Content starts here
CLOSE ×

Search

Reply
Bronze 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! 

355,770 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

19,946 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

View solution in original post

18,690 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

10,367 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

 

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

 

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

 

Really? 

 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

 

 

View solution in original post

6,245 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Saliva fluoride in a fluoridated city averages 0.016 ppm, totally worthless at affecting enamel, at about 95,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste.

So please get real.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,748 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

Yes, the plea to "get real" always comes up when attempting to carry out a scientific exchange with those people ideologically opposed to community water fluodiation. People who characteristically misrepresent and distort the science.

In this case, pointing out how fluoride, phosphate and calcium in food and beverages contribute to increased concentrations of these chemical species in saliva gets a common response by distorting the issue. The small increase if F- concentration of excreted saliva may or may not confer a health benefit - but we are not talking about that. We are discussing the increased saliva concentration of these chemical species because of inputs from food and beverage (and also F from CaF2 reserves in the oral cavity).

I just wish people would stop misrepresenting the issue and face up to a good faith scientific exchange. 

3,243 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

It is amazing how some people still insist that there is some 'benefit' from artificial water fluoridation with toxic industrial waste silicofluorides, when there is absolutely zero valid science to support such ridiculous assertion. Not only is there no benefit, regardless of what some authoritative bodies may claim, fluorides are category 6 toxins by law. It is abviously not a large leap to think that people, who continue to sponsor this "dilution is solution to pollution" policy, have some alterior motives that have nothing to do with health whatsoever. 

 

In comparison to the fluoridated US, where life expectancy continues to drop and cancer rates soar, the Hunza live up to 120 years on average, with no modern medical or chemical interventions. What is wrong with this picture? https://www.shughal.com/health-secrets-hunza-people-live-100-years-cancer-free/

 

See US: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-again-a-d...

3,751 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Sirpac, More about the Hunza -- 

 

In 1996, John Tierney wrote:  

 

"When I went there seven years ago to write about the fabled ''Hunza health secrets,'' I understood why everyone called it Shangri-La.

 

"It was the most beautiful place I'd ever seen. The valley's lush green terraces were shielded from the outside world by a 25,000-foot pyramid of snow shaped just like the mystical mountain in Hilton's novel, and there seemed to be a remarkable number of old people as hale as the monks of Shangri-La. But my enchantment didn't last. The great Hunza secret to old age turned out to be its absence of birth records. The illiterate elders didn't know how old they were, and they tended to overestimate their ages by a decade or two, as I discovered by comparing their recollections with known historical events. Hunza didn't have an unusual number of centenarians, it turned out, and its traditional way of life was not a formula for good health.

 

"The mountain air did seem pristine, but the people spent most of their time inside mud huts breathing horribly polluted air from open fires. They suffered from bronchitis and a host of ailments like tuberculosis, dysentery, malaria, tetanus and cancer. An iodine deficiency in their diet caused mental retardation. Children went hungry in the spring as food stores dwindled. . . "  https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/29/magazine/the-optimists-are-right.html?pagewanted=2

0 Kudos
3,746 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Interesting observations, Sirpac.  If only any of it were true.  

 

My google search showed me that life expectency in the U.S. has been on a steady incline since 1970.  At about 2010 it leveled off.  And for 3 years now it has begun to drop off. https://www.google.com/search?q=Life+expectancy+rates+in+the+u.S.&rlz=1C1GIWA_enUS592US594&oq=Life+e...

 

Since Water Fluoridation has been around since before the 1950s, and life expectancy has steadly gone up until 2010, your theory doesn't make much sense.  

 

Moreover, it appears that suicide and drug overdoses are responsible for the current drop in life expectncy in this country.  We've got bigger problems than water fluoridation.  https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/health/life-expectancy-2017-cdc/index.html

 

Your comments about the Hunza are a myth.  Aside from the fact that birth records were not kept in remote villages of Pakistan 100 years ago, Dr. John Clark stayed with these people for 20 months and recounts his experiences in his book "Lost Kingdom of the Himalayas."  

 

He writes:  

 "I wish also to express my regrets to those travelers whose impressions have been contradicted by my experience. On my first trip through Hunza, I acquired almost all the misconceptions they did: The Healthy Hunzas, the Democratic Court, The Land Where There Are No Poor, and the rest—and only long-continued living in Hunza revealed the actual situations".

