- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
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.
- 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
- 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.😞
- 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
- 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);
- 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.
- 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
- 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
- 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml
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
- 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
- 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
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- 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.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
Astroturfing: An organized activity that is intended to create a false impression of a widespread, spontaneously arising, grassroots movement ...
Troll: A person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
Question 1: Why did a New Zealand blogger infamous for his posts supporting fluoridation & denigrating opponents both on his blog and on letters to the editor across the English speaking world suddenly join the AARP - American Asociation of Retired Persons which is "dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age" with a barrage of insults directed at the senior citizen Americans on the AARP forum?
- Answer: He was recruited by a small but organized team of fluoridationists.
Question 2: What would prevent an intelligent person from engaging in a debate on OpenParachute with Ken P?
- Answer 1: This is about evidence & ethics, not personalities.
- Answer 2: Letting someone who repeatedly describes his opponents in debates as 'dishonest,' 'deranged' and 'so intellectually stubborn as to make rational discussion impossible' and refers to scientific studies and reports that do not support his point of view as 'pathetic,' 'ideologically approved' and 'unscientific' control an online debate on his website under his control is the equivalent of a battered woman giving her husband another chance after getting out of the hospital from a beating. Fatally naive.
Note: Language in quotes from KenP within the last 48 hours directed at AARP seniors.
CarryAnne neither of your definitions apply to me. Unlike local (and presumably US) anti-fluoride organisations I have never started a group pretending to represent a grass root movement. Nor have I deliberately started an argument on ine.
Of course, you do not provide examples. I do often participate in online discussions on things related to misrepresentation of scient (anti-fluoridation activity, creationism, religion and the philosophy of science) and political issues (like the US policy of regime change and the Russiagate hysteria in the US).
Your question 1 is of the “when are you going to stop beating your wife?” type. There is absolutely no “barrage of insults directed at the senior citizen Americans” coming from me. No one requested or directed my presence here. Like most exchanges, I came here because I became aware of a discussion that interested me. Not surprising, as I follow Richard, David and Bill on social media and have often “crossed swords” with them. (Bill has now opted out of any discussion by blocking me on social media – so I was surprised he responded to me here). Come to think of it, Bill does fit your description of a troll:
“A person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.”
I was rather pleased when he blocked me because discussion with such trolls always proves useless – especially as it turns away any genuinely interested person.
Your questions 2 and answers is simply a copout. I was clearly asking for a good faith exchange on the science. My example was the exchange with Paul Connett – can you point to anything from me in that exchange which was not about the science and ethics? No. I can reveal that Paul did resort to a personal attack in one extremely long contribution – but removed the attack when he rewrote to reduce the length.
This is the sort of exchange I was offering you. OK, perhaps you feel inadequate with the science so do not wish to accept my offer. I can understand – but please don’t excuse your temerity with personal attacks on me.
My offer was genuine – but I am not surprised you declining it. I have noticed you cite many papers which you do not, and probably cannot discuss. You seem to be typical of the anti-fluoride troll who scans the literature, relies on titles, never reads beyond the abstract, if that, and is incapable of honestly and openly discussing the science involved,
Perhaps Richard would take up the offer. After all, we have similar chemical qualifications so should be able to discuss the science easily.
I think the problem with CarieAnne and similar anti-fluoride activists who continually post letters to the editor and online comments is that they get upset about not having things all their own way. They want an open field where they can say anything they like without being confronted with hard scientific facts or being challenged by someone who is familiar with the science.
But, come on. the internet is a wonderful place where different views can be expressed and opinion exchanged. It is rather childish to expect that one can have things their own way. And, after all, those of us that do have some confidence in their scientific understanding of the issue do welcome the chance to exchange opinions and to clarify the science.
You are not serious are you? Your comments made me laugh out loud with a full belly laugh.
The science posted has been mostly by those who want clean unmedicated water.
And I keep missing your response to my questions on over exposure.
With over 60% of adolescents having dental fluorosis (20% moderate/severe) NHANES 2011-2012 at what point will you admit (without humor) that many are ingesting too much fluoride? Would you recommend 5% with severe dental fluorosis, 10% severe, or should everyone have severe dental fluorosis?
So the question is, what of the many sources of fluoride should be reduced?
Fertilizer, pesticides, medications, industry, toothpaste, fluoride added to public water?
