From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
409
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

409 Views
Message 1 of 1,448

Thanks Bill. Also understamd that the FDA does not require food or beverage labeling for F content. And i know of no one in my town who is capable of measuring F content in the foods and beverages they consume. Adding F on purpose in all public water supplies which also increases the F level in mamy foods is inane. 

A blood level of 1 ppm as in kidney patients who are dialyzed with city water have chronic heart muscle degeneration

Blood levels of about 0.08 or so in F'd water consumers cause chronic bone changes. F blood levels of 3-5 ppm of course as during accidental overfeeds at a time wben one happens to be extremely thirsty is acute poisoning.

Why on God's earth would anyone intentionally add a contaminant like that, which is useless when ingested for its intended purpose, to establish a country's policy wben the FDA does not approve the ingestion of any fluoride? Absolutely idiotic.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
409
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
419
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

419 Views
Message 2 of 1,448

Ken,

 

You responded in regard to 1.5 ppm fluoride in water:

"That is trivially true as excessive uptake of fluoride can occur from other dietary sources - toothpaste, coal fires, black tea, etc.

But in a normal dietary situation where water is the main source of F this is what research has shown. A normally informed person understands the difference."

 

Makes no sense. 

 

Who is a "normally informed person" when it comes to fluoride exposure.  Taken a long time us to even get you to admit some of the sources of fluoride let alone the wide range of fluoride exposure.

 

And what percentage of the population do you want to protect from excess fluoride?  90th percentile?  50th percentile?

 

When it comes to lead, arsenic, etc.,  we try to protect 100% of the population.

 

When it comes to the 200,000,000 in the USA on fluoridated water, 10% with excess fluoride exposure would be about 20,000,000 people you are saying it is OK to have excess fluoride, you can be harmed, go to hell with your health, because you are not "normally informed" purchasing non-fluoridated water, using nonfluoridated toothpaste, drinking too much tea, or had a general anesthesia, or taking fluoride medications, or eating mechanically deboned meat. 

 

Use some simple judgment Ken, what percentage of the population will you accept to be harmed?  Your family?  Mine?  Your town?  My town? 

 

Almost 70 human studies reporting neurologic harm and many more reporting fluoride as a known carcinogen.   How many people harmed in your "judgment" before you have a concern?

 

We are talking judgment, Ken.  Yours does not make sense to me, because you don't appear to have an intent to protect everyone to the best of our ability.

 

Bill Osmunson  DDS, MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
419
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
444
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

444 Views
Message 3 of 1,448

Nonsense.  Informed people undersand that the NRC Report data is valid, where consumers livng in a 1 ppm fluoridaed water region experience elevated PTH and calcitonin, a pathologic effect of fluoride incorporation into bone, and elevated TSH, and also that fluoridation of bone is permanent and it begins with the first sip, where fluoride alters the crystal structure of bone since it is not exactly the same radius and shape as the hydroxide ion it replaces by ion exchange. Fluoride in bone causes formation of bone of poor quality.

The FDA recognizes all this and ruled just last year that fluoride is a toxic substance at any level and should be regulated as such by the EPA under the Toxic Substanes Control Act.

Where have you been?  It appears you need to study more.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
444
Views
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
446
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

446 Views
Message 4 of 1,448

In an environmental context, the precautionary principle can be defined as such: when an identified threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment or human health exists, a lack of full scientific knowledge about the situation should not be used to delay remedial steps if the balance of potential costs and benefits justifies action (Resnik, 2003).

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
446
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
527
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

527 Views
Message 5 of 1,448

Richard, you say:

"An upper limit of 1.5 ppm F in water does not protect all consumers from either dental or bone fluorosis"

That is trivially true as excessive uptake of fluoride can occur from other dietary sources - toothpaste, coal fires, black tea, etc.

But in a normal dietary situation where water is the main source of F this is what research has shown. A normally informed person understands the difference.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
527
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
531
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

531 Views
Message 6 of 1,448

Give us a break from a CDC advertisement please.. An upper limit of 1.5 ppm F in water does not protect all consumers from either dental or bone fluorosis. Humans do not live in cages so as to not be exposed to other significant sources that depend on the distary behaviors among various people. And even if they were caged from other F sources, bone F levels during lifelong consumption cause  formation of bone of poor quality.. fluoridation of people is a useless harmful waste.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
531
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
543
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

543 Views
Message 7 of 1,448

Ross, that is not the finding of Aggeborn and Öhman. What they actually reported is that fluoride has a positive effect on income and well being in later life as well as on dental health. They actually say:

"Fluoride has positive effects on log income and employment status which could indicate that better dental health is a positive factor on the labor market."