 

Regarding the misconception about Hunza people's health, Clark also writes that most of his patients had malaria, dysentery, worms, trachoma, and other health conditions easily diagnosed and quickly treated. In his first two trips he treated 5,684 patients.

 

Furthermore, Clark reports that Hunza do not measure their age solely by calendar (metaphorically speaking, as he also said there were no calendars), but also by personal estimation of wisdom, leading to notions of typical lifespans of 120 or greater.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burusho_people#Influence_in_the_Western_world

 

But don't let me stop you from gleaning the wisdom of snake-oil alternative medicine.  Who knows, your own fantasy may add to your own longevity.  

 

 

0 Kudos
3,759 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Absurd. Fluoride is not a mineral nutrient. Physiologic mineral nutrients,exert actions that are saturable,and fully reversible with dilution. Fluoride incorporation into bone is not saturable (stage 3 fluorisis has over 12,000 mg/kg in bone) and the incorooration is not reversible biochemically as for actual nutrients The estimated,half life for fluiride in bone is over 20 years, after removal from fluoridated,water exposure (N4C 2006)

This is,all old news. You can find it in the FDA fluoridation ban petition. 

The FDA after 11 years finally concluded that fluoride which has never been FDA ,approved for ingestion  is, a toxic substance andcshoyld be regulated under the toxic, suubstances control act by the EPA. Sadly the EPA,refuses and expects the FDA to regulate it because it is intentionally added by request of CDC dentists.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,823 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

Richard, bones are not static. They are continuously reforming and the chemical species in bones, Ca, phosphate, fluoride) are continually being leached out and replaced.

3,834 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Whether there are fluoride precipitates in pipes or not, fluoridation chemicals leach lead salts ftom plumbing.

And xray analyses of teeth treated,even with high concentrations of fluoride such as in dental gels does not incorporate fluoride into enamel (which is mostly is inorganic in teeth with a small amount of amelogenin very much different than the biomatrix in bone). The fluoride then combines with calcium to form globules on teeth detected under scanning EM. These readily dissolve in,slight acidity such as when meal eating and the globules are swallowed and end up in bone anyway.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,353 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

Richard:

1: whether or not fluoridation causes leaching of Pb from pipes is easily shown by comparing the Pb levels in drinking water from fluoridated and unfluoridated systems. The ones I have looked at show no difference - but please provide analytical data if you have any.

 

2: Yes, I am aware that treatment with high concentration fluoride produces CaF2 reserves in the oral cavity - these can then contribute to low concentrations of fluoride in saliva over time and inhibit acid attack on enamel as well as repair it.

It is the low saliva F cocnetration from fluodiated water and food and from leachign these CaF2 reserves that produce the changes in the surface layers of teeth which are benficial in preventing acid attack.

3,776 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Whether there are fluoride precipitates in pipes or not, fluoridation chemicals leach lead salts ftom plumbing.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,368 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Exxchange reactions of fluoride replacing hydroxide in bone hydroxyapatite (and in lead salts on oxidized plumbing) are not surprising. What is shocking is that the same fluoridationists who argue that these reactions do not take place neverthtless also argue that fluoride does incorporate into teeth enamel  hydroxyapatite. Enamel is far too hard a form of the calcium phospahte material than bone and fluoride does not incorporate into the enamel matrix like it does in bone.

How much more backward can a human being be on this?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,410 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

Richard, bioapatites like bones and teeth are not hydroxyapatites - and just as well. In the real world, there are isomorphous substitutions of various cations and anions and F in the structure strengthens and lowers the solubuility of the apatite. So F incorporation inot bioapatites is perfectly natural. (And, incidentally, the use of hydroxyapatite as models for tooth enamel is very misleading)

Yes, there are problenms when the incorporation is excessive - but like all nutrients, we understand there are upper and lower levels to dietary itnakes.

The incorporation of F into the surfacer layers of tooth apatite does confer protective properties and that incorporation with existing teeth is proven to occur only at the surface layers in practice.

4,435 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The kumar comments need no link. Just read the study itself. The mean differences,are not outside the error bars. Is that too difficult?

