Staying Sharp empowers you to take control of your brain health as you age. Try it today!

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
807
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

807 Views
Message 151 of 1,448

LD50s not relevant? Tell that to the survivors of the Hooper Bay, AK fluoridation overfeed. The lawsuit is still not resolved , the loss of life not recompensed, and the government relations with native American tribes is lost.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
807
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
812
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

812 Views
Message 152 of 1,448

I have read hundreds of cientific studies on fluorides and listened to the opinions of many “experrts”. It is more than clear that there is very little valid science in support of fluoridation. Even though some older papers start with such statements “in support”, they conclude otherwise. Thus, any “expert”, who supports water fluoridation based on mere venally interested opinions, is no expert at all. 

 

In addition, it is truly irrelevant what any of these fluoridation promoters have to say, because (regardless of anyone’s opinions), what gives anyone a right to medicate the masses through the public water supply? Are these so called (unnamed and unknown) “experts” our personal doctors who monitor the dosage daily? Where is their expertise in every individual case that have been dosed with these artificial compounds of fluorine?

What kind of a fascist country do we live in that our individual consent does not matter? Why is the population being used as fluoride waste filters, with the pretense that there is some unproven benefit to one part of the body? 

 

I have heard the fluoridation waste industry’s motto that: “ Dilution is a solution to pollution!” HA!

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
812
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
751
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

751 Views
Message 153 of 1,448

Ken,

 

You make no sense because you have never said how much,  "fluoride added as a “top up?”

 

You have never said how much fluoride is desired to reduce dental caries?

 

Top up to what?  

 

Why add more fluoride when you don't know how much fluoride is desired?

 

Ever since I've communicated with you, perhaps a couple years, you have been silent on the most fundamental question.  How much fluoride prevents dental caries?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
751
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
759
Views

Anti-Science Circular Debating Technique

759 Views
Message 154 of 1,448

Some good news.  An effort aimed at possibly stopping fluoridation of drinking water in Gloucester MA was recently defeated (8/13/2019) despite vigorous, vocal promotion by fluoridation opponents (FOs).  Only two of eight City Council members believed the anti-F propaganda –– the others six carefully considered the evidence on both sides, recognized the severe limitations and misrepresentation of the anti-F “evidence”, and chose to accept the conclusions of the Gloucester Board of Health and virtually all other science and health organizations in the world.

 

In a democracy it is critical for citizens, government representative responsible for making important public health decisions or citizens responsible for electing those representatives (and sometimes voting on public health measures), to either actually understand the complex science underlying those decisions or trust the interpretation of evidence by reputable experts.  There are serious dangers to trusting the opinions of vocal critics of those scientific conclusions which are accepted by the overwhelming majority of relevant experts.  These anti-science critics utilize a variety of disingenuous tactics to mislead and scare and scam members of the public into blindly trusting their opinions over those of the actual experts.

 

In a recent Dilbert comic, Wally describes the Circular Debating Technique that FOs like “CarryAnne”, Richard Sauerheber, Bill Osmunson and other anti-science activists have mastered.  For evidence, go back over 1,290 posts and start reading…

Dilbert..png

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-08-04


The public debates go on, the claims get repeated and the task of countering misleading and dishonest claims just doesn’t go away. They need to be countered – especially as they are often being promoted, almost unchallenged, to decision-making bodies.” (Ken Perrott)
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/ -  reviews of studies used by anti-F activists

 

Fact: Most people respect and trust most scientific conclusions that are accepted by the majority of relevant experts and the policies and technological advances that are based on those conclusions.  However, strongly held personal beliefs can cause some people to distrust some specific scientific conclusions that seem to conflict with those beliefs.  Those individuals are not necessarily anti-science activists – they choose to believe the interpretation of “evidence” presented by anti-science activists.  The Scientific American article describes this as “isolated incidents of motivated bias”.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/who-are-you-calling-anti-science/

 

Fact: Anti-science activists are those scientists and health care professionals who have exceptionally strong, passionately held, inflexible beliefs that conflict with an established scientific consensus.  However, they have no legitimate, relevant, reproducible scientific evidence sufficient to challenge the scientific consensus.  With no valid evidence and a fixed belief, they abandon working within the scientific communities to legitimately change the consensus and (with the help of some passionate followers) take their opinions directly to the public (in forums like this) in an attempt change public opinion and hijack the democratic process.

 

Fact: The scientific consensus of nearly all relevant science and health experts world-wide for over 70 years continues to be that community water fluoridation (CWF) is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing the risk of dental decay and related health issues in communities. 