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, I ask for the citation of the paper where you claimed NaF was used to induce cancer in animals. My wish is to assess the relevance of the paper to the issue.
So what do I get in respionse:
"You are not serious are you? Your comments made me laugh out loud with a full belly laugh."
Come on - that is not respectful. I just want to check the paper. Why hide it?
Of course, I miss most of your comments - you blocked me, don't forget.
I seriously question your motives of coming here to respond to my comments when you have refused rational discussion on social media by blocking me.
I was not laughing at your request for science. I was laughing at the bizzar lack of support for excess exposure. I simply don't have time to read all the posts.
OK, you want a reference for sodium fluoride being used to induce cancer. Don't have one at my fingertips. Obviously, pharmaceutical companies induce cancer to test their drugs. What chemicals do they use? One is sodium fluoride. Look it up on PubMed.
And did you respond to the excess exposure of fluoride?
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
BillO writes to me: "Instead of going to a historical news society column, I went to PubMed and did a search for the words "cancer" and "fluoride" in the primary literature. Try it."
To KenP, "OK, you want a reference for sodium fluoride being used to induce cancer. Don't have one at my fingertips. Obviously, pharmaceutical companies induce cancer to test their drugs. What chemicals do they use? One is sodium fluoride. Look it up on PubMed."
KenP responds: "Bill, I looked for this on PubMed and found nothing."
WOW!! The unexpected plot twists here are blowing my mind! KenP, have you tried looking in the society column?
You call me a liar because you are acting like a bully. (You say, "Figment of my imagination").
Just because you did not spend time searching and reading the articles on PubMed, does not give you the right to call me a liar. How rude can you be. Simply search under the words fluoride induced cancer and read the articles. It will take you a few days, but you will learn a great deal. Do not insult me with your lazy sloppy failure to read the literature.
You fail to consider dosage or answer any of my questions on excess exposure (that I can find previously in our discussions or here). You avoid the foundation of fluoride pharmacology. . . dosage.
Fluoridation is a house of cards, built on failure to consider dosage.
Yet you want me to be your research boy and get you research and spoon feed you. . . maybe IV, or should I put the research in your water so you have no choice but to ingest? If I gave you the reference, I doubt you would even read it.
So how do you think the pharmaceutical companies cause cancer in animals? Several methods, including injecting the animals with the cancer cells. And administering fluoride, other toxins, etc.
On another note, I found this research of interest:
Toxicology Ind Health
"To assess the roles of dietary protein (Pr) and calcium (Ca) level associated with excessive fluoride (F) intake and the impact of dietary Pr, Ca, and F on thyroid function. . . Thus, excessive F administration induces thyroid dysfunction in rats; dietary Pr and Ca level play key roles in F-induced thyroid dysfunction."
Diet is a factor, so is fluoride with tyroid dysfunction. So what is the dosage which causes thyroid dysfunction, cancer, brain damage, etc.?????? With synergistic toxins, host sensitivity, etc?
It is all about dosage and host.
But then, I doubt you will read the article or articles and if you do, I doubt you will understand what you have just read.
Don't call me a liar. A professional is never a bully.
Now. . . think dosage when you read anything about fluoride.
And concentration is not dosage.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, I did not call you a liar but having done my own search I do not believe you had found a paper you claimed to. A simple way for you to change my mind - provide the citation I asked for.
I have no further interest in hunting down what could be a fictional claim.
Really weird for you to attack me for your inactivity and then to go an provide a citation for something irrelevant to the discussion.
But as I said, you are not a reliable discussion partner. Blocking people becuase they show where you are wrong is hardly good faith discussion.
"Carrie Anne," your quote:
"Question 1: Why did a New Zealand blogger infamous for his posts supporting fluoridation & denigrating opponents both on his blog and on letters to the editor across the English speaking world suddenly join the AARP - American Academy of Retired Persons which is "dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age" with a barrage of insults directed at the senior citizen Americans on the AARP forum?
- Answer: He was recruited by a small but organized team of fluoridationists."
Response: Since I am almost the only "fluoridationist" commenting on this website at the moment, it's a reasonable assumption that you are referring to me. I can assure you, "Carrie Anne," that I did not "recruit" KenP. I know him from his blog and I can honestly say that I disagree with him about almost everything, except perhaps this issue. And why would that be odd? Most people in the English speaking world support CWF.