And there cant be any caries reduction based on actual solid, studies provided before that are ignored by fluoridationists, from ziegelbecker and from teotia and from yiamouyiamnis and from the perfectly controlled mammalian studies. You can drink fluoride water all day long and it will not correct or prevent dental caries

 And it cannot lower their incidence if you take care of your teeth  and have no caries in the frst place.lack of fluoride does not cause caries. Again, the nonsense that never ends  is what is boring.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,414 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The issue is not at all boring. Trying to protect people from ingesting worthless poisonous substances is not boring.

What is boring is,arguing with someone who has no clue what the truth is and refuses to learn it.

I never said,a single salmon was killed by fluoridated water. .you obviously have not learned about the university of oregon studies,and the john jay dam results. Fluoride at 0. 7 ppm doesnt kill salmon. Where do you get this stuff? 

Fluoride,at 0.3 or higher (as is fluoridated,water in the discharge pipe in the sacramento river] prevents, salmon from spawning normally. No eggs,are laid near the discharge pipe. The fact thst you still cant understand is what makes,it boring.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,461 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Partly boredom with the absurdity of arguing with a fluoridation advocate. And partly becabecause im very busy with other issues and partly  because i am recovering from surgery, etc.

I i havent made incorrect statements. In your way of thinking you need to correct them when they dont need correcting. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,654 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard,  

 

If you are bored, perhaps you should find other things to do that hold your interest.  As for me, I'm having the time of my life.  This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Your quote:  "I i (sic.) havent made incorrect statements."

 

Response:  No?  Here are three examples for starters. 

 

1.)  Your quote:  "I never said if you drink fluoridated water yiu (sic.) will develop CO brown  stain."  (Timestamp ‎02-17-2019 11:08 AM) . . . That incorrect statement was disproven in my comment timestamped ‎02-17-2019 01:07 PM.

 

2.)  You also said, "You quote kumar wjo (sic.) publishes data that have means that do not differ beyond standard etror (sic.) and proclaims that a fluorotic tooth is resistant to decay. That is deception." . . . It is not deception; therefore your comment is incorrect.  I provided a link to a valid peer-reviewed study to support my comment which you called deception.  I asked you to provide valid peer-reviewed work to support your contrary opinion.  You were able to provide Nothing.  Your comment was incorrect.  And

 

3.)  You said CWF was responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in the Sacramento River.  You provided not One Shread of evidence to support your solitary opinion.  You just made up this story without a.)  knowing background fluoride levels in the river . . . b.)  checking fluoride levels in the river downstream of effluent discharge . . . c.) knowing the flow of the river . . .

d.)  knowing the amount of daily effluent discharge . . . e.)  any examination of any actual dead salmon . . .  f.)   and without the agreement of even one real environmentalist who actually agrees with your unique hypothesis.  

 

Yes, Dr. Sauerheber.  You make incorrect statements all the time.  Perhaps you do it out of boredom.

 

0 Kudos
14,015 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The studies published by maas, and others demonstrated lead leaching by fluoridation materials at levels used in fluoridation. The san diego data i collected myself.. I dont rely on the EPA for that since they generally dont interfere with intentional government endorsed  fluoridation.

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
13,803 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

You know, Richard, you have been making statements, and I have been proving you wrong for a long time now.  This is just a personal observation, but I've noticed at as the day wears on, your writing skills appear to deteriorate.  Can you think of anything that would account for this?

13,869 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

First its deception now its hypocrisy.

In reality its, simple knowledge of the truth, that fluoride at any dose is a poison. It as no physiologic function and is not an ingredient of the normal bloodstream. Period. 

And yet we have fluoridation societies who demand people ingest it. What do we call that?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
13,813 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Cirst its deception now its hypocrisy.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
13,806 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoridation overfeeds occur and have sickened and in one case killed. Fluoridation advocates claim this has nothing to do with fluoridation. But these accidents are only possible because of fluoridation

And even in the absence of overfeeds lead is leached from lead based plumbing by fluoridation. In san diego county lead levels,at our public schools exceeded epa limits when fluoridation started. Many fixtures had to be replaced. I suggested that intact orthosilicic acid  is the culprit. In a city that already has a lead problem near the epa  limit, fluoridation  can put the,water over the limit. Fluoridationists of course deny it all.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
13,792 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, your quote:  "Fluoridation overfeeds occur and have sickened and in one case killed. Fluoridation advocates claim this has nothing to do with fluoridation. But these accidents are only possible because of fluoridation"

 

Response:  Yes, and car accidents are only possible because of travel by automobile.  Food poisoning is only possible because of eating.  And people being cut by glass is only possible because of the existence of glass. 