 

Fact: Legitimate challenges to established scientific conclusions (theories, consensus) by legitimate researchers presenting legitimate evidence to the relevant scientific experts are critical to scientific progress.  If the evidence presented is relevant, well conducted, as unbiased as possible, and reproducible, even an established scientific consensus will change.  More than 70 years of scientific evidence continues to support CWF.
http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html
http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationReferences.htm

 

Fact: Circular debating FOs have no legitimate scientific evidence to change the scientific consensus.  That is why the World Health Organization and more than 100 of the most recognized science and health organizations in the world (and their hundreds of thousands of members) continue to recognize the benefits and safety of CWF to reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems.
https://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/

 

Fact: FOs have no rational explanation the fact that there are no such nationally or internationally recognized science or health organizations that promote the anti-F opinions.  Only about 6 alternate “health” organizations, some activist groups like Children’s Health Defense and conspiracy fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS] and Mike Adams [Natural News] support the beliefs of fluoridation opponents (FOs).
http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-consensus.html

 

Fact: If well-meaning citizens who participate in the democratic process (as voters or elected government officials) have been deceived and manipulated to believe the opinions of anti-science activists over the actual scientific conclusions, the resulting governmental actions can be harmful – resulting in an increased risk of largely preventable diseases and health problems.

 

Fact: FOs and other anti-science activists employ fear-mongering and other disingenuous tactics to try and convince well-meaning citizens (most don’t have the training or experience to personally evaluate decades of complex scientific issues) to trust their opinions over the conclusions of most relevant experts.  The tactics include dismissing the scientific consensus as irrelevant, employing the “Gish Gallop” strategy to present mountains of poor quality and irrelevant studies, manipulating, selectively quoting and exaggerating the findings of legitimate studies to fabricate false conclusions and blurring the boundaries between ethics and science to set up false “moral” arguments.
http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-AntiScienceTactics.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_GallopCite a giant wall of text, or a three hour long YouTube video, and then claim it as irrefutable proof. When they ask for the relevant excerpt, whine about how it's not your job to do the research for them. When they go through the video and start explaining why the video is wrong, accuse them of cherry picking […] because they aren't addressing the "important" arguments. When they ask you what the important arguments are, insist that it's not your job to do the research for them. And… repeat.

 

Fact: One of the more duplicitous tactics employed by FOs and other anti-science activists is to try and cast doubt on and discredit mainstream scientists and health care professionals who support CWF and the organizations that represent them.  For example in this discussion:

CarryAnne described these professionals as “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” willing to “protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions”.
(08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM), (07-03-2018 07:35 AM)

Bill Osmunson claims these professionals “don't think for themselves”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, have “seriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, are “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” and “None reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.”
(08-19-2018 02:18 AM), (08-19-2018 07:15 PM), (07-09-2018 09:09 PM)
I asked both FOs several times if that’s their only explanation for why all major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF – and received no answers.
(09-15-2018 10:34 AM), ‎(10-26-2018 02:17 AM), ‎(10-23-2018 11:24 AM – Q1)

 

For those reading these comments who care about your health, the health of your family and fellow citizens and who don’t have the training or experience to personally evaluate hundreds of complex scientific studies, please consider trusting the majority of science and health experts over the opinions of a relatively few, but extremely vocal and persistent, activists who completely contradict the majority conclusions on important scientific and health issues and completely misrepresent the evidence to try and support their opinions.

 

Most citizens are not anti-science.  They are well-meaning non-scientists who have been scammed by the anti-science activists who abandoned the scientific process of proving their claims to the relevant experts and legitimately challenging the consensus.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy/

Some additional relevant resources:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/War_on_Science
https://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf
https://scimoms.com/risk-perspective-series-intro/
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/
https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/debunking-anti-claims/myths/
https://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/key_facts.html
https://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf
https://www.acsh.org/news/2005/10/31/time-and-the-anti-fluoride-cause
https://ricochet.com/612147/remembering-the-fluoridated-water-wars/

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
759
Views
Info Seeker
2
Kudos
742
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

742 Views
Message 155 of 1,448

Yes, AARP and CARP should take action.

Artificial fluoridation began 75 years ago. In this time dental fluorosis rates have skyrocketed. The industrial by-product used to fluoridate water has been classified as a persistent, bioaccumulative, neurodevelopmental toxin. And rates of neurodevelopmental issues like Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and autism have also skyrocketed. 

 

Time to stop the nonsense and stop the additional exposures of this toxic substance.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
742
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
720
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

720 Views
Message 156 of 1,448

“One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” -  Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)

 

This is not the place for scientific bickering. Moreover, strawman misrepresentation of the opposing views is not helpful.  The topic is whether or not fluoridation policy is harmful to some consumers who include vulnerable populations such as senior citizens and those with chronic illness like  kidney disease or diabetes

 

A valid part of that discussion, as mentioned by Bill O, is how do you control dose when the substance is in the water? This is a particularly important point for those vulnerable populations who have medical reason to avoid fluoride, such as those with kidney disease, thyroid disease, immune system disease, inflammatory diseases, and diabetes.  

