Looking for work? The U.S. Census Bureau is hiring more than 500,000 people nationwide. Learn more.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
301
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

301 Views
Message 821 of 1,448

When a Federal agency, namely the CDC, still claims fluoridation is a "great public health achievement" and requests that the eniter country's water districts fluoridate, that is the same as a mandate. A request from an authority is a mandate. It is illegal, and forced fluoridation against the voting public, as continues in CA, is illegal.

 

The SDWA is an offshoot of the CWA which is a modernized derivative of the WPCA which states its mission (section 101A) is to maintain the natural chemistry of all U.S. waters.

 

Get a grip, fluoridationists.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
301
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
298
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

298 Views
Message 822 of 1,448

Dr. Chuck,

 

I certainly agree with you that fluoride is found in many substances and used for many purposes, it is a powerful, excellent element.  I do acknowledge your statement and the many uses of fluoride.  That is one reason 60% of adolescents showed dental fluorosis in 2010-2011 NHANES.  And 20% with moderate/severe.

 

You also correctly state, "Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use."   I acknowledge and agree.

 

The EPA regulates fluoride in water as a contaminant.  Currently, 4 mg/L Maximum Contaminant Level.   

Contaminating water makes no sense and is a violation of law.  We can discuss contaminating water below MCLG, but we are still contaminating the water.

 

Fluoride is highly toxic and fits within all state and Federal laws defined as a poison.  Look up your state laws defining "poisons" and fluoride fits as a poison and is exempt from poison laws when regulated under either pesticide or drug laws.   No law permits regulation of highly toxic substances as a nutrient.  Caffeine and all oil soluble vitamins (such as A and E) can be toxic, but the dosage required is above poison laws. 

 

When the INTENT is for use as a pesticide or fumigant, then fluoride is exempt from poison laws (highly toxic laws) and regulated under pesticide/fumigant laws.

 

When the INTENT is to prevent disease, then fluoride is regulated under drug laws (FDA) such as prescription medications (many contain fluoride) or over-the-counter such as toothpaste.

 

I have not found anywhere that the Food and Drug Administration claims fluoride to be an essential nutrient.  Dental caries is not caused by an inadequate intake of fluoride (like scurvy with Vit. C.).

 

And I agree with you, there are different purity standards.  The purity added to water is not pharmaceutical grade.

 

Thanks Chuck for your well said comment.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
298
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
303
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

303 Views
Message 823 of 1,448

Dr. Chuck,

 

I certainly agree with you that fluoride is found in many substances and used for many purposes, it is a powerful, excellent element.  I do acknowledge your statement and the many uses of fluoride.  That is one reason 60% of adolescents showed dental fluorosis in 2010-2011 NHANES.  And 20% with moderate/severe.

 

You also correctly state, "Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use."   I acknowledge and agree.

 

The EPA regulates fluoride in water as a contaminant.  Currently, 4 mg/L Maximum Contaminant Level.   

Contaminating water makes no sense and is a violation of law.  We can discuss contaminating water below MCLG, but we are still contaminating the water.

 

Fluoride is highly toxic and fits within all state and Federal laws defined as a poison.  Look up your state laws defining "poisons" and fluoride fits as a poison and is exempt from poison laws when regulated under either pesticide or drug laws.   No law permits regulation of highly toxic substances as a nutrient.  Caffeine and all oil soluable vitamines (such as A and E) can be toxic, but the dosage required is above poison laws. 

 

When the INTENT is for use as a pesticide or fumigant, then fluoride is exempt from poison laws (highly toxic laws) and regulated under pesticide/fumigant laws.

 

When the INTENT is to prevent disease, then fluoride is regulated under drug laws (FDA) such as prescription medications (many contain fluoride) or over-the-counter such as toothpaste.

 

I have not found anywhere that the Food and Drug Administration claims fluoride to be an essential nutrient.  Dental caries is not caused by an inadequate intake of fluoride (like scurvey with Vit. C.).

 

And I agree with you, there are different purity standards.  The purity added to water is not pharmaceutical grade.