Your little fringe anti-fluoride group is so small that only 4000 signatures were collected Worldwide on the Fluoride Action Network's "Opposition to Fluoridation Statement." That represents a whopping 0.036% of all health care and other professionals who believe what you believe. The fact that KenP and I agree on this issue is completely in line with the odds.
Who recruited KenP? I don't know . . but I can say that they have this really cool thing called "Google Search." It's pretty slick. And since KenP does take an interest in this subject, it is reasonable to assume that he might be in on that neat internet trick "Google Search."
Now I'm going to do what you do. But this has absolutely nothing to do with you.
Paranoid: of, characterized by, or suffering from the mental condition of paranoia.
Paranoia: a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically elaborated into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality.
KenP says, "Yes, David, I can confirm I have Google and Google Scholar alerts for fluoridation and fluoride and often pick up articles and discussion this way.
I must set up similar alerts for Russiagate and Regime Change."
Response: You don't have to. You have the uncanny ability to zero in on and eulogize all those sources with which I happen to disagree.
Ken P, that retired chemist living in New Zealand, invited you for a scientific exchange on his blog page, "Open Parachute." The advantage of such an exchange on that forum is that comments won't be lost or buried by other people commenting who are in fact attempting to bury them. You wouldn't know anything about that though, would you.
So I am confused by your response. It is rather vague. Is that a "Yes," you would be delighted to engage in this proposed discourse, or is that a "No," you would rather have your out-of-context citations remain unchallenged, . . . and if challenged, have the corrections buried?
It's not my spelling. It's using a cell phone while on the run.The spelling has now been corrected.
I've read vast literature and advertisements on the "benefits" of fluoride and all of them are nothing rigorous.The full study for example that demonstrated the bias in the original Dean study was by Ziegelbecker who used all the available data and proved that the Dean conclusion was based on a limited data set. There is no benefit to teeth from fluoride water even to 6 ppm.
The original forced human experiments in Grand Rapids and Newburg were not even controleld for calcium content of the water with the untreated cigties used as "controls" and would never have been approved or published under peer review in today's scientific world. For a review you might wish to consult the textbooks by the dentist statistician Phillip Sutton, Errors and Omissions in Fluoridation Trials (the Great Fraud Fluoridation) . If you want to cfhallenge the lack of effect on dental caries, then address these detailed thorough references please.
Richard, I would pat you on the back but your hand is in the way. Besides Iid do seriously question that you have "read vast literature" becuase you seem to rely on a few bad discredited studies.
If you could drag yourself away from the ideologically approved (and therefore unscientific) reading you would find that again and again scientific studies have confikrmed the efficacy of community water fluodiation. Reviews of the subject also confirm this.
There is no trouble finding citations for such studies and reviews, of course. You could start with the recent Cochrane review (which has been dishonestly and disingenuously condemned by anti-fluoride activists) which confirmed:
“Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. These results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in both children’s baby and permanent teeth.”
Of course, studies vary in quality - nothing unusual there. But can you find a single study of higher quality than those reviewed which show CWF is not effective? If so - please provide the citation and we can investigate what it actually says.
I really love to seriously assess scientific papers for their strengths and weaknesses.
No one i know has such data because everyone eats and,drinks completely differently than soneone else. But i dont focus on the brief interval during which one is,eating. I am talking about the data from teotia and from ziegelbecker and from yiamouyannis and the most conclusive of all, the perfectly controlled mammalian stidies, all proving beyond doubt that fluoridated water consumption does not affect dental caries even up to concentrations in water as high ae 6 ppm in humans. Thats that.
Richard, your spelling is deteriorating.
You, of course, have backed away with vague comments like "brief interval." But, in fact, that interval is about 1 hr. so that eating and drinking throughout the day helps to maintain a protective concentration of F in saliva.
You have to be living a hermit life scientifically to claim there is no evidence that fluoride plays a protective role or to ignore the clear differences in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated populations in simple regional and ethnic areas of a country.
Making such a claim just indicates how strongly ideology prevents you from seeing the bleeding obvious.
Am I to understand you are suggesting that if a person eats or drinks about every hour, the fluoride in the beverage and food protects against tooth decay?
Would you provide references?
