Take a look at how people age around the world with this AARP special report: A New Age.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
552
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

552 Views
Message 91 of 1,248

Whoever made the stock claim advertisement that fluorotic, thin enamel teeth are resistant to decay, ive already addressed that. Kumar routinely claims the means in his observations are significantly different when the error bars overlap. That is slop. There is no credible evidence that thinning one's enamel helps fight caries. Again you can't cage humans to control their candy rating and brushing habits.

Sorry

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
552
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
561
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

561 Views
Message 92 of 1,248

You have your opinion and i have mine. Its,a free country..

The SDWA states that States can be no less restrictive so i disagree with your interpretation. If a state mandates what the Act prohibits mandating, then the State is, not abiding by the Act. 

And when the Federal EPA allows States to apply a mandate for fluoridating people then they are not abiding by the Act and are complicit. Your comment about NASA is laughable.  The EPA, again, is involved in fluoridstion. NASA does not regulate driving speeds.

And if you dont want to discuss it with me then dont.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
561
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
556
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

556 Views
Message 93 of 1,248

Richard, once again you've proven that you can't comprehend the written word . . and you are arguing defensively for no reason.

 

"What hogwash. Yes the EPA in writing denies they have authority to regulate fluoridation because that is correct--they don't. But in reality the EPA is fully involved."

 

Response:  Yes, I know the EPA is involved with water fluoridation.  It oversees the program on the Federal level.  I said the EPA has nothing to do with your state mandating CWF.

 

Read this again, read it slowly, and take time to digest it.  You've just wasted everybody's time by arguing against something I never said.  

 

My quote:  "By the way, States have their own Safe Drinking Water Acts.  As long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA they can be as strict as they want, and they can do whatever they want.  Saying the EPA "allows" some states to mandate it is like saying NASA "allows" people to drive 55 mph.  The EPA is irrelevant to what states do with their own SDWAs as long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA."

 

Again - The EPA is not involved with your state mandating CWF.  That is what I said.  I can't discuss something with someone who is overly defensive and who can't read.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
556
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
562
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

562 Views
Message 94 of 1,248

What hogwash.  Yes the EPA in writing denies they have authority to regulate fluoridation because that is correct--they don't. But in reality the EPA is fully involved. The EPA produces videos and handbooks on how to fluoridate to water districts. They oversee and instruct districts when they first set up the fluoridaitonsystems. All this is done to ensure cities will not accidentally exced the MCL. But when LA finished fluoridiating for the first time when public outrcy was troublesome, the water district head stated on public TV news that the EPA is in charge of the system setup and has assured us that it is safe.

Don't tell me the EPA has nothing to do with fluoridation. The EPA also published their analyses of fluosilicic acid to prove the point that HF is minimal in the product water leaving the fluoridation system. But the EPA reported only HF levels down to pH 5, not to the pH of the acidic stomach at 2 where all fluoride is protonated to HF. This leaves the district with the impresion that you are not consuming HF, backed up by EPA data, when you actually are. 

EPA is the best organization we have for keeping our environment normal but everyone makes mistakes, same with the CDC. And a key mistake now is the bone fluoridation program the CDC endorses and even requests and in CA CDC officials demanded, and the EPA that assists its enaction. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
562
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
595
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

595 Views
Message 95 of 1,248

Well, Richard, I see your comments have evolved from: 

 

"Here in America we have the safe drinkng water act that prohibits 1) requiring the addition of anything - harmless or not - into water other than to sanitize the water"  

 

to

 

" No Federal agency can force anyone to accept fluoride in their water and yet the CDC  endorses this and works together with the EPA to arrange for cities to do so and even urges and allows some States to mandate it"

 

Well, that's progress I guess.  By the way, States have their own Safe Drinking Water Acts.  As long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA they can be as strict as they want, and they can do whatever they want.  Saying the EPA "allows" some states to mandate it is like saying NASA "allows" people to drive 55 mph.  The EPA is irrelevant to what states do with their own SDWAs as long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA.  

 

If you have a problem with what your state does, take it up with your state.  The Federal Government and the EPA have nothing to do with it.  

 

Enough for today, Richard

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
595
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
559
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

559 Views
Message 96 of 1,248

I have no clue what your point is about the 3 samples. If you don't care and I don't care, then what is your complaint and your rationale for continuing to call me a liar? I answered the question --3 - and that was that. What of it?

You interpretation of the Graham and Morin quote is incorrect. There were no proviksions in the original SDWA that allowed for fluoridation, but it was written to allow for sanitizing chemicals.