 

Thanks Chuck for your well said comment.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
303
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
300
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

300 Views
Message 824 of 1,448

Bill:  "I agree with you, the SDWA is not crystal clear and that is why I contacted the EPA back in 2010 to find out how they interpreted the SDWA.  Their response was unambiguous."

 

Response:  No, you don't agree with me.  The Safe Drinking Water Act is very clear and very precise.  

 

This is the statute you seem to be having trouble with:   “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

 

How is that not clear?  It means that the Federal Government can't require it.  They can't impose a mandate.  How do you get "Prohibit" from that? 

 

The Federal Government can't require that everyone in my home town eat vegetarian food.  But the Federal Government can't prohibit us from being vegetarians either.  How is that not clear?

 

Please, copy and paste the entire exchange you had with the EPA so that we may all see it here.    I'd love to see it.

 

And you never answered the question:  Since your name is plastered all over Attorney James Deal's "Fluoride Class Action," . . . and you & Dr. S. claim to have some documentation which proves the illegality of water fluoridation, why are you arguing about it on an internet website?  Why aren't you guys in court with your documents?

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
300
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
325
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

325 Views
Message 825 of 1,448

Sorry, but many people, even in government, believe false claims, including the notion that fluoride is an "essential nutrient." The old notion posited by fluoridationists was that fluoride, which "must be good," therefore in bone "must strengthen bone." But the FDA commissioned the NIH to study this and found that fluoride in bone does not strengthen bone at any concentration. The claim is false, and in fact fluoride in bone causes the formation of bone regions of poor quality and abnormal crystal structure. Moreoever, the hallmark of a nutrient is that when it is lowered in concentration its effect is reversible. Fluoride in bone has such a very long half life that it may be considered irreversible through normal biochemical means. It is a chronic cumulative poison, which is why "community water fluoridation" is actually a permanent, chronic bone fluoridation program.. .

 

Second, detailed controlled experiments with mamals in two U.S. labs and one in the U.K. proved that raising animals in the complete absence of fluoride for lifetimes does not cause any adverse condition (as reviewed in: Yiamouyiannis, J., Fluoride, the aging factor, 1985). Hence fluoride is correctly not listed as an essential nutrient. Internet sites exist that claim the opposite but have no basis in fact.

 

Third,  controlled experiments indicate that providing fluoride water to mammals does not decrease the incidence of spontaneous dental caries. The entire idea that somehow fluoride "strengthens" teeth enamel but without actually being able to penetrate into the enamel matrix is false and always has been a false correlation. Correlation of coincidental lower caries rates with fluoride in water does not prove causation, and this is a prime example. Lower caries rates in some areas with fluoride in water were presumed to be related, but were not..

 

Finally, James Deal has stated that he has never taken any fluoride case to court, namely because 1) of the difficulty of dealing with people who believe the myth, such as the person who accuses me of presenting falsehoods on this site, and 2).proving harm from fluorldated water in a victim who was not kept in a cage to know for certain where his fluoride exposure was from, or at least monitoring the person during his chronic exposure, is nearly impossible, other than for dental fluorosis from exposure in youth, which is readily visible. The known effects on increasing TSH levels and elevating both PTH and calcitontin levels simultaneously whilch is pathologic, as published for populations on 1 ppm fluoride in water described in the NRC 2006 Report, are very difficult to exlusively blame in any particular person on drinking water. This is because of other sources of fluoride that could be blamed instead which are difficult to prove never occurred. The legal expense of fighting such cases is prohibitive, when dealing with a low dose chronic very long term poison. In any event, the answer to your ridiculous question is zero funds have been collected from fluoridation lawsuits by James Deal because he has never litigated any. The title of his fluoride class action site, which reflects the hope that one day such a case could be brought to a high court, really bothers some people, but I say, so what?.The truth really hurts, doesn't it?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
325
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
344
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

344 Views
Message 826 of 1,448

David,

 

You don't believe a word I say and refuse to do your homework to find out for yourself.  

 

Contact the EPA yourself.  

 

You are spending a ton of time arguing, but refuse to simply contact the EPA.  They will answer your question.

