Can blue light from your phone cause vision problems? Find out and learn more about your vision in the AARP Eye Center.

Reply
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
240
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

240 Views
Message 51 of 1,333

Richard, you tell me "You might want to read the pdf again."

But a quick check on the Connett & Perrott (2014) document suggests to me that perhaps you need to read it yourself.

Nowhere in that article can I find the claim by me that there is"no such thing as naturally fluoride-free water."

So you appear to be arguing with a straw man.

In fact, checking through the document it is Paul Connett who refers mostly to natural fluoride in water or naturally fluoride-free water - not me.

Have a search for the word "naturally" to check that out.

Of course, if you can produce a quote of mine I am open to discussion - but as it stands there is nothing here to discuss.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
240
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
237
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

237 Views
Message 52 of 1,333

In an attempt to imply that fluoride ingestion is no big deal because fluoride is ubiquitous naturally, the claim was made in the pdf that there is no such thing as naturally fluoride free water. You might want to read the pdf again. The other claims against Connett are for the most part misinterpretations of Connett's words that are not his fault. But who wants to spend their life correcting others' junk? 

Furthermore, we have fought the San Diego city council for decades, both in a group setting, San Diegans for Clean water, and as many of us individually, and in public gropus at water district headquarters.  So to say we need to do something about the overruling of the cities' two votes against fluoridation and the city ordinance against it, as though we haven't, is laughable.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
237
Views
Highlighted
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
264
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

264 Views
Message 53 of 1,333

Richard - please be specific.

You say "contrary to the claim in the pdf." Could you please quote the claim and identify the pdf?

Who said what (exactly) where.

Otherwise, discussion is impossible.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
264
Views
Moderator
0
Kudos
251
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

251 Views
Message 54 of 1,333

Hello everyone,

 

Whilst we welcome robust debate, we ask that everyone abides by the guidelines.

 

Please be respectful and refrain from making hateful and/or incendiary comments. You are free to express your opinions, but you must do so in a way that respects the opinions of others.

https://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
251
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
258
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

258 Views
Message 55 of 1,333

But fluorinated drugs most certainly are partially metaobolized, typically about 10% releasing free fluoride ion. There is nothing wrong with the chemical recogtnized by IUPAc, nomenclature system that incluedes naming C-F compouinds as fluorides, such as ethyl fluoride, methyl fluoirde,etc. If you want to take up your desires with IUPAC, be my guest.

 

And no the arguments protecting Connett from the false claims in the pdf were not dropped. The posts already made are simply being ignored in order to conveniently attempt to drop them.

What I said stands.. There are waters that are naturally frree of fluoride, contrary to the claim in the pdf. And just because ingesting fluoridated water does not immediately lead to clnically detectable symptoms and signs does not justlfy the claim that fluoride causes no harm. That is insane. Bone accumulation begins with the first sip of fluoridated water and likewise the earliest pathologic abnormality is elevated calcitonin and PTH together, along with formation of bone of poor quality and altered crystal sturicture.  At first for a chronic ttime periodr there are no associated symptoms or signs, either one.So what? That does not mean Connett is wrong, it means he is correct to criticize and denounce fluoridation of people even befroe there are clinically detectable abnormalities.  We have no equipment or  test that is noninvasive to assess the bone damage that occurs during the "subclinical' stage of bone fluorosis. Where do you get this stuff? It would be like claiming it is OK to eat pure cholesterol because for many years you will have no clinically detectable stroke symptoms or angina or other heart symptoms, all while one's carotids and heart artereis are becoming structurally abnormal due to atherosclerosis.  Just because there are no symptoms or signs does not mean it is healthy. Quite the contrary. Fluorosis in the temporary absence of symptoms is nevertheless pathologic.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
258
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
259
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

259 Views
Message 56 of 1,333

A new study reporting the ranges of values for kidney and liver parameters in a healthy population is being actively misrepresented by anti-fluoride campaigners. The Fluoride Action Network’s (FAN) latest bulletin claims the study shows “that fluoride at commonly experienced doses can damage the kidneys and livers of adolescents.”

The study shows nothing of the sort. How could it – individuals suffering liver or kidney disease were specifically excluded from the study population. The reported parameter values are all for healthy individuals.

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/anti-fluoride-activists-misrepresent-a-kidney-liver-s...

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
259
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
264
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

264 Views
Message 57 of 1,333

Richard, I prefer a more exact nomenclature - especially as some people get confused about how covalently bound F is released to form the fluoride anion.

Anyway, I take it that from your inability to provide quotes and citations you no longer wish to pursue the arguments you were making about "inaccuracies" in Connett & Perrott - The Fluoride Debate.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
264
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
256
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

256 Views
Message 58 of 1,333

Yes, Bill, you had agreed to a scientific exchange with me and actually sent me a pdf for your first contribution. I got back to you wanting your help in providing the references and one of the images to make it suitable for publication.

At that stage, my hard drives packed up and I lost most of my material. It has been a slow process recovering what I could from backups.

I am still waiting for your final version of the contribution (I think you were traveling or also having computer problems at the time so couldn't respond at the time).

Anyway, I can start the exchange as soon as I get the final version of your contribution with the references and proper images.

I look forward to this exchange as you were concentrating on dental fluorosis and I had been preparing something on that.


Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
256
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
256
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

256 Views
Message 59 of 1,333

So Ken and Richard are at the fluoridation issue.  Amazing how you two get around.

 

Ken, you wanted a "discussion" "debate" on fluoride and I agreed, sending you information about excess exposure.   You were having email/computer problems and that is the last I heard.

 

Simple questions on exposure should be considered.

 

1.   How much ingested fluoride is recommended to prevent dental caries?

 

2.   At what age should the fluoride be ingested?

 

3.  At the recommended dosage, what are the risks for all ages?

 

4.  What label should be placed on the fluoride products?

 

5.  How much fluoride is each person receiving from other sources than artificial fluoridation?

 

Of course there are more questions, but those seem to be the most basic. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
256
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
296
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

296 Views
Message 60 of 1,333

Except that the suffix "ide" is also used when naming any bnary compound which of course contains two types of elements. So this also includes organic fluorides such as CF4 being named carbon tetrafluoride, etc.

For a review of the meaning of fluoride you might want to read the endnote supplement to the article "Physiologic Conditions affect the Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride," Journal of Environrnental and Public Health 439490, 2013 availalbe online at: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
296
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