That is, they are offering a hypothesis to explain their findings.

This is from their abstract:

"First, we investigate and con rm the long-established positive relationship between fluoride and dental health. Second, we find precisely estimated zero-effects on cognitive ability, non-cognitive ability and education for fluoride levels below 1.5 mg/l. Third, we find evidence that fluoride improves later labor market outcomes, which indicates that good dental health is a positive factor on the labor market."

 

They did, however, use some dental repair data to support this hypothesis and commented:

 

"The estimated effect could be interpreted as a beauty-ffect. Given that we found larger effects for non-academics in the earlier reduced-form analyses, one explanation might be that people working in the service sector { which is not uncommon for this age-group { are more sensitive to bad looking teeth. This is probably not the entire explanation however. Having bad dental
health is probably associated with pain, and individuals with dental problems should on
average be more sick and more absent from work. This could explain why they earn less
and are less likely to be employed."

 

Yes, it is always more difficult to conclude a zero effect - that is the real only valid criticism of the Dunedin study (and all other studies). But Aggeborn and Öhman had a very large sample size which means their confidence intervals were very small. It would be simply desperate to argue that there really was an IQ effect hiding within that small confidence range.


There is nothing exceptional about fluoride at being dangerous at high concentrations - this is the case for other beneficial microelements as well. An upper limit of 1.5 mg/L seems well established and most authorities argue for a lower optimum level to overcome any risk of dental fluorosis.

None of the work of Grandjean, Malin, Till and Choi et al. would suggest changing that accepted level.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
543
Views
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
568
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

568 Views
Message 8 of 1,448

If you tell a physician you dont want fluoroquinolones, they will honor it.  They know its black boxed.  I put it on my allergy list.  

 

Avelox, a fluoroquinolone, was given to my friend.  After a few doses, she developed numbness in her extremities.

 

General anesthesia uses a F bolus to help put you to sleep and wakes you up with CaCl to bind the F.  For some people, cognitive issues persist for 30 days or more until enough of the F dissipates from the body.

 

AARP needs to take this information, research it, and let seniors know the risks involved.  This is an extremely critical health information.

 

A Registered Nurse

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
568
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
574
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

574 Views
Message 9 of 1,448

I agree that the systemic blood level for fluoride should be zero, where F is not a component of normal human blood and is not a nutrient. This however will never be achieved in a country that uses natural fluoride present in some waters as an excuse to fluoridate people with intentionally added industrial flouride.

There are sevearl million people now in the U.S.with "moderate" fluorosis which means that all their teeth are fluorotic and afflicted with enamel hypoplasia (hypomineralization).. This abnormality is not just unsightly but is a disgusting attribute of a society that forces water distircts to infuse the substance to fluoridate people.

Severe dental fluorosis I suspect is accompanied with significant neurologic impairment. "Moderate" fluorosis may also, where this could be due to one or both factors, neurologic or behavioral.

Mild fluorosis is to me a misnomer since no one shouldsay I have only been "mildly poisoned" when the result is permanent, irreversible, lifelong. Your teeth will never be normal ever again.  You have been permanenlty poisoned by fluoridation advocates who could care less and in fact will tell you that you are better offf with mild flurosis, which of course is nonsensical. I have seen many people who feel self-conscious because of "mild" fluorosis and whose job prospects have been lost because of it, especially those who work for the public, in the public eye..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
574
Views
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
587
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

587 Views
Message 10 of 1,448

One of the major findings of the Swedish study (Aggeborn and Öhman, 2017) is that that good dental health is a positive factor on the labour market. Who can argue with that? But good dental health does not depend on swallowing fluoride.
There are many qualifications in the robustness analysis of this report and the opening sentence of the discussion section states, “It is always more difficult to conclude a zero-effect.”
Aggeborn and Öhman conclude, even though they state that their results indicate that the dangerous level is not below 1.5 mg/l, “Future studies should try to establish where the dangerous level of fluoride begins. Since we know that fluoride is lethal and dangerous in high dosages, it is crucial to find the safe limit for fluoride in the drinking water.”
Note the word ‘crucial’.
There are similar precautions offered by Grandjean, Malin, Till and Choi et al.
Shouldn’t we should all take heed?

The safest level, of course, is zero by assuming that there is no threshold below which there is no systemic fluoride effect.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
587
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