 

I also know people with a family history of breast cancer whose doctors have advised they avoid fluoridated water and foods as a precautionary measure since fluoride is an endocrine disruptor and there is evidence of it promoting cancer. See scientific references included in this 2016 letter to the American Thyroid Association.   

 

AARP - You told me in January 2015 that you use activity on your forum to gauge interest for items to take under consideration by your policy team.

This thread certainly has been active for the past 4 years. 

When are you going to advocate on behalf of your constituents?

 

DoseQuiz.jpeg

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
720
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
731
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

731 Views
Message 157 of 1,448

Richard - so you appear to be acknowledging that the normal treated water used for supply has no problem with toxicity because (in your eyes) the calcium levels are relatively high?

Of course, the other aspect is that the fluoride levels are extremely low - concepts like LD50 are just not relevant.

Uncontrolled use of CaF2 would produce far higher levels of F than is optimum for treated water. And at those higher concentrations, skeletal and dental fluorosis would be and are, problems.

As for snow and rainwater - don't forget that they also pick up contaminants from the atmosphere. In fact, rainwater taken from a roof can often be problematic because of contaminants.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
731
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
547
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

547 Views
Message 158 of 1,448

Everyone knows most calcium in water supplies is from calcium salts other than calcium fluoride. So what?

NaF has an LD50 and CaF2 does not,

even though the fluorode ions are identical in structure in the two salts.

I never said calcium is reduced from fluoridation.

I said fluoridation with toxic NaF in calcium deficient water ( such as in pagosa springs or in hooper bay) is an extreme poison.  If calcium fluoride were used then an overfeed would not have happened due to solubility issues.

Calcium fluoride is very insoluble but sodium fluoride is the opposite, extremely soluble, even though the fluoride atoms are  identical in structure in both.

Anyway, there are plentiful sources of fresh clean water lacking F. The sun evaporates salt water (which contains 1 pom F) to form a distillate that is free of F. this is the,eource of rain  and snow that forms rivers,and lakes. If no F salts are in a reguon then the distillate will remain fluoride free..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
547
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
513
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

513 Views
Message 159 of 1,448

Richard, I take it from your reaction that you now acknowledge that your claim about me referring to fluoride-free natural waters was wrong.

I also think Connett's claims were bizarre - as you say "Of course fluoride anions are identical in any salt compound or as the free ions in solution." But he worked very hard to justify his statement that there was a difference.

However, you also seem to be arguing desperately for differences - without providing a single fact.

1: Calcium fluoride, by itself, does not control the calcium concentration in natural waters - there are a number of sources. So the calcium concentration in natural waters can vary quite independently of fluoride.

2: Similar fluoride in treated water drinking water does not control the calcium concentration - nor does the calcium concentration generally control the fluoride concentration. This is because the fluoride concentrations are very low and the solubility product does not come into play.

3: There is generally no reason for the concentration of calcium to drop when water is treated for drinking. Because lime is often used for water treatment the calcium concentration may well be higher after treatment.

 

4: You do not attempt to back up your implied assertion that somehow the calcium concentration of fluoridated water is lower than in the natural source water. I don't believe you can.

5: I have been into this discussion before and shown that the concentrations of calcium in our "soft" drinking water are much higher than anything CaF2 could contribute see - Calcium fluoride and the “soft” water anti-fluoridation myth
See figure:
hardness.jpg

As I said then your claim was hogwash. It still is.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
513
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
498
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

498 Views
Message 160 of 1,448

This is bizarre. Of course fluoride anions are identical in any salt compund or as the free ions in solution. So what? When fluoride is in calcium rich water as in natural sources it is not possible to drink enough to be acutely fluoride poisoned. The LD50 for calcium fluroide does not exist. But when fluoride is in calcium poor water at high amounts from sodium fluoride then people have been killed from lethal fluoride poisoning as in fluoridation overfeeds (JEPH 439490, 2013). If calicumfluoride had been used to fluoridated then no one would have been acutely poisoned. This is because fluoride toxicity depnds on the chemical environment in which the otherwise identical anions are located.  The LD50 for sodium fluoride is about 65 mg/kg (Merck Index) and sodium fluoride (but not calcium fluoride) is listed in all poirosns registries as a toxic substance.

But I was not discussing that. That has been published for all to read.

I was pointing out the Perrot statement that there is no such thing as naturally fluoride free water in the Connett section.I have no problem with Connett's words there, but with Perrot's.. 

Clean fresh drinking water deos not contain detectable contaminant fluoride. I suppose it doesn'tmatter how many times I say the pdf statement is worng.But the readers can read the pdf report themselves.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
498
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season