Reply
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

929 Views
Message 311 of 1,450

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

927 Views
Message 312 of 1,450

As usual, it is sheer insanity to talk with a fluoridationist about fluoridation.

Again, of course i never said, nor would anyine, that 3 samples are reprentative of all samples used in fluoridation .that someone complained about. I merely said that phyllis tested 3 samples.

Maybe you should get some sleep

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Examine the Evidence

848 Views
Message 313 of 1,450

Richard says, "And when pray tell did I make such a claim about 3 samples? "

 

Um, right here:  "Mullenix examined in detail three different samples of fluosilicic acid."  ‎02-20-2019 02:26 PM

 

Get some sleep, Richard.  This is too easy.  

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

839 Views
Message 314 of 1,450

Richard, 

 

"No national requirement can be made for any substance to add into public drinking water other than to sanitize the water."

 

I know it is difficult for you, but this is not a prohibition.  All it says is that a Federal mandate cannot be enforced locally or upon states.  Anyone who can read can see that.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

847 Views
Message 315 of 1,450

Are you serious? You've never read the SDWA statement? Why are we even in this conversation then?

 

No national requirement can be made for any substance to add into public drinking water other than to sanitize the water. 

 

The TSCA states the same thing only without the exception for sanitizing chemicals such as chlorine.

 

Where have you been?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Examine the Evidence

853 Views
Message 316 of 1,450

And when pray tell did I make such a claim about 3 samples? And 3 is better than none.

The radioactive materials added have toxicity that is more related to how long the exposure is during the life of an individual whose bones can irreversibly trap and hold it.So no one has the right to intentionally add the garbage into peoples' drinking water in the first place..

There are no known MCLs for combinations of all these congtaminants ingestwed at the same timwe. The alloed leverl for arsenic is 15 ppb and for lead is 15 ppb, but these are from studies on the toxic effects (mainly cancer) produced separately when the other is absent. Both arsenic and lead bind protein sulfhydryls and the presence of both together at 15 ppb each has not been evaluated. No studies, don't add anything that contains them both.

And the samples from China I suspect are far more contaminated since China does not fluoridate their own people. They sell their garbage piles to the U.S. water distrricts who willingly do that.it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

857 Views
Message 317 of 1,450

the point is that fluoridation is not the operation that somehow magically only decreases teeth caries while having no effect whatsoever on people or plumbing parts or anyting else, like fluoridationists claim. One water district official argued that the quality of rhe watrer is totally intact and unaffected by fluoride. I merely said if that is the case then why bother to add it?  He quit his job within a week.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

857 Views
Message 318 of 1,450
Spoiler
 

KenP.

 

So the words “rare” and “common” are based on your interpretation and not actually in the report? They are only as you say “described” and you should not put them in quotes, these words are your interpretation based on your assumption of the authors’ mistakes.

 

Why did you quote them as if they were in the report that clearly labeled compounds of fluoride as if to disprove that fluoride is involved in the lead corrosion process.

 

There are 10,000 data points of lead results from lead service lines (LSL) taken as part of this project from the same site in triplicate, from known LSL, repeatable sampling controlled by computer and analyzed at the same lab on site with identical techniques. Careful analysis of this excellent data shows temperature and pH have the greatest impact on lead levels. Addition of HFSA lowers the pH as seen in Sandy, Flint, in DC. (HFSA has acidity comparable to battery acid) To counter lower pH caused by industrial fluoridation chemicals, tons of caustic are added all over the country to neutralize the high acidity of HFSA to prevent increased lead leaching from LSL. After this study I linked,  DC started adding more caustic to control lead release as I recommended in my Inspector General Report on this study. The expense of this caustic should be included in the total cost of CWF.

 

Fluoride levels in the lead pipes were secretly varied during this experiment but since temperature and pH were the greatest contibuting variables, fluoridation’s contribution could be only be seen in sections of the data when F was varied and temperature and pH were having limited effect. Even if EPA doesn’t want to admit it, this project demonstrates HFSA increases lead leaching from LSL. It would be very easy to control variables and test this hypothesis directly but since EPA/CDC does not want this information, they will not set up experimentation to easily and conclusively document this.

 

I posted:

Still referring to pages C-104 to C-111 of https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf

 

 

Your comment, “ I also note that the report describes fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common."

end your comment

 

 

Where in the report is this statement?

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Examine the Evidence

803 Views
Message 319 of 1,450

Richard,  

 

Three Whole Samples?  I'm sure that must be representative of the millions of tons produced worldwide.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Examine the Evidence

801 Views
Message 320 of 1,450

Mullenix examined in detail three different samples of fluosilicic acid.

The study is published at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090869/

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a health tip to share or a health question to ask? Check out the Health Tips forum today