 

I agree with you, the SDWA is not crystal clear and that is why I contacted the EPA back in 2010 to find out how they interpreted the SDWA.  Their response was unambiguous.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
344
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
374
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

374 Views
Message 827 of 1,448

Dr. Sauerheber says: 

"Also it is not lying to repeat what officials from the EPA or FDA have writen, whether a link to such a written statement exists or not. Truth is not all contained in computer links..

Most people know the SDWA wording that prohibits a national requirement for adding fluoride. But fewer understand that the Act,was written to halt the,spread of water fluoridation ."

 

Dr. S., I will respond to you exactly as I have responded to Dr. Osmunson.  Since I see both of your names plastered all over a website called "Fluoride Class Action," why doesn't your friend, Attorney James Deal take this case to court?  With all this documentation which you claim exists, even though you can't seem to provide evidence of it here, that would seem to be a natural solution.  Isn't that what Attorney Deal is supposed to be doing?

 

https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/

 

By the way, I've asked Dr. Osmunson, but I can't seem to get an answer.  How much money does  Attorney Deal take from prospective clients whom you've made afraid of fluoridated water?  .  .  And how much has he actually collected for them?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
374
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
387
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

387 Views
Message 828 of 1,448

Carry Anne says, "AARP . . .  Issue a resolution against community water fluoridation as an unethical policy that violates individual human rights and the bioethical standards of medical consent and in so doing harms millions of senior citizens! "

 

Response:  This is another great example of the bullying tactics from a very small, fringe, vocal minority, most of whom are graduates of the highly esteemed University of Google, who because of their internet research, believe they are more informed about community water fluoridation than over 100 of the World's most Highly Respected medical organizations.

 

It is a dangerous thing to allow laymen to hijack any proven public health policy.  We see internet researchers spreading fear and paranoia about vaccinations, which can be dangerous to the larger community. 

 

This is akin to letting gratuates of the U. of Google build and fly the plane you are about to board.  Would any sane person allow that to occur?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
387
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
402
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

402 Views
Message 829 of 1,448

Carrie Ann,

 

Are there any documented examples of people who have had thyroid problems because they drank optimally fluoridated water?  

 

Are there any documented examples of pregnant women who have had health problems because they included optimally fluoridated water as part of their diets?  

 

The answers will be no, since optimally fluoridated water has not been shown to be harmful to those who drink it.  

 

By the way, despite your overly suspicious mindset, I am not baiting either Dr. Osmunsun or Sauerheber.  I am asking them for evidence to support their unbelieveable comments.  

 

Dr. Sauerheber, the FDA has never claimed that optimally fluroridated water is a drug, in any sense of the word, and you have been able to provide no evidence to the contrary.

 

Dr. Osmunson, The Safe Drinking Water Act does not prohibit community water fluoridation, despite your misrepresentation of one statute which does prohibit a federal mandate.  States and local jurisdictions are free to do what they choose in this regard.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
402
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
400
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

400 Views
Message 830 of 1,448

Ross says:  

"One statement is not true

A nutrient is defined as a substance that provides nourishment essential (please note essential) for the maintenance of life and for growth."

 

Response:  

I'll bet you got your information from an anti-fluoride website . . perhaps the Fluoride Action Network?

 

To your comment,  .  .  .  And yet fluoride does occur naturally in the body.  Dr. Paul Connett will be the first one to admit that an amount of fluoride does exist naturally in mother's milk.  

 

Ross, are there any examples of anyone who has had the fluoride removed from their bodies and lived to tell the tale?  Of course not.  You are simply parrotting what FAN has spoon fed to you without thinking about it.  

 

"Fluoride is the ionic form of the naturally occurring fluorine element. The anion increases the structural stability of teeth and bones through interactions with calcium phosphates."  https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/fluoride

 

"The fluoride AI and UL for 0-8 year olds were updated in 2017. The following updated reference bodyweights were used when the NRVs were expressed in mg fluoride/day; 0-6 months 6 kg, 7-12 months 9 kg, 1-3 years 12 kg, 4-8 years 22 kg."  .  .  "Rationale: The purpose of the AI for infants and young children is to provide information on the level of intake that provides protection from inadequate intake, .  .  "  https://www.nrv.gov.au/nutrients/fluoride

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
400
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