 

Since you decided to chime in, we were discussing the deceptive photo taken by Hardey Limeback which appeared in an anti-CWF article.  But since you brought up overfeeds, reduncies are mandated now which would prevent such overfeeds as the Hooper Bay incident which occurred over a quarter of a century ago.  Your diversion is irrelevant in 2019.

 

Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time.

 

It appears you were unable to defend the indefensible deceptive Limeback photo.  It also appears you were unable to defend yourself in this untruth:  "Thus (sic.) is nuts. I never labeled any picture of teeth and claimed it was CO brown stain."

 

I suppose you can go on until the end of time bringing up irrelevant subjects.  And so you did bring up another issue.

 

Leaching from lead?  This has already been brought up by Skanen144 who said, "EPA knows fluoridation chemicals increase lead corrosion. Lead scales formed on lead service lines were mainly compounds of fluoride see pages. C104-111 in an EPA paper is found." And Skanen provided this link https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf .  

 

As newbie KenP rightly pointed out, the link has nothing to do with water fluoridation.  For his efforts, "Carrie Anne" decided to try some intimidation on him.   What a lovely group of people you all are.

 

 

 

 

13,809 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Continuing,  no one intentionally adds poisons into food that have no purpose so the comparison with food poisoning is laughable. And cars and glass have their own separate purposes and are not related to fluoridation.

There is no purpose for adding poisonous fluoride into otherwise healthy good drinking water. So of course I stand with those who oppose fluoridation and oppose those who endorse it.

It is neither hypocrisy nor deception. It is defending what is true. The fact that fluoridation is unnecessary and useless proves that fluoridation overfeeds are of no concern when fluoridation is ended because they won't exist anymore.

Cars and food and glass have functional uses. So what?.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
13,811 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Thus is nuts. I never labeled any picture of teeth and claimed it was CO brown stain. That condition caused by fluorosis plus high iron occurs in Durango and in Colorado Springs, CO.

  •  
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
13,557 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, 

 

I take it from your response that you can provide no peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate that teeth with Mild Dental Fluorosis are more subject to decay than teeth without this condition.  This was expected, since Kumar et al. demonstrated that teeth with Mild Dental Fluorosis are healthier and more resistant to decay.

 

As for the rest of your comment, Richard, please.  Your quote:  "Thus (sic.) is nuts. I never labeled any picture of teeth and claimed it was CO brown stain. That condition caused by fluorosis plus high iron occurs in Durango and in Colorado Springs, CO."

 

Response:  Really?  In my discussion of Hardy Limeback's decptive photo on the fluorideaction website, you jumped into the conversation with,

 

"Stained fluorotic teeth are common in areas of Colorado where fluoride is significant in drinking water. The name Colorado brown stain" was given for the affliction in the 1930's. So why is that "deceptive" to give an example of what can commonly happen to flurotic teeth since fluorosis leaves teeth with enamel hypoplasia (thin enamel) that is more subject to staining than normal teeth which do not contian fluoride?"  (Timestamp:  02-14-2019 11:44 PM)

 

You are asking why the photo is deceptive when Colorado Brown Stain is a common condition of flurotic teeth.  If you weren't discussing the Limeback photo, then everything you said in that paragraph is irrelevant and a waste of time.

 

In that same discussion of the deceptive Limeback photo, you also said, "In colorado springs the brown stain was also attributed to iron that gained access to teeth interiors because of fluoride in drinking water. Regardless of the source of fluoride ingestiin during childhood, fluorosis is an undesired abnormality."  (Timestamp:  02-16-2019 11:51 PM)

 

Again, irrelevant and a waste of time if not in reference to the deceptive Limeback photo which appears on the Fluroide Action Network website.  