What research do you rely on to show, as you say, "a clear differences in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated populations in simple regional and ethnic areas of a country."
As a dentist, I have attributed fluoride as beneficial because that is what I was taught in school. However, a simple comparison between states, or counties, or provinces of Canada when they are ranked on their whole population fluoridated, does not show a clear benefit from fluoridation. Indeed, there is a very clear difference in caries based on socioeconomics, but not fluoridation.
And the studies I have seen show very little diffeerence and have serious confounding issues which were not considered.
Again, fluoride might have a benefit but detecting any benefit on a population basis is simply not clear. Perhaps due to the excess fluoride from other sources, but benefit from fluoridation is not based on good science.
I took CDC and HHS data and ranked the 50 states on the percentage of their whole population fluoridated and percentage of each state reporting the percentage of "good or excellent" teeth. You can see by the dark blue line below that one state had almost no fluoridation and one had almost everyone.
You can see the pink ranking of tooth decay for the more wealthy is about 82% and the poor, although not as consistent, is about 55%. Clearly the wealthy report better oral health.
Consider the effect of fluoridation. We do not see any common cause between fluoridation and good teeth.
The evidence of a public health benefit must be measured in the public at large.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, I feel the need to warn you that I am the Ken who you blocked on social media in an attempt to close down a discussion. I will understand if you now retreat from this one.
However, it is surely hypocritical to block me on social media and then expect to enter into a discussion with me here.
The question of persistence of calcium, phosphate and fluoride transferred to saliva and plaque from food was discussed in my exchange with Paul Connett. I suggest you refer to that for citations (I am away from home on holiday at the moment so do not feel like doing that search for you - ex=specially with your blocking behaviour.)
As for studies showing the efficacy of CWF, you could start with the Cochrane review. If you argue about quality, etc.. then I challenge you to provide a citation of higher quality showing no benefits - particular a replicated, blinded controlled study. The ball is in your court.
No, the pathetic graphs Connett's crowd produce comparing changes in tooth decay prevalence in various countries from WHO data does not qualify as a study, let alone a reputable one. There is nothing new in your observation of socioeconomic effects. Nor is there anything new in ethnic effects showing up in health statistics.
I have often shown the New Zealand data shows a clear difference when ethnic effects are removed (something the anti-fluoride activists locally dishonestly refuse to do. And the NZ Oral Health Survey used populations selected to balance out socioeconomic and ethnic differences and showed a clear difference.
I honestly cannit get my head around anyone who pretends to have any authority on this subject making the claims you do.
Many dentists believe and state that lack of fluoride increases caries incidence. Like the yiamouyiannis claim on Aids this claim is also false r. Caries,are,caused by bacterial acids subsequent to growth from sugary foods left on teeth.
But dentists can be wrong about this while still being correct about other things they ro.
Ditto john yiamouyianns.
Still referring to C-104 to C-111 of https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf
Your comment, “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."
end your comment
Yes I noticed no analytical data for F on page C106, unfortunate but not conclusive. How can you speculate what the authors intended or not? This does not mean the data clearly labeled as fluoropromorphite is a ‘Mistake”. Figure C.95 clearly labels dominant peaks of pyromorphite, Pm =fluoropyromorphite.
Table C26 has at the top of the column “Pb5F(PO4)3” and when listing various forms of pyromorphite on page C-107, why X=F is mentioned first before Cl or OH? Not Alphabetical? By most abundant?
Where is the statement you said is in the report, “fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common." ” ?
Unless you get the authors' of this report to correct their "mistakes", I stand by my statement the scales were mainly compounds of fluoride.
Sorry skanen144, I missed this comment before. I have now answered your question about the location of the comment about rarity.
I am not speculating about what the authors intended - just drawing conclusions from the information they provided. The XRD pattern identifies the crystalline species present but not the composition. It especially would not identify the relative amounts of OH, Cl and F in the structure (although a fine structure analysis might go part way). The Chloro form is most common but one would expect a reasonable amount of OH in the real-life pyromorphite - and some F if any is present in solution.
But it would be completely unreasonable to attribute the XRD peak to just one pure end member analogue, and even more unreasonable to attribute it to a pure end member F analogue.
You are welcome to "stand by" your statement - no skin off my nose. I am just saying it is not warranted by the evidence. And I really have no interest in chasing up the authors - where would I have time to live if I followed up every vague statement in reports.
