, since people can’t choose.
It is clear, in my view, that current pro-fluoridation policies are an affront to medical ethics and a monstrous waste of money.
In a 22 February letter to Tulsa World, Jim Maxey DDS concluded “Truth decay causes water fluoridation”. What a gem!

Conversationalist

RossF715288 I will respond to the several items you raise separately.

 

1: I do not know who you are or who  ‘r3sponse’ is. Nor am I familiar with the incident you describe related to Victoria. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. As I don't know you,  ‘r3sponse’, or anything about your claim I can not comment further.

 

2: I will comment on the specifics of your claim about the NZ Oral Health survey when I have checked to pages you refer to (possibly tomorrow). At the moment I can say I am well aware that the document says it is not an in-depth fluoridation study. My usual point in referring to the study, though, is that attempts were made to ensure the collected samples were representative.

I can explain some aspects of this by referring to the data from the New Zealand school dental service for 12-year-olds (2017) you refer to. I have written about the latest data here, so am familiar with them:

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/preempting-the-annual-misrepresentation-of-nz-dental-...

Obviously, the data from the New Zealand school dental service is also not an in-depth study of fluoridation. it is simply a record of treatments for the treated children. No attempt to make the data representative or to overcome problems such as the use of fluoride varnish treatments of children's teeth in unfluoridated areas.

It always amazes me when anti-fluoride activists stoop to using this uncorrected data while rejecting the Oral Health Survey data where attempts were made to ensure the data was representative. Simply pointing to the large numbers in the dental service data is naive to the extreme - or opportunist.

While much more must be done to overcome those sort of problems inherent in such data I have simply corrected for ethnic effects (the preponderance of Pacific Island Children in fluoridated areas skews the total data).

So while the use of the total data, uncorrected for ethnic differences, as you have done  is simply not scientific, once separated along ethnic lines the data shows the following:

For 5-year-olds the 
overall data suggest a benefit of fluoridation to Maōri and “other” children – about 14% for “Other” and 25% for Māori children (using the data for mean dmft).


For year 8 children the DMFT data suggest a benefit of about 30.5% for Māori and 26% for “Other” children.

3: Regarding the ChildSmile programme, and similar programmes in other countries, I have also written about them and am aware aspects of these programmes, which include fluoride varnish treatments for young children, are also part of the health programmes used in New Zealand.

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/?s=ChildSmile

I am therefore interested in Gertrude Clark’s 2017 thesis you refer to - could you please provide me a link?

Experts agree programmes like this can be successful - but describe them as complementary to community water fluoridation (as it is in New Zealand), not as a substitute.

As always, one must look below the surface to understand such issues, not rely on claims made by biased ideologically driven activists.

4: Could you please back up your claim that we are "adding a neurotoxin to community water supplies." I am aware of the literature used by Connett's crowd in an attempt to shift the debate about negative effects away from dental fluorosis and into IQ but the evidence used in either irrelevant, coming from areas of endemic fluorosis, or extremely weak (the recent Bashash studies). The studies made in New Zealand, Sweden and Canada of fluoride concentrations used for CWF also showed no negative effect. In fact, the Swedish study confirmed a number of positive social effects beyond improvement of oral health (but possibly a result of that improvement).

I will leave it here for tonight but may return to specifics depending on your response.

Conversationalist

”Fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology… If you drink it, you are running the risk of all kinds of toxic actions… Nations who are using fluoridation should feel ashamed.” - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, neuropharmacologist. 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and official scientific advisor to the Swedish Government (1923-2018)

 

For the record, I have read all the studies I've referenced and have both the training and intelligence to understand them. From my study, I agree with Dr. Carlsson quoted above. I also understand the propaganda techniques that make heavy use of ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies in order to promote an agenda, techniques which are favored by fluoridationists, bloggers and trolls. I have also given honest testimony to my own health experiences which are consistent with fluoride poisoning. I speak for myself. Over 20 other seniors made similar reports about their own health experiences on this AARP thread before it was overwhelmed by fluoride trolls in June 2018. 

 

My preference is to discuss data and ethics rather than argue opinions on specific scientific minutea or personalities. To that end, consider that 2018 reports from US NHANES data document that over half of American teens have experienced fluoride overdose during early childhood evidenced by dental fluorosis in permanent teeth (Wiener et al. 2018). Also consider that American reports publishd in peer-reviewed scientific sources validate that at least 37% of American babies exceed the upper tolerable level of fluoride exposure assumed safe (Harriehausen et al. 2018) plus all the other studies I've summarized in this forum thread that have been ignored by the fluoridationists or selectively & spuriously dismissed. 

 

Then consider the suggestions of scientists that doctors should educate parents not to use too much fluoridated water in prepared cereals, etc. for their young children because of risk of fluoride overdose (Zohoori et al. 2012) and pro-fluoride scientists contorted efforts that argue in favor of fluoridated tap water because cavities are a more immediate threat than lead poisoning to children (Sanders & Slade 2017). Really?!

 

I suggest it's those who promote fluoridation who are intellectually challenged when they can't see, as does Nobel Laureate Dr. Arvid Carlsson, that adding a drug to water that renders water unsafe for many consumers as well as increasing the lead exposure for all consumers is an immoral & shameful action.

 

  • See Sandy, Utah news for a current example of what can go wrong with fluoridation. 

 

  • See image below for a demonstration of how inappropriate it is to assume there is any dose control over a drug added to water supplies. 

 

Dose QuizDose Quiz

 

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?

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.
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.
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

 

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.

 

 

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.  

 

 

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.
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.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, here we go again.

 

The exact provision to which you are referring is this:  “No National primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water”   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.  "“No 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 water”   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 . . "  ‎02-20-2019 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."  ‎02-20-2019 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,346 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.
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.  

 

 

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:  "No National primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water” 

 

"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.

1,377 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.
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?"  ‎02-20-2019 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.

1,781 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.