Basically the TSCA prohibited adding any poisonous substances into water, and the SDWA made allowances for sanitizing chemicals. and that's about it. No Federal agency can force anyone to accept fluoride in their water and yet the CDC  endorses this and works together with the EPA to arrange for cities to do so and even urges and allows some States to mandate it-- yes, absolute requiring it. The States are to be no less restrictive, and yet CA mandates--absolutely requires-- ciities fluoridate. This violates the law..If you interpret the wording to support fluoridation then you are not understanbding the total intent of the SDWA. 

The current paragraph in the Act now were not part of the original SDWA.

 

Arguing that it is just fine to dump industrial, useless, harmful fluoride into water where salmon normally spawn is nuts and you are not someone I want to disucss anything with. I do so out of necessity, not because I want to.

Recall when the miners in CA started using cyanides to refine gold in the Nothern CA rivers and fish were being killed off. My conclusion was that the cyanide was kiiling the fish but I cannot prove that beyond any doubt with experimentation or direct measurement so that i could prove it is an absolute fact. But so what?

The theory that it was what killed the fish is a solid one. And now it is banned from being used in CA and good riddance.  But adding fluoride into the river where salmon spawn, knowing full well salmon are sensitive to fluoride above 0.3 ppm, does not need to be investigated to absolute proof beyond any doubt, just like with cyanide. It is immoral to continue adding toxic waste into the river where salmopn normally spawn.

Get some sleep yourself. I don't follow your orders. I'm still at work on my lunch break.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
559
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
533
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

533 Views
Message 97 of 1,248

Skanen, I took the liberty of looking into the Tacoma water quality history.  

 

This is from a pamphlet they distributed to the public:  

 

"We conducted a Corrosion Control Optimization Study  and found we needed to add a chemical, like sodium hydroxide, which raises the pH of our water from its natural 7.0 to a less corrosive 7.5, to help control lead and copper corrosion. We built a corrosion control plant to accomplish this and operations began in the spring of 1997." 

"Another round of water samples were taken and tested in October 1997. Test results showed we reduced the levels of lead and copper in our water to half of previous levels."  https://www.mytpu.org/tacomawater/water-quality/corrosion-control-lead.htm

 

So they are saying lead and copper levels went down after the initial rounds of sampling in 1992.  And they implimented a corrosion control program.  

 

This is the Tacoma 2014 Water Quality Report.  https://www.mytpu.org/file_viewer.aspx?id=57666

 

If you look under the heading "Regulated at the Treatment Plant" you will see that Tacoma still fluoridates its water.  Analysis showed fluoride from 0.71 ppm to 2.03 ppm.  (Those numbers are a little deceptive.  Sampling for this report is is taken  once annually, directly after additives are injected into the line, before mixing and dilution have taken place.  So unless a sampler back-flushes water for an extended period of time, you are unlikely to see numbers that are reflective of what is going on in the distribution system.)

 

Anyway, I also see, under the heading "Regulated at the Consumer's Tap" that lead samples easily complied with the EPA's Action Level.  

 

In 2014 they are still sampling from the same sites.  They are still fluoridating their water.  The underlined implication that the author of your letter was making was dismissed.  And they are not in exceedance of the AL.   They are practicing corrosion control, which they would normally be doing now anyway because this is a population of greater than 50,000.

 

It's interesting that you found this letter, but I would question the motives of someone who would go to the trouble of digging up something as irrelevant as this, which possibly only relfected the non-experienced opinion of a water operator.  

 

After all, in 1992, these were the first two rounds of lead and copper sampling the city carried out.  By coincidence they stopped fluoridating between rounds.  The lead levels naturally decreased a little bit, and the author of your letter was suggesting that one event (lack of fluoridation) led to the second (lower lead levels).  He had never seen 2 consecutive lead & copper before and that was his natural conclusion.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
533
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
524
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

524 Views
Message 98 of 1,248

Richard, give it up.

 

"That no national requirement may be made means that it is prohibited to make the requirement. The CDC is prohibited from making the requirement for a national fluoridation program. Period."

 

Response:  And the CDC doesn't require that anybody fluoridates its water.  Period.

 

"And States can be no less restrictive but yet are highly influenced by the CDC to make it a mandate requirement. "

 

Response:  First of all, before you veer off into a gish gallop swamp, water fluoridation is not prohibited by the SDWA.  Period.  Can we move on? 

 

As to the rest of your comment, you, yourself, are trying to highly influence the population.  So what.  I respect your 1st Amendment right, even though I don't agree with what you are saying.  The CDC provides factual data.  Period.  If you don't agree with reality, that's on you.  If Ebola breaks out in this country, you want the CDC there.  

 

What exactly is your problem?  You don't like it that data that the CDC puts out steps on the toes of your agenda?  Find a new country to live in where the CDC doesn't exist.  Contrary to what you say, no laws are being broken.  Period.  

 

"And remember that the intent of the SDWA was to prevent the spread of water fluoridation that began in 1945 (Graham and Morin)."