 

I find it fascinating to have a discussion with someone who treats reality as if it does not exist; as if it were the wind . . not grounded, with no substance, and continually moving from place to place.  Please let me know what, if any, pharmaceutical assistance is making its presence known in this discussion.  I only ask so that I can join you on your phantasmagoric level . . then perhaps we can have meaningful dialogue that makes sense . . at least until the effects wear off.

 

 

13,526 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

EPA knows fluoridation chemicals increase lead corrosion. Lead scales formed on lead service lines were mainly compounds of fluoride see pages. C104-111 in an EPA paper is found at https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf

13,809 Views
6
Report
Conversationalist

That is not true. F is not reported as a component of the scales in this section.

0 Kudos
13,734 Views
5
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

KenP,

 

Your quote:  "That is not true. F is not reported as a component of the scales in this section."

 

Response:  Could you please specify to whom you are addressing and in what context?  My guess is that you are replying to Skanen144 who provided this link https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf

with this comment: 

 

"EPA knows fluoridation chemicals increase lead corrosion. Lead scales formed on lead service lines were mainly compounds of fluoride see pages. C104-111 in an EPA paper is found."  - Skanen144

 

If so, yeah, I looked at that too.   C104-C111 has absolutely nothing to do with water fluoridation.

0 Kudos
13,831 Views
4
Report
Regular Contributor

I posted a link demonstrating lead scales on lead drinking water pipes were mainly compounds of fluoride.

 

Just to be sure we are all looking at the same pages. I refer to the Washington Aqueduct Lead Service Line Pilot Study, section starting on page 315 of 523 pdf or (C-88) as labeled in the report: Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. C-104 to C-111 is the analysis of scales lining the lead service pipes (LSL) that deliver drinking water to Washington, DC.  Lead pipes were dug up out of the ground and hung on the wall as in the picture C-88. Sections or coupons of LSL in each loop were periodically removed and the scales analyzed.  I am an eye witness to this pilot study in Washington, DC. Yes these were the scales on the surface of LSL bathed in the fluoridated water of Washington, DC.  DavidF, how can you say this has nothing to do with water fluoridation?

 

The discussion on C-104, Figure C.95 summarized in table C.26 mentions the dominant scales from Washington Aqueduct pipeloop #7 as peaks labeled Pm = fluoropyromorphite, a compound of fluoride or Pb5F(PO4)3 . 

 

Page C-107 describes three minerals from the scales; apatite, pyromorphite and vanadimite  that are compounds of ‘X’ listed as X= F, CL, or OH. Ken P., how is this not about compounds of fluoride?

 

I am surprised that my statements are challenged by saying my link has nothing to do with water fluoridation or lead scales composed of compounds of fluoride.

 

My original concern about this Pipeloop project was that it obscured the truth that the lead leaching from LSL was highly seasonal with much higher lead results during the warmer summer months. Hidden in the raw data also are lead results from samples varying the amount fluoride added.  Obviously from the data, the EPA was asking the question, ‘does addition of acidic fluoridation chemicals increase lead leaching?’ Not getting the answer the EPA wanted to accept, the results were deeply archived.

 

Lead and Copper Rule sampling is gamed in many ways to hide actual lead contamination of drinking water. I cannot understand why anyone can have such a callous disregard for the harmful effects, especially on infants, of both lead and fluoride found in drinking water.

14,147 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

skanen144 Pyromorphite is usually the Cl compound Pb5(PO4)3Cl. Yes, isomorphous substitution occurs but what surprises me is that there are no analytical data given in this section for F. See table C27, page C106. This makes me suspect the pyromorphite identified by XRD is not the fluoride analogue but more likey a Cl, phosphate, OH analogue.

The description of pyromorphite as the fluoride analogue in Table C26 appears to be a mistake. If the authors seriously suggested it was a fluoride analogue they would have provided analytical data for F, not Cl. I also note that the report describes fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common."

So, yes my comment was based on the analytical data. And I am aware that by itself and without fine structure XRD would not differentiate between different analogues.

So I do not think your original comment "Lead scales formed on lead service lines were mainly compounds of fluoride" is warranted.

0 Kudos
14,167 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Need to Know

NEW: AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays! This week, achieve a top score in Atari Asteroids® and you could win $100! Learn More.

AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays

More From AARP