I am not sure what the whole point if this pointing to pyromorphite scales after phosphate treatment is, anyway.
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.
These reports are whole country averages in fluoridated and nonfluoridated regions and cannot show the effect of fluoride in impairing death rate declines. Yiamouyiannis used well controlled city cases.
For,example look at population growth in the whole world from the 20th century and you could conclude there ,was never a world war because of the ever increasing population. But if you just look at countries that were involved in the war the populatuon showed an overaall huge dip because there indeed was a WWII with massive deaths.
The,examples,here are all factual but the notion that fluoridation does not affect cancer survival is not proven by the presented data. That suggests improved detrction and treatment methods are helping to bring rates,down.
The yiamouyiannis data does show the impairment. Whole country averages mask the effect. And of course fluoridationists use that to denigrate the yiamouyannis study.
John was giving an early opinion on AIDS that was incorrect. What expert is never wrong? Being wrong on something else does not negate the correctness of an actusl study done properly.
Still trying to fear-monger using a pamphlet whose author (the guy who said HIV doesn't lead to Aids) was discredited by reputable organizations in the last century.
Your quote: "These reports are whole country averages in fluoridated and nonfluoridated regions and cannot show the effect of fluoride in impairing death rate declines. Yiamouyiannis used well controlled city cases."
Of Yiamouyiannis' work, the National Cancer Institute said, "The National Cancer Institute, whose figures are cited in the Federation report, in March noted errors, omissions, and statistical distortions in the Federation report and stated that "Results of this analysis fail to support any suspicion of hazard associated with fluoridation." Please, take a look. - https://www.dentalwatch.org/usphs/fl-76.pdf Your argument is with the National Cancer Institute, not with me.
I'm confused by this quote from you -- "the notion that fluoridation does not affect cancer survival is not proven by the presented data. That suggests improved detrction and treatment methods are helping to bring rates,down."
Odd you would say that, since you are the one who brought up cancer mortality rates in the first place, (Timestamp 02-18-2019 01:28 PM) . . and you're a really smart guy, . . so if "cancer survival" is irrelevant because of improved treatment, as you are saying now when presented with valid current data, why would you even bring it up in the first place?
One thing you said I agree with, that is you are totally confused about my quote.
I did not say that cancer survival was irrelevant. It must be nice to change peoples' words to have the luxury of criticizing and demeaning them.
To help your confusion: Yiamouyiannis carefully examined pre and post fluoridation data on cancer mortiality in cities in the U.S. In all cases, the decline in cancer mortality incidence that occurred in all cities was slowed by fluoridation. So, again, the idea that others have somehow proven that fluoridation does not impair the decline in cancer mortality is absurd. The cancer statistics you provided are for the whole country and do not separate fluoridated from non fluoridated people. So of course cancer overall incidence declines will be found due to improved detection and treatment.
But fluoridation interferes with one's ablity to fight cancer because fluoride is a toxic foreign substance in man and the rate of decline of cancer mortality incidence is not as great in fluoridated cities. This has all been thoroughly vetted in several court trials by epidemiologist experts. You can choose to believe who you want because of your desires. i choose to stick with the actual data from observations that were well done to address the specific question.
Please stop spreading your confusion to everyone else.
And I don't scaremonger. If fluoridated water is all you have to drink in the middle of the desert, then drink it. But if you expect me to hide the truth about its long term ingestion you are barking up the wrong tree. i don't lie, to my family, friends, or anyone else.
Richard, still at it I see.
Your quote: "I did not say that cancer survival was irrelevant. It must be nice to change peoples' words to have the luxury of criticizing and demeaning them."
Response: Before you play the victim here, slow down and take a look at what you said: "the notion that fluoridation does not affect cancer survival is not proven by the presented data. That suggests improved detrction and treatment methods are helping to bring rates,down."
My response to that was: "so if "cancer survival" is irrelevant because of improved treatment, as you are saying . . "
As you seem to have limited capacity, yes, you said current data which shows cancer rates are declining (that would be cancer survival) is irrelevant to the fact that the practice of water fluoridation is increasing. You said this is because of improved treatment methods . . . which begged the question, why did you bring it up in the first place.
It must be nice to live in a world in which you can absorb half a thought, take it out of context, and then pretend that you are some sort of victim.