 

Response:  No it wasn't.  Yes, we've gone over this before.  Graham and Morin wrote a book with a footnote.  Who were they?  I don't remember.  I think one was a lawyer and one was a dentist.  Is that correct?  But the footnote didn't even say that.  It was another misunderstood passage by you.  Show us the footnote and remind us all of the quote.  

 

Regarding the salmon, your quote:  " I never said this is a fact. Facts are absolute and incontrovertible. I have never proven this. Again where do you get this stuff you make up to trap someone?"

 

Response:  Wow!

 

Your quote:  " I don't know who made the intimation on this site that I implied that 3 samples would represent many. Search the threads and find him if you want.. It's irrelevant who."

 

Response:  I already did.  You will see each comment in the exchange marked with a Timestamp.  And the answer is - You.  You said it right here:   "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"  ‎02-20-2019 07:20 PM

 

"It's irrlelvant who??"  If it's irrelevant who, why did you make such a big deal about it.  

 

Richard, get some rest and we'll do this again tomorrow.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
524
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
533
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

533 Views
Message 99 of 1,248

skanen, that is interesting.   Not so much the newspaper article (A reporter may have gotten information from someone with an axe to grind.)  But more so the letter. 

 

The Tacoma letter references daily pH analysis at the water plant.  Since you were able to obtain this letter, could you also please provide that data (pH) pre and post fluoridation.   Any alkalinity pre and post fluoridation (which can be found on the city's required annual Partial Chemistry analysis) would also be interesting to see.  

 

The EPA's National Primary Drinking Water regulations for lead and copper testing in the United States were initiated in May of 1991.  Start dates for monitoring were January, 1992 for systems larger than 50,000; July, 1992 for systems serving 3300 - 50,000; and July, 1993 for systems serving a population smaller than 3300.  This letter, dated 1992, is describing data from the second round of sampling.  Large systems were required to monitor during 2 consecutive 6 month periods.  So this tells me we are looking at information from a large system.

 

This is the part that may be relavent here.  From the beginning of this program until January, 2019, priority was given to "Tier 1 Sites."  These were single family homes which had lead and copper plumbing that were installed after 1982.  Why 1982?  Because after ten years, copper plumbing with lead solder will develop a patina, a coating that, depending on the chemistry of the water, will protect it from leaching and corrosion.  And sampling began in 1992.

 

The idea was to take samples from the worst possible case scenarios so the highest examples of water contamination could be found.  New plumbing puts more lead into drinking water than old plumbing.  And, as an example of moronic rules, the 1982 rule stayed in effect for the past 30 years, until this year.  So, in effect, distribution systems were able to sample from post 1982 plumbing which would not have given an accurate picture of any water contamination from new plumbing. 

 

Anyway, the point here is that lead levels will naturally go down over time.  Also, I find it odd that corrosion control wouldn't have been implimented, if it already wasn't.  It looks like they had some pretty high levels.  The SDWA stipulates that distribution systems serving more than 50,000 shall use corrosion control methods.  (Perhaps this a recent amendment.)

 

So, this system was monitoring exactly the same sample pool for the first two rounds.  Lead levels would have naturally gone down a little bit.  Can you also provide data from more recent sampling rounds?   Can you provide a recent water quality report?  And can you tell me if the city currently fluoridates its water?  

 

The author of the letter also says, "This latest testing gives us some limited insight as to the amount of chemical adjustment that may be necessary."

 

If they are talking about fluoride, I would love to see those records.  This also implies they were planning to resume fluoridation.  If they are talking about corrosion control, that would make more sense . . although he is saying it in the context of fluoridation.   It's a little vague.  And the fact that he underlines the part about fluoridation tells me he is trying to make a point.  

 

Interesting.  

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
533
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
533
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

533 Views
Message 100 of 1,248

1. That no national requirement may be made means that it is prohibited to make the requirement. The CDC is prohibited from making the requirement for a national fluoridation program. .Period. And States can be no less restrictive but yet are highly influenced by the CDC to make it a mandate requirement. We have gone over this before. And remember that the intent of the SDWA was to prevent the spread of water fluoridation that began in 1945 (Graham and Morin).

2. The fluoride content of the River before fluoridation is well known and published by water engineers. (typically about 0.2 ppm). I have no interest in spending my life up North to study the problem. I already know that 0.3 ppm fluoride diminishes salmon spawning and that the tributary with the fluoridated water discharge pipe is where the collapse continues.  I never said this is a fact. Facts are absolute and incontrovertible. I have never proven this. Again where do you get this stuff you make up to trap someone?

.3.  I don't know who made the intimation on this site that I implied that 3 samples would represent many. Search the threads and find him if you want.. It's irrelevant who.  But that was the context of the question I answered.when I was asked (by whoever) how many were tested. .I told the truth-3.  So what